61121050.1/099506.0002
Brent R. McManigal
Director
[email protected]
550 E. Hospitality Lane, Suite 350
San Bernardino, California 92408
PH (909) 723-1807 | FX (909) 890-9877
fennemorelaw.com
October 20, 2025
VIA [email protected] 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
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
61121050.1/099506.0002
BMCM/myr
cc: John McClendon [email protected]
client
Oct 21, 2025 City of Lake Elsinore Lake Elsinore City Hall 130 S Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 By Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] 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 [email protected]
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