HomeMy WebLinkAbout0019_1_PA 2021-28 - SR
Page 1 of 3
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jason Simpson, City Manager
Prepared by: Kevin Beery, Associate Planner
Date: July 12, 2022
Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Action to Approve Planning
Application No. 2021-28 for the Corydon III Project
Applicant: Brad Woods, RD Construction
Appellant: Supports Alliance for Environmental Responsibility
Recommendation
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S ACTION TO
APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06 AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW
NO. 2021-04 AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S FINDINGS AND
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06 AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW
NO. 2021-04 FOR TWO INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 63,030 SQUARE FEET
LOCATED AT APNs: 370-080-007, 370-080-006, AND 370-080-020.
Background
Project Description and Procedural History
Planning Application No. 2021-28 is a development proposal involving a request for Design
Review approval (IDR 2021-04) and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2021-06) to construct and
establish two warehouse buildings totaling 63,030 square feet and an outdoor storage area on
3.04 acres of land in the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial & Recreational and Airport Overlay
districts of the East Lake Specific Plan. The project is located on the west side of Corydon Road
between Palomar Street and Cereal Street (APNs: 370-080-007, 370-080-006, and 370-080-
020).
On May 3, 2022, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to approve the project at its regular meeting.
Before the hearing, the Planning Division received a letter from Richard Drury objecting to the
proposed environmental determination (attached as Exhibit C) and an email from Rene Rolander
expressing concerns about the project’s consistency with zoning and the operational impacts of
the proposed use on surrounding areas (attached as Exhibit D). During the public hearing, one
resident spoke to request clarification regarding the potential displacement of residents, use
permit requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses, project traffic and operational
impacts, and solar panel requirements. In response, staff clarified these aspects and stated that
PA 2021-28 (Corydon III) Appeal
CC: 7/12/2022
Page 2 of 3
the proposed project would not have significant environmental impacts and would not negatively
affect surrounding properties.
Appeal
On May 17, 2022, Richard Drury, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental
Responsibility, filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the
application because the City should conduct an additional analysis of the project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that the City lacks evidence to support the use
of a Class 32 In-fill Exemption for the Project.
Per Section 17.410.100.G of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), upon hearing the appeal,
the City Council shall consider the record and such additional evidence as may be offered and
may affirm, reverse, or modify, in whole or in part, the order, requirements, decision,
determination, interpretation, or ruling being appealed, or may make or substitute such other or
additional decision or determination as it may find warranted under the provisions of this code,
the General Plan, or other City requirements or standards. The hearing body is subject to all the
criteria and requirements for making findings imposed upon the original approving authority,
including the requirements to complete an environmental review.
Analysis
Appellant objects to the Planning Commission’s consideration of the project, reasoning that the
project should not have been exempted from CEQA based on the following arguments:
1. The City relies on an air quality analysis prepared by BlueScape Environmental. The
analysis appears not to include a site-specific health risk assessment (“HRA”). Without an
HRA, it is impossible to determine whether the project will have significant air quality
impacts. It is necessary to prepare an HRA to determine if the construction and operation
of the project will create a cancer risk more significant than 10 per million, which is the
applicable SCAQMD significance threshold.
Staff’s Response: An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis dated November 15,
2021, was prepared for the Project by BlueScape Environmental to evaluate the potential
air quality impacts of the project. The study assessed air quality impacts resulting from
project construction and operation and evaluated project compliance with applicable
criteria pollutant thresholds set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD). The study concludes that: (1) the project would not exceed regional and
localized construction and operational daily emissions significance thresholds of
SCAQMD; (2) the Project would neither conflict with air quality plans, violate an air quality
standard, nor contribute to an existing or projected violation or result in a cumulatively
considerable increase in ozone or particulate matter emissions; and, (3) the Project would
not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
2. CEQA requires that traffic analysis must now be conducted using vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) analysis. Location tends to be the driving factor in VMT analysis. The Staff Report
contends that VMT will be less than significant because the Project will allegedly generate
108 vehicle trips per day, while the significance threshold is 110 vehicle trips per day. This
difference of 2 vehicle trips per day warrants further analysis.
Staff’s Response: A Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Report dated December 8,
2021, was prepared for the project. The report specifies that the proposed land use would
generate 108 daily trips, less than the City-adopted significance threshold of 110 daily
trips, as outlined in the City’s adopted Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. Accor dingly,
PA 2021-28 (Corydon III) Appeal
CC: 7/12/2022
Page 3 of 3
land use projects generating less than 110 daily trips may be presumed to have less than
a significant impact on VMT and are not subject to additional analysis. It is anticipated that
the Project will serve residents within the vicinity, providing enhanced convenience and
reducing the need for residents to travel increased distances. Therefore, trip lengths within
the region would not be increased, and vehicle travel would potentially decrease. Thus,
the project is considered a local serving use and would not have a significant VMT impact.
3. The staff report assumes the project will not have significant biological impacts because
the site is allegedly heavily disturbed. However, even heavily disturbed areas may provide
habitat to special status species. The staff report also relies heavily on the Multi-Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). However, to rely on the MSHCP, the City must
determine if the MSHCP is adequately funded and is achieving its goals. Also, the MSHCP
does not cover all species that may be using the Project site. If species use the site and
are not within the scope of the MSHCP, then it does not provide adequate mitigation. A
qualified biologist requires further review to determine if the project site provides habitat
to special status species and if the MSHCP gives sufficient mitigation for those species.
Staff’s Response: A General Biological Assessment and Western Riverside County
MSHCP Consistency Analysis dated October 2021 was prepared for the project. The
report was prepared by a qualified biologist and is based on both literature review and
field surveys of the project site. The report concludes that no suitable habitat for
endangered, rare, or threatened species is present on the project site. Furthermore, the
project site is currently developed with single-family residences.
In conclusion, the staff's opinion that the evidence in the administrative record, mainly the
information included in the technical studies prepared for the Project, reasonably supports the
use of a Class 32 in-fill development categorical exemption for the project. Therefore, considering
these points, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s findings
and approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06 and Industrial Design Review No. 2021-04
and deny the subject appeal of the Planning Commission’s action.
Exhibits
A – Appeal Resolution
B – Planning Commission Staff Report
C – Letter from Richard Drury
D – Email from Rene Rolander
E – Appeal Form Dated May 16, 2022