Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Safety And Habitat topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises safety concerns over wildlife corridor behind Lake Elsinore homes; applicant says project complies with MSHCP
Summary
A resident told the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission that a nearby undeveloped hillside functions as a wildlife corridor used by mountain lions and coyotes, urging vegetation trimming and mitigation; the applicant disputed the claim and commissioners closed the public hearing and approved the matter unanimously.
Jacob Somerville, a Lake Elsinore resident, told the Planning Commission that an undeveloped hillside immediately behind his home functions as a wildlife corridor used by mountain lions and coyotes and that the city has infrastructure—"a tunnel"—that animals use to cross near a nearby school. Somerville said he fears for his 13‑year‑old daughter and his small dog and asked that brush behind homes be trimmed and the tunnel be closed if the project proceeds.
Steve Galvez, the applicant's representative, told the commission that the location Somerville described is not near the applicant’s project and that the developer does not believe there is a mountain‑lion corridor adjacent to the project site. Galvez said the project team participated in a months‑long consistency review under the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) with agencies including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Riverside County agencies, and that the project was approved with conditions by those agencies.
The public hearing closed and the commission voted to approve the matter unanimously. The motion to close the hearing and approve the matter was moved by Commissioner Pease and seconded by Commissioner Devore; the clerk recorded the matter as passing "unanimously 4 to 0." The transcript does not specify the final resolution number or the full motion language.
Why it matters: Residents who live immediately adjacent to undeveloped hillsides raised safety concerns about large predators and brush that they said has not been maintained. The applicant and staff cited formal habitat‑conservation review and agency conditions of approval, indicating the project underwent an environmental and consistency review with resource agencies.
Commission discussion and next steps: Commissioners took public comment, heard the applicant's rebuttal and then closed the public hearing. The record includes an attorney's letter submitted on the applicant's behalf contesting a referenced organization (SAFE SAFER) and asserting compliance with the MSHCP. The transcript does not record any additional mitigation or conditions tied specifically to Somerville's public comments beyond the agencies' prior conditions of approval.
Context and limitations: The record presented at this hearing includes the resident's account of wildlife activity behind his home and the applicant's statement that the project complied with the county MSHCP after a multiagency review. The transcript does not include site maps or a staff report excerpt in the portion provided here that confirm distances between the described tunnel, the school, and the project parcel; those specifics are not specified in the hearing record excerpt.
