Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11_06_07 PC Reports CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MICHAEL O'NEAL,CHAIRMAN WWW.LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG JOHN GONZALES,VICE CHAIRMAN (951)674-3124 PHONE JIMMY FLORES,COMMISSIONER (951)674-2392 FAX AXEL ZANELLI,COMMISSIONER LAKE ELSINORE CULTURAL CENTER PHIL MENDOZA,COMMISSIONER 183 NORTH MAIN STREET ROLFE PREISENDANZ,DIR.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LAKE ELSINORE,CA 92530 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 6:00 P.M. The City of Lake Elsinore appreciates your attendance. Citizens' interest provides the Planning Commission with valuable information regarding issues of the community. Meetings are held on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of every month. If you are attending this Planning Commission meeting, please park in the Parking Lot across the street from the Cultural Center. This will assist us in limiting the impact of meetings on the Downtown Business District. Thank you for your cooperation. The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting outside of City Hall and is available at each meeting. The agenda and related reports are also available in the Community Development Department on the Friday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk's Office at (951) 674-3124, ext. 262, at least 48 hours before the meeting to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES (Please read &complete a Speaker's Form at the podium, prior to the start of the Planning Commission Meeting) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS (All matters on the Consent Calendar are approved in one motion, unless a Commissioner or any members of the public requests separate action on a specific item.) 1. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for July 3, 2007 Recommendation: Approval 2. Minor Design Review of a Single-Family Residence located at 16897 Gunnerson Street Recommendation: Continuance 3. Minor Design Review of a Single-Family Residence located at 423 Adobe Street (APN: 377-312-024) Recommendation: Approval 4. Minor Design Review of a Single-Family Residence located at 30338 Baum Avenue (APN: 375-324-025) Recommendation: Approval PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS (Please read & complete a Speaker's Form at the podium prior to the start of the Planning Commission Meeting. The Chairman will call on you to speak when your item is called). 5. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-20 and Commercial Design Review No. 2007-13 for a proposed America's Tire Company located at 18237 Dexter Avenue (APN: 377-040-045) Recommendation: Continuance 6. General Plan Amendment No. 2007-14 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-21 & Industrial Design Review No. 2006-03 "Fairway Business Park" (APN: 377-140- 024 Recommendation: Approval BUSINESS ITEMS 7. Uniform Sign Program Modification No. 2007-07 "Lake Elsinore Outlet Stores" Recommendation: Continuance 8. Uniform Sign Program No. 2007-09 for the Viscaya Village Center(APN: 379-470- 083 Recommendation: Approval INFORMATIONAL Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Presentation STAFF COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The Lake Elsinore Planning Commission will adjourn to a regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, November 20, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. to be held in the Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, ROLFE PREISENDANZ, Secretary to the Planning Commission, do hereby affirm that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall, 72 hours in advance if this meeting. UD-Z� r*x //- / -0-7 ROLFE PREISENDANZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 TUESDAY, JULY 3, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman O'Neal called the regular Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:09 pm. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Flores led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: O'NEAL, GONZALES, FLORES, MENDOZA, ZANELLI ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were: Director of Community Development Preisendanz, Planning Manager Weiner, Deputy City Attorney Santana, Public Works Director Seumalo, Associate Planner Carlson, Associate Planner Resendiz, Planning Consultant Miller, and Office Specialist Herrington. PUBLIC COMMENTS„ (Non-Agenda Items) No requests to speak. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS Chairman O'Neal stated that Item Numbers 1, 2 & 3 would be pulled from the Consent Calendar. 1. Minor Design Review of a two story Single-Family Residence located at 365 Avenue 5 (373-192-015). Planning Manager Weiner stated that the applicant Daniel Rodriguez was not present at the meeting but was advised of the meeting. He also stated that Mr. Rodriguez did sign the Draft Acknowledgment of Conditions letter stating that he read and agreed with the Conditions of Approval. AGENDA ITEM Na. PAOE PAGE 2 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY MENDOZA, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2007-118, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 365 AVENUES 5. 2. Minor Design Review of a Residential Duplex located on Franklin Street (APN: 373-021-006). The owner, Froylan Alfaro was at the meeting in place of the applicant, Hector Zubieta. Mr. Alfaro stated that he read and agreed with the Conditions of Approval. MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY MENDOZA, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2007-119, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX. 3. Minor Design Review of a Single Family Residence located at 16150 Stevens Street. Applicant, Jeff Jones, 1408 Goodman Avenue, Redondo Beach, read and agreed with the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Zanelli ;commended the applicant for taking a responsible developer's approach in installing the sewer systems. MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY MENDOZA, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2007-120, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Chairman O'Neal stated that Item No. 6 would become Item Number 4 and Item No. 4 would become Item Number 6. 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-21; Variance No. 2007-02; and Commercial Design Review No. 2006-18 for a proposed Lone Star Steakhouse Restaurant located at 18601 Dexter Avenue (APN: 377-080- 077). Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearing at 6:20 pm. Agenda Item No.1 Page 2 of 49 PAGE 3 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Director of Community Development Preisendanz provided an overview of the project and requested Associate Planner Carlson to review it with the Commission and answer questions. Associate Planner Carlson provided an overview of the project. He stated that staff revised Condition Number 39, Subsection F of the Conditions of Approval and he read the revised Condition to the Commission regarding the trash enclosure. He also informed the Commission that the applicant and the architect were present. The architect, read and agreed with the Conditions of Approval including the revision to Condition Number 39. He thanked staff and said he would answer any questions. Chairman O'Neal closed the Public Hearing at 6:14 pm. Planning Commission Comments Commissioner Zanelli said it was a nice looking project. Commissioner Flores stated that he was happy that the project has come to Lake Elsinore. Commissioner Mendoza stated that the proposed project would be a great addition to the City. Vice Chair Gonzales welcomed the applicant to the City. Chairman O'Neal had no comments. MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY MENDOZA, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.: 2007-121, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISITENT WITH THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP). MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY ZANELLI, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2007-122, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-21. MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY GONZALES, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2007-123, A RESOLUTION OF THE Agenda Item No.1 Page 3 of 49 PAGE 4 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2007-02. MOVED BY MENDOZA, SECONDED BY ZANELLI, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2007-124, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-18 WITH THE REVISION TO CONDITION NO. 39, SUBSECTION F. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-04 (T-Mobile Wireless Telecommunications Facility). Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearing at 617 pm. Director of Community Development Preisendanz provided an overview of the project and requested Associate Planner Carlson to review it with the Commission and answer questions. Associate Planner Carlson provided an overview of the project and also distributed to the Commission with correspondence which was provided to staff post the staff report being distributed which reflects ;members of the community within the area that object to the installation of the T-Mobile Wireless Telecommunications Facility. Staff recommended denial of the proposed project. Applicant, Marc Myers, The Planning Consortium, 627 N. Main Street, Orange, California, representing T-Mobile stated that they looked at various locations to place the cellular tower;but those locations were not feasible and chose the Tuscany Hills area because it would optimize coverage and asked the Planning Commission to reconsider staff's recommendation of denial. Chairman'O'Neal asked Mr. Myers if he stated that the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) would not allow the installation of the cellular tower on their water tank. Mr. Myers said yes. `' He also said that they didn't have enough space despite minimizing the type of installation and went just outside of the area which was the Home Owners Association's area. Chairman O'Neal asked Director of Community Development Preisendanz to discuss what EVMWD said regarding installing the cellular tower on the water tank. Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated that he spoke to Mr. Phil Williams of EVMWD approximately three (3) weeks ago and Mr. Williams stated that EVMWD was agreeable to co-locating on the water tank side and attaching to the water tank but his advice was to make sure that the applicant applied with EVMWD. Agenda Item No.1 Page 4 of 49 PAGE 5 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 REQUESTS TO SPEAK Wilfrido Reyes, 25 Corte Palazzo in Tuscany Hills, stated that if the communication facility is placed at the proposed location, it could pose a health hazard to the residents in the area. In addition to this, school children wait at a school bus stop where the cell tower would be located and suggested relocating the facility to the water tower. Tracy Fuller, Attorney for Tuscany Hills Landscape & Recreation Corp., 191 Calle Magdalena, Suite 220, Encinitas, California, submitted a "Formal Written Opposition" of the project to the Planning Commission, requesting denial of the project and also requested that the applicant obtain appropriate approval by the Association. Jeanne Woodyard, 34 Del Santello, Tuscany Hills, Lake Elsinore, stated that she lives near the proposed project and has concerns about possible health hazards to her children and family due to the installation of the cellular tower. Eike Hoheenadl, Tuscany Hills, Lake Elsinore, stated that the school bus stop is approximately (15) feet from the proposed facility location and it could be a health hazard to the children waiting at the bus stop. He also stated that the proposed forty (40) foot pole would be distracting to the beauty of the neighborhood. Joyce Hohendadl, 27 Corte Palazzo, Lake Elsinore, said she reviewed the Final Tuscany Hills Specific Plan and the Specific Plan didn't state that cellular towers were permitted within Tuscany Hills. Ms. Hohendadl requested that the Commission deny the project. Gary Tosti, 21 Corte Madera, Lake Elsinore stated that it would be negligent for the City to allow the facility to be built because of the potential harm of the electromagnetic fields to the residents living near the facility and requested that the tower be placed on the water tank. Tom Franson, 7 Villa Valtile'na, Tuscany Hills, Lake Elsinore, suggested installing the antennas at the water tank and it wouldn't disrupt the beauty of the neighborhood. Duane Holmes, 53 Bella Donaci, Lake Elsinore, stated that he is a member of the Board of Directors at Tuscany Hills Landscape & Recreation Corp., and said that this project is contrary to the CC&R's and should be reviewed by the Landscape Committee prior to anything being built there. Councilman Daryl Hickman, 19 Corte Madera, Tuscany Hills, Lake Elsinore, said that he was speaking as a citizen. His concern is the exposure of the radiation to the families and their children who live near the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed facility is near the high school and middle school bus stop. He also stated that all electrical wires in Tuscany Hills are underground and there are no visible antennas within the Association. He also said he went to the location of where Agenda Item No.1 Page 5 of 49 PAGE 6 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 another cellular tower was installed located on Franklin, near 6th Street which was enormous and does not belong in a residential area. Jerry Carlos, 14 Del Torino, Lake Elsinore, wanted to know if the School District office is aware that this facility is being built at their bus stop and did the City advise the School District of this? He also stated that a forty (40) foot tower is very high and thinks that if the applicant were to work with the Water District there might be a better location. Director of Community Development, Preisendanz stated that when a new project gets submitted to the City it gets noticed in the Newspaper, posted on the bulletin board at City Hall and it also get mailed to residents and businesses within a 300 foot radius. It also gets routed to the school district, among other agencies. Chairman O'Neal closed the Public Hearing at 6:47 pm. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Flores thanked the Tuscany Hills residents for their views on the project and stated that based on the application and evidence submitted, he was going to deny the project. He also suggested a continuous review for a possible installation with the EVMWD. Commissioner Mendoza thanked the residents for attending the meeting and said that he doesn't think that any type of commercial tower should be installed in the Tuscany Hills area and should be located b,y the water tower. Vice Chair Gonzales stated that he viewed the location where the tower would be installed and said that a tower that tall in that area wouldn't be right and said since there has been approval from the Water District, it should be moved to the Water District's location. Commissioner Zanelli said he concurred with his fellow Commissioners and thanked the residents for attending the meeting and expressing their views. MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY MENDOZA, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-04 (T-MOBILE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY). 6. Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) No. 2005-12; a 9.09 acre commercially zoned parcel of land (proposed site) within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area. Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Meeting at 7:06 pm. Minutes taken verbatim Agenda Item No.I Page 6 of 49 PAGE 7 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Chairman O'Neal I'll bring the meeting back to order. This takes us to formerly numbered Item Number Four, which is now Number Six. Prior to starting this, I do have a statement to read. I had a disturbing phone call today suggesting that I solicit or accept campaign contributions. For the record, I have solicited no one for money; I have received nothing from anyone, any developer or any other person for campaign purposes. I am not currently running for any public office. I do not have a campaign committee; I do not have a bank account for campaign purposes. In 2003, you all know, or some of you know, I ran for City office; I lost. I hope that clears that up. This is public hearing Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process LEAP number 2005-12, a 9.09 acre commercially zoned parcel of land within the Alberhill Ranch specific plan area. Rolfe -- and we will have a lot of latitude today because we do have a number of speakers that would like to speak and, I caution you,, don't make me cut you off, but I will be as liberal as possible. Rolfe. Preisendanz Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening and good evening to the members of the Planning Commission. The item before you tonight, as you mentioned, is entitled the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process, or LEAP number 2005-12, for a 9.09 acre commercially zoned parcel of land within the Alberhill Ranch specific plan. I first wanted to thank the commission for the time they spent in reviewing this project and also thank staff for the time they've spent as well. And I want to also thank the applicant, Mr. Hardy Strozier, with The Planning Associates and the owner Castle & Cooke and their team for the time that they have spent. And although staff has not been able to concur with the applicant's analysis and conclusions, I look forward and do appreciate and acknowledge the investment Castle & Cooke have made in the City of Lake Elsinore. With that, we'll begin our presentation. Agenda Item No.1 Page 7 of 49 PAGE 8 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 As I mentioned, the project is entitled LEAP number 2005-12. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission consider and make recommendation to the City Council regarding whether the development footprint depicted in LEAP number 2005-12 is consistent with the Multiple Species Habitat Conversation Plan, or the MSHCP. As you know, after much debate and testimony from significant stakeholders within the city in January 2004, the City agreed to implement the MSHCP which included specific biology as approved in the MSHCP; the reserve assembly requirements as described in the criteria Cell and compliance with the 75- year permit. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Plan is a long- term comprehensive plan which focuses on;the conversation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The MSHCP is an element of the Riverside County Integrated Project, or the RCIP, which encourages land assembly to support habitat and habitat needs. More importantly, from my understanding from Tom Mullins, was the MSHCP was prepared to facilitate and expedite the construction of both regional and local infrastructure while addressing the requirements of the state and federal Endangered Species Act. In addressing the requirements of the state' and federal government, the MSHCP serves as a`habitat conservation plan pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(b) of the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and is used to allow jurisdictions to authorize the take of plant and wildlife species within the plan area. As such, the wildlife agencies granted under the .MSHCP take authorization in exchange for the assembly and management of a coordinated MSHCP conservation area. Next slide, please. As I mentioned earlier, the site is located within the Elsinore Area Plan as described by the MSHCP, specifically Cell 3751, and also a portion of Cell 3854 and within Cell Group J, which is located in this area that I wrote and tried to outline for you; that is Cell Group J, which includes 12 individual Cells. For the future -- excuse me. For the purposes of future discussion, it is important to note that Cell Group I, which is located here, these two Cells here, is contiguous to Cell Group J to the west. It is Agenda Item No.1 Page 8 of 49 PAGE 9 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 also important to identify both independent Cell 3853, which is here, and Cell Group O, which is right here, to the southeast of Cell Group J. Next slide, please. The first step in the MSHCP review, as staff has determined it, and consistency analysis is to evaluate whether the project contributes to the conservation of criteria established for each individual Cell or Cell Grouping in which the project lies according to the Cell criteria or Cell Group criteria found in the MSHCP. To do this, staff determined what Cell or Cell Group applied to this site. In this case, staff reviewed and considered the Cell -- the criteria for Cell Group J considering the project is located in this yellow area right here, the nine-acre site, and this is Cell Group J, this entire area. The conservation criteria for Cell Group J, and you have to bear with me as I read this criteria within the MSHCP, but I think it's important that I do mention it: Conservation within the Cell Group will contribute to the assembly of proposed core one; conservation within the Cell Group will focus on coastal sage scrub, chaparral grass land, riparian scrub,'woodland, and forest habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell Group will be connected to upland habitat proposed for conservation in Cell number 3853 and 3855 and Cell Group O to the south and to the coastal sage scrub habitat for a proposed conservation in Cell Group L to the East to riparian habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group I to the west and to existing PQP lands to the north and west. Conservation within the Cell Group remains from 75 to 85 percent of the Cell Group focusing in the western and northern portions of the Cell Group. Considering this language, it's important to note a few things. One is the contribution to core one; the other is the 75 to 85 percent conservation goal within this Cell Group. The focus on riparian and forested habitat and then the connection to other Cell Groups. Basically, our analysis started with asking whether the proposal contributes to proposed core one. We determined that the proposal from the applicant, which is the 75-foot width, does contribute to proposed core one. Staff then asked -- we asked ourselves whether the proposal contributes to 75 percent to 85 percent Agenda Item No.1 Page 9 of 49 PAGE 10 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 conservation in the western and northern portions of the Cell Group. We determined that based on a strict interpretation of the Cell criteria that the northern four Cells and the western four Cells totaling about 66 percent of Cell Group J should be entirely conserved. Staff acknowledges that the MSHCP obviously should be flexible and we should be able to jog the conservation boundary in that area. However, because of the limited resource recognized that it's the Temescal Wash and because we are to focus on riparian scrub and forest and habitat, and because we have to connect to other Cell Groups, we staff looked to,the adjacent Cell Groups to determine whether the proposal would allow us to achieve these three points. Considering that the Temescal Wash, which is the riparian area, which is this blue line that runs through the site here, and the criteria for Cell Group J does not explain how the wash should be treated, staff paid particular attention to the criteria for Cell Group I located in these two areas here, ,because Cell Group I provides instruction on how to treat Temescal Wash. Cell Group), which is located adjacent to the site, discusses how Temescal Wash should be treated, contributes to assembly of proposed constrained linkage six and requires approximately five percent conservation focusing that -- five percent conservation focusing and the southern portion of:the Cell Group. The conservation within this Cell Group reads as follows, bear with me again: "Conservation within the Cell Group will contribute to assembly of proposed constrained linkage six. Conservation within this Cell Group will focus on riparian habitat associated with Temescal Wash. Areas conserved within the Cell Group will be connected to the riparian habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group J to the east and in Cell Group H to the west. Conservation within this Cell Group will be approximately five percent of the Cell Group focusing on the southern portion of the Cell Group." It is from this language that staff extrapolated a calculation to reach the conservation goal of approximately 264 feet and that calculation is that we -- the two Cells in Cell Group I, there's a total of 320 acres. Agenda Item No.1 Page 10 of 49 PAGE 11 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Five percent of the 320-acre Cell Group is 16 acres. Converting the 16 acres to square feet, you have 696,960 square feet. Staff was looking at how to distribute -- determine how the 696,960 feet would be distributed throughout the Cell Group. Since Cell Group I conservation criteria requires that conservation be focused along the Temescal Wash and because Temescal Wash runs along the width of Cell Group I, staff distributed the 696,000 acres or so square feet along the width of Cell Group I, which°is 2,644 feet and with the division of the 696,000 square feet divided by 2,640 came up with 264 feet. While the City and the RCA determined that 264 feet was consistent with the MSHCP and was the optimum set aside, 'staff recognized the importance of commercial development opportunity at the site and concluded with the concurrence of RCA that a lesser set aside of 175 feet is enough to support biologically diverse habitat within the meaning of the MSHCP and that any Lesser conservation amount would be inconsistent with the plan. City staff supports the 175 feet set aside as consistent with the MSHCP and believe that it defines the maximum allowable development footprint consistent with the most flexible interpretation of the conservation criteria. As such, staff believes that the development of the 9.09-acre site with a 75-foot width as proposed is not consistent with the MSHCP. Finally, if the Planning Commission rejects staff's recommendation and instead recommends that the City Council find Castle and Cooke's proposal consistent with the MSHCP and if the City Council concurs with that recommendation, the project will move to the MSHCP ad hoc committee prior to final City Council determination. According to section 6.6.1(e)(4) when the City and the RCA disagree on a project's compliance with the MSHCP, the matter shall be submitted to an ad hoc committee made up of elected officials representing the RCA and the City. In the event the ad hoc committee is unable to make findings of consistency with the MSHCP, RCA staff must notify the wildlife agencies of such action by the City within 14 days. At that Agenda Item No.1 Page 11 of 49 PAGE 12 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 juncture, the wildlife agency may then consider the suspension of all or portions of the incidental take permit. That would conclude my presentation. I would like to defer to our City Attorney for further explanation of the process of this project. Chairman O'Neal Before you do that, before you do any deference, I was remiss in not opening the public hearing so please open the public hearing. Deputy City Attorney Santana Okay. I just want to clarify a little bit here tonight what the nature of the Planning Commission's action is. We have a couple of avenues that the Planning Commission can take and just thought it would be beneficial to outline those avenues before we get into the substance so that the substance can help you sort of process through. So the first option is for the Planning Commission to approve staff's recommendation. The second option is for the Planning Commission to reject staff's recommendation and that second option can be made up of two sub sets: one to either recommend that the City Council find Castle and Cooke's proposal consistent with the MSHCP or; B, to recommend that the City Council find some other number, aside from the 75 feet or the 175 feet, is consistent with the MSHCP. Now, if you take either of the approaches that are set forth as sub sets in the second option, if you reject staff's recommendation, just wanted to let you know that you will have to make findings. You will have to articulate reasons why, on the record, your recommendation is being made and why that recommendation is consistent with the MSHCP. So I just thought that I would throw that out there and hopefully you could take notes during the presentations to make sure that you can extrapolate information either way. Chairman O'Neal Thank you. That completes staff presentation; is that correct? Agenda Item No.1 Page 12 of 49 PAGE 13 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Preisendanz Yes, it is. Chairman O'Neal I know the applicant is here and Mr. Scott Thayer, is it you or Mr. Tom Tomlinson that would like to come forward? Scott Thayer, okay. Good evening, Scott. Please state your name and address for the record. Mr. Thayer Good evening Chairman O'Neal, members of the Commission. My name is Scott Thayer, Vice President of Commercial Development for Castle & Cooke, addressed at 2470 Tuscany Road in Corona. First of all, we are also developers of the 113-acre project in Corona, highly successful, where we dealt with, in that case, Joseph's,Canyon Wash. We relocated oak trees that we didn't have to. I think we spent between 300 and $400,000; no one forced us to do that. We've then, again, planted that project with a native palette, something that was;required of us on a portion of that to the Joseph Canyon Wash, but in the entire;,project that was at our leisure. So we feel that, you know, we are an environmentally friendly developer and we have taken a look at this particular site and wanted to review it with you. Today I'm only going to touch briefly on the subject matter. I have a few consultants that I would like to bring up as they have more technical expertise, not at this time, but a little bit later; Steve Miles, Hardy Strozier, Dr. Jack Turner, biologist, and also from Castle and Cooke, Tom Tomlinson, who handles much of the residential projects here and around Lake Elsinore. We have a number of commercial properties that we plan on developing in this city, and those that we haven't acquired or don't own, we're going to make an attempt to go after those as well. So hopefully we'll be seeing you time and time again and, with any luck at all, staff and ourselves will be coming up with the same agenda. So that is the intent. Agenda Item No.1 Page 13 of 49 PAGE 14 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Let's just start from the beginning, just briefly take a couple of minutes. We started this project back in September 2005. At that point, Castle and Cooke and City staff were on the same page and, in fact, staff -- we had our meet and confer session at the RCA. Staff made the arguments for us that our plan was consistent with the MSHCP so that we can move forward. However, soon after that meeting, we found that the -- that had changed and since then we've been fighting this battle for a long time and, as Rolfe had mentioned, we have met a number of times trying to, each side, lay out the information so the other party knew what the other was doing in trying to resolve this. Unfortunately, we have not been able to do that in this case and that's why we're here tonight and what we're going to be asking you for is that our plan is consistent with the MSHCP plan and that we want you to send it up to the Council with your approval. If you had an opportunity to review that staff report and the accompanying material that we sent in, I just want to touch base briefly on some of the high points that I saw in that -- that was in that letter. First of all, you hear tonight a lot about -- here's where we have the issue with the staff's analysis -- you hear a lot about interpolation and coming up with things that, in our view, was kind of stretching trying to get to it, to a point, and sitting` on a position and all along this project came in at the very beginning dealing with facts. We only want to deal with facts so that we could come to either the RCA or this body and have a strong argument that yes, indeed; this project is consistent with the plan. So with that, this project is the entry to the northern part of the city. It has commercial implications that are, in our opinion, far and wide that something special is going to go on here in the near future -- in the very near future, in fact. Our proposal calls for an 825 -- a long 825-foot wash, a 400-foot conserved area closer to Lake Street, and I know staff had just mentioned it was 75 feet. In fact, we actually have 400 feet and then it narrows down to the 75 feet. So we have that. The actual width of the creek is eight feet and the site currently has one percent Agenda Item No.1 Page 14 of 49 PAGE 15 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 riparian vegetation and 99 percent non-native with much of that eucalyptus. The MSHCP targets six birds, two of which are listed, none of which are located on the property. So we don't have species; we don't have habitat. Why are we here? Good question. There's also discussion that because this property is adjacent to lands that are excluded from the MSHCP because of a settlement, that there should be more scrutiny placed on this property. There's nothing in the MSHCP plan that says that. Also, in much of the discussions with staff in a number of meetings, the concern was, well, if the species and the habitat isn't there now, well, we're looking for -- into the future of what it could be. Well, what it could be -- there's a lot of things that could be. I mean, if you have a piece out in the middle of nowhere maybe something will happen on that as well. But we're not.dealing, again, with facts. A couple more items here. One of the slides shows the adjacent properties that have already gone into conservation and due to a HANS Process and an acquisition, if you add those two together, that comes to approximately 72 percent conserved already. Now, on behalf of the RCA, I believe someone is acquiring on behalf of them additional properties adjacent to those, which, when you add everything up, it's going to be in excess of 85 percent more than the targeted -- that which is targeted in the plan. So, you know, with that, there's no requirement that this conservation -- that going through this stream has to be a certain size. Take a look at the biology and kind of leave it up to the actual species and habitat that's on the property and make a decision and I think that's what we've done and we've done a good job with that. With this, I'm going to turn the rest of this presentation over to Steve Miles and he can walk you through these slides. Thank you. Mr. Miles Thank you, Scott. Honorable Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, it's with great pleasure that I'm here today presenting this information to you. It's been a Agenda Item No.1 Page 15 of 49 PAGE 16 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 long time and it's a pleasure to see some familiar faces. A little bit of background on my expertise since we are dealing with evidence and facts and, as the City Attorney pointed out, there may be an issue with making findings based on substantial evidence in the record. So by way of evidence, and by way of my background, I have an ecology degree from the University of California at Irvine and I also have a masters in environmental sciences along with a Juris Doctorate so I do feel as though I am qualified to at least nibble on the periphery of some of the science that goes along with the legal issues that I'll be going through mostly with you this evening. I'm going to have a substantive argument, a procedural argument, and I'm then going to hand this presentation over to our team biologist, Dr. Jack Turner. We're going to be getting some into fairly -- some minutia' in detail, so, at this time, I would encourage at any time, feel free to interrupt my presentation if any questions come up because I think that it's appropriate to ask them when the question comes up as opposed to at the end of my presentation. I'm going to start off with a nuts and bolts review of the MSHCP and the self criteria consistency analysis that was submitted to you as early as late 2005. As you see here, lay of the land, this is the proposed conservation boundary, we've got Cell 3854, which is an independent Cell, and you have Cell 3751, which is a portion of the Cell Group J that we'll be referring to quite extensively. With respect -- we can go to the next slide. With respect to 3854,the Cell Group here and the individual Cell, the critical piece of this Cell consistency is that 10 to 20 percent of the Cell is to be conserved in the northeastern portion of the Cell, which is right here. That hashed area is approximately 20 percent, so that's the high end of the range. So with respect to that individual Cell, there really is no way to make a finding that the project as proposed is inconsistent with Cell 3854. Agenda Item No.1 Page 16 of 49 PAGE 17 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Moving onto the northern portion of the parcel, we have Cell 3751 which encompasses the lion's share of the property and that is in Cell Group J. The basic part of Cell Group J, and it looks like a J, is that approximately 75 to 85 percent of this Cell Group is to be conserved in the northern and western portions of the Cell Group. Again, this is the parcel in question. The northern portion of the Cell Group's up here, and the western portion is here, and here is what is already conserved, 1,360 acres. So we're already at -- just with these holdings right here, you're at 71 percent of the Cell Group. Later on, Hardy Strozier is going to present some information on some case studies and keep .in mind that number of 71 percent. Even though the Cell Group J says 75 to 85 percent, we're going to be talking about the discretion that this body has in interpreting and applying criteria under the MSHCP. In addition to that, those holdings, 3653 and 3751, there's additional acquisition efforts that are under way, negotiations for acquisition. Right around this little piece here, there are several postings that the land is for conservation purposes. So the reality is that with the conservation of this, ;ultimately you're going to go to 1,571 acres and you're going to be at about 82 percent of the Cell Group which, again, we're getting to the upper range of the conservation requirement for Cell Group J. This also doesn't take into consideration Interstate 15. This whole entire area -- there's Interstate 15 right there. If you include the 1-15 territory, you're actually getting close to 95 percent conservation for Cell Group J. Okay. If we go to slide 34. 1 want to turn to an analysis of Cell Group J. From the staff report, you're familiar with the calculation that's been derived and that comes from Cell Group I. Whenever you apply Cell criteria from one Cell Group to another, you're applying Cell criteria that does not apply to the Cell Group; that's called criteria refinement. And if you do that, you need to go through a procedure under the MSHCP that provides for public information and scrutiny by the regulatory agencies. By applying unilaterally Cell Group I criteria to Cell Group J, you're Agenda Item No.1 Page 17 of 49 PAGE 18 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 violating the MSHCP. Arguably, that alone is an abuse of discretion and with respect to the findings that may or may not procedurally need to be made tonight, I would recommend that if you deny this project, that you would be well-served to make findings that support that denial because, again, things like applying Cell criteria that don't apply to Cell Group J, that's patently an error. I want to read a little bit -- just a couple passages from the staff report pertaining to Cell Group J and Cell Group I and then I'll turn to the slide. In my review of the staff report I was -- again, the recommendation is denial. I was surprised to see that there wasn't a whole lot in the staff report that talked about why the 120-foot average, not 75 feet, 120-foot average, why that is inconsistent with MSHCP. There's a lot about why staff believes that 175 feet or why the RCA feels that 175 feet is the benchmark. I think at the end of the staff,report, it's something along the lines of 175 is it. So 176 is good, 174 is bad; it's a bright-lined rule. I don't know how you reached that, but that's kind of the analysis. Now that goes to why the City's staff believes that their proposal is consistent with MSHCP but the staff report does not have a lot of information and it doesn't really even attempt to back up its conclusion that 120-foot average is inconsistent. The closest that the staff report comes is in one paragraph. It says, "Recall from above that the conservation criteria for both Cell Group J and Cell Group I require that the riparian areas for both Cell Groups connect." Now, I just offer that of course Cell Group I and Cell Group J connect; they're adjacent to one another. And as you saw from the map, 75 feet width downstream, that's certainly going to connect. It's actually going to connect to an exempted parcel before it reaches Cell Group I, but we'll get into that later. Continuing on with the paragraph in the staff report, it states that, "In order to connect and to prevent bottle necking -2 which is actually a conservation biology term that our biologist is going to get into in a few moments -- the staff report says that, "the width of the Temescal Wash should be consistent in both Cell Group I and Cell Group J. Therefore, because Cell Group I requires 264 linear feet of land along Agenda Item No.1 Page 18 of 49 PAGE 19 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 the length of Temescal Wash to be conserved, staff concluded that the same 264 linear feet should be conserved along the length of Temescal Wash as it bisects Cell Group J." Okay. We're going to talk about this calculation of 264 linear feet; it's actually a width. You saw the diagram, it's actually an offset from the medium of the Temescal Wash, which is interesting, but, basically, staff is saying that you need 264 feet in width for Temescal Wash and they derive this from Cell Group I. First point, there's no evidence before you of a disconnect. Again, this application shows a 75-foot width of a riparian corridor that goes == the adjacent parcel is an exempted property and that continues on into Cell Group I. So connectivity -- there's nothing in the record that talks about a disconnect. Second, the analysis here ignores the exempted property. That's the real issue here and I think it's something that we'll want to discuss at the closing of my comments. The third point, 264 feet of width has nothing to do with connectivity. I mean, you have connectivity at 75 feet or 263 feet at 174 feet and at 300 feet. There's no -- when you talk about connectivity, you think you'd hear about there's something precluding that riparian corridor from going downstream. That's just not the case here. That's really kind of the closest the staff report comes to saying that 120-foot width is inconsistent with the MSHCP. The bottleneck is, again, something that Dr. Turner will pick up on and, again, what I'd like to do is go to slide --,the covered project slide if you wouldn't mind, Michael. Let's talk about Cell Group I because there's two things. This is the actual language of Cell Group I' and it does say the conservation will focus on riparian habitat associated with Temescal Wash. Areas conserved within the Cell Group will be connected, and, again, we have connectivity, to riparian habitat -- proposed for conservation of Cell Group J to the east and Cell Group H to the west. Conservation within this Cell Group will be approximately five percent of the Cell Group focusing on the southern portion of the Cell Group. That five percent doesn't necessarily have to be dedicated entirely to the riparian corridor. This is just like any other quantitative criteria in an individual Cell or Cell Group. Five percent of the Cell Agenda Item No.1 Page 19 of 49 PAGE 20 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Group in the southern portion of the Cell Group shall be conserved. That's the standard, not five percent shall be width dedicated to Temescal Wash. So this whole take five percent of the Cell Group and then take that acreage and apply it over the lineal length of the stream to come up with a width, that's not what Cell Group I criteria really dictates. Commissioner Zanelli Steven, excuse me, you asked that I could stop you. Where did you get that five percent standard from? Standard of what, sir? Mr. Miles The five percent is actually in Cell Group I as a criteria. It's right here. It says conservation will be approximately five percent of the Cell Group so there's a number of Cells in the Group and it's from the MSHCP exactly. The point here, though, is you'll see that it doesn't say anything along the lines of Temescal Wash as a linkage or constrained linkage shall be''264 feet. In fact, the calculation is an error because it isn't a 100 ;percent dedication to a riparian corridor. There's certainly a focus on it, ;but it's not 100 percent. And the critical point is that what you're seeing is staff has taken criteria from Cell Group I that derived a hard-lined fixed number for a linkage and applied it to Cell Group J. On that point, let's go to -- let's start with this slide and then we're going to go into the standards for linkages and answer the question, does the MSHCP require a fixed number for a linkage let alone a constrained linkage? Let's start with this slide. Reserved design is intended to describe one way in which the MSHCP conservation area could be configured consistent with MSHCP criteria. It does not represent the only possible reserve that could be assembled consistent with the MSHCP. Flexibility is intended to be incorporated in the reserve assembly process. This is why I point out the fact that it does not appear that the staff report has the evidence to say that 120 feet is inconsistent. There may be various configurations that are consistent and within the realm of discretion. I would argue Agenda Item No.1 Page 20 of 49 PAGE 21 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 that 120 feet is purely and clearly within the realm of discretion and I'll point out that when you derive 175 feet in width from the wrong Cell Group, that's an abusive discretion. Now, getting back to the question, does the linkage require a set, hard fast rule, you know, ignore hydrology, ignore the organic nature of a stream, 264 feet, that's the way it's going to look. No width requirements are set by the MSHCP for the Temescal corridor and I'll go a little bit further. Nothing in theMSHCP states that you shall ever have a width requirement for any linkage. And, again, this is a linkage that's talking about targeted avian species; we talked about the six birds. It's a constrained corridor. Now let me talk to you about linkages. If you go to the Environmental Impact Report for the MSHCP. There was a whole round of commentary when people had questions and they needed clarification and there was a whole litany of responses to those questions. I'm going to read a few of the RCA responses to those questions that relate to linkages. Response C2-5. "Linkages cannot be identified until after the cores are identified and assembled." This talks about a sequencing that we're going to get into a little bit more when we start;figuring out where's the City with their core conservation? Continuing on with that same response to comment, "Accordingly, the linkages do not have hard-lined conservation boundaries at this point in time and will be assembled in a most efficient manner possible." Response to comment J4-10, "The dimensions of linkages as well as all other components of additional reserve lands are provided through interpretation of the criteria as development and reserve assembly proceed." And here's the one that's most on point. Same responsive comment, J4-10, "Width and length of linkages are specifically not proscribed in the MSHCP to allow flexibility in reserve assembly and to benefit from property-specific information anticipated and become available during the long-term MSHCP implementation process." That's what we're talking about Agenda Item No.1 Page 21 of 49 PAGE 22 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 right here. You now have, and you're going to hear from the biologist, about project- specific information. And the fact that you're -- the staff report is taking Cell Group I and they're coming up with a tenuous argument about a 264-foot width for Temescal Wash. The MSHCP specifically did not proscribe that. It's contrary to the whole concept of a soft-line conservation plan. I'd like to also talk about the proposal that the City staff is giving tonight. I think it might be -- and, again, this is getting into what findings this body may need or may not need to make -- but I'm kind of curious what that proposal really is. I mean, we all know that it's 175 feet in width and we saw that offset off, of Temescal Wash. There's a couple factors with that 175-foot width. One is if you have a homogenous or the same 264-foot or 175-foot width, you're going to actually increase edge effect on -- for Temescal Wash in relation to the 400-fo6t width that contours down to 75 feet in width. It's because that connectivity and the volume, if you look at it, or really its acreage, that is on the front of that property --, ,as you're moving downstream if you have a 400-foot frontage and it tapers' to a 275-foot frontage, you're going to have less linear area. So you're going to have less edge effect. One other point with respect to the project ;is that if it's just 175 feet, that's going to get you into kind of what's called a LEAP Two process. It's going to be fine, pay for it, acquire it somehow, and also what's being proposed right now is 120 foot on average with an enhancement of the biological characteristics of the stream. If it's 175 feet by this application of Cell Group I criteria -- that doesn't include enhancement -- so you're going to get 175 feet of eucalyptus woodland so that's something -- it's kind of-- I'd like to maybe know a little bit more about what City staff is proposing because I didn't really get a whole lot from the staff report on what they're truly proposing. Chairman O'Neal Steven? Agenda Item No.1 Page 22 of 49 PAGE 23 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Mr. Miles Yes, sir? Chairman O'Neal We need to move this on a little bit. Mr. Miles Okay. I'm going to just briefly touch on the -- I'm done with my substantive argument, Mr. Chairman. If I could -- allow me a couple of minutes just to kind of touch on some procedural arguments, I'll get through it real quick. We can talk a little bit more about the discretion of this body and maybe if it gets to a point where you might want to ask a question, I can elaborate, but the plan specifically states the RCA does not usurp local land use controls. Through this conflict resolution process, I would offer that when,you go 20 months on a LEAP, especially a LEAP One, it's certainly within the discretion of this body and it's within the MSHCP implementation policies to review it, send it on to the City Council and that's it. The alternative dispute resolution procedures in the MSHCP occur in two areas; section 6.1.1 and in section 6.6.2(e). Now, 6.1.1 is the HANS Process or the LEAPs Process and it's a discretionary dispute resolution process that the applicant can go through and I'd like to read -- Chairman O'Neal Can I stop you just for a second. Mr. Miles Yes, sir. Chairman O'Neal I'm not quite certain I followed that exactly. Are you saying then -- I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that it's not -- Mr. Miles I probably said nothing of clarity. I'm going to — Agenda Item No.1 Page 23 of 49 PAGE 24 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Chairman O'Neal -- that it's not necessarily that you need to go to the ADHOC Committee for resolution? Mr. Miles Correct. Chairman O'Neal That is in fact the City -- I'm not quite -- could you -- Mr. Miles Sure. What I'm going to do is -- let me read -- actually,;section 6.6.2(e), which is the joint project review meet and confer introductory paragraph. This is what meet and confer comes from. The introduction says that, "To ensure that the requirements of the permits on the MSHCP, the implemented agreement are properly met, a joint project acquisition review process shall be, instituted by the RCA. This process shall not in any way limit the permittee's local land Use authority, prevent a permittee from approving a project, or change the provisions of the HANS process described in section 6.6.1." What I'm telling you is that in section 6.1.1 is that alternative dispute resolution process that's discretionary and it's a vehicle, it's a tool for an applicant to go through. Again, the joint project review time periods, the 14-day JPR, or the 30- day meet and confer, the 30 days for the ADHOC Committee, those time periods have come and gone. It would be well within your discretion to say, look, we note that 6.6.2(e) talks about how the LEAPs Process and that eight alternative dispute resolution processes cannot be changed by the joint project review provisions and you can move on. Chairman O'Neal So basically what you're saying is that City Council can be the end to all to this? Mr. Miles I would offer that. It's certainly under the facts of this matter. Again, in one of the -- everywhere you look it talks about -- especially when you're dealing with the 80R Agenda Item No.1 Page 24 of 49 PAGE 25 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 procedure, is that there is no usurpation of the local land use authority. It's within your discretion to decide procedurally what you need to do with this project. Chairman O'Neal And the final authority is City Council; is that correct? Mr. Miles Correct. Chairman O'Neal Although the Planning Commission could make a recommendation. Mr. Miles Correct. And that's very clear from the implementation policies and, again, I'll read verbatim that, "If the applicant and planning staff' and this is where we're at right now, is that there are four basic options available to the applicant. One is to initiate a conflict resolution process. Again, 'in the LEAP context, that's discretionary for the applicant. In the JPR context, it's come and gone and that JPR dispute resolution cannot modify the LEAP dispute resolution process. Chairman O'Neal So in other words, the sentence that's on page seven of 18 that reads, "The matter shall be submitted to an ADHOC committee made up of elected officials," is not necessarily,correct. Mr. Miles Yes. I would say that you can certainly -- Chairman O'Neal The City, in fact, does not have to go to this ADHOC Committee; correct? Mr. Miles Correct. Again, the fourth option in the implementation policy is proceed with a conflicting land use design with recommendations of project denial from the Planning Division to the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. That's where we're at right now and, again, I mean, 20 months -- really 22 months, you can certainly -- it's Agenda Item No.1 Page 25 of 49 PAGE 26 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 a procedural issue, so your discretion and your land use authority certainly it's within your discretion. And I would offer that it would be futile at this time in the game to then go back and try to hash this out through a meet and confer. It's just going to be a delay. Chairman O'Neal Right. Would you mind moving onto the biology part, please? Mr. Miles Yes, actually, I will. At this point in time I'd like to 'introduce Dr. Jack Turner. Dr. Turner is a -- in addition to being a field biologist, he's a professor and he's not just a professor, but he teaches post-doctorates at a University. He's very familiar and intimate with the site and he'll run through the biology for you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman O'Neal Thank you, Steven. For the record, Dr.Turner; is that correct? Dr. Turner Yes, sir. My name is -- I'm Dr. Jack Turner. I am the project's biologist with The Planning Associates, 3151 Airway Avenue in Costa Mesa. I am a teaching professor on sabbatical leave from Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas, where we put a little different referendum on target species than they do here in California. By way of introduction, I was told I should tell an attorney joke but don't think I will, but we had several selected. At any rate, by way of introduction, I have 40 years of biological assessment and evaluation work behind me. I have evaluated proposals in research for the National Institute of Health, I've done it for the National Science Foundation, I've also worked with the Environmental \Protection Agency in Washington D.C. I'm not -- although I'm from Texas right now, I'm a local boy I was educated at Thornton High School, graduated from Cal State Fullerton and went to UC Riverside, so this part of the world is not unfamiliar to me. I have published in both national and international refereed publications on Agenda Item No.1 Page 26 of 49 PAGE 27 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Endangered Species Act and species contained within the Endangered Species Act and I have provided to you a brief a resume as well as a declaration of my views, if you wish, or perspectives, on the viability of the MSHCP constrained linkage quarter number six as proposed by Castle & Cooke. Mr. Strozier either has or is in the process of handing out to you a number of handouts that will accompany my talk and I have provided you also kind of a running script, if you wish, of my comments here. I guess at the outset, there are several things that bather,me. First of all, the staff and the RCA with its MSHCP biological description on the 909 site is almost totally in error in terms of its description of what is there. In my opinion, the staff and the RCA have picked out, or if you will pardon the expression, cherry picked the information that has been provided in order to serve their own opinions or goals. To begin with, the staff on page four, paragraph two, of the agenda, describes the Temescal Wash to be a special limited resource that runs through the project site. Now it's difficult for me to classify a 98 percent exotic invasive stand of eucalyptus trees with a streaming flow of sewer plant effluent running through it as some kind of special limited resource. In Texas we would call it something else. But, by the same token, here it is accorded the highest of pristine types of environments. I fully expected a mountain stream with trout running through it. Furthermore, the Planning Commission has not been provided with sufficient facts to make an independent conclusion, only those facts which support the staff. The staff has failed to provide these facts. I work in an academic community and withholding facts to prove your thesis is considered an egregious and unethical act. But here we're dealing more with political science and not real science; or are we? There seems to be an inordinate amount of rhetoric surrounding the nine acres of this near biological desert stand of dangerous invasive exotic trees that includes this stream flow from the sewer plant. Castle and Cooke has proposed a series of habitat enhancements to this site, yet these enhancements have gone unchallenged Agenda Item No.1 Page 27 of 49 PAGE 28 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 only that they are wrong or that the 75-foot buffer or strip through this ground for conservation is inadequate; not why, but just that it's wrong. I can remember my dad saying you can't do that, I'd say, why, because I said so. I'm sorry, that's not good enough here. Just because they say so, I want some reasons behind it. None of what they have said is supported by the published literature and most all of it's in what we call gray literature or unreferenced citation. As an example, there seems to be a controversy that arises`when -- from what is described by the MSHCP text as the proposed constrained linkage number six, serving to protect six species of migratory birds. The operative word here is migratory. They're not here all year round -- migratory birds, only two of which are listed as the -- under the Endangered Species Act, the least Bell's vireo and the southwestern willow flycatcher. The remaining birds -- the white-tailed kite, the cooper's hawk, also known as the chicken hawk for those,people who understand that, the yellow warbler, and the yellow-breasted chat -- none of these six migratory species live in or near,the project site and they couldn't even if they wanted to because there's no habitat there for them. The MSHCP incorrectly categorizes the habitat that's found on this site. Before we go into this, let me first clarify the City staff's mischaracterization of Castle & Cooke's proposed conservation easement, commencing on page three, paragraph seven, and extending throughout the document, what they elude to is the Castle and Cooke easement is a 75-foot wide piece of ground. This is not true. It's not a 75-foot piece of ground. It is a piece of ground that is 400 feet`extending down to 75 feet with an average of 125 feet which is vastly different than if somebody were to tell you that it's a 75-foot easement through the property. Now we'll return to this in a minute. Important to our discussion are some very -- what I consider critical points. As most of the California natural -- let me back up. The California Department of Fish and Game produces a document quarterly called the California Natural Diversity Database. What this is is a listing of observations that's produced quarterly Agenda Item No.I Page 28 of 49 PAGE 29 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 throughout the state of California on endangered and sensitive species. What you have in front of you is the most recent version of what was referred to as the CNDDB database. You have the most recent database observations for the 9.09 acre site. Notice that there is nothing within one mile radius. You pick up a few hits in five miles, and after, in the ten miles, you pick up maybe one or two more but nothing doubling in terms of distance. The reason being is the habitat is not there. The primary reason for MSHCP planning species not being found on the site is the lack of habitat. The eucalyptus dominates this project site. The least Bell's vireo requires rivering riparian habitats that typically feature a dense willow cover within one to two meters of the ground and a dense stratified canopy. That means you have to have layering in the forestation. On this site, you have a dense packing of eucalyptus trees and nothing more. At the eastern end of the site, there are a few willows, a tamarisk tree, which is another exotic, and that's about it. The least Bell's vireo requiring this kind of stratified habitat and you say what about the other species. Well, the other species including the chat and the yellow warbler and the willow flycatcher require about the same kind of habitat. So we're not talking about just one species; we're talking about habitat requirements for all of these. And what is said about the Least Bell's Vireo is that the most critical factor is that they require a dense shrub layer at two to ten feet above the ground. This is cited in works in the MSHCP by Gold Wasser in 1981 and Franthrup in 1989. This just doesn't exist on the site, yet the staff would have you believe it does. A primary reason, as I mentioned before, for the absence of this kind of habitat relates to the fact that the eucalyptus tree is found on site. The eucalyptus tree there exists as what we call a monoculture. A monoculture means it's just one species; that's it. And the eucalyptus tree that is there exists as a monoculture because that is what it evolved to do. It is extremely good at getting rid of competitors; competitors being any other vegetation. Agenda Item No.1 Page 29 of 49 PAGE 30 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Why is the eucalyptus tree bad? I believe in your package you were provided an article up in northern California. First of all, the eucalyptus tree is a fire hazard. Its deciduous bark, its deciduous leaves, and it also is what we call a self-pruner; it has deciduous limbs which happen to fall off at usually inopportune times; when your car's parked close or somebody's walking underneath. They're shallow-rooted. You get a little water -- you'd like to get a little water, but if we get any water, the roots become loose, a wind will take them over. It is an enteric toxin. What that means is if you eat it, you die, unless you're a koala bear. Since most of us are not koala bears, if you eat it, you die. Not only do humans die, but so do the wildlife that eat it. It's an extreme enteric toxin. It's also a phytotoxin. It sends out chemicals from its roots and its leaves that prevent other seeds from germinating and other plants from growing; hence, we have a monoculture. It also is capable of suckering off. If you've ever cut down a eucalyptus tree, you know very quickly it suckers back from the stump. But more importantly it will 'sucker ou#from its roots at virtually any time. So it continually spreads its growth. In fact, many eucalyptus trees are all the same age within a growth because they are clones of one another; genetically identical. And of course if they don't reproduce asexually, they are 80 percent efficient at pollination -- or germination, excuse me. So you have 80 seedlings out of 100 seeds produced germinating. That produces the monoculture. Now, with that said, the MSHCP in section 3.1.4 in its description of conservation principles and major tenets calls for the protection of reserves from encroachment by non-native species. Why, then, are we protecting a monocultured eucalyptus grove on the 909 as being some kind of fantastic resource? On the first page of your staff report, the MSHCP characterizes criteria Cell Group I and it conveys the information that this description in Criteria Cell I is how the Temescal Wash is to be treated. That's a bit of a stretch. It then indicates that the staff extrapolated a calculation in order to recommend a riparian quarter of 264 feet on the project site. They extrapolated this from a Cell criteria Group J. Once they Agenda Item No.1 Page 30 of 49 PAGE 31 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 came up with the 264-foot number, the County said they would accept 175 foot. Do I hear 120? The word extrapolation is the operative term here because the term extrapolation relates to a situation where a trend is continued beyond a point for which there are facts or data. Think of it as driving down the road looking only in your rearview mirror to determine where you're going to go. What happens when the road turns? What you see behind you is a straight road. The road just turned. You don't know that. That's what extrapolation means. And in science, extrapolation only is perceived under the most rigorous statistical conditions. In other words, they guessed. They made personal opinion with no information. Personal opinion appears to be the basis of the staff's recommendation. The MSHCP text is totally silent on corridor width or conservation set asides for streaming, as I say, sewer treatment plants, for the Temescal Wash. There are no numbers about how wide a conservation easement should be or how it should be calculated. I once mused that we know more about building the ark than we know about building conservation easements; and that's true. Every situation is different and that is why the MSHCP doesn't say anything about how wide or how long it should be. One size does not fit all. There is not information from the City staff that you can use to extrapolate to a 264- or 175-foot width based on that conservation description. It is somewhat unsettling from a scientific perspective that if both the City and the County have the same information, and allegedly the same calculating ability, why they end up with two different numbers both meeting the same criteria. Obviously, it must not be as hard-pressed as we like to think it is. Do I hear 120? Even more contradiction is the staff's position that 328 feet is necessary for endangered birds, including the vireo, to breed in habitat. That is to say the biological opinion for the MSHCP says 328 feet is needed for these endangered birds. So how can the staff claim that 175 feet will work? Obviously, there must be a problem. Well, if the 175-foot corridor will work, how can they not explain needing Agenda Item No.1 Page 31 of 49 PAGE 32 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 a bigger width? The Castle & Cooke corridor is in fact wider than the 328 feet. In fact, it's 400 feet wide at one description. The question, in my reference to 125 feet, understand, that's the average width across the project site. How can staff's RCA's 175 quarter work when they just explained that they needed 328 feet in order to have reproducing habitat for the birds? The Castle and Cooke quarter is in fact wider than the 175 feet. It is further perturbing that neither the City nor the County, are concerned with the quality of the habitat that is present, only the quantity, the acres, or the number of eucalyptus trees they can gather in; an exotic tree that,is suggested by the MSHCP not to be a benefit. The reasons why none of the bird species occur is due to the absence of habitat. You don't have 328 feet of riparian habitat; you don't have hardly any. The staff's linkage explanation appears to be similarly plagued by inconsistencies. Quarters do not provide live-in habitat for species in contrast with a linkage. A linkage provides for permanent resident live-in habitat as well as movement habitat. This is :right out of the MSHCP section 3.1.4. The MSHCP's term for quarter, however, has been conspicuously omitted from the staff's presentation. The City and the County have indicated 264- and 175-foot, respectively. Conservation set aside to support a biological diverse habitat; that's on page six, paragraph four. Does the staff not realize this property is characterized by a monotypic stand of eucalyptus trees with no diversity, no habitat for planning species, and never will if nothing is done -- is not done, excuse me. The property is characterized as part of the proposed constrained linkage number six suggesting live-in habitat that has problems to begin with only -- on agenda page four, paragraph three, it is stated that the MSHCP biological opinion by the federal government on the least Bell's vireo requires a minimum of 328 feet of undeveloped landscape adjacent to the riparian woodland and scrub habitat. Obviously, that's the reason why there's no birds there. I wish to give you two examples, however. Agenda Item No.1 Page 32 of 49 PAGE 33 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Although the MSHCP biological opinion cites 328 feet, we have two examples very close. One is a place called Strawberry Farms; it's a golf course; it's located in Sand Canyon in Irvine, California; it has a similar creek corridor problem with a corridor width of 75 to 120 feet in length -- in width. It has been the subject of ten years of focus surveys including those of least Bell's vireo imposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game and, at the outset of the study, there was one pair -- there was a sighting of one male. There has now been, in the ten years worth of data, between 16 and 100 male sightings on the same piece of habitat, essentially conditioned in the same manner that is proposed for the Castle & Cooke property. We have the Crossings just up the road, another Castle & Cooke development. It had a stream running through it as well. It was similarly modified, except here we have a 35-foot corridor. We have two and, a half times the species on that site as we do on the 909. Just a little bit of vegetation is adequate. I think one last thing I want to say, and that has to do with bottlenecking. The term bottleneck is a term which refers to evolutionary biology, conservation biology, and population biology, it's a collective term, and what it really means is a population die off due to reduced populations -- we're talking about a 50 percent die off. The operative term is "population die off." You don't have any birds here to die off and so there's no bottleneck. Birds can fly over the site, they can fly through the site, they can fly down the interstate; there is no bottleneck. Twenty miles down the road is the Valhalla for all least Bell's vireo and a whole bunch of other endangered species at Prado Dam; 20 miles as the bird flies, so to speak. The site has been mischaracterized. You have not been provided all of the information. I would suggest to you that, based upon staff information, you cannot make a scientific or an informed decision. I would hope that you would take some of these matters into consideration. Thank you. Agenda Item No.1 Page 33 of 49 PAGE 34 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Chairman O'Neal Thank you, sir. Mr. Miles Real quickly, we're going to have two more speakers and at this time I'd like to introduce Mr. Hardy Strozier. He's an AICP certified planner and I said certified, not certifiable. He's going to share with you a couple of case studies, as I mentioned before, with respect to the MSHCP and how the exercise of discretion works within the plan. Chairman O'Neal Yeah, Hardy, before you start, and I really do -- 1 mean no disrespect to everybody, but if we can make it a little bit faster, I would appreciate that. Hardy Strozier I'm going to ask Mr. Miles here to hand out some material. It's titled "Criteria Refinement." I just want to re-emphasize that what is called for in making one -- trying to take one bit of information from Cell Group l; Cell Group J is not permitted, and I'm just giving you the law out of the MSHCP. Now, two other things I want to point out; two case studies. My .thesis is that you don't have to go with 75, 85 percent conservation. In fact, staff's proposal would have you at the top of the range, at like 85 percent vr,100 percent of the top of the range and the city of Perris, in a recent pro1ect -- and I'm going to hand out these documents to you -- on a 500- acre project, the RCA and City went from 50 to 60 percent conservation where there were endangered species on the project site and they said instead of 50 or 60 percent we're only going to require 23 percent and they based it on the on-site biology. One other fact you should be aware of is that in this case the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Fish and Game disagreed with the RCA and City's position, yet no lawsuit, no revocation of the permit occurred. Similarly, in your City here on a LEAP that occurred in 2005, it was a tract that was in front of this commission, Tuscany West Tract Map 25473. Similarly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Agenda Item No.1 Page 34 of 49 PAGE 35 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 recommended a higher percentage. This City and the RCA said, no, we'll do a lower percentage. In fact, we will take what's required on this tract site and we'll say it's been accommodated off site. We'll do it off site and the service said, no. Fish and Game said, no. MSHCP says you can't do that without criteria refinement, but the City did it anyway without ad hoc committee, without going to the service, and nobody filed a lawsuit. My point is you have a vast amount of discretion to make your own decisions. Thank you very much. Chairman O'Neal Thank you, Hardy. Mr. Miles The last speaker is someone you all know, Mr. Tom Tomlinson, Vice President of Castle and Cooke. Mr. Tomlinson Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. I apologize for the length of the presentation. It's a very important subject to Castle and Cooke. We have a lot of properties within Lake Elsinore. We're looking at acquiring more, so it's very important to us, so I apologize. I'll make mine very brief. I just want to, in closing, just ask the Commission in their vote to approve the request as presented by the applicant and go to the Commission of -- with the recommendation -- the Council with recommendation of approval. I think you could just simply do it based on the facts and the information you have before you and what you've heard today. A couple of other things that I'd like to talk about just very briefly, I think it would be nice to -- if we could -- I mean, 20 months is a very long time for the process -- the LEAP process. I know there are a lot of extenuating circumstances with this and I'm sure the City has done many much quicker than that, but I think it would be wise to be able to work with a developer in the community to look at the application of the MSHCP citywide to ensure that proper preservation and proper corridors and proper linkages are preserved. The feeling I have is it's almost like a land grab from the Agenda Item No.1 Page 35 of 49 PAGE 36 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 County. What I've seen them take north of the freeway at Lake Street and take commercial property that I think would have been extremely valuable to the City from a revenue generation standpoint, it seems like their land banking the City of Lake Elsinore, which to me just doesn't seem fair. So I would ask that staff be asked to work with the development community to really sit down and develop a program that makes sense rather than just to do it piecemeal like it is right now. Excuse me just one second. Part of that process, I think we need to establish, what is the City requirement or the City expectation for participation in the MSHCP. I've heard everything from a range, and I believe Joe Monaco has asked at our February 1 sharing or public hearing to come back with a target acreage; I believe the Mayor asked that. I don't know if he has or if anyone has come back, but I believe the target acreage was somewhere between the 4830 and the 7870 acres that were presented in the original MSHCP with the acreage within iLake Elsinore. Also I'd like -- in a second area I would also like to see the City work with Pacific Clay property -- the actual settlement agreement requires that there's a coordination between the City and the developer to implement that settlement agreement. I think part of that implementation is coordinating these areas around that exempted property. A lot of what we've heard today is in Cell Group I which is all of the exempted-property from the MSHCP, everything within the corridor that as been addressed today. I think it's important to actually establish what that means. How is that going to be coordinated with Pacific Clay. Again, it goes back to the overall implementation of the MSHCP within the City to be part of the same program so I would like to have those two things -- I suggest those two things in the future be done by the City staff. We are here with the consultants that we have here and Scott Thayer is here to answer any questions that you may have. I know it's a very complex problem and topic, so if there's anything we can answer, we'd like to do so. Thank you. Agenda Item No.I Page 36 of 49 PAGE 37 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Chairman O'Neal Thank you, Tom. If you wouldn't mind sitting down in front. This is a public hearing and I do have no request to speak on this topic. However, anyone wishing to speak in favor of this may do so at this time. Anyone wishing to speak against this -- oh, sure. That would be Mr. Good; is that correct? Please state your name and address for the record. Jim Good My name is Jim Good. I'm the attorney for Mariachi Ceramics of America, MCA, which manufactures a very high-end roofing tile in Corona and, as I mentioned at the joint workshop back in January, we will be bringing into this Commission a proposed project for mining a property on the east side of the 15, a flew miles up northerly from Nichols Road. It's a mining project that leads to ultimately a development and commercial-type development. We don't have a dog in this fight, but we have a dog in the process and so what's happening in terms of process is extremely important to us and so that's the reason I'm up here speaking. I'm not going to try your patience to listening to more speeches tonight, but that's exactly why we're here and so what you do in terms of this process is very precedental, we believe, to the MCA project. So thank youvery much,. Chairman O'Neal Thank you. Anyone wishing to speak against this may do so at this time. Anyone wishing to speak at all? I will close the public hearing at 8:25 and start with Vice Chair. Vice Chair Gonzales I'm very familiar with this area. It goes back a long way and I hope this doesn't continue arguments beyond where that little bridge is. My daughter was thrown from a horse right at that site years ago before the freeway was in. If we look at another project, if we block it up, how much when we look at flood plains in 1980 when we had the floods, the flood backed up from Lead [phonetic] Lake, which is now Corona Agenda Item No.I Page 37 of 49 PAGE 38 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 look, into the Darooter [phonetic] project and that was around '79 and '80 and I know it was -- we were on that road constantly because my daughter was engaged to Darooter and she -- we constantly went by the road and it never did flood in that area; that spot. It flooded down by the Kitchell [phonetic] house farther down. So, after talking with Castle and Cooke, that first week when they showed us the project, I went down there and looked at the project and I stayed in my car and spent about half an hour because I wasn't dressed properly to walk into it. I didn't hear anything at the site. Two days later I went back again with Levi's and binoculars and went down into the site in my -- the first main area I saw a toilet bowl, trash, appliances, and a large amount of other junk. Chairman O'Neal May I stop you just for a second? Just so that you know, Vice Chair taught biology at the high school here. Vice Chair Gonzales For 36 years. When I finally got down into the willow area, I heard a large amount of birds, I did see a tohee and a number of hummingbirds. I heard a lot of other little birds, I saw a couple sparrows. Into the eucalyptus grove area I saw one bird flying overhead,>but one or,two landed on there and then they took of very quickly. So that front area is worth this land as far as save the habitat. I would like to recommend that we go to City Council and approve the 75-foot width for adoption. Chairman O'Neal So the Castle and Cooke -- Vice Chair Gonzales In favor of Castle and Cooke -- Chairman O'Neal -- proposal? Vice Chair Gonzales -- proposal, yes. That's my recommendation. Agenda Item No.1 Page 38 of 49 PAGE 39 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Chairman O'Neal Mr. Mendoza? Commissioner Mendoza First of all, I'd like to say that I really depend on our staff and I trust them. I'm always asking them questions and they're always helping me and I just can't thank them enough. So when they really have something and confront me like this I spend a lot of time on it and I spent a very long time on this. I really did. "Mr. Tomlinson, you're right. It has been too long of a process. We need to streamline this. We really need to streamline this. I'm not an expert on MSHCP. Like everyone else, the following is my interpretation. It seems to me that the 75 feet or 22 percent of a conservation footage be considered a constrained linkage, key word, key terminology being used. After all, the definition of an MSHCP constrained linkage does not have a formula to determine the size of the constricted connections only that a constrained linkage exists. And if that linkage; exists, it would ensure a'non-contiguous habitat block does not exist. Cell Group I states approximately five percent to be conserved. That's not a minimum or a maximum; it says approximately five percent. So, again, it could be interpreted as long as a linkage exists and to prevent any bottlenecking between Cells, MSHCP came up with key terminologies like constrained linkages. Also, I believe that the MSHCP biological opinion should reflect a dangerous species in there, eucalyptus trees. With that being said, it's my interpretation that this project is consistent with the MSHCP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman O'Neal Thank you, Commissioner Mendoza. Commissioner Flores? Commissioner Flores Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank Castle & Cooke for their presentation and I have a few words of my own. The applicant has requested that this Planning Commission consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding Agenda Item No.1 Page 39 of 49 PAGE 40 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 whether the development footprint in LEAP 2005-12 is consistent with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. As all know tonight, the MSHCP has indicated and identified as assessor parcel number 390130-017 and according to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, this proposed project is zoned for commercial specific plan uses, and the City's general plan land use map designates a project site as Algreio Ranch Pacific plan. The project site is located within the Elsinore area plan in Cell number 3751 of Cell Group J. And independent Cell number 3854, with certain properties owned by Mr. Murdock, are not subject to the MSHCP process per agreements in the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Lake Elsinore and the County. The 9.09 project is in fact a part of a much larger Cell Group that focuses MSHCP conservation areas on the north side of the 1-15 freeway where much of the land within this Cell has already been set aside for conservation. Staff asserts the need for a 175-foot wide corridor that takes 3,.05 acreage, or acres, or 33 percent, of the project site. Your concerns are based on the width eliminating development north of the creek and further restrict development south of the creek. It was determined that said Cell Group one conservation criteria require conservation to focus along the Temescal Wash and because the Temescal Wash runs along the width of Cell Group I, being 2,640 linear feet, 'staff divided the width of Cell Group one, which is found to be 696,960 square feet, and concluded that 264 linear feet conserved and satisfied the MSHCP. Staff concluded that the same 264 linear feet should be conserved along the length of the Temescal Wash as it bisects Cell Group 1. As you're aware, staff recognizes the importance of a commercial development opportunity at the site to the developer and the City. City staff and RCA further evaluated the application 2005-12 and have balanced numerous issues in unfounded factual positions. The City and the RCA determined that the 264 feet was consistent with the MSHCP and was set aside for further review. RCA and staff including the City staff revere, by the way her name is Mrs. Wendy, concluded that a Agenda Item No.I Page 40 of 49 PAGE 41 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 lesser set aside of 175 feet is enough to support a biologically diverse habitat within the meaning of the MSHCP in that any lesser conservation amount would be inconsistent with the plan. In other words, a workable solution based on the MSHCP and federal laws and not based on personal opinion and personal standards were adjusted in accordance with the laws of the MSHCP. Castle and Cooke declined to accept an offer no more than 75 feet. As we are aware tonight, staff supports the 175 and believes that it defines the maximum allowable development footprint consistent with the most flexible interpretations of the conservation criteria. It is my understanding that U.S. Fish and Game found this project not consistent with the extent that conservation that has been identified by the MSHCP to assemble proposed core one in this area. Based on the evidence presented, the findings and exhibits provided to me by staff and the applicant's letters of comments, I find that the applicant has one analysis of the interpretation of the MSHCP and I find ,that staff has identified the inconsistencies interpretation of these entities. I have expressed concerns over the development of the 9.09 acreage site and find staff's recommendation to proceed to council justifiable. It has been determined that both parties are able to reach a mutual agreement and therefore approval of the denial based on the findings and exhibits submittedto me are herewith stated. I must also include the following statement: The 9.09 commercially zoned project site may be consistent with the MSHCP reserve assembly criteria, and may be in compliance with the other MSHCP plan requirements including urban wildlife and interface criteria. However, Castle and Cooke position of denial of the 175-square feet agreement by City staff, which in my view is found to be a neutral compromise, was found to be consistent by the RCA and City staff and believes that it defines the maximum allowable development footprint consistent with the most flexible interpretation of the conservation criteria surrounding the 9.09 acre project site. By accepting the alternative position by City Agenda Item No.1 Page 41 of 49 PAGE 42 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 staff in all of this project would in fact be found consistent with all parties including the RCA. I have no further comments. Chairman O'Neal Thank you, Commissioner Flores. Commissioner Zanelli? Commissioner Zanelli Having grown up in Texas, I tend to shoot from the hip as being well-organized. I do have a question for Dr. Turner, though. How did you arrive,at the width that you did of 120 feet average? The 120-foot average that you had arrived at as being unacceptable — Dr. Turner That was just a mathematical derivation between the 75'and 400 feet. That the 125 was acceptable? We have two other locations where much smaller parcels of land where we have 100 to 120 feet at Strawberry Farms and then we had 35 feet just up the road where we had -- at least ways at the Strawberry farms we had Least Bell's Vireo, which is one of the two endangered species. 'So, based on that -- and we can go on-site other locations where Least Bell's Vireo occurs in less than the 125 feet that we recommend down to35 feet. Commissioner Zanelli: In addition to that, should you be approved -- Castle and Cooke be approved of this project and the area where it be mitigated, what amount of time would you expect before you would have the species return to this area? Five years? Dr. Turner I think that's a good round number. It all depends upon -- it's not a matter of if you build it they will come; it's a matter of if the birds are flying through and they stop and say, hey, this is all right, if the habitat is righteous for them, that's where they'll be. Now, we can go on and belabor all of the other characteristics, but some of the most important things happens to be that eucalyptus grove. Agenda Item No.I Page 42 of 49 PAGE 43 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Commissioner Zanelli I walked through the entire area so I'm very familiar with what's there including the stolen, stripped cars. In regard to our staff -- tonight you presented us with a lot of information I wish I had several weeks ago. Instead, I can't go through it tonight, but I have gone through other letters and things that have documented conversations and letters that have gone back and forth and I have to tell you that our staff is doing the best they can to try to implement a plan that we aren't all necessarily particularly in favor of. So any time that you think that they have some personal bias in this, you are incorrect. They would love nothing more than to be able to justify your request, but they feel they have to for the protection of the city and the take permits to provide what they feel is a sound basis to stand on. So we're not in opposition to you, especially Castle and Cooke, because you've done so much for the City. So I don't want you to ever think that the staff is not on your side because I assure you they are not. Dr. Turner It's not a matter of side, sir. I'm not on anybody's side; I'm on the wildlife side. Commissioner Zanelli Well, you spend too much time in Texas. You're a liar. You shoot them as they move. [Laughter] Dr. Turner Did you have any other questions, sir? Commissioner Zanelli No, not right now. I would agree that doing, you know -- to me, I'm not as intimately familiar with the MSHCP as I'd like to be, but to me the entire purpose of this plan is to protect and promote species and habitat and what is currently there certainly doesn't do that. I know that the RCA, as they are grabbing land, I've been told that they will actually do nothing with that land until it's all acquired, which might be 20 Agenda Item No.1 Page 43 of 49 PAGE 44 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 years down the road. During that time, there's a heck of a lot that can be done with properties like this that are mitigated and replanted with native habitat that would actually, you know, follow the intent of the plan. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Chairman O'Neal Thank you, Commissioner Zanelli. Before I start, I do have a couple things I'd like to say. I used to teach the history of motion picture when I was at Cerritos College and I used to rate films one through five; one being an exciting film, five being a butt numbing scale. In fact, I called it my butt numbing scale. To be perfectly honest, this is a six. While I find the staff position on this item interesting, I do not find it persuasive. Therefore, I cannot support the recommendation to deny Castle and Cooke's development footprint for the so-called 9.09-acre„project. In addition, I find that it is more than consistent with the MSHCP. A number of years ago, Kevin Costner, made a film about nostalgia and loss called A Field of Dreams. Costner's character is an Iowan corn farmer who becomes convinced by a mysterious voice that he is supposed to construct a baseball diamond in his cornfield. He hears a whispering phrase coming out of the corn, "If you build it, he will come. On cue, Shoeless Joe Jackson appears in a vision and later for real to hit some of Costner's fastballs. After asking if this is heaven, Joe disappears into the corn. Ultimately, Costner gets to play catch with his father settling all the old scars that he had with his father while he was alive. The interesting twist in this film's construct is that if you are a man of science or a skeptic you cannot see anything except an empty baseball field, which brings me to the first alien point, the biology. As been attested to of the six species listed in the MSHCP none have been spotted on this property or even in this specific area. Of the six, only two were actually listed by state or federal scientists as endangered and the closest was sighted a mile away, mostly at Prado dam. It is equally true that in order to provide nesting area for these species, most of the property would have to be taken and replanted. Agenda Item No.1 Page 44 of 49 PAGE 45 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 The staff RCA response to the science then is if they build it then maybe the birds will come. Since the closest species is miles away, I'm not certain how they get the message. The response, of course, is, well we don't expect them to nest, we'll just provide a corridor. Never mind that the 1-15 winds through this area; never mind the so-called wash has only reclaimed water running through it; never mind it winds up in a concrete channel as it meanders towards Corona. Currently, the plants that cover this property, 95 percent, are non-native eucalyptus and, we are told this is why species of birds do not nest or use this property. The mandate, then, by the RCA and staff is to get rid of the eucalyptus and replant native trees and shrubs to create something called a constrained linkage. This appears, in this case, to be a fascinating piece of junk science logic which ignores the biology and history of this and the surrounding areas. All one has to do is look at old photographs of the area to find that there were no trees in this area, and that with little checking you will find that it was Charles Summer who planted most of the trees in this area. Summer got the seeds to plant eucalyptus from a man named O.W. Childs in Los Angeles. Incidentally, Mr. Childs was an immigrant from Australia. What this really means is that for over 120 years these birds have not nested in this area. Ironically, when the City recently replanted the Main Street Park, removing a number of eucalyptus shade trees, they chose not to use native specimens but to choose other pervasive non-native plant; the palm tree. I guess staff thought that birds didn't like parks, which brings us to the size of this constrained linkage. According to staff RCA, this size or width should be over 100 meters wide of undeveloped riparian woodland and scrub habitat. In a stunning example of Byzantine logic and totally ignoring the science of today, staff offers a strange, voodoo mathematical formula to determine the width. Since, as humans, we made up what is one and one is two, we can state with a great deal of confidence that one and one is two. It demonstrates nothing; but it must be right. Staff used a mathematical formula and it's correct; which leads me to ask the following question: Agenda Item No.1 Page 45 of 49 PAGE 46 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 In the MSHCP, which takes precedent, what might happen or non-biology versus the baseline biological conditions? According to staff and RCA, it is the non-scientific what may happen case. However, in the recent case of the City of Perris, JPR and the RCA ruled that on-site biology takes precedent. Why does the RCA shift 180 degrees when it comes to Lake Elsinore? Incidentally, under Section 6 there are incentive for property owners for dedication of property to conservation, specifically, what is the City offering. It is my opinion that under analysis no conservation is required; only the traditional conservation of jurisdictional waters under the Clean Water Act that would maintain the linkages currently in Cell Group J. Accordingly, the 1,00-foot average that is: being offered is in excess of what is required and reflects sound urban planning and design. Finally, the Mayor at our joint study session gave City direction as it applies to MSHCP. The last thing that -- and I'm quoting the mayor:--,,,"The last thing was that the City was to have final say if there was an interpretation issue or dispute as to whether or not we needed; to save the bugs and bunnies in this particular area." We've got the final say and the challenge from the development community has been that our staff has not been tough;enough in going ahead and riding rough shot saying we disagree with RCA interpretation. I think that at the end of the day we'd like see things moving forward. If there's a dispute, bring it forward to the decision makers and allow us to break the tie; get it up in the public hearing process. And I would add no man can be a servant of two masters. Thank you. I need a resolution to accept or deny Castle and Cooke. Deputy City Attorney Santana There's no resolution; it will just be a motion. Chairman O'Neal I need a motion. Agenda Item No.1 Page 46 of 49 PAGE 47 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Commissioner Gonzales I'd like to make a motion that we send it to City Hall for approval for a 75-foot wide corridor meaning that this meets the MSHCP criteria and Castle & Cooke. In favor of Castle & Cooke, yes. Chairman O'Neal I need a second. Commissioner Mendoza Second. Chairman O'Neal Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying „Aye „ Vice Chair Gonzales Aye. Commissioner Mendoza Aye. Commissioner Zanelli Aye. Chairman O'Neal Those opposed? Commissioner Flores No. Chairman O'Neal That would be four, one. This takes us to our next item. Thank you, gentlemen. 7. General Plan Conformity of the Summary Street Vacation for the right- of-way known as "Flint Street" Director of Community Development Preisendanz provided an overview of the project and requested Public Works Director Seumalo to review it with the Commission and answer questions. Agenda Item No.1 Page 47 of 49 PAGE 48 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—JULY 3, 2007 Public Works Director Seumalo provided an overview of the project. He stated that staff. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS The Planning Commissioner's had no comments. MOVED BY MENDOZA, SECONDED BY FLORES, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2007-125, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECCOMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPT FINDINGS THAT THE VACATION OF FLINT STREET CONFORMS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT. STAFF COMMENTS Public Works Director Seumalo gave a Capitol Improvement Projects update. Planning Consultant Donahoe had no comments Planning Manager Weiner had no comments. Director of Community Development had no comments. Deputy City Attorney Santana had no comments. Commissioner Zanelli thanked staff for their hard work; he also thanked Environmental Specialist Worthey for her hard work. He further stated that if Council would like to take a harder line on this matter they need to give Ms. Worthey proper direction to do that. Commissioner Flores thanked staff for updating him on the project and he said that staff did an outstanding job on in providing the factual rules and regulations surrounding the debate and is very proud of those who submitted and worked on this issue. He further stated that we all knew that this had to go to Council but regarding the vote on this project he stands behind staff 100% and whether we are right or wrong, he is not there to judge, he is there to listen, do the best he can and let it go to Council and let them judge to see who is right or wrong. Commissioner Mendoza thanked the staff and said they do a tremendous job. Commissioner Gonzales stated to Environmental Specialist Worthey that there was a big difference of agreement all along and the Commission has asked a number of times for an explanation of the MSHCP. Agenda Item No.I Page 48 of 49 PAGE 49 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES-JULY 3, 2007 Environmental Specialist Worthey stated that there was a lot of things in Castle & Cook's presentation that were not accurate and she didn't have the chance to speak about this. Commissioner Gonzales requested Environmental Specialist Worthey to review what the MSHCP is and how much land is required by the City to give up. Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated that it is a nine (9) acre site and they did their best and now it's time to move on. The City is on the threshold of a lot of development and the City is doing great things and working together with the Commission and respects the Commission and is very excited about what the City has in front of us. He also thanked the staff for their good work and thanked the Commission for their support and will continue to improve and to strive to serve the Commission and the Council. ADJOURNMENT THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, CHAIRMAN O'NEAL ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 8:59 P.M. ON JULY 3, 2007. Michael O'Neal, Chairman Respectfully Submitted, Kristine Herrington Office Specialist III ATTEST: Rolfe Preisendanz, Director of Community Development Agenda Item No.1 Page 49 of 49 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 16897 GUNNERSON STREET APPLICANT: JULIO PINEDA, 16635 ESCAVERA STREET, LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA 92530 OWNER: SAME PROJECT REQUEST: The Staff is requesting an indefinite continuance of the proposed project due to the applicant's request pursuant to difficulties in obtaining the required materials from his design consultants. PREPARED BY: LINDA M. MILLER, PLANNING CONSULTANT APPROVED BY: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ I'`��° DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PALL FILES\Reports\PC Rpts\MDR - Projects & Single Family Residential\2007\PC Staff Report 3rd Continuance for Gunnerson.doc CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 423 ADOBE STREET (APN: 377-312-024) APPLICANT: HECTOR ZUBIETA/ZENOS, INC.; 26397 BECKMAN CT., MURRIETA, CA 92562 OWNER: HECTOR HERNANDEZ, 226 S. 2ND. AVENUE, LA PUENTE, CA 91746 PROJECT REQUEST The applicant is requesting design review consideration for the development of a conventionally built a two-story single-family dwelling unit located at 423 Adobe street (APN: 3377-312-024). Review is pursuant to the "Historic Elsinore" Overlay District, Chapter 17.24 (R-2, Medium Density Residential), Chapter 17.23 (R-1, Single-Family Residential), Chapter 17.82 (Design Review), Chapter 17.14 (Residential Development Standards), and Chapter 17.66 (Parking Requirements) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). WATER AVAILABILITY/FIRE FLOW The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) has indicated that there is a residential fire hydrant (6" x 2 Y2 x 4") in front of the property along Flint Street. Furthermore, EVMWD indicates that there are existing water lines along Flint and Adobe Street and a sewer line along Adobe Street. BACKGROUND The Design Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the plans for the proposed single-family dwelling unit and provided several comments on the proposed architectural design, architectural enhancements, fencing, and landscaping. The applicant re-submitted the plans indicating that all recommendations were incorporated. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE t OF 3`� REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 423 ADOBE STREET (APN: 377-312-024) PROJECT LOCATION The proposed vacant lot is generally located at the southwest intersection of Adobe and Flint Street at 423 Adobe Street(APN: 377-312-024). The subject property has a "Historic Elsinore" Overlay Zoning District land use designation of Medium Density (MD) and a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ���k 4111.1111 t 4 A Mpg 6��h�rNi nd'�u� .I�i I �I�Iilly yi�atli�l wN„s gall ,° Project Site Vacant Medium Density Residential Medium Density MD North Residential Medium Density Residential Medium Density MD South Vacant Medium Density Residential Medium Density MD East East Medium Density Residential Medium Density MD West Residential Medium Density Residential Medium Density MD PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting minor design review consideration for the design and establishment of a conventionally built two-story single-family dwelling unit located at 423 Adobe Street(APN: 377-312-024). The proposed 1,678 dwelling-unit will have an attached 500 square-foot two (2) car garage, a 259 square-foot front-entry porch, living room, dining room, kitchen, nook, laundry room, two(2) bedrooms, a bathroom, and a master bedroom with master bathroom and walk-in-closet. The net lot coverage for the proposed single-family dwelling unit located at 423 Adobe Street (APN: 377-312-024), which includes the house, the two (2) car garage, and the front-entry porch,will be approximately thirty-four percent(34%). It should be noted that the proposed dwelling unit complies with the maximum lot coverage requirement of fifty- percent(50%)for single-family dwelling units as outlined in Chapter 17.23.090 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). Siting The proposed two-story single-family dwelling unit located at 423 Adobe Street within the Medium Density land use area of the"Historic Elsinore"Overlay Zoning district as well as a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density. Although, there is an existing alley located along the rear of the subject lot, the applicant is not proposing alley access to the proposed dwelling unit. AGENDA ITEM 3 PAGE 2_ OF�j 1 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 423 ADOBE STREET (APN: 377-312-024) Architecture The applicant is proposing to include elements of"Monterey"architecture for the proposed two-story single-family dwelling unit. The front elevation will include balcony columns with decorative wood brackets, exposed rafter tails, paired windows and wood shutters; it also includes low-pitched roof; little or no eave overhang; red-tiled roof; stucco wall surface; and an asymmetrical fagade. The applicant is proposing to incorporate six-foot (6) high wood fencing along the interior and rear of the subject property. The applicant is proposing to include stucco return walls with a wood gate that connects from the interior yard fencing to the main dwelling unit. Grading Due to the fact that the lot has a minimal slope away from both street fronts a "fill'will be required in order to provide the appropriate drainage, therefore the applicant is proposing to do a cut approximately ten (10) cubic yards and fill approximately six-hundred eighty (680)cubic yards of earth. It should be noted that the applicant is proposing a retaining wall along the interior side of the lot with a maximum height of approximately six(6-0")feet high for the development of this project. Landscaping The applicant is proposing to landscape and irrigate the front-yard of the subject lot located at 423 Adobe Street. The front-yard landscaping will include three (24") inch box "Grape Myrtle" shrubs, turf, and two (2) fifteen-gallon "Crape Myrtle"trees. Furthermore, all front- yard landscaping will be automatically irrigated and will include a rain sensor, which will assist in the conservation of water. Color and Materials Roof Tile "Corona Red" Wall Finish Stucco "Adobe" Front Door Wood "Ivory" Garage Door Metal "White" Trim Wood/Foam "White" AGENDA ITEM PAGE 3 OF a9 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 423 ADOBE STREET (APN: 377-312-024) ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the proposed conventionally built two-story single-family dwelling unit located at 423 Adobe Street (APN: 377-312-024) and found that the project will meet all minimum requirements of the "Historic Elsinore" Overlay Zoning District, Chapter 17.82 (Design Review), Chapter 17.14 (Residential Development Standards), Chapter 17.24(R- 2, Medium Density Residential), Chapter 17.23 (Single-Family Residential), and Chapter 17.66 (Parking Requirements) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) including but not limited to; density, setbacks, landscaping, parking, and lot coverage. Sitin The total building footprint for the proposed dwelling unit located at 423 Adobe Street, which includes the house, the two (2) car garage, and the front-entry porch, will be approximately thirty-four percent(34%). The site plan, as proposed,will meet all applicable development standards and criteria outlined in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential)Zoning District and the Residential Development Standards outlined in the LEMC. Architecture The proposed architecture of the conventionally built two-story single-family dwelling unit is consistent with the style and design of existing single-family dwelling units within the vicinity. Furthermore, the proposed colors and materials to be incorporated are consistent with the goals and intent of the architectural design guidelines of the General Plan's Community Design Element, in that the proposed "Monterey" architectural style dwelling unit, provides an aesthetic quality that lends to the overall achievement of a well balanced Medium High Density Zoning District. Landscapinq The minimum landscape coverage requirements for in-fill single-family dwelling units states that the applicant landscape the front-yard with an automatic irrigation system as outlined in Chapter 17.14 (Residential Development Standards). The applicant has met this requirement by proposing a fully landscaped, automatically irrigated front-yard. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing to incorporate a rain sensor,which will assist in the conservation of water. AGENDA ITEM I PAGE q OF a9 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 423 ADOBE STREET (APN: 377-312-024) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff determined that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(Cal. Pub. Res. Code§§ 21000 et seq.: "CEQA")and the CEQA Guidelines(14 C.C.R. §§ 15000 et seq.) pursuant to a class 3(a) exemption for new construction or conversion of small structures because the Project involves construction of one single- family residence. (14 C.C.R. § 15303(a)). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2007-_approving the proposed single-story single-family dwelling unit located at 423 Adobe Street (APN: 377-312-024) based on the Findings, Exhibits, and the proposed Conditions of Approval. PREPARED BY: AGUSTIN RESENDIZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER APPROVED BY: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, a- DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENTS: 1. VICINITY MAP 2. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 3. PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4. CEQA-NOTICE OF EXEMPTION 5. EVMWD WATER AND SEWER MAP 6. SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7. REDUCED PLANS 8. COLOR SWATCHES 9. FULL SIZE PLANS AGENDA ITEM PAGE..5 OF VICINITY MAP MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT I 377-312-024 A1s co co I � _ co - co co / / % J / PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM N0. PAGE OF r7`1 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A CONVENTIONALLY BUILT TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 423 ADOBE STREET WHEREAS, Mr. Hector Zubieta filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of a Minor Design Review for a conventionally built two-story single-family dwelling unit with an attached two (2) car garage on property located at 423 Adobe Street (APN: 377-312-024); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of considering and approving, conditionally approving, or denying Minor Design Review requests for residential projects; and WHEREAS, public notice of the Project has been given and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public meeting held with respect to this item on November 6, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed design for the Project and has found it acceptable. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the Project is consistent with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (14 C.C.R. §§ 15000 et seq.: the "CEQA Guidelines") pursuant to a class 3(a) exemption for new construction or conversion of small structures because the Project involves construction of one single-family residence. (CEQA Guidelines § 15303(a)). SECTION 3. That in accordance with Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.82, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of the Project: 1. The Project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the intended General Plan and the Zoning District in which the Project will be located. The Project complies with the goals and objectives of General Plan designation Medium Density and the Medium Density (MD) zoning designation within Planning Area 5 of the "Historic Elsinore" Overlay Zoning district. The General Plan designation Medium Density is intended for a wide range of residential development types including attached and detached single-family dwelling units AGENDA ITEM No. 3 PAGE_ F 2)fN PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007- PAGE 2 OF 4 at the lower end of the range and multiple family units at the higher end of the density range. The maximum density permitted shall be 12 dwelling-units to the acre. The Medium Density (MD) zoning designation within Planning Area 5 of the "Historic Elsinore" Overlay Zoning district consists of single-family detached and attached units, including duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, and zero lot line (patio) homes. The approval of the Project will assist in achieving the development of a well-balanced and functional mix of residential, limited commercial, limited industrial, open space, recreational and institutional land uses by providing additional affordable housing within Planning Area 5 of the "Historic Elsinore" Overlay Zoning district and the City of Lake Elsinore. Furthermore, the Project will contribute to the development and maintenance of a broad range of housing types for all income groups and age categories. The Project incorporates elements of "Monterey" style architecture and will provide a well rounded design while maintaining the desirable rural characteristics and base framework to achieve quality and compatibility in the physical design of the developing portions of the City and to enhance the existing developed areas within General Plan designation Medium Density and zoning designation Medium Density (MD) within Planning Area 5 of the "Historic Elsinore"Overlay Zoning district. 2. The Project complies with the design directives contained in Section 17.82.060 and all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The Project is appropriate to the site and surrounding developments in that the proposed single-family dwelling unit provides: a twenty-five foot (25) front-yard setback, sufficient front-yard landscaping; and, safe and sufficient on-site vehicular circulation. In addition, the Project complies with all setback, height, and lot coverage requirements as outlined in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. The Project will complement the quality of existing projects in that the applicant is providing elements of "Monterey" style architecture, which includes: 360-degree architecture articulation pursuant to the "General Plan, Community Design Element Design Guidelines",- decorative balcony columns with decorative wood brackets, exposed rafter tails, paired windows and wood shutters; it also includes low-pitched roof,• little or no eave overhang; red-tiled roof,- stucco wall surface; and specially an asymmetrical fagade. AGENDA ITEM NO. RACE OF a� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007- PAGE 3 OF 4 3. Subject to the attached conditions of approval, the Project is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. A Class 3 CEQA exemption may be invoked when the development proposal involves construction of one single family residence. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15303(a), the Project is exempt from environmental review because it involves the construction of one single family residence. Section 7.3.2 of the MSHCP states that: "[d]evelopment of individual single-family homes on existing parcels, in accordance with existing land use regulations is a Covered Activity within the Criteria Area," subject to an expedited review process. Impacts of development of single-family residences on sensitive habitat and covered species were accounted for in the MSHCP and the MSHCP EIR. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the single-family residence at 423 Adobe Street (APN: 377-312-024) was sited on the least sensitive portion of the lot. Consideration was given to access, topography/terrain, zoning standards including setbacks, soil types, presence of earthquake fault lines, leach fields, presence of oak trees and high fire hazard areas. The building foot print area is appropriate and complies with the MSHCP Criteria Area. Moreover, the Project has been reviewed by all City divisions and departments, which have imposed certain conditions of approval on the Project to ensure that no adverse impacts occur. In light of those conditions of approval, as well as the design features of the Project itself, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 4. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Chapter 17.82.070 of the Zoning Code, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the Project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of Chapter 17.82. Pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.82.070, the Project has been scheduled for consideration and action of the Planning Commission. The Project has also been conditioned to comply with all aspects of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. The Applicant shall meet all required setbacks and development standards pursuant to the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zoning designation, prior to the issuance of a building permit. SECTION 4. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Minor Design Review application. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. AGENDA ITEM No. 3 PAGE C"t OF al::� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007- PAGE 4 OF 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6t" day of October 2007, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Michael O'Neal, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Rolfe Preisendanz Director of Community Development AGENDA ITEM NO, PAGE O OF�`�._.._. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PROJECT NAME: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A CONVENTIONALLY BUILT SINGLE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 423 ADOBE STREET (APN: 377-312-024) PLANNING DIVISION GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, and Agents from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees or Agents to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning the Minor Design Review of a conventionally built single-story single-family dwelling unit located at 423 Adobe Street (APN: 377-312-024) project attached hereto. 2. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be final fifteen (15) days from the date of the decision, unless an appeal has been filed with the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.80 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 3. If the project proposes an outdoor storage tank, the applicant shall locate the unit within the side or rear yards. If the location must be within the front yard, the applicant shall provide a method of screening subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development or his designee. 4. Minor Design Review approval of the conventionally built single-story single-family dwelling unit located 423 Adobe Street (APN: 377-312-024) will lapse and become void one (1) year of the approval date unless a building permit is issued and construction commenced and the project is diligently being pursued toward completion. 5. All Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced upon page one of building plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division for Plan Check. 6. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgement of Conditions," and shall return the executed original to the Community Development Department for inclusion in the case records. 7. All materials and colors depicted on the plans and materials board shall be used unless modified by the Applicant and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE k\ OF �� 8. All site improvements shall be constructed as indicated on the approved site plan and elevations, with revisions as noted herein. The applicant shall meet all required setbacks, and development standards pursuant to the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) development standards. Any revisions to the Minor Design Review attached hereto shall be processed in a similar manner as the original Minor Design Review. All plans submitted for Building Division plan check shall conform to the submitted plans as modified by the Conditions of Approval. 9. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Riverside County Fire Department. 10. All windows shall use foam surrounds and/or other architectural-type features approved by the Community Development Director or designee. 11. All necessary exterior/ancillary equipment shall be effectively screened from public view. All proposed screening methods shall be reviewed and approved the Community Developer Director or designee. 12. All roofing materials shall have a minimum Class "A" Fire rating, and so noted on the construction plans. 13. The Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 14. A cash bond of $1,000.00 shall be required for any construction trailers placed on the site and used during construction. Bonds will be released after removal of trailers and restoration of the site to an acceptable state, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or designee. 15. The Applicant shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. All construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and no construction activity shall occur on Saturdays, Sundays or legal holidays. 16. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance. Construction generated dust and erosion shall be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of Municipal Code, Chapter 15.72 and using accepted control techniques. Interim erosion control measures shall be provided thirty (30) days after the site's rough grading, as approved by the City Engineer. 17. Any exterior air conditioning or other mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted and screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Air conditioning units and related equipment may not encroach more than two-feet (2') into the required minimum side yard setback. 18. Garages shall be constructed to provide a minimum interior clear space of twenty feet (20') x twenty feet (20') for two cars. AGENDA ITEM No. RAGE k 2 Of 0)9 19. The Applicant shall provide shrubs and plant materials as shown on the landscape plan. Any changes to this plan shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or designee. The landscape plan improvements and plantings shall be fully installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 20. Planting within fifteen feet (15) of ingress/egress points shall be no higher than 36 inches. 21. Driveways shall be constructed of concrete per Building and Safety Division standards. 22. All walls or fences located in any front yard shall not exceed thirty-six inches (36") in height with the exception that wrought-iron fences may be five feet (5) in height. Chain link fences shall be prohibited. 23. The applicant shall be required to remove and replace any existing chain link fencing and any fencing that is in poor condition. It will be the responsibility of the applicant to contact the effected neighboring property owners. If the existing fencing is in good condition, this requirement may be waived per the approval of the Community Development Director or Designee. 24. The applicant shall provide a flat concrete pad a minimum of 3'- 0" by 7'- 0" adjacent to each dwelling unit. The storage pad for trash barrels shall be concealed from public view. 25. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $64.00 made payable to the County of Riverside for a Notice of Exemption. The check shall be submitted to the Planning Division for processing within 48 hours of the projects approval. 26. The applicant shall place a weatherproof 3' x 3' sign at the entrance to the project site identifying the approved days and hours of construction activity and a statement that complaints regarding the operation can be lodged with the City of Lake Elsinore Code Enforcement Division (951) 674-3124. The sign shall be placed on the property prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 27. All exposed walls visible from any public right-of-way shall utilize "split-face" block or stuccoed to match the proposed dwelling unit. Plain precision block is not permitted. 28. The applicant is to meet all requirements of the Lake Elsinore Unified School district. 29. The applicant is to meet all requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency. AGENDA ITEM NO.� PAGE N 2 OF a-� 30. The applicant is to meet all requirements of the Building and Safety division. 31. The applicant will be responsible for landscaping all required dedications or easements until such time that all street improvements are constructed. 32. All walls and/or fencing need to be located off the property line and so indicated on the construction plans. If the Applicant proposes to place any walls and/or fencing on the property line he/she must submit a notarized agreement between the subject property owner and the adjacent property owner to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 33. The project shall comply with any/all requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore Building and Safety division. 34. The project shall comply with any/all requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore Parks and Recreation Department. 35. The project shall comply with any/all requirements of the Lake Elsinore Police Department. 36. The project shall comply with any/all requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency. 37. The applicant shall be responsible for landscaping and maintaining the required rear-yard (alley) dedication until such time as City alley improvements are installed. 38. The proposed single-family dwelling unit located at 423 Adobe Street shall connect to sewer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 39. The applicant shall provide assurance that all required fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District have been paid, prior to issuance of building permits. 40. The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees in effect at the time, prior to issuance of building permits. 41. The applicant shall pay the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Fee (MSHCP) Local Development Mitigation Fee (fee for density less than 8 du/ac), prior to obtaining building permits. 42. The applicant shall pay all applicable Library Capital Improvement Fund fees, prior to the issuance of a building permit. AGENDA ITEM NO.�, .,...r RAGE A� OF �`�' 43. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the Project, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore to provide (a) 15% of the units constructed in the Project as affordable housing units in accordance with the requirements of Section 33413(b)(2) of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Sections 33000 et seq.), or (b) an alternative equivalent action as determined by the City which may include (without limitation) dedication of vacant land, construction of affordable units on another site, or payment of an in-lieu fee at the rate of $2.00 per square-foot of assessable space for each dwelling unit in the Project. For purposes of this condition, "assessable space" means all of the square-footage within the perimeter of a structure, not including any carport, walkway, garage, overhang, patio, enclosed patio, detached accessory structure, or similar area. The amount of the square-footage within the perimeter of a residential structure shall be calculated by the building department of the City in accordance with the standard practice of the City in calculating structural perimeters. 44. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide assurances to the Planning Division that all sewer arrangements have been met. 45. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a detailed sewer "Will Serve" letter from the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. The sewer will serve letter submitted to the Community Development Department shall have been generated no longer than thirty (30) days prior to submittal. 46. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant is to provide assurances to the Community Development Department that all requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore's Parks and Recreation Department have been met. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 47. The applicant shall provide an irrigation system for landscaped areas onsite as shown on the landscape plans. The irrigation system shall be fully installed and operational prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 48. The Applicant shall provide a rain sensor as shown on the landscape plan. The rain censor shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 49. All exposed slopes in excess of three feet (3') in height shall have permanent irrigation system and erosion control vegetation installed, as approved by the City's Landscape Architect. A Planting and Irrigation Plan shall be submitted, approved and planted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Fees are required for review of plans and inspections. AGENDA ITEM NO.__,_ „_„�,,,, PACE S Of ac 50. The building address shall be a minimum of four inches (4") high and shall be easily visible from the public right-of-way. Care shall be taken to select colors and materials that contrast with building walls or trim. Installation of building address shall be done prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 51. The applicant shall meet all Conditions of Approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 52.The developer is to pay park fees of$1,600 per unit. 53.The developer is to comply with all NPDES storm water requirements. 54.The developer is to participate in the City-wide LLMD. 55.The developer is to comply with all City Ordinances regarding construction debris removal and recycling as per Section 8.32 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 56.The developer is to meet all City curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirements. ENGINEERING GENERAL 54. All Public Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), prior to the issuance of a building permit. 55. The applicant shall submit a "Will Serve" letter to the City Engineering Division from the applicable water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project and specify the technical data for the water service at the location, such as water pressure and volume etc. Submit this letter, prior to applying for a building permit. 56. The applicant shall submit a "Non Interference Letter" from Southern California Edison prior to issuance of Grading Permit. Edison's contact person is Lisa Salinas at 14799 Chestnut Street, Westminster CA. 92683, and her telephone number is (714) 934-0838. 57. All arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.) out of the roadway or alley shall be the responsibility of the property owner or his agent. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 RACE 6 OFF 58. The applicant shall provide fire protection access and facilities as required in writing by the Riverside County Fire Department. 59. In accordance with the City's Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling, the applicant shall be required to contract with CR&R Inc. for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction. 60. All grading and street improvement plans submitted to engineering shall be drawn on 24" x 36" Mylar and be set into City's specific border and title block and include city specific general notes for grading or street improvements respectively. All digital files for the border and the notes are available by request to I&agutierrez@lake-elsinore.org". DEDICATION 61. The applicant shall dedicate a 3' wide strip of additional right of way along westerly property line to the City for alley widening, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 62. All public right-of-way dedications shall be prepared by the applicant or his agent. All deeds shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval and recordation, prior to the issuance of a building permit. STREET IMPROVEMENTS 63. The applicant shall construct all public works improvements from property line to one foot beyond centerline of Adobe and Flint Street (the minimum pavement section shall be 3" Asphalt Concrete over 5" Aggregate Base) and from the new property line to 2' beyond center line of the alley (the minimum pavement section shall be 2" AC pavement over compacted native) per approved street plans (LEMC Title 12). All Plans shall be approved and signed by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of a building permit (LEMC 16.34). 64. A California Registered Civil Engineer shall prepare street and alley improvement plans and specifications. All improvements shall be designed and constructed to Riverside County Road Department Standards, latest edition, and City Codes (LEMC 12.04 and 16.34). All street improvement plans shall show existing and future profiles at centerline of street, at top of curb and at centerline of the alley. The profiles and contours shall extend to 50' beyond the property limits on Adobe and Flint Street and the alley centerlines. AGENDA ITEM{NO. PAGE__`A_,OF-0 ck�,, 65. If the existing street improvements are to be modified, the existing street plans on file shall be modified accordingly and approved by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of a building permit. An encroachment permit will be required, prior to the commencement of any work. 66. All work done under an encroachment permit for off-site improvements of utility lines shall be delineated on the street improvement plans and approved and signed by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 67. The applicant shall pay all fees and meet requirements of an encroachment permit issued by the Engineering Division for construction of off-site public works improvements (LEMC12.08, Res.83-78). All fees and requirements for an encroachment permit shall be fulfilled before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. GRADING 68. The developer shall obtain all necessary off-site easements for off-site grading from the adjacent property owners, prior to the issuance of a grading permit approval. 69. The applicant shall apply and obtain a grading permit with appropriate security, prior to any grading activity. 70. A grading plan stamped/signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer is required if the sum of the cut and fill in grading exceeds 50 cubic yards and the existing drainage flow pattern is substantially modified as determined by the City Engineer. The grading plan shall show volumes of cut and fill, adequate contours and/or spot elevations of the existing ground as surveyed by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer. All contours shall extend to minimum of 15 feet beyond property lines to indicate existing drainage pattern. Apply and obtain a grading permit with appropriate security, prior to grading permit issuance. 71. The applicant shall provide soils; geology and seismic report, as part of this report address the requirement of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The applicant shall provide final soils report showing compliance with recommendations. 72. The applicant is to provide erosion control measures as part of their grading plan. The applicant shall contribute to protection of storm water quality and meet the goals of the BMP in Supplement "A" in the Riverside County NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. 73. All grading shall be done under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer and he shall certify all slopes steeper than 2-to-1 for stability and proper erosion control. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 RAGE \'b OF c3`� DRAINAGE 74. All on-site drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility, accepted by adjacent property owners by a notarized letter of drainage acceptance, or conveyed to a drainage easement. 75. All natural drainage traversing the site shall be conveyed through the site, or shall be collected and conveyed by a method approved by the City Engineer. 76. All roof drains shall not be allowed to outlet directly through coring in the street curb. Roofs shall drain to a landscaped area. Driveways shall be sloped to drain into landscaping prior to entering street facilities. 77. The applicant shall submit, along with grading plans, Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports for review and approval by City Engineer. The developer shall mitigate any flooding and/or erosion downstream caused by development of the site and/or diversion of drainage. FEES 78. The applicant shall pay all Capital Improvement and Plan Check fees (LEMC 16.34). The current traffic mitigation fee is $1,369.00; the current drainage fee is $1083.00 (Town No. 2 Dist.) and the current TUMF amount is $9,693.00; the amount of fees shall be adjusted according to the fee schedule current at the time of payment. STORMWATER/CLEANWATER PROTECTION PROGRAM 79. The City of Lake Elsinore has adopted ordinances for storm water management and discharge control. In accordance with state and federal law, these local storm water ordinances rp ohibit the discharge of waste into storm drain system or local surface waters. This includes non-storm water discharges containing oil, grease, detergents, trash, or other waste remains. Brochures of "Storm water Pollution, What You Should Know" describing preventing measures are available at City Hall. PLEASE NOTE: The discharge of pollutants into street, gutters, storm drain system, or waterways -without Regional Water Quality Control Board permit or waver — is strictly prohibited by local ordinances and state and federal law. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 PAGE k9 OF a 9 CITY OF l�^� LAICE LS11J0R,,.E Notice of Exemption ? DREAM EXTREME. Filed With: ❑ Office of Planning and Research ❑x County Clerk of Riverside County 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 2724 Gateway Drive Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA 92507 Project Title: Minor Design Review of a conventionally built two-story single-family dwelling unit located at 423 Adobe Street (APN: 377-312-024). Project Location (Specific): The proposed vacant lot is generally located at the southeast intersection of Flint and Adobe Street(APN: 377-312-024). Project Location (City): City of Lake Elsinore Project Location (County): Riverside County Description of Nature,Purpose,and Beneficiaries of Project: A Minor Design Review for a conventionally built two-story single-family dwelling unit with an attached two (2) car garage located at 423 Adobe Street(APN: 377-312-024). The subject property has a"Historic Elsinore" Overlay Zoning District land use designation and a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Lake Elsinore Name of Person /Agency Administrating Project: Agustin Resendiz,Associate Planner, City of Lake Elsinore Exempt Status: ❑ Ministerial (Section 15073) ❑ Declared Emergency(Section 15071 (a)) ❑ Emergency Project(Section 15071 (b) and (c)) x❑ Categorical Exemption (state type and section number):Article 19 Categorical Exemptions Section 15303(a);New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Reasons why project is exempt: This project meets the requirements pursuant to Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Contact Person: Agustin Resendiz,Associate Planner Telephone Number: (951) 674-3124 Signed: Tide: Director of Community Development Rolfe M.Preisendanz 3 AGENDA!TElV{N0. PAGE aO OF af-k a M CO iV N ,. M �;.� O � ■■■�V/VNVNIIII�II i O „.............. M Cl) M a CY J n y; N N I� M ' M N O N � N O N M n I� Cl) i r M N O N N n � M C7 71 o / N N O �} 7p N 3, M 4 � M c � mlow�S o AGE D PAGE a�OF Df CITY OF LADE LSII`IOI�E -�L DREAM EXTREME � m A CKNO WLEDEGEMENT OF DRAFT CONDITIONS RE: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 423 ADOBE STREET(APN: 377-312-024) I hereby state that I/We acknowledge the draft Conditions of Approval for the above named project. I/We understand that these are draft conditions only and do hereby agree to accept and abide by all final conditions prescribed by the City of Lake Elsinore staff, as set forth in the attachments to the approval letter that will be sent after final project approval. All final conditions shall be met prior to issuance of permits or prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, or otherwise indicated in the Conditions, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director of the City of Lake Elsinore. Date: 6 Applicant's Signature: Ila, Print Name: HCrran �L Address: !:,LJR 2Z �--� Pv U1-�t C A- Phone Number: ((A, � -7 0 -9 5RIQ 951.674.3124 130 S. MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE,CA 92530 W W W.LAKE-E LS I NO REORG AGENDA ITEM N0. PAGE a 2 f fwYriraw mrww S 10181S1O OIaOlSIH �p v�.n 029Z6 VO '3NONIS13 3NVI mr n.aen wrifr..'Roam.wromi (n 1S 38O0V f Q S1N3W1S3AN1 Va831S O3NI 103f oad 'NVId 31IS flip? 4 n � 4 A 0 u ea _ I "1S 1N11=1 I 1� i I ,.a=AW 0 I GR ft a O a � OI IL I 13 I LTJ ME ALMM aee►r R&� I I I �'p �r ra raw ♦.� sw I I I I � I I I �b z e A r ; ilia ig 4 uj r � 11 ,1111 g AGENDA ITEM N0. N A i o® PCEa3 0 w•w yaw .mr�.w R O£9Z6 VO •380NIS13 3>Aq '1S 3800V "®�•+� Q S1N3W1S3AN1 V8831S NVId 80013Id f a� Eft #P € E833' 4 lB pg MIN ig iU # ! #4 e ' ! g gib g ! �e9!r■!i �,. f OaaE sE ,lEl�2i i!181i���jil� E4€ .N •{r srf rr • ! •fe/ / 9 R r/tE /L 1! ■a A ! 1 ! r: {ra {cA .iPA T' FM 3 11 11 Z Q s+vw J a U� tfib z � i s �r i-w sA rn M : \ Q W x •a1CNIV'1 J o m -� AA tJ 1-.• M h• AGENDA ITEM Na. PACE a(- sQF a YM as ii AM1 ®.Y N�w p ilib b � i0 OESZ6 V0 '380NIS13 3Nb'l '1S 3900d S1N3W1S3AN1 VMN31S NY1d A008 to z �+ � a � OY OY m iI f iz auras 1 $ � LJ a .s ® is `` ►. ® a� AGENDA ITEM N0. PACE D5 OF art 0£9Z6 VO '380NIS13 3HH1 K�•• a...Q.� G atl �nmw.•ais.00��r•s•� 1� '1S 3800V SIN3VUS3ANI V8631S SNOUVA313 # rA: J-w rA s • • � ee • ll. LLLi 3 � � $ MUMs as iss � ssisaa� rw rA OEM TV u •� w•w • J•A < U • rA .FA .TA i � III I4, g � • �41 < a EM" _s . • • , r,s-�� f; AGENDA ITEM N0. • 1''' z' PAGE 0f JM J•A J-•R Q ' . YM�lq 1PE1 ®r r w p no o �w i0 0£SZ6 VO '3?JONISl3 3NVl K� �+��•� 1S 3800V °1m�1Bi Q S1N3VUS3ANI VNN31S SNOU33S ONIOlU18 ¢ to fi3 S� I¢ pt J-A rA Z !i i AGENDA ITEM NO- PACE a`L_OF a 4'1 301r �w OF9l6 VO '380NIS13 3NV1 '1S 3900V S11V130 HSINI3 9p1 t Q S1N3W1S3nNl V212131S g t�t jt lu �B ! Q k t X w � 43 I ' ❑❑ r w ; LuX -1 HSNi ITAN tul >U- lu Uji _ a a `s lu a z AGENDA ITEM N0. PAGE 0 a�i_ MATERIAL AND COLOR 150ARD FOR ADOW STJAPW 311-312-014 ONE STORY SO*" FMILY namma W/ ATTAR 2 CANS GARAGE m t.WwTom PONDEROSA STYLES COLOR: ADOBE COLOR: CORONA RED FLASHED X-12 (BASE 200) 05538 BY 'EAGLE' ROOFING BY "LA HABRA" ROOF FINISH WALL FINISH COLOR: 825OW COLOR: 001 IVORY SAMPLER WHITE BY "FRAZEE" BY "FRAZEE" FASCIA15D• GARAGE DOOR AGENDA ITEM EXPOSED RAFTERS 4 COLUMNS RAGE as oF.2--- CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 30338 BAUM AVENUE APPLICANT: CHRIS HILDEBRAND, R1 PERMITTING INC., 2322 HERITAGE DRIVE, CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92882 OWNER: BENITIO NAVARRO, 3719 EAST 3RD STREET, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063 PROJECT REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to construct a conventionally built two (2) story single family residence on a vacant lot. Review is pursuant to Chapter 17.82 (Design Review), Chapter 17.14 (Residential Development Standards), Chapter 17.23 (R-1, Single-Family Residential District), Chapter 17.66 (Parking Requirements) and all other applicable Chapters of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located at 30338 Baum Avenue (APN 375-324-025), within the County Club Heights area and Redevelopment Project Area No. 3, Parcel No. 4. WATER/SEWER/FIRE LOW Water service will be provided by the Elsinore Water District (EWD). A Will Serve Letter is attached. The closest fire hydrant is located approximately 480 feet from the parcel. The applicant is negotiating with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) regarding the construction of a sewer connection. According the EVMWD, a sewer line was recently constructed to the intersection of Gutkaes and Baum, approximately one- hundred fifty feet (150') from the project site. AGENDA ITEM N0,_, ._ PAGE t PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 2 of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING t��tt i {p' i p i i litili rb: IIt'a TIN ;I" I d tl `li i �Ijil r*� Ila4. i1# i i 'A i�7 ni t'' - °` , PpGi jiKi ".% i11 t iC � r ,•... � �'. r �. I . is i a i xuv 'u,iY a , 'Fl,a y ,I, i fit illl�4 I i lil i 4P i 4 Project Site Vacant R-2, Medium Density Future Specific Plan Residential District Area 'J' North Vacant R-2, Medium Density Future Specific Plan Residential District Area 'J' South Vacant R-2, Medium Density Future Specific Plan Residential District Area 'J' East Vacant R-2, Medium Density Future Specific Plan Residential District Area `J' West Vacant R-2, Medium Density Future Specific Plan Residential District Area 'J' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,515 square foot conventionally built two (2) story single family residence that includes an attached 491 square foot two (2) car garage on a vacant 5,856 square foot lot. The buildings will occupy approximately forty- four percent (44%) of the lot area which is within the maximum allowance of fifty percent (50%) pursuant to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). The proposed two (2) story single-family residence consists of a kitchen, dining room, living room, family room, four (4) bedrooms, and three and one-half (3 1/2) bathrooms. Architecture. Materials and Colors The applicant is proposing architectural enhancements that include horizontal siding at the front elevation, vertical siding within the eave areas, river rock veneer wainscot, wide window trim around all windows, and decorative lighting. The roofing material will be a shake style concrete tile. Colors and Materials proposed are: Location Material Color Roof Concrete— Shake style Brown Walls Stucco/Siding Canyon View Fascia/DoorsNVindow Wood/Foam Ranch Acres Trim Wood/Foam Hickory Grove Wainscot River Rock veneer Reno blend AGENDA ITEM N0.____L__ PAGE-_.___ OF PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 3 of 4 Landscaping and Fencing The applicant will provide front yard landscaping including two (2) twenty-four inch (24") box trees. An automatic irrigation system will be provided in the front setback area as well. Front fence returns will be constructed of decorative block walls. The City Standard six foot (6') wood fence will be constructed along the side and rear property lines. Retaining walls are proposed along the side property lines. Any retaining wall seen from a neighboring property shall be conditions to be constructed of decorative masonry block such as split face block or a stucco finish. ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the project and found that with the attached Conditions of Approval the project meets all minimum requirements of Chapter 17.82 (Design Review), Chapter 17.14 (Residential Development Standards), Chapter 17.23 (R-1, Single Family Residential District), Chapter 17.66 (Parking Requirements) and all other applicable Chapters including but not limited to density, setbacks, landscaping, parking and lot coverage. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3(a) exemption for new construction of one (1) single family residence. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2007- approving Minor Design Review of a Single Family Residence located at 30338 Baum Avenue within the Country Club Heights area (APN 375-324-028). The recommendation is based on the findings, exhibits, and Conditions of Approval attached. PREPARED BY: LINDA M. MILLER, PLANNING CONSULTANT APPROVED BY: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NO.`� PACE OF PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 4 of 4 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Resolution No. 2007- approving Minor Design Review of a Single Family Residence 3. Conditions of Approval 4. Will Serve Letter 5. CEQA Notice of Exemption 6. Acknowledgement of Draft Conditions 7. Reductions 8. Full Size Exhibits P:\ALL FILES\Reports\PC Rpts\MDR - Projects & Single Family Residential\2007\PC Staff Report 30338 Baum Avenue 11-6-07.doc AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE ,,._OF a`j, VICINITY MAP 30338 BAUM AVENUE Fti 0, PROJECT SITE co Cl PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO._ PAGE S RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WHEREAS, Chris Hildebrand filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of a Minor Design Review for a single family residence (the "Project") to be constructed on a vacant lot located at 30338 Baum Avenue (APN 375- 324-028); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of approving, conditionally approving, or denying Minor Design Review requests for residential projects; and WHEREAS, notice of the Project has been given and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public meeting held with respect to this item on November 6, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed design for the single family residence and has found it acceptable. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the Project is consistent with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (14 C.C.R. §§ 15000 et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines") pursuant to a class 3(a) exemption for new construction or conversion of small structures because the Project involves construction of one single family residence (14 C.C.R. § 15303(a)). SECTION 3. That in accordance with Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.82, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of the Minor Design Review: 1. The Project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning District in which the Project is located. The Project complies with the goals and objectives of the General Plan in that the approval of this single family residence will assist in achieving the development of a well-balanced and functional mix of residential homes, as well as encouraging the development and maintenance of a broad range of housing types for all income groups and age categories in that the applicant is proposing a conventionally built home utilizing architectural design elements. 2. The Project complies with the design directives contained in Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.82.060 and all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE OFF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007- PAGE 2 OF 3 The Project is appropriate in size and design to the lot and meets all setback requirements, provides front yard landscaping, and proposes an acceptable architectural style which includes horizontal siding, decorative vertical features within the eave area, river rock veneered wainscot, wide window trim, and decorative lighting. The roofing material will be concrete tile. The immediate area is primarily vacant parcels. The proposed project will meet or exceed the size and design of the few existing homes in the general surrounding area. 3. Subject to the attached conditions of approval, the Project is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Notwithstanding the fact that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to a Class 3 exemption, the Project was reviewed and conditioned by all applicable City departments to ensure that the single family residence blends into existing development, creates the least amount of disturbance, and does not negatively impact the residents of Lake Elsinore. The Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 7.3.2 of the MSHCP states that: "(deevelopment of individual single-family homes on existing parcels, in accordance with existing land use regulations is a Covered Activity within the Criteria Area," subject to an expedited review process. Impacts of development of single-family residences on sensitive habitat and covered species were accounted for in the MSHCP and the MSHCP EIR. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the single-family residence at 17223 Herbert Street was sited on the least sensitive portion of the lot. Consideration was given to access, topography/terrain, zoning standards including setbacks, soil types, presence of earthquake fault lines, leach fields, presence of oak trees and high fire hazard areas. The building foot print area is appropriate and complies with the MSHCP Criteria Area. 4. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.82.100, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the Project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of Chapter 17.82. Pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.82.070, the Project has been scheduled for consideration and approval of the Planning Commission. The Project complies with all applicable provisions of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. SECTION 4. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the Project, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Minor Design Review for a single family residence to be located at 30338 Baum Avenue (APN 375-324-028). SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. AGENDA ITEM N0. `Y­— PAGE_ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007- PAGE 3 OF 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this sixth day of November 2007, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Michael O'Neal, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz Director of Community Development AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 30338 BAUM AVENUE Note: Fees listed in the Conditions of Approval are the best estimates available at the time of approval. The exact fee amounts will be reviewed at the time of permit issuance and may be revised. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, and Agents from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, or Agents to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning the single family residential project attached hereto. 2. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be final fifteen (15) days from the date of the decision, unless an appeal has been filed with the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.80 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. PLANNING DIVISION 3. Minor Design Review approval of a single family residence located at 30338 Baum Avenue —APN 375-324-028 will lapse and be void unless a building permit is issued within one (1) year of the approval date and construction commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. 4. Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced upon page one of building plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division for Plan Check. All Conditions of Approval shall be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. 5. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgement of Conditions," and shall return the executed original to the Community Development Department for inclusion in the case records. 6. If the project proposes an outdoor storage tank, the applicant shall locate the unit within the side or rear yards. If the location must be within the front yard, the applicant shall provide a method of screening subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development or his designee. 7. The applicant shall place a weatherproof 3' x 3' sign at the entrance to the project site identifying the approved days and hours of construction activity and a statement that complaints regarding the operation can be lodged with the City of Lake Elsinore Code Enforcement Division (951) 674 3124 prior to the issuance of Grading Permit. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF c"�. `k CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 30338 BAUM AVENUE 8. All site improvements shall be constructed as indicated on the approved site plan and elevations, with revisions as noted herein. The applicant shall meet all required setbacks pursuant to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). Any other revisions to the approved site plan or building elevations shall be subject to the review of the Director of Community Development or his designee. All plans submitted for Building Division Plan Check shall conform to the submitted plans as modified by Conditions of Approval, or the Planning Commission through subsequent action. 9. Materials and colors depicted on the plans and materials board shall be used unless modified by the applicant and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. 10.All windows shall use surrounds and/or other architectural-type features as shown on the approved plans or modified with the approval of the Director of Community Development or designee. 11.At minimum the applicant shall use concrete tile or similar material approved by the Director of Community Development or Designee on the dwelling. Roofing materials shall have a minimum Class "A" Fire rating, and so noted on the construction plans. 12.The applicant shall meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 13.A cash bond of $1,000.00 shall be required for any construction trailers placed on the site and used during construction. Bonds will be released after removal of trailers and restoration of the site to an acceptable state, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development or designee. 14.The applicant shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and no construction activity shall occur on Saturdays, Sundays or legal holidays. 15.The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance. Construction generated dust and erosion shall be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of Municipal Code, Chapter 15.72 and using accepted control techniques. Interim erosion control measures shall be provided thirty (30) days after the site's rough grading, as approved by the City Engineer. 16.The applicant shall meet all applicable Riverside County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. 17.The applicant shall meet all applicable Building and Safety Division requirements. 18.Any exterior air conditioning or other mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted and screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE k COQF_,D_2_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 30338 BAUM AVENUE public streets. Air conditioning units and related equipment may not encroach more than two-feet (2) into the required minimum side yard setback. 19.Garages shall be constructed to provide a minimum interior clear space of twenty feet (20) x twenty feet (20') for two cars. 20.The applicant shall provide and maintain shrubs and plant materials as shown on the landscape plan. Any changes to this plan shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development or designee. The landscape plan shall be implemented prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 21.Planting within fifteen feet (15') of ingress/egress points shall be no higher than 36 inches. 22.The applicant shall provide front yard irrigation systems as shown on the landscape plans. The irrigation system shall be implemented prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 23.The applicant shall provide a rain sensor as shown on the landscape plan. The rain censor shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 24.All exposed slopes in excess of three feet (3) in height shall have permanent irrigation system and erosion control vegetation installed, as approved by the City's Landscape Architect. A Planting and Irrigation Plan shall be submitted, approved and planted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Fees are required for review of plans and inspections. 25.Driveways shall be constructed of concrete per Building and Safety Division standards. 26.Walls or fences located within the front yard setback shall not exceed thirty-six inches (36") in height with the exception that wrought-iron fences may be five feet (5) in height. Chain link fences shall be prohibited. 27.The applicant shall construct the City's Standard six foot (6) wood fence along the interior side property line. Any retaining walls that can be viewed from neighboring properties shall be constructed of decorative masonry. The two (2) front returns shall be constructed of decorative masonry. A wrought iron or wood gate will be required. The applicant shall be required to remove and replace any existing chain link fencing and any fencing that is in poor condition. It will be the responsibility of the applicant to contact the effected neighboring property owners if it is found the fencing will need to be removed and replaced. AGENDA ITEM NO.� PAGE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 30338 BAUM AVENUE 28.The building address shall be a minimum of four inches (4") high and shall be easily visible from the public right-of-way. Care shall be taken to select colors and materials that contrast with building walls or trim. 29.The applicant shall provide a flat concrete pad a minimum of 3'- 0" by 7'- 0" adjacent to each dwelling. The storage pad for trash barrels shall be concealed from public view. 30.The applicant shall provide assurance that all required fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District have been paid prior to issuance of building permits. 31.The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees in effect at the time prior to issuance of building permits. 32.The applicant shall meet all Conditions of Approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. 33.The applicant shall submit water to Elsinore Water District and shall incorporate all District conditions and standards, including payment of applicable connection fees. 34.The applicant shall submit sewer plans to Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and shall incorporate all District conditions and standards, including payment of applicable connection fees. 35.The applicant shall pay the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Fee (MSHCP) Local Development Mitigation Fee prior to obtaining building permits. 36.The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $64.00 made payable to the County of Riverside for a Notice of Exemption. The check shall be submitted to the Planning Division for processing within 48 hours of the projects approval. 37.The Applicant shall pay all applicable Library Capital Improvement Fund fee. 38.Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the Project, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore to provide (a) 15% of the units constructed in the Project as affordable housing units in accordance with the requirements of Section 33413(b)(2) of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Sections 33000 et seq.), or (b) an alternative equivalent action as determined by the City which may include (without limitation) dedication of vacant land, construction of affordable units on another site, or payment of an in-lieu fee at the rate of $2.00 per square-foot of assessable space for each dwelling unit in the Project. For purposes of this condition, "assessable space" means all of the square-footage within the perimeter AGENDA ITEM PACE 12 OFF_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 30338 BAUM AVENUE of a structure, not including any carport, walkway, garage, overhang, patio, enclosed patio, detached accessory structure, or similar area. The amount of the square- footage within the perimeter of a residential structure shall be calculated by the building department of the City in accordance with the standard practice of the City in calculating structural perimeters. ENGINEERING DIVISION 39.All Public Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) prior to building permit. 40.Submit a "Will Serve" letter to the City Engineering Division from the applicable water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project and specify the technical data for the water service at the location, such as water pressure and volume etc. Submit this letter prior to applying for a building permit. 41.Arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.) out of the roadway or alley shall be the responsibility of the property owner or his agent. 42.Provide fire protection access and facilities as required in writing by Riverside County Fire Department. 43.In accordance with the City's Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling, the applicant shall be required to contract with CR&R Inc. for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction. DEDICATION: 44.Dedicate a ten-foot slope easement along the westerly property for future Baum Avenue alignment prior to issuance of building permit (Res. 87-64). 45.Public right-of-way dedications shall be prepared by the applicant or his agent. Deeds shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permit. STREET IMPROVEMENTS 46.Work done under an encroachment permit for off-site improvements shall be delineated on the street improvement plans and approved and signed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. WOEEWFy'r �1 r-M!,-.0 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 30338 BAUM AVENUE 47.Pay all fees and meet requirements of an encroachment permit issued by the Engineering Division for construction of off-site public works improvements (LEMC12.08, Res.83-78). All fees and requirements for an encroachment permit shall be fulfilled before Certificate of Occupancy. 48.All compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8 1/2" x 11" Mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division before final inspection of off-site improvements will be scheduled and approved. GRADING 49.Developer shall obtain all necessary off-site easements for off-site grading from the adjacent property owners prior to final map approval. 50.Apply and obtain a grading permit with appropriate security prior to any grading activity. 51.A grading plan stamped/signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer is required since the grading exceeds 50 cubic yards and the existing flow pattern is substantially modified as determined by the City Engineer. The grading plan shall show volumes of cut and fill, adequate counters and/or spot elevations of the existing ground as surveyed by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer. Contours shall extend to minimum of 15 feet beyond property lines to indicate existing drainage pattern. Apply and obtain a grading permit with appropriate security prior to grading permit issuance. 52.Provide soils, geology and seismic report, as part of this report address the requirement of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Provide final soils report showing compliance with recommendations. 53.In accordance with the City's Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling, the applicant shall be required to contract with CR&R Inc. for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction. 54.Applicant to provide erosion control measures as part of their grading plan. The applicant shall contribute to protection of storm water quality and meet the goals of the BMP in Supplement "A" in the Riverside County NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. 55.All grading shall be done under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer and he shall certify all slopes steeper than 2 to 1 for stability and proper erosion control. AGENDA ITEM NO._�® PACE _L1-A OF,��� CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 30338 BAUM AVENUE DRAINAGE: 56.Submit Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports for review and approval by City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. Developer shall mitigate any flooding and/or erosion downstream caused by development of the site and/or diversion of drainage. 57.0n-site drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility, accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance, or conveyed to a drainage easement. 58.All natural drainage traversing the site shall be conveyed through the site, or shall be collected and conveyed by a method approved by the City Engineer. 59.Roof drains shall not be allowed to outlet directly through coring in the street curb. 60.Roofs must drain to a landscaped area. FEES: 61.Provide in-lieu payment for future public improvements prior to building permit (Res. 86-35). 62.Pay all Capital Improvement and Plan Check fees (LEMC 16.34). The traffic mitigation fee is $1,369.00 and the drainage fee is $ 441.00 (Town District No.6) and the TUMF amount is $7,248.00. STORMWATER/ CLEANWATER PROTECTION PROGRAM 63.City of Lake Elsinore has adopted ordinances for storm water management and discharge control. In accordance with state and federal law, these local storm water ordinances rp ohibit the discharge of waste into storm drain system or local surface waters. This includes non-storm water discharges containing oil, grease, detergents, trash, or other waste remains. Brochures of "Storm water Pollution, What You Should Know" describing preventing measures are available at City Hall. PLEASE NOTE: The discharge of pollutants into street, gutters, storm drain system, or waterways -without Regional Water Quality Control Board permit or waver — is strictly prohibited by local ordinances and state and federal law. End of Conditions AGENDA ITEM N0.___(_i_ PAGEL_`5.._0F_a_'— ELSINORE WATER DISTRICT '{ ED) WATER WILL SERVE LETTER REQUEST CHECKLIS OCT 15 2007 Date of Request 5-8-07 count# ,.-- , „, ,..; , i, ra c Owner's Name Benito Navarro Owner's Phone# 323-262-6414 �° tIVY �ISI�ON�,� Mailing Address 3719 E. 3rd St. City/State/Zip Los Angeles, Ca. 90063 Contact Name Chris Hildebrand Contact's Phone# 951-378-8146 Track/Lot/Block APN# 375-324-028 Street Address 30338 Baum Ave. Type of Request: Residential X Commercial Other Type New Construction X Remodel Received: Date Initials Comments Grant Deed Preliminary Title Report Plans of Addition(Remodels Only) Payment Check# Date Field Check: Size of Main Line 6" Location of Main Line Street in front of parcel Served by Hydro Tank No Within Easement Zone Backflow Device Needed Type Static water pressure less than 45 psi Static water pressure greater than 90 psi 125# Remodels: Meter Size Location Customer Shut Off Fire Service Street Lateral Size&Materials Building Lateral Size&Materials Engineering Date Sent Date Approved by Engineering Prepared By: Michael Mosier Date (n /- o 7 Approved By: Date G —1 O FINAL WILL-SERVE LETTER ISSUANCE: Date Prepared Date to Customer ` Will Serve Issued Conditions of Will-Serve, if applicable: AGENDA ITEM NO._--- PAGE k�. OF as---- FORM B Name Benito Navarro Page 1 APN 375-324-028 PUBLIC WATER SERVICE CERTIFICATION This certifies that the above referenced property is within the service area boundaries of this water service utility and that: Service Information: (Check one) X There are currently existing adequate source, storage and distribution line capacities to provide potable water to the referenced site in sufficient quantities to satisfy the domestic water service and fire protection requirements of the proposed use. The water mains to serve each.proposed service connection are currently installed and operable. Financial arrangements have been made to install water mains for each proposed service outlet and any other necessary facilities to insure that the proposed use will have adequate source, storage and distribution line capacities for each proposed service connection.that will satisfy the domestic water service and fire protection requirements of the proposed use. It is financially and physically feasible to install water service facilities that will provide adequate source, storage and distribution line capacities for each proposed service connection that will satisfy the domestic water service and fire protection requirements of the proposed use. Easement Information: (Check one) X This agency has no known water lines or easements on the subject property line. This agency has water lines and/or easements on the subject property but they do not conflict with the proposed use as currently designed. This agency has waterlines and/or easements on the subject property which conflict with the proposed project as currently designed. Applicant must revise plans and resubmit them to this agency for approval. Fire Flow Information: 884 Gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for a minimum two-hour duration. A Standard Type hydrant is located Approx. 480' feet from the above referenced parcel. On Baum Ave. West of Gutkaes. AGENDA ITEM NO.C � PACE 1� �4F�_ bWNTENANCE 37 FLOW TEST REPORT Location �l�CHIN � t��f�, l-V�Si o�C--L�Cj k14 E5 C p Date �-' / "— Test Made by r Time M. Representative of witness State Purpose of Test _... Consumption Rate During Test If Pumps Affect Test. Indicate Pumps Operating Flow Hydrants At A2 Aa Size Nozzle Pilot Reading Total gpm gpm Static- 8 2-S - /s Psi" Residual B CO psi Projected Results:at 20 psi Residual Wq gpm: or at psi Residual gpm Remarks S`/ 6 So kD— O o .� �•� $gym ®�o�� Location Map: Show line sizes and distance to next cross connected line Show valves and hydrant branch size.Indicate North.Show flowing hydrants—label At.A2.A3.Show location of Static and Residua(—label 8 Indicate 8 Hydrant. Sprinkler Other tidenlilyt Igure 5-4 Flow-test report. AGENDA ITEM PAGE%1�, ,.OF �o �ue=o:) T aepzp T go Z :e6ed Z£'SL£ deyl sossessV 10 &prsseATg :uoF�draaseQ ay H d• Z Vs 1, � ®� 7C•F' ° ` ' •aF® ^ 1 . rFG o © ,a� n h \ M 4. • r •r ,� •E •t � •'f6 O F Y 6 O LOT '_-TV O� ` � c d a�Ls - 4q®� •� 1,9 Cl Z 6 `��1� _'i�Y° ,• 9r I {�� V ° 1 O � \ ©eE•EN � _ C [OT � •a FlY q � � jffi7i—l. to 1, d® N IL r f� �3 �a 06 •V Fq � {E•[EI �F"<rl I y y 4 (� V1 I'I L 9 [.1.. ~ K �) •E pC •C •L •C .0 •E 'E tN Q, � — � ftr LOT✓ .v�i%��— — a • V n L4 Vl� � � V �s :z`aMati .. t AGENDA ITEM NO. -- PACE �`A of a9 Date 6-1-07 Name Benito Navarro Address 3719 E. 3rd St. City Los Angeles, Ca. ZIP 90063 APN # 375-324-028 Street Name Baum Ave. ESTIMATED COST Water Account Deposit $ 100.00 ❑ Fire Hydrant $ Meter Installation $ 2900.00 Connection Fee/Capacity Charge $ 5594.00 t� Permits $ 500.00 ❑ Hot Patch $ ❑ Miscellaneous $ Total: $ 9094.00 ❑ Due to the length of line extension, it will be necessary for you to contact a Civil Engineering company of your choice for cost estimate and installation. "Exhibit A" attached hereto lists requirements for first plan check. Cost of Plot Plan Check dependent on estimated cost of project. **Note: Estimate valid for 60 days.** ELSINORE WATER DISTRICT Michael Mosier Water Operations Supervisor a 9 Organized Under the Laws of the Stale of California ELSINORE WATER DISTRICT DATE: 6-1-07 APN# 375-324-028 ADDRESS Baum Avenue To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this letter as official notification that the Elsinore Water District has sufficient water to service the above referenced address or parcel and will be providing fire flow protection to that area. An approved standard fire hydrant (6"X 4" X 21/") is located Approx. 480' from the above referenced parcel. Minimum fire flow shall be 500 GPM for a 2-hour duration.at a 20-PSI residual. Also, please find a copy of the APN page showing the location of the fire hydrant. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, or require further information, please contact us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, E SINORE W ER DIST ICT .Michael Mosier Water Operations Supervisor AGENDA ITEM N0. PAGE a k OF 16899 Lakeshore Drive, P.O. Box 1019, Lake Elsinore, CA 92531-1019 Phone 951-674-2168 • Fax 951-674-5429 City of Lake Elsinore Notice of Exemption Planning Division 130 S.Main Street Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 (909)674-3124 (909)471-1419 fax Filed With: ❑ Office of Planning and Research Z County Clerk of Riverside County 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 2724 Gateway Drive Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA 92507 Project Title: Minor Design Review of a Single-Family Residence Project Location(Specific): The proposed project is located at 30338 Baum Avenue Project Location(City): City of Lake Elsinore Project Location(County): Riverside County Description of Nature,Purpose,and Beneficiaries of Project: This is a proposal to develop one (1) single family residence on a 5,856 square foot vacant lot. The residence is a 2,515 square foot conventionally built structure that includes an attached 489 square foot two (2) car garage.The General Plan designation is Future Specific Plan Area`J'and Zoning designation is R-2,Medium Density Residential District. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Lake Elsinore Name of Person/Agency Administrating Project: Linda Miller,Planning Consultant,City of Lake Elsinore Exempt Status: ❑ Ministerial(Section 15073) ❑ Declared Emergency(Section 15071 (a)) ❑ Emergency Project(Section 15071 (b)and(c)) ❑O Categorical Exemption(state type and section number): Article 19 Categorical Exemptions Section 15303,Class 3 (a) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Reasons why project is exempt: This project meets the exemption requirements pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Contact Person: Linda M. Miller Telephone Number: (951)674-3124 x 209 Signed: Title: Director of Communi, Development Rolfe M.Preisendanz AGENDA ITEM Nd. : PAGE a_a OF�-�— ACKNOWLEDEGEMENT OF DRAFT CONDITIONS RE: Minor Design Review for Single Family Residence located at 30338 Baum Avenue I hereby state that UWe acknowledge the draft Conditions of Approval for the above named project. VWe understand that these are draft conditions only and do hereby agree to accept and abide by all final conditions prescribed by the City of Lake Elsinore staff, as set forth in the attachments to the approval letter that will be sent after final project approval. All final conditions shall be met prior to issuance of permits or prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, or otherwise indicated in the Conditions, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director of the City of Lake Elsinore. Date: Applicant's Signature: Print Name: Address: Phone Number: PAGE a 3,OF, _„ ` #a Q{Q TO 3ON MISNH OHZIVAYNI o; S3,Lox waaNao $ N"d 3dVOSQNV'I 'Nnd aMS H IR gill i9 O 60.0a , rz ' I � 1 b O•6 I D3 $ I (;s a T � � e �F e LEA Krm ITOOM M(n wrd HOOrM N" cp MOO .......... ___J 1 0 • ` C r e® ® 3 ae I I I I � W1 4e I --------1-- -I----------- R 19 , . 15 o --. het p4 it I ---- —,— ----- I I --------1 i o J I LJz in I J I O I 1 W V z a uR U Q '32IOM913 MM '*aAY KnVEI MGM pit ii aoRadisau owivAiN KrM JOOH P? GKOUVAM HODMM 01 bit VE C3 k io .2T 0 0 omo BUD om El 10 LL.rr MY Ile Is �,, `ill i .. a y V � - - 1L:J1 re, La lip lip 2%- Lu LU i VO 'aHONISIH MINT 'MAV KnVH 9SEOE ;: icp a -------------------- -------------- ------ MFP1 a. MF ._...... - ,..g..'.. - - - g EF ---------------- Lin �g MMM i ...._...:......I ' I -- ¢ --------------��I-( JJi I I I 9996' V WH L L :90 LOOZ/9 6/O 6 `b3nOO `6MP'Ed Jd\I!A!O\as ` 1.9E�Nf\s}oefad yly Pang \ r N cn ftH d J a .—ao�.r..E„ \ 999 / f + 9N All IN LLI / g kna uj O 4` I/✓ O Cl) 1 _W 09 4 z �/ . sae oil e tla�aerapr$pr !Lill' 3 � Y a a k I $a ggpp 14141 e 402 z i . WpY F, n' � 11 e h arm o $ k E a g a s Y gam %a ' ig �je 5N,l a IN I- 1 e - C og i � 3a� a3g � 1�£� a weW k g� I I a �.,�ll,� Y � � � � "� a a� � M Hill `#� i �W,O m � I H W sr °I � � 1a I "a .- � xg 14 � a am g � 111'a q i fil � yT glEgAg Q z ��gi ll Z � fe ``A w z wwg z 0 U) z Ca W Z ow Fj Ld 0 L) W Lu U)l uj X wori fill L tk HIM Ilk ha --T-r-r-T-T-1 I LL 0 tillf I uj 1 lit it CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: CONDITONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-20 AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2007-13 FOR A PROPOSED AMERICA'S TIRE COMPANY LOCATED AT 18237 DEXTER AVENUE (APN: 377-040-045) APPLICANT: NOEL ANASCO/BERGMAN ARCHITECTURE: 4300 EDISON AVENUE, CHINO, CA 91710 OWNER: DONALD E. HOWELLS/CAMBERN AND CENTRAL INVESTORS, LLC: 265 SANTA HELENA, SUITE 125, SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 PROJECT REQUEST Staff is requesting a continuance of the proposed project. BACKGROUND Staff is requesting that this project be continued to allow staff additional time to further work with the applicant to address project concerns. Therefore,with the consent of the Planning Commission, staff requests that this item be continued off calendar. PREPARED BY: JUSTIN CARLSON, ASSCOIATE PLANNER APPROVED BY: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ-rO F°R DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM PAGE 1 OF_A_ CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-14, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-21 & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-03 "FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK" APPLICANT: MCARDLE ASSOC. ARCHITECTS (ATTN: STACEY PETERSON) 5838 EDISON PLACE, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 OWNER: FAIRWAY COMMERCIAL PARTNERS (ATTN: ROD OSHITA) 1601 N. SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, SUITE 401, MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 PROJECT REQUEST The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Circulation Map, a Conditional Use Permit to allow for optional office and showroom uses onsite and to establish outdoor storage areas and an Industrial Design Review consideration for the design and construction of twenty (20) light-industrial buildings ranging in size from 6,810 square-feet to 30,989 square-feet. The project site has a zoning designation of Limited Manufacturing (M-1). Review is pursuant to Government Code Section 65348, Chapter 17.56 (Light Manufacturing District) Chapter, 17.74 (Conditional Use Permit), Chapter 17.66 (Parking Requirements)and Chapter 17.82 (Design Review)of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located on the north side of Chaney Street, approximately 920 feet west of Minthorn Street, Assessor Parcel Number 377-140-024 within Redevelopment Project Area No. 1. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE k of` ;_ _ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK BACKGROUND The project site has a zoning designation of Limited Manufacturing (M-1). The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section (LEMC) 17.55.020 allows for a wide variety of industrial uses as permitted uses in the M-1 zone. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING EXISTING LAND USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN Project Vacant/Parking Lot Limited Site Manufacturing Business Park (BP) M-1 North Industrial Limited Light Industrial(LI) Manufacturing M-1 South Offices Limited Business Park (BP) Manufacturing M-1 East Industrial Commercial Business Park (BP) Manufacturing (C-M) & Limited Manufacturing M-1 West Flood Control Channel Limited Flood(F) Manufacturing M-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment The developer has made application for a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Circulation Map by realigning the planned extension of Pasadena Street between Third Street and Chaney which as planned, would traverse through the project site. Instead, the developer is proposing to route the Secondary Highway east on Third Street and south on Minthorn Street connecting to Chaney Street (see attached location map). This realignment would necessitate the elimination of on-street parking on both sides of Third Street between Pasadena Street and Minthorn Street and along the entire length of Minthorn Street between Third Street and Chaney Street to achieve adequate travel lane widths. AGENDA ITEM N0. v PAGE 2 OF c-S PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK Conditional Use Permit The property owner has requested the option of using Buildings A, B, C& D,which directly front Chaney Street, as either offices and/or commercial showroom buildings. LEMC Section 17.56.030.M allows the Planning Commission the authority to approve other conditional uses not currently listed in the Limited Manufacturing (M-1) District when it can be determined that the uses will have similar characteristics to those currently allowed in the district. A Conditional Use Permit is being requested to allow for these optional uses onsite. The Light Manufacturing District currently only allows office uses in association with on-site management or leasing or having a single user with a minimum size of 30,000 square feet. Moreover, commercial showrooms are only allowed for exhibition of products manufactured on the premises or available for wholesale distribution. Planning staff believes that the requested option of using Buildings A, B, C, & D as either office or commercial showroom uses would be appropriate on the project site given that such uses would be restricted to the four buildings fronting onto Chaney Street which only accounts for a small part of the light industrial park. In addition, other office uses currently exist along the Chaney Street corridor and the four buildings being proposed for such uses would have visibility from this same street frontage thus ensuring that patrons could easily identify the proposed uses. Lastly, in order to ensure that adequate onsite parking exists, staff has added a condition of approval requiring that a parking study be prepared by the developer to demonstrate that adequate parking spaces either currently exist or will be provided prior to approval of tenant improvement plans related to the establishment of commercial or showroom uses for these buildings. The property owner is also requesting to develop nine (9) outdoor storage areas onsite within the proposed industrial park. LEMC Section 17.56.040.A.7 requires that a Conditional Use Permit be obtained to establish the outdoor storage areas. Planning staff has determined that the design of the outdoor storage areas either comply or have been conditioned to comply with all applicable standards specified for such outdoor storage areas. Industrial Design Review The applicant is proposing to construct twenty (20) separate light industrial buildings ranging in size from 6,810 square feet to 30,989 square feet on a 17.21 acre vacant site. Three of the proposed buildings will consist of two stories with the remainder consisting of a single-story. The buildings will be sited evenly across the site with the three largest buildings to be located at the western end of the property. The largest parking lot area will be provided on the eastern end of the property along the Chaney Street frontage. Smaller parking areas will be provided along the front and/or rear elevations of the buildings. Required loading spaces will be provided at either sides or rears of buildings. AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE 3 OF PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK Phasing Plan The project is proposed to be developed in three phases with the western portion of the site (Buildings M, N, P, Q, R, S, T, U & V) being developed first. The central portion of the site will be developed second (Buildings E, F, G, H, J, K& L)and the eastern portion of the site (Buildings A, B, C & D) developed last. Staff has added a variety of conditions of approval in association with the phasing plan addressing such issues as temporary seeding of the undeveloped portions of the site and timing of certificate of occupancy issuance. Onsite Improvements & Circulation Access to the site will be provided from three separate points including Chaney Street, the terminus of Birch Street and a driveway located off the knuckle of Pasadena and 3Id Streets. The developer is proposing to dedicate right-of-way on the project site and construct a cul-de-sac at the terminus of Birch Street. In addition,the developerwill provide necessary dedication and construct full half width street improvements along the Chaney Street frontage. Onsite circulation will provide thru-access to all three of the access points within the park. Twenty-eight foot (28')wide access aisles will be provided throughout the interior of the site. Some smaller access drives will provide access to the rear of some buildings onsite. Required loading zones will be provided at either the sides or rears of the buildings. Offsite Improvements & Circulation In addition to the onsite improvements identified above, the developer has agreed to provide a variety of offsite improvements to include the following: ■ Dedicate right-of-way and improve the intersection of Pasadena Street and Third Street. ■ Install a traffic signal at Collier Avenue and Third Street prior to 51% occupancy. ■ Install a traffic signal at Collier Avenue and Chaney Street prior to 51% occupancy. ■ Install a traffic signal at Minthorn Street and Chaney Street prior to 76% occupancy. • Install a northbound left turn lane at the intersection of Collier Avenue and Chaney Street. AGENDA ITEM NO* S PAGE__ __-0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK Architecture A "Contemporary" architectural style has been chosen for the buildings within the park facility. Concrete tilt-up construction will be utilized. Building designs will include the use of wall offsets and recessed entries varying in depth from two to four feet. In addition, multiple parapet heights, decorative cornice treatments, decorative score lines of various widths and depths and eyebrow canopies will all be incorporated on the buildings.Aluminum store front windows with reflective glazing will be utilized on all buildings throughout the park to create a uniform appearance. Landscaping The site design includes landscaping improvements which constitute 17.7% of the overall project site area. The landscape plan proposes two varieties of perimeter screen trees along interior property lines. A City approved street tree will be planted 30-feet on center along the Chaney Street frontage. A variety of accent trees will be planted at the three project entries to achieve formalization and identification. In addition, several varieties of parking lot and interior accent trees will also be provided to break-up expanses of pavement and provide shading. A variety of shrubs will be planted onsite serving as foundation plantings, screening or accent plantings to further enhance the aesthetics of the development. Decorative paving treatments and accent lighting will also be utilized at site entrances. Colors and Materials The applicant is proposing six (6) different colors and three (3) different color schemes to be evenly distributed on the buildings throughout the park. This even distribution will ensure that a variety of colors are seen as a visitor traverses the park complex. The proposed storefront glazing will further serve to compliment the building color schemes. Signage The developer has been conditioned to draft and submit a Uniform Sign Program document for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The Uniform Sign Program will ensure that all signage within the business park complex will have a cohesive and complimentary appearance as tenants change into the future. ANALYSIS Siting The proposed site plan meets all applicable development standards and criteria outlined in AGENDA ITEM NO. l� PAGE 1 OF "__.�___ .- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK the Limited Industrial (M-1)zoning district and the non—residential development standards outlined in Chapter 17.38 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, including setbacks and building height. The project also complies with the onsite parking standards listed in Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.66 (Parking Requirements) including loading space and accessible parking requirements. Circulation and Parking Space Layout The circulation and parking space layout meets the requirements set forth in Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.66 (Parking Requirements)assuming all twenty of the building are used for manufacturing activities. Staff has determined that five hundred forty-five (545) parking spaces are required onsite based on one (1) parking space for each 500 square feet of unit area up to 20,000 square feet plus one additional space for each 1,000 square feet over 20,000 square feet . Five Hundred Seventy-Six (576) spaces have been provided onsite not counting the spaces located within the outdoor storage areas (see matrix below). Should Buildings A, B, C, & D be used as either offices or showrooms, a parking study must be prepared to determine that sufficient parking spaces can be provided to accommodate the uses. RUILDNG DES(:R1PT) 1; a LCIL IN IN F2EQ 1REt BUILDING "A" 21,182 42 BUILDING "B" 12,797 26 BUILDING "C" 10,331 21 BUILDING "D" 9,880 20 BUILDING "E" 9,706 19 BUILDING "F" 9,706 19 BUILDING "G" 12,504 25 BUILDING "H" 16,409 33 BUILDING "J" 18,089 36 BUILDING "K" 6,810 14 BUILDING "L" 8,635 17 BUILDING "M" 8,154 16 BUILDING "N" 9,978 20 BUILDING "P" 17,179 34 BUILDING "Q" 15,583 31 AGENDA ITEM NO._�n PAGE-6 OF `�5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK BUILDING "R" 9,076 18 BUILDING "S" 9,076 18 BUILDING "T" 23,366 44 BUILDING "U" 20196 41 BUILDING W" 30,989 51 TOTALnvd y h" rea i6� 'i27 4 9�h5H iii dkx x h e i Nl'i IT, 01 IL Architecture The architectural design of the twenty proposed light industrial buildings within the park complex are consistent serving to create an overall theme for the facility. The building designs comply with the Architectural Design Guidelines listed in the Community Design Element of the City General Plan. Additionally, the architecture has been designed to achieve harmony and compatibility with surrounding commercial, office and industrial buildings in the vicinity of the project site. Correspondingly, the applicant has provided a variety of building design features and forms by employing treatments, such as articulated planes along the exterior walls, attractive storefront window system, recessed suite entries and a variety of rooflines which will create depth and shadow. Landscaping LEMC Section 17.56.100 requires a minimum of twelve percent (12%) of the site to be landscaped; the applicant is providing 17.7 percent. The proposed landscaping improvements serve to enhance the building designs and soften portions of building elevations, provide shade and break-up expanses of pavement. In addition, project entry plantings serve to formalize the industrial park and compliment the building architecture. Colors and Materials The colors and materials proposed for this project meet the intent of the Architectural Design Guidelines listed in the Community Design Element of the City's General Plan because the colors and materials produce diversity and enhance the architectural effects. Additionally, the colors and materials proposed will assist in blending the architecture into the existing landscape and are compatible with other colors and materials used on other properties in the vicinity of the project site. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based upon the results of that Initial Study, there was AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF `;5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK substantial evidence that any potential impacts to the environment associated with the Project could be mitigated to less than significant levels. As such, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to assess potential environmental impacts and to propose mitigation for those impacts. All agencies who commented on the Mitigated Negative Declaration during the public review period were provided responses, and there are no outstanding issues of concern. Staff has determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is adequate and has been completed in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's procedures for implementation of CEQA. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2007- recommending that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2007-05; Resolution No. 2007- recommending that the City Council adopt findings that the project is consistent with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; Resolution No. 2007-_ recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2007-14; Resolution No. 2007-_approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-21 and Resolution No. 2007-_ recommending City Council approval of Industrial Design Review No. 2006-03. This recommendation is based upon the Findings, Exhibits "A"thru "G" and the proposed Conditions of Approval attached to this Staff Report. PREPARED BY: MATTHEW C. HARRIS, SENIOR PLANNER APPROVED BY: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENTS: 1. LOCATION MAP 2. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 3. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 5. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION 6. EXHIBITS • REDUCTIONS (8 1/2 x 11) Exhibit A Site Plan Exhibit B Grading & Drainage Plan Exhibit C Floor Plans Exhibit D Building Elevations AGENDA ITEM NO• PAGE 'g OF 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK Exhibit E Building Sections Exhibit F Landscaping Plans Exhibit G Phasing Plans ■ FULL SIZE PLAN SET AGENDA ITEM NO PAGE OF VICINITY MAP GENERAL PLAN AMMENDMENT No. 2007-14 PASADENA STREET REALIGNMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 2007-21/INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW No. 2006-3 FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK �y PROPOSED PASADENA STREET REALIGNMENT O Nr Ilk- CD "All"4 i PROJECT SITE co q�NUT _ 9L O/Pr � AVF J ST PLANNING COMMISSION 11/06/07 AGENDA ITEWI NO.— PAC E_1 O OF aS RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2007-05 WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore wishes to commence proceedings to consider General Plan Amendment No. 2007-14, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-21, and Industrial Design Review No. 2006-03 (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Sections 21000, et seq.: "CEQA") and the State Implementation Guidelines for CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000, et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines") because the Project involves an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and involves the issuance of a lease, permit license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies (Public Resources Code, Section 21065); and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based upon the results of that Initial Study, there was substantial evidence that all potential impacts to the environment associated with the Project could be mitigated to less than significant levels; and WHEREAS, based upon the results of the Initial Study, and based upon the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15070, it was determined appropriate to prepare and circulate Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2007-05 for the Project (the "Negative Declaration"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15072, on July 27, 2007, the City duly issued a notice of intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council regarding mitigated negative declarations; and WHEREAS, public notice of the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been given, and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on November 6, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has evaluated all comments, written and oral, received from persons who have reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration. AGENDA ITEM NO. t0 PAGE OF Fi 5 PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION 2007- PAGE 2 OF 3 SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is adequate and has been completed in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's procedures for implementation of CEQA. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration represents the independent judgment of the City. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission further finds and determines that none of the circumstances listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 requiring recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration are present and that it would be appropriate to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as proposed. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission hereby makes, adopts, and incorporates the following findings regarding the lack of potential environmental impacts of the Project and the analysis and conclusions set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration: 1. Revisions in the Project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Based upon the Initial Study conducted for the Project, there is substantial evidence suggesting that all potential impacts to the environment resulting from the Project can be mitigated to the less than significant levels. 2. There is no substantial evidence, in the light of the whole record before the agency, that the Project as revised may have significant effect on the environment. Pursuant to the evidence received, and in the light of the whole record presented, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of November 2007, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: AGENDA ITEM NO PAGE !2 of fS PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION 2007- PAGE 3 OF 3 Michael O'Neal, Chairman Lake Elsinore Planning Commission ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz Director of Community Development AGENDA ITEVVI NO• PAGE 3 OF_--5 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPT FINDINGS THAT THE ENTITLEMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) WHEREAS, Stacey Peterson of McArdle Associates Architects filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2007-14, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-21, and Industrial Design Review No. 2006-03 for the design and construction of twenty (20) light industrial buildings ranging in size from 6,810 square feet to 30,989 square feet On a 17.2 acre site with related improvements (the "Entitlements") located on the north side of Chaney Street, approximately 920 feet west of Minthorn Street, APN: 377-140-124 (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that all projects which are proposed on land covered by an MSHCP criteria cell and which require discretionary approval by the legislative body undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process ("LEAP") and a Joint Project Review ("JPR") between the City and the Regional Conservation Authority ("RCA") prior to public review of the project applications; and WHEREAS, Section 6.0 further requires that development projects not within an MSHCP criteria cell must be analyzed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements"; and WHEREAS, the Applications are discretionary in nature and require review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or City Council; and WHEREAS, the Applications are not within an MSHCP Criteria Cell, Core or Linkage, but are within the Elsinore Plan Area of the MSHCP, and therefore, the Project was reviewed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements"; and WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that the City adopt consistency findings prior to approving any discretionary project entitlements for development of property that is subject to the MSHCP; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council regarding the consistency of discretionary entitlements with the MSHCP; and WHEREAS, public notice of the Entitlements has been given, and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on November 6, 2007. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE � A OF 9 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007- PAGE 2 OF 4 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed application and its consistency with the MSHCP prior to making a decision to recommend that the City Council adopt findings that the Entitlements are consistent with the MSHCP. SECTION 2. That in accordance with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and the MSHCP, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1. The proposed project is a project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval. The Property is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Cell. However, the Property is within the Elsinore Plan Area and must be reviewed for consistency with the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements," including Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines. 2. The proposed project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's Joint Project Review processes. As stated above, the Property is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Cell and therefore the Entitlements were not reviewed through the LEAP or Joint Project Review processes. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. The proposed project would impact two water features: the Lake Elsinore Outlet Channel located adjacent to the project site, and a 0.61-acre ponded feature located within the project site at the end of Birch Street. According to the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report (DBESP), the Lake Elsinore Outlet Channel meets the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) definition of a riparian/riverine resource, because it contains freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year. The other water feature does not meet this definition because it is artificially created and does not have freshwater flow. Implementation of the proposed project would directly impact 900 square feet (0.02 acre) of the Lake Elsinore Outlet Channel at each of three proposed outfall structure locations during construction. The total impact area would be 2,700 square feet (0.06 acre). Should a fourth storm drain outfall structure be constructed, an additional impact to 900 square feet (0.02 acre) of the Lake Elsinore Outlet Channel would occur, thereby totaling 3,600 square feet (0.08 acre). As part of the DBESP, the project would be required to implement mitigation, and best management practices (BMPs) as part of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) designed to prevent and avoid impacts to water quality within the Lake Elsinore Outlet Channel during construction. Long- AGENDA ITEM NO• PAGE- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007- PAGE 3 OF 4 term impacts would be minimized through project design features including bio- swa/es which would treat potential water quality impacts. All potential impacts to riparian/riverine habitat have been handled in accordance with the MSHCP. In addition, no vernal pools exist on the project site; therefore, due to the lack of suitable habitat, there is a very low potential for vernal pool species to occur. The project is therefore consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 4. The proposed project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. Per MSHCP requirements, the Property is not subject to the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.3. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 5. The proposed project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. Per MSHCP requirements, the Property is not subject to any of the Critical Area Species Survey Area Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, with the exception of Burrowing Owl. No burrowing owls or burrowing owl signs were observed within the project site or adjacent lands. The project site does not support any active burrows or suitable habitat due to the heavy soil composition, ongoing mechanical disturbance of the site, and the surrounding commercial urban setting. As required by the MSHCP, mitigation has been included to conduct a Burrowing Owl survey 30 days prior to any ground-disturbance, including removal vegetation or other debris. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 6. The proposed project is consistent with the UrbaniWildlands Interface Guidelines. The Property is surrounded by existing development or graded parcels planned for development. Therefore, the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP are not applicable. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 7. The proposed project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The project biologist has mapped the riparian/riverine resources as part of the DBESP, in accordance with the requirements of Vegetation Mapping set forth in Section 6.3.1 of the MSHCP. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 8. The proposed project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE � OF_fS PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007- PAGE 4 OF 4 As stated above, the Property is surrounded by existing and planned development. Therefore, the Fuels Management Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP are not applicable. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 9. The proposed project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. The developer will be required to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. 10.The proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP. The Entitlements are consistent with all applicable provisions of the MSHCP. No further actions related to the MSHCP are required. SECTION 3. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the attached conditions of approval, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore adopt findings that the Entitlements are consistent with the MSHCP. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of November 2007, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Michael O'Neal, Chairman Lake Elsinore Planning Commission ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz Director of Community Development AGENDA ITEM NO.�_ PAGE_ OF 95 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 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 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-14 WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore is considering an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Map, General Plan Amendment No. 2007-14, which will change the alignment of the Pasadena Street Extension (the "General Plan Amendment") allowing for the development of a light industrial park "Fairway Business Park"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council for changes to the approved General Plan Circulation Map; and WHEREAS, public notice of the General Plan Amendment has been given, and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on November 6, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed General Plan Amendment, prior to making a decision to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the City's circulation map. The Planning Commission finds and determines that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2007-05 is adequate and prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SECTION 2. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning law and the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2007-14: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not be: a) detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed amendment or within the City, or b) injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City. a. The design of the proposed Pasadena Street extension realignment between Third Street and Chaney Street is based upon the Fairway Business Park Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman and Associates dated February 26, 2007. The study analyzed various alternative alignments. AGENDA ITEM NO_.-�____...— PAGE_1.t OF_ 9_5 — PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION 2007- PAGE 2 OF 2 b. Weighing the relative merits of the alternative alignments, the alignment shown on the attached Exhibit A is considered the preferred alignment. c. The proposed realignment has been conditioned to ensure that it will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing, working or traveling within the neighborhood of the proposed amendment. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment. The General Plan Amendment does not propose any significant change to existing land use designations and will not result in any significant environmental impacts as explained in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2007-05. SECTION 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented, and the above findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore approve General Plan Amendment No. 2007-14. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of November 2007, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Michael O'Neal, Chairman Lake Elsinore Planning Commission ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz Director of Community Development AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 1_�_0F �5 EXHIBIT A Proposed Pasadena Street Realignment � c�'Pi• • Now --- Recommended e Site co y Le end ••• = Pasadena Street Current General Plan After Realignment Pasadena Street Alignment Q = Traffic Signal AGENDA ITEM ND-- pAGE- _®F `� RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-21 WHEREAS, McArdle Associates Architects., c/o Stacey Peterson, has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting the approval of Conditional Use Permit 2007-21 (the "CUP") for the potential establishment and operation of office and commercial showroom uses within Buildings A. B, C, & D and the establishment of several outdoor storage area within the "Fairway Business Park" on property located on the north side of Chaney Street, approximately 920 feet west of Minthorn Street (APN: 377-140-024); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of approving Conditional Use Permits for expanded conditional uses and outdoor storage areas; and WHEREAS, public notice of the CUP has been given, and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on November 6, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-21 and has found it acceptable. The Planning Commission finds and determines that this Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-21 is consistent with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). SECTION 2. The Planning Commission has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2007-05 and has determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 3. That in accordance with Chapter 17.74 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of Conditional Use Permit 2007-21: 1. The proposed use, on its own merits and within the context of its setting, is in accord with the objectives of the General Plan and the purpose of the planning district in which the site is located. In order to achieve a well-balanced and functional mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational and institutional land uses, the project has been evaluated in light of land use compatibility, noise, traffic and other environmental hazards. The proposed allowance for office and commercial showroom uses within Building A, B, C & D within the light industrial park AGENDA ITEM NO. lO PAGES 1 _0F `�S PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007- PAGE NO. 2 OF 4 comports with the objectives of the General Plan and the purpose of the planning district in which the site is located. The optional land uses would only be operated within a small portion of the light industrial park and are similar to other uses already permitted within the vicinity of the project site. In addition, to the extent necessary, conditions of approval have been imposed upon the Conditional Use Permit to ensure that the additional uses will not negatively impact surrounding properties. The proposed onsite outdoor storage areas have also been evaluated against applicable Development Code provisions and necessary conditions of approval have been imposed to ensure land use compatibility with surrounding land uses. 2. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed use or the City, or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the City. Given the potential for the proposed office and commercial showroom uses and outdoor storage areas to have a potential impact, the welfare of persons residing or working within the neighborhood or the City, all applicable City Departments and Agencies have been afforded the opportunity for a thorough review of the uses and have incorporated all applicable comments and/or conditions related to installation and maintenance of the buildings, landscaping, signage and onsite parking improvements so as to eliminate any negative impacts to the general health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or the City. 3. The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, and for all the yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping, buffers and other features required by Title 17 of the LEMC and the Historic Elsinore Architectural Design Guidelines. The proposed office and showroom commercial uses and outdoor storage areas have been designed in consideration of the size and shape of the property, thereby strengthening and enhancing the immediate light industrial area. Further, the project as proposed, will complement the quality of existing development and will create a visually pleasing, non-detractive relationship between proposed and existing projects. The condominium complex has been reviewed to ensure adequate provision of landscaping and onsite parking. 4. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways with proper design both as to width and type of pavement to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use. The proposed office and commercial showroom uses and outdoor storage areas have all been reviewed in relation to the width and type of pavement needed to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the uses. Moreover, all AGENDA ITEM N0. lO PAGE - OF fUS PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007- PAGE NO. 3 OF 4 potential impacts have been evaluated prior to the Planning Commission's approval of the Conditional Use Permit. 5. In approving the subject use located at Assessor Parcel Number 377-140-024, there will be no adverse affect on abutting property or the permitted and normal use thereof. The proposed uses has been thoroughly reviewed and conditioned by all applicable City Departments and outside Agencies, eliminating the potential for any and all adverse effects on the abutting property. 6. Adequate conditions and safeguards pursuant to Section 17.74.50 of the LEMC have been incorporated into the approval of the Conditional Use Permit to insure that the use continues in a manner envisioned by these findings for the term of the use. Pursuant to Section 17.74.050 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the proposed office and showroom commercial land uses and outdoor storage areas located at Assessor Parcel Number 377-140-024 has been scheduled for consideration and approval of the Planning Commission. SECTION 4. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the attached conditions of approval, the Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-21. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Michael O'Neal, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Rolfe Preisendanz Director of Community Development AGENDA ITEM NO.__�Z__._ PAGE RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 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 INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-03 WHEREAS, Stacey Peterson of McArdle Associates Architects filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of Industrial Design Review No. 2006-03 for the design and construction of twenty (20) light industrial buildings ranging in size from 6,810 square feet to 30,989 square feet on a 17.2 acre site with related improvements (the "Project') located on the north side of Chaney Street, approximately 920 feet west of Minthorn Street, APN: 377-140-124 (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of considering and making recommendations to the City Council for industrial design review applications; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2007, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the Industrial Design Review prior to making a decision to recommend that the City Council approve the application. The Planning Commission finds that the Industrial Design Review satisfies all requirements set forth in Chapter 17.82 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2007-05 and has determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 3. That in accordance with the State Planning and Zoning Law and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of Industrial Design Review 2006-03: 1. The Project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, Specific Plan and the Zoning District in which the Project is located. The Project complies with the goals and objectives of the General Plan because it will assist in achieving the development of a well balanced and functional mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational, and institutional land uses. The Project will serve to greater diversify and expand Lake Elsinore's economic base. AGENDA ITEM NO. (0 PACE OF `\'5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007 — PAGE 2OF3 2. The Project complies with the design directives contained in the General Plan Urban Design Element and all other applicable provisions of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. The Project is appropriate to the site and surrounding developments in that the light industrial park consisting of twenty (20) buildings has been designed in consideration of the size and shape of the property. Sufficient setbacks and enhanced onsite landscaping have been provided thereby creating interest and varying vistas as a person moves along abutting streets and within the park. In addition, safe and efficient circulation has been achieved onsite. The Project will compliment the quality of existing development and will create a visually pleasing, non-detractive relationship between the proposed development and existing projects through the use of a `Contemporary' architectural design that is similar to existing industrial developments in the vicinity. A variety of architectural elements and colors are proposed including recessed building entries, multiple parapet heights, decorative score lines and eye brow canopies. In addition, proposed neutral tone colors will serve to blend with surrounding developments and provide evidence of a concern for quality and originality. 3. Subject to the attached conditions of approval, the Project is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Planning Commission has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2007-05 and has determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. All potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels, and as such, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 4. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Chapter 17.82.070 of the Zoning Code, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the Project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of Chapter 17.82. Pursuant to Section 17.82.070 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Project has been scheduled for consideration and approval of the Planning Commission on November 6, 2007. SECTION 4. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the Project, the Planning Commission hereby approves Industrial Design Review 2006-03. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. AGENDA ITEM NO. b_ PAGE 2� OF a S PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007 — PAGE 3OF3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of November 2007, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Michael O'Neal, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz Director of Community Development AGENDA ITEM NO;___ PAGE 3(=. OF n S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.'.2007-04 CONDITIONAL USE,PERMIT NO. 2007-21 AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-03 "FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK" PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Conditions: 1. The Applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, and Agents from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, or Agents to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning the MSHCP Consistency Findings, General Plan Amendment No. 2007-04 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-21, Industrial Design Review No. 2006-03 and any related determinations. 2. The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the Riverside County Clerk in the amount of $1,864.00 to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination. Said filing fee shall be provided to the City within 48 hours of project approval. 3. Applicant shall place a weatherproof 3' x 3' sign at the entrance to the project site identifying the approved days and hours of construction activity and a statement that complaints regarding the operation can be lodged with the City of Lake Elsinore Code Enforcement Division at (951) 674-3124. 4. All Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced upon page one of building plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division for Plan Check. 5. Applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program associated with the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Fairway Business Park. 6. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the Applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgement of Conditions," and shall return the executed original to the Community Development Department for inclusion in the case records. 7. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance. Construction generated dust and erosion shall be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 15.72 and using accepted control techniques. Interim erosion control measures shall be provided thirty (30) days after the site's rough grading, as AGENDA ITEM NO. lzp PAGk0 OF `=�S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-21 & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-03 PAGE 2 OF 14 approved by the City Engineer. 8. The Applicant shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with regard to hours of operation, construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and no construction activity shall occur on Saturdays, Sundays or legal holidays. 9. The proposed location of onsite construction trailers shall be approved by the Community Development Director or Designee. A cash bond of $1,000.00 shall be required for any construction trailers placed on the site and used during construction. Bonds will be released after removal of trailers and restoration of the site to an acceptable state, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or Designee. 10. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable City codes and ordinances. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-21: 11. The Conditional Use Permit shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Title 17 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, unless modified by approved Conditions of Approval. 12. The Conditional Use Permit granted herein shall run with the land and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site or structure which was the subject of this approval. 13. Prior to approval of tenant improvement plans for either office or showroom uses within Buildings A, B, C, & D the property owner shall prepare and submit an onsite parking study to the Community Development Department for review and approval. The study shall demonstrate that adequate parking spaces either currently exist onsite or will exist prior to commencement of a proposed use within Buildings A, B, D & D. Commercial or other uses requiring parking spaces at a ratio of 1 per 250 square feet will be permitted only after a parking study, showing adequate spaces for peak parking times, is approved by the Director of Community Development or his/her designee. If the final site plan demonstrates that all LEMC parking requirements have been complied with, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to waive the onsite parking study requirement. 14. Exterior security lighting shall be shielded and directed on-site so as not to create glare onto neighboring properties. The proposed light fixtures shall compliment the building architecture and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development or Designee. AGENDA ITEM NO. C� PAGE a 8 OF `�5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-21 & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-03 PAGE 3 OF 14 15. All security measures requested by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department shall be followed and adhered to at all times. 16. Outdoor storage materials shall not be visible from public rights-of-way or adjacent properties. In addition, no materials shall be stored higher than the adjacent screening method. Industrial Design Review No. 2006-03: 17. Approval for Industrial Design Review No. 2006-03 will lapse and be void unless building permits are issued within one (1) year following the date of approval. 18. Unless specifically provided otherwise in these conditions, any alteration or expansion of a project for which there has been a "Design Review" approval as well as all applications for modification or other change in the conditions of approval of a "Design Review" shall be applied for in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.82.120. 19. No structure which has received a "Design Review" or "Minor Design Review" approval shall be occupied or used in any manner or receive a Certificate of Occupancy until the Director of Community Development has determined that all Conditions of Approval have been complied with. 20. All site improvements approved with this request shall be constructed as indicated on the approved site plan and elevations. Revisions to approved site plans or building elevations shall be subject to the review of the Community Development Director. 21. Plan Check shall conform to the submitted plans as modified by Conditions of Approval, or the Planning Commission/City Council through subsequent action. 22. All roof mounted or ground support air conditioning units or other mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened or shielded by landscaping so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Any material covering the roof equipment shall match the primary wall color. AGENDA ITEM N0. PAGE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-21 & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-03 PAGE 4 OF 14 23. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building onsite, a Uniform Sign Program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. 24. All freestanding and wall mounted signage proposed onsite shall comply with the currently approved "Fairway Business Park Uniform Sign Program" document. 25. Applicant shall comply with all ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. 26. Trash enclosures shall be constructed per City standards as approved by the Community Development Director or Designee prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 27. No exterior roof ladders shall be permitted. 28. All exterior downspouts shall be concealed within the buildings. 29. Materials and colors depicted on the plans and materials board shall be used unless modified by the Director of Community Development or Designee. The colors and materials include the following: Color Schedule Painted Concrete — Field Color Scheme 1 — Sherwin Williams #sw6141 — Softer Tan Scheme 2 — Sherwin Williams #sw7043 —Worldly Grey Painted Concrete — Field Color Scheme 1 — Sherwin Williams #sw6143 — Basket Beige Scheme 2 — Sherwin Williams #sw7045 — Intellectual Grey Painted Concrete —Accent Color Scheme 1 — Sherwin Williams #sw6144 — Dapper Tan Scheme 2 — Sherwin Williams #sw7046 —Anonymous Mullions/Metal Doors Painted to Match Adjacent Wall Color Glazing 114" PPG Sloarcool (2) Azurlite AGENDA ITEM N0._,�.___— PAGE 3O OF ` CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-21 & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-03 PAGE 5 OF 14 30. Parking stalls shall be double-striped with four-inch (4") lines two feet (2') apart. 31. All exposed slopes in excess of three feet (3') in height shall have permanent irrigation system and erosion control vegetation installed and approved by the Planning Division. 32. On-site surface drainage shall not cross sidewalks. Phasing Plan: 33. The project shall be developed in three phases as shown on and in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan Sheets 1 thru 9. 34. The Phase 2 and Phase 3 boundary areas shall be temporarily irrigated and seeded with a flower mix upon grading until commencement of Phase 2 construction activities. 35. With the exception of a construction trailer and the use thereof, no construction or storage activities in association with Phase 1, shall occur at any time within the Phase 2 or Phase 3 boundary areas prior to commencement of Phase 2 or Phase 3 construction activities. 36. Certificates of Occupancy/Building Permit Finals shall be issued in three phases. Phase 1 shall include Buildings M, N, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V. Phase 2 shall include Buildings E, F, G, H, J, K, L. Phase 3 shall include Buildings A, B, C, D. Prior to Issuance of Building/Grading Permit: 37. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the Applicant shall submit a photometric study to the Community Development Department for review and approval. The study shall show locations of all exterior lighting fixtures and shall verify that a minimum 1-foot candle of illumination is achieved throughout the onsite parking area. Moreover, the study shall demonstrate that a minimum of 5-foot candles are achieved at building entrances. 38. All exterior wall mounted and freestanding light fixtures shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. Light fixtures shall compliment the architectural style of the buildings onsite. 39. The color, finish and pattern of all decorative paving onsite shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. AGENDA IT EM N®. PAGE-1\ _ PF—n-:5�1-- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-21 & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-03 PAGE 6 OF 14 40. Three (3) sets of the Final Landscaping/Irrigation Detail Plan shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Architect Consultant and the Community Development Director or Designee, prior to issuance of building permit. A Landscape Plan Check & Inspection Fee will be charged prior to final landscape approval. a. All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler system with 100% plant and ground cover coverage using a combination of drip and conventional irrigation methods. b. All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six inch (6") high and six inch (6") wide concrete curb. c. Plantings within fifteen feet (15) of ingress/egress points shall be no higher than thirty-six inches (36"). d. Any ground mounted transformers and mechanical or electrical equipment shall be indicated on landscape plan and screened as part of the landscaping plan. e. Shrubs and vines shall be planted around the onsite trash enclosures to soften the structures. f. Final landscape plans shall include planting and irrigation details and shall include all tree and shrub container sizes to be reviewed and approved by the City's landscape architect consultant. g. The landscape plan shall provide for ground cover, shrubs, and trees and meet all requirements of the City's adopted Landscape Guidelines. Special attention to the use of Xeriscape or drought resistant plantings with combination drip irrigation system to be used to prevent excessive watering. h. A Landscape Maintenance Bond shall be provided prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The bond shall cover ten percent (10%) of the total cost of landscaping improvements onsite. Release of the bond shall be requested by the Applicant at the end of the required one year maintenance period subject to the approval of the City's Landscape Architect Consultant and Community Development Director or Designee. AGENDA ITEM NO.—L PAGE-3 a OF- �_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-21 & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-03 PAGE 7 OF 14 i. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed within affected portion of any phase at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested for any building. Final landscape plan must be consistent with approved site plan. j. One twenty-four inch (24") box size tree shall be installed for every five parking spaces within the onsite parking area. k. One twenty-four inch (24") box size tree shall be installed for every thirty-linear feet (30') of street frontage, selected from the approved City street tree list. I. The landscape plan shall provide for larger sized plantings around the perimeter of the outdoor storage areas so as to achieve immediate screening of these areas. The specific types of plantings and associated sizes shall be reviewed and approved by the City's landscape architect consultant. 41. Prior to issuance of building permits, Applicant shall provide assurance that all required fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District have been paid. 42. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall provide assurance that the Public Building Impact Fee has been paid. 43. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall provide assurance that the Library Capital Improvement Fund fee has been paid. 44. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall provide assurance that all Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan fees have been paid. 45. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall provide evidence that all Riverside County Fire Department standards and requirements have been complied with. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT General: 46. All Public Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) prior to Certificate of Occupancy approval. AGENDA ITEM N0. PAGE 33 P �5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-21 & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-03 PAGE 8 OF 14 47. Pay all Capital Improvement and Plan Check fees (LEMC 16.34, Resolution 85-26). 48. Submit a "Will Serve" letter to the City Engineering Division from the applicable water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project. This letter shall be submitted prior to issuance of Building Permit. 49. Construct all public works improvements per approved street plans (LEMC 12.04). Plans must be approved and signed by the City Engineer prior to construction. Construction shall be completed prior to Certificate of Occupancy approval. 50. Street improvement plans and specifications shall be prepared by a Calif. Registered Civil Engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to City of Lake Elsinore Standards. Engineering Staff shall review requests for the use of Riverside County Road Department Standards, latest edition. 51. Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for the construction of public works improvements and shall post the appropriate bonds prior to commencement of work. 52. Roadway design grade for local streets should not exceed 9%. The maximum grade of 15% should only be used because of design constraints. 53. Interior streets shall be designed with 9% as the desired grade and intersecting streets shall meet at a maximum grade of 6 % for a distance of 50-feet for each leg of the intersection. 54. Pay all fees and meet requirements of encroachment permit issued by the Engineering Division for construction of improvements within the City of Lake Elsinore right-of-way. 55. All compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8 '/2" x 11" Mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division before final inspection of public works improvements is scheduled. 56. The applicant shall install 2 permanent bench marks to Riverside County Standards, one on the centerline at the intersection of 3rd Street and Pasadena Street and one on the centerline at the intersection of the project's main entry onto Chaney Street and Chaney Street. 57. Applicant shall obtain all necessary off-site easements for off-site grading AGENDA ITECI ND•_ ..-w PAGE � Qn--=— CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-21 & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-03 PAGE 9 OF 14 from the adjacent property owners prior to issuance of grading permit if applicable. 58. Arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.) out of the roadway or away from an access point shall be the responsibility of the property owner or his agent. 59. Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by Riverside County Fire. 60. Provide street lighting and show lighting improvements as part of street improvement plans. Street lights shall be constructed in accordance with the City Standard street light spacing. 61. Submit a traffic control plan showing all permanent traffic control devices for both on site and offsite improvements which shall be approved prior building permit issuance. All traffic control devices and signing and striping shall be installed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 62. All improvement plans shall be digitized. At Certificate of Occupancy applicant shall submit tapes and/or discs which are compatible with City's ARC Info/GIS or developer to pay $300 per sheet for City digitizing. 63. All utilities except electrical over 12 kv shall be placed underground, as approved by the serving utility. 64. Apply and obtain a grading permit with appropriate security prior to building permit issuance. A grading plan signed and stamped by a Calif. Registered Civil Engineer shall be required if the grading exceeds 50 cubic yards or the existing flow pattern is substantially modified as determined by the City Engineer. If the grading is less than 50 cubic yards and a grading plan is not required, a grading permit shall still be obtained so that a cursory drainage and flow pattern inspection can be conducted before grading begins. 65. Provide soils, geology and seismic report including street design recommendations. Provide final soils report showing compliance with recommendations. 66. An Alquis-Priolo study shall be performed on the site to identify any hidden earthquake faults and/or liquefaction zones present on-site. 67. All grading shall be done under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer and he shall certify all slopes steeper than 2 to 1 for stability and proper AGENDA ITEM N0. (o pAGE3=F� CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-21 & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-03 PAGE 10 OF 14 erosion control. All manufactured slopes greater than 30 ft. in height shall be contoured. 68. Prior to commencement of grading operations, applicant to provide to the City with a map of all proposed haul routes to be used for movement of export material. Such routes shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 69. Applicant to provide to the City a photographic baseline record of the condition of all proposed public City haul roads. In the event of damage to such roads, applicant shall pay full cost of restoring public roads to the baseline condition. A bond may be required to ensure payment of damages to the public right-of-way, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 70. Project drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility or accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance or conveyed to a drainage easement. 71. All natural drainage traversing site shall be conveyed through the site, or shall be collected and conveyed by a method approved by the City Engineer. 72. On-site drainage facilities conveying off site drainage shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note should be added to the final map stating: "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions". 73. Submit Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports for review and approval by City Engineer prior to issuance of Building Permit. Developer shall mitigate any flooding and/or erosion caused by development of site and diversion of drainage. 74. All drainage facilities in this tract shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District Standards. 75. Storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately stenciled to prevent illegally dumping in the drain system, the wording and stencil shall be consistent with the NPDES program permit and approved by the City Engineer. 76. A drainage acceptance letter shall be required from the downstream property owners for out-letting the proposed stormwater run-off on private property. 77. The Applicant shall be responsible for all Master Planned Drainage fees and will receive credit for all Master Planned Drainage facilities constructed. AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE 36 OF 'I CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-21 & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-03 PAGE 11 OF 14 78. Provide Tract Phasing Plan for the City Engineer's approval. 79. Submit Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds for all public improvements for each Phase as approved by the City Engineer. 80. Applicant will be required to install erosion control measures using the best available technology to mitigate any urban pollutants from entering the watershed. 81. Applicant shall provide the City with proof of his having filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program with a storm water pollution prevention plan prior to issuance of grading permits. 82. Applicant shall obtain approval from Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board for their storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) including approval of erosion control for the grading plan prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall provide a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post construction which describes BMP's that will be implemented for the development and including maintenance responsibilities. 83. Education guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be provided to residents of the development in the use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers as well as other environmental awareness education materials on good housekeeping practices that contribute to protection of stormwater quality and met the goals of the BMP in Supplement "A" in the Riverside County NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. 84. Applicant shall provide first flush BMP's using the best available technology that will reduce storm water pollutants from parking areas and driveway aisles. 85. Intersection site distance shall meet the design criteria of the CALTRANS Design Manual (particular attention should be taken for intersections on the inside of curves). If site distance can be obstructed, a special limited use easement must be recorded to limit the slope, type of landscaping and wall placement. 86. Dedicate and improve full half width street right-of-way and street section on Chaney Street for the full project frontage. Right-of-way dedication and street improvements shall be consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 3 2 OF `�5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-21 & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-03 PAGE 12 OF 14 87. Applicant shall dedicate and improve a cul-de-sac consistent with City Of Lake Esinore Standards for the termination of Birch Street. 88. Applicant shall dedicate right-of-way and improve the intersection of Pasadena Street and 3rd Street such that the corner of this intersection is completed. These improvements as well as the configuration of the access from this corner onto the property shall be approved by the City Engineer. 89. Developer to provide access to property owners and utility agencies to property to the west of the tract including during construction. 90. Applicant shall submit a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) to FEMA prior to issuance of building permits. A letter of map revision (LOMR) must be approved from FEMA prior to the first certificate of occupancy if the project is in the 100-year flood plane. 91. The Chaney Street improvements and the off site striping including "No Parking" signs on 3rd Street and Minthorn Street shall be completed prior issuance of the first building permit. 92. Construct a storm drain inlet at the corner of 3rd Street and Pasadena Street to convey the street drainage into the 3rd Street Channel. 93. Applicant shall cause to be recorded a CC&R's with recordation of irrevocable reciprocal parking, circulation, loading and landscape maintenance easement in favor of all lots subject to the approval of the director of Community Development & the City Attorney. The CC& R's shall enforce standards of building maintenance, participation in landscape maintenance, prohibition of outside vehicle or material storage. 94. Developer shall provide an approved open space conservation easement for the tracts open space with a fuel modification zone for a fire break to be maintained by a homeowner's association. 95. Applicant shall design and construct all mitigation measures identified in the approved environmental document including but not limited to the following traffic improvements as required mitigation measures of the approved environmental document: a. Install traffic signal at Collier Avenue and 3rd Street prior to 51% occupancy. AGENDA ITEM NO.� PACE 7a>S OF `�L_5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-21 & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-03 PAGE 13 OF 14 b. Install traffic signal at Collier Avenue and Chaney Street prior to 51% occupancy. c. Install traffic signal at the intersection of west Minthorn Street and Chaney Street prior to 76% occupancy. d. Add a northbound left turn lane on Collier Avenue at the intersection with Chaney Street. There are TIF credits available for some of these improvements and the project will be eligible for their fair share subject to the City Engineer's approval. 96. Applicant shall be required to pay applicable Traffic Impact Fee (TIF), Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and Area Drainage Fee at the rate in effect when the fee payment is made. 97. In accordance with the City's Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling, the applicant shall be required to contract with CR&R Inc. for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARMENT 98. Prior to approval of the Final Map, Parcel Map, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit or building permit (as applicable), the applicant shall annex into the Parks, Open Space and Storm Drain Maintenance Mello-Roos Community Facilities District to fund the on-going operation and maintenance of the new parks, parkways, open space and public storm drains constructed within the development and federal NPDES requirements to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project. Applicant shall make a four thousand two hundred dollar ($4,200) non-refundable deposit to cover the cost of the annexation process. Contact Dennis Anderson, Harris & Associates at (949) 655-3900 x334 or danderson(a-harris-assoc.com. 99. Prior to approval of the Final Map, Parcel Map, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit or building permit (as applicable), the applicant shall annex into Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project on public right-of-way landscaped areas and neighborhood parks to be maintained by the City and for street lights in the public right-of-way for which the City will pay for AGENDA ITEM NO-_L� PAGE a OF_____, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-21 & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-03 PAGE 14 OF 14 electricity and a maintenance fee to Southern California Edison. Applicant shall make a four thousand seven hundred dollar ($4,700) non-refundable deposit to cover the cost of the annexation process. Contact Dennis Anderson, Harris & Associates at (949) 655-3900 x334 or danderson(a-),harris- assoc.com. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 100. The Applicant shall comply with all of the attached Riverside County Fire Department conditions and standards. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT 101. The Applicant shall comply with the attached Riverside County Sheriff Department standards. AGF.NDA l E?4' N0. l� (PACEE.�^OF �S AUG-03-2007 FRI 08:21 AN RIV CO FIRE P&E FAX NO. 951 955 4886 P. 02 RIVERSIDE COUNTS,-, FIRE DEPARTMENT in cooperation with the R. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2300 Market Street, 1" FL Suite 150 Riverside, California 92501 (951) 9554777 Fax(951) 95&4886 John R.Hawkins Fire chief ATTN: M Q't- Proudly serving the RE: "O(p -03 un incorporxtcd j.0 -O CO-l7 Pw 0'3 i areas of Riverside The following is a list of TENTATIVE conditions only. Requirements may County and the change based on revised exhibit or plans. Cities of: 13anning 2a) Shell buildings will receive a shell final only. No certificate of Bea4.umont (human occupant and/or materials) will be issued until the building occupant has been identified with their occupancy classification Calimesa and have been conditioned by Riverside County Fire Department. Canyon I ak.c Occupant or tenant identification is imperative for orderly and prompt Coachella processing. Upon Identification of the occupant or tenant, a Fire Protection Analysis report may be required prior to establishing the Dew trot springs requirements for the occupancy permit. Failure to provide a Indian Wells comprehensive data analysis andlor technical information acceptable to the fire department may result in project delays. Indio Lake 6lsinorc 2b) A complete commodity listing disclosing type, quantity, level of hazard '' and potential for "Reactivity" must be provided within days. The La Quints foregoing is necessary to classify the building (s) occupancy. Failure to Moreno Valley provide comprehensive data and/or highly technical information will result '- in project delay and requirement for a complete Fire Protection Study for Palm Desert review. Pans Rancho MiraKc 2c) A complete "Third Party" Fire Protection Study will be required before the occupancy can be classified and document processing begins. Report San Jacinto content must be in keeping with Uniform fire Code, Section 103.1 ,1. Temecula 21) The land division is located in the "hazardous fire Area" of riverside County as shown on a map on file with the Clerk of the Board of Board oFSupervson Supervisors. Any building constructed on lots created by this land Bob Busrcr, division shall comply with the special construction provisions contained in DNtna I Riverside County Ordinance 787.2. John Tavaglione, District 005) All the buildings shall be constructed with class B roofing material as per Jeff"swne, the California Building Code. District 3 Roy Wilson, District 4 Marion Ashley, 82-575 Highway 111, 2nd Floor • Indio, Callfomia 92201 (760) 863-8886 • Fax (760) 863-7072 District 5 39493 Los Alamos Road • Murrieta, California 92563 (951) Bi00-6160 • Fax (951) 600-6164 AGENDA IN El,W0- PAGE '_k OF_.._.�--- AUG-03-2007 FR I 08 21 All R I V 00 FIRE P&E FAX NO, 951 955 4886 P. 03 Economic Development Agency Fast Track Case 003 During the construction of this project, the site address should be clearly marked and posted at the job site entrance. This will enable incoming emergency equipment to locate the job site from the assigned street location. Numbers shall be a minimum of 24 inches in height. 17a) Building plan check fee of $212 or/up to $1,063 (Deposit based fee) shall be paid to the Riverside County Fire Department after our office has reviewed and conditioned the plans. 30a) Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow of _GPM. 23) Minimum required fire flow should be A& GPM for an 1" Hour duration at 20-PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any co stiblq material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based on type _2:Vni�=tv construction per the ,W1 te�t and Building (s) having a fire sprinkler system. 23a) A fire flow letter was faxed / mailed to on . It is imperative the Riverside County Fire Department receives the fire low letter back prior to conditioning of the Plot Plan, 20) Super fire hydrant (s) (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2") shall be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. C191 On-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6° x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2")be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved ve icular travel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 31) On-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2"), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved ye icu a avel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(S) in the fire system. 51) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the Applicant or Developer shall be responsible to submit written Certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering GPM fire flow for an hour duration at 20-PSI residual operating pressure. if a water system currently does not exist, the applicant or developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. Page 2 of 5 AGENDA 17EAfl NC1• O=— �AGE�2.._- AUG-03-2007 FRI 08:22 AM RIV 00 FIRE P&E FAX NO, 951 955 4886 P. 04 Economic Development Agency Fast Track Case 4) Prior to the issuance of building permit the applicant or Developer shall separately submit two copies of the water system improvement plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. Calculated velocities shall not exceed 10 fee per second. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing; system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed and approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 001 a) Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the developer shall deposit with the Rubidoux Community Services District, a check or money order equaling the sum of $400.00 per unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. 001 b) Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the developer shall deposit with the Rubidoux Community Services District, a check or money order equaling the sum of $ .25 cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. THE APPLICANT / DEVELOPER SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE FINAL_ FOR OCCUPANCY. 50 Blue retro reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 12) Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement included on the title page of the building plans. (Current deposit based fee for sprinkler plan check is $61 4 per riser). Applicant / Developer shall be responsible to install a U.L. Central Station Monitored Fire Alarm System. That monitors fire sprinkler system water flow, P.I.V.'s and all control valves, Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. (Current deposit based fee for monitoring plan check is $192,00) 35) Applicant/ Developer shall be responsible to install a manual and automatic pre-recorded VOICE Fire Alarm System. Plans must be submitted with current fee to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. Contact Fire Department for guideline handout. (Current deposit based fee for alarm is $627.00) Page 3 of 5 AGENDA ry b{ O . PAGES 3_OF 2 5 AUG-03-2007 FRI 08:23 All RIV CO FIRE P&E FAX NO. 951 955 4886 P. 05 Economic [Development Agency Fast Track Case 83) Applicant I Developer shall be responsible to install a manual and automatic Fire alarm System. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. (Current deposit based fee for alarm plan check is $627,00) 32) Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 37) Floor— Level exit signs, exit markers and exit path marking shall be installed per the California Building Code- 45) Prior to final for occupancy the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required Fire banes with appropriate lane painting lane painting and/or signs. 07) Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-1 OBC and signage. Fire Extinguishers located in public areas shall be in recessed cabinets mounted 48: (inches) to center above floor level with maximum 4" (inch) projection from the wall. Contact Fire Department for proper placement of equipment prior to installation. 36) Install a U.L. 300 hood duct fire extinguishing system. Wet chemical extinguishing systems shall provide automatic shutdown of all electrical outlets under the hood. Contract a certified Fire Protection Company for proper placement. Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. The automatic fire extinguishing system installed in the cooking equipment hood shall be monitored by the building fire alarm system. (Current deposit based fee for plan check is $215-00) 84) Applicant / Developer shall be responsible for obtaining under/aboveground fuel, chemical and mixed liquid storage tank permits, from the Riverside County Fire Department and Environmental Health Departments. Plans must be submitted for approval prior to installation. Aboveground fuel / mixed liquid tank(s) shall meet the following standard: Tank must be tested and labeled to UL2085 Protected Tank Standard or SWRI 93-01. The test must include the Projectile Penetration Test and the Heavy Vehicle Impact test. A sample copy of the tank's label from an independent test laboratory must be included with your plans. (Current deposit based fee for plan check is $217.00 for first tank, plus $32.00 for each additional tank) 66) Display Boards will be as follows: Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit members, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum (4' x 4') in dimension and located next to roadway access. Page 4 of 5 AGENDA I T U01 N01 -----60� PACE_.L._.OF_L r-1 AUG-03-2007 FRI 08:25 AM RIV 00 FIRE P&E FAX N0, 951 955 4886 P. 06 Economic Development Agency Fast Track Case 89) The Rapid Entry System Hazardous Material data and key storage cabinet shall be installed on the outside of the building. Plans shall be submitted to the Riverside County Fire Department for approval prior to installation. (Current deposit based fee for plan check is $212.00) 25) Gate entrances shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the traffic lane(s) serving that gate. Any gate providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located at least 35 feet from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where a one-way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 40-foot turning radius will be used, a) Gate(s) shall be automatic or manual operated, minimum feet in width. Gate access shall be equipped with the Knox Company rapid entry system. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Automatic/manual gate pins shall be rated with shear pin force, not to exceed 30 foot-pounds. Automatic gates shall be equipped with emergency backup power. Gates activated by the Knox System shall remain open until closed by the Knox System. (Current plan check fee is $212.00; fee is subject to change.) 22) Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. Page 5 of 5 AGENDA ITEM NO. l� PAGE L,,..L0F 2S A_ ir CITY DFLADE LSI110RIE --, DREAM EXTREME July 30, 2007 City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division 130 S. Main St. Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 ATTN: Matthew Harris, Senior Center PROJECT TITLE: 1 2006-03 APPLICANT: Stacey Petersen — McArdle Associates Dear Mr. Harris, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above project, located at Chaney/Pasadena, commonly known as the Fairway Business Park. All commercial building complex development design reviews should be consistent with Lake Elsinore's Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design specifications. The following issues of concern related to public safety and law enforcement are presented: COMMERCIAL OPTED REQUIREMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS PRE-CONSTRUCTION & CONSTRUCTION PHASES: To reduce thefts and burglaries during the construction phases of this project, the developer and builders need to provide site security. The Lake Elsinore Police Department recommends the developer and builders use bonded security guards licensed by the State of California Bureau of Security & Investigative Services Department to handle project security. Prior to project completion, the surface of walls, fences, buildings, logo monuments, etc. should be graffiti resistant through either surface composition, applied paint type and/or planned shielding by landscaping or plants. Prior to construction on any structure, a material storage area should be established and enclosed by a six-foot chain link fence to minimize theft of materials and/or equipment. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE__L1,60F 5 A list of serial and/or license numbers of equipment stored at the location be maintained both, at the site and any off-site main office. The public and non- essential employees should be restricted in access to the construction areas. Current emergency contact information for the project should be kept on file with the Lake Elsinore Police Department, 333 W. Limited Ave., Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, phone number 951-245-3322. The developer and/or builder's name address, and phone number should be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Visibility into the construction site should not be intentionally hampered. Areas actually under construction should be lit during hours of darkness. All entrances and exits should be clearly marked. ADDRESSING: Address numbers should be illuminated during the hours of darkness and positioned to be readily readable from the street. Position the address numbers at a strategic and elevated section on the building to facilitate unhampered views from vehicular and pedestrian vantage points. Numbers that are a minimum height of 12" are recommended. SECURITY SYSTEMS: Silent or audible alarm systems should be installed. Comprehensive security systems should be provided for the following: perimeter building and access route protection, high valued storage areas, and interior building door to shipping and receiving area. Closed Circuit TV security cameras are recommended. DOORS: Adequate security hardware, such as dead bolt locks, should be installed. All glass doors should be secured with a dead bolt. Dead bolt locks shall be the type whose dead bolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside door knob/lever/turn piece. WINDOWS: Louvered windows should not be used. Large windows and any window accessible from the side and rear but not visible from the street shall consist of rated burglary-resistant glazing or its equivalent. The type that attaches to the window frame is recommended. ROOF TOPS AND OPENINGS: If the building has skylights, one of the following shall be utilized for every skylight: -Rated burglary resistant glass or acrylic material, AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE zA, N QF `�S -Iron bars of at least one half-inch diameter, flat steel bars of at least one quarter- inch width, spaced no more than five inches apart under the skylight and securely fastened, or -Grill of at least one eighth-inch steel and two-inch mesh. All hatchway openings on the roof of any building shall be secured as follows. If the hatchway is wooden, it shall be covered on the outside with at least 16-gauge sheet steel or its equivalent, attached in a manner making removal difficult. The hatchway shall be secured from the inside with a slide bar or slide bolts. Only a crossbar or padlock provided by the fire marshal shall be used. Outside pin-type hinges on all hatchway openings shall have non-removable pins. Exterior rooftop ladders should be eliminated or incorporated into the interior design. All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8" by 12" on the rooftop or exterior walls of any building shall be secured by means of: -Iron bars or at least one half-inch diameter, or flat steel bars of at least one quarter-inch width, spaced no more than five inches and securely fastened, -Grill of at least one eighth-inch steel and two-inch mesh, and/or -If the barrier is on the outside, it shall be secured with galvanized rounded-head, flush bolts of at least 3/8" diameter. LIGHTING: Interior night-lights shall be used during hours of darkness when premises are closed for business. Parking lots and associated car ports, driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses, and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises from at least 25 feet away during the hours of darkness. All exterior doors shall have their own light source, which will adequately illuminate entry/exit areas at all hours in order to: -Make any person on the premises clearly visible, and -Provide adequate illumination for persons entering and exiting the building. LANDSCAPING: Landscaping shall be of the type and situated in locations to maximize observation while providing the desire degree of aesthetics. Security planting materials are encouraged along fence and property lines and under vulnerable windows. Landscaping shall not conceal doors or windows from view, obstruct AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 PAGE L4�OF 5 visibility of the parking lot from the street or business buildings, nor provide access to the roof or windows. LINE OF SIGHT/NATURAL SURVEILLANCE: Wide-angled peepholes should be designed into solid doors, which are located in areas where natural surveillance is compromised, and which will be utilized by employees to access parking lots and pedestrian paths during the hours of darkness. Single and double-binned trash enclosures should be located at the perimeter of the parking lot, not adjacent to buildings or contiguous to exterior building doors. Other line of sight obstructions (including recessed doorways, alcoves, etc.) should be avoided on building exterior walls, and interior hallways. Employees and/or security personnel should be positioned in areas where they cannot only monitor subjects entering and exiting the businesses but can survey restroom entrances. SIGNAGE/PARKING LOT: All entrances to parking areas shall be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) C.V.C., to assist in removal of vehicles at the property owners/managers request. Should the community development department, developer or construction staff have any questions regarding the listed law enforcement and public safety concerns, please contact Officer Beth DeCou (951) 245-3322. Contact Information: Beth DeCou i Crime Prevention Officer/ CPTED Specialist Lake Elsinore Police Department 333 W. Limited Ave. Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 AGENDA ITEM NO._ PAGE,4kft_OF `� S M- tdd ¢Qgp af1g3 qp � F � z Sig 16 � ..e Q � y �- gg y g gg ggggyggpgggg5gggfgggg gggygy gggg g5g I R rr __ ,� •Y Yo. w �' ��£ '. Fs g�dk 8d ............ ...... .. — ���P ,reeaxr,�a.onrrr� � .I: ��V`�• � � _ ,• a �i � �g sy gggyg€g�gptgg�ygggggaggagg�g�gggg I; gg���y to tt TF io J `- vvv vvvv vvw r vvv v �. - ������ �RCHsmEET 3 i m r 0000000000000 0 00 ,. Tr G 1 O \. � _I •=���: I .�as_._i �r � � D F S❑ N' Z I "sl 3i H iJ rk t t a f 4 . +r RVMEY STREET - x y y z § §alb FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK Ig° x h APN 377140 024 LAKE EOJgit f F,C�. 'Ne AGENDA i� �r RACE) m C o m Y \ --- aCIO \ - cn o- 1 k I1 I , Yi , j I I gQI i X o I I �4 (S) G O A 5 cn t " z Z N m c c 0 jails 0 0 ' s"r I m � �z z , . i� It � m n � � >m E o� FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK jv APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA (' g Ala AGENDA ITEM NO �O PAGE,5 OF `Z S c 0 i 4 k pr.+Y'7Tz 3qk*" r Y d . Ica ; t �C J bs — �_ d _ —� ++I �w _J.X'd _-_. ' :•_._ ..Yr ORCRSTREET I , r _ I - ` C I q1 � — I I� 7 , iIf 1 a f$� C— II of o m • lj z 000000 8 CHANEY S.TR ET M .. y zzm R FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA v AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE OF F IF , Y I � -I? i I I - I � 55 IRS_ - - xq g 9 S € O � My OE; € FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK ° � Z" ilk APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,Gl AGENDA ITEM N®. PAGE F `I 5 4 4 rr�77 rr� a z T O 1 0 3 a Z s C C o Ii o bO i 3 O O O 3 3 3 3 3 O O O 6 O-3 33 3 i I. �j o00 0 0 o OEMLii 44y "qYy$bgyqqy 3 9 ! %fe. A ❑o ❑ � �a�SRfi ',m w FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK --� a APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA _N I� AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGEs�OF as A I A Z y Opp I Ail IIlxj I;�� "g 11 Igo $ 4 o g � raq � . ff ay %49 3 6 A Z v I Iq I � I 4 6 I a Y I, o I _ i — —� P - f Z ZA 4 x FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARKS = mr ry I APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA @ t e AGENDA ITEM N0. RACE 5,�5 OF �5- r D O z O O O 3 3 3 3 3 G: a :)a a 3 3 3 il3 o _ o �I 000 O O O n 0 "°A"r . 3 � O P O W O - O € Fww w " ° $ ❑ ❑ - d 5 �S4E w �gl FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK �4 APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE SL- OF. 5 $4 O � � q � ID �3eg 8 Z �yyy§ �E�EfEeefEFiA8A8A81�A8 ESS S lip, O O a � > I Z I@ I i + t + Iq 'i X 1 I Z;Zlmj B� R '$ FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARKg° APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA AGENDA ITEM 140. PAGE_ i � Z I 10 Ip � - O _ O z z � -- O I 3 3 d 3 i 3 3 li 'I I 0 0 d i td30 id 3 d 3 3 3 T fi I o � � I, 000 0 0 O n °' V � O g 1 z FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK a $ '' APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA AGENDA ITEM No { 0 4 70 'a I I � �4 0 I a i Y a I t— „> FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARKg° � APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA V„ AGENDA lTEm No. PAGE S=oF 5 € o C) • � � i � �..�I I I I 4 r m � G 0 O Z Z Z 3 O 3 33 31 3 O 30 - O O -O- 3, O 3; I l � 1 PSI _ t q 94 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0l 0 3 3 3 3 o00000 OEM � a 1 14 1 1 o € Tfill if � s w ` Ip P� FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK ° z APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA AGENDA ITEM N0. PAGE ro0 OF��C 5 0 i 0 a z R z � R c , 0 n - a a -x , F 4 � c C� • I z w 9 5o z g �$ 333 _ CD ti zoo F9 k FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK == A ':i � APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA ( t l j_p AGENDA ITEM No. 1p PAGL_(-\_pF `�S G � L O �r 71 O O OOio li O O O OIWILL, - - Ll �I - 1 E � i i O o OO - 3 3 3 3 3 O � � a 9 A 3 i Z o a 1 13 0 ❑ � w ,�U¢ FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK z ' I APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA uoee AGENDA ITEM NO. - PAGE 6,Q OF a5 Ioo � m m r�7 r G I I O O 001- I I III 3 3 3 3 E G I I O I O O 3 13 3 3 3 I I I; IIl' I ICI I III 9 s � � aR a A K 8, 0 Q 81I I ill � I I s Its 000 g0 ga (D 0mom n El El ❑ -- Id na � a � � �� � II g � €€ 4�� 10 N FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK APN 377•140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA i�a l AGENDA ITEM N0. C� PACE�_OF_`�5� Z � k 1 ly" c � Y r r Y 4 lgajigy IF p �- - gg O all 1 � � � �� e - z i T L - ° FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK § APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE CA ` � AGENDA!7` M N0. Cp 1 v SAGE�OF�5 I Z go go _ S 4 2 4 2 ' - D � —DI C) O Ali I I IV 1 C7 �', I F- oil �i I w,� O t —4 riz 0' 3 O A o F i� 3 33 3 _ _ ss g @ 0 C) $ 8 z €O 0 14 IN t Ill if,fi F o El❑ ❑ R W IF x € w � ��� �� g g��r�i� FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK _0 L GIs ' APN 377-140.024 * LAKE ELSINORE,CA I � AGENDA ITEM N0. PAGE_®F 5 _ ��T -` fi R T _ - i O -... I� 4 A r T I I } Y �I! - YI o — x+ � z r , m •�► L -- FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK F` APN 377-140.024 LAKE EISINORE,CA f g yNv �I� ! AGENDAITElIR NO. kj PACE S-co OF `�5 N z oA 8 = I q = m it G {- O � z z0 IH Wr I 77 I i ail. I i ad u oil I' I D - O�OO i I �,I I - OI O4'1 m m Li x 3 3331 O 30 30 t 04 0a 0 0 0 11,9113 o 1 O � F � I e El❑ ❑ s FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK �6 APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA AGENDA ITEM N0. =- PAGEF. '�S III Z Q ---- Z Z i O 30 30 I II� O O I,I 3(H) I i I�! I OI- I 3 $ O 1 1 O x 1 a oil 0 g gy e ppRF 4 7v r v z � z z fit fit fit ❑❑ ❑ b€g "g b �4 9 1 y > 9 0 � � I m .Z �ZF FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK 9�° � I APN 377-140.024 * LAKE ELSINORE,CA AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGEF= r ITT � it Z I � I. Z li Z I Z I I II I 3 ICI I� I I I 00 O O O'OII � I O O i� ' 3 3 3 3 1 3 I I I hll _ II I11 �p I II I � 1 i 4 A� - F R 'f 5 T 0 p 2 MIN 0 T E X y gE ❑❑ ❑ t � q c{yF ggg N yp¢5x IS �z FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK R APN 377140024 AtitlYu jft NO. -' PAGE toR S o � o 36 O OOI - 3 O O OO O 3 3 3 O O 0 0 O i0 30 i 3 3 3 l i i I'I I I 1 I � I I I i X $ � ` 0 0 0 0 0 0Now � Z a B❑ ❑ 8'l o Pilo gip€1 a11114€4�11 RAN r10 -- FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK§ � == i, APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA AGENDA ITEM NO. _ - PAGE U OF '::\5 -77 o F � Z � m 333'% I S � II 4Z � II 4 � II o ..40 < O O O z O z Isis kD - z _ II O 3 V I I O dDO 0OIi3 3 I O 06 00 C'�L 3 I I L �L4- �a �I L a 7F E g - -� � �� 000 0 0 0 n n �.o�". .,, 9 1 V;11111111111 g qyqy qyqg qqyy qyqy$�$�` � 0 THU ) 1111 0 im ®❑ ❑ � z -- 9 v Vqp Z 5 g gg p# yp$6 q ~ 3 ��5 qA .z ,� >? FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK z €,1 APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA V' 00 8 0 -- I Y . j it IN I a V �y a � �lull l I I x IY � I "> ZA~ 9Ilzl � FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK AM 377-140.024 * LAKE ELSINORE,CA AGENDA ITEM N0. ___L_ PACE„ _OFF` 10 O rT+ i m Eli z O z _ l' I �I � I I I � - IIIII 4 m 4 m r - I -D•i D I O Z 0 0 0 � O :ju'I3 � -- - i R I�'I rg 000 0 0 O n C1MEN $ F * We o i• � R d EJ El El D o� Rig,,; FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK I"` APN 377-140.024 * LAKE ELSINORE, AC,ENDA ITE8��0�____Sf1 v PACE D3 OF ci 5 z � Y g . v i iI Y + i A 4 1, E v it g w l gig Z v Y + - I _ i II, ,> FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK § =_Zo �. APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINOg� II AGENDA ITEiw n►0• PAGE.D�GF `k go Z a � o 4r ilj a y r O p 4V1 , l l ,i I �I it � I � a O _ � z - i MUT z li 0 0 0 ' r `T.. O `O 0 0 _ 4 444 O 30 40 000 0 0 0 om � � a I g g g a a e e11€ qi p e Z 4 4 4 4 3 El a ❑ � x w l 9 a is FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK �4 APN 377-140-024 * LAKE ELSINORE,CA AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE '15 OF `�5 I C RI s } n A I k Jill 7 �s p Y ' Z ; I t 1 Z W v v'+ a A M N "fit oz s r e FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK N Zn 51 APN 377-140-024 * LAKE ELSINORE,CA AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE�_pl= S � Fl o io r j III I O O 0 0' I 3 3 3 3 3 I I 3b 'I i I i I O O (D (DI _ 3 3 3 313 I I i � I _ I " I a i I I'i x x � II I I I I I i O O (Di0 3 3 ij 3 3 000 O O O 5 ��ccgg �e�e O mom �,o€€ %X RR n v z O 30 301 z � Joy lie q C" fit fit fit 1� 1 � Z BE] ❑ � ;` � v� w g 911 FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK ° =_ APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA t ¢� v7 Z as 5 AGENDA ITE&I No PAGE -1__OF, c Z 'I I ¢$1, s $ �'fig s gi cz o - Z _ N zp F FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK ° s APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA AGENDA ITEM NO, PAGE—18 OF `, S g I I I to D _ m m o z o o z —� z I I p b ! II i 3 I I' IL I I I 0 0 0 (9 o Jo 30 -o o - o' - o 3 3 3 13 3 a a �II 1 — 0 0 I 7 i F ss I iq 0 o � 3 II AG OOO O O O nwas onA> ° 30 3J o 0 0- o - o z I fit ; tia 13 El ❑ 93 hlsa FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK W 01 §�s�3s ,-ter z £; APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA 1 I AGENDA ITEI1i! NO. PAGE 9 OF 5 5 $ $ A c gs Z 4011.1 A 01 3'S 1 �e pal F z 4$ 6 dp t n A I t a I I I W I C - v C o I. 4 iy 0 i FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK p f ' APN 377-140.024 * LAKE ELSINORE,CA ( _ g I I flfl i i 1' 0 m gg e gpid 10 q 6 A 1 c R I � I I I �I' 4 Z04 4 FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK 11 < a i APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA x I AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE 81 4F 5 —� t Iz m - � O z r O O z z II - - z �J - 3 — — 1 — - I I ! ! I li I O' O O O -- 3' O 3 3 3 3 II -- O s a 000 0 0 0 mom ^^^°r eg gg gg gg Z 1R j1 RR1 RS1 RS1 1 1 1 7 8 E e "g• g n O o O O d 3 3 a � � € o lie,5 m r a H 8 13 2 9gxa moz ! i g o i1_ Jil l $ El El 11 r � J I D �IclIg FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARKS° z t APN 377-140.024 LAKE ELSINORE,CA < III lei l II I AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 8a --OF `�5 J k• I - , '8 eq i w 8 — n , m ab c} I i£R R,Mypyp24 ;.rW Vas 21 + ;1 1, If a p - — J — Ell _p _ - its LI ----------------- y p T z; FAIRWAY COMMERCIAL PARTNERS LAKE ELSINORE, CA. AG NDA ITEM N0:e; PAGE 83 OF 95 D x S �q � Tr — leg 777 � n �. e % . � a R s Pi I m t � AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGEF C�S D x N g �o � x m. � 1 r qq y 1. 1 F pppc t G s.,!T Y ,mom m nm s s a 4 H � r11� m a o a � 1 D m W ag aa! w- At X tTREET .f AGENDA ITEM H10. 6 PACE S 6 OF `ts D & S - 5 Tii All _ ❑ � I 11 6 r f 77� 'f �I li i41r1 f; '' py I 111 I rlll �,€ � .. lit �t - a s iz II,' m fI { I f i I t - I _ f I x i 4. Q§ �1 I m tik It lr t I 1110, 1 4— PAGE_.,._ ©�" .`.�. D 3 S !�JC �aaf D N�r� I Ilt i l w �� I...1 k t aft �.fi � .'�'`y�� ,l� � � �� � 1•� — �� ICI U II �. .I � •� ._ k �.. ' --_ pp � f I I r � �$ illf JIII'Ip I 1 0 3IIr G �'.-�6 I 1111r°al q di All TvP Z Ill,ii,I (T, ILI 11 T I! — y II 1 tl P` T l y Al i w 't I I 9 >Ni IJIlli"T ir IIIr-. I I a h Ir�y�r t � gif .�.�p•1$ II I k Nav777 AGENDA IITF-m Ro. PAGE e 8 OF 15 D y A s I � F (( I I I 9 I 74 l:l II.-Pi III-:ITt F r — — - RE @ Ilr� � � III I:I 11 i�1 111 ill �y I1 t JII , 6,'ar All I I I l r •s. f � � IIQ p 11 V I I S I qg III � i1 jili P ems` i Is _� EA I 6; — '' ■p l r �{.� III 4 } a AGENDA tiTE 9a NO. � PAGEF CL > II x P �a w 1 - Ni:lii 3- mow: F I�• r 4' $ AA IIII'. _�--- � �qpa g$ I I y q pal II i iI HE 16 r a . � I I F - m *pyyy J I r 1 Itl It .-..- 31119p II lilll■■P. , i! � � � �, —r- 3 F. II, il pol Ih 1 i Il,l.......... g AGENDA ITEM falo- PAGE RO OF �5 �sw�wIF t I I I,IIrv. / J I - I .a.+ lid w1 II I; Igg �I I N-- II f - f v 7! I T � � � S � � I� y I �/ � 3 I I 1� jq �� r� .., 91 ill CC Ul I,xI I -c P I III � 4 y�y I m K3� DW" jj II �E -- ,�* - flh 4 _4 EI I I I u — I jll I � � r I IIII IIl, Ir a I ��7Z k r r l I co k 9 ' ICA x AD T N D A I OF � A � : e , "*",W Pit I r Ot �a'"'I- fir �!�� -� � •�'j - t _ Im lqi I: : IFmi7l. 6 k �Ililq ¢il d 4 , ` ?7 f rIa..' fi�tijiaV q II / �n un -all III � ��� ��.- � � = � ,� •C s i II _e I' �� - I I car :I -� _ ti �. i � i �i �1. a �f -41 � h r 7j r .'r � II if � V I � a I al �♦ ✓� : :� il 4 i + ? �41 9 i I >r t a 1 i, Cry I IIII � .�_ �--- E,,•., ,� I 5 yJ7- V i a Y AGENDA ITEh PAGE �'i__2_ OF� C A i x 'I' N + if Al 1,01 jl�y f}�✓(t-� N I y I - �8 I 0 m l I I M {*tBC ` I � 11� I, I ♦ r - ( ` -- , - - u �ie � F,� �I JJ�.•!.�I �I� y� I �'..� I ` i '= I� � 4 , ,, 1d y 14 t- ii {, AMal r al III � y �_c `x _�Lru � 2 ti f AGENDA iTEM NO. PAGE '= ...QF � II z '�� -tea• -� 71 r nl ' II I pp> I f-i - 11�Y--IIII __- ppyypam 4 IIII ICI IIII ,� wi II 4± �fi !- rvt�- _ �i lii' ;JI III u UL r $ I , � I � UTIII d IIII ' d 1 f I I — _ m Igo — n •atn 1� �I�i��I�I�T�! IL �a r f � � - II } I I T i j It l rr � III f r e I R it i e I 8 �11 II z I� I _ Yap�� bd it IIII I � i I D � �1 • I ti II � � 31 D � 1 II� � I I I � � ;�. � ti;l fall +« :-,/.,'�'�. ,:,}%°�` ��j'�' � w�-- ,• AGENDA ITEM N0. PAGE ft �_QFfJ5� D x I ff > > E _ I — s 1 I i � 7 ll 1-4 ..�...f V,,8 7 "f ,. ` 11'�Vl 1�1 IIf d < I �II c P 1 ,, rP A� II, III I �� I � Q I I! III r• s � � *- a E + 2 M CFa,r I � I • V � C i fl Nl I I Ipp r R k� C E I ' — ai rt p rn < �I r�ril ' �1 tf I r ,r I i I a - •q II�I�� I• I ���� � F � #�rrt I k t 1 . ��� �� f �_ _ ,I w II � �� ,III I I '� �,� _ _. i i�`�� -i� � ) I '� � � � � ►� �� �h IIIb7i s , I I I I JIB �- I IIIII II`�' �� o �f/// `I�it i�l'!�I' 'I •J� 5 ry i Ill , A _ s � u a ds�. AGENDA ITEM N •;— PAGE_ 5 4F a� CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM MODIFICATION NO. 2007-07 "LAKE ELSINORE OUTLET STORES" APPLICANT: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN & SIGNS, 2950 PALISADES DRIVE, CORONA, CA 92880 OWNER: CASTLE & COOKE (ATTN: WILLIAM D. SAMPSON) 1000 STOCKDALE HIGHWAY, BAKERSFIELD, CA 93311 PROJECT REQUEST Staff is requesting a continuance of the proposed project. BACKGROUND Subsequent to this project being continued to the November 6, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has now requested that the proposed sign improvements be considered in association with a more comprehensive Uniform Sign Program modification that addresses the entire outlet mall. The proposed project will be brought before the Planning Commission at a future date which has not yet been determined. Therefore,with the consent of the Planning Commission, staff requests that this item be continued to a date to be determined. PREPARED BY: MATTHEW C. HARRIS, SENIOR PLANNER APPROVED BY: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM PAGE OF CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY: JOSEPH BITTEROLF, PLANNING INTERN DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2007-09 FOR THE PROJECT KNOW AS THE VISCAYA VILLAGE CENTER (APN: 379-470-083). APPLICANT: TOM O'MEARA, TIMBERLINE COMMERCIAL, VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 180, IRVINE, CA 92612 OWNER: TIMBERLINE LAKESHORE, LLC. 18800 VON KARMAN AVE, #180, IRVINE CA 92612 PROJECT REQUESTS The applicant is requesting approval of revisions to a previously approved Sign Program for The Viscaya Village Center pursuant to the Lakeshore Village Specific Plan, Chapter 17.38 (Non-Residential Development), Chapter 17.44 (C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District), and Chapter 17.94 (Signs-Advertising Structures), of the LEMC. BACKGROUND The original sign program for the Viscaya Village Center was approved on March 7, 2006 along with the Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance. The property management company has requested that we revise the existing sign program to allow for slightly larger signs and the addition of a tenant logo signage area that would be allowed at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. Essentially, the objective of the proposed Sign Program is to provide standards and specifications that assure consistency of signage throughout the Shopping Center in regards to the quality, composition, size and placement. Moreover, the adopted Sign Program will then be referenced and enforced by the City as the standards and specifications for all future signage within this specific Shopping Center Area. AIE�IDA ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: VISCAYA VILLAGE CENTER Page 2 of 3 PROJECT LOCATION The commercial center is located on Lakeshore Drive, west of Riverside Drive at the southeast corner of Lakeshore Drive and Viscaya Street. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING EXISTING ` ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE Project Commercial Lakeshore Village Specific Lakeshore Village Site Buildings Plan Neighborhood Specific Plan Commercial Planning Area North Commercial C-1, Neighbor. Commercial Future Specific Plan "J" Shopping Center and General Commercial South Detached Residential Lakeshore Village Specific Lakeshore Village Plan(Detached Single Specific Plan Family Residential Planning Area East Commercial C-2, General Commercial Future Specific Plan "Q" Buildings District and C-P, and General Commercial Park District Commercial West Commercial and Lakeshore Village Specific Lakeshore Village Residential Plan(Neighborhood Specific Plan Commercial and Detached Single Family Residential Planning Area PROJECT DESCRIPTION(S) UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2007-09. The request for a Sign Program is supportive of the purposes of Chapter 17.94 (Signs- Advertising Structures) of the (LEMC) in that the Sign Program will avoid the indiscriminant and substandard assembly, locations, illumination, coloring and size and proper maintenance of signs within the Shopping Center. All proposed changes to the Sign Program are found on page D3.0 of the Sign Program document (Attachment B) and are as follows: • Paragraph 2 has been "cleaned up" by identifying each section as A, B and C. • Paragraph 2 Section C has been added to allow for a slightly larger sign for tenants occupying multiple tenant spaces. ACEl\JDA ITEpA pIO. PACE _OF PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: VISCAYA VILLAGE CENTER Page 3 of 3 • Paragraph 3 has been added to allow for a nationally recognized trademarked logo in addition to the tenant signage. There has been a detail of the logo added to the elevation as well. • Paragraph 8 has been added to identify and restrict temporary window signage. It is important to note that the language used in the proposed Sign Program mirrors that of Chapter 17.94.150 of the L.E.M.C. • The tenant signage height restriction has been modified from 18" to 24", which is slightly less that 50% of the fascia in which the sign is attached, and is appropriate in size and scale. ENVIRONMENTAL Staff determined that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. §§ 15000 et seq.) pursuant to a class 11(a) exemption for accessory structures because the Project involves construction of on premise signs. (14 C.C.R. § 15311(a)). RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2007-_ approving Uniform Sign Program No. 2007-09. PREPARED BY: JOSEPH BITTEROLF, PLANNING INTERN REVIEWED AND-t V)f#- APPROVED BY: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ATTACHMENTS 1. VICINITY MAP 2. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 3. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CONDITIONS 5. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION 6. UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2007-09 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 3 OF `a© VICINITY MAP UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2007-09 VISCAYA VILLAGE CENTER 379-470-083 ON i r �C9 i i PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 4_�:OFa_ RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2007-09 FOR THE COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER KNOWN AS THE VISCAYA VILLAGE CENTER LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LAKESHORE DRIVE AND VISCAYA STREET WHEREAS, Tom O'Meara, Timberline Commercial, has initiated proceedings for Sign Program No. 2007-09; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of approving Sign Programs; and WHEREAS, public notice of said application has been given, and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on November 6, 2007; NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered proposed Sign Program 2007-09 prior to making a decision for approval. The Planning Commission finds and determines that environmental clearance and analysis for the proposed application is provided by Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2003-03, which was prepared for the Lakeshore Village Specific Plan. Said environmental document was prepared in accordance with Article 6 of the CEQA Guidelines and was approved by the City Council in 2003. The proposed project is consistent with the Lakeshore Village Specific Plan and therefore, does not conflict with the findings and discussions contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Further environmental clearance is not necessary: SECTION 2. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning law and the City of Lake Elsinore the following findings for the approval of Sign Program No. 2007- 09 has been made as follows: 1. The project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning District in which the project is located. The proposed Sign Program for the Commercial Shopping Center known as the Viscaya Village Center complies with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, Lakeshore Village Specific Plan, and the planning district in which the site is located, in that the approval of this Sign Program will assist in achieving the development of a well-balanced and functional mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational and institutional land uses, diversifying Lake Elsinore's economic base. AC-ENDA ITE�i 1+170. PACE S OF qO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION FOR SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2007-09 Page 2 of 3 2. The project complies with the design directives contained in Section 17.82.060 and all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The proposed Sign Program for the Commercial Shopping Center known as the Viscaya Village Center is appropriate to the site and surrounding developments in that the Sign Program for Viscaya Village Center has been designed in consideration of the size and shape of the property, thereby creating interest and varying vistas as a person moves along the street. Further the project as proposed will complement the quality of existing development and will create a visually pleasing, non-detractive relationship between the proposed and existing projects in that the architectural design, color and materials and site design proposed evidence a concern for quality and originality. 3. Subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Staff determined that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.: "CEQA') and the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. §§ 15000 et seq.) pursuant to a class 11(a) exemption for accessory structures because the Project involves construction of on premise signs. (14 C.C.R. § 15311(a)). 4. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Chapter 17.82.070 of the Zoning Code, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the subject project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of Chapter 17.82. Pursuant to Section 17.82.070 (Action of the Planning Commission) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), the proposed Sign Program for the Commercial Shopping Center known as the Viscaya Village Center has been scheduled for consideration and approval of the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the above findings, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore DOES HEREBY approve Sign Program No. 2007-09. Michael O'Neal, Chairman Lake Elsinore Planning Commission I hereby certify that the preceding resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof conducted on November 6, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: AGENDA ITEM N0. PAGE b OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION FOR SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2007-09 Page 3 of 3 NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz, Director of Community Development AGENDA ITEM W). PAGE 7 C�F� CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2007-09 (VISCAYA VILLAGE CENTER) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LAESHORE DRIVE AND VISCAYA STREET GENERAL 1. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Official, Officers, Employees, and Agents from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Official, Officers, Employees, or Agents to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning the subject project known as the Viscaya Village Center located the southeast corner of Lakeshore Drive and Viscaya Street, which action is bought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Sections 65009 and/or 66499.37, and Public Resources Code Section 21167. The City will promptly notify the Applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City and will cooperate fully with the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Applicant of any such claim, or proceeding, the Applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 2. The applicant shall comply with all mitigations at the described milestones contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan contained within Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2003-03, which was prepared for the Lakeshore Village Specific Plan. DESIGN REVIEW FOR UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2007-09 3. The decision of the Commission shall be final ten (10) days from the date of the decision unless an appeal has been filed with the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.80. 4. The applicant shall apply for a sign permit and pay appropriate fee for any sign installed at the project site. 5. The location, size, style, and color for all signs shall comply with the Sign Program (Approved herein). Any additions or revisions to the Sign Program shall require Planning Division review and approval. 6. The Design Review approval for Sign Program No 2007-09 for the project known as the Viscaya Village Center shall lapse and become void one (1) year following the date on which the Design Review became effective, unless prior to the expiration of one year, a building permit related to the Design Review is issued and construction commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. The Design Review granted herein shall run with the land for this one (1) year period and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site. ACENDA ITEM INO PACE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VISCAYA VILLAGE CENTER PAGE 2OF2 7. Any alteration or expansion of this Design Review approval shall be reviewed according to the provisions of Chapter 17.82 (Design Review) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 8. All exterior sign lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. 9. Prior to approval of any sign permits the applicant shall remove the language, "subject to the following:" at the end of section 2 paragraph "a" on page D3.0. 10.Prior to approval of any sign permits the applicant shall add paragraph "d" to section 2 on page D3.0 and it shall read, "Tenants that occupy more than one tenant space may only be allowed one (1) sign per elevation.". 11.Prior to the approval of any sign permits the applicant shall modify Paragraph 2 to read, "Tenants occupying multiple adjacent spaces are subject to the following:". AGENDA l-rev! N0. ma " o 19494748258 13:41:32 11-01-2007 4/4 ACKNOWLEDEGEMENT OF DRAFT CONDITIONS RE: UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM 2007-09 FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS VISCAYA VILLAGE CENTER (APN: 379-470-083) I hereby state that I/We acknowledge the draft Conditions of Approval for the above named project. I/We understand that these are draft conditions only and do hereby agree to accept and abide by all final conditions prescribed by the City of Lake Elsinore staff, as set forth in the attachments to the approval letter that will be sent after final project approval. All final conditions shall be met prior to issuance of permits or prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, or otherwise indicated in the Conditions, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director of the City of Lake Elsinore, Date- Applicant's Signatur"g�'(z Print Name: O5. Gt_ Address: 18,45WLIrAl,"L ) (�O rU;At- cA_ IaIZ Phone Number: INC) AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE Q _C,F aO CITY OF ^�10- .+ LADE 02 LSIHOR.1 Notice ofExemption ' , DREAM EXTREME. Filed With: ❑ Office of Planning and Research ❑x County Clerk of Riverside County 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 2724 Gateway Drive Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA 92507 Project Title: UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2007-09 FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE VISCAYA VILLAGE CENTER(APN: 379-470-083) Project Location(Specific):The commercial center is located on Lakeshore Drive, west of Riverside Drive at the southeast corner of Lakeshore and Viscaya Street. Project Location(City): City of Lake Elsinore Project Location(County): Riverside County Description of Nature,Purpose,and Beneficiaries of Project: The applicant is requesting approval of revisions to a previously approved Sign Program for The Viscaya Village Center. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Lake Elsinore Name of Person/Agency Administrating Project: Joe Bitterolf,Planning Intern,City of Lake Elsinore Exempt Status: ❑ Ministerial(Section 15073) ❑ Declared Emergency(Section 15071 (a)) ❑ Emergency Project(Section 15071 (b) and(c)) ❑x Categorical Exemption(state type and section number): CEQA Section 21084 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15311 Reasons why project is exempt: Staff determined that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §g 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. §§ 15000 et seq.) pursuant to a class 11(a) exemption for accessory structures because the Project involves construction of on premise signs. (14 C.C.R. 5 15311(a)). Contact Person: Joe Bitterolf,Planning Intern Telephone Number: (951) 674-3124 x 293 Signed: Title: Director of Community Development Rolfe M.Preisendanz AGENDA ITE►I NO. PAGE L ®F n m ml< za a o z c N r o Z mz N a � cai � zm M o c A oN v— m a � m Z z M n 0 M > 70 3 T v w czx - _ rnm> L'r-7, 3 00 0>_< Zzz V C� AGENDA ITEM NO. r o n cn C o m o rn r z CD Z = I N -o n < G� z z m z v 3 C z > 70 m CaC N G D _ N z m N — v � p O O W N m Q W m O� 2Ny 3 q ° w �mR7Y z 9 W NNp� oq qr zp{O� pZ�/� m 61VG.7 A TEE, ho. g N m m ƒ \ \ 0 � _ § z a \ \ / � f \ ( J k <« - =; a ■a � ��� -� CL _ : 2 - ■� 01, �� cn - o x ■o CD - _ 10 r » nz = rmic ---------- --- — -- -A rm � � m � r � n � �c « ® § �3 C2 cz CA �CA� �k \k j 2 � d � 2 zq 0M M � � 2 // ® ■� ■ --- ---- � m � . § : 0, {�k \� 3 \} §_ ;# _ � ( ■- K� �E - 0 \ 21 \\� � \ zX r- ; _ _ !D //= �� lz -4 zoo ° AGENDA NO ` 'S PA E 14r OF N N - �m I 1 •• D � "O m m u Zn Z� ZA u m Z� r PJ 7 o N p 'Z w lD 3 Zn Zn Z� � O 1a N W W N y �. ti o N �• Ri, v B o 0 o m Ei 3 wy � m y m oy. c �wm n � �- cwi c�• n_ C.c d v - m m N �O N Z m II c 0 w m r .�. ,. - - -t—t—� ?Cl Zn ZS Zn N IMF 3� Z� Ip w j o N - -- ---�-o 6� m 3 3 3 t = I a I I I I I I I cn rn - 0 3 n w > > > fA t/l O y f'1 X w � o� ca o- �H C O O v q N m! am oV N�y mmA pmaa Caa y.. _ oro dm6u Z W m =A Wg Co = yo -mI - vr- 6 OEM Z 3. 7y O �, O 'i�° Z Z Z AGENDA ITEM U0. 0 PAGE 1-5 OF y m m i W m, N a A sn N M �m IJ 0 I II if I 1 se i I r-� w r i c n m pw OR I I W �I N v F n �� CD N C � w w n a H A OD lz Oti N9 Z-mIH E! 3 ° �M M t✓Pu • d 'o,m OO wN o =3 W wGyy, ZZZ AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 16 OF ao o �• oo `nmuw, c m . -1 o C ��p • • • O • - � y y fD N � 3T=o O d C= 0 0 a tD Oi.N �^ 0 0 Gri Ni m O O ti O.O. d 0 ffo JC c cn °'.a Hof o N °' � ox3 ^my ov_i o• QN �Ox � na ui allmod N�Nm cmti c°iim mom �.� yo own � +N •' �° £ ��. nm o.�. a�. nmc mom Hi � EF<o o w ?� m = O ln0 0 n w f9 a w G N=�:o X CAli O m m Ip 9 0 N D O .._+�G O NEl rio o �° y m m o-o x o ��' m m 3 0 `Ly o 0 o co y m o• � m � m �fD m c m woo m 3F; o �.. c 3cn o � cmc N3 �o O m `w Omy n m m m a w m ny mm 3 yam• on om 2L o _w n mo n 0 E3mfD3 wm n �m vm .n-i o a o ..� c�i .•. nm� �m cy my ZF o m ? m o o c m o y c o ?m ca y rn Z m cnL m O m mMIM N x �m p1 m D 0 A Z �o x F J7 M� O rn SC-) gemm o _ .Oi O 3 N Z N a CD V! X � 0 H N cri - �y Ny g-C_y m _ 0 Z.T. v d Z C! W - W"' Ce Z N y 9 w m iri> m oao - o a� mayy 2odm `nr7y co)W - n�� Q va ww of ZOO e Q 3 w I4GENDA�6�I°� 0 m -� N o w o O N xs' Al x N 1�'i i S ' rx kh M::.. dY➢ A: k �Jv �r b 5 x. ozx v m m in m Io CK 3 n+c 9 'LZZ n AGENDA ITE.,Iii t'd0. PAvE to b D�_�� cnm w m cn 107 O wh 1 k� " t I{C ,o- E 3 N f x d � 4 d j; XO phi r R y _ ',a y}V 4 e '#7 d O S c HF k N 3s- z 3N {j 0.6 flr IA d i tc'ri n � F ® A - �y Nc r7AC_y u cz:r rri M> Wz �90 m O a Tayy - cC7o d V r. C) N Boa ww � o ZOO K AC`f1 r_' e N 3 - �Y'1`f U�� PAG ' 1 OF �O 1 �7<7 O D ` r-------- - Sl � � r • /ZS W m-i T O m 0 co m 1 i i------ mrnm p O I - te1 Fii D� --i ' � E,, z m � oaft Z IU)Z' t ��C77 K y w t N w y 1 � Z in 1�T' ��• � �x z �= z =' z z z n 1 12' 9O 40` _ HH a _....... / 13 1 p H 1 BOA h _-...___.._. 0 ......._.._...._ t6 1 I(N 1 1 - y o - ---- 1 -- o-- a jm o �- IR ------ - ci - GJ 1 I t �O I cn V_f U'1� sn I E o 1 y I ,12� ; I _ _ m b•, Q y w \ 0 109'-- ? - N � V L