The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAttachment 15 - Written Comments 61121050.1/099506.0002 Brent R. McManigal Director bmcmanigal@fennemorelaw.com 550 E. Hospitality Lane, Suite 350 San Bernardino, California 92408 PH (909) 723-1807 | FX (909) 890-9877 fennemorelaw.com October 20, 2025 VIA E-MAILdabraham@lake-elsinore.org and Planning Commission City of Lake Elsinore 301 N. Spring Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Commission: This firm represents G.E.M. Investments, LLC, the applicant (“Applicant”) for the project known as the Rome Hill Commercial Project, which is Agenda Item No 2 for your regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday October 21, 2025. City Staff, the CEQA Consultants and the Applicant, have been working to bring the proposed Project to the Planning Commission for many months. City Staff as seen through the extensive Staff Report has thoroughly analyzed the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan(“MMRP”) for the Project. We support Staff’s work and CEQA determination as outlined in the staff report and supporting documents. Unfortunately, as is all too common for this type of Project, there are groups that attempt to weaponize CEQA as a tool for their client’s own gains, rather than uphold its true purpose — protecting the environment — using it instead to obstruct, delay, or extract concessions unrelated to legitimate environmental concerns. Specifically, the City prepared a legally compliance MND and MMRP; however, a comment letter was received from the law firm of Lozeau Drury (“Law Firm”) on behalf of their Client Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) (the “SAFER Comment Letter”). As you could see from the Response to Comments, the SAFER Comment Letter, was filled with anecdotal claims of environmental harm and false assertions, supposedly supported by their “experts” that are factually inaccurate and based on bad science that is not supported or to be used in a CEQA analysis. In fact, SAFER’s supposed “experts” have compared the habitat of the Project Site to habitat that is located in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and Rancho Cordova, both areas located in Northern California. October 20, 2025 Page 2 61121050.1/099506.0002 Another example to the lack of credibility of SAFER’s biologist, is their attempt to claim the Site is home to 154 special status species; however, by their own field survey only 12 were listed on- site where in actuality, the biologist who visited the perimeter of the site only saw those animals (birds) flying overhead and not actually on-site. The Biological Report prepared by SAFER is just one example of the junk science and scare tactics used in the SAFER Comment letter to distract the Planning Commission from the true fact that this Project, as mitigated, will not have a significant impact on the Environment. In addition to the Biological Report, the SAFER Comment Letter tries to scare the Planning Commission into believing the Project will result in sever air quality, green house gas and health impacts. As shown in the City’s Response to Comments, this is just false. SAFER’s supposed Expert, “SWAPE”, like the biologist, use modeling and make claims to exaggerate a project’s impacts, when the modeling is not accurate or appropriate to use in a CEQA analysis. Specifically, we are talking about the use, by SWAPE, of the AERSCREEN modeling, which, as outlined in the Response to Comments, models and estimates ground level emission concentrations without full meteorological information. Use of this model to predict emissions is not realistic and not accurate, but it is great for spreading false and misleading information. We ask that the Planning Commission read and ignore the wild claims of environmental harm that SAFER’s experts are trying to paint with their false, misleading and inaccurate claims about the Project. City Staff has thoroughly analyzed this Project and the findings and reports used in the MND were prepared by true CEQA experts in their respective fields using modern and CEQA complaint models and methods. Base on the foregoing, we ask that the Planning Commission accept Staff’s recommendation and approve the Project. Sincerely, FENNEMORE LLP Brent R. McManigal October 20, 2025 Page 3 61121050.1/099506.0002 BMCM/myr cc: John McClendon john@ceqa.com client Oct 21, 2025 City of Lake Elsinore Lake Elsinore City Hall 130 S Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 By Email: jgray@lake-elsinore.org; mcarroll@lake-elsinore.org; jpeters@lake-elsinore.org; jdevor@lake-elsinore.org; apease@lake-elsinore.org CC: barbara@ceqa.com; jsimpson@lake-elsinore.org; planning@lake-elsinore.org; calvarez@lake-elsinore.org Re: Proposed Amendments to the City’s General Plan and Zoning Map Dear Lake Elsinore Planning Commission, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter as a public comment concerning Public Hearing Item 2 on the agenda for the October 21, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, a proposed general plan amendment and zoning change in the City of Lake Elsinore (“City”). CalHDF writes to flag a specific legal issue with the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2022-01, which would amend the General Plan Land Use Designation of the 6.77-acre site located on Grand Avenue and Kathryn Way from General Commercial (GC) and High Density Residential (HDR) to Light Industrial (LI); and Zone Change (ZC) 2022-02, which would rezone the site from Commercial Park (C-P) and High Density Residential (R-3) to Commercial Manufacturing (C-M). These land use actions constitute a violation of SB 330, as discussed infra. Background - SB 330 SB 330 prohibits local agencies from reducing residential zoning and general plan capacity in affected geographies (including the City) below what was permitted on January 1, 2018, unless the City concurrently adjusts zoning and general plan capacity elsewhere within its boundaries to preserve its total residential capacity. Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(1) (emphasis added): 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 hi@calhdf.org Notwithstanding any other law except as provided in subdivision (h), with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, an affected county or an affected city shall not enact a development policy, standard, or condition that would have any of the following effects: (A) Changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district in effect at the time of the proposed change, below what was allowed under the land use designation or zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise provided in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) or subdivision (h). For purposes of this subparagraph, “reducing the intensity of land use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site’s residential development capacity. Additionally, Government Code section 66300, subdivision (h)(1) (emphasis added) provides: (1) This section does not prohibit an affected county or an affected city, including the local electorate acting through the initiative process, from changing a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive use, or reducing the intensity of land use, if the city or county concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity. (2) (A) For purposes of this subdivision, “concurrently” means the action is approved at the same meeting of the legislative body. … (C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in the case of an initiative measure, “concurrently” means the action is included in the initiative in a manner that ensures the added residential capacity is effective at the same time as the reduction in residential capacity. As is discussed infra, the proposed land use actions violate these provisions of SB 330. Proposed Rezoning and General Plan Change 2 of 4 The applicant proposes to comply with SB 330 by requesting the transfer of the reduced residential capacity to the unit bank in accordance with Chapter 17.78 (No Net Loss Program) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). GPA 2022-01 and ZC 2022-02 will: include a determination establishing the residential capacity existing before the amendment(s) and identifying the unused housing capacity that will be transferred to the unit bank and made available for a residential density transfer … 144 units of unused housing capacity that will be transferred to the unit bank and made available for a residential density transfer are identified in the ordinance and resolutions for this project. GPA 2022-01 and ZC 2022-02 violate SB 330. By amending the general plan land use designation from HDR to LI and rezoning the site from R-3 to C-M, respectively, these changes reduce the site’s residential zoning and general plan capacity below that which was in effect on January 1, 2018 while transferring the 144 units of residential housing capacity to its unit bank. However, this unit bank transfer does not fulfill SB 330’s requirement of concurrent changes “applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity.” (Gov. Code, § 66300 subd. (h)(1).) SB 330 defines “concurrently” as 1) an action approved “at the same meeting” as one where a city reduces residential development capacity and 2) where the city “ensures the added residential capacity is effective at the same time as the reduction in residential capacity.” (Ibid.) The City has not planned to do either. Furthermore, the City’s No Net Loss Program, i.e. the unit bank program, does not mandate concurrent upzoning for instances of downzoning. LEMC Ch. 17.78 simply provides that housing capacity lost in downzoning will be “transferred to the unit bank and made available for a residential density transfer” (Ch. 17.78.030) at some future date subject to the city’s approval of a density transfer request (id. at Ch. 17.78.040-17.78.080) without identifying or requiring specific parcels to be concurrently upzoned in compensation. Rezoning the Grand Avenue and Kathryn Way site (and changing the general plan designation) without concurrently upzoning other parcels would result in a reduction in residential development capacity. This rezoning will diminish the City’s general plan and zoning capacity for housing development. The City should not enact this rezoning and general plan amendment without concurrent upzoning of other parcels, as is required by state law. ◄► CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. 3 of 4 Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 4 of 4