Perris narrows ‘no net loss’ housing ordinance after debate over warehouse rezonings

The Perris City Council voted July 29 to introduce a zoning code text amendment establishing a city “no net loss” and density‑bonus program intended to preserve residential capacity required under state law, but the council removed warehouse rezonings from the ordinance’s coverage.

The measure — zoning code text amendment 25‑00002 to add chapter 19.89 to the Perris Municipal Code — was presented by Principal Planner Rafael Garcia as a tool to track residential units lost through rezonings and allow those units to be relocated to eligible sites. Garcia said the program would create a residential unit bank “to track the residential housing units that are lost through a rezoning effort” and suggested recipient locations such as the River Glen specific plan area and properties within a two‑mile radius of Perris’s Metrolink stations.

The ordinance was proposed after the council directed staff in May to draft a mechanism to help the city comply with Senate Bill 330. Staff told council the planning commission recommended safeguards including a requirement that an industrial rezone that reduces residential capacity must entitlement 100% of the displaced units and ensure at least 25% of those units are constructed and have a certificate of occupancy before occupancy of the industrial development. Staff also proposed a 500,000 square‑foot cap on warehouse buildings used under the program.

Developers and residents offered sharply different views at the public hearing. Kevin Wolf, a local developer and representative of Germania, urged the council to approve the ordinance but to remove the planning commission’s concurrent‑construction requirement, saying the planning commission’s additional language “could lead to a situation where you have 2 developers dueling with each other” and could hinder financing. “Density for density’s sake isn’t always the best solution,” he said, while supporting a program that shifts units to more appropriate locations such as near transit.

Resident commenters pressed the council in the opposite direction, arguing that warehouse rezonings have harmed Perris neighborhoods. Lupe Gomez, a regular public commenter, told councilors that “empty warehouses only serve one purpose, a tax write off” and criticized past rezonings that removed residential capacity for industrial projects. Several residents asked council to follow the planning commission’s recommended protections.

Council members debated several possible amendments. Some members emphasized that the program should make residential capacity relocations feasible by requiring environmental review and land use entitlement work for receiving sites rather than forcing simultaneous construction. Others argued the planning commission’s suggested requirement that 25% of replacement units be completed before industrial occupancy was necessary to prevent developers from buying residentially zoned land, rezoning it, and not delivering housing.

After multiple motions and amendments failed or were withdrawn — including a proposed lower building‑size cap that did not receive majority support — the council approved a motion to adopt the proposed ordinance while excluding industrial warehousing from the ordinance’s coverage. The final roll call on that motion was recorded as: Nava, Corona, Rapp — yes; Vallejo, Vargas — no.

What passed means the adopted text amendment will remain available as a tool for rezones that convert residential land to other non‑warehouse uses (for example, commercial, manufacturing, or business park uses), and provide a framework for relocating residential capacity to identified sites, but it will not apply to rezonings solely for warehouse/distribution facilities. Staff and the planning commission had noted the reuse/relocation sites could include the River Glen specific plan (with a proposed up‑to‑30 units‑per‑acre density) and properties within two miles of Perris’s Metrolink stations (potentially eligible for a 30 percent density increase over current maximums).

Council members and staff said the ordinance creates extra procedural steps for applicants that rezone residential land — including identifying a receiving site, securing property owner consent, completing CEQA review, and obtaining entitlements and construction approvals at the receiving site — and that enforcement would rely on the city’s normal entitlement and certificate‑of‑occupancy processes. Staff and several council members also stressed that the program is not a guaranteed shortcut for any developer: any specific relocation or entitlement would still require separate approvals.

The council’s action followed written input received by staff, including a July 18 letter from EPD Solutions, which the staff report described as representing the development community and which urged changes to the planning commission’s concurrent‑construction approach; a letter from NAIP expressing similar concerns; and a letter from Neighbors of Perris in Action Team proposing additional restrictions on industrial warehouses. The planning commission had approved the ordinance with the entitling/25% construction safeguards by a 4‑0 vote.

Next steps: the council introduced the ordinance with the warehouse exclusion and sent the text for formal first reading and subsequent steps required by the municipal code. Any developer seeking to use the city’s relocated‑unit framework for a non‑warehouse rezoning will still need to demonstrate compliance with the entitlement, environmental, and occupancy conditions spelled out in the ordinance and in any future implementing policies.