Perris council moves forward with Harvest Landing plan after hours of debate, with written conditions and covenant

PERRIS — After more than five hours of presentations, public comment and council questions, the Perris City Council directed staff to draft the final documents needed to implement Harvest Landing, a 358‑acre mixed‑use plan that would add retail, housing, public amenities and a 391,000‑square‑foot parcel hub to an underdeveloped corridor east of the 215 freeway.

Staff presented the council with a staff‑preferred “Alternative 4,” which removes allowances for new industrial warehouses, preserves residential land, shifts a parcel‑hub facility to the southerly portion of the site and pairs the hub with a commercial shopping center and public benefits. Planning Manager Patricia Brenes told the council the EIR identified potentially significant and unavoidable impacts for air quality, greenhouse gases, noise and transportation and recommended adoption of mitigation and a statement of overriding considerations to proceed.

Developer Tim Howard said the project is financially dependent on a parcel hub occupant and described FedEx as a prospective, long‑term partner. “FedEx is recognized as one of America’s most respected companies,” Howard said, arguing the hub and anchor retail tenants make the broader plan viable. Howard and his team cited more than 2,000 petition supporters, letters of intent from multiple national retailers and an outreach program that included thousands of door knocks.

The project drew a large and divided public turnout. Labor representatives and building‑trades unions urged approval, saying the project will create construction and long‑term employment opportunities. “This development is a no‑brainer,” said Julio Flores of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. Business leaders, the Perris Valley Chamber of Commerce and many residents likewise supported the plan for the retail, restaurants and promised public amenities.

Opponents and environmental groups pushed back on the parcel hub and questioned whether the Final EIR adequately addressed cumulative air pollution and public‑health risks. “Vote no against this project unless they change everything,” Joaquin Castillejos of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice told the council. Sierra Club speakers and local activists asked the city to require firmer written guarantees before approving a project with known air‑quality impacts.

Council members pressed the developer on several technical points: why the hospital Mr. Howard mentioned was not in the development agreement; whether the EIR should be recirculated after plan changes; and how the project would meet AB 98 (siting sensitive uses). EPD Solutions’ Megan Truman, who prepared the draft and final EIR, told the council the environmental analysis was conservative and that the draft EIR had analyzed warehousing scenarios that are not permitted by the proposed specific plan. She said any future warehousing would require new CEQA analysis.

Council members negotiated a set of written conditions and a development‑agreement amendment that staff will prepare for a second reading. Those instructions included a covenant running with the land prohibiting future warehouses; a requirement to construct and open a 16.5‑acre sports complex (La Academia fields) in Phase 1; provisions that at least a threshold amount of retail be built and operational before a parcel‑hub certificate of occupancy is issued (council asked staff to capture anchor tenants and square‑footage tied to letters of intent); requirements for 24‑hour commercial security and maintenance commitments for public amenities; and a 10‑year period in which the developer must document good‑faith efforts to recruit a hospital before alternative uses would be considered.

Mayor and council members said the vote to direct staff to prepare the revised DA and ordinance language will be followed by a second reading at which the council will consider the finalized legal documents. Tim Howard confirmed he understands and agrees to the conditions staff was directed to draft.

Next steps: staff will prepare the development‑agreement amendments, covenant and ordinance text reflecting the council’s direction and return those documents for a formal second reading and final vote. Because the council approved staff direction rather than adopting final documents tonight, the substantive commitments will be enforceable only after the required written agreements are returned and adopted.

Article provenance: Staff presentation began with Item 11A; public hearing and council deliberations are documented in the council transcript. Ending: Council directed staff to prepare the written covenant and DA amendments and scheduled a second reading for formal adoption.