HomeMy WebLinkAbout0019_6_PA 2021-28 - Exhibit E - Appeal Form Dated May 16, 2022CITY OF
LADE �LSIIIOR_E
DREAM EXTREME
�ry
City Clerk's Office
130 S. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA
(951) 674-3124, Ext. 269
For Official Use Only
Date Received:
Received By: x �n
Date Fee Paid:
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FORM
►Policy 100-8: The purpose of this Policy is to provide a standardized procedure for consideration of appeals from
Planning Commission decisions. Within 15 calendar days of a Planning Commission decision, any person may
appeal a decision to the City Council by filing this form and submitting a $210.33 fee. A copy of this policy is
attached with further important information.
Name: (represented by Lozeau Drury LLP
Mailing Address: 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
City:
Oakland
Phone No.: (510) 836-4200 Fax No.:
icant Information
State: CA
Date: May 16, 2022
Zip Code: 94612
E-Mail: richard@lozeaudrury.com
Subject of Appeal Information
Subject of Appeal: Planning Commission's approval of Planning Application No. 2021-28 (Corydon III Project)
Project No.(s): Planning Application No. 2021-28 (IDR 2021-04, CUP 2021-06)
Project Applicant: Brad Woods, RD Construction
West side of Corydon Road between Palomar Street and Cereal Street (APNs 370-080-007,
Project Location:
Date of Planning Commission Action: May 3, 2022
I, the undersigned, hereby appeal the above action of approval/denial by the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission, for the following reasons: (Please cite specific action being appealed.) Attach additional
pages as needed.
For the reasons d*scUrsed in the attarhed commenf letter, SAFER obiects to the Planning Commission'.s-
decisions to approve Industrial Design Review 2021-04 and Conditional Use Permit 2021-06 "Project"
and to approve a CEQA exemption for the Project pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.
The Planning Commission should have declined to consider Project approvals until proper CEQA review
was complete. a attachment.
Signature:
T 510.836.4200 1939 Harrison Street, Ste. 150 www.lozeaudrury.com
F 510,836.4205 1 Oakland, CA 94612 i richard@lozeaudrury.com
Via Email
May 3, 2022
John Gray, Chair
Matthew Dobler, Vice Chair
Michael Carroll, Commissioner
Rendell Klaarenbeek, Commissioner
Jodi Peters, Commissioner
Planning Commission
City of Lake Elsinore
183 N. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
tannin information lake-elsinore.or
Kevin Beery, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of Lake Elsinore
183 N. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
kbeeryg lake-elsinore.orQ
Re: Comment on Planning Commission Agenda Item 2; Planning
Application No. 2021-28 (Corydon III Project)
Dear Chair Gray, Vice Chair Dobler, Mr. Beery, and Honorable Commissioners:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility
("SAFER") regarding the project known as Planning Application No. 2021-28
(Corydon III), including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction of
two industrial buildings totaling 63,030 square feet located at 32321 Corydon Road
in the City of Lake Elsinore, on APNs 370-080-007, 370-080-006, and 370-080-020
("Project").
SAFER objects to the City staffs decision to exempt the Project from review
under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15332
of the CEQA Guidelines, and argues that an initial study should be conducted and a
CEQA document prepared to analyze the Project and mitigate its environmental
impact. For this reason, SAFER requests that the Planning Commission declines to
approve the Project unless and until proper CEQA review is conducted.
LEGAL STANDARD
CEQA mandates that "the long-term protection of the environment... shall be
the guiding criterion in public decisions" throughout California. PRC § 21001(d). A
"project" is "the whole of an action" directly undertaken, supported, or authorized by
May 3, 2022
Comment on Planning Commission Agenda Item 2;
Planning Application No. 2021-28 (Corydon III Project)
Page 2 of 4
a public agency "which may cause either a direct physical change in the
environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment." PRC § 21065; CEQA Guidelines, 14 CCR § 15378(a). For this
reason, CEQA is concerned with an action's ultimate "impact on the environment."
Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283. CEQA requires environmental factors
to be considered at the "earliest possible stage ... before [the project] gains
irreversible momentum," Id. 13 Cal.3d at 277, "at a point in the planning process
where genuine flexibility remains." Sundstrom v. Mendocino County (1988) 202
Cal.App.3d 296, 307.
To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three -
tiered structure. 14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific
Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.AppAth 1168, 1185-86
("Hollywoodland'). First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or it can be seen
with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the
environment, no further agency evaluation is required. Id. Second, if there is a
possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency
must perform an initial threshold study. Id.; 14 CCR § 15063(a). If the study
indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects
may cause a significant effect on the environment the agency may issue a negative
declaration. Id., 14 CCR §§ 15063(b)(2), 15070. Finally, if the project will have a
significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report ("EIR") is
required. Id. Here, since the City exempted the Project from CEQA entirely, we are
at the first step of the CEQA process.
A. CEQA Exemptions.
CEQA identifies certain classes of projects which are exempt from the
provisions of CEQA. These are called categorical exemptions. 14 CCR §§ 15300,
15354. "Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and "'[e]xemption categories
are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language."'
(Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 CalAth 105, 125.)
The determination as to the appropriate scope of a categorical exemption is a
question of law subject to independent, or de novo, review. (San Lorenzo Valley
Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified
School Dist., (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1375 ("[Q]uestions of interpretation or
application of the requirements of CEQA are matters of law. (Citations.) Thus, for
example, interpreting the scope of a CEQA exemption presents 'a question of law,
subject to de novo review by this court.' (Citations).")
May 3, 2022
Comment on Planning Commission Agenda Item 2;
Planning Application No. 2021-28 (Corydon III Project)
Page 3 of 4
The City has issued a notice of exemption alleging that the Project is exempt
from CEQA review as an "in -fill" project (Class 32), and a minor land division (Class
15).
B. Exceptions to CEQA Exemptions.
There are several exceptions to the categorical exemptions. 14 CCR §
15300.2. At least two exceptions are relevant here:
(1) Significant Effects. A project may never be exempted from CEQA if there
is a "fair argument' that the project may have significant environmental
impacts due to "unusual circumstances." 14 CCR §15300.2(c). The
Supreme Court has held that since the agency may only exempt activities
that do not have a significant effect on the environment, a fair argument
that a project will have significant effects precludes an exemption. Wildlife
Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 204.
(2) Cumulative Impacts. A project may not be exempted from CEQA review
"when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in
the same place, over time is significant."
C. Limitations to In -Fill Exemption.
The Class 32 In -Fill exemption can only be applied when "(t]he project site
has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species" or where
"[a]pproval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality." 14 Cal. Admin. Code §§ 15332(c), (d).
The CEQA Analysis fails to properly analyze and mitigate impacts to air
quality, traffic, noise, and other impacts. The Analysis should be withdrawn, an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared, and the draft EIR should
be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Air Quality.
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 is it not possible to determine whether the
Project will have significant air quality impacts. It is necessary to prepare a HRA to
determine if construction and operation of the Project will create a cancer risk
greater than 10 per million, which is the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold.
May 3, 2022
Comment on Planning Commission Agenda Item 2;
Planning Application No. 2021-28 (Corydon III Project)
Page 4 of 4
B. Traffic.
CEQA requires that traffic analysis must now be conducted using vehicle
miles travelled (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.
C. Biological Impacts.
The staff report assumes that the Project will not have significant biological
impacts because the site is allegedly heavily disturbed. However, even heavily
disturbed sites may provide habitat to special status species. The staff report also
relies heavily on the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). However,
in order 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 are using the site and are not within the
scope of the MSHCP, then it does not provide adequate mitigation. Further review
is required by a qualified biologist to determine if the Project site provide habitat to
special status species and if the MSHCP provides adequate mitigation for those
species.
III. CONCLUSION.
The City should conduct additional analysis of the Project and its
environmental impacts. It should prepare an Initial Study and a CEQA document to
analyze the Project's impacts and to propose feasible mitigation measures. The City
lack sufficient evidence to support its reliance of the CEQA Infill exemption.
Sincerely,
Richard Drury