Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/2008 PC Reports CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MICHAEL O'NEAL, CHAIRMAN JOHN GONZALES, VICE CHAIRMAN JIMMY FLORES, COMMISSIONER AXEL ZANELLI, COMMISSIONER PHIL MENDOZA, COMMISSIONER ROLFE PREISENDANZ, DIR. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WWW.LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG (951) 674-3124 PHONE (951) 674-2392 FAX LAKE ELSINORE CULTURAL CENTER 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 ******************************************************************* TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2008 6:00 P.M. The City of Lake Elsinore appreciates your attendance. Citizens' interest provides the Planning Commission with valuable information regarding issues of the community. Meetings are held on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of every month. If you are attending this Planning Commission meeting, please park in the Parking Lot across the street from the Cultural Center. This will assist us in limiting the impact of meetings on the Downtown Business District. Thank you for your cooperation. The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting outside of City Hall and is available at each meeting. The agenda and related reports are also available in the Community Development Department on the Friday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the Community Development Department at (951) 674-3124, ext. 289, at least 48 hours before the meeting to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON AGENDIZED ITEMS - 3 MINUTES (Please read & complete a Speaker's Form at the podium, prior to the start of the Planning Commission Meeting) PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA- FEBRUARY 19, 2008 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS (All matters on the Consent Calendar are approved in one motion, unless a Commissioner or any members of the public requests separate action on a specific item.) 1. Reqular Planninq Commission Meetinq Minutes for September 4, 2007 Recommendation: Approval PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS (Please read & complete a Speaker's Form at the podium prior to the start of the Planning Commission Meeting. The Chairman will call on you to speak when your item is called). 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-17; A request to operate an out-patient rehabilitation facility (Riverside Recovery Resources). Justin Carlson, Associate Planner Ext. 295 icarlson@lake-elsinore.org Recommendation: Denial 3. Residential Desiqn Review No. 2005-24, Amendment NO.1 for "Trieste". (TTM 34231 ) Carole Donahoe, Planninq Consultant Ext. 287 cdonahoe@lake-elsinore.orq Recommendation: Denial 4. Zoninq Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01; a Request to Amend the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Relative to the Establishment of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District within Various Zoninq Districts Citywide as outlined in Chapter 71.37 (Planned Unit Development Overlay District) Justin Carlson, Associate Planner Ext. 295, icarlson@lake-elsinore.orq Recommendation: Approval BUSINESS ITEMS INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA- FEBRUARY 19, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The Lake Elsinore Planning Commission will adjourn to a regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 4, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. to be held in the Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, ROLFE PREISENDANZ, Secretary to the Planning Commission, do hereby affirm that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall, 72 hours in advance if this meeting. ~--- ROLFE PREISENDANZ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CJ2.. /~ /o.f DATE I I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman O'Neal called the regular Planning 6:04 pm. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: meeting to order at Commissioner Flores led the Pledge of AHeQiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Q'NEAL,GONZALES, ZANELLI FLORES, ABSENT: COMMIS.SIONERS: MENDOZA Also present were:Plannirig<Manager V\{einer, Deputy City Attorney Santana, Public Works Direct()r~~um~le, Associate Planner Resendiz, Associate Planner Carlson, Planning ConsYltantMiJI~r.. Planning Technician Miller and Office Specialist S..aron. PUBLIC COMMENT$'CNon-Aaenda Items) No request~to speak. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS Chairman O'Neal pulled Item Number(s) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 for separate review and requested a motion on the balance. MOVED BY ZANELLI, SECONDED BY FLORES AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-0, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Chairman O'Neal asked the applicants; Mike Cote; (14307 Harvey Lane, Riverside Ca), David Lauer (14045 Four Winds Drive, Riverside) and Lanny Merrick (320 South Minnesota Drive, Glendora) to step to the podium. Thereon AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE l =0:: l .5 -----'---. PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 4,2007 all applicants responded to the Chairman by stating that they have read and agree with all the terms of the Conditions of Approval and understand that it cannot be changed unless they come before the Planning Commission. 2. Minor Desian Review for a Sinale-Familv Residence located at 212 Silver Street (APN: 374-131-005) Chairman O'Neal inquired as to the applicant's attendance. Associate Planner Resendiz stated that although the applicant is not present she has read and agrees with the Conditions of Approval and is aware that she will have to come before the Planning Commission should she require any changes. 3. Minor Desian Review of a Sinale-Familv Residence<located at 504 Lookout Street (APN: 377-272-018); MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDEr> BY GONZALES AND PASSED BY~YOTE OF 4-0,<TO CONTINUE A MINOR DESIGN REXII;;W OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ....AT 504 LOOKOUT STREET (APN: 377-272-018ITQ~EPTEMBER 18, 2007. 4. Minor Desian Review of a Sinale-Familv Residence located at 16897 Gunnerson Street. MOVED BYfLOREs;r<SECONDED BY ZANELLI AND~~SSEDBY A VOTE OF 4-0, TO CONTINUE A MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENGE LOCATED AT 16897 GUNNERSON STREET TQ OCTOBER 2, 2007. 5. Minor De~i~n ~eview of a Sinale-Familv Residence located at 29461 Pinnell StreetfAPN: 378-161-021 ). Chairman O'Neal inquired as to an additional Condition of Approval. Tom Weiner, Planning Manager stated that since this project is going to be connected to a septic system, condition number 68 will be added to the Conditions of Approval. Planning Manager continued and read the added condition. Mike Cote stated that he agrees with the new added condition. AGENDA ITEM NO. \ PACE 9... OF 5 PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 4,2007 MOVED BY ZANELLI, SECONDED BY GONZALES AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-0, TO APPROVE A MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 29461 PINNELL STREET (APN: 378-161-021). 6. Minor Desian Review of a Sinale-Familv Residence located at 16390 Lash Avenue (APN: 378-224-003). Chairman O'Neal inquired as to an additional Condition of Approval. Tom Weiner, Planning Manager stated that since thi~/proJect is going to be connected to a septic system, condition number .71 will be added to the Conditions of Approval. Planning Manager continued/to read the added condition. Mr. David Lauer stated that he agrees with new added condition MOVED BY FLORES, SECO~~.t:D <BY> ZANELLI AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4;"0,(mO APPROVE A MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF ASINGLE-FAMIL Y RESIDENCE LOCATED.>AT 16390 LASH AVENUE (APN: 378-224-003). 7. Minor Desian~~view of a Sin~I~;"FamilY(Residence located at 17223 Herbert Street(APN:.378-163-001 & 002). Commissioner Floresiaskedabout condition number 32 on page 13. He asked that the word 'sewer plgp.'bed~Ie~e.d fro.m the condition, since the property will be served byaseptic system. LannyMerrick stated that he agE!?eS with Commissioner Flores. , MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY ZANELLI AND...PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-0, TO APPROVE A MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 17223 HERBERT STREET (APN: 378-163-001 & 002). 8. Minor Desian Review of a Sinale-Familv Residence located at 307 E. Franklin Street (APN: 373-031-006). Chairman O'Neal excused himself from this item. Vice Chairman Gonzales asked Mr. Howie to come to the podium. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE '3 \ OF 5 PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 4,2007 Mr. Hector Zubieta (applicant) 38372 Innovation Court, Murrieta CA, stated that he has read and agrees with all the terms of the Conditions of Approval and understands that no changes can be made unless he returns to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Flores asked the staff regarding the ten (10) cubic yard of fill. Tom Weiner, Planning Manager stated that the final grading plan will reflect the engineer's results of where it will be moved to. Commissioner Flores asked if that will include a compaction test. Ken Seumalo, Director of Public Works, stated that there will be a soils report required by the Building Division. Commissioner Flores asked regarding Condition No. 64 and who does the review for the grading. Ken Seumalo, Director of Public Works, statSl9 that the Engineering Division would conduct the review. Mr. Zubieta, stated his discontent rSlgarding the required engineering report when only 50 cubic yards of soils is in question. Ken Seumalo, Directorof.Eublic Works, clarifiedthaJ the soil report is a function of the Building Division's requirement aqp it's up to the Building Official and his discretion if grading is done a.s a "cut". MOVED <BY .Ft4~RES., SECONDED BY ZANELLI ANgfASS~[)BY AVC)TE OF 3-0, TO APPROVE A MINc)R.[)ESlq.~<. REVIEW OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDE~~E l.:OCATED AT 307 E. FRANKLIN STREET{APN: 373-031-006). STAFF COMMENTS Public Works Director Seumalo stated that the Franklin Street Construction Project is up for bid and will close next week and will be on the Council Agenda in September. Director Seumalo continued by stating that the drainage at Walnut and Frasier is in design and that he expects the construction to begin in December. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Zanelli asked Planning Manager Weiner if there has been any correspondence with County Health regarding septic systems. ACENDA ITEM NO. \ PAGE", ~ . OF .s PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 4,2007 Planning Manager Tom Weiner responded that contact has been established and more information would be supplied and a report would be presented to the Planning Commission at an upcoming meeting. Commissioner Zanelli asked Director Seumalo regarding the large pine tree at the end of Macy. Director Seumalo stated that although confirmation has been not established, it's believed that the tree is on private property. Commissioner Flores asked if the Walnut and Frasier Street drainage construction includes the hazardous area. Director Seumalo stated that it does include it. Vice Chairman Gonzales stated that he met with City CouncUover the Design Review of the Civic Center and there were a lot of open discussions but no decision has been made as of now. Chairman O'Neal closed the meeting at 6:22:4 TPM BUSINESS ITEMS INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Michael O'Neal, Chairman Respectfully Submitted, Arsi Baron ATTEST: Rolfe Preisendanz, Director of Community Development AGENDA ITEM NO. \ PAGE 5 OF C; CITY OF .~ LAKE ,6,LSiNORJ: ~ DREAM EXTREME", CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2008 JUSTIN CARLSON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER PREPARED BY: PROJECT TITLE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007 -17 APPLICANT: OWNER: DERRICK BRUCE HARVEY/RIVERSIDE RECOVERY RESOURCES: P.O. BOX 549/565 CHANEY STREET, LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92531 MOSBACHER FAMILY TRUST: 600 3RD STREET, LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 PROJECT REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to provide alcohol and other drug prevention, intervention, education, and rehabilitation services to members of the community on an out-patient basis. In addition to the services listed above, the proposed site will also include the Riverside Recovery Resources administration operations for the corporation. Project review is pursuant to Chapter 17.54 (C-M; Commercial Manufacturing District), Chapter 17.66 (Parking Requirements), and Chapter 17.74 (Conditional Use Permits). PROJECT LOCATION & SITING The proposed project site is generally located at the 3rd and Collier Street intersection at 600 3rd Street (APN: 377-151-064). The subject site is located within the C-M (Commercial Manufacturing) and has a General Plan land Use designation of Business Park (BP). There are two (2) existing buildings that comprise the center in which Riverside Recovery Resources is proposing to locate. Building A, which fronts both 3rd Street and Collier Street, is approximately 15,000 square-feet in size. At present there are two (2) existing AO~;m.i. rn:;1,1 NO. ~ PACE \ __0;:: -1~._ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSISION FEBRUARY 19, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-17 manufacturing uses located within Building A. Riverside Recovery Resources is proposing to occupy 5,000 square-feet of the building, which fronts both 3rd and Collier Street. Mercury Marking Devices will share the southern adjacent wall with Riverside Recovery Resources and fronts 3rd Street. Carr One Fabrications occupies approximately 5,000 square-feet and shares the southeastern rear portion of Building A. Carr One Fabrications is located within the center and does not have street frontage or visibility. Building B is located in the eastern portion of the center and is visible from Collier Street. Building B, which has a City assigned address of 610 3rd Street, is approximately 12,200 square-feet in size and is occupied by California Skier. FLOOR PLAN Suite A (Riverside Recovery Resources) will have a front-entry lobby, one (1) receptionist office, approximately eleven (11) general offices, three (3) bathrooms, rear-entry doors, and three (3) classroom/meeting rooms. It should be noted that the three (3) classroom/meeting rooms is where Riverside Recovery Resources will hold the group meetings for their various programs. One-on-one meetings between counselors and patients may be held in anyone of the offices as well as the classroom/meeting rooms. There is an existing sliding gate located directly behind the building at the northeast end of Unit A (Riverside Recovery Resources). When closed, the sliding gate encloses approximately nine (9) parking spaces. The rear-entry door as well as an existing garage door permits employees and out-patients to access this area. PROJECT BACKGROUND On August 2,2007, the applicant submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of the "Riverside Recovery Resources" corporation located at 600 3rd Street. On August 31,2207, staff provided the applicant with a "Letter of Incompleteness" notifying the applicant that the minimum submittal items had not been provided in order for staff to conduct a complete analysis of the proposed use.in relation to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). In addition to other items not submitted, staff requested that the applicant provide parking calculations for the center in which the building was located. The amount and availability of parking within the center was staff's major concern regarding the proposed CUP. In November of 2007, the applicant re-submitted plans to the Community Development Department in response to the "Letter of Incompleteness" that was mailed to him on August 31, 2007. AGENDA ITEM ~ PAGE ~ OF ~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSISION FEBRUARY 19, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-17 On November 15, 2007 staff reviewed the re-submitted items and identified that the applicant did not submit the minimum parking specifications that was requested in the first "Letter of Incompleteness" that was sent to him on August 31,2007. In an effort to avoid anymore unnecessary delays and to keep the project moving forward, staff scheduled a meeting with the applicant at City Hall on Friday November 16, 2007 to discuss the requested items and convey to the applicant the necessity of providing the requested items, specifically the parking specifications. On November, 16, 2007 staff met with the applicant as well as the property owner. Staff advised the applicant that although staff wanted to proceed with Planning Commission review of the CUP as soon as possible, the major concern was the amount parking within the existing center as it relates to the proposed use and existing uses. Staff notified the applicant that it appeared that the amount of parking within the site compared to all uses (both existing and proposed) was questionable in terms of meeting minimum LEMC requirements. A complete review of the project's compliance with the LEMC could not be conducted until the applicant provided staff with the parking specifications outlined in the previous "Letters of Incompleteness." In addition, staff notified the applicant that if he could not meet the minimum parking requirements, Chapter 17.66.070 (Shared and Off-site Parking) provides a mechanism to allow for a professionally conducted parking study, which would address the potential peak parking demand, identifying whether or not the proposed use would conflict with the existing uses; given that the center is under parked. The applicant notified staff that he would submit the requested information as soon as possible. On December 10, 2007, the applicant re-submitted all requested information, absent a parking study, and was subsequently scheduled for the January 3 Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting. At the DRC meeting, staff notified the applicant again that the existing center did not have enough parking spaces to meet the proposed Riverside Recovery Resources use and that a professional parking study would have to be conducted in order to prove sufficient parking was available to accommodate all the uses within the center, taking into account the varying operating times of all businesses. On January 11, 2008 the applicant notified staff that they elected to not have an official parking study conducted and wished to have their project scheduled for Planning Commission as soon as possible. The applicant informed staff that he would provide the Planning Commission with an "unofficial" parking study conducted by Riverside Recovery Resources at that meeting. Staff notified the applicant that they could be scheduled for the regularly scheduled meeting of February 19, 2008. The applicant agreed to be scheduled on that day. AGENDA ITEM ~ PAGEl OF \~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSISION FEBRUARY 19, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-17 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Project Site North C-M (Commercial Manufacturin C-M (Commercial Manufacturin C-M (Commercial Manufacturin ) M-1 (Limited Business Park (BP) Manufacturin Commercial Business Park (BP) Manufacturin South Commercial Manufacturin East Vacant West Under Construction PROJECT DESCRIPTION Riverside Recovery Resources is a California nonprofit 501 c (3) service, dedicated to providing quality, evidence based alcohol and other drug services to residents of Southwestern Riverside County. Riverside Recovery Resources is proposing to occupy approximately 5,000 square-feet of building located at 600 3rd Street (APN: 377-151-064). The site will house the administration center as well as three (3) out-patient programs to members of Southwestern Riverside County. The programs and descriptions are as follows: Riverside Recovery Resources Administrative Department The "Administrative Department" will consist of the Executive Director, bookkeeper, Human Resources Manager, billing clerk, Alpha Program Director, one (1) counselor and one (1) receptionist. The Administration department is proposing seven (7) on-site staff. The hours of operation will be Monday thru Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Based on the proposed staffing for this department; seven (7) drivers would be generated. Alpha DUI Program The Alpha Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Program consists of one (1) clerk and four (4) counselors. The purpose of the Alpha DUI Program is to provide educational services in groups and individual counseling on an out-patient basis. The State of California mandates that the maximum number of people that may attend each group session is fifteen (15). Riverside Recovery Resources indicates that approximately sixty-percent (60%) of the group participants are not licensed to operate a motorized vehicle, due to a direct resul~f AGENDA ITEM PAGE ~ OF~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSISION FEBRUARY 19, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-17 their DUI offense. Therefore, Riverside Recovery Resources indicates that the counseling groups will only occupy five (5) to seven (7) parking spaces per counseling group. In addition to the fifteen (15) maximum clients per group session, the Alpha DUI program will also have five (5) support staff on-site. The program will operate from Monday thru Friday from 2:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.; with group meetings beginning at 4:00 p.m. during the weekdays. In addition, the program will also offer a Saturday DUI program. The Saturday program will offer three (3) staff on-site and will operate from 6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; with the first counseling group beginning at 7:00 a.m. and the last one beginning at 3:00 p.m. Riverside Recovery Resources indicates that due to the nature of the convictions, only thirty (30) to forty (40%) percent are permitted to drive. Based on the business plan for the "Alpha DUI Program", indicated above (including the clerk, counselors, and attendees), twenty (20) drivers would be generated. Beta/Badf/e Prof/ram The Beta/Badge program is directed to adolescent education and counseling. The program consists of one (1) counselor and will operate from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday; with group sessions beginning at 2:30 p.m. Base on the Riverside Recovery Resources "Schedule of Activities" provided to staff, there is no indication as to the amount of attendees attending at any onetime. Therefore, staff cannot provide the Planning Commission with an estimate amount of drivers for this program. Omef/a Prof/ram The Omega out-patient adult program is run by one (1) counselor. The program operates from: . 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday with one (1) staff person on-site and . 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Tuesday through Thursday with one (1) staff person on-site. Midweek groups begin at 5:00 p.m. and a "Monday and Friday's" single group begins at 10:00 a.m. The State of California mandates that the Omega program's group size be limited to twelve (12) participants. Riverside Recovery Resources indicates that due to the nature of the participant's life situation; only thirty-percent (30%) own or operate a motorized vehicle. Based on the business plan, indicated above (including the one (1) counselor), thirteen (13) drivers would be generated. AGENDA ITEM Q PAGE :) OF lli REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSISION FEBRUARY 19, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-17 ANAL YSIS According to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.74.060, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a Conditional Use Permit: 1. That the proposed use, on its own merits and within the context of its setting, is in accord with the objectives of the General Plan and the purpose of the planning district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed use or the City, or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the City. 3. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, and for all the yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping, buffers and other features required by Title 17 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 4. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways with proper design both as to width and type of pavement to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use. 5. That in approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted and normal use thereof. 6. That adequate conditions and safeguards pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.74.050 have been incorporated into the approval of the Conditional Use Permit to insure that the use continues in a manner envisioned by these findings for the term of the use. If the Planning Commission is unable to make anyone of theses findings, the Conditional Use Permit cannot be approved. In other words, the Planning Commission must be able to make all of the findings in order to approve the Conditional Use Permit. Based on the application, plans submitted, proposed parking analysis, as well as all of the evidence presented, Staff believes that findings cannot be made for number (1) listed above. Since, the proposed Conditional Use Permit for Riverside Recovery Resources located at 600 3rd Street fails to comply with the minimum requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). The LEMC serves to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan and Chapter 17.66.030 (Number of Parking Spaces Required) of the LEMC provides the minimum number of off-street parking spaces per various uses proposed. AGEND~ITEM ~ PAGE~OF ~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSISION FEBRUARY 19, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-17 Currently, the existing commercial manufacturing center located at 600 and 610 3rd Street does not have the minimum number of parking spaces to accommodate the proposed Riverside Recovery Resources operation. Although, the proposed Riverside Recovery Resources "Schedule of Activities" indicates that the operation will be conducted at varying hours other than a traditional nine (9) to five (5) schedule, without a professionally conducted parking study as mandated by Section 17.66.070 (Shared and off-site parking), staff cannot ensure that the proposed use will not have a negative effect on the availability of parking and circulation. Below is a table demonstrating staff's analysis of the available parking. 5,000 = Total Commercial Manufacturing 13 = 5,000/400 5,000 = Total Commercial Manufacturing 13 = 5,000/400 5,000 = Total Office = 5,000/250 20 Commercial Manufacturing = 12,200/400 31 Total Spaces Required Total Amount of Existing Spaces within the Center (600 and 610 3r Street) TotaJ Amount Qf Ne 77 70 By including the proposed use in the existing commercial manufacturing center located at 600 and 610 3rd Street, a deficiency parking space availability of approximately seven (7) spaces would result. As mentioned above, staff has determined that the proposed CUP does not meet the minimum parking requirement outlined in Section 17.66.030 of the LEMC. It should be noted that the parking calculations, that were used to conduct the parking analysis were provided to staff by the property owner (Mosbacher Family Trust) in a letter dated December 10, 2007 (see attachment 2). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-17 for the Riverside Recovery Resources use located at 600 3rd Street is not a project given that it is recommended that the project be denied. AGENDA ITEM J.. PAGElOF ~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSISION FEBRUARY 19, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-17 If the Planning Commission wishes to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-17; a preliminary environmental analysis would be required to determine the type of CEQA documentation. The proposed CUP cannot be approved until the proper CEQA documentation is prepared. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-17 for the proposed Riverside Recovery Resources use located at 600 3rd Street. PREPARED BY: JUSTIN CARLSON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER ~ ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITy;~/7/Y'7 DEVELOPMENT pC//' //'"" APPROVED BY: ATTACHMENTS: 1. VICINITY MAP 2. MOSBACHER FAMILY TRUST PARKING SPECIFICATIONS 3. RIVERSIDE RECOVERY RESOURCES "SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES" 4. COVER SHEET (8 %" X 11") 5. SITE PLAN (8 %" X 11") 6. FLOOR PLAN (8 %" X 11") 7. CEILING PLAN (8 %" X 11") 8. FULL SIZE PLANS AGEND~TEM ~ PAGElOF I~ VICINITY MAP CUP 2007-17 PLANNING COMMISSION ACENDl\ iTEM NO. ~ PACE '\ ~OF.... )~ - . MOSBACHER FAMILY TRUST 600 Third Street, Lake Elsinore, CA. 92530 (951) 551-1802 December 10, 2007 Mr. Justin Carlson Associate Planner City Of Lake Elsinore RE: Conditional use Permit (CUP 2007-17) for Riverside Recovery Recourses and a Reciprocal Parking Agreement for 600 Third Street and 610 Third Street Buildings. 600 Third Street building totals 15,000 sq ft. Parcel number 377151064-8. Unit C for Riverside Recovery Resources totals 5,000 sq ft. planning recommendation 4 spaces per thousand ft. .............................. Total reqd. 20 spaces Unit A Mercury Marking Devices totals 5,000 sq ft., 1,080sq. ft. of office inc. RIR, and 3,920 sq, ft. of shop. Manufacturing Metal Marking products since 1918. Elsinore code 17.66.030 Section C requires 1 parking space per 500 ft. .......................... Total reqd.l0 spaces Unit B for Carr One Fabrications (sand cars) totals 5,000 sq ft., No office. Elsinore code 17.66.030 Section C requires 1 parking space per 500ft.............................Total reqd 10 spaces 610 Third Street building totals 12,000 sq ft. parcel number 377151065-9. California Skier totals 12,200 sq ft., 1,080 sq. ft. of office inc. RIR, and 1,120 sq. ft. offactory. Elsinore code 17.66.030. Section A Commercial Manufacturing District requires 1 space for each 400 sq ft. of unit area........................ Total reqd. 30 spaces Total Spaced Required 70 Included in the70 existing parking place are three handicapped. Mercury Marking Devices operates a four-day workweek Monday thru Thursday. California Skier operates a five-day workweek Tuesday thru Saturday. Mosbacher Family Trust will provide a recorded Reciprocal Parking Agreement to the City of Lake Elsinore for parcel numbers 377151064-8 and 377151065-9. Sincerely, ~/Jz- Hugh Mosbacher ~ ~]~~[~~\4~~ DEe 1 02007 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PU\I'\!NING DIVISION Kl....Nnn ITEM NO. '"01.. -.. PACE \ () OF llt Riverside Recovery Resources Schedule of Activities At 600 Third Street, Building C lake Elsinore, CA Administration: Alpha Program Beta/Badge Omega Program Monday and Friday 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. 1 Staff on Site Tuesday through Thursday 12 p.m. - 8 p.m. 1 Staff on Site Out Patient adult program consists of one counselor. Mid week groups begin at 5 p.m. On Monday and Friday a single group begins at 10 a.m. State mandates limit the group size to 12 participants. As a result of their life situation only 30%, at best, actually own or operate a motor vehicle. ACENDA ITEM NO. (800) 801-l-l0P1 · (951) 674-5354 . VAX (951) 674-5227 PACE \ \ "&ome proE,rams partially funded by Qiverside County Department of Mental lIealth" ~ OF -' ~ ~f~8~~~; 8 O/Um- r(l) 0 ~U~~h~ ~ ~~~~~~~Q ~ U:;!~i~~ 1'5 f,1@m:nOgf- m o~~E~~~ ~ iffi"hf,1;ll -l Of'.)Oz....::to( 2~' "~e IF; fI; F"I aw fin: J1UHli [!jiH" 11~ it; 'qJ~ Wi ?lWr~ f1r ji t l,'I,ln! li'll.G gllf1~llg! 11, 1,1, I frjr fMr~I.: ~tl .1 t r1jf 'iil- i'l1im ~;H~U f;'lll 'Il!l ~Hl 11ulft tg~ 'f I l~' ~i{fi hi tV ~I~tl' ilf n~ !i}V ---I1g 1fgi;f: ~j! !J i }:l ~if!~ l~fhrl .mil f!l lit hilU i ~i t'!ll~!jl ht ,! r 'f' llf" tit'if I.., i' .- H t. if f1 oU ~ ~ i'. fi i n~ ~tt:t {!.j!!i f,ltlh {i ii ~UI IU t~ ~!f I. f; l<ii lif: Uffe;. oif "1 ff ~~ llnrf} "I i: M . ! " il' l f . Ig. i ~ , l<i J f ". ~f" ftU" II; i!!~g ;.; ~ l;i~ll tWi"j l~ I~';; ~~;: nw' l!= f;; U' W' ~. ! Tl~'~ ~ "it IHi~~'- ~ if 'j-'t'U fir Ill'- Ul t ~!_ t! hli; J; j 'fh !H.l~ li iii. :f!' dt- i~i .~ f~~ Ii: ~. 'e~ " I' m.- .!i{ '.!~H ~ -d! lit j<- I f" r{ H~ "a} JP;! ~i f~if! f' :~!! l!llii Id;U j'" IrlJ ~~~ titl1 .! [; !,i~ i ;f:~; i! i;lf lhrli.1 iHJ ~; a~~f ~~ U i;1 ij Ji ~.. t h~-~ i f ';i~ Ifigl' .;ij fj flt~f~a ~~i~l j, :t H~ . k~l[ .' i!h Fl~fi! fJf 1 l.'~ id jl j~" ,~ t ~ ~i' 11; off:' t ~lfl it ~i! lU l~ U ~f .. . ," ~j!F &~~;; lU; r. 1 ~ F "~ " .. " " " !". ., " pi "IHi ffd 'imf UJi ~H! tlij~ ~: hi ~ ~~ Ii ih i!i ~ ~i ~i irh ll~ j~t Jj!f '~i[l ~f~ I'if gF~i .it 'il I~ $~ ,f"n I:f ~ ii -, 'fll !!f !~~ ;la l!jl! hi Hi! hW !~ ~:i ~ t! ~I i~li if :1 it t~~i ,; 1 ~!f :1.,' 1 h di' 'i" PIll t'( !j j i,a~: f i[ r.. H iI~ ~ . '.' j[ I i l~' P lf1,' ~I 1 · f H 'i1 h <f 0- . i i i ;i! tH hjl Ifi tj! IIdfl'~ ;1 J. i1 jJ ;: ~; i;!i Hrt ~ ~ l~' . ~ it . . . ,l.1 ! l .' . f. I i I 't f t I " · . "10 j r · .l f;; U i!' ?H'lO[""n~ [lI" U!~. U;;il" '" 'a~" 111gi'~ "t_ '" 'f!';: fU" ~lili ~l,~ '~!a~f tlf N." ~!~ J~f r!~~ '::~i '11 t_ ';" .~ HH~ ~~n m~r!! Hi H!ll ~Hh iHHi l!j! in Ii i!l~i iHf 't~:! tili3~t~i i! li~ tdii ~~tmJI 'i! iilj ill J ~tl iU fP'i HJ' !~~18 ~J ah .. ~J ~~.!h t }l; flft !!l - ,:ll .1I [fIr Nhll~! fj <if' ~.hll~nlf i M .tl~ Iii t fIrI 'I; !. ~l -if . .I'"l " ~l~ h'f I.... ,l! Ii 1 It !. ,i)- U' {!~l ~f~i ~fU' I~ ,it '~;i .rr'IU JUt _~t ~ t lid fir !'f 1~"1. ,; l J [ .~[ f' {1 llj i.:. ,I. , !. IJ &:! J i ~ . . fF I if; ii i hf " 'ii If B ,to ~II E ~i~ it! i~ ~li J~!f h h ~~ " .. '$1 it . >'f . ! !l~ !!i II~ j~ Ii .1 Gl m z m ~ r Z S m (J) Z -0 mj'l 0 ;:0 ~"" " m 0 .- 0 >< Ii u~ c.... g~~ !j'li!g~ il<'O irll~ r;;~n !r~ U ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~~l ~ m -f2~ - "''" u~ I 0 () U~~ ~d ~ ;e ~ e: r ~s: . 1jj " n~ ~ p !'~! -I "~ ~~r ~ iiS ~p ~ ~~B8 ~ ~~~ ~ (J) p u I (J) ~ NC~ ~ ~ ~ :r: 8 ~ ~ I c ~ m ~ i s:: ~ i:i ~ 5! ~ s:: (J) ! -l1~ a ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~~ t ~~ I ! >- i ~ j t ~ ~ I ~ . ~ ~ ~ h ~~ djj) ~~ !s: 1MI ~~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~ I~- "m -~ ~~ lQJ ~ --I ~ ~. O~ m ~l~!*!d ~ -l I ~ ~ !f ~ A ALFORD DESIGN & DRAFTING o 41610 Date Sl. #103 o ~~~~0 ;:-l~~ri 0 < t"'" s::~ (') ~o-filffi :s: z ,-..000";:0 "1J ~ \Otnolll" ~Siw(") ;::0-1 ~ '-' s' a i6 om 0- 0 .... <z ~d~" . III mm c\onC3 ~!'" S.,z :s:Z -...l~;;--I m-l Vl 2 Z ~ CIl -I Vl _ ~ ~ p~ m ~ ~ _z ~ => C' ~ q '": ~ PAGE \'d.. OF Vl\ TENENT IMPROVEMENT FOR RlVERSIDE RECOVERY RESOURCES ADMIN, OFFICES 600 3rd SI. Suite A Leke Elsinore, CA. t THlao STij.eET " ~- nil : '204.67 - ~ ~- ~(J) , , 4.~'.d' ,i.!J ,,- -t ''''' " m ",>) '08 8", '"'0 -< is,, r- '" .~~ I )> .~ , z i ~ 0 0 r- r-, m ::D N' > ~ < ..' m. " . .~ . @" is 1 I ~ I .. I " ~- " ~= I !;i , . Ill! !R Il..r... fa :> I~ I,~ I -~ 'I I l{i .~;J~.:'!i~~ 'i~1 'ii )> ~ N . ~!d ...... ffi sli! !l' 0 .. ~ ' ~ ...... '30 .. ,.. '" >i1 i~~ ~U~~ ~ ~l;!i '3.~~i GJ'(3 i..~ ~~I"~ I~ gi,l;",\l' ~",> ~i1l 1(1'01 ~~~ s,~~~ S of"' I"'!lj pq~..~ 'I: ,,"lfi~ " ~~~ ....~I~ ,I:l ~ ~ <ji1l '(3_,..8 ~lS~ ilS~ ~p~ ~"l!li'l g~~ $ ~~~;l "'iil~! ;:1~ i ~ ~o~.., p811? ~::'H U\ Ii ll<':~l!l , ~ijj 1! lH ~ '1.. l! ~ jj lj <l ill ~ ~ ~ ~ r t t i!i ~ ll{ t, & .' ~ AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE \'2> OF ;:) \~ , ~ ~ H~ !1 ~' z ~ I:! ~ A TENENT IMPROVEMENT FOR ALFORD DESIGN & DRAFTING RIVERSIDE RECOVERY o 41610 Date St. 1103 RESOURCES ADMIN. OFFICES o ~~~~ ;:-1~;;:; 600 3rd St. Suite A Lake Elsinore. CA. .t-o- "'-0- <-0- ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~~~ !~~ ~ ~ / ~M ~ b ;1 ~ . 1; . U . 'l: 1 ~ ~ I~ ~ "-0" ~ '" ~ i 3! i '" ~ , ~ ! g~~ z I ~ ~ C) ~;D '0 . u '0 4;IJ -c ): ~ z ~ ~ ~ EJ r.... ~ r-r ~ ~ ~I~; ~ ~ ~I~; ~ -t 1-<1' r-d' -0" ~ ~~ i " ,1 f' ~ /\1 ,i1J l' ~ t ~ ~' X ~ ~ ;/ ,,\ ~ i~ i EJ ~ / 12-0- lr-a: 12-0" +----- 21''''' ~ ~ ~ \l ~ 00 0 , -" ffi ,~ a~ ~~ I~ .~ ~~ "'p !:l=l ~~ 2 ~~ aH~ ~ ~U.; ~ 0 ii~? ~ ~ ~nHj : t5 i: ~ 's ~ ii1 \1~ ~~. ~ !'J? 1il~ llt ~ ! ~i AGEfmA iTEM NO. Pi\CE 14 , ~ OF 14 r!:"""'"z ~ 0 G1J>-i I,C'l M'C/.l Cl", >::~ ~-I -i IV') tIjCl ]>2 -iV') -i-l ~D -<tIj tIjC'l 'Cl' C . " . ~, ~ g . \~r: ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 1'1 Z U ~n~o 18 ~~.~ \I ~ n ~ ~ ! ~ ; ~ Ii ~a~ ail ~~~ ~~ :~~ ~~ ~~~ a~ a~~ ~l ~~. 2~ ,,~~ ~~ ~~; ~~ !:l :-<0 () ~ ~ ~ ; i ~ ~ m >J ;" ~ ~ N ~ f I ill ~1~!"I> !!I t: J j b -' A ALFORD DESIGN & DRAFTING D 41610 Doto St. "03 WURRlETA. ~ U562 D P1>,(ie')4E>1-7427 TENENT IMPROVEMENT FOR RIVERSIDE RECOVERY RESOURCES ADMIN. OFFICES 600 3rd SI. Suite A Lake Elsinore, CA. ill ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ '" i:.'" ~ ~ q ~ CITY OF .~ LAKE 6LSiNO~ . \ I ~ DREAM EXTREME", CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2008 PROJECT: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005-24, AMENDMENT NO.1 FOR "TRIESTE." (TTM 34231) APPLICANT & OWNER: TIM KANE, PRESIDENT, MBK HOMES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA L TO, 175 TECHNOLOGY, SUITE 200, IRVINE, CA 92618 PROJECT REQUEST The applicant proposes to amend approved Residential Design Review No. 2005-24 in order to meet current market conditions. PROJECT LOCATION Residential Design Review No. 2005-24 is located on the southwest corner of Rosetta Canyon Drive and Highway 74, in the Ramsgate Specific Plan, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 347-120-047. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING EXISTING ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE Project Vacant Ramsgate Specific Plan Ramsgate Specific Plan Site (Medium High Density Residential, 12-16 dus/ac) North Scattered residential, North Peak Specific Plan, North Peak Specific Plan, Vacant RR Rural Residential, Low Density Residential County (3 dwellinQs/acre) South Rosetta Cyn Fire Sta Ramsgate Specific Plan, Ramsgate Specific Plan & park under constr. (Community Park) East Centex Homes Ramsgate Specific Plan, Ramsgate Specific Plan 98% built out (Medium Density Residential, 5-12 dus/ac) """' ACENDA ITEM NO. => PAGE OF L( PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT R2005-24 AMENDMENT NO.1 FEBRUARY 19, 2008 Page 2 Fairfield Apartments 80% built out PROJECT BACKGROUND Ramsgate Specific Plan, A artment Densit Ramsgate Specific Plan On August 22, 2006, the City of Lake Elsinore City Council approved Residential Design Review No. 2005-24, in conjunction with the Ramsgate Specific Plan No. 89-1 Fourth Revision, Tentative Tract Map No. 34231 for Condominium Purposes, and Addendum No.3 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. During the ensuing months, Staff worked with the applicant over a myriad of construction issues, which included the following: · Sighting of the construction trailer and equipment storage with screening. · Noise attenuation fencing along Highway 74 and Rosetta Canyon. · Redesign of the central open space area to accommodate a change to grading plans. . Redesign of clubhouse walkways and parking for handicapped accessibility. . Revision to Landscape Plans to accommodate retaining walls. . Redesign of the corner monuments on Ardenwood and Rosetta Canyon Drive. . Minor revision to plot plan to accommodate easement requirements. Beginning in May of 2007, Staff began meeting with the applicant's representatives to review proposed alterations to the architectural and siting features of the project, with Staff allowing minor alterations that were beneficial or equal to the approved project. After three such meetings, Staff believed that the accumulated proposals were of sufficient quantity and effect that the applicant needed Planning Commission approval of an amendment to the Residential Design Review. During this time, Residential Design Review No. 2005-24 was due to expire, and MBK Homes requested relief from this condition. The Director of Community Development determined that the map would not be allowed to expire because of the pending issues related to the applicant's request for changes. On November 8, 2007, the applicant submitted Amendment NO.1 to Residential Design Review No. 2005-24. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendment No. 1 includes a list of architectural revisions, attached as Exhibit IB.' The applicant also provided, as instructed by Staff, a visual comparison between the approved elevations and proposed elevations, attached as Exhibit IC.' ANAL YSIS The list of architectural revisions can be categorized as 1) those so minor as to be indistinguishable or equal to the approved features; and 2) those of a significant nature ACENDA ITEM NO. 3 - PACE d.- OF \, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT R2005-24 AMENDMENT NO.1 FEBRUARY 19, 2008 Page 3 as to alter the quality or appearance of the buildings. The applicant's list has been separated into these two categories, with a brief explanation by Staff. Minor Revisions 1. In all Plans and Elevations, changing out two regulation windows with one large window is an equal feature. 2. The proposed gable vents do not reflect Spanish architecture as much as the ceramic tile vents they replace. However, this change-out could be considered minor. 3. Dining room slider is not as architecturally attractive as the three windows it replaces. However, it does have a functional benefit to the homeowner. 4. Replacing one large arched window with two small arched windows is not as impressive, nor does it distinguish the Spanish Elevation from others, but it is an equal alternative, as long as the arches are visible. 5. The one-floor pop-out is an equal alternative to the two-story pop-out it replaces because similar shadows are created and the plane remains altered. 6. Elongating the front window and adding a pot shelf below the window is equal to the loss of the stone veneer wainscoting. Significant Revisions 1. Removal of wrought iron window shelf leaves a wall expanse on the front elevation, and eliminates a key feature of Spanish architecture. 2. Privatizing the front porch on all Plan One Elevations extends and exposes the expanse of wall on the right side elevation beyond the side yard fence line. 3. Limiting the rear gable on all plans creates an expanse of wall space, eliminates the effectiveness of the roof overhang to provide shade, and creates an "exposed" look to the rear elevation, as opposed to the "protected" feel of the original design. 4. Elimination of the man door on all plans removes an architectural and functional feature. 5. Stone wraps on side elevations should always extend to the side yard fence line, otherwise it will look unfinished. 6. The elimination of one window in the master bath increases the wall expanse on the side elevation. 7. Elimination of false shutters create an expanse of wall area, which mayor may not be hidden by landscaping when landscaping is not properly maintained. The shutters were originally added to this space as a remedy. 8. Lowering the roof pitch decreases the amount of siding used on the Cottage elevation and cumulatively takes away this cottage feature of the building. On the French Country elevation, lowering the roof pitch and widening the front porch takes away the French Country feature of the building. 9. Eliminating pot shelves from the French Country elevations eliminates a French Country feature, especially on the second floor left side elevation. 10. The revisions to the master bedroom floor plan in Plan Three provides more useable interior space to the homeowner. However, it creates a co.mp' letelY~la ACENDA ITi:M NO. PAGE ') OF PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT R2005-24 AMENDMENT NO.1 FEBRUARY 19, 2008 Page 4 rear elevation on both the first and second floor by eliminating the open deck. Furthermore, it eliminates a useable outdoor space and "eyes on the street" at the end of the building drive aisles. 11. Elimination of the window in the master closet creates an expanse of wall space on the second story right side elevation, as well as the shutter as an architectural feature at this location. 12. Removal of the window in the second bath removes a functional window for ventilation and increases the expanse of wall on the second story. 13. Elimination of the wrought iron shelf on the second story eliminates a significant architectural feature. 14. Creating a continuous roof plane provides less interest and shadows, and results in a monotonous sea of rooftops. 15. The elimination of the stone veneer wainscot detracts from the quality and appearance of the front elevation. Staff finds that cumulatively the proposed changes drastically reduces the quality and attractiveness of the original project, which was presented to and approved by the Planning Commission after much Staff effort to work with the applicant's architect. Both the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and Municipal Code state that it is the City's objective to offer quality development to its residents, not a lesser product. The Municipal Code specifically refers to designs that create interest, provide varying vistas, and demonstrate quality and originality (Section 17.82.060). If the applicant had suggested truly equal alternatives without the loss of quality, Staff would be more open to accepting the proposed changes. Staff is not prepared to accept the end product that this amendment offers over a long period of time. Staff is also concerned with the precedent this amendment would set by reducing the architectural quality of an approved project. Staff finds that the proposed amendment does not comply with directives for long-term development and recommends denial. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Environmental analysis and clearance for the MBK Homes project is provided by Addendum No. 3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 88090525, for the Ramsgate Specific Plan. Addendum No. 3 was approved by the City Council on August 22, 2006, to address changes associated with Ramsgate Specific Plan No. 89-1 Amendment NO.4. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162, the proposed amendment does not present a substantial change or new information that would require further CEQA analysis. The environmental impacts associated with development of the project were contemplated by Addendum No. 3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and were fully analyzed and mitigated therein. No new CEQA documentation is necessary for this project. RECOMMENDATION ACENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 4 3 OF \ - PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT R2005-24 AMENDMENT NO.1 FEBRUARY 19, 2008 Page 5 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Residential Design Review 2005-24 Amendment No.1. PREPARED BY: CAROLE K. DONAHOE, AICP, PROJECT PLANNER APPROVED BY: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, ~_ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /IV 1/ r '-- Attachments: 1. Exhibit 'A' - Vicinity Map 2. Exhibit 'B' - Applicant's List of Proposed Changes 3. Exhibit "C' - Visual Comparison of Approved and Proposed Elevations (Enclosures) ACErmA ITEM NO. P/~GE 5 .3 OF-L VICINITY MAP RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2005-24 AMMENDMENT1 TRIESTE (TIM 34231) l__ -~ ------------- ~----- ---j-.-1 -=-~_:~ I PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ PAGE b . OF~ October 4, 2007 'N MBK HOMES Trieste Lake Elsinore California E)~~,of~ B~f~=.~81 . ..as Ne'j 8 - Z007 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ PAGELOf L Trieste Lake Elsinore, California Plan One Spanish Elevation 'A' · Increase depth of window in Master Bedroom to match other windows, remove W.I. shelf. . One large window in Great Room in lieu of two small windows. . Gable end vent in lieu of ceramic tile. French Country Elevation 'D' · One large window in Great Room in lieu of two small windows. Increase window depth to 4' -6". . Privatize porch @ right side · Limit roof tile @ rear with gable. . Increased accessibility with slider @ dining room. . Eliminate man door. . Stone wraps 2' at side locations. . One window @ master bath in lieu of two windows. Plan Two Spanish Elevation' A' · One large window @ master bedroom in lieu of two small windows. Increase window depth. . Two arched windows at great room in lieu of one arched window. . Gable end vents in lieu of ceramic tile. ltalianate Elevation 'B' . Foam corbels 36" o.C. . Limit roof tile @ rear with gable. . One large window @ master bedroom in lieu of two small windows. . Increased accessibility with slider @ dining room. . Eliminate man door. . Pot shelf depth @ 6". · Removed false shutters @ left side as they are unnecessary with the proposed landscape plan. Cottage Elevation 'c' . Increase window width @ master bedroom, apply popout to window. · One large window @ great room, increase depth of window eliminating stone beneath. . Lower secondary roof pitch AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE '8 3 OF--3-- Trieste Lake Elsinore, California French Country Elevation 'D' . Pot shelf depth @ 6". . Remove pot shelf@ landing to make greater distinction between 'cottage' & 'french country' elevations. . Lower secondary roof pitch. . Widen front porch. . Eliminate pot shelf @ pwdr. Room. Plan Three Spanish Elevation 'A' . Gable end vents in lieu of ceramic tile. Add gable vent @ rear. . Two arched windows at great room in lieu of one arched window. . Eliminate man door. . Additional footage to master bedroom eliminating deck. Window with w.i. detail @ extended master bedroom. . Removed window in master closet. . Removed furr out at areas covered by landscaping. . One window @ ba. 2. . Remove w.i. shelf@ master bath. . Created a continuous roof plane. Cottage Elevation 'c' . Location of stone veneer @ porch/entry. . Added corbels @ pop-out above bedroom 4, removed shutters @ bedroom 4. . Created a continuous roof plane. ACiENDA ITEM l'JO. 3 PACE ~ OF 1 '" CITY OF !'7~ LAKE ,6,LSiNORE ~ DREAM EXTREME... CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2007-01; A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY DISTRICT WITHIN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE AS OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 17.37 (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT) CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET, LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 SAME APPLICANT: OWNER: PURPOSE Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations are established to allow for flexibility, diversity and creativity in the design of smaller development projects having a wide variety of uses including residential, commercial, office, industrial or a mixture of uses. The PUD entitlement process would allow for the application of unique development standards for projects having a variety of constraints including environmental or topographic issues or limited lot size that would otherwise serve to limit or preclude development potential. This report is intended to present information to the Planning Commission in order to make a recommendation to the City Council of a Zoning ordinance text amendment to amend AGENDA ITEM ~ PAGE ~ OF J:tb PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 19, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2007-01 Chapter 17.37 (Planned Unit Development Overlay District). Furthermore and as part of Text Amendment No. 2007-01, the establishment of the PUD ordinance will provide staff with the necessary tools to work closely with developers to develop property with limited development potential, due to various constraints. Recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01 will assist in promoting the following: · The clustering of land uses, which can promote and provide public and common open space. . Increased administrative discretion to Community Development Staff while setting aside present land use regulations and rigid plat approval processes. · The enhancement of the bargaining process between the developer and government municipalities which in turn strengthens the municipality's site plan review and control over development for potentially increased profits due to land efficiency, multiple land uses, and Mixed Use projects. . Permits variations from traditional controls (Le. density, land use, setbacks, open space, design, mixed uses, etc.). . Development is planned and built as a whole. . Addresses difficult site configurations. . Alternative process to lot-by-Iot development. BACKGROUND Planned Unit Development entitlement provisions have been utilized by a number of local jurisdictions for many years. In conducting research for this report, Planning staff conducted a survey of local jurisdictions within the region and found that the majority currently have adopted Planned Unit Development regulations (see table within the "Analysis" section). Based on the existing Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), the current methods of deviating from the conventional development standards of a specific zoning district are to either prepare a Specific Plan for a development or request a Variance. While the preparation of a Specific Plan is often appropriate for larger development projects, the required level of analysis and content of the plans is often not necessary or appropriate for small scale development proposals. Moreover, the Variance procedure is only intended to address one or two development standards. The PUD process would allow for flexibility regarding any number of affected development standards for a project provided such flexibility is consistent with the purpose and intent of the underlying zoning district and the City's General Plan. AGENDA ITEM-1- PAGE ~ OFJil PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 19, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2007-01 Currently, the City's General Plan Land Use Element recommends that a floating Planned Unit Development Overlay District be adopted. In addition, the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code has reserved Chapter 17.37 (Planned Unit Development Overlay District) reserved for the application of PUD entitlement provisions. On February 5, 2008, the Planning Commission continued the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01 to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of February 19, 2008. ANAL YSIS As mentioned above, communities in the region already have PUD ordinances implemented. The following matrix reflects a compilation of jurisdictions in the vicinity that have an adopted PUD ordinance as well as the ones that do not. CITY OF MURRIETA x CITY OF PERRIS x CITY OF CORONA x CITY OF NORCO x CITY OF MORENO x VALLEY CITY OF RIVERSIDE x CITY OF CHINO x CITY OF ONTARIO x CITY OF REDLANDS x CITY OF TEMECULA x CITY OF HEMET x All but two (2) cities surveyed utilize the PUD ordinance for development. It should be noted that although the City of Murrieta does not have an adopted PUD ordinance that applies to all districts; they have adopted a Planned Residential District Overlay ordinance which is similar to a traditional PUD and applies only to residential development. As indicated above, a majority of the Cities within the area utilize the PUD process where AGENDA ITEM-k PAGEloF~ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 19, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2007-01 appropriate when implementing development. After a thorough analysis of the adjacent jurisdiction's PUD ordinances; staff has determined that the adoption of a PUD ordinance will not only compliment the recommendations provided by the City of Lake Elsinore's General Plan and Municipal Code but, will also insure the following items: . The proposed development will be built as a whole unit. . The proposed development can utilize creativity and a quality design. . The proposed development has the potential to create large areas of open space, through clustered development. . Provides environmental protection while preserving unique features through improved drainage and shorter utility runs. . Provides the possibility of Mixed Use, when permitted by the General Plan Land Use designation. This provides convenience to residents and reduces automobile trips; while promoting pedestrian connectivity. Further, the proposed PUD ordinance requires the development of the commercial component before or simultaneously with the residential component. . Provides room for negotiation between the developer and the City. . Does not increase existing densities. It should be noted that the adoption of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance will assist in streamlining projects that are currently being processed and/or being discussed. These projects include but are not limited too; "Grand Solutions" (forty (40) work/live units on Grand Avenue), the redevelopment the existing Academy site on Grand Avenue, and the "Palm Promenade" project (fourteen (14) town homes located at Riverside and Shrier Drive). These projects will directly benefit, in terms of processing, from the adoption of the proposed PUD text amendment. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was completed to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project would have no significant environmental impacts. A Negative Declaration has accordingly been prepared and released for review. The review period began on December 9,2007 and ended on December 28,2007. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed zone text amendment would create a floating Planned Unit Development AGENDA ITEM-k- PAGE~OF~ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 19, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2007-01 Overlay District applicable to a wide variety of existing underlying zoning districts throughout the City. The overlay district will serve to provide development flexibility and streamline the development process for smaller projects on properties which currently face various development constraints. The proposed overlay district would not require any additional staff time or resources to administer. There would be minimal fiscal impact to the City resulting from the administration and/or enforcement of the proposed ordinance. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 200B-_ recommending City Council approval of Text Amendment No. 2007-01 in order to amend LEMC Chapter 17.37 (Planned Unit Development Overlay District) PREPARED BY: JUSTIN CARLSON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER~ APPROVED BY: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, IlIlI11J ~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT d f r'~ ATTACHMENTS: 1. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2. "DRAFT" ORDINANCE 3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY 4. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AGENDA ITEM ~ PAGE20F~ RESOLUTION NO. 2008-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2007-01 AND THE ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION THEREFORE WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Lake Elsinore has initiated an amendment of Chapter 17.37 (Planned Unit Development Overlay District) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC); and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore wishes to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards for the establishment and implementation of a planned unit development overlay district which can be applied throughout the City of Lake Elsinore; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15070, the City of Lake Elsinore prepared a proposed negative declaration to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the City's adoption of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council regarding zoning ordinance text amendments; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing, held on February 19, 2008, the Planning Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission considered the proposed Negative Declaration before making its recommendation that the City Council approve the environmental document. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that in accordance with Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15070 it was appropriate to prepare a Negative Declaration for Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01 since the initial study revealed that there was no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The purpose of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01 is to bring the Zoning Code into conformity with City's General Plan. Impacts associated with development of future projects that incorporate Chapter 17.37 (Planned Unit ACENDA ITEM NO. PAGE .b ~ OF 4b PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - PAGE20F7 Development Overlay District) as an overlay Zoning district will be analyzed as part of those particular projects. SECTION 3. In accordance with Government Code Section 65855, the Planning Commission sets forth the following findings for its recommendation that the City Council approve Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01: 1. Currently, the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code has Chapter 17.37 (Planned Unit Development Overlay District) reserved within the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code for future drafting and incorporation. As a result, the City has not established development standards, including density and intensity of development, to guide new construction on said parcels that wish to implement the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay. As development in the City continues and developers want to incorporate the PUD Overlay, it will be necessary to have the applicable tools to implement the Overlay. Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01 not only provides the necessary tools to implement the PUD Overlay, but also brings the Zoning Code into conformity with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. 2. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01 will provide regulations to allow for flexibility, diversity, and creativity in the design of smaller development projects in all City Zoning District with a minimum area of one (1) net acre. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that Chapter 17.37 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code be added as follows: Sections: 17.37.010 17.37.020 17.37.030 17.37.040 17.37.050 17.37.060 17.37.070 17.37.080 Chapter 17.37 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT Purpose. Short Title. Applicability. Permitted Uses. Application Process. Findings. Term, Extensions, Amendments, Minor Modifications and Repeal of Approved PUD Plans. Approved PUD Plans. 17.37.010 Purpose. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District establishes a process to permit creative mix of uses within a physically integrated and contiguous area that is smaller than generally appropriate for a specific plan. The PUD Overlay District is intended to provide a mechanism to allow for flexibility in the development regulations and design standards of the underlying base district and to allow the mixing and clustering of land uses that are traditionally prohibited by AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE ( G \ OF 4b PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - PAGE30F7 conventional zoning. Through this flexibility in standards, many of the objectives of the general plan can best be achieved. The underlying assumption is that in certain areas any use could be permitted in conjunction with another use; provided there is consistency with the General Plan, and that through proper planning, buffering and design of the project, potential incompatibilities are mitigated or eliminated. It is the intent of the PUD Overlay District to provide an opportunity for combining residential, retail, commercial and office uses within a single structure or by clustering such uses in close proximity to each other. This mix of land uses promotes multiple activities, such as residential and business activities, and an increased degree of pedestrian orientation on suitable sites consistent with general plan objectives beneficial to the community. Residential units located near retail, office or industrial uses can provide housing close to potential employment opportunities, and therefore, reduce vehicular commuting trips. 17.37.020 Short Title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Lake Elsinore PUD Overlay Zoning Ordinance. 17.37.030 Applicability. The PUD Overlay District may be applied to any property of a minimum area of one net acre within any zoning district throughout the City of Lake Elsinore. 17.37.040 Permitted Uses. Permitted, accessory and conditional uses within a PUD are generally the same as those allowed within the underlying base zoning districts. However, the PUD may include combinations of other uses that may complement the uses of the underlying base zoning districts. The permitted uses shall be those approved in the PUD Plan. 17.37.050 Application Process. Applications for PUD designations shall be accompanied by a zoning amendment request and a PUD Plan. A. The procedures for applying the planned unit development overlay zoning district to any properties shall be the same as described in Section 17.84 for zoning amendments. B. When a PUD Overlay District application is filed, the applicant shall also concurrently file a PUD Plan containing, but not limited to, the following information prepared and endorsed by a professional team: 1. A site plan, showing building(s), various functional use areas, parking and circulation.The development standards for PUDs are generally the same as for the underlying base zoning district. However, modifications to those standards may be approved as part of the PUD Plan in order to allow for greater flexibility and compatibility with the general plan. Variations to the base standards shall be described in the PUD Plan. Examples of development standards, include, but are not limited to, building heights, setbacks and parking requirements; AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE '8 4 OF ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - PAGE40F7 2. Preliminary building plans, including floor plans and exterior elevations; 3. Landscaping plans, including a plant palette; 4. Lighting and signage plans; 5. Civil engineering plans, including site grading, public rights-of-way and area of each building or structure, and proposed distances between buildings or structures, and setbacks to property lines; 6. Proposed use and occupancy, construction type, building height and area of each building or structure, and proposed distances between buildings or structures, and setbacks to property lines; 7. Other information or applicable materials as may be deemed necessary by the Director. C. Notices and Public Hearings. Notices and public hearings regarding an application for a PUD and PUD Plan, or a modification to an approved PUD Plan, shall be provided in compliance with Chapter 17.92 (Hearings). D. Review Authority. A PUD Plan shall be approved by the adoption of an ordinance or disapproved by a resolution of the City Council, after consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation. 17.37.060 Findings. The Planning Commission, in conjunction with a public hearing, shall review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the PUD Plan. The City Council, after a public hearing, may approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove a PUD Plan. A PUD Plan may be approved, provided the facts submitted and evaluated during the review process support the following findings: A. years. The proposed PUD Plan can be substantially completed within four (4) B. The proposed development is capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability, or adequate assurance will be provided such objective will be attained. C. The proposed uses will not be substantially detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses, but will have a beneficial effect. D. The streets and thoroughfares serving the development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and the development will not generate traffic that will overload the adjacent street network. ACENDA ITEM NO. PACE '1 ~ OF 4 b PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - PAGESOF7 E. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area. F. The types and locations of any proposed commercial development can be economically justified. G. The PUD Plan is in conformance with the General Plan, or a concurrent General Plan amendment in process. H. The mix of uses provides an increase in housing opportunities for the community and implements the objectives of the Housing Element of the General Plan. I. Any exception from the standards and requirements of this Title is warranted by the design and amenities incorporated into the PUD Plan. The exceptions are also desired by the City Council. J. Existing and proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed uses. K. The PUD Plan has complied with all applicable City requirements. 17.37.070 Term, Extensions, Amendments, Minor Modifications and Repeal of Approved PUD Plans. A. Term. An approved PUD Plan shall expire four (4) years from the date it was approved by the City Council. B. Extensions. The four (4) year term for a PUD Plan may be extended in one (1) year increments, not to exceed three (3) extensions, provided that the applicant submits a written extension request to the Community Development Department at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the PUD Plan, or any extension thereof. Extension requests shall explain the reasons why the extension is necessary. Upon receipt of the extension request, the Community Development Director or designee shall refer the extension request to the Planning Commission and City Council for public hearing. It shall be in the City Council's discretion whether or not to grant extension requests. C. Amendment. Amendments to approved PUD Plans shall follow the same procedure that was followed when the plan was adopted. D. Minor Modifications. The Director of Community Development may administratively approve minor changes or alterations to an approved PUD Plan, subject to appeal which shall be filed within fifteen (15) days of the Director's decision, provided the Director makes the following findings: 1. The proposed changes are consistent with the intent of the approved PUD Plan. AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ PACE \0 OF \ 4b PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - PAGE60F7 2. The proposed changes will not adversely impact the environment. 3. The proposed changes will not be detrimental to the surrounding uses. 4. The proposed changes will not significantly increase traffic levels on existing streets and thoroughfares within and surrounding the development. 5. Any proposed change, which requires exception from standard ordinance requirements, is warranted by the design and amenities incorporated into the approved PUD Plan. If the Director determines that the above findings cannot be made, then the request shall be considered a major change, and referred to the Planning Commission for review at a public hearing, and to City Council for review at a public hearing. E. Repeal. Any adopted PUD Plan may be repealed by the same procedure as the PUD plan was originally adopted. Prior to the adoption of an ordinance to repeal and discontinue a PUD, the City Council, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, shall find that the PUD is no longer necessary for the orderly and systematic implementation of the general plan. The repealing ordinance shall include provisions for the immediate application of appropriate zoning to the area covered by the repealed plan. 17.37.080 Approved Planned Unit Development Overlays. The following PUD overlays cannot be effectively incorporated into the municipal code, have been approved by the city and are designated on the official zoning map of the city: Reserved Future PUD overlays shall be numbered consecutively, whether incorporated into the municipal code or adopted as uncodified ordinances, and shown on the official zoning map of the city with the prefix "PUD". SECTION 5. Based upon all of the evidence presented and the above findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore approve an ordinance adding Chapter 17.37 to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore approve the Negative Declaration prepared therefore. SECTION 6. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE \ \ ~ OF 4b PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - PAGE 7 OF 7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of February 2008, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Michael O'Neal, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz Director of Community Development AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 PAGE '(1 OF L.~ ATTACHMENT 2 "DRAFT ORDINANCE" Chapter 17.37 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT Sections: 17.37.010 17.37.020 17.37.030 17.37.040 17.37.050 17.37.060 17.37.070 Purpose. Short Title. Applicability. Permitted Uses. Application Process. Findings. Term, Extensions, Amendments, Minor Modifications and Repeal of Approved PUD Plans. Approved PUD Plans. 17.37.080 17.37.010 Purpose. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District establishes a process to permit creative mix of uses within a physically integrated and contiguous area that is smaller than generally appropriate for a specific plan. The PUD Overlay District is intended to provide a mechanism to allow for flexibility in the development regulations and design standards of the underlying base district and to allow the mixing and clustering of land uses that are traditionally prohibited by conventional zoning. Through this flexibility in standards, many of the objectives of the general plan can best be achieved. The underlying assumption is that in certain areas any use could be permitted in conjunction with another use; provided there is consistency with the General Plan, and that through proper planning, buffering and design of the project, potential incompatibilities are mitigated or eliminated. It is the intent of the PUD Overlay District to provide an opportunity for combining residential, retail, commercial and office uses within a single structure or by clustering such uses in close proximity to each other. This mix of land uses promotes multiple activities, such as residential and business activities, and an increased degree of pedestrian orientation on suitable sites consistent with general plan objectives beneficial to the community. Residential units located near retail, office or industrial uses can provide housing close to potential employment opportunities, and therefore, reduce vehicular commuting trips. 17.37.020 Short Title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Lake Elsinore PUD Overlay Zoning Ordinance. ACENDA ITEM NO. PACE \'.) ~ OF 4~ 17.37.030 Applicability. The PUD Overlay District may be applied to any property of a minimum area of one net acre within any zoning district throughout the City of Lake Elsinore. 17.37.040 Permitted Uses. Permitted, accessory and conditional uses within a PUD are generally the same as those allowed within the underlying base zoning districts. However, the PUD may include combinations of other uses that may complement the uses of the underlying base zoning districts. The permitted uses shall be those approved in the PUD Plan. 17.37.050 Application Process. Applications for PUD designations shall be accompanied by a zoning amendment request and a PUD Plan. A. The procedures for applying the planned unit development overlay zoning district to any properties shall be the same as described in Section 17.84 for zoning amendments. B. When a PUD Overlay District application is filed, the applicant shall also concurrently file a PUD Plan containing, but not limited to, the following information prepared and endorsed by a professional team: 1. A site plan, showing building(s), various functional use areas, parking and circulation.The development standards for PUDs are generally the same as for the underlying base zoning district. However, modifications to those standards may be approved as part of the PUD Plan in order to allow for greater flexibility and compatibility with the general plan. Variations to the base standards shall be described in the PUD Plan. Examples of development standards, include, but are not limited to, building heights, setbacks and parking requirements; 2. Preliminary building plans, including floor plans and exterior elevations; 3. Landscaping plans, including a plant palette; 4. Lighting and signage plans; 5. Civil engineering plans, including site grading, public rights- of-way and area of each building or structure, and proposed distances between buildings or structures, and setbacks to property lines; 6. Proposed use and occupancy, construction type, building height and area of each building or structure, and proposed distances between buildings or structures, and setbacks to property lines; AGENDA ITEM NO. G PAGE \ "-\ OF ~b 7. Other information or applicable materials as may be deemed necessary by the Director. C. Notices and Public Hearings. Notices and public hearings regarding an application for a PUD and PUD Plan, or a modification to an approved PUD Plan, shall be provided in compliance with Chapter 17.92 (Hearings ). D. Review Authority. A PUD Plan shall be approved by the adoption of an ordinance or disapproved by a resolution of the City Council, after consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation. 17.37.060 Findings. The Planning Commission, in conjunction with a public hearing, shall review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the PUD Plan. The City Council, after a public hearing, may approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove a PUD Plan. A PUD Plan may be approved, provided the facts submitted and evaluated during the review process support the following findings: A. (4) years. The proposed PUD Plan can be substantially completed within four B. The proposed development is capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability, or adequate assurance will be provided such objective will be attained. C. The proposed uses will not be substantially detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses, but will have a beneficial effect. D. The streets and thoroughfares serving the development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and the development will not generate traffic that will overload the adjacent street network. E. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area. F. The types and locations of any proposed commercial development can be economically justified. G. The PUD Plan IS In conformance with the General Plan, or a concurrent General Plan amendment in process. H. The mix of uses provides an increase in housing opportunities for the community and implements the objectives of the Housing Element of the General Plan. AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ PAGE \ :; OF 4.(, I. Any exception from the standards and requirements of this Title is warranted by the design and amenities incorporated into the PUD Plan. The exceptions are also desired by the City Council. J. Existing and proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed uses. K. The PUD Plan has complied with all applicable City requirements. 17.37.070 Term, Extensions, Amendments, Minor Modifications and Repeal of Approved PUD Plans. A. Term. An approved PUD Plan shall expire four (4) years from the date it was approved by the City Council. B. Extensions. The four (4) year term for a PUD Plan may be extended in one (1) year increments, not to exceed three (3) extensions, provided that the applicant submits a written extension request to the Community Development Department at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the PUD Plan, or any extension thereof. Extension requests shall explain the reasons why the extension is necessary. Upon receipt of the extension request, the Community Development Director or designee shall refer the extension request to the Planning Commission and City Council for public hearing. It shall be in the City Council's discretion whether or not to grant extension requests. C. Amendment. Amendments to approved PUD Plans shall follow the same procedure that was followed when the plan was adopted. D. Minor Modifications. The Director of Community Development may administratively approve minor changes or alterations to an approved PUD Plan, subject to appeal which shall be filed within fifteen (15) days of the Director's decision, provided the Director makes the following findings: 1 . The proposed changes are consistent with the intent of the approved PUD Plan. 2. The proposed changes will not adversely impact the environment. 3. The proposed changes will not be detrimental to the surrounding uses. 4. The proposed changes will not significantly increase traffic levels on existing streets and thoroughfares within and surrounding the development. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE \ b 4 OF 4b 5. Any proposed change, which requires exception from standard ordinance requirements, is warranted by the design and amenities incorporated into the approved PUD Plan. If the Director determines that the above findings cannot be made, then the request shall be considered a major change, and referred to the Planning Commission for review at a public hearing, and to City Council for review at a public hearing. E. Repeal. Any adopted PUD Plan may be repealed by the same procedure as the PUD plan was originally adopted. Prior to the adoption of an ordinance to repeal and discontinue a PUD, the City Council, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, shall find that the PUD is no longer necessary for the orderly and systematic implementation of the general plan. The repealing ordinance shall include provisions for the immediate application of appropriate zoning to the area covered by the repealed plan. 17.37.080 Approved Planned Unit Development Overlays. The following PUD overlays cannot be effectively incorporated into the municipal code, have been approved by the city and are designated on the official zoning map of the city: Reserved Future PUD overlays shall be numbered consecutively, whether incorporated into the municipal code or adopted as uncodified ordinances, and shown on the official zoning map of the city with the prefix "PUD". AGENDA ITEM NO. G PACE \ l OF . 4t CITY OF ~ LAKE ,6,LSiNORJ: ~ DREAM EXTREME. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 (951) 674-3124 Voice (951) 471-1419 Fax NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Entitlement No(s): ZoninQ Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01 Applicant: City of lake Elsinore Address: 130 S. Main Street lake Elsinore. CA 92530 Project Location: Citywide Project Description: A request to amend a portion of lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Chapter 17.37. to establish a Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUD) which can be applied to any zoninQ district type within the City. The PUD establishes a process to permit creative mixtures of uses and/or clusterinQ of land uses on smaller proiect sites where a specific plan is not appropriate. The PUD also allows for flexibility in the development reQulations and desiqn standards for individual development projects. Permitted. accessory and conditional uses with a PUD will be qenerally the same as those allowed in the underlyinQ zoninQ district. However. the PUD may include combinations of other uses that may compliment the uses of the underlyinQ zoninQ district. Based on the attached Initial Study prepared for this project, the City of lake Elsinore has determined that there would be no significant, adverse, effect on the environment due to the scope of the project. All other materials that constitute the basis upon for determining to adopt this Negative Declaration are available for public review at the City of lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, lake Elsinore, CA 92530. This document constitutes a Negative Declaration. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES (Le., any agency that has discretionary approval power over the project): City of lake Elsinore TRUSTEE AGENCIES (i.e., the California Department of Fish and Game, State Lands Commission, State Department of Parks and Recreation, and University of California): None Notice Pursuant to Section 21092.5 of the Public Resources Code: The public hearing date for the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment has not yet been determined. The public is invited to submit written comments on the proposed Negative Declaration to the Planning Division, attention Matt Harris, Senior Planner, 130 South Main Street, lake Elsinore, CA 92530 or phone (951) 674-3124. Matthew C. Harris, Senior Planner December 6. 2007 Date 28 AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE \~ ~ . lt6 OF CITY OF ~ LAKE 6LSiNO~ \ I V DREAM EXtREME. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 (951)674-3124 (951)471-1419 Fax INITIAL STUDY City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01 December 6, 2007 Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the CEOA Guidelines. Section 15063(c) of the CEOA Guidelines indicates that the purposes of an Initial Study are to: 1. Provide the Lead Agency (Le., the City of Lake Elsinore) with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration; 2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to quality for a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration; 3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by: Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant; Identifying the effects determined not to be significant; Explaining the reasons why potentially significant effects would not be significant; and Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project's environmental effects; 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the findings in a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE \~ ~ OF ~b City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01 December 6, 2007 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-01 2. lead Agencv Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Matthew C. Harris, Senior Planner (951) 674-3124, Ext. 279 4. Proiect location: Citywide in all zoning districts on sites that have a minimum area of one net acre. 5. Project Applicant Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 6. General Plan Designation(s): Mountainous, Very Low Density, Low Density, Low Medium Density, Medium Density, Medium High Density, High Density, Mixed Use, Neighborhood Commercial, Tourist Commercial, General Commercial, Commercial Office, Freeway Business, Limited Industrial, Business Park, Public/Institutional, Open Space/Recreation, Floodway. 7. Zoning: R-R (Rural Residential), R-A (Agricultural Single-Family Residential), R-H (Hillside Single-Family Residential), R-1 (Single-Family Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), R-3 High Density Residential), O-S (Open Space), R (Recreational), C-O (Commercial Office District), C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial District), C-2 (General Commercial District), C-P (Commercial Park District), C-M (Commercial Manufacturing District), M-1 (Limited Manufacturing District) and M-2 (General Manufacturing District). 8. Description of Project: To amend a portion of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.37 related to: 1. The establishment of a Planned Unit Development Overlay District which can be applied to any zoning district type within the City. 2. The Planned Unit Development Overlay District establishes a process to permit creative mixtures of uses and/or clustering of land uses in smaller areas where a specific plan is not appropriate. 3. The Planned Unit Development Overlay District allows for flexibility in the development regulations and design standards for individual development projects. 4. Permitted, accessory and conditional uses within a planned unit development (PUD) will be generally the same as those allowed in the underlying zoning district. However, the PUD may include combinations of other uses that may compliment the uses of the underlying zoning district. 9. Surrounding land Uses and Setting: Varies by location as Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01 applies Citywide to all zoning districts. 10. Other agencies whose approval is reauired (e.a., permits, financina approval. or participating agreement): None. 2 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE ~O OF ~ 4.b City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01 December 6, 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. o Aesthetics 0 Agricultural Resources o Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources o Hazards & Hazardous Materials 0 Hydrology/Water Quality o Mineral Resources 0 Noise o Public Services 0 Recreation o Utilities/Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance o o o Land Use/Planning o o Geology/Soils Air Quality Population/Housing T ransportationlT raffic DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [81 I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature December 6, 2007 Date Matthew C. Harris Print Name Senior Planner, City of Lake Elsinore Title ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION CHECKLIST 1. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE ~ \ ~ OF ~6 City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01 December 6, 2007 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," cited in support of conclusions reached in other sections may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used-Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed-Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures-For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identity: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. A. AESTHETICS Potentially less Than less than Significant Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 [8J 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings 0 0 0 [8J within a state scenic highway?) 4. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?) 0 0 0 [8J 5. Create a source of substantial light or glare, which would 0 0 0 [8J adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES* Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact less Than Significant With Mitigation less than Significant No Impact Impact 4 AGENDA ITEM NO. '-1 PAGE ~~ OF ~b City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01 December 6, 2007 B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 6. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 7. 8. Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact D D D ~ D D D ~ Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in D D D ~ conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. . C. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: 9. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1 O. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 11. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 12. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?) 13. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation less than Significant No Impact Impact D D D ~ D D D ~ D D ~ D D D D ~ Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial D D D ~ number of people?) Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. * D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially less Than less than Significant Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact 14. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in D D D ~ local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 5 4 OF ~~ AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE d. 3 City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01 December 6, 2007 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: 15. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 16. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 17. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 18. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 19. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: 20. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 915064.5? 21 . Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 915064.5? 22. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? 23. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D Potentially Significant Impact D D D D Less Than Significant With Mitigation D D D D D Less Than Significant With Mitigation D D D D Less than Significant No Impact Impact D ~ D ~ D ~ D ~ D ~ Less than Significant No Impact Impact o ~ o ~ D ~ D ~ F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: 23. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Potentially Significant Impact 6 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant No Impact Impact AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE ~ 4. 4 OF 4~ City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01 December 6, 2007 F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Pub. 42. b. Strong seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? d. Landslides? 24. Result in substantial soil erosion, or the loss of topsoil? 25. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse 26. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 27. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o 7 Less Than Significant With Mitigation o o o o o o o o Less than Significant No Impact Impact o [gI o o o o [gI [gI [gI [gI o [gI o [gI o [gI AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ DA~I= ~ ') OF 4-b G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: 28. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? 29. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable up-set and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 30. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 31 . Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 32. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 33 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 34. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 35. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: 36. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 37. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 38. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 39. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 40. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation o o o o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation o o o o o Less than Significant No Impact Impact o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ Less than Significant No Impact Impact o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE 'J...b ~ m: ~b H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact 41 . Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood 0 0 0 ~ Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 42. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures 0 0 0 ~ which would impede or redirect flood flows? 43. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, 0 0 0 ~ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 44. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 0 ~ I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation o Less than Significant No Impact Impact 45. Physically divide an established community? 46. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 47. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? o o ~ o o o ~ o o o ~ J. MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact 48. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 0 0 0 ~ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 49. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important 0 0 0 i:8J mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? K. NOISE Would the project result in: Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact 0 0 0 ~ 50. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 9 AGENDA llEM NO._ ~ L..\, PAGE_ ~l OF K. NOISE Would the project result in: 51 . Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 52. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 53. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? 54. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 55. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? l. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: 56. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through an extension of roads or other infra-structure)? 57. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 58. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o Potentially Significant Impact o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation o o o Less than Significant No Impact Impact o [gJ o [gJ o [gJ o [gJ o [gJ Less than Significant No Impact Impact o [gJ o [gJ o [gJ M. PUBLIC SERVICES* Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts to the following: 59. Fire protection? 60. Police protection? 61 . Schools? 62. Parks? Potentially Significant Impact o o o o 10 Less Than Significant With Mitigation o o o o Less than Significant No Impact Impact o [gJ o [gJ o [gJ o [gJ AGENDA ITEM ';00- ~t; 6 PAOE_ d. \l _Or__ M. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts to the following: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant No Impact Impact 63. Other public facilities? 0 0 0 t8J Include potential effects associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services. N. RECREATION 64. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 65. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Potentially Significant Impact o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation o o Less than Significant No Impact Impact o t8J o t8J O. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Would the project: 66. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 67. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 68. Result in a change in traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 69. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 70. Result in inadequate emergency access? 71 . Result in inadequate parking capacity? 72. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o Potentially Significant Impact 11 Less Than Significant With Mitigation o o o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant No Impact Impact o t8J o t8J o t8J o t8J o o [8J t8J o t8J Less than Significant No Impact Impact ACENDA ITEM NO. ~ PACE ~~ OF 4b P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: 73. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 74. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 75. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 76. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 77. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 78. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 79. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 80. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? 81 . Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 82. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Impact D D D Less Than Significant With Mitigation D D D D D D D Less Than Significant With Mitigation D D D -End of Environmental Impact Evaluation Checklist - Less than Significant No Impact Impact D ~ D ~ D ~ D ~ D ~ D ~ D ~ Less than Significant No Impact Impact D ~ D ~ D ~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION DISCUSSION The following is a discussion of the potential impacts associated with the approval of the proposed project, as identified in the above Environmental Impact Evaluation Checklist. Explanations are provided for each item below. 12 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ PAGE 30 OF ~~ A. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact: The project proposes the establishment of a Planned Unit Development Overlay District to be applied within any zoning district citywide. The proposed zoning ordinance text amendment involves no physical development. A separate site specific environmental analysis will be undertaken in association with future development projects citywide. Therefore, the project will have no impact to any scenic resources. Mitigation Measures: None. 2) Substantially damaae scenic resources. includina. but not limited to. trees. rock outcrop pin as. and historic bui/dinas within a state scenic hiahway corridor? No Impact: The project proposes an amendment to the City's zoning ordinance allowing for the establishment of a Planned Unit Development Overlay District. The proposed amendment involves no physical development and is not site specific. Therefore, the project will have no impact to any scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a scenic highway corridor. Mitigation Measures: None. 3) Substantially dearade the existina visual character or auality of the site and its surroundinas? No Impact: Please refer to A 1 & A2 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 4) Create a new source of substantialliaht or alare which would adversely affect day or niahttime views in the area? No Impact: Please refer to A 1 & A2 above. Mitigation Measures: None. B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 5) Convert Prime Farmland. Uniaue Farmland. or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mappina and Monnorino Proaram of the California Resources Aaency. to non-aoricultural use? No Impact: The project proposes an amendment to the City's zoning code allowing for the establishment of a Planned Unit Development Overlay Zoning District. The proposed text amendment involves no physical development. A separate site specific environmental analysis will be undertaken in association with future development projects citywide. Therefore, no relationship exists between the project and the conversion of farmland to urban uses. Mitigation Measures: None. 6) Conflict with existina zonina for aaricultural use. or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact: The proposed provisions of the Planned Unit Development Overlay District including allowed densities, development standards, design guidelines and land uses must all be consistent with the goals, objectives and OF l~ 13 AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE 3 \ policies of the City General Plan and conform with the City's zoning code. Therefore, no conflicts will be created with existing agricultural use policies or standards. Mitigation Measures: None. 7) Involve other chanqes in the existino environment. which due to their location or nature. could result in the conversion of Farmland. to non-aoricultural use? No Impact: Refer to response 8-5 & 8-6 above. Mitigation Measures: None. C. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 8) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project is intended to provide a mechanism to allow for flexibility in development regulations and design standards so as to achieve a mixture of land uses and/or clustering of land uses that are traditionally prohibited by conventional zoning. The project would not change existing land uses contained in the City's General Plan or have any direct impacts on local air quality. The proposed text amendment involves no physical development. A separate site specific air quality analysis will be undertaken in association with future development projects citywide. Mitigation Measures: None. 9) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existinq or prajected air quality violation? No Impact: Refer to response C-8 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 10) Result in a cumulativelv considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the praject reqion is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (includinq releasinq emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? No Impact: Refer to response C-8 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 11) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact: Refer to response C-8 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 12) Create obiectionable odors affectinq a substantial number of people? No Impact: Refer to response C-8 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 14 ACENDAlTEM NO. 4 PAGE 31 OF 46 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 13) Have a substantial adverse effect. either directlv or throuGh habitat modifications. on any soecies identified as a candidate. sensitive. or soecial status soecies in local or reGional olans. oolicies. or reaulations. or bv the California Deoartment of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact: The proposed text amendment involves no physical development. A separate site specific environmental analysis, including the analysis of biological resources, will be undertaken in association with future development projects citywide. Likewise, the site specific project will be fully evaluated against all pertinent biological resource regulations in effect at that time. Therefore, there will be no conflict between the project and any adopted city, county, regional, state or federal policy, goal, or plan pertaining to the preservation and/or conservation of biological resources in the City of lake Elsinore. Mitigation Measures: None. 14) Have a substantial adverse effect on any rioarian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or reaionalolans. oolicies. reGulations or bv the California Deoartment of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact Refer to response 0-13 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 15) Have a substantial adverse effect on federallv orotected wetlands as defined bv Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (includina. but not limited to. marsh. vernal 0001. coastal. etc.) throUGh direct removal. fillina. hvdroloaical interruotion. or other means? No Impact: Refer to response 0-13 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 16) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or miqratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or mioratory wildlife corridors. or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact: Refer to response 0-13 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 17) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances orotectino biolooical resources. such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact: Refer to response 0-13 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 18) Conflict with the orovisions of an adooted Habitat Conservation Plan. Natural Community Conservation Plan. or other aooroved local. reGional. or state habitat conservation olan? No Impact: Refer to response 0-13 above. Mitigation Measures: None 15 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 3 ~ ~ OF _ ~~ E. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 19) Cause a substantial adverse chanae in the sianificance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines ~15064.5? No Impact The proposed text amendment involves no physical development. A separate site specific environmental analysis, including the analysis of cultural resources, will be undertaken in association with future development projects citywide. Likewise, the site specific project will be fully evaluated for consistency with all pertinent cultural resource regulations in effect at that time. As such, the project would have no impact on cultural resources. Mitigation Measures: None. 20) Cause a substantial adverse chanae in the sianificance of an archaeoloaical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines ~15064.5? No Impact: Refer to response E-19 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 21) Directly or indirectly destroy a uniaue paleontoloaical resource or site or uniaue GeolOGic feature? No Impact: Refer to response E-19 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 22) Disturb any human remains, includina those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact: Refer to response E-19 above. Mitigation Measures: None. F. GEOLOGY AND SOilS. Would the project: 23) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, includina the risk of loss. iniurv, or death involvina: a.) Rupture of a known earthauake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alauist-Prio/o Earthauake Fault Zonina Map issued by the State Geo/oaist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and GeoloGV Special Publication 42. No Impact: The proposed text amendment involves no physical development. A separate site specific environmental analysis, including the analysis of geology and soils, will be undertaken in association with future development projects citywide. Necessary design provisions or setbacks will be incorporated into the project at that time. Therefore, the proposed project would have no potential for geology or soils related impacts. Mitigation Measures: None. b.) Strona seismic around shakina? No Impact: Refer to response F-23 (a) above. 16 AGENDA ITEM NO. DM:C: 3 ~ 4 OF ~~ Mitigation Measures: None. c.) Seismic-related around failure, includina liauefaction? No Impact: Refer to response F-23 (a) above. Mitigation Measures: None. d.) Landslides? No Impact: Refer to response F-23 (a) above. Mitigation Measures: None. 24) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of toosoil? No Impact. Refer to response F-23 (a) above. Mitigation Measures: None. 25) Be located on a aeo/oaic unit or soil that is unstable, or would become unstable as a result of the oroiect. and ootentiallv result in on- or off-site landslide. lateral soreadinq, subsidence. liauefaction or collaose? No Impact: Refer to responses F-23 (a). Mitigation Measures: None. 26) Be located on exoansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B ofthe Uniform Buildina Code (1994). creatina substantial risks to life or orooertv? No Impact: Refer to response F-23 (a) above. Mitigation Measures: None. 27) Have soils incaoable of adeauatelv suooortina the use of seotic tanks or alternative waste water disoosal svstem where sewers are not available for the disoosal of waste water? No Impact: Refer to response F-23 (a) above. Mitigation Measures: None. G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: 28) Create a sianificant hazard to the oubUc or the environment throuah the routine transoort, use. or disoosal of hazardous materials? No Impact: The proposed Planned Unit Development Overlay District involves no physical development and in no way involves or affects the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. A site specific environmental analysis will be undertaken for future development projects citywide. The analysis will include the evaluation of hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would have no impacts. Mitigation Measures: None. 17 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE j S 4 OF -.1!t> 29) Create a siGnificant hazard to the public or the environment throuGh reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involvinG the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact: Refer to response G-28 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 30) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. substances. or waste within one- Guarter mile of an existinG or proposed school? No Impact: Refer to response G-28 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 31) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and. as a result. would it create a siGnificant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact: Refer to response G-28 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 32) For a proiect located within an airoort land use plan or. where such a plan has not been adopted. within two miles of a public airoort or public use airoort. would the proiect result in a safety hazard for people residinG or workinG in the proiect area? No Impact: Refer to response G-28 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 33) For a proiect within the vicinity of a private airstrip. would the proiect result in a safety hazard for people residinG or workinG in the proiect area? No Impact: Refer to response G-28 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 34) Impair implementation of or physicafly interfere with an adopted emerGency response plan or emeraency evacuation plan? No Impact: Refer to response G-28 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 35) Expose people or structures to a siGnificant risk of loss. iniurv or death involvinG wildland fires. includinG where wildlands are adiacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact: Refer to response G-28 above. Mitigation Measures: None. H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: 18 "10 (~ - ACENDA\TEM '" .- -, 4L PAGE_j-b_Of~ 36) Violate any water aualitv standards or waste discharae reauirements? No Impact: The project is intended to provide a mechanism to allow for flexibility in development regulations and design standards so as to achieve a mixture of land uses and/or clustering of land uses that are traditionally prohibited by conventional zoning. The project would not change existing land uses contained in the City's General Plan or have any direct impacts on hydrology or water quality. The proposed text amendment involves no physical development. A separate site specific hydrology and water quality analysis will be undertaken in association with future development projects citywide. The proposed amendment would have no effect on hydrology or water quality in the City of Lake Elsinore. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: None. 37) Substantiallv deplete aroundwater supplies or interfere substantiallv with aroundwater recharae such that there would be a net deficit in aauifer volume or a lowerina of the local aroundwater table level (e.a., the production rate of pre-existinq nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existina land uses or planned uses for which permits have been aranted)? No Impact: Refer to response H-36 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 38) Substantiallv alter the existina drainaqe pattern of the site or area, includina throuah the alteration of the course of stream or river. or substantiallv increase the rate or amount of the surface runoff in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No Impact: Refer to response H-36 above. Further, clustering or mixing of land uses has the potential to create additional open space thereby slowing the rate or amount of surface run off thus reducing substantial erosion or silt on or off-site. Mitigation Measures: None. 39) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existina or planned storm water drainaae systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact: Refer to response H-36 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 40) Otherwise substantiallv dearade water aualitv? No Impact: Refer to response H-36 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 41) Place housina within a 100-vear flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact Refer to response H-36 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 42) Place within a 1 OO-vear flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact: Refer to response H-36 above. 19 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE "31. OF 4 l, b Mitigation Measures: None. 43) Expose people or structures to a siGnificant risk of loss. iniurv or death involvinG floodinG. includinG floodinG as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact: Refer to response H-36 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 44) Inundation bv seiche. tsunami. or mudflow? No Impact: Refer to response H-36 above. Mitigation Measures: None. I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: 45) Physically divide an established community? No Impact: The project is intended to provide a mechanism to allow for flexibility in development regulations and design standards so as to achieve a mixture of land uses and/or clustering of land uses that are traditionally prohibited by conventional zoning. The project would not change existing land uses or allowed densities in association with land use designations contained in the City's General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Future development projects utilizing the provisions of the Planned Unit Development Overlay will be evaluated on a case by case basis regarding community division issues. Therefore, the proposed text amendment would have no associated impacts. Mitigation Measures: None 46) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policv, or reGulation of an aGency with iurisdiction over the proiect (includina, but not limited to the aeneral plan, specific plan, local coastal proGram, or zonina ordinance) adopted for the pU(fJose of avoidina or mitiaatinG an environmental effect? No Impact: The project is intended to provide a mechanism to allow for flexibility in development regulations and design standards so as to achieve a mixture of land uses and/or clustering of land uses that are traditionally prohibited by conventional zoning. The project would not change existing land uses or allowed densities in association with land use designations contained in the City's General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Therefore the proposed amendment would have no impact to any plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Mitigation Measures: None. 47) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact: The proposed Planned Unit Development Overlay District must be consistent with all existing goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan including the associated Habitat Conservation Plan. While no physical development is proposed with this zone code text amendment, future development projects utilizing the provisions of this overlay district will be subject to site specific environmental analysis which will include a consistency analysis with any existing regional habitat conservation plans. As such, no impacts would result from this text amendment. Mitigation Measures: None. 20 ACENDA ITEM NO.-1-- PACE 3 ~ OF 4h J. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 48) Result in the loss of availabilitv of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the reaion and the residents of the state? No Impact: The proposed Planned Unit Development Overlay District involves no physical development and in no way involves or affects mineral resources. A site specific environmental analysis will be undertaken for future development projects citywide. The analysis will include the evaluation of mineral resources. Therefore, no alteration or loss of known mineral resources would occur from this text amendment. Mitigation Measures: None. 49) Result in the loss of availability of a locallv important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local qeneral plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact: Refer to response J-48 above. Mitigation Measures: None. K. NOISE. Would the project result in: 50) Exoosure of oersons to or aeneration of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local aeneral olan or noise ordinance. or applicable standards of other aaencies? No Impact: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment will not expose persons to the generation of excess noise levels, ground borne vibration, or increase ambient noise in the City of Lake Elsinore. The amendment does not involve any development that would impact noise levels in the City. The proposed amendment does not alter any noise-related regulations found in the Municipal Code or General Plan and would not lead to a change in the generation of noise. Therefore, no impact to noise levels would occur. Mitigation Measures: None. 51) Exposure of persons to or aeneration of excessive aroundborne vibration or aroundborne noise levels? No Impact: Refer to response K-50 Mitigation Measures: None. 52) A substantial oermanent increase in ambient noise levels in the pro;ect vicinity above levels existina without the pro;ect? No Impact: Refer to response K-50 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 53) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the pro;ect vicinity above levels existina without the proiect? No Impact: Refer to response K-50 above. Mitigation Measures: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 3 '\ o ~6 21 OF 54) For a proiect located within an airport land use plan or. where such a plan has not been adopted. within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. would the proiect expose people residinG or workinG in the proiect area to excessive noise levels? No Impact: The project consists of a Municipal Code amendment and does not involve any physical development. Site specific planned unit development overlay projects citywide will undergo an environmental analysis in the future. The analysis will include potential airport noise related impacts. Therefore, the proposed project will have no affect related to the City's existing private use airport or noise levels associated thereto. Mitigation Measures: None. 55) For a proiect within the vicinitv of a private airstrip. would the proiect expose people residinG or workinG in the proiect area to excessive noise levels? No Impact: Refer to response K-54 above. Mitigation Measures: None. L. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: 56) Induce substantial population Growth in an area. either directlv (for example. bv proposinG new homes and businesses) or indirectlv (for example. throuah extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact: The project is intended to provide a mechanism to allow for flexibility in development regulations and design standards so as to achieve a mixture of land uses and/or clustering of land uses that are traditionally prohibited by conventional zoning. A mixture andlor clustering of land uses will serve to increase housing opportunities for the community while further implementing the goals, objectives and policies of the housing element of the general plan. The project would not change existing residential land uses or allowed densities in association with land use designations contained in the City's General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed amendment would have no significant impact on population and housing. Mitigation Measures: None. 57) Displace substantial numbers of existinG housina. necessitatinG the construction of replacement housinG elsewhere? No Impact: Refer to response L-56 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 58) Displace substantial numbers of people. necessitatina the construction of replacement housina elsewhere? No Impact: Refer to response L-56 above. Mitigation Measures: None. M. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proiect result in substantial adverse phvsical impacts associated with the provision of new or phvsicallv altered Governmental facilities. need for new or phvsicallv altered aovernmental facilities. the construction of which could cause sianificant environmental impacts. in order to maintain acceptable service ratio. response times or other performance obiectives for anv of the public service: 22 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ PAGE ~ () OF ~.b 59) Fire protection? No Impact. The proposed project is a regulatory adjustment and does not involve any development. Therefore, the project will have no impact on the City's public services. Mitigation Measures: None 60) Police protection? No Impact: Refer to response M-59 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 61) Schools? No Impact: Refer to response M-59 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 62) Parks? No Impact: The proposed amendment to the City's Municipal Code will not have an effect on the number of persons using public parks. Therefore, the proposed amendment would have no impact to parks. Mitigation Measures: None. 63) Other Public Facilities? No Impact: Refer to response M-59 and M-62 above. Mitigation Measures: None. N. RECREATION 64) Would the proposed proiect increase the use of existinG neiahborhood and reGional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial phvsical deterioration of the facilitv would occur or be accelerated? No Impact: Refer to response M-59 and M-62 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 65) Does the proiect include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that miGht have an adverse effect on the environment? No Impact: Refer to response M-59 and M-62 above. Mitigation Measures: None. O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: 23 ACENDA ITEM NO. ~_ PACE L.. \ ~ 66) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existina traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips. the volume to capacity ratio on roads. or conaestion at intersections)? No Impact: The project is intended to provide a mechanism to allow for flexibility in development regulations and design standards so as to achieve a mixture of land uses and/or clustering of land uses that are traditionally prohibited by conventional zoning. This mixture or clustering of land uses can provide for residential and business activities where multiple activities and an increased degree of pedestrian orientation are considered desirable and can serve to reduce vehicular commuting trips. The project will not change existing residential, commercial or industrial land uses or the allowed densities thereof in association with the land use designations contained in the City's General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the traffic volumes associated with the uses have already been assumed under the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Future specific development projects utilizing the provisions of the PUD overlay will be undergo individual environmental analysis including the evaluation of circulation issues. Therefore, the project would have no impact. Mitigation Measures: None. 67) Exceed. either individuallv or cumulativelv. a level of service standard established bv the county conaestion manaGement aaencv for desianated roads or hiahwavs? No Impact: Refer to response 0-66 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 68) Result in a chanGe in traffic patterns, includinG either an increase in traffic levels or a chanae in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact: Refer to response 0-66 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 69) Substantiallv increase hazards due to a desiGn feature (e.G.. shafT) curves or danaerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.a.. farm eauipment)? No Impact: Refer to response 0-66 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 70) Result in inadeauate emeraencv access? No Impact: Refer to response 0-66 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 71) Result in inadeauate parkinG capacity? No Impact: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment would provide a mechanism to allow for flexibility in development regulations and design standards so as to achieve a mixture of land uses and/or clustering of land uses that are traditionally prohibited by conventional zoning. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.66 (Parking Requirements) currently has parking standards that address allowed land uses as specified in the City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. These parking standards will be applied to future individual site specific development projects that utilize the provisions of the PUD ordinance. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not result in inadequate parking capacity. 24 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 4 ~ ~ OF ~~ Mitigation Measures: None. 72) Conflict with adopted policies. plans. or proQrams supportina alternative transportation (e.a.. bus turnouts. bicvcle racks) ? No Impact: The proposed amendment allows for a mixture or clustering of land uses which may serve to promote alternative transportation methods such as carpooling, public transportation and use of bicycles. The proposed zoning ordinance text amendment involves no physical development. Future site specific development projects that utilize the provisions of the PUD ordinance will be reviewed by applicable transportation agencies and against alternative transportation plans in effect at that time. Therefore, no impacts will result regarding alternative transportation modes. Mitigation Measures: None. P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: 73) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ReQional Water Qualitv Control Board? No Impact: The project is intended to provide a mechanism to allow for flexibility in development regulations and design standards so as to achieve a mixture of land uses and/or clustering of land uses that are traditionally prohibited by conventional zoning. The project would not change existing land uses or allowed densities in association with land use designations contained in the City's General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, requirements related to both utilities and service systems will not comprehensively exceed those system levels currently planned for. Future development projects utilizing the provisions of the Planned Unit Development Overlay will also be evaluated on an incremental case by case basis regarding utility and service system impacts. Mitigation Measures: None. 74) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existinQ facilities. the construction of which could cause siQnificant environmental effects? No Impact: Refer to response P-73 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 75) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainaQe facilities or expansion of existinQ facilities, the construction of which could cause siQnificant environmental effects? No Impact: Refer to response P-73 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 76) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the proiect from existinQ entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact: Refer to response P-73 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 25 ACENDA ITEM NO. PACE 43 4 OF 4h 77) Result in a determination bv the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adeGuate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existinG commitments? No Impact: Refer to response P-73 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 78) Be served bv a landfill wjth sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact: Refer to response P-73 above. Mitigation Measures: None. 79) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact: Refer to response P-73 above. Mitigation Measures: None. Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 80) Does the project have the potential to deGrade the Gualitv of the environment. substantiallv reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustainina levels. threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. reduce the number or restrict the ranGe of a rare or endanGered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? No Impact: The project involves regulatory changes to the Municipal Code and no physical development activity that could affect biological resources is proposed. Therefore. the proposed amendment will have no impact on any sensitive plant or animal species or habitat. Likewise, there will be no conflict with any adopted city, county, regional, state or federal policies, goals, or plans pertaining to the preservation and/or conservation of biological resources in the City of Lake Elsinore. 81) Does the project have impacts that are individuallv limited. but cumulativelv considerable? ("Cumulativelv considerable" means that the incremental effects of a proiect are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects. the effects of other current projects. and the effects of probable future projects)? No Impact The project involves a Municipal Code amendment with no associated development activity and. as such, there are no related or cumulative projects to be considered. 82) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beinGS. either directlv or indirectlv? No Impact The proposed project is a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment with no associated physical environmental effects. -End of Environmental Impact Evaluation Discussion - 26 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 44: 4 , OF ~~ REFERENCES FOR ENIVRONMENTAL EVALUATION The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study: 1) City of Lake Elsinore General Plan 2) City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code 3) Draft Planned Unit Development Overlay District Ordinance 27 AGENDA ITEM NO. I. (r OF'II PACE '-\:) '-\-\) CITY OF .v~ LAKE 6LSiNORf: \ , V DREAM EXTREME", Notice of Intent to Adopt A Negative Declaration (In compliance with Section J 5072 of the Public Resources Code) Filed With: o Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 ~ County Clerk of Riverside County 2724 Gateway Drive Riverside, CA 92507 Project Title: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2007-01 - Planned Unit Development Overlay District Project Location: City-wide Project Location (City): City of Lake Elsinore Project Location (County): Riverside County Description of Project: To amend a portion of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Chapter 17.37 as follows: 1. The establishment of a Planned Unit Development Overlay District which can be applied to any zoning district type within the City. 2. The Planned Unit Development Overlay District establishes a process to permit creative mixtures of uses and/or clustering of land uses on smaller project sites where a specific plan is not appropriate. 3. The Planned Unit Development Overlay District allows for flexibility in the development regulations and design standards for individual development projects. 4. Permitted, accessory and conditional uses within a Planned Unit Development will be generally the same as those allowed in the underlying zoning district. However, the Planned Unit Development may include combinations of other uses that may compliment the uses of the underlying zoning district. Environmental clearance for the proposed project is provided by a Negative Declaration in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Name of Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, Planning Division Lead Agency Contact Person: Matthew C. Harris, Senior Planner Telephone Number: (951) 674-3124 x 279 Address where document may be obtained: City of Lake Elsinore, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. A copy of the document is also available at the Lake Elsinore Library. Public Review Period: Begins: December 9, 2007 Ends: December 28, 2007 Tentative Public Hearing Dates(s): To Be Determined Anyone interested in this matter is invited to comment on the document by written response or by personal appearance at the hearing. For inquires please contact: Matt Harris, Senior Planner (951) 674-3124 x 279 Signed: Title: Director of Communitv Development Rolfe Preisendanz AGENDA lTEM NO. PAGE <+~ 4 OF ' ~{