HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 22 Planning App 2017-18 TTM 31920Text File
City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
www.lake-elsinore.org
File Number: ID# 17-575
Agenda Date: 3/13/2018 Status: BusinessVersion: 1
File Type: ReportIn Control: City Council / Successor Agency
Agenda Number: 22)
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 3/8/2018
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
To:Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From:Grant Yates, City Manager
Prepared by: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner
DATE:March 6, 2018
PROJECT: Planning Application 2017-018: A proposed amendment to Tentative Tract Map
(TTM) 31920 to increase the developable lots by 84 units from 156 to 240 units
and to modify the TTM to accommodate the increased number of units.
APPLICANT: Brian Milich, Pacific Ventures, Management, LLC
Recommendation
ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2017-18 (TTM
31920) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP); AND,
ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
APPROVING A REVISION TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31920.
Project Request/Location
The applicant is requesting approval of a revision to Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 31920, specifically
remapping lots 23, 26 and 27, which would increase the total number of residential lots by 84
units going from 156 to 240 units. Minimum lot sizes would be reduced from 5,000 SF to 3,300
SF. The proposed project is located within the Summerly Development of the East Lake Specific
Plan (ELSP) and is located on lots 23, 26 and 27 of TTM 31920 and is more specifically referred
to as APNs: 371-270-014, 017, and 018.
Environmental Setting
EXISTING LAND USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN
Project Site Vacant Low Medium Residential (LMD)Specific Plan
North Golf Course Recreation Specific Plan
South Vacant LMD Specific Plan
East Park/SFD REC ESLP/LMD Specific Plan
West Interim construction site Preservation/Mitigation Specific Plan
Background
The ELSP was adopted by the City in 1993 and originally included 3,000 acres that would allow
for a total of up to 9,000 residential units. There have been 10 subsequent amendments to the
PA 2017-018
TTM 31920 Modification
Page 2 of 4
Specific Plan that were approved and adopted. Most recently, the City Council approved
Amendment No. 11 which is a comprehensive specific plan which consolidated all previous
iterations of the ELSP and updated the plan as follows:
Overhaul land uses, development regulations, and architectural guidelines along with
updating circulation and drainage.
Streamline the development process in order to stimulate private sector investment.
Create a user-friendly East Lake Specific Plan document.
Protect the natural resources in the Lake’s Back Basin.
Maintain flood storage capacity.
Anticipate changing marketplace demand and public need by providing flexibility in
implementation.
Ensure that the City’s “Action Sports Capital of the World” and “Dream Extreme” activities
have a permanent location in the City.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission at its March 6, 2018, regular meeting took unanimous action to
recommend approval of the proposed map amendment to the City Council.
Project Description
The proposed revision to TTM 31920 includes the remapping lots 23, 26 and 27. The proposed
subdivided lots range in size from 9,058 SF to 3,312 SF, with an average size of 4,345 SF. The
proposed subdivision has a density of 7.2 dwelling units per acre. Table 1 identifies the maximum,
minimum and average lot sizes by lot and for the total proposed map revision:
Table - 1 PA 2017-18 Remapping Detail
Lot Minimum Maximum Average
23 3,312 SF 6,533 SF 4,073 SF
26 3,760 SF 6,649 SF 4,029 SF
27 4,500 SF 9,058 SF 4,957 SF
Average 3,312 SF 4,957 SF 4,345 SF
The proposed project would not permit any new construction. Subsequent entitlement approvals
are required prior to the construction of any new residential units. Subsequent entitlements will
focus on design review of future residential development.
Analysis
Under East Lake Specific Plan Amendment #11, the Summerly Residential Neighborhood as
implemented by TTM 31920 includes two residential densities, recreational facilities, landscaping
lots and public streets, as detailed in Table 2.
Table 2 - Summerly Residential Neighborhood Development Summary
Land Use
Maximum
Dwelling Units
Average
Density1
Number of
Lots
Area
(Acres)
Low-Medium Density
Residential (up to 6 du/ac)1,979 8.2 1,979 242.17Medium Density Residential (up
to 14 du)
Neighborhood Focal Parks 3 2.86
PA 2017-018
TTM 31920 Modification
Page 3 of 4
Central Neighborhood Park and
Recreation Facility 1 3.93
HOA Landscape Lots 14 1.37
Public Streets 68.26
1 Average density calculated on residential acreage only.
Due to the dual zoning designation identified for the Summerly Residential Neighborhood,
application of either the Low-Medium Density Residential or Medium Density Residential are
appropriate if the overall maximum density of development does not exceed 1,979 dwelling units.
Due to the 1,979 unit cap not being exceeded, the Medium Density Residential designation is
applicable for the evaluation for the creation of lots. The original approval of TTM 31920 mapped
a total 1,483 dwelling units, SPA 10 increased the total to 1,500 dwelling units and SPA 6A
increased the total to 1,595 dwelling units. The proposed map amendment would increase the
total to 1,679 dwelling units. Due to the development not exceeding the cap of 1,979 dwelling
units the applicability of the Medium Density Residential development standards are appropriate
when evaluating the revised map. Medium Density Residential has specific development
standards applicable to the creation of lots as detailed in Table 3.
Table 3 - Medium Density Residential Development Standards
Development Criteria Standard Proposed
Density Up to 14 du/ac 7.2 du/ac
Lot Area Minimum 3,300 SF 3,312 SF
Minimum Lot Width 46’-0”46’-0”
The proposed map revision has been found consistent with the development criteria for the
creation of lots in the Medium Density Residential land use designation. Additionally, project-wide
development standards have also been prepared to complement those described in the Medium
Density Residential standards. Those applicable to subdivision of land include the following
criteria:
Development does not exceed development caps
Uses shall comply with the requirements of the ESLP
Lots created shall conform to the ELSP, applicable City standards or State law and shall
not include flag lots
Compliance with current WQMP and MS4 permit requirements
Common open space
Infrastructure commensurate with the impacts of the proposed development and adequate
phasing to ensure the infrastructure is constructed to mitigate potential impacts
Pay applicable development fees
Implementation of mitigation measures identified in the ELSP Amendment #11 EIR
As previously detailed, the proposed project does not include development that is in excess of
the development cap of the Summerly Residential Neighborhood of 1,979 units and has been
designed in a manner consistent with the requirements of the ELSP. The proposed project has
been conditioned to meet the current WQMP and MS4 permit requirements, subsequent design
review applications will require the approval of amendments to the approved Preliminary WQMP
to demonstrate compliance with the new WQMP and MS4 requirements. The proposed map
revision does not create significant new traffic and will be accommodated by the existing and to
be constructed infrastructure for the Summerly Residential Neighborhood. The proposed project
is subject to a previously approved Development Agreement, which specifies applicable
development fees and the timing of the payment of those fees. Consistent with certain protections
PA 2017-018
TTM 31920 Modification
Page 4 of 4
provided in the Development Agreement, the proposed project has been conditioned to implement
the applicable mitigation measures identified in the ELSP Amendment #11 EIR. In accordance
with the Development Agreement and conditions of approval of TTM 31920, the project areas
have been previously annexed to applicable maintenance and public safety financing districts and
would not be required to annex into CFD 2015-01 or 2015-02.
Overall, the project proposes increased densities of residential development within an existing
residential community. The proposed smaller lots would not be discernable from the public right
of ways as the minimum lot widths are consistent with the other areas of the community. Setbacks
to garages would maintain a minimum of 18’-0” distance, thereby minimizing potential impacts to
roadways. The increased density would also create a different lot configuration than what is
standardly available in the Summerly Residential Neighborhood. Because the project meets all
the development criteria established by the ELSP Amendment # 11 for new lots, it is consistent
with the project-wide development standards and the project creates a differing product type while
not altering the existing streetscape or creating adverse impacts Staff recommends approval.
Environmental
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, staff has determined the proposed Project would
not have a significant effect on the environment and no new environmental documentation is
necessary because all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier
Environmental Impact Report “EIR” (SCH #2016111029). All potentially significant impacts upon
Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Resources, Geology, Soils
and Seismicity, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality will be mitigated
to below a level of significance through compliance with the mitigation measures set forth in the
EIR. The EIR also determined that the proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable
project-level and cumulative impacts related to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise,
Transportation and Circulation which cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, resulting
in the adoption of a Statement of Overriding. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 no
substantial changes, which require major revisions to the EIR, exist, and no new information of
substantial importance, which require revisions to the earlier EIR, exist. Therefore, no further
environmental documentation is necessary.
Fiscal Impact
The developer deposit account, paid for by the applicant, has covered the time and costs related
to processing this Project. No funds have been allocated or used in the processing of this
application from the General Fund. The approval of the Project does not fiscally impact the City’s
General Fund. Mitigation Measures to protect the City fiscally have already been included in the
Conditions of Approval.
Exhibits:
1. MSHCP Resolution
2. TTM Resolution
3. Conditions of Approval
4. Vicinity Maps
5. Aerial Maps
6. Revised TTM 31920
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2017-18
(TTM 31920) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP)
Whereas, Brian Milich, DMB Pacific Ventures, has filed an application with the City of Lake
Elsinore requesting approval of a modification to Tentative Tract Map No. 31920 for a project site
located within the East Lake Specific Plan (the “Project”); and,
Whereas, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that all discretionary projects within an MSHCP
criteria cell undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and Joint Project Review (JPR)
to analyze the scope of the proposed development and establish a building envelope that is
consistent with the MSHCP criteria; and,
Whereas,Section 6.0 of the MSHCP further requires that the City adopt consistency findings
demonstrating that the proposed discretionary entitlement complies with the MSHCP cell criteria,
and the MSHCP goals and objectives; and,
Whereas,pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Maps) the
Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making
recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to the residential design review; and,
Whereas,the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP) is partially covered by two distinct MSHCP criteria
cells: approximately three (3) acres of the ELSP are within cell 4846 and approximately three
tenths (0.3) of an acre are within cell 4937; and,
Whereas,the Project site is within the boundaries of the ESLP that are covered by the
aforementioned cell sites; and,
Whereas,on March 6, 2018, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission considered
evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with
respect to this item and recommended that the City Council find that the project is consistent with
the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ; and,
Whereas,pursuant to LEMC Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Maps) the Council has the responsibility
of making decisions to approve, modify, or disapprove recommendations of the Commission for
variance applications; and,
Whereas,on March 13, 2018, at a duly noticed Public Meeting, the Council has considered the
recommendation of the Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community
Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Council has considered the Project and its consistency with the MSHCP prior to
adopting Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP.
CC Reso. No. 2018-____
Page 2 of 4
Section 2:That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Council makes the following findings for
MSHCP consistency:
1. The Project is a project under the City’s MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an
MSHCP Consistency finding before approval.
Pursuant to the City’s MSHCP Resolution, the Project must be reviewed for MSHCP
consistency, which review shall include an analysis of the Project’s consistency with other
“Plan Wide Requirements.” The Project is located within the ELSP area, specifically within
the ELSP Amendment No. 6 area. Prior to the City’s adoption of the MSHCP, there were
a series of meetings between the County of Riverside, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
California Department of Fish and Game to discuss conservation measures within the
ELSP and to decide how to ensure development within the ELSP could proceed
consistently with the MSHCP and with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404
permit. It was determined that a target acreage of 770 acres was warranted for MSHCP
conservation in the back basin area of the City.
The Project site is within the ELSP and is covered by that conservation agreement. Part
of the conservation agreement also included a requirement that projects in the back basin
area be consistent with the other “Plan Wide Requirements” set forth in the following
sections of the MSHCP: Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas
and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant
Species Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures
(MSHCP, § 6.3.2), Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.4), Vegetation
Mapping (MSHCP, § 6.3.1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.4),
and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, § 4).
The Project has been reviewed in light of these sections and is consistent therewith.
2. The Project is subject to the City’s LEAP and the County’s Joint Project Reviewprocesses.
The ELSP MSHCP consistency determination was submitted to the County of Riverside
in October 2003, prior to the initiation of the City’s LEAP and County’s Joint Project Review
process. Nevertheless, both the City and Dudek (acting on behalf of the County) agreed
that the Project was consistent with the MSHCP due to the extensive acreage set aside
for conservation. The Project has not been modified and was part of the overall ELSP
which has been determined to be consistent with the MSHCP.
3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines.
The previously approved ELSP No. 6 was determined to be consistent with the
Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.
The scope and nature of the Project have not been modified from that which was
previously approved and is therefore consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and
Vernal Pools Guidelines.
4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines.
The previously approved ELSP No. 6 was consistent with the Protection of Narrow
Endemic Plant Species Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. The Project
has not been modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSP
CC Reso. No. 2018-____
Page 3 of 4
Amendment No. 6. Additionally, based upon prior approvals, the entire Project site has
been graded and any plant species which may have existed on the site have been
removed and replaced with development. It is for these reasons that the Project is
consistent with the aforementioned guidelines.
5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures.
The previously approved ELSP No. 6 was consistent with the Additional Survey Needs
and Procedures as set forth in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. The Project has not been
modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSP Amendment No. 6,
and the entire project site has been graded pursuant to previously issued permits. The
Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures of the MSHCP.
6. The Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines.
The previously approved ELSP No. 6 was consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface
Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Because the Project has not been
modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSP No. 6, no further
MSHCP review is necessary and the Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands
Interface Guidelines.
7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements.
The previously approved ELSP No. 6 was consistent with the Vegetation Mapping
requirements as set forth in Section 6.3.1 of the MSHCP. Mapping was conducted as part
of the biological surveys for the original project. The Project has not been modified from
that which was previously approved and therefore is consistent with the Vegetation
Mapping requirements.
8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines.
The previously approved ELSP No. 6 was consistent with the Fuels Management
Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. The Project site is not within or
adjacent to conservation areas where the Fuels Management Guidelines would be
required. The Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved
and therefore is consistent with the Fuel Management Guidelines.
9. The Project overall is consistent with the MSHCP.
As stated in No. 1 above, the Project is within the ELSP area which has previously been
determined to be consistent with the MSHCP.
Section 3:Based upon the evidence presented, both written and testimonial, and the above
findings, the Council hereby finds that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP.
Section 4:This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Section 5:The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book
of original Resolutions.
CC Reso. No. 2018-____
Page 4 of 4
Passed and Adopted on this 13
th day of March, 2018.
_____________________________
Natasha Johnson, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
Susan M. Domen, MMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Susan M. Domen, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 2017-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore,
California, at the regular meeting of March 13, 2018, and that the same was adopted by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Susan M. Domen, MMC
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
APPROVING A REVISION TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31920.
Whereas, Brian Milich, DMB Pacific Ventures, has filed an application with the City of Lake
Elsinore requesting approval of a modification to Tentative Tract Map No. 31920 for a project site
located within the East Lake Specific Plan (the “Project”); and,
Whereas,pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Maps) the
Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making
recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to the residential design review; and,
Whereas,on March 6, 2018, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission considered
evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with
respect to this item and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed map
amendment ; and,
Whereas,pursuant to LEMC Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Maps) the Council has the responsibility
of making decisions to approve, modify, or disapprove recommendations of the Commission for
variance applications; and,
Whereas,on March 13, 2018, at a duly noticed Public Meeting, the Council has considered the
recommendation of the Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community
Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Prior to making a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission has
reviewed and analyzed the revision to Tract Map No. 31920 pursuant to the appropriate Planning
and Zoning Laws, and Chapter 16 (Subdivisions) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (“LEMC”).
Section 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the revision to Tentative
Tract Map No. 31920 is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code §§ 21000 et seq.: “CEQA”) and the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (14 California
Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.: “CEQA Guidelines”). Specifically, the Planning
Commission finds that determined the proposed Project would not have a significant effect on the
environment and no new environmental documentation is necessary because all potentially
significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier Environmental Impact Report
“EIR” (SCH #2016111029). All potentially significant impacts upon Aesthetics, Biological
Resources, Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Resources, Geology, Soils and Seismicity,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality will be mitigated to below a level
of significance through compliance with the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR. The EIR
also determined that the proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable project-level
and cumulative impacts related to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Transportation
and Circulation which cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, resulting in the adoption
of a Statement of Overriding. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 no substantial
changes, which require major revisions to the EIR, exist, and no new information of substantial
importance, which require revisions to the earlier EIR, exist. Therefore, no further environmental
documentation is necessary.
CC Reso. No. 2018-____
Page 2 of 3
Section 3. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning Law and the Lake Elsinore
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for approval of a revision
to Tentative Tract Map No. 31920:
1.The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the General Plan. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the
objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan
(Government Code Section 66473.5).
The General Plan designates the site for a mixed land use Specific Plan. Consistent with
that designation, the revised Tract Map can accommodate future residential land uses.
The Tract Map is consistent with the designated land use, development and design
standards, and all other appropriate requirements contained in the General Plan, the East
Lake Specific Plan and Subdivision Map Act.
2.The effects this project is likely to have upon the housing needs of the region, the public
service requirements of its residents and the available fiscal and environmental resources
have been considered and balanced.
The modified Tract Map is consistent with the land use plan, development and design
standards, and programs, and all other appropriate requirements contained in the General
Plan. The modified Tentative Tract Map No. 31920 is consistent with the residential land
uses within the specific plan and applicable development and design standards.
3.Subject to the attached conditions of approval, the proposed project is not anticipated to
result in any significant environmental impact.
The project has been adequately conditioned by all applicable departments and agencies
and will not therefore result in any significant environmental impacts. Furthermore
environmental clearance and analysis for the proposed application is provided by EIR
(SCH #2016111029)which was approved and adopted in 2017 for the East Lake Specific
Plan Amendment No. 11. The EIR evaluated environmental impacts that would result from
maximum build-out of the Specific Plan. The Project does not present changes or new
information regarding the potential environmental impacts of development. No further
environmental clearance is necessary.
Section 3:Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the attached conditions
of approval, Council approves the modification to Tentative Tract Map No. 31920.
Section 4:This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Section 5:The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book
of original Resolutions.
Passed and Adopted on this 13
th day of March, 2018.
_____________________________
Natasha Johnson, Mayor
CC Reso. No. 2018-____
Page 3 of 3
Attest:
____________________________
Susan M. Domen, MMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Susan M. Domen, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 2017-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore,
California, at the regular meeting of March 13, 2018, and that the same was adopted by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Susan M. Domen, MMC
City Clerk
DIAMOND DRI 1
5
MALAGA RD MI
SSI
ON TRLCASIN
O D
R
VILLAGE PKWYGR
A
P
E
S
T
H I D D E N T R LE LM STLINE DRBASEBALL MASCOT PETE LEHR DR
MEADOW
STADIUM
H I D D E N T R LDIAMOND DRI 1
5
MALAGA RD MI
SSI
ON TRLCASIN
O D
R
VILLAGE PKWYGR
A
P
E
S
T
H I D D E N T R LE LM STLINE DRBASEBALL MASCOT PETE LEHR DR
MEADOW
STADIUM
H I D D E N T R L
PLANNING APPLIC ATION 20 17-18VICINITY MAP
PR OJEC T SITE
´
DIAMOND DRI 1
5
MALAGA RD MI
SSI
ON TRLCASIN
O D
R
VILLAGE PKWYGR
A
P
E
S
T
H I D D E N T R LE LM STLINE DRBASEBALL MASCOT PETE LEHR DR
MEADOW
STADIUM
H I D D E N T R L
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, U SDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User CommunityDIAMOND DRI 1
5
MALAGA RD MI
SSI
ON TRLCASIN
O D
R
VILLAGE PKWYGR
A
P
E
S
T
H I D D E N T R LE LM STLINE DRBASEBALL MASCOT PETE LEHR DR
MEADOW
STADIUM
H I D D E N T R L
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, U SDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
PLANNING APPLIC ATION 20 17-18AERIAL MAP
PR OJEC T SITE
´
CORPORATIONWILSON MIKAMI
CORPORATIONWILSON MIKAMI
CORPORATIONWILSON MIKAMI
CORPORATIONWILSON MIKAMI
CORPORATIONWILSON MIKAMI