HomeMy WebLinkAboutLake Elsinore - SB 330 Letter - 21 Oct 2025
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