Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRome Hill Commercial - Letter to PC 10-20-25 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