Perris and Menifee square off over warehouse-distribution project

A legal battle has broken out between two neighboring Riverside County cities regarding a planned warehouse distribution project.

In a lawsuit filed last month in Riverside County Superior Court, Perris alleges that the 251,133-square-foot development planned for a parcel in Menifee south of Ethanac Road and west of Barnett Road violates provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act

The project will also disrupt future commercial and residential development in Perris if it’s built as planned, the lawsuit claims.

The 13.8-acre site borders Perris on its north and east side. In addition to a logistics facility, the Ethanac and Barnett Development Project will include 25,100 square feet of manufacturing and about 20,000 square feet of office space.

The project site is within Menifee’s Northern Gateway Development Corridor,  which is designated for business parks and industrial development. The latter will include warehouse distribution, assembly, and light manufacturing and repair businesses.

Menifee officials also hope to attract research and development firms and several hotels into the corridor, according to the city’s general plan.

But Perris sees the development as a threat to its economic future.

“Because of the project’s location on the Perris border, the residents of Perris will bear the brunt of the majority of the environmental impacts from the construction and operation of the project” the lawsuit states. “That includes noise, construction, and [poor] air quality emissions, as well as construction and traffic.”

Both Ethanac and Barnett roads are crucial to future commercial and residential development in that area, and both thoroughfares are within the jurisdictions of Perris and Menifee.

The lawsuit concludes by asking that construction be delayed until the issues are resolved, a request the Menifee city council turned down.

“The city of Perris is responsible for the well-being and safety of the residents we serve,” Perris Mayor Michael M. Vargas said in a statement. “The lawsuit filed against the city of Menifee is a reflection of this commitment to our residents.”

Because pending litigation is involved, Perris officials will not comment further, said Stephen Hale, the city’s public information officer.

Not long after Perris filed its lawsuit, Menifee released a statement defending the project and its dealings, legal and otherwise, with Perris.

“Menifee has attempted to design the project as a ‘good neighbor to the city of Perris’s and will continue to do so,” the statement reads. “But Menifee will continue to implement the vision expressed in its general plan, which has envisioned this type of development along the south side of Ethanac Road for many years.”

The four-paragraph rebuttal calls Perris’ lawsuit “retribution” for Menifee’s successful blocking of Perris’ attempt last year to close off Ethanac Road to truck traffic.

“Perris has attempted to stop the project by making strange environmental claims,” the statement reads. “Perris argues that Menifee failed to study cold storage at the project, even though the project does not allow cold storage.

“Menifee ultimately exercised its independent judgment to approve the project, just as the Perris has done with industrial projects in its own city.”

Menifee officials also declined further comment.

The dispute between the two cities began in the fall of 2021 when Perris submitted a letter to Menifee that claimed the Ethanac-Barnett project would disrupt commercial and residential development in its immediate area.

Perris officials also maintain that the project fails to take into account safety issues at several intersections near the site, and whether the project will interfere with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by CEQA.

It also called for an “adequate” traffic study, and that air quality and elimination of other health hazards are ultimately built into the project, but neither of those things happened.

In March, the planning commission approved the project. That led to an appeal from Perris that the city council rejected three months late when it approved the project by a 4-1 vote.

Menifee’s arguments against the project apparently had no impact on Perris’ five-member council, including the member who cast the dissenting vote.

“I don’t find Perris’ argument to be convincing,” Councilman Ricky Estrada said. “In fact, I find it to be just the opposite. Perris seems to be making up so-called legal deficiencies when in reality it just doesn’t like the project.

“Menifee has traditionally respected the borders and land-use decisions of its neighbors, and I think Perris should do the same for us. It should respect our decision as a sovereign city.”

Estrada said his objection to the project has to do with its location and whether it’s a good fit with the rest of Menifee.

“I have my own concerns with the project, which have nothing to with Perris’s arguments,” said Estrada, the only council member to comment before the vote was cast during the council’s June 7 meeting. “I don’t feel that it’s the right type of development in the right place, and I don’t think it’s consistent with our rural identity and small-town feel.”