City Council delays decision on appeal of warehouse project

Members of local laborers' unions stand in unison with a member who addressed the City Council.

By Doug Spoon, Editor

An appeal that was filed to stop construction of a warehouse project in north Menifee has been put on hold by the Menifee City Council.

By a unanimous vote, council members Wednesday voted to carry over the appeal until the next meeting on Nov. 20. The delay is designed to give city staff members time to review some of the factors related to the California Environmental Equality Act (CEQA).

The CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse project is planned for west of the 215 Freeway and south of Ethanac Road, between Wheat Street and Byers Road. The site is within the Economic Development Corridor Northern Gateway of the city. It is designed to be on a 40-acre site and include a 700,000-square-foot warehouse/industrial building with 10,000 square feet of office space. According to city documents, there would be three access points from Byers Road and two from Wheat Street.

The Menifee Planning Commission on Aug. 14 approved the project, which would consolidate eight parcels into one industrial parcel. An appeal of the approval was filed by the City of Perris, which claims that areas of the project, including the environmental analysis, were not adequately analyzed/addressed.

The appeal letter raised concerns about the following:

Incomplete Project Description
Insufficient Analysis of Transportation Impacts
Insufficient Analysis of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Insufficient Analysis of Air Quality Impact
Insufficient Analysis of Noise Impacts
Inadequate Project Alternatives Analysis

The City of Menifee has disputed those claims. Even so, the Environmental Impact Report approved by the Planning Commission stated that the project would have a significant impact on the environment because of greenhouse gas emissions. Menifee’s defense is that “mitigation measures were made [as] a condition of the approval of the project and a mitigation reporting or monitoring plan was made a condition of the approval…”

The specifics of those mitigation measures – and a major reason city attorney Jeffrey Melching recommended council members delay a decision on the appeal – are a matter of debate.

“I’m concerned about how you’re going to mitigate exceeding the GHG standard,” council member Bob Karwin said to planner Ryan Fowler, who represented the city in presenting the proposal. “If you can’t meet the standard, why doesn’t [the project] fail?”

Fowler reminded Karwin about the “overriding considerations” in the EIR, which he said involves “weighing the benefits of the project versus the impacts.”

Karwin’s response: “What benefit is there that overrides public health?”

From a number of proponents of the project who testified – including a reported expert on CEQA matters – no specific benefits were mentioned. They simply insisted that there would be economic and social benefits from the project.

“The greenhouse gas emissions are a health concern,” council member Ricky Estrada said. “Living next to something with all those trucks, burning fossil fuels … that would be concerning.”

The meeting was attended by many members of laborers’ unions, some of whom addressed the council. Jonathan Bailey was one who spoke in favor of the project.

“It’s hard being away from my family, but you have to go where the work is,” said Bailey, a local resident. “We rent and we’re trying to get permanent residence here. Projects like this would be close to home. The developer promised to use union workers.”

The matter will be reconsidered at the Nov. 20 council meeting, which begins at 6 p.m.