Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Planning commission approves Menifee Boardwalk commercial center after traffic, parking debate
Loading...
Summary
The Menifee Planning Commission voted to adopt the environmental determination and approve the Menifee Boardwalk plot plan, a 6.02-acre commercial center with five buildings, a daycare and two drive-throughs, after hearing concerns about parking, traffic and a 32-space easement from adjacent property owners.
The Menifee Planning Commission on April 3 adopted a resolution approving the Menifee Boardwalk project’s initial study/mitigated negative declaration and the plot plan, conditional use permit and tentative map, following a public hearing and a series of questions about parking and traffic.
Associate Planner Desiree McGriff described the project as a cohesive commercial center on 6.02 acres in the Menifee Village Specific Plan that would include five buildings totaling about 38,560 square feet, two quick-serve drive-throughs, 278 parking stalls including ADA and EV spaces, and a 12,500-square-foot fenced playground tied to a proposed daycare (approximately 140 children; 18–23 staff). Staff recommended adoption of the CEQA determination and approval subject to conditions in the staff report.
During public comment, resident and former owner representative Ron Sullivan said the site has historically been commercial and voiced support for retail and a childcare center. Attorney Joseph Cardella, representing adjacent owner Foothill Arch LLC, urged further quantitative analysis of traffic and parking, noting a 32-space easement and referencing an alternate trip-generation calculation that showed noticeably higher AM-peak trips.
Cardella told the commission he wanted a ‘‘signal warrant’’ study and, if warranted, signalization at the project entrance. The commission pressed him to clarify what changes he sought beyond additional studies; Cardella said a warrant analysis and identification of where additional parking could be added were the main objectives.
The city’s traffic consultant, Kyle Mayberry of Linscott, Law & Greenspan, said the project used a shared-parking methodology that reduced peak parking demand because the site’s uses (daycare, medical, retail, restaurants) have different daily demand profiles. Mayberry said alternate trip-generation runs showed slightly higher trips in some scenarios but would not change the study’s level-of-service conclusions. He also said a right-in/right-out driveway would not be suitable for signalization and that sight distance at the proposed driveway was adequate.
Commissioners questioned staff about whether parking had been double-counted and whether adjacent parking easements were available. Staff explained they had verified parking standards, asked a traffic engineer to perform a parking-demand analysis, and accounted for existing easements and historical parking arrangements in their review.
After discussion and staff assurances that comment letters had been addressed in the record, a commissioner moved and the commission approved staff’s recommendations. The motion to adopt the environmental determination and approve the plot plan, conditional use permit and tentative map passed by voice vote.
The commission’s action closes the planning-level approval; any required ministerial permits and subsequent construction approvals will follow the conditions adopted by the commission and applicable city processes.
