HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-2006 NAHMINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
183 NORTH MAIN STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2006
CALL TO ORDER:
6:06:34 PM Chairman O'Neal called the Regular Planning Commission Meeting to order.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
6:06:37 PM Community Development Director Preisendanz led the Pledge Of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: O'NEAL, LARIMER, GONZALES,
LAPERE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Also present were: Community Development Director Preisendanz, Deputy City
Attorney Miles, Engineering Manager Seumalo, Interim Planning Manager Massa-Lavitt,
Project Planner Court', Associate Planner Resendiz, Project Planner Miller and Office
Specialist Alexen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (Non-Aeendized items)
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes
a. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for February 7, 2006.
MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY LARIMER
AND PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0 TO APPROVE
THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED.
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. Tentative Parcel Map 33182; The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.23 acre
parcel of land located at 32920 Kevin Place, into four (4) individual lots and
maintain a remainder lot undisturbed, for the.. purpose of sintle-family
residential development.
6:07:57 PM Chairman O'Neal: opened the Public Hearing.
6:08:04 PM Community Development Director Preisendan~ noted that the project had been
continued several times by request of the applicant in order to make revisions to the parcel
map. He requested the item to be continued off calendaz.
MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY GONZALES
AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-0 TO CONTINUE
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0.33182 TO A DATE OFF
CALENDAR.
6:08:45 PM Chairman O'Neal closed the Public Hearing
3. Variance No. 2005-02 and Minor Desitn Review for a new 1,681 square foot two-
storv sinele-family residence located at 1250 Cole Street, Assessor Parcel Number
373-083-021.
6:09:04 PM Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearing.
6:09:05 PM Community Development Director Preisendanz provided an overview of the
proposed project and asked Assistant Planner Resendiz to review the project with the
Commission and answer questions.
6:09:32 PM Assistant Planner Resendiz provided an overview of the proposed project. He
noted that the project had been conditioned to provide a 25 foot right-of--way dedication
along Avenue 6, giving it a 105-foot wide lot. He further noted a secondary 5-foot side yard
dedication along Cole Street which makes the lot 35- feet wide. He further noted that the lot
after dedication is substandazd in width and length. He noted that added architectural design
elements in compliance with the residential design requirements. He stated that the
developer was not present.
6:12: t 1 PM Planning Commissioner LaPere agreed with Staff s recommendation.
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
6:12:42 PM Planning Commissioner Gonzales stated that the property was hard to find. He
clarified the purpose of the variance and addressed traffic concerns.
6:14:37 PM Planning Commissioner Larimer requested the design for the house.
6:14:40 PM Assistant Planner Resendiz noted that the applicant had not provided colored
elevations.
6:15:16 PM Community Development Director Preisendanz noted that without the colored
elevations, the project could not be reviewed completely.
MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY LARIMER TO
CONTINUE VARIANCE NO. 2005-02 AND MINOR DESIGN
REVIEW FOR A NEW 1,681 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1250 COLE
STREET, ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 373-083-021.
6:16:50 PM Chairman O'Neal closed the Public Hearing.
4. Tentative Parcel Man No. 33164
6:17:20 PM Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearing.
6:17:24 PM Community Development Director Preisendanz provided a brief overview of
the project and requested project planner Coury review it with the Commission and answer
questions.
6:17:35 PM Project Planner Coury noted that the project had been continued to this meeting
due to noticing requirements. He provided an overview of the project location and zoning
requirements.
6:19:06 PM Planning Commissioner Larimer stated that she had no problem with the
project.
6:19:19 PM Planning Commissioner Gonzales requested clarification of the pattern used to
divide the parcel.
6:19:28 PM Project Planner Coury noted that it had to do with parking and truck loading.
6:19:39 PM Planning Commissioner LaPere agreed with staffls recommendation.
6:20:40 PM Chairman O'Neal closed the Public Hearing.
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY GONZALES AND
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-0 TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.
2006-13, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP N0.33164
** The contents of the Planning Commission meeting of February 21, 2006 are summarized
with the exception of Item No. 5, which are verbatim.
5. Canyon Hills Estates Annexation
6:20:45 PM Chairman O'Neal: I will remind the audience that this is a Negative Declaration
and General Plan Amendment, Annexation and a Zone change and that's all this is.
6:21:01 PM Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearing.
6:21:10 PM Director of Community Development Preisendanz: This project is titled the
Canyon Hills Estates Annexation and Chairman you were correct this is limited to the action
ofpre-zoning of approximately 246.4 acres adjacent to our City boundaries which includes a
Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change or pre-zoning. This
begins a long process for this application. This is an application driven by the property
owner. The property owner is requesting this annexation and we were required to process
this to where it is now with you, the Planning Commission. I would like to ask Kirt Coury to
go over this item with you and answer any questions and present this project to the
Commission tonight.
6:22:07 PM Project. Planner Coury: Thank you Rolfe. Mr. Chairman, members of the
Commission, as indicated, the project is for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
Annexation and Negative Declaration. The project before you this evening, again, is limited
to just that. It is only for an annexation, only for a General Plan Amendment, and the zone
change for the pre-zoning. There is not a development application being reviewed by the
City this evening. You may hear discussion and in the correspondence that was provided in
your packet, there was reference to a tract map. With the pre-zoning for the project, we
required that the applicant submit a conceptual plan so that we could take a look at
conceptually how the project and/or the property may be developed. That, again, is
conceptual only and is not being reviewed this evening. There has been discussion, has been
correspondence a lot of it with relation to environmental concerns for that. I want to inform
the Commission that when that application does come forward, when it is reviewed by the
Commission, it will have to go through the same public hearing process, the same
notification and environmental analysis, an environmental review will have to be conducted
supporting technical studies and such will have to be provided for that document. So I
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
wanted to emphasize that for the Commission, again, what you're looking at this evening is
for an Annexation and a corporate boundazy change. There is not a development proposal
that is being presented to you this evening. With that, I handed to you this evening
correspondence that came in regarding the project, it's a packet that I provided to you (each
of the Commissioners) based on correspondence that was received by the City as of late
Friday, yesterday and as of today. Rather than go through a detailed presentation based on
the staff report, I think that there may be pertinent information that I'd like to go through
with the Commission, specifically with relation to that handout that I provided to you. I
numbered the pages down in the bottom right hand corner so that we would have them for
reference. Beginning on page 18, there is an 11- page letter that essentially talks about the
project and provides comments to the initial study and the negative declazation. So if the
Commission would beaz with me, I would like to go through and pull out some of the, what I
thought to be relevant information within that document so that we could clear some of the
concerns or issues, and then I would like to go back and give some background again to the
project. So, again, beginning on page 18, the first paragraph is we were to start, where is
says, "It would seem that the City of Lake Elsinore made a mistake or miscalculation by
introducing the project map." I'm starting with one; I'll go back and give background
information to that. Rolfe and I had a meeting with representatives from the Wildomaz
group. We did pass out that conceptual map and there is a tract map reference number to
that, so that is where a lot of this basis or a lot of this information is generated from. That,
again, is not part of this application, so therefore throughout the environmental document if
there is reference why that should or should not have referenced to it in the environmental
document, it is because there is not a development package or proposal before you for that
application at this time. And, again, for the audience as well as the Commission, when that
comes forward, that will have to go through the same noticing process. On page 19, there's
beginning the fourth paragraph down, forgive me as I go through this, I just received this
today so I'm trying to highlight this for the Commission so that we can go through the
information or concerns. There was discussion, and again the fourth pazagraph, that the
community of Wildomaz or that a Wildomaz group was not informed in the initial study as
exhibit referenced in appendix A.2 on page two of that distribution there was the Wildomaz
Chamber of Commerce, as well as Gina from the WIN group was part of that distribution.
So the Wildomaz group did receive notification of the project. The fifth paragraph where it
says that Lake Elsinore did not allow the full 30 day comment period, ironically, the project
is only required a 20 day noticing requirement. We noticed it for 30 days, so in a sense, there
were 10 extra days based on the required noticing period. So it was required a 20 day, we
actually did a 30 day, so there was, again, adequate time for the noticing of the project.
There's talk in the last paragraph about the Commission not having adequate time to review.
For information for the audience and I'm echoing this to the Commission as you're aware.
The Planning Commission for this particular project is a recommending body to the City
Council. Based on the Negative Declazation, the Annexation, the General Plan Amendment
and the Zone Change. All of those will take final action at the City Council, so this project
being noticed, this project being present to the Planning Commission is all part of that lazger
scale process in which this project will have to go through. Continue will have go through to
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
City Council and onward to LAFCO for their review as well, but I wanted to make that clear
to the audience that the Planning Commission is the recommending body to the City Council
for these applications. On page 20, about half way down the page, where it says page 17,
figure 2.5 proposed pre-zoning, the numbers that are referenced for rural mountainous,
there's also rural residential which is half acre, I'm sorry 5 acre, and those are consistent with
the City's General Plan that we have that was dated back to 1990. On page 21, there is
reference that in the form J, initial study checklist, that for the noise section that a check was
placed for significant impact box was checked, that was an error. Part of this process is that
we go through this when we review the environmental document. We look for those errors;
we screen it as best we can, so we have noted that, we will make that correction again before
the document goes on City Council for their final review. To note real quick for that, that is
correct. This is only Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change. There is not a
development project, so that box is correct. On page 24, the last paragraph where it starts as
4.0 determination of the effect. This is the part that I was explaining that I would come back
for, the background information. It references that a letter was submitted on January 27a'.
That letter was submitted to the City Clerk's office for a request for information for the
project. On February 2°d, Rolfe and I met with two representatives from the Wildomar
group. There was no mention to us at that meeting that this request for information was
submitted to the City Clerk's office. Where there was confusion from the City Clerk
because this was a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, the City Clerk assumed that and
it had a 2005 reference number, the City Clerk assumed that that was reviewed by the City
Council at some point in 2005. In researching his records, he could not find that, so he
submitted a letter back to the Wildomar group; in this instance, Mr. Rick Estes, stating that
he needed additional time to research the records. When the City Clerk approached me about
the project, I informed him that it had not gone to the City Council, in fact, it had not gone to
the Planning Commission at this point and that it would have to go through that process. So,
hopefully that would clear up some of the confusion with relation to that portion of this
document stating that there was additional time which was going to go beyond the
environmental review portion. The request for information again, I gave you that
background, however, the noticing for the environmental document, which what this was
partially relating to, that environmental document was sent to the writer of this letter. They
reference pages to that environmental document, so we know that they did receive it, so there
was sufficient time for them to respond and comment to the environmental portion of that
document, which as you know is under the CEQA law, gives you that 20 day window in
which to respond. In several instances throughout the document, for example on page 25,
about the fourth or fifth line down where it begins with form J, page 9 and 10, it references a
question in the second sentence, what attachment. That attachment is the environmental
impact analysis, which is provided along with the initial study and the checklist to give a
detailed response to those comments and checked boxes for no impact. So as you'll read
throughout the letter or throughout the document that that does refer to what attachment, it is
referring to that document. So, I want to make cleaz that for the Planning Commission as
well. Lastly, as part of background with reference to that February 2nd Planning Commission
meeting that Rolfe and I had with two representatives from the Wildomaz group, there's
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 7 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
reference to my comments or statement within that meeting. There was discussion about the
tract map, in fact Rolfe and I reviewed the project in terms of the annexation with the
representatives. We, then shared a copy of the tract map, again for conceptual plan purposes
to explain and show to them how the developer was looking to possibly develop or
conceptually develop the property. We provided the representatives with a copy of that map.
However, there's a little bit of confusion within that meeting in terms of what statements
were relating to that project or statements that were relating to the project that's before you
this evening. So I wanted to make clear that we did provide a copy of that conceptual plan to
the group. We provided it for a courtesy level review for their information based on some of
the questions that were raised during that meeting, but again, we did inform them it that
would have to go through a separate review, that environmental analysis would have to be
performed on that portion at that fixture date when that project came forward. And last but
not least, I wanted to make reference to that document was on page 18 that I was just
referring to. It's dated as of January 20c'; the letter starts out, however we received it this
morning. I think that it was just an error on their part in terms of writing the letter because
their header within the letter clearly identifies Februazy 20`I'. So, again I wanted to give that
as background information, and provide this to the Planning Commission for your review. I
know a lot of this was last minute information that came before you, so I wanted to let you
know that staff has reviewed the letters, we have taken in the information, we appreciate
some of the comments with relation to house cleaning if you will, we will make those
corrections. With that, I know that there are several people in the audience this evening that
would like to make comment. The applicant is in attendance this evening as well. He would
be happy to answer questions that the Commission may have. Staff, again, has reviewed the
project in detail and recommends approval of the project as presented before you this evening
and if there's any questions that the Commission may have, staff would be happy to answer
as well.
6:35:40 PM Chairman O'Neal: Mr. Coury is it Rick Goacher? Is that the gentleman?
6:35:51 PM Project Planner Coury: Yes sir.
6:36:01 PM Chairman O'Neal: I would like to state to you and everybody else in the
audience that please limit your comments to three minutes.
6:36:06 PM Mr. Goacher: Absolutely, I'll be even briefer than that. My name is Rick
Goacher with RGP Planning and Development Services in Irvine. This evening we are
bringing one of our clients before you, Trumark Companies, they aze headquartered in
Danville. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, this is one of their first projects in
Southern California that they intend to go forward with. But as was already mentioned by
you and others, this is a very narrow hearing this evening and it's not for the project itself.
We've enjoyed working with staff for the last year in bringing it this faz along, but we're not
going to be able to actually give you the drawings this evening. We do thank staff for the
tremendous work that they've put in and the City Attorney's office for the past yeaz and I
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 8 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
think it's been very very productive to have their involvement and their guidance so far. This
evening, speaking of behalf of this application will be two people representing both our
office and the applicant's office. Those individuals are Jeremy Krout and Vicki Mota. Vicki
is with Tnunazk Homes and I believe that she would like to start first. But prior to that I
would request, Mr. Chairman that if it's appropriate and if time permits we may wish to
provide a comment at the end in rebuttal to statements that may be made.
6:37:42 PM Chairman O'Neal: I'm not certain that we're going to have time for that.
6:37:42 PM Mr. Goacher: Very good sir.
6:37:45 PM Chairman O'Neal: There is a significant number of people that have requested to
speak on this particular item, so if you wouldn't mind introducing Vicki.
6:37:51 PM Mr. Goacher: At this time we'd like to have Vicki Mota come forwazd from
Trumazk communities.
6:37:56 PM Vicki Mota: Good evening Mr. Chair and members of the commission. I am
Vicki Mota and I work for Tnrmazk Companies. Our office is located in Lake Forest. As
Kirt Coury has mentioned, we aze here to discuss a change in the city's boundary to annex
land just south of Canyon Hills that is being referred to as Canyon Hills Estates into the City
of Lake Elsinore. Leading up to this hearing we have worked closely with City staff and
officials to ensure consistency with city laws and regulations and the General Plan Update. I
want to thank City staff for their time, hazd work and professionalism during this process.
Leading up to this hearing, Initiation of annexation of these sites is one of the first steps of a
process that will lead to the review and consideration of the site plan; however this is not
occurring now. We look forward to continuing to work with the City and the community
through the review of the site plan in the coming months. This is part of Trumazk's core
ideology. Trumark has been in business for over 13 years and I am on my 14`h year.
Throughout this time, Trumak has maintained a solid core ideology that focuses on
consensus planning and creating quality projects that fit within the community. Trumark is
representing the two property owners of the 246 acres and they are here this evening. Both
property owners have owned their property and have been a part of the community for well
over 20 years. As long time property owners and members of the community, they want to
see sensible community design on their properties that will benefit the surrounding
community that they have been a part of for so long. For Canyon Hills Estates, the property
owner's interest formed the principles behind the conceptual design of Canyon Hills Estates
community and is the reason for annexing into the City of Lake Elsinore. The City requires a
tract map to be submitted with the annexation applications. The plans submitted represent a
conceptual design of Canyon Hills Estates community. We are still in the design phases and
want to receive community input. We expect this to occur during the coming months, as well
as the environmental review. There will many opportunities for community input during this
time. Jeremy Krout from RGP Planning and Development Services, and Trumazk's
Agenda I[em No.
Page of
PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
entitlement consultant will be discussing the boundary change being considered this evening.
Thank you.
6:40:49 PM Chairman O'Neal: I'm sorry, I don't remember you name.
6:40:56 PM Jeremy Krout: If you don't mind I'm just going to just grab an easel over a little
bit closer for reviewing. Thank you Vicki. Good evening Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. At risk of sounding like a parrot, I just want to also thank City staff for their
time and effort to fairly and thoroughly and professionally analyze the project before you, the
Canyon Hills Estates annexation proposal. As Vicki mentioned, the 246-acre project site is
located immediately south of the City of Lake Elsinore's and Canyon Hills boundary. On
this line, (pointing to the exhibit board in this graded area which is now built out, it's
mostly, is approximately where the boundary the cities the City's incorporated boundazy as
well as the Canyon Hills boundary. Surrounding the property you have a number of uses that
are on the ground today and are planned probably being processed by the City very soon.
You have about four, single family residential development that's about four to six, four to
eight units per acre just north of the site, as well as just up, up the street on Canyon Hills and
Cottonwood Canyon, you have, you know 15 to 24 dwelling units per acre being planned on
that, on sites adjacent to the, the Canyon Hills and Cotton Canyon intersection. To the south,
west and east of the site you, you have a number of rural residential land uses and, and in the
City's General Plan this reflects that this area, this previously was in the City's sphere and it
included these areas as rural residential or very low density residential and mountainous land
uses. These designations were also assumed in the City's General Plan EIR that was
prepared back in 1990 and approved by the former City Council of Lake Elsinore. Access to
the site is mainly from Lost Road, Navajo Springs Road, as well as Cottonwood Canyon
Road via Canyon Hills Road. I'm going to just switch the presentation (inaudible). This
may be easy for, at least to show the, the property's boundaries, but as you see here, again, is
the City boundary, we have Cottonwood Canyon coming on the east side of the site, looped,
kind of a curved road of Canyon Hills Road with Lost Road on the western edge of the
property. Those are the main access points and the improved roads providing services or
access to the site. A significant topography will exist between just south of this property
boundazy or at the Canyon Hills boundary and really is what separates our site from the core
of the Wildomar community. This is a, it's easy to see on the, the aerial photo, but it's, it's a,
it's kind of difficult at this distance but, really the majority of the topography occurs here and
separates the Wildomar communities core from this, from this site. The majority of the
flatter area, the more level areas are north of the site that abuts Canyon Hills. For these
reasons, the topography for the circulation and those reasons, it's really the, the reason why
our proposal is to annex into the City of Lake Elsinore. This, this was probably the basis also
behind the City's planned, or plan area for the, the proposed General Plan update. Our site,
as well as sites to the east of our site, are planned to be in the City's General Plan area.
Consistent with this General Plan, the Proposed General Plan, in September 2005, Trumazk
Companies filed a LAFCO, filed with LAFCO, a Notice of Intent to circulate a petition to
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 10 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
annex into the City of Lake Elsinore. This was filed, as I said, back in September, with
LAFCO and is on record with them.
6:45:19 PM Chairman O'Neal: I need to keep you on the three-minute time.
6:45:27 PM Jeremy Krout: Oh, okay. Understand. I'll very quickly move this. The
proposed pre-zoning is Specific Plan and it requires that a Specific Plan review be conducted
prior to approval of any development. Trumark Companies met with Wildomar community
and discussed the project. We asked that we discuss the project, in particular the
development once the community, once we get to that level. As you've heard several times
and I'm sure you are very aware, tonight's agenda item is really limited to the, the boundary
change and was in the, the property boundary was in the City's sphere previously and still
remains in the General Plan. With all due respect to the Wildomar community, the
landowners have a desire to be in the City of Lake Elsinore and not in the community of
Wildomar and approval of the boundary change would honor their wish and bring the
property owned for decades by people considered by themselves as part of the community
and bring that property into the City and we appreciate any consideration by this
Commission, as well as the landowners are here as well.
6:46:21 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you sir. I don't want to hear any more of those kind of
demonstrations or laughter. Have the common courtesy. No point of order. I'm going to
I start, and in no particular order, Gary Andre. Please state your name and address for the
record. Please limit your comments to three minutes.
6:46:49 PM Gary Andre: My name is Gary Andre, address 31906 Gruwell Street, Wildomar.
I'm chairman of Butterfield Trails and co-chair of land development and review of
Wildomar. The first we ever heard of this project was last month when I came down here to
speak with Dave Sap on the trails. Lake Elsinore's had a pretty poor history and installing
the trails in the proper areas. We had to move the trail off Grand Avenue to the south side of
Grand because Lake Elsinore put in housing tract with sidewalks and no room for a trail. So
this screwed things up. I've had to deal with the County on several issues. Tomorrow we're
going on, going on again with the County and we're going over plans. I was in the Planning
office speaking with Dave Sapp. I looked at the set of plans for the whole development, I
saw all the houses, I saw all the things. This is not just limited to this parcel. I've seen
everything. I've seen it, all the plans on this whole project, and how our WIN committee for
incorporation learned about this was through me. Not one thing ever came from Elsinore that
we received. Thank you.
6:48:11 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you Mr. Andre. Next person up is Gina Castinon. I'm
sorry if I did not pronounce your name correctly.
6:48:26 PM Gina Castinon: Good evening. My name is Gina Castinon.- I live at 32555
McVicker Street irr Wildomar. I have two letters that I'd like to submit tonight with copies
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 11 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
for all the Commissioners in regards to the Canyon Hills Estates. Not to disagree with Gary,
but some of the WIN committee and the chamber were at the scoping meeting in December
and we brought our concerns to that meeting at that time. Rolfe at the time had stated, and
other persons on the board, that it was just an oversight, that this annexation, this sphere of
influence, was not going forward, it was an oversight and what we did was actually put
Elsinore on notice that the WIN committee was aware of the plans and we would be actively
involved in fighting it. Here are the letters. One of, one of my suggestions tonight would be
your recommendation would be to deny this sphere of influence, at, and an annexation.
What's going to happen if you approve it and it goes to City Council, you know, then of
course we'll ask the City Council to deny it as well. And this is just going to extend the
process and what you can do is stop it here now because we will continue aggressively
fighting it. It will go before LAFCO. I'm assuming LAFCO will deny it since we have our
application in for city hood. We're going to election this year and it's a waste of the
taxpayer's time and money and the applicant's. So please deny this (inaudible).
6:50:16 PM Chairman O'Neal: If you do have documents in the future, please submit them
to the clerk over here. Thank you. Diane Falconer.
6:50:31 PM Diane Falconer: I'm Diane Falconer. 23495 Crooked Arrow, Wildomar, and the
first thing I heard about this was the other day hanging out by the mailboxes. My concern is
the roads, right now as you, as you know, Railroad Canyon Road and the 15 Freeway is a
total mess, and by the time you add those houses by the Storm, it's going to get, to get even
worse, and people are eventually going to discover that gee whiz, there's a better way to get,
there's a better way to get to these houses or whatever this, this proposed development, and
that's my concern is because I have paid, and my neighbors, have paid a fortune to maintain
our privately owned road, and now you're going to add a lot of other traffic going up these
roads, Lost Road and Navajo Springs and Crooked Arrow. You'll be adding a lot more
traffic up in the area, and I'm the one, and my, and my few neighbors are the ones that are
footing the bill for this. So, I'm, I'm very concerned about this. Thank you.
6:51:42 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you Mrs. Falconer. Next person would be, next
person, next person is Barbara Sencer, or Spencer, sorry. Barbara Spencer, that be correct?
6:51:59 PM Spencer: Good evening Commissioners. I'm speaking to you tonight on behalf
of the Menifee Valley Historical Association. Ours is a public non-profit corporation whose
purpose is to identify, preserve and promote the historical legacy of Menifee Valley. To
promote respect for our past and to educate the public about our historical significance.
Comments that followed were discussed at our regular meeting February 18 adopted by
resolution of the board, and directed to be presented to you by me at this meeting tonight.
Menifee Valley got it's name from mining development beginning in 1880. With discovery
and claiming of the Menifee quartz load by miner Luther Menifee Wilson. Farming activity
beginning in the mid-1800s was concentrated on the valley plane, however, the hills
surrounding that valley floor provided access to minerals such as gold, silica, pink quartz and
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 12 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21.2006
feldspaz. Menifee Wilson worked the Menifee quartz load that extended eastward from the
area near Menifee Valley present-day intersection of Gazy and Holland Roads, as well as a
number of other mines, which led to formation of the Menifee Gold Mining District. More
than half adozen -mines aze listed within the district and Menifee Wilson himself was
involved in at least three, the Ken Wilson, Menifee Wilson's concave, and Briggs (inaudible)
which was found on the USGS maps at, as late as 1973. The range of hills with significant
rock crops, cropping on the western boundary of Menifee Valley, the very eastern segment
apparently proposed for annexation in, in this matter, is location of several other mines
including the Mary Allen and the Florence. It's really difficult to determine exactly what the
boundaries of this proposed annexation aze because there are no street names but from our
familiarity with the local geography and topography, we believe this annexation in, intends to
extend at least eastward to Buyers, perhaps further to Gary, and if that were the case, it would
include not only the entire hill range of the mines, but the location of the entrance to the most
famous of Menifee Wilson's mines. We see nothing in this report that we received on
February 13, to indicate that annexation of the eastern segment into, into the Menifee Valley
boundary is required, or is even contemplated to be used for development of the Canyon
Hills project. In fact, for Lake Elsinore to have to provide utilities, services and circulation
to that area, would require it to cross a very deep ravine about 60 feet at least. And, to
eliminate the significant rock outcroppings where there I believe remain palings. The
Menifee Valley Historical Association respectfully requests that the very area that provided
source for its name be preserved to Menifee Valley rather than annexed into Lake Elsinore.
Thank you.
6:55:12 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you. Cheryl Aide, would that be correct?
6:55:21 PM Cheryl Aide: Good evening Commissioners. I'm Cheryl Aide. I'm Chair of the
Wildomar Land Development Review. I'm also on the Wildomar Incorporation Committee.
There was no confusion, believe me. We're not confused. This is.
6:55:38 PM Chairman O'Neal: May I have your address please?
6:55:38 PM Ms. Aide: 35255 Almatista(?)Avenue in Wildomar.
6:55:38 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you.
6:55:43 PM Cheryl Aide: It's on my slip. This is more than housekeeping and the question is
not if staff reviewed this but did the. Planning Commission review all the comments? I hope
that you will read my letter and pay careful attention especially to 3.9, Land Use. There's a
few other topics in there that are essential that you understand what you're doing as well.
Your current sphere is twice as lazge as your current city boundazies. We did have informal
discussion with Trumazk last Thursday at our land development review but it was more about
the annexation than the project itself. Annex, the meaning of annex, take as one's own
appropriate. Impact, a striking of one thing against another, collision, a forceful or dramatic
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 13 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
effect. Annex is followed in the dictionary by the word annihilate. Sphere of influence by its
very definition belies your claim of no impact. The act of placing a sphere is an impact in
and of itself because all actions will now revolve around that designation. The destiny of the
land, its environs, the people who live here, are forever altered by this act. No impact.
Hazdly. You could see all these people here tonight, the impact's already started. All that
remains after the sphere is in place are the effects, annihilation, complete destruction. Of
what, you might say. The community's boundaries. Wildomar. This is an act of destruction.
No impact. You aze pre-supposing your sphere somehow supersedes our community's
established boundaries. In other words, the future planning area takes precedence over a
community established in 1898. Law. Higher power than the confines of the local or
regional politics to which you are accustomed. Intent of the law. What is looked at to make
a determination and can be the deciding factor in a court of law. When considering the
annexation proposal, both the City and LAFCO must look beyond the immediate to the
future impact of the total project on city services, sources of tax revenue, historic growth
trends, the city center, and neighboring communities and cities. Annexation does not occur
in a vacuum. The land's interrelationship with the surrounding world and the community
changes that could occur as a result of annexation should be considered. In other words, your
actions have consequences. Think carefully about where you are being asked to tread.
Thank you.
6:58:23 PM Chairman O'Neal: William Zeidlik, I'm sorry if I mispronounce your name.
The next person up will be Harv Diestrum.
6:59:15 PM William Zeidlik: Ladies and gentlemen, I have given you a copy of a letter that I
brought to Mr. Coury tonight.
6:59:21 PM Chairman O'Neal Could you please identify yourself on the record?
6:59:26 PM Mr. Zeidlik: I'm sorry. William Zeidlik, Z-E-I-D-L-I-K. I live at 33250 Sunset
Avenue adjoining Wildomaz and adjoining you within a quarter of a mile. I gave Mr. Coury
a copy of a three-page letter. I hope you have it. I'm recommending you read it thoroughly.
I'm going to ask for you to delay this hearing until some time or other because we have 30
days left to, despite of what Mr. Coury says, to receive written responses to all of our letters.
CEQA calls for that. He indicated we had 30 days to, to comply. He scheduled this meeting
one day after the deadline was have supposed to occurred. I don't know how he could have
answered any of these comments other than he must have specially looked at some of them
briefly in the last few days, because there's a lot more that I know coming in, plus this. I've
started a 50-page report, going through all hundred pages of the documentation I received.
Now the problem is, there's a total confusion. I missed the opening statements this morning,
or this afternoon, excuse me, and I was going to just read to you something that came to me
from the Public Policy Institute's poll which recently said that eight out of ten Californians
would like to see their local governments work together and come up with an agreeable
regional plan. Also, the same report says that 73 percent of the local people, electorate,
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 14 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
would like to have the decision made by them in a voting process and only 23 percent prefer
to listen to their governing bodies. I think you have that here tonight. You have your
neighbors; look over the fence more often because we're affected by this. Cottonwood
Canyon comes out on Sunset Road at Bundy Canyon. It's a dirt road for three miles. It is
not going to be improved by any of this annexation nor anyone else. It's going to be
improved and we have the project 40, 1,500 homes at one spot and 4,500 homes total in that
area planning to use Cottonwood Canyon. Talk to TUMF or talk to Western Regional COG,
or talk to your, our transportation, which you were referred to by Mr. Coury, twice before,
and you contacted our parks once before and got erroneous information. I don't know where
in the County this particulaz information went. We can't find the person you sent it to in the
County. I think what happens, you need to contact us, you know we're there. LAFCO knew
we were there, LAFCO has issued us specifically not yet to Wildomaz, specific boundaries,
which we are right now underway of doing a legal description. If you interrupt the
boundazies of them, you're planning on, by according to a map, and interrupting our
boundaries. Bazbaza just spoke to the fact that your gobbling up our whole mine area, at least
we think you are. That's what the confusion is. Everywhere throughout this particular
report, or reports, or comments, or whatever, they've referred to Cottonwood Estates.
Cottonwood Canyon Estates, or Cottonwood Canyon development or specific plans. It
doesn't say this here annexation for whatever annexation purposes. It doesn't answer the
questions in which you have gone to LAFCO with. LAFCO last October informed us
briefly...
7:02:40 PM Chairman O'Neal: Your time is up. Thank you.
7:02:47 PM Mr. Zeidlik: Gentlemen, I'm going to take a little more time since I got delayed
by the gentleman here before.
7:02:44 PM O'Neal:. You're out of order, you're out of order.
7:02:46 PM Mr. Zeidlik: Last comment.
7:02:52 PM Chairman O'Neal: You're out of order.
7:02:57 PM Mr. Zeidlik: Read your CEQA law, it is not proper.
7:03:01 PM Chairman O'Neal: You're out of order.
7:03:06 PM Mr. Zeidlik: Read your documents please. Thank you.
7:03:09 PM Chairman O'Neat: Harv Diestrum. The next one up is Harv Diestrum.
7:03:18 PM Harv Diestrum: Commissioners, My name is Harv Diestrtrm. My address is
34860 Western Way in Wildomar. It's been impressed upon us repeatedly tonight that this is
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 15 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
only an annexation, a GPA Amendment, a Zone Change, and a Negative Declaration. I, I
believe that's what the, what the whole problem is, the annexation. Frankly, in the, I'm
shocked that our neighbors in the City of Lake Elsinore would entice the Trumark
Companies to annex the site to the City of Lake Elsinore. City officials have known for
some time that the future city of Wildomar has filed for incorporation. Is this how we begin
our relationship as neighbor cities? Our boundaries have been set for many years. The
boundazies are part of that incorporation application. Please explain why you have chosen to
ignore that fact. Regarding the proposed development, Wildomar would be proud to have a
development like this within its boundaries. I would like to ask Trumark Companies why
they never came to Riverside County and the future city of Wildomar with this proposal.
Was this simply a mistake, or were you misled by entities within the City of Lake Elsinore or
elsewhere? I for one would support such a development within Wildomaz. Most of us in
Wildomar are happy to see high-quality development come to Wildomaz. Yes, we have high
standards, but we are not anti-growth. I ask the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission to stop
this aggravating confrontation right now. I ask that Trumazk Companies contact Wildomar
and Riverside County regazding building in Wildomar. We would welcome them to our
beautiful city of Wildomar. Thank you.
7:04:57 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you sir.
7:05:18 PM Rick Estes: My, my name is Rick Estes. I reside at 33160 Roberts Street in
Wildomar. I've handed a packet, or actually some emails that Mrs., Ms. Elexon(?) is going
' to give to each one of you, and because it's, I think it's important otherwise you're not going
to be able to follow along. I sent an email to the City of Lake Elsinore on the 25a' of
November, and, and, let me start this by saying that one of the reasons there has been some
expression here on the Lake Elsinore City side, is that there was anger about the way that this
was being handled and I'm going to try to show you why some of that anger has come out
because when you're not told the truth, people get mad, and that's what's hap~ened tonight.
So, if you could, please follow along. I sent an email to the City in, on the 25 of November
and I asked them specifically, and it's about as clear I think as you can get, down there
towards the bottom. It says, does the City of Lake Elsinore plan to request to change its
sphere of influence regazding its boundaries with the community of Wildomar? Does the
City staff or consultants have any map showing proposed boundary changes between
Wildomaz and the City? Now you've got to keep in mind that Ms. Castinon had just, she told
you that they'd had a meeting and told that the maps were a mistake. The second letter that
you've got here is from Mark, Mark Dennis, and Mark is the, the spokesman for the City of
Lake Elsinore. Down at the bottom of the, the email there, he says the map that he was
referring to, that I asked about, is not illustrating any proposed new city boundaries, but
establishes the area that General Plan update consultant is reviewing for purposes of a
General Plan update. And, of course, you remember, I, I don't have that, but that's what he's
telling me. That was on the 28`h of November. Then on the 28a' of November, I got an email
from Jeannie Kelly, so she's saying basically the same thing that Mark's saying and I've
highlighted it here for you. It says, nothing has been decided, just suggested. The Council
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 1G -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
would have to give direction on such an action, so she's telling me that there's nothing going
on, don't worry about it. The City Council will have to deal with this kind of thing anyway.
They'd make the decision. The last thing that you have is the receipt from Trumark, from
Vicki Mata, dated October 12`x, and in that there you see that they have paid the City of Lake
Elsinore $36,500 and one of them is for a tentative parcel tract map. $13,500 and there's a
$4,500 figure off to the right for a total of thirty-six five. I would correct Mr. Coury, there
isn't the word tentative, there isn't any kind of suggestion on the map that says it's a tentative
tract map. It was started at least two months before this was ever made public. One last
comment, when I went to the water company, the description that was given to the water
company with their will-serve letter, which I got a copy of, says tract map and then it gives
the number of the tract map. I requested a copy and Lisa Elexon sent me a copy of all of
your General Plan amendment committee hearings. All of them with the exception of one
which she didn't have, and I believe that was meeting No. 7. There wasn't one mention of
any of this project throughout all of those, those General Plan advisory committee meetings.
That's the minutes. There was mention of a lot of others. And there was a lot of talk about
other Specific Plans and other information. So, so, the point here is that your own City
Council didn't know and they were putting out bad information. The public spokesman for
the city was putting out bad information while that was going on, money was being paid to
the City of Lake Elsinore and the tract map got underway. And that, that's it. I've, I've
submitted other written comments. Thank you very much.
7:09:25 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you sir. John Flannigan. John Flannigan please.
7:09:36 PM John Flannigan: Mr . Chairman, fellow members of the Lake Elsinore City
Planning Commission. I'm John Flannigan. I live in Canyon Lake, 24140 Cruise Circle
Drive. I've owned the property on Cottonwood Canyon Road for more than 25 years. My
wife and I went there January 1St, 1976. It was right after our new year's celebration and
what a wonderful day it was in our life. We've had that property a long time as I've pointed
out, 25 years. And I'm a little surprised by all the conversation tonight because in that 25
years I never got a card or hello or hi from anybody down there, not when the creeks rose or
when bad weather hit with the drought, but, it's nice to see a lot of interest here tonight. The
point I would make, sir, is that I have here a, a letter that goes back at May of 1998 when the,
the County of Riverside was looking for zoning in that area and they had us meet up at Calle
Kirkpatrick Elementazy School up in the Menifee area. And, what they did is they talked
about zoning and I wished I thought to have this map, but this is a map from the Riverside
County Planning Commission, Mr. Joff, Joffrey is it, yes. And, we're a little finger that
sticks out, way over on this far end, and there's, but you'll see this dark line, I have 80 acres,
and that 80 acres is in the Menifee area. I purchased that land from Mr. Barrens, good friend
of mine, and he has an additional 80 acres next to me. It's also in the Menifee/Sun City
sphere of influence or planning. That's what that meeting was about back there and I'm a,
I'm a little surprised that, that point wasn't made. But, that's really all I have. I'd like to
thank you for allowing me to speak and the only other comment I would make. I was there
today working doing some pick and shovel work, and what a beautiful community it is in the,
Agenda Item No.
Page
PAGE 17 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
I knew the Christensen family, when you see the schools and you see what the Pardee people
have built, the parks and the, the, it's a beautiful thing to see. I have 25 homes looking down
across my fence and I went there in 1976, you couldn't see a light all the way to Railroad
Canyon Road. There wasn't anything around. Just, just a lot of beautiful land. Those days
are gone and I'm, I'm addressing that. I have 25, two-story bedroom homes looking over my
fence at me right now and when I see change, and change is coming, I would say this, this is
quality community, I'd like to see my land look like the land that's coming in around me.
Thank you very much.
7:12:26 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you sir. The next speaker is Gino Gramatico, would
that be correct?
7:12:42 PM Gino Gramatico: This is the first time I've ever been to a City Council meeting.
7:12:47 PM Chairman O'Neal: Would you please, your name and address.
7:12:52 PM Mr. Gramatico My name is Gino Gramatico. I live at 32485 Crooked, Crooked
Arrow Drive. We're adjacent to this project and this is news to me. We've lived there for
four years and I heard of this like three weeks ago, and the problem I have is there, this is
land locked land, I only see two accesses into this project and we live right adjacent to it.
What are you guys going to do about the traffic? And, I understand that this is just about
annexation but I have other concerns and this, first of all Wildomar needs to be Wildomar
period. And, and we are Wildomar and I'm right next to this project. I'm, I'm in feet, we're
talking about four or five football fields from this project. We are going to be Wildomar.
We don't want to go into your city. This project is land locked land. It's going to cause all
kinds of confusion and I have, living up in these hills, we're on three-acre parcels. We have
horse property. We have livestock. And my concern is I don't know who did these
environmental studies, but I'm going to look into this. It needs to be looked into because
there is a lot of wildlife up here. There's no greenbelts in these mountains. This area right
here should be a greenbelt. That's the way I look at it. There are no greenbelts. I understand
you bought the property but I'm going to make your life miserable whoever that is. And, I
have friends, I have friends in the Sierra Club and I'm getting a hold of them immediately.
There's toads, there's six packs of coyotes live up there, there's mountain lions, all right here
in this project. Where are they going to go? Where are you going to push them? There's not
one green belt around here. It's getting sucked up by the developers and I'm sick and tired of
it and this is going to be Wildomar. That's it.
7:14:51 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you. I appreciate your zeal; however, the more you
clap, the shorter time the person has to speak. Chris Hyland. Chris Hyland.
7:15:13 PM Chris Hyland: My name is Chris Hyland. I live in the City of Lake Elsinore.
I'm here as a private citizen and I have a great deal of sympathy for these people in
Wildomar. They've tried for a long time to get their area annexed into a city and, the reason
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 18 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
I'm speaking is this situation reminds me of a similar situation that happened years ago off of
Grand Avenue. The City annexed two areas off of Grand Avenue which most of us that have
lived here for a long, long timed called the claws. There all, it's surrounded by the County.
I've been to meetings in that area and the people gripe about the services, the police
department not called, you know, getting to them right away, so, these people in this, in these
two claws, who do they go to the County or the City? And this area what that they want to
annex here in Cotton Hills is exactly another claw and it should be stopped now because it is
a small formulation of Wildomar and why destroy these people's hopes and praise, praises
and so forth you get this into a city. So, that's my concern.
7:16:33 PM Chairman O'Neal :Thank you Chris. Gary Lancaster.
7:16:41 PM Gary Lancaster: Yeah, my name is Gary Lancaster. I live at 23540 Crab Hollow
Circle and my wife and I we moved here over 18 years ago, and our back property line, along
with our neighbors, is one of the lines that this is all going to back up to. And like the
gentleman that spoke earlier here about looking over his fence at all these two-story homes, I
don't want that problem here. We moved out to this azea because it was a rural, rural
community, and we have 9 point some odd acres, and we've put a home on it, a garage, we
built our life on it, we've, and we've both recently retired. We want to stay there. We don't
want to go anywhere, and if this project goes ahead and they annex it and then they rezone it
for tract development and they put all this in there, some day if I decide to sell and somebody
comes up to my house and they look over my back fence, which is only 646 feet from the
road, and they see 350 homes laying out there, whose going to want to buy it? And my, my
feeling is that this is going to destroy our property values and the map, I've studied the map
because I've got that one right there and I drew in all the parcels and everything, and I
noticed how conveniently it just goes right along everybody's property line across the back
on Crab Hollow Circle and same way down Crooked Arrow. It does not take in anything that
is already owned or pre-developed and, I know somebody mentioned eazlier that the people
of Lake Elsinore wanted to be included in this, well I don't think so, and the reason, because
if we did, if they did, they would have included that in the sphere, but if they would have
included that, then we'd be, we'd be in there too and then they would have to do something
with the roads, and I don't think anybody wants to undertake that cost. And, the only other
thing I've got to say is I don't see where you going to have schools to support all these extra
homes and people.. You have the development down below now. People come tearing down
Lost Road that was never ever developed but should have been to accommodate all the
traffic. That should have been paved and taken care of. People come flying through there.
It's a wonder somebody hasn't gotten killed already. But, anyway, if you haven't guessed,
I'm against the annexation completely because I'm right on the boundary line as our all my
neighbors. Thank you.
7:19:43 PM Chairman O'Neal: Steve Lusty.
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 20 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINU'T`ES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
7:23:34 PM Mr. Mativiar: My fence line will leave, will actually border this. You see, this is
sanitized, this is not reality. This is not what's going to change, it's not what I see. They'll
fill their pockets full of money...
7:23:43 PM Chairman O'Neal: In front of the microphone please.
7:23:47 PM Mr. Mativiar: And go home. You'll drop your bombs and go home and we have
to live with the mess.
7:23:54 PM Chairman O'NeaL• Thank you.
7:23:59 PM Mr. Mativiar: I'm against this. Thank you.
7:24:04 PM Chairman O'Neal: Brenda Schroeder.
7:24:13 PM Brenda Schroeder: Hi, my name is Brenda Schroeder, and I live at 29900 Port
Road in Murrieta. I'm here on behalf of my father, Gordon Barrens, and our family. I am
the co-trustee of my father's trust and we are the owners of 160 acres of the 246 acres of the
Canyon Hills Estate project. In 1943, my father and grandparents purchased a full section of
the 640, which included 640 acres, which at one time took in Crooked Arrow and Navajo
Springs area. Through the years, we have sold off all but the remaining 170 acres of which
160 acres is now in escrow for the Canyon Hills project. Due to my father's health issues,
trust issues, and the current real estate market, we the family, feels that now is the time to
sell. My father who is now 82 years old and is in failing health and is requested that his
wishes be granted in having our property be annexed into the City of Lake Elsinore. Please,
Commission Board understand that we are not requesting for the whole area of Wildomar,
we only requesting that this project of 246 acres be planned. Thank you.
7:25:35 PM Chairman O'Neal: George W. Taylor.
7:25:40 PM George Taylor: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is George Taylor. I
live at 34041 Arrow Hill Road, Wildomar, in the farm, and I've given you all a copy of my
letter that I have written and I'm speaking in opposition of your agenda item No. 5 as you've
stated it, the Canyon Hills Estates annexation. I understand as late as last night, maybe
you've pulled this tract map, 3424, is it 49. If that's the case, then I'll refer to instead of the
development, I'll refer to it as land, which it is right now is raw land. So I'd like to read my
letter into the record if you wouldn't mind. I say, it is my understanding that your
department has received an application requesting the above subject development or land,
whichever the case may be, to be annexed into the City of Lake Elsinore. Please be advised
that the unincorporated area of Riverside known as Wildomar has also filed an application
with LAFCO for cityhood incorporation. As you are aware, in order to serve our residents, if
LAFCO approves our application, we will need to generate as much revenue as we possibly
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 21 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINU'T`ES -FEBRUARY 21.2006
can receive to start up. Hopefully, we will also be able to regain some revenue from the state
to help support the effort. We have established with LAFCO our proposed city boundaries.
That includes the area in question. We have had the required economic studies conducted
and published that support our application to LAFCO. In recent yeazs we have successfully
rolled back the sphere of, the City of Lake Elsinore's sphere of influence that would have
taken potential commercial base from Wildomar. We have also just staved off an annexation
attempt by the City of Murrieta. These efforts were successful because of the Wildomar
citizenry united in a massive effort to fight it. Ethical practice would indicate that all parties
involved a proposal such of this would have been notified at start up. I would prefer to think
that this lack of notification to our Wildomaz Municipal Advisory Council which is basically
our community representatives, on your part was an inadvertent error. Whether it was
inadvertent or not is of great concern to us and may jeopardize our efforts that we have gone
through to get this far. Although you say the City did not promote this action, it is my
opinion that the City of Lake Elsinore should have advised the applicant of our present
process and withheld applications for annexation and if it is still is tract 33249 do that or, of
the land. It's just reasonable that you do that. So I'm requesting at this time that you either
continue this or table it until such time as LAFCO rules on our application for cityhood.
Thank you very much.
7:28:46 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you sir. Steve Uraine.
7:29:04 PM Steve Uraine: Good evening. I'm Steve Uraine and I live at 32255 Navajo
Springs Road in Wildomar. Wildomaz, I like that, I like Wildomar. You know what, I built
my house 17 years ago. Lived out here about 20, built my house 17 yeazs ago, and went
through the whole Pazdee development thing, remember that. You guys, maybe you don't
remember. Pardee came along and was going to do this massive annexation and build all
these houses and I was there, I was in the midst of all that stuff, and as you all know, Pardee
was awarded the annexation or Lake Elsinore, excuse me, and Pardee went ahead with the
development at which time approximately 10 years ago, the city fathers of Lake Elsinore
turned to me and my friends and said, you know what, we want to be good neighbors. We
want to be a good neighbor. I thought, you know what, okay, okay, be a good neighbor.
Since that time, as my friend here says, Wildomar was removed from the sphere of influence
from the City of Lake Elsinore and fought off a sphere of influence from Murrieta. Don't
you guys want to be a good neighbor, I mean, come on? We want to be Wildomar. We are
Wildomaz, we want to be Wildomar, we want to continue with our quest for city wood,
cityhood, and I strongly urge you to consider with, that request. Now, have you guys read
this thing? I mean seriously, have you read that? May I, under the LAFCO requirements
here, reasons for the proposals here. Beneficial services of annexation include a higher level
of public safety and infrastructure, okay. Well, well keep on reading because it's, are there
police stations going to be provided? Well in here it says no. Are there fire stations going to
be provided? Again in here it says no. Libraries, again it says no. Interesting. Schools?
No, it's not in here. The very premise of this application appears faulty. Also in here, it in
the report it says that the development is consistent with Riverside County's land
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 22 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
development. Riverside County's is one unit per five acres, or and/or one-acre lot
minimums. But also in this report if you read it, and I hope you have, I'm sure you must
have, it says 90 clustered units, possibly attached or detached. Now, that's a far cry from one
unit per acre, or one unit for every five acres. Something is amiss here. Something's,
something's not right, okay. I'm not against development. But let's do it right, okay. First
of all we don't want to be a part of Lake Elsinore and, and we want the development to be
proportionate with the area. We're not here to discuss a map. We're not here to discuss
things that are already drawn and saying this is the development. But you know what, a
tentative map, map is required, was required and submitted and I saw (inaudible). I beg you
sir, one more minute.
7:32:24 PM Chairman O'Neal: No.
7:32:32 PM Mr. Uraine: Roads, dust, dirt, road rage, aze all problems. I urge you to vote no
on this annexation. Thank you for the ten seconds.
7:32:44 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you. Bob Cashman.
7:32:57 PM Mr. Cashman: Commissioners, thank you for allowing me time to speak on this
issue. I think you probably.
7:33:03 PM Chairman O'Neal: Your name, your name sir.
7:33:07 PM Mr. Cashman: My name is Bob Cashman. I live at 23630 Peggy Lane in
Wildomaz. Speaking on behalf of the Wildomar Cityhood Committee, Wildomar
Incorporation. Now, let me tell you that we will oppose at every turn and at every level any
attempt by the City of Lake Elsinore to annex territory that lies within our proposed city
boundaries. What are these boundaries? These boundaries have long been recognized. In
fact, they're basically the boundazies of the Wildomaz Municipal Advisory Council 1988.
Further, they aze the official boundaries of the unincorporated community of Wildomar
approved by LAFCO in April of'97. Further, they are the boundaries recently evaluated by
a municipal service review and annexation incorporation city, study by the City of Murrieta.
Lake Elsinore was not a participant of this study. Further, they aze the boundazies used by
the Board of Supervisors in their resolution to initiate the incorporation of Wildomaz.
Finally, they aze the boundaries currently part of the incorporation application filed in
November 2006 at Riverside County LAFCO. We've been here before. In 1986 the
newspapers called our fight about boundary changes a bitter fight. In 1990 it was called a
hostile boundary dispute. Thousands of people in Wildomar protested against boundary
issues that the City of Lake Elsinore had a design over. And again in '93 and again in '95,
and again in '97 when it was finally put to rest we thought, by LAFCO removing your sphere
of influence from these boundaries. Now someone comes along and provides you or
someone with the, to our minds, sideways legal maneuver that may allow you to piecemeal
annex a piece of Wildomar. Somebody offers you an opportunity to, to disrespect your soon
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 22 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
development. Riverside County's is one unit per five acres, or and/or one-acre lot
minimums. But also in this report if you read it, and I hope you have, I'm sure you must
have, it says 90 clustered units, possibly attached or detached. Now, that's a far cry from one
unit per acre, or one unit for every five acres. Something is amiss here. Something's,
something's not right, okay. I'm not against development. But let's do it right, okay. First
of all we don't want to be a part of Lake Elsinore and, and we want the development to be
proportionate with the area. We're not here to discuss a map. We're not here to discuss
things that are already drawn and saying this is the development. But you know what, a
tentative map, map is required, was required and submitted and I saw (inaudible). I beg you
sir, one more minute.
7:32:24 PM Chairman O'Neal: No.
7:32:32 PM Mr. Uraine: Roads, dust, dirt, road rage, are all problems. I urge you to vote no
on this annexation. Thank you for the ten seconds.
7:32:44 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you. Bob Cashman.
7:32:57 PM Mr. Cashman: Commissioners, thank you for allowing me time to speak on this
issue. I think you probably.
7:33:03 PM Chairman O'Neal: Your name, your name sir.
7:33:07 PM Mr. Cashman: My name is Bob Cashman. I live at 23630 Peggy Lane in
Wildomar. Speaking on behalf of the Wildomar Cityhood Committee, Wildomar
Incorporation. Now, let me tell you that we will oppose at every turn and at every level any
attempt by the City of Lake Elsinore to annex territory that lies within our proposed city
boundaries. What are these boundaries? These boundaries have long been recognized. In
fact, they're basically the boundazies of the Wildomar Municipal Advisory Council 1988.
Further, they are the official boundaries of the unincorporated community of Wildomar
approved by LAFCO in April of'97. Further, they are the boundaries recently evaluated by
a municipal service review and annexation incorporation city, study by the City of Murrieta.
Lake Elsinore was not a pazticipant of this study. Further, they are the boundaries used by
the Board of Supervisors in their resolution to initiate the incorporation of Wildomar.
Finally, they are the boundazies currently part of the incorporation application filed in
November 2006 at Riverside County LAFCO. We've been here before. In 1986 the
newspapers called our fight about boundazy changes a bitter fight. In 1990 it was called a
hostile boundary dispute. Thousands of people in Wildomar protested against boundary
issues that the City of Lake Elsinore had a design over. And again in '93 and again in '95,
and again in '97 when it was finally put to rest we thought, by LAFCO removing your sphere
of influence from ,these boundaries. Now someone comes along and provides you or
someone with the, to our minds, sideways legal maneuver that may allow you to piecemeal
annex a piece of Wildomar. Somebody offers you an opportunity to, to disrespect your soon
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 23 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
to be neighboring city, don't take it seriously, what you should do is send this back to the
County and to the community of Wildomar and let us deal with it. This particular boundary
has been in place since 1986 and has formally been recognized since '97. With regard to the
project itself, the Canyon Hills Estates and the annexation, the abrupt attempt to annex this
area is inappropriate. We have submitted our application for incorporation. The current
Wildomar boundary in this area is along a natural geographic feature and represents a logical
boundary for the city limits of Wildomar. Please recommend to your City Council that this
annexation be denied. Thank you.
7:36:29 PM Chairman O'Neal: Bridget Moore.
7:36:36 PM Bridget Moore: Good evening. My name is Bridget Moore. I live at 20151 Hill
Spring Road in Wildomar. As our sign says, we want no boundary change, no sphere of
influence, and we want no annexation. And, yes, I know sphere is spelled wrong. The
printer can't spell. As Kirt said, the Wildomar groups were notified. That is not true. The
MAC, afive-member appointed board by Supervisor Buster, was not notified. Jeremy
pointed out the roads on the map, Lost Road, Conglan Road, all those are Wildomar roads.
Vickie Mata states the landowners have lived there for 20 years and they have been
community members. So for 20 yeazs they've been community members, they've lived in
Wildomar, so I have to ask, why now do they want to be Lake Elsinore?
7:37:29 PM Chairman O'NeaL• Thank you. The final speaker is Linda, I'm sorry, I do not
want to murder your last name.
7:37:42 PM Linda Mativiar: Hi, my name is Linda Mativiar. I live at 32200 Crooked Arrow
Road, formerly lived in Lake Elsinore, up in Tuscany Hills. Went for a ride one day in the
back hills of Wildomaz, found a house, my dream house. Got my husband to come look at
this house. Two and a half acres, everything around it two and a half acres, five acres. This
is what we'd been looking for. This is the community we want to live in. Been to a few
WIN committee meetings. Look at their web site. I want to live in Wildomar, this area that
they're talking about annexing is in Wildomar. I feel that any development that happens in
that azea, the people of Wildomar should benefit from, not the people of Lake Elsinore.
Again, I lived in your fine city. I now call Wildomar my home and I prefer that the
surrounding area that borders my property remain Wildomar. I ask that you please reject this
annexation. Thank you.
7:38:47 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you. Bringing it back up to the dais here. I wish you
all good luck in your drive for cityhood. However, I'm not interested in continuing, tabling
or any other institutional delay of the matter before us for the following reasons. Regardless
of the number of demands WiN with a small "i" makes, and regardless if WiN with a small
"i" represents hundreds of residents, it does not trump Fifth Amendment rights for the
property owners. This request to annex the 246.4 acres into Lake Elsinore is developer
driven. In other words, it is their constitutional right to make a request of Lake Elsinore and
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 24 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
we are obligated to respond. For the record, Lake Elsinore did not look at a map and say, hey
gee here's some prime land all set for annexation. Our city is not Murrieta. We are not
cherry picking. We are not piecemealing annexation. Further, it is interesting to note that
WiN with a small "i" chose not to address any developer rights. As a matter of fact, WiN
with a small "i" chose not to explain any reasons why this property should remain in so-
called Wildomaz. Statements like quote, Lake Elsinore should keep away from our
boundaries, does not bother to express how this action hobbles its incorporation glance.
Gordon Barrens has owned 160 acres for 66 years and expresses his wish that this property
become a part of the wonderful city of Lake Elsinore, that's a quote. (loud laughter from the
audience) Finally, when you chose, when you chose to insult the City staff, you chose to
insult all the residents of Lake Elsinore. I don't, I for one don't hold with that kind of
azrogance or dismissive behavior. Commissioner LaPere.
7:40:47 PM Commissioner LaPere: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Let me finish my note here.
7:40:54 PM Chairman O'Neal: Certainly.
7:40:59 PM Commissioner LaPere: Ladies and gentleman, I just as, want to thank you all for
taking the time to come out and express your views tonight. This is the right of every
individual in the United States and this is why we aze United States citizens, and I respect
that. But as I respect that, we have to respect individual's rights regardless of whether they
are for or against any project. That is our right as a citizen. I've made notes relative to items
that were discussed by the different people. I will try to help maybe enlighten a little bit.
First I will mention as it relates to schools. The, for your information, each individual school
system, the Lake Elsinore Unified School District or other school districts, have the
autonomy to place the schools where they choose. They go through the state, they get their
direction from the state of California, not any one city, they don't have that right. They go
directly with the state and they do that. I for one, as a member of the Commission, have no
desire to go after any land in order to move toward an annexation, however, I have to take
into consideration the request of an individual who owns the land, of a potential developer
who has a right to develop the land should they buy that land and I understand it is in escrow,
they have their rights also and we have to respect that, the same as we are trying to respect
your rights. Okay. We want to listen to you as to what you have to say. Any Fifth
Amendment right to request, we must consider. I mentioned schools. Police, is handled in
the, in the City of Lake Elsinore by the Riverside County Sheriffs Department so I would
suspect that the, the County Sheriff Department would handle things in Wildomaz if you
choose to hire them, or get your own police force. Wildomar being proposed has several
obstacles as I understand them to overcome and you're working towazd that effort. You need
more tax revenue. We would hope that the Governor in, in Sacramento would return some of
the funds that were withdrawn for every city, from every city, as in relationship with the
vehicle, vehicle tax. This I'm sure would help you immensely as it relates to getting
revenues for your incorporation. However, that's not done yet, and quite frankly, I don't
know if it will ever be done. I mean, there's a lot of promises that come from the state
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 25 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
sometimes they just don't come through. And we can do wishful thinking all afternoon. I
for one as an individual, do not like the attitude and I take exception on page 19 is an
example. Page 19 of this, of this letter that was written by, I believe Cindy, if I, if I'm
correct. Cheryl Aide, I'm sorry. On page 19, the last statement does the Planning
Commission members understand the implications of what they're being asked to vote on. I
would submit to you that we do. We're not going after anything in Wildomar. We're
responding to a request from an individual who has a right to request, we're responding to a
potential developer who has the right to develop, and this is what it's all about, and we have
to keep that scope narrow as it relates to the annexation, as it relates to zone change, and, and
other General Plan amendment. Now, Lake Elsinore City General Plan. In, in working with
the (inaudible) and other people relative to that including our attorneys, that plan is not fully
developed yet. I'm sure there will be changes from today until the day that it's adopted by
the City Council. Until that happens, we have obligation to act on the General Plan of the
last time that it was put forth, and I believe that was in the early 19908. Okay. So we have to
use that General Plan in our actions that we take. So, having said all of that and keeping in
mind the ingress and egress traffic, there is, I believe, in, and I'm not sure how many acres,
but maybe the gentleman who was talking about it first, City of Lake Elsinore, for your
information, on the multiple-species habitat, was hit the hardest of any of the cities in this
area. I think we had to provide some, something over close to 16,000 acres of multi-species
habitat. This particular potential land as it relates has the multi-species on it. I think there's
over 100 acres, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that are set aside for that specific item
ofmulti-species habitat. Okay. Now. I respected and listened to you. Now you, you owe us
the same consideration and concern. Okay. Now, in my thinking, because there are so many
approvals that have to be had relative before becoming a city, I'm leaning in a direction and I
have to state this to my fellow Commissioners, I'm leaning in a direction that we would at
this time take no action until it can be determined whether or not LAFCO will approve
Wildomar as a city. Now I do believe also we should put a time limit on that only to
recognize the request of the individual who owns that land, with all due respect, and the
developer who is in the process of buying that land. Okay. That's my thinking right now. I
have nothing else to add to that but to say again, I thank you for coming out this evening.
We appreciate and take into serious consideration your comments that you've made tonight
both positive and, and otherwise. I don't want to say negative because they're positive to
you, not, not necessarily to everybody else. Okay. Mr. Chairman I probably used up three
times my three minutes but I felt it had to be explored and I thank you for that time.
7:48:21 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you Commissioner LaPere. Commissioner Gonzales.
7:48:26 PM Commissioner Gonzales: I lived in Wildomar for seven years and the only
reason I moved out was because the freeway came through and there was anoff--ramp where
my house was. So I moved to north of Elsinore which eventually became annexed. And, I
know your feelings and I feel the same way. I agree with Mr. LaPere that it should be
postponed until we hear from LAFCO. The developer can still go through and either use the
City or the County, it still can be developed that area. I would be very concerned with what
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 26 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
happens to Lost Road. I've lived in this area for 42 years so and I used to go up, not Lost
Road, Cottonwood Canyon Road, and I've driven driver's ed cazs all up and down Lost Road
many times and it's nice. And now it's just massive cars all the time and, but I would rather
postpone this until LAFCO makes a decision. That's my feeling right now.
7:49:27 PM Chairman O'Neal: Vice Chairman Larimer.
7:49:32 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: Thank you Chairman O'Neal. I have a question for
the developer. Jeremy would you come back to the podium please? Someone had asked a
question eazlier why Trumark didn't, does not want to be a part of Wildomar. Would you
explain that?
7:49:56 PM Mr. Krout: For a number of reasons, Ms. Larimer. The, as I mentioned earlier,
the, and the property owners, clearly define as well, their desire has been to be within the
City of Lake Elsinore. They've owned the site for, sites for a number of year, decades
actually, and they feel that their desire is, is to be in the Lake Elsinore, they've identified
with the community and want to be in the City of Lake Elsinore. In addition, for topographic
reasons as I mentioned, as faz as topography leading to the south of the site, getting
increasingly steep, it does create a physical barrier between Lake Elsinore and Wildomar that
the, that really again made the site feel like it was connected more to the city of Lake
Elsinore as opposed to Wildomaz. In addition to that, as I, as I mentioned earlier, Wildomaz
deserves its respect and they are attempting to become a city, however, the, the landowners
feel that the most soluble city and the agency out there is the City of Lake Elsinore. It's
provided service to its residents at a high quality level. I think many of the residents can
speak to that and it's provided those services for yeazs and feel that that would be the best
service provided the property itself as opposed to a, a community that has not formed a city
yet and is unknown whether that will occur. Prior physical, physical analysis shows that that
is not possible, that the city would not be possible. For that reason, the residents also desire
to be in the city as again for fiscally soluble reasons.
7:51:33 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: Thank you. Let's see, there was a gentleman, Bob
Cashman. Would you take the podium please? You aze chairman of the Wildomar
Incorporation Now?
7:51:58 PM Mr. Cashman: Yes, that is correct.
7:52:09 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: Okay. I have just a few questions for you.
7:52:14 PM Mr. Cashman: Sure.
7:52:19 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: And you can cleaz it up for me. Has your committee
ever spoken directly to the landowners about staying in the city, or in Wildomaz?
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 27 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
7:52:23 PM Mr. Cashman: Well, we would be happy to but the landowners have not
approached our committee.
7:52:27 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: And your committee has not approached the
landowners?
7:52:31 PM Mr. Cashman: We would have no reason to approach them and, unless they had
filed something and the only thing they've filed was with you, but we would be happy to do
that. We have no problem.
7:52:34 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: And if LAFCO denies cityhood, what would be your
next step?
7:52:39 PM Mr. Cashman: LAFCO will not deny cityhood. Well you asked for my opinion
on it. I see, if LAFCO denies cityhood, Wildomar will suffer, so, we will do everything we
can do to make LAFCO a city, to make Wildomar a city.
7:52:59 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: So, you have no Plan B?
7:53:04 PM Mr. Cashman: There is no Plan B because we will be a city. Did you have any
other questions?
7:53:16 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: What do you have to offer Trumark?
7:53:24 PM Mr. Cashman: Well, the County of Riverside right now has our planning but
once we are a city, which we believe will be shortly, we'll have a planning department that
will be able to work with Trumark to see what, what they, is appropriate for this area and,
and listen to their plans as to what they want to do to it because surely they have the right to
develop their land.
7:53:46 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: So, okay, so you do agree that they have the right to
develop their land. Do you, do you agree that the landowners have a right to decide now
where they would like to be?
7:53:55 PM Mr. Cashman: It's inappropriate right now. Things are in a flux right now.
They hadn't noticed that these boundaries have been in place since 1986 and that, those
boundaries run on the other side of the, of this property that they're talking about. They
could have noticed that and had they noticed it, they probably would have approached us, or,
they had some other reason, I don't know what it is. I don't know if I answered your
question.
7:54:23 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: I'm not sure either.
Agenda I[em No.
Page of
PAGE 28 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
7:54:27 PM Mr. Cashman: Yeah, could you ask it again.
7:54:30 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: Actually, I forgot what I asked
7:54:33 PM Mr. Cashman: That was pretty good.
7:54:40 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: Okay, let's, what I'm concerned with are the
landowner's right to develop their property or to be a part of Lake Elsinore or Wildomar. If
someone owns 160 acres or 80 acres, that's a lot of acres for them to own. Shouldn't they
have the same rights as everyone else to determine what they want to do with their property?
7:54:58 PM Mr. Cashman: Well, the, the zoning of this area is what's in place right now.
They certainly would have every right at this time to go to the County of Riverside and, and
seek to utilize that zoning that's in place. What we're talking about is the change of zoning,
change of plan, it's, it's a big deal. It's a change from, from the actual conditions under
which they own their property, which I'm okay with, but I don't know why it's being done
this way. Have them come to us.
7:55:35 PM Chairman O'Neal: Commissioner Larimer, would you mind, and the rest of the
panel, would you mind taking afive-minute break?
7:55:41 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: Sure.
7:55:45 PM Speaker May I, I would...
7:55:49 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you.
7:55:53 PM Speaker: We'll come back to that.
7:56:00 PM Speaker: Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman.
7:56:06 PM Chairman O'Neal: Five minutes. Thank you.
7:56:13 PM FIVE MINUTE BREAK
8: 03:10 p.m. Reconvened
8:03:17 PM Chairman O'Neal: Please take your seats. Please take your seats. Hey Rolfe,
I'm waiting on you. Thank you very much. We're back in at 8:05 and Mrs. Larimer you
were, Commissioner Larimer, Vice Chairman, you had the floor.
8:03:45 PM Mr. Cashman: Do you want me to come back up?
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 29 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
8:03:48 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: Yeah, I just like looking at you, why don't you come
back up here?
8:03:50 PM Commissioner LaPere: Don't worry, she's married.
8:03:54 PM Mr. Cashman: How can I help you?
8:04:01 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: Did you ever answer my last question with respect to
the property owner?
8:04:07 PM Mr. Cashman: the property owner has a right to develop is property in
accordance with the plans that are currently on the books with regard to his property. Those
happen to be, I believe, rural mountainous and five acre minimum. Certainly at any time he
can develop his property in accordance with the plans that are on file, how could there be a
problem, except that, of course, he needs to go through all the, a check with the agency that's
gonna do it to make sure that he has satisfied the roads and all that sort of stuff. And I guess
we're not there. But those things would also come up in planning. So, that's where his right
exists right now.
8:04:48 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: About how many residents are there in Wildomar?
8:04:52 PM Mr. Cashman: There's about 26,000.
8:04:57 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: And about how many of the 26,000 do you feel like
you represent with your point of view?
8:05:03 PM Mr. Cashman: The majority. We are clearly thinking that we will have no
problem getting the vote for incorporation.
8:05:1 i PM Vice Chairman Larimer: Thank you.
8:05:16 PM Commissioner LaPere What is the certain timeline whereby LAFCO has to
respond to your committee?
8:05:33 PM Mr. Cashman: The timeline for this round is...
8:05:39 PM Commissioner LaPere: Not this round, what is the timeline? Don't hedge on
me. I want a specific answer. What is the timeline that LAFCO has given you by which to
have an answer in your hands relative to your city-hood?
8:05:50 PM Mr. Cashman: Late August.
8:05:53 PM Commissioner LaPere: Late August of this year?
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 30 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
8:05:57 PM Mr. Cashman: Correct
8:06:00 PM Mr. Commissioner LaPere: And late August meaning what to your committee?
8:06:04 PM Mr. Cashman: Meaning that it's going to be contingent on the exact time the
auditor has prepared the finances for the next year. So that's generally some time in August.
It could be later, but it's generally, so I in fact asked him that question today and he said mid
to late August.
8:06:18 PM Commissioner LaPere: Mid to late August. That's the best time frame they will
give you at this point?
8:06:26 PM Mr. Cashman: Right, because, yeah that's what I got.
8:06:33 PM Commissioner LaPere If I were to call LAFCO tomorrow and say, when do you
expect to act on the request of the City of Wildomar, would they give me that same answer?
8:06:39 PM Mr. Cashman: They will be acting on the five things we have to do, but
everything has to be completed by August.
8:06:48 PM Commissioner LaPere: Ok, that's all I have, thank you.
8:06:54 PM Mr. Cashman: Ok, thank you. Anyone else?
8:06:57 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you Commissioner LaPere. I would like to turn to
Attorney Miles and perhaps you might want to discuss a little bit about some of these issues
that we've been talking about.
8:07:07 PM Deputy City Attorney Mites: Just briefly in order to make sure that some of the
issues raised were answered and addressed so that all of the Planning Commissioner's
concerns may be met. I wanted to run through a short list of issues that I jotted down from
the Public Hearing. Following a brief review of those issues, I'd then like to address the
specific question of whether this Commission can postpone or put off these proceedings until
LAFCO takes action. There's a few governing provisions of Cortese Knox Act that do affect
that. I wanted to bring those to your attention and then we can discuss any viable parameters
on postponement, if in fact that's still a direction that the Commission would like to visit.
First, I've got a list of about 14 issues. The first issue came up quite frequently with the
notice provision. There was concern about whether or not Wildomar was notified of this
Negative Declaration, this development application, in the form of an annexation proposal.
And just to make it absolutely clear in the record, there were two entities that were notified in
Wildomar. That included the Wildomar Chamber of Commerce and that's at 33751 Mission
Trail and P.O. Box 885, Wildomar; and also went to WIN, attention Jan Castenon, 33751
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 31 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINU'T'ES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
Mission Trail, P.O. Box 885, Wildomar, CA. 92515. Just wanted to make sure that this is the
submittal date for circulation of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, appendix A-2.
This would have been distributed at the beginning of the comment period, and I believe it
was January 20~'. On a second note, area that came up for discussion was the area of trails.
Again staff has made it very clear and I believe even Wildomar understands that this in an
Annexation application. Infrastructure and project level entitlements are not being
considered at the present time and I believe that trail issues can rightfully be brought up in
subsequent public hearings; including the general plan update process that's ongoing
currently which will address this project. Second is roads, similar answer to that, all
infrastructure based on a decision are project level. The general plan update is going to
assume a certain dwelling unit count and use that for their traffic infrastructure analysis so
that general plan update process is something that you can get involved in; and as a point of
clarification the general plan advisory committee meetings have been discussing this project
and there was a comment to the effect that they did not, in fact they've made specific
comments to this project and Rolfe can go into a little greater detail on that. Here was an
issue raised about the historical significance for some historical mines. CEQA guidelines,
section 15064.5 is a very detailed guideline that talks about historical resources again at the
point where there's a project level entitlement, historical significance of resources will be
determined. And in fact, it goes beyond that, it goes to prehistory and cultural resources and
the City is coordinating under SB18 with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians to
address prehistorical and cultural significance as well. That is a consultation process that's
required at the general plan amendment level and so that's ongoing for this project; will be
ongoing as part of the general plan update. There's some concern over the 30 day comment
period that ended yesterday. I want to point out that comments are all valid up to the close of
the public hearing, which is occurring right now. And that's the purpose of the public
hearing is to take your concerns and address those, which I'm doing, which staff has been
doing and the submitted comments as well have been reviewed and have been summarized
by some of the oral comments and are being addressed right now. And they are addressed in
the staff report and they will continue to be addressed when this goes to the decision making
body, which is the City Council. There was a comment about wildlife concerns. I just
wanted to point out that under the MSHCP that this property is actually in an area that had no
cell criteria. Which means that there were no identified qualitative or quantitative criteria for
conservation for any of the property and open space, so again there has been an incidental
take permit issued for the entire MSHCP and this is something that endangered habitats
league, sierra club and everybody else as stakeholders bought into. There was confusion
over what open space was being proposed at the conceptual level and because there was a
conceptual site map, it was identified as a tract map, it was given a tract map number,
although the City can't take action on a tract map on property that's not in the City, that site
map, that conceptual site map, did indicate that approximately 130 acres in the interior of the
project would be set aside for conservation. Although the MSHCP does not require it, that's
what being proposed at the conceptual level at the present time. Schools and roads, again
SB50, Commissioner LaPere addressed it. It is a state mandated activity. The state and the
division of state architects determine where schools go. Senate Bill 50 dictates what
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 32 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
developers pay per dwelling unit to fund schools and unfortunately the state has preempted
that field of law and the City does not have a whole lot of say about that. There was
discussion about good neighbors and I just wanted to point out that there is quite a bit of
history to this area. As we all know, it was within the City of Lake Elsinore prior to 1997.
The City did defend its rights for some of its spheres of influence areas, unincorporated
communities and community of interest designations. And during the Murrieta annexation, it
was the City of Lake Elsinore, initially, that really was the, took the forefront and threatened
litigation against the City of Murrieta, which resulted in a tolling agreement under California
Environmental Quality Act. So it was the City of Lake Elsinore that was fairly active in
ensuring that a portion of Wildomar was not annexed into the City of Murrieta. In
addressing those issues that came up, what we now have is the question of whether or not the
City can or should postpone their approval of this activity until such time as LAFCO takes
action on an annexation proposal or basically the incorporation effort of Wildomaz. There
are two provisions of the Cortese-Knox Act that do govern this. The first is Government
Code Section 56375, subpart A, subpart 3. And that part states that the Commission,
LAFCO, shall require as a condition to annexation, that a City pre-zone the territory to be
annexed. If you read that requirement, that mandate that pre-zoning be in place in condition
of annexation, if you read Government Code Section 56655, which states that if two or more
proposals, pending before the Commission conflict in any way aze inconsistent with each
other as determined by the Commission, the Commission may determine the relative priority
for conducting any further proceedings based on any of those proposals. That determination
shall be included in the terms and conditions opposed by the Commission. In the absence of
that determination, priority is given to that proceeding that shall be based upon the proposal
first filed with the executive officer. So, the Cortese-Knox Act recognizes that pre-zoning
shall be a condition to an annexation proceeding and that there is competing proposals. I
think that's what we have here, but the statute does address that, and there's a procedure in
place by which that will occur. I think the Commission would probably be skirting its
obligation if it were to just say let's see what happens in the next six months to a year to
possibly two yeazs. This has been a process that has been going on for about nine years, by
my count. Again with that obligation for pre-zoning, I would opine that it would not be the
appropriate course for this Commission to defer to a future discretionary action of LAFCO
before taking it's obligation for pre-zoning. That isn't to say that as a policy matter, I don't
perceive any legal issues that would mandate a continuance. From a policy level, this
Commission could, if there are concerns that haven't been addressed, and if the Commission
doesn't believe staff can address those concerns presently, certainly a reasonable continuance
could be considered.
8:18:25 PM Commissioner LaPere: Mr. Chairman can I ask a question? In layman terms,
you say that the Commission could, if it chose, to act on apre-zoning, but defer action on
annexation.
8:18:38 PM Deputy City Attorney Miles: I'm saying that the Commission should, is
obligated to undertake the pre-zoning, but if, again, the question was with respect to whether
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 33 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
you can wait until LAFCO rules on an incorporation proposal. And what I pointed out is
there aze two provisions. One that talks about how to deal with conflicting proposals and a
second provision that talks about pre-zoning having to be a precursor to an annexation
proposal before LAFCO. So this Commission should pre-zone, and that pre-zoning and
annexation proposal can be reviewed by LAFCO contiguously with the Wildomar
incorporation proposal. Now confinuously would be for the whole thing. This Planning
Commission can always continue an item if there are concerns that are not addressed, you
can have a continuance to a date certain, however much time you might need. A continuance
level is always an option for the Commission. Legally, I'm not perceiving any reason why
that would be a mandate at the present time, and from my read of the Cortese-Knox Act, this
Commission should act on the pre-zoning indirect, without regard to what the Wildomaz
incorporation application is. You don't have control over that, the time frame for that could
go on, who knows how long.
8:20:25 PM Commissioner Gonzales: Could I ask a question on that?
s:2o:3o PM Commissioner LaPere: I'm still a little confused here. My thinking is this, and
you can tell me if I'm thinking correctly or not. We act on the pre-zoning, but continue to
date certain the action as it relates to the annexation until they have an answer from LAFCO.
8:20:54 PM Deputy City Attorney Miles: I think that, again and Kirt can jump in here. The
pre-zoning is really part and parcel to annexation action that the Planning Commission is
being asked to do right now. If there is a desire to continue this item in its entirety, that can
be something that can be accomplished. But in terms of whether or not this Commission
could put off its decision until some future decision by LAFCO, what I pointed out is that
there is apre-zoning requirement in the Cortese-Knox Act and LAFCO has the statutory
ability to deal with competing proposals, so the procedure of the Cortese-Knox Act allows
LAFCO to deal with this annexation proposal and the Wildomar incorporation proposal at
the same time. So there's no indication that the incorporation proposal needs to be resolved
before LAFCO before this Planning Commission can undertake its pre-zoning function.
8:22:05 PM Chairman O'Neal: In other words, neither application trumps either. So in
another words, their application is not affected by whatever action we take here. Because
they can look at both of them at the same time.
8:22:22 PM Deputy City Attorney Miles: LAFCO may have a viewpoint on priority, and I
did read that provision as well, but the Cortese-Knox Act envisions that LAFCO will be able
to look at those competing proposals and make a determination. We don't know when that
will occur, so if you need continuance based on concerns that haven't been addressed or
you're not at a level where you feel you can make a decision at the present time that ean be
entertained. But it's basically the entirety of this application. There's really no, with the
Negative Declazation, Pre-Zoning and the General Plan Amendment, there's really no reason
to move forward on one and not the other.
Agenda Item No
Page of
PAGE 35 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
was a conceptual site plan or the "tentative tract map" so I just wanted to clarify that we did
bring this to the General Plan Advisory Committee.
8:27:26 PM Chairman O'Neal: Thank you Rolfe. Is there any further discussion on this?
8:27:31 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: If we continue this, that's holding up the process, so we
should make a decision.
8:27:36 PM Chairman O'Neal: You should continue this if you do not have all the answers
about whether or not you should annex this. If you have all the information that you need,
then you should approve. It's that simple. If you feel like you need more information, you
can't make this decision, then you need to make a request for a continuance for a date
certain, for whatever information that you need to get that you can't make this decision right
now. Rolfe.
8:28x3 PM Planning Commissioner LaPere: Mr. Chair, if I might. Could the developer.
Jeremy would come forward please? I have a question. If for any reason this is continued,
what would that do to your plans, in a nutshell?
8:28:54 PM Jeremy Krout: The main thing, just to go back to what we were talking about
as far the annexation. It really is the first step in a multi month process that needs to be
', considered by many bodies and that process would be delayed.
8:29:21 PM Commissioner LaPere: What does this do to your time schedule?
8:29:24 PM Jeremy Krout: It would delay the annexation request. LAFCO has a certain time
frame that they would work within once City approves it. The concern is as far as tying it
Wildomar incorporation effort is that they have their own time frame and LAFCO will
consider that. We also want LAFCO to consider our project as a body who considers
boundaries for cities and for counties, we want to put in their hands to decide this project as
opposed to the City, which would look at the plans, the services and so forth at a later date,
which would submit to the City once the annexation is approved or during that process.
8:30:03 PM Rick Goacher: Commissioner, what you don't see is the business deal on the
other side of this. You have the end result for that business deal in front of you. There is a 2
year period in which to take an action and it sounds as if we might be standing idle for a
period of time where nothing gets to happen if there is a continuance that comes about the
way I'm hearing in the audience.
8:30:47 PM Commissioner LaPere: I wonder if it would be appropriate to make a motion at
this time.
8:30:58 PM Chairman O'Neal: What kind of motion would you like to make?
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 36 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
8:31:07 PM Commissioner LaPere: I would like to make a motion to continue to date certain.
8:31:11 PM Chairman O'Neal: And how long would that be?
8:31:17 PM Commissioner LaPere: I would say until the first meeting in September.
8:31:17 PM Chairman O'Neal: There is a motion on the floor to continue this to until
September.
8:31:23 PM Commissioner LaPere: First meeting date in September
8:31:29 PM Office Specialist III Alexen: That would be September 5th.
8:31:35 PM Commissioner LaPere: I would like to make a motion to continue this item until
September Su and if there is still no action from the governing body, with which they're
applying, we revisit this and take appropriate action at that time.
8:31:46 PM Chairman O'Neal: Do I have a second to this motion?
8:31:48 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: Discussion.
8:31:53 PM Chairman O'Neal: Do I have a second to this motion?
8:31:57 PM Commissioner Gonzales: Second.
8:32:00 PM Chairman O'Neal: Any further discussion?
8:32:04 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: Yes. I just want to be clear about what the developer
said about the two year period. At September will you be past the two year period?
8:32:19 PM Rick Goacher: If it stands idle during that period of time, nothing has happened,
it will come back in September, but we don't know whether you're going to say yes or no at
that point in time obviously either, so does the developer go ahead and consummate the deal,
do they continue spending money during this period time, do they continue in the
government process? We don't know where that really puts us at all. It would end in
November and I don't think this agency is prepared to move us through your system in City
Council prior to November, starting in September, I don't think it's humanly possible, let
alone procedurally possible.
8:33:06 PM Chairman O'Neal: I have to say that I'm totally against this continuance. I do not
understand the point to continuing this until September for the main reason is that if you need
more information, Ron, I'd be more than happy to have the staff to get you more information
Agenda I[em No.
Page of
PAGE 37 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
to continue it to a two week period, but it's simply not in the best interest of what we're
doing here to continue this until next September. Quite frankly, I'm ready to act on this
particular business this evening. I believe that as the attorney has suggested to us, that there
are two tracts and neither one affects the other one in terms of what decision ultimately will
be made by LAFCO. I think we are behooving to the property owners to address their
concerns. I believe that that is more significant and trumps the committees that the area of
Wildomar have put together for their business. And quite frankly, that you become a City,
I'm not against that and you should understand that, so that would be why I would not be
particularly interested in continuing this until next September. I think that's counter
productive, particularly to the people who have money on the line.
8:34:58 PM Commissioner LaPere: Thank you for your comments Mr. Chairman. The
attorney has indicated that our action could have a direct impact or hit on the consideration of
them as a City in not a positive way and that's what led me to believe that if we could
continue this until that certain date in September, regardless of whether the governing body
has responded to them yea or nea, that we take the appropriate action at that time. My
leaning at that point in time would be that we go through with it and complete it, but it at
least gives them the opportunity to hear from that governing body whom they have applied
for a response. And I apologize to the developer or to a deal that may be in the process and
to the owner, but at some point in time that action is going to be taken and that's why I
suggested September 5th, which is our first meeting in September.
8:36:11 PM Deputy City Attorney Miles: Mr. Chairman, can I make a quick point. With
respect to the issue of whether or not the removal of 246 acres will or will not affect the
Wildomar incorporation effort, that will be a determination that LAFCO will make, and
again that was the intent for why I read Government Code Section 56655, which states that
the LAFCO Commission will engage in this weighing of competing proposals and that will
be the time and the place to hash that out. Again it's based on a lot of factors that I don't
think are present for us, it is in the purview of LAFCO I think it's probably largely based on
a lot of information that is yet to be developed, namely the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis
that Wildomar is preparing, in addition to a litany of other documents and evidence that
LAFCO will weigh and look in at competing proposals. So if your concern is not wanting to
impair the Wildomar incorporation effort, LAFCO will be making that determination if and
when they approve the annexation proposal.
8:37:31 PM Commissioner LaPere: Thank you.
8:37:38 PM Chairman O'Neal: is there any further discussion on this particular matter?
8:37:42 PM Commissioner Gonzales: I'd like to withdraw my motion.
8:37:55 PM Chairman O'Neal: Ok. So now there is a motion with no second. Is there any
second?
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 38 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
8:38:01 PM Commissioner Gonzales: I withdrew my second.
8:38:08 PM Chairman O'Neal: So there's a first with no second. Call for a second. Hearing
none, Rolfe.
8:38:19 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: I'm sorry, were we going to have a discussion?
8:38:26 PM Deputy City Attorney Miles: The motion failed for lack of a second, so we're
back to square one. The proposal before you or to entertain any additional motions.
8:38:37 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: Well, I'd like to see a compromise between both the
extremes we have here in the audience and here on the Commission. I do think that
September is a long time and that's going affect the developer, but I do think that the
Wildomar residents probably need some more time, so I would like to see something in
maybe 45 days.
8:39:10 PM Chairman O'Neal: So you'd like a 45 day continuance, is that correct? That
would be your motion?
8:39:20 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: Yes, what, I'm sorry. They're not going to hear
anything until June.
8:39:31 PM The audience said, "August "
8:39:35 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: Ok, well, forget that motion.
8:39:39 PM Chairman O'Neal: Rolfe, one more time.
8:39:46 PM Commissioner LaPere: Thank you Mr. Chairman for your patience.
MOVED BY O'NEAL, SECONDED BY LARIMER WITH A
VOTE OF 2-2, WITH GONZALES AND LAPERE CASTING
THE DISSENTING VOTES TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.
2006-14, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE
DECLARATION N0.2006-02.
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 39 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINU'T`ES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
MOVED BY O'NEAL, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
15, ARESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 2005-08 AMENDING THE CITY'S
BOUNDARY TO INCORPORATE PARCELS SPECIFICALLY
DESCRIBED AS APN(S) 365-220-026, 365-230-001, 005, 006, 007,
009, 010, 011, 012, AND 013. THE MOTION FAILED DUE TO
LACK OF A SECOND.
MOVED BY O'NEAL, SECONDED BY LARIMER AND
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 3-1, WITH GONZALES CASTING
THE DISSENTING VOTE, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.
2006-16, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE (PRE-
ZONE) NO. 2005-09 TO CHANGE THE ZONING
DESIGNATION OF THE PARCELS SPECIFICALLY
DESCRIBED AS APN(S) 365-220-026, 365-230-001, 005, 006, 007,
009, 010, 011, 012 AND 013 TO SP SPECIFIC PLAN SUBJECT
TO COMPLETION OF THE ANNEXATION NO. 75.
MOVED BY O'NEAL, THE MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK
OF A SECOND TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2006-17, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE
COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX THE
TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS ANNEXATION NO. 75 APN(S)
365-220-026, 365-230-001, 005, 006, 007, 009, 010, 011, 012, AND
013 INTO THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY
OF LAKE ELSINORE.
There being no further business, Chairman O'Neal closed the Public Hearing at 8:43:54 PM
and called a five minute recess.
8:55:13 PM Chairman O'Neal reconvened the meeting.
8:55:22 PM Deputy City Attorney Miles: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have a point of order in
the last sequence of approvals or lack of approvals.
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 41 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
8:58:17 PM Director of Community Development Preisendanz: Ok.
8:59:12 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: I'm sorry, I was waiting for discussion again. I wasn't
clear. I voted for this in the beginning.
8:59:25 PM Deputy City Attorney Miles: Is this a question for me Commissioner?
8:59:30 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: Yes.
8:59:36 PM Deputy City Attorney Miles: What aze you not clear about specifically?
8:59:40 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: We're reading the same one where there's a three one
vote.
8:59:47 PM Deputy City Attorney Miles: Correct, I asked for a reconsideration of the matter,
given that the Planning Commission can't approve a Zone Change after a General Plan
Amendment has failed for lack of a second. It's internally inconsistent. And actually it
started with a 2-2 vote on the Negative Declazation. You have not approved or given an
affirmative action on the Negative Declaration that is the backbone for all these other
recommended approvals. So the 3-1 is inconsistent. I sought reconsideration, the Chair
reconsidered the motion and I would expect that it would fail for lack of a second or possibly
a 2-2 vote, that way the entire package following the Negative Declazation Resolution would
be shipped up to the City Council. But as it stands right now, you have an inconsistency with
the Zone Change approval that you can't have. It's improper to approve a Zone Change
when you have not approved the Negative Declaration and you've failed to take action on the
General Plan Amendment for lack of a second.
9:00:57 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: And then Ron made a motion to approve.
9:01:04 PM Chairman O'Neal: Which then nobody seconded, so the whole thing dies. Which
is the desired result.
9:01:13 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: No, I understand that, but if that's not my desired
vote...
9:01:18 PM Chairman O'Neal: Ok, I have a first on the floor if you'd like to second.
9:01:29 PM Vice Chairman Larimer: I'll second.
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 43 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
and I appreciate their contribution to this. He stated that they are recommending that the
Planning Commission determine that the acquisition of the donated property by Grant Deed
to the City an acquisition of property inconformity with the General Plan. He noted there are
actually 4 recommendations. He stated that this proposal would determine that the
acquisition of the donated property in subsequent conveyance of the right-of--way for La
Strada Road is consistence with the MSHCP and the General Plan circulation element and
with the acquisition the proposed final map will remain in substantial compliance with the
map. He stated that Staff would direct City Council as required by Section 65042 of the
Government Code.
9:04:33 PM Chairman O'Neal requested comments from the Commission.
9:04:33 PM Commissioner LaPere concurred with Staff's recommendations.
9:04:35 PM Vice Chairman Larimer concurred with Staffls recommendations.
9:04:41 PM Commissioner Gonzales concurred with Staffls recommendations.
9:05:14 PM There being no further discussion Chairman O'Neal requested a Motion.
MOVED BY O'NEAL, SECONDED BY LARIMER, AND
PASSED BY VOTE OF 4-0 RECOMMEDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, MULTIPLE
SPECIES HABITAT CONVERSATION PLAN (MSHCP),
SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, AND GENERAL PLAN
CONFORMITY DETERMINATIONS FOR REQUESTED
DONATION BY GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE FOR APPROXIMATELY 85 ACRES OF LAND
WITHIN THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE OWNED BY LA
STRADA PARTNERS, LLC.
7. General Plan Conformity Determination for Requested Grant Deed to Pardee
Homes for Aauroximately 3.27 Acres of City-Owned Land within the Citv of Lake
Elsinore.
9:05:23 PM Chairman O'Neal requested the reading of the Staff Report.
9:05:33 PM Community Development Director Preisendanz stated that this project is a
request for a Grant Deed to Pardee Homes for approximately 3.27 acres that is in accordance
with Government Code Section 65402. He stated that the Planning Commission must render
the report within 40 days from the date that the matter has been submitted. He stated that the
Agenda IIem No
Page of
PAGE 44 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
recommendation is to determine that the conveyance of the property by Grant Deed to Pardee
Homes is a disposition of the property inconformity with the City of Lake Elsinore General
Plan, and is to direct Staff to forward a copy of the report to City Council.
9:06:39 PM Chairman O'Neal requested the Commissioner's comments.
9:06:44 PM Commissioner LaPere concurred with Staffls recommendations.
9:06:50 PM Commissioner Gonzales concurred with Staff's recommendations.
9:07:00 PM Vice Chairman Larimer concurred with Staffls recommendations.
9:07:07 PM Chairman O'Neal concurred with Staffl s recommendations, and called for a
Motion.
MOVED BY O'NEAL, SECONDED BY LAPERE, AND PASSED
BY VOTE OF 4-0 RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, GENERAL
PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMINATION FOR REQUESTED
GRANT DEED TO PARDEE HOMES FOR APPROXIMATELY
3.27 ACRES OF CITY-OWNED LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE.
8. Residential Design Review No. 2005-12 "Broadstone Rivers Edee Apartments".
9:07:18 PM Chairman O'Neal requested the reading of the Staff report.
9:07:29 PM Community Development Director Preisendanz stated that this is a Residential
Design Review for the Broadstone Rivers Edge Apartments and requested Project Planner
Miller to review it with the Commission.
9:08:32 PM Project Planner Miller stated that this project would be on a seven (7) acre site,
to include nine (9) proposed buildings. She stated that the buildings would range in size
from 755 square feet to 1,055 square feet. She stated that each unit would have either a
balcony or court yard with private yard open space area. She noted that the project would
include 58 enclosed garage spaces, a recreation room, pool and spa. She stated that the
architectural design would be Craftsman, complying with the requiring styles of the East
Lake Specific Plan. She indicated that the application would provide 35% landscaping and
six (6) foot high stone-faced pilasters with decorative metal fencing. She indicated that Staff
is recommending approval of this project based on the Findings, Exhibits, and Conditions of
Approval. She stated that the applicant is present to answer any questions that the
Commission may have.
Agenda Item N°.
Page of
PAGE 45 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
9:11:36 PM Chairman O'Neal requested comments from the Public.
9:11:39 PM Drew Calquit, 24240 Main Street, Irvine stated that he is the partner/applicant for
the project. He stated he is very proud of developing in the City, and has enjoyed working
the Staff. He stated that Alliance is a developer of luxury multi-family communities across
the Western United States.
9:14:58 PM Chairman O'Neal requested Commissioners comments.
9:15:06 PM Commissioner LaPere indicated that the project looks very appealing. He stated
that it is a big plus to have affordable housing in the City and concurred with Staffls
recommendations.
9:15:32 PM Commissioner Gonzales asked if the entire project would be affordable.
9:15:39 PM Kelly Carlisle 3187 Redhill Avenue indicated that there would be 28 affordable
units and they would be floating unit.
9:16:12 PM Commissioner Gonzales asked if they would be rentals.
9:16:14 PM Ms. Carlisle stated that this would be a rental community.
9:16:24 PM Commission Gonzales asked about flooding in the area.
9:16:35 PM Ms. Carlisle stated that the levy near the project should help significantly. She
stated that the finished floor is compliant with the City's Standazds of 1,267.
9:17:02 PM Commissioner Gonzales asked the applicant on how far is the project from the
river.
9:17:02 PM Kelly Carlisle stated it is about 20 feet.
9:17:45 PM Commissioner Gonzales asked the applicant where is the soil coming from.
9:17:56 PM Ms. Carlisle stated that the soil would come from the basin.
9:18:21 PM Commissioner Gonzales asked if there would be an elevator, and would the
apartments be furnished.
9:18:26 PM Ms. Carlisle stated that the apartments would not be finished, nor is there an
elevator.
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 46 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
9:18:54 PM Speaker (name is inaudible) stated that the stairs are wide enough to
accommodate moving in large pieces of furniture, etc.
9:19:27 PM Commissioner Gonzales asked the applicant on how they intended on controlling
traffic issues, especially on Taylor Street where there is no exit.
9:20:13 PM Speaker stated that there would be a full time 24-hour staff that would monitor
where the moving trucks would be parked.
9:21:28 PM Commissioner Gonzales stated that it looks nice; however he would like to see an
exit in and out of there.
9:22:09 PM Community Development Director Preisendanz asked the applicant what the
pad elevations would be.
9:22:10 PM Speaker stated that the pad elevations aze a minimum of 1,267 feet and higher.
9:22:34 PM Vice Chairman Larimer stated that she likes the design and elevations and the
color choices: She commended the applicant for the affordable housing however she asked if
any of the first floor units would be wheelchair accessible.
9:23:53 PM Speaker stated that all first floor units aze accessible.
9:24:27 PM Vice Chairman Larimer wanted clarification on the inside of the unit.
9:24:27 PM Speaker stated that all ground floor units would have larger door space,
additional maneuvering space in the kitchen area and bathroom as well as the recreation
room near the pool area.
9:24:50 PM Vice Chairman Larimer had no further questions.
9:24:59 PM Chairman O'Neal had no comments and requested the reading of the
Resolutions.
MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY LARIMER, AND
PASSED BY VOTE OF 4-0 ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO.
2006-20, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CA. ADOPTING
FINDINGS OF CONSISTANCY WITH SECTION 6.1.2 OF
MULTIBLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR
THE PROJECT KNOWN AS BROADSTONE RIVERS EDGE
APARTMENTS.
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 47 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY GONZALES, AND
PASSED BY VOTE OF 4-0 ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO.
2006-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CA. APPROVING
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005-12 FOR THE
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF
BROADSTONE RIVERS EDGE APARTMENTS A
RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT COMPLEX CONSISTING OF A
184 TOTAL UNITS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN PLANNING
AREA SIX (6) OF THE EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN APN:
373-210-001, 373-222-001, 005, 006.
INFORMATIONAL
None
STAFF COMMENTS
None
PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner LaPere commented on the followine:
• He stated that it has been a very tedious evening and thanked Staff for their patience
to include the audience while the Planning Commission worked through the issues
that were presented at tonight's meeting.
Vice Chairman Larimer commented on the followine:
• Thanked Staff for their hard work on the projects that were presented at this meeting.
• She indicated that she would attend a conference in Riverside on Wednesday
February 22 and will report any information that would be beneficial to the Planning
Commission at the next meeting.
Commissioner Gonzales commented on the followine:
• He wanted to advise the Commission that he would be attending the League of Cities
conference on Mazch 22, 2006 which would mean that he would be unavailable to
attend the Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for the that night.
Agenda Item No.
Page of
PAGE 48 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 2006
Chairman O'Neal commented on the followine:
• None.
ADJOURNMENT
9:2935 PM THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, CHAIRMAN O'NEAL
ADJOURNED THE MEETING ON FEBRUARY 21.2006.
Respectfully Submitted,
1
Dana C. Porche' for Lisa Alexen
Office Specialist III
ATTEST:
Rolfe Preisendanz,
Director of Community Development
Agenda I[em No.
Page of