01006.0003/1031284.1
N
ovember 6, 2024
H
onorable Mayor and City Council
City of Menifee City Council
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92585
S
UBJECT: City Council November 6, 2024 Meeting
Agenda Item 11.1 – Appeals of the Planning Commission Decision for the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
H
onorable Mayor Zimmerman and Councilmembers:
T
he City of Perris (“Perris”) submits this letter to further support its appeal of the above project.
The City has reviewed Menifee’s responses to Perris’ appeal points . There is no question the project description is incomplete and therefore inadequate, thus understating potential significant environmental impacts. Furthermore, Perris stands by its previous comments regarding the inadequacy of the air quality and Greenhouse Gas analysis set forth in the staff report for this item and has determined those responses to be inadequate.
W
ith regard to the Project’s impacts related to traffic safety, Perris requested that RK Engineering review Menifee’s responses to Perris’ appeal points on this topic. Attached is correspondence from RK Engineering dated November 5, 2024 expressing continued concerns regarding how the project will deteriorate the operations of various intersections and street segments resulting in reasonably foreseeable impacts related to traffic safety. Most importantly, the letter details the serious flaws in the methodologies used to prepare the traffic impact study for this Project such that the study is not credible and cannot be considered substantial evidence supporting any of the traffic impact conclusions in the EIR.
A
t the Planning Commission on August 14, 2024, the developer and Menifee staff made comments that the Project warranted a Statement of Overriding Consideration as the development would generate high-paying jobs, potential ly drawn from future manufacturing business. However, the building is designed with a cross-dock layout intended for a typical warehouse fulfillment center.
In addition, the developer further commented at the meeting that the Project is a spec ulative
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
135 N. “D” Street, Perris, CA 92570-2200
TEL: (951) 943-5003 FAX: (951) 943-8379
01006.0003/1031284.1
i
ndustrial building with no intended user in mind. Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations needs to be updated to reflect accurately the reasoning for the Statement of Overriding Considerations in light of the impacts to greenhouse gas emissions that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels with mitigations.
P
ursuant to SB 330, local jurisdictions are prohibited from downzoning unless they upzone an equivalent amount elsewhere. Although technically no downzoning is proposed, the Project site is located in the Economic Development Corridor (EDC) Northern Gateway, where 5% of the land is intended to be preserved for residential development, while the remaining land is designated for industrial development ( Refer to Menifee’s General Plan Land Use Element Exhibit LU-B2B:
Northern Gateway below). As the zoning designation has no implementation program to monitor and ensure the loss of residential capacity does not drop below 5%, the EIR, would need to analyze and discuss how the City intends to preserve or monitor that 5% of the land use will be retained for future residential uses, particularly in light of the fact that the proposed Project will require the demolition of an existing single-family house and voidance of an approved residential subdivision approved on the project site. T here are multi-projects in the pipeline within the EDC Northern Gateway area that will remove existing approved residential tract maps and single-family homes.
Without an implementation plan /monitoring program in place, the Project, in combination with other projects in the pipeline, would have the potential net effect of eliminating housing without providing for a provision in place to ensure that 5 percent of the land is preserved for future residential development as envisioned EDC Northern Gateway identified in Menifee’s General Plan. Therefore, the Project would effectively downzone the property.
F
urthermore, the project would be in direct conflict with Menifee’s Good Neighbor Guidelines, as the site is immediately across existing residential properties to the north and west, as depicted on the graphic in yellow below. The homes, in principle, are not considered legal non-conforming residential, as the zoning is Economic Development Corridor (EDC) Northern Gateway, where 5 percent of the land is intended to be preserved for residential development.
01006.0003/1031284.1
On September 29, 2024, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 98 which establishes mandatory minimum development standards and setbacks for certain warehouse and distribution center projects. Perris recognizes that this Project is not required to comply with AB 98 pursuant to it s terms. However, Perris strongly encourages Menifee to separately include these new requirements as conditions of approval for the Project to mitigate the public health and safety issues that AB 98 is intended to address.
As you know, the cities of Perris and Menifee have commissioned a global traffic study to identify the traffic impacts associated with development within Perris and Menifee and to identify the necessary traffic infrastructure improvements to mitigate those impacts. Unfortunately, this traffic study will not be completed for another couple of months. Therefore, if you approve this Project tonight this Project will not be required to contribute toward the costs of any of the identified traffic infrastructure improvement despite its clear impacts related to traffic safety.
In conclusion, Perris respectfully requests that this Council either grant Perris’ appeal or continue its consideration of the appeals of this project for six (6) months to allow time for the Global Traffic Study to be complete so that this Project may participate in the costs of the identified traffic infrastructure improvements.
Respectfully,
Patricia Brenes
Planning Manager
Attachment: RK Engineering Appeal Responses – November 5, 2024
cc:
Clara Miramontes, City Manager
Wendell Bugtai, Assistant City Manager
Robert Khuu, City Attorney
John Pourkazemi, City Engineer
Kenneth Phung, Director of Development Services
November 5 , 2024
Ms. Patrici a Brenes
City o f Pe rris
135 North "D" Street
Perris, CA 92570
SUBJ ECT: CADO INDUSTRIAL WAREHO USE PRO J ECT – R E V I E W OF T HE NOV E MB E R 6, 2024
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA & APPEAL RESPO NSES (TRAFFIC-RELATED ITEMS) Dear Ms. Bre ne s:
INTRO DUCTIO N
Pursuant to your request, R K Engineering Group I nc. (R K ) is pleased to provide this additional review o f the CADO Ind ustrial Ware ho use Pro je ct, lo cate d within the City o f Me nife e .
T he proj ect i s on the southwest corner of the i ntersecti on of K uf f el R oad at B y ers R oad, j ust south of Ethanac R oad in the City of Menifee. T he project consists of the construction of a warehouse building totaling approximately 700,037 square feet (SF). T h is p ro je ct is lo cate d within the Me nife e Eco no m ic Development Corridor (MEDC).
On August 14, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted 3- 1-1 (Co m m issio ne r Lo ng vo ting no and Chair LaDue ab se nt) to ap p ro ve Te ntative Parce l Map (TPM) No . 38139 (P LN 2 2-0041) and Plot Plan (PP) No. PL N21- 0370 – CADO Menif ee I ndustrial Warehouse Project along with the related environmental analysis. On August 20, 2024, the City recei v ed an ap p licatio n fro m the Go ld e n State Enviro nm e ntal J ustice Alliance to ap p e al the Planning Co m m issio n decision. On August 23, 2024, the City received a second application from the City o f Pe rris to ap p e al the Planning Co m m issio n d e cisio n.
City o f Me nife e staff is re co m m e nd ing to up ho ld the Planning Co m m issio n’s ce rtificatio n o f an Environmental Impact Report and approval of the project as part of the City’ s City Council hearing to be held on November 6, 2024. An agenda for this City Council hearing has been provided to the City of Perris which contains responses to the most recent City of Perris Appeal L etter (dated August 23, 2024).
RK h as co m p le te d a n ad d itio na l re vie w o f this November 6, 2024 City Council Agenda & Ap p e a l R esponses and have the following comments :
RK2 0308 // 0352-2024 -03 2
COMMENTS
1. A-1 7, A -18, A-27, A -36 & A-38 Response s Regarding Offset Intersections of Ba rn e tt Ro a d & Case R oad at E thanac R oad . Th e City o f Me nife e response states that “It should also be noted that the Project would add only eastbound and westbound through traffic at the i ntersecti on of E thanac R oad at B arnett R oad/Case R oad; theref ore, the proj ect woul d not impact or worsen the potential issue of the northbound/southbound of fset between Barnett R oad and Case R oad.” T he conclusion that beca use the project only adds through traffic to these intersections means that the project will not impact or worsen traffic o p e ratio ns is no t co rre ct. The ad d itio n o f a ny tra ffic ( regardl ess of the mov ements ) will like ly wo rse n tra ffic co nd itio ns, especially from the volume that the project is forecast to generate .
In regards to the previous comments that hav e been made about this project needing to co nsid e r the fo rthco m ing MEDC Glo b al Stud y, se ve ral circulatio n alte rnative s are b e ing co nsid e re d as part of that study . Se ve ral o f the se alte rnative s invo lve trucks utilizing Barne tt R oad, as opposed to solely Ethanac R oad. T his would result in truck turning movements at these offset intersections as opposed to just eastbound/westbound through traffic. Witho ut co nsid e ring the se circulatio n alte rnative s, the traffic stud y m ay b e und e re stim ating traffic operations at these offset intersections.
T he City’ s response also states “ queuing progression and congestion does not automatically mean there is a saf ety hazard. As such, for the reasons noted above in this response, there is no ev i dence that those occurrences will create saf ety hazards in thi s case and the City of Perris has not provided any evidence to the contrary .” It is the re sp o nsib ility o f the traffic stud y to assess whether these congestion issues along Ethanac R oad present any traffic safety concerns and i f the proj ect wi l l worsen these co nd itio ns. The traffic stud y d o e s no t p ro vid e any analysis to ve rify these claims. T he June 2023 supplemental analysis confirms there are existing saf ety issues at these offset intersections.
L astly, the City of Menifee states “ A se p arate sig nalize d inte rse ctio n typ ically has its o wn traffic sig nal cab ine t, which is lo cate d o n a co rne r o f the inte rse ctio n to which the sig nal cab ine t is connected to. The traffic signal cabinet assig ns p hasing , sig nal tim ing , and cycle le ng th that d ire ct the o p e ratio n o f the ind ivid ual traffic signal. I n the case of the intersection of Ethanac R oad at Barnett R oad/Case R oad, there is onl y o ne traffic sig nal cab ine t lo cate d so uth o f Ethanac Road between the two off set legs of the intersection. As such, while the northbound and southbound approaches are offset, the inte rse ctio n o p e rate s as o ne sig nalize d intersection that has connected phasing, signal timing, and cycle length. As a result, the intersection of Barnett R oad/Case R oad at Ethanac R oad operates as one intersection and should be analyzed as one for analysis purposes. The comment suggests that the offset natur e of Barnett Road and Case Road (the north/south roads at this intersection) causes a safety hazard and that the Proj ect wi l l ex acerbate those i ssues. I t shoul d be noted that the Proj ect does not tak e di r ect access f rom B arnett R oad and woul d add onl y eastbound and westbound through traffic on Ethanac Road at the intersection of Ethanac Road at Barnett R oad/Case RK2 0308 // 0352-2024 -03 3
Road. Therefore, the Project would not directly impact the turn pockets at the intersection and woul d not create or ex acerbate turni ng haz ards due to geometri c desi gn f eatures. ” Th is comment suggests that there woul d be no operati onal di f f erence between how these of f set inte rse ctio ns o p e rate no w co m p are d to ho w the y wo uld o p e rate as a truly alig ne d sing ular inte rse ctio n. As detailed in the June 2023 supplemental analysis of these intersections, there are currentl y ex i sti ng saf ety concerns ( i . e. , truck s spi lling out of turn pockets and into the through lanes/ intersections ), causing potential turning conflicts and increasing the chances for ve hicular co llisio ns. T hese saf ety concerns woul d i mprov e drasti cal l y i f these of f set intersections were to be aligned. As such, the project needs to analyze its affect on both inte rse ctio ns ind ivid ually and co nclud e that the alig nm e nt o f b o th inte rse ctio ns wo uld he lp m itig ate certain safety concerns. The project shall be required to contribute towards this future alig nm e nt.
2. A-28 Response Re g ard ing Existing Traffic Volum e s . T he Ci ty of M eni f ee response states that the “ variance in existing volumes between the October 2021 and February 2023 at the three noted locations are within 10%. As such, the traffic counts in the Project T raffic Study are co nsid e re d re aso nab le , as we ll as co nse rvative in so m e lo catio ns as no te d ab o ve .” A 10% “va ria n ce ” could result in an underestimat io n of hundreds of vehicles depending on the inte rse ctio n. The City o f Pe rris re m ains firm in the ir p o sitio n that the traffic stud y sho uld b e up d ate d utilizing ne w tra ffic vo lum e s to ensure the analysis is not understated .
3. A-32 Response R egarding the I ntersection of Green V alley Parkway and E thanac R oad .
T he Ci ty of M eni f ee response states that the “stud y inte rse ctio ns in the Pro je ct’s Traffic Stud y are based on the T raf f i c S copi ng A greement approv ed by the Ci ty of M eni f ee. T he i ntersecti on of Green V alley Parkway and Ethanac R oad was not part of the approved list of study inte rse ctio ns as it is a f uture intersection that does not provide direct access to the Project. I t shoul d al so be noted that the Proj ect woul d add onl y ea stbound and westbound through traf f ic on Ethanac R oad at the f uture intersection of Green V alley Parkway and Ethanac R oad and would therefore not directly impact the Green V alley Parkway approach at the future i ntersecti on. ” A s prev i ousl y menti oned, the City of Perris did not have the opportunity to review and provide comments on the scoping agreement. T his intersection would have ce rtainly been includ e d if this sco p e was p ro vid e d to the City o f Pe rris. This inte rse ctio n is a m ajo r inte rse ctio n (i.e . inte rse ctio n o f two classifie d ro ad ways p e r the City o f Pe rris Circulatio n Ele m e nt). Also , the statement that because the project will only add eastbound and westbound through traffic on Ethanac Ro ad co nfirm s the p ro je ct will no t d ire ctly im p act this inte rse ction is sim p ly no t co rre ct.
Per Figure 8A of the T raffic Study, the project is forecast to add 481 AM & 664 PM peak hour thro ug h vo lum e s at this inte rse ctio n, which will d e g rad e traffic o p e ratio ns. A ppropri ate analysis is ne e d e d to ve rify this claim .
4. A-34 & A-35 R esponses R egardi ng Pedestri an T i mi ngs . T he Ci ty of M eni f ee response states that the “walk and p e d e strian cle arance tim e is acco unte d fo r in the Vistro traffic m o d e ling sof tware based on standard HCM def aults f or walk time (4 -7 seconds) and pedestrian crossing RK2 0308 // 0352-2024 -03 4
speed ( 3. 5 f eet per second) . ” A s prev i ousl y menti oned, the wal k ti mes need to be based on actual crosswalk lengths, not the lengths def aul ted in V istro. I n many cases, the actual lengths far exceed the lengths V istro assumes due to large medians, extra departure lanes, extra wi de lanes, bus stops, etc. , re sulting in incre ase d p e d e strian tim ing s. As such, the L OS results could b e sig nificantly und e re stim ate d b y using these lo we r p e d e strians tim ing s.
5. General (R oadway Segment A nalysis). T he sourced ro ad way cap acitie s (a s p a rt o f th e tra ffic study’ s roadway segment L OS analysis) are enti rel y based on Ci ty of M eni f ee’ s standards.
Ho we ve r, m any o f the stud y are a ro ad way se g m e nts are lo cate d p artially o r fully within the City o f Pe rris. All City o f Pe rris ro ad way facilitie s ne e d to use the cap acitie s so urce d within the City of Perris Circulatio n Ele m e nt. Th e proj ect may need to be condi ti oned to wi den E thanac R oad to ultimate width per the C it y’s Ge ne ral Plan.
CONCLUSIONS
R K Engineering Group I nc. has completed a rev i ew of the November 6, 2024 City Council Agenda & A ppeal R esponses . R K offers several comments in response to the Ci ty of M eni f ee’ s responses f rom the City o f Pe rris’s August 23, 2024 Appeal L etter .
RK appreciates this opportunity to work with the City of Perris on this project and if yo u have any questions, please contact us at 949- 293- 9639.
S i ncerel y ,
RK ENGINEERING GRO UP, INC.
Justin Tucke r, P.E., T.E. Rob e rt Kahn, P.E., T.E.
Asso ciate Princip al Founding Principal
R egistered Civil Engineer 92866 R egistered Civil Engineer 20285 R egistered T raffic Engineer 3055 R egistered T raffic Engineer 0555 X C: K enneth Phung, City o f Perris
J o hn Po urkaze m i, City o f Pe rris
Brad Bro p hy, City o f Perris