01006.0005/996626.1
December 4, 2024
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Menifee City Council
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92585
SUBJECT: DECEMBER 4, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM 11.1- MURRIETA ROAD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
The City of Perris (“Perris”) submits this letter to object to this City Council certifying the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and approving Plot Plan No. PLN 22- 0179 as Perris continues to believe the EIR prepared for this project has not adequately analyzed and mitigated the significant environmental impacts resulting from this Project as described, in part, in correspondence Perris submitted to comment on the Draft EIR dated July 8, 2024 and October 23, 2024. Instead, Perris respectfully requests t hat the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Menifee Planning Commission’s denial of this Project.
On October 23, 2024 Perris submitted a letter to the Menifee Planning Commission that included a memorandum prepared by traffic engineering firm RK Engineering raising continued concerns regarding the environmental review performed for the project and the Project’s compliance with state planning laws. This letter is attached to the staff report on pages 925 -931. Despite having more than 45 days to provide a written response to the concerns raised in Perris’ letter, it does not appear that Menifee’s staff has prepared a written response. As such, Perris again sets forth below the concerns raised in its October 23, 2024 letter to the Planning Commission.
Perris has reviewed Menifee’s responses to Perris’ comments on the Draft EIR and do not believe they adequately address the City’s concerns related to land use inconsistency, noise and traffic safety.
In addition, with regard to land use, the project site was previously approved to be developed with a residential subdivision under Tentative Parcel Map, No. 38469 (PLN22-0180). The EIR fails to address the replacement of the residential units that would be lost as a result of the proposed
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
135 N. “D” Street, Perris, CA 92570-2200
TEL: (951) 943-5003 FAX: (951) 943-8379
01006.0005/996626.1
industrial development for compliance with Government Code, section 66300(b)(1) (SB 330).
Additionally, the Land Use section of the EIR needs to address consistency of the project with the Northern Gateway Subarea of the Menifee Economic Development Corridor found in the General Plan Land Use Element, which envisions 5 percent of land uses to consist of residential uses.
Failure to ensure that 5 percent of the Northern Gateway Subarea is reserved for residential uses may also violate the no net loss requirements set forth Government Code, section 66300. See the EDC Northern Gateway Land Use Exhibit below.
With regard to General Plan consistency as it relates to impacts related to noise and air quality, the project includes 45 dock high doors, and 128 truck/trailer parking located 265 feet from the north property line shared with the 7 existing single-family residences in the City of Menifee. The only separation between the truck/trailers parked along the north side of the site and the single -family residences will be a 25 -foot landscape setback and a 14 -foot-high wall. Given the proximity of the proposed warehouse to the sensitive receptors, this project would be in direct conflict with the Menifee’s General Plan Policy LU-1.10 which requires projects to buffer sensitive land uses, such
01006.0005/996626.1
as residences, schools, care facilities, and recreation areas from major air pollutant emission sources, including freeways, manufacturing, hazardous materials storage, and similar uses. See the project site vicinity exhibit below.
In addition, the EIR and the staff report acknowledge that the project results in significant and unavoidable noise impacts. Specifically, the staff report at page 11 states, “The proposed Project would generate a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local G eneral Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.” This statement downplays the noise impacts to the neighboring residences and fails to acknowledge that the noise impacts may occur at all times of the day and night due to the potential 24-hour operation of this project.
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 the Menifee to separately include these new requirements as conditions of approval for the Project to mitigate the public health and safety issues at AB 98 is intended to address.
01006.0005/996626.1
With regard to the Project’s impacts related to traffic safety, Perris requested that RK Engineering review the Final EIR’s responses to the City’s comments related to traffic safety and the revised traffic study included with the Final EIR. Attached is correspondence from RK Engineering dated October 15, 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.
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. A draft of this traffic study has now been provided to Perris and Menifee. Accordingly, prudence dictates that Menifee not approve this project at this time and instead wait to reconsider this project after Perris and Menifee have reached agreement as to the traffic infrastructure improvements required and the allocation of the funding to various projects.
In conclusion, Perris respectfully requests that this City Council either continue its consideration of this project for six (6) months to allow time for Perris and Menifee to reach agreement on traffic infrastructure improvements identified in the Global Traffic Study so that this Project may participate in the costs of the identified traffic infrastructure improvements or deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Menifee Planning Commission to deny this project.
Respectfully,
Patricia Brenes
Planning Manager
Attachment: City of Perris Letter – Dated October 23, 2024 City of Perris Letter – Dated July 8, 2024
cc: Clara Miramontes, City Manager
Wendell Bugtai, Assistant City Manager
Sunny Soltani, City Attorney
John Pourkazemi, City Engineer
Kenneth Phung, Director of Development Services
City of Perris Letter – Dated October 23, 2024
O
ctober 23, 2024
H
onorable Chair LaDue and Members of the Planning Commission City of Menifee Planning Commission
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92585
S
UBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2024 MEETING
AGENDA ITEM 9.3- MURRIETA ROAD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
H
onorable Chair and Commissioners:
T
he City of Perris (“Perris”) submits this letter to object to this Commission certifying the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and approving Plot Plan No. PLN 22- 0179 as Perris continues to believe the EIR prepared for this project has not adequately analyzed and mitigated the significant environmental impacts resulting from this Project as described, in part, in correspondence Perris submitted to comment on the Draft EIR dated July 8, 2024.
P
erris has reviewed Menifee’s responses to Perris’ comments on the Draft EIR and do not believe they adequately address the City’s concerns related to land use inconsistency, noise and traffic safety.
I
n addition, with regard to land use, the project site was previously approved to be developed with a residential subdivision under Tentative Parcel Map, No. 38469 (PLN22 -0180), which has been recorded with the County Assessor ’s Office . The EIR fails to address the replacement of the residential units that would be lost as a result of the proposed industrial development for compliance with Government Code, section 66300(b)(1) (SB 330). Additionally, the Land Use section of the EIR needs to address consistency of the project with the Northern Gateway Subarea of the Menifee Economic Development Corridor found in the General Plan Land Use Element, which envisions 5 percent of land uses to consist of residential uses. Failure to ensure th at 5 percent of the Northern Gateway Subarea is reserved for residential uses may also violate the no net loss requirements set forth Government Code, section 66300.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
135 N. “D” Street, Perris, CA 92570-2200
TEL: (951) 943-5003 FAX: (951) 943-8379
With regard to General Plan consistency as it relates to impacts related to noise and air quality, the project includes 45 dock high doors and 128 truck/trailer parking on the north side of the site, approximately 265 feet from the north property line shared with the seven ( 7) existing single- family residences in the City of Menifee. The only separation between the truck/trailers parked along the north side of the site and the single-family residences will be a 25-foot landscape setback and a 14-foot-high wall. Given the proximity of the proposed warehouse to the sensitive receptors, this project would be in direct conflict with the Menifee’s General Plan Policy LU -1.10 which requires projects to 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, and similar uses.
O
n 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 the Menifee to separately include these new requirements as conditions of approval for the Project to mitigate the public health and safety issues at AB 98 is intended to address.
W
ith regard to the Project’s impacts related to traffic safety, Perris requested that RK Engineering review the Final EIR’s responses to the City’s comments related to traffic safety and the revised traffic study included with the Final EIR. Attached is correspondence from RK Engineering dated October 15, 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.
A
s you may 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.
I
n conclusion, Perris respectfully requests that this Commission continue its consideration 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.
R
espectfully,
P
atricia Brenes
Planning Manager
Enc
losure: RK Engineering Letter – Dated October 15, 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
01006.0003/1026698.1
OC
TOBER 15, 2024
Mr. John Pourkazemi
City of Perris
24 South "D" Street, Suite 100
Perris, CA 92570
SUBJECT: MURRIETA ROAD WAREHOUSE PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) REVIEW – TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, CITY OF MENIFEE Dear Mr. Pourkazemi:
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to your request, RK Engineering Group Inc. (RK) is pleased to provide this additional review of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), dated September 2024, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., and most notably the responses regarding the City of Perris’s DEIR traffic -related comments contained within Section 2.6 of the FEIR (Response to Letter A3: City of Perris, Dated July 8, 2024) and Appendix B: Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (dated January 30, 2024, same date as FEIR traffic study).
The Murietta Road Warehouse project includes development of an approximately 517,720 square foot (SF) warehouse building measuring a maximum of 55 feet in height. To provide a conservative analysis, a three percent buffer in building square footage has bee n included, which would equal 533,252 SF of building area. The proposed warehouse building would include a mezzanine, loading docks, and associated vehicle and truck trailer parking spaces. The warehouse building including the three percent buffer would include approximately 20,320 SF of ground floor office space, 7,000 SF of mezzanine office space, and 505,932 SF of warehouse space.
The Project site will have five driveways. The warehouse building is expected to have 90 dock -high doors and four grade level doors for trucks, 194 truck trailer stalls, and 409 passenger vehicle parking spaces, nine of which are accessible. The project is expected to have an opening year of 2026.
RK has completed this additional review regarding the responses to the City of Perris’s DEIR traffic - related comments contained within Section 2.6 of the FEIR. As a result, RK has the following comments.
1. General: As part of the FEIR, a general response was provided addressing many of the DEIR traffic-related comments which states that “per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The discussion included in the DEIR concerning Level of Service (LOS) was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the proposed Project and considering conditions of approval outside RK20260 // 0352-2024-13 2
01006.0003/1026698.1
of C
EQA’s framework.” While RK agrees that VMT is now the primary metric under CEQA, CEQA still requires consideration of transportation safety, assessing the likelihood of accidents or hazards for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists due to a project. As such, the traffic study needs to be significantly revised to ensure the project does not impact traffic safety.
2. General. The preparation of the site- specific traffic study for this project is premature in that the overall traffic study for the Menifee Economic Development Corridor (MEDC) needs to be completed first in order to master plan the entire MEDC area which encompasses this Murietta Road Warehouse Project. A more comprehensive review of the entire area along Ethanac Road needs to be completed before site-specific studies can be prepared for individual projects.
Several of the FEIR responses acknowledge that a global Traffic Study for the Menifee Economic Development Corridor (MEDC) area is being prepared. The response s go on to e
xplain that the traffic study analyzes a “worst- case” scenario assuming 100% of truck traffic entering/exiting the site from Ethanac Road. Assuming this is a worst- case scenario is not necessarily correct and additional analysis would be needed to verify this. While the addition of a truck corridor may improve the overall traffic flow in the area, individual movements at certain intersections will be more heavily impacted, possibly causing new safety issues. Under CEQA, a significant impact can occur if a project substantially increases hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., intersection queuing). Since the traffic study only analyzes truck traffic entering/exiting from Ethanac Road, certain safety considerations have been underestimated, or not analyzed entirely. The transportation analysis needs to be consisten t
w
ith the analysis in the forthcoming MEDC global study, otherwise the project may contribute towards safety issues that are not currently analyzed.
3. Page 1 , Study Intersections. The traffic study does not analyze the future intersection of Green Valley Parkway and Ethanac Road. This intersection is anticipated to have deficiencies in the future due to the large amount of traffic it is anticipated to serve. As such, the traffic study needs to analyze this intersection and determine what fair share contribution will be needed.
4. Page 11, Figure s 2.6 & 2.7: Lane Geometrics and Traffic Control. Study Intersection #8 actually consists of two separate (offset) intersections (Barnett Road & Case Road). Both of these intersections should be analyzed separately (from a LOS and queuing standpoint). As currently analyzed, the results for these two intersections are significantly underestimated.
Several of the FEIR responses state that queuing analysis is outside the scope of the EIR. This is not correct as under CEQA, a significant impact can occur if a project substantially increases hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., intersection queuing). The response also states that the intersection of Barnett Road/Case Road at Ethanac Road operates as one intersection and should be analyzed as one for analysis purposes. This is also not correct. These are two separate intersections and need to be analyzed as such. The offset nature of these two RK20260 // 0352-2024-13 3
01006.0003/1026698.1
i
ntersections presents several geometric design issues of concern, especially given the high amount of truck traffic planning to pass through these intersections.
As detailed in the City of Perris Complete Streets Safety Assessment (CSSA), dated August2018, prepared by the ITS Technology Transfer Program, 13 collisions occurred at these two offset intersections between the years of 2015 -2017. Accident data was obtained through SWITRS.
Additionally, based on a recent review of the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), an additional 5 accidents resulting in possible injury occurred between the years 2020 -2023.
Based on this accident history, it is imperative that the traffic study analyze these two intersections accurately (i.e., as two offset intersections) to ensure the addition of project traffic will not increase serious collisions.
A letter was previously prepared in June 2023 providing supplemental comments in support of the City of Perris’ appeal of Plot Plan No. PLN 21 -0290 (Ethanac and Barnett Speculative Warehouses), located south of Ethanac Road and west of Barnett Road. This letter raised several concerns relating to the current design of the intersections of Case Road/Ethanac Road & Barnett Road/Ethanac Road and the fundamental flaws of the accompanying traffic analysis (which also analyzed these offset intersections as one aligned intersection). The comments made in this letter also apply directly to this project as well.
The traffic study needs to be updated to appropriately analyze these offset intersections from an overall traffic safety perspective. Recommended improvements should be made involving realigning Barnett Road with Case Road (and other associated intersection improvements if necessary). The project shall pay a fair share contribution towards this realignment, or 100% of the cost if the project directly impacts these intersection(s).
5. Page 47, Storage Capacity at Left- Turn Pockets. The City of Perris is concerned about the project’s impact to queuing/progression along Ethanac Road at the I -215 interchange. A simulation analysis should be conducted to identify any queuing deficiencies, and if applicable, improvements should be identified.
Several of the FEIR responses state that queuing analysis is outside the scope of the EIR. This is not correct as under CEQA, a significant impact can occur if a project substantially increases hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., intersection queuing). The FEIR fails to analyze the queuing/progression along Ethanac Road at the I -215 interchange. Due to these closely - spaced intersections, queuing issues exist and the FEIR needs to address how the project contributes to these traffic safety issues
.
6. P
age 54, Site Access and Circulation. This analysis lacks the minimum analysis needed to ensure adequate project ingress/egress. The site access/circulation analysis should, at a minimum, include the following: LOS analysis at the project driveways; Queuing analysis at the project driveways; Truck turning movements entering/exiting the driveways; Internal truck RK20260 // 0352-2024-13 4
01006.0003/1026698.1
circulation throughout the site; and Gate stacking analysis. Inadequate queue storage and/or turning area for trucks could cause potential safety concerns.
7. Appendix C, Intersection Analysis Worksheets. Intersection #8: As previously mentioned, it is incorrect and significantly underestimates the results by analyzing Barnett Road and Case Road as one intersection. Furthermore, a “no right- turn on red” sign is present for the southbound approach along Case Road and the analysis should account for this accordingly.
CONCLUSIONS
RK Engineering Group Inc. has completed this additional review of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), dated September 2024, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc ., and most notably their responses regarding the City of Perris’s DEIR traffic-related comments contained within Section 2.6 of the FEIR (Response to Letter A3: City of Perris, Dated July 8, 2024) and Appendix B: Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (dated January 30, 2024, same date as FEIR traffic study) . Based on this review, RK recommends that the traffic study be significantly revised to ensure the project does not impact traffic safety.
RK appreciates this opportunity to work with the City of Perris on this project and if you have any questions, please contact us at (949) 474-0809.
Sincerely,
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
Justin Tucker, P.E., T.E. Robert Kahn, P.E., T.E.
Associate Principal Founding Principal
R
egistered Civil Engineer 92866
Registered Civil Engineer 20285
Registered Traffic Engineer 3055 Registered Traffic Engineer 0555 Attachment
XC: Kenneth Phung, City of Perris
XC: Patricia Brenes, City of Perris
XC: Brad Brophy, City of Perris
City of Perris Letter – Dated July 8, 2024
01006.0005/996626.1
J
uly 8, 2024
B
rett Hamilton
City of Menifee
Community Development Department
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
S
UBJECT: CITY OF PERRIS COMMENTS – NOA of a Draft EIR for the Proposed Murrieta Road Warehouse Project - Major Plot Plan No. PLN22-0179 D
ear Mr. Hamilton:
T
he City of Perris appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed 517,720 square foot industrial warehouse building on 28.27 acres, located south of Ethanac Road, between Geary Street and Murrieta Road, and north of McLaughlin Road in the City of Menifee. The proposed Project is located approximately1,600 feet south of Green Valley Specific Plan (GVSP) across Ethanac Road within the City of Perris limits. The GVSP is a master -planned community with residences currently under construction. The GVSP area consists of 1,269 acres of land planned for 3,460 single-family detached homes, 750 multi -family units, 42.3 acres of business and professional office space, 72.7 acres of commercial retail, 108.7 acres of industrial, 24 acres for three school sites, and 51.1 acres of public parks. Industrial zones are located adjacent to the Perris Valley Airport north of the San Jacinto River .
This Project would also be in proximity to existing single family residences within the City of Menifee, located immediately north of the project site across Floyd Avenue and approximately 330 feet south across McLaughlin Road. Given the existing and planned residential development in the immediate area, industrial development in the City of Perris is not allowed to utilize Ethanac Road as a truck route.
T
he City of Perris has expressed concerns about the proposed Project during the NOP comment period.
After reviewing the Draft EIR and technical reports, the City believes the Project has not adequately addressed the potential environmental impacts related to land use, noise, and transportation. Thus, the City continues to have concerns with the Project as detailed in the comments provided below.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
135 N. “D” Street, Perris, CA 92570-2200
TEL: (951) 943-5003 FAX: (951) 943-8379
01006.0005/996626.1
Land Use Inconsistency with Surrounding Areas
1. T
he proposed industrial development is incompatible with the residential development in the City of Menifee due to its proximity to residential development in the City of Perris across Ethanac Road to the north of the Project site . The GVSP area south of the San Jacinto River to Ethanac Road , within the City of Perris, consists of residences with some commercial development towards the I -215 Freeway. Therefore, no industrial development in the City of Perris is allowed to utilize Ethanac Road as a truck rou te to avoid impacts to the sensitive receptors. Allowing the proposed industrial development could generate truck traffic along Ethanac Road that would result in significant traffic safety impacts to existing and future residential development.
No
ise
2. T
he Draft EIR uses an incorrect methodology to evaluate cumulative roadway noise impacts.
the contribution of the proposed Project in the opening year to cumulative traffic volumes on the roadways in the Project vicinity. T he noise levels associated with these future traffic volumes with the proposed Project identified Tables 5.10-20 and 5.10-21. However, these tables do not show the increase in noise associated with cumulative development. They show the increase in noise associated with the project when added to future (cumulative) traffic volumes. To provide an analysis of cumulative roadway noise impacts, the future plus project noise levels from Tables
5.10-20 and 5.10-21 need to be compared to the existing (no project) roadway noise levels shown in Tables 5.10- 15 and 5.10- 16. Evaluating cumulative roadway noise impacts in this correct manner will identify significant cumulative noise impacts along Ethanac Road, which would substantially affect residents north of Ethanac Road within the City of Perris.
3. A ddi
tionally, the Draft EIR and Appendix H consistently refer to “Project Scenario 1” and “Project Scenario 2” without adequately defining either term. The Draft EIR provides definitions for “Scenario 1” and “Scenario 2” in its Traffic Analysis, but it is u nclear whether these definitions are intended to be consistent throughout the document. Lack of clarity regarding these definitions misleads the public and decision makers regarding the potential impacts associated with noise impacts.
T
ransportation and Traffic
G
eneral/Major Comments
4. T
he preparation of the site- specific traffic study for the Murietta Road Warehouse Project is premature in that the overall traffic study for the Menifee Economic Development Corridor (MEDC) needs to be completed first to master plan the entire MEDC area which encompasses the Compass Northern Gateway Warehouse Project. A more comprehensive review of the entire area along Ethanac Road needs to be completed before site-specific studies can be prepared for individual projects.
5. F
ive out of the ten study area intersections analyzed in this traffic study are located within the City of Perris. For these intersections, along with any study roadway segments, the City of Perris
01006.0005/996626.1
traffic impact criteria must be utilized (see Appendix A). This includes a comparison of Existing to Existing Plus Project conditions to determine whether the proposed project would have a direct or cumulative impact. If the project has a direct impact, th en the project will be responsible for completing the required improvements unless a funding mechanism that complies with CEQA can be identified (e.g., TUMF fees, DIF fees, completed by other development, etc.).
6. I
t is apparent from the distribution and assignment of truck traffic from the project that the project truck traffic would be using non-truck routes within the City of Perris (see Appendix B for City of Perris truck routes). No trucks are allowed along Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road/Case Road. The project truck traffic has been distributed to Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road/Case Road which is not acceptable. Furthermore, this misleads the public and decision makers regarding the potential impacts, incl uding traffic safety impacts, associated with the increased truck traffic.
7. I
t is our understanding that the Master Plan for the MEDC will be providing roadway connections for trucks that will not impact City of Perris non-truck route roadways. This must be considered as part of the traffic study and the analysis should be revised accordingly.
8. T
he traffic study will need to clearly identify what improvements are necessary, whether they have a direct or indirect impact from the project, and how they will be implemented. Again, direct impacts will be determined for City of Perris intersections and roadway segments based upon the City of Perris traffic criteria.
S
pecific Traffic Study Comments
9. Page 8 – 10, Figures 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5. Study Intersection #8 consists of two separate (offset) intersections (Barnett Road & Case Road). Both intersections should be analyzed separately (from a LOS and queuing standpoint), and the recommended improvements should involve realigning Barnett Road with Case Road (and other associated intersection improvements if necessary). The project shall pay a fair share contribution towards this realignment, or 100% of the cost if the project directly impacts these inters ection(s). It should be noted that such a fair share payment will not constitute mitigation under CEQA as it currently is not tied to a program that ensures the realignment of Barnett Road and Case Road will be completed prior to the project becoming operational.
10. P
age 12, Level of Service Standards and Measures of Significance. The traffic study will have to follow the latest City of Perris requirements for those intersections and roadway segments within the City of Perris. For roadway segments and intersections in the City of Perris, the City of Perris criteria (Appendix A) should be utilized.
11. P
age 15, Table 3.1: Existing Conditions AM and PM Peak Hour LOS. Intersection #8 should be shown and analyzed as two separate intersections, since they do not align with each other. The City of Perris minimum acceptable LOS for these intersections is LOS D.
12. P
age 19 – 22, Figure 3.3 and Table 3.3. The City of Perris Planning Department will need to review and confirm the list of cumulative projects is accurate/comprehensive.
01006.0005/996626.1
13. Page 29 – 30, figure 4.3 – 4.4, Project Trip Distribution. Per the City of Perris truck routes, no trucks are allowed on Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road/Case Road.
14. P
age 43, Tables 5.1 and 5.2 – Summary of Intersection Operations – Existing Plus Project.
Intersection #8 operates deficiently per City of Perris standards (i.e. LOS is the City of Perris minimum acceptable LOS). These tables need to be updated accordingly and determine whether the project directly or indirectly impacts this intersection.
15. Pages 49-50, Tables 5.5 and 5.6. Why are the LOS results different at Intersection 8 between both scenarios?
16. P
age 56 – 57 – Recommended Improvements. The realignment of Barnett Avenue/Case Road at Ethanac Road needs to be considered as a recommendation for improving the Level of Service and queuing along Ethanac Road. Also, what about improvements to roadway segments #2 & #5? These improvements have not been identified.
17. Q
ueuing Analysis and Left Turn Storage Pocket Requirements. The traffic study does not include an analysis of queuing at the I -215 freeway ramps. Additionally, a review of the storage lane requirements at the study area intersections is necessary, because of potential excess queuing.
Furthermore, the City of Perri s is concerned about the project’s impact to queuing/progression along Ethanac Road at the I-215 freeway interchange. A simulation analysis should be conducted to identify any queuing deficiencies and if applicable, improvements should be identified.
18. G
eneral: It does not appear any of the proposed driveways are analyzed with respect to truck turning templates, queuing analysis and driveway spacing requirements.
CE
QA.
19. T
he City of Perris reserves the right to provide further comments on the environmental topics analyzed in the Draft EIR as the project moves forward in the process. Please provide future notices prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under any provision of Title 7 of the California Government Code governing California Planning and Zoning Law which includes: notices of any public hearing held pursuant to CEQA.
P
roperty Owners Notification
20. D
ue to nearby sensitive uses, it is requested that property owner notification within 1,800 feet of the Project site is provided to ensure that all individuals who would be impacted by this Project are provided an opportunity to comment.
01006.0005/996626.1
The City of Perris appreciates the opportunity to comment on this Project and related Draft EIR. Please feel free to contact me at (951) 943 -5003, extension 355 or [email protected], if you have any questions or would like to discuss the above concerns in further detail.
S
incerely,
P
atricia Brenes
Planning Manager
A
ttachment: City of Perris Response to NOP – Dated December 7 , 2023 cc: C
lara Miramontes, City Manager
Wendell Bugtai, Assistant City Manager
Robert Khuu, City Attorney
John Pourkazemi, City Engineer
Kenneth Phung, Director of Development Services
D
ecember 7, 2023
Brett Hamilton
City of Menifee
Community Development Department
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
S
UBJECT: City of Perris C omments on the Notice of Scoping Meeting and Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report – Murrieta Road Warehouse - DEV2022-017, and Major Plot Plan 22-0179 – Located west of Murrieta Road, east of Geary Street, north of McLaughlin Road, and south of Ethanac Road
D
ear Mr. Hamilton:
T
he City of Perris appreciates the opportunity to comment on the 517,720 square foot industrial Project in Menifee on approximately 28.27 acres of land located on the west of Murrieta Road, east of Geary Street, north of McLaughlin Road, and south of Ethanac Road. The Proposed Project is located east of the existing Monument Ranch residential development in the City of Perris and approximately 1,800 feet south of Green Valley Specific Plan (GVSP) also in the City of Perris. The GVSP is a master - planned community totaling 1,269 acres of land envisioned to have 3,460 single-family detached homes, 750 multi-family units, 42.3 acres of business and professional office space, 72.7 acres of commercial retail, 108.7 acres of industrial, 24 acres for three school sites, and 51.1 acres of public parks.
Although there are some industrial zones in the GVSP , they are located adjacent to the Perris Valley Airport north of the San Jacinto River, which has land use density limitations. All the development in the GVSP south of the San Jacinto River to Ethanac Road i s residential, with some commercial development west of the I-215 Freeway. In addition, there are six residential tracts comprised of 1,241 residential units, which are anticipated to start this year in phases. Therefore, no industrial development in the City of Perris is allowed to utilize Ethanac Road or Goetz Road as a truck route due to the sensitivity of residential land uses along these two roadways.
The City has concerns with this project as it is out of character with the surrounding residential areas in Menifee and the City of Perris. The City provides the below comments in light of the Project’s proximity to the City of Perris residential neighborhood and concerns with potential truck traffic on Ethanac Road:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
135 N. “D” Street, Perris, CA 92570-2200
TEL: (951) 943-5003 FAX: (951) 943-8379
1. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - The Project needs to address the cumulative impact of all the proposed projects within a 1.5- mile radius of the proposed site to analyze, mitigate, and disclose all environmental impacts from the Proposed Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA document should particularly evaluate impacts on the residential land uses , land use compatibility, truck circulation, traffic impacts, and noise impacts. In addition, A Health Risk Assessment is required under the Sierra Club v. City of Fresno case to evaluate health impacts on nearby residents.
Please provide future notices prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under any provision of Title 7 of the California Government Code governing California Planning and Zoning Law which includes: notices of any public hearing held pursuant to CEQA, and notices of any scoping meeting held pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9.
2. 1,
800-Feet Property Owners Notification - Due to nearby sensitive uses, it is requested that property owner notification within at least 1,800-feet of the project site is provided to ensure that all individuals who could potentially be impacted are provided an opportunity to comment.
3. L
and Use Inconsistency with Surrounding Areas - The proposed industrial development is incompatible with the residential development in both the City of Perris and Menifee as on the south side of McLaughlin Road, the west side of Goetz Road , and the north side of Ethanac Road, are all designated for low-density residential development.
4. T
ruck Circulation Route – The developer should be required to prepar e a Truck Circulation Plan to ensure consistency with the recently approved City of Perris Truck Route . Any truck access should be on McLaughlin Road to Barrett Avenue to Ethanac Road to access the I -215 Freeway due to proximity to residential land uses on the north side of Ethanac Road. In addition, it should be noted that the existing median on Ethanac Road is within Perris City limits and is not designed for truck queuing. In addition, since it does not appear to be any landscaped median required on McLaughlin Road, truck traffic is better suited for this roadway.
5. T
ransportation - Prior to further proceedings, to ensure consistency, the right -of-way widths, and alignments of Ethanac Road and Murrieta Road shall be coordinated with the roadway designation as classified per City of Perris’ General Plan. The correlation will determine the extent of roadway and intersection improvements at the intersection of Murrieta Road and Ethanac Road to accommodate the traffic impacts related to the project’s passenger vehicle trips. a. Both a full Traffic Impact Study and VMT Analysis are required for this project. The traffic analysis shall be consistent with the Menifee Economic Development Corridor - Master Plan Circulation Study, which is currently in the scoping phase. b. A
traffic study scoping agreement should be submitted to the City of Perris to ensure the study follows the City of Perris guidelines/procedures in addition to those for the City of Menifee.
c. T
he City of Menefee should be notified that there is no truck traffic allowed on Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road as indicated in the most recent City of Perris approved truck
routes exhibit (see Appendix A). The traffic study needs to separate the trip distribution patterns for passenger vehicles and trucks, and prohibit trucks from utilizing Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road.
d. T
he traffic study and DEIR need to assess all the proposed Menifee warehouse projects located in the vicinity of the project, most notably those included within the Menifee Economic Development Corridor-Northern Gateway (EDC-NG) area. Additionally, the traffic consultant needs to coordinate with City of Perris planning staff to obtain a list of Perris cumulative projects for use in the traffic study. There are also projects located to the east within the City of San Jacinto that could also impact the I -215 ramp intersections along Ethanac Road. Intersections within the City of Perris need to be assessed based upon the City’s criteria as shown in Appendix B. e. T
he traffic study needs to address the realignment of Barnett Road to align with Case Road as part of the study. Appropriate mitigation will be needed to assess the traffic impacts and queuing because of the currently offset intersections between Barnett Road and Case Road along Ethanac Road.
f. W
ith all the proposed Meni fee projects within the Menifee Economic Development Corridor-Northern Gateway (EDC-NG) area, traffic queuing along Ethanac Road from Murietta Road to the I -215 northbound ramps are of concern. The traffic study and DEIR need to address queuing issues in this area as it may affect traffic operations. g. T
he traffic study needs to address potential modifications to the existing I-215 freeway interchange at Ethanac Road because of this project and others that affect this interchange.
P
rior to further proceedings, to ensure consistency, the right -of-way widths and alignments of Ethanac Road and Murrieta Road shall be coordinated with the roadway designation as classified per City of Perris’ General Plan. The correlation will determine t he extent of roadway and intersection improvements at the intersection of Murrieta Road and Ethanac Road to accommodate the traffic impacts related to the project’s passenger vehicle trips. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) should include an analysis of the intersection of Ethanac Road and Murrieta Road. Listed below are City of Perris’ roadway designations for Ethanac Road and Murrieta Road.
‣ E
thanac Road is classified as an Expressway (184ʹ/134ʹ) with a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median.
‣ M
urrieta Road is classified as a Secondary Arterial (94ʹ/70ʹ) with a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median.
I
t shall be noted that trucks are not permitted to travel on Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road.
Trucks, accessing I-215 from Ethanac Road, should use Barnett Road; a nd for truck access to the project site, a collector roadway, with a minimum 66-foot- wide right-of-way, be provided along the north side of the SCE easement from Barnett Avenue to Byers Road. Also, Barnett Road at Ethanac Road shall be aligned with Case Ro ad and improved to ultimate design for an
efficient full turn signalized intersection. Based on the results, appropriate improvements will need to be identified. Upon completion of the Draft Traffic Impact Analysis, please provide the City with a copy to review and comment.
6. Noise. An acoustical/noise analysis shall be prepared to mitigate noise impacts from the Project resulting from construction and operation in proximity to the residential development surrounding the site, and along the west side of Goetz Road and the south side of Ethanac Road.
The City of Perris thanks you for considering these comments. Please feel free to contact me at (951) 943-5003, ext. 355, if you have any questions or would like to discuss the above concern in further detail.
Sincerely,
Patricia Brenes
Planning Manager
cc: Clara Miramontes, City Manager
Wendell Bugtai, Assistant City Manager
Robert Khuu, City Attorney
Kenneth Phung, Developments Services Director
John Pourkazemi, City Engineer
12/4/24, 10:08 AM Mail - Bob Karwin - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADEwMTBhODc1LWQwM2EtNGFhNy04YjNhLTMwODVlNDNjYzVhOQAQABT367taz%2BZCgLvpH… 1/2 Outlook
Fw: Public hearing 12/04/2024 murrieta rd warehouse project FromAOL SUPPORT <[email protected]>
Date Mon 12/2/2024 8:37 AM
To Bob Karwin <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unlessyou recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Begin forwarded message:
On Monday, December 2, 2024, 9:35 AM, AOL SUPPORT <[email protected]> wrote:
All city council members,
My name is Kathy Smythe. I live on Floyd ave, less than 300’ from this proposed project.
My family and I, along with many neighbors are opposed to this project and the effects it will have.
We have some real concerns;
1) Use of Geary st.
2) too close to residence
3) Noise
4) Traffic
5) Emissions
6) Property values
12/4/24, 10:08 AM Mail - Bob Karwin - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADEwMTBhODc1LWQwM2EtNGFhNy04YjNhLTMwODVlNDNjYzVhOQAQABT367taz%2BZCgLvpH… 2/2 7) Environment
We live in a rural setting, that would all change with this project.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kathy Smythe
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
12/4/24, 10:09 AM Mail - Bob Karwin - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADEwMTBhODc1LWQwM2EtNGFhNy04YjNhLTMwODVlNDNjYzVhOQAQAKq1LL6gfyBLhokkPurJv… 1/2 Outlook
Murrieta Warehouse Project
FromKelly DeChristopher <[email protected]>
Date Sun 12/1/2024 3:25 PM
To Bob Karwin <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unlessyou recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Happy Thanksgiving!
I'm writing to you to address my concerns about the proposed project on Murrieta and Ethanac road. I am a current resident of Floyd Ave, the road that this proposed project will butt up against and that the truck route will split into two.
Our street is special! On this street alone I have two Sisters, my Parents, and both of my Sister's Mother in laws (All in separate homes), along with many of our long-time lovely neighbors. We have a total of 12 kids under the age of 12 that ride bikes and play up and down our road at each other's homes.
This Truck route going directly through our street will completely change our way of life. This isn't merely about inconvenience, it's about changing our entire neighborhood and our children's childhood. My kids will no longer be able to ride to Grandma's house or to Aunt Ginny's to play with cousins. My home will now have two 500,000 sqft+ warehouses within 500ft in both directions drastically changing our air and noise pollution. We are being boxed in by these projects and it is being done in complete disregard for the residential neighborhoods that are here.
We have attended many meetings with the planning commission and it is frustrating to feel like we are pleading our case all over again explaining ourselves from square one.
We ask for you to follow the advice of the Planning Commission and vote NO on this project.
Kelly DeChristopher
Realtor
Cell: 951-966-8250
Email: [email protected]
CA DRE# 02028304
12/4/24, 10:09 AM Mail - Bob Karwin - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADEwMTBhODc1LWQwM2EtNGFhNy04YjNhLTMwODVlNDNjYzVhOQAQAKq1LL6gfyBLhokkPurJv… 2/2 25810 Floyd Ave.
Menifee, Ca. 92585
Fax: 951-346-3144
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Cheryl Kitzerow
To: Stephanie Roseen
Cc: Ryan Fowler; Orlando Hernandez; Phan, Thai ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 3:04:48 PM
From: Bob Karwin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 2:59 PM
To: Cheryl Kitzerow <[email protected]>; Armando G. Villa <[email protected]>; Bryan Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Just received another email opposing the project. See attached.
From: Kim and Sharon Russell-Shaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 2:54 PM
To: Bob Karwin <[email protected]>
Subject: Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Member Karwin,
My name is Sharon Russell-Shaw. I am writing to you today as a resident of the Casa Murrieta community to encourage you to deny the approval of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeal No. PLN24-0214 and Appeal No. PLN24-0214. And also to deny approval of Plot Plan No. PLN22-0179 generally located south of Floyd Avenue, east of Geary Street, west of Murrieta Road, and north of McLaughlin Road.
I don’t know who thought it was a good idea to place a two story, 90-truck bay warehouse in the back yards of a bunch of senior citizens. These seniors bought their homes in a senior’s development expecting that they could enjoy peace and quiet in their surroundings. All that will be taken away from them once a warehouse is in place.
The warehouse will bring with it noise and light pollution as well as more heavy traffic and costly damage to our local roads.Imagine approximately 90 noisy diesel trucks coming and going from the property by your back yard at all hours of the day and night.
Imagine living in the developments surrounding the warehouse and constantly hearing engines idling and revving, airbrake noises and the loud beep- beep sounds during the day and middle of the night when you’re trying to sleep. Now, think about the overnight light pollution. Warehouses don’t go dark once the sun goes down. The property will be lit up, casting light into the neighboring homes from dusk to dawn, interrupting your nighttime slumber. That’s not exactly the peace and quiet I imagined for my senior years.
Furthermore, a 90-truck bay warehouse means an extreme burden on our roads and heavier traffic with all those heavy trucks traveling on them. In addition, a warehouse that size can’t run itself. It will need several employees, which translates to hundreds more cars traveling the route to the warehouse. I understand that the city of Paris is not allowing trucks to use Ethanac to access the warehouse. So that means the residents along the route through Menifee will be stuck with the noise, air pollution and heavy car and truck traffic on an infrastructure that is not prepared for it.
Please deny the appeal and please to not approve the project. And please encourage your Co- Council Members to deny the project also.
Warmly, Your Constituent,
Sharon Russell-Shaw
Resident of Casa Murrieta
District 1, Menifee CA
12/4/24, 10:09 AM Mail - Bob Karwin - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADEwMTBhODc1LWQwM2EtNGFhNy04YjNhLTMwODVlNDNjYzVhOQAQAHVwC56Nr9BMgv%2FY… 1/2 Outlook
Murrieta Rd. Warehouse Project
FromKim Beaver <[email protected]>
Date Fri 11/29/2024 9:12 AM
To Bob Karwin <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unlessyou recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mr. Karwin,
I hope this email finds you well. My name is Kimberly Tang, and I am a Menifee resident on Floyd Ave. with my husband, Moo, and two children. I am reaching out regarding the Murrieta Rd.
Warehouse Project that is located directly behind my home and will be operating through our residential neighborhood.
We will be present at the meeting on December 4th, but am writing to urge you to deny the project because of the impact it will have on our residential neighborhood, including significant noise levels, concerns of the safety of our family and kids, and our overall quality of life as this project is planned to operate 24/7.
The project is set to be right up against the backside of my property, as well as my neighbors, with the truck route literally going through our neighborhood to exit and alongside my property.
We will be present at the meeting on December 4th with other neighbors and I hope you will take all that is presented into consideration and deny the project at this time.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
The Tang Family
12/4/24, 10:09 AM Mail - Bob Karwin - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADEwMTBhODc1LWQwM2EtNGFhNy04YjNhLTMwODVlNDNjYzVhOQAQAHVwC56Nr9BMgv%2FY… 2/2 Get Outlook for iOS
From: Linda Fitzgerald
To: Ryan Fowler
Subject: FW: Menifee Mayor and Council Members Meeting Dec 4th 2024 "Murrieta Road Warehouse Project" Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 3:12:45 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Ryan,
Copy for your records.
From: Linda Fitzgerald <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 at 2:57 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Menifee Mayor and Council Members Meeting Dec 4th 2024 "Murrieta Road Warehouse Project"
THIS EMAIL RELATES TO: THE PROPOSED PROJECT “MURRIETA ROAD WAREHOUSE PROJECT”
A PROJECT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE WRITTEN ZONING
GUIDELINES IN MENIFEE’S LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE AREA.
DIESEL EMMISIONS AND
NOISE
Think about THE TRUCKS COMING AND GOING 24/7 AND
AFFECTING YOUR HOMEOWNER RIGHTS.
-- Big trucks coming and going to Unload and Load at one of the (90) Ninety loading dock doors.
IMPORTANT: What is the homeowners’ right to
quiet enjoyment in California?
No illegal, noxious or offensive activities shall be carried out or conducted upon any Lot or in the common Area, nor shall anything be done within the properties which is or could become an unreasonable annoyance or nuisance to neighboring property Owners or which would unreasonably disturb any other Owner’s or tenant’s enjoyment.
There are damages for breach of quiet enjoyment that can be read in the California Laws.
Legal actions based on private or public nuisance, noise, pollution, caused by a nearby business or neighbor, if prolonged and extreme enough, can give rise to a civil action for nuisance and injunction can be sought.
It is all over the internet :
-- Diesel is the predominant fuel used for shipping goods and moving freight!! The amount of sulfur in diesel fuel is directly linked to the amount of pollution produced when the fuel is burned in THE BIG RIG ENGINES. CAUSING higher levels of sulfur smell in the air.
The emissions contributes
to air pollution that has serious human health and
environmental effects.
Pollution from diesel exhaust includes:
Soot or particulate matter (PM);
Diesel particulate matter includes hundreds of chemical elements, including sulfates, ammonium, nitrates, elemental carbon, condensed organic compounds. ALL are considered As a HEALTH ALERT.
Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) which contributes to the production of ground-level ozone (smog) and acid rain;
Hydrocarbons (HC);
Carbon monoxide (CO); and
Other hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and air toxics.
Diesel fuel emissions does contribute to air pollution which can cause heart and lung disease, respiratory disease and lung cancer. It can also damage plants, animals, crops, and water resources.
Why would you vote Yes and knowingly expose the residential property owners to these Health Hazards that may affect some of us and may not affect each of us.
This is the Risk you maybe be taking!!
THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS AGREE THAT NONE OF YOU WOULD
LIKE TO HAVE THIS OVERSIZED PROJECT IN YOUR RESIDENTAIL NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE ARE REQUESTING >>>>> A NO VOTE FROM EACH OF YOU.
Do not pass this “HUGE – HUMONGOUS” OVERSIZED BUILDING OF 533,252 SF.
THIS PROPOSED BUILDING QUALIFIES FOR THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONE!
THIS PROPOSED BUILDNG IN SIZE IS FIVE (5) TIMES LARGER THAN THE TYPICAL BUILDINGS IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE.
THINK OF HAVING THIS OVERSIZED PROJECT IN YOUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN 500 FEET – WHICH IS LESS THAN A HALF A MILE AND CLOSE ENOUGH FOR YOU TO WALK TO. THINK OF THE SMELL OF DIESEL FUEL EMISSIONS 24/7 – WITH THE ACTIVE 90 LOADING DOCK DOORS BEING USED DAY AND NIGHT. THINK OF THE NOISE OF BIG RIGS COMING AND GOING 24/7. THINK OF THE SMELL OF DIESEL FUMES 24/7.
THINK ABOUT AND CARE ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN A MINIMUM OF 500 FEET !!
Please do not change the zoning guidelines or overlook the zoning requirements to permit this huge building project be placed in our neighborhood.
Respectfully,
Linda Fitzgerald
Property Owner
25830 Floyd Ave
P.S. I will email some or maybe all the Light Industrial Zoning in my next email.
I will and mark the two items that this project is violating.
From: Kile & Michelle Stewart
To: Ryan Fowler
Subject: Fwd: Appeal No. PLN 24-0214 - Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (Plot Plan No. PLN 22-0179) Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 2:01:22 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kile & Michelle Stewart <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 1:48 PM
Subject: Appeal No. PLN 24-0214 - Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (Plot Plan No. PLN 22-0179)
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected] >
Good afternoon.
My name is Michelle Stewart. My husband, Kile, and I live in the Sun Ranch Community off of Murrieta Road within miles of the project site. As we cannot attend the meeting regarding the above-referenced appeal, I am submitting these comments for the record via email.
I strongly support the original October 23, 2024 vote defeating the Warehouse Project and urge the council to maintain this position for several critical reasons.
First and foremost, this project is explicitly defined as a SPECULATIVE WAREHOUSE BUILDING. This designation itself reveals a fundamental flaw: it does not address any immediate or even foreseeable COMMUNITY NEED. The speculative nature of this development presents significant risks to our community.
Without a committed tenant or defined use, it is impossible to properly assess and mitigate the development's full impact on our community. In addition, while the project likely represents potential jobs and economic benefits, these are also entirely speculative. As economic and supply-chain conditions change (as they always do), there is a tangible risk of creating an under-utilized facility that becomes a community blight. This is especially the case as our surrounding cities are packed to the gills with similar speculative warehouse facilities.
Beyond that, assuming the warehouse attracts a tenant, the impacts are likewise concerning:
Inevitable increase in heavy truck traffic on local roads Noise & light pollution (which the EIR acknowledges cannot be mitigated) Increased traffic congestion
Safety risks to local residents
Round-the-clock vehicle activity from loading docks and parking facilities While the developers may tout infrastructure improvements as a benefit, these improvements would likely be short-lived due to the increased stress from heavy vehicle traffic. The long-term maintenance burden would ultimately fall on our community.
Moreover, what this facility decidedly will not do is address our community's actual needs. It will not:
Provide needed residential housing
Offer services beneficial to current residents
Enhance property values (in fact, it risks significantly decreasing them) Improve the quality of life in our neighborhood
The immediate disruption from construction, combined with long-term environmental and community impacts that cannot be mitigated, greatly outweigh any speculative benefits. Our community deserves development that addresses actual and foreseeable community needs and enhances our quality of life, not a speculative warehouse.
I respectfully urge the council to stand firm in its original decision and reject this project.
Sincerely,
Michelle Stewart
Sun Ranch Community Resident
From: Robert Powell
To: Ryan Fowler
Subject: Menifee plot plan #PLN 22-0179
Date: Thursday, November 28, 2024 11:54:21 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am reaching out with some concerns about the proposed warehouse off of Murrieta and McLaughlin Road and Floyd Ave and Geary Street.
Because of the residents that live off of Floyd Ave that will be greatly impacted by this project, I don’t feel that this is the right time for this project to move forward.
Our major concerns are traffic and safety.
This project has proposed that Geary Street will be the main street for truck traffic. There are currently 3 homes that this will impact the most. Our neighborhood has small children that we are concerned about- we are not only concerned about the noise, but for the safety of our neighborhood with our children. The intersection of Geary street and Floyd Ave needs to be addressed. IF this project goes through we need to have a stop sign here. We also need to make sure that we don’t have any truck traffic on Floyd Ave.
Another major concern is our exit off of Floyd Ave to Murrieta Road. Depending on the time of day, we are currently facing challenges getting out of our neighborhood- both north and south. There has always been traffic, but with the new neighborhood that was built with the Pulte homes, we have increased traffic. Murrieta Road is only a 2 way road with an intersection at Ethanac and Murrieta that was poorly designed. There is only one lane going northbound which turns right, left, and goes straight. This intersection gets backed up ALL the time.
We need to have this addressed. With this project there will be increased traffic from cars and trucks. We need this intersection enlarged for traffic flow.
We ALSO need a stop sign at Floyd and Murrieta to allow our neighborhood families to exit our street safely.
I have attached a few pictures so that you can visually see our roads.
The picture with the dirt road is Geary road with the proposed truck route and neighboring homes.
Bob Powell
12/4/24, 10:06 AM Mail - Bob Karwin - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADEwMTBhODc1LWQwM2EtNGFhNy04YjNhLTMwODVlNDNjYzVhOQAQAEcdrY%2BPIgpArx847W… 1/1 Outlook
Warehouse Project off Murrietta Road near Ethinac
FromTammie Carlisle <[email protected]>
Date Tue 12/3/2024 3:53 PM
To Bob Karwin <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unlessyou recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Bob,
I am in District 1 in Menifee and one of your constituents. I am writing regarding the warehouse project the city planning commission voted against.
First, I am not a "stop all growth, no new. this that or the other type" of person. I feel that Menifee is nearing a place where my hometown of Morgan HIll was in my early 20's. We love it here in Menifee and look forward to living here for a very long time..
That being said, I can't endorse this project and don't think it is in the best interest of your constituents. While there is a lot of housing and growth nearby, there is not nearly the infrastructure to support this project. I know McCall has proposed upgrades for next year, but I don't think the roads in this area will support the increased traffic or wear and tear.
In addition, several warehouses in the region are still empty. I encourage us to find ways to bring good-paying jobs to the area and help support growth, but I don't think this project on this plot of land will do it. Given that the Planning Commission has turned it down, I am hopeful the council will do the same.
I appreciate you taking the time to listen to a constituent.
Tammie Carlisle
12/4/24, 10:08 AM Mail - Bob Karwin - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADEwMTBhODc1LWQwM2EtNGFhNy04YjNhLTMwODVlNDNjYzVhOQAQAA9iEE7TbktFkNuShsuI7… 1/3 Outlook
Fw: MURRIETA ROAD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
FromTeresa Lundstrom <[email protected]>
Date Sun 12/1/2024 4:43 PM
To Bill Zimmerman <[email protected]>; Bob Karwin <[email protected]>; Ricky Estrada <[email protected]>; Lesa Sobek <[email protected]>; Dean Deines <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unlessyou recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I sent this to Ryan Fowler, assuming Brett Hamilton no longer involved in projects over here, and did not feel like rewriting in response to Murrieta road warehouse. Plus I am not sure if my letter made it clear i was ready for the warehouses to be built so I know my house facing murrieta will eventually be another warehouse or commercial building and I can move on.
I spoke with a couple of neighbors and I feel bad for new buyers on floyd that were not educated on the zoning and plans for this area. However our quality of life on murrieta road with all the traffic and soon to be more cars and traffic in front our houses, has decreased as has the residential value of our houses and I would say more unhealthy with CO2 emissions if the planning commission wants to know. Cannot open my front door because of traffic noise. Again I am one of the 26 homes that Lee & Associates had in escrow almost 3 years ago , still bitter about not being informed the escrow was over, that we did not buy another dump truck or refinance etc because we were not expecting to still be on this corner. Thank you, Teresa Lundstrom
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Teresa Lundstrom <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 at 04:21:51 PM PST
Subject: MURRIETA ROAD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
Good afternoon. I am one of the residents in the vicinity of this proposed project, the proposed long time ago project that is still not started. I am one of the 5 houses that face Murrieta road just south of Ethanac and I will say the last 5 years has been a roller coaster of what was supposed to happen here in this part of Menifee. I am sure the resident on Floyd was also 12/4/24, 10:08 AM Mail - Bob Karwin - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADEwMTBhODc1LWQwM2EtNGFhNy04YjNhLTMwODVlNDNjYzVhOQAQAA9iEE7TbktFkNuShsuI7… 2/3 involved with the group of 26 homes that Lee & Associates came out and dangled the golden carrot in front of and some of us saw real estate attorneys to make sure this offer was legit etc and then signed contracts for an escrow that fell out without ever notifying us. We all expected to be bought out by Panattoni Group for warehouse a couple years ago and even after the no trucks on Ethanac delay there was rumbling the developers were coming back etc. We, my husband and I , have been aware this area was going to go either industrial or commercial but there does not seem to be much organization with plans or projects. It is difficult to put money into your house when you're not sure if you will be bought out and bulldozed.
I have several responses to the last hearing and some of the comments I have read in Menifee 24/7. I guess it is time to speak up. This city has spent a lot of money with environmental studies for these projects, and I am guessing quite a bit on legal fees with the multiple litigation cases between Perris and Menifee. Of course Perris talks the talk and wants Menifee not to build because they have plans all along Case road to build industrial and will continue to develop Green Valley housing tract just north of us. I read Mr Estrada was concerned about losing the "rural" feel of Menifee. Does he mean the overgrown weeds up here where homeless like to sleep or how we flood up here because the excavator operators that are sent up here do not know how to grade correctly so water flows towards the mosquito wash on Perris side? Is he referring to the bald eagle nest that was across the street that we watched until last year when the tractor with the lift showed up and the nest disappeared. We were told those pesky bald eagles would be a problem. At one time it was rural, we used to ride our horses to Canyon Lake but the city of Perris built housing tract after housing tract west of Goetz so that is gone, the City of Menifee is building Cimarron Ridge behind us and there will be more building of that tract. Has not anyone in this little corner questioned why there needs to be huge storm drains west of us? Does Mr Estrada think Newport road and that conjestion is rural? The only section of Menifee that appears rural is off of Scott road and hopefully it will stay that way for them.
Being owner operator and having business in trucking for at least 20 years I have to question some of the studies or what people perceive as unhealthy. I read Mr Karwin make a comment about "peoples health being the most important" Yes that is true but do you believe the residents who live in neighborhoods off of Newport wanted lines of cars, trucks and commerical trucks lined up idling behind there brick walls all day on both the east and west side of the 215 trying to get to freeway or retail stores. Is that healthy physically and mentally when it takes 5 lights to get out of their own neighborhood? As commercial truck owner we are required by law to have a DEF system. We are required to be part of CARB and comply with that program. The DEF system decreases harmful particulates from diesels.
There are huge hefty fines if your truck is inspected and the DEF system is 12/4/24, 10:08 AM Mail - Bob Karwin - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADEwMTBhODc1LWQwM2EtNGFhNy04YjNhLTMwODVlNDNjYzVhOQAQAA9iEE7TbktFkNuShsuI7… 3/3 not operating. Speaking from first hand experience from a previous truck the cost to repair/replace was 15k out of our pocket. According to studies the DEF system decreases greenhouse gas emissions and if that is a lie I want my 15k back for repairing a useless system. The same system is required for non commercial diesel powered trucks. At this point there are so many cars lined up in front of our house from not only the new Menifee houses but also the Perris houses so that Murrieta road and Ethanac are full of idling cars expelling Co2. How is that healthier then a commercial truck? Both CO2 from cars and NOx from diesel powered are greenhouse gas offenders but at least the DEF system is designed to decrease the NOx emmision.We have difficulty getting out of our own driveways and the impatience of commuters has cost us 5 mailboxes and the risk of being rear ended trying to get in our driveway.
However I am confused on why people think trucks will be running all day and night if there is a warehouse. This will not be a Fontana or City of Industry situation where trucks go to get repaired or bought or kept for storage nightly. Cities are allowed to outline ordinances regarding times frames , routes taken etc. For us our property value for residential is less.
Eventually all these little dirt roads will be paved for new housing tracts behind us. This city is growing and to be honest after living here when Murrieta road was a stop sign street I thought this area would be like Newport with stores and restaurants since there is nothing at this end but I assume Perris will want tax revenue off that.
Thank you for giving residents a chance to express opinions.
Teresa Lundstrom
12/4/24, 10:09 AM Mail - Bob Karwin - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADEwMTBhODc1LWQwM2EtNGFhNy04YjNhLTMwODVlNDNjYzVhOQAQAInV8pXnJhlOrrcCLOe3Q… 1/2 Outlook
Murrieta Rd./Floyd Ave. Project
FromVirginia Vender <[email protected]>
Date Sat 11/30/2024 8:49 PM
To Bob Karwin <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unlessyou recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Karwin,
I hope this email finds you well. My name is Virginia Vender, and I live at 25845 Floyd Ave, which is directly adjacent to the site of the proposed project being addressed at the December 4th City Council meeting. I am writing to express my serious concerns about the potential approval of this project, as it would be located just 25 feet from my backyard.
My primary concern is the potential impact this project may have on the health and safety of my family, especially my children, who regularly play in our yard and on the street. Given the nature of the development, I fear that the inevitable emissions and pollution from the construction and ongoing operations could harm the air quality in our area. This poses a significant risk to my children's health, and as a parent, I believe it is vital that their safety is prioritized.
Additionally, I am worried about the increase in traffic this project will generate. Our street is a dirt road with little traffic and this project will substantially change the traffic flow, adding more vehicles will create hazardous conditions for residents, especially our children. The safety of residents in the area must be a top priority.
Finally, I am concerned about the decrease in property values that this project will cause. The development, so close to residential homes, will no doubt make the area less desirable for future buyers, affecting not only my investment but the investments of many of my neighbors as well. A decrease in property values is not just a financial concern—it’s an emotional one as well, as our homes are our greatest investments.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that you consider denying the approval of this project at this time. While I understand that development is important, I hope you will weigh the potential risks to the health, safety, and well-being of residents in our community.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read my concerns. I trust that you will consider these issues carefully and make a decision that is in the best interest of the residents you represent. 12/4/24, 10:09 AM Mail - Bob Karwin - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADEwMTBhODc1LWQwM2EtNGFhNy04YjNhLTMwODVlNDNjYzVhOQAQAInV8pXnJhlOrrcCLOe3Q… 2/2 Sincerely,
Virginia Vender
25845 Floyd Ave. Menifee
951-970-5491
--