HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-05-2006 NAHMINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
183 NORTH MAIN STREET
- LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman O'Neal called the Regulaz Planning Commission Meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Mendoza, led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS:
O'NEAL, GONZALES, MENDOZA,
FLORES, ZANELLI
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Also present were: Community Development Director Preisendanz, Planning Manager
', Weiner, City Engineer Seumalo, Deputy City Attorney Santana, Senior Planner Harris,
_ ' Associate Planner Carlson, Planning Consultant Miller, Associate Planner Resendiz, and
Office Specialist Dana Porche'
PUBLIC COMMENTS INon-Aeenda items)
NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chair O'Neal requested to pull item No. 2.
MOVED BY ZANELLI, SECONDED BY FLORES AND
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE THE
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS NO.
1, 3, AND 4.
2. Minor Design Review for two (2) Single Family Residences located on two (2)
separate lots at 294 (APN: 272-043-003) and 296 (APN: 373-043-0021 Moroni
Street.
Project Planner Resendiz presented the Minor Design Review of two (2) Single Family
Residences with an attached 2-car garage for each unit. Project Planner Resendiz indicated
that the building will be Craftsman in architectural style. He further stated that Staff has
determined that the project meets the requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and
PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTMBER 5, 2006
that Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution approving the
proposed residential design.
The applicant, Arturo Perez 168 W. 43`d Street, Los Angeles, advised the commission that he
is present.
Chair O'Neal stated that he pulled this item because of reverse and repeat design, and
questioned the applicant on what the building is supposed to look like. He also stated that the
pictures submitted do not reflect what he has in his back up material. There are missing
elevations, and the drawings are different. The applicant stated there have been changes,
since first submitting the application, he also stated what is on the screen is what is correct.
Chair O'Neal said that this will be accepted with the plans revised on June 15, 2006, sheets
AS 1, A3, which are shown on the screen with the enhanced architectural features.
MOVED BY ZANELLI, SECONDED BY FLORES,
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-1 BY THOSE PRESENT, TO
APPROVE A MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TWO (2)
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES LOCATED ON TWO
SEPARATE LOTS LOCATED AT 294 (APN: 373-043-003)
AND 296 (373-043-002) MORONI STREET
Chair O'Neal requested a recess at 6:23:04 PM
Chair O'Neal reconvened the meeting at 6:27:20 PM
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5. Annexation No. 78: General Plan Amendment No. 2006-O1; Pre-annexation Zone
Change No. 2006-03; Mitieated Neeative Declaration No. 2006-03 a request to
redesignate21.13acres from County Zonine of Very Low Density Residentiah 1 acre
minimum lot size (VLDR) to "East Canyon Hills Specific Plan", and pre-zonine
from County Residential Aericulture-1, one acre minimum lot size to "East Canyon
Hills Specific Plan".
Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearing at 6:29:07 PM .
Director of Community Development Preisendanz presented the items and turned it over to
Project Planner Carole Donahoe for formal presentation.
Associate Planner Donohoe related that the C & J Family Trust requests Annexation of 21.13
acres, which is vacant land adjacent to the city boundaries, at the city's far eastern edge. The
property is currently in the County of Riverside's jurisdiction.
PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~EPTMBER 5, 2006
Associate Planner Donahoe indicated that the applicant is requesting a zone change for this
property as well as a General Plan Amendment to the East Canyon Lake Specific Plan, in
order to utilize the Specific Plan Designation and ultimate zoning standards.
The project lies between Holland Road to the North and Corson Road to the South, just
Westerly of Anna Lane. The existing County zoning is Residential-Agriculture, one (1) acre
minimum lot size. Staff found that the subject site is not part of the Wildomar incorporation
effort, but it is part of the proposed City of Menifee Valley Incorporation.
In conclusion Project Planner Donahoe stated she has received some phone calls regarding
disturbing information being disseminated into the Menifee Valley area. A flyer has been
posted on fences and mailboxes, bearing my name (Carole Donahoe) and the flyer indicated
that it came from the City or Planner Donahoe. The only flyer that went out was a notice of
the meeting occurring tonight. Planner Donohoe requested Attorney Santana to provide
some information on eminent domain. City Attorney Santana stated that the process of
eminent domain is completely driven by the City Council and the City Council has to adopt a
resolution of necessity indicating that a portion of land will be subject to the eminent domain
provisions. At this point the City Council has not made any indication to Staff that eminent
domain is going to be utilized.
Sheila Thornberg, a property owner 25710 Holland Road, Menifee stated she is opposed to
any annexation or zone change. She stated she would like to keep the rural lifestyle.
Joan Leonhardi, 31040 Byers Street, Menifee, stated that she resides 2.5 acres from the site
of the proposed annexation. She stated she lives in the oldest part of Menifee Valley, without
street lights, on dirt roads and they enjoy the rural lifestyle.
Julie Cheney 31300 Hawthorne Street, Menifee, stated she was in opposition of the Lake
Elsinore annexation and re-zoning, this will have a negative effect on the quality of life for
the rural residents and for the future tract home owners.
Tom Fuhrman, 25690 Holland Road Menifee. He stated projects to need to be planned years
in advance and looked at on a long term basis. He also stated current residents need to be
considered, as well as the effect on their way of living.
Beverly Sherratt 31139 Anna Lane, Menifee, stated of all the species of animals and Native
American artifacts that will be lost if tract homes are put there. She also stated the run off
from these developments have been pumped into our neighborhood and caused our septic
system to back up.
Jon & Karen Christensen 20770 Stoneybrook Circle Riverside stated there are no plans to
develop the property at this time. They also stated that the property was believed to have
been part of the original Elsinore annexation in the late 1980's early 1990's.
PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTMBER 5, 2006
Upon the death of their Grandfather, they found out this was not the case and they still want
it to be part of Lake Elsinore.
Rosemary Cincinelli 215 Byers Street Menifee, stated she moved here for the rural lifestyle
and does not want to give it up.
Comments•
Commissioner Flores stated he has reviewed the packet concerning this project and
understands the residents need to keep the area rural. He also stated the annexation will
provide logical expansion of the city, along with public agencies working together to provide
the necessities for the health, safety and welfare of its community. In conclusion
Commissioner Flores stated he moves to proceed to the next level.
Vice Chair Gonzales stated he agrees to the annexation, but when it comes to development
we must watch what is being done with the property and try to keep it at 1 acre lots.
Commissioner Mendoza concurs with the fellow Commissioners, and is in support of the
annexation but feels the property owner should be able to do what he wants with his
property. Developers also need to be aware of drainage problems and be responsible in 2-3
years for fixing the problems.
City Attorney Santana commented in regards to clarifying the Scope of Review, under the
California Environmental Quality Act. She stated, based upon an initial study that the city
conducted, it was found that the project could potentially have significant environmental
effects and the city is not denying this, but we have created a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting program, as well as conditions of approval, which Mitigate all of the potential
impacts to a level of insignificance. The city has not yet submitted an application to LAFCO
because as a precursor to the submission of the application, the city must adopt resolutions,
pre-zoning this territory to be consistent with the city's general plan, and must also adopt
resolutions to annex this property into the city's boundaries. In conclusion, Attorney Santana
stated it would be premature for the city to have filed the application, absent the adoption of
those resolutions. The annexation of this property will not affect the keeping of horses or
farm animals on adjacent properties.
Commissioner Zanelli commented on not being able to stop development, but we can try and
control it. He also stated the Christensen's have a right to have control over their property.
In conclusion he stated he is in support of the annexation.
Chair O'Neal commented he is in support of the annexation and the rights of the
Christensen's to do what they want with their land. He stated he would not be favorable to
someone that says they have no plans for development and a year from now comes in with
plans.
PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~EPTMBER 5, 2006
MOVED BY ZANELLI, SECONDED BY GONZALES
AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-82, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-03, THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
PERTAINING THERETO FOR ANNEXATION N0.78
AND ITS RELATED CASES ON APPROXIMATELY
21.13 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES, LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 3.5 MILES WEST OF INTERSTATE
215, SOUTH OF HOLLAND ROAD, NORTH OF
CORSON AVENUE AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE
EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE AND KNOWN AS ASSESOR PARCEL NO.
358-130-020.
MOVED BY ZANELLI, SECONDED BY MENDOZA
AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-83, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF
CONSISTENCY WITH THE MULTI-SPECIES
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE
PROJECT KNOWN AS "THE CHRISTENSEN
ANNEXATION NO. 78", GENERAL PLAN
AMMENDMENT 2006-O1 AND PRE-ANNEXATION
ZONE CHANGE NO. 2006-03 FOR 21.13 ACRES OF
VACANT PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
3.5 MILES WEST OF INTERSTATE 215, ,SOUTH OF
HOLLAND ROAD, NORTH OF CORSON AVENUE AND
CONTIGUOUS TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF
THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AND KNOWN AS
ASSESOR PARCEL NO. 358-130-020.
MOVED BY MENDOZA, SECONDED BY ZANELLI
AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-84, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN
AMMENDMENT 2006-01 AMMENDING THE
PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTMBER 5, 2006
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION ON 21.13
ACRES OF VACANT PROPERTY LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 3.5 MILES WEST OF INTERSTATE
215, SOUTH OF HOLLAND ROAD, NORTH OF
CORSON AVENUE AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE
EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE AND KNOWN AS ASSESOR PARCEL NO.
358-130-020.
MOVED BY MENDOZA, SECONDED BY ZANELLI
AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-85, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PRE-ANNEXATION ZONE
CHANGE NO. 2006-03, CHANGING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF ANNEXATION
NO. 78, BRINGING 21.13 ACRES OF VACANT
PROPERTY IN TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 3.5 MILES WEST OF
INTERSTATE 215, SOUTH OF HOLLAND ROAD,
NORTH OF CORSON AVENUE AND CONTIGUOUS
TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE AND KNOWN AS ASSESOR
PARCEL NO. 358-130-020.
MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY ZANELLI AND
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
NO. 2006-86, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE COMMENCEMENT
OF PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX THE TERRITORY
DESIGNATED AS ANNEXATION NO. 78 IN TO THE
CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 3.5 MILES
WEST OF INTERSTATE 215, SOUTH OF HOLLAND
ROAD, NORTH OF CORSON AVENUE AND
CONTIGUOUS TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF
THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AND KNOWN AS
ASSESOR PARCEL NO. 358-130-020
PAGE 7 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTMBER 5, 2006
Chairman O'Neal called for a short break at 7:24:03 PM
Chairman O'Neal brought the meeting back to order at 7:30:04 PM
6. Annexation No. 76; General Plan Amendment No. 2006-OS• Pre-annexation Zone
Chance No. 2006-05; Zone Chance No. 2006-07; Ramsgate Specific Plan No. 89-1
Fifth revision; Tentative Tract Map No. 33725; Mitigated Negative Declaration No
2006-04
Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearing at 7:30:51 PM
Director of Community Development Preisendanz presented the project and turned it over to
the Project Planner Carole Donahoe for a formal presentation.
Associate Planner Donahoe stated that the Shopoff Group is requesting an annexation to
bring 62.42 acres into the city boundaries that aze currently in the County of Riverside
jurisdiction, but within the city's sphere of influence. She also stated that the General Plan
Amendment will cover all the properties that we are discussing this evening. The zone
changes differ in that the pre-annexation zone change only covers the property that is
currently not in the city and the second zone change 2006-07 only covers the 4.99 acres that
is currently in the city. Associate Planner Donohoe went on to state that Tentative Tract Map
No. 33725, covers all that is in yellow, it does not cover the four outlying parcels that were
added to the annexation request because, LAFCO wanted to square off corners and not have
an island tucked in between the city boundaries and the county. The amendment to the
Ramsgate Specific Plan (the Sa' revision) incorporates the properties in Tentative Tract No.
33725 and therefore provides the zoning standazds for which that will be developed.
Associate Planner Donohoe stated she wanted to speak on the issue of the parks, which was
questioned by one of the commissioners that perhaps the map was not in compliance with the
second memorandum of understanding that was agreed upon by the city and the developer.
She indicated that map #33725 will include a neighborhood pazk and 2 small pocket parks
with an aggregate of plus or minus 3 acres, to be maintained by an HOA or other acceptable
management entity. She stated that these parks will have active uses in that there is a
volleyball court, hiking trail from one park to another, wildlife lookout with interpreted
signage, and the other pazk is more passive with just open space to rest or play. These are
part of the retention basin, so there is a limit on how to develop them. Staff believes this has
been adequately designed and recommends approval of all the items mentioned and approval
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Christine Zortman with the Shopoff Group has requested to speak on the Ramsgate Specific
Plan Amendment No.S. She thanked Associate Planner Donahoe for all that she has done
working with their group. She stated the primary goal for acquiring the land was to provide
the access to Tentative Tract Map No. 25475, which is the southerly map, just below the map
that's being approved tonight. She stated that with the dedication of open space, they lost a
PAGE 8 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTMBER 5, 2006
lot of the circulation elements that provided access to that southern most map. She also stated
that in acquiring these parcels and pulling them into the Ramsgate Specific Plan, we are
giving the other tract access, also participating in the other aspects of Ramsgate as well. Ms.
Zortman went on to state that the city did indicate that the minunum they would accept in fee
title would be 5 acres of contiguous land at which time, they were unable to do but they did
agree to 3 acres ofnon-contiguous area.
Vice Chairman Gonzales asked if a road could be added in the future so residents would have
easier access to their properties. He also questioned if these were going to be 2 story houses,
he would prefer single story homes. Ms. Zortman stated at this time there is no architecture
being considered.
Commissioner Mendoza commented on the school site and whether or not it is a loss. Ms.
Zortman stated that there was a deletion of 1300 dwelling units, so there is not a need for a
new school at this time.
Commissioner Flores questioned the difference between a pocket park and a neighborhood
park Ms. Zortman stated that pocket parks are more passive just open space and park
benches. Neighborhood parks will provide amenities to the immediate area. She also stated
they are privately owned and maintained, versus a regional or community type park which
would be owned by the city.
Chairman O'Neal referred to the Fiscal Impact Report. Chairman O'Neal pointed out
inconsistencies within the report. Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated
he would look into finding out why numbers were wrong.
Commissioner Zanelli had no comments.
Chairman O'Neal closed the public hearing at 8:00:28 PM
MOVED BY MENDOZA, SECONDED BY ZANELLI
AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-87, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 2006-04, AND THE MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM PERTAINING THERETO
FOR ANNEXATION N0.76 AND ITS RELATED CASES
ON APPROXIMATELY 63.59 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES,
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE EAST OF
INTERSTATE 15, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 74, WEST OF
GREENWALD AVENUE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR
PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTMBER 5, 2006
PARCEL NO. 349-240-006, 349-240-043 THROUGH 047,
349-240-050, AND 051, 349-240-054 THROUGH 058, 349-
380-024 AND 025.
MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY ZANELLI AND
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL ADOPTION OF CONSISTENCY OF THE
MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
FOR THE PROJECTS KNOWN AS ANNEXATION NO.
76 ET AL. RAMSGATE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 89-1
FIFTH REVISION INTENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
33725 LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE EAST OF
INTERSTATE 15, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 74 AND
WEST OF GREENWALD AVENUE.
MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY ZANELLI AND
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
NO. 2006-89, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMMENDMENT NO.
2006-OS AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATION ON 68.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY
LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE VALLEY RD, NORTH
AND SOUTH OF SCENIC CREST DRIVE, WEST OF
GREENWALD AVENUE AND EAST OF GRASSY
MEADOW DRIVE, CONTIGUOUS TO THE NORTH
EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE AND KNOWN AS ASSESORS PARCEL NO.
349-240-006, 349-240-043 THROUGH 047, 349-240-050
AND 051, 349-240-054 THROUGH 058, 349-380-024 AND
025.
MOVED BY ZANELLI, SECONDED BY MENDOZA
AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-90, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PRE-ANNEXATION ZONE
PAGE 10 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~EPTMBER 5, 2006
CHANGE NO. 2006-05, CHANGING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF ANNEXATION
N0.76 BRINGING 62.42 ACRES OF LAND UNDER THE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE BOUNDARIES LOCATED
SOUTH OF LITTLE VALLEY RD, NORTH AND
SOUTH OF SCENIC CREST DRIVE, WEST OF
GREENWALD AVENUE AND EAST OF GRASSY
MEADOW DRIVE, CONTIGUOUS TO THE NORTH
EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE AND KNOWN AS ASSESOR PARCEL NO.
349-240-043 THROUGH 047, 349-240-050 AND 051, 349-
240-054 THROUGH 058, 349-380-024 AND 025.
MOVED BY ZANELLI, SECONDED BY MENDOZA
AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-91, A RESOLUTION OF TAE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PRE-ANNEXATION ZONE
CHANGE NO. 2006-07, CHANGING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
LOCATED SOUTH OF SCENIC CREST DRIVE, WEST
OF GREENWALD AVENUE AND EAST OF GRASSY
MEADOW DRIVE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESORS
PARCEL N0.349-240-006.
MOVED BY ZANELLI, SECONDED BY MENDOZA
AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-92, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF, RAMSGATE
SPECIFIC PLAN N0.89-1 FIFTH REVISION. LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE EAST OF INTERSTATE 15,
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 74 AND WEST OF
GREENWALD AVENUE.
MOVED BY MENDOZA, SECONDED BY ZANELLI
AND .PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-93, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
PAGE 11 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTMBER 5, 2006
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY LAKE ELSINORE
APPROVAL OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF
PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX THE TERRITORY
DESIGNATED AS ANNEXATION NO. 76 INTO THE
CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE VALLEY
RD, NORTH AND SOUTH OF SCENIC CREST DRIVE,
WEST OF GREENWALD AVENUE AND EAST OF
GRASSY MEADOW DRIVE, KNOWN AS ASSESORS
PARCEL NO. 349-240-043 THROUGH 047, 349-240-050
AND 051, 349-240-054 THROUGH 058, 349-380-024 AND
025.
MOVED BY GONZALES,SECONDED BY ZANELLI
AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-94, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CITY LAKE ELSINORE,
APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33725 A
SUB DIVISION OF 221 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND FIVE WATER QUALITY
BASINS AND 25 OPEN SPACE LOTS ON
APPROXIMATELY 52.7 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES
LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE VALLEY RD, WEST OF
GREENWALD AVENUE AND EAST OF GRASSY
MEADOW DRIVE,AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF
SCENIC CREST DRIVE KNOWN AS ASSESOR
PARCEL NO. 349-240-006, 349-240-043 THROUGH 047,
349-240-054 THROUGH 056.
STAFF COMMENTS
Engineer Seumalo stated the Grand/Ortega signal and intersection widening is still waiting
for a CALTRANS encroachment permit which will, hopefully be obtained by mid-
September. He stated the sidewalk project will begin construction next month, and
CALTRANS has scheduled an analysis of the ultimate improvements at the I-15 and Central
Avenue for late October. He also indicated the signal at Temescal Canyon Road and Lake
Street is currently in plan check, so approval should come later this month so construction
can begin. The historic street lights on Lake Street are being evaluated for strength and
replacement parts are being cast. There was a glitch in that we could not find an intact
competent whole street light to send to the concrete company to have cast, but one was
PAGE 12 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTMBER 5, 2006
found. Engineer Seumalo stated the signal light process at Gunnerson & Riverside Drive has
begun, this will be a lengthy process. In conclusion he thanked City Attorney Santana for her
advice, guidance in legal issues, and, Happy Birthday.
Associate Planner Miller stated that annexations are coming back at the next Planning
Commission meeting and the Clubhouse for the Golf Course will probably be brought to the
first meeting in October.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated Building & Safety along with Code
Enforcement has performed a net project where they were able to collect quite a bit of trash
and debris from a specific area in town.
Commissioner Flores stated he wanted to thank the staff for their quick response to a phone
call this afternoon. He also recommended staff taking a look at park issues.
Commissioner Mendoza stated to please thank Wendy for the positive feedback.
Commissioner Gonzales questioned a sign on Auto Center Drive which says "School Zone"
and that it should have been moved a long time ago. Engineer Seumalo stated he will look
into it, as well as striping at McDonalds. Commissioner Gonzales also stated the city can not
sustain fancy landscaping, when the city is trying to save on water.
Commissioner Zanelli questioned Engineer Seumalo, regarding Collier North bound at
Riverside. There are 2 lanes that go North bound, and the street was recently re-striped so
that the right hand lane could either go straight, turn left or turn right; the sign on the traffic
light above is not the same. Engineer Seumalo has discussed the issue with CALTRANS and
they are going to look into it.
ADJOURNMENT
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, CHAIRMAN O'NEAL ADJOURNED
THE MEETING AT sarso rM.
-.,`:_
Mi aelO'Ne hairman
Respectfully Submitted,
Kris Herrington
Office Specialist III
PAGE 13 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~EPTMBER 5, 2006
ATTEST:
Rolfe Preisendanz,
Director of Community Development