Perris planning commission recommends council require CUP, council approval for warehouses over 50,000 sq ft

The Perris Planning Commission on Nov. 19 recommended the City Council require conditional use permits (CUPs) and city‑council approval for warehouse and distribution centers larger than 50,000 square feet in the light industrial and general industrial zones.

Rafael Garcia, planning staff, told commissioners the amendments to the Perris Valley Commerce Center specific plan and the Perris Municipal Code would change large warehouse entitlements from a development plan review — a permit reviewed by the planning commission — to a conditional use permit that the commission would review and formally recommend but the City Council would ultimately approve. Garcia said staff determined the zoning code amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the cited provisions and recommended that the commission forward the amendments and related resolutions to council.

The change would not immediately affect projects that are already vested or have approved entitlements, Garcia said; the CUP requirement would apply to new applications submitted after codification (after second reading and codification by the council) and to pending applications that have not yet become vested. The proposed code language leaves the existing zoning definition of “warehousing and distribution” in place and does not change development standards such as setbacks, heights or landscaping; those are treated in a separate development‑standards amendment.

During public comment, industrial property owner and developer Jim Pantin opposed the amendment. “I would be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to develop my property only to take it to the city council and have them potentially deny my CUP,” Pantin said, arguing the change would create uncertainty for investors, depress land values, reduce jobs and expose the city to takings claims. By contrast, Franco Pacheco of the Inland Valley Alliance for Environmental Justice said the amendment targets large distribution uses and can guard against further warehouse saturation; he urged the city to clarify that the change applies only to large warehouse/distribution centers.

Commissioners voiced support for the proposed change as a measure to increase oversight of larger projects without banning warehousing. Commissioner Lopez said the amendment does not prohibit industrial development but “adds that one step of authority so that we could get the best projects in our city.” Commissioners noted the distinction between manufacturing and distribution jobs and said council review provides additional public accountability.

Commissioner Lopez moved and Vice Chair Shively seconded a motion recommending that the City Council find the amendment exempt from CEQA where applicable, find that the specific plan is adequately covered by the PVCCSP EIR where noted, and forward Zoning Code Amendment 25‑00007 and Specific Plan Amendment 25‑00006 for council consideration. The motion passed by roll call vote, 5–0.

Next steps: the Planning Commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to the City Council, which will consider the amendments at two readings; the changes would take effect after council codification. Staff said they will transmit the public comment letter received on the item to council as part of the record.