Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLPAttorneys at Law2010 Main Street, 8thFloor | Irvine, CA 92614-7214Telephone: 949.553.1313 | Facsimile: 949.553.8354www.allenmatkins.comPaige H. GosneyE-mail: [email protected] Dial: 949.851.5444 File Number: 119600.02528/4870-4166-7315.1 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Allen MatkinsVia Email ([email protected])r1, 2024 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Attn: Stephanie Roseen, Acting City ClerkCity of Menifee 29844 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586 Re: Notice of Appeal of October 23, 2024, Planning Commission Denial of Murrieta Road Warehouse ProjectHonorable Mayor and City Councilmembers:This firm represents construction of an approximately 517,720 square-of ground floor office space, 7,000 SF of mezzanine office space and 505,932 SF of warehouse space located south of Floyd Avenue, east of Geary Street, west of Murrieta Road, and north of -210-010, -011, -013, and -062, 330-560- 001 through 330-560-040, 330-570-001 through 330-570-033, and 330-571-001 through 330-571-On October 23, 2024, the City Planning Commission considered the Project entitlements, which include Plot Plan No. PLN22-0179 and Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023110162) and the associated Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, at a noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission, which freely acknowledged that the Project was consistent and compliant with all applicable development and design standards governing development on the Property as well as being among the express types of development contemplated for the Economic Development Corridor -Project entitlements into a referendum on the EDC-as a wholeand impact of warehouse projects on nearby, legal nonconforming residential uses.Ultimately, the Planning Commission d therecently-adopted Good Neighbor Policies and voted 2-3 todenythe Project.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLPAttorneys at Law Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers ber1, 2024 Page 2In accordance with Municipal Code section 2.20.150, the purpose of this letter is to set forth denial of the Project. A check in the amount $3,879.99 was previously delivered to the City to cover the requisite appealfee. We respectfully request that this letter and the attachments hereto be included as part of the administrative record for this matter. As outlined more fully below, and subject to such additional grounds, information and evidence as may be presented to the City Council prior to and during the public hearing on this Appeal, the Planning Project entitlements, including Plot Plan No. PLN22-0179 and Project EIR, should be vacated and overturned for the following reasons: (i) the Planning Commission failed to make adequate (or any) findings in support of its denial, as required by longstanding California law; and (ii) the Planning Commission improperly conflated the Projectwith the greater issue of warehouse development in the EDC-NG thereby depriving Applicant of the right to a fair hearing on the merits of the Project itself. Each of the foregoing, standing alone, in addition to any other that may be raised prior to or during the forthcoming City Council hearing on the Appeal, constitutes grothe Project entitlements. Make Adequate or AnyWritten Findings to Support its Denial of the ProjectWhere an administrative agency is required to make findings to support a quasi-judicial Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles(1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515; see also Healing v. California Coastal Com.(1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1167.) The findings seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the Id., at p. 514.) The granting or denial of an application for a Plot Plan, like a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit/entitlement, is a quasi-judicial action thatmust be supported by valid findings.In this instance, the Planning Commission made no findings and adopted no resolutionsetting forth the justification for its decision to deny the Project approvals. Absent such findings and explanation for its denial, tbe bridged in this instance and therefore,on this basis alone,Further, to the extent that the City takes the positsurrounding neighborhood, disagreement with the existing, City-approved zoning for the site that expressly contemplates and allows for the exact uses proposed by the project and alleged impacts to residential property values, that is not sufficient to justify the denial of the Project. (See Pacifica Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLPAttorneys at Law Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers , 2024 Page 3Corp. v. City of Camarilloequivalent ofTopanga(Healing, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at 1167), and the Planning Commission failed to provide anymuch less adequate c gap between the raw evidence and ultimate Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 515). Even assuming the denialwassupported by a resolution, which it was not, the Planning Commission could not and cannotidentify facts to support denial of the Project because the Project is unquestionably consistent with both the underlying General Plan and Zoning designations and applicable development standards and there is no basis to find that the Project would be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood and/or the City in general. (Dev. Code, § 9.80.70.) For example, as set forth in the resolution to approve the Project entitlements prepared by Staff in support of their recommendation of approval: General Plan and Zoning Consistency:of EDC-NG is intended to provide economic vitality and flexibility in land use options to promote h the EDC-a multitude of General Plan policies, including (among others) the following: LU-1.1:Concentrate growth in strategic locations to help preserve rural areas, createplace and identity, provide infrastructure efficiently, and foster the use of transitoptions.oThe Project site is located close to Ethanac Road (a City-designated truckroute) with direct access to the Interstate 215 freeway. The location is wellsuited for industrial development to promote easily accessible routes foremployees and delivery personnel and the location helps concentrateactivity and development near the major transit corridors of the City asopposed to the rural areas or traveling through residential areas.LU-1.5:Support development and land use patterns, where appropriate, that reducereliance on the automobile and capitalize on multimodal transportation opportunities.owidening, intersection improvements, and sidewalks. All of theseimprovements will help promote multimodal transportation opportunitiesfor employees and residents surrounding the Project site. Furthermore, theApplicant is at the forefront of the Global Traffic Analysis currently beingprepared to analyze traffic impacts associated with current and pendingindustrial development in the EDC-NG and propose solutions to enhance Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLPAttorneys at Law Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers , 2024 Page 4and improve traffic flow, including through the use of alternative and multimodal transportation methods.CD-3.5:Design parking lots and structures to be functionally and visually integratedand connected; off-street parking lots should not dominate the street scene.ont Code, Design Guidelines andGood Neighbor Policies, perimeter landscaping improvements that areare provided inorder to visually screen the parking lots, truck court, and drive aisles fromsurrounding roadways. In addition, over 73,000 SF of the Property is beingutilized for the development of new roadways for the benefit of thesurrounding properties and greater EDC-NG area.CD-3.9:Utilize Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)techniques and defensible space design concepts to enhance community safety.oThe Project is conditioned to include extensive lighting and securitycameras at all entrances and exits is specifically designed to limit concealedareas for greater visibility and security.CD-3.12:Utilize differing but complementary forms of architectural styles anddesigns that incorporate representative characteristics of a given area.oNeighbor Policies, as well as City of Menifee Design Guidelines such asbuilding form, roof form, massing and articulation, materials and colors,windows, doors, and entries.CD-3.14:Provide variations in color, texture, materials, articulation, andarchitectural treatments. Avoid long expanses of blank, monotonous walls or fences.ovaried roof lines, wall plane changes, glazing, and other architecturaltreatments that break up wall areas to avoid long expanses of blank,monotonous walls and the Project will provide extensive landscaping andscreening improvements to minimize and mitigate visual impacts.Compliance with Applicable Development Standards and Requirements:Per Section 9.80.020 of the Development Code, the new construction of non-residential projects of more than anddesign for Plot Plan No. PLN22-0179 was analyzed and evaluated in light of the Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLPAttorneys at Law Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers , 2024 Page 5Development Code, Industrial Good Neighbor Policies, and Industrial Design Guidelines and determined by Staff to be consistent with all applicable development and design standards. -adopted Good Neighbor Policies were created toaddress the exact scenario presented by the Project the mitigation of impacts of industrial projects located near residential and other sensitive receptors. In this case, of course, the residential properties to the north are inconsistent with the current EDC-NG zoning regulations and are therefore considered legal nonconforming uses. Notwithstanding this fact, the Project meets and/or exceeds all of the applicable Good Neighbor Policies, including with respect to screening, building design, community outreach, increased building and loading dock setbacks, on-site truck queuing, on-site signage, and environmental mitigation measures as set forth in and enforceable via the Project EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). No Adverse Impacts to Community Health, Safety and Welfare:The Project EIR included a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the potential impacts of the Project to the surrounding community, including with respect to traffic, air quality, noise and Greenhouse Gas (GHG). The Project EIR concluded that the Project, with applicable mitigation, would not result in any adverse environmental or other impacts and, to the extent that such impacts would occur, the immense benefits the Project would provide to City residents (infrastructure improvements, jobs, impact fee contributions, increased property taxes and other revenue) far outweighed the alleged potential impacts. In addition, the Project was designed with aesthetically pleasing architectural features andlandscaping which will enhance the surrounding area and, as noted above, complies fully with all applicable development standards and other regulations. Further to the above, the Planning Commission provided some questions and commentary about the Project EIR and the finding that the Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts regarding GHG emissions and would reduce property values for the nearby legal nonconforming residential properties. First, as noted by Staff, the vast majority of GHG emissions (86 percent) would be caused by non-construction-related mobile sources (vehicle and truck traffic) that are subject to rigorous State and Federal standards and mitigation measures. The imposition and enforcement of these measures in conjunction with the completion of construction and occupancy of the Project will -related GHG emissions. For example, theAdvanced Clean Cars II rule approved by the California Air Resourcestablishes a year-by-year roadmap so that by the year 2035 one-hundred percent (100%) of new cars and light trucks sold in California will be zero-emission vehicles. The rule anticipates that from 2026through 2040, vehicle-related climate warming pollution will be reduced a cumulative total of 395million metric tons, which is equivalent to avoiding the greenhouse gases produced from the combustion of 915 million barrels of petroleum. (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035.) Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLPAttorneys at Law Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers , 2024 Page 6In addition, fthan those that would result from alternative projects, including a 643,730 square foot business parkproject, a 375,509 square foot of commercial retail project and a 591 multifamily housing (low-rise) dwelling unit residential project. (See Exhibit A [GHG Comparative Analysis Table].) In any event, it bears noting that the City has recently approved a number of other warehouse/distribution projects whose anticipated GHG emissions would, like the Project, exceed the applicable threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year for non-residential development (e.g., , the Menifee Commerce Center (9/28/2022), Motte Business Center (2/22/2024)and CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (8/16/2024). any developmenton the Property or within the surrounding area will result in a significant increase in noise levels over and above existing ambient levels, particularly given that development of any kind would require conversion of the existing, lightly-used dirt roadways, such as Geary Street, into new paved streets thereby causing a corresponding increase in traffic and traffic-related noise. Thus, although the Project would result in a significant noise impact as compared to the existing undeveloped conditions, this impact must be evaluated in context with the practical reality of the Property. Finally, as regards the impact of warehouse development on property values, empirical data related to warehouse/distribution uses in the Inland Empire shows unequivocally that industrial development actually enhances and increases property values for surrounding neighborhoods. (See Exhibit B [South Bloomington / Fontana | 10-Year Resales Overview].) In any event, the impacts to property values in the area would generally have been realized at the time the EDC-NG wasoriginally established and the scope of permitted future non-residential uses defined for residents and property ownersnot on a project-by-project basis as the EDC-NG area is developed in accordance with the approved land use regulations and development standards. Thus, any claims that the proposed Project and other warehouse development would adversely affect property values for the handful of legal nonconforming residential properties situated to the north of the Property are completely unfounded and are unsupported by any defensible data or evidence. The Planning Commission Improperly Conflated its Consideration of the Project With the Permissibility and Scope of Warehouse Development in the EDC-NGy right in the EDC-NG subject only to approval of a plot plan and confirmation of the findings set forth in Section 9.80.70As noted above, there is and was no dispute among the Planning Commission that the proposed Project is consistent and compliant with all Neighbor Policies intended to address the impacts of warehouse development near residential and other sensitive receptors, and that the Project itselfwould not result in adverse impacts to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding community.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLPAttorneys at Law Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers , 2024 Page 7Acknowledging the above and that the Project isdevelopment in the City, the Planning Commission nonetheless took issue with the number ofproposed warehouse developments in the EDC-NG and expressed a desire that the City Council take action to amend the EDC-NG zoning regulations to prohibit future warehouse development. In doing so, the Planning Commission transformed the hearing on the merits of this Project on this Property and its compliance with the applicable zoning and other land development standards and regulations into a greater referendum and discussion of the allowance of warehouse development in the EDC-NG as a whole. -of Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5(b) and, when a vested property or liberty interest is California Municipal Law Handbook (Cal. CEB 2023) § 2.56 citingAngeles County Office of Education(2013) 57 Cal.4th 197, 212.) The Plot Plan application is a discretionary City permit and the October 23, 2024, Planning Commission hearing was a quasi-judicial hearing pursuant to which Applicant was entitled to due process. The Planning decision to disregard the clear and objective development standards and designcriteria that were intended to govern their consideration of the Project in favor of an emotional colloquy on the influx of industrial warehouse development in the EDC-NG (and greater Inland EDC-hearing on the merits of the Project. written findings supported by facts explaining the basis for its decision to deny the Projectconflation of the issue of warehouse development in the EDC-NG as a whole is grounds for reversal of its decision. ConclusionBased upon the foregoing, and the additional documents, information and evidence that may be further presented at or before the City Council hearing on this Appeal, the Applicant respectfully requests that the City Council: (i) schedule the City Council hearing on the Appeal for the earliest available date but no later thanDecember 4, 2024; and (ii) vacate and overturn the Planning and adopt a resolution approving the Project entitlements and certifying the Project EIR.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLPAttorneys at Law Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers , 2024 Page 8 Please contact me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter in further detail.Very truly yours,Paige H. GosneyPHGEnclosurescc: Cheryl Kitzerow, Community Development DirectorOrlando Hernandez, Deputy Community Development DirectorRyan Fowler, Principal PlannerArmando G. Villa, City ManagerJeff Melching, City Attorney
EXHIBIT A (GHG Comparative Analysis Table)
The Proposed Project consists of an approximately 533,252 square foot warehouse building on 24.63 acresScenario 1: 536,441 square foot manufacturing use (0.50 floor-to-area ratio of FAR) on 24.63 acres.Scenario 2: 643,730 square foot business park use (0.60 floor-to-area ratio of FAR) on 24.63 acres.Scenario 3: 375,509 square foot of commercial retail (0.35 floor-to-area ratio of FAR) on 24.63 acres.Scenario 4: 591 multifamily housing (low-rise) dwelling units (24 dwelling units per acre of FAR) on 24.63 acres.TABLE 1: ALL SCENARIOS REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Proposed Project 21.95 27.85 104.1 0.64 19.18 5.32 Scenario 1 28.79 36.48 188.56 0.55 38.71 10.30 Scenario 2 55.45 179.15 526.27 2.24 132.48 36.27 Scenario 3 88.33 70.70 599.80 1.32 110.08 28.77 Scenario 4 36.25 29.51 192.18 0.44 30.91 8.73 TABLE 2: ALL SCENARIOS GHGS EMISSIONS TOTAL Source Total CO2e Proposed Project 4,805.13 Scenario 1 8,793.93 Scenario 2 32,248.90 Scenario 3 16,160.70 Scenario 4 6,716.81
EXHIBIT B (South Bloomington / Fontana | 10-Year Resales Overview)
SLOVER AVENUE
SANTAANAAVENUE
JURUPAAVENUEJURUPAAVENUE