The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-11-08 City Council Agenda Item No. 09 CITY OF LADE LSIIIOR�E DREAM EXTREME. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY CITY MANAGER DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 2011 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 36304: A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 3.17 ACRE SITE INTO THREE (3) PARCELS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) DISTRICT OF THE TUSCANY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN Background On March 1 , 2011 , proposed Parcel Map No. 36304 was reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission expressed concerns relating to the following items: 1) technical corrections to the map (i.e. property description, numbers on the scale bar, more definitive property lines); 2) the shared driveway of Parcels 2 and 3; and 3) lot compatibility with neighboring lots. The Commission encouraged the applicant to consider an alternative subdivision of the property into two parcels instead of three. The Planning Commission continued the project to May 3, 2011 to allow the applicant and staff sufficient time to address the identified concerns. Discussion The Parcel Map proposes to subdivide the aforementioned 3.17-acres of single family residentially zoned land into three separate parcels (one with an existing owner residence and detached garage and two lots suitable for future development of single- family residences). Grading for the two unoccupied pads and associated driveway entrance was completed in 2009 under city permit. The two pads are currently used for sport courts, but they were designed to have dual purposes as either sport courts or future building pads for single-family residences. The following is a summary of the major issues and concerns expressed at the Planning Commission hearings: AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 Page 1 of 188 Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 November 8, 2011 Page 2 of 4 Lot Size: The subject property is located within the area known as Tuscany Hills Estates and is governed by the development standards set forth in the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan. Specifically, the property is designated as R-SF (Residential-Single Family) which requires a minimum 5,000 square foot lot and average 5,500 square foot lot size. The proposed subdivision exceeds the minimum lot size as follows: Parcel 1 will be 1.00 acre (43,560 square feet), Parcel 2 will be 1.00 acres (43,560 square feet), and Parcel 3 will be 1.17 acres (50,965 square feet). In addition, each lot within the R- SF designation must have a minimum 50 foot street frontage. The parcels as depicted on the proposed Parcel Map 36304 satisfy this requirement as follows: Parcel 1 will have a 184 foot street frontage; Parcel 2 will have a 50 foot street frontage, and Parcel 3 will have a 50 foot street frontage. A question was raised at the Planning Commission meeting whether Section 17.76.060 (D) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regulating lot size within the R-1 District applies to the requested subdivision. This section generally requires that when an existing developed parcel with a larger lot size than required in the R-1 district is subdivided, a transition or buffer should be provided between the adjacent property and a new subdivision such that the newly created lot is at least 75 percent the size of the largest adjacent lot. As stated above, the subject property is governed by the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan adopted in 1982 and is not subject to the general development standards of Chapter 17, including the provisions of Section 17.76.060 (D) enacted in 1987. Lot Compatibility: The Planning Commission expressed concerns with the subdivision and the potential creation of "smaller" lots in the immediate area. The Planning Commission did not believe that the proposal (as a three lot subdivision) was consistent and compatible with the general pattern and arrangement of other lots that presently exist in the Tuscany Hills Estates area as described in Chapter 16.020.20 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Specifically, 16.20.20 "Size Requirements" states as follows: A. All lots shall meet the area, frontage, width, depth, and building setback requirements of the zone within which said lots are located; provided, however, that in its consideration of any land division, the City Council may determine that a greater than minimum lot size is necessary: 1. For the proper protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; 2. To be consistent with the general pattern established in the vicinity; or 3. To maintain the value of property in the vicinity. B. When lots or parcels twice or more the required area or width are shown on a division of land the City Council may require such lots or parcels to be so established as to make practical a further division into allowable building sites, without injury to adjoining property. Page 2 of 188 Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 November 8, 2011 Page 3 of 4 C. Lot sizes and arrangement shall be compatible with lots in the surrounding area. The applicant believes that the creation of larger lots (larger than what the Specific Plan requires), will be beneficial to property values in the immediate area and commissioned an appraisal report ("Appraisal Consulting Assignment Restricted Use Report" April 29, 2011) included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission on May 3, 2011 (Exhibit No. 5). The applicant also believes that the proposed subdivision is compatible with the general pattern established in the vicinity and has provided a petition (as well as a map) signed by neighbors within the Tuscany Hills Estates area identifying support and opposition of the proposed project (Exhibit 6). Shared Driveway and Access: The Planning Commission also expressed concerns about the proposed shared driveway serving Parcels 2 and 3. The applicant stated that shared driveways are relatively common in Tuscany Hills and has submitted Exhibit No. 7 to illustrate that thirteen (13) homes in Tuscany Hills Estates have shared driveways. Further, the applicant's Engineer, at the March 1, 2011 Planning Commission meeting indicated that the applicant/property owner (Mr. Doug Pinnow) would be responsible for perpetual maintenance and upkeep of the common driveway. Planning Commission Findings: Following the deliberations, the Planning Commission found that the proposed lot sizes and arrangement were incompatible with lots in the Tuscany Hills Estates area and inconsistent with the general pattern established in the vicinity. The Planning Commission also expressed reservations about the findings in the appraisal report submitted by the applicant. Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to not support the proposal and encouraged the applicant to reconsider Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 as a two lot subdivision instead of three. Environmental Determination Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project has been deemed exempt pursuant to Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions). No further environmental clearance is necessary. Fiscal Impact The proposed project has been conditioned to require that the applicant contribute fees toward traffic improvements, school facilities, park facilities, fire services, police services, water facilities, and sewer facilities. The proposed project will have a positive fiscal impact by providing construction jobs and increased property taxes. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council deny the proposed Parcel Map No. 36304 based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the findings that, pursuant to Section 16.20.20 of the LEMC, the proposed lot sizes and arrangement are Page 3 of 188 Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 November 8, 2011 Page 4 of 4 incompatible with lots in the Tuscany Hills Estates area and inconsistent with the general pattern established in the vicinity. Alternatively, if the City Council finds after consideration of the staff report, testimony and other evidence presented during the public hearing that the proposed lot sizes and arrangement are compatible with lots in the Tuscany Hills Estates area and consistent with the general pattern established in the vicinity and disagrees with the Planning Commission's recommendation, that it approve the project by the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2011-063 Adopting Findings That The Project Known As Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 Is Consistent With The Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; and, 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2011-064 Approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 Located At 7 Via Del Lago (APN: 363-350-021). Prepared by: Kirt A. Coury\�e Project Planner II ��}}�� AA Reviewed by: Warren Morelion, AICF'A°'°�`� Planning Manager Approved by: Robert A. Brady City Manager Exhibits: 1 . Vicinity Map 2. City Council Resolutions 3. Conditions of Approval 4. Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments dated May 3, 2011 5. Correspondence and Reports from the May 3, 2011 PC meeting 6. Planning Commission Minutes 7. Neighborhood Petition with Map (Applicant provided) 8. Tuscany Hills Shared Driveway Illustrations (Applicant provided) 9. Full Sized Plans Page 4 of 188 VICINITY MAP TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO 36304 7 VIA DEL LAGO APN# 363-350-021 W � J � � J Q' w a, Q "PLAZA VA dENZA O - C7 PROJECT SITE — o J= a� Page 5 of 188 Page 6 of 188 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-063 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT KNOWN AS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 36304 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Lake Elsinore by Mr. Doug Pinnow, for the subdivision of 3.17 acres of land into three (3) single family residential lots("the Project"), which is located 7 Via Del Lago at APN 363-350-021 (the "Site"); and WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP generally requires that all projects which are proposed on land within 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 within or outside of a criteria cell must be analyzed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements"; and WHEREAS, the Project is discretionary in nature and requires review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or City Council; and WHEREAS, the Project is within an MSHCP criteria cell of the Elsinore Area Plan, and therefore, the Project was processed through a LEAP and JPR as well as 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 City Council has been delegated with the responsibility of making decisions regarding the consistency of discretionary project entitlements with the MSHCP; and NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has considered the Project's consistency with the MSHCP prior to making a decision to adopt Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP. SECTION 2. That in accordance with the MSHCP, the City Council makes the following MSHCP Consistency Findings: Page 7 of 188 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2011-063 PAGE 2 OF 5 1. The Project is a project under the City's MSHCP Implementing Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approving the Project. The Property is located within a MSHCP criteria cell. As such, the Project has been processed through the LEAP and JPR, as well as reviewed for consistency with the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements," including Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines. 2. The Project is subject to the City's Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and the County's Joint Project Review processes. As stated above, the Property is located within a MSHCP criteria cell and therefore the Project was processed through the LEAP and JPR. 3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP focuses on protection of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitat types based upon their value in the conservation of a number of MSHCP covered species. According to the MSHCP Compliance Document prepared by Seari Biological Services (SBS) dated August 20, 2010, the project site does not support riparian or riverine resources, since the site consists of an existing single family residence or previously graded pads. The site is largely comprised of disturbed land. Given the disturbed state of the site, the soils, which consist of Cieneba rocky sandy loam, and habitat on site do not support suitable habitat for vernal pools or fairy shrimp. 4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. The Project is not located in a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area as mapped in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. 5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The Project is located within an Additional Survey Area for Burrowing Owl. SBS conducted a Step 1: Habitat Assessment on July 28, 2010. Suitable Burrowing Owl habitat was determined to be present. Due to the presence of suitable Burrowing Owl habitat, SBS conducted a Step Il— Part A: Focused Burrow Survey on August 5, 2010. According to SBS's Part 11 Survey, the site does not support any potential owl burrows. Since SBS did not observe suitable owl burrows during the burrow survey, focused breeding season surveys were not warranted. Page 8 of 188 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2011-063 PAGE 3OF5 6. The Project is consistent with the UrbanNVildlands Interface Guidelines. Conservation Areas are to be located near the project site. To preserve the integrity of the areas dedicated as MSHCP Conservation Areas, the guidelines contained in Section 6.1.4 related to controlling adverse effects for development adjacent to the MSHCP Conservations Area shall be implemented. In addition, and where applicable, the project shall: 1) Incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the site entering the MSHCP Conservation Area, 2) Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts such as manure, which are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species or habitat or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area, 3) Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area, 4) Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines, and 5) Consider the invasive, non-native plant species in table 6-2 of the MSHCP in landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. 7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. See the response above. 8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. Fuels management focuses on hazard reduction for humans and their property. The proposed project includes a recently graded 300 foot long driveway with a hammer- head turn-around in compliance with the Riverside County Fire Department requirements for fire suppression equipment and personnel to access higher elevations and remote areas that were previously inaccessible. This should substantially reduce the hazard of a fire to all nearby residences in the Tuscany Hills Development. 9. The Project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. As a condition of approval, the Project will be required to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee at the time of issuance of building permits. 10. The Project is consistent with the MSHCP. For the foregoing reasons, the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. Page 9 of 188 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2011-063 PAGE 4OF5 SECTION 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented, and the above findings, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore hereby adopts findings that the Project is 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 8t" day of November 2011, by the following vote: BRIAN TISDALE MAYOR ATTEST: VIRGINIA BLOOM CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: BARBARA LEIBOLD CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Page 10 of 188 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-064 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 36304 LOCATED AT 7 VIA DEL LAGO (APN: 363-350-021) WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Lake Elsinore by Mr. Doug Pinnow, for the subdivision of 3.17 acres of land into three (3) single family residential lots("the Project"), which is located 7 Via Del Lago at APN 363-350-021 (the "Site"); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of making decisions relating to Tentative Parcel Maps, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the recommendation of Planning Commission following its consideration on March 1, 2011 and May 3, 2011 as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on November 8, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Prior to making a decision, the City Council has reviewed and analyzed Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 pursuant to the appropriate provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and Planning and Zoning Laws of the State of California, the Lake Elsinore General Plan, the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan (R-SF District) and Chapter 16 (Subdivisions) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code ("LEMC"). SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.: "CEQX) and the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines") pursuant to Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) categorical exemption. Specifically, the City Council finds that the Tentative Parcel Map allows for the subdivision of 3.17 acres of land into three (3) individual parcels for property located at 7 Via Del Lago at APN 363-350-021. SECTION 3. That in accordance with Subdivision Map Act (Gov't Code Section 66410 et seq) and Chapter 16 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the City Council makes the following findings for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304: 1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan and the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs and is physically suitable for the proposed density specified in the General Plan and the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan. Page 11 of 188 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2011-064 PAGE 2OF4 Tuscany Hills Specific Plan designates the Subdivision site as Residential Single Family (R-SF). Consistent with that designation, the Subdivision can accommodate the proposed density of three detached single-family residences. The Subdivision is consistent with the designated land use, development and design standards, and all other appropriate requirements contained in the General Plan, Tuscany Hills Specific Plan, and Subdivision Map Act and will not conflict with established public easements. 2. The lot sizes and arrangement are compatible with lots in the surrounding area and the general pattern established in the vicinity. The Subdivision maintains the character of the large lots in the surrounding area known as Tuscany Hills Estates by placing the smaller lots at the furthest most end of Tuscany Hills Estates and maintaining the largest lots to the north and east of the proposed subdivision. 3. The effects this project is likely to have upon the housing needs of the region, the public service requirements of its residents and the available fiscal and environmental resources have been considered and balanced. The Subdivision is consistent with the land use plan, development and design standards and programs, and all other appropriate requirements contained in the General Plan and Tuscany Hills Specific Plan. Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 is consistent with the R- SF designation and applicable development and design standards. 4. Subject to the attached conditions of approval, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any serious public health problems or significant environmental impact. The project has been adequately conditioned by all applicable departments and agencies and will not therefore result in any significant environmental impacts. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 4. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the attached conditions of approval, the City Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. Page 12 of 188 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2011-064 PAGE 3 OF 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of November 2011, by the following vote: BRIAN TISDALE MAYOR ATTEST: VIRGINIA BLOOM CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: BARBARA LEIBOLD CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Page 13 of 188 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 36304 PLANNING DIVISION 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 Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304. 2. Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 will expire two (2) years from date of approval unless within that period of time an appropriate instrument has been filed and recorded with the County Recorder, or an extension of time is granted by the City of Lake Elsinore City Council in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the LEMC. 3. The Tentative Parcel Map shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), Title 16 unless modified by approved Conditions of Approval. 4. Prior to final recordation of the Parcel Map, the improvements specified herein and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council shall be installed, or agreements for said improvements, shall be submitted to the City for approval by the City Engineer, and all other stated conditions shall be complied with. All uncompleted improvements must be bonded for as part of the agreements. 5. All lots shall comply with minimum standards contained in the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan and the LEMC. 6. A precise survey with closures for boundaries and all lots shall be provided per the LEMC. 7. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit a letter of verification (will- serve letter) from appropriate utility providers to the City Engineer, for all required utility services. Each lot shall have separate and exclusive utility services, including, but not limited to, sewer, water, electrical, gas, and communications so that they are piggybacking on sewer or any other utilities. 8. The applicant shall pay applicable fees and obtain proper clearance from the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) prior to issuance of building permits. 9. The applicant shall pay all applicable fees including park fees. 10.The applicant shall meet all requirements of the providing electric utility company. 11.The applicant shall meet all requirements of the providing gas utility company. 12.The applicant shall meet all requirements of the providing telephone utility company. Page 14 of 188 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 2OF3 TPM 36304 13.If applicable, the applicant shall incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the site entering the MSHCP Conservation area. 14.Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts such as manure, which are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species or habitat or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. 15.Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area. 16.Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines. 17.Consider the invasive, non-native plant species in table 6-2 of the MSHCP in landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. 18.All future structural development associated with this map requires separate Minor Design Review approval. 19.Prior to final map approval, the applicant and the property owner shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgement of Conditions" form and shall return the executed original to the Planning Division for inclusion in the case records. 20.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 (i.e., 7:00 A.M. — 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday with no construction activity to occur on Saturdays, Sundays or legal holidays) 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 installed prior to the issuance of a grading permit. ENGINEERING DIVISION 21.Record Reciprocal Access Easements between parcels numbers 1, 2 and 3 allowing use of the common drive and hammer-head and requiring the property owner/applicant to be responsible for perpetual maintenance and upkeep of the common driveway. The form of the Reciprocal Access Easement shall be approved by the City Attorney and City Engineer prior to recordation. 22.Record "Fire Lane" easement over the hammer-head such that the area is kept free for use by the Fire Department. 23.Record a 10-foot utility easement along the common property line of Parcel 1 and Page 15 of 188 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 3OF3 TPM 36304 Parcel 2. 24.Drainage shall be controlled and conveyed to the public right-of-way such that all debris is kept on site and silt and material transported by erosion is not carried into the public right-of-way from the site. 25.The applicant shall file a grading/drainage plan to eliminate all cross lot drainage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 26.Proposed changes to the access requiring construction in the public right-of-way shall follow the encroachment permit process in place at the City. 27.Site work extending beyond the property boundary shall require permission from the affected property owner prior to commencement of work. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 28. Developer shall comply with all City Ordinances regarding construction debris removal and recycling as per Section 8.32 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 29.The applicant shall comply with all Riverside County Fire Departments requirements and standards. Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by the Riverside County Fire Department. Page 16 of 188 CITY OF LADE LSINO E DREAM EXTREME- REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: BOB BRADY, CITY MANAGER DATE: MAY 3, 2011 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 36304: A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 3.17 ACRE SITE INTO THREE (3) PARCELS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) DISTRICT OF THE TUSCANY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN APPLICANT/ DOUGLAS PINNOW, 7 VIA DEL LAGO, LAKE ELSINORE, OWNER: CA 92532 Project Request The applicant is proposing to subdivide 3.17 acres of land into three (3) individual parcels pursuant to the requirements of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan, Section 16 "Subdivisions" of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), and Section 66424 of the California Subdivision Map Act (CSMA). Project Location The 3.17 acre project site is located at 7 Via Del Lago_ Access to the project site is available from Via Del Lago. Page 17 of 188 Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 May 3, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Environmental Setting The site is bounded on all sides by existing residential land uses_ EXISTING LAND ZONING GENERAL PLAN USE Project Existing Single R-SF (Residential Single Tuscany Hills Specific Site Family Residence Family) Plan North Existing Single R-SF (Residential Single Tuscany Hills Specific Family Residence Family) Plan South Vacant R-1 (Single Family Low Medium Density Residential Residential East Existing Single R-SF (Residential Single Tuscany Hills Specific amily Residence Family) Plan West Vacant R-SF (Residential Single Tuscany Hills Specific Famil Plan Project Description The proposed parcel map will subdivide the aforementioned 3.17-acres of single family residentially zoned land into three (3) separate parcels (one with an existing owner residence and detached garage and two lots suitable for future development of single- family residences). Grading for the two unoccupied pads and associated driveway entrance was completed in 2009 under city permit. The two pads are currently used for sport courts, but they were designed to have dual purposes as either sport courts or future building pads for single-family residences. Parcel No. 1 will be 1.00 acres (43,560 square feet), Parcel No. 2 will be 1.00 acres (43,560 square feet), Parcel No. 3 will be 1.17 acres (50,965 square feet). Background On March 1, 2011, the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission expressed concerns relating to the following items: 1)technical corrections to the map (i.e. property description, numbers on the scale bar, more definitive property lines); 2) the shared driveway of Parcels 2 and 3, and 3) lot compatibility with neighboring lots. The Commission encouraged the applicant to consider an alternative subdivision of the property into two (2) parcels instead of three (3). The Planning Commission elected to continue the project to May 3, 2011 to allow the applicant and staff sufficient time to address the identified concerns. Page 18 of 188 Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 May 3, 2011 Page 3 of 5 Anal sis In an effort to address the Planning Commission's concerns, the applicant has provided a revised Tentative Parcel Map addressing the correction items to the map, as well as letters dated April 14, 2011 responding to the other Planning Commission items of concern_ The April 14 correspondence includes historical correspondence between the applicant and the City's Community Development Department_ The following is in response to the previously identified Planning Commission concerns. • Parcel Map Corrections: The applicant has revised the Tentative Parcel Map (ref. Exhibit). In addition, the applicant has provided a letter identifying the changes (ref. Attachment 1). • Shared Driveway and Access: In Attachment 1, the applicant states and provides and Exhibit to illustrate that shared driveways are relatively common in Tuscany Hills and that four (4) of the twenty one (21) homes in Tuscany Hills Estates have shared driveways. Further, the applicant's Engineer, at the March 1, 2011 Planning Commission meeting indicated that the applicant/property owner(Mr. Doug Pinnow) would be responsible for perpetual maintenance and upkeep of the common driveway. • Lot Compatibility: The applicant maintains that the project is consistent with the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan R-SF Zone minimum 5000 square foot lot and average 5500 square foot lot requirements. Further, the applicant believes that the creation of larger lots (larger than what the Specific Plan requires), will be beneficial to property values in the immediate area (Attachment 3). The applicant has elected to stay with the proposal of a 3 Lot Parcel Map. The applicant has provided a letter (Attachment 2) explaining his position and reasoning for a 3 Lot Parcel Map in lieu of a 2 lot division. The proposed creation of three (3) individual parcels complies with the applicable development standards (i.e. lot size, lot frontage) of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan (R-SF District). The proposed Parcel Map also satisfies the requirements of Chapter 16 "Subdivisions" of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and the California Subdivision Map Act (CSMA) by providing the required technical information and meeting or exceeding the minimum standards under the applicable General Plan and Specific Plan designations. Chapter 16.20 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code provides additional considerations in evaluating the proposed lot sizes. Specifically, 16.20.20 "Size Requirements" states as follows: A. All lots shall meet the area, frontage, width, depth, and building setback requirements of the zone within which said lots are located;provided, however, that in its consideration of any land division, the City Council may determine that a greater than minimum lot size is Page 19 of 188 Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 May 3, 2011 Page 4 of 5 necessary: 1. For the proper protection of the public health, safety and general welfare, 2. To be consistent with the general pattern established in the vicinity; or 3. To maintain the value of property in the vicinity. S. When lots orparcels twice ormore the required area orwidth are shown on a division of land the City Council may require such lots or parcels to be so established as to make practical a further division into allowable building sites, without injury to adjoining property. C. Lot sizes and arrangement shall be compatible with lots in the surrounding area. To assist the Planning Commission in evaluating lot compatibility, a map depicting the lot size of the surrounding area is included as Attachment 5. City Planning and Engineering staffs have reviewed the project, and have no concerns regarding the proposed request. Environmental Determination Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project has been deemed exempt pursuant to Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions). No further environmental clearance is necessary. Recommendation • Adopt a Resolution No. 2011- adopting findings that the project is consistent with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; and, • Adopt a Resolution No. 2011- recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 based on the Findings, Exhibits, and proposed Conditions of Approval. Prepared By: Kirt A. Coury, � Project Planner Reviewed By: Justin Carlson"G Redevelopment Analyst Approved By: Robert A. Brady City Manager Page 20 of 188 Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 May 3, 2011 Page 5 of 5 Attachments- 1. Revisions to TPM 36304 letter dated April 14, 2011 2_ Lot Split letter dated April 14, 2011 3. Explanation of lot compatibility "extracted from LEMU 4. Background letter regarding HQA de-annexation dated April 14, 2011 5. Assessor Parcel Map depicting lot size of the surrounding area 6. Three minute comment letter by Civil Engineer 7. Vicinity Map 8. Planning Commission Resolutions 9. Planning Commission Conditions of Approval 10. Draft Acknowledgement of Conditions of Approval 11. Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes dated March 1, 2011 12. Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 (reduction) 13. Full Size Plan Page 21 of 188 7 Via del Lago Lake Elsinore, CA 92532 April 14, 2011 Mr. Kirt Coury, Project Planner Planning Division City of Lake Elsinore 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Dear Mr. Coury: Subsequent to the initial Planning Commission hearing on March I", I have made several changes to Tentative Parcel Map 36304, summarized in Attachment A, to reflect various comments made by the Commissioners at the hearing. This letter is to forward ten (10) copies of the revised full size map and one (1) copy of an l I" x 17" map. Please note that I have also attached another copy of this map that is marked using red-lines to highlight the specific changes that have been made. While the revised map continues to show a split of my lot into three parcels, I'd like to assure you that I have given serious consideration to the suggestion made at the hearing to limit the lot split into two parcels. Quite frankly, I was rather surprised that the 2-parcel suggestion was made,because I had been of the opinion from the time that this project was initiated that the 3-parcel split would be in the best interest of both me and the City. My logic here is quite simple. Since I moved into my present home in 2003, I have always desired to have a full (rather than partial) view of Canyon Lake from my house. I realized that both tentative Parcels 2 and 3 would offer that feature with level pad sizes considerably larger than the one my present home is sited on and, in fact, larger that the average lot size on my street (Via del Lago). Further, the spacing between any new homes built on Parcels 2 and 3 and the closest nearby home would likely be greater than is typical for other homes on my street. Based on the Illustrative Map I prepared at the City's request,the homes on tentative Parcels 2 and 3 would be spaced 150 feet and 190 feet, respectively, from the closest neighboring home. This compares with an average nearest spacing of 97 feet for all of the existing homes on Via del Lago. Hence the new parcels would offer a gracious set-backs from the neighbors, which I also deem as a desirable feature. Someday, I had hoped to be able to build a new home for me and my wife on either tentative Parcel 2 or 3. So, I'm not motivated like many builders whose main objective is to finish a house and then depart with a sales profit. Rather, I'm very concerned about the impact on property values in the vicinity and considered both of these parcels to be more desirable home sites than Parcel 1, where my present home is located. Further, I'm of the opinion that either of these new parcels would be at least as desirable as any other existing home site on my street. So, you can see why I was surprised that the suggestion was raised at the March i" meeting to limit the lot split to 2 parcels in view of Section 16.20.020 of the City's Code. After the meeting, I carefully reviewed this section of the code and concluded that the Commissioner's concern must have been related to the provision in Section 16.20.020 A of the Code ...that a greater than minimum lot size is [sometimes] necessary... To maintain the value of property in the vicinity. After living on Via del Lago for eight years, it seemed obvious to me that the 3-way lot split would preserve property values in the vicinity. However,this viewpoint,apparently, is not obvious to some of the Commissioners. For those Commissioners who have not yet visited and personally seen Parcels 2 and 3, there is a series of photographs in Attachment B,providing a visual introduction to these tentative parcels. The photographs convey the general spaciousness and certainly do not give the impression that thee parcels are in any way similar to home sites in Tuscany Hills other than those in Tuscany Hills Estates. However, to directly address the impact of the lot split on property values in the vicinity, I have retained a Certified General Appraiser,Noble Tucker, who has MAI and SRA credentials and 27 years of experience in appraising properties in our area, including the entire Audi Murphy Ranch project. In numerous cases, he has served as an expert witness in real estate appraisal matters. He plans to have his work on the lot split completed by the time the continuation hearing is held on May 3`d so that he can present his summary findings to the Commissioners. The only other issue that came up at the initial hearing which has not already been addressed is that of using a shared driveway for both Parcel 2 and Parcel 3. Shared driveways are common in Tuscany Hills and four (4) of the twenty-one(21)homes in Tuscany Hills Estates have shared driveways, as shown in the map in Attachment C. Further, there is no objection to shared driveways in the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan. Finally, I'd like to conclude by mentioning that Section 16.20.020 B of the City's Code generally encourages sub-dividing into smaller lot sizes where practical. This,presumably, is to maximize the tax revenues to the City and County. While the 3-way split is clearly in my best interest,this code provision suggests it would be in the best interest of the City as well. I believe the appraiser I've retained will have more to say about this at the May 3`d meeting. Sincerely yours, Douglas A. Pinnow (951)674-2590 Page 23 of 188 ATTACHMENT A Changes made to the Current Revision of Tentative Parcel Map 36304 • Added property description. • Added numbers to the dimension scale. • Added dotted line showing easement between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. • Changed other existing easement lines to be dotted lines. • Reduced the 10 foot easement width in Easement Note #3 to be a 6 foot wide to be consistent with other- easements. • Increased the width of the "Future Turnout" on driveway to be equal to 26 feet. • Changed the drawing date to March, 2011. Page 24 of 188 � ' f y •ri - '.,,,•��.�+.`� - cam-w- ��;.' ... ''�''� � =-�,i.r _ ::-.- � � •a L.�,`^tiq \ �':j��'vS'`tom Jy � NO �, _.S 'n ..4 � i.. �. View down common driveway showing the dead-end of Via. det Lago. !�•' Grp;�„�,�aa.�` 9 �, �„ �� s r r View taken from Parcel 3 of driveway split with Parcel 2 beyond the sp it. Page 26 of 188 f x ' ' a �Ji Y•'r•�' V 'S.e ov,.tiE:Ji�i. •:.� i It r _� ��'�] r:1` .{lE � rFL- �t �,. ��+� "`-�, � �• � "'�tom.�-'ae..,,, : 1., .,�f'�� , �•.,'"' S ��y .✓= 4��"` ��..,.-�,, •l'��O'. y� T rY _ -ec,�.��.��M•a^t'.rY.vs.o`A,s,. y.�' ."''}ate + 1 / -i^:�'CfeY+t'�'*y'.� /� x� C � �y„� +y. "�^� �F ~� K��Y�IhV✓�t...,.�yY ,—!•"�+A.I �� .may_�?��L •h"�• s .k i�� a- � ` ya.tt�.� _g•`' �ta"�, �.25 _��..R ✓'.tl'"�"n+a `' + ' ��.., j w«_ i'' �+ �4 s t v' f F •r3w"`tr zoo + -,� r" ` 3 ni; �� l"+.'�°i'r r ti ".�y�"� � � • 1 � Ch•' E c "Al �� tf�"'r --:�'1 ICJ � _ -'��.�� a.-•i, �' ice, iati\..�cs, � o:'. ..;:, ., � 1_ _ _.r• ATTACHMENT C Map of the 21 lots in the Tuscany Hills Estates This is not a 3U(VLY Of the laid W1 is CG*Sd zllm fW nIjorrnalion only,m is it a part of the teison or policy to which it map bt attached. 0 F(fkLI ry NATIORAL TITIE iNSURANCE COMPANY ' no 0' �4 CI- LO 20 CL (D PI 60 18 4 Tract 13-4 0- A5515-%R'S MAP RX "63'�&WRSIDE ro�Tr, CAL A map showing all 21 lots in the Tuscany Hills Estates. The lot contemplated for splitting is shown at the lower left and is highlighted in yellow. The four lots highlighted in blue have shared drive-ways, as is contemplated for Parcels 2 and 3 after the lot split. The use of shared driveways is common in Tuscany Hills. Page 29 of 188 7 Via del Lago Lake Elsinore, CA 92532 April 14, 2011 Mr. Kirt Coury, Project Planner Planning Division City of Lake Elsinore 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Dear Mr. Coury: During the initial Planning Commission hearing on March Ist, I stated that I had thoroughly reviewed the planned lot split with Community Development Director,Tom Weiner, and his staff in 2009 before initiating any grading to prepare for the lot split. This review included submission of a conceptual map that is similar to Tentative Parcel Map 36304. During the course of this review, many factors were considered, including lot size and density. I further stated at the recent hearing that copies of the written correspondences between me and the Community Development Department had been made available to you shortly before the hearing. However, after the hearing, you advised me that there had not been sufficient time to distribute this material to the Commissioners. Copies of these correspondences are included as Attachments A and B to this letter to facilitate their distribution. Before closing, I'd like to mention that the short forwarding note I sent you as part of Attachment B indicated that: This may be more background information than you'd be interested in reviewing. However, I've included these additional e-mails for the sake of completeness. In retrospect,the correspondences in Attachment B are particularly relevant to a number of issues that were raised at the initial Planning Commission hearing. So,they are of a much greater significance than I had originally thought. Sincerely yours, Douglas A. Pinnow (951)674-2590 Al-AC 8 a ATTACHMENT A The Tuscany Hills Specific Plan with Forwarding Letter from Tim Weiner (dated March 5,2009) Page 31 of 188 March 5, 2009 Dr. Douglas Pinnow 7 Via Del Lago Lake Elsinore CA 92532 Re_ Tuscany Hills/Estates Property (7 Via Del Lago) Dear Dr. Pinnow Thank you for recently sharing conceptual inforfnation related to your property listed above. We are ready to assist you with the permitting and entitlement process once you are ready to move forward with your project_ As was discussed during our meeting, all Tuscany Hills Specific Plan guidelines must be followed in order to subdivide and/or develop your property. In addition, all Engineering, Fire, and Building Division requirements will also need to be adhered to. Development standards from the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan has been included for your reference. Thank you for giving the City of Lake Elsinore the opportunity to assist you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any other questions. Sincerely, Community Development Department Tom Weiner Acting Community Development Director Attachment Page 32 of 188 I,M: 1UUUW1„g oevetopment stanaaras shall apply in the R-SF Zone: 1. Minimum lot area: The minimum lot area in the R-SF Zone shall be 5,000 square feet- The average lot area for the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan area shall be 5,500 square feet. 2. Minimum street fronta e: The minimum street frontage in the R-SF Zone shall be 50 feet, measured 35 feet from the sidewalk. Lots fronting on cul- de-sacs and pie-shaped lots shall have a minimum street frontage of 30 feet. 3• Maximum lot cgYg_ra e: The maximum lot coverage in the R-SF Zone shall be 60 percent. 4. Minimum dwelling unit size: The minimum dwelling unit size within the R-SF Zone shall be 1,000 square feet exclusive of garage area,provided that at least 20% of the total number of units within any phase shall exceed the minimum square footage by 1517c. 5. Maximum building height: The maximum building height in the R-SF Zone shall be 35 feet, exclusive of chimneys and other appurtenances where the maximum height is 37 feet. 6. Minimum setbacks: The following setbacks shall apply in the R-SF Zone (see Exhibit 19): a. Front yard: 10 feet for main dwelling unit b. Rear yard: 10 feet for main dwelling unit; 5 feet for accessory structures C. Side yard: 5 feet of level ground; 10 feet for corner lots of which 5 feet shall be level ground; 5 feet for accessory structures d. Garage placement: Front yard setbacks for garages shall be 17 feet with minor variations for grading and aesthetic Purposes permitted to a minimum of 10 feet subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. e. Intrusions into setbacks: Minor intrusions into setbacks will be allowed for fireplaces, chimneys, eaves, balconies, soundproofed pool equipment facilities and other appurtenances as may be approved by the Community Development Director or his designee. 7. Parking: The provisions of Chapter 17.66 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be used to determine the required parking for development in the R-SF Zone. 41 Page 33 of 188 MCANY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURAL ? ~ SETBACKS `` 1of � _ = ! ! LLJ Lu OF 0, . . cn rad `.... ' ! LOT A LOT B 10, - 10' . STREET NOT TO SCALE u MINIMUM SETBACK FROM STREET & REAR 1 PROPERTY LINE TO MAIN DWELLING UNIT DENOTES INTERIOR SIDE PROPERTY LINES ssoctetc�; EXHIBIT 19 Page 34 of 188 ATTACHMENT B February 28, 2011 Hi Kirt, Attached are some additional correspondences that I had with Tom Weiner and Cordie Miller in April, 2009. They re-affirm Tom's letter to me of March 5, 2009 [Attachment A] that the applicable guidelines for the lot split are in the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan. This may be more background information than you'd be interested in reviewing_ However, I've included these additional e-mails for the sake of completeness. Page 35 of 188 Page 36 of 188 Doug Pinnow From: "Doug Pinnow'<Doug.Pinnow@ca.rr.com> To: 'Tom Weiner"<TV1leiner@Lake-Elsinore.org> Sent: Monday, April06,2009 11:11 AM Attach: Subdivision Guidelines.doc Subject: SUBDIVISION PLAN IN TUSCANY HILLS 7 Via del Lago Lake Elsinore, CA 92532 April 6, 2009 Mr. Tom Weiner,Acting Community Development Director City of Lake Elsinore 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 Dear Mr. Weiner: We first met last month to discuss the criteria for subdividing the 3.17 acre lot in Tuscany Hills where I reside. You may recall that my plan is to split this lot into three parcels,one with my existing home and two new undeveloped lots. During our meeting,you were kind enough to provide me with copies of the relevant section of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan guidelines that must be followed. A copy of your forwarding letter,dated March 5th, is attached,above, for your convenience. Subsequent to our meeting,I reviewed the material you provided with my engineer and a surveyor who I'm planning to retain to accomplish the lot split. The advice I received was that it would be prudent to attempt to satisfy both the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan guidelines as well as the City of Lake Elsinore's Zoning Code for R-I SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, DISTRICT (Chapter 17.23). While this seems to be a relatively straight forward task, there is one issue that I would like to review with you at this time and request your feedback before I go forward with the considerable expense of retaining the surveyor. There is no problem in simultaneously satisfying the minimum 50-foot street frontage specified in the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan and the 60-foot minimum frontage called out in the Code for R-1.There is more than adequate frontage to equal or exceed the 60-foot frontage for all three lots. The same can be said for all other aspects of the two documents except for one issue covered in Section 17.23.060 Paragraphs C and D in the Code for R-l. These t�vo paragraphs relate to lot areas for low density housing, as exists in the Tuscany Hills Estates where I live_ Page 37 of 188 Page 2 of 2 ...ally change,n a lot size which would leave the lot at a size at least seventy-five percent(75°/n)the size of the largest adjacent developed lot will be presumed appropriate,absent unusual circranstances.Arty application to change a lot to a size lower that said sevenoy-five(75916)standard will be permitted only upon a showing of Rood cause.It is the intent of this paragraph to set a standard but also to allow flexibility. The average size of each of the three lots that will be created after the contemplated split will exceed one acre. As such they will be appapproximately 90%of the size of the existing residential lot(at 10 Via del Lago)directly across the street from my home.But,they will be only about 55%of the size of my only adjacent neighbor's lot (5 Via del Lago.Thus,there could be an issue relative to the 75%standard,mentioned above,in the Code for R- 1.On the other hand,I noted that there are already a number of exceptions to this standard on my street that were previously allowed.For example,the lot area of 10 Via del Lago is 1.17 acres while the adjacent lot at 8 Via del Lago is 2.22 acres,resulting in a 53%size ratio. As I thought about this issue,it became clear to me that for the type of hillside property that extends the entire length of my street,the total lot sixes are not nearly as significant as the size of the lots'flat pads in determining the perceived density.On this basis,the new lots that I'm contemplating would harmonize well with all nine existing homes on my street.The size of their Flat pads(based on information provided to me by the developer, Curtis Development,Inc.)range from 11,761 to 21,780 square feet with a average size of 16,843 square feet. This can be compared with the pad sizes of the two new(undeveloped)lots that will be created by the split of 18,700 and 20,000 square feet.So,the new pads will actually be somewhat larger than the average size of the existing ones. Perhaps,I am over-thinking the situation by attempting to satisfy the Code for R-I when you made it clear during our meeting and in your March 5u'letter that Tuscany Hills has their own Specific Plan guidelines.In any event, I would appreciate your help in providing clarity on whether the City will also consider the Code for R-I in evaluating my proposed lot split and,if so,would the two new undeveloped lots each with over one acre in size and Flat pads of 18,700 and 20,000 square feet be acceptable to satisfy the intent of Section 17.23.060 of the Code. Thank you for your help in this matter. Very truly yours, Douglas A.Pinnow From. "Tom Weiner"<tweiner@Lake-EIsinore.org> To: "Doug Pinnow"<Doug.Pinnow@ca.rr.com> Sent: Monday,April 06,2009 2:44 PM Subject: RE:SUBDIVISION PLAN IN TUSCANY HILLS Hi Doug, It appears that conditions exist adjacent to you that fall short of the 7S%requirement.This is due to the Tuscany.Hiils SP not having this provision.The sizes you are proposing seem ok based on your explanation,however,we of course would need to see a conceptual tot configuration on a map to confirm. Tom Weiner Acting Directorof Communih•Development Cih•of Lake Elsinore Communih Development Department 130 S.klain Street Lake Elsinore,CA 925..30 951.674.3124 ext.270 951.471.1419(fax) Page 38 of 188 From: "Doug PinnoV<Doug.Piruiow@ca.rr.com> To: 'Tom Weiner'<tweiner@Lake-Etsinore.org> Sent: Monday,April 06,2009 3:10 PM Subject: Re:SUBDIVISION PLAN IN TUSCANY HILLS Hi Tom, Thanks for your prompt response_ I'll pull together a conceptual lot configuration and send it to you shortly. Regards, Doug Pinnow Frain; Doug Pinnow fmai6to:Doug.Pinnow@�ea.rr.eom] Sent:Monday,April 06, 2009 5:23 PM To:Tom Weiner Subject Fw:SUBDIVISION PIAN IN TUSCANY HILLS Hi Torn, Attached is the conceptual lot split configuration that you requested. The same drawing is presented in both JPEG and Word Document format so that you can select the one that's easiest for you to work with. The existing lot is 3.17 acres and the proposed lot split lines are shown in red. The new lots are numbered Lot 41 (existing residence), Lot#2 (undeveloped) and Lot#3 (undeveloped). The flat pad areas have a green border and the driveways are highlighted in yellow. By the way, the flat pad area for my existing residence is 12,632 square feet. You can see the the new pads will be considerably larger that this. If you require any further information, please let me know and I will pull it together. Regards, Douglas Pinnow Page 39 of 188 PROPOSED LOT SPLIT t 1 y FOR PINNO'W PROPERTY , 7 Via De!Lago ' Lake Elsinore ' TRACT MAP NO. 17413-4,LOT 4 yl , ♦1,1 ``1 1' API::3-63-35"21 `\\ - PAP CL- 1655' 1 , Zo / e � r zl 1,aty,"!� _ __ .•a' i> f il# _ •y -��es I 1 1 1 1 t � ♦ s 1r �'�IEEe�'-�- .1 1" _ 1 1 f 1 1 — 1 1 1 Army Page 40 of 188 From:Tom Weiner Sent:Tuesday,April 07, 2009 7:36 AM To: Cordie Miller SubJech FW:SUBDIVISION PLAN IN TUISCANY HILLS Hi Cordie, Can you please follow up with this.info is in the string of e mails.The property owner is doing his due diligence before spending money on a Civil to draw up subdivision plans.The property is in Tusca ny Hills SP.Thanks! Tom Weifn r Artine Dirc iJor of Din,vlopment t:if;of lake F.ksi}ZoT4: S_�U R1Aill1'll�` Develovownt F)vparbment l.il1�_ �I tin Tree[ l.tke Fkiaore-CA 925M 951.6 a.3124 ext. )itl 951.471.1419(fax) From: "Tom Weiner <tweinerQLake-EWnore.org3 To. 'Cordie Miller"acmilierke-Elsinore.org> Sent: Monday,April 13,200912:41 PM Attach: PROPOSED LOT SPLIT002.ipg,Proposed Lot Split.doc Subject: FW:SUBDIVI51ON PLAN IN TUSCANY FALLS Hello Cordie, Mr.Pinnow called me indicating that he has not received a response on this. Please follow up as soon as Possible.Thanks. Tom W(-nc•r Aclinf- IhYE'f tCr cf t..i5731.n1Unitt' Povelol,menl Cih of Lake F.Isinom C'E-B-Ltn"Ili t} f kvE IC}I)nl�'flt Departine nt Mainz`itrcel Lake F:I�inc�rr,(:A 9250 E•xt. '-() UaE.�7l.ldfU{fax) Page 41 of 188 From: "Doug Pinnow"<Doug.Pinnow@ca.rT.com> To; 'Tom Weiner"<tweiner@Lake-Elsinore.org> Sent: Tuesday,April 14,2009 1:18 PM Subject: Re: SUBDIVISION PLAN IN TUSCANY HILLS Hi Tom, Thanks for your follow-up with Cordie Miller. However, I remain confused_ Are the Development Standards from the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan that you gave me on March 5th the applicable standards - or is there something else that is complicating the review of the conceptual lot split that I sent to you last week? I ask this question because it should only take about five minutes to review the conceptual lot split for total conformance with the Standards from the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan. All three of the proposed new lots have more than the minimum street frontage and much more than the minimum area specified in the Plan. If you need any further information to complete the review, please let me know at your early convenience_ Best regards, Douglas Pinnow From: "Doug Pinnow"<Doug.Pinnow@ca.rr.com> To: 'Tom Weiner"<TWeiner@Lake-Elsinore.org> Sent: Monday,April 20,2009 8:17 AM Subject: Fw:SUBDIVISION PLAN IN TUSCANY HILLS Hi Tom, Please advise approximately when I can expect a response from the City on the acceptability of the proposed lot split_ Thanks, Doug Pinnow (951)674-2598 Page 42 of 188 From: 'Tom Weiner'<tweiner@Lake-Elsinore.org> To: 'Doug PinncW'<Doug.Pinnow@ca.rr.00m> Sent: Monday,April 20.2009 1:39 PM Subject: RE:SUBDIVISION PLAN IN TUSCANY HILLS Hi Doug, Cordie Miller contacted you via e-mail last week—have you contacted her yet? If not, you will receive a phone call before end of business today. Tom Weiner Acting Director of Com munity Development Cih of bake Elsinore Communitv Development Department Page 43 of 188 From. "Cordie Miller'-cmirierQLake-Elsinote.org> To: <Doug.Pinnow(oa.rr.com> Cc: "Tom Woiner'<tweiner@take-EUnore.org> Sent: Monday,April 20,2009 4:22 PM Attach: Mr Pinnow PROPOSED LOT SPUT002.ipg Subject: Tuscany Hills/Estates Property(7 Viia Del Lago) April 20,2009 Dr, Douglas Pinnow 7 Via Del Lago Lake Elsinore CA 92532 Re:Tuscany Hills/Estates Property(7 Via Del Lago) Dear Dr. Pinnow Thank you for the conceptual plan you provided in your email which related to your property listed above. I have reviewed the conceptual plan and it is sufficient to continue with the Tentative Parcel Map. We are ready to assist you with the permitting and entitlement process once you are ready to move forward with your project. As was discussed during your meeting with Tom Weiner, all Tuscany Hilts Specific Plan guidelines must be followed in order to subdivide and/or develop your property_ In addition, all Engineering, Fire, and Building Division requirements will also need to be adhered to. The Development standard for Tuscany Hills Specific Plan was previously given to you for your reference. Thank you for giving the City of Lake Elsinore the opportunity to assist you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any other questions. Sincerely, Community Development Department Cordie Miller Planning Technician CC,Toth Weiner Acting Community Development Director Attachment END Page 44 of 188 EXTRACTED FROM LAKE ELSINORE CITY CODE 16.20.020 Size requilreFmnts. A. All lots shall meet the area, frontage, width, depth and building setback requirements of the zone within which said lots are located; provided, however, that in its consideration of any land division, the City Council may determine that a greater than minimum lot size is necessary: 1. For the proper protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; 2. To be consistent with the general pattern established in the vicinity, or 3.To maintain the value of property in the vicinity. B. When lots or parcels twice or more the required area or width are shown on a division of land the City Council may require such lots or parcels to be so established as to make practical a further division into allowable building sites, without injury to adjoining property. C. Lot sizes and arrangement shall be compatible with lots in the surrounding area. [Ord. 529 §3.3(B), 1973]. City Planning (Kirt Coury) has recommend that the Planning Commissioners adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of a Tentative Parcel Map showing the sub-division of Doug & Joan Pinnow's lot in Tuscany Hills Estates into three Parcels. Planning has determined that the sub-division is in full accordance with the all aspects of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan (the governing document). Planning Commisioner Rick Morsch has taken exception to this recommendation. He insists that it does not take into consideration Section 16.20.020 of the City Code that is reproduced above. Commissioner Morsch's th o is that that the use of the words "consistent" and "compatible" in clauses A.2. and C., above, mean something very specific. Namely, that any new Parcels in the Tuscany Hills Estates must be *d Ar,m� PTge 45 of larger that 8 times the minimum lot size permitted by the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan (5,000 square feet) and certainly larger than the 1 acre lots (43,560 square feet) that Doug & Joan Pinnow have developed - at a considerable personal expense. —with the prior OK from City Planning. An argument over the interpretation of"consistent" and "compatible" could lead to an ugly lawsuit. Fortunately, there's a better way to accomplish the objective of not having the Pinnow sub-division set precedent for uncontrolled and undesirable expansion in the Tuscany Hills Estates. Dr. Pinnow's recommendation is to rely on the clause in B. in the above Code: the City council may determine that a greater than minimum lot size is necessary to maintain the value of property in the vicinity. Using property valuation would avoid the need to interpret vague words. Further, if it can be shown that a sub-division would increase property values, everyone would benefit. The neighbors would be better off, the applicant for the subdivision would be satisfied, and, importantly, the City and County would have enhanced revenues due to an increase in the number of properties in their tax base. Using the criteria of allowing sub-division only when the property values increase in the vicinity would naturally limit the growth of the Tuscany Hills Estates to an optimum size. (Likely, similar to its present size.) Page 46 of 188 7 Via del Lago Lake Elsinore, CA 92532 April 14, 2011 Mr. Kirt Coury, Project Planner Planning Division City of Lake Elsinore 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Dear Mr. Coury: During the initial hearing on March 1st, Commissioner Mendoza insisted several times that it was inappropriate for the Planning Commission to consider the lot split in Tentative Parcel Map 36304 because I did not have the approval of a home owners' association that he alleged was required to be formed by the Tuscany Hills Estates' residents after they had de-annexed from the Tuscany Hills Landscape & Recreation Corporation (THL&RC) in 2005. You'll recall that my reply was that Commissioner Mendoza was not correct. To support my position, Attachment A is a complete set of the de-annexation documents. You'll see that there is no requirement to form a new home owners' association. If there are any further questions about this matter, they may be addressed to attorney Tom Jacobson, who plans to accompany me at the May 3`1 continuation hearing. Mr. Jacobson advised the Tuscany Hills Estates homeowners during the 2005 de-annexation proceedings. There is one other matter that I'd like to clear up for the record. During the March I"hearing, Commissioner Mendoza also insisted several times that I did not have approval from the THL&RC to build a gazebo that has a view of my neighbor's back yard. Again, I told him that was not correct. A copy of the THL&RC a roval letter for the gazebo is included as Attachment B. You'll note that this letter was dated June 8, 2004, before the de-annexation of the Tuscany Hills Estates was finalized. I hope that we can put these matters behind us at the continuation hearing. Sincerely yours, Douglas A. Pinnow (951)674-2590 ATA1C0441q&4PTge47of18 ATTACHMENT A Final Documents for De-Annexation of Tuscany Hills Estates from the THL&RC Page 48 of 188 TUSCANV TUSCANY HILLS LANDSCAPE & RECREATION CORPORATION 75 Summerhill Drive,Lake Elsinore,CA 92532•(909)245-9[02•Fax(909)245-1843 P' HILLS Memorandum To: Estate Homeowners From: The Tuscany Hills Board of Directors Date: December 1, 2005 RE: De-Annexation of the Estates from the Tuscany Hills LARC Enclosed, please find a letter confirming that the proposed amendments to de-annex the Estates homeowners from the Tuscanv Hills LARC have passed and the appropriate documents have been recorded with the County of Riverside. As such, the 22 Estates homeowners are no longer members of the Tuscany Hills LARC. Please refer to the enclosed letter from Neuland,Nordberg,Andrews and Whitney and documentation for details. In addition, please be aware that the utilities for the areas previously within the Estates designated as connnon areas are no longer a part of the Tuscany Hills LARC. Electricity and water to these areas has been scheduled for shut-off effective December 7, 2005. The Board of Directors would like to thank all of the homeowners within the Estates for their cooperation in the matter of de-annexation and wish the members of the Estates good luck in their future endeavors. A Renaissance in California Living Page 49 of 188 NEULAND, NORDBERG, ANDREWS &W14ITNEY A PROFSSSIDN L 1--�w Coto IILR L-MN 27502 AVL-NiDA GISIPRIiSA RANCHO S11LNTA NV RCTAIUTA,C1 9268B TF=--P1-[ONL- (949)766-4700 F-,1CSttvItLL- (949)766-47t2 Danicl A,Nnrdbcrg.riy. December 1, 2005 Bann<xJ b e�r,�f na�.'l�a•.t<�m To: All Estates Homeowners Reference: Tuscany Hills Landscape and Recreation Corparation Subject: Deannexation of The Estates Dear Estates Homeowners: As counsel for the Tuscany Hills Landscape and Recreation Corporation (the "Master Association"), 1 am writing to inform you that the Master Association recently obtained the approval of sixty-seven percent (67%) of its voting power in favor of the "Proposed Amendment to the Association's CC&Rs." Specifically, the voting power approved all six (6) of the proposed Amendments to the CC&Rs, which sought to exclude Owners of Lots in"The Estates" from the jurisdiction and control of the Master Association. Please be advised that as of November 30, 2005, you are no longer Members or Owners of the Master Association, as those terms are defined in the Master Association's governing documents:. Attached hereto for your reference is a copy of the Third Amendment to the Amended and Restated Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Reservation of Easements for Tuscany Idills, which the Master Association recorded on November 29, 2005, in the Official Records of Riverside County, California as Document No. 2005-0981873 (the"Third Amendtnenf')_ At this time, the Board of Directors would like to communicate to you some of the Changes that result from the deanneaation. First and foremost,you are no longer Droners or fM umbens of the Master Association_ That is, you no longer have the rights and privileges enjoyed by the remaining Owners/Members of the Master Association,as those terms are used in the Civil Code, Corporations Code, and the governing documents_ This means you no longer have the following rights provided to members in the Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act (codified at Civil Code §1363.05): the right to attend meetings of the Board of Directors, the right to request Board minutes, and the right to speak at any meeting of the Board of Directors. In addition to the above, you do not have the right to inspect Master Association membership lists (Corporations Code §8330), accounting books and records (Corporations Code Page 50 of 188 The Estates Homeowners Decembzr 1,2005 Page 2 §8333 and Civil Code §1365.2), and any other records or disclosures available to members, as provided by the Corporations Code and Civil Code. With respect to the rights given to Owners/Members in the governing documents, please be advised that neither you nor your guests or tenants have rights of ingress and egress and enjoyment in_ to and over the Association Property, as provided in Article III of the Amended and Restated Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions And Reservation of Easements for Tuscany Hills_ In other words, you arm expressly prohibited from using or accessing all the real and personal property and Improvements which are owned in fee simple by the Master Association, or over which the Master Association has an easement, obligation or permit for the common benefit, use and enjoyment of the remaining Master Association Owners/Members. Said another way, you no longer have the membership privileges permitting use or access to the Master Association's parks and Tot Lot playground areas, clubhouse facility (including the Exercise Fitness Center located within),picnic areas, barbecues, children's wader. spa, Jr. Olympic size swimming pool, and Sports Court Facility (i.e. sand volleyball, basketball court and three lit tennis courts). Since only Members are entitled to cast votes, pursuant to Article IV of the CC&Rs and Article lI of the Bylaws, you are no longer able to parti cipate in any of the Master Association's Annual and Special Elections. Moreover, you are not entitled to vote on any Ballot Measures facing the membership of the Master Association. Please be advised that we represent the Master Association only and not you individually. If you have any questions or concerns,you should seen your own independent legal counsel. Very truly yours, Neuland,Nordberg, Andrews &Whitney APLC aniel A. or berg Esq. Kumar S j a, sq. cc: Board of Directors G Allnany I Id Ic EnrvJernp &MJmxinncr Corp�[16 GC0.AmnlJmcnAL'nrrraponlavcalrie F files QS�]Q�m ta.JcoNic+man Page 51 of 188 iww r. RecarftReq�- U�lv,And Record--� VA To:" • iDL�C �s Z�C�15---0�5�8�� 1 1 l rvs/zAB5 c a Copy �CGIAveasdaEmprGFd Hxe: not beanmi compamparad .+SEh nr'lglna2 9 �Jard i Coaf%ty n Ri—rvlde ` - psmeravr, County Cla,E 8 RetCrdnr THUM AMT-NDKENT TO AMENDID AND x1~MVD KkSTER DELL.RATION alp C3WNANI'8,CQNDrrzo��AIZ3 xR;'zT LM0N3 AND RI',SF..RVATiON OF EASEM:EN7T'S POR T LGCA1NY ELLS 'rht kmm.6ad unA I��l�d N.pst�-De:-�a� or C.��rs, Cc�d� and Rrs s auf - •R.esGrva�rna of Easrin:nrs for'_h�tauy>`�Ils is�y�-"��es fa��r. RRCr �A} Wi3 REAS,ti,Ammdcd and l�e�om�Massa Dcrlazat nn of Caves,Cas,�n; ,�and Re crin and scv,ram-of zs_("Mastrr D �'7 kT TIISC6NTIM-L5, Ri �tL Co�mly,C r w ru ord5dwith tin c0=13,Rzcmdcr ofRivenzaa Cotm�y, 5ta of Via, on M.W!h 11, '991, as 7n3Mm.c=-►Jn. E0175, in tthe0MCizil lkr- r3s of-Fjv=�rre Cannzp,CaEfi)mix (Ii} �LRI'P4 rile ldaacr DcxS�tifln way aai=t3ed by 1z>� cf z 1-kmAmeaaneu�to� Arnenrld and l re D ecJar ti�i of Cavemr ,�Cmdmons;md R CSaa CI Sand i�TT_^Y S of Evsc� fur�SzS I�lz t FFas Amy"}• -aid Est.A.m� oras e� zrcd by TU5CLN-y HELLS on C)=ber 3%1Dd3, mmd xvrordr!d an Ncvmril=I, 2003, as rn=== No. ?�3 88334}, � the Of r-ja R=nr6 of Rive County, (L'} �_.�.L�S,tly b�T3cctarQuc�n Seas ame�r�by u��of a 5--canri� ate- . Ammird aad$cst�r Ifistx D�oa of Ctrom=, Cond&ians Rrsexoatinrs of f?ac�,�SS for T%zsrny�rrnIis (`Scasnid m��,�,*••r";_ said Srr_oud h -, �ntm r;LilPSf CKCR7iG0. Tt [�..[u�1. L�m M 3,20m,aD. ItCprdLdY]Y11 3t1�1 . 1�,2M5, FS 11LCLrrin��r�.No. 7jJ0�� ,is II.=- Offic6l RCCLT61 Of ildvenwe GMIA.Y. . �� '�,,.PySy tilt 1U6CaSLp �"�-� ��'�L � �CZ'e$I7411 �QT�OI3L7L1I1 ��1�25fEC j Assnaaian"'), es k�h^d 7p ov=: lie prapexla- a st wlu6 such DeCLI- �-wa9 z�ctrrd-� h=cbya this'I j4 rl A=Lm du to the AImbaDr--I .-Tine as f hams: Page 52 of 188 (1) -Eutide I,55c:Cl n Ii AL d -ndn y,cf the T�ecldr anis hrsrby dc�escd m its mlirety, an�inpl=dbythaA uwinglaaga2gt- Addr�Tc�tnry shall mew the reel Pr°P�desestb'in� `B`Ded2rauta any on of wlvrb.may from tines to ume be furd�TL dzvidea Ifi Merchant Bsiildcx psusua� to the prcw=a-.z of Ar6A II ht=m Mgt thz xszl .rty�r¢}sm Patrzl T? of F�htLib� B', •wlurh >9 legally descnLed as TraGc Na. 9 lm=a'rllc lsratE!'. ALur1eX,�edi7 so " n�P�o�rst °fthcDzahr�ep� ediui� p a�rr�lac�d bvtlsc fallowts��$�� 1�ss°idarinnPmpertg.allallmraa all the real and p n puo_t�ty au Ir�Zt�vesr�rs which aze od Sn#�� anp time byihe Mess Assorition, or avcrvy4t the Mastex Asa� o� ezm=; or p far rhz use, care or Dance th=eaf, for the common tizae nsa sad ffi;vq of hers, as fu h r ravi 3 in Arprlc.TII .�of lbs 2via Decl=6L!n , c�celst the real and persorsa roropsty and TmproT = at rht emrancc of Jla B of Fzhibit `B', �oi-�irh:9�e�alip dr�r�bexl as'I'za�t Na.U•��.3-�•,known as �Esr.�''.' Svcs x�a} --d,.)rxsan.•d prope-Y and lmpro'v� mch dcz the X'hc Egt. 'Mrr neat and s yg r�zr� '�$is I�i��lesu Alm shall be legaT�r muveyn3 to Tha-Owz=s of The As p== property maY mcladr: Pr .nrdirn�apt� pLi�]DSCS LIl71.Y3�7C SlP.G�S by �� flr� _F a a*-% . esdewal ss, �°P altY]S,uufazDn systans, a '� VLSd � strips, beta., lan�scag�, P w-ay Asr�cr.. a� n�tape=ry be lc=d°n.pabk wap1mv as prl E p bo?QS s�f ui tcr adpre= m the prol"tias (mac Fropacs ) as ccifred m. -This N[ n IDcaTu6ca or 20Y Stppir��?17crlu�on, arsy agr bctvve� Gvy a >]ecL�erQ, z l rChaxit B i� or the Aliast� Asao n, or oa Recoir3Ed sabdi,!"i n❑t pwcel snap bf "p ponim of the T'mper6Z. -The aisle m all or essay potlum of the-1.:soaam.PraP--tTil�'phase m Dcvrlopmrest maybe stshject w a pdor dedicatiaa to F]1c Cny-or a pnhhc ma,mtenmi:5 diet �} ATd lc I,5emat 121-. 4r of IhLaD claratiO"is hm-ebyr deli in-i z euritctig u d by the f ouWin la guage: Lot shall mean suy bt or parcel of land-which is 'Io`w upon any R=id-A ;�zl�divivan n at grrn rd partrl mxp of�p of the prop=::=and which is ir�d ec�b}►.he•�[p:•��Y��m or M=chanr 3ullder fvr the cun=uc6zn of only one Resiclen>:e, ragCtb er with the Tmpi�or�r�s,�my.iminn,bM =mp,6ng aay'Subassticadon I'tvpctp anal the AsscxL Jn prupertp,Mcclx those Loss wkhia . 7�utNo,17�13-4,�avaa as"I'ba EsU�'. . Page 53 of 188 r� � e 1, Seem 12& er of the De^ 3, -�` iri ina etsl�ty avd xE d,IV ti r-faum inz 6ngan - stcz�i5soaat�an, �P..aZhei s�Zll ineat�cv�p P�+-�ham aNlmbffF* of thE p�usuant rtn Semen 41 hezccf. Mcbesslup mean the n ect m the Mash�,ssoc�atl�, as desca-r"bed ig Ou�m�7rs�6 a� of Ue laranr��` y ii�ns, �apecz t1 ae persons ov vmg 1 vklr IV hereof Z-a el4ewh'tim in tbf Arfl& T,5eetiori 134: Owner of the Deair,6< epj�cedtytbe . Declaz��,�eic�Ant&u1�rs, _ owner shall mean.the Wesson or7'cspons, �ebnld ixe�t of �O a ot, ha3c�ing a fee plc or long am ff° fork pezfoL�of °��°n lthoscFrrha' a9 aecn es of tins Mastc� tL_ L�� i ce of aaIc.�L�ur pnzpos ,] De w' xion 't"-m 1, h I l lute' a cezm tr= 17 rnose ytar9. Ae aged ham in,°`C)wne sl 2R also rcf�•-r to ien having 1 ) gnj,aeaoci n Pipp�tiy C)WB=C FhA not euy Sueso �nth rsprct q knaosnas en�hx3ctl;U°eaW uflrt��nn I'SarsN0.17 13 ¢� tb� A lc IL SecLn z5.�`i. ' a£ ' _� it br °dt3ed to t is pe.:laz�ifln: - . z�val of tlu I3'�L to Appm"'- "r Disapgruz tli F'ropos� ' Upan Mc�r�cralup agp 's t�-�S.the hoard of��shah be w °tra1°n an all insm�mn9 • �=�a�aL do�-mffits az,d zecoTds � Y aa• 1_,e -to rffemi�ze the � and pmpor �}7OII of `lam F-,=e } 3rcm the Asso6z im CWTMM'A'7'1 QF ANEDM1M I,rbc uads sipeA do hEse =%qy: 3 Than I nm d�alp elt�cd a aging Prrside lSe airy of 'IgJSCF�NY mi-s LANDSCAPE AND RBLRLMON CCRi'DREL M;a Gahfnm�a NaRro&Muttml B=c:Et 2 {aregobg Thad Amy m rhn l�'�DwLvioa was duty.adapt=d - p the appmpziat,e-mm of thr Yotmg powcr of ibP IJFa=Amociauan,p=M=m Ci-.Cade'auci ' IN � V�OP I ham= M'b= my name and aft tie seai of said tAtpazatinaiiu5 a ^�Iapof a,�.� 2OD& T[75Cfit�]Y .LS LAMSC.AFE AND - - ItI�EATt.OI�TASS�'T�N ' at to Psesidau ata r1,Secresazy Page 55 of 188 ATTACHMENT B Approval Letter for the Pinnow Gazebo Page 56 of 188 TUSCANY HILLS LANDSCAPE & RECREATION CORPORATION USCANY 75 Summerhill Drive,Lake Elsinore,CA 92532-(909)245-9102•Fax(909)245-1843 HILLS June 8,2004 Douglas Pinnow 7 Via Del Lago Lake Elsinore,CA 92532 Re: Spa/Gazebo—Approval Dear Mr. Pinnow: We are pleased to inform you that your request sub i ed o y 28, 2004 to install a spa and Gazebo on your property was approved b}' the r is itectural Committee, subject to the following terms and/or conditions: 1) All improvements steal�13 iinstall d accor g the approved plans submitted to the Architectural Commif ee and shal be gov�ed all Architectural Rules and Guidelines pertaining to the project bmitted vu'tlsgecial attention to the following: 2) Please Note: only items cl*earl arked"approved"on the actual plans are deemed approved under conditions noted. 3) Architectural Rules and Guidelines,pg.9,Section XI, DRAINAGE;pgs. 14-15, Section=I, LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION; pgs. 13-14,Section XX, GAZEBOS;pgs. 21-22, Section XXXVII,SWIMMING POOLS AND SPAS. 4) There shall be no interference with the established drainage patterns over any Lot,Common Area or Community Facilities unless an adequate alternative provision is provided and is first approved in writing by the Architectural Control Committee. The Owner is responsible for maintaining proper,positive drainage at all times. The Architectural Control Committee will not be responsible for drainage plans. All drainage shall comply with all ordinances application to the property(i.e. building codes, grading codes,etc.). 5) Drainage should be installed to prevent any drainage over walkways. 6) Landscape irrigation must be subterranean except on slopes. A Renaissance in California Living Page 57 of 188 7 Via Del Lago -Spa/Gazebo—Approval June 8,2004 Page two 7) Sprinklers should be adjusted so as not to spray adjacent properties or public sidewalks. 8) Any plant or tree with invasive roots shall have root barriers. 9) All walkways shall generally consist of concrete or maso materials. 10) All setback requirements must be met 11) The approved color for the gazes' i t t The approval for the project indicate above is ela ed solely to the items reserved for approval by the CC&R's in accordant with the Architectur 1 G�delines. The approval does not extend to the quality of work done b any are .tec o contractor, or to any structural engineering, soils or site grading an drainage design. You are urged to obtain the services of a state- engineering,licensed professional for consu-ltatio as needed. Please be advised that this approval does not relieve you from obtaining the necessary building permits from the governmental agencies involved,including City of bake Elsinore. You have one (1) year for completion of this project. 1f you fail to complete the project within this time frame, this approval expires and you must submit new plans. Enclosed please find enclosed a Notice of Completion form, which needs to be returned noting the type of work you have done. Please include photozraphs o the completed improvement and attach to your Notice o Completion. This notice advises the Committee that your work is done and is then subject to final inspection by the Committee to confirm that the approved plans were followed. As a reminder and for future reference for any owner of the property: You are required, per the CC&R's (the governing documents of the community you agreed to abide to when you bought your home)to submit an application and wait for a written response. You are not to do any work without written approval. While we appreciate you wanting to improve your home, we also ask for your cooperation in following the rules,and we sincerely appreciate that you have done just that. Y:\DOC\7uscany HillsNanager Files\ArchitecturahACC Approval-Denial Ltrs-200417 Via Del L.ago-Spa;Gazebo- approval.doc Page 58 of 188 i 7 Via Del Lago—Spa/Gazebo-ApprovaI June 8, 2004 Page three The Architectural Control Committee generally meets on the I"and P Wednesday of each month, and all applications must be in the office by 2:00 p.m. the Friday prior to the meeting, in order to be on the agenda for review. Per the CC&R's,the Architectural Committee has up to thirty(30)days in which to do their review, and work is not to commence until written approval is received. Members may wish to submit separate applications for various projects so that if there are any questions, one project may be able to proceed while another is denied and sent back for re-submittal after clarifying information is provided. Please be aware that applications �.pp canons are placed on th agerrda�''d r viewed by the committee in the date order in which they were received. Thank you for your patience in this er and fo complying with the Association's application process,policies and standarrds Sincerely, On Behalf of the Archit turommille Betty Roth Administrative Assistant enclosures YAIDOUruscany Fliilswanager Files\Architectural\ACC ApprovaI-Denial Urs-2004\7 Via Del Lago-Spa;Gaaebo_ approval.doc Page 59 of 188 v� ho a �Y w 4 Q � 9 6•� � 10 u 8 � `4 . 26'Llr--I 4 [��I�•,6 E•N �i C � Y M \ ti W ., t U M J o f)n In co zb flea 43 r° r r n asr.,s[ 9 03 /� � 'O @ � r• .emu s � , [)� � Y� h f+ V n V m saazsz QQ Y�^O : P N a)yt[ Cv � CID Cie so V H � [O O � v ° /o•nC/ lL 41y M r av o �2 Q QA M O V, Q Y W h M O M fr1 xl Jf � x ' 'QD Three Minute Comment by Christopher Pinnow, Civil Engineer, Addressed to the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission During the initial Planning Commission hearing (March V) on the proposed lot split, a concern was expressed by two of the Commissioners that approval of Tentative Parcel Map 36304 before you could set a precedent that might encourage other residents to also request approval to split their lots. One commissioner said that this might lead to 40 new homes sprouting up in the Tuscany Hills Estates while another suggested even more —that the existing 22 lots might each be split into 10 smaller parcels resulting in over 200 more houses in the Tuscany Hills Estates and thereby drastically changing the character of this community. The objective of my statement is to allay these concerns about the possibility of uncontrolled growth in the Tuscany Hills Estates triggered by your approval of the applicant's request to split his lot. As a Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California, 1 have reviewed the map and satellite images of the Tuscany Hills Estates as well as the setbacks and street frontage requirements of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan that establish geometric restrictions. My conclusion is that no one should be concerned that such uncontrolled growth would happen. I'm confident that the original developer, Curtis Development Corporation, which built all 21 of the homes existing in the Tuscany Hills Estates in 2003-2004, did so to maximize their profits. If this corporation could have squeezed in even a few extra homes while increasing the overall value of the community, its officers would have been motivated to do just that. After all, they were constrained by the same Tuscany Hills Specific Plan that prevails today which allows for building lots with a minimum size of only 5,000 square feet. The reality is that the lots that Curtis Development purchased were already graded to their present sizes. To alter the sizes of these primarily hillside properties, I presume, would have cost more in time and money than the Development Corporation felt would be worth the effort. The same situation prevails today, with one singular exception. After Curtis Development finished and sold all 21 homes in the Tuscany Hills Estates, the City of Lake Elsinore decided to extend the street, Via del Lago, in front of the applicant's property. The applicant and his neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Porter, who live across the street, agreed to allow the City to encroach on their properties in order to undertake a major grading project to extend Via del Lago. ATFAt�41N� ge 61 0 8 Approximately 10,000 cubit yards of dirt and rock were removed using heavy machinery and some blasting. The end result, after this costly effort, was that applicant and his neighbors across the street acquired an additional 100 feet of street frontage that allowed new access to the higher elevations in the southern portions of their lots_ Had this street extension been planned or occurred before Curtis Development had sold the lot to the applicant, it is likely that Curtis would have initiated the lot split that is being considered today. The point is that the circumstances that have made this lot split viable only exist at the very end of Via del Lago as a direct result of its extension by the City to provide access to a 38 acre landlocked parcel that has the development potential for many more new homes. There have been no other changes in the street plan within the Tuscany Hills Estates and none are contemplated. So, 1 think that the concern that approval of this lot split would trigger an avalanche of additional lot splits has no basis in fact. And I would encourage you to judge the acceptability of this split on own merits, which are considerable. It will create two new lots with spectacular views that would likely appeal to executives who might otherwise choose to live in somewhere else like La Cresta in Murrieta_ It would add to the quality and value of the properties in the vicinity. And it would increase the tax basis for the City and County. Thank you, Christopher Pinnow 1199 Tamarack Carlsbad, CA 92008 Page 62 of 188 VICINITY MAP TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO 36304 7 VIA DEL LAGO APN# 363-350-021 Z Q W w -+ J o _Q Q PLAZAVAFNZA > O PROJECT SITE c9 J v s a� Page 63 of 188 RESOLUTION NO. 2011- 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 FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT KNOWN AS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 36304 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Lake Elsinore by Mr. Doug Pinnow, for the subdivision of 3.17 acres of land into three (3) single family residential lots("the Project"), which is located 7 Via Del Lago at APN 363-350-021 (the "Site"); and WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that all projects which are proposed on land within 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 within or outside of a criteria cell must be analyzed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements"; and WHEREAS, the Project is discretionary in nature and requires review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or City Council; and WHEREAS, the Project is within an MSHCP criteria cell of the Elsinore Area Plan, and therefore, the Project was processed through a LEAP and JPR as well as 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 project entitlements with the MSHCP; and 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 Project's consistency with the MSHCP prior to recommending that the City Council adopt Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP. SECTION 2. That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Planning Commission makes the following MSHCP Consistency Findings: Page 64 of 188 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-_ PAGE 2 OF 5 1. The Project is a project under the City's MSHCP Implementing Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approving the Project. The Property is located within a MSHCP criteria cell. As such, the Project has been processed through the LEAP and JPR, as well as reviewed for consistency with the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements," including Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines_ 2. The Project is subject to the City's Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and the County's Joint Project Review processes. As stated above, the Property is located within a MSHCP criteria cell and therefore the Project was processed through the LEAP and JPR. 3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP focuses on protection of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitat types based upon their value in the conservation of a number of MSHCP covered species. According to the MSHCP Compliance Document prepared by Sead Biological Services (SBS) dated August 20, 2010, the project site does not support riparian or riverine resources, since the site consists of an existing single family residence or previously graded pads. The site is largely comprised of disturbed land. Given the disturbed state of the site, the soils, which consist of Cieneba rocky sandy loam, and habitat on site do not support suitable habitat for vernal pools or fairy shrimp. 4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. The Project is not located in a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area as mapped in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. 5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures_ The Project is located within an Additional Survey Area for Burrowing Owl. SBS conducted a Step 1: Habitat Assessment on July 28, 2010. Suitable Burrowing Owl habitat was determined to be present. Due to the presence of suitable Burrowing Owl habitat, SBS conducted a Step 11 — Part A: Focused Burrow Survey on August 5, 2010. According to SBS's Part 11 Survey, the site does not support any potential owl burrows. Since SBS did not observe suitable owl burrows during the burrow survey, focused breeding season surveys were not warranted. Page 65 of 188 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 PAGE 3 OF 5 6. The Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. Conservation Areas are to be located near the project site_ To preserve the integrity of the areas dedicated as MSHCP Conservation Areas, the guidelines contained in Section 6.1.4 related to controlling adverse effects for development adjacent to the MSHCP Conservations Area shall be implemented. In addition, and where applicable, the project shall. 1) Incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the site entering the MSHCP Conservation Area, 2) Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts such as manure, which are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species or habitat or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area, 3) Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area, 4) Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines, and 5) Consider the invasive, non-native plant species in table 6-2 of the MSHCP in landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. 7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. See the response above. 8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. Fuels management focuses on hazard reduction for humans and their property. The proposed project includes a recently graded 300 foot long driveway with a hammer- head turn-around in compliance with the Riverside County Fire Department requirements for fire suppression equipment and personnel to access higher elevations and remote areas that were previously inaccessible. This should substantially reduce the hazard of a fire to all nearby residences in the Tuscany Hills Development. 9. The Project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. As a condition of approval, the Project will be required to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee at the time of issuance of building permits. 10. The Project is consistent with the MSHCP. For the foregoing reasons, the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. Page 66 of 188 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-_ PAGE 4 OF 5 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 adopt findings that the Project is 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 3d day of May 2011, by the following vote: John Gonzales, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Robert A. Brady, City Manager Page 67 of 188 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 PAGE 5OF5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Robert A. Brady, City Manager of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2011- _ as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of May 2011, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Robert A. Brady City Manager Page 68 of 188 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 36304 LOCATED AT 7 VIA DEL LAGO (APN: 363-350-021) WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Lake Elsinore by Mr. Doug Pinnow, for the subdivision of 3.17 acres of land into three (3) single family residential lots("the Project"), which is located 7 Via Del Lago at APN 363-350-021 (the "Site"); 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 Tentative Parcel Maps; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2011 and May 3, 2011 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. Prior to making a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission has reviewed and analyzed Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 pursuant to the appropriate Planning and Zoning Laws, the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan (R-SF District) and Chapter 16 (Subdivisions) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code ("LEMC"). SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") and the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines") pursuant to Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) categorical exemption. Specifically, the Planning Commission finds that the Tentative Parcel Map allows for the subdivision of 3.17 acres of land into three (3) individual parcels for property located at 7 Via Del Lago at APN 363-350-021 SECTION 3. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning Law and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304: 1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan and applicable specific plan. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan (Government Code Section 66473.5). Page 69 of 188 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011- PAGE 2OF3 Tuscany Hills Specific Plan designates the Subdivision site as Residential Single Family (R-SF). Consistent with that designation, the Subdivision can accommodate the proposed density of three detached single-family residences. . The Subdivision is consistent with the designated land use, development and design standards, and all other appropriate requirements contained in the General Plan, Tuscany Hills Specific Plan, and Subdivision Map Act . and will not conflict with established public easements- 2- The lot sizes and arrangement are compatible with lots in the surrounding area (LEMC Section 16.20.020). The Subdivision maintains the character of the large lots in the surrounding area known as Tuscany Hills Estates by placing the smaller lots at the furthest most end of Tuscany Hills Estates and maintaining the largest lots to the north and east of the proposed subdivision. 3. The effects this project is likely to have upon the housing needs of the region, the public service requirements of its residents and the available fiscal and environmental resources have been considered and balanced. The Subdivision is consistent with the land use plan, development and design standards and programs, and all other appropriate requirements contained in the General Plan and Tuscany Hills Specific Plan_ Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 is consistent with the R- SF designation and applicable development and design standards. 4. Subject to the attached conditions of approval, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any serious public health problems or significant environmental impact_ The project has been adequately conditioned by all applicable departments and agencies and will not therefore result in any significant environmental impacts. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 4. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the attached conditions of approval, the Planning Commission hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. Page 70 of 188 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 PAGE 3 OF 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, this 3rd day of May, 2011. John Gonzales, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Robert A. Brady, City Manager STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Bob Brady, City Manager of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2011- as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of May 2011, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES.- NOES- ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Robert A. Brady City Manager Page 71 of 188 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 36304 PLANNING DIVISION 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 Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304. 2. Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 will expire two (2) years from date of approval unless within that period of time an appropriate instrument has been filed and recorded with the County Recorder, or an extension of time is granted by the City of Lake Elsinore City Council in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the LEMC. 3. The Tentative Parcel Map shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), Title 16 unless modified by approved Conditions of Approval. 4. Prior to final recordation of the Parcel Map, the improvements specified herein and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council shall be installed, or agreements for said improvements, shall be submitted to the City for approval by the City Engineer, and all other stated conditions shall be complied with. All uncompleted improvements must be bonded for as part of the agreements. 5. All lots shall comply with minimum standards contained in the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan and the LEMC. 6. A precise survey with closures for boundaries and all lots shall be provided per the LEMC. 7. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit a letter of verification (will- serve letter) from appropriate utility providers to the City Engineer, for all required utility services. Each lot shall have separate and exclusive utility services, including, but not limited to, sewer, water, electrical, gas, and communications so that they are piggybacking on sewer or any other utilities. 8. The applicant shall pay applicable fees and obtain proper clearance from the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) prior to issuance of building permits. 9. The applicant shall pay all applicable fees including park fees. 10.The applicant shall meet all requirements of the providing electric utility company. 11.The applicant shall meet all requirements of the providing gas utility company. 12.The applicant shall meet all requirements of the providing telephone utility company. Page 72 of 188 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 2OF3 TPM 36304 13.If applicable, the applicant shall incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the site entering the MSHCP Conservation area. 14.Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts such as manure, which are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species or habitat or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. 15.Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area. 16.Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines. 17.Consider the invasive, non-native plant species in table 6-2 of the MSHCP in landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. 18.AIi future structural development associated with this map requires separate Minor Design Review approval. 19.Prior to final map approval, the applicant and the property owner shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgement of Conditions" form and shall return the executed original to the Planning Division for inclusion in the case records. 20.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 (i.e., 7:00 A.M. — 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday with no construction activity to occur on Saturdays, Sundays or legal holidays) 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 installed prior to the issuance of a grading permit. ENGINEERING DIVISION 21.Record Reciprocal Access Easements between parcels numbers 1, 2 and 3 allowing use of the common drive and hammer-head. 22.Record "Fire Lane" easement over the hammer-head such that the area is kept free for use by the Fire Department. 23.Record a 10-foot utility easement along the common property line of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. 24.Drainage shall be controlled and conveyed to the public right-of-way such that all debris Page 73 of 188 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 3OF3 TPM 36304 is kept on site and silt and material transported by erosion is not carried into the public right-of-way from the site. 25.The applicant shall file a grading/drainage plan to eliminate all cross lot drainage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 26.Proposed changes to the access requiring construction in the public right-of-way shall follow the encroachment permit process in place at the City. 27.Site work extending beyond the property boundary shall require permission from the affected property owner prior to commencement of work. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 28.Developer shall comply with all City Ordinances regarding construction debris removal and recycling as per Section 8.32 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 29.The applicant shall comply with all Riverside County Fire Departments requirements and standards. Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by the Riverside County Fire Department. Page 74 of 188 CITY 2-L. LAK_E LS1N0 E DREAM EXTREM£M ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF "DRAFT" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Subject: Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 to subdivide 3.17 acres of land into three (3) individual parcels for single family residential purposes pursuant to the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan and applicable Chapters of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). I hereby state that I have read and acknowledge the Draft Conditions of Approval and do hereby agree to accept and abide by all final Conditions that will be approved by the Planning Commission/City Council. I also understand that all Conditions shall be met prior to issuance of permits or prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, or as otherwise indicated in the Conditions. 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: Property Owner's Signature: Print Name: Address: Phone Number: Applicant's Signature: Print Name: Address: Phone Number: AT THE TIME OF PRINTING THE AGENDA, STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM. Page 75 of 188 Page 76 of 188 CITY OF 621 LAKE LSII`1OP--,,E � DREAM EXTREME- REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: BOB BRADY, CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 1, 2011 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 36304: A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 3.17 ACRE SITE INTO THREE (3) PARCELS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) DISTRICT OF THE TUSCANY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN APPLICANT/ DOUGLAS PINNOW, 7 VIA DEL LAGO, LAKE ELSINORE, OWNER: CA 92532 Proiect Request The applicant is proposing to subdivide 3.17 acres of land into three (3) individual parcels pursuant to the requirements of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan, Section 16 "Subdivisions" of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), and Section 66424 of the California Subdivision Map Act (CSMA). Project Location The 3.17 acre project site is located at 7 Via Del Lago. Access to the project site is available from Via Del Lago. Page 77 of 188 Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 March 1, 2011 Page 2 of 3 Environmental Setting The site is bounded on all sides by existing residential land uses. NGENEILPEN "A, E R Project Existing Single R-SF (Residential Single Tuscany Hills Specific Site Family Residence ---Family) Plan North Existing Single R-SF (Residential Single Tuscany Hills Specific Family Residence Family) Plan South Vacant R-1 (Single Family Low Medium Density Residential Residential East Existing Single R-SF (Residential Single Tuscany Hills Specific Family Residence _Family) Plan West Vacant R-SF (Residential Single Tuscany Hills Specific 1 1 Far"N%A Plan Prolect Description The proposed parcel map will subdivide the aforementioned 3.17-acres of single family residentially zoned land into three (3) separate parcels (one with an existing owner residence and detached garage and two lots suitable for future development of single- family residences). Grading for the two unoccupied pads and associated driveway entrance was completed in 2009 under city permit. The two pads are currently used for sport courts, but they were designed to have dual purposes as either sport courts or future building pads for single-family residences. Parcel No. 1 will be 1.00 acres (43,560 square feet), Parcel No. 2 will be 1.00 acres (43,560 square feet), Parcel No. 3 will be 3.17 acres (50,965 square feet), Analysi s The applicant is proposing to subdivide the identified property for the creation of three (3) individual parcels, in that the proposed subdivision and development standards (i.e. lot size, lot frontage) comply with the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan (R-SF District), Section 16 "Subdivisions" of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, and Section 66424 of the California Subdivision Map Act (CSMA). City Planning and Engineering staffs have reviewed the project, and have no concerns regarding the proposed request. Environmental Determination Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project has been deemed exempt pursuant to Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions). No further environmental clearance is necessary. Page 78 of 188 Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 March 1, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Recommendation • Adopt a Resolution No. 2011- adopting findings that the project is consistent with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; and, • Adopt a Resolution No. 2011- recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 based on the Findings, Exhibits, and proposed Conditions of Approval. Prepared By: Kirt A. Coury, Project Planner Reviewed By: Matthew C. Harris, Senior Planner Approved By: Robert A. Brady, City Manager Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Planning Commission Resolutions 3. Planning Commission Conditions of Approval 4. Draft Acknowledgement of Conditions of Approval 5. Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 (reduction) 6. Full Size Plan Page 79 of 188 Page 1 of 22 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 1, 2011 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gonzales called the regular meeting of the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission held on Tuesday, March 1, 2011, to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Cultural Center, located at 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. PRESENT: Chairman Gonzales, Vice Chairman Me . a, Commissioner ... Jordan, Commissioner Mors ctC: NrrminissionerQ'Neal ABSENT: None Also present: City Manager Brady, City Attorn N.1eibold Staff members present included senior Planner Wris, Planning Consultant Coury, Public Works Director Seumalo, and Office Specialist Herrington. CALL TO ORDER (6 00 p.m.) a z G 3 PLEDGE OF ALLECiANCE N: The Pled e o p 'g ,,� �egiance w sled by 49mmissioner Jordan. ,ff ,. ROLL1CALL Present:` Chairman Gonzales nice Chairman Mendoza ,fi Q: missid er Jordan Co issioner Morsch Commissioner O'Neal Absent: None PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES None. Page 80 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 2 of 22 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM(S) None. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM(S) (1) Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304: A re guest to subdivide an existing 3.17 acre site into three (3) parcels within the Residential Single Family (RSF) District the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan Recommendation: a. Adopt a resolution adopting findings that the""" ct is consistent with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation PI" and, y ems, b. Adopt a resolution recommen Ong to the City Council a s roval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 33 4b£ased Q Exhi n the Findingsbi#s, and proposed Conditions of Approuel y. City Manager Brady provided artaverview of the `pr t and requested that Planning Consultant Coury review it; rth the Commisswori and answer questions. Planning Consultant Coury provided an overview a tf a project. He indicated that regarding parcel 3 tch states S 7"acres, t s is a typo and should state 1.17 acres and apo(vgize4lj f the misfake. He noted that two (2) letters and three (3) e-maid -re di `buted to tf:e Commission prior to the meeting identifying issues a d co rns re arri the project an s rY ? < g Jig p J d stated to the Commission that m afl of staffer earch; there was nothing they found in the 0 ,, . Specific Plan d0� tx_ .ent t1 . would "call out any different. The categories are identified as Resiie al Sit ,Family and there is only one (1) Residential Sin lei amil devefo 9 k Y nt startc)did within the Specific Plan. Although the lots are larger:compared to remainder of the Tuscany Hills area, he indicated that there is nothr� within #h Specific Plan which identifies "Estate Lots" and there are no other ceyelopmet°standards for that. Uri Commissioner O'NaCxindicated that the confusion comes in the title because it says "Estate Homes' but isn't specified in the Specific Plan. Planning Consultant Coury indicated that Commissioner O'Neal was correct and noted that he did not have the chance to review the letter that was provided to the Commission but stated again that the Specific Plan does not recognize "Estate Lots", it is Residential Single Family through out and the minimum lot size for Residential Single Family, according to the Specific Plan, is five thousand (5,000) square feet, but should have an average of fifty-five hundred (5,500) square feet. Page 81 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 3 of 22 He addressed the comments regarding improper noticing; the improper Burrowing Owl Study, and the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) issue. Commissioner O'Neal asked if the Home Owners Association (HOA) in Tuscany Hills does not apply. Planning Consultant Coury indicated that Commissioner O'Neal's statement was correct and in May of 2007 approximately twenty two (22) of the "Estate Size" lots de-annexed from the HOA. Commissioner O'Neal asked if there was construction ors those'°lots at the time. Chairman Gonzales stated that there was construction f Commissioner O'Neal asked that if construction"was within thep*two (2) years, would CEQA apply. r� Planning Consultant Coury indicated that CE "kwouU not apply if it was part of a larger subdivision in the past two (2) years 'fhd', noted that there was not a subdivision, and stated that the lo,�t had already begin split well over ten (10) years ago. Commissioner O'Neal confirmed with,Mr Cotiryt at two (2) years does not apply in this particular case. Planning Consultant Coury indicated that" is was correct. Commissioner O'Neal ricated t(1t <,�1utt tke exception of CEQA there is a twenty percent (2.0 Mile on slope.„and�iFth°E lope is twenty percent (20%) or greater, CEQA..dbes apply art�l, ske�r. Coury to confirm that he looked into this. Planning Consultant Coiury in , cated that he did look into this with the City Engineer atlthe avera ``slope is 14.85%. Commissioner Weal stated that when rounding it off, it is basically fifty (50) percent and five `F{ )-'percent less than what would allow falling into CEQA guidelines. Planning Consultant Coury indicated that this was correct. Vice Chairman Mendoza asked who the original owner was. Planning Consultant Coury indicated that he would check with the applicant. Page 82 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 4 of 22 REQUEST TO SPEAK Ms. Donna Holts indicated that she and her husband Raymond Holts are the property owners at 5 Via Del Lago which is adjacent to the property in question. She distributed a statement to the Commission and wanted to touch on the concerns that they had about the project. The first being erosion problems; there currently is some debris being washed down from the front of said property and across their property when it rains. There is also some erosion on the hillside behind their backyard; due to grading that has already been done for the "Sports Courts" which are now being submitted to the City as Q� w home sites. She indicated that they are concerned that there is alrea,•. `'some erosion that is visible; this will be exacerbated if construction is continud"din those two (2) pads. The second concern has to do with the property�gyal e Tu pat y Hills Estates is a small community. There are only twenty- 6—(22) homes when it was originally marketed by the builder, they WPA supposed to be ' #e Homes" view lots, with lots of open space. Mse,4141w states, that if the s�tdvision is allowed on the said property, this would set a p eacpde'�fii`be for other Homeowners in that community to also subdivide which could aw for a higher density in that community. She noted that this w ,not the origina btent or the selling incentive to the original homeowners that bo into that comrn.Q %' � < Ms. Holts indicated that they feel that this c 'Idd er,.t a property values in the '� e entire neighborhood, spepiflcally their I °''='fn adds en, regarding the building for parcel #2, new reside`rtts "J.. be looki directly 'to their backyard and so she indicated that theV: ,ave pr! ;y issues "She also stated that since grading has been done on the hill, h tura hillside has been cut away. ,.; azl Ms. HoltsGmdic #ed,,that rog�arding�# environmental Study, they don't believe � „r�rfs ��u,s due diligdnce was t , d in c,: Meting a fair and adequate study. This is because the stay was done afe the ps ►�vere cut, which virtually destroyed any habitat that walready there.'I.V : 111V Ms. Holts la't� oncern was regarding input from the entire community. She stated that they�idn't feel due diligence was done to notify all of the homeowners in Tuscany Hills. Vice Chairman Mendoza asked Ms. Holts if she was an original homeowner. Ms. Holts stated yes. Mr. Ray Holts, 5 Via Del Lago, indicated that he didn't think that the original grading was done to incorporate a couple of sports courts and believes that it got "snuck" in. He also stated that he understands that the applicant has quite a bit of property in the back and has already graded it. He also doesn't Page 83 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 5 of 22 understand the CEQA guidelines relating to subdivisions and asked for an explanation of this. Planning Consultant Coury explained the CEQA guidelines relative to subdivisions. Mr. Holts wanted to know if something more could be done to change the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan. Commissioner O'Neal requested that Mr. Coury or the City, gttorney address Mr. Holts question regarding the Tuscany Hills Specific PlanR " /yam 1 Mr. Holts indicated that he received the Notice of P�utilEc Hearing a few days ago ;... and had no time to research this and this was why h;;e was q(es-oning this. City Attorney Leibold explained what a Specific Phan is and hoer .it relates to "Estate Lots" in this case. Chairman Gonzales stated that the gradin g g is cAllating an erosion problem. He also indicated that he went by th'e,property and asled when the driveway was graded. ,f Mr. Holts indicated that it was graded to ,/ > City Attorney Lei bold• anti ated that before any"'building permits are issued, precise grading ha to be he to receri the stability and compaction of said property. She also `s fed that'even if the property is divided, it doesn't mean that a building permit is iss rl an`dn�#er #ha#certain qualifications have to be met. N ` j„ /ff Mr. Ho tf/ %f ``s asked if'steff wha#tear that the driveway was cut in behind 7 Via Del �s Lap,o Public Wotkjpirector S il malo indicated that according to the City's records, the grading permit>ncas applid for in May 2007 and approved in April 2009. r ' Mr. Holts askedwas permitted and graded in 2009. Public Works Director Seumalo indicated yes. Chairman Gonzales asked if Mr. Holts is currently getting a lot of erosion on his property. Mr. Holts stated that he has placed sandbags at the back of his property and above his patio and pool. Mr. Doug Pinnow, 7 Via Del Lago, property owner for the lot that is being considered, noted that he has lived at that location since 2003. He indicated that Page 84 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 6 of 22 after he moved into the home, there was an occasion where the City extended the road on Via Del Lago, along his property line. This extension gave new frontage and had that frontage existed when the builder (Curtis Development) built the homes, he probably would have taken advantage of the facilities and put a few extra homes there. He also indicated that the homes he selected are on acre size lots or will be if there is any building there in the future, and stated that he could probably put more than a dozen homes there and still have been in compliance but he is sensitive to trying to have a good appearing neighborhoodand chose the split of two (2) rather than twelve (12). He said that his neighb. Mr:' Holts has always been concerned about his privacy and stated that 6.06`6 years ago when they were still part of the Tuscany Hills Association, heo 0-inte q,place a gazebo on the pad. Mr. Hafts opposed the location of the gazebo on #Fie bsis of his privacy issue, and the Tuscany Hills HOA decided agailiff-him. He S , t d that he took pictures from the pad location that would' be nearest his yard,to show the Commission what it looked like. . Vice Chairman Mendoza asked Mr. Pinnow what'year he applied for the gazebo to be placed there. '*' Mr. Pinnow stated that he believed that it:was in 2004 Vice Chairman Mendozaasked if the Association granted him permission to do this. CC Mr. Pinnow stated That the Association granted him permission but indicated that it was a concern becaeHolts felt that the gazebo location had a line of sight. Vice llairman Mendbo askd'o Pinnow if he was part of the Association at that time:- Mr. Pinnow d ted yet and stated that the de-annexation occurred late in 2005. Commissioner O'Neal asked Mr. Pinnow if the gazebo was built and does it exist now. Mr. Pinnow indicated that the gazebo was built and where the gazebo was located. He noted that there is more than adequate space to protect Mr. Holt's privacy and was found to be the case with the HOA years ago. Vice Chairman Mendoza noted that Mr. Pinnow applied in 2004 for the gazebo and the HOA approved his gazebo. In 2005 he de-annexed from the HOA and clarified that this information should be on record and can be checked. He asked Page 85 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 7 of 22 Mr. Pinnow if he de-annexed from the HOA with the intent of having his own HOA because he couldn't do everything he wanted to do with his property. He indicated that the twenty-two (22) lots were unique from the rest of Tuscany Hills and they de-annexed to form an HOA. Mr. Pinnow indicated that this was incorrect. Vice Chairman Mendoza asked Mr. Pinnow if they were going to start their own HOA once they de-annexed. Mr. Pinnow indicated yes but it hadn't yet formed. Vice Chairman Mendoza stated that he was on the'ACCCommittee when Mr. Pinnow requested permission to build the gazebo He sfa#ed that he couldn't have the gazebo because it didn't meet the ,CC`& s of the T' ny Hills HOA. He also stated that the RV storage, the RV Parks and the boy# park caused dissention with the twenty-two (22) homeoWrprs an'd ;as a result they"said that they were going to de-annex from the HOA �`" the'intent of having their own HOA with their own CC&Rs. f Mr. Pinnow indicated that this was rrect. Vice Chairman Mendoza stated that he vSrs #incorrect in his statement and indicated that twenty tW (22) homes de- hexed k He suggested postponing this nn item so that more ink atr can be gaged regarding the de-annexation from Tuscany Hills. y Mr. Pinnow indicated that th'. a xed because they couldn't find a commonalityI e'", en the-l' eds, t1�e Architectural Committee, and the original HOA 0 noted (ha 5e de`` exation process was quite elaborate. Vice Ch itman Mendo indicated that this was when proxy voting was allowed � : p xY 9 in the Assoi' Lion but is bj",o longer allowed, Chairman Gon a. in that the HOA is not the issue but the issue is whether to allow Mr. Pinno Ito separate or not to separate. Vice Chairman Mendoza stated that Mr. Pinnow shouldn't be permitted to subdivide his homes because they are supposed to have their own HOA and CC&Rs. City Attorney L.eibold indicated that this is not a City requirement. Vice Chairman Mendoza indicated that this was their request upon de-annexing from the HOA. Page 86 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 8 of 22 Chairman Gonzales noted again that the HOA is not the issue regarding this item. Mr. Pinnow indicated that Vice Chairman Mendoza was incorrect about the CC&R requirements. Vice Chairman Mendoza indicated that Mr. Pinnow was required to establish CC&Rs for those twenty-two (22) residents, and since there are none, he is able to do what he wants to the property. Mr. Pinnow stated that this wasn't correct; the requirements that were considered were that the twenty-two (22) home owners in the l-EMptes° should look into forming an Association. Subsequently, they did lop into`��p'riing an Association but because of the "bad taste" that was left fro%,16' reviousg,ssociation, there was never a majority willing to form one, ancj. ot d that Mr Pater, who was an ADHOC Committee member was currently'in the audience an ,, 7uld confirm this. r Commissioner O'Neal indicated that he was und ;` ishe impression from what Mr. Pinnow stated earlier, that the previous HOA didn tgt e him permission to build the gazebo but once the residents got out of the HOA built the gazebo. Vice Chairman Mendoza agreed with Commi8000er O'Neal's statement. Mr. Pinnow indicate.&that th`is,was incorrect and stated that the HOA did give him approval to budd,#a gazebo eRnd said that he didn't understand the original HOA and what it had 6 d ith his request to stJbdtvide. Vice Chairman Mendoza t dicated athaUthis wasn't correct and stated that Mr. Pinnowlso broug %11'�;` tof ;e ACC Committee a fence that the disapproved becau� FF of the estaed Cd": y pp Chairman C ,nzales suggested~continuing this item. Z COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS S3 ; Commissioner Jord'`an indicated that the Tentative Parcel Map should have a legal description and wanted to know why there wasn't one. Planning Consultant Coury indicated that this was an oversight. Public Works Director Seumalo indicated that Commissioner Jordan should have a formal legal description on the map. Commissioner Jordan stated that the legal description needs to be added. She also requested clarification of the easement notes relating to Via Del Lago. Page 87 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 9 of 22 Public Works Director Seumalo apologized that this wasn't explained more clearly and noted the location of the utility boundaries. Commissioner Jordan asked Mr. Seumalo if that was supposed to be depicted on the map. Public Works Director indicated yes. Commissioner Jordan requested that staff add that to the map. She also requested clarification regarding Condition No. 4 which;-_s§tates "Prior to final recordation of the Tentative Parcel Map". City Attorney Leibold indicated that the Tentative 1P%arcel , ap will be recorded once it is finalled and the finaling process for a pcelmap is Administrative. Commissioner Jordan asked if it is a Parcete' ap or a Tentative -PafceI Map that will be recorded. , y ��F. City Attorney Leibold indicated that it is a Parcelld" Commissioner Jordan requested tha#fthis,be correct ed#o ay Parcel Map. City Attorney Leibold indicated to strike the?vyolyTenta ive. 9a Commissioner Jordan had a,question about the grading permit, and asked if there was a Burrolring Owl Survey required prior to the grading permit being pulled. 2 Public wc,,k8A#,fttor Seu malo indicafietl that he would research this. f ,. Corr}rzil loner Jorda�n�Ist�ated th' t;the was uncomfortable with the survey of the Burrow Rg Owl because11§ oth ofthe surveys were done within one 1 week and none werscovered. he also asked where the driveway location was for Parcel 3 bed"p,,,se she w W having trouble distinguishing it. Planning Consultakt,�'Coury indicated that it is the common fifty-foot (50') easement and noted that it was at the end of the hammer head. Commissioner Jordan asked if Parcel 3 was at the end of the "hammer head". Public Works Director Seumalo specified the location of the access driveway, the reciprocal access driveway, and the "hammer head" on the map. Commissioner Jordan asked if sixteen feet (16') of the driveway would be paved. She noted that it shows that a future turnout is suppose to be twenty-six feet (26') and when she scaled it out, it is not twenty-six feet (26') feet. Page 88 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 10 of 22 Public Works Director Seumalo indicated that this is something that can be corrected on the site plan and indicated that he wasn't sure why it was shown on the subdivision. Commissioner Morsch stated that he also lives in Tuscany Hills, approximately forty-nine hundred feet (4,900') from the Mr. Pinnow's property. He stated that when he purchased his lot in Tuscany Hills, he was under the impression that the residents had a school, a park, a recreational center, and twelve hundred (1,200) homes which included "Estate Size" properties. He said that he wasn't active politically but heard some complaints about fences, and thefact that the "Estate Size Properties" or the "Estate Added Territories" were,somewhat different from the regular R-1 lots in the rest of the community. •Jl He also indicated that Via Del Lago has the highest conceritCkion of the smaller lots and they are roughly one and a half (1 %)-acres. Mr. Pf*100 w's property is three (3) acres plus and it was not part ofiJhe original grading b i1t;,was part of the added territory and included in the original CC&EZs. Further, he} t'ated that the residents that consented to the de-annexation dld�sd'�with the bell- that these were "Estate Properties" and should be cons04%,'f and treated differently. He also referred to Title 16.20.020 which states that lo�tIs� es and arrangements shall be compatible with lots in the surroi ho" area. ' Also, Commissioner Morsch mentioned that k tf e,Cit-df Lake Elsinore's code, it states that they are bcu d to looks t `subdivlsio�fis in the context of the �a i surrounding proper �s 2� o,consider tts particular project in the context of the others and he bel��s the tract map sho*s twenty-four (24) very specific added territories that were cheated"Y ith larger lots than all of the other lots combined. He noted that re dies the pecific Plan states, the people in the commune ` r ty� urne that -atevei•W65"'done there was goingto be compatible with that; area ar A cat hat the issue he has is the size of the lots and comp; ility with the ghborft a properties. He asked Mr. Pinnow why there is an easement needed t' 'CrossP�arcel 1 in benefit of Parcel 2, and why right-of- way for thebtility runs b nd Parcel 2. Mr. Pinnow des •issede location of the easements relating to Parcel 1 and 2. He also indicated',:aY before starting the project, he had considerable dialogue with Tom Weine ; the City's previous Director, who told him that the only requirements that they had to meet were the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan, and discussed the issue of density. Mr. Pinnow indicated that the main issue was that the builder did not put any fencing up and the HOA wanted the homeowners to put the fencing up at their own expense and initially, the HOA paid the builders to put the other fences up for the homeowners. Page 89 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 11 of 22 Commissioner Morsch indicated that he recalled that the issues at the time were that they had frontages of approximately two-hundred feet (200') to four-hundred feet (400') and wanted white laminate fencing that looked rural. Conflict arose once they made that request and as a result, two-thirds (2/3rds) of the Association agreed to release the added territory. He also indicated that since Mr. Coury is correcting the map, he suggested changing the easement line to a dash line to indicate the easement lines. He noted that the graphic scale is lacking some numbers because the bar scale doesn't have numbers on it to graphically show what the scale is and assuming the subdivision goes through, asked if the access road is going to continue to be a gravef,road or paved road. He referred to Condition No. 7 which states: Prior to sspnce of building permit, the applicant shall submit a letter of verification (wll[7lerve I (fter) from appropriate utility providers to the City Engineer, for a);required `'utlft services, and requested to add "Each lot shall have se pa ate and exclL .y#ility services, including but not limited to sewer, water, el frical, gas, and com that they are not piggybacking on sewer h �tr�cations", so �=:, a o �: . other; tilities. Also, 'V rding the �:: .. issue of grading, he indicated that he knoirjfrQ experience that cross lot drainage is one of the biggest problems that hisIents have so he would like to add a condition, Condition No. 24eto state the follo ► g: The applicant shall file a grading/drainage plan to elimma'te all Ycross lot drat' ejo the satisfaction of Enineer. the City g ' . _ ted that if th' Commissioner Jordan ect i"to ' #s �s# . 1 J� approved, who would be responsible for maintaining a road sinft there w ldn't be CC&Rs on the three (3) lots. ,, Mr. Pinnow indicated thal< he hp o,�gafns about the bill and noted that this area will TOW n a Sportsurts. -" Comimis �oner Jordarisked ` Pinnow that if he moves, who would maintain the driveway. Mr. Pinnow 1n tcated thaI ven if he moved, if it split, he would maintain it. x _ Chris Pinnow gavels`name and address and indicated that he is the engineer designing this plan:Pand stated that the original Water Quality Management Plan required that the owner maintain all storm water which includes the driveway and the run off from the driveway. He noted that the road will remain a gravel road and will be maintained by Douglas Pinnow. Commissioner Jordan asked if sixteen (16) feet of the road will be paved. Chris Pinnow said eventually it will be paved. Commissioner O'Neal asked Mr. Coury to explain what a dirt sports court is. Page 90 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 12 of 22 Planning Consultant Coury indicated that it is identified as a tennis court, and a croquet court. Commissioner O'Neal asked Mr. Coury if he followed up with Riverside County regarding the hillside requirements. Planning Consultant Coury indicated that he didn't get a chance to contact Riverside County regarding the City's hillside requirements but he reviewed the requirements and stated that there was not a hillside overlay placed on this Specific Plan in this area. Commissioner O'Neal asked if the City of Canyon fake areas notified about the hillside requirements. All PlanningConsultant Coury ry indicated that the "V��not notifie ject. Commissioner O'Neal asked if the City ofl`rayon Lake could be rr1 I;uded as a courtesy notification. Planning Consultant Coury indicat_d,:that the City oCanyon Lake was outside of the three hundred (300) foot radiusor notification Commissioner O'Neal indicated that that'the City of Canyon Lake is not within the three hundred (300) f© t adius t .' wanted to know if the City would notify the Cartyon'L l<earesidents s`race it does affect them. S` <F Planning Consultan t\ ury jhdicated that' tl e City of Lake Elsinore does not require this ,, Commissioner O N ` nd c�tec that when he and Mr. Coury discussed hillside, %f ; theyol, pd about fi p $ ccent as opposed to twenty (20) percent and asked if �t�_i was correc Planning Con' Wtant Cory indicated that this was correct. . ;, ,;, Commissioner 0%, ^stated that he has mixed feelings about this but Commissioner Morsch clarified some issues for him and he agrees with him about setting precedence. He said he would consider two (2) lots but not consider three (3) lots and recommended continuing this item because there are various issues and concerns with a number of people that need to be addressed. Commissioner Mendoza indicated that he agreed with Commissioner Morsch regarding the concept for "Estate Lots" because he knows they originally sold as "Estate Lots" and subdividing these lots was not the intent of the "Estate Homes". He stated that the reason that he is aware of this is because he was there before the homes were there and when the residents wanted to de-annex and does Page 91 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 13 of 22 understand why they wanted to. He encouraged Mr. Holts to start his own HOA to get the other homeowners on board so that this doesn't go any further. Chairman Gonzales indicated that he agreed with Mr. Morsch regarding the "Estate" properties and said that he is against shared driveways. He asked if the homeowner has to maintain the street afterwards and if the property is sold, will this be part of the agreement of the sale. Commissioner Morsch made a motion that the Commission postpone this item and recommended to the owner that he bring back to; he Commission an application with a two (2) parcel map lot split with afprelim`inary grading plan showing the elimination of cross lot drainage. He als wanted to include in that motion a copy of the de-annexation documentation tk�e�s�,ipulations regarding the de-annexation and what the "Estate Homes"; quiretl4,,.do once they de- annex from the HOA. City Attorney Leibold clarified with the-`'Commission that if they ;oF oose to continue this item, it has to be continued to a t 'c 'rtain, or to an'unspecified date, and if it is continued to an unspecified date`k it needs to be re-noticed. Commissioner Morsch asked Mr. Pinnow how long Ifwaufd take him to amend the materials. Mr. Pinnow indicated th the has no int stun of pviding alternative plans for a two (2) parcel subdt§bW--'8nd invited he Commission to take a look at the property. He no.16'Jo the ommission at he believes that it is suitable as it stands currently for aAhree ( parcel sub is'ion. Commiss�Qer<„fU)osch ased Mr. Pinnow if he understood that he risks denial from t e?Commissio5der Section 16.20.020. Mr. Pinrt`c ti{;indicated t t<the GoMmission will probably never face this particular situation H can Hill ;Estates again and they don't have to worry about forty (40) new horrie being built there because in the eight (8) years that he has been there, no one as J ought about doing anything like this. He stated that he was the exceptioause he City extended V Del Lago (in front of his house) to give new frontage to allow the subdivision to take place. He invited the Commission to review the records of the correspondence that he had with the City before he began the project regarding the dual use driveway, and conceptual plans, and noted that both were given the green light. He indicated that a considerable amount of expenses were put in at this point and although he does take seriously that he may face denial, he hopes that the Commission takes seriously that he has done everything properly with the City and if the Commission continues this, it would give them more time to review the material. Page 92 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 14 of 22 Commissioner Morsch indicated that if Mr. Pinnow was still under the original CC&Rs and HOA, he would not be allowed to re-subdivide his property at all without Board and City Approval and asked if he was aware of this. Mr. Pinnow indicated yes. Commissioner Morsch indicated to Mr. Pinnow that the Commission has given him some latitude in considering an application that would include a subdivision into two (2) lots but since he wants to subdivide into three (3) lots, he is running into compatibility issues with the City of Lake Elsinore's Mutatcpal Code. Motion was made by Commissioner O'Neal, seco�nided by Vice Chairman Mendoza, and unanimously carried to continueF-%Ten�aue Parcel Map No. 36304, a request to subdivide an existing 17 acre site into three (3) parcels within the Residential Single Fa F) Distri f the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan, to May 3rd, 2011. � x AYES: CHAIRMAN GONZALES;VICE,CAIRMAN MEIVDOZA, COMMISSIONER JORDAN`°CMMISSIONER MORSCH, COMMISSIO O'NEAL NOES: NONE % y ABSENT: NNE 2) Residential esi n R��ew No.2011-01 for the "Northstar" proiect within the nei l borf bbd N : 3�4 of the STUrOmerly Lake Elsinore Develo ment of the East Lak epic ' n>A ,enilment No. 6 Recommend n ,4 0 aelopt a resolu t1, approving Residential Design Review No. 2011-01 bas' ion the Fin'.r s, Exhibits and proposed Conditions of Approval. City Manager B`ady inbated that Kirt Coury, Project Planner would review the project with thejrimission and answer any questions the Commission may have. Planning Consultant Coury provided an overview of the project and indicted that the applicant was present. REQUEST TO SPEAK Ms. Sondra Harris, Vice President of Planning with Richmond American Homes, indicated that she was very excited to be back before the Commission again with another product from Richmond American Homes in the City of Lake Elsinore. Page 93 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 15 of 22 She stated that she didn't have anything to add to Mr. Coury's presentation but referred to Condition No. 24, which Mr. Coury spoke about in his presentation, and requested from the Commission, approval of the California Coastal landscape design which they are proposing on the models only and noted that the parkway will be planted with turf and street trees and will be maintained by the HOA. Planning Consultant Coury indicated the California Coastal landscape design will be an option for home buyers but the typical front yard plans that Richmond American submitted have some turf and ground cover. Commissioner Jordan asked Ms. Harris why Xeriscap ts 't something that they are proposing for the production because she likes; i`e dese#;look with the mix of turf which gives a better street seen. Y k, A M Ms. Harris indicated that they have discus d this with their sales' rid marketing teams and the buyers are not so willingpt c ept th�s� in their fronf rds. She stated that with the implementation of A6188 `Y.h{ch-requires reduced turf, they made the turf smaller in various communities o ,e of the City of Lake Elsinore and got significant pushback frorgjhe commune ices>�which caused difficulty in sales so they are not currently propos'IrI ythis type of cape. .44 Commissioner O'Neal asked Ms. Harris if the`1 ers.,would be able to request this as an option. ' Ms. Harris indicated no. Hk Commissioner Jordad' n�" Q# 1toner OWK 'Neal suggested that Richmond American„sho"uld�Rresent e �scaps an\ option. y Ms Hfis indicated f theytried optional landscape designs in the past and they`'' ,, ve not y.ha o been successful. Chairman GbM Iles indt+rsted that in his yard there is no turf, it is a wide variety of landscaping Commissioner O'Nea] encouraged them to rethink this issue and referred to the "Living Smart" product by Pardee Homes. Commissioner Jordan indicated that this would benefit homeowners because they would be able to save money on their water bills. Ms. Harris indicated that she would take the Commissioner's comments back to her team to review these options. Page 94 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1. 2011 Page 16 of 22 Vice Chairman Mendoza asked Ms. Harris if her concern is uniformity with the other homes, Ms. Harris indicated that if a homeowner decides to do Xeriscape later, McMillan Development would ask the HOA to support this. Vice Chairman Mendoza thought it would be great to have Xeriscape in the CC&Rs if the homeowners request this. Chairman Gonzales asked if the homes in this development,,are required to have flood insurance because they are being built in a flood plain. Public Works Director Seumalo addressed Ch; trman ;r<Gonzafes's question regarding the flood plain. Ms. Harris also referred this question to Ju �Craig,of McM ilia n~IOvelopment. ,0 Mr. Justin Craig of McMillan Development intro qce i7 tnseif and addressed the CC&R's and flood plain issues. Vice Chairman Mendoza suggested, ,,,,the landscape°guidelines be as clear as possible which are included in the CQ&%5 City Attorney Leibold � d�cated that th"o ;ii�,, C&Rs g yarning all of the Summerly project have alread �``6de ;y corded art the Citis the third party beneficiary within enforcemerigh#s. Commissioner M ores ch�Med,if MIap�s in the recorded CC&Rs that require a minim rntge of ,fit yards° e covered by turf. City Aorney Lei bold i cated�# #she didn't think that there is. Comm issibt\ Morsch indicated that if there is built-in latitude in the CC&Rs then there is no'go I Ic mandate in the CC&Rs requiring turf and it is up to the Architectural R w C rt` imittee. COMMISSIONER'S�COMMENTS Vice Chairman Mendoza indicated that all of his questions were answered previously and welcomed the applicant to the City. Commissioner O'Neal thanked Ms. Harris for stopping by his office to discuss this project as well as others in the City. Commissioner Jordan indicated she noticed that on several lots, the plotting isn't staggered and she is concerned about the street scene and noted the similarity Page 95 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 17 of 22 of architecture between Plan's S180 and S192 and noted that the City wants to raise the bar but she doesn't think that this is raising the bar. Commissioner Jordan discussed how she envisioned the street plan in her mind regarding Plans S180 and S192 and noted that they don't have a lot of variation, specifically, not having the lots staggered. She also indicated that on many of the lots they are doing minimal front setback although she understands that the lots are small and asked if the rear yard setback with the patio is five (5') feet. Planning Consultant Coury indicated yes. Commissioner Jordan indicated that she noticed on thM",and K elevations, the applicant is using a stone veneer, and wanted to f�ttpw whhey are not using a brick or a different kind of a veneer to make thole lodk dlffei t,, She stated that the roof lines on the bungalow elevations ,a st ex I`— he same and suggested that there be some arch itecturalf6nhancements on tl ' elevations. She recommended doing some kind of diffe� ston&on either the I , "I(the K. Commissioner Morsch stated that Condition N6OW' is poorly worded and needs to be clarified and also wanted cla fication of Con811,n No. 49. Public Works Director Seumalo indicated tW Condition lo. 26 would be revised and also clarified Condition No. 49 for"Commissybner Morsch. Commissioner Mor h l�icli� ed that this is just ore {1} part of the development and stated that �4gtre the n section is Ebuilt, asked how the water is going to get out of the develop" ent t e lake. MN ,n Public Works pl' or Se alo mdlcated that at the one hundred (100) year flood co' ition, ttit ter ld drain to and filter through the golf course, and into �,4,0ack basin alr " s Commissi n,4E Morsch Mated that the very lowest elevation is right at the minimum eIMton to be hove the flood plain for FEMA which is 1,267. rC�c Public Works DEre Qc'Seumalo indicated that 1,267 is a local required finish floor elevation. Commissioner Morsch indicated that the water level could conceivably be 1,263 with a wave surge at 1,267 is where they are currently at and asked how the water would get conveyed from this development, in addition to the other developments to the lake since they are already close to the floodplain. Public Works Director Seumalo indicated that it would be stored in the golf course area until the water dissipates and noted that at the one hundred (100) year flood condition, other areas at risk will be the downtown areas. Page 96 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 18 of 22 Commissioner Morsch indicated that this project is the most easterly developed project of the phases and that most likely, everything is going to converge to Village Parkway. He stated that the elevations of these finished floors are at the lowest they can be to be out of the FEMA floodplain and the next development is going to have to similarly be above 1,267. He indicated that there will be flooding at Village Parkway and from there into the storm drain, the golf course and then to the lake. Public Works Director Seumalo indicated that there is a one hundred and eight inch (108") pipe in Village Parkway so the storm drain systems are intended to go subterranean and at the one hundred (100) year floodvation, there may be some surface flows on the streets but it will all go tow"i'�les the golf course which is the planned storage and treatment area. ° 'ry Commissioner Morsch stated that he believefpA'h5tI-Xeriscape 2 dscaping could be done really well, such as creative archiIrP;?,.is ural elements with's:_ e work, etc. He noted that the only problem he has V project is thatthera`re a lot of small homes and he would be happ'ier if a potjan Qf tftese homes twere around twenty-two hundred (2,200) square feet and h'a �a'�t least a four hundred (400) foot spread between the smaller`fames and the Ix ger homes and this would give the customer more of a vane from. 'He indicated that he would like to see this in the next phase. Ms. Harris indicated Va, b re is a hugs A' four single story homes, not only in the City of Lake E stner'e but other communities in Southern California. IC . . Commissioner Jordan stated that she vid like to see changes such as additional architect oral gel o t e Spanish Elevation for the S180 and the and 5192, waed ��,. t tp kno +hy not using a different kind of veneer on the diq@rant elevatio" h Ms Harrt"ddressed Cmislo`ner Jordan's suggestions. Mr. Dave Kern KTGYrchitects introduced himself and indicated that he was also the archite'r �or J n Laing Homes as well as the Summerly models. He let the Commissione"� 'tow that their comments were valid and informed them that two dimensional rderings do not give justice and the plans give better detail regarding the different models. He said they would work with staff to enhance the models per Commissioner Jordan's request. He discussed the benefits of single story homes and how they will benefit the residents of the City. Passed and adopted the following Resolution: "Resolution No. 2011-06 —A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, recommending that the City Council of the Page 97 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 19 of 22 City of Lake Elsinore adopt findings that the project is consistent with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan". MOTION was made by Vice Chairman Mendoza, seconded by Commissioner Jordan and unanimously carried recommending that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore adopt findings that the project is consistent with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. AYES: Chairman Gonzales, Vice Chairman Mendoza, Commissioner Jordan, Commissioner Morsch, Commissioner O'Neal NOES: None ABSENT: None `;°. }' ABSTAIN: None s # Passed and adopted the following Resolution "Resolution No. 2011-07 - A Res'oluti n of the P1 M#hlng Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, re�c ►d ing thail'rtlfe City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore approve Reejdeni sign Review No. 2011-01 and eliminatingCond►t►o W o 23 as ell as getting direction from the Commission regard�mg yt -applican o work with staff on the specifics of the plotting and fides" 0 MOTION was made bye;,,',., rni� Offl,". Jordan seconded by Vice Chairman Mendoza an � fianimor awn- carr�acicommending that the City Council of the Ci of Laker ore a ,ove Residential Design Review No. 2011-0101 and mating Cori Lion :-,23 as well as getting direction from the Commll $li in regarding,` he applicant to work with staff on the specifics of the plottin-.end facadP. e _a AYES:VYf . Chairman Gonzales, Vice Chairman Mendoza, fGommissioner Jordan, Commissioner Morsch, 'Commissioner O'Neal NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Planning Commissioners thanked the applicant for their products. Page 98 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 20 of 22 Chairman Gonzales stated that he looks forward to Richmond American's residential neighborhoods coming to the City. He also referred to the letter that was drafted by Commissioner O'Neal on behalf of the Commissioners regarding the City's Redevelopment Agency and asked the Commissioners if they had any comments or questions regarding the letter. City Attorney Leibold noted that since the letter that Commission O'Neal drafted wasn't on the Agenda, it is for the purpose of information only and the Commission cannot take any formal action regarding this. Commissioner O'Neal thanked Ms. Leibold for her assistance with the letter and stated that he welcomed any changes that the Cor�rz�ission might have and requested that they initial if they agree and he would forward,yto the Governor. City Attorney Leibold suggested that an elect onic Version "'e N�iven to Susan Reid in the City Manager's office to put on, e City's letterhead a��xto be set up for signature and initialing. She sugge�'sted that t Qmmissioner U[Neal also forward a copy to the local legislators who w(i be voting on the bill. She also indicated that in the last couple of days, the legisl„''''ive counsel's office said that the Brown budget proposal to elirioate Redevelopmnt was legally problematic in light of Proposition 22 and the iNtiel draft of the proposed bill is now available and can be provided to the Commiss'�l n� - rt Commissioner O'Neal ,stated that if an � of the Corr missioners wanted to add anything to the fetter, 66-4' (d be more than happy to accommodate this. Commissioner Jordan t ank Commissioner"O'Neal for writing the letter. Vice Chairmen Mr�loza Mated that he concurred. STAF. COMMENTS >w, Public Wor <;Director S66malo gave the Capital Improvement Program update. Planning Constant CQury extended his thanks to the Commissioners for contacting him bjr< -mail and by phone regarding the parcel map project and noted that this rea!(y helped to gather and share information before the Planning Commission meeting. Senior Planner Harris had no comments. Office Specialist Herrington had no comments. City Manager Brady had no comments. Page 99 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 21 of 22 CITY ATTORNEY'S COMMENTS City Attorney Leibold had no comments. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Morsch thanked Commissioner O'Neal for taking the time to write the letter to the Governor regarding the City's Redevelopment Agency and indicated that he thought that it is important for the City's Planning Commission to object to the dissolving of the Redevelopment Agencies. He also congratulated Mr. Brady on the extension of his contrac a`nd stated that although it may premature, looks forward to working with him oted that he is doing a good job and is well respected in this community. Commissioner Jordan thanked staff for all of# air hard work arid=appreciates the work they do. She indicated that she does 'mean to be hard onj' taff but she is a stickler about certain things and is protecf.ft the Cit in the City's�`je'e 1 interest. An She indicated that she would e-mail staff with A 69 ons, prior to.the Planning Commission meeting. '` f�. Planning Consultant Coury indicatedat4at e-mailing'Is,,good because they can respond in writing to the Commissio' rs� Commissioner O'Neal requested Susan Refd's e-mWi`address. City Attorney Leibold;indicat --that Susan4Reid's e-mail address is: sreid@lake-elsanore org Commissioner p'lyeal asked that Msirid put the letter he drafted on the City's statio and regi;ie5t d #hat " It of the legislators get copies also. City O%er Brady co #rmed at the letter would be completed and copies will be forwardd&Jo all legisl "tors as well as the City Council. Vice Chairmanepdoza thanked staff for their hard work and also wanted to thank John Herrera;-:the City's Information Technology Technician for his help with setting up his a=mail and mentioned how patient and upbeat Mr. Herrera is. City Manager Brady indicated that Mr. Herrera is a very good employee. Commissioner Jordan seconded that and indicated that he helped her get back on e-mail. Chairman Gonzales reminded the Commissioners that their Form 700 has to be turned into the City Clerk's office. Page 100 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 Page 22 of 22 Commissioner O'Neal stated that he did not receive the Form 700 and mentioned that in the past it has been mailed to his home. It was noted by Staff and the Planning Commission that the next Planning Commission meeting to be held on March 15, 2011, would be cancelled. Chairman Gonzales closed the meeting in memory of those in Christ Church, a Church that was destroyed in South Island, New Zealand, where he spent time in the past. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before `the Planning Commission, Chairman Gonzales adjourned the meeting at 8:.10 om. The next regular meeting of the Plan nipga'Commission of th ftity of Lake Elsinore which is scheduled for Tuesdl nl 5,A201 1, at 6:00��m. in the Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main Street; j e E>`�iriore, will be.�ncelled. "y John Gorzales r " °chairman xk- Respectfully Submitted, Kristine,f; Si Hernngtor-0;a_—. Offi Opecialist Attest: N,r, Robert A. Brady City Manager Page 101 of 188 V e„� AN -'A e e . x e e E s l[3iye O LL i 3 pp U � U ii�96}f{g h i �i flYeYii�S _ is R a c y U noX� � Ssz2 3� oa S f�c _ ¢sgoe8ry 5 g m ?ayS>s�y� Eu 5 8 y`ge FE Qgg•;:T ELL u >66E,YY 9 ni I C4 Y g0P LQi��Yr. k $ k. z � n e R $R 'e5ss>7rp plan-a gi iv � 6 i .tQ pp£.;6 l � W U - b Q S,►t.�� a �e > oo z d o m Q Y rya o LL, ~, /~ Q Q g [1 O z y{ o e O e $d r _ 1 Wgg a r'7 Ir k Up - CL / i UipLL ^ • J 5'sZ tt 4 Page 102 of 188 7 Via del Lago Lake Elsinore, CA 92532 May 1, 2011 Mr. Kirt Coury, Project Planner Planning Division City of Lake Elsinore 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Dear Mr. Coury: In my letter to you dated April 141h,I mentioned that I had retained a Certified General Appraiser to determine the impact of the 3-way lot split I've requested(in Tentative Parcel Map 36304) on other property values in the vicinity. Since the appraiser has just completed his report and time is short before the continuation hearing on Tuesday, I decided that it would be appropriate to send the report to you by e-mail and to provide copies to all of the Planning Commissioners as well as the City Manager an Attorney. The report has been prepared by Noble Tucker,who has MAI and SRA credentials and 27 years of experience in appraising properties in our area, including the entire Audie Murphy Ranch project. In numerous cases, he has served as an expert witness in real estate appraisal matters. (Please see his impressive Curriculum Vitae on pages 56 -60.) The Conclusion that he has reached in the report(see page 29)is: The preceding analysis leads to the signiflicantfnal conclusion that the 3-way lot split as shown in Tentative Parcel Map 36304 would be preferable and optimal for both the applicant and the City. Further, approval action on the Tentative Parcel Map will not lead to any rush by owners to further sub-divide the Tuscany Hills Estates that would cause the original character of the community to be lost. The entire 60 page report (in PDF format) is attached, above. I hope that the Planning Commissioners will concur with Appraiser Tucker's conclusion after they review his report. The bulk of his analysis can be found on pages 15-29. If there are any questions, I expect that he will be present to answer them at the continuation hearing on Tuesday evening. Sincerely yours, Douglas A. Pinnow (951)674-2590 Page 103 of 188 Appraisal Consulting Assi e t Restricted Use Report File 2011-083 Impact on the Lot Split Shown in Tentative Parcel Map 36304 Prepared For Mr. Doug Pinnow 7 Via Del Lago Labe Elsinore, CA 92532 Phone No. 951-674-2590 Prepared By Noble R. Tucker Jr., MAI, S13A Tucker Appraisal Service Corporation Post Off-ice Box 673 M rrieta, CA 92564-0673 Phone No. (951)-677-4000 Survey Date April 0, 2011 Date Prepared April 29, 2011 The intended use of this Appraisal Consulting Assignment report is for use by only by Mr. Doug Pinnow and is to be relied upon for asset monitoring purposes only. Any unauthorized use of this report without written permission of the appraiser and any copies of the report without the written permission of the appraiser are unauthorized and the appraiser is not responsible for the use.A true and original copy of the report has the appraiser's logo in color next to his name and signature. The original reports also have a Corporate Embossed Stamp next to the appraisers name and no copies of this report are permitted without this color emblem and an original embossed stamp Page 104 of 188 TUCKER APPRAISAL SERVICE CORPOPU TION N O Y L : R. 'TUCKER R., 11 AI, SRA POST OFFICE Box 673, MURRI ETA,cA92564-0673•(951)677-4888(TEL.)•(951)677-4891(FAX) April 29, 2011 Mr. Doug Pinnow 7 Via Del Logo Lake Elsinore, CA 92532 Phone No. 951-674-2590 Reference: Appraisal Consulting Assignment Restricted Use Format.-Impact on the Lot Split shown in Tentative Parcel Map 36304. Dear Mr. Pinnow: Pursuant to your request and authorization, we have conducted the investigations and analyses necessary to form an opinion of the impact on the lot split shown on Tentative Parcel Map 36304. The purpose of this Appraisal Consulting Assignment is to set forth the data, analyses and conclusions relative to our opinion of the impact on the lot split shown in Tentative Parcel Map 36304. The request is an appraisal consulting assignment, which includes an appraisal. The process of developing an opinion of value to be used in the analysis is an appraisal, since USPAP defines an appraisal as an opinion of value. Therefore, to comply with USPAP an appraiser would have to follow ST,), DARD I to develop the opinion of the value(value), Standard 2-2 (c)Real Property Reporting for a Restricted Use Report,and STANDARD 4. In addition,the appraisal consulting report would have to comply with STANDARD 5. This Appraisal Consulting Study is prepared in accordance with the standards and reporting requirements of the Appraisal Institute,and is subject to the regulated institutions under FIRREA. Furthermore, it conforms to the current Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP)as adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. On March 1,2011,the City of Lake Elsinore's Planning Commission met and conducted an initial hearing on the proposed split of the lot located at 7 Via del Lago into three parcels, as shown in Figure 1, Tentative Parcel Map 36304, and in the photographs in Appendix A. At that time, questions were raised by two of the Commissioners who indicated a preference for splitting the property into two parcels rather than three in view of concerns about a possible negative impact on neighboring property values. As a basis for these concerns, they cited the guidelines in Section 16.20.020 of the City of Lake Elsinore's Sub-Division Code. Rather than taking any action, the Planning Commission agreed to continue this agenda item at their regularly scheduled meeting to i Page 105 of 188 be held on May 3, 2011. The purpose of this report is to convey in a timely fashion an evaluation of the impact of the proposed lot split on neighboring property values. Based on the detailed analysis that follows, it is concluded that the o timuni lot split for both the applicant and the City would he to divide it into three,.parcels as presently Shown in Tentative Parcel Map 36304. further; it is the appraiser's opinion that approval of this lot split would in no way encourage other homeowners in the Tuscany Hills Estates to consider splitting their lots and thereby cause a basic change in the character of the Tuscany Hills Estates. If you have any further questions,please contact Mr. Noble R. Tucker Jr.,MAI, SRA, at Tucker Appraisal Service Corporation (951)677-4888. It is important to note that we have supplied our,own assumptions and limiting conditions Respectfully submitted, TUCKER APPRAISAL SERVICE CORPORATION Noble R.TuckerJr.,MAI, SRA "Certified General Real Estate Appraiser" Calif. State Certification No.:AG001532 Expiration Date:january 31, 2013 ii Page 106 of 188 TABLE OF CONTENTS Assumptions and Limiting Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i", Extraordinary assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Intended Use of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Competency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Dateof Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I History/ sale . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Legal Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 PreviousReports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 SUBJECT PROPERTY AreaOverview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Aerial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 PlatMap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Site and Improvement Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appraisal Consulting Assignment Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Tentative Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 ADDENDA Subject photographs Zoning information Correspondence from the property owner and to the property owner Property Profile Engagement Letter Curriculum Vitae iii Page 107 of 188 ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS The Analyses and opinions set forth in this Appraisal Consulting Assignment are subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions: 1. No responsibility is assumed by us for matters which are legal in nature. No opinion of title is rendered, and the property is appraised as though free of all liens, easements, encroachments and encumbrances,and the title is assumed to be marketable. No survey of the boundaries of the property was undertaken by us. All areas and dimensions furnished are presumed to be correct. 2. An on-site inspection indicates that the subject appears to have normal utility easements. I We assume that there are no adverse liens, easements or encroachments or other items affecting the value ofthe property. None were noted at the time ofinspection. Furthermore, no responsibility is assumed by us for matters which are legal in nature. No opinion of title is rendered, and the property is appraised as though free of all encumbrances, liens, encroachments,and easements and the title is assumed to be marketable. No survey of the boundaries of the property was undertaken by us. All areas and dimensions furnished to us are presumed to be correct. 4. No soils report was provided for our review.We assume that there are no soils conditions that adversely affect the value of the subject. None were observed upon inspection. 5. Information contained in this Appraisal Consulting Assignment has been gathered from sources that are believed to be reliable, and, where feasible, has been verified. No responsibility is assumed for the accuracy of information supplied by others. 6. We assume no responsibility for economic or physical factors occurring subsequent to the date of value that affect the opinions stated herein. 7. We reserve the right to make such adjustments to the valuation herein reported as may be required by the consideration of additional data or more credible data that may become available. 8. Forecasts offuture events that influence the studyprocess are predicated on the continuation of historic and current trends in the market. 9. The property is analyzed assuming it to be under responsible ownership and competent management and available for its highest and best use. 10. No engineering survey has been made. Except as specifically stated, data relative to sizes, square footage,and areas were taken from onsite measurements by the appraisers and from sources considered reliable. Should a future engineering study reveal sizes substantially iv Page 108 of 188 different from those used herein, we reserve the right to adjust our opinion of value accordingly. 11. Maps, plats and exhibits included herein are for illustration only, as an aid in visualizing matters discussed within the Appraisal Consulting Assignment. They should not be considered as surveys nor relied upon for any other purpose, nor should they be removed from, reproduced,or used apart from this report. 12. No opinion is expressed as to the value of sub-surface oil,gas,or mineral rights,or whether the property is subject to surface entry for the exploration or removal of such materials except as is expressly stated. 13. No opinion is intended to be expressed on matters which require legal expertise or specialized investigation or knowledge beyond that customarily employed by real estate appraisers. 14. Your appraisers have inspected,as far as possible,by observation the land and improvements thereon;however,it was impossible to personally inspect all of the improvements or hidden structural and mechanical components within the improvements; therefore, no representations are made as to these matters unless specifically considered in the Appraisal Consulting Assignment. 15. We shall not be required, by reason of this Appraisal Consulting Assignment, to gyve testimony or to be in attendance in court or any governmental or other hearing in reference to the subject property without prior arrangements having first been made with the appraiser relative to such additional employment. 16. The Bylaws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute require each member and or candidate to control the use and distribution of each Appraisal Consulting Assignment by such member or candidate. Therefore,except as may hereinafter be provided,the party for whom this Appraisal Consulting Assignment was prepared may distribute copies of this Appraisal Consulting Assignment,in its entirety,to such third parties as may be selected by the party for whom this Appraisal Consulting Assignment was prepared;however,selected portions of this Appraisal Consulting Assignment shall not be given to third parties without the prior written consent of the signatories of this Appraisal Consulting Assignment. 17. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to any person or entity,other than the appraisers`or firm's client,through advertising,solicitation materials, public relations,news,sales,or other mediafor public or private communication without the written consent and approval of the signatories of this Appraisal Consulting Assignment, particularly as to valuation conclusions,the identity of the appraiser or firm with which the appraisers is connected,or any reference to the Appraisal Institute, and the MAI or SRA designation. Furthermore,this report is for the sole use of our client. Further,the appraisers or firm assumes no obligation,liability,or accountability to any third party. If this report is v Page 109 of 188 placed in the hands of anyone but the client, client shall make such party aware of all the assumptions and limiting condition of the assignment. 18. It is assumed that there are no deed restrictions to a single use of the subject. The presence of such restrictions could adversely impact site value. 19. Consideration has been given in this report to personal property(if any)located on the site; This has been separated from the real estate in our analysis. This Appraisal Consulting Assignment excludes the value of any items of an historical, archaeological or biological nature. 20. This property does not appear to be in a wetlands area. If this should be found to be untrue or different at a later date, we reserve the right to change our report accordingly. 21. The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") became effective January 26, 1992. Considering the subject property was constructed circa 1974, the subject may be non- conforming in certain aspects of the ADA requirements. We have not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of the plans to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that the compliance survey of the plans,together with a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA,could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the Act. If so,this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since we have no direct evidence relating to this issue,we did not consider possible non-compliance with the requirements of ADA in estimating the value of the property. Should the subject be later found to require work to bring it in conformity with ADA,we reserve the right to adjust our estimated values stated herein for the subject property, accordingly. 22. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions or substances in the structure, soil or subsoil that may be hazardous or toxic, including, but not limited to, asbestos. We are not qualified to detect substances such as asbestos,P.C.B.'s,radon,ground contamination, etc. Further, we are not responsible for arranging any engineering or research studies that may be necessary to detect such conditions or substances. 23. In accordance with the Fair Housing Amendments Act, it is illegal for an appraiser(s) to discriminate against any person because of race, religion, sex, hardship, family status, or national origin. This Appraisal Consulting Assignment complies with all rules and regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race,color,religion,sex,nation origin, and marital status. vi Page 110 of 188 EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS 1. No property survey was submitted.We assume there are no encroachments. 2. Dimensions, setbacks, measurements from homes, lot sizes, and other information was submitted by an engineer.This assignment assumes that this information is correct. HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS 1. This report is not based on a hypothetical condition.A hypothetical condition is defined in the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal as "That which is contrary to what exists but is supposed for the purpose of analysis. Hypothetical conditions assume conditions contrary to known facts about physical,legal,or economic characteristics of the subject property;or about conditions external to the property,such as market conditions or trends;or about the integrity of data used in an analysis. A hypothetical condition may be used in an assignment only if: o Use of the hypothetical condition is clearly required for legal purposes,for purposes of reasonable analysis, or for purposes of comparison; o Use of the hypothetical condition results in a credible analysis; and o The appraiser complies with the disclosure requirements set forth in USPAP for hypothetical conditions.(USPAP, 2002 ed.) vii Page 111 of 188 CERTIFICATION Per Standards Rule 2-3, and FIRREA We, the undersigned,certify that,to the best of our knowledge and belief: the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported Assumptions and Limiting Conditions,and are our personal,unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions. we have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. - our compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or the use of, this report, such as the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client,the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result,or the occurrence of a subsequent event. Furthermore,the Appraisal Consulting Assignment assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation or the approval of a loan. our analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, USPAP, as published in the Appraisal Foundation, and the federal financial regulating agencies. - Noble R. Tucker Jr., MAI, SRA, has made a personal inspection of the exterior of the property that is the subject of this report, and has considered pertinent facts affecting the value thereof. market data pertaining to the Final Value Estimates has been accumulated from various sources and where possible, examined and verified as to details,motivation and validity. - the use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. the Appraisal Institute conducts a program of continuing professional education for its designated members. Noble R. Tucker Jr., MAI, SRA, is currently certified under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. - Noble R. Tucker Jr. currently holds a Certified General Real Estate Appraiser certificate from the State of California Office of Real Estate Appraisers. viii Page 112 of 188 we are competent to perform this Marketability Study assignment by virtue of previous experience with similar assignments and/or appropriate research and education regarding the specific property type being appraised. Qualifications are attached. The appraiser plans on testifying at the planning commission meeting on May 3,2011 and this report when combined with the appraiser's work-file and expert witness testimony constitutes a summary appraisal report. 7 Z. a Noble R.Tucker Jr.,MAI, SRA "Certified General Real Estate Appraiser" Calif. State Certification No.:AG001532 Expiration Date:January 31, 2013 ix Page 113 of 188 INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of this report is to convey in a timely fashion an evaluation of the impact of the proposed Iot split on neighboring property values. Based on the detailed analysis that follows,it is concluded that the optimum lot split for both the applicant and the City would be to divide it into three parcels as presently, sewn in Tentative Parcel Man 36304. Further, it is the appraiser's opinion that approval of this lot split would in no way encourage other homeowners in the Tuscany Hills Estates to consider splitting their lots and thereby cause a basic change in the character of the Tuscany Hills Estates. Intended Use of the Report/Appraisal Development and Reporting Process The intended use of this Appraisal Consulting Assignment report is for use by only by Mr. Doug Pinnow and is to be relied upon for asset monitoring purposes only. Any unauthorized use of this report without written permission of the appraiser and any copies of the report without the written permission of the appraiser are unauthorized and the appraiser is not responsible for the use.A true and original copy of the report has the appraiser's logo in color next to his name and signature.The original reports also have a Corporate Embossed Stamp next to the appraisers name Date of study/Date of Report/Date of Inspection The opinion expressed in this report are stated as ofApril 12,2011. The date ofproperty inspection was April 12, 2011 and the date of this report is April 29, 2011. The date of signature is April 29, 2011. Prior Appraisal Reports or Studies The property has not been previously appraised by Tucker Appraisal Service Corporation.Results of this appraisal report are confidential. Competency and Compliance Provision We are aware of the compliance and competency provisions of USPAP, and within our understanding of those provisions, the author of this report complies with all mandatory requirements. Noble R. Tucker Jr., MAI, SRA, a Certified General Appraiser with the State of California(No. AG0015320,conducted the primary research,analysis,and writing of this report. No one provided significant professional assistance. Three Year Sale History Under USPAP and FIRREA we are required to report the sales history for the previous 3-year period. The subject property sold for$437,500 on June 6, 2003 No other sales in the previous 3 year period were found. The property is not currently listed for sale. Page -I- Page 114 of 188 Legal Description Via Del Lago, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. The assessor parcel number is 363- 350-021.The property legal description is portrayed below: Lot 4 of tract 17413-4, in the City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 208,pages 7 through 12, inclusive of the maps in the Office of the County Recorder of Said County. Scope of the Assignment The Appraisal Consulting Assignment process is a systematic procedure employed to provide the answer to a client"s question about real property value or rental value. Mr. Noble R. Tucker Jr., MAI, SRA conducted an on site interior and exterior inspection of the property.The client engaged us to conduct a Appraisal Consulting Assignment. • Receipt of the appraisal engagement from the client • Defined the appraisal problem -step 1 • Contacted the owner and arranged for an on-site inspection of the site. • On the date of inspection of the site I took exterior photos • Drove the subject site and surrounding neighborhood to review development trends and new projects in the area. • Contacted the planning department regarding the current zoning,land use, and any zone changes in process. • Obtained documentation on the property involving any historical valuations previous conducted, title reports,legal descriptions, and other due diligence. • Researched sale and listing data in the area. Database searches included Costar, Costar Properties, Loopnet, Dataquick, multiple listing services, Interflood, as well as broker interviews in the market. • Documented the findings in this report. • Reviewed the report. • Printed hard-copies of the report and a pdf copy of the report • Delivered an report to the client in pdf copy. Other Reports of the Subject Property The conduct section of Ethics Rule in the 2010-2011 USPAP requires appraisers to discuss any current and prospective interest in the subject property or parties involved and whether or not any services regarding the subject property were performed by the appraiser within the three year period immediately preceding acceptance of the assignment. Noble R. Tucker Jr., MAI, SRA has not prepared a previous real estate related services on the subject property within the previous 3 year period and Noble R. Tucker Jr., MAI, SRA does not have any prospective interest in the subject property or parties involved. Page -2- Page 115 of 188 AREA MAP i z � .I...ry 4 .. - ..�✓'•' Yt'�"' S oipwrev.f.«.. t•.•.. 71 • 1 � _ 1 7-5 Y v °i _ R�} RoyMeWriCotof park : t x UJ cr 7 efhh j �t f �`., "i' t4 c�r5i'NC-"•+�' < J� Y. e r lz sm a SUBJECT PROPERTY RRI[RbAD C4NYOR R� „•. _ ;` fig err . n i 4 e ��IiRs 74 �. s,^i `�: _ ''•a ylefkla's ,~ .-.'.---- ' •?�<:•'pZ;=l • �'a;; flE a`'� '. Q13 Yp11 RD ,ej ,a '` s I° €` •r s. 44 4 aT) a.s• T- p a,. . .. ► 8' ♦�! mi We use subject to license. p �UeLorne.UeLorme Street AilasUSA@2010. f R � T �h 2 www.delorme aw AN(12.3-E) Oate Zoan 11-U Page -3- Page 116 of 188 AREA MAP ( ZOOMED IN) f ;Odd +a��••••�— tt6iG nor' t er''a1e 1� : f S nil Tu i 0 3'[ .�'� .��:• Yy� RD , ; ..W.-mac-N- ~r-�' $IErra NEw / a E i J � g . t r ✓ 's 'aLe y `I'1�` `'r S s i � � r �+:.: .,'�': � �'�"a"h� Ralh?4gd i a .E�� 3 It fi •.f'r..r � �} �.®,�,�,-( D ,t Resvxolra # EWPDRTRD NEWPORTRp 0 N44 _ 1 y ei s a Zgl(E r RAILROAD CANYON RD. PROPERTY�•" r i ::�,t. #� ( a RAUA'OAD-CA : .. NYDN s ,„.�^••' may��': '� 90* . I r:... `r 8 f' ��.i i1SE<.Ulzjed 101Ca1156. ' a��c:re.DeLorme Street A,tlaS USA®2Ui U. 0 '/. 1/2 w:va'cicorme.com MN(12.;P E) Data Zoom ile Page-4- Page 117 of 188 AREA OVERVIEW The subject property is located in the incorporated city of Lake Elsinore, county of Riverside, California.In the forthcoming section we have given an overview of the area. Riverside County is the fourth-largest county in the State of California. 1t is almost 200 miles wide and comprises about 7,200 square miles of valleys, low deserts, mountains, foothills, and rolling plains. It borders Los Angeles,Orange,San Diego,and San Bernardino Counties,reaching within 14 miles of the Pacific Ocean to the west and to the boundaries of the Colorado River on the east. The county was formed in 1893 from a small portion of San Bernardino County and a large portion of San Diego County. Riverside County is approximately 7,243 square miles,when combined with San Bernardino County contains approximately 20,065 square miles,forms the largest metropolitan statistical area in terms of square miles in the United States. This two-county region is bounded by Los Angeles and Orange Counties to the west,Inyo County to the north,the California State Line to the east,and San Diego and Imperial Counties to the south. Lake Elsinore is within Southwest Riverside County, approximately 85 miles southeast of Los Angeles and 60 miles north of San Diego, Lake Elsinore is situated in what has been one of the fastest growing regions in the United States and is surrounded by Wildomar to the south, unincorporated areas to the north,Canyon Lake and Perris to the east,and the Cleveland National Forest to the west. Lake Elsinore is an incorporated city and is now governed by a mayor and elected City officials. The population of the City of Lake Elsinore is currently 50,983 as ofJan.uary 1,2010,according to the California Department ofFinance.The population increased 1.3 from 50,324in 2009 according to the California Department of Finance,portraying a rapid rate of growth. The California Constitution provides for a free public school system. The schools are subject to local control through an elected School Board. There are many public school districts in Riverside County. Lake Elsinore schools are within the Lake Elsinore Union School District. Adult education is available at a satellite campus of the University of California at, Riverside the Mount San Jacinto Junior College, The University of Redlands, College of the Desert, Palomar Junior College, and several Universities: Cal State Fullerton, San Diego State University, The Claremont Colleges, Cal-State San Bernardino, Cal Poly, and the recently constructed California State San Marcos. Weather in Lake Elsinore is moderate with approximately 342 days of sunshine each year. Summers are warm with temperatures ranging from 80 to 110 degrees with winters mild. There is 12.5 inches of rainfall, on average,per year and the average temperature is 75 degrees Fahrenheit. Page-5- Page 118 of 188 All modes oftransportation are available to Lake Elsinore. A well-integrated freewaysystem is found in the area the (91) Riverside Freeway traverses the city in an east/west direction and serves as a direct route to Riverside at the east and Orange County to the west. The(15)Freeway traverses the city in a north/south direction and serves as a link to San Diego County at the south and northern portions of the Inland Empire. The area is served by State Route 15,which traverses the city in a north/south direction.In addition Interstate 215 provides timely access to Riverside and San Bernardino to the north. The French Valley Airport, located east of State Route 215 and south of Los Alamos Road, provides facilities for light general aviation, corporate, and small jet traffic. The average travel time to work is approximately 37.9 miles,according to statistical data provided by E-neighborhood and portrayed below. Lake Elsinore is classified as a bedroom community. Other uses include multi family housing, commercial, and industrial uses. In the surrounding foothills acreage is devoted to agriculture. Some of the crops include wine grapes,citrus, avocados,kiwis,sweet persimmons, and turf grass. The Temecula Valley serves as the primary employment center in the district, and has over 600 employers. Employment is heaviest in the services (24.4 percent), retail trade (15.5 percent), manufacturing(19.9 percent),and construction(12.6 percent)sectors.Other labor market segments include transportation and communications, commercial/public utilities, government, wholesale trade, and miscellaneous. The incorporated City of Lake Elsinore is now governed by a City Mayor and City elected officials. The area is governed by the City of Lake Elsinore. The Police Department has contracted Sheriff officers operating. Planning and development services,public works and streets,recreation and parks,and utilities management are all high priority items which are managed by city officials. Page -6- Page 119 of 188 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF SITE �,gaJ ��stl� rr'j� ;i d� •L a r� r `a, ';t.,. i N It �4: ��` •.. �� 7 A �'�x� rRi 4L t T r'� i t. � •o• EK'a4,.x �� if fiwi 4�y °e w W tea-'L." 2 [• ✓�,� yi '* aw. '�`" ��*�� 2 e �� ?r '`s;� t� ''..��t-��1�")"s,r�;��i is ``• K Erin . vt �r 1 49 R � � - •r�� - i r ( 1 y ',t- �� , Y �� if m� -a% f �ae� >y-m�," _ •��'x.7�'�rr'rt�c�"� �': tea^ r. t'.h ' a .s. �': �. !<� r � 4r, iCG' a 9*�f'�• �`�r d� .�t ,y,�i - .r'r., --42 �-�'� '�' a�-�,��pG,r i 3� 3.��xg�. ;^�; � � ;f b•�X#"v�a� ,�y��i�ri.`�a*� 4� ., i.r <�+r ;.k��,�#� ��'q"'b t „'�,�'�c1,•y� ��y�`��y n�„ ��v. t .r' ,�'+t n�>.r. ,r ., a �f a �1 Riverside County TLMA GIS Page -7- Page 120 of 188 PLAT MAP n_ i .w.....�i..l•+.. � ��{ J •fir; yy{{+ �f F n • R Da�Irtti�� •f 1 te •i i.emr•�,_> '- .f ►�+:' �Y t / yam.�' f '.�y p `r� J� °i t ti = f CAR) w is •3'i Page -8-- Page 121 of 188 SUBJECT SITE & IMPROVEMENT OVERVIEW Property Location 7 Via Del Lago,Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. The assessor parcel number is 363- 350-021. Lot Size Land Characteristics The site is 3.17 acres according to Dataquick Information Systems. Zoning The subject site is within the Tuscany Hills Estates Specific Plan and zoning is discussed in forthcoming portions of the report. The site is zoned for residential. Site Status The subject site is currently improved with a 3,086 square foot single-family residence. There is a 725 square foot garage.The home was constructed in approximately 2003 and has 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. Utilities Electric Power, telephone,water, gas, and sewer are all needed. Visibility/Traffic The site has average visibility as the home is located above grade on a cul-de-sac street. Nuisances and Hazards A historical study of previous uses of the subject site has not been provided to the appraisers. Otherwise,no known hazardous materials have been reportedly utilized on the subject property. Based on the physical inspection of the subject and the surrounding area,the subject does not appear to be impacted with hazards and nuisances_ No obvious detrimental hazards were observed. However, we are not experts in the field of hazardous waste. Our "as is" value opinion is contingent upon the subject property not being impacted by any materials or conditions that could be considered hazardous such as, but not limited to; asbestos, harmful radon levels, ground contamination, PCB's, etc. However, upon inspection utility poles were located on-site which based on age may or may not transmit P.C.B.'s. Should any hazardous material be discovered in a later study, the cost of mitigation may represent a deduction of value herein. Page -9- Page 122 of 188 Easements/Restrictions We attempted to obtain a title report and were not provided with one.A legal description from the title report was submitted by the property owner. . No responsibility is assumed by us for matters which are legal in nature. There do not appear to be any restrictions,easements, encumbrances or other items on the title ofthe subject that would negatively affect the value ofthe subject property estimated herein. No opinion of title is rendered,and the property is appraised as though free of all liens,easements,encroachments,and encumbrances and the title is assumed to be marketable. No survey of the boundaries of the property was undertaken by us. All areas and dimensions furnished to us are presumed to be correct.We were not supplied with a preliminary title report. Soil Composition No soils report was reviewed. According to the county site no liquefaction or soil subsidence is present. View There are currently views from the subject site Earthquake The subject property is not located on a county fault zone Proximate Public Condemnation: There is proximatc public condemnation affecting the subject property. Covenants Conditions and Restrictions CC&R's Covenants,conditions, and restrictions(CC&R's)set forth a general scheme for the development, protection,and maintenance of the properties to enhance the value,desirability and attractiveness of lots for the benefit of owners. The subject property is restricted by CC&R's and is also subject to homeowner dues. Functional Adequacy, Adequate. Flood Map &Panel The community participates in the national flood insurance program. The flood map panel number is 06065C,panel number 2042G Community Code 0636,map was dated on August 28,2008.The subject property is located in a zone X.Zones B, C,and X are the flood insurance rate zones that correspond to areas outside the 1-percent annual chance flood-plain, areas of 1-percent annual chance sheet flow flooding where average depths are less than I foot, areas of I-percent annual Page -10- Page 123 of 188 chance stream flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, or areas protected from the I-percent annual chance flood by levees.No Base Flood Elevations or depths are shown within this zone.Insurance purchase is not required in these zones.A copy of the flood map is portrayed below. Arepamd for: InterFlooc TUC`Y.erApraisat Serice Cwporatson 7 via Jet Lago vnvw.6,rTi2tlb9d,At3 1.800-252-6 33 Lake Etssnvre,CA 93532-4123 w y �• � 3 a,4w �"" � y r s- P. €LOODSCAPE i t b a t Fk1oq hilrszarusMksis ; x M.P g4rnim, s {cam ±- • s Y a t t 73'L14 �L L......._... $9ta•'.k?L'aL�Br%k"•Q'F..... ?•t!Atl Corznra4iT3.Ak r�P:.}�£SY..C.P}ri^b 4.`f..";.RA34:s9':.! ..SL-.tee Cxnn r:sresas mq. e'm r.!o:.a 'n:esaae�rom_ Page -1 l- Page 124 of 188 Highest and Best Use -As Vacant Zoning regulations dictate that the most probable use of the site is some type of residential development. It is our opinion that, due to current economic conditions, as of the date of value it is not financially feasible for residential development of the site. The subject property has a grading permit which was approved. In addition, according to the planner interviewed.Specifically,the highest and best use as improved,Mr.Kirt Coury,the subject zoning permits one single-family on a minimum lot size of 5,500 square feet. The subject property would need to have an approved parcel map in order to split the lot into 3 lots.This would be the highest and best use as vacant as it would result in the highest value. Hi hest and Best Use -As Improved The highest and best use as improved is it's current use. Project Status The project is a Lot Split shown in Tentative Parcel Map 36304. Page-12- Page 125 of 188 Appraisal Consulting Assignment -Summary Pursuant to your request and authorization, have conducted the investigations and analyses necessary to form an opinion of the impact on the lot split shown on Tentative Parcel Map 36304. The purpose of this Appraisal Consulting Assignment is to set forth the data, analyses and conclusions relative to our opinion of the impact on the lot split shown in Tentative Parcel Map 36304. The request is an appraisal consulting assignment, which includes an appraisal.. The process of' developing an opinion of value to be used in the analysis is an appraisal, since USPAP defines an appraisal as an opinion of value. Therefore, to comply with USPAP an appraiser would have to follow STANDARD 1 to develop the opinion of the value (value),Standard 2-2 (c)Real Property Reporting for a Restricted Use Report,and STANDARD 4. In addition,the appraisal consulting report would have to comply with STANDARD 5. The intended use of this Appraisal Consulting Assignment report is for use by only by Mr. Doug Pinnow and is to be relied upon for asset monitoring purposes only. Any unauthorized use of this report without written permission of the appraiser and any copies of the report without the written permission of the appraiser are unauthorized and the appraiser is not responsible for the use.A true and original copy of the report has the appraiser's logo in color next to his name and signature.The original reports also have a Corporate Embossed Stamp next to the appraisers name Overview On March 1, 2011,the City of Lake Elsinore's Planning Commission met and conducted an initial hearing on the proposed split of the lot located at 7 Via del Lago into three parcels, as shown in Figure 1, Tentative Parcel Map 36304, and in the photographs in Appendix A. At that time, questions were raised by two of the Commissioners who indicated a preference for splitting the property into two parcels rather than three in view of concerns about a possible negative impact on neighboring property values. As a basis for these concerns, they cited the guidelines in Section 16.20.020 of the City of Lake Elsinore's Sub-Division Code. Rather than taking any action, the Planning Commission agreed to continue this agenda item at their regularly scheduled meeting to be held on May 3, 2011. The map is portrayed on the forthcoming page. Page -13- Page 126 of 188 TENTATIVE MAP FIGURE NO. 1 :.).t P -i r. �'�y'f t�i ii }, �x-F j..'?�aA i l I ��'..:kc:'1.�7. L f3�::y y t S �Sy q it if' t T1q.; � �' r• i T R; �: - -�;cti'+. y+lic s-iadaAilt 1N i PQ YSx"'is�`. t ,y ry .I %jr � N ' r - ("71 ilk f f ♦1. ..'n'.« .�..a,.,.-..a:5e'�?^ef•."�`i E o y�_ ..,..+n....-.. xi �1 ty{ = r� g- '{tom R �.gji P AR" �,, r^syfrr .b a'�",y'F ` .j d_kE' f'ra• All i ,E >yi1 �s>ip�• � �"� ,>. �{,,,,,..Fy i'g� sy�y,S5, T'; .'rt«-^a.,,^ z" �[ga �� x i r}f !yi 5 '«tx �� ' tx'` L l r..- �'�f'.t .a•" �,.1• s' `ih '} §Yf5 ��F� �, •� Y u i� n��°,.y>- 1E •:iy,�. 3 T. It ;: C..'7.��. l• 4 F a'r eit ..'tF'-�' f: a f�5 a}i,ix�. t, ;. ,`4..Y yy4t.�_ '�`•y-,^ ��. . 4- ^� y tzt.,y,f ';,at- ^i'�I�-,' ..� '!:,;�,�-:_ `'•fit _ ``s,is �� <+�.%'' .�� , " Ott tr n'h' 107 'F�.4,x_~ .} :, ,, 1Lta S- '+'6't' x 4��":'•,z 7 y93.°5''�ar.�%-''''�>- .0:i7.sm::m •�"' �S. �.,qr 'G�^� � a�t- • �. ��mr A, F ter•`° ~��" •��M1 �` a � '�� .'�.R.i ,f.'•�5'a%1 � V ,y,., x��.s `:• 'h ;',-fix. k 1 ,,t .� -;s '', `t ,y- ,k �.,r; �r v"R ��y y,� •. 4 •=yf y'fc 4qa -A:,N. y 'fir• P '_. .a'• ...... ` �;� `- ^..�womanly_ 1. a s�e4Ata2e�r�_.,tn:,,a� F } ...f w:rs t_r..;..........,>... � -;-��?i•` ;sx sue: i"5kf�[,f•`:�`�'rLs ,. ..�_. .. e -14- Page 127 of 188 Conclusion The conclusion of this report is summarized below: The purpose of this report is to convey in a timely fashion an evaluation of the impact of the proposed lot split on neighboring property values. Based on the detailed analysis that follows, it is concluded that the optimum lots lit or both the applicant and the Cit would be to divide it into three parcels as presently shown in Tentative Parcel Map 36304. Further, it is the appraiser's opinion that approval of this lot split would in no way encourage other homeowners in the Tuscany Hills Estates to consider splitting their lots and thereby cause a basic change in the character of the Tuscany Hills Estates. Background During the initial hearing on March 1 st,the applicant stated that lie had thoroughly reviewed the planned lot split with Community Development Director,Torn Weiner,and his staff in 2009 before initiating any grading to prepare for the lot split. This review included submission of a conceptual map that is similar to Tentative Parcel Map 36304. During the course of this review,many of the factors were considered,including lot size and density, which are factors influencing valuation in Section 16.20.020 of the Sub-Division Code. On April 20,2009,the applicant received an e-mail from the Community Development Department (Cordie Miller)stating: Thank you for the conceptual plan you provided in your email which related to your property listed above, I have reviewed the plan and it is sufficient to continue with the Tentative Parcel Map. ...... As was discussed duringyour meeting with Tom Weiner,all Tuscany Hills Speci is Plan Guidelines must befollowed in order to subdivide and/or developyour propery.... The applicant further stated at the recent hearing that copies ofthe written correspondences between himselfand the Community Development Department had been made available to Mr.Kirt Coury, Project Planner,shortly before the hearing. However,Mr.Coury advised the applicant that he did not have sufficient time before the hearing to distribute this material to the Commissioners. Copies of these correspondences are included in the addenda. While the Community Development Department's review had been detailed, there was no indication that the issue raised at the recent Planning Commission hearing concerning a possible negative impact on neighboring property values had been fully assessed. Thus,the primary objective of this report is to address that issue. Page-15- Page 128 of 188 Section 16.20.020 of the Sub-Division Code The following is a reproduction of the Section 16.20,020 of the Sub-Division Code in its entirety: A AF 16,ow i3M. t irk*140,wis,de pm,814 wk*g Ad fowOmm$the zilre Wfil 00 2d Im,arg Wed;p(tidw,I v kew Oat Co5dw rl)m of SOV la"16 frf 4 PW pdm d IN pwc 084 8W 90forivitaro, 'fo to Oyj 414-P min U.IMM IM(it PIM 1WO of MrM he Ah bRPOWA 0A 8 41 On 0110 a City C04"I clay Oft sd 1%of ff*in tx w 60,1Ni &d L.w MA 8 prKkA a. .No ft i 1j*.;W#WH 3(0).11V31 In considering the above guidelines,it is immediately apparent that there are no issues relating to public health, safety and general welfare. The only outstanding issue relates to maintaining property value in the vicinity. Page-16- Page 129 of 188 The Proposed Lot Split The map below,previously introduced in the Introduction,above,is a reproduction of the Tentative Parcel Map 36304 while Figure 2 is an Illustrative Plan prepared by the applicant at the request of the City showing conceptually how two future homes _ -1'`� '- 'L``v might be sited on 1 11`1 tx 1 : .. this Tentative Parcel � `�;•,..= - •--`� Map in addition to the existing "'- + `'� PeN '•. ,z, � , residence that is ; .1 `' . ' *�_.; ry - presently occupied -•:._• , ; b y t h e � owner/applicant. 1J�'�tL.,�•y. f_ a �».._.:.a 3 s i � �i �•` �.f'� : F � Illustrative map xx: re i F F.i&•.n.wa.>.a Y^ .ti %y Y'iek�. s h o w i n g y ' + r;� r= ...�_..:__..:,• ```4. ',s` `: .,..,_ Aconceptually, how :jc •,: aa, ,.��: homes could be }' �,. +� -- =��.>. =:•,`� : .... _ > 't. � � added to `..... ._. y^ '` »l� t •� yg;�;� ,' newoai 1_n# zy ;� iE4 r; Parcels 2 and 3. TA The specific homes i selected for this § as ^1 r . 4= t -. i. • . y� ." a.. drawing are __. :SY W. �s'A i s identical to Models _ '>a ,- .'``s•,�. ''� �-x 3R and 4 that have ' `, ` `_ < . ,`� �$ '. . �,,,,.gs { been built and now exist in the Tuscany Hills Estates. •- � `� �-_ ��, •i,, �1... _ However,the size of ; 's `• ``,, ... the conceptual `- garages has been increased from 3- ,,f: ,. IL*i: car, that presently exists throughout the Tuscany Hills Estates, to 4-car garages. MAP FIGURE Z Page-17- Page 130 of 188 Comparable Properties Of the 1000 plus homes presently located in Tuscany Hills and developed under the guidelines of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan,most have relatively small lots. This Plan requires that,the area of the smallest lot size to be no less than 5,000 square feet,and that the average lot size be 5,500 square feet. The complete requirements of this Plan were provided to the applicant by Tom Weiner with his forwarding letter dated March 9,2009. Both this letter and the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan are found in Appendix B. Each ofthe split lots shown in Figure 1 will be at least one acre(43,560 square feet)or greater in area. As such,they are substantially larger than the typical lots in Tuscany Hills. In fact,the only lots in Tuscany Hills that are comparable in size to the three parcels contemplated by the proposed lot split are located in a section of Tuscany Hills known as the Tuscany Hills Estates. The map in Figure 3 shows all 21 of the lots that make up the Tuscany Hills Estates. Page-18- Page 131 of 188 MAP-FIG URE NUMBER 3 J :5P.7f:3S1•k.ir"'�P Jf't�R�S.J{C?Ii?I'Cl �`+ "r"4.7i4` " 63' en, 4. S�' ..rf ry� n n• t pf f d. Q Olt h`fiu` `.,R: Fs." .?:r�= x•liar, r ' _fib u,�i y a..rt4'?.:�;ix::.:::�.4£. raax �'?•...i"sw..a Y JF' — aW'L ...gar.. n ._._. :t The above map, labeled Figure 3, portrays all 21 lots in the Tuscany Hills Estates. The lot contemplated for splitting is shown at the lower left and is highlighted in yellow. The four lots highlighted in blue have shared driveways,as is contemplated for Parcels 2 and 3 after the lot split. The use of shared driveways is common in Tuscany Hills. When viewing the above figure,one immediately notices that the typical lot sizes on applicant's street (Via del Lago)are somewhat smaller than those located on the other two streets,Via de La Luna and Via de la Valle. Presumably,this difference is due to the fact that the hillside properties on Via del Lago have partial to full views of Canyon Lake,while the larger remaining lots do not. So,it appears that the builder made a conscious decision to squeeze in more view homes fronting on Via del Lago. As a consequence,the best comparable lots and residences to those contemplated to be built on Lot 4 after the proposed lot split are the eight remaining lots on Via del Lago. The map shown in Figure 4 is an enlargement of all nine lots showing the location of the buildings(in red)and the level pads on which they are built(in green). It should be noted that Lot 4 is presently the largest of these nine lots and it is the one that is proposed to be split. Further, after the lot split that is also shown in Page-19- Page 132 of 188 Figure 4, the general sizes and the pattern of the level pads remains consistent with those in the vicinity. MAP- FIGURE NUMBER I TIU.Scang H11111S ,r ailrt res�x.a u a2 s+i.a.r,.rt+i.�.-�.R....�..a _..". -�.,;'-mew _�"'- -•-' _ -,j�.. Phase. f9� ..�.� .i'"JM GwTsk:�: •x.yy...vt. P1h0Se T �' .FepeforKe♦t Y^T2'J<'FMa,wY>rnq`uts'W i �l �.� :`.Y. - .• m ^4x1'4 bid'M W a•s st,x�o*qL iR RSd'.:WA+l UiL `' ........« +�«`Y�:�" ' ., '.`�. >` "!#ram ,i,• P _ �� .: sates. � `'x ��...,,•-' �' � Y. Tltnsaeay r.ck1C A/t-. :l w*'m ��_ �i J • '' L r �> 6t ��'#'w+.i j*f1.+Fld •.J' ' ., � ..unarm" - •Si'y t ,I Af Fxsr n J ar r All of the lots that front on Via del Lago. Lot 4,on the lower left,shows the split anticipated by the Tentative Parcel Map 36304. All existing buildings are highlighted in red. They are all single family houses with detached 3-car garages. Relative Valuation of Comparable Properties . While it is difficult to perform absolute property valuations in today's uncertain real estate market, it is not at all difficult to make relative valuations with a high degree of accuracy. That is to say,one Page -20- Page 133 of 188 can value a property relative to another nearby comparable property with considerable certainty and accuracy. But,before starting the valuation of the hillside properties on Via del Lago,it is important to discuss the significance of lot size, actual housing density, and perceived housing density. On Via del Lago,level building pads have been carved into the hillside leaving large undeveloped (native)areas that are shown in dark gray in Figure 4. While the actual average density of homes on Via del Lago could be calculated by adding up the total area of the nine Iots and then dividing by the nine homes on them,this number would not serve as a useful reference in establishing relative valuations for the individual lots. That's because very little value can be ascribed to undeveloped hillside areas. In fact,in some cases, undeveloped hillside areas may add negative value because these areas must be maintained and periodically cleared for purposes of fire prevention. What is more important to property valuation is the perceived density as viewed by a potential buyer. The lower-the perceived density,the more valuable a property would be. In the case of hillside property that fronts on Via del Lago, the perceived density can be best characterized by two parameters, the area of the level pad and the shortest distance between neighboring homes. Both larger pads and greater distances between homes lead to a lower perceived density and a greater value. The table,on the next page lists the areas of the level pads and the shortest distance to a neighboring house for the nine existing homes on Via del Lago and the two new parcels that would be created by the proposed lot split. Also included in the table is the nature of the view of Canyon Lake(Partial or Full): Page -21- Page 134 of 188 SHORTEST DISTANCE TO VIEW OF LOT# LEVEL PAD AREA NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE CANYON LAKE 1 11,761 S.F. 165 F. Partial 2 20,038 S.F. 140 F. Full 3 21,780 S.F. 80 F. Full 4(Existing Home 12,632 S.F. 140 F. Partial on Parc.1) 4(New Parc. 2) 16,848 S.F. 150 F. (est*) Full 4(New Parc. 3) 17,921 SY 190 F. (est.*) Full 5 21,780 S.F. 55 F. Full 6 17,860 S.F. 55 F. Full 7 12,197 S.F. 50 F. Partial 8 14,375 S.F. 50 F. Partial 1 19,166 S.F. 110 F. Partial- AVERAGE 165843 S.F. 94 F. (for existing 9 lots) *Estimate based on Illustrative Drawing in previous figures. Page-22- Page 135 of 188 The close proximity of the houses on Lots 5 and 6 (only a 55 foot spacing)and the houses on Lots 7 and 8 (only a 50 foot spacing)represent a substantial negative,as can been seen in photographs of these properties shown in Figures 5 and 6. Figure 5. View of the homes on Lot 5 (right) and Lot 6 (left)with Via del Lago in foreground. House separation is 55 feet. r v -xre,Mff bf. SG z`Xd y r-fit dtY3ie t i t_ i} tr Page -23- Page 136 of 188 Figure 6. View of the Domes on Lot 7 (right) and Lot 8 (left)fronting on Via del Lago. House separation is 50 feet. W. WR sid _ W� 4;_^ x i Sir' .R. K Page -24- Page 137 of 188 In contrast,the two new lots(Parcels 2 and 3)that would be created by the proposed lot split have the first and third greatest distance to a neighboring house (150 feet and 190 feet, respectively)for all of the properties in the above table. It is significant that both of these Parcels have "Full'views of Canyon Lake,as shown in Figures 8(a)and 8(b). In contrast,Lot 1,which comes in second with a spacing of 165 feet,only has a Partial view of Canyon Lake. Figure 7 is a photograph that shows the perceived lower housing density due to this larger spacing between homes as compared to those in Figures 5 and 6. Figure 7. View of the homes on Lot 1 (center-left)and Lot 2 (first of three houses in upper-right) taken from Via de 1a Valle(foreground). Housing separation is 165 feet is - N 1�F f sr�•u � ' G e -.::...�......._..::�- _ Pabe--25- Page 138 of 188 Figure $(a). View of Canyon Lake from Lot 4 (New Parcel 2). The snow-capped San Bernardino Mountains can be seen in the distance. ...},„• C a F ua{� P ai 4 a3 tI'�fa S r ,: i • A 5, C {t Y <ryCW 4ell i t � " ax rt n '��cvn m, �-fLL��. �t W- 24�+c�aMC �-�. 5MTW WSWi.{ tN7��', r i Yis`"4.aL p t # �F5i N`� 's'€' ` I r .� 1 t. 5s �'t v � .p ? `4 - tit !`i kr. - �, r; t•, 1 _E ,Y` s "* 'e' .r an a Egli, ar, � � e�t �� y t r e 1 mVan �r cocoa Aw" � a ' k Y Page -26- Page 139 of 188 Figure 8(b). Meta of Canyon Lakef om Lot 4 (Aena Parcel 3). Via del Lago is on the right hand side of this photograph. The existing home and garage on Lot 4(Parcel 1)can be seen in the center-left. iY 3 i _. .. }r y .. ........r�"a�'. The relative advantages noted above for Parcels 2 and 3 combined with the fact that both of these parcels have mid-sized level pads (16,848 S.F. and 17,760 S.F. as compared to the 16,843 S.F. average)and the highest elevation(point ofview)on the entire street firmly establish that they would be valued above averse relative to other comparable lots on Via del Lago. An additional factor to be considered is that all of the existing homes on Via del Lago have detached 3-car garages,while both Parcels 2 and 3 have sufficient space on their level pads to include 4-car garages,as shown in Figure 2. This further enhances the value of these parcels relative to the other lots on Via del Lago. The significant conclusion here is that Parcels 2 and 3, if created by a lot-split, would be more valuable than the average comparable lot on Via del Lago. As a consequence, completing the proposed split would actually enhance the property values of homes on,Via del Lago rather than having any negative impact. Page-27- Page 140 of 188 O timum Lot Split for ARpficant and Ci While the above analysis has addressed the Commissioners'concern that a 3-way lot split might have a negative effect on neighboring property values,it has not yet addressed the possible alternative that a 2-way split may,in some way,be preferred. Clearly,a 2-way lot split is not preferred by the applicant. Otherwise he would have proposed it. But, how would it impact the City? For an answer to this question, it is useful to turn to the last clause in Section 16.20.020 of the Sub- Division Code: B. When lots or parcels twice or more the required area are shown on a division of land the City council may require such lots orparcels to be so established as to make practical a further division into allowable building sites, without injury to adjoining property. In effect, this clause recognizes that it is sub-optimum from the perspective of the City to split lots into larger areas than appropriate because the tax-based revenue to the City and County would be less than could otherwise be realized. The conclusion here is that a 3-way lot split would be preferable for both the applicant and the City! It is conceivable, in view of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan and the above guidance in Section 16.20.020 B that the lot split could be made to produce even more than three parcels. However,any attempt in this direction would appear awkward and be in conflict with Section 16.20.020 A,which requires consistency in the general pattern established in the vicinity or maintaining the value of property in the vicinity. (For example,one more home site could be added to Lot 4 on the northern portion of the slope fronting Via del Lago. However,any house built on this site would stick out like sore thumb and the engineering and grading costs would likely exceed the value of this lot.) This leads to the significant final conclusion that the 3-way lot split as shown in Tentative Parcel Map 36304 would be preferable and optimal for both the applicant and the City. Page -28- Page 141 of 188 Future Sub-Divisions in Tuscany Hills Estates The same logic used above has been applied to conclude that splitting any other lot on Via del Lago would also raise a possible conflict with Section 16,20.020 A of the Code. Any such lot split that resulted in an awkward(inconsistent)appearance would surely have a negative impact on property values in the vicinity. In this regard, it is worth repeating one of the comments made by the applicant at the March 1" hearing. Be said that his Lot 4 (3.17 acres) and his neighbor in Lot 5 (1.18 acres) are the only properties in the Tuscany Hills Estates were the owners were fortunate enough to have the street in front of their homes(Via del Lago)extended after they took occupancy in 2003. To date,only the applicant has concluded that his lot could be subsequently split in a manner that actually increases the value of property in the vicinity. If the street had been extended before the builder had sold him this lot, he is rather confident that the builder would have initiated the lot split to his firm's advantage. The owner/applicant has also made it clear that he hopes to build a new home for himself and his wife on Parcel 2 because it has a better view than the home he now resides in on Parcel 1. In view of this, he is clearly motivated to maintain and improve property values on his street. By fully recognizing the intent and significance of Section 16.20.020 of the Sub-Division Code,the Planning Commission will most assuredlX.be able to avoid any rush by owners to further sub-divide their Iots in the TuscanX Hills Estates and thereby ensure that the original character of the community will not be lost. The sub-division shown in Tentative Parcel Map 36304 is truly an exceptional case. Conclusion The preceding analysis leads to the significant final conclusion that the 3-way lot split as shown in Tentative Parcel Map 36304 would be preferable and optimal for both the applicant and the City. Further,approval action on this Tentative Parcel Map will not lead to any rush by owners to further sub-divide the Tuscany Hills Estates That would cause the original character of the community to be lost. Page -29- Page 142 of 188 ADDENDA Page -30- Page 143 of 188 PHOTOGRAPHS SUBMITTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE SUBJECT LOTS AND EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE Page-31- Page 144 of 188 4 4 s.w 4 X ' z .L.ago to p .f�'Cfitt.�':.I;, and 3-1 14 @' ,.y':J� '...�.. ✓ i°i:i e"tw � �M _:f' 'F.�iL*".. f�1 � ,�'k. „� j�lt s 9 `c - 2 Y K 'tt � x,�c tT�h� r t r f 1 r r r -%'ay Up e0ttl1114 m r %14 [MaL spUts wid) Yarcet . on the right .}tl.d�� Parcel 3 on the ie1'i. Page -32- Page 145 of 188 R ^+#��,y�"wyq��1G' f ��, 0:�-�a��:'xr`a+� �i"rs"P � 'w.; '{ , �' �.� ar�1� t� ay '• ` w Vio.v down cEaum-Pot driveway s1y.c vlr, the dca.J-oid i)s.Via del i._ago, s sy .gym SIN �>WI.,w r y�TT: � 4 �-- M � ..,�' L'"E' s'.c '° '� �*.�i',� r��✓ r ,eta- �y - V icvv taken, from Parcel 3 ofdrsbv.i4,ay sp]iI`.�, itil la.It�'�-A qi nd die- s Page-33- Page 146 of 188 �+a' ow g ^; 41 r ti { *, tn;.x closer vieN r at is?grcel. ? with drive- -ay-ptit to the riglit _.. r _:_ � at 9.',`a to .! gal��+•r M' -..a.�,�5� � �'*J 1 f�,f Page -34- Page 147 of 188 .� �` � k� 1 = ,t+'.4 ��k= y✓.- 4,j �.S'1 v' � � i��.�'.. F ��,+skrA � °F�r i. ".S took ,t ,9 w .x�^rn.: .;,; '. �^. +t➢° -u' y.b-�'r e� Ste-' """"^+ .. �`a .'y-4``'"'1 �"v ""'i'„ w'". +^",:. MISS 1 fro.m. Parcel 2 of v isU g. r side3tcc �ttrJ detached g rrn e vrr, 7, '- ,,. 3 — u BAN y ply WIN e- j rye� My- u rr LW OOP rr Page -35- Page 148 of 188 LETTER FROM CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Page -36- Page 149 of 188 1 t i f�.tatCh�.2[309 j -74 I Dr.Douglas Pinno►v 7 Via Del Lago � Lake Elsinore CA OM2 Re:Tuscany.HellslEStates Property(7 Vis Del t_ago) Dear Dr,Pirmorr 11 Thank you for reaontly sharing conceptual information ralatO to your property listed above.We are ready to assist you Vith the Perntillirrg and entitlement process once you j are ready to move forward with your project. As was discussed durOV out meeting,alt Tuscany Hills Specific Plan gt»d$lirteS must be tollowod in order to subdivide and/or develop your property.In addition„all Engineering, Fire, and BuiJe:inp Division reqt?irgm+ra,to wilf also new to be adlmred to. Development standards from the Tuscany Has Specific Plan has been included for your rofwonce. � TnaAk you for g?ving the City+of take Elsinore the opportunity to assW you.Please do not Nsitme to contact me iLf you have any other questions, Sinorely, Community Development Department a r, Tom Weiner Acting Comrinunity DOvelopment Director Attachment Page-37- Page 150 of 188 „� ,vuuwulg us+cscfstticntstenuarits shu.li apply in the R-s(r.Zo}1te- 1.. 1714!miiiamv:n lot area in the WSF Zone shall Be 5,000 Square feet_ the 2-1rralae lot area for the Tuscany Hills Sp mij: Plan area shalt be 5,1kOd sgoare!ect. 2. > ?t' SSIx t I rs `I 'ne minimum street frontage in the R-Sr Zoo- --"Mall be 50 feet,measured 35 feet from the sidtwalk. i or$fronting on cul- dc-sacs and pig,shaped lots shalt have a tt»ttirnum street frontage of 30 feet. 3. 1U. mum 1 everu,.: The maxirnusn lot Covetago in the R•SF Zone shall be 60 percent. 3. tifnimum d4-ling.9&t e.::x: f he rrtinicttum tlwrliirtg unit sire within the R-SF Zone shall be"OM square feet exctus€ve Of gara.gt:area,provided that at least°A 16 of the total isumb.or.of units within any OR=shall eatc�ted ibe ?tinknutri'square footage by 15%. S. hfn ' ,• -ne maximum.huMiage height Ln.the A-SF Zone shall be 35 fetal,atehsswo of ehlmrtcys and rather appurtenances where the MXimt.m height.is 37 feet. g9 tt*. Itelczs; The folLivrpng setFr+tks shall apply in the ft-SF 7tsnc see Exhibit T9): a. Prtzttt yard-10 feet for main duelling unit bL Rear tiard: 10 feel for stain cxeil'ang unit, 5 feet for accessory structures Stec}yard: 5 feet of level mound.10 fees fx curr,.ar lots of which 5 fret.shall be level ground;5 feet for aatcsso 5uttttttres - Garage plactttte,.ot: Frnnt Ord sethaeke for garages shall he 17 fact with minorv4riations r;?r gratrmg and akthetic PVTOSes permitted to a minimum of 10 leer sublecl to the aPProval of the Planning Comfnissian. e. Intrusions into setNckss %inorinttcuionSintosetbacltswalhe,_,Uo cxf for fireplaces, chimnea- .k care,$. bakonies, sauadproofCd l)ool equipment i;rilitie`s And other appurtenances as may be approved by the E tr;nmUnA_v Developmem Dirmor or his designate. &Eki4r The provisivns of Chapter 117.66 of the Z*rsingr3rdinssk'e shall be uWd ttt tktcrmtne The requiredpaiking for&vdapment in he R-SFZane, Paue -38- Page 151 of 188 RESIDENTIAL.CLENTIAL STRUCTURAL SETBACKS 771._ ..74 _•. f f7rM w.�g 4 ,q: Li Vj 3 3 LOT a LOT B i 100 STREET NOT TO$CALE miNIMUM SETBACK EROm STREET&REAR PROPERTY LINE TO MAIM DWELLING UNIT OENOM INTERK0 SIDE PROPERTY LINES �slxtrett�Fj EXHIBIT !9 Page -39- Page 152 of 188 LETTER FROM PROPERTY OWNER TO THE CITY Page -40- Page 153 of 188 0002 pinnot Figirr: "DwUpirp". ." qim. ;> To; "Twn Wo-wel or1r, 3eill: Ak.;Rd2fy.Atxiz GO.,2009'1,1 AM Attach- Stj-'4rvsID1 do-- Subject; SUBIWISION PIAN IN TUSCAVY NfLLS 7 Via dr-I Lago, Late Elmrove,CA Aprit 6,2W) hif I'voll VICiacir,AUIT19 Commit.Mily DCv*I*rMvm Director City of Lake E"Nnowe 130S.Main Striml Laic Mmuc,CA 923 () Dear My.4w0ner. Wv ri rn mel lit.st mn.,)jh 10 di-icuns ffw ofitcria for ww ivitif. the 3.1 acre to]in 'z'riss" iriff I fil I,.,. , . wtwrc I reside.YOU 014Y fWdll IJIU 911V Plan iS TO SrAij this jol into tilt-CC piycCh,one U-itg try cxislirig honric and two uc%v zinllcvci(llQ 10m,During our rilectins jou were kind enough to prvvj dk ino*ithuopiesof the rdt.vt-g UW fic I'lang Cline;that tutst,b.-followea A copy 01"vOut ftKwarding.letta,&ted M=h 54t 6aktiach.-d,Ubove,fat your SUb9c4ueal.to Our netting,I reviewed tho material you providod with ms,rmTmevro-o- a Surw-,vr who Vill plauring to relain 10 act: mplish the:lot spk Thic adNice I romivcd was that it ix-mild be orudeni to attempt to-AbsfY both the Tuscany Hill-,Specific Plan pkielines, asAr[I as FF f Whopulf 17"Z3 wlile:Eris bckm to boa:natively mmighl fo.—w-maird w*,444nir iisone j;tute that 1 Vk)3,Uld like,torvvicw-mddi vim at(big tune tend rcqwA)-->ur*v&ael,bcfo,a I go Wi for, 4 , w th in the'lluxany Hills Specifia Plan&W tho.60-toot fninfinwin frooft. EC CdIC41 100i is th,Cote for R-1 Them is marts Lh2m2&.tjwte eirtintace 10equal of tweed the 604001 fkm.u-g,-for all three tim.Tlk;,sajlle cal in mid f6l all Other aspects erthe two docuti, n ex f 0, issw WvMxi irl SmIkIn 17,2.4.060 Pars , x- u vepi 6 ak- graphs C and D in tbc(�Ddc for R-L'rlicsenvo pwagmphq M"JaW to 10(arraN fat low dmsfty housing,as exists in the'rusm),Villa rg-.jj(s t, ,n I ji ve Palge-4 1- Page 154 of 188 ..wn+clrurt�c tit a htf.rj;r trt6,irfi urltntl PiY7Y�fht)i?N r!s;,-r,tsr d�'�rxtryRtnf}��tr+�'ral-rr.J�'3hi;!!ht .Yix njdl.•drtrlxYf 5'itYRt t1L".YIllit:dlt'N Nielks is'evivurdif.','.!rJJl:71e1•r.,t:>',-tit.'X a:at iaca:lH.slrs�4:Bt.,�lr.Y:wljiM_rn'mN Ar uhYilk'3C'::�:s:tn rt r:�R.a;:r•red.�.tx.:::l.un-+-ara.fs�.:rf`4:`j pion.&r+J � . 3:ta" iormi fs donl}•MfM#ra ides wd,e ryF,}'—d wioc iJ i+tha'iw wol a(lha:dEltYY:$+r)f•dr-lal bt h v':+nit?r l fltn t;Ks 7 dP addaJN•d}�ti:?4rr:�.. Ike n+rrLre sirs ttiraE f ott slr_drier kA.litat w ki be erestaat wftc!the&ianA.yts latsri.ogle:u-itl rxcrcda qc recrr \ Rtelt d y yell Kw;gjaQmn,-;ljtr1y ! mp)tom,;,v wnrc t'r%It:s:?front my borr4 tiut they will iuseal}Aoki:54 a of the sin of try only atD-Ir-zii nk--�Khh r s lot S 1 3 cO LAO)Tl::ec,ltmic Snyld t an 1's€ir i laree N.lbe"S i.RMl>dlT w erenr.umd Yrwv a in tls Ctx!,.oar It- . (?a tM olh-r hR+nd,1 nnlyd Thai there p»aErr�eA x ml>»tarr P�ryxazl±at;±nslu shis�,_tnvlurYl t n fltE vrceaY tl_tr were' ire ss(pt iy g[Ir?Ord.Far vampicAlle'IFn area ilf 11)Via 301[,a"p IF 1.,I-7 dc? t,ap)is 2:241 iecto',roahittg in a 33%.siix rat", AiItlw aftib-,utlhi%, >u3.,lihm-amitdmwitteduiljoeslv�!ly¢YcoPhitl>itti 7r4ttnR4 64¢-tler,6lbeenwe srla7di d m snot,1lu hiCd lot itita lwmyt ne..ly-av sitsrtifi uaa dw s4l-t dule}rns'itat lra;i�.in ul a eretin_ii� the Mixivc d&-im lye Oil diib lw-j,taw aew lots ibnt l°a: hell w ilh all nine r,xyxrtrsit luanct OO my urcc4..'I'he sirc cif lbelr fist pa&ib vd an k4tmadon,wviJcd to Inc by-;toe dcvckpe?, t:eutis lei dutrnter llu 13 iw;i 31 76.1 Io N,ifi8 5dwle feu with a ava m,< �el 1ri l l ezli®w fi r W,ima he ctmtrared wtirh:Ix pal smei itf th,,tnla.(Urtlevdulp l)luh tlul will be-erratrtl to tkc,5pw of i$,-..tD0 aodZ),I101)squaru liney..Sc;the YwWpull:will atvutdty tv anttt,whnl lulget than tlii�:ht"i;i:;:::z i/t'tlre exlannr lmex� l`crkal?,1 tn:over-lhi,,*ily Ifir'sililat(un say UUCtnrtll•,j to aaliaf;'tht COKIr for a:-1 A&-o you mark:it Omp d1sr,nq :Ntr m flag anj to tame March 5"s'ktrct dul'I mitatl Hillslutl ft-t own.$IYX64 Pun guiduhl"ts.In Say Cr^,m, I wwt,1 atr•tec.=Ir Your b.:4)a pinViirintE,cl:ilt Oil w1 wilict,ltlsCity yvill,lksa eutibakr)be C txk t'cx K-1 its LiL evatl4 my r c.lxtwd 14 Spr It unw.If Nl.Ivliuld the t%,O new urO.mclttred 1Clfi each w th Omcj aae unt in mz2 and dal p;�t I tt 7t3CI aad NAM%fAm-&191 W.ac:cpb 4 ble to%0 Pg the inte mt Of'.itw`Ct 1 17423,00.of tht Code. 11^•sl.30a tw YOUR hc1p ill this nttltter. kirev w4N vpw9. Muel'aF A.14-now i 3 Page -42- Page 155 of 188 CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PROPERTY OWNER AND THE CITY Page -43- Page 156 of 188 from I"WOW-1wA-wffL*# To: Taug Pr+�Ow rnrcw( , ey,1-0n1 SVM, 061w4*)'Apal DG,ZCM 2:"M4 Subj4ft REE SLVDNI��PLAN in JjjSCAhy HILLS o m it 3pFcm thm t*ndwom6i!xm&dWv.nt to too tKM(311,ibottv?IN. is durtq*.IC Tqxaoy d4h SP riot.hwing thm ismoi.micm,Tim arc;lr*p,"4rE Teem r,.k tii1cO)636 You# GNPIA-IaIiM,"wftew,weal S-Kesewc-�Od nc-cd to we a roAceptw1jol mip t* In nVITM, .'L Ong I)Imx 1"r of Cpmm zinitt.rmmmr*�quoemt Gt,4 oI I..rl1'I'IsIL1US1' '?„rryaAibaih' `CYK':ttrJlePnk Dqurmw�-A Uhp CA 95V %IA743124 rpl 77@ *4 414) Fooft -D0.*.Pia`v**djce f,r*v- TO; -1rom V*emr Sant: W(xv3sy.Apri!03,2009 8:10 PM SOW) *: Re'SL M- MON PLAN IN TUSCAMY HILLS Hi Irom, ThanIQ-,for your prompt response. III pull together a Conceptual ID(Configuration and Stem it to you shortly. Regordq, Doug Rinnoov Page -44- Page 157 of 188 €rum Wig f'enort l iito:0oua. tr,rtaril Soft M-4 y, 06,2 ti)q 5:23 ptt To)If Qm Vtidr subjoct F -S,,W1V=CPj pLAn pi Tl AifY rrtLLS Hi Tom, Machef is the concept-ual lot sprst co.nfigutatio n ttn.,t you requesKed_ The same dravaag is presented In bolt€JPEG end Word Docurnmt format so that you can seier,:the one tuts easiest for you to work with, The existing`•at is 3.17 acres and the proposed lot srAt fates are shown in too, The new lots are numbered Lot*1 (existiog residence),Lot#2 (undeveloped)and Lo *3(ur-devetapaq), T3i�flat pad areas have a green borcia,and the driveways are highlighted in ye'HOW. By the way.the Fat pad area fm rray existing residence is 12,632 square feet You can seethe The new pain wie be Ge s.ldetak3#y larger that this. It YOU C04t re any forther infbimat6n, please 10 me knew and i will psll:t together. Regards. Douglas Pirknow Page -45- Page 158 of 188 PROPOSED LDS' SPL,I. MR Y S tt ,V f'L�l�*JOii PI ►PLT` .... 7 Via L ai Lag x. s .E„akc I=SIQOFC. !� �}Yi -sue y ,�L •L��a- 1 ,y ,} OT 10R.AC i�3MI1tC tlit�. i�'T 1'�--Ef�'S:F'.1; z r r a ." r _ t .. Y ��•'n'y Ysy:.::/ f.i.J'e m I £ ., a FR Y. ,�I'� S r s�l/.Lzi»iYJ'�.�> ..r.,y�4Y r y�:. ....' •;,�i.S: � i � E ri y/�rl • A i i. �S'J•: ~ .06Yi EYlM4' k } E Y��sJ{t•, �j"��" (i�«� i G Ar.• ,.. - eYrliYYdfWaP4'.� 1 `i + �f{ •�,!�v-w.' ,:�.T Y � ' M_ ,4 �'; ,. ; ;h^+si<—.r-2A.f{4a"•TlJ `..«^.•.,. ..,� t .:.. r- - •ir.. u!v '. "�lIIiaii�- "5 w`4t ^�a °� _ '• ...�:r. ! L j i .E a_-� ....c;.y �'~P«dr• -1.n § x9. 6 - s, E, 4 y ,......"'YAP Page -46- Page 159 of 188 IFfam.Tarn Winer .fientl Ttjesday Apf 07,WM 7.36 Ant Ter.Crylir;miitea Subjaet FPS!_SwL):vj% ,,j p'v4N 1N 1't35{Ad4Y HILLS tai%vti�IQ, Cyr ycu pteasr ta7lar.}p With-11*.Into is in fire string(A#snmity,T"prop". voymm is dimne.sla due ctikt�v3e:�bt'Fa;nR=sL��ng money on a Cfait to drzw up stf;~iasri�n Fdanf �prot�fty t in.Tusca ny I ��s Tom%VAmr si"..rrtar�sl Ac lint-I'irar,tt•r i,�t i'�NllitkUDTti�tk•a�doprn nt 4-i#�4 Lai-,ei.ii;.4r:: f t:MIA Wt:y P0r4-b p,v k'nt I k•t<nriamv.A 'I'NI ti,tut>,in'.tiltts� sack•is I.I.#t'3;k{.ha I:rnen: 'Tppn itl[edxsr'�Sv�raar�l.ake-i*�in�.oT�A TV *CcFdis WtB celfUllBf f 3 o �5b16t+s,i iq Sent, MDznfay,Aorll13,2aW114"pht Attach: PROPOSED Xi SPUTM7.1Vi F fL*tS&.doe. Sufrjeet: FkV;StJt3titirFS 0t4 PLAN W Tw'SCANY H !S Mr.Pimp-)w called me ind eating that I*hzs not a+this:Mmw foltxafupas 90m2s 055side.rhank;. As vor-1 hr";tr c:�t':,17t R3:ifEltr I'3;`Cr k'•�'R3•?D: Call-of lako H�Jfftw. �'.•n��s:ritr 11reclt�I,�mrt;t.tc�arfftnr�8 tit3 ti,MA)Strfcl 431..E"%L 13i r►c Z70 Wit. 1414�ksx Page -47- Page 160 of 188 From. "Doug Pirros'{Dx,g.P:rrncw�ce.r►_oomr To. "Tam Mroe'-twx:*w4@Lske-Elan ore=org> SanL Tuesday,A.Mg 14,2004 tie PM Subject: Re;$WPPASsON PLAN IN TUSCANY H"$ Hi Torn, Thanks for your follow-up with Cordie Miller. However, I remain confused. Are the Development Standards from the Tuscany Hills:Specific Plan that you gave me on March 5th the apjicabla standard or is there scmething else that is complicating the review of the conceptual lot split that t sent to you lastweek? l ask tins question because d should only take about five minutes to review the conceptual lot split for total conformance with the Standards from the Tuscany Hilts SperAc Plan All three of the proposed new lots have more than the minimum street frontage and much more than the rninsmum area specidied in the flan. If you need any further information to complete the review,please let me know at your early convenience Best regards, Douglas Pinnow From: 'DM P-OVm"--'Doug PnuXw@c:a.rr.00nl> To: 7tm lain '�!1-sainor�Laho-@tstxrrc.gp> sane Monday,A 20.2009 8:17 Art $ubioct- f v,'SUBDIVIS". PLAN IN iUSCANY I U$ Hi Toro, Please advise approximately when.1 can expect a response from the City or. the acceptability of the proposed lot split. Thanks, Doug'f nno+N (951)674>2598 Page-48- Page 161 of 188 From: "7o m 4'v<&rwr<t+vb»br�la&9 EAss)ore.orgr TO: 'Ttxv toN <D-,g.Pl+egv+ scl tt.Goni: Sant: !+tangy,Apt 20.2CAD9 1:39 PM SubjW: RE:SUfifSl►tISION PLAN 1+J TUSCANy 14ILiS 141 Opus, Gordie1tlfaercomactedyouvi,r.-moo lost week-have you cnatactedW!rYet?ofnot,You!vvlreraivea Phoft tell behue end o>business today 1'zfre,t1°ex� �l!:�itag['•:rig tvKr trF 4sku:law'tiis°1'k'ar7n�mi�rt L`t�snmeneh Ct:rt�i��at4-nt tt�)attt�u+ni Page -49- Page 162 of 188 k k Flow Yi wft 1llitlar'w:mir►u�ytiat�lserore arm T6 Dwg.piro o @Ca- Cc- Yom wa4w- Op ! Stet Wtday.Apat2L'.2W94wPU I Rthclr tk pkwry&PRQPp EDOtSNATilp2,rpp I I i I A;X0 2rJ,200 �r x?.�uginx Priv 7 Vila tki Lap,. Leslie D**m CA 02S32 ! Re'Tmcany sty&s PFWny(r v ia Cet Lego) r Maw or,Pmrow Thank you to u*conceptusi plan you pmvkted In yeas emag which retwed to yeta propr:tty t Move_t have re'A.-wed the conwptrat pier,and "Os. wffi Beni to cvndnue grdh the j TWIN ivo porcei?,"p "M am ready 10 arm#you vAtr.the Permning and an"Wrneni pfocess 00t:YOU O.fII rOO Cy tD iT)W0 rCdW Wiitb YOW;XO-CA. As w"ris5 r3 errd durog Your rrcr:r"ty wV1 TAtn Vmrjm, aP Tuscany Aills Specjlc Plan rear l""[ MUS-4 he WL-Wvd w orM io subdNirc ar4ra esewmep your reaperty.En adlAwn,aL E091rw". €ire.and R ip r*kZiw requiroms9ft wfH atsa need to be adhered to The Oe`ve nneav standaN for 'Amany Mills Speetth tin Wft JxtOW)ri%y ptYan to YOU M )fur XCf�C�71C� f Think you for glv*g the f.Ay at Lake EMWwaxheoppodundyto awim Yw.Reast to pOI ! ! CO"rOr t'j frvalopM". t Department I I caft viper j S�riniit�7ectasiraan I CC:TOMVdCftr Acting Caasmurtydyevxi+acrrrem.rk7estrx At'O&m,onr I I III I Page -50- Page 163 of 188 ENGAGEMENT LETTER Page -51- Page 164 of 188 � APMAISAL CONTRACT/PROPOSAL R-E Proposal for appraisal report ^� 4. Inic-nds-d Use of the Report ..-Appr-.u--31 Can-sulting-&to include attendance at d2e city rns-ecing.on Mzy S'6 pm written a-eterrennadon of the arbia-ation-43aU be fir-d.bLnaig,and conclusive on the parties. 11. ClUent apees co hold -Appraiser harmless frow xnv liabilim arisinz out of or relative to the apprai5A produced purssuanE to thi-c-Agrecmenc in--vces--oftlie acm-al amount paid for suchappratsal i.e..Appraizeez lability under the terms of this Aggret-ment and to persow relving upon the appraisal produced pursuant h--4--to sh:-21 bv Chen t be S=e In d to the actual fee paid for d-te appraisal pvnidedas Provided for here' DATED By Noble R.Tuckcerjr,ALAI,SIL-1 Page -52- Paga185uf188 PROPERTY PROFILE SUBJECT PROPERTY Noe -53- ZD Page 166 of 188 Owner Nartte parcel Number I Site Address Mail Address Property Tax ID PIN►ilOW DOUGLAS A& 363-354-021 7 VIA DEL LAGO LAKE 7 VIA DEL LAGO LAKE JOAN S ELSINORE,CA 92532-0123 ELSINORE,CA 92532-0123 rpmilerty Profile Ownership Information Primary Owner W00 OW.DOUGLAS A&OA&J S Secondary Owner Ownership Description HUSE14ND14VIFE Site Address 7 VIA DEL LAGO Site City,St zip LAKE ELSINORE,CA 92532-01.23 Mail Address 7'AA DEL LAGO Mail City,St Zip LAKE ELSiWkE,CA 92532-0123 Telephone Censers Tract 0427.15 legal Description 3A7 ACRES NE R IN LOT 4 MB 03/W7 TF 16413-4 latlglock g?-M Housing Tract I Subdivision Name 1741304 Property Details Use Description SINGLE FAMILY RESIDViCE State CALI.FOfi EA QmntylMunicipality R.WE951DE RTSQ Total Roosts Zoning P106 Bedrooms 4 Number Of Units 1 Bathrooms 3 Year Built/Effect Yr Built 2003! Basement Square Feet Of Stories I Basement Descriptions) Lot Size 138,085 SQFT,r.3,1700 Acres View Usable Lot Size pool Lot Depth Fireplace YES Lot.Width HTIAC BOTH Square.feet 3.086 fooling Detail CEN'; _ Square Ft 1st fir Heating Detail CENTRIAL Square Ft 2nd Fir Roof Type 7LE Square Ft:3rd Fir Construction duality Additions-Square Feel: Construction Type parking Garage Exterior Parking Square Feet 725 Foundation New Page Grid Building Shape Map Page Grid Tax Information Assessor's Parcel Number f Tax ID 363-350-021 Assessors Market Value 50 Aft Assessor's Parcel Nun*sr 363350021 Exemption Y Assessed Total 4475,000 Tax Amount $7,178.56 Land Total $157,035 Tax Status Current Improvmlent $317,965 Year Delinquent Percent Improvement 6A6 Tax Rate Area 5011 Sale Information Last sales Date 3une6,2003 Document Number 00@M13421 Ist Loam.Amount $2a0.008 Sale Value j437,500(FuR) First Loan Type Conventional Last Transaction 4YI0 S 2nd Loan Amount Last Transaction W10 S Doc Cost I Square feet $141 Title Company FIDELITY NAt[ONAL TITLE 2003'Dara-, tee;11'1c,m,% tion Systems his apn'u=mBbon d carr;Pi e ;.-m i.,r=t,k and rot guarrr: ed. Page -54- Page 167 of 188 QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER AND COPY OF LICENSE Page -55- Page 168 of 188 CURRICULUM VITAE NOBLE R.TUCKER JR., MAI, SRA Phone Number 951-677--4888 Experience Mr.Tucker is an independent fee appraiser (1984-2011). He has extensive experience in appraisal and consulting projects consistingofinvestment-quality office buildings,service stations,shopping centers,industrial planned communities, residential subdivisions, multi-family housing, single family homes, nursing homes, congregate care centers, special purpose properties, and vacant land throughout the Southwestern United States. Mr.Tucker is also an expert in the valuation of businesses. Mr.Tucker has performed valuations on proposed,partially completed,renovated,and existing structures. Mr. Tucker has qualified as an expert witness before various judicial and quasi-judicial bodies and has testified in Superior Court,Bankruptcy Court,Federal Tax Court,and Municipal Court,on matters involving real estate in civil cases. A large portion of Mr.Tucker's real estate appraisal practice involves real estate and business consulting. Mr. Tucker also assists clients in attaining real estate and business related financing through debt offerings. In addition he assists clients in equity financing through public offerings and private placements,debt offerings, loans,mergers acquisitions and divestitures,accounts receivable financing,factoring,lease/buy-back financing, real estate portfolio sales assistance. Mr.Tucker has been appraising for approximately 26 years on a full-time basis. Previous Experience Prior to working for Tucker Appraisal Service Corporation,Mr.Tucker was Chief Appraiser at Traditional Mortgage in Woodland Hills,California.Duties included overseeing major loan appraisals on apartments and high dollar single family residences(1984-1985). From 1983-1985 Mr.Tucker was an independent fee appraiser working for firms such as Steve Smith and Associates in Canoga Park,Kennedy Appraisal Service in Los Angeles,Chua Bailey and Associates in Glendale, Southland Appraisal Services in Anaheim, Lenders Technology Service in Santa Ana, Lenders Service in Pittsburgh,and several other firms. Prior to working the Real Estate Appraisal Profession Mr.Tucker was involved in the construction industry. From 1975 to 1980 duties included project management, sales, job-site supervision, and construction superintendent. Professional Associations S.R.A.Designated member of The Appraisal Institute MAI Designated member of The Appraisal Institute State licenses/Certifications Certi sed General Real Estate Appraiser with the State of California.This allows Mr.Tucker to appraise any type of property(within his capabilities)within the State of California.License NumberAG001532.Expires January 31,2013 California Real Estate Broker with the State of California.No.Of 24-0497 Page-56- Page 169 of 188 Education Western Illinois University,Board of Governors Bachelor of Arts Degree Court Experience/Expert Witness Testimony Mr. Tucker has testified as an expert witness numerous times over the past 15 years. He has testified in Superior Court,Bankruptcy court, Federal Tax Court,and testified at Fair Value hearings in Los Angeles County,Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,and Ventura counties. Additionally,Mr.Tucker has been hired as an arbitrator to resolve real estate disputes between parties. Appraisal Courses Successfully Completed-The Appraisal Institute I) Capitalization Theory and Techniques Part A/Course Iba The Appraisal Institute-The Conference Center in San Diego(October 31 to November 09, 1991) 2) Capitalization Theory and Techniques Part B/Course lbb The Appraisal Institute-The Conference Center in San Diego(November 14,to November 23,1991) 3) Principals of Income Property Appraising/Course 201 The Appraisal Institute-Glendale College of Law(April 09 to June 25, 1988) 4) Standards of Professional Practice part A/Course SPPA The Appraisal Institute-San Diego Chapter(May 10 to May 11, 1991) 5) Standards of Professional Practice part b/Course SPPB The Appraisal Institute-San Diego Chapter(May 17 to May 18, 1991) 6) Real Estate Appraisal Principles/Course 1 al The Appraisal Institute-University of Southern California Uanuary 04 to February 08, 1986) 7) Residential Valuation/Course 8-2 The Appraisal Institute-University of Southern California(June 16 to June 22, 1985) 8) Standards of Professional Practice/Course 2-3-Southern California Chapter Quly 14 to July 17, 1985)The Appraisal Institute 9) Basic Valuation Procedures/Course la2 The Appraisal Institute-Biota University(August 01 to September 19, 1987) 10) Report Writing and Valuation Analysis Course 540 The Appraisal Institute-Orange County Chapter(September 01 through September 09, 1999) 1 1) Advanced Applications Course 550 The Appraisal Institute-Pepperdine University(November 10 through November 19, 1994) 12) Course 120-Basic Income Capitalization The Appraisal Institute-University of San Diego June 08 through June 16, 1995) 13) Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation The Appraisal Institute-Glendale College of Law(June 1-9 1984) 14) Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Part A and B-University of San Diego(June 1996) 15) Advanced Income Approach-Southern California Chapter May June 1997,Tustin,California 16) Highest and Best Use and Market Analysis,Course 520,Montrose California August 1997 17) Standards of Professional Practice Part C,Fountain Valley,California September 2000 18) Condemnation Appraising-Basic Principles&Applications University of Phoenix Gardena CA 05- 2003 19) Condemnation Appraising-Advaneted Topics&Applications University of Phoenix Gardena CA 05- 2003 20) Business Practice&Ethics,Long Beach California March 2006 21) Litigation Appraising-Specialized Topics and Applications Arcadia CA March 2006 22) Conservation Easement valuation,Littlerock Arkansas December 2007 23) Yellowbook Appraisal March 2008 24) Statistics and Graphs October 2009,Bakersfield,California 25) Using Spreadsheet Programs in Real Estate Appraisal,Bakersfield,California 26) Introduction to Business Valuation(BV 201),The American Society of Appraisers September 2009 Manhattan Beach,California Page-57- Page 170 of 188 Seminars Attended: 1) State License Preparation-Certified General Appraiser 2) State License Preparation-Certified Residential Appraiser 3) California OREA License Seminar(1996) 4) Demonstration Appraisal Report-Non Income Producing Property. 5) Demonstration Appraisal Report--Income Producing Properties. 6) Valuation of Leasehold Interests 7) HP 12/C Seminar 8) Easement Valuation 9) The Appraisers Complete Review Seminar 10) FHA Seminar 11) Legal Workshop 12) Business Valuation 13) Personal Property Valuation 14) The Comprehensive Appraisal Review Seminar 15) Retail Market Forecast 2009 Jan 2009 16) Industrial Market Forecast 2009 April 2009 17) Office Market Forecast 2009 March 2009 18) Appraisal for Financial Reporting Purposes April 2009 Workshops Attended 1) Valuing Impaired Properties 4)Regional Analysis 2) Fraud Workshop 5)Easement Valuation 3) Data Mining on the Internet 6)Valuation of Partial Interests Universigy Real Estate Courses Successfully ComiDleted 1) Real Estate Foundation 2) Residential Appraisal 3) Selected Topics in Real Estate-Nursing Homes 41 Selected Topics in Real Estate-Gasoline Service Stations 5) Selected Topics in Real Estate-Residential Subdivisions 6) Selected Topics in Real Estate-R.V.Resorts 7) Contemporary Issues in Real Estate 8) Income Property Appraising 9) Advanced Real Estate Evaluation 10) Real Estate Law Portfolio 11) Land Development Regulations 12) Report Writing 13) Land Development Regulations 14) Computer Applications in Real Estate Analysis 15) Residential Property Development 16) Real Estate Property Management 17) Real Estate-Finance 19) Narrative Report Writing 20) Understanding Commercial Real Estate 21) Survey Course Page -58- Page 171 of 188 *CLIENT LIST Developers Richmond American Homes S and S ConstructionWilliam Lyon Company Kaufman and Broad Sierra PacificCentury 21 Construction Brock Homes Ryland HomesBaldwin Company Beazer Homes Centex HomesCostain Homes Greystone Homes Griffin IndustriesMorrison Homes Pardee Homes Richland InterestsWarmington Homes Barclay Homes Continental HomesSunridge Developments Davidson Communities Fieldstone CompanyLewis Homes Dix Development Presley CommunitiesWatt Hanes Forecast Homes McMillan HomesTaylor Woodrow Government Agencies Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation(FDIC) Resolution Trust Corporation(RTC) Department of the Forestry Mt.San Jacinto junior College Ventura County School District City of Temecula City of Perris City of Murrieta Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) Internal Revenue Service(IRS) United States Navy United States Secret.Service Riverside County Housing Authority Housing and Urban Development Lenders Bank ofAmerica Citycorp/CitiBankSanwa&ankChase Manhattan Bank Bank United of Texas GMACPrudential Insurance Co Norwest Life Insurance American Savings BankSouthern California Bank Wells Fargo Bank Coast SavingsDowney Savings and Loan First Pacific Bank Highland Federal BankRancho Bank High Desert Batik FNMAFHLMC Guardian S&L General BankG.E.Mortgage California Federal Bank Household Financelmperial Bank Life Savings Bank Northland FinancialLehman Brothers Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. North American MortageNew York Life Insurance Company Overland Bank North County BankRepublic National Bank State Farm Insurance Wells Fargo BankPeoples Bank Affinity Bank Centennial BankSanwa Bank Fleet Bank Fleet BankGoleta National Bank Telesis Federal Credit Union First Union(Pending)G.E.Capital North Island Federal Credit Union Anchor Capital CorporationABN Atnro State Farm Insurance Temecula Valley BankCanada Life Insurance Redlands Centennial Bank Kaiser FederalFirst Security Thrift&Loan American Sterling Bank Washington Mutual Bank8Mission Oaks National Bank Southwest Community Bank8 Landmark BankCIT Small Business Lending Note-list or alxnr lenders areclients we have completed appraisal rcork in the past. We do not represent that we are on their approved appraisers list. Stine appraisal assignments have.horn submitted to lenders through wholesale departments;or through brokers.Many of the clients alxn•e we.hart contracted direcdY with. Page -59- Page 172 of 188 Attorneys Law Offices of Brian C.Ostler,Sr. Rosenstein&Southwick,Attorneys at Law Law offices of Timothy j.Miller Law offices of Briggs and Alexander Palmeri,Tyler,Waldron Lau,offices of Michael Wood Law offices of Bocci and Hoffman Law offices of Carol,Gilbert,&Bayshore Law offices of Ito and Ito Law offices of Greg Erickson Sachsejames,&I.opardo-Attorneys At Law Iamb&Baute Coale;Dukes&Kirkpatrick Albrecht&Albrecht Law offices of Trujilo&Trujilo Law Offices of Dabney B.Finch Giarinelli&Finch Anderson&Kriger I.aw Offices of Rich Marshall Law Office of Rebecca Gunn Law Office of William K.Sweeney Law Offices of McKinley&Capeloto EXPERT WITNESS CASE LIST ♦ Zepede et a]vs.Cal Trans Superior Court Riverside California 1990 ♦ Kamal vs.Equillon Federal Court 2002 ♦ Wesselyn vs.Cal Trans 1997 Orange County Superior Court 1997 ♦ Rubin vs.City of Fontana 2004 San Bernardino Superior Court ♦ Grewal vs.Jones -Deposition 2005 ♦ Quinlivan -Attorney Deposition 2008 ♦ Catrina P. Richardson v. Private Loan Funding Corp.And Daryl A. Hopkins and Ainy C. Hopkins Case Number CIVSS703741 -January of 2009 ♦ De Oro Properties LLC v.David Evans and Associates,Inc.,et al.SBSC Case No.CIVRS 801728-2010 ♦ jimmy A.Espinoza v.Fidelity Family Holdings,LP.,et al.SBSC Case No.CIVRS705657.(Lead Case)-2010 Please note that these are only a sample of some of the cases Mr.Tucker has testified in since 1990. Mr.Tucker has testified in approximately 40-50 trials,testified in mediation's approximately 10 times,been involved in arbitration approximately 20 times,and had his deposition taken approximately 50 times.This is only an estimate. Page -60- Page 173 of 188 APR 2 9 Mi CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PI-AANNING plVISION LU zz 44j LL,.L 7 I- *? I 1 -A- Aezu Led—/ L.(4 X tj _2 ilz T J-- �.c 4/1- \4 L& L-e/c 4-Q 'ju Ac VL _Z7 a Lp Page 175 of 193 I/ .1��,'7,� ��X�:> '-�'�'-7t-_,r'�� %`�(:,:? r�ia..I�1L..L L�� ,--a• .!J'��. 1 `7 L. ✓I�h.c—tom • �.`L v� ,1t•ri.t.-L-��...�Cv2�'(,-�,G��-•'��,C.-LI.L.. •�C� �1.� 1 - Lrtiy•�:,'iL' Ctr r�?�,<.C,�--� C�`'2-er`zCr�,4: J-G.f— .(.L��,/ � ._• r �:.�.0 A- h • v i Page 176 of 188 Barbara Leibo[d From: Virginia Bloom [vbioom@Lake-Elsinore.org] Sent: Friday,April 29, 2011 3:30 PM To: Kristine Herrington; Kirt Coury Cc: Bob Brady; Barbara Leibold Subject; FW: 7 Via Del Lago Attachments: 7 Via Del Lago.doc Here is the letter received in today's mail relating to an agenda item of the Planning Commission scheduled for Tuesday, May 3rd. Virginia Bloom City Clerk From: Kevin Campion {mailto:cdr kevin@yahoo.coml Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:24 PM To: Virginia Bloom; Phil Mendoza; John Gonzales Cc: cdr kevinODyahoo.com Subject: 7 Via Del Lago This is just an email copy of the letters we mailed to the City Clerk and Mr. Mendoza as a backup if the mail doesn't arrive before the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 5/3/2011. Kevin and Janice Campion cdr kevin6�7gahoo.com 714-255-1443 1 Page 177 of 188 April 28, 2011 TO: THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Please deliver this letter to the Planning Commission for their meeting on Tuesday regarding TPM36304 Prior to Mr. Pinnow's submittal of a grading plan at 7 Via Del Lago, Mr. Pinnow invited us both,Janice and Kevin Campion, into his home and living room. He brought out a drawing and told us he was going to get a lot split as the plan he was showing us. He said to get a lot split you have to set it up by doing a grading plan showing you want to put something in or on your property. He then showed us the tennis court representing one potential lot and then the so called international sports court. That plan was exactly the one he got approved later by Engineering and the same one except for other things added in the proposed tentative tract map 36304 which is up for your preview presently. We gave Mr. Pinnow no response to his plan on the day of his showing and explaining it and a day or two after told him and wrote him that we did not like it. We had sent a letter also to Engineering about his false presentation of the courts when he really was setting them up for being left no choice but to approve his real intent—a lot split just as in the tentative map before you. We also were invited in by his neighbor, Mr. Porter,and he showed us his plans to build another home behind his existing one at 10 Via Del Lago, Mr. Porter also told us that Mr. Pinnow would give us an easement to go up his driveway per his split plans. We had he prior experience in Riverside County with the Hans process and had burrowing owl surveys done. We just couldn't believe that Mr. Pinnow got away with not having to follow any of those procedures in his grading plan. We have owned the 38.27 acres adjacent to Mr. Pinnow's property since 1971 and have paid attention to the development in the area. We were under the impression when the homes went in on Via Del Lago of CC&R restrictions,especially that only single story homes would be allowed. We feel the CC&R's of tract 17413-4 are pertinent to Mr. Pinnow's map and should be investigated. It concerns us that one of Mr. Pinnow's lots, if approved will have title issues if and when a new owner has to deal with the underlying CC&R's which are recorded against all the estate lots. This can have some costly ramifications as the Title Companies on recent sales have recorded all the CC&R's with the deeds. Thank you, Kevin Campion Janice Campion 1639 Greenbriar Lane Brea,California 92821 (714)255-1443 Page 178 of 188 FAXTo. �U1 �� U � Lv MM 15•.� 1 �� FAIL NUMBER y• 1 `� Ca faoW KEN GRANT 1 HOME/FAX NUMBER: 951-674-5175 LATE: REGARDING: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER. PHONE NUMBER FOR FOLLOW-UP- coerrTs `L,-I IU\'D r MAY 0 3 CITY Or ' _- LL-�,INORE PLANNING DIVIS IO�J Page 179 of 188 '_'a Whom It May Concern, 3ecause I cannot be present, I am writing a short statement concerning Lot 7, which is in the Tuscany Hills Estates_ At this point in time, I am opposed to the addition of homes to this property_ The word "estate" means "a piece of landed property, especially one of large extent ." I know the amount of a home' s property is subjective, but one of the reasons the homes in Tuscany Hills Estates stand out, is that the home is a small part of the landscape and the land itself is the main focus of these homes, the views of hills, mountains, the lake, etc. Allowing for the two additional pads to be built, this would increase the amount of homes in the Estates by 10%, "on this lot alone". If this pattern continues in the future, the outlook for the Estates could be drastically changed_ The ambience of the all of the homes would be completely different. I believe that the original purchasers of these homes, bought these homes because of, but not limited to, the sizes of the lots and the placement of these homes. There was also an agreement between the original homeowners that the lots would not be "subdivided." so I am disappointed concerning the path that this has taken. When I was invited up to view the property, I was told that the area I was looking at was going to be a "tennis court". Since the agreement obviously has changed, I feel the current homeowners have a right to discuss this issue before additional homes are built on ANY property. These homes are special for the reasons listed above. To start changing them now would be a shame. They are stand out homes precisely because of the abundance of land around them and should stay that way. Thank, you for your time, Ken Grant 3 Via De La Luna Lake Elsinore, Ca. Page 180 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of May 3, 2011 Page 3 of 11 ABSENT: Vice Chairman Mendoza ABSTAIN: None 2) Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304; A request to subdivide an existing 3.17 acre site into three (3) parcels within the Residential„Single Famify (RSF) District of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan City Manager Brady stated that this item was previously before the Commission for consideration and asked Planning Consultant Kirt Coury to review it with the Commission and answer any questions. Planning Consultant Coury stated that this is a continued item. It was originally heard by the Planning Commission at the March 1, 2011, meeting. He provided an overview of the project and noted that there were a few items that raised some concerns for the Commission which included parcel map corrections. Also, there was a concern about shared drive-way and access for the parcels as well as lot compatibility. He stated that the applicant re-submitted the map with associated corrections. Chairman Gonzales asked if there was a signed Acknowledgment of "Draft" Conditions of Approval. Planning Consultant Coury indicated no and City Attorney Leibold indicated that they can get a verbal representation during the testimony. REQUEST TO SPEAK Raymond Halts indicated that he owns the adjacent property at 5 Via Del Lago and indicated that he and his wife oppose the subdivision. They believe that it will significantly impact the values of neighboring properties. He stated that when he noticed the grading behind his house, he wasn't notified of any construction; so he went to City Hall and staff assured him that there was no building going on, other than mother-in-law quarters. Therefore, he wanted to know when the permits were pulled and when the engineers found out that it was possible to put additional lots there to subdivide. City Manager Brady indicated that the homeowner is permitted to get a grading permit and grade properties. However, at that time, there wasn't a request to subdivide that property. Commissioner Jordan asked if Mr. Holts is Mr. Pinnow's next door neighbor and Mr. Holts stated that he lives below him. Mr. Noble Tucker, MAI, SRA Appraiser indicated that he conducted a study; which was submitted to the Planning Division that concluded that the premium lot split into three parcels. In his opinion, it would not encourage other homeowners in the Tuscany Hills Estates to consider splitting their lots and wouldn't cause a basic change in the character of this area. Commissioner Jordan asked Mr. Tucker how he made this conclusion. Mr. Tucker indicated that it is not economically feasible for people to do and stated Page 181 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of May 3,2011 Page 4of11 that he has researched every sale in this area. He noted that all of the detailed information is included in his report. Commissioner Morsch questioned Mr. Tucker's opinion regarding how he reached this conclusion. Mr. Tucker indicated that he has been an appraiser for twenty seven (27) years. He also noted that Mr. Pinnows request to subdivide is within the Specific Plan guidelines and is a legally permissible use and financially feasible. Commissioner O'Neal asked Mr. Tucker if he lives in Tuscany Hills. Mr. Tucker indicated that he does not live there. Commissioner O'Neal asked Mr. Tucker if Mr. Pinnow hired him to do this job. Mr. Tucker indicated yes. Mr. Roy Singleton, 8 Via Del Lago, indicated that he is across the street and adjacent to Mr. Pinnows property. He discussed the extension of Via Del Lago Road, and also stated he bought his property with the idea that he had an "Estate Lot". He also indicated that when property values go up, he would like to sell this as an "Estate Lot', not as a subdivision of three (3) or four (4) homes on this property. Commissioner Jordan indicated that she appreciated clarification of the extension of Via Del Lago. Commissioner Morsch asked Mr. Singleton if he was going to subdivide his property. Mr. Singleton indicated no. Commissioner O'Neal asked Planning Consultant Coury if the Specific Plan states that the lots can be split into 5,000 square foot lots. Mr. Coury indicated that the Development Standards within the Specific Plan states "allow for a minimum of 5,000 square foot lot with an average of 5,500 square feet'. Mr. Tom Jacobson, Attorney for Mr. Pinnow indicated that this project meets the requirements of the Specific Plan and referred to Code 16.20.020 regarding proper protection of the public and stated that there has been no issues raised by any of the homeowners that there is a public health issue. He also indicated that it meets the consistency with the general pattern, and the property values will not be affected. He is following the guidelines of state law. He asked that the Commission be objective with regards to these issues and approve Mr. Pinnows request. Mr. Don Porter, indicated that he attended the March 1, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. He stated that it was wrong that one of the Commissioners discussed the de-annexation and requested that the Commission focus on the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan. He stated that he supports Mr. Pinnow subdividing his lots and encourages the Planning Commission to approve Mr. Pinnow's request. Ms. Diane Smith, 3 Via Del Lago stated that she is an attorney but doesn't practice Administrative Law and indicated that she did some research on the lot split, referring to Code 16.20.020 and vicinity and referenced Municipal Code 17.76.060 which covers lot area. She indicated her interpretation of the codes but requested that the City Attorney clarify the definition of these codes. City Page 182 of 188 r Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of May 3, 2011 Page 5 of 11 Attorney Leibold indicated that any reference to Chapter 17, which is the general zoning ordinance for the City, is inapplicable to these properties because they are governed by the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan. Also, Ms. Leibold clarified the Municipal Codes. Ms. Smith commented that she bought these lots with the idea that they were "Estate Lots" and was told that they weren't going to be divided and believes that if Mr. Pinnow splits the lots into three (3) separate lots, it will diminish the values of the surrounding properties and will create a floodgate of people dividing up their property. Mr. Kevin Campion, spoke about the extension of Via Del Lago Road that was done by Curtis Development. He indicated that he had two (2) brochures which he distributed to the City Manager regarding the Canyon Lake Hills Specific Plan dated 1990; RTC and Rancon represented and referenced lots in the area as "Estate Lots". He stated that he believes that the City had so much to deal with then, they didn't put these into the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan. Mr. Brady is aware of these brochures and should have spoken to the residents about them. Mr. Campion believes that Mr. Pinnow presented a false presentation to the City and believes his grading plan should be revoked. Chairman Gonzales asked Mr. Campion if the brochures give the specific size of the "Estate Lots". Mr. Campion indicated that in the brochures that he provided, it states a variable size (1.18 to 5.25 acres). Another issue he had was regarding the burrowing owl and indicated that he believes that Mr. Pinnow got away with grading a piece of property with habitat on it. Commissioner O'Neal indicated that in the brochure that Mr. Campion handed out describes twenty four (24) "Estate Lots" and mentioned that with the addition of the subdivision, it would no longer be twenty four (24) "Estate Lots." Mr. Campion indicated that this was correct; it will be more than twenty four (24) "Estate Lots" and added that it states 57.8 acres. Commissioner Jordan asked Mr. Campion how this would negatively impact him. Mr. Campion said that it wouldn't negatively impact him but he believed that Mr. Pinnow deceived the City and is not doing the right thing. Ms. Janis Campion, the wife of Mr. Campion stated that in addition to what her husband said, her main concern was Municipal Code 16.20.020, which states that the lot must be compatible with the other lots in the area and any lot that is going to be changed has to be at least 75% of the adjacent property. If Mr. Pinnow is allowed to subdivide his property into three (3) lots, each of the three (3) lots will be far less than 75% of the adjacent property. She said he is trying to change an original lot which is a big difference in establishing whether it needs to meet that 75% criteria. Christopher Pinnow, the engineer that drafted up the plans for this project stated that he has heard a lot of concern about this lot being split into three (3) lots and Page 183 of 188 i. Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of May 3. 2011 Page 6 of 11 it will open the floodgates to everyone in that location to split their lots. He commented that as an engineer licensed in the State of California, he has looked at the neighborhood and the lot sizes are various sized and are called "Estates" and "Estates" are one (1) acre or larger but the houses that are there, are very similar. He noted that it has to be recognized that the difference between what is perceived to be an Estate Lot' and what actually is. He said that if someone else wants to split their lot, they could do that but it will take great expense and time and effort to do it and most likely won't be worth it. He also addressed another issue that was raised regarding the extension of the road by Curtis Development. He addressed the privacy issue of the other neighbors if the lot is split, and indicated that privacy has never been guaranteed by any property. He thinks this plan has been thought out well and the Planning Department has concurred that it meets all of the requirements and should be approved. Commissioner O'Neal asked Mr. Pinnow if it concerned him that the neighbors don't want this project. Mr. Pinnow indicated that it does concern him that several don't; however, several do and are okay with it. He suggested regarding the privacy issue to put a fence up, and they would be willing to negotiate something like that. Commissioner Morsch discussed the extension of Via Del Lago Road by Curtis Development and stated that according to information that he gathered, there is no connection between the extension of the street and the re-subdivision or the potential re-subdivision that Curtis would have done on that property had it been done prior to the de-annexation. Mr. Pinnow agreed. Mr. ,John Porter indicated that he has heard his name throughout the meeting regarding subdividing his property and stated that he has no intension of subdividing his property which is 1.1 acres of land. He stated that in the future, he would like to attach a new garage to his home but he hasn't submitted any plans to the City for an additional garage, and doesn't know where people heard that he was going to subdivide, because he is not. Ms. Donna Holts, 5 Via Del Lago, indicated that she spoke at the last meeting and still agrees with her statements at that time. She indicated that in her perspective, the comment that Mr. Pinnow's attorney made is incorrect. She stated that the way her house is situated and the way they built their backyard with a pool, if he builds the property; it is on a hillside directly overlooking her property. Her property is currently worth a certain amount of money and if she tries to sell it, and there is a house there, her property will definitely be worth less. Mr. Doug Pinnow stated that he is the property owner that is requesting the lot split and indicated that he heard a number of comments slanted towards a legitimate appraisal. He noted that possibly of an appraisal being done by a neutral party would have been more appropriate but there was no mechanism to Page 184 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of May 3,2011 Page 7 of 11 pay for it. He stated that his intension from the beginning was to not only put in the tennis courts and sports courts but to split the lots and was advised to split them as soon as he can. His real intension which he indicated that he made clear to his neighbors before they annexed from the HOA was that he would like to build a new house for himself on Parcel 2 because it has a far more superior view of Canyon Lake. He said he doesn't intend on taking the money and leaving, he intends on staying in the community. He stated he spoke to Tom Weiner who was the Community Development Director at the time about the lot split before there was any machinery there to move so that everyone knew what he was going to do, including his neighbor, Mr. Porter. Mr. Pinnow stated that regarding the submission of a preliminary and having all of the City Planners and Engineering staff look it over and indicated that he thinks that the City Planner did a good job because even though the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan allows for the 5,000 acre lot sizes, the Engineering and Planning staff said try and stay above an acre in size. He took that advice because he was guided by the City to do this. Therefore he had an incredible opportunity when the street was extended by Curtis Development because without that extra 100 feet of frontage, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to make the lot split. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Jordan indicated that she had done a lot of research on this and looked at all of the lots in that area, the Specific Plan, and the City Code. She indicated that her main concern and issue is the shared driveway and the consistency with the new lots with the surrounding lots. She said that in looking at all of the other lots, Mr. Pinnows is the 4t" largest and when he splits those up, he is going to have the three (3) smallest lots in the entire subdivision. Another _concern she has is that most of his neighbors are not in approval of this and they feel that it is going to affect their property value. By approving the lot split of three (3), it would encourage the other property owners to do the same. She is in approval of a two (2) lot split. Mr. Pinnow addressed Ms. Jordan's comment that most of his neighbors are not in favor of this. He indicated that one (1) of his neighbors (Jack Bird) that was prepared to come to the Commission in support, is seriously ill and unable to attend. However, he can provide a statement to the Commission regarding this. The other person is a neighbor that he explicitly asked not to attend because he didn't want things to get volatile. She is politically active (Connie Soto). He also noted to Commissioner Jordan that shared driveways are all over Tuscany Hills and four (4) homes that are served by shared driveways are in Tuscany Hills Estates. He indicated that he has had discussions with his attorney for possibly making another Condition that would go along with the lot split that would reduce her concerns about the shared driveway issue. He stated that when the continuation of the project went on, he corresponded with Mr. Coury because Page 185 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of May 3,2011 Page 8 of 11 there was a criticism made at the first hearing that there were very few people notified because of the 300 foot radius of notification was narrow and didn't include all of his neighbors. He suggested to Mr. Coury that he extend the distribution to all of the members of Tuscany Hills Estates. Commissioner Jordan indicated that at the last Planning Commission meeting, all of the Commissioners unanimously suggested that Mr. Pinnow go to two (2) parcels. Mr. Pinnow stated that he didn't disregard their suggestion. He thought that once the Commission, representing the City, reviewed the material, would realize that there is a huge potential liability issue if the Commission is going in a different direction from the advice that comes from the City's Planners. He noted that a homeowner is stuck in the middle; he followed all the rules and got it documented and approved. Also, the attorney stated that one (1) acre and above is considered "Estate Lots". Also, the City of Lake Elsinore's Code states specifically about "Estate Lots" and the minimum size for Estate Lots is zoned RE for Residential Estate is Y2 acre, noting, even if it is not a part of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan. Chris Pinnow indicated that he took Mr. Marsh's suggestion and did take a look at the plan to accommodate the Commission's request with two (2) pads. It was very difficult at its present state to do this, and would not be advantageous to his dad. Commissioner Morsch reiterated to Mr. Pinnow that they did know that they would take the risk of not getting approval because the Commission did make it very clear that they wanted a two (2) lot split. Mr. Pinnow indicated that he did take the two (2) lot split very seriously but it was not feasible at this time to get a plan together to change that. Commissioner Morsch indicated that he disagrees with Mr. Pinnow and believes that it is a very simple matter at making it into two (2) lots. He stated that he reviewed the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan and also the Conditions of Approval for the original tract map and didn't see any reference to these properties as "Estate Lots". He indicated that splitting the lots in three (3) would devalue the neighboring properties. He addressed the common driveway issue and indicated that the City has nothing in the Municipal Code that deals with common driveways, and indicated that there are well known problems with shared driveways. He noted in the Specific Plan, it states "It is the intent of the Tuscany Hills project to be varied in character yet provides complimentary uses to existing and proposed project compounds", and believes that the intent of the Specific Plan was to create an environment that has some variation to it. He agrees with Commissioner Jordan for a two (2) lot split, which would be compatible with Mr. Pinnow's neighbors and mimic the open space. He stated that he cannot endorse the three (3) lot subdivision. Commissioner O'Neal discussed private property rights. He indicated that this item will go directly to City Council and ultimately they can make a legal decision and the Planning Commission makes a recommendation. He stated that he Page 186 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of May 3, 2011 Page 9 of 11 would approve a two (2) lot split. He clarified his question regarding the appraisal, specifically to be on record, as to who was paying for the appraisal. He wanted to extend any apologies to Mr. Porter, if he in any way offended him. Chairman Gonzales indicated that he thinks that the three (3) lot split would decrease the overall value but would approve a two (2) lot split. Also, he stated that he is opposed to the common driveway and indicated that he has seen some serious problems with it. Passed and adopted the following Resolution: Resolution No. 2011-13 —A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, adoption of findings that the project known as Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 is consistent with the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. MOTION was made by Commissioner Morsch and seconded by Commissioner Jordan recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, adoption of findings that the project known as Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 is consistent with the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. AYES: Chairman Gonzales, Commissioner Jordan, Commissioner Morsch NOES: Commissioner O'Neal ABSENT: Vice Chairman Mendoza ABSTAIN: None Disapproved of the following Resolution: "Resolution No. 2011-14 —A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 located at 7 Via Del Lago. MOTION was made by Commissioner Morsch and seconded by Commissioner Jordan recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore disapproval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 located at 7 Via Del Lago. AYES: Chairman Gonzales, Commissioner Jordan, Commissioner Morsch Page 187 of 188 Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting Minutes of May 3,2011 Page 10 of 11 NOES: Commissioner O'Neal ABSENT: Vice Chairman Mendoza ABSTAIN: None Chairman Gonzales noted that this item will go straight to City Council and asked when this item would be presented to them. He noted that Mr. Pinnow will be noticed as to when this item will be going to City Council. BUSINESS ITEMS None. STAFF COMMENTS Publics Works Director Seumalo reminded the Commission that there is a Mining meeting to be held on Thursday, May 12, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. at the Cultural Center, located at 183 North Main Street, Lake Elsinore, regarding the City's lead agency status and is encouraging everyone to attend. Planning Consultant Coury had no comments. Project Planner Resendiz had no comments. Office Specialist Herrington had no comments. City Manager Brady had no comments. CITY ATTORNEY'S COMMENTS City Attorney Leibold indicated that if anyone has questions about the Hearing on May 12, 2011, with respect to mining, she and Public Works Director Seumalo are available. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Morsch wanted to send congratulations to all of the military for getting Bin laden and it was the Navy Seals that participated in the operation. Commissioner Jordan had no comments. Commissioner O'Neal had no comments. Chairman Gonzales had no comments. Page 188 of 188 i