24-1513
City of Menifee
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024
Prepared By:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page i
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study ............................................................................... 1
1.2 Summary of Findings ......................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Initial Study Public Review Process .................................................................................... 1
1.4 Report Organization .......................................................................................................... 1
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT .......................................................................................... 3
2.1 Project Location, Setting, and Existing Conditions .............................................................. 3
2.2 Proposed Project Characteristics ....................................................................................... 4
3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ........................................................................................................... 19
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................................................ 22
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 23
Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................. 23
Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................................ 28
Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 31
Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 44
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 50
Energy ........................................................................................................................................ 57
Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 61
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................... 74
Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................. 98
Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 108
Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................. 118
Mineral Resources.................................................................................................................... 120
Noise ...................................................................................................................................... 122
Population and Housing ........................................................................................................... 135
Public Services.......................................................................................................................... 136
Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 141
Transportation ......................................................................................................................... 142
Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 155
Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 159
Wildfire .................................................................................................................................... 167
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page ii
Mandatory Findings of Significance .......................................................................................... 169
5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 171
List of Tables
Table 1: Existing Land Uses and Zoning Designations ............................................................................... 3
Table 2: Overall Construction Emissions Summary ................................................................................. 34
Table 3: Summary of Peak Operational Emissions .................................................................................. 35
Table 4: Localized Significance Summary Peak Construction. ................................................................. 36
Table 5: Localized Significance Summary Peak Operations ..................................................................... 36
Table 6: Amortized Annual Construction Emissions................................................................................ 93
Table 7: Project GHG Emissions – Without Mitigation ............................................................................ 94
Table 8: Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan ................................................................................... 94
Table 9: Stationary Source Noise Standards ......................................................................................... 127
Table 10: Construction Noise Level Compliance ................................................................................... 128
Table 11: Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Level Compliance ................................................................ 130
Table 12: Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels ............................................................................ 131
Table 13: Nighttime Project Operational Noise Levels .......................................................................... 131
Table 14: Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases .............................................................. 132
Table 15: Nighttime Operational Noise Level Increases ........................................................................ 132
Table 16: Project Construction Vibration Levels ................................................................................... 133
Table 17: Project Population and Employment Estimates .................................................................... 146
Table 18: Project-Generated VMT........................................................................................................ 146
Table 19: Required VMT Reduction...................................................................................................... 147
Table 20: Summary of Project Trip Generation .................................................................................... 150
Table 21: Project Fair Share Calculations.............................................................................................. 154
Table 22: Total Retail and Wholesale Water Supply (AFY) .................................................................... 160
Table 23: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison .................................................................. 161
Table 24: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparisons ........................................................... 161
Table 25: Landfill Information .............................................................................................................. 165
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page iii
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map ............................................................................................................. 7
Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 8
Exhibit 3: Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations .............................................................................. 9
Exhibit 4: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations .......................................................................... 10
Exhibit 5: Menifee North Specific Plan .................................................................................................. 11
Exhibit 6: Conceptual Site Plan............................................................................................................... 12
Exhibit 7: Conceptual Building Elevations ............................................................................................... 13
Exhibit 8: Conceptual Landscape Plan .................................................................................................... 14
Exhibit 9: Off-Site Improvements ........................................................................................................... 15
Exhibit 10: Conceptual Grading Plan ...................................................................................................... 16
Exhibit 11: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations ..................................................................... 17
Exhibit 12: Proposed Zoning .................................................................................................................. 18
Exhibit 13: Receptor Locations ............................................................................................................... 39
Exhibit 14: FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette ..................................................................... 115
Exhibit 15: Sensitive Noise Receiver Locations ..................................................................................... 129
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Air Quality Impact Analysis and Health Risk Assessment
Appendix B: Habitat Assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan Consistency Analysis
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D: Energy Calculations
Appendix E: Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix F: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
Appendix G: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Shallow Soil Investigation Report
Appendix H: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan and Preliminary Hydrology Report
Appendix I: Noise and Vibration Analysis
Appendix J: Traffic Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment
Appendix K: Water and Sewer Will Serve Letter
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE
1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq.) and its Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000
et seq.), this Initial Study (IS) was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates for the City of Menifee (City)
to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the development of the Ethanac Business
Park (Project). Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the lead agency for the
Project. The City, as the lead agency, has the principal responsibility for approving the Project.
As noted in State CEQA Guidelines Section 10570, an Initial Study leading to a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) can be prepared when the Initial Study has identified potentially significant
environmental impacts but revisions have been made to a project, prior to public review of the Initial
Study, that would avoid or mitigate the impacts to a level considered less than significant, and there is no
substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may
have a significant effect on the environment.
1.2 Summary of Findings
Section 3.0, Initial Checklist, of this IS/MND contains the Environmental Checklist Form that was prepared
for the Project pursuant to CEQA requirements. The Environmental Checklist Form indicates that the
Project would not result in significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures, as
identified where applicable throughout this document.
1.3 Initial Study Public Review Process
The IS and a Notice of Intent to adopt an MND will be distributed to responsible and trustee agencies,
other affected agencies, and other interested parties for a 20-day public review period. Written comments
regarding this MND should be addressed to:
Fernando Herrera, Associate Planner
Community Development, Planning Division
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
fherrera@cityofmenifee.us
After the 20-day public review period, any comments submitted during the public review period will be
considered and addressed prior to adoption of the MND by the City.
1.4 Report Organization
This document has been organized into the following sections:
Section 1.0 – Introduction. This section provides an introduction and overview describing the conclusions
of the Initial Study.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 2
Section 2.0 – Project Description. This section identifies key project characteristics and includes a list of
anticipated discretionary actions.
Section 3.0 – Initial Study Checklist. The Environmental Checklist Form provides an overview of the
potential impacts that may or may not result from project implementation.
Section 4.0 – Environmental Evaluation. This section contains an analysis of environmental impacts
identified in the environmental checklist.
Section 5.0 – References. The section identifies resources used to prepare the Initial Study.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 3
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 Project Location, Setting, and Existing Conditions
Project Location
The Project site is located along Sherman Road, in the City of Menifee (City), County of Riverside,
California, on Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 331-110-023, -038, and -039. The Project is generally
located in the northeastern portion of the City, approximately 0.37 miles to the east of Interstate 215
(I-215), east of Trumble Road, south of Ethanac Road, west of Sherman Road and north of McLaughlin
Road. Refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Location Map. Regional access would be provided via I-215. Local access
would be provided via Sherman Road which is located along the east portion of the Project site. Refer to
Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity Map.
Project Setting, Land Use, and Zoning Designation
The Project site is an 11.47-acre site composed of three parcels. The Project site is developed with a sand
and gravel supply company, which includes an office building, located in the northeastern corner of the
site. The Project is in an infill area, bounded to the north by a heavy equipment rental agency, to the west
by legal non-conforming single-family residences and vacant lots with Trumble Road beyond, to the south
by a vacant lot, and to the east by Sherman Road.
The Project site’s existing zoning is “Menifee North Specific Plan (SP)” at APNs 331-110-038 and -039 and
Heavy Industrial/Manufacturing (HI) at APN 331-110-023. Refer to Exhibit 3, Existing Zoning. The Project
site’s existing general plan land use designation is “Menifee North Specific Plan” at APNs 331-110-038 and
-039 and Heavy Industrial (HI) at APN 331-110-023. Refer to Exhibit 4, Existing General Plan Land Use
Designations. As shown in Exhibit 5, Menifee North Specific Plan , the Project would be partially located
within Planning Area (PA) 2 of the Menifee North SP which is an area designated as “Industrial.”
Table 1, Existing Land Uses and Zoning Designations, summarizes the on-site and surrounding areas land
use and zoning designations congruent with the City of Menifee General Plan (Menifee GP) and Municipal
Code (Menifee MC).
Table 1: Existing Land Uses and Zoning Designations
Location Existing Zoning1 Existing General Plan Land Use2
Project Site Menifee North Specific Plan (Menifee North SP)
Heavy Industrial/Manufacturing (HI)
Menifee North Specific Plan (Menifee North SP)
Heavy Industrial (HI)
North Menifee North SP Menifee North SP
South Menifee North SP Menifee North SP
West Menifee North SP
Heavy Industrial/Manufacturing (HI)
Menifee North SP
Heavy Industrial (HI)
East Menifee North SP Menifee North SP
Source:
(1) City of Menifee. (2023). General Plan – Land Use Map. Retrieved from: https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/11043/General -
Plan--Land-Use-Map---March-2023 (accessed January 2024).
(2) City of Menifee. (2023). Zoning Map. Retrieved from: https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/11042/Zoning -Map---March-2023
(accessed January 2024)
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 4
The Menifee North SP (industrial), and Heavy Industrial (HI) designations would allow for the development
of warehousing-related uses which the Project is consistent with.
2.2 Proposed Project Characteristics
The Project Applicant proposes a Plot Plan for a new 264,710 square foot (sq. ft.) warehouse consisting of
254,710 sq. ft. of warehouse area and 10,000 square feet of office area on a 11.47 -acre site. Refer to
Exhibit 6, Conceptual Site Plan. The warehouse building would have a structural height of approximately
43 feet (see Exhibit 7, Conceptual Building Elevations). The Project Applicant proposes 168 automobile
parking spaces and 47 truck trailer parking stalls along with approximately 50,128 sq. ft. of landscaping
onsite and 10,620 sq. ft. of landscaping offsite. Additionally, the Project Applicant proposes off-site
improvements associated with necessary utility and roadway improvements as identified on Exhibit 9.
Although the Project’s proposed warehouse uses would be consistent with the existing land use and
zoning designations, the HI designation differs from the Menifee North SP (industrial) designation.
Accordingly, the Project also includes various amendments as noted in Permits and Approvals below to
consolidate the site’s land use and zoning designations to Menifee North SP, thus, providing for a single
set of development and design standards to be uniformly applied to the entirety of the Project.
Landscaping
Irrigated landscaped areas for the Project site would be comprised of 50,128 sq. ft. of on-site landscaping.
Landscaping would be comprised of a variety of trees, drought-tolerant shrubs and ground cover and
shrub masses. Refer to Exhibit 8, Conceptual Landscape Plan.
Parking And Site Access
As shown in Exhibit 6, the Project would provide 168 standard 9 feet (‘) by 18 inches (“) parking spaces
and 47 standard 10’ by 55” trailer parking stalls. Vehicular ingress and egress would occur via one
proposed 50-foot-wide ingress and egress driveway on Sherman Road, located at the northeastern corner
of the Project site. This driveway would be unsignalized.
Internal circulation would be provided via a minimum 26-foot-wide fire lane around the perimeter of the
building. Another entry to the Project site is proposed near the southeastern corner of the site via a 48’ 5”
driveway which connect to APN 331-110-041. Construction of this entryway would be the responsibility
of the Project Applicant or others based on first completion of project construction . Lastly, the Project site
would provide a total of 32 dock doors, located on the eastern portion of the proposed warehouse
building.
Project Grading
The Project Applicant proposes 47,910 cubic yards of cut and 47,947 cubic yards of fill, resulting in 37
cubic yards of import fill.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 5
Off-site Improvements
As shown in Exhibit 9, Off-Site Improvements, the following off-site roadway improvements are
proposed:
• Sherman Road at the Project’s frontage would serve as the north/south major roadway for
automobiles and trucks to and from the Project site. Improvements to Sherman Road at the
Project frontage would include half street plus one lane interim improvements plus 12 feet. The
road would be paved and include curb/gutter, sidewalk, and a landscaped parkway.
• The intersection of Ethanac Road and Sherman Road would be improved to add a westbound left
turn lane, eastbound left turn lane, and widening of corners to allow the safe turning of trucks
onto Sherman Road and Ethanac Road.
Additionally, the following off-site utility improvements are proposed.
• New sewer main would be installed along Sherman Road from Ethanac Road towards McLaughlin
Road. The proposed sewer line would be extended into the Project site near the Project’s
southeastern boundary.
• New electrical and communication lines would be installed to service the Project along Sherman
Road between Ethanac Road and McLaughlin Road.
• New off-site storm drain system would extend towards Trumble Road towards the west. The off-
site storm drain would be installed from along Trumble Road towards McLaughlin Road.
The environmental impacts associated with all of these off-site improvements are analyzed throughout
this IS/MND.
Construction Schedule
The Project is anticipated to be developed in one phase. If the Project receives approval, construction
activities would commence and end in 2025. Additionally, the Project is expected to use tractors, graders,
dozers, and scrapers during the grading construction phase; refer to Exhibit 10, Conceptual Grading Plan.
As shown in Exhibit 10, the Project would have a raw cut of 20,274 cubic yards (C.Y.) and raw fill of
16,998 C.Y. for a raw net import of 47,947 C.Y.
Permits and Approvals
The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing and certifying the adequacy of
the IS/MND for the Project. It is expected that the City, at a minimum, would consider the data and
analyses contained in this IS/MND when making their permit determinations. Prior to development of the
Project, discretionary permits and approvals must be obtained from local, state and federal agencies, as
listed below:
• Planning Application No. PLN23-0173 (General Plan Amendment) proposes to change APN 331-
110-023 (1.16 acres) from Heavy Industrial (HI) to Menifee North SP. Refer to Exhibit 11, Proposed
General Plan Land Use Designations.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 6
• Planning Application No. PLN23 -0175 (Specific Plan Amendment) proposes to change the
boundary of the Menifee North Specific Plan by adding APN 331 -110-023 (1.16 acres) and
designating it as Planning Area 2 – Industrial.
• Planning Application No. PLN23-0174 (Change of Zone) proposes to change APN 331-110-023
(1.16 acres) from Heavy Industrial/Manufacturing (HI) to Menifee North Specific Plan. Refer to
Exhibit 12, Proposed Zoning.
• Planning Application No. PLN23-0171 (Plot Plan) proposes to construct a new approximately
264,710 square foot warehouse consisting of 254,710 square feet of warehouse area and 10,000
square feet of office area on a 11.47 -acre site. The Project proposes approximately 168
automobile parking spaces and 47 truck trailer parking stalls along with approximately 58,864
square feet of landscaping.
Other permits required for the Project may include, but are not limited to, the following: issuance of
encroachment permits for driveways, sidewalks, and utilities; security and parking area lighting;
demolition permits; building permits; grading permits; tenant improvement permits; and permits for new
utility connections.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 19
3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
1. Project title:
Ethanac Business Park
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
3. Contact person and phone number:
Fernando Herrera, Associate Planner
(951) 723-3718
4. Project location:
The Project site is located along Sherman Road, in the City of Menifee (City), County of Riverside,
California, on Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 331-110-023, -038, and -039. The Project is generally
located in the northeastern portion of the City, approximately 0.37 miles to the east of Interstate
215 (I-215), east of Trumble Road, south of Ethanac Road, west of Sherman Road and north of
McLaughlin Road.
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
CORE5 Industrial Partners
300 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 880
Irvine, CA 92618
6. General plan designation:
Current: Heavy Industrial (HI) and Menifee North SP
Proposed: Menifee North SP
7. Zoning:
Current: Heavy Industrial (HI) and Menifee North Specific Plan; Planning Area 2 - Industrial
Proposed: Menifee North Specific Plan; Planning Area 2 - Industrial
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The Project proposes a Plot Plan for a new approximately 264,710 square foot (sq. ft.) warehouse
consisting of 254,710 sq. ft. of warehouse area and 10,000 square feet of office area on a 11.47-acre
site. Refer to Exhibit 6, Conceptual Site Plan. The warehouse building would have a structural
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 20
height of approximately 43 feet (see Exhibit 7, Conceptual Building Elevations). The Project
proposes 168 automobile parking spaces and 47 truck trailer parking stalls along with
approximately 58,864 sq. ft. of landscaping.
Additionally, as shown in Exhibit 9, Off-Site Improvements, the following off-site roadway
improvements are proposed:
• Sherman Road at the Project’s frontage would serve as the north/south major roadway for
automobiles and trucks to and from the Project site. Improvements to Sherman Road at the
Project frontage would include half street plus one lane interim improvements plus 12 feet.
The road would be paved and include curb/gutter, sidewalk, and a landscaped parkway.
• The intersection of Ethanac Road and Sherman Road would be improved to add a westbound
left turn lane, eastbound left turn lane, and widening of corners to allow the safe turning of
trucks onto Sherman Road and Ethanac Road.
Additionally, the following off-site utility improvements are proposed.
• New sewer main would be installed along Sherman Road from Ethanac Road towards
McLaughlin Road. The proposed sewer line would be extended into the Project site near the
Project’s southeastern boundary.
• New electrical and communication lines would be installed to service the Project along
Sherman Road between Ethanac Road and McLaughlin Road.
• New off-site storm drain system would extend towards Trumble Road towards the west. The
off-site storm drain would be installed from along Trumble Road towards McLaughlin Road.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
The Project is generally located in the northeastern portion of the City, approximately 0.37 miles to
the east of Interstate 215 (I-215), east of Trumble Road, south of Ethanac Road, west of Sherman
Road and north of McLaughlin Road. Regional access would be provided via I-215. Local access
would be provided via Sherman Road which is located along the east portion of the Project site.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
None
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan
for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal
cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
The City completed AB 52 and SB 18 tribal consultation of the Project. Based on the City’s prior
experience with and written requests, the City initiated AB 52 tribal consultation with the following
potentially interested Tribes: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; Pechanga Band of Indians;
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians; and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. Pertaining to SB 18, based on
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 21
the tribal consultation list provided by NAHC, SB 18 notices were sent to 18 tribes . Refer to
Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources of this document for additional information.
NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project
proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal
cultural resources, and reduce t he potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See
Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native
American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California
Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please
also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 22
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation (check one):
I find that the proposed project COULD NO T have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the en vironment, there
will not be a significa nt effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an ear lier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIV E DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
CERTIFICATION:
Signature
Date
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 23
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aesthetics
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not
limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the site and
its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the
project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
X
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities (e.g., grading, equipment staging, and
associated building activities) would temporarily change the visual characteristics of the Project
site as seen from the surrounding uses. These construction activities would be visible to motorists
along Ethanac Road, Sherman Road, Trumble Road, and Dawson Road and would occur within one
year from when construction activity commences, ending in 2025, during which a certain level of
aesthetic changes would occur on the site.
Following the approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Change (ZC), and
Specific Plan Amendment, the Project site would be fully designated/classified as Menifee North
SP (Planning Area 2, “Industrial”); refer to Exhibit 5. Per the Menifee North SP, the allowed
structural building height in Planning Area 2 is 50 feet high. The proposed warehouse would not
exceed 50 feet in height. As shown in Exhibit 7, the proposed warehouse building would be
approximately 43 feet in height, which is consistent with the allowed building height. Although the
proposed warehouse building would be taller than the existing structures to the north, the building
height would not exceed the maximum 50 feet structural height and would be setback in
accordance with the Menifee North SP design standards. A minimum 25-foot setback shall be
required on any street. Along Sherman Road, the Project includes a 25-foot landscape setback, and
the building would be setback by approximately 151 feet. These setbacks would exceed the
required setback for the Project. Refer to Exhibit 6 for more information.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 24
Scenic views from the Project site include the San Jacinto Mountains to the northeast and east; the
San Bernardino Mountains to the north; the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest; and the
Santa Ana Mountains to the west and southwest. Local scenic views are the Menifee Mountains
located to the southeast. Buildout of the warehouse building has the potential to obstruct views
to the aforementioned scenic vistas. However, the Project building would not significantly obscure
views of this relatively close scenic vista to nearby residents or motorists traversing Sherman Road,
Trumble Road and Ethanac Road because the Project would be consistent with the allowed building
height and required setbacks. Additionally, the Menifee GP does not officially designate scenic
vistas on or near the Project site. The Menifee GP Draft EIR found that upon implementation of GP
policies and adherence to the Menifee MC, implementation of the Menifee GP, which includes
buildout of the Menifee North SP, would not substantially degrade scenic vistas in Menifee, and
that scenic vista and community character impacts would be less than significant.1 Therefore, the
Project would cause a less than significant impact to scenic vistas.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. There are no officially designated state scenic highways within the City.2 State Route
(SR) 74, located approximately 2,365 feet northeast of the Project site, is eligible but not officially
designated as a state scenic highway. SR 74 from the west boundary of the San Bernardino National
Forest to SR 111 located in Palm Desert is the nearest officially designated state scenic highway.
This portion of SR 74 is located approximately 18 miles east of the Project site. Therefore,
construction and operation of the Project would not damage or obstruct a scenic resource within
a state scenic highway. No impact would occur.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Public Resources Code Section 21071 defines an urbanized area as:
a) An incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria:
1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons.
2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not
more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000
persons.
1 City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.1: Aesthetics.
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1101/Ch -05-01-AE?bidId= (accessed January 2024).
2 Caltrans. (2018). California State Scenic Highway System Map.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa (accessed January 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 25
According to the Department of Finance, the City’s 2023 population was 110,034 and therefore
meets criterion a-1. This discussion will analyze whether or not the Project would conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
As stated in the previous impact, the Project site is located within Planning Area 2, which is an area
designated Industrial under the Menifee North SP. The Project and surrounding land uses allow for
industrial development and warehousing related uses which the Project is consistent with.
Thus, the Project would comply with all applicable Menifee North SP development and design
standards and guidelines. Standards and guidelines specific to scenic quality include the general
standards, Planning Area 2 planning standards, and lighting standards. The Project would also
comply with the Menifee GP goals and policies listed in Section 4.1.3 as they pertain to aesthetics
and scenic quality.
Some general standards that apply site-wide include:
• Standards relating to signage, landscaping, parking, and other related design elements will
conform to the Menifee North SP. When appropriate and necessary to meet the goals of
this Specific Plan, the standards contained within this document will exceed the zoning
code requirements.
• All project lighting shall be in accordance with applicable City of Menifee standards,
including Chapter 9.205 of the Development Code.
Planning standards specific to Planning Area 2 include, but are not limited to:
• Primary access into Planning Area 2 shall be provided from Sherman Road, Antelope Road,
and McLaughlin Road.
• Project entry/intersection statements, as shown on Figure IV-3 of the SP, shall be
developed at the intersection of Highway 74 and Sherman Road, and at the intersection of
Highway 74 and Antelope Road.
• Minor intersection monumentation treatments shall be established at corners of Sherman
Road and Antelope Road at designated entrances to Planning Area 2. These treatments are
illustrated on Figure IV-4 of the SP.
• Roadway landscape treatments shall be incorporated along Highway 74, Sherman Road,
Antelope Road, Trumble Road, and McLaughlin Road, as depicted on Figures IV-15, 17 and
18 of the SP, respectively.
Lighting standards are as follows:
• It is recommended that all primary streets be adequately illuminated to provide for the
safety and comfort of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Appropriate lighting will
encourage nighttime use of community facilities.
• Landscape lighting may be used for accentuating the following conditions: shrub masses,
focal elements, and trees (up-lights) if properly camouflaged from view and placed at
ground level without attaching to plant materials.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 26
• All lighting shall be designed and located in a manner which is compatible with scenic
values and other public interests throughout the community.
• General lighting shall not cast any glare onto adjacent lots and streets in such a manner as
to decrease the ambiance of adjacent areas or the safety of pedestrian and vehicular
movement.
• Indirect wall lighting and “wall washing" overhead downlighted or interior illumination
which spills outside is encouraged.
• Pedestrian lighting shall provide area illumination for entry ways, courtyards and other
such areas.
• Lighting fixtures shall be complementary to the architectural concepts.
Lastly the Project would be required to comply with the Menifee Industrial Good Neighbor Policies
pertaining to aesthetics which includes but is not limited to designing loading docks and truck
driveways away from sensitive receptors; being consistent with the City’s Industrial Design
Guidelines to reduce visual dominance on adjacent sensitive receptors; decorative walls would be
used to screen industrial uses from adjacent sensitive receptors; and landscaping (and berming for
walls greater than six feet in height) would be used to reduce the visual impact of the walls (limited
to the truck court area).3
Through compliance with the Menifee North SP development and design standards and guidelines,
Menifee GP goals and policies, and Menifee Industrial Good Neighbor Policies , the Project would
not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, the
Project would have a less than significant impact.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. Sources of light and glare exist minimally in the Project’s immediate
vicinity. Existing lighting sources include outdoor lighting emitted from adjacent developments
including the non-conforming residential homes to the west, and industrial uses to the north, and
vehicle headlights from nearby roadways.
The warehouse building would include interior lighting and exterior security and parking lot
lighting. Consistent with Chapter 9.205 of the Development Code, all lighting shall be shielded
and/or recessed to reduce light trespass to adjoining properties. Each fixture shall be directed
straight down and away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way, so that no light fixture
directly illuminates an area outside of the site. Lighting should be limited to only areas necessary
for safety, security and to compliment architectural character.
Additionally, the Project would be consistent with the Menifee North SP lighting standards listed
in the previous impact. More precisely, general lighting shall not cast any glare onto adjacent lots
and streets in such a manner as to decrease the ambiance of adjacent areas or the s afety of
pedestrian and vehicular movement. Due to the semi-rural nature of the Project, shiny or flashing
3 City of Menifee. (2020). Industrial Good Neighbor Policies. Available at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/16937/Industrial -Good-Neighbor-Policies?bidId= (accessed April 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 27
materials may be inappropriate. Hot, vibrant colors with large amounts of chroma should be
avoided, especially when considering large surfaces. The main body of the building should be
colored soft enough to appear cool, but not dark and dreary or muddy. Additionally, the warehouse
windows proposed for the Project would be constructed from a variety of non-reflective building
materials, including tempered vision glass and tempered spandrel glass.
Compliance with applicable lighting and glare design and development standards would ensure
that the Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
Aesthetic impacts related to scenic views, scenic quality, and light and glare are generally site-specific. As
concluded in Thresholds 1(a) through 1(d), the Project’s potential aesthetic impacts related to aesthetic
resources would be less than significant. The Project would be consistent with the type and intensity of
the existing commercial and light industrial uses. Consistent with the Project, each cumulative
development would be subject to compliance with applicable State and local development standards, and
guidelines to minimize aesthetic-related impacts. Therefore, the Project’s aesthetic-related impacts are
not expected to be cumulatively considerable and less than significant.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 28
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an o ptional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted
by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical
attributes that is conducive to sustained agricultural uses and production of the nation’s short- and
long-term needs for food and fiber. Prime farmland is limited and therefore r equires conservation
when able. Unique farmland is classified as any farmland other than prime farmland that is used
to generate high-value food and fiber crops, such as citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, and other
fruits and vegetables. Like prime farmland, unique farmland contains an adequate combination of
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 29
physical and chemical attributes that is conducive to the growth of those high -value crops.
Farmland of statewide importance is delineated by individual states and includes land that may
not meet the standards of prime or unique farmland but is still able to be an area of significant
production for a state.
According to the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder,4
and Menifee GP Exhibit OSC -5: Agricultural Resources,5 the Project site does not contain Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project site is classified is
classified as “Other Land” by the California Important Farmland Finder and Other Land and
Farmland of Local Importance in the Menifee GP Exhibit OSC-5. Since the Project would not convert
lands classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance to non-
agricultural use, no impact would occur.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. Review of the City’s Land Use Map shows that no agricultural uses are allowed within
or nearby the Project site.6 The Project would be located within the Menifee North SP land use
designation and zoning (upon approval of the proposed GPA, ZC, and SPA) which allows for
industrial uses. Additionally, there are no lands within the City that are currently under a
Williamson Act contract.7 Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. No Impact would occur.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. As previously stated, the Project would be located within the Menifee North SP land
use designation and zoning. Thus, the Project site would not conflict with lands zoned as forest
land. Furthermore, review of the City’s Zoning Map shows that there is no forest zoning in the City.8
Additionally, the Project site is currently developed and contains no forest land on-site. Therefore,
the Project would not conflict with existing zoning, or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or
timberland zoned Timberland Production. No Impact would occur.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
No Impact. As stated in the previous impact, the Project is not zon ed for forest land, and the Project
site does not contain “Forest Land” resources. According ly, no impact concerning the loss of forest
land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use would occur.
4 California Department of Conservation. (2022). California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed January 2024).
5 City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee GP Exhibit OSC -5: Agricultural Resources. Available at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1086/ExhibitOSC -5_AgriculturalResources_HD0913?bidId= (accessed January 2024).
6 City of Menifee. (2023). General Plan – Land Use Map. Retrieved from: https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/11043/General-
Plan--Land-Use-Map---March-2023 (accessed January 2024).
7 City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Draft EIR, Section 5.2: Agriculture and Forestry Resources. p. 5.2-5. Available at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1102/Ch -05-02-AG?bidId= (accessed January 2024).
8 City of Menifee. (2023). Zoning Map. Retrieved from: https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/11042/Zoning-Map---March-2023
(accessed January 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 30
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
No Impact. Due to the lack of existing active farmland, forest lands, timberlands, or areas zoned
for agriculture on the Project site or surrounding areas, development of the Project site would not
involve changes that would result in the conversion of agricultural or forestry resources to non-
agricultural uses. No impacts would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
As noted above, the Project would have no impact on agricultural and forestry resources since the Project
would be consistent with existing on-site and surrounding uses. Therefore, the Project would not
contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 31
Air Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
X
An Air Quality Impact Analysis and Health Risk Assessment was prepared for the Project by Urban
Crossroads in September 2024. These reports are summarized below and are included as Appendix A1:
Air Quality Impact Analysis and Appendix A2: Health Risk Assessment of this MND.
Applicable General Plan Policies:
Goal OSC-9: Reduced impacts to air quality at the local level by minimizing pollution and
particulate matter.
Policy OSC-9.1: Meet state and federal clean air standards by minimizing particulate matter emissions
from construction activities.
Policy OSC-9.2: Buffer sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, care facilities, and recreation
areas from major air pollutant emission sources, including freeways, manufacturing,
hazardous materials storage, wastewater treatment, and similar uses.
Policy OSC-9.3: Comply with regional, state, and federal standards and programs for control of all
airborne pollutants and noxious odors, regardless of source.
Policy OSC-9.4: Support the Riverside County Regional Air Quality Task Force, the Southern California
Association of Government’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Air Quality
Management Plan to reduce air pollution at the regional level.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 32
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact.
The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is characterized by
relatively poor air quality. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has
jurisdiction over an approximately 10,743 square-mile area consisting of the four-county Basin and
the Los Angeles County and Riverside County portions of what use to be referred to as the
Southeast Desert Air Basin. In these areas, the SCAQMD is principally responsible for air pollution
control, and works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG),
county transportation commissions, local governments, as well as state and federal agencies to
reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient
air quality standards.
Currently, these state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In
response, the (SCAQMD) has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet
the state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more
effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts
of air pollution control on the economy.
In December 2022, the SCAQMD released the Final 2022 AQMP (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP
continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach
its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co -
benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the
federal, state, and local levels. Similar to the 2016 AQMP, the 2022 AQMP incorporates scientific
and technological information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional
Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), referred to as the Connect
SoCal, a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help
the region meet the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The Project’s consistency with the
AQMP will be determined using the 2022 AQMP as discussed below. The AQMP demonstrates that
the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under
federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are
provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop
future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Therefore, development consistent with the growth
projections in the Menifee GP is considered to be consistent with the AQMP.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and
Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s 1993 CEQA Handbook. These indicators are discussed below:
Consistency Criterion 1
Under Consistency Criterion No. 1, the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or
severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely
attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. The
violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refer to are the CAAQS and National Ambient Air Quality
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 33
Standards (NAAQS). CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance
thresholds were exceeded.
As concluded in Impact (b) below, the Project’s localized and regional construction- and
operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance threshold and
localized significance thresholds. As such, a less than significant impact is expected since the
Project would be consistent with the first criterion.
Consistency Criterion 2
Under Consistency Criterion No. 2, the Project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP
based on the years of Project build-out phase.
Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use
assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance.
Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential
would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As
such, when considering that no emissions thresholds would be exceeded, a less than significant
impact would occur.
According to the Menifee GP, part of the Project site (APNs 331-110-038 and -039) is
designated as Menifee North Specific Plan – Planning Area 2 (Industrial) and part of the Project site
(APN 331-110-023) is designated as Heavy Industrial (HI). The HI land use designation allows for
more intense industrial activities, such as manufacturing uses, that can generate significant
impacts such as excessive noise, dust, and other nuisance.
The Project Applicant proposes a GPA to change APN 331-110-023 from Heavy Industrial to Specific
Plan. The Project also includes a ZC to change APN 331-110-023 from Heavy Industrial to Menifee
North Specific Plan. Additionally, the Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment to change the
boundary of the Menifee North Specific Plan by adding APN 331-110-023 and designating it as
Planning Area 2 – Industrial. Although General Plan, Zoning and Specific Plan Amendments are
proposed, the change from Heavy Industrial to Menifee North Specific Plan will not result in an
intensification of land uses on the site. Both designations authorize the same types of uses, at
similar intensities. Therefore, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are not
expected exceed regional or localized applicable thresholds established by the SCAQMD. As such,
the Project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the AQMP.
On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the second
criterion. Refer to following discussion for more information.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
Less than Significant Impact.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 34
Construction Emissions
Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air
pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include O 3-precursor
pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short
term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be
considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the
SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.
Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site preparation,
grading, building construction, road paving, and architectural coating, and on-road vehicle
emissions associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of
construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces.
Construction of the Project is anticipated to commence in February 2025 and is estimated t o be
completed on December 2025. Construction-generated emissions associated with the Project
were calculated using the California Air Resources Board (CARB)-approved CalEEMod computer
program. Estimated maximum daily construction-generated emissions are summarized in Table 2,
Overall Construction Emissions Summary.
Table 2: Overall Construction Emissions Summary
Year Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2025 10.48 17.29 35.54 0.17 8.55 2.51
Winter
2025 8.53 17.88 20.67 0.17 8.53 2.49
Maximum Daily Emissions 10.48 17.88 35.54 0.17 8.55 2.51
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Table 2 shows that unmitigated construction emissions would not exceed any of the SCAQMD
thresholds for any criteria pollutant. Therefore, impacts concerning construction emissions would
be less than significant without incorporation of mitigation measures.
Operational Emissions
Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of VOCs, NO X, SOX, CO,
PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions are expected primarily from area source, energy source,
mobile source, stationary source, and on-site cargo handling equipment source emissions.
CalEEMod utilizes summer and winter EMFAC2021 emission factors in order to derive vehicle
emissions associated with Project operational activities, which vary by season. The estimated
operational-source emissions are summarized in Table 3, Summary of Peak Operational Emissions
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 35
Table 3: Summary of Peak Operational Emissions
Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 1.57 14.44 21.52 0.17 8.39 2.35
Area Source 7.93 0.10 11.51 0.00 0.02 0.02
Emergency Fire Pump 0.98 2.75 2.51 0.00 0.14 0.14
Total Maximum Daily
Emissions 10.48 17.29 35.54 0.17 8.55 2.51
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Winter
Mobile Source 1.51 15.13 18.16 0.16 8.39 2.35
Area Source 6.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Emergency Fire Pump 0.98 2.75 2.51 0.00 0.14 0.14
Total Maximum Daily
Emissions 8.53 17.88 20.67 0.17 8.53 2.49
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds; NO X = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO 2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter
10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
Source: ibid. p. 44 – Table 3-8. See Appendix A1
As shown in Table 3, the Project’s daily regional emissions from on-going operations would not
exceed the thresholds of significance for emissions of any criteria pollutant.
Overall, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact.
Construction
Localized Construction Significance Analysis
To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing Localized
Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for construction. LSTs were developed in response to environmental
justice and health concerns raised by the public regarding exposure of individuals to criteria
pollutants in local communities. To address the issue of localized significance, the SCAQMD
adopted LSTs that show whether a project would cause or contribute to localized air quality
impacts and thereby cause or contribute to potential localized adverse health effects.
Emissions during the peak construction activity will not exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance
thresholds at the maximally exposed receptor location, as illustrated in Table 4, Localized
Significance Summary Peak Construction.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 36
Table 4: Localized Significance Summary Peak Construction .
Peak Construction
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5
Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 0.11 0.05 3.37E-02 0.41 0.15
Background Concentration A 0.9 0.6 0.037
Total Concentration 1.01 0.65 0.07 0.41 0.15
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold B 20 9 0.18 10.4 10.4
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No
A: Highest concentration from the last three years of available data. Per SCAQMD LST guidance, PM10 and PM2.5 background
concentrations are not considered.
B: Significance thresholds are based on SCAQMD’s Air Quality Significance Thresholds for Ambient Air Quality Standards for Crite ria
Pollutants.
Notes: PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are expressed in µg/m3. All others are expressed in parts per million (ppm).
Source: ibid. p. 48– Table 3-9. See Appendix A1
All other modeled locations in the Project area would experience a lesser concentration and
consequently a lesser impact. As such, the Project’s localized impacts during construction activity
would be less than significant.
Operations
Localized Operational Significance Analysis
The LST analysis generally includes on-site sources (area, energy, mobile, and on-site cargo
handling equipment). However, it should be noted that the CalEEMod outputs do not separate on-
site and off-site emissions from mobile sources. As such, to establish a maximum potential impact
scenario for analytic purposes, the modeled emissions include all on-site Project-related stationary
(area) sources and on-site Project-related mobile emissions. In order to account for on-site mobile
emissions, a trip length of 0.20 miles was utilized for both trucks and passenger cars.
Emissions during peak operational activity will not exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance
thresholds at the maximally impacted receptor location, as illustrated in Table 5, Localized
Significance Summary Peak Operations
Table 5: Localized Significance Summary Peak Operations
Peak Construction
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5
Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 1.19E-02 5.06E-03 1.99E-03 0.01 0.01
Background Concentration A 0.9 0.6 0.037
Total Concentration 0.91 0.61 0.04 0.01 0.01
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold B 20 9 0.18 2.5 2.5
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No
A Highest concentration from the last three years of available data. Per SCAQMD LST guidance, PM 10 and PM2.5 background
concentrations are not considered.
B Significance thresholds are based on SCAQMD’s Air Quality Significance Thresholds for Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria
Pollutants.
Notes: PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are expressed in µg/m 3. All others are expressed in ppm.
Source: ibid. p. 49 – Table 3-10. See Appendix A1
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 37
All other modeled locations in the study area would experience a lesser concentration and
consequently a lesser impact. As such, the Project’s localized impacts during operational activity
would be less than significant.
Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
In December 2018, in the case of Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, the California
Supreme Court held that an Environmental Impact Report’s air quality analysis must meaningfully
connect the identified air quality impacts to the human health consequences of those impacts, or
meaningfully explain why that analysis cannot be provided.
Most local agencies, including the City of Menifee, lack the data to do their own assessment of
potential health impacts from criteria air pollutant emissions, as would be required to establish
customized, locally-specific thresholds of significance based on potential health impacts from an
individual development project. The use of national or “generic” data to fill the gap of missing local
data would not yield accurate results because such data does not capture local air patterns, local
background conditions, or local population characteristics, all of which play a role in how a
population experiences air pollution. Because it is impracticable to accurately isolate the exact
cause of a human disease (for example, the role a particular air pollutant plays compared to the
role of other allergens and genetics in causing asthma), existing scientific tools cannot accurately
estimate health impacts of the Project’s air emissions without undue speculation. Instead, readers
are directed to the Project’s air quality impact analysis above, which provides extensive
information concerning the quantifiable and non-quantifiable health risks related to the Project’s
construction and long-term operation.
Notwithstanding, the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix A1) evaluated the Project’s localized
impact to air quality for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 by comparing the Project’s on-site
emissions to the SCAQMD’s applicable LST thresholds. The LST analysis above determined that the
Project would not result in emissions exceeding SCAQMD’s LSTs. Therefore, the Project would not
be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards
for emissions of CO, NOX, PM 10, and PM2.5.
As the Project’s emissions would comply with federal, state, and local air quality standards, the
Project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to
correlate health effects on a basin-wide level and would not provide a reliable indicator of health
effects if modeled.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” can determine whether the change in the level of service of an
intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the
CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular
emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have
become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a
maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more
stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation
of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 38
Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections
do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.
The Project would not result in potentially adverse CO concentrations or “hot spots.” Further,
detailed modeling of Project-specific CO “hot spots” is not needed to reach this conclusion. An
adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot,” would occur if an exceedance of the state one-
hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. The ambient 1-hr.
and 8-hr. CO concentration within the Project study area is estimated to be 0.9 ppm and 0.6 ppm,
respectively (data from the Lake Elsinore monitoring station for 2022). The traffic volumes for the
Project, coupled with the on-going improvements in ambient air quality, would not be capable of
resulting in a CO “hot spot” at any study area intersections.
Construction and Operational Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)-Source Cancer and Non -
Cancer Risks
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates for World Geodetic System (WGS) 84 were used
to locate the Project site boundaries, each volume source location, and receptor locations in the
Project vicinity. Refer to Exhibit 13, Receptor Locations.
Source: Urban Crossroads. (2024). Health Risk Assessment - Exhibit 2-D
Exhibit 13: Receptor Locations
City of Menifee
Ethanac Business Park
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 40
Construction Impacts
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction -source DPM emissions
is Location R5 which is located approximately 581 feet west of the Project site at an existing
residence located at 26228 Trumble Road. Location R5 is placed in the private outdoor living areas
(backyard) facing the Project site. At the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), the
maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction-source DPM emissions is
estimated at 0.17 in one million, which is less than the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were
estimated to be ≤0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. Location R5 is the
nearest receptor to the Project site and would experience the highest concentrations of DPM
during Project construction due to its location and meteorological conditions at the site. Because
all other modeled receptors would experience lower concentrations of DPM during Project
construction, all other receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be exposed to less emissions
and therefore less risk than the MEIR identified herein. As such, the Project will not cause a
significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction
activity.
Operational Impacts
Residential Exposure Scenario:
The residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational -source DPM
emissions is Location R1 which is located approximately 755 feet northeast of the Project site at
an existing residence located at 27555 Ethanac Roa d. R1 is placed in the private outdoor living area
(backyard) facing the Project site. At this location, the maximum incremental cancer risk
attributable to Project operational-source DPM emissions is estimated at 0.38 in one million which
would not exceed the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location,
non-cancer risks were estimated to be ≤0.01 which would not exceed the applicable significance
threshold of 1.0.
Location R1 is the nearest receptor to the Project site and would experience the highest
concentrations of DPM from Project operation due to its location and meteorological conditions
at the Project site. Since all other modeled receptors would be exposed to lower concentrations of
DPM, all other receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be exposed to less emissions and
therefore less risk than the MEIR identified herein. As such, the Project will not cause a significant
human health or cancer risk to nearby residences.
Worker Exposure Scenario
The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational -source
DPM emissions is Location R6, which represents the potential worker receptor located
approximately 91 feet north of the Project site. The maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW)
is the worker receptor location that would experience the highest modeled concentrations of DPM,
and thus the highest risk. At the MEIW, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is 0.15 in one
million which is less than the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. Maximum non-cancer risks
at this same location were estimated to be ≤0.01 which would not exceed the applicable
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 41
significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled worker receptors would be exposed to
lower concentrations of DPM, all other worker receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be
exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIW identified herein. As such, the
Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent workers.
School Child Exposure Scenario:
Proximity to sources of toxics is critical to determining the impact. In traffic-related studies, the
additional non-cancer health risk attributable to proximity was seen within 1,000 feet and was
strongest within 300 feet. California freeway studies show about a 70 percent drop-off in
particulate pollution levels at 500 feet. Based on CARB and SCAQMD emissions and modeling
analyses, an 80 percent drop-off in pollutant concentrations is expected at approximately 1,000
feet from a distribution center.
The 1,000-foot evaluation distance is supported by research-based findings concerning Toxic Air
Contaminant (TAC) emission dispersion rates from roadways and large sources showing that
emissions diminish substantially between 500 and 1,000 feet from emission sources.
A one-quarter mile radius, or 1,320 feet, is commonly utilized for identifying sensitive receptors,
such as schools, that may be impacted by a Project. This radius is more robust than, and therefore
provides a more health protective scenario for evaluation than the 1,000 -foot impact radius
identified above. Notwithstanding, for full disclosure purposes, the nearest school was also
evaluated.
The nearest school and location of the maximally exposed individual school child (MEISC) is
Romoland Elementary School, located approximately 3,269 feet northeast of the Project site and
represented by Receptor R7. At the MEISC, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact
attributable to the Project is calculated to be 0.01 in one million, which is less than the significance
threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks attributable to the Project
were calculated to be ≤0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0.
Because all other modeled school receptors would be exposed to lower concentrations of DPM, all
other school receptors in the vicinity of the of the Project would be exposed to less emissions and
therefore less risk than the MEISC identified herein.
Construction and Operational Impacts
The analysis in the HRA (Appendix A2) considered a conservative scenario in which a child at a
nearby residence is exposed to Project construction-related DPM emissions from birth for the
expected one year of Project construction and is then exposed to Project operational emissions for
the remaining 29 years of the 30-year residential exposure scenario. As stated above, in the case
of Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, the California Supreme Court held that an
Environmental Impact Report’s air quality analysis must meaningfully connect the identified air
quality impacts to the human health consequences of those impacts, or meaningfully explain why
that analysis cannot be provided.
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction-source and operational-
source DPM emissions is Location R5. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 42
attributable to Project construction-source and operational-source DPM emissions is estimated at
0.39 in one million which is less than the threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-
cancer risks were estimated to be ≤0.01 under both scenar ios, which would not exceed the
applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or
cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction and operational activity. All
other receptors during construction and operational activity would experience less risk than what
is identified for this location.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Less than Significant Impact.
The potential for the Project to generate objectionable odors has also been considered. Land uses
generally associated with odor complaints include:
• Agricultural uses (livestock and farming)
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Food processing plants
• Chemical plants
• Composting operations
• Refineries
• Landfills
• Dairies
• Fiberglass molding facilities
The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors.
Potential odor sources associated with the Project may result from construction equipment
exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and
the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the Project’s long-term
operational uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from
construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent
in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus
considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in
covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with current solid waste
regulations. The Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent
occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors and other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) associated with construction and operations activities of the Project would be les s than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 43
Cumulative Impacts
The CAAQS designate the Project site as nonattainment for O 3, PM 10, and PM2.5 while the NAAQS
designates the Project site as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5.
The SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution: White
Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. In this report the
SCAQMD clearly states (Page D-3):
“…the SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative
impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR.
The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative
impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for TAC emissions. The
project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative
(facility-wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission
significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two
are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use
the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and can cer burden of 0.5) for
project specific and cumulative impacts.
Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the
SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and
cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed
the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively
significant.”
Therefore, the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix A1) assumed that individual projects that do not
generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily
thresholds for project-specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in
emissions for those pollutants for which SCAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be
considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project -related
construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project -specific impacts
would be considered cumulatively considerable.
Construction Impacts
The Project‐specific evaluation of emissions in Appendix A1 demonstrates that Project construction-
source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, Project
construction-source emissions would be considered less than significant on a Project -specific and
cumulative basis.
Operational Impacts
The Project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the AQ Impact Analysis demonstrates that
Project operation-source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds.
Therefore, Project operation-source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project-
specific and cumulative basis.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 44
Biological Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
A Habitat Assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
Consistency Analysis was prepared for the Project by ELMT Consulting. This report is summarized below
and is included as Appendix B of this MND.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated .
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 45
Sensitive Species
A literature search conducted in Appendix B identified 17 special-status plant species, 51 special-
status wildlife species, and two special-status plant communities as having potential to occur
within the Romoland quadrangle. Special-status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for their
potential to occur within the Project site based on habitat requirements, availability and quality of
suitable habitat, and known distributions.
Concerning special-status plant species, review of Appendix B, Attachment C, Table C-1: Potentially
Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources concluded that based on habitat requirements for
specific species and the availability and quality of on- and off-site habitats, it was determined that
paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata) has a low potential to occur. None of the other special-
status plant species have potential to occur on- or off-site due to the lack of suitable habitat and
routine on-site disturbances and all are presumed absent. Paniculate tarplant is not federally or
state listed as threatened or endangered. It is designated as CNPS Rare Plant Rank 4.2. CNPS Rare
Plant Rank 4 species are of limited distribution or infrequent throughout a broader area in
California, with 4.2 species considered to be moderately threatened. No mitigation obligations
specific to these species are expected.
Concerning special-status animal species, review of Appendix B, Attachment C, Table C-1:
Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources concluded that the only special-status
wildlife species observed on- and off-site during the field investigation was Cooper’s hawk
(Accipiter cooperii). Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and
quality of on-site habitats, it was determined that the Project site has a moderate potential to
support sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus); and low potential to support and California
horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia). It was further determined that both on- and off-site areas
do not have potential to support any of the other special-status wildlife species known to occur in
the vicinity of the site and all are presumed absent.
Concerning special-status plant communities, the two identified communities do not occur within
the boundaries of the Project site.
Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan
The Project site is located within the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan of the Western Riverside
MSHCP but is not located within any designated Criteria Cells. Additionally, the Project site is
located within the designated survey area for burrowing owl, and Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Munz’s onion, San Diego ambrosia, many-stemmed dudleya, spreading navarretia, California
Orcutt grass, and Wright’s trichoronis.
Burrowing Owl
Despite a systematic search of the project site, no burrowing owls or sign (i.e., pellets, feathers,
castings, or whitewash) were observed during the field investigation conducted as part of
Appendix B. Most of the project site is unvegetated, which allows for minimal line-of-sight
observation favored by burrowing owls. Existing onsite activities have precluded suitable burrows
from establishing on the project stie. Further, the presence of tall trees and power lines
immediately surrounding the project site, provide perching opportunities for large raptors
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 46
(i.e., red-tailed hawk) that can prey on burrowing owls. Additionally, free-roaming domestic dogs
were observed within the boundaries of the Project site. Therefore, burrowing owl are presumed
to be absent.
Since suitable burrowing owl habitat was not found within the Project site and off-site
improvement areas, Part B-Focused Burrowing Owl surveys were not required. Therefore, the
Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. However, pursuant to MM BIO-1, a pre-
construction burrowing owl clearance survey would be conducted prior to ground disturbing
activities to ensure that impacts to potentially occurring Burrowing Owls are minimized to less than
significant levels. With implementation of MM BIO-1, potential impacts to burrowing owl that
could occur on-site would be less than significant.
Nesting Birds and Raptors
No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey, which
was conducted outside of breeding season. Although subjected to routine disturbance, the
ornamental vegetation found within the northeast corner of the Project site and offsite along the
eastern boundary has the potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal
avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds and raptor species that could occur in the area and
are adapted to urban environments. Additionally, disturbed areas within the Project site have the
potential to support ground nesting species such as killdeer.
Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish
and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or
destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). If construction occurs between February 1st and
August 31st, MM BIO-2 would be implemented that would require that a pre-construction
clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three days of the start of any
vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds would be
disturbed during construction.
Overall, implementation of MMs BIO-1 and BIO-2 and any relevant conditions of approval would
ensure that the Project would have no substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mitigation Measures:
MM BIO-1: A 30-day pre-construction burrowing owl survey shall be conducted prior to any
ground disturbing activities to avoid direct take of burrowing owls, in accordance
with Objectives 6 of the Species Account for the Burrowing Owl included in the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
If burrowing owl are not detected during the preconstruction survey, no further
mitigation is required. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected during the
breeding season, the on-site biologist will review and establish a conservative
avoidance buffer surrounding the nest based on their best professional judgment
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 47
and experience and verify compliance with this buffer and will verify the nesting
effort has finished. Work can resume when no other active burrowing owl nesting
efforts are observed. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the
breeding season, then passive and/or active relocation pursuant to a Burrowing
Owl Plan that shall be prepared by the Applicant and approved by the City in
consultation with CDFW, or the Project Developer shall stop construction activities
within the buffer zone established around the active nest and shall not resume
construction activities until the nest is no longer active. The Burrowing Owl Plan
shall be prepared in accordance with guidelines in the MSHCP. Burrowing owl
burrows shall be excavated with hand tools by a qualified biologist when
determined to be unoccupied and backfilled to ensure that animals do not reenter
the holes/dens.
If ground-disturbing activities occur but the site is left undisturbed for more than
30 days, a preconstruction survey will again be required to ensure burrowing owl
has not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If burrowing owl is found, the
same coordination described above shall be required.
MM BIO-2 If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction
clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within three days of the start
of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting
birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance
survey shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that
no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered
during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay
outside of a no-disturbance buffer. The size of the no-disturbance buffer will be
determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or
surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the
construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, ambient noise,
species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on
a case-by-case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction to
avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other
appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed on the
sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor shall be present to delineate the
boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting
behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young
have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under
natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 48
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means ?
No Impact. An assessment of the potentially significant effects of the Project on riparian, riverine
and vernal pool areas was conducted.
Several ponded areas were observed in the disturbed areas of the Project site during the field
investigation. These ponded areas were formed following the recent storm events, on top of the
hard compacted soils. The Project site has been subject to routine anthropogenic disturbances that
have heavily compacted the soils onsite which has been routinely used for sand/gravel and vehicle
storage with a thin layer of loose gravel in portions of the site. Further, the draina ge patterns
currently occurring on the Project site do not follow hydrologic regimes needed to support vernal
pools.
The grading of the site for the sand and gravel storage activities would likely have eliminated
potential fairy shrimp cysts in the soil, if they historically occurred onsite. Further, the loose gravel
onsite, and routine disturbances would likely preclude fairy shrimp from occurring onsite. The
underlying soils (Monserate sandy loam) are not hydric, and are not soils listed under the MSHCP
that typically are found in association with vernal pools or vernal pool type habitat. As a result of
rough grading and continual compacting of the soils from existing land disturbances, and no known
vernal pool type soils or restrictive layers, potential road ruts and/or human-made depressions on
the site are do not support suitable habitat for fairy shrimp, and fairy shrimp surveys are not
warranted.
Although these features exhibit hydrology, the features are compacted and lack hydric soils, and
the features do not support any vegetation. Therefore, the features are not MSHCP vernal pools
because they lack two of the parameters needed to be considered as a depressional wetland.
Additionally, based on the field investigation, no jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features
were observed on the Project site or within the during the field investigation.
Overall, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service, and would not result in
impacts to United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction and regulatory
approvals would not be required. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The Project site and off-site improvement area have not been identified as occurring
in a wildlife corridor or linkage. The Project will be confined to existing areas that have been heavily
disturbed and are isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages. In addition, there are no
riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) with in or
connecting the Project site and off-site improvement areas to a recognized wildlife corridor or
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 49
linkage. As such, implementation of the Project is not expected to impact wildlife movement
opportunities. Therefore, impacts to wildlife corridors or linkages are not expected to occur.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. Vegetation onsite is limited to grassland species and ruderal species.
As identified in the Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix C), there is an alignment of
eucalyptus trees located along the Sherman Road right-of-way that are considered “parkway trees”
per Menifee MC Chapter 9.200, Tree Preservation. These trees that could be impacted due to the
proposed roadway improvements of Sherman Road at the Project’s frontage and proposed utilities
along Sherman Road towards Ethanac Road. However, according to MC Section 9.200.030, the
parkway trees would be considered “nuisance tree” since the eucalyptus trees due to its overall
growth, location or root expansion, may negatively impact sewers, power lines, gas lines, water
lines, paved walkways, roadways, curbs or other public improvements. Therefore, the Project’s
potential removal of the eucalyptus trees would be permitted under the City’s Tree Preservation
Ordinance. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance and less than
significant impact would occur.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. No wildlife species that are Covered Species
and Adequately Conserved by the MSHCP were detected within the Project site and off-site
improvement areas during the habitat assessment and focused surveys. The Project would not
directly affect any relevant MSHCP-covered plant and animal species for which surveys can
sometimes be required or special mitigation arranged. Payment of required MSHCP and Stephens’
kangaroo rat fees is intended to offset habitat losses for animals such as Stephens’ kangaroo rat,
coyote, and foraging bird species that might utilize the Project development area. The impacts that
might occur on-site are what the MSHCP anticipated in areas not situated in Criteria Area Cells
(i.e., potential future MSHCP Reserve lands). Impacts are primarily offset through MSHCP fee
payment and Stephens’ kangaroo rat fee payment. Overall, the Project would not conflict with the
relevant provisions of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, and a less than significant impact
would occur in this regard with implementation of MMs BIO-1 and BIO-2.
Mitigation Measures:
Refer to MM BIOs-1 and BIO-2 above.
Cumulative Impacts
As concluded above, the Project would not result in significant impacts to biological resources wi th
implementation of mitigation measures and compliance with applicable State, regional, and local
regulations pertaining to biological resources. Similar to the Project, cumulative development impacts on
biological resources would be evaluated on an individual project-level. Therefore, in conjunction with
cumulative development, the Project’s impact on biological resources would not be cumulatively
considerable.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 50
Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
X
A Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) was prepared for the Project by Kimley-Horn and Associates. This
report is summarized below and included as Appendix C of this IS/MND.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
No Impact. An intensive-level cultural resources field survey conducted on the site identified one
cultural resource (KHA-ETH-24-01). The historic built environmental resource is a one-story single-
family dwelling that was constructed in 1965. Additionally, locations of off-site improvements were
provided in August 2024. The Eastern Information Center (EIC) closed effective July 2024, and
therefore, an additional records search could not be completed. However, the record search in
January 2024 incorporated a one-mile buffer, which entirely encompassed the areas of off-site
improvements. Additional research conducted in the CRA noted that one previously recorded
cultural resource is located in the offsite improvements (P-33-028203). P-33 -028203 is historic-age
alignment of eucalyptus trees on the west and east right-of-way of Sherman Road. Historic aerial
images indicate that the trees were planted before 1938.
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is based upon four criteria, at least one of
which must be satisfied for a resource to be eligible for inclusion into the CRHR in addition to
retaining its integrity. A resource is eligible if:
1. it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of our history;
2. it is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic value; or
4. it has yielded or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 51
P-33-028203 was recorded in 2018 by J.A. Keller who evaluated the cultural resources and
determined that it was not eligible for the CRHR.
Concerning Criterion 1, the building was constructed within the context of 1960s early
development of City. However, research has not identified significant association between the
resource and important events related to agricultural and residential development. Therefore, the
building is recommended not eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 1.
Concerning Criterion 2, research about the building and its land use has not associated the resource
with any important historical figures. Research about current and previous landowners has not
identified them as historical figures. As a result, the building is recommended n ot eligible for the
CRHR under Criterion 2.
Concerning Criterion 3, the building does not have any distinctive characteristics, and it lacks
decorative features and distinctive design. Its architectural style is very typical of 1960s residential
construction in this region. For these reasons, it is recommended not eligible for the CRHR under
Criterion 3. Lastly, concerning Criterion 4, the building is unlikely to yield important information
about the regional history since it is a well-understood resource type. Therefore, it is
recommended not eligible under Criterion 4.
The building and property are not recommended eligible under any criteria for listing in the
California Register. Therefore, KHA-ETH-24 -01 does not qualify as a “Historical Resource” under
CEQA. As previously noted, P-33-028203 was also determined to not be eligible for the CRHR. No
impact to a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 would occur.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact. The CRA stated that no known “unique archaeological resources”
defined by CEQA were identified in the Project area given the extent of prior grading activities.
However, the Project would comply with City’s Standard Conditions of Approval (COA)-CUL-1
through in the event that archaeological resources are found to ensure that impacts to the
archaeological resource are reduced and to further avoid any inadvertent discovery of
archaeological resources. This includes development of a Cultural Resources Management Plan
(CRMP) that would be used to guide the Project Applicant/contractor and the City with the ongoing
management of the potential archaeological resources, pursuant to COA-CUL-3. Therefore,
compliance with COA-CUL-1 through COA-CUL-7 would ensure the Project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Standard Conditions of Approval
COA-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 County Coroner has
made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. The county Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. The remains shall
be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 52
disposition has been made. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner
will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within the period specified
by law (24 hours). The NAHC will determine and notify a "most likely descendant." With
the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the most likely
descendent may inspect the site of the discovery. This inspection shall be completed
within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. 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.
COA-CUL-2 Non-Disclosure of Location Reburials. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise
required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated
grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure
requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific
exemption set forth in California Government Code section 7927.000, parties, and Lead
Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial,
pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code section
7927.000.
COA-CUL-3 Inadvertent Archaeological Find . If during ground disturbance activities, unique cultural
resources are discovered that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or
environmental assessment conducted prior to project approval, the following procedures
shall be followed. Unique cultural resources are defined, for this condition only, as being
multiple artifacts in close association with each other, but may include fewer artifacts if
the area of the find is determined to be of significance due to its sacred or cultural
importance as determined in consultation with the Native American Tribe(s).
a. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resources
shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the archaeologist,
the tribal representative(s), and the Community Development Director to discuss the
significance of the find.
b. At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after
consultation with the tribal representative(s) and the archaeologist, a decision shall
be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director, as to the
appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural
resources.
c. Grading of further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the
discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate
mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be
monitored by additional Tribal monitors if needed.
d. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with
the Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) 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
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 53
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 California Public Resources Code Section 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, and
recommendations of the project archaeologist 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.
COA-CUL-4 Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are
discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following
procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:
a. One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed
with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Menifee Community
Development Department:
i. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place
means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found
with no development affecting the integrity of the resources.
ii. Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for reburial shall
include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future
reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until
all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an
exception that sacred items, burial goods, and Native American human remains
are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of
contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV
report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover
and not subject to Public Records Request.
iii. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be
curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility
that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines
for the Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to
the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred,
including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for
permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation
facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 54
all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall
be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native
American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries
shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report.
COA-CUL-5 Archaeologist Retained. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project applicant shall
retain a Riverside County qualified archaeologist to monitor all ground disturbing
activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.
The Project Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s) shall manage and oversee monitoring
for all initial ground disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site
including clearing, grubbing, tree removals, mass or rough grading, trenching, stockpiling
of materials, rock crushing, structure demolition and etc. The Project Archaeologist and
the Tribal monitor(s), shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the
ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery
of cultural resources in coordination with any required special interest or tribal monitors.
The developer/permit holder shall submit a fully executed copy of the contract to the
Community Development Department to ensure compliance with this condition of
approval. Upon verification, the Community Development Department shall clear this
condition.
In addition, the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the
contractor, and the City, shall develop a CRMP in consultation pursuant to the definition
in AB 52 to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural
activities that will occur on the project site. A consulting tribe is defined as a tribe that
initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the
AB 52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as
provided for in California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB 52. Details
in the Plan shall include:
a. Project grading and development scheduling;
b. The Project archaeologist and the Consulting Tribe(s) shall attend the pre-grading
meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct
a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance.
The Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and
the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during
earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols
that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified,
including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be
properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All new construction
personnel that will conduct earthwork or grading activities that begin work on the
Project following the initial Training must take the Cultural Sensitivity Training prior
to beginning work and the Project archaeologist and Consulting Tribe(s) shall make
themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis;
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 55
c. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and
Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources
discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be
subject to a cultural resources evaluation.
COA-CUL-6 Native American Monitoring (Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and Pechanga Band of
Indians). Tribal monitor(s) from both tribes shall be required on -site during all ground-
disturbing activities, including grading, stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock
crushing, etc. The land divider/permit holder shall retain a qualified tribal monitor(s) from
the Soboba Band of Luiseño, as well as the Pechanga Band of Indians. Prior to issuance of
a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract (Monitoring
Agreement) between the above-mentioned Tribes and the land divider/permit holder for
the monitoring of the project to the Community Development Department and to the
Engineering Department. The Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily
divert, redirect or halt the ground-disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural
resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist.
COA-CUL-7 Archaeology Report - Phase III and IV. Prior to final inspection of the first building permit
associated with each phase of grading, the developer/permit holder shall prompt the
Project Archaeologist to submit two (2) copies of the Phase III Data Recovery report (if
conducted for the Project) and the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report that
complies with the Community Development Department's requirements for such reports.
The Phase IV report shall include evidence of the required cultur al/historical sensitivity
training for the construction staff held during the pre-grade meeting. The Community
Development Department shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation
compliance. Provided the reports are adequate, the Community Dev elopment
Department shall clear this condition. Once the report(s) are determined to be adequate,
two (2) copies shall be submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University
of California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s)
Cultural Resources Department(s)
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no formal cemeteries located on or near the Project site.
The closest cemetery from the Project site is the Menifee Valley Cemetery located approximately
1.36 miles southwest of the Project site. Given the very low potential for the Project’s ground-
disturbing activities to encounter archaeological remains, human remains to be potentially
encountered are considered low. However, if ground-disturbing activities reveal human remains,
a substantial adverse change in the significance of such a resource could occur.
COA-CUL-1 and COA-CUL-2 are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously
unknown human remains that may be unexpectedly discovered during Project implementation to
a less than significant level. COA-CUL-1 requires that in the unlikely event that human remains are
uncovered, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination
of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (Public Resources Code)
Section 7050.5. If the Coroner, with assistance from a qualified archaeologist, determines that the
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 56
remains are or appear to be of a Native American, he/she must contact the NAHC for further
investigations and proper recovery of such remains. Note the NAHC must be contacted within the
period specified by law (24 hours).
The NAHC shall then identify the “most likely descendant.” The most likely descendant shall then
participate in consultation and make recommendations concerning the treatment of the remains
as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
Additionally, pursuant to Public Resources 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.
COA-CUL-2 concludes the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated
grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of
the California Public Records Act.
Furthermore, human remains from other ethnic/cultural groups could potentially occur within the
Project area and would also be subject to consultation between appropriate representatives and
the Community Development Director. The Project would comply with all applicable state laws,
and therefore would have a less than significant impact concerning human remains.
Cumulative Impacts
As concluded above, the Project would not result in any impacts associated with historical and
archeological resources, or human remains. The determination of cumulative impacts occurring from the
development of the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development, is less than significant. Each
cumulative project is required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations
and implement mitigation measures, as applicable, to protect and/or preserve cultural resources that may
occur on site. Therefore, the Project’s incremental effects would not be cumulatively considerable.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 57
Energy
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due
to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
X
Energy Calculations were prepared for the Project by Urban Crossroads in September 2024. These
calculations are presented below and included as Appendix D of this MND.
California Code Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards
Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the
California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy
Commission) in June 1977 and are updated every three years (Title 24, Part 6, of the CCR).
The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy
efficient technologies and methods. CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school
buildings that went in effect on August 1, 2009, and is administered by the California Building Standards
Commission.
CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the 2022
California Green Building Code Standards that became effective on January 1, 2023. The CEC anticipates
that the 2022 energy code will provide $1.5 billion in consumer benefits and reduce GHG emissions by 10
million metric tons. The Project would be required to comply with the applicable standards in place at the
time building permit document submittals are made.
Senate Bill 350
In October 2015, the legislature approved and the Governor signed SB 350, which reaffirms California’s
commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include an
increase in the renewables portfolio standard (RPS), higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings,
initial strategies towards a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle
charging stations. Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce statewide GHG emissions:
• Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33% to 50% by
2030, with interim targets of 40% by 2024, and 45% by 2027.
• Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target will be achieved through
the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), the CEC, and local publicly owned utilities.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 58
• Reorganize the Independent System Operator (ISO) to develop more regional electrify
transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the
growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.
Senate Bill 100
SB 100, referred to as “The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2019,” was signed into law by Governor Brown
in September 2018 and increased the required Renewable Portfolio Standards established in SB 350.
Under SB 100, the total kilowatt hours (kWh) of energ y sold by electricity retailers to their end-use
customers must consist of at least 50 percent renewable resources by 2026, 60 percent renewable
resources by 2030, and 100 percent renewable resources by 2045. SB 100 also establishes a state policy
that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales
of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State
agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in
the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.
Refer to Appendix F, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, for further laws and regulations concerning
energy usage.
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than Significant Impact.
Construction
Based on CalEEMod estimations within the modeling output files used to estimate GHG emissions
associated with the Project, construction-related vehicle trips would result in approximately
280,538 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and consume an estimated 13,475 gallons of gasoline and
diesel combined during construction of the Project. Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment
and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. California
Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485, limit idling from both on-road and off-road
diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. Additionally, given the cost of fuel,
contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and
unnecessary consumption of energy during construction.
Due to the temporary nature of construction and the financial incentives for developers and
contractors to use energy-consuming resources in an efficient manner, the construction phase of
the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.
Therefore, the construction-related impacts related to electricity and fuel consumption would be
less than significant.
Operation
Electricity and Natural Gas
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the Project site. The Project would not use
natural gas. Operation of the Project would consume energy as part of building operations and
transportation activities. Building operations would involve energy consumption for multiple
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 59
purposes including, but not limited to, building heating and cooling, refrigeration, lighting, and
electronics. Based on CalEEMod energy use estimations, operations for the Project would consume
approximately 1,264,842 kWh of electricity.
The Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy
efficiency standards, which are based on the California Title 24 and CAL Green energy efficiency
standards. Title 24 standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply
to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. For example, the
Title 24 Lighting Power Density requirements define the maximum wattage of lighting that can be
used in a building based on its square footage. Title 24 standards are widely regarded as the most
advanced energy efficiency standards, would help reduce the amount of energy required for
lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy
conservation. Additionally, per Title 24 requirements, the Project would be required to incorporate
solar for the office portion of the building. Depending upon the ultimate end user of the Project,
such an end user can incorporate additional solar energy gener ation facilities or other renewable
energy sources. With compliance with Title 24 conservation standards and other regulatory
requirements, the Project would not be wasteful or inefficient or unnecessarily consume energy
resources during construction or operation and would result in a less-than-significant impact with
respect to consumption of energy resources. Lastly, the Project will comply with the applicable
2022 Title 24 standards. Compliance with applicable Title 24 standards will ensure that the Project
energy concerning electricity demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise
unnecessary.
Fuel
Operational energy would also be consumed during vehicle trips associated with the Project. Fuel
consumption would be primarily related to vehicle use by employees and trucks associated with
the Project. Based on CalEEMod energy use estimations, project-related vehicle trips would result
in approximately 2,798,143 VMT and consume an estimated 225,103 gallons of gasoline and diesel
combined, annually.
Additionally, the Project will also be providing parking and EV infrastructure that would further
promote fuel efficient vehicles. For these reasons, operational-related transportation fuel
consumption would not result in a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Therefore, the operational impact related to
vehicle fuel consumption would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact .
Construction
As stated in Impact a) above, the Project would result in energy consumption through the
combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction
equipment, and the use of electricity for temporary buildings, lighting, and other sources.
California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485, limit idling from both on- road and
off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the CARB. The Project would comply with
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 60
these regulations. There are no policies at the local level applicable to energy conservation specific
to the construction phase. Thus, it is anticipated that construction of the Project would not conflict
with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or
increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, construction-related energy efficiency and
renewable energy standards consistency impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) establishes a goal of renewable energy for local
providers to be 44% by 2040. Similarly, the State is promoting renewable energy targets to meet
the 2022 Scoping Plan greenhouse gas emissions reductions. As discussed in Impact a) above, the
Project would consume approximately 1,264,842 kWh of electricity annually.
The Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy
efficiency standards, which are based on the California Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Title 24
standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural,
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. For example, the Title 24 Lighting Power
Density requirements define the maximum wattage of lighting that can be used in a building based
on its square footage. Title 24 standards, widely regarded as the most advanced energy efficiency
standards, would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and
heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation.
Compliance with the aforementioned regulations would ensure that the Project would not conflict
with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or
increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, operational energy efficiency and renewable
energy standards consistency impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
As noted above, the Project would utilize energy in the form of electricity and fuel, but not in a wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary manner. The Project would also be required to adhere to the all applicable
federal, state, and local energy-efficient design standards and regulations to ensure the efficiency of
electrical uses during construction and operation. Therefore, the Project’s impacts associated with energy
usage would not be cumulatively significant.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 61
Geology and Soils
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
X
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground f ailure, including
liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
X
The following analysis is based on the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Southern California
Geotechnical (SCG) dated June 2022 and is included as Appendix E of this IS/MND.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 62
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
Less than Significant Impact. According to the Geotechnical Investigation located in Appendix E,
the Project site is located in an area that is subject to strong ground shaking due to the numerous
nearby faults capable of producing ground motions. However, SCG did not identify any evidence
of faulting during the geotechnical investigation and concluded the possibility of significant fault
rupture on the Project site is considered to be low. The nearest faults to the Project site are located
within Sun City and Quail Valley.9 According to the Menifee GP Draft EIR, the two mapped faults
within the City do not affect sediments of about 15,000 years or younger ages and thus are not
considered active faults.10 Strong ground shaking would also occur within the Project site due to
various active faults in the region, including but not limited to the San Andreas, San Jacinto, and
Elsinore faults. Accordingly, the Project would be required to comply with the latest California
Building Code (CBC)’s seismic safety provisions to ensure that the proposed building is designed to
resist structural collapse, and thus, provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic
property damage and loss of life. Therefore, with compliance with the CBC’s earthquake resistant
structural design standards, impacts would be less than significant.
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be subject to regional seismicity, regardless of not
being within or nearby an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, or active faults. Additionally, the
Geotechnical Report concluded that there was no evidence of faulting, and therefore, the risk of
significant fault rupture on the Project site is considered to be low.
As previously stated in Impact a(i), the Project would be designed in accordance with the
requirements of the current CBC Seismic Design Parameters. Structures for human occupancy (e.g.,
the proposed warehouse) must be designed to meet or exceed CBC standards for earthquake
resistance. All grading and fill placement activities would be completed in accordance with the CBC
requirements and the City grading code. Following these requirements, the proposed structur e
would be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from
serious injury catastrophic property damage and loss of life. Therefore, compliance with the CBC
earthquake resistant structural design standards would ensure that impacts related to strong
seismic ground shaking are less than significant.
9 City of Menifee. (2012). Menifee GP Exhibit S-1, Fault Map. Retrieved from: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1028/S -
1_FaultMap_HD0913?bidId= (accessed January 2024).
10 City of Menifee (2013). Menifee GP Draft EIR. Section 5.6, Geology and Soils , page 5.6-25. Retrieved from:
https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1106/Ch-05-06-
GEO?bidId=#:~:text=Elsinore%20Fault%20Zone.&text=The%20section%20closest%20to%20Menifee,to%20the%20northwest%20of%20Meni
fee (accessed January 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 63
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact . Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless,
saturated soils when the pore-water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal
to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for
liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and plasticity characteristics, relative
density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The
depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally
identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing ground surface.
The Geotechnical Report concluded that the Project site is located within a zone of low liquefaction
susceptibility.11 The subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations are not considered
to be conducive to liquefaction. These conditions consist of moderate to high strength older native
alluvial soils and no evidence of a long-term groundwater table within 25 feet of the ground
surface. Additionally, the Geotechnical Investigation stated that review of available well data
indicated that the groundwater depths in the area of the Project site are more than 66 feet below
grade. Overall liquefaction is not considered to be a design concern for the Project. Therefore,
Project development would not subject people or structures to liquefaction hazards, and impacts
including risk of loss, injury, or death would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
iv) Landslides?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is developed and relatively flat. No extreme elevation
differences exist in or around the Project site that would potentially lead to landslide effects.
According to Menifee GP Exhibit S-3, Liquefaction and Landslides, the Project is not located in an
area with a susceptibility to landslides. The Project area is also outside of the hazard zone for
rockfall/debris-flow. Therefore, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential impacts
due to landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Artificial fill soils were encountered at the
ground surface at four boring locations extending to depths of 2.5 to 3± feet below ground surface.
The artificial fill soils are underlain by older alluvium which possesses relatively favorable strengths
and consolidation/collapse characteristics. Older alluvium soils are generally 25± feet below the
existing site grades. Based on their granular content, some of the on-site soils would be susceptible
to erosion, and therefore, should be graded to prevent ponding of surface water and to prevent
water from running into excavations. SCG concluded that the artificial fill mater ials would not be
suitable to support the proposed structure.
11 SCG. (2024). Geotechnical Investigation. Pg. 11. Menifee, CA. Appendix E.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 64
The construction of the Project would involve excavation activities (initial site stripping including
the removal of any surficial vegetation from the unpaved areas of the Project site) and demolition
of the existing structure and pavements that would affect surface and near-surface soils. Although
no major grading or excavation would be needed to substantially alter the slope of the site, create,
or remove steep slopes, create retaining walls, or make other landform modifications ; the grading
and earthwork activities during construction would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by
wind and water. Accordingly, the Project would implement MM GEO-1 which would include
remedial grading to remove the existing artificial fill soils and the upper portion of the near -surface
native alluvium and replace these soils as compacted structural fill. Over-excavation areas shall
extend at least five feet beyond the building and foundation perimeters, and to an extent equal to
the depth of fill placed below the foundation bearing grade, whichever is greater. Following
completion of the over excavation, the subgrade soils within the over excavation areas would be
evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to serve as the structural fill
subgrade, as well as to support the foundation loads of the new structure. In addition to the
excavation and removal of the fill material, the development of the Project would require grading
preparation, trenching and paving activities that could result in soil erosion if exposed to periods
of high wind or storm-related events. Dust control measures such as watering would be utilized to
control the potential for erosion to occur. Construction contractors would also be required to
implement a dust control plan in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District
Rule 403 to reduce wind erosion (further information about dust control can be found in
Section 4.3, Air Quality of this IS/MND). MM GEO-1 would also require the Applicant comply with
the recommendations of a Final Geotechnical Evaluation and the most current CBC adopted by the
City as its building code.
Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply with the NPDES; refer to Section Hydrology
and Water Quality for discussion of the anticipated NPDES permitting process. Construction
impacts on the Project site would be minimized through compliance with the Construction General
Permit (CGP). The NPDES permit requires development and implementation of a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and
sediment-control BMPs. The BMPs would be required to meet or exceed measures required by the
CGP to control potential construction-related pollutants. The Project would also comply with
Menifee MC Title 8, Chapter 8.26 – Grading Regulations, which requires that the Project Applicant
implement erosion-control BMPs which are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment
controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. All required permits and the
erosion control plan would be verified by the City prior to initiation of any construction and prior
to the issuance of any grading permit. Conformance to these requirements and verification by the
City as part of the development approval process would ensure that potential impacts from
construction of the Project is less than significant.12
Following construction of the Project, the Project site would be covered with hardscape which
would not contribute to erosion, and it would contain landscaping, but these areas would include
ground covers to reduce erosion or and loss of on-site soils post-construction pursuant to BMPs of
12 City of Menifee (2019). Menifee MC Title 8, Chapter 8.26 – Grading Regulations. Retrieved from:
https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/8423/Menifee -Grading-Ordinance-Draft?bidId= (accessed January 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 65
the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). This would ensure that operation of the Project
would not result in the loss of topsoil or sedimentation into local drainage facilities and water
bodies; refer to Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality). During operations, the site would be
paved throughout and would continue to be subject to the WQMP. Landscaping would also be
maintained according to the Project’s WQMP.
Therefore, compliance with regional and local permitting and regulation and implementation of
MM GEO-1 would ensure that impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
MM GEO-1 Incorporation of and compliance with the recommendations in the Project
geotechnical Investigation. All grading, construction and operations shall be
conducted in conformance with the recommendations included in the
Geotechnical Investigation for the Project site prepared by Southern California
Geotechnical Inc. Specific recommendations in the geotechnical investigation
address the following and shall be incorporated into the final Project plans and
construction-level geotechnical report:
1. Removal of undocumented fill soils in their entirety and any soils disturbed
during site stripping and demolition operations (remedial grading) and
replace these materials as compacted structural fill soils.
2. Proper moisture conditioning of all building pad subgrade soils to a moisture
content of 2 to 4% above the ASTM D-1557 optimum during site grading. In
addition to adequately moisture conditioning the subgrade soils and fill soils
during grading, special care shall be taken to maintaining moisture content of
these soils at 2 to 4% above the optimum moisture content. This will require
the contractor to frequently moisture condition these soils throughout the
grading process, unless grading occurs during a period of relatively wet
weather, as determined by the City Engineer.
3. Demolition of the existing structure and pavements should include all
foundations, floor slabs, pavements, septic systems, utilities and any other
subsurface improvements that will not remain in place with the new
development. Debris resultant from demolition should be disposed of off-
site. Alternatively, concrete and asphalt debris may be pulverized to a
maximum 2-inch particle size, well-mixed with the sandy on-site soils, and
incorporated into new structural fills or it may be processed to create crushed
miscellaneous base (CMB).
4. Initial site preparation should also include stripping of any surficial vegetation
and organic soils. Based on conditions encountered at the time of the
subsurface exploration, minor striping and removal of some trees in the
landscaped areas along the property lines and within landscaped planters will
be required. Any vegetation, organic topsoil, and all tree root masses should
be removed during site stripping. These materials should be disposed of off-
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 66
site. The actual extent of site stripping should be determined in the field by
the geotechnical engineer, based on the organic content and stability of the
materials encountered. Any soils disturbed during demolition should be
removed and replaced with compacted fill soils.
5. Remedial grading shall be performed within the proposed building pad area
in order to remove all of the existing undocumented fill soils and a portion of
the near-surface native alluvium. The undocumented fill soils extend to
depths of 2½ to 3± feet at the boring locations within the building area. The
soils within the proposed building pad area should also be overexcavated to
a depth of 4 feet below existing grade and to a depth of at least 3 feet below
proposed building pad subgrade elevation. The proposed foundation
influence zones within the industrial building should be overexcavated to a
depth of at least 3 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade.
6. The over-excavation areas shall extend at least 5 feet beyond the building and
foundation perimeters, and to an extent equal to the depth of fill placed
below the foundation bearing grade, whichever is greater. If the proposed
structure incorporates any exterior columns (such as for a canopy or
overhang) the area of over-excavation shall also encompass these areas.
7. Following completion of the over-excavation, the subgrade soils within the
building area shall be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their
suitability to serve as the structural fill subgrade, as well as to support the
foundation loads of the new structure. This evaluation shall include proof-
rolling and probing to identify any soft, loose, or otherwise unstable soils that
must be removed. Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be
required if additional fill materials or loose, porous, or low-density native soils
are encountered at the base of the over-excavation.
8. After a suitable over-excavation subgrade has been achieved, the exposed
soils shall be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches and moisture
conditioned to achieve a moisture content of 2 to 4 % above optimum
moisture content. The subgrade soils shall then be recompacted to at least
90% of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The building pad area may
then be raised to grade with previously excavated soils or imported structural
fill.
9. The existing soils within the areas of proposed retaining and non-retaining
site walls should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 2 feet below
foundation bearing grade and replaced as compacted structural fill. Any
existing fill soils in these areas should be removed. Subgrades for erection
pads for concrete tilt-up walls are considered to be a part of the foundation
system and should also be overexcavated. Additional overexcavation may be
required if porous or collapsible alluvium is encountered, as discussed above.
The overexcavation subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 67
engineer prior to scarifying, moisture conditioning and recompacting the
upper 12 inches of exposed subgrade soils. The previously excavated soils
may then be replaced as compacted structural fill.
10. If the full lateral extent of overexcavation is not achievable for the proposed
walls, the foundations should be redesigned using a lower bearing pressure.
The geotechnical engineer of record should be contacted for
recommendations pertaining to this type of condition.
11. Subgrade preparation in the new flatwork, parking and drive areas shall
initially consist of removal of all soils disturbed during stripping and
demolition operations.
12. Subgrade preparation in the new parking and drive areas should initially
consist of removal of all soils disturbed during stripping. The geotechnical
engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify any areas of
additional unsuitable soils. The subgrade soils should then be scarified to a
depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4% above optimum, and
recompacted to at least 90% of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density.
Based on the presence of artificial fill and variable strength alluvial soil s
throughout the site, it is expected that some isolated areas of additional
overexcavation may be required to remove zones of lower strength,
unsuitable soils.
13. The grading recommendations presented above for the proposed parking
and drive areas assume that the owner and/or developer can tolerate minor
amounts of settlement within the proposed parking areas. The grading
recommendations presented above do not completely mitigate the extent of
existing undocumented fill soils in the parking areas. As such, settlement and
associated pavement distress could occur. Typically, repair of such distressed
areas involves significantly lower costs than completely mitigating these soils
at the time of construction. If the owner cannot tolerate the risk of such
settlements, the parking and drive areas should be overexcavated to a depth
of 2 feet below proposed pavement subgrade elevation, with the resulting
soils replaced as compacted structural fill.
14. Subgrade preparation in the new flatwork areas should initially consist of
removal of soils disturbed during stripping operations. The geotechnical
engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify areas of additional
unsuitable soils. The subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12
inches, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4% above optimum, and recompacted
to at least 90% of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Based on the
presence of variable strength alluvial soils throughout the site, it is expected
that some isolated areas of additional overexcavation may be required to
remove zones of lower strength, unsuitable soils.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 68
15. Fill Placement:
• Fill soils should be placed in thin (6 inches), near-horizontal lifts,
moisture conditioned to 2 to 4% above the optimum moisture content,
and compacted.
• On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris
to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer.
• All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in
accordance with the requirements of the 2022 CBC and the grading code
of the city of Menifee and/or the county of Riverside.
• All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90% of the ASTM D-1557
maximum dry density. Fill soils should be well mixed.
• Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical
engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content.
These tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since the tests are taken
at discrete locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire
fill and therefore should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to
meet the job specifications.
16. All imported structural fill should consist of very low expansive (EI < 20), well-
graded soils possessing at least 10% fines (that portion of the sample passing
the No. 200 sieve). Additional specifications for structural fill are presented
in the Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D.
17. Compacted trench backfill should conform to the requirements of the local
grading code, and more restrictive requirements may be indicated by the city
of Menifee and/or the county of Riverside. All utility trench backfills should
be witnessed by the geotechnical engineer. The trench backfill soils should be
compaction tested where possible; probed and visually evaluated elsewhere.
Utility trenches which parallel a footing and extending below a 1h:1v plane
projected from the outside edge of the footing should be backfilled with
structural fill soils, compacted to at least 90% of the ASTM D-1557 standard.
Pea gravel backfill should not be used for these trenches.
18. All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in accordance
with the requirements of the latest CBC and the grading code of the City of
Menifee.
19. All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90% of the ASTM D-1557
maximum dry density. Fill soils should be well mixed.
20. Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical
engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content. These
tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since the tests are taken at discrete
locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire fill and
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 69
therefore should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to meet the
job specifications.
21. On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris to
the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer.
Additional site testing and final design evaluation shall be conducted by the
Project geotechnical consultant to refine and enhance these requirements. The
Project Applicant/Developer shall require the Project geotechnical consultant to
assess whether the requirements in that report need to be modified or refined to
address any changes in the Project features that occur prior to the start of
grading. If the Project geotechnical consultant identifies modifications or
refinements to the requirements, the Project Applicant/Developer shall require
appropriate changes to the final Project design and specifications. Design,
grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the
requirements of the City of Menifee Municipal Code and the California Buil ding
Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and
the requirements of the Project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final
written report, subject to review by the City of Menifee, or designee, prior to
commencement of grading activities.
Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the City of Menifee or designee
prior to the start of grading to verify that the requirements developed during the
geotechnical design evaluation have been appropriately incorporated into the
Project plans. Design, grading, and construction shall be conducted in accordance
with the specifications of the Project Geotechnical Consultant as summarized in
a final report based on the California Building Code applicable at the time of
grading and building, and the City of Menifee’s Municipal Code. On-site
inspection during grading shall be conducted by the Project geotechnical
consultant and the City of Menifee City Engineer, or designee, to ensure
compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into project plans.
Prior to final of grading permits, the Project geotechnical engineer shall submit a
Final Testing and Observation Geotechnical Report for Rough Grading to the City
of Menifee City Engineer, or designee.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As previously discussed in Impacts a(iii) and
a(iv), liquefaction and landslides are not considered to be a design concern for the Project, and
SCG determined the potential for lateral spreading and subsidence would be considered low as
discussed below. The artificial soils at the site consist of medium dense to dense clayey fine sand
and silty fine sands with varying medium to coarse sand and gravel content, and stiff clayey silts.
These soils are generally considered to possess fair to good pavement support characteristics with
estimated R-values ranging from 30 to 40. The subsequent pavement design is therefore based
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 70
upon an assumed R-value of 30. Any fill material imported to the site should have support
characteristics equal to or greater than that of the on-site soils and be placed and compacted under
engineering controlled conditions. It is recommended that R-value testing be performed after
completion of rough grading. Depending upon the results of the R-value testing, it may be feasible
to use thinner pavement sections in some areas of the site.
The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater. Based on the
conditions encountered in the borings and trenches conducted for the geotechnical report,
groundwater was not encountered. Based on the lack of any water within the borings, and the
moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to
have existed at a depth in excess of 25± feet below existing site grades. SCG reviewed available
groundwater data obtained from the California Department of Water Resources Water Data
Library website which indicated the nearest monitoring well located 600 feet northwest of the site.
Water level readings within this monitoring well indicates a high groundwater level of 66± feet
below ground surface in March 2022. Therefore, based on anticipated groundwater depths,
groundwater would not affect excavations for the foundations and utilities. However, minor
subsidence would occur in the soils below the zone of soil removal, due to settlement and
machinery working.
As described above, MM GEO-1 ensures compliance with the geotechnical report
recommendations to support the proposed structures and offset impacts from subsidence of 0.10
feet such as scarification and air drying of over-excavated materials to obtain a stable subgrade.
Compliance with MM GEO-1 ensures impacts from potential subsidence of 0.10 feet would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
Refer to MM GEO-1 in Impact (b) above.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Expansive soils are soils that expand
and contract depending on their moisture level. This change can occur seasonally as water levels
and precipitation changes throughout the year. These soils normally occur within the first five feet
below the surface. Expansive soils can lead to structural damage as their compositions and volume
changes dramatically.
Laboratory testing performed on a representative sample of the near -surface soils indicates that
these materials possess a low expansion potential (Expansive Index [EI] =36). Based on the
presence of expansive soils, MM GEO-1 would require proper moisture conditioning of all building
pad subgrade soils to a moisture content of two to four % optimum moisture content during site
grading. In addition to adequately moisture conditioning the subgrade soils and fill soils during
grading, special care would be taken to maintain the moisture content of these soils at two to
four% above the optimum moisture content. This would require the contractor to frequently
moisture condition these soils throughout the grading process unless grading occurs duri ng a
period of relatively wet weather. In addition to adequately moisture conditioning the subgrade
soils and fill soils during grading, special care must be taken to maintain moisture content of these
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 71
soils at two to four % above the Modified Proctor optimum. Due to the existing expansive soils
potential, MM GEO-1 would be implemented to frequently moisture condition these soils
throughout the grading process unless grading occurs during a period of relatively wet weather,
and a less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures:
Refer to MM GEO-1 in Impact (b) above.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. Water
and wastewater systems and their development are further discussed in Section 4.19, Utilities and
Service Systems. No impact would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated . The CRA determined that the Project area is
highly sensitive for paleontological resources, as depicted in the Menifee GP Exhibit OCS.-4:
Paleologic Resources Sensitivity.13 Furthermore, paleontological records search conducted through
the Western Science Center (WSC) indicated that geologic units underlying the Project area are
mapped as alluvial deposits from the late to middle Pleistocene epoch. Pleistocene alluvial units
are considered to be highly paleontologically sensitive. The WSC did not report any known localities
within the Project area or within a one-mile radius. However, WSC reported that they do have
localities in similarly mapped units across Southern California. WSC also noted that specimens
identified within the Project area would be scientifically significant. MMs GEO-2 through GEO-4
would be implemented which includes preparation of a Paleontological Resources Impact
Mitigation Program (PRIMP), paleontological monitoring, and data recovery to reduce impacts to
paleontological resources. Therefore, implementation of MMs GEO-2 through GEO-4 would
ensure that development of the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic feature and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM GEO-2 Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program: The Applicant will submit
a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) prepared by a
qualified paleontologist to the City of Menifee prior to the issuance of a grading
permit. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S./M.A. or
Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures
and techniques, and who is knowledgeable in the geology and paleontology of the
area.
13 City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan – Exhibit OSC-4: Paleologic Resource Sensitivity. Available at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1085/ExhibitOSC -4_Paleologic_Resource_Sensitivity_HD0913?bidId= (accessed
September 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 72
The PRIMP must include:
1. an intensive field survey and surface salvage prior to earth moving, if
applicable;
2. monitoring by a qualified paleontological resource monitor of excavations in
previously undisturbed rock units;
3. salvage of unearthed fossil remains and/or traces (e.g., tracks, trails, burrows,
etc.);
4. screen washing to recover small specimens, if applicable;
5. preparation of salvaged fossils to a point of being ready for curation
(i.e., removal of enclosing matrix, stabilization and repair of specimens, and
construction of reinforced support cradles where appropriate);
6. identification, cataloging, curation, and provision for repository storage of
prepared fossil specimens; and
7. a final report of the finds and their significance.
MM GEO-3 Paleontological Monitoring: A qualified paleontologist will attend preconstruction
meetings to consult with the grading and excavation contractors concerning
planned depths, excavation schedules, paleontological field techniques, and safety
issues. In addition, all onsite construction personnel will receive Worker Education
and Awareness Program (WEAP) training prior to the commencement of
excavation work. All ground-disturbing activities associated with Project
construction occurring within previously undisturbed fossil bearing formations will
be monitored by a qualified paleontologist or qualified paleontological monitor. A
paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the
collection and salvage of fossil materials and works under the direction of a
qualified paleontologist. If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or
paleontological monitor) will recover them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can
be completed in a short period of time; however, some fossil specimens, such as a
complete large mammal skeleton, may require an extended salvage period. In
these instances, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) will be allowed to
temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a
timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains,
such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing
operation on site.
MM GEO-4 Data Recovery: Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion
of the program will be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and catalogued. Prepared fossils,
along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, will be deposited
(as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological
collections located within Riverside County (or, if no repository is available,
adjacent Counties). A final data recovery report will be completed that outlines
the results of the paleontological monitoring program. This report will include
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 73
discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils
collected, and significance of recovered fossils. The report will be submitted to the
City upon completion.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts concerning geology and soils is generally site-specific. As concluded above, the Project
would not result in any significant impacts related to geology and soils with implementation of mitigation
and by complying with existing State and local laws and regulations set in place to protect people and
property from substantial adverse geological and soils effects, including fault rupture, strong seismic
ground shaking, seismic-induced ground failure (including liquefaction), landslide and adverse effects
from soil erosion, expansive soils, loss of topsoil, development on an unstable geologic unit. Similar to the
Project, cumulative projects will also be required to comply with State and City requirements, which may
include preparation of a site-specific geotechnical report and implementation of applicable building
design standards, prior to project approval. Therefore, the Project’s impact to geology and soils would not
be cumulatively considerable.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 74
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
The following analysis is based on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) Assessment prepared by Urban
Crossroads dated September 2024 and included as Appendix F of this IS/MND.
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Global Climate Change (GCC) is defined as the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth
with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally
occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO 2, N2O, CH4, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These particular gases are important due to their
residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from 10 years to more than
100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the earth’s atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from
escaping, thus warming the earth’s atmosphere. GCC can occur naturally as it has in the past with the
previous ice ages.
GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are
pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have
relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to
several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed
around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and
cannot be pinpointed, more CO 2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake,
vegetation, or other forms of carbon sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions,
approximately 55% is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last
50 years, whereas the remaining 45% of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the atmosphere.
Regulations and Significance Criteria
Federal
To date, national standards have not been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets, nor have
any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions
reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel
economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects. Refer to Appendix F,
Section 2.7.2, National, for further discussion regarding federal standards, targets, and regulations.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 75
State
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and
local air pollution control programs in California. Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce
California’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness about climate change and its potential
for severe long-term adverse environmental, social, and economic effects. California is a significant
emitter of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) in the world and produced 369 million gross metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2020. The transportation sector is the State’s largest emitter of GHGs,
followed by industrial operations such as manufacturing and oil and gas extraction.
The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program
to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation, such as the landmark Assembly Bill (AB) 32,
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions.
Other legislation, such as Title 24 building efficiency standards and Title 20 appliance energy standards,
were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG
reductions. This section describes the legislation’s major provisions.
2017 CARB Scoping Plan
In November 2017, CARB released the Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan), which
identifies the State’s post-2020 reduction strategy. The 2017 Scoping Plan reflects the 2030 target of a
40% reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30 -15 and codified by SB 32. Key programs
that the proposed Second Update builds upon include the Cap-and-Trade Regulation, the LCFS, and much
cleaner cars, trucks, and freight movement, utilizing cleaner, renewable energy, and strategies to reduce
CH4 emissions from agricultural and other wastes. The 2017 Scoping Plan establishes a new emissions
limit of 260 MMTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40% decrease in 1990 levels by 2030.
California’s climate strategy would require contributions from all sectors of the economy, including the
land base, and would include enhanced focus on zero and near -zero emission (ZE/NZE) vehicle
technologies; continued investment in renewables, including solar roofs, wind, and other distributed
generation; greater use of low carbon fuels; integrated land conservation and development strategies;
coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (CH4, black carbon, and
fluorinated gases); and an increased focus on integrated land use planning to support livable, transit-
connected communities and conservation of agricultural and other lands. Requirements for direct GHG
reductions at refineries would further support air quality co-benefits in neighborhoods, including in
disadvantaged communities historically located adjacent to these large stationary sources, as well as
efforts with California’s local air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts) to
tighten emission limits on a broad spectrum of industrial sources. Major elements of the 2017 Scoping
Plan framework include:
• Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which include
increasing zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) buses and trucks.
• LCFS, with an increased stringency (18% by 2030).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 76
• Implementing SB 350, which expands the RPS to 50% RPS and doubles energy efficiency savings
by 2030.
• California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near-
zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks.
• Implementing the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS), which focuses on
reducing CH4 and HCF emissions by 40% and anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 50% by
year 2030.
• Continued implementation of SB 375.
• Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program that includes declining caps.
• 20% reduction in GHG emissions from refineries by 2030.
• Development of a Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net
carbon sink.
Note, however, that the 2017 Scoping Plan acknowledges that:
“[a]chieving net zero increases in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG
impacts, may not be feasible or appropriate for every project, however, and the inability
of a project to mitigate its GHG emissions to net zero does not imply the project results in
a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate
change under CEQA.”
In addition to the statewide strategies listed above, the 2017 Scoping Plan also identifies local
governments as essential partners in achieving the State’s long-term GHG reduction goals and identifies
local actions to reduce GHG emissions. As part of the recommended actions, CARB recommends that local
governments achieve a community-wide goal to achieve emissions of no more than 6 metric tons of CO2e
(MTCO2e) or less per capita by 2030 and 2 MTCO2e or less per capita by 2050. For CEQA projects, CARB
states that lead agencies may develop evidence-based bright-line numeric thresholds—consistent with
the 2017 Scoping Plan and the State’s long -term GHG goals—and projects with emissions over that
amount may be required to incorporate onsite design features and MMs that avoid or minimize project
emissions to the degree feasible; or a performance-based metric using a Climate Action Plan (CAP) or
other plan to reduce GHG emissions is appropriate.
According to research conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and supported by
CARB, California, under its existing and proposed GHG reduction policies, could achieve the 2030 goals
under SB 32. The research utilized a new, validated model known as the California LBNL GHG Analysis of
Policies Spreadsheet (CALGAPS), which simulates GHG and criteria pollutant emissions in California from
2010 to 2050 in accordance to existing and future GHG-reducing policies. The CALGAPS model showed
that by 2030, emissions could range from 211 to 428 MTCO2e per year (MTCO2e/yr.), indicating that
“even if all modeled policies are not implemented, reductions could be sufficient to reduce emissions 40%
below the 1990 level [of SB 32].” CALGAPS analyzed emissions through 2050 even though it did not
generally account for policies that might be put in place after 2030. Although the research indicated that
the emissions would not meet the State’s 80% reduction goal by 2050, various combinations of policies
could allow California’s cumulative emissions to remain very low through 2050.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 77
Cap-and-Trade Program
The 2017 Scoping Plan identifies a Cap-and-Trade Program as one of the key strategies for California to
reduce GHG emissions. According to CARB, a cap-and-trade program would help put California on the path
to meet its goal of achieving a 40% reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2030. Under cap-and-
trade, an overall limit on GHG emissions from capped sectors is established, and facilities subject to the
cap would be able to trade permits to emit GHGs within the overall limit.
CARB adopted a California Cap-and-Trade Program pursuant to its authority under AB 32. The Cap-and-
Trade Program is designed to reduce GHG emissions from regulated entities by more than 16% between
2013 and 2020, and by an additional 40% by 2030. The statewide cap for GHG emissions from the capped
sectors (e.g., electricity generation, petroleum refining, and cement production) commenced in 2013 and
would decline over time, achieving GHG emission reductions throughout the program’s duration.
Covered entities that emit more than 25,000 MTCO2e/yr. must comply with the Cap -and-Trade Program.
Triggering of the 25,000 MTCO2e/yr. “inclusion threshold” is measured against a subset of emissions
reported and verified under the California Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Emissions
(Mandatory Reporting Rule or “MRR”).
Under the Cap-and-Trade Program, CARB issues allowances equal to the total amount of allowable
emissions over a given compliance period and distributes these to regulated entities. Covered entities are
allocated free allowances in whole or part (if eligible), and may buy allowances at auction, purchase
allowances from others, or purchase offset credits. Each covered entity with a compliance obligation is
required to surrender “compliance instruments” for each MTCO2e of GHG they emit. There also are
requirements to surrender compliance instruments covering 30% of the prior year’s compliance obligation
by November of each year.
The Cap-and-Trade Program provides a firm cap, which provides the highest certainty of achieving the
2030 target. An inherent feature of the Cap-and-Trade program is that it does not guarantee GHG
emissions reductions in any discrete location or by any particular source. Rather, GHG emissions
reductions are only guaranteed on an accumulative basis. As summarized by CARB in the First Update to
the Climate Change Scoping Plan:
“The Cap-and-Trade Regulation gives companies the flexibility to trade allowances with
others or take steps to cost-effectively reduce emissions at their own facilities. Companies
that emit more have to turn in more allowances or other compliance instruments.
Companies that can cut their GHG emissions have to turn in fewer allowances. But as the
cap declines, aggregate emissions must be reduced. In other words, a covered entity
theoretically could increase its GHG emissions every year and still comply with the Cap-
and-Trade Program if there is a reduction in GHG emissions from other covered entities.
Such a focus on aggregate GHG emissions is considered appropriate because climate
change is a global phenomenon, and the effects of GHG emissions are considered
cumulative.”
The Cap-and-Trade Program covers approximately 80% of California’s GHG emissions. The Cap-and-Trade
Program covers the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumed in California, whether generated
in-state or imported. Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with CEQA projects’ electricity usage are
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 78
covered by the Cap-and-Trade Program. The Cap-and-Trade Program also covers fuel suppliers (natural
gas and propane fuel providers and transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from such fuels
and from combustion of other fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the Program’s first
compliance period. The Cap-and-Trade Program covers the GHG emissions associated with the
combustion of transportation fuels in California, whether refined in-state or imported.
2022 CARB Scoping Plan
On December 15, 2022, CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022
Scoping Plan). The 2022 Scoping Plan builds on the 2017 Scoping Plan as well as the requirements set forth
by AB 1279, which directs the state to become carbon neutral no later than 2045. To achieve this statutory
objective, the 2022 Scoping Plan lays out how California can reduce GHG emissions by 85% below 1990
levels and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The Scoping Plan scenario to do this is to “deploy a broa d
portfolio of existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, and align with statutes,
Executive Orders, Board direction, and direction from the governor.” The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of
the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world. Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan,
CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local
GHG reduction strategy (CAP) consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.
The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation - the regulations that will impact
this sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and outside the jurisdiction and
control of local governments. As stated in the Plan’s executive summary:
“The major element of this unprecedented transformation is the aggressive reduction of
fossil fuels wherever they are currently used in California, building on and accelerating
carbon reduction programs that have been in place for a decade and a half. That means
rapidly moving to zero-emission transportation; electrifying the cars, buses, trains, and
trucks that now constitute California’s single largest source of planet-warming pollution.”
“[A]pproval of this plan catalyzes a number of efforts, including the development of new
regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in
place, not just at CARB but across state agencies.”
Under the 2022 Scoping Plan, the State will lead efforts to meet the 2045 carbon neutrality goal through
implementation of the following objectives:
• Reimagine roadway projects that increase VMT in a way that meets community needs and
reduces the need to drive.
• Double local transit capacity and service frequencies by 2030.
• Complete the High-Speed Rail (HSR) System and other elements of the intercity rail network by
2040.
• Expand and complete planned networks of high-quality active transportation infrastructure.
• Increase availability and affordability of bikes, e-bikes, scooters, and other alternatives to light
duty vehicles, prioritizing needs of underserved communities.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 79
• Shift revenue generation for transportation projects away from the gas tax into more durable
sources by 2030.
• Authorize and implement roadway pricing strategies and reallocate revenues to equitably
improve transit, bicycling, and other sustainable transportation choices.
• Prioritize addressing key transit bottlenecks and other infrastructure investments to improve
transit operational efficiency over investments that increase VMT.
• Develop and implement a statewide transportation demand management (TDM) framework with
VMT mitigation requirements for large employers and large developments.
• Prevent uncontrolled growth of autonomous vehicle (AV) VMT, particularly zero-passenger miles.
• Channel new mobility services towards pooled use models, transit complementarity, and lower
VMT outcomes.
• Establish an integrated statewide system for trip planning, booking, payment, and user accounts
that enables efficient and equitable multimodal systems.
• Provide financial support for low-income and disadvantaged Californians’ use of transit and new
mobility services.
• Expand universal design features for new mobility services.
• Accelerate infill development in existing transportation-efficient places and deploy strategic
resources to create more transportation-efficient locations.
• Encourage alignment in land use, housing, transportation, and conservation planning in adopted
regional plans (RTP/SCS and RHNA) and local plans (e.g., general plans, zoning, and local
transportation plans).
• Accelerate production of affordable housing in forms and locations that reduce VMT and
affirmatively further fair housing policy objectives.
• Reduce or eliminate parking requirements (and/or enact parking maximums, as appropriate) and
promote redevelopment of excess parking, especially in infill locations.
• Preserve and protect existing affordable housing stock and protect existing residents and
businesses from displacement and climate risk.
Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan) aimed at
providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the state in meeting the ambitious
targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes a section on
evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In
this section, CARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new
development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is
focused on Residential and Mixed-Use Projects, in fact CARB states in Appendix D (page 4): “…focuses
primarily on climate action plans (CAPs) and local authority over new residential development. It does not
address other land use types (e.g., industrial) or air permitting.”
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 80
Additionally on Page 21 in Appendix D, CARB states: “The recommendations outlined in this section apply
only to residential and mixed-use development project types. California currently faces both a housing
crisis and a climate crisis, which necessitates prioritizing recommendations for residential projects to
address the housing crisis in a manner that simultaneously supports the State’s GHG and regional air
quality goals. CARB plans to continue to explore new approaches for other land use types in the future.”
As such, it would be inappropriate to apply the requirements contained in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping
Plan to any land use types other than residential or mixed-use residential development.
Legislative Actions to Reduce GHGs
The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program
to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation, such as the landmark AB 32 was specifically
enacted to address GHG emissions. Other legislation, such as Title 24 and Title 20 energy standards, were
originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG
reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the legislation.
AB 1881 (Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006)
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 requires local agencies to adopt the updated DWR
model ordinance or equivalent. AB 1881 also requires the CEC to consult with the DWR to adopt, by
regulation, performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment,
including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves to reduce the wasteful,
uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.
SB 1368 (Emission Performance Standard)
California SB 1368 adds Sections 8340 and 8341 to the Public Utilities Code (effective January 1, 2007)
with the intent “to prevent long-term investments in power plants with GHG emissions in excess of those
produced by a combined-cycle natural gas power plant” with the aim of “reducing emissions of GHGs from
the state’s electricity consumption, not just the state’s electricity production.” SB 1368 provides a
mechanism for reducing the GHG emissions of electricity providers, both in-state and out-of-state,
thereby assisting CARB in meeting its mandate under AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006)
The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, which required that GHGs emitted in California be reduced
to 1990 levels by the year 2020 (this goal has been met14). GHGs, as defined under AB 32, include CO 2,
CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. Since AB 32 was enacted, a seventh chemical, NF3, has also been added to
the list of GHGs. CARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs.
Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost -
effective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 states the following:
“Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural
resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global
warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the qua lity and
supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the
14 Based upon the 2019 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000 -2017 GHG emissions period,
California emitted an average 424.1 MMTCO 2e. This is less than the 2020 emissions target of 431 MMTCO 2e.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 81
displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine
ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious
diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.”
SB 375 (Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008)
On September 30, 2008, SB 375 was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger. According to SB 375, the
transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions, which emits over 40% of the total GHG
emissions in California. SB 375 states, “Without improved land use and transportation policy, California
would not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 does the following: it (1) requires metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) to include sustainable community strategies in their regional
transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions; (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing; and
(3) creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.
SB 375 requires MPOs to prepare a SCSSCS within the RTP that guides growth while taking into account
the transportation, housing, environmental, and economic needs of the region. SB 375 uses CEQA
streamlining as an incentive to encourage residential projects, which help achieve AB 32 goals to reduce
GHG emissions. Although SB 375 does not prevent CARB from adopting additional regulations, such
actions are not anticipated in the foreseeable future.
Concerning CEQA, SB 375, as codified in Public Resources Code Section 21159.28, states that CEQA
findings for certain projects are not required to reference, describe, or discuss (1) growth inducing
impacts, or (2) any project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips generated
by the project on global warming or the regional transportation network, if the project:
1. Is in an area with an approved sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning
strategy that CARB accepts as achieving the GHG emission reduction targets.
2. Is consistent with that strategy (in designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies).
3. Incorporates the MMs required by an applicable prior environmental document.
AB 1493 (Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards)
The second phase of the implementation for the Pavley bill was incorporated into Amendments to the
Low-Emission Vehicle Program (LEV III) or the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program. The ACC program
combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of
requirements for MY 2017 through 2025. The regulation will reduce GHGs from new cars by 34% from
2016 levels by 2025. The new rules will clean up gasoline and diesel-powered cars, and deliver increasing
numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug-in hybrid
EV and hydrogen fuel cell cars. The package will also ensure adequate fueling infrastructure is available
for the increasing numbers of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned for deployment in California. On
March 9,2022, EPA reinstated California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to implement its own GHG
emission standards for cars and light trucks, which other states can also adopt and enforce. With this
authority restored, EPA will continue partnering with states to advance the next generation of clean
vehicle technologies.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 82
SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015)
In October 2015, the legislature approved, and Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 350, which reaffirms
California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions
include an increase in the RPS, higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies
towards a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for EV charging stations. Provisions for a
50% reduction in the use of petroleum statewide were removed from the Bill because of opposition and
concern that it would prevent the Bill’s passage. Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce
statewide GHG emissions:
• Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33% to 50% by
2030, with interim targets of 40% by 2024, and 45% by 2027.
• Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target would be achieved through
the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the California Energy Commission (CEC), and
local publicly owned utilities.
• Reorganize the Independent System Operator (ISO) to develop more regional electrify
transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which would facilitate the
growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.
SB 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2016)
On September 8, 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32 and its companion bill, AB 197. SB 32 requires the
state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was
first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15. The new legislation builds upon the AB 32 goal and provides
an intermediate goal to achieving S-3-05, which sets a statewide GHG reduction target of 80% below 1990
levels by 2050. AB 197 creates a legislative committee to oversee regulators to ensure that CARB not only
responds to the Governor, but also the Legislature.
Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs using executive orders. Although
not regulatory, they set the tone for the State and guide the actions of state agencies.
Executive Order S-3-05 . Executive Order S-3-05 was issued on June 1, 2005, which established the
following GHG emissions reduction targets:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990.
The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will
stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive
order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.
Executive Order S-01 -07. Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S 01-07 mandates that a statewide
goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10
percent by 2020. The executive order established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and directed the
Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 83
(CEC), CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for
measuring the “life-cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. CARB adopted the LCFS on
April 23, 2009.
Executive Order S-13-08. Issued on November 14, 2008, Executive Order S-13-08 facilitated the California
Natural Resources Agency development of the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Objectives
include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to
climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.
Executive Order S-14 -08. Issued on November 17, 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 expands the State’s
Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order
S-21-09 (signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 p ercent of
electricity sold in the State come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the Renewable Electricity
Standard on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly
owned electricity retailers.
Executive Order S-21-09. Issued on July 17, 2009, Executive Order S-21-09 directs CARB to adopt
regulations to increase California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33 percent by 2020. This builds
upon SB 1078 (2002), which established the California RPS program, requiring 20 percent renewable
energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006), which advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was
expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan II.
Executive Order B-30 -15. Issued on April 29, 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 established a California GHG
reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and directs CARB to update the Climate Change
Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e). The 2030
target acts as an interim goal on the way to achieving reductions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050,
a goal set by Executive Order S-3-05. The executive order also requires the State’s climate adapta tion plan
to be updated every three years and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among
other provisions. With the enactment of SB 32 in 2016, the Legislature codified the goal of reducing GHG
emissions by 2030 to 40 percent below 1990 levels.
Executive Order B-55-18. Issued on September 10, 2018, Executive Order B-55-18 establishes a goal to
achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net
negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide targets of reducing GHG
emissions. The executive order requires CARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a
framework for implementing this goal. It also requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan to identify and
recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality. The executive order also requires state agencies to
develop sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan.
Executive Order N-79-20. Signed in September 2020, Executive Order N-79-20 establishes as a goal that
where feasible, all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles
and equipment, sold in California, will be zero-emissioned by 2035. The executive order sets a similar goal
requiring that all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045 where feasible. It also
directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium -and heavy-
duty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing
volumes” of new zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) “towards the target of 100 percent.” The executive order
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 84
directs the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Geologic Energy Management
Division (CalGEM), and the California Natural Resources Agency to transition and repurpose oil production
facilities with a goal toward meeting carbon neutrality by 2045. Executive Order N-79-20 builds upon the
CARB Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which was adopted by CARB in July 2020.
California Regulations and Building Codes
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled
buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid
population growth.
Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The appliance efficiency regulations (California Code of
Regulations [CCR] Title 20, Sections 1601 -1608) include standards for new appliances. Twenty-three
categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. These standards include minimum
levels of operating efficiency, and other cost-effective measures, to promote the use of energy - and
water-efficient appliances.
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings (CCR Title 24, Part 6) was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative
mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically t o allow
consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy
efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel
consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code on August 11, 2021,
which was subsequently approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the
California Building Standards Code. The 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps,
establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage
standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more. Buildings whose permit applications are applied
for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code.
Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code. The California Green Building Standards Code
(CCR Title 24, Part 11 code) commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory
construction code developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the
Department of Housing and Community Development. The CALGreen standards re quire new residential
and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under the topics of planning and design,
energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and
environmental quality. CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may
adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five green building t opics. The latest update
to the CALGreen Code went into effect January 1, 2023 (2022 CALGreen).
CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of a supplement
issued by the California Building Standards Commission in order to provide new and/or replacement pages
containing recently adopted provisions for the 2022 CALGreen on July 1, 2024.
The CEC anticipates that the 2022 energy code will provide $1.5 billion in consumer benefits and reduce
GHG emissions by 10 million metric tons (44). The Project would be required to comply with the applicable
standards in place at the time plan check submittals are made. These require, among other items :
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 85
Nonresidential Mandatory Measures
• Short-term bicycle parking. If the new project or an additional alteration is anticipated to
generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the
visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5% of new visitor motorized vehicle parking
spaces being added, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack (5.106.4.1.1).
• Long-term bicycle parking. For new buildings with tenant spaces that have 10 or more tenant-
occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5% of the tenant-occupant vehicular parking
spaces with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility (5.106.4.1.2).
• Designated parking for clean air vehicles. In new projects or additions to alterations that add
10 or more vehicular parking spaces, provide designated parking for any combination of low-
emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles as shown in Table 5.106.5.2 (5.106.5.2).
• EV charging stations. New construction shall facilitate the future installation of EV supply equipment.
The compliance requires empty raceways for future conduit and documentation that the electrical
system has adequate capacity for the future load. The number of spaces to be provided for is
contained in Table 5.106. 5.3.3 (5.106.5.3). Additionally, Table 5.106.5.4.1 specifies requirements for
the installation of raceway conduit and panel power requirements for medium- and heavy-duty
electric vehicle supply equipment for warehouses, grocery stores, and retail stores.
• Outdoor light pollution reduction. Outdoor lighting systems shall be designed to meet the backlight,
uplight and glare ratings per Table 5.106.8 (5.106.8).
• Construction waste management. Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65% of the
nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1.1.
5.405.1.2, or 5.408.1.3; or meet a local construction and demolition waste management
ordinance, whichever is more stringent (5.408.1).
• Excavated soil and land clearing debris. 100% of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation
and soils resulting primarily from land clearing shall be reused or recycled. For a phased project,
such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed (5.408.3).
• Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are
identified for the depositing, storage, and collection of non-hazardous materials for recycling,
including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, organic waste, and metals
or meet a lawfully enacted local recycling ordinance, if more restrictive (5.410.1).
• Water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings. Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals)
and fittings (faucets and showerheads) shall comply with the following:
o Water Closets. The effective flush volume of all water closets shall not exceed 1.28 gallons
per flush (5.303.3.1).
o Urinals. The effective flush volume of wall-mounted urinals shall not exceed 0.125
gallons per flush (5.303.3.2.1). The effective flush volume of floor- mounted or other urinals
shall not exceed 0.5 gallons per flush (5.303.3.2.2).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 86
o Showerheads. Single showerheads shall have a minimum flow rate of not more than 1.8
gallons per minute and 80 psi (5.303.3.3.1). When a shower is served by more than one
showerhead, the combined flow rate of all showerheads and/or other shower outlets
controlled by a single valve shall not exceed 1.8 gallons per minute at 80 psi (5.303.3.3.2).
o Faucets and fountains. Nonresidential lavatory faucets shall have a maximum flow rate
of not more than 0.5 gallons per minute at 60 psi (5.303.3.4.1). Kitchen faucets shall have
a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute of 60 psi (5.303.3.4.2).
Wash fountains shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute
(5.303.3.4.3). Metering faucets shall not deliver more than 0.20 gallons per cycle
(5.303.3.4.4). Metering faucets for wash fountains shall have a maximum flow rate not
more than 0.20 gallons per cycle (5.303.3.4.5).
• Outdoor potable water uses in landscaped areas. Nonresidential developments shall comply with
a local water efficient landscape ordinance or the current California Department of Water
Resources’ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), whichever is more stringent
(5.304.1).
• Water meters. Separate submeters or metering devices shall be installed for new buildings
or additions in excess of 50,000 sf or for excess consumption where any tenant within a new
building or within an addition that is projected to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day
(GPD) (5.303.1.1 and 5.303.1.2).
• Outdoor water uses in rehabilitated landscape projects equal or greater than 2,500 sf.
Rehabilitated landscape projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than
2,500 sf requiring a building or landscape permit (5.304.3).
Commissioning. For new buildings 10,000 sf and over, building commissioning shall be included in the
design and construction processes of the building project to verify that the building systems and
components meet the owner’s or owner representative’s project requirements (5.410.2).
CARB Advanced Clean Truck Regulation. CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation in June 2020
requiring truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero -emission trucks
beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero -emission. This rule
directly addresses disproportionate risks and health and pollution burdens and puts California on the path
for an all zero-emission short-haul drayage fleet in ports and railyards by 2035, and zero-emission “last-
mile” delivery trucks and vans by 2040. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition
of zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. The regulation has two
components including a manufacturer sales requirement, and a reporting requirement:
• Zero-Emission Truck Sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b through 8 chassis or complete
vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing
percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero -emission
truck/chassis sales need to be 55 percent of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 –
8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales.
• Company and Fleet Reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers and
others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 87
owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations.
This information would help identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available
zero-emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.
CARB Refrigerant Management Program
CARB adopted a regulation in 2009 to reduce refrigerant GHG emissions from stationary sources through
refrigerant leak detection and monitoring, leak repair, system retirement and retrofitting, reporting and
recordkeeping, and proper refrigerant cylinder use, sale, and disposal. The regulation is set forth in
sections 95380 to 95398 of Title 17, CCR. The rules implementing the regulation establish a limit on
statewide GHG emissions from stationary facilities with refrigeration systems with more than 50 pounds
of a high GWP refrigerant. The refrigerant management program is designed to (1) reduce emissions of
high-GWP GHG refrigerants from leaky stationary, non-residential refrigeration equipment; (2) reduce
emissions from the installation and servicing of refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances using high-
GWP refrigerants; and (3) verify GHG emission reductions.
Tractor‐Trailer GHG Regulation
The tractors and trailers subject to this regulation must either use EPA SmartWay certified tractors and
trailers or retrofit their existing fleet with SmartWay verified technologies. The regulation applies primarily
to owners of 53‐foot or longer box‐type trailers, including both dry‐van and refrigerated‐van trailers, and
owners of the HD tractors that pull them on California highways. These owners are responsible for
replacing or retrofitting their affected vehicles with compliant aerodynamic technologies and low rolling
resistance tires. Sleeper cab tractors MY 2011 and later must be SmartWay certified. All other tractors
must use SmartWay verified low rolling resistance tires. There are also requirements for trailers to have
low rolling resistance tires and aerodynamic devices.
Phase I and 2 Heavy-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards
In September 2011, CARB adopted a regulation for GHG emissions from HDTs and engines sold in
California. It establishes GHG emission limits on truck and engine manufacturers and harmonizes with the
EPA rule for new trucks and engines nationally. Existing HD vehicle regulations in California include engine
criteria emission standards, tractor-trailer GHG requirements to implement SmartWay strategies (i.e.,
the Heavy-Duty Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation), and in-use fleet retrofit requirements such as the Truck
and Bus Regulation. The EPA rule has compliance requirements for new compression and spark ignition
engines, as well as trucks from Class 2b through Class 8. Compliance requirements began with MY 2014
with stringency levels increasing through MY 2018. The rule organizes truck compliance into three
groupings, which include a) HD pickups and vans; b) vocational vehicles; and c) combination tractors. The
EPA rule does not regulate trailers.
CARB staff has worked jointly with the EPA and the NHTSA on the next phase of federal GHG emission
standards for medium-duty trucks (MDT) and HDT vehicles, called federal Phase 2. The federal Phase 2
standards were built on the improvements in engine and v ehicle efficiency required by the Phase 1
emission standards and represent a significant opportunity to achieve further GHG reductions for 2018
and later MY HDT vehicles, including trailers.
On March 29, 2024, the EPA announced a final rule to revise existing standards to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from heavy duty vehicles in model year 2027 and set new and more stringent standards for
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 88
model years 2028 through 2032. The rule known as “Phase 3 greenhouse gas”, builds on previous Phase 1
and Phase 2 greenhouse gas rulemakings which were set to collectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from heavy-duty vehicles and engines
SB 97 and the CEQA Guidelines Update
Passed in August 2007, SB 97 added Section 21083.05 to the Public Resources Code. The code states “(a)
On or before July 1, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) shall prepare, develop, and transmit
to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions
as required by this division, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy
consumption. (b) On or before January 1, 2010, the Resources Agency shall certify and adop t guidelines
prepared and developed by the OPR pursuant to subdivision (a).”
In 2012, Public Resources Code Section 21083.05 was amended to state:
“The Office of Planning and Research and the Natural Resources Agency shall periodically
update the guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of
greenhouse gas emissions as required by this division, including, but not limited to, effects
associated with transportation or energy consumption, to incorporate new information or
criteria established by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Division 25.5
(commencing with Section 38500) of the Health and Safety Code.”
On December 28, 2018, the Natural Resources Agency announced the OAL approved the amendments to
the CEQA Guidelines for implementing CEQA. The CEQA Amendments provide guidance to public agencies
regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The CEQA
Amendments fit within the existing CEQA framework by amending existing CEQA Guidelines to reference
climate change.
Section 15064.4 was added to the CEQA Guidelines and states that in determining the significance of a
project’s GHG emissions, the lead agency should focus its analysis on the reasonably foreseeable
incremental contribution of the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change. A project’s
incremental contribution may be cumulatively considerable even if it appears relatively insignificant
compared to statewide, national, or global emissions. The agency’s analysis should consider a timeframe
that is appropriate for the project. The agency’s analysis also must reasonably reflect evolving scientific
knowledge and state regulatory schemes. Additionally, a lead agency may use a model or methodology to
estimate GHG emissions resulting from a project. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or
methodology it considers most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account
the project’s incremental contribution to climate change. The lead agency must support its selection of a
model or methodology with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the
particular model or methodology selected for use.
Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
SCAQMD is the agency responsible for air quality planning and regulation in the SCAB. The SCAQMD
addresses the impacts to climate change of projects subject to SCAQMD permit as a lead agency if they
are the only agency having discretionary approval for the project and acts as a responsible agency when
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 89
a land use agency must also approve discretionary permits for the project. The SCAQMD acts as an expert
commenting agency for impacts to air quality. This expertise carries over to GHG emissions, so the agency
helps local land use agencies through the development of models and emission thresholds that can be
used to address GHG emissions.
In 2008, SCAQMD formed a Working Group to identify GHG emissions thresholds for land use projects
that could be used by local lead agencies in the SCAB. The Working Group developed several different
options that are contained in the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA GHG Significance
Threshold, which could be applied by lead agencies. The working group has not provided additional
guidance since release of the interim guidance in 2008. The SCAQMD Board has not approved the
thresholds; however, the Guidance Document provides substantial evidence supporting the approaches
to significance of GHG emissions that can be considered by the lead agency in adopting its own threshold.
The current interim thresholds consist of the following tiered approach:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption
under CEQA.
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan. If a
project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant GHG
emissions.
• Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with
all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years
and are added to the project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are below one of
the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:
o Residential and commercial land use: 3,000 MTCO2e/yr
o Industrial land use: 10,000 MTCO2e/yr
o Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO 2e/yr; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e/yr; or
mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e/yr
• Tier 4 has the following options:
o Option 1: Reduce Business-as-Usual (BAU) emissions by a certain percentage; this
percentage is currently undefined.
o Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures
o Option 3: 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and
employees: 4.8 MTCO 2e per SP per year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e per SP per year for
plans;
o Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO 2e per SP per year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e per SP
per year for plans
• Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 90
The SCAQMD’s interim thresholds used the Executive Order S-3-05 -year 2050 goal as the basis for the
Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to
cap CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing global climate.
SCAQMD only has authority over GHG emissions from development projects that include air quality
permits. At this time, it is unknown if the Project would include stationary sources of emissions subject to
SCAQMD permits. Notwithstanding, if the Project requires a stationary permit, it would be subject to the
applicable SCAQMD regulations.
SCAQMD Regulation XXVII, amended in 2010, includes the following rules:
• Rule 2700 defines terms and post global warming potentials.
• Rule 2701, SoCal Climate Solutions Exchange, establishes a voluntary program to encourage,
quantify, and certify voluntary, high quality certified GHG emission reductions in the SCAQMD.
• Rule 2702, GHG Reduction Program created a program to produce GHG emission reductions
within the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD would fund projects through contracts in response to requests
for proposals or purchase reductions from other parties.
SCAQMD Rule 2305 & 316
Rule 2305, Warehouse Indirect Source Rule, which includes the Warehouse Actions and Investments to
Reduce Emissions Program (WAIRE), and Rule 316. Rule 2305 establishes for the first time a regulatory
program designed to reduce air pollution (and indirect GHG emissions) caused by warehouse-related
activities and is focused on emissions from vehicles that service large warehouses. Rule 316 establishes a
fee system to support the Rule 2305 program on an ongoing basis. Rules 2305 and 316 apply to operators
and owners of existing and new warehouses with floor space greater than or equal to 100,000-sf within a
single building (i.e., large warehouses). Rules 2305 and 316 require such operators and owners to annually
take actions with respect to their warehouses that either reduce emissions regionally and locally or
facilitate emission reductions. Specifically, owners and operators must “earn” a specific number of WAIRE
Points. However, warehouse owners are only required to earn WAIRE Points if they are also a warehouse
operator. If a warehouse owner is not an operator, they are not required to earn WAIRE Points even if the
operator in their warehouse does not earn the required number of WAIRE Points. Warehouse owners are
only required to submit a Warehouse Operations Notification to the SCAQMD.
The number of WAIRE Points required for a specific operator is based on the intensity of operations
(i.e., number of truck trips and type of trucks) at each of their warehouses every year. The required points
are known as the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation (WPCO). The WPCO is calculated based on a
12-month survey of truck trips entering or exiting the site, the truck data is weighted based on the types
of trucks, and activity is projected for the next year. Thus, the WAIRE Points pay for the prior year’s
emissions based on points earned in subsequent years.
WAIRE Points are earned by implementing a menu of items including purchasing/renting/leasing near-
zero (NZE) and zero emission (ZE) yard equipment and/or trucks, installing on-site ZE fueling stations, and
proving on-site solar PV systems that are intended to offset or reduce warehouse emissions. Owners and
operators may also implement custom WAIRE plans for individual facilities, subject to SCAQMD approval;
or pay mitigation fees to have the SCAQMD implement measures within the SCAB. Owners and operators
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 91
that over-comply may transfer excess WAIRE Points earned in one year to a subsequent year or may
transfer WAIRE points to another site within their control. WAIRE Points cannot be transferred to other
operators and expire after 3 years. Rule 2305 also requires reporting information about facility operations
and recordkeeping. Rule 316 is the companion rule to Rule 2305 and establishes the administrative fees
that Rule 2305 warehouse owners and operators must pay to support SCAQMD compliance activities.
While the Project proponent may be defined as a warehouse owner and would submit a Warehouse
Operation Notice(s), as required, the Project proponent does not intend to be the warehouse operator
and has no knowledge of the future operations. Thus, the specific information required by Rule 2305 for
calculating the WPCO is unavailable, and the necessary number of points is unknown. Finally, the WAIRE
points expire after 3 years and are based on actions of future operators and are thus temporary and could
not be calculated. Therefore, even though the WAIRE program will reduce emissions for warehouse
activities in the region, no emission reductions from the WAIRE Program were calculated for this analysis.
Southern California Association of Governments
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2020 - 2045 RTP/SCS, commonly referred to
as the Connect SoCal. The Connect SoCal charts a course for closely integrating land use and
transportation so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. The strategy was prepared through a
collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county
transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses, and local
stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura.
The Connect SoCal is a long-range vision plan those balances future mobility and housing needs with
economic, environmental, and public health goals. The SCAG region strives toward sustainability through
integrated land use and transportation planning. The SCAG region must achieve specific federal air quality
standards and is required by state law to lower regional GHG emissions.
GHG Thresholds
The City of Menifee has not adopted a project-specific significance threshold and instead relies on
SCAQMD’s recommended Tier 3 screening threshold of 10,000 MTCO 2e/yr. for industrial stationary source
emissions to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions. However, the City has determined
that the SCAQMD’s draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO 2e/yr. is more conservative and appropriate for
industrial and warehouse land use development projects.
The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold is based on a 90% emission “capture” rate methodology. Prior to
its use by the SCAQMD, the 90% emissions capture approach was one of the options suggested by the
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in their CEQA & Climate Change white paper
(2008). A 90% emission capture rate means that unmitigated GHG emissions from the top 90% of all GHG -
producing projects within a geographic area – the SCAB in this instance – would be subject to a detailed
analysis of potential environmental impacts from GHG emissions, while the bottom 10% of all GHG-
producing projects would be excluded from detailed analysis. A GHG significance threshold based on a
90% emission capture rate is appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global
climate change because medium and large projects will be required to implement measures to reduce
GHG emissions, while small projects, which are generally infill development projects that are not the focus
of the State’s GHG reduction targets, are allowed to proceed. Further, a 90% emission capture rate sets
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 92
the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial proportion of future development projects
and demonstrate that cumulative emissions reductions are being achieved while setting the emission
threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will, in aggregate, contribute approximate 1% of
projected statewide GHG emissions in the Year 2050.
In setting the threshold at 3,000 MTCO 2e/yr, SCAQMD researched a database of projects kept by the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). That database contained 798 projects, 87 of which
were removed because they were very large projects and/or outliers that would skew emissions valu es
too high, leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90 th percentile capture rate. The
SCAQMD analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population combined commercial, residential,
and mixed-use projects. It should be noted that the sample of projects included warehouses and other
light industrial land uses but did not include industrial processes (i.e., oil refineries, heavy manufacturing,
electric generating stations, mining operations, etc.). Emissions from each of these projects were
calculated by SCAQMD to provide a consistent method of emissions calculations across the sample
population and from projects within the sample population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD
analysis determined that the 90th percentile ranged between 2,983 to 3,143 MTCO2e/yr. The SCAQMD set
their significance threshold at the low-end value of the range when rounded to the nearest hundred tons
of emissions (i.e., 3,000 MTCO2e per year) to define small projects that are considered less than significant
and do not need to provide further analysis.
The City understands that the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold for residential/commercial uses was proposed
by SCAQMD a decade ago and was adopted as an interim policy; however, no permanent, superseding
policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold was developed and
recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft
Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (2008) document and
subsequent Working Group meetings (latest of which occurred in 2010). SCAQMD has not withdrawn its
support of the interim threshold and all documentation supporting the interim threshold remains on the
SCAQMD website on a page that provides guidance to CEQA practitioners for air quality anal ysis (and
where all SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional and local criteria pollutants and toxic air
contaminants also are listed). Further, as stated by SCAQMD, this threshold “uses the Executive Order S-
3-05 goal [80% below 1990 levels by 2050] as the basis for deriving the screening level” and, thus, remains
valid for use. Lastly, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not thousands of GHG analyses
performed for projects located within the SCAQMD jurisdiction.
Thus, for purposes of analysis in this analysis, if Project-related GHG emissions do not exceed the 3,000
MTCO2e/yr threshold, then Project-related GHG emissions would clearly have a less-than-significant
impact pursuant. On the other hand, if Project-related GHG emissions exceed 3,000 MTCO 2e/yr, the
Project would be considered a substantial source of GHG emissions.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 93
Short-term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project construction activities would generate direct CO 2, N2O, and CH4 emissions from
construction equipment, transport of materials, and construction workers commuting to and from
the Project site. To amortize the emissions over the life of the Project, the SCAQMD recommends
calculating the total GHG emissions for the construction activities, dividing it by a 30-year Project
life then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. As such, construction
emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to the annual operational phase GHG
emissions. The amortized construction emissions are presented in Table 6, Amortized Annual
Construction Emissions below.
Table 6: Amortized Annual Construction Emissions
Year
Emissions (MT/yr.)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e15
2025 665.45 0.03 0.01 0.18 670.51
Total GHG Emissions 665.45 0.03 0.01 0.18 670.51
Amortized Construction
Emissions 22.18 0.00 0.00 0.01 22.35
Source: Urban Crossroads. (2024). Greenhouse Gas Analysis. p. 54 – Table 3-4
As indicated in Table 6, the Project would result in the generation of approximately 22.35 MTCO2e
over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized
over a 30-year period, then added to the operational emissions. The amortized Project
construction emissions would be 22.35 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete,
construction-related GHG emissions would cease.
Long-term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions would occur over the Project’s lifetime. GHG emissions would
result from direct emissions such as Project generated vehicular traffic and operation of any
landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such
as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater
from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any
fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.
The annual GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in the following Table 7,
Project GHG Emissions – Without Mitigation.
15 CalEEMod reports the most common GHGs emitted which include CO 2, CH4, N2O and R. These GHGs are then converted into the CO 2e by
multiplying the individual GHG by the GWP.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 94
Table 7: Project GHG Emissions – Without Mitigation
Emission Source Emissions (MT/yr.)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Annual construction-related
emissions amortized over 30 years 22.18 8.84E-04 4.72E-04 6.10E-03 22.35
Mobile Source 2,107.55 0.04 0.26 2.71 2,188.69
Area Source 5.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.39
Energy Source 198.62 0.02 0.00 0.00 199.78
Water Usage 85.63 2.00 0.05 0.00 149.90
Waste 22.20 2.22 0.00 0.00 77.68
Stationary Source 11.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.46
Total CO2e (All Sources) 2,655.24
Source: Urban Crossroads. (2024). Greenhouse Gas Analysis. p. 54 – Table 3-7
As shown in Table 7, the Project would generate approximately 2,655.24 MTCO2e annually from
both construction and operations and the Project. Project-related GHG emissions would not
exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15604.4, a lead agency may rely on qualitative analysis or
performance-based standards to determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions. As
such, the Project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan, is discussed below. It should be noted
that the Project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan also satisfies consistency with AB 32 since
the 2022 Scoping Plan is based on the overall targets established by AB 32 and SB 32. Consistency
with the 2008 and 2017 Scoping Plan is not necessary since both of these plans have been
superseded by the 2022 Scoping Plan. As previously noted, the 2022 Scoping Plan advocates for
compliance with a local CAP to determine consistency. Since the City does not currently have a
climate action plan, the 2022 Scoping Plan is used to determine consistency.
Table 8, Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan summarizes the reduction actions/strategies by
emissions source category to determine how the project would be consistent with or exceed
reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan, and as shown, the Project would
be consistent with the strategies discussed below.
Table 8: Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan
Reduction Strategy Project Consistency Analysis
GHG Emissions Reductions Relative to the SB 32 Target
40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Consistent. The SB 32 GHG emissions reduction target is not an
Action that is analyzed independently, it is included in Table 2 -1
of the 2022 Scoping Plan for reference. The proposed Project
would not obstruct or conflict with agency efforts to meet the
SB 32 reduction goal.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 95
Reduction Strategy Project Consistency Analysis
Smart Growth / Vehicles Miles Traveled
Reduce VMT per capita to 25% below
2019 levels by 2030, and 30% below
2019 levels by 2045.
Consistent. The Project site would develop the underutilized
land with a 264,710 square foot warehouse building which
includes 10,000 square feet of office support space on an 11.47-
acre site. As noted in the Ethanac Business Park VMT
Assessment, the Project’s effect on VMT was found to remain
the same under the With Project scenario as compared to the
No Project scenario for both the baseline and cumulative
condition, which is below the City’s impact threshold.
Additionally, the Project-generated VMT per service population
was found to be below the City’s impact threshold for the
baseline and cumulative conditions with the inclusion of the
following VMT reductions. The Project will include
transportation measures which would reduce energy
consumption such as commute trip reduction program which
would encourage carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking,
thereby reducing VMT, ridesharing program which encourages
carpooled vehicle trips in place of single-occupied vehicle trips,
thereby reducing the number of trips and VMT, and end-of -trip
bicycle facilities which would ensures provision and
maintenance of secure bike parking and related facilities
encourages commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT and
GHG emissions. Therefore, future workers traveling from and to
the proposed Project would have more access to work and other
destinations and would reduce VMT. Although there are no
specific smart growth reductions proposed, based on the VMT
assessment the Project would have a less than significant VMT
impact which fits within the overall context of reducing VMT. It
is also important to note that the reduction targets identified in
the 2022 Scoping Plan are Statewide and do not necessarily
apply to individual projects. Thus, any project that meets
applicable VMT standards and does not increase VMT per
capita, would be assisting with meeting the Statewide targets.
Lastly, as discussed in Section 3.7.1, the Project would result in
a less than significant GHG impact, which is consistent with the
state goals on GHG policies and one of the primary goals and
objectives of reducing VMT is to reduce GHG emissions. As such,
the Project is consistent with this strategy.
It should be noted that the Smart Growth/VMT reduction target
is not an Action that is analyzed independently, it is included in
Table 2-1 of the 2022 Scoping Plan for reference. The proposed
Project would not obstruct or conflict with agency efforts to
meet the Smart Growth/VMT reduction goal as discussed
herein.
Light-duty Vehicle (LDV) Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs)
100% of LDV sales are ZEV by 2035. Consistent. This strategy is related to LDV sales within California
and the Project would not conflict with implementation of this
action. Additionally, the Project would also support the usage of
ZEV by providing future on-site EV charging per Title 24
standards.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 96
Reduction Strategy Project Consistency Analysis
Truck ZEVs
100% of medium-duty vehicle (MDV)/
heavy-duty vehicle (HDV) sales are ZEV
by 2040.
Consistent. This strategy is related to MDV and HDV sales within
California and the Project would not conflict with
implementation of this action. Additionally, the Project would
also support the usage of ZEV by providing future installation of
raceway conduit and panel power requirements for medium-
and heavy-duty EV supply equipment per Title 24 standard s.
Electricity Generation
Sector GHG target of 38 million metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MMTCO2e) in 2030 and 30 MMTCO2e
in 2035 Retail sales load coverage 20
gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind by
2045 Meet increased demand for
electrification without new fossil gas -
fired resources.
Consistent. The Project would not obstruct with or conflict with
the statewide procurement of renewable generated electricity .
New Residential and Commercial Buildings
All electric appliances beginning 2026
(residential) and 2029 (commercial),
contributing to 6 million heat pumps
installed statewide by 2030.
Consistent. The Project would not conflict with the statewide
goal of 6 million heat pumps installed by 2030.
Construction Equipment
25% of energy demand electrified by
2030 and 75% electrified by 2045.
Consistent. The Project would not conflict with the
implementation of electric off-road equipment. Additionally,
the Project would be required to utilize electric on-site
equipment per the City of Menifee’s Industrial Good Neighbor
Policies.
Low Carbon Fuels for Transportation
Biomass supply is used to produce
conventional and advanced biofuels, as
well as hydrogen.
Consistent. The Project would not conflict with the effort to
increase low carbon fuels for transportation .
Low Carbon Fuels for Buildings and Industry
In 2030s biomethane blended in
pipeline
Renewable hydrogen blended in fossil
gas pipeline at 7% energy (~20% by
volume), ramping up between 2030
and 2040
In 2030s, dedicated hydrogen pipelines
constructed to serve certain industrial
clusters.
Consistent. The Project would not conflict with efforts to
increase low carbon fuels for use in buildings.
Non-combustion Methane Emissions
Divert 75% of organic waste from
landfills by 2025
Consistent. The project would be required to recycle and
compost 75 percent of waste per AB 341. As such, the project
would be consistent with the strategy.
High-GWP Potential Emissions
Low-GWP refrigerants introduced as
building electrification increases,
mitigating HFC emissions.
Consistent. The Project would not conflict with efforts to
introduce low-GWP refrigerants.
Source: Urban Crossroads. (2024). Greenhouse Gas Report. p. 64 -Table 3-8.
The Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the
2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 97
regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan. Some of the current
transportation sector policies the Project will comply with (through vehicle manufacturer
compliance) include: Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Zero
Emission Forklifts, the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer Rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet
Recognition Program, In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, carbon pricing through the
Cap-and-Trade Program, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. As such, the Project as shown
previously in Table 8 and the discussion above, would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan.
The Project would not have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation
of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Setting
Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs,
which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects
have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have m uch longer atmospheric
lifetimes of one year to several thousand years that allow them to be dispersed around the globe.
Cumulative Impacts
An individual project of this size and nature is of insufficient magnitude by itself to influence climate. GHG
impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission
impacts from a climate change perspective. The additive effect of Project-related GHGs would not result
in a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. As discussed
above, the Project’s short-term and long-term GHG emissions would not exceed City’s threshold of 3,000
MTCO2e. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative GHG impact.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 98
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project are a?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X
The following analysis is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Shallow Soil
Investigation Report prepared by Partner Engineering and Science. Both reports are included as Appendix
G1 and Appendix G2 of this IS/MND, respectfully.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 99
Construction
The Project’s construction phase could result in the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials such as gasoline fuels, oils, lubricants, and greases in construction equipment and
coatings. The use of these materials would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as
to pose a significant safety hazard. Additionally, use of these materials would be temporary in
nature and would cease upon completion of the Project’s construction use. The use of these
materials would also be temporary and short-term or single-use in nature and would cease upon
completion of the Project’s construction phase. Project construction would involve the use,
storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and would therefore be required to
conform to existing laws and regulations.
The Project parcels were historically used for agricultural purposes. There is a potential that
agricultural related chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, may have been applied
and stored onsite. However, no specific areas of concern related to agricultural chemical storage
and use were identified and it is anticipated that shallow soils containing any residual agricultural
chemicals will be either removed or mixed with fill materials and further may be placed beneath
structural fill materials during grading and redevelopment activities. Existing on-site operations
include storage and maintenance of mining equipment and trucks, fueling (diesel) from two
aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), and subleased areas for storage containers, bins and truck
trailers. The Project site also has a septic tank and utility connections. As concluded in
Appendix G2, none of the analyzed soil samples contained organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) or
fecal coliform in excess of applicable regulatory screening criteria and/or typical background
concentrations. Additionally, none of the analyzed soil samples exceeded the background
concentrations of metals16 for typical California soils. Furthermore, Partner Engineering did not
identify any recognized environmental condition (REC), controlled recognized environmental
conditions (CREC), historical environmental conditions (HREC) during the Project-specific Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA; Appendix G1).
Concerning environmental issues from existing operations at the Project site, hazardous waste is
generated that includes primarily waste oil stored in one 500-gallon capacity AST and 55-gallon
drums. Additional hazardous substances include diesel fuel (stored in two ASTs: one 7,000-gallon
and one 1,000-gallon capacity tanks), fresh motor oil, DEF (diesel exhaust fluid), gear oil, hydraulic
fluid, antifreeze, and other typical automotive fluids and cleaners. Liquid hazardous waste drums
are situated on secondary containment basins, and the 7,000-gallon AST is situated within a
concrete secondary containment structure. The smaller diesel tank is situated on a metal stand
over gravel and appears to have internal secondary containment; however, that was not
confirmed. No significant staining or leaks were observed by Partner Engineering around the
maintenance or fueling areas. Based on visual observations and regulatory compliance information
that reports no outstanding violations at this time, vehicle maintenance and fueling operations are
considered an environmental issue. Due to the age of the subject property building (1964/65),
there is a potential that asbestos containing materials (ACMs) are present. Overall, suspect ACMs
were observed in good condition and do not pose a health and safety concern to the occupants of
16 These various metals include arsenic; barium; chromium; cobalt; copper; lead; molybdenum; nickel; silver; thallium; vanadium; and zinc .
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 100
the subject property at this time. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) guidelines, suspect materials that are intact and in good condition can, in general, be
managed safely in-place under an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Program until removal is
dictated by renovation, demolition, or deteriorating material condition. Prior to disturbance of the
building materials within the building, an ACM survey would be conducted.
Therefore, disposal or transport of demolition materials and any graded soils from the Project site
may increase the potential for the exposure of hazardous materials. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure (MM) HAZ-1 would ensure proper handling of contaminated soils and substances which
may be encountered. Additionally, compliance with applicable laws and regulations concerning
hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and han dled
in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Therefore, hazards
to the public or the environment arising from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials during Project construction would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Operations
Operation of the Project would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as
industrial cleansers, greases, and oils for cleaning and maintenance purposes. The Project may also
involve transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials; the specific substances and quantities
of such materials are presently unknown. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous
materials would be governed by existing regulations of several agencies, including the U.S. EPA,
U.S. DOT, California OSHA, and the Riverside County Fire Protection District. Compliance with
applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of
hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled
in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Additionally, the
Project would also be operated with strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements
set forth by the Riverside County Fire Protection District. C ompliance with applicable laws and
regulations concerning hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials
are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for significant
hazards to the public or the environment.
While the operation of the Project site is not anticipated to generate significant impacts, mitigation
proposed for the Project’s construction phase would be necessary to reduce potential impacts to
less than significant levels. Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment arising from the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during Project construction and
operations would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures:
MM HAZ-1 Soil Management Plan (SMP). Prior to issuance of a grading permit or trenching
or subsurface excavation for utilities or roadway infrastructure, the Developer
shall retain a qualified environmental professional to prepare a SMP that
details procedures and protocols for on-site management of soils containing
potentially hazardous materials. The purpose of the SMP is to outline protocol
for ensuring the proper handling and/or disposal of impacted soil and/or
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 101
subsurface features of concern that may be encountered during site
development. The SMP shall be submitted to the City’s (Building and Safety
Department) for review and approval prior to commencement of trenching or
subsurface excavation for utilities or roadway infrastructure.
The SMP shall include, but not be limited to:
▪ Land use history, including description and locations of known
contamination;
▪ The nature and extent of previous investigations and remediation at the
site;
▪ Identified areas of concern at the site, in relation to proposed activities;
▪ A listing and description of institutional controls, such as applicable City
ordinances and other local, state, and federal regulations and laws that
would apply to the project;
▪ Names and positions of individuals involved with soils management and
their specific role;
▪ An earthwork schedule;
▪ Requirements for site-specific Health and Safety Plans (HSPs) to be
prepared by all contractors at the project site. The HSP should be prepared
by a Certified Industrial Hygienist and would protect on-site workers by
including engineering controls, personal protective equipment,
monitoring, and security to prevent unauthorized entry and to reduce
construction related hazards. The HSP should address the possibility of
encountering subsurface hazards including hazardous waste
contamination and include procedures to protect workers and the public;
▪ Hazardous waste determination and disposal procedures for known and
previously unidentified contamination, including those associated with
any soil export activities, if applicable;
▪ Requirements for site specific techniques at the site to minimize dust,
manage stockpiles, run on and run-off controls, waste disposal
procedures, etc.; and
▪ Copies of relevant permits or closures from regulatory agencies.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 102
Construction
The construction of the Project could result in hazards to the public or the environment through
the accidental upset or release of hazardous materials caused by accidental spillage of hazardous
materials used during construction phases, or because of the exposure of contaminated soil during
grading activities. As previously discussed in Impact Threshold a) above, no REC, CREC, and HREC
were identified during the Project site’s Phase I ESA. Furthermore, the Project site itself is not on
the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)’s EnviroStor (Cortese list)17. However, the
Phase I ESA identified one 500-gallon capacity AST and 55-gallon drums. Additional hazardous
substances included diesel fuel (stored in two ASTs: one 7,000-gallon and one 1,000-gallon capacity
tanks), fresh motor oil, DEF, gear oil, hydraulic fluid, antifreeze, and other typical automotive fluids
and cleaners. Partner Engineering concluded that no significant staining or leaks were observed
around the maintenance or fueling areas. However, based on visual observations and regulatory
compliance information that reports no outstanding violations at this time, vehicle maintenance
and fueling operations are considered an environmental issue. Additionally, the Phase I ESA
concluded the present of ACMs in the existing property building. ACMs would be managed safely
in-place under an O&M Program until removal is dictated by renovation, demolition, or
deteriorating material condition. Prior to disturbance of the building materials within the building,
an ACM survey would be conducted. Consequently, demolition of existing structure and
equipment and removal of graded soil throughout the site could potentially release some of the
hazardous materials found on the site. Therefore, implementation of MM HAZ-1 and compliance
with all applicable federal, state, and regional regulations would ensure that impacts concerning
the reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment would be mitigated to a less than significant level during the
Project’s construction phase.
Operations
Operation of the Project site would involve typical hazardous materials and chemicals such as
solvents and cleaning products associated with operation of an industrial/warehouse type use. As
discussed in Impact Threshold a) above, any routine transport, use, and disposal of these materials
during warehouse operations must adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for transport,
handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Pursuant to California Health and Safety
Code, Division 10, Chapter 6.95 and California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 5, Chapter 1,
Article 3, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan
(HMBP) that shows conformance with all applicable hazardous materials handling protocols prior
to Project approval (refer to COA-HAZ-1 below). Adherence to these regulations is overseen and
enforced by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials
Division. The Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program provided by the County is designed
17 DTSC. (2024). Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Retrieved
at:https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?PAGE=2&CMD=search&ocieerp=&business_name=&main_street_number=&main
_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&branch=&status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&site_type=CSITES%2CFUDS&cleanup_type=&npl=&funding=
&reporttype=CORTESE&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29&federal_superfund=&state_resp
onse=&voluntary_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&operating=&post_closure=&non_operating=&corrective_action=&tiered_permit=&evaluatio
n=&spec_prog=&national_priority_list=&senate=&congress=&assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&display_results=&sch
ool_district=&pub=&hwmp=False&permitted=&pc_permitted=&inspections=&inspectionsother=&complaints=&censustract=&cesdecile=&O
RDERBY=city&next=Next+50 (accessed April 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 103
to consolidate, coordinate, and uniformly and consistently administer permits, inspection
activities, and enforcement activities throughout Riverside County. Furthermore, household
hazards such as cleaners and solvents contain such low quantities of liquid and material that they
do not pose a significant threat related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Therefore, operation of the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment.
Standard Conditions of Approval
COA-HAZ-1 The Project Applicant shall prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP)
and submit the HMBP to the Riverside County Department of Environmental
Health Hazardous Materials Division. The Project Applicant will be required to
inform the City of Menifee of the certification of the Project-specific HMBP, prior
to Project Approval. The HMBP shall contain detailed information that includes the
following:
• An inventory of hazardous materials at a facility.
• Emergency response plans and procedures to be followed in the event of a
reportable release or threatened release of a hazardous material.
• Requirements to train employees in safety procedures in the event of a release
or threatened release of a hazardous material, including onboarding for new
employees and annual refresher courses for existing employees.
• A site map that depicts north orientation, loading areas, internal roads,
adjacent streets, storm and sewer drains, access and exit points, emergency
shutoffs, evacuation staging areas, hazardous material handling and storage
areas, and emergency response equipment.
Mitigation Measures:
MM HAZ-1 would apply. See Impact Threshold a) above.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would involve the transport, use, and
disposal of hazardous materials on-site and off-site, which include fuels, paints, mechanical fluids,
and solvents, but would not be present in such a quantity or used in such a manner that would
pose a significant hazard to nearby schools. The nearest operating school to the Project site is more
than one-quarter mile to the northeast. Romoland Elementary School is located at 25890 Antelope
Road, Menifee, CA 92585. However, as concluded in Im pact threshold a) above, the types of
hazardous materials used during construction activities would be used in limited quantities and
would be subject to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the use,
handling, or transport of hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable federal, state, regional,
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 104
and local regulations would ensure Project construction would not create a significant hazard to
nearby schools due to the transport of any hazardous materials on local roadways.
During operations, the use of hazardous materials that would be routinely handled on -site would
be limited to cleaners, paints, and solvents typical for cleaning and keep-up and fertilizers and
pesticides for landscaping maintenance. These types of hazardous materials are not considered to
be significantly hazardous or acutely hazardous. Additionally, the Project’s use of hazardous
materials during Project operations would adhere to all applicable federal, state, and local
regarding handling, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the Project would
not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school and a less than significant impact
would occur.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The Project site is not included on the list of hazardous waste sites (Cortese List)
compiled by the DTSC pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.12.18 Additionally, there are
no properties within or near the Project site where a known release has occurred. Therefore, no
impact would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working i n the project area?
Less than Significant Impact. Portions of the City are in the airport influence area (AIA) boundaries
of the March Air Reserve Base (MARB) and the Perris Valley Airport governed by the Riverside
County Airport Land Use Commission (RCALUC). The basic function of airport land use compatibility
plans is to promote compatibility between airports and the land uses that surround them. A
portion of the Perris Valley Airport AIA is located within northwestern part of the City. Part of the
City is in Airport Compatibility Zone E in the Airport Land Use Plan for Perris Valley Airport issued
by the RCALUC. Affected land uses within the AIA would be Economic Development Corridor (EDC)
land uses, and residential land uses. The Project site is not within a compatibility zone of the Perris
Valley Airport.19
The Project site is located within Compatibility Zone E and Zone D of the MARB.20 Within
Compatibility Zone E of the AIA, residential density and non-residential intensity are not restricted.
18 DTSC. (2024). Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Retrieved
at:https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?PAGE=2&CMD=search&ocieerp=&business_name=&main_street_number=&main
_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&branch=&status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&site_type=CSITES%2CFUDS&cleanup_type=&npl=&funding=
&reporttype=CORTESE&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29&federal_superfund=&state_resp
onse=&voluntary_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&operating=&post_closure=&non_operating=&corrective_action=&tiered_permit=&evaluatio
n=&spec_prog=&national_priority_list=&senate=&congress=&assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&display_results=&sch
ool_district=&pub=&hwmp=False&permitted=&pc_permitted=&inspections=&inspectionsother=&complaints=&censustract=&cesdecile=&O
RDERBY=city&next=Next+50 (accessed April 2024).
19 City of Menifee. (2010) General Plan Exhibit LU-5c, Perris Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Map – Map PV-1. Available at:
https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/6010/COM ---GP-Exhibit-LU-5a-c?bidId= (accessed April 2024).
20 City of Menifee. (2014) General Plan Exhibit LU-5b, March Air Reserve Base Land Use Compatibility Map. Available at:
https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/6010/COM ---GP-Exhibit-LU-5a-c?bidId= (accessed April 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 105
Furthermore, based on the MARB Inland Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan – Map MA – 1 noise
impacts are low to moderate and risk of accidents is low. Airspace protection is the major concern
in that aircraft pass over these areas while flying to, from, or around the March Air Reserve Base.
The Project would be in accordance with the Compatibility Zone E regulations, and all state, county,
and local goals, policies, and regulations.
Since the Project site is within Zones D & E, and three legislative actions (I.e., GPA, SPA, and Rezone)
are proposed, the Project requires RCALUC review and approval. The RCALUC sent the City a Letter
of “ALUC Development Review” and noted that the Project would be consistent with the 2014
March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and would be subject to
design standards for outdoor lighting, landscaping and detention basins. The Project would also be
subject to COA-HAZ-2, which requires a notice sign that would be permanently affixed to the
stormwater basin. Furthermore, Since the Project is partially located within Zone D, the Project is
also subject to COA-HAZ-3 and COA-HAZ-4, as noted below. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant with adherence to COA-HAZ-2 through COA-HAZ-4.
Standard Conditions of Approval
COA-HAZ-2 A notice sign, in a form similar to that attached hereto, shall be permanently
affixed to the stormwater basin with the following language:
a) There is an airport nearby. This stormwater basin is designed to hold
stormwater for only 48 hours and not attract birds. Proper maintenance is
necessary to avoid bird strikes”.
The sign will also include the name, telephone number or other contact
information of the person or entity responsible to monitor the stormwater basin.
COA-HAZ-3 The below notice shall be provided to all prospective purchasers of the property
and tenants of the building and shall be recorded as a deed notice.
a) NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the
vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For
that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or
inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example:
noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances [can
vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport
annoyances], if any, are associated with the property before you com plete
your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. Business &
Professions Code Section 11010 (b)(13)(A).
COA-HAZ-4 March Air Reserve Base must be notified of any land use having an
electromagnetic radiation component to assess whether a potential conflict with
Air Base radio communications could result. Sources of electromagnetic radiation
include radio wave transmission in conjunction with remote equipment inclusive
of irrigation controllers, access gates, etc.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 106
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does
it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long -term operation of the
Project, adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles would be maintained along public
streets that abut the Project site. The City has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan to identify
evacuation routes, emergency facilities, and City personnel and equipment available to effectively
deal with emergency situations. No revisions to the adopted Emergency Operations Plan would be
required as a result of the Project. 21 Additionally, as shown in Menifee GP Safety Element
Exhibit S-9, the Project site is not located along a City evacuation route and therefore, Project
construction and operations would not obstruct evacuation. The Project proposes improvements
to nearby roadways at the Project that would further improve the City’s accessibility through the
widening of roads, development of dedicated turn lanes, and other necessary improvements.
Roadway improvements are further discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation of this IS/MND.
Furthermore, response times from the Riverside County Fire Department Station 7 and 54 would
not be impaired by Project implementation since primary access would be provided through the
improvement of Sherman Road. Additionally, the improvement of Sherman Road would improve
future response times in this area, s this road is currently unimproved. The City would also require
the Project to pay development impact fees (DIF) which constitutes as adequate mitigation
because through implementation of the DIF program, the City collects DIF from development
projects and is mandated to use the DIF funds to construct new fire and emergency service
facilities. In addition, the Project’s fire safety and fire suppression features, and the Project’s
compliance with all required design regulations, would further minimize the demand for fire
protection and emergency public services impacts. Refer to Section 4.15, Public Services of this
IS/MND.
Primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction of the Project, as
discussed further in Section 15, Public Services of this IS/MND.
Since both Project construction and operations would not disrupt or interfere with emergency
access to nearby roadways, would not interfere with the City’s emergency response plan, and
would comply with design standards for emergency services, impacts would be less than
significant.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area and is not
located within a State Responsibility Area or a very high fire hazard severity zone.22 According to
the Menifee GP Exhibit S-8, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Public Facilities, neither the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (C AL FIRE) nor the City identify the Project
21 City of Menifee. (2021). Emergency Operations Plan. Retrieved from: https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/12396/Emergency -
Operations-Plan-EOP?bidId= (accessed July 2024).
22 CAL FIRE. (2024). FHSZ Viewer. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-
hazard-severity-zones (accessed April 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 107
site within an area susceptible to wildland fires.23 Therefore, the Project would not expose people
or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death due to wildland
fires and no impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
The Project’s impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials are anticipated to be less than
significant with adherence to federal, State, and local regulations and standards. Cumulative development
would also be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations perform (as necessary) site specific
environmental site assessments to reduce impacts related to the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous
materials. Therefore, the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to or from hazards
or hazardous materials.
23 City of Menifee. (2021). General Plan Safety Element Exhibit S-8 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Public Facilities. Retrieved from:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/14710/2_Safety_Exhibits_8 -5_2021-8---Very-High-Fire-Hazard-Severity-Zoones-and-
Public-Facilities (accessed April 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 108
Hydrology and Water Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
X
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-
site?
X
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or offsite?
X
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff ?
X
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
A Preliminary WQMP and Preliminary Hydrology Report were prepared for the Project by Huitt-Zollars,
Inc. These studies are included as Appendix H1 and Appendix H2 of this IS/MND, respectfully.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 109
Construction
The Project’s construction and ground disturbance activities could impact water quality due to
sheet erosion of exposed soils, and subsequent deposition of sediment or pollutants entering
nearby drainages. For example, grading activities lead to exposed areas of loose soil sediment
stockpiles that are prone to uncontrolled sheet flow. Additionally, occupants of the Project could
store fuels, lubricants, and solid and liquid wastes which are generally used during construction
activities. Although erosion occurs naturally, primarily from rainy or windy conditions, improperly
managed construction activities and vehicle maintenance can lead to substantially accelerated
rates of erosion in the form of stormwater that could substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality.
Accordingly, the Project would comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Construction General Permit, the Menifee GP Policies pertaining water quality and the
Riverside County DAMP, all which require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP in order
to obtain grading and building permits. The SWPPP shall identify site-specific construction BMPs
to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater and non-stormwater runoff
from the Project site.
BMPs are designed to control and prevent discharges of pollutants that can adversely impact the
downstream surface water quality. Construction activities are also required to comply with the
City’s Stormwater/Urban Runoff Ordinance,24 the City’s Grading Ordinance,25 and other required
regulations. With the implementation of BMPs as described in the SWPPP (see MM HYD-1), the
Project is not anticipated to violate water quality standards during construction. Therefore,
impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Project runoff would be directed to the on-site underground detention basin and pump system,
that is sized for WQMP and hydrologic condition of concern (HCOC) mitigation, located along the
east property line. Site runoff from the south half of the site, including the building roof, truck
court, drive aisles and parking lots, would be collected by catch basins. The collected runoff would
then be conveyed through the proposed on-site storm drain Line A and discharged to the
underground detention basin/pump system. Site runoff from the north half of the site, including
the building roof, truck court, drive aisles and parking lots, would be collected by catch basins. The
collected runoff would then be conveyed through the proposed on-site storm drain Line B and
discharge to the detention basin/pump system.
The design capture volume of runoff and mitigated volume for HCOC would be pumped to a
treatment device through storm drain Line C located at the southwest corner and would discharge
to the outlet through the property to the south. Any storm greater than the 2-year 24-hour storm
will top the weir in the diversion structure and outlet into the proposed Storm Drain outlet being
proposed on the project to the west. The runoff will convey west to Trumble Road and then south
on Trumble Road to the existing RCFC Romoland channel Line A just north of Mclaughlin Road.
Therefore, as concluded in Appendix H2, the proposed on-site drainage and storm drain facilities
24 City of Menifee. (2023). Menifee MC Chapter 15.01, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Ordinance. Retrieved from:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/menifee/latest/menifee_ca/0-0-0-2967 (accessed January 2024).
25 City of Menifee. (2019). Menifee MC Chapter 8.26 Grading Regulations. Retrieved from:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/9236/Final-Grading-Ordinance?bidId= (accessed on January 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 110
will be sized adequately for 100-year storm event. Additional calculations, including on-site storm
drain hydraulics and catch basin sizing in addition to any other storm event models will be provided
in the final drainage report.
Additionally, the Project’s construction activities are also required to comply with the City’s
Stormwater/ Urban Runoff Ordinance, the City’s Grading Ordinance, and other required
regulations. With the implementation of BMPs as described in the SWPPP (see MM HYD-1), the
Project is not anticipated to violate water quality standards during construction. Furthermore, the
Project Applicant will prepare a final Project-Specific WQMP with an operations and maintenance
(O&M) Plan which would identify Project BMPs pursuant to MM HYD-2. Therefore, impacts would
be reduced to a less than significant level.
Operations
Typical stormwater water-related pollutants of concern for warehousing development includes but
is not limited to pesticides and herbicides uses for landscaping; trash/debris from trash enclosures
and break areas; and fluids from motor vehicles spilled onto paved areas. Accordingly, the Project
would be designed with an extensive drainage plan which includes ribbon gutters, subsurface
storm drains, curb cuts, u-channels, and detention basins. The basins are designed to weaken the
flow of post-development runoff to pre-development conditions, and have been designed to treat
runoff for pollutants, pursuant to SWRCB regulations. Additionally, the Project would comply with
the NPDES Municipal Permit, the Menifee GP, and the DAMP, which require implementation of
post-construction BMPs in accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River
Basin. In addition, the Santa Ana MS4 Permit requires the preparation of a project-specific WQMP
for all development projects and, as such, a project-specific WQMP has been prepared for the
Project. The Project-Specific WQMP (see Appendix H1) has incorporated combined low-impact
development (LID) treatment, hydrologic control BMPs, and sediment supply BMPs. A final WQMP
will be required to address BMP sizing and O&M plan, pursuant to MM HYD-2.
The WQMP would comply with the requirements set in Menifee MC Section 15.01 Storm
Water/Urban Runoff, which includes the requirement for the preparation and implementation of
a Project-Specific WQMP, and has outlined all BMPs designed to meet water quality standards and
mitigate any adverse impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Mitigation Measures:
MM HYD-1 Prior to commencing grading, the Project Applicant shall comply with applicable
construction water quality regulations including the NPDES General Construction
Permit, which shall be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
This process requires that the applicant electronically submit Permit Registration
Documents (PRDs) prior to commencement of construction activities in the Storm
Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). PRDs consist of
the NOI, Risk Assessment, Post-Construction Calculations, a Site Map, the SWPPP,
a signed certification statement by the Legally Responsible Person, and the first
annual fee.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 111
The required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be submitted to
the City of Menifee Engineering Department for review and approval, identifying
specific actions and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent stormwater
pollution during construction activities. The SWPPP shall identify a practical
sequence for BMP implementation, site restoration, contingency measures,
responsible parties, and agency contacts. The SWPPP shall include but not be
limited to the following elements:
A. Compliance with the requirements of the State of California’s most current
Construction Stormwater Permit.
B. Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented on all disturbed
areas.
C. Disturbed surfaces shall be treated with erosion control measures during the
October 15 to April 15 rainy season.
D. Sediment shall be retained on-site by a system of sediment basins, traps, or
other BMPs.
E. The construction contractor shall prepare Standard Operating Procedures for
the handling of hazardous materials on the construction site to eliminate
discharge of materials to storm drains.
F. BMP performance and effectiveness shall be determined either by visual
means where applicable (e.g., observation of above-normal sediment release),
or by actual water sampling in cases where verification of contaminant
reduction or elimination (such as inadvertent petroleum release) is required
by the Santa Ana RWQCB to determine adequacy of the measure.
G. In the event of significant construction delays or delays in final landscape
installation, native grasses or other appropriate vegetative cover shall be
established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance, as
an interim erosion control measure throughout the duration of construction.
H. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the Project Applicant shall
submit all applicable engineering plans that includes the water quality BMPs
for approval by the City of Menifee Engineer. The City of Menifee Engineer
shall ensure that all applicable water quality standards are met before
approving the SWPPP.
MM HYD-2 The Project Applicant shall prepare a Final Project-Specific Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) with O&M Plan for submittal together with the
associated grading and improvement plans which shall be approved prior to the
issuance of a building or grading permit. These documents shall be prepared in
accordance with applicable City (Menifee) and County (Riverside) water quality
requirements, for review and approval by the City of Menifee Engineering
Department, including the following:
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 112
• Site Design BMPs
• Source Control BMPs
• Treatment Control BMPs
• BMP Sizing
• Equivalent Treatment Control Alternatives
• Regionally-Based Treatment Control BMPs
• Q&M Responsibility for Treatment Control BMPs
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
Less than Significant Impact.
The Project site overlies the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin and within the service area of E astern
Municipal Water District (EMWD). The Project would construct on-site and off-site potable water
and recycled water systems in accordance with EMWD design standards to receive water services
from EWMD. Thus, the Project would utilize potable and recycled water and would not use any on-
site or off-site groundwater wells, nor any other groundwater extractive methods to service the
Project. A Water and Sewer Service Will-service letter (refer to Appendix K) stated that EMWD is
willingly to provide water and sewer services to the Project site. The Project proposes domestic
and fire water extensions from the existing recycled water line and 12-inch water lines located on
Sherman Road right-of-way. Accordingly, implementation of the Project in this regard would not
substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies or directly impact groundwater supplies.
Impacts would be less than significant.
As further discussed in Section 4.19, Utilities and Systems, considering current as well as Project
water demand through the year 2045 in both normal, and single, and multiple dry year scenarios,
EMWD has ability to meet all of its member agencies’, including the Project’s projected
supplemental demand through 2045, even under a repeat of historic multiple-year drought
scenarios. EMWD plans to supply new water demands in its service area, including the Project,
through a combination of additional imported water purchases from MWD and the ongoing
development of EMWD’s local supply resources.
While construction activities would introduce new impermeable surfaces to the Project site, the
Project would include elements to reduce the effects of the new impervious areas pursuant to
design measures in the SWPPP and WQMP. These measures include, but are not limited to, LID
BMPs and other stormwater drainage controls. The LIDs would be engineered to capture and
control run-off prior to being released downstream. This would increase the duration that water is
held on-site prior to being released to downstream receiving waters. This timed-release allows
water to slowly infiltrate the ground and helps facilitate recharge. In addition, LIDs that include
permeable materials, enable run-off to immediately infiltrate and begin the recharge process.
More specifically, as concluded in the preliminary WQMP (Appendix H1), the site’s drainage design
has incorporated a bio-retention basin located on the west side of the Project site. All site drainage
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 113
would be conveyed to the bio-retention area where the runoff will be allowed to pass through a
filter media, stone section, and through perforated a pipe network beneath the basin footprint
which would ultimately convey the runoff out to the proposed public storm drain system located
on Dawson Road Lastly, the Project site also includes areas that would be landscaped with
permeable surfaces in accordance with EMWD’s Water Efficient Guidelines for New Development,
which also would facilitate groundwater recharge. Therefore, with the required measures in place,
the loss of the permeable area would not be substantial and groundwater recharge would maintain
pre-project conditions. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces,
in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . The Project site is developed with an
existing operating sand and gravel supply company, which includes an office building, located in
the northeastern corner of the site. Runoff from the existing site sheet flows across the property
and conveys west to Trumble Road and then south onto Tumble Road towards an inlet near the
existing channel due to lack of manmade infrastructure. As noted in the Preliminary Hydrology
Report, the Project’s runoff would be directed to the on-site underground detention basin and
pump system, that is sized for WQMP and hydrologic condition of concern (HCOC) mitigation,
located along the east property line. Project site runoff from the southern half of the site, including
the building roof, truck court, drive aisles and parking lots, would be collected by catch basins. The
collected runoff would then be conveyed through the proposed on-site storm drain Line A and
discharged to the underground detention basin/pump system. Site runoff from the north half of
the site, including the building roof, truck court, drive aisles and parking lots, would be collected
by catch basins. The collected runoff would then be conveyed through the proposed on-site storm
drain Line B and discharge to the detention basin/pump system.
Therefore, development of the Project would alter the existing drainage pattern site; however, the
Project would preserve the existing drainage pattern to the west. Additionally, per the Preliminary
Hydrology Report, alterations to the existing drainage pattern would be required to be to
adequately size on-site drainage and storm drain facilities for 100-year 1-hour storm and 2-year
24-hour storm events.
As discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, through excavation, site stripping, removal of the
fill material, grading preparation, and demolition, the development of the Project could result in
soil erosion if exposed to periods of high wind or storm-related events. General dust control
measures such as watering would be required to minimize erosion. Construction contractors would
also be required to prepare a dust control plan in compliance with South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 to further reduce soil erosion from wind. Furthermore,
the Project would be subject to site-specific BMPs included in the WQMP and BMPs which would
further minimize potential impacts from erosion and siltation (see MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2 above).
Thus, with implementation of BMPs included and NPDES, SWPPP, and WQMP, the Project will not
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 114
substantial erosion or siltation and impacts in this regard would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures:
See MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2 above.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite?
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As shown in Exhibit 14, FEMA National
Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette, the Project is predominately within a Flood Boundary identified as
Zone X: 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard. A small portion of the southern Project site is
identified as Zone X: Area of Minimal Flood Hazard. Implementation of the Project would introduce
impervious surfaces on the site; therefore, increasing the amount and rate of surface runoff which
could lead to flooding. As mentioned in the previous impacts, the Project Applicant prepared the
Preliminary Hydrology Report that determined that the Project’s proposed drainage system would
be designed and sized adequately for 100-year storm and 2-year 24-hour storm events.
Development of the Project would introduce more impervious surfaces on the site; therefore,
increasing the amount and rate of surface runoff. To address this concern, the Project Applicant
prepared a Preliminary Hydrology Study (Appendix H2) based on Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD)’s Hydrology Manual criteria.
The Project’s proposed drainage system includes on-site detentions basins and bio-retention
basins, combined with a comprehensive on-site and off-site storm drainage system. These
drainage design improvements are included in the Project design plans. The drainage design
recommendations are included in the Project design plans and have been designed to ensure that
all on- and off-site drainage and storm drain facilities would be adequately sized for the 100-year
storm event. Additionally, the Project would implement MM HYD-3, which would require that the
Project Applicant to submit final grading and drainage plans for review and approval by the City
and the RCFCWCD, prior to issuance of any grading permit, to ensure that the Project does not
result in increased flows off-site or otherwise significantly impact downstream drainage facilities.
The drainage design would prevent flooding on- and off-site due to an increase in surface water
runoff, resulting in impacts to surface runoff being less than significant with mitigation
incorporated. The proposed drainage system design also includes off-site improvements at
Sherman Road (analyzed as part of the previously approved Menifee Commerce Center project
and analyzed as part of that EIR). Should the previously approved Menifee Commerce Center
project not be developed prior to the proposed Project, the proposed Project is conditioned to
develop these improvements prior to construction. Lastly, design features pursuant to the BMPs
in the WQMP and SWPPP would be implemented to collect any excess runoff that may flow
through the site (refer to MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 116
With proposed infrastructure improvements and implementation MMs HYD-1 through HYD-3, the
Project would not cause additional flooding, exceed the capacity of existing drainage facilities, or
impede or redirect flood flows such that on-site or off-site areas are significantly impacted.
Mitigation Measures:
See MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2 above.
MM HYD-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, grading plans, and final drainage study shall
demonstrate compliance with applicable City and County drainage plans, policies,
design guidelines and regulations including but not limited to City of Menifee
Municipal Code Chapter 8.26 Grading Regulations.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. As shown in Exhibit 14, the Project is predominately within a Flood
Boundary identified as Zone X 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard, while small portion of the
southern Project site is identified as Zone X Area of Minimal Flood Hazard. The Project would
develop the Project site with industrial uses and associated infrastructure that would cause
changes drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff that could impede or
redirect flood flows. However, as concluded above, the Project’s on-site and off-site flows would
be collected by a system of catch basins located on- and off-site which would convey runoff to
proposed on-site storm drains Line A and B and discharged to the proposed underground detention
basin/pump system. The captured stormwater will be pumped to a treatment device through
storm drain Line C located at the southwest corner and will discharge to the outlet through the
property to the south. Any storm greater than the 2-year 24-hour storm will top the weir in the
diversion structure and outlet into the proposed Storm Drain outlet being proposed on the project
to the west. The runoff will convey west to Trumble Road and then south on Trumble Road to the
existing RCFC Romo Land channel line A just north of Mclaughlin Road.
Therefore, with implementation of efficient design measures (MM HYD-3) and applicable BMPs
pursuant the Project’s WQMP and SWPPP (MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2), the Project would not
substantially impede or redirect flood flows, and no on-site flooding would occur.
Mitigation Measures:
See MMs HYD-1 through HYD-3 above.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project is inland and is not at risk
for inundation from a tsunami since the Project site more than 30 miles from the Pacific Ocean.
The Project site is not within a seiche zone but is subject to inundation due to dam failure from the
Diamond Valley Lake East Dam. Furthermore, as discussed above, the northeastern portion of the
Project site is largely within an area determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance
floodplain, identified as Zone X. A small portion of the southern Project site is identified as Zone X
Area of Minimal Flood Hazard.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 117
Although the Project could risk the release of pollutants due to inundation from the Diamond
Valley Lake East Dam and flooding , BMPs have been incorporated into the Project’s site design to
fully address these issues. As noted in the Preliminary Drainage Report, with the implementation
of the proposed on- and off-site drainage improvements, runoff would be conveyed to the
corresponding detention basins which would be designed and sized to appropriately to provide
flood protection for the 100 -year storm event. As such, the Project would implement BMP’s and
efficient design measures pursuant to the Project’s WQMP and SWPPP (MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2),
that includes, but is not limited to, the pretreatment of runoff through the proposed bioretention
basin. Lastly, the Project Applicant shall be required to submit final grading and drainage plans for
review and approval by the City, prior to issuance of any grading permit, to ensure that the Project
does not result in increased flows off-site or otherwise significantly impact downstream drainage
facilities (MM HYD-3). Therefore, the Project ‘s impacts regarding the risk of pollutants due to
inundation would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
See MMs HYD-1 through HYD-3 above.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. For groundwater management plan and reporting purposes, the
San Jacinto Groundwater Basin is further separated into the Hemet/San Jacinto Management Plan
Area, where the San Jacinto Fault Zone strongly influences the groundwater hydrology and is
adjudicated under the Hemet-San Jacinto Watermaster, and the West San Jacinto Management
Plan Area (submitted to the DWR on January 31, 2022), for which EMWD is the designated
Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). As discussed in the previous impact analyses, the
Project’s components would not obstruct groundwater facilities as groundwater facilities are not
planned by EMWD for this Project. Furthermore, the Project would not substantially deplete or
decrease groundwater supplies or directly impact groundwater supplies because the Project’s
proposed BMPs would include design features that would assist in the recharge of groundwater
supplies. Thus, the Project would not conflict with the Hemet/San Jacinto Groundwater
Management Plan or the West Jacinto Groundwater Basin Management Plan. Therefore, a less
than significant impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
Potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality are typically site-specific. As concluded above,
the Project’s hydrology and water quality-related impacts would be less than significant with compliance
with all applicable State, and local regulations and standards, including preparation and implementation
of MMs HYD-1 through HYD-3. As a result, no cumulative impacts would occur.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 118
Land Use and Planning
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict
with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
X
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. A Project involves the development of 264,710 sq. ft. of warehouse space within an
11.4-acre site, with associated facilities and infrastructure improvements. The Project would
occupy an area to be fully designated/classified as Menifee North SP (industrial), upon approval of
the proposed GPA, ZC, and SPA. More specifically, the Project is in PA 2 of the Menifee North SP
which is designated for industrial usage. The surrounding land uses to the Project site include an
industrial building to north; non-conforming single-family residences, vacant lots, and Trumble
Road to the west; a vacant lot to the south; and Sherman Road and vacant land to the east.
Although the Project is located near residential homes, the single-family residences to the west are
not part of an established community and are classified as non-conforming uses since residential
uses are not allowed with the HI land use designation and zoning. Lastly, the Project would not
involve the removal of vital roadways or points of connection for residents . Therefore,
development of the Project would not divide an established community and no impact would
occur.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project’s current land use designations, depicted by the Menifee
GP Land Use Map, are HI and Menifee North SP.26 The City’s Zoning Map indicates the Project site
is designated as HI and Menifee North SP.27 The Project Applicant proposes industrial uses which
are permitted within the HI and Menifee North SP land use designation and zoning classification.
The Project Applicant proposes a GPA, ZC, and SPA that would redesignate the portion of the
Project under the HI land use designation and zoning classification as Menifee North SP. Upon
approval of the proposed entitlements, the Project would be designed in conformance with
applicable Menifee North SP design standards and guidelines. Additionally, given that the Menifee
GP and Menifee North SP Planning Area 2 considered the potential environmental impacts
26 City of Menifee. (2023). General Plan – Land Use Map. Retrieved from: https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/11043/General-
Plan--Land-Use-Map---March-2023 (accessed March 2024).
27 City of Menifee. (2023). Zoning Map. Retrieved from: https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/11042/Zoning-Map---March-2023
(accessed March 2024)
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 119
associated with industrial uses, the Project would not create any new or greater environmental
impacts than those identified in the Menifee GP EIR and Menifee North SP.
Cumulative Impacts
Land use impacts would not be cumulatively considerable if the Project, in conjunction with other past,
present, reasonably foreseeable future projects, would be designed or otherwise conditioned to maintain
consistency with adopted land use plans and ordinances or be amended with the appropriate mitigation
and conditions of approval. As concluded above, the Project would neither physically divide an established
community nor inhibit future development since the Project would serve to improve the general Project
area are consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designations. As a result, the Project would result
in a less than significant cumulative impact associated with land use and planning.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 120
Mineral Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) requires classification of
land into mineral resource zones (MRZs) according to the known or inferred mineral potential of
the area. Under SMARA, areas are categorized into MRZs as follows:
MRZ-1: Areas where available geologic information indicates that little likelihood exists for
the presence of significant mineral resources.
MRZ-2: Areas where geologic data indicate that significant PCC-Grade aggregate resources
are present.
MRZ-3: Areas containing known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral
resource significance.
According to the Menifee GP Exhibit OSC-3 Mineral Resource Zones,28 the Project site is classified
as “Urban Area,” which means that there is no MRZ associated with this area.29 Additionally, the
Project would be within an area of the City that is currently disturbed and partially developed.
Lastly, the existing uses on site do not include mineral refinement or mining. Thus, development
of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state, and no impact would occur.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. As stated above, the Project would be within an area of the City that is currently
disturbed and partially developed. Additionally, existing uses on the site do not include mineral
refinement or mining. Lastly, review of the Department of Conservation’s Mines Online Mapper
28 City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee GP Exhibit OSC -3: Mineral Resource Zone: Retrieved from:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1084/ExhibitOSC -3_Mineral_Resource_Zones_HD0913?bidId= (accessed
January 2024).
29 City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee GP Open Space and Conservation Element. Pg. 7. Available at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1081/3_OSC_Background -Document_HD_0913?bidId= (accessed January 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 121
did not identify active mining sites within the City, including the Project site. Therefore,
development of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on the City’s general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
No Impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
As concluded above, the Project would not have an impact since the Project site does not contain any
mineral resources and would not have any impact due to the removal or loss of availability of these
resources. As such, the Project would not result in a significant cumulative impact associated with mineral
resources.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 122
Noise
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
X
A Noise and Vibration Analysis was prepared by Urban Crossroads in August 2024. The Noise calculations
are included in this IS/MND as Appendix I, and the results are summarized herein.
Fundamentals
Noise is simply defined as unwanted sound. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal
activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured
on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A -weighted decibels (dBA)
approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating
against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those
frequencies which are audible to the human ear.
Range of Noise
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to
measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring
intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than
before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (2) The most common sounds
vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at
60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA at approximately 1,000 feet, which can cause
serious discomfort. Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is
described and distributed in time.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 123
Noise Descriptors
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels.
The most used metric is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but
are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent
sound level (Leq ) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying
signal over a given sample period and is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the
environment.
Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment.
Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most
desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted
average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The
time-of-day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00
p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA L eq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening
and night hours when noise can become more intrusive. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level
heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City relies on the 24-hour CNEL
level to assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources.
Sound Propagation and Attenuation
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The way noise reduces
with distance depends on the following factors.
Geometric Spreading
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical
pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a
point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be
treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source
propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels
attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source.
Ground Absorption
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receiver is usually very close to the ground. Noise
attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated
with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of
attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of
less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the
receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically
absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the
receiver such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of
1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess
ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 124
Atmospheric Effects
Receivers located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm
conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at
large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing
temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also
have significant effects.
Shielding
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate
noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the
object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation
typically only has an “out of sight, out of mind” effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to
decrease when vegetation blocks the line-of-sight to nearby residents. However, for vegetation to provide
a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height,
100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line-of-sight between the source and the
receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure.
Noise Control
Noise control is the process of obtaining an acceptable noise environment for an observation point or
receiver by controlling the noise source, transmission path, receiver, or all three. This concept is known
as the source-path-receiver concept. In general, noise control measures can be applied to these three
elements.
Noise Barrier Attenuation
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in
half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receiver. Noise barriers,
however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must block the line-of-sight path of sound
from the noise source.
Land Use Compatibility with Noise
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and
residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and
related activities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so
too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a
community by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop and work. For this reason, land use
compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design
process. The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate land development in such a way
that noise-sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that the
developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 125
Community Response to Noise
Approximately sixteen percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any
noise not of their making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints may occur.
Twenty to thirty percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments .
Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment.
Surveys have shown that community response to noise varies from no reaction to vigorous action for
newly introduced noises averaging from 10 dB below existing to 25 dB above existing. According to
research originally published in the Noise Effects Handbook, the percentage of high annoyance ranges
from approximately 0 percent at 45 dB or less, 10 percent are highly annoyed around 60 dB, and increases
rapidly to approximately 70 percent being highly annoyed at approximately 85 dB or greater. Despite this
variability in behavior on an individual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following
responses to changes in noise levels as shown on Exhibit 2 -B. A change of 3 dBA is considered barely
perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible.
Vibration
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual,
vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of
room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural
phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g.,
explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous,
such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground-
borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency.
Additionally, in contrast to airborne noise, ground-borne vibration outdoors is not a common
environmental problem and annoyance from ground-borne vibration is almost exclusively an indoor
phenomenon. Therefore, the effects of vibrations should only be evaluated at a structure and the effects
of the building structure on the vibration should be considered. Wood-frame buildings, such as typical
residential structures, are more easily excited by ground vibration than heavier buildings. In contrast, large
masonry buildings with spread footings have a low response to ground vibration. In general, the heavier
a building is, the lower the response will be to the incident vibration energy. However, all structures
reduce vibration levels due to the coupling of the building to the soil. There are several different methods
that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum
instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts
to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some
time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average
vibration amplitude often described as the root mean square (RMS). The RMS amplitude is defined as the
average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe the effect of
vibration on the human body. However, the RMS amplitude and PPV are related mathematically, and the
RMS amplitude of equipment is typically calculated from the PPV reference level. The RMS amplitude is
approximately 70% of the PPV. Thus, either can be used in the description of vibration impacts.
While not universally accepted, vibration decibel notation (VdB) is another vibration notation developed
and used by the FTA in their guidance manual to describe vibration levels and provide a background of
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 126
common vibration levels and set vibration limits. Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of
numbers used to describe vibration levels and is used in this report to describe vibration levels. As stated
in the FTA guidance manual, the background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50
VdB. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most
people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible
and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are
construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the
ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is
the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor
damage can occur in fragile buildings.
Regulatory Setting
State
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city
adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize
the land use compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services. The
guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable,”
“normally unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. Single-family
homes are “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and “conditionally
acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are “normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and
“conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries, and churches are “normally acceptable” up
to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial, and professional uses.
Title 24 – Building Code
The State’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Part 1,
Building Standards Administrative Code, and Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are
applied to new construction in California for interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The
regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as
residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noi se sources, and
where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that
accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise
in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new multi-family residential buildings, the acceptable
interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.
Local
Menifee General Plan – Noise Element
Goal N-1: Noise-sensitive land uses are protected from excessive noise and vibration exposure.
Policy N-1.1: Assess the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment when
preparing, revising, or reviewing development project applications.
Policy N-1.2: Require new projects to comply with the noise standards of local, regional, and state
building code regulations, including but not limited to the City's Municipal Code, Title 24
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 127
of the California Code of Regulations, the California Green Building Code, and
subdivision and development codes.
Policy N-1.3: Require noise abatement measures to enforce compliance with any applicable
regulatory mechanisms, including building codes and subdivision and zoning
regulations, and ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented.
Policy N-1.7: Mitigate exterior and interior noises to the levels listed in the table below to the extent
feasible, for stationary sources adjacent to sensitive receptors:
Table 9: Stationary Source Noise Standards
Land Use Interior Standards Exterior Standards
Residential
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
40 Leq (10 minute)
55 Leq (10 minute)
45 Leq (10 minute)
65 Leq (10 minute)
Policy N-1.8: Locate new development in areas where noise levels are appropriate for the proposed
uses. Consider federal, state, and City noise standards and guidelines as a part of new
development review.
Policy N-1.9: Limit the development of new noise-producing uses adjacent to noise-sensitive
receptors and require that new noise-producing land be designed with adequate noise
abatement measures.
Policy N-1.10: Guide noise-tolerant land uses into areas irrevocably committed to land uses that are
noise-producing, such as transportation corridors adjacent to the I-215 or within the
projected noise contours of any adjacent airports.
Policy N-1.11: Discourage the siting of noise-sensitive uses in areas in excess of 65 dBA CNEL without
appropriate mitigation.
Policy N-1.12: Minimize potential noise impacts associated with the development of mixed -use
projects (vertical or horizontal mixed-use) where residential units are located above or
adjacent to noise-generating uses.
Policy N-1.13: Require new development to minimize vibration impacts to adjacent uses during
demolition and construction.
Goal N-2: Minimal Noise Spillover. Minimal noise spillover from noise-generating uses, such as
agriculture, commercial, and industrial uses into adjoining noise -sensitive uses.
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact.
Construction
Day Time Analysis
Project construction would result in a temporary increase in noise levels in the Project vicinity.
Construction noise varies depending on the construction process, type of equipment involved,
location of the construction site with respect to sensitive receptors, the schedule proposed to carry
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 128
out each task (e.g., hours and days of the week) and the duration of the construction work . The
FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual recognizes that construction projects
are accomplished in several different stages and outlines the procedures for assessing noise
impacts during construction. Each stage has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to
be completed during that stage. As a result of the equipment mix, each stage has its own noise
characteristics; some stages have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have
higher impact noise levels than others. Primary noise from Project construction would be from site
preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating.
To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at
nearest receiver locations (see Exhibit 15, Sensitive Noise Receiver Locations), a construction-
related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq was used as a reasonable threshold to assess
the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the
nearest receiver locations will satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA L eq significance threshold
during Project construction activities as shown in Table 10, Construction Noise Level Compliance.
Additionally, the impacts related to construction would be short term and would not persist
following the conclusion of construction and would not result in significant impacts.
Table 10: Construction Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq )
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold
Exceeded?
R1 59.1 80 No
R2 57.2 80 No
R3 54.8 80 No
R4 56.1 80 No
R5 62.0 80 No
1 Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Appendix I Exhibit 10-A.
2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the
nearest receiver locations as shown on Appendix I Table 10 -2.
3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown on Appendix I Table 4-1.
Urban Crossroads. (2024). Noise and Vibration Analysis. p. 54 – Table 10-3. See Appendix I
Nighttime Analysis
Nighttime concrete pouring activities may occur as a part of Project building construction activities.
Nighttime concrete pouring activities are often used to support reduced concrete mixer truck
transit times and lower air temperatures than during the daytime hours and are generally limited
to the actual building pad area. Since the nighttime concrete pour s will take place outside the
permitted City of Menifee Development Code Section 9.210.060[C] of the City of Menifee
Development Code indicates that construction activity is restricted to the hours within 6:30 a .m.
and 7:00 p.m. with no activity allowed on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays. The Project
Applicant will be required to obtain authorization for nighttime work from the City.
Source: Urban Crossroads. (2024). Noise and Vibration Analysis - Exhibit 8-A
Exhibit 15: Sensitive Noise Receiver Locations
City of Menifee
Ethanac Business Park
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 130
As shown in Table 11, Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Level Compliance , the noise levels
associated with the nighttime concrete pour activities are estimated to range from 37.2 to 46.7
dBA Leq at the existing noise sensitive receiver locations. The analysis shows that the unmitigated
nighttime concrete pour activities will not exceed the FTA 70 dBA Leq nighttime residential noise
level threshold at all the nearest noise sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, the noise impacts
due to Project construction nighttime concrete pour noise activity are considered less than
significant at all receiver locations with prior authorization for nighttime work from the City.
Table 11: Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Concrete Pour Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Exterior
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold
Exceeded?
R1 43.8 70 No
R2 41.9 70 No
R3 39.5 70 No
R4 40.8 70 No
R5 46.7 70 No
1 Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Appendix I Exhibit 10-A.
2 Nighttime Concrete Pour noise model inputs are included in Appendix 10.2 of Appendix I.
3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown on Appendix I Table 4-1.
Urban Crossroads. (2024). Noise and Vibration Analysis. p. 56 – Table 10-4. See Appendix I
Off-site Improvement Construction Noise Analysis
To support the Project development, there would be paving for off-site improvements associated
with roadway construction and utility installation which includes widening Sherman Road from
Ethanac Road to the southern end of the Project. It is expected that the off-site construction
activities would not take place at any one location for the entire duration of construction due to
the nature of the linear construction activity. Construction noise from this off-site work would,
therefore, be relatively short-term and the noise levels would be reduced as construction work
moves linearly along the selected alignment and farther from sensitive uses. The loudest phase of
construction associated with off-site roadway and utility improvements would likely be
grading/excavation activities, which would generate similar noise levels when compared to the
grading/excavation phase of the Project’s on-site construction activities. Since the nearest
receivers are located 581 feet from the Project on-site construction activity, and it is expected that
the off-site construction activities will be located at similar or greater distances, the noise from off-
site construction activities are expected to be no greater than what was previously evaluated in
the construction noise analysis outlined above. Therefore, the off-site roadway and utility
improvement construction activities will be less than significant.
Operations
Consistent with similar warehouse uses, the Project business operations would primarily be
conducted within the enclosed building, except for traffic movement, parking, as well as loading
and unloading of trucks at designated loading bays. The on-site Project-related noise sources are
expected to include: loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, parking lot vehicle
movements, diesel fire pump, trash enclosure activity, and truck movements.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 131
Using the reference noise levels to represent the Project operations that include loading dock
activity, roof-top air conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements, diesel fire pump, trash
enclosure activity, and truck movements, the Noise and Vibration Analysis calculated the
operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the
Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver
locations. Table 12, Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels shows the Project operational noise
levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The daytime hourly noise levels at the
off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 30.7 to 38.5 dBA Leq.
Table 12: Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels
Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq)
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Loading Dock Activity 37.2 34.7 31.6 34.2 20.8
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 31.8 30.4 27.8 28.6 30.0
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 25.5 23.4 20.4 21.0 16.2
Trash Enclosure Activity 6.9 6.0 1.8 6.9 0.0
Truck Movements 13.6 12.1 14.7 15.7 5.8
Total (All Noise Sources) 38.5 36.3 33.4 35.5 30.7
1 See Appendix I Exhibit 9-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 9.1.
Urban Crossroads. (2024). Noise and Vibration Analysis. p. 47 – Table 9-2. See Appendix I
Table 13, Nighttime Project Operational Noise Levels, shows the Project operational noise levels
during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the
existing off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 28.6 to 38.1 dBA Leq.
Table 13: Nighttime Project Operational Noise Levels
Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq)
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Loading Dock Activity 37.2 34.7 31.6 34.2 20.8
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 29.4 28.0 25.4 26.2 27.5
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 25.5 23.4 20.4 21.0 16.2
Trash Enclosure Activity 5.9 5.0 0.8 5.9 0.0
Truck Movements 9.6 8.1 10.7 11.7 1.8
Total (All Noise Sources) 38.1 35.8 32.8 35.0 28.6
1 See Appendix I Exhibit 9-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 9.1 of
Appendix I.
Urban Crossroads. (2024). Noise and Vibration Analysis. p. 48 – Table 9-3. See Appendix I
As indicated on Table 14, Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases and Table 15,
Nighttime operational Noise Level Increases, the Project will generate an operational noise level
increase ranging from 0.0 to 0.1 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. The Project-related
operational noise level increases will not exceed the operational noise level increase significance
criteria.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 132
Table 14: Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases
Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 38.5 L1 70.2 70.2 0.0 1.5 No
R2 36.3 L2 71.5 71.5 0.0 1.5 No
R3 33.4 L3 52.5 52.6 0.1 5.0 No
R4 35.5 L4 56.1 56.1 0.0 5.0 No
R5 30.7 L5 58.9 58.9 0.0 5.0 No
1 See Appendix I Exhibit 8-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Appendix I Table 9-2.
3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Appendix I Exhibit 5-A.
4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Appendix I Table 5-1.
5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities.
6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the Project activities.
7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Appendix I Table 4-1.
Urban Crossroads. (2024). Noise and Vibration Analysis. p. 49 – Table 9-4. See Appendix I
Table 15: Nighttime Operational Noise Level Increases
Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 38.1 L1 66.8 66.8 0.0 1.5 No
R2 35.8 L2 67.6 67.6 0.0 1.5 No
R3 32.8 L3 51.2 51.3 0.1 5.0 No
R4 35.0 L4 55.5 55.5 0.0 5.0 No
R5 28.6 L5 58.2 58.2 0.0 5.0 No
1 See Exhibit 8-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 9-3.
3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5 -A.
4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1.
5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities.
6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities.
7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4-1.
Urban Crossroads. (2024). Noise and Vibration Analysis. p. 50 – Table 9-5. See Appendix I
Therefore, the incremental Project operational noise level increase is considered less than
significant at all receiver locations.
Overall, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact.
Construction Vibration
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the
equipment and methods employed. The operation of construction equipment causes ground
vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Construction
vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. However, no pile-driving, or
rock blasting activities are planned for the Project.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 133
Table 16, Project Construction Vibration Levels presents the expected Project related vibration
levels at the nearby receiver locations. At distances ranging from 581 to 1,511 feet from Project
construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.000 to
0.002 in/sec PPV. The City currently does not have a significance threshold to assess vibration
impacts. The Caltrans 2020 Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual identifies
the vibration threshold for human annoyance, vibrations levels of 0.4 in/sec PPV is when vibrations
are considered severe by people subjected to continuous vibrations and levels of 0.2 in/sec is used
for building damage. Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV
(in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will fall below thresholds at all the noise
sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts are considered less
than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site. Moreover, the vibration
levels reported at the sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire
construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment
is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter.
Table 16: Project Construction Vibration Levels
Location1
Distance to
Construction
Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels PPV (in/sec)3 Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)4
Thresholds
Exceeded?5 Small
bulldozer
Jack-
hammer
Loaded
Trucks
Large
bulldozer
Vibratory
Roller
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 755' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R2 1,014' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R3 1,511' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3 No
R4 1,255' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R5 581' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.3 No
1 Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10 -A.
2 Distance from receiver to limits of construction activity.
3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 10 -5).
4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, Table 19, p. 38.
5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds?
"PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
Urban Crossroads. (2024). Noise and Vibration Analysis. p. 57 – Table 10-6. See Appendix I
Operational Vibration
Once operational, the Project would not be a significant source of ground-borne vibration.
Groundborne vibration surrounding the Project currently result from vehicular travel on the
nearby local roadways. Operations of the Project would include truck deli veries. Due to the rapid
drop-off rate of ground-borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular
traffic-induced ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and
rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity. According to the
FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018), trucks rarely create vibration
levels that exceed 70 VdB (equivalent to 0.012 inches per second PPV) when they are on roadways.
Therefore, trucks operating at the Project site or along surrounding roadways would not exceed
FTA thresholds for building damage or annoyance. Impacts would be less than significant in this
regard.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 134
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in th e project area to excessive
noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact. The Perris Valley Airport is located approximately 2.3 miles northwest
of the Project Site. This places the Project site outside the Perris Valley Airport Influence Area and
the Project is not subject to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy
Document (RC ALUCP). The RC ALUCP outlines policies for determining the land use compatibility
planning in the vicinity of airports throughout Riverside County. As concluded in the Noise and
Vibration Assessment (Appendix I), the Project site is located outside the 55 dBA CNEL noise level
contour boundaries and the Project’s land use is considered clearly acceptable. Therefore, the
Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels
from a private or public airport. The impact would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
Table 7-3 of the Noise Study shows the Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative (EAC) (2026)
without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The EAC (2026) without Project exterior noise levels are
expected to range from 65.4 to 75.0 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features
such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-4 of the Noise Study shows the EAC (2026) with Project
conditions will range from 65.4 to 75.0 dBA CNEL. Table 7-8 of the Noise Study shows that the EAC (2026)
with Project off-site traffic noise level impacts will range from 0.0 to 1.1 dBA CNEL. Based on the
significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 4-1, land uses adjacent to the study area
roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to the unmitigated
Project-related traffic noise levels.
Table 7-5 of the Noise Study shows the Horizon Year (2045) without Project conditions CNEL noise levels.
The HY (2045) without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 66.6 to 75.4 dBA CNEL,
without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-6 of
the Noise Study shows the HY (2045) with Project conditions will range from 66.6 to 75.4 dBA CNEL.
Table 7-9 shows that the HY (2045) Project traffic noise level impacts will range from 0.0 to 1.1 dBA CNEL.
Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in the Traffic Analysis, land uses
adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts
due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 135
Population and Housing
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project could induce population growth due to employment
opportunities generated during construction and operational activities. However, given that the
current unemployment rates for the County of Riverside, and City are 5.3 percent and 5.4 percent,
respectively, it is reasonably assured that the jobs would be filled by people living in the City and
surrounding communities.30 Furthermore, the Project site is served by existing public roadways,
and infrastructure would be installed beneath the public rights-of-way that abut the Project site.
Lastly, industrial-type development was planned in this area, so the Project’s warehouse uses were
accounted for in the Menifee GP. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial population
growth in the Project area and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project site, including the surrounding area, is currently developed with
nonresidential uses. As such, the Project would not displace any residents, the construction of
replacement housing is not necessary, and no impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
As concluded above, the Project would not induce unplanned population growth in the area, either
directly or indirectly, nor displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing. Therefore, the
Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact concerning population and housing.
30 State of California. (2024). Employment Development Department – Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places.
Retrieved at: https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor -force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-census-areas.html (accessed
January 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 136
Public Services
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response ti mes or
other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The City is served by the Riverside County Fire Department/CAL FIRE,
providing a full range of fire services. The Project site would be served by Station 7 located at 28349
Bradley Road, Menifee, CA 92586, and Station 54 located at 25730 Sultanas Rd, Homel and, CA.
Station 7 is approximately 3.7 miles southwest of the Project site and Station 54 is approximately
five miles east of the Project site. Station 7 is equipped with one three-person fire engine and one
two-person medic squad; Station 7 has an approximate ten-minute response time to the Project
area and receives approximately 7,193 calls per year.31 Station 54 is equipped with one three-
person fire engine. Station 54 has an approximate 6.5-minute response time and receives
approximately 1,900 calls/year.
31 Rivera-Bu, Sonya. (2023). Riverside County Fire Department/CAL FIRE. May 31, 2023. Public Services and Utilities Questionnaire (Fire Service).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 137
The Menifee Fire Department (MFD), Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) currently reviews all new
development plans, and future development is required to conform to all fire protection and
prevention requirements, including, but not limited to, building setbacks, emergency access, and
fire flow. The Project applicant must be able to demonstrate sufficient fire flow. The Project would
be required to comply with the most current provisions of the Fire Fee Schedule,32F. Mandatory
compliance with the Fire Fee Schedule and plan review would be required prior to the issuance of
a building permit. In addition, property tax revenues generated from development of the site
would also provide funding to offset potential increases in the demand for fire protection at Project
build-out. The Project would comply with the Riverside County Fire Department Technical Policies
and Standards, CFC, and CBC, including Project features that aid in fire safety and support fire
suppression activities, such as fire sprinklers, paved access, and required aisle widths.
Additionally, the Project would be designed in accordance with Menifee MC’s fire safety and fire
suppression features, which specify measures based upon the type of building construction,
including fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, and paved access. The proposed building would be
of concrete tilt-up construction that contains a low fire hazard risk rating. Fire protection apparatus
ingress and egress would be available via two driveways and the Project site’s internal circulation
(a 26-foot-wide fire lane with red curbs and signage per fire department standards) would allow
fire apparatus access around the building. There are currently no fire hydrants present on adjacent
Project roadways. Fire hydrants shall be located no closer than 40 feet from a building. A fire
hydrant shall be located within 200 feet of the fire department connection for buildings protected
with a fire sprinkler system. Four fire hydrants would be developed east of the proposed building
as part of the Project’s conditions of approval.
In addition, a fire alarm system is proposed to be installed, as well as ESFR (Early Suppression, Fast
Response) ceiling-mounted fire sprinklers. ESFR systems are located in ceiling spaces as with
conventional fire sprinkler systems, but they incorporate large, high volume, high-pressure heads
to provide the necessary fire protection for warehouse buildings that may contain high -piled
storage. While most other sprinklers are intended to control the growth of a fire, an ESFR sprinkler
system is designed to suppress a fire. To suppress a fire does not necessarily mean it would
extinguish the fire but rather it is meant to "knock" the fire back down to its source.
The Project would be designed in compliance with all applicable fire protection and prevention
requirements and pay Development Impact Fees (DIFs) as per the approved fee schedule toward
the construction of new fire facilities. CAL FIRE, Station 7 and 54, which would service the Project
site, do not currently meet the Menifee GP’s four minute33 adequate response time goal. Station
7 is the busiest fire station with no ability to expand or add additional resources. Thus, there is a
pre-existing deficiency. However, payment of DIF constitutes adequate mitigation because
through implementation of the DIF program, the City collects DIF from development projects and
is mandated to use the DIF funds to construct new fire and emergency service facilities. In addition,
the Project’s fire safety and fire suppression features pursuant to the Menifee MC, and the Project
32 Menifee Fire Department. (2023). Fire Fee Schedule. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/16893/2023-FIRE-
FEE-SCHEDULE?bidId= (accessed March 2024).
33 Determined by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 2020) Standard 1710, Standard for the organization and deploymen t of fire
suppression operations to the public by career fire departments, Sections 4.1.2.1 (4) & (7).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 138
applicant’s compliance with all required design regulations, will further minimize the demand for
fire protection and emergency public services impacts. Further, because no fire protection facilities
exist on the Project site, development of the Project would not conflict with existing fire structures
or require modification of fire protection facilities. Because the Project site is not residential,
although some calls for service are anticipated, the increase for fire and emergency services would
not be significantly impacted due to construction and operation of the Project warehouse.
Additionally, development of the site would increase property tax revenues to provide a source of
funding to offset any increases in demands for public services generated by the Project. Lastly, the
Project would be consistent with planned industrial uses per the Menifee North SP. When it is
determined that a new fire station would be required, the City would determine at that time if that
project would be subject to CEQA. CAL FIRE has indicated that an additional fire station located in
the northeast quadrant of the City would be an ideal location for a future fire station. No such
plans exist for the construction of the station at this time.
Through payment of DIF and implementation of state and local regulation including but not limited
to the Menifee MC fire safety/suppression design standards, the Project would receive adequate
fire protection service and would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, and would not adversely
affect service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Project implementation
would result in a less than significant impact to fire protection services.
ii) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. Police protection services for the City and Project site would be
provided by the Menifee Police Department (MPD). The MPD operates out of its headquarters at
29714 Haun Road, which is approximately three miles south of the Project site. The Project site is
already within the service area of the MPD. The MPD is authorized to serve the City with 120 full-
time employees of which 93 are sworn officers and 27 are not sworn (professional staff members).
According to the Department of Finance (DOF), the City’s January 2024 population was 111,560
persons.34 This represents a service ratio of 0.83 sworn officers per 1,000 residents.
In 2023, there were a total of 73,192 calls for service and the response time of patrol to the Priority
One calls was 8:30 minutes. The targeted numbers for 2023 are 80,000 total calls and a response
time to Priority One calls of 8:00 minutes, based on continued development within the Project
area. This goal can be achieved through such measures contained in Menifee MC Chapter 11.30,
also referred as the False Alarm Ordinance, which requires that the Project implement alarm
systems and appurtenant equipment that meets or exceeds industry standards and applicable laws
at the time of installation.3536 Fire alarm systems and components shall be listed and approved by
the California State Fire Marshal in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 19,
34 California Department of Finance. (2024). E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2024. Retrieved
from: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-
2020-2024/ (accessed July 2024).
35 City of Menifee. (2021). Ordinance No. 202- False Alarm. Retrieved at:
file:///C:/Users/aldo.perez/Downloads/False%20Alarm%20Ordinance%20-%202021.pdf (accessed September 2024).
36 Gutierrez, David. MPD. June 22, 2023. Personal Communication (email).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 139
Division 1. This would ensure that the Project does not hinder current response times due to
nuisance/false alarms that could occur during operation of the Project.
The MPD would be provided the opportunity to review the Project’s design to verify that all feasible
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies are incorporated, pursuant to
Menifee GP Policy CD-3.9. CPTED is a way of designing the built environment to create a safer built
environment. CPTED elements include the strategic use of nighttime security lighting, avoidance
of landscaping and fencing that limit sightlines, and use of a single, clearly identifiable point of
entry.
Lastly, the Project applicant would pay DIF’s fees as per the approved fee schedule for police
protection services. Similarly, to the fire protection analysis above, payment of DIFs constitutes
adequate mitigation because the City collects DIF from development projects and is mandated to
use the DIF funds to construct new police service facilities. Funding for the operation and
maintenance of existing services also comes from the City’s General Fund and Measure DD funds.
Therefore, the Project site would be adequately served by existing MPD facilities, equipment, and
personnel such that new facilities would not be required. Since the Project site is not residential,
although some calls for service are anticipated, the increase for police services would not be
significantly impacted due to construction and operation of the proposed warehouse. Additionally,
development of the site would increase property tax revenues to provide a source of funding to
offset any increases in demands for public services generated by the Project. Overall, impacts
would be less than significant.
iii) Schools?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is within the boundaries of the Romoland School
District and the Perris Union High School District. Schools closest to the Project site include
Romoland Elementary, Hans Middle School, and Heritage High School. The Project would not
create a direct demand for public school services since the Project Applicant proposes non-
residential uses. Since the Project would not directly generate students and would not indirectly
draw students to the area, the Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new
or physically altered public school facilities. Although the Project would not create a direct demand
for additional public school services, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute
development impact fees to the Romoland School District and the Perris Union High School District
in compliance with California SB 50 (Greene), which allows school districts to collect fees from new
developments to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity needs. The Project
Applicant would pay the school fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Furthermore,
payment of school fees constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA. School fees listed below
represent currently approved rates. Actual fees are subject to change by the school districts as
determined to be necessary or appropriate. Final fees would be determined at time of paym ent.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 140
Developer fees for industrial development located within the Romoland School District is $0.56 per
square foot at the time of this report but is subject to increase.37
Developer fees for industrial development located in the Perris Union High School District
(within the City) is $0.2184 per square foot at the time of this report but is subject to increase.38
Overall, Project implementation would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, need for new or
physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. Because
no school facilities exist on the Project site, development of the Project would not conflict with
existing school structures or require modification of school facilities. Compliance with applicable
local and state regulations would ensure that Project implementation would result in a less than
significant impact to school services.
iv) Parks?
No Impact. The closest parks to the Project site are Perris Valley Big League Dreams located
approximately 1.2 miles to the north, Underwood Park located approximately 1 mile to the
southeast, and Eller Park located approximately 0.55 mile to the northeast. The Project would not
create a direct demand for park facilities, as the Project Applicant does not propose residential
uses that would generate population growth requiring additional park facilities. Accordingly, the
Project would not cause or to a need to construct new or physically alter park facilities. No impact
would occur.
v) Other public facilities?
No Impact. Other public facilities in the area such as health care or libraries, would not be adversely
impacted because the Project’s non-residential uses would not cause a direct demand for
additional public facilities. No impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
As concluded above, the Project’s impacts related to fire and police protection services would be
incremental and result in less than significant impacts. Other public services such as schools, parks, and
other public facilities would not be impacted since the Project would not generate population growth.
Similarly, cumulative projects would be required to address impacts concerning public services and would
pay DIFs accordingly. As such, the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development, would not result
in cumulatively considerable impacts to public services or facilities.
37 Romoland School District. (2022). Developer Fees General Information. Available at: https://www.romoland.net/Page/2593 (accessed
March 2024).
38 Perris Union Highschool District. (2023). Developer School Fees. Available at: https://www.puhsd.org/developer -school-fees (March 2024)
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 141
Recreation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
X
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. The Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities since the Project does not propose residential uses that would generate
substantial population growth, resulting in the accelerated substantial physical deterioration of a
park or recreational facility. In addition, the Project Applicant does not propose recreational
facilities, nor would it entail the expansion of an existing recreational facility. As such, no
recreational-related impacts would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
The Project would not result in an increased use of recreational facilities or require construction or
expansion of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, no cumulative impacts on recreational facilities
would result from Project implementation.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 142
Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
A Traffic Analysis and VMT Assessment was prepared for this Project in May 2024 by Urban Crossroads.
The Traffic Analysis and VMT Assessment are included in this Initial Study as Appendix J1 and Appendix J2 ,
and the results are summarized herein.
Applicable General Plan Policies:39
Goal C-1: A roadway network that meets the circulation needs of all residents, employees, and
visitors to the City of Menifee.
Policy C-1.1: Require roadways to:
• Comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards.
• Meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users.
• Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses.
• Be maintained in accordance with best practices.
Policy C-1.2: Require development to mitigate its traffic impacts and achieve a peak hour Level of
Service (LOS) D or better at intersections, except at constrained intersections at close
proximity to the I-215 where LOS E may be permitted.
Policy C-1.5: Minimize idling times and vehicle miles traveled to conserve resources, protect air
quality, and limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Goal C-2: A bikeway and community pedestrian network that facilitates and encourages
nonmotorized travel throughout the City of Menifee.
Policy C-2.1: Require on- and off-street pathways to:
• Comply with federal, state and local design and safety standards.
39 City of Menifee. (2013). General Plan – Circulation Element. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/863/Circulation -Element (accessed
June 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 143
• Meet the needs of multiple types of users (families, commuters, recreational
beginners, exercise experts) and meet ADA standards and guidelines.
• Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses.
• Be maintained in accordance with best practices.
Policy C-2.2: Provide off-street multipurpose trails and on-street bike lanes as our primary paths of
citywide travel and explore the shared use of low-speed roadways for connectivity
wherever it is safe to do so.
Policy C-2.3: Require walkways that promote safe and convenient travel between residential areas,
businesses, schools, parks, recreation areas, transit facilities, and other key destination
points.
Policy C-2.4: Explore opportunities to expand the pedestrian and bicycle networks; this includes
consideration of utility easements, drainage corridors, road rights-of-way and other
potential options.
Goal C-3: A public transit system that is a viable alternative to automobile travel and meets
basic transportation needs of the transit dependent.
Policy C-3.1: Maintain a proactive working partnership with transit providers to ensure that
adequate public transit service is available.
Policy C-3.2: Require new development to provide transit facilities, such as bus shelters, transit bays,
and turnouts, as necessary.
Policy C-3.3: Provide additional development-related incentives to projects that promote transit use.
a) Conflict with an program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be consistent with Riverside County’s CMP goals
which include, but not limited to, adhering to the CMP by maintaining and enhancing the
performance of the multimodal transportation system near the Project site, minimizing travel
delay (refer to the LOS analysis in the Project’s Traffic Analysis); providing technical consistency in
multimodal transportation system analysis and providing consistent procedures to identify and
evaluate the effectiveness of recommendation measures; and by providing for adequate funding
of those measures through payment of development impact fees, TUMF fees, and fair share fees.
The Project would also comply with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 by being consistent with the
Menifee GP Circulation Element’s applicable goals and policies. Per the Complete Streets Act of
2008, General Plans are required to accommodate a balanced, multimodal transportation network
that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways in manners that are suitable to
applicable rural, suburban, or urban contexts. More specifically, the Project’s circulation system
would be designed and constructed in conformance with all applicable City design requirements
for roadways, sidewalks, driveways, and all other roadway related improvements.
The Project would include improvements to Sherman Road at the Project’s frontage that would
provide access to the Project via two proposed driveways. The Project’s on-site perimeter
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 144
circulation would be designed in compliance with Menifee MC industrial Design Guidelines.40
Furthermore, the Project would include improvements for Opening Year 2025 and Opening Year
2025 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions through a combination of fee payments to help establish
programs, construction of specific improvements, payment of fair-share contribution toward
future improvements, or a combination of these approaches.
Additionally, according to Menifee GP, Exhibit C-5, Potential Transit Services, Sherman Road is
identified for potential future on-road transit service.41 Pursuant to Menifee GP Policy C-3.2, the
Project would provide along the Project frontage only and/ or pay towards the development of
transit facilities, such as bus shelters, transit bays, and turnouts, as necessary via MM TRANS-1
below. As such, transit facilities within the City would not be impacted as a direct result of
construction or operations of the Project and the Project would be consistent with the Menifee GP
Policy C-3.2. According to Menifee GP Exhibit C-4, there are no designated pedestrian walkways
along Sherman Road near the Project site, but Sherman Road is identified as a Class II Community
On-Street Bike Lane.42 The Project would be designed to not conflict with any future bikeways on
Sherman Road. The Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, a
less than significant impact would occur.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated . SB 743 was approved by the California
legislature in September 2013. SB 743 requires changes to the CEQA, specifically directing the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop alternative metrics to the use of
vehicular “level of service” (LOS) for evaluating transportation projects. OPR has updated
guidelines for CEQA and written a technical advisory for evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA
and has set a deadline of July 1, 2020 , for local agencies to update their CEQA transportation
procedures. OPR has recommended that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) replace LOS as the primary
measure of transportation impacts. The City has adopted new Transportation Impact Guidelines
and now relies on VMT as the measure for determining a project significant transportation impact
under the CEQA process.
VMT Screening
City Guidelines states that a project may have a less than significant impact and screen from
requiring a project-level VMT analysis if it meets any of the City’s VMT screening steps. VMT
screening steps are described below along with a determination of the Project’s eligibility for each
screening criteria. As concluded in the VMT Assessment (Appendix J2), the Project was not found
40 City of Menifee. (2022). Design Guidelines. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/14902/Design -
Guidelines_Amended-March-2-2022?bidId= (accessed June 2024).
41 City of Menifee. (2013). General Plan – Circulation Element Exhibit C -5 Potential Transit Services. Retrieved from:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1022/C -5-Potential_Transit_HD0913?bidId= (accessed June 2024).
42 City of Menifee. (2013). General Plan – Circulation Element Exhibit C -4 Proposed Bikeway and Community Pedestrian Network. Retrieved
from: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1021/C -4-Bikeways_HD0913?bidId= (accessed June 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 145
to be eligible for VMT screening. Consistent with City Guidelines, a VMT analysis was prepared for
the Project and summarized below.
VMT Analysis
Traffic Modeling Methodology
Consistent with City Guidelines, a project-level VMT analysis shall be conducted using the Riverside
County Transportation Model (RIVCOM) to determine if the project has a significant impact.
RIVCOM version 4.0.1 was released in January 2024 and is the most current sub-regional modeling
tool for Western Riverside County. RIVCOM is a useful tool to estimate VMT as it considers
interactions between different land uses based on socio-economic data such as population,
households, and employment. The calculation of VMT for land use projects is based on the total
number of trips generated and the average trip length of each vehicle type.
VMT Analysis Methodology
As stated within the City’s Guidelines, the analysis should include ‘project generated VMT’ and
‘project effect on VMT’ estimates for the project transportation/traffic analysis zone (TAZ) for
baseline and cumulative conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, Project VMT estimates have
been prepared using the Origin/Destination method to estimate project -generated VMT and
Boundary method to estimate project effect on VMT. VMT has been presented as total VMT and
total VMT per service population (i.e., population and employees). Total VMT represents all VMT
generated by the Project on a typical weekday and total VMT per service population is an efficiency
metric representing total VMT generated on a typical weekday per person who works at the Project
or travels to the Project for another purpose.
Origin/Destination VMT
The Origin/Destination (OD) method for calculating VMT sums all weekday VMT generated by trips
with at least one trip-end in the study area (i.e., Project boundary or City boundary) and tracks
those trips to their origin or destination. Origins are all vehicle trips that start in a specific TAZ,
while destinations are all vehicle trips that end in a specific TAZ. The OD method accounts for all
trips (i.e., both passenger cars and trucks) and trip purposes (i.e., total VMT) and therefore provides
a more complete estimate of project-generated VMT.
Boundary VMT Method
The boundary method is the sum of all weekday VMT on the roadway network within a designated
boundary (i.e., City boundary or other designated geographic area). The boundary method
estimates VMT by multiplying vehicle trips on each roadway segment within the boundary by that
segment’s length. This approach consists of all trips, including those trips that do not begin or end
in the designated boundary. Consistent with City VMT Guidelines, the City of Menifee was used as
the boundary for this assessment.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 146
VMT Impact Threshold
The City of Menifee has adopted the following thresholds of significance related to VMT for land
use projects. The following thresholds are to be applied to determine potential project-generated
VMT impacts:
1. The baseline project-generated VMT per service population exceeds the County of
Riverside General Plan Buildout VMT per service population, or
2. The cumulative project-generated VMT per service population exceeds the County of
Riverside General Plan Buildout VMT per service population.
As identified in the City Guidelines, the impact threshold of the County of Riverside General Plan
Buildout using the latest version of RIVCOM is 33.6 VMT per service population. In addition, the
Project’s effect on VMT would be considered significant if it results in the following condition to be
satisfied:
1. The baseline link-level Citywide boundary VMT per service population to increase under
the plus project condition compared to the no project condition, or
2. The cumulative link-level Citywide boundary VMT per service population to increase under
the plus project condition compared to the no project condition.
VMT Estimates
To estimate project-generated VMT, standard land use information such as building square
footage must first be converted into a RIVCOM compatible dataset. The RIVCOM model utilizes
socio-economic data (SED) (e.g., population, households, and employment) fo r the purposes of
vehicle trip estimation. Table 17, Project Population and Employment Estimates summarizes the
SED inputs used to represent the Project. Project SED data was then coded into the Project’s TAZ
to isolate project-generated VMT.
Table 17: Project Population and Employment Estimates
Land Use Quantity Conversion Factor Estimated SED
Industrial 264,710 SF 1,030 SF per employee 257 Employees
Source: Urban Crossroads. (2024). VMT Assessment. p. 4 – Table 2. Appendix J2
Project-Generated VMT
Project-level VMT estimates were extracted from RIVCOM using the OD trip matrices, which
includes project-generated VMT for all vehicle trips (both passenger cars and trucks) and trip
purposes. The VMT estimates for the Project are shown in Table 18, Project-Generated VMT
below.
Table 18: Project-Generated VMT
Baseline Cumulative
Service Population 257 257
OD VMT 9,296 8,474
OD VMT per Service Population 36.2 33.0
City Threshold 33.6 33.6
Potentially Significant? Yes No
Source: Urban Crossroads. (2024). VMT Assessment. p. 5 – Table 3. Appendix J2
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 147
As shown in Table 18 above, the Project is forecast to exceed the City’s threshold under baseline
conditions. Since the Project would result in significant VMT impacts, MMs TRANS-1 through
TRANS-3 would be implemented. In compliance with the City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies
for new industrial project sites, MM TRANS-1 would require that the Project Applicant develop a
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)/TDM plan to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and
encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and
biking. MMs TRANS-2 would require that the Project Applicant develop a ridesharing program and
establish a permanent transportation management association with funding requirements for
employers. The Ridesharing program would encourage carpooled vehicle trips in place of single-
occupied vehicle trips, thereby reducing the number of trips and VMT. Lastly, MM TRANS-3 would
require the installation and maintenance of end-of-trip facilities for employee use which include
bike parking, bike lockers, and personal locker. The provision and maintenance of secure bike
parking and related facilities encourages commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT emissions.
The TDM plan, ridesharing program, and end-of-trip facilities, would be approved by the City prior
to the issuance of building permits and incorporated into the Project’s Codes Covenants and
Restrictions (CC&Rs)
With the implementation of MMs TRANS-1 through TRANS-3, the potential VMT reduction is
calculated to be 7.1 percent, as shown in Table 19, Mitigation Measures and VMT Reductions.
Table 19: Required VMT Reduction
Project Potential VMT Reduction
Commute Trip Reduction Marketing 3.6%
Ridesharing program 3.6%
End-Of -Trip Bicycle Facilities 0.1%
Total Potential VMT Reduction 7.2%
Baseline Cumulative
Threshold OD VMT per SP 33.6 33.6
Project OD VMT per SP 33.6 30.6
Exceed Threshold? No No
Source: Urban Crossroads. (2024). VMT Assessment. p. 5 – Table 4. Appendix J2
Since implementation of MMs TRANS-1 through TRANS-3 would result in a 7.2 percent reduction,
the Project’s total VMT impact would not have a significant impact per City’s adopted thresholds.
Therefore, a less than significant impact with mitigation would occur.
Mitigation Measures:
MM TRANS-1 The Project Applicant shall consult with the local transit service provider on the
need to provide infrastructure to connect the Project with transit services.
Evidence of compliance with this requirement may include correspondence from
the local transit provider(s) regarding the potential need for installing bus
turnouts, shelters, or bus stops at the site.
The Project Applicant shall be required to prepare a marketing strategy that
promote the Project site employer’s (Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program.
Information sharing and marketing promote and educate employees about their
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 148
travel choices to the employment location beyond driving such as carpooling,
taking transit, walking, and biking. The following features (or similar alternatives)
of the marketing strategy are essential for effectiveness.
• On-site or online commuter information services.
• Employee transportation coordinators.
• On-site or online transit pass sales.
• Guaranteed ride home service.
The Project will provide tenant’s employees material and online resources as a
means to promote the commute trip reduction program. The CTR marketing
strategy shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit and
incorporated into the Project’s Codes Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
MM TRANS-2 The Project Applicant will be required to provide a ridesharing program and
establish a permanent transportation management association with funding
requirements for employers. Ridesharing will encourage carpooled vehicle trips
in place of single-occupied vehicle trips. Ridesharing must be promoted through
a multifaceted approach. Examples include the following.
• Designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing
vehicles.
• Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for
ridesharing vehicles.
• Providing an app or website for coordinating rides.
The Project could be designed to provide carpool/vanpool/EV parking designated
spaces in locations of easy and convenient accessibility to the Project building . As
concluded in the VMT Assessment, this design feature is expected to reduce VMT
by 3.6%.
MM TRANS-3 The Project shall install and maintain end-of-trip facilities for employee use. End-
of-trip facilities include bike parking, bike lockers, and personal lockers. The
provision and maintenance of secure bike parking and related facilities
encourages commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions .
The Project can include building elements for bicycle trip end facilities (i.e.,
parking) for commuters that choose to bicycle as a mode of travel. This will
promote an alternative mode choice of commuting for employees. As calculated,
the Project will reduce VMT by 0.1%.
As outlined through the VMT reduction information presented above, inclusion of the TDMs are
estimated to reduce VMT impact by 7.1%. This would reduce the Project’s VMT impact below the
City’s VMT impact threshold under baseline and cumulative conditions . Therefore, the Project
would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) and
less than significant impact would occur.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 149
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not include the use of any incompatible vehicles or
equipment on-site, such as farm equipment. The Project would create two driveways and provide
improvements to Sherman Road. The Project also includes internal circulation improvements tha t
would provide access throughout the Project site. The proposed off-site circulation improvements
which include improvements at Sherman Road frontage plus 12 feet east of centerline widening ,
inclusion of westbound left turn lane and eastbound left turn lanes at the Ethanac Road and
Sherman Road Intersection, and widening of the corners to allow the safe right turn ingress onto
Sherman Road and left-turn onto Ethanac Road would be constructed as by the City of Menifee
Public Works Department. The off-site improvements would allow the safe ingress and egress of
trucks from the Ethanac Road and Sherman Road intersection. These improvements would
improve existing roadway conditions and be designed to not increase hazards due to geometric
design features, both on- and off-site. Additionally, sight distance at Project access points would
comply with applicable City sight distance standards. Therefore, a less than significant impact
would occur, and no mitigation is required.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussion in impact threshold c) above, vehicular access to the
Project site would be provided via two access points on Sherman Road and via internal driveways.
The MFD would review the Project for access requirements concerning minimum roadway width,
fire apparatus access roads, fire lanes, signage, access devices and gates, and access walkways,
among other requirements, which would enhance emergency access to the Project site. Following
compliance with MFD access requirements, adequate emergency access to the Project site would
be provided. Project impacts concerning emergency access would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impacts
Some of the cumulative projects as listed in the TIA may be downsized or may not be developed by the
Project’s opening year (2026). In addition, many of the related projects have been or would be subject to
a variety of mitigation measures that will reduce the potential environmental impacts associated with
those projects. However, those mitigation measures have not been considered in projecting the
environmental impact of the related projects. The Project would not result in traffic beyond what was
contemplated for the Project site and surrounding land uses.
Additionally, as discussed above, the VMT Assessment analyzed the Project’s VMT impacts using the City’s
VMT guidelines which provides options for both methodologies and VMT screening. As concluded above,
implementation of the TDMs would result in a reduce of baseline and cumulative VMT. Therefore, the
Project’s impact to VMT would not be cumulatively considerable and no significant cumulative impact
would occur.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 150
Supplemental Non-CEQA Analysis – For Informational Purposes Only
A Traffic Analysis (Appendix J1) was conducted for the Project in accordance with the traffic study
requirements of the City LOS Traffic Study Guidelines and the City Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for
Vehicle Miles Traveled. Even though General Plan Policy C-1.2 provides a minimum LOS, the state has
determined that automobile delay – to an intersection or roadway segment – is no longer required by or
considered a significant impact under CEQA. Therefore, the LOS analysis set forth in the following
paragraphs and in Appendix K1 is provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating
the Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework.
Project Trip Generation
The trip generation rates, passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors, and the resulting trip generation
estimates for the Project are summarized in Table 20, Summary of Project Trip Generation. Based on
Table 20, the total Project is estimated to generate 456 two-way trips per day on a typical weekday with
approximately 46 AM peak hour trips and 49 PM peak hour trips, in actual vehicles.
Table 20: Summary of Project Trip Generation
Land Use Quantity Units1
AM Peak Hour
In Out Total
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total Daily
Actual Vehicles:
Warehousing 264.710 TSF
Passenger Cars:
2 axle Trucks:
3 axle Trucks:
4+- axle Trucks:
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles):
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):
Warehousing 264.710 TSF
Passenger Cars:
2 axle Trucks:
3 axle Trucks:
4+- axle Trucks:
Total Truck Trips (PCE):
Total Trips (PCE)2
32 8 40 9 31 40 294
1 0 1 1 1 2 28
1 1 2 1 1 2 34
2 1 3 3 2 5 100
4 2 6 5 4 9 162
36 10 46 14 35 49 456
32 8 40 9 31 40 294
1 1 2 1 1 2 40
1 1 2 2 2 4 66
6 4 10 8 7 15 298
8 6 14 11 10 21 404
40 14 54 20 41 61 698
Intersection and Roadway Analysis
Pursuant to Menifee GP Policy C‐1.2, the City of Menifee has identified LOS D as the threshold for
acceptable operating conditions for intersections except at constrained intersections and roadway
segments in close proximity to I-215, where LOS E is accepted during peak hours. Based on a review of the
existing roadway network and anticipated Project traffic, the following study intersections were selected
for analysis in conjunction with the City:43
43 The study locations were established in consultation with City staff through the Scoping Agreement process based on the City of Menifee
LOS Traffic Study Guidelines (October 2020).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 151
Study Intersections
1. I-215 SB Ramps & Ethanac Rd. 5. Sherman Rd. & Ethanac Rd.
2. I-215 NB Ramps & Ethanac Rd. 6. Sherman Rd. & Driveway 1
3. Encanto Dr. & Ethanac Rd. 7. Sherman Rd. & Driveway 2
4. Trumble Rd. & Ethanac Rd.
Additionally, the following study roadway segments were selected for analysis in conjunction with the
City:
Roadway Segment Limits
1. Ethanac Rd. 1-215 Freeway to Encanto Dr.
2. Ethanac Rd. Encanto Dr. to Trumble Rd.
3. Ethanac Rd. Trumble Rd. to Sherman Rd.
4. Sherman Rd. South of Ethanac Rd.
Existing Conditions
To establish a baseline analysis for existing traffic volumes, turning movement and daily roadway traffic
counts were collected for all study intersections and study roadway segments in April 2024. The following
study area intersection is currently operating at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours under Existing
(2024) traffic conditions:
• Sherman Road & Ethanac Road (#5) – LOS F PM peak hour only
Roadway Segments
There are no study area roadway segments currently operating at an unacceptable LOS based on the daily
roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria.
Off-Ramp Queues
There are no movements that currently experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday
PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for Existing (2024) traffic conditions.
Existing Plus Project (E + P) Conditions
The Project-related traffic was added to the existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes. Review of
Traffic Analysis indicated that the following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an
unacceptable LOS during the peak hours under E+P traffic condition:
• Sherman Road & Ethanac Road (#5) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours
Roadway Segments
There are no study area roadway segments anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS based on the
daily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria under E+P traffic conditions.
Off-Ramp Queues
There are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or
weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows under E+P traffic conditions.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 152
Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative (EAC) and Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project
Plus Cumulative (EAPC) Conditions
The following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the
peak hours EAC (2026) traffic conditions:
• I-215 Southbound Ramps & Ethanac Road (#1) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours
• I-215 Northbound Ramps & Ethanac Road (#2) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours
• Encanto Drive & Ethanac Road (#3) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours
• Trumble Road & Ethanac Road (#4) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours
• Sherman Road & Ethanac Road (#5) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours
There are no additional study area intersections that are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS
with the addition of Project traffic under EAPC (2026) traffic conditions.
Roadway Segments
The following study area roadway segments are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS based on
the daily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria under both EAC and EAPC (2026) traffic
conditions:
• Ethanac Road, from I-215 Freeway to Encanto Drive (#1) – LOS F
• Ethanac Road, from Encanto Drive to Trumble Road (#2) – LOS F
• Ethanac Road, from Trumble Road to Sherman Road (#3) – LOS F
Off-Ramp Queues
The following movements are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or
weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows under both EAC and EAPC (2026) traffic conditions:
• I-215 Southbound Ramps & Ethanac Road (#1) southbound right – AM and PM peak hours
• I-215 Northbound Ramps & Ethanac Road (#2) northbound shared left -through – PM peak hour
only
• I-215 Northbound Ramps & Ethanac Road (#2) northbound right – AM and PM peak hours.
Horizon Year (2045) Conditions
The following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under Horizon
Year (2045) Without Project traffic conditions, consistent with EAC (2026) conditions:
• I-215 Southbound Ramps & Ethanac Road (#1) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours
• I-215 Northbound Ramps & Ethanac Road (#2) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours
• Encanto Drive & Ethanac Road (#3) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours
• Trumble Road & Ethanac Road (#4) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours
• Sherman Road & Ethanac Road (#5) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 153
There are no additional study area intersections that are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS
with the addition of Project traffic under Horizon Year (2045) With Project traffic conditions.
Roadway Segments
The following study area roadway segments are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS based on the
daily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria under both Horizon Year (2045) Without and
With Project traffic conditions:
• Ethanac Road, from I-215 Freeway to Encanto Drive (#1) – LOS F
• Ethanac Road, from Encanto Drive to Trumble Road (#2) – LOS F
• Ethanac Road, from Trumble Road to Sherman Road (#3) – LOS F
Off-Ramp Queues
The following movements are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday
PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows both Horizon Year (2045) Without and With Project traffic conditions:
• I-215 Southbound Ramps & Ethanac Road (#1) southbound right – AM and PM peak hours
• I-215 Northbound Ramps & Ethanac Road (#2) northbound shared left-through – AM and PM peak
hours
• I-215 Northbound Ramps & Ethanac Road (#2) northbound right – AM and PM peak hours
Recommended Improvements
Recommended improvements for the deficient intersections and roadways were proposed in the Traffic
Analysis to address the Project-related effects at the following intersections. The following
recommendations are based on the minimum improvements needed to accommodate site access and
maintain acceptable peak hour operations for the Project:
Recommendation 1 – Sherman Road & Driveway 1 (#6) – The following improvements are necessary to
accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the eastbound approach and construct a shared left-right turn
lane (Project driveway).
• Project to construct a northbound left turn lane with a minimum of 100 feet of storage.
Recommendation 2 – Sherman Road & Driveway 2 (#7) – The following improvements are necessary to
accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the eastbound approach and construct a shared left-right turn
lane (Project driveway).
• Project to construct a northbound left turn lane with a minimum of 100 feet of storage.
Recommendation 3 – Sherman Road is a north-south oriented roadway located on the Project’s eastern
boundary. Project to construct Sherman Road at its ultimate half-section width along the Project’s
frontage as a Major Roadway (100-foot right-of-way) from the Project’s southern boundary to the
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 154
Project’s northern boundary, consistent with the City’s standards. Project will construct an additional 12
feet of pavement on the east side of Sherman Road to facilitate two-way access.
On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented agreeable with the provisions of the California
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and in conjunction with detailed construction
plans for the Project site.
Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and City of Menifee sight distance standards at the time of
preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.
Off-Site Recommended Improvements
A summary of the off-site intersection improvements is provided in Traffic Analysis Table 1-4. For those
improvements listed in Traffic Analysis Table 1-4 and not constructed as part of the Project, the Project
Applicant’s responsibility for the Project’s contributions towards deficient intersections is fulfilled through
payment of fees or fair share that would be assigned to construction of the identified recommended
improvements.
Improvements constructed by development may be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through
the program where appropriate (to be determined at the City’s discretion). When off-site improvements
are identified with a minor share of responsibility assig ned to proposed development, the approving
jurisdiction may elect to collect a fair share contribution or require the development to construct
improvements. Detailed fair share calculations, for each peak hour, have been provided in Table 21,
Project Fair Share Calculations for the applicable deficient study area intersections. These fees are
collected with the proceeds solely used as part of a funding mechanism aimed at ensuring that regional
highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected population increases .
Table 21: Project Fair Share Calculations
# Intersection Existing
(2024) Project 2045 With
Project
Total New
Traffic
Project % of
New Traffic
1 I-215 SB Ramps & Ethanac Rd.
AM: 2,612 24 6,607 3,995 0.6%
PM: 2,684 26 7,358 4,674 0.6%
2 I-215 NB Ramps & Ethanac Rd.
AM: 2,049 41 5,333 3,284 1.2%
PM: 2,427 50 6,486 4,059 1.2%
3 Encanto Dr. & Ethanac Rd.
AM: 1,538 42 3,595 2,057 2.0%
PM: 1,780 49 4,405 2,625 1.9%
4 Trumble Rd. & Ethanac Rd.
AM: 1,580 42 4,097 2,517 1.7%
PM: 1,611 49 5,019 3,408 1.4%
5 Sherman Rd. & Ethanac Rd.
AM: 1,250 51 4,011 2,761 1.8%
PM: 1,382 57 5,040 3,658 1.6%
Source: Urban Crossroads. (2024). Traffic Analysis. p. 83 – Table 8-1.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 155
Tribal Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms
of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register
of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k)?
X
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe?
X
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined
in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the l andscape, sacred place,
or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k)?
No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, an intensive-level cultural resources
field survey conducted on the site identified one cultural resource (KHA-ETH-24-01). The historic
built environmental resource is a one-story single-family dwelling that was constructed in 1965.
However, the building and property are not recommended eligible under any criteria for listing in
the California Register. Therefore, KHA-ETH-24 -01 does not qualify as a “Historical Resource” under
CEQA. Therefore, no impact to a listed or eligible listed tribal cultural resource would occur.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 156
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 ? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe .
Less than Significant Impact. AB 52 specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse
change to a defined Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) may result in a significant effect on the
environment. AB 52 requires tribes interested in development projects within a traditionally an d
culturally affiliated geographic area to notify a lead agency of such interest and to request
notification of future projects subject to CEQA prior to determining if a negative declaration,
mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project. The lead
agency is then required to notify the tribe within 14 days of deeming a development application
subject to CEQA complete to notify the requesting tribe as an invitation to consult on the proj ect.
AB 52 identifies examples of mitigation measures that will avoid or minimize impacts to a TCR. The
bill makes the above provisions applicable to projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice
of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration circulated on or after
July 1, 2015. AB 52 amends Section 5097.94 and adds Section 21073, 21074, 2108.3.1., 21080.3.2,
21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3 to the California Public Resources Code, relating to
Native Americans.
SB 18 (Government Code section 65352.3) requires local governments to consult with Native
American tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain
key points in the planning process. Consultation and noticing requirements apply to the adoption
and amendment of general plans and specific plans. The consultation process requires (1) that local
governments send the NAHC information on a proposed project and request contact information
for local Native American tribes; (2) that local governments then send information on the project
to the tribes that the NAHC has identified and notify them of the opportunity to consult; (3) that
the tribes have 90 days to respond on whether they want to consult or not, and (4) that
consultation begins, if requested, by a tribe and there is no statutory limit on the duration of the
consultation. If issues arise and consensus on mitigation cannot be reached, SB 18 allows a finding
to be made that the suggested mitigation is infeasible.
Based on the City’s prior experience with and written requests from potentially interested Tribes,
AB 52 Notices were sent to the following four Tribes:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians;
• Pechanga Band of Indians;
• Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians; and
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians.
Additionally, based on the tribal consultation list provided by NAHC, SB 18 notices were sent to 18
tribes. Results of the AB 52 and SB 18 consultation is provided below.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 157
AB 52 Results
As of the date of this Draft IS/MND, a letter was received by Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on
January 12, 2024, asking for copies of existing documents pertaining to the project such as the
cultural survey including the archaeological site records, shape files, archaeological record search
results, geotechnical report, and the grading plans, prior to consultation. The Cultural Resources
Assessment was sent to the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on March 27, 2024. On July 23, 2024,
the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians provided the City with a letter stating that their concerns were
adequately addressed, and that consultation was concluded. A letter was received by the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians stating that the Project was in the tribes Traditional Use area, and
requested consultation with the City pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18, a cultural resources inventory
report, copies of the cultural resource documentation (report and site records), and a map of the
Project area. The Cultural Resources Assessment was sent to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians on March 27, 2024. On July 29, 2024, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians provided
the City with a letter stating that their concerns were adequately addressed, and that consultation
was concluded.
A quarterly meeting between the City and the Pechanga Band of Indians occurred on
January 10, 2024. The City sent the tribe the Project’s Cultural Resources Assessment for review
and comment on March 27th and to date, the tribe has not responded. The City consulted with the
Pechanga Band of Indians again on May 8th and no additional concerns were raised.
A quarterly meeting between the City and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians (SBLI) occurred on
January 26, 2024 and again on April 24, 2024. SBLI requested that the cultural records search radius
be expanded from the typical ½ mile to 1 mile. The City sent the tribe the Project’s Cultural
Resources Assessment for review and comment on March 27 th and to date, the tribe has not
responded. The City consulted with SBLI again on April 24th and no additional concerns were raised.
SB 18 Results
As of the date of this Draft IS/MND, an email was received from Juan Ochoa on behalf of the
Pechanga Band of Indians asking for formal consultation and requested that all available Project
documents are sent to the tribe prior to the initial SB 18 meeting. The City sent the tribe the
Project’s Cultural Resources Assessment for review and comment on March 27 th and to date, the
tribe has not responded. The City consulted with the Pechanga Band of Indians again on May 8 th
and no additional concerns were raised.
The Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians sent an email on May 3, 2024, with a letter thanking the
City for providing the opportunity to give input on the Project and indicated that they are unaware
of any specific cultural resources affected by the Project. They requested to be contacted in the
event that cultural resources were discovered on the Project site.
As noted above, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians sent a letter requesting consultation
with the City pursuant to SB 18. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) sent an email
on May 23, 2024, with a letter requesting consultation with the City. The tribe also included
conditions of approval to be included in the IS/MND to reduce impacts to potential tribal cultural
resources. Per the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians request, COA-CUL-1 through COA-CUL-7
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 158
listed in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources would reduce impacts to any tribal cultural resource that
may be impacted during the development of the Project. Per ACBCI’s request, a list of mitigation
measures and cultural conditions of approval were sent on July 10, 2024 for review and comment.
The Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (RBLI) sent an email on May 29, 2024, with a letter requesting
consultation, which occurred on July 9, 2024. RBLI requested that a cultural monitor be on -site
during ground disturbance activities, which would be required per COA-CUL-6.
Cumulative Impacts
The Project would result in a less than significant impact on tribal cultural resources. The determination
of cumulative impacts occurring from the development of the Project, in conjunction with cumulative
development, is less than significant. Each cumulative project is required to comply with all applicable
federal, State, and local laws and regulations, including engaging in consultation with Native American
tribes as applicable, and implement mitigation measures as applicable, to protect and/or preserve tribal
cultural resources that may occur on site. Therefore, no cumulative impacts related to tribal cultural
resources would result from Project implementation.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 159
Utilities and Service Systems
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
X
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Less than Significant Impact . The Project site is developed with a supply storage use (sand and
gravel) with an office building located at the northeast portion of the site. Sherman Road, abutting
the Project site, is an unimproved dirt road. Sherman Road north of the project site is paved.
Surrounding developments in the area are served by existing utilities, including electricity, natural
gas, wet and dry utilities.
Utilities necessary for the Project site to operate and the associated service providers are as
follows:
• Electricity – SCE
• Water – EMWD
• Sewer – EMWD
• Cable/Internet/Telephone –
Frontier Communications
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 160
Existing utilities would be extended and upgraded as needed during construction of Project to
serve the anticipated demands and to accommodate operation of the warehouses. All required
improvements and extensions to existing electrical or telecommunications utilities would occur
within the existing roadway right-of-way adjacent to the Project site, including Sherman Road. All
impacts are discussed and disclosed as part of this IS/MND, within the various sections of this
document. As such, upgrades to existing utilities are already evaluated as part of the overall
Project. Impacts associated with extension of services in these areas and within the site are less
than significant. Services provided by each utility is discussed in additional detail below.
Water
EMWD’s available water supplies would be sufficient to meet all of the water demands of the
entire customer base, including the Project, through 2045, including during single and multiple dry
years. Table 22, Total Retail and Wholesale Water Supply (AFY) below shows these values. In all
cases through year 2045, even during single and multiple dry year conditions, water supplies
available to EMWD would be sufficient to meet all present and future water supply requirements
of the entire customer base, including the Project, for the next twenty-five years, as shown in
Table 23, Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison, and Table 24, Multiple Dry Years
Supply and Demand Comparisons. Additionally, EMWD provided a Water and Sewer “Will Serve”
letter (refer to Appendix K: Water and Sewer Will Serve Letter) which stated that EMWD is willing
to provide water and sewer services to the Project site. The Project’s proposes domestic and fire
water extensions from the existing recycled water line and 12-inch water lines located on Sherman
Road right-of-way.
Therefore, based on the incremental increase in demand that would result from implementation
of the Project, impacts would be less than significant. Impacts of required water facilities are
addressed throughout this IS/MND. The majority of Project water facilities would be installed
below ground and within existing road rights-of-way, and as such the only physical impacts would
be associated with temporary impacts during construction. All Project water facilities would be
constructed and operated in accordance with applicable guidelines and regulations in the EMWD
and City and would also follow applicable mitigation measures in each topical area addressed in
this IS/MND. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated with respect to Project water
facilities.
Table 22 : Total Retail and Wholesale Water Supply (AFY)
Supply 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Retail
Purchased/Imported Water 65,577 66,447 72,147 70,247 74,747 78,847
Groundwater 11,785 18,753 18,753 18,753 18,753 18,753
Desalinated Groundwater 7,310 13,400 13,400 13,400 13,400 13,400
Recycled Water 39,642 43,330 49,020 54,500 59,800 61,100
Other 0 4,000 4,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
Total Retail Supply 124,314 145,930 157,320 168,900 178,700 187,100
Wholesale
Purchased/Imported Water 36,384 58,200 52,400 54,400 56,700 58,800
Recycled Water 1,285 4,770 5,180 5,600 5,600 5,600
Total Wholesale Supply 37,669 62,970 57,580 60,000 62,300 64,400
Source: EMWD. 2021. 2020 UWMP, Tables 6-8 and 6-9. https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/appb_dwrstandardizeduwmpta_0.pdf?1625160758 (accessed March 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 161
Table 23: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Retail
Supply Totals 151,130 162,820 174,700 184,700 193,300
Demand Totals 151,130 162,820 174,700 184,700 193,300
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Wholesale
Supply Totals 64,770 59,080 61,600 63,600 65,900
Demand Totals 64,770 59,080 61,600 63,600 65,900
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: EMWD. 2021. 2020 UWMP, Table 7-3. https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/appb_dwrstandardizeduwmpta_0.pdf?1625160758 (accessed March 2024).
Table 24: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparisons
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Retail
First
Year
Supply Totals 151,130 162,820 174,700 184,700 193,300
Demand Totals 151,130 162,820 174,700 184,700 193,300
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second
Year
Supply Totals 132,700 143,300 153,700 162,500 170,300
Demand Totals 132,700 143,300 153,700 162,500 170,300
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Third
Year
Supply Totals 134,900 145,500 155,500 164,100 171,900
Demand Totals 134,900 145,500 155,500 164,100 171,900
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth
Year
Supply Totals 137,100 147,600 157,400 165,700 173,500
Demand Totals 137,100 147,600 157,400 165,700 173,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth
Year
Supply Totals 140,200 150,800 160,000 168,000 175,800
Demand Totals 140,200 150,800 160,000 168,000 175,800
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Wholesale
First
Year
Supply Totals 64,770 59,080 61,600 63,600 65,900
Demand Totals 64,770 59,080 61,600 63,600 65,900
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second
Year
Supply Totals 63,200 59,100 61,400 63,400 65,600
Demand Totals 63,200 59,100 61,400 63,400 65,600
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Third
Year
Supply Totals 62,100 59,600 61,800 63,900 66,000
Demand Totals 62,100 59,600 61,800 63,900 66,000
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth
Year
Supply Totals 61,000 60,100 62,200 64,300 66,400
Demand Totals 61,000 60,100 62,200 64,300 66,400
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth
Year
Supply Totals 59,800 60,600 62,600 64,700 66,900
Demand Totals 59,800 60,600 62,600 64,700 66,900
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: EMWD. 2021. 2020 UWMP, Table 7-4. https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/appb_dwrstandardizeduwmpta_0.pdf?1625160758 (accessed June 2023).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 162
Storm Water and Drainage
Refer to Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, regarding existing conditions and Project
impacts with respect to storm water and drainage facilities. The Project includes a drainage system
that would be designed with an extensive drainage plan which includes ribbon gutters, subsurface
storm drains, curb cuts, u-channels, and detention basins. Off-site improvements for stormwater
and drainage includes Sherman Road being constructed as part of the previously approved
Menifee Commerce Center project and analyzed as part of that EIR. Should the previously
approved Menifee Commerce Center project not be developed prior to the proposed Project, the
proposed Project is conditioned to develop these improvements prior to construction.
As shown in Exhibit 9, the Project would also include a potential off-site storm drain system at
Trumble Road. All other storm drain connections would be extended into existing storm drain lines.
Additionally, all proposed storm water and drainage facilities would be constructed and operated
in accordance with applicable guidelines and regulations of the RCFCWC D and City and applicable
mitigation measures. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated with respect to Project
storm water and drainage facilities.
Wastewater
Prior to the construction or operations of the Project, the Project applicant would comply with
EMWD’s New Development Process (https://www.emwd.org/new-development-process).
Notwithstanding the will serve letter EMWD has issued (Appendix K), a Sewer Capacity Study may
be completed to ensure adequate capacity is available to treat the anticipated wastewater to be
generated by the Project. The EMWD has previously used wastewater generation rates for
industrial uses of approximately 1,700 gallons per day (GPD) per acre.44 Based on this value,
wastewater generated by the Project would be approximately 19,499 GPD. This represents
approximately 0.02% of the total daily capacity of EMWD’s 78 million gallon per day (MGD).
Therefore, the increase in the daily wastewater generated by the Project site would be minimal
and result in a less than significant impact.
Improvements to facilitate service to the Project site would consist of tie-ins to the existing
wastewater lines. All areas needed for improvement would occur in previously disturbed or areas
already proposed to be disturbed (excluding the proposed on-site wastewater system). Proposed
wastewater facilities would be below ground, along Sherman Road as depicted in Exhibit 9 and as
such are addressed in respective IS/MND section(s). All Project wastewater facilities would be
constructed and operated in accordance with applicable guidelines and regulations of the EMWD
and City, and would also follow applicable MMs in each topical area addressed in this IS/MND.
Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated with respect to Project wastewater facilities.
Electricity
SCE currently operates electric power in the City through electricity distribution lines both
aboveground and buried. SCE also operates at least three substations (one of which is
44 EMWD. (Rev. 2006). Sanitary Sewer System Planning and Design.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 163
approximately 1.6 miles east of the Project site) within the City and no power plants.45 Electricity
facilities such as powerlines and other similar system components would be required for the
Project. However, this new infrastructure would be installed within the proposed development
areas. It is anticipated that SCE would provide more electricity to the Project compared to what is
currently consumed by existing uses, due to the difference of current (e.g., office building) and
proposed uses. As depicted in Exhibit 9, the Project proposes off-site electrical lines along Sherman
Road between Ethanac Road to Mclaughlin Road to support the Project. The electrical lines would
be extended into the Project to provide additional electrical services needed to service the Project
during operations. Lastly, the Project would be consistent with planned uses for the Project site,
and would implement energy-saving design standards in compliance with applicable regulations.
Therefore, a less than significant impacts concerning the Project’s electricity use would occur with
the development of the additional electrical facilities.
Natural Gas
The SoCalGas Company provides gas services to most of southern California. The Project would not
require the use natural gas resources and therefore, construction of new or expanded natural gas
lines would not occur.
Telecommunications
The Project site would require telecommunication services to be provided by Frontier
Communications. As discussed above, existing telecommunication lines would be located within
existing adjacent rights-of-way needed to serve the existing surrounding development. Service to
the Project site would require tying into these lines but these improvements would occur within
existing areas of disturbance such as those adjacent to existing roadways. As depicted in Exhibit 9,
the project proposes off-site communication facilities along Sherman Road between Ethanac Road
to Mclaughlin Road to service the Project. The new facilities required for the Project would be
placed underground as per the City’s Development Code, Title 9. Therefore, construction of the
Project’s telecommunication, cable and internet facilities would not create an increased impact on
the environment beyond what is addressed for the overall Project, in respective IS/MND sections.
A less than significant impact would occur.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
As discussed in Impact a) above, EMWD would supply water to the Project. EMWD’s 2020 UWMP
Tables 7-3 through 7-8 indicate water supplies would meet water demands for normal, single-dry,
and multiple dry-year conditions through 2040. 46 According to the Menifee GP Final EIR, the
projected net increase in water demands by General Plan buildout – approximately 15 MGD, or
16,800 afy - is within EMWD forecasts of increases in its water supplies over the 2025-2045 period.
EMWD forecasts that its total water supplies would increase by 41,170 afy over that period. UWMP
45 SCE. ND. SCE Power Site Search Tool. Retrieved at:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=05a84ec9d19f43ac93b451939c330888 (accessed January 2024).
46 EMWD. 2021. Eastern Municipal Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/urbanwatermanagementplan_0.pdf?1625160721 (accessed June 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 164
water demand forecasts are based on adopted General Plans.47 The Project’s proposed land uses
would be generally consistent with the assumptions of the General Plan buildout and thus, would
not increase water demands associated with the Project site beyond what the UWMP
assumed/planned. Furthermore, the Water and Sewer Will-Serve letter provided by EMWD
(Appendix K), stated that EMWD is willing to provide water and sewer services to the Project site.
Therefore, Project impacts concerning water demand would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Impact a), EMWD’s will-serve letter states that the
EWMD is anticipated to have adequate capacity to treat the projected demand of the Project.
Wastewater generated by the Project would be approximately 19,499 GPD. This represents
approximately 0.02 percent of the total daily capacity of EMWD’s 78 million MGD. Therefore,
EMWD would have adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the
EMWD’s existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact. The City contracts with Waste Management Industries Inc. (WMI) for
general waste, construction and demolition debris, green/organic waste, and recycling disposal.
The Project is anticipated to generate solid waste during the temporary, short -term construction
phase, as well as the operational phase, but it is not anticipated to result in inadequate landfill
capacity. According to Menifee GP EIR, the majority of solid waste is diverted to two landfills:
El Sobrante Landfill (10910 Dawson Canyon Road, Corona, CA 91719) and Badlands Sanitary
Landfill (31125 Ironwood Avenue, Moreno Valley, CA 92555). Based on a construction waste factor
of 3.89 pounds per square foot, construction of the Project would generate approximately
1,029 tons of waste (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998) during construction. However,
Section 5.408.1 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code requires demolition and
construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste. Therefore, construction activities would generate
approximately 360 tons of solid waste to be disposed of at the landfill.
According to CalRecycle’s Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, a warehouse facility is
estimated to produce 13.82 pounds of waste per employee per day .48 The estimated number of
employees to operate the warehouses would be approximately 311 people.49 This equates to
approximately 4,298 pounds (2.1 tons). This is approximately 0.04% of Badlands Sanitary Landfill’s
47 City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan Draft EIR, Section 5.18: Utilities and Service Systems.
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1117/Ch -05-17-USS?bidId=. (accessed June 2024).
48 CalRecycle. (2019). Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates (accessed
January 2024).
49 The Project socio-economic data was based on median factors for Riverside County from the SCAG Employment Density Survey
(October 31, 2001). The SCAG Study recommends a factor of 819 square feet per employee for warehousing uses.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 165
maximum daily throughput and 0.013 % of El Sobrante Landfill’s maximum daily throughput.
Further details regarding the two landfills are presented below in Table 25, Landfill Information.
Table 25: Landfill Information
Landfill Location
Max. Permitted
Throughput
(tons per day
Remaining
Capacity
(cubic yards)
Max. Permit
Capacity
Ceased
Operation
Date
Badlands Sanitary
Landfill Moreno Valley 5,000 7,800,000 82,300,000 1/1/2059
El Sobrante Landfill Corona 16,054 143,977,170 2 09,910,000 1 /1/2051
Source:
CalRecycle. (2023). SWIS Facility/Site Search – Badlands Sanitary Landfill (33-AA-0006). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2367 (accessed January 2024).
CalRecycle. (2023). SWIS Facility/Site Search – El Sobrante Landfill (33-AA-0217). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2402 (accessed January 2024).
Project implementation would increase solid waste disposal demands over existing conditions.
Badlands Sanitary Landfill, located in Moreno Valley, has a maximum permitted throughput of
5,000 tons per day. The facility’s remaining capacity is approximately 7.8 million cubic yards and
maximum capacity is approximately 82 million cubic yards. El Sobrante Landfill, located in Corona,
has a maximum permitted throughput is 16,054 tons per day. The facility’s remaining capacity is
approximately 144 million cubic yards and maximum capacity is approximately 210 million cubic
yards. The Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient remaining permitted capacity to
accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs. Therefore, the Project’s solid waste
disposal needs could be accommodated at one or a combination of the disposal facilities discussed
above. Construction and operational activities would be subject to compliance with all applicable
federal, state, and local statutes and regulations for solid waste, including those identified under
CALGreen and AB 939. The Project would result in less than significant impacts con cerning solid
waste, and no mitigation is required.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local
regulations and reduction goals concerning solid waste. The City is required to adhere to AB 341,
which requires that at least 75% of waste generated from construction activities be diverted to
recycling centers and AB 939 which requires the City to divert at least 50% of its waste stream away
from landfills either through waste reduction, recycling or other means.
Section 6.40.010(A) of the Menifee MC states:
Under California law embodied in the California Waste Management Act (Cal.
Public Resources Code Section 40000 et seq.), the city is required to prepare, adopt
and implement source reduction and recycling elements to reach reduction goals
set forth therein, and is required to make substantial reductions in the amount of
waste materials going to the state’s landfills by diverting 50% of materials from
landfills annually or will face substantial penalties. Debris from construction and
demolition projects represents a significant portion of the volume of solid waste
that is being disposed of in landfills, much of which is suitable for recycling.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 166
Consequently, the purpose of this chapter is to increase the amount of
construction and demolition debris that is recycled or reused so as to reduce the
amount that is disposed of in landfills. (Ord. 2020-294, passed 3-18-2020)
Furthermore, Section 6.40.050: Diversion Requirements states:
Every applicant shall make a good fair effort to divert 50% of construction and
demolition debris generated from every applicable construction, remodeling, or
demolition project from landfills by using recycling, reuse, and diversion
programs. Separate calculations and reports will be required for the construction
and demolition portions of projects that involve both activities. (Ord. 2020 -294,
passed 3-18-2020)
Lastly, Section 5.408.1: Construction Waste Management of the California Green Building
Standards Code states:
Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 % of the nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1.1,
5.408.1.2 or 5.408.1.3; or meet a local construction and demolition waste
management ordinance, whichever is more stringent.
The Project would be constructed in compliance with Section 5.408.1, the more stringent of the
code sections at 65% diversion, and a less than significant impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are determined on a project-specific basis. As concluded above, all Project impacts
concerning utilities and service systems would be less than significant in consideration of compliance with
existing laws, regulations, regulations, and standards. Consistent with the Project, all cumulative projects
would be subject to the City’s discretionary review process and would comply with existing laws,
regulations, and standards, and/or implement mitigation to fully mitigate their contributions concerning
utilities and services systems. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts anticipated
associated with public utilities and service systems, and the Project’s contribution toward potential future
utility and service system impacts in the City is not cumulatively considerable.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 167
Wildfire
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
X
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. According to CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map for the City, the Project site is
not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) nor Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
(VHFHSZ). The Project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) which means that the City
is responsible for wildfire protection. The closest VHFHSZ is located 1.65 miles to the northeast of
the Project site, north of the intersection of Palomar Road and Mapes Road.50 Review of Menifee
GP Exhibit S-8 further supports the finding that the Project site is not located in or near an SRA and
the Project site is not within a VHFHSZ.51 Therefore, no impact associated with the substantial
impairment of an adopted emergency response plan due to a wildfire would occur.
50 CAL FIRE. (2023). Fire Hazard Severity zones in State Responsibility Area. Available at: https://calfire-
forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008 (accessed January 2024).
51 City of Menifee. (2013). City of Menifee General Plan Exhibit S-8: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Public Facilities. Available at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/14710/2_Safety_Exhibits_8 -5_2021-8---Very-High-Fire-Hazard-Severity-Zoones-and-
Public-Facilities (accessed January 2024).
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 168
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. As noted in Threshold (a) above, the Project site is not located in or near an SRA and
the Project site does not contain lands classified as VHFHSZs. The Project would not exacerbate
wildfire risks or expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations or the uncontrolled spread
of a wildfire. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact. As noted in Threshold (a) above, the Project site is not located in or near an SRA and
does not contain lands classified as VHFHSZs. The Project would include construction of warehouse
facilities, with parking and landscaping included. Construction and operation of the Project would
not increase the risk of fire nor would it require the installation/maintenance of infrastructure that
would exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. As noted in Threshold (a) above, the Project site is not located in or near an SRA and
does not contain lands classified as VHFHSZs. Because the site is located within an urbanized area,
it would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
As concluded above, the Project site is not located within an SRA or contains lands classified as V HFHSZ.
The Project, in terms of wildfire hazards, would not contribute to an increase in other impacts including
pollution, flooding, and emergency access and evacuation. Since the Project would not have any wildfire-
related impacts, the Project would not contribute to any potential cumulative impact. The Project is fully
developed and located in an urbanized area within the City. Similar to the Project, all c umulative
development within the City would be subject to the City’s discretionary review process, and would be
required to conform to all applicable State, and local regulations and design standards and guidelines to
minimize impacts concerning wildfire hazards. Since the Project would not result in incremental effects to
wildfire when considered with other cumulative development, the Project would not result in any
cumulative wildfire-related impacts.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 169
Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
All impacts to the environment, including impacts to habitat for fish and wildlife species, fish and
wildlife populations, plant and animal communities, rare and endangered plants and animals, and
historical and pre‐historical resources were evaluated as part of this IS/MND in their respective
sections. Where impacts were determined to be potentially significant, mitigation measures have
been imposed to reduce those impacts to less‐than‐significant levels. As such, with incorporation
of MMs BIO-1 and BIO-2, potential impacts to biological resources would be reduced to less than
significant, incorporation of MM CUL-1 would reduce impacts to historical and archaeological
resources, and incorporation of MM GEO-2 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources.
With implementation of the previously noted MMs, the Project would not substantially degrade
the quality of the environment and impacts would be less than significant.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 170
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the ef fects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
As discussed throughout this Draft IS/MND, implementation of the Project has the potential to
result in effects to the environment that are individually limited and may be cumulatively
considerable in specific areas. In all instances where the Project has the potential to contribute to
a cumulatively considerable impact to the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed
to reduce potential effects to less than significant levels. The Project is not considered growth -
inducing, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines. The potential cumulative environmental effects of
implementing the Project would be less than considerable with implementation of mitigation, and
therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
The Project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could adversely affect human beings,
either directly or indirectly, has been discussed throughout this IS/MND in each respective section.
No portion of the proposed Project is anticipated to have or cause a substantial environmental
effect that would cause substantial effects on human beings. A less than significant impact is
anticipated to occur with incorporation of mitigation, as identified throughout this IS/MND.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 171
5.0 REFERENCES
CAL FIRE. (2023). Fire Hazard Severity zones in State Responsibility Area. Available at: https://calfire-
forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab69
3d008.
CAL FIRE. (2024). FHSZ Viewer. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-
preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones.
California Department of Conservation. (2020). California Important Farmland: 1984-2020. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/.
California Department of Finance. (2024). E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and
the State, 2020-2024. Retrieved from:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-
for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/.
CalRecycle. (2019). Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates.
CalRecycle. (2023). SWIS Facility/Site Search – Badlands Sanitary Landfill (33-AA-0006). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2367.
CalRecycle. (2023). SWIS Facility/Site Search – El Sobrante Landfill (33-AA -0217). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2402.
Caltrans. (2018). California State Scenic Highway System Map.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805
7116f1aacaa.
City of Menifee. (2022). Design Guidelines. Available at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/14902/Design-Guidelines_Amended-
March-2-2022?bidId=.
City of Menifee. (2021). Emergency Operations Plan. Retrieved from:
https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/12396/Emergency-Operations-Plan-
EOP?bidId=.
City of Menifee. (2023). General Plan Land Use Map.
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/11043/General-Plan--Land-Use-Map---
March-2023.
City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Draft EIR, Section 5.1: Aesthetics.
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1101/Ch-05-01-AE?bidId=.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 172
City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Draft EIR, Section 5.2: Agriculture and Forestry Resources.
Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1102/Ch-05-02 -AG?bidId= .
City of Menifee (2013). Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Section 5.6: Geology and Soils. Retrieved from:
https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1106/Ch-05 -06-
GEO?bidId=#:~:text=Elsinore%20Fault%20Zone.&text=The%20section%20closest%20to%20Men
ifee,to%20the%20northwest%20of%20Menifee.
City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Section 5.18: Utilities and Service Systems.
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1117/Ch-05-17-USS?bidId=.
City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan – Exhibit C-4: Proposed Bikeway and Community
Pedestrian Network. Retrieved from:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1021/C-4-Bikeways_HD0913?bidId=.
City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan – Exhibit C-5: Potential Transit Services. Retrieved from:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1022/C-5-
Potential_Transit_HD0913?bidId=.
City of Menifee. (2010). Menifee General Plan – Exhibit LU-5c: Perris Valley Airport Land Use
Compatibility Map – Map PV-1. Available at:
https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/6010/COM ---GP-Exhibit-LU -5a-c?bidId=.
City of Menifee. (2014). Menifee General Plan – Exhibit LU-5b: March Air Reserve Base Land Use
Compatibility Map. Available at: https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/6010/COM ---
GP-Exhibit-LU-5a-c?bidId=.
City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan – Exhibit OSC-3: Mineral Resource Zone: Retrieved from:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1084/ExhibitOSC-
3_Mineral_Resource_Zones_HD0913?bidId=.
City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan – Exhibit OSC-4: Paleologic Resource Sensitivity. Available
at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1085/ExhibitOSC-
4_Paleologic_Resource_Sensitivity_HD0913?bidId=.
City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan – Exhibit OSC-5: Agricultural Resources. Available at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1086/ExhibitOSC-
5_AgriculturalResources_HD0913?bidId=.
City of Menifee. (2012). Menifee General Plan – Exhibit S-1: Fault Map. Retrieved from:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1028/S-1_FaultMap_HD0913?bidId=.
City of Menifee. (2014). Menifee General Plan – Exhibit S-3: Liquefaction and Landslides Map. Retrieved
from: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1030/S-
3_LiquefactionandLandslides_HD0913?bidId=.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 173
City of Menifee. (2021). Menifee General Plan – Exhibit S-8: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and
Public Facilities. Retrieved from:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/14710/2_Safety_Exhibits_8-5_2021-8---
Very-High-Fire-Hazard-Severity-Zoones-and-Public-Facilities.
City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan – Exhibit S-9: Evacuation Routes.
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/14711/Evacaution-Routes.
City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Available at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/863/Circulation-Element.
City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element. Pg. 7. Available at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1081/3_OSC_Background-
Document_HD_0913?bidId=.
City of Menifee. (2024). Menifee MC Chapter 15.01, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Ordinance . Retrieved
from: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/menifee/latest/menifee_ca/0 -0-0-2967.
City of Menifee. (2024). Menifee MC Chapter 8.26 Grading Regulations. Retrieved from:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/9236/Final-Grading-Ordinance?bidId=.
City of Menifee. (2021). Ordinance No. 202- False Alarm. Retrieved at:
file:///C:/Users/aldo.perez/Downloads/False%20Alarm%20Ordinance%20-%202021.pdf.
City of Menifee. 2023. Zoning Map.
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/11042/Zoning -Map---March-2023.
DTSC. (2024). Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Retrieved
at:https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?PAGE=2&CMD=search&ocieerp=&busi
ness_name=&main_street_number=&main_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&branch=&stat
us=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&site_type=CSITES%2CFUDS&cleanup_type=&npl=&funding=&report
type=CORTESE&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%
29&federal_superfund=&state_response=&voluntary_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&operating=&
post_closure=&non_operating=&corrective_action=&tiered_permit=&evaluation=&spec_prog=
&national_priority_list=&senate=&congress=&assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_t
ype=&display_results=&school_district=&pub=&hwmp=False&permitted=&pc_permitted=&insp
ections=&inspectionsother=&complaints=&censustract=&cesdecile=&ORDERBY=city&next=Next
+50.
EMWD. (2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Page E-2. Retrieved from:
https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/urbanwatermanagementplan_0.pdf?1625160721 .
EMWD. (Rev. 2006). Sanitary Sewer System Planning and Design.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 174
ELMT Consulting. (2024). Habitat Assessment (HA) and Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis. Appendix B.
FEMA. (2014). FEMA Flood Map Service Center; Search by Address. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=menifee.
Huitt-Zollars, Inc. (2023). Preliminary Hydrology Report. Appendix H.
Huitt-Zollars, Inc. (2023). Water Quality Management Plan. Appendix H.
Kimley-Horn and Associates (2024). Cultural Resources Assessment. Appendix C.
Menifee Fire Department. (2023). Fire Fee Schedule. Available at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/16893/2023 -FIRE-FEE-SCHEDULE?bidId=.
Partner Engineering and Sciences, Inc. (2022). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Appendix G1.
Partner Engineering and Sciences, Inc. (2022). Shallow Soils Assessment. Appendix G2.
Perris Union Highschool District. (2023). Developer School Fees. Available at:
https://www.puhsd.org/developer-school-fees.
Romoland School District. (2022). Developer Fees General Information. Available at:
https://www.romoland.net/Page/2593.
SB 100. (2023). 100% Clean Energy FAQs. Retrieved from: https://focus.senate.ca.gov/sb100/faqs.
SCE. (2023). Carbon Neutrality by 2045. Retrieved from: https://www.edison.com/our-
perspective/pathway-2045.
SCE. ND. SCE Power Site Search Tool. Retrieved at:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=05a84ec9d19f43ac93b451939c330
888.
Southern California Geotechnical (2022). Geotechnical Investigation. Appendix E.
State of California. (2024). Employment Development Department – Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities
and Census Designated Places. Retrieved at: https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-
force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-census-areas.html.
Urban Crossroads (2024). Air Quality Report. Appendix A.
Urban Crossroads (2024). Energy Analysis. Appendix D.
Urban Crossroads (2024). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis. Appendix F.
Urban Crossroads (2024). Health Risk Assessment Report. Appendix A.
Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 2024 Page 175
Urban Crossroads (2024). Noise and Vibration Analysis. Appendix I.
Urban Crossroads (2024). Traffic Analysis. Appendix J.
Urban Crossroads (2024). Vehicle Miles Travelled Analysis. Analysis. Appendix J.
USGS. (2022). Interactive U.S. Fault Map. Available at: https://www.usgs.gov/tools/interactive-us-fault-map.
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 1 September 2024
Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Ethanac Business Park
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 2 September 2024
SECTION 1: AUTHORITY
This environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Program) has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.)
Sections 15091(d) and 15097 to ensure implementation of and provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures required of the Ethanac Business
Park Project (Project), as set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Project. This report will be kept on file
in the offices of the CEQA Lead Agency, the City of Menifee (City).
As noted in the IS/MND, the Project has been designed to avoid sensitive resources, as reflected in Project design plans. In addition, the IS/MND
addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and, where appropriate, recommends mitigation measures to avoid or substantially
lessen significant environmental impacts. The Program detailed in the matrix table below is designed to monitor and ensure implementation of all
mitigation measures that are adopted for the Project.
The City of Menifee (City) is the lead agency for the Project and assumes ultimate enforcement responsibilities for implementation of all mitigation
measures listed in this Program. The City may assign responsibility for implementation or monitoring to appropriate designees such as a construction
manager or third-party monitor. However, as the lead agency, the City remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation
measures occurs in accordance with this Program. In some cases, the applicant is required to secure permits or approvals from third-party agencies in
order to implement a mitigation measure. In these cases, the City is responsible for verifying that such permits or approvals have been obtained in
accordance with the conditions stipulated in the mitigation measure. The City’s existing planning, engineering, operations, and procurement review
and inspection processes will be used as the basic foundation for the Program procedures and will also serve to provide the documentation for the
reporting program.
SECTION 2: MONITORING SCHEDULE
Prior to construction, while detailed design plans are being prepared by the developer or its agents, City staff will be responsible for ensuring
compliance with mitigation monitoring applicable to the Project construction, development, and design phases. Once construction has begun and is
underway, monitoring of the mitigation measures associated with construction will be included in the responsibilities of City staff, who shall prepare
or cause to be prepared periodic monitoring reports as appropriate. Regulatory agencies will have to harmonize CEQA mitigation with regulatory
permit conditions and monitoring/reporting as part of the regulatory permitting process and will likely require submittal of formal monitoring reports.
Once construction has been completed, the City will monitor the project as specified in the mitigation measures or as otherwise deemed necessary. At
minimum, the applicant will prepare a mitigation monitoring status report for review prior to commencing each phase of development (grading,
building, and final occupancy.
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 3 September 2024
SECTION 3: SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to mitigation measures shall be maintained in the Project file with
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and shall be made available to the public upon request.
SECTION 4: FORMAT OF MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
The mitigation monitoring matrix on the following pages identifies the environmental issue areas for which monitoring is required, the required
mitigation measures, the time frame for monitoring, and the responsible implementing and monitoring agencies.
SECTION 5: DEFINITIONS
The following list provides definitions for acronyms used in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
Acronyms/Abbreviation Description
AQ ............................................... Air Quality
BIO .............................................. Biological Resources
BMPs .......................................... Best Management Practices
CARB ........................................... California Air Resources Board
CDFW .......................................... California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA ........................................... California Environmental Quality Act
City ............................................. City of Menifee
County ........................................ County of Riverside
CUL ............................................. Cultural Resources
EV ............................................... Electric Vehicle
GEO ............................................. Geology and Soils
HAZ ............................................. Hazards
MM ............................................. Mitigation Measure
Moyer Program…………………………Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program
MSHCP ........................................ Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
PRD ............................................. Permit Registration Documents
PRIMP ......................................... Paleontological Resource Mitigation Program
SCAQMD ..................................... South Coast Air Quality Management District
SMARTS ...................................... Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 4 September 2024
SWPPP ........................................ Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
State ........................................... State of California
TDM ............................................ Transportation Demand Management
VIP .............................................. Voucher Incentive Program
WAIRE ......................................... Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program
WQMP ........................................ Water Quality Management Plan
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 5 September 2024
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO-1: A 30-day pre-construction burrowing owl survey shall be
conducted prior to any ground disturbing activities to avoid direct take of
burrowing owls, in accordance with Objectives 6 of the Species Account for
the Burrowing Owl included in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan.
If burrowing owl are not detected during the preconstruction survey, no
further mitigation is required. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected
during the breeding season, the on-site biologist will review and establish a
conservative avoidance buffer surrounding the nest based on their best
professional judgment and experience and verify compliance with this buffer
and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume when no other
active burrowing owl nesting efforts are observed. If active burrowing owl
burrows are detected outside the breeding season, then passive and/or active
relocation pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be prepared by the
Applicant and approved by the City in consultation with CDFW, or the Project
Developer shall stop construction activities within the buffer zone established
around the active nest and shall not resume construction activities until the
nest is no longer active. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall be prepared in
accordance with guidelines in the MSHCP. Burrowing owl burrows shall be
excavated with hand tools by a qualified biologist when determined to be
unoccupied and backfilled to ensure that animals do not reenter the
holes/dens.
If ground-disturbing activities occur but the site is left undisturbed for more
than 30 days, a preconstruction survey will again be required to ensure
burrowing owl has not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If
burrowing owl is found, the same coordination described above shall be
required.
Project Applicant;
Qualified Biologist
Prior to ground
disturbance
activities or any
vegetation removal
Biological Monitor;
City of Menifee;
CDFW (if active burrowing owl
burrows are detected during
the breeding season))
MM BIO-2: If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a
pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within
three days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing
activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction.
The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative
survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian
nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-
Project Applicant;
Qualified Biologist
Prior to ground
disturbance
activities; Prior to
issuance of grading
permit
Biological Monitor
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 6 September 2024
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a
no-disturbance buffer. The size of the no-disturbance buffer will be
determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise
and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the
nest and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity,
ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors
will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when developing buffer distances.
Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field
with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction
personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological
monitor shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and
to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely
affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left
the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions,
construction activities within the buffer area can occur.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
MM GEO-1: Incorporation of and compliance with the recommendations in
the Project geotechnical Investigation. All grading, construction and
operations shall be conducted in conformance with the recommendations
included in the Geotechnical Investigation for the Project site prepared by
Southern California Geotechnical Inc. Specific recommendations in the
geotechnical investigation address the following and shall be incorporated
into the final Project plans and construction-level geotechnical report:
1. Removal of undocumented fill soils in their entirety and any soils
disturbed during site stripping and demolition operations (remedial
grading) and replace these materials as compacted structural fill soils.
2. Proper moisture conditioning of all building pad subgrade soils to a
moisture content of 2 to 4% above the ASTM D-1557 optimum during
site grading. In addition to adequately moisture conditioning the
subgrade soils and fill soils during grading, special care shall be taken to
maintaining moisture content of these soils at 2 to 4% above the
optimum moisture content. This will require the contractor to
frequently moisture condition these soils throughout the grading
process, unless grading occurs during a period of relatively wet weather,
as determined by the City Engineer.
Project Applicant;
Project geotechnical
consultant and
general contractor
During construction
activities; Prior to
issuance of grading
permit
City of Menifee Building and
Safety Division; City Engineer
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 7 September 2024
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
3. Demolition of the existing structure and pavements should include all
foundations, floor slabs, pavements, septic systems, utilities and any
other subsurface improvements that will not remain in place with the
new development. Debris resultant from demolition should be disposed
of off-site. Alternatively, concrete and asphalt debris may be pulverized
to a maximum 2-inch particle size, well-mixed with the sandy on-site
soils, and incorporated into new structural fills or it may be processed
to create crushed miscellaneous base (CMB).
4. Initial site preparation should also include stripping of any surficial
vegetation and organic soils. Based on conditions encountered at the
time of the subsurface exploration, minor striping and removal of some
trees in the landscaped areas along the property lines and within
landscaped planters will be required. Any vegetation, organic topsoil,
and all tree root masses should be removed during site stripping. These
materials should be disposed of off-site. The actual extent of site
stripping should be determined in the field by the geotechnical
engineer, based on the organic content and stability of the materials
encountered. Any soils disturbed during demolition should be removed
and replaced with compacted fill soils.
5. Remedial grading shall be performed within the proposed building pad
area in order to remove all of the existing undocumented fill soils and a
portion of the near-surface native alluvium. The undocumented fill soils
extend to depths of 2½ to 3± feet at the boring locations within the
building area. The soils within the proposed building pad area should
also be overexcavated to a depth of 4 feet below existing grade and to
a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed building pad subgrade
elevation. The proposed foundation influence zones within the
industrial building should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet
below proposed foundation bearing grade.
6. The over-excavation areas shall extend at least 5 feet beyond the
building and foundation perimeters, and to an extent equal to the depth
of fill placed below the foundation bearing grade, whichever is greater.
If the proposed structure incorporates any exterior columns (such as for
a canopy or overhang) the area of over-excavation shall also encompass
these areas.
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 8 September 2024
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
7. Following completion of the over-excavation, the subgrade soils within
the building area shall be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to
verify their suitability to serve as the structural fill subgrade, as well as
to support the foundation loads of the new structure. This evaluation
shall include proof-rolling and probing to identify any soft, loose, or
otherwise unstable soils that must be removed. Some localized areas of
deeper excavation may be required if additional fill materials or loose,
porous, or low-density native soils are encountered at the base of the
over-excavation.
8. After a suitable over-excavation subgrade has been achieved, the
exposed soils shall be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches and
moisture conditioned to achieve a moisture content of 2 to 4% above
optimum moisture content. The subgrade soils shall then be
recompacted to at least 90% of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density.
The building pad area may then be raised to grade with previously
excavated soils or imported structural fill.
9. The existing soils within the areas of proposed retaining and non-
retaining site walls should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 2 feet
below foundation bearing grade and replaced as compacted structural
fill. Any existing fill soils in these areas should be removed. Subgrades
for erection pads for concrete tilt-up walls are considered to be a part
of the foundation system and should also be overexcavated. Additional
overexcavation may be required if porous or collapsible alluvium is
encountered, as discussed above. The overexcavation subgrade soils
should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to scarifying,
moisture conditioning and recompacting the upper 12 inches of
exposed subgrade soils. The previously excavated soils may then be
replaced as compacted structural fill.
10. If the full lateral extent of overexcavation is not achievable for the
proposed walls, the foundations should be redesigned using a lower
bearing pressure. The geotechnical engineer of record should be
contacted for recommendations pertaining to this type of condition.
11. Subgrade preparation in the new flatwork, parking and drive areas shall
initially consist of removal of all soils disturbed during stripping and
demolition operations.
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 9 September 2024
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
12. Subgrade preparation in the new parking and drive areas should initially
consist of removal of all soils disturbed during stripping. The
geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify
any areas of additional unsuitable soils. The subgrade soils should then
be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4%
above optimum, and recompacted to at least 90% of the ASTM D-1557
maximum dry density. Based on the presence of artificial fill and variable
strength alluvial soils throughout the site, it is expected that some
isolated areas of additional overexcavation may be required to remove
zones of lower strength, unsuitable soils.
13. The grading recommendations presented above for the proposed
parking and drive areas assume that the owner and/or developer can
tolerate minor amounts of settlement within the proposed parking
areas. The grading recommendations presented above do not
completely mitigate the extent of existing undocumented fill soils in the
parking areas. As such, settlement and associated pavement distress
could occur. Typically, repair of such distressed areas involves
significantly lower costs than completely mitigating these soils at the
time of construction. If the owner cannot tolerate the risk of such
settlements, the parking and drive areas should be overexcavated to a
depth of 2 feet below proposed pavement subgrade elevation, with the
resulting soils replaced as compacted structural fill.
14. Subgrade preparation in the new flatwork areas should initially consist
of removal of soils disturbed during stripping operations. The
geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify
areas of additional unsuitable soils. The subgrade soils should then be
scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4%
above optimum, and recompacted to at least 90% of the ASTM D-1557
maximum dry density. Based on the presence of variable strength
alluvial soils throughout the site, it is expected that some isolated areas
of additional overexcavation may be required to remove zones of lower
strength, unsuitable soils.
15. Fill Placement:
• Fill soils should be placed in thin (6 inches), near-horizontal lifts,
moisture conditioned to 2 to 4% above the optimum moisture
content, and compacted.
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 10 September 2024
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
• On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of
any debris to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer.
• All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in
accordance with the requirements of the 2022 CBC and the
grading code of the city of Menifee and/or the county of
Riverside.
• All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90% of the ASTM
D-1557 maximum dry density. Fill soils should be well mixed.
• Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the
geotechnical engineer as random verification of compaction
and moisture content. These tests are intended to aid the
contractor. Since the tests are taken at discrete locations and
depths, they may not be indicative of the entire fill and
therefore should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility
to meet the job specifications.
16. All imported structural fill should consist of very low expansive (EI < 20),
well-graded soils possessing at least 10% fines (that portion of the
sample passing the No. 200 sieve). Additional specifications for
structural fill are presented in the Grading Guide Specifications,
included as Appendix D.
17. Compacted trench backfill should conform to the requirements of the
local grading code, and more restrictive requirements may be indicated
by the city of Menifee and/or the county of Riverside. All utility trench
backfills should be witnessed by the geotechnical engineer. The trench
backfill soils should be compaction tested where possible; probed and
visually evaluated elsewhere.
Utility trenches which parallel a footing and extending below a 1h:1v
plane projected from the outside edge of the footing should be
backfilled with structural fill soils, compacted to at least 90% of the
ASTM D-1557 standard. Pea gravel backfill should not be used for these
trenches.
18. All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in
accordance with the requirements of the latest CBC and the grading
code of the City of Menifee.
19. All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90% of the ASTM D-1557
maximum dry density. Fill soils should be well mixed.
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 11 September 2024
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
20. Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical
engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content.
These tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since the tests are taken
at discrete locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire
fill and therefore should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility
to meet the job specifications.
21. On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris
to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer.
Additional site testing and final design evaluation shall be conducted by the
Project geotechnical consultant to refine and enhance these requirements.
The Project Applicant/Developer shall require the Project geotechnical
consultant to assess whether the requirements in that report need to be
modified or refined to address any changes in the Project features that occur
prior to the start of grading. If the Project geotechnical consultant identifies
modifications or refinements to the requirements, the Project
Applicant/Developer shall require appropriate changes to the final Project
design and specifications. Design, grading, and construction shall be
performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Menifee
Municipal Code and the California Building Code applicable at the time of
grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the requirements of the
Project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report,
subject to review by the City of Menifee, or designee, prior to commencement
of grading activities.
Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the City of Menifee or
designee prior to the start of grading to verify that the requirements
developed during the geotechnical design evaluation have been appropriately
incorporated into the Project plans. Design, grading, and construction shall be
conducted in accordance with the specifications of the Project Geotechnical
Consultant as summarized in a final report based on the California Building
Code applicable at the time of grading and building, and the City of Menifee’s
Municipal Code. On-site inspection during grading shall be conducted by the
Project geotechnical consultant and the City of Menifee City Engineer, or
designee, to ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as
incorporated into project plans. Prior to final of grading permits, the Project
geotechnical engineer shall submit a Final Testing and Observation
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 12 September 2024
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
Geotechnical Report for Rough Grading to the City of Menifee City Engineer,
or designee.
MM GEO-2: Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program: The
Applicant will submit a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program
(PRIMP) prepared by a qualified paleontologist to the City of Menifee prior to
the issuance of a grading permit. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an
individual with an M.S./M.A. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is
familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques, and who is
knowledgeable in the geology and paleontology of the area.
The PRIMP must include:
1. an intensive field survey and surface salvage prior to earth moving, if
applicable;
2. monitoring by a qualified paleontological resource monitor of
excavations in previously undisturbed rock units;
3. salvage of unearthed fossil remains and/or traces (e.g., tracks, trails,
burrows, etc.);
4. screen washing to recover small specimens, if applicable;
5. preparation of salvaged fossils to a point of being ready for curation
(i.e., removal of enclosing matrix, stabilization and repair of
specimens, and construction of reinforced support cradles where
appropriate);
6. identification, cataloging, curation, and provision for repository
storage of prepared fossil specimens; and
7. a final report of the finds and their significance.
Project Applicant;
Qualified
Paleontologist
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
City of Menifee Planning
Division
MM GEO-3: Paleontological Monitoring: A qualified paleontologist will
attend preconstruction meetings to consult with the grading and excavation
contractors concerning planned depths, excavation schedules,
paleontological field techniques, and safety issues. In addition, all onsite
construction personnel will receive Worker Education and Awareness
Program (WEAP) training prior to the commencement of excavation work. All
ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction occurring
within previously undisturbed fossil bearing formations will be monitored by
a qualified paleontologist or qualified paleontological monitor. A
paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the
collection and salvage of fossil materials and works under the direction of a
qualified paleontologist. If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or
Project Applicant;
Qualified
Paleontologist
Prior to
construction
activities
City of Menifee Planning
Division
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 13 September 2024
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
paleontological monitor) will recover them. In most cases, this fossil salvage
can be completed in a short period of time; however, some fossil specimens,
such as a complete large mammal skeleton, may require an extended salvage
period. In these instances, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) will
be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of
fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovering
of small fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to
set up a screen-washing operation on site.
MM GEO-4: Data Recovery: Fossil remains collected during the monitoring
and salvage portion of the program will be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and
catalogued. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes,
photos, and maps, will be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution
with permanent paleontological collections located within Riverside County
(or, if no repository is available, adjacent Counties). A final data recovery
report will be completed that outlines the results of the paleontological
monitoring program. This report will include discussions of the methods used,
stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of
recovered fossils. The report will be submitted to the City upon completion.
Project Applicant;
Qualified
Paleontologist
During grading and
construction
activities
City of Menifee Planning
Division
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MM HAZ-1: Soil Management Plan (SMP). Prior to issuance of a grading
permit or trenching or subsurface excavation for utilities or roadway
infrastructure, the Developer shall retain a qualified environmental
professional to prepare a SMP that details procedures and protocols for on-
site management of soils containing potentially hazardous materials. The
purpose of the SMP is to outline protocol for ensuring the proper handling
and/or disposal of impacted soil and/or subsurface features of concern that
may be encountered during site development. The SMP shall be submitted to
the City’s (Building and Safety Department) for review and approval prior to
commencement of trenching or subsurface excavation for utilities or roadway
infrastructure.
The SMP shall include, but not be limited to:
• Land use history, including description and locations of known
contamination;
• The nature and extent of previous investigations and remediation at
the site;
Project Applicant;
Qualified
Paleontologist
Prior to issuance of
grading permit and
construction
activity
City of Menifee Engineering
Department
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 14 September 2024
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
• Identified areas of concern at the site, in relation to proposed
activities;
• A listing and description of institutional controls, such as applicable
City ordinances and other local, state, and federal regulations and laws
that would apply to the project;
• Names and positions of individuals involved with soils management
and their specific role;
• An earthwork schedule;
• Requirements for site-specific Health and Safety Plans (HSPs) to be
prepared by all contractors at the project site. The HSP should be
prepared by a Certified Industrial Hygienist and would protect on-site
workers by including engineering controls, personal protective
equipment, monitoring, and security to prevent unauthorized entry
and to reduce construction related hazards. The HSP should address
the possibility of encountering subsurface hazards including hazardous
waste contamination and include procedures to protect workers and
the public;
• Hazardous waste determination and disposal procedures for known
and previously unidentified contamination, including those associated
with any soil export activities, if applicable;
• Requirements for site specific techniques at the site to minimize dust,
manage stockpiles, run on and run-off controls, waste disposal
procedures, etc.; and Copies of relevant permits or closures from
regulatory agencies.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
MM HYD-1: Prior to commencing grading, the Project Applicant shall comply
with applicable construction water quality regulations including the NPDES
General Construction Permit, which shall be obtained from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board. This process requires that the applicant
electronically submit Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) prior to
commencement of construction activities in the Storm Water Multiple
Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). PRDs consist of the NOI,
Risk Assessment, Post-Construction Calculations, a Site Map, the SWPPP, a
Project Applicant Prior to grading
activity
City of Menifee RWQCB; City
Engineering Department
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 15 September 2024
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
signed certification statement by the Legally Responsible Person, and the first
annual fee.
The required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be
submitted to the City of Menifee Engineering Department for review and
approval, identifying specific actions and Best Management Practices (BMPs)
to prevent stormwater pollution during construction activities. The SWPPP
shall identify a practical sequence for BMP implementation, site restoration,
contingency measures, responsible parties, and agency contacts. The SWPPP
shall include but not be limited to the following elements:
A. Compliance with the requirements of the State of California’s most
current Construction Stormwater Permit.
B. Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented on all
disturbed areas.
C. Disturbed surfaces shall be treated with erosion control measures
during the October 15 to April 15 rainy season.
D. Sediment shall be retained on-site by a system of sediment basins,
traps, or other BMPs.
E. The construction contractor shall prepare Standard Operating
Procedures for the handling of hazardous materials on the
construction site to eliminate discharge of materials to storm drains.
F. BMP performance and effectiveness shall be determined either by
visual means where applicable (e.g., observation of above-normal
sediment release), or by actual water sampling in cases where
verification of contaminant reduction or elimination (such as
inadvertent petroleum release) is required by the Santa Ana RWQCB
to determine adequacy of the measure.
G. In the event of significant construction delays or delays in final
landscape installation, native grasses or other appropriate
vegetative cover shall be established on the construction site as
soon as possible after disturbance, as an interim erosion control
measure throughout the duration of construction.
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 16 September 2024
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
H. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the Project
Applicant shall submit the Final Tentative Parcel Map that includes
the water quality BMPs for approval by the City of Menifee Engineer.
The City of Menifee Engineer shall ensure that all applicable water
quality standards are met before approving the SWPPP.
MM HYD-2: The Project Applicant shall prepare a Final Project-Specific Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) with O&M Plan for submittal together
with the associated grading and improvement plans which must be approved
prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. These documents shall
be prepared in accordance with applicable City (Menifee) and County
(Riverside) water quality requirements, for review and approval by the City of
Menifee Engineering Department, including the following:
Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Source Control BMPs
Treatment Control BMPs
BMP Sizing
Equivalent Treatment Control Alternatives
Regionally-Based Treatment Control BMPs
O&M Responsibility for Treatment Control BMPs
Project Applicant Prior to issuance of
building or grading
permits
City Engineer
MM HYD-3: Prior to issuance of grading permits, grading plans, and final
drainage study shall demonstrate compliance with applicable City and County
drainage plans, policies, design guidelines and regulations including but not
limited to City of Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.26 Grading Regulations.
Project Applicant Prior to issuance of
grading permits
City of Menifee Engineering
Department
TRANSPORTATION
MM TRANS-1: The Project Applicant shall consult with the local transit service
provider on the need to provide infrastructure to connect the Project with
transit services. Evidence of compliance with this requirement may include
correspondence from the local transit provider(s) regarding the potential
need for installing bus turnouts, shelters, or bus stops at the site.
The Project Applicant shall be required to prepare a marketing strategy that
promote the Project site employer’s (Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program.
Project Applicant Prior to issuance of
building permit
City of Menifee Engineering
Department
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 17 September 2024
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
Information sharing and marketing promote and educate employees about
their travel choices to the employment location beyond driving such as
carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. The following features (or
similar alternatives) of the marketing strategy are essential for effectiveness.
• On-site or online commuter information services.
• Employee transportation coordinators.
• On-site or online transit pass sales.
• Guaranteed ride home service.
The Project will provide tenant’s employees material and online resources as
a means to promote the commute trip reduction program. The CTR marketing
strategy shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit
and incorporated into the Project’s Codes Covenants and Restrictions
(CC&Rs).
MM TRANS-2: The Project Applicant will be required to provide a ridesharing
program and establish a permanent transportation management association
with funding requirements for employers. Ridesharing will encourage
carpooled vehicle trips in place of single-occupied vehicle trips. Ridesharing
must be promoted through a multifaceted approach. Examples include the
following.
• Designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for
ridesharing vehicles.
• Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting
areas for ridesharing vehicles.
• Providing an app or website for coordinating rides.
The Project could be designed to provide carpool/vanpool/EV parking
designated spaces in locations of easy and convenient accessibility to the
Project building. As concluded in the VMT Assessment, this design feature is
expected to reduce VMT by 3.6%.
Project Applicant Prior to issuance of
building permit
City of Menifee Planning
Division
MM TRANS-3: The Project shall install and maintain end-of-trip facilities for
employee use. End-of-trip facilities include bike parking, bike lockers, and
personal lockers. The provision and maintenance of secure bike parking and
related facilities encourages commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT and
GHG emissions.
Project Applicant Prior to issuance of
building permit
City of Menifee Planning
Division
Ethanac Business Park
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Menifee 18 September 2024
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
The Project can include building elements for bicycle trip end facilities (i.e.,
parking) for commuters that choose to bicycle as a mode of travel. This will
promote an alternative mode choice of commuting for employees. As
calculated, the Project will reduce VMT by 0.1%.