Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/20/2008 PC ReportsCITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MICHAEL O'NEAL, CHAIRMAN WINW.LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG JOHN GONZALES, VICE CHAIRMAN (951) 674-3124 PHONE JIMMY FLORES, COMMISSIONER (951) 674-2392 FAX AXEL ZANELLI, COMMISSIONER LAKE ELSINORE CULTURAL CENTER PHIL MENDOZA, COMMISSIONER 183 NORTH MAIN STREET ROLFE PREISENDANZ, DIR. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 4c~9ck~e~e9e~e~e~k~c9ck~~~c~~c%Y~9e~e9c~9c~ck*9ek~9c~9ck9e~~9e~c9e:F9c:rk~9ck4e~~:r>F:~~e:F:F9e~kkk~k9c~~e TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2008 6:00 P.M. The City of Lake Elsinore appreciates your attendance. Citizens' interest provides the Planning Commission with valuable information regarding issues of the community. Meetings are held on the 1St and 3rd Tuesday of every month. If you are attending this Planning Commission meeting, please park in the Parking Lot across the street from the Cultural Center. This will assist us in limiting the impact of meetings on the Downtown Business District. Thank you for your cooperation. The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting outside of City Hall and is available at each meeting. The agenda and related reports are also available in the Community Development Department on the Friday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the Community Development Department at (951) 674-3124, ext. 289, at least 48 hours before the meeting to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENTS -NON AGENDIZED ITEMS - 3 MINUTES (Please read & complete a Speaker's Form at the podium, prior to the start of the Planning Commission Meeting) PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA- MAY 20, 2008 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS (All matters on the Consent Calendar are approved in one motion, unless a Commissioner or any members of the public requests separate action on a specific item.) 1. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for April 15 2008 Recommendation: Approval PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS (Please read & complete a Speaker's Form at the podium prior to the start of the Planning Commission Meeting. The Chairman will call on you to speak when your item is called). 2. Mitigated Negative Declaration No 2006-03 Tentative Tract Map No 35869 for Condominium Purposes, Planned Unit Development No 2008 01 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-06 and Residential Design Review No 2006 07 Linda Miller Planning Consultant Ext. 209 Imiller(cr~lake-elsinore ora Recommendation: .Approval 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No 2008-03 (Design Review Extension of Time Tom Weiner, Planning Manager Ext. 270 tweinerCa~lake-elsinore orq Recommendation: Approval 4. General Plan Udpate Rolfe Preisendanz Director of Community Development Ext. 223 aresendiz(~lake-elsinore orq BUSINESS ITEMS INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA- MAY 20, 2008 ADJOURNMENT The Lake Elsinore Planning Commission will adjourn to a regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. to be held in the .Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, Secretary to the Planning Commission, do hereby affirm that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall, 72 hours in advance if this meeting. D.5'.- ~5'~ o ~ RO FE .PREISENDANZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~" MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman O'Neal called the regular Planning Comr~~ss;;~ meeting to order at 6:11 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ,~ Commissioner Flores led the Pledge of P~llegi ce. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS. ~'NEAL, G L S, FLORES, ~^ OZA ABSENT: COMMI~~~QNERS: EL ~ Also present we Manager Wein r, `Di Seumalo, and Office Commun Development Preisendanz, Planning Attorney ~ntana, Director of Public Works )MM~NTS Non- en .~., y; ,~ .:_ TO SPEAK :. Steve -Allen, , like Elsinore, California, stated that he believes that the new ~~ ,~ General Plan needs tQ. make a provision for higher density prestigious office space. He indieatei~~'that in March, 2007, 4,000 signatures were collected supporting this point"'of view (a copy of the petition was submitted at the General Plan meeting with his statement). CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS None A~E~J~. e ~~t~"xi ~°~~. PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 15, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. General Plan Update Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated that a comprehensive General Plan Update Report was distributed to the Planning Commission for their review. He indicated that the report included 3 alternative General Plan land use plan and 38 letters that the City received from the public regarding their land use in relation to the General Plan and staff's responses to each letter received. He indicated that each letter with requests and comments would be considered by the Planning Commission on a case by case basis and st :~ would be analyzing each request cumulatively. Additional Planning Commissi" n eetings regarding .r~ the General Plan will be held on April 29, 2008, and ' "ecessary, June 3, 2008, to continue the review of property owner's land use s ` anticipated the City Council hearing to be June 24, 2008. Brooke Peterson, Jones & Stokes gave a P the components of the General Plan ap. Ms. Peterson explained in detail Chapters ' stated that 3 alternatives are proposed (thf and Alternative 2). er Point presentat>an that outlined viron ntal Impact 'Repo`rt (EIR). ~rougr~`~f the Geng.r~l Plan and referred Alternative, Alternative 1 Jim Harry, Jones and Stokes, v ~rr~arized the ~ which addressed environmental impacts associated ith thee. ~ ener, Plan Update at the ,~, programmatic level. .~~. REQUESTS TO SPEAK REGARDING E GENERAL PLAN UPDATE -- Director of Community Development Pre danz stated that each request would be reviewed and identified by Assessor-'arcel Number (APN) on Google Earth. Douglas. Norfold, Lake Elsinore, California, (APN: 375-342-008 & 375-350-004) stated that he was concernedabout the land designation on 3 parcels of land that he owns in Country Club Estates. The Director of Comm nity Development Preisendanz identified the 3 parcels and stated that Mstaff~.recommended a recreational land use and defined legal non-conforming use to Mr. Norfold. Barton Crandell, Orange, California, stated that he was representing Ed Najad and indicated that Mr. Najad's property is across from a campground on Riverside Drive (APN: 379-110-014) which was re-zoned from residential to commercial and requested that this property to be zoned mixed use rather than general commercial. Director of Community Development Presidendanz stated that they chose commercial for this area mainly because it is on Highway 74 and a change could affect the EIR. PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 15, 2008 ~^ Commissioner Flores stated that he doesn't have a problem with this property to be zoned Commercial Mixed Use and asked that Jones and Stokes review this request and let Mr. Crandell know if this can or cannot be done and asked Director of Community Development Preisendanz to explain commercial mixed use. Director of Community Development Preisendanz explained commercial mixed use in the General Plan which he defined as a mix of residential and non- residential uses within a single proposed development area with an emphasis on retail, service, civic, and professional offices, residential uses are allowed in subordinate capacity, the FAR for non-residential uses is . and a minimum of 50% of the total floor area should be commercial uses„_re i ntial density shall be between 7 and 18 dwelling units an acre. Commissioner Mendoza concurred with Com issioner Flores; however, he stated that the City needs to make sure that it,w qr~c without is©lating the other parcels. ,~ Chairman O'Neal suggested looking at the e tire bloc`'and consider what would be appropriate. .~. Director of Community Development Preisendanz s ed that as they look at this ,~-~ and consider this, they are affecting other properties which the property owners now think that they are commercial and indicated that it may or may not make a difference to them. .. ~~ ~~Y Mr. Crandell asked:,; Direc ~ of Community Development Preisendanz if the commercial zone couldhave "conditional use~of mixed use in it. ' . Director oCommunity Development- re~sendanz stated no. Vice Chair stated tha ` likes the~dea of mixed use. ~~ a` Christos Smyrniot, Downey, California, requested that his property on Collier and Riverside Drive (APN: 3$-030-007 & 378-030-009) be zoned commercial. He indicated that~he submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a gas station, car wash; and~`convenience store on this property and the City did not accept the application because of the change of the land use on the General Plan. He said they will provide jobs for about 30 to 40 people and will create income for the City. Director of Community Development Preisendanz indicated in their best judgment, staff designated this area as Business Professional because of the existing approved projects and developments that are already in place and the ~ surrounding neighborhood. He indicated that the reason staff did not have the land designation as commercial was because they had concerns about access (ingress/egress), particularly, a gas station on this corner. He also stated that PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 15, 2008 regardless of the current zoning, staff is looking at the General Plan for the City for the next 30 years. `/` Commissioner Mendoza concurred with Director of Community Development Preisendanz and said that the General Plan is a thumb print for the future of the City. Vice Chair Gonzales agreed with staff designating the area as business professional. Commissioner Flores recommended that this be reviewed .further by Jones & Stokes. -~ ~.. Bob Krause, South Shore Properties, Las Vegas, f~evada, .distributed information to the Planning Commission regarding their proj~cf and stated: that they have a 100 acres (approximately 6 parcels), which isadjage~°it to the Spyglass property and said that their intent is put together a~ ;affordable project fha 's to include affordable housing ($200,000 to $300,OO,~ ~pr' rangy ~ and said th ` and use at that time was approximately 3 to 3.5 unit per a e said th hey ended up with a park that is connected to 2 other projects that are adjacent to this project, 25 acres of open spac and a single fa , ily detached project. He requested the Commission to revi this and consid fhb Land use of this project so that they can proceed with their plans`° ~~ ~._ Director of Community Development Preisendastated that Mr. Krause already has a tentative map approved, called South Shore .I 'and it is in the Commission's Staff Report as a recommended change to Low Medium Density, and staff is also recommending that the area identified as the~~Spyglass Specific Plan which was just approved, will alsoretain its Sp~,cific'ylan designation. He stated that the City does currently have an,application iri and it is a clustering affect in the most easterly portion and;: it is a `tiered project. He indicated that the reason they recommended low density is because they wanted to preserve as much of the hillside as possible. Chairman O'Neal asked who they are preserving the hillside for. Director of Community `Development Preisendanz stated that the General Plan Advisory Committe;e was for preserving this hillside from the 15 corridor and from Tuscany Hills. Chairman O'Neal stated that this project cannot be seen from the 15 Freeway. Mr. Krause stated that the project is in a bowl and they are calling it Hidden Valley because it can't be seen from the 15 Freeway and indicated that the purpose for having the project at this location is it fits the terrain correctly and it also provides a 3.5 million dollar park amenity for the other 2 projects that are adjacent to it and is a condition of the other projects. He said that staff chose the ~"'~ location of the park because it cannot be seen. ~~E,NDA d'~~v1 @v~. J PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 15, 2008 ,~-~ Community Development Director Preisendanz stated that this project could possibly go to low medium density but staff would like to review the project through the design review. Mr. Krause stated they he would be more than happy to work with staff. Community Development Director Preisendanz stated that staff will review the project and how it affects the EIR and will bring back the information to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Vice Chair Gonzales asked Mr. Krause what road is com ri ' g~anto the project. Mr. Krause mentioned La Strada Road and ~ ted~;that they are bringing in the water and all of the other amenities at no c ~o the City. Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated that there;s validity to the cumulative financial impact relative to thevarious projects that have been proposed and have been entitled. r the La Strad. interchange to Camino Del Norte which takes funding for devepersto propert radeillsides and contour ,.. them to keep the community as topographically aesthe~ieas possible. Commissioner Flores,c~mented tha t ff is currently working with Mr. Krause and would continue to'work:wth him they fore he had no additional comments. Commissioner Mend~'~ ask~ow this project is going to affect the EIR. ~~~ ~. Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated that he would follow up with an answer to Commissioner Mendoza regarding how it will affect the EIR. David Wensley, Costa Mesa, California, stated that he owns 2 parcels of land in Lake Elsinore (APN's: 377-3~0-018 & 019) and also addressed the adjacent parcels on either side aid said because of the size and the ownership of the parcels currently, it is ;impractical to develop them independently and have a cohesive land use-for~~'the area and stated that he was sorry to see the Porto Romano Project ter`rrminated. He stated that he was disappointed in the land designation of this area because he believes that this area is one of the outstanding opportunities for future development along Interstate 15. He requested that his parcels be a combination of freeway business (medium to high density) along the corridor adjacent to the 15 Freeway and stated that having commercial properties along the freeway would benefit the City by bringing in substantial revenue for the City for the next 20 years. He stated that he believes ~ that this area is not desirable for residential use because of its location adjacent to the freeway. Therefore, he would like to recommend a combination of commercial uses, freeway business as it is defined, and medium to high density A~EAl13A ETE~f E'3~.~_._.._ PAGE 5 ®E° J ~r PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 15, 2008 in some parts of the area so that it could be developed in the near future and not wait another 20 years. ~•~` Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated that staff is recommending Low Medium Density, and no longer commercial use. Staff is proposing to eliminate freeway business to preserve as much of the hills as possible because their concern is the view from the freeway. Mr. Wensley stated that it has taken a long time to possibly develop this area and if the Commission agrees with staffs recommendation, it will rule out any development in the future. Director of Community Development Preisendanz recommended that staff go back and review this area again and possibly change it to Medium Density with a small commercial component and indicated th the is legitimacy for having neighborhood commercial within medium den ' a Commissioner Flores stated that he acceptsY~stafPs recommendation for review. ~~ Commissioner Mendoza had no comments. ~~ Vice Chair Gonzales asked Direc of Community~~evelopment Preisendanz if the Porto Romano project was terminated. - Director of Communit ..Develo mentEeisenda stated that it was terminated. Y p He indicated that staff will re- xamine theentire area. ~~~ Chairman O'Neal concurred with this. `~`f~ , ,r Ed Lambert/JJ. Swanson ,' ea) was tf,~e next to speak. Chapman O'Neal recused hi ~~ Ed Lambe`C,~~Lake Elsin r~, Ca ifornia, stated that he owns "The Chimes" building (2 parcels) which is a historical building in Lake Elsinore. He indicated that the City wants to change the parcel in the back to residential zoning and he would like to keep both parcels as commercial. J.J. Swanson O'Neal requested that the parcel behind be kept as Commercial Mixed Use and stated that there is commercial around the entire parcel. Director of Community Development Preisendanz recommended the change to General Commercial for both parcels. Commissioner Flores stated that to be fair to other land owners that are adjacent to Mr. Lamberts property, they should be allowed to have commercial also. PAGE 7 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 15, 2008 ~ Commissioner Mendoza agreed with Commissioner Flores and asked Director of Community Development Preisendanz if this affects the EIR. Director of Community Development Preisendanz agreed that this is a logical extension of commercial and stated that staff would review and bring back to the Commission the cumulative affect this would have on the EIR. Chairman O'Neal rejoined the Planning Commission. Joseph Huband, Yucaipa, California, stated that he owns approximately 800 parcels in the Country Club Heights area. He stated that land designation is Hillside Residential which he believes is not appropria a use much of the property is flat to level rolling ground. He said he roughly 150 acres of property that hasn't been developed yet and is Ian k e indicated that he has accumulated over 200 parcels in that area as 6 a ° sand his goal is to get to 80 acres in this area that is flat a • ~ hq rolling s that it can be developed. He indicated that the propert ~~is bordered by In ft~l. He also discussed property that he owns on Rive rive d Chaney (APN;°: 375-032- 016) and stated that the entire area is zone iu how density~and it is also flat and level. Mr. Huband requested that sta iew the land designations of the areas discussed. ~-.. Director of Community Developme ~ r i"s`endanz revi Google Earth to look at the topography of the area and confirmed that the G : eral Plan designation is Hillside Residential ancstated that staff would re euate the topography of his properties and look. at the view from Interstate 1'S~ and note how his property could integrate into the industrial area. Chairman O'Neal indicated that he a preciates and understands the change of designation. Commissioner Flores concurred with staff to go back for review. Commissi ~e Mendoz tatethat he concurs with staffs recommendation as long as it is'c~o~esn't isolat separate parcels. Vice Chair Gonzales agreed that the land designation needs to be reviewed by staff again. Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated that the analysis of the changes of land designation will take time and requested the review period to June 3, 2008. He also indicated that staff would be conferring with Jones and Stokes and Urban Crossroads for all of the requests cumulatively and will look at how these are going to affect the EIR. ~~ In addition to Mr. Huband's previous parcels discussed, he also has 2 parcels that are currently zoned commercial on Lakeshore Drive (APN: 375-032-016) AGENDA fTl=1+~ P~®.~,~„_ PAGE. _~ ®~~~,. PAGE 8 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 15, 2008 that the City has designated as recreational but there is no recreational direction or usage. `~ Director of Community Development Preisendanz defined recreational usage and stated that this does not preclude Mr. Huband from developing it and indicated that the City is going through the Lakeshore Overlay Subcommittee because there are various issues regarding commercial uses along the lake such as Army Corp, access, and topography which need to be addressed and he recommended reviewing the project. Commissioner Flores recommended re-evaluating Mr. , Huband's areas of concern and review again. '~ Commissioner Mendoza recommended re-evaluating M . band's parcels. He also agreed with staff in keeping the lake area recreaonaL Vice Chair Gonzales wanted clarification~r~o M . Huband as to the exact location of his property on Lakeshore Dr~v aid recmmended re-evaluating the land designation. He also stated that this ar~ea~should remain recrea~ibnal. ~~ Paul Castaguo, Lake Elsinore, C rnia, stated t~ia " _'s property is located in the Lakeshore Overlay District, and ould like to ba ngtifi d of future General Plan discussions/meetings regardi theLakeshor ~~®~rerlay District. He indicated that the Lakeshore Overl District rubs an° regulations should be lifted, allowing developtxaent for R-3 and commercialproperties as designated. He also stated that- jproper~y owners should be allowed input on property development as a whole. Director of Community Development Preisendanz reviewed Mr. Castaguo's property an Google Earth and stated .th"a`~ staff is recommending a Recreational land use. ~~Y' Mr. Castaguo stated to ~Drector~i~ Community Development Preisendanz that he has waited. 23 years to develop his property and indicated that it has full utilities and asked what is allowable. Director of Community Development Preisendanz explained to Mr. Castaguo that staff is proposing Recreational and defined Recreational. He indicated that the City is going through the Lakeshore Overlay Committee process and through the consistency zoning of Recreational they will be fine tuning the permitted uses. Leonard Leichnitz, Lumos Communities, thanked staff, Jones and Stokes, and community members that worked on the General Plan for their hard work. Mr. Leichnitz asked that once the General Plan is adopted, will the zoning map that will follow be exactly the same as the General Plan in terms of density designations. ~..-~ Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated yes. n~.Fr~c~ I~~~~~ c~®. ~ ~ a- P~c~~ ~- PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 15, 2008 Mr. Leichnitz asked what the timeframe is and what will happen to development that is to move forward during this timeframe. Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated that staff will review the zoning that is consistent with the General Plan designation and will move forward with that zoning district. Charles Pearson, Lake Elsinore, California, (APN: 379-131-019) stated that this property is currently zoned High Density Residential and wanted to know what he is supposed to with commercial zoning on a residentia rea that is mainly apartments. Director of Community Development Preisendanz~ stated hat staff looked at a General Plan designation that would provide a substantial co `~ ercial venue and would allow a deeper frontage off of Riverside wh ch: could allow clear circulation (Fire Department). Mr. Pearson stated that he owns property on~J~oy Streef v~hich is a two lane street and based on the Map Act it is designated to be aE2 lane street and indicated that it doesn't make any sense to pu~1a commercial d velopment on a 2 lane street that is High Density Residential ~~% Director of Community Development yPreise anz confirmed with Urban Crossroads that it is a e street and suggest that the Commission consider a Medium Density e~tial which is 7 to 18 unitper acre. Mr. Pearson stated~that this would be acceptable. ~. PLANNINC~COMMISSION ,COMMENTS .. <~~< Chairman O'Neal confirmed .with Director of Community Development Preisen z that medium density'in this area may be appropriate. Commissioner. Mendoza concurred with medium density. Commissioner F(ores thanked Mr. Pearson for explaining his point and concurred with the recommendation of medium density due the 2 lane road. Vice Chair Gonzales concurred with medium density. Camille Passon, Project Design Consultants, San Diego, California, stated that they were involved in preparing the Plan and Services for the 3~d Street Annexation area. They were given direction from staff to show the project known as Wasson West as Specific Plan and they noticed that on the Preferred Land Use Map it doesn't show it as Specific Plan, it shows it as Medium and Low Medium Density Residential and noted the discrepancy to staff and wanted to make sure this is corrected. P~OC~ 1 G~. PAGE 10 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 15, 2008 Director of Community Development Preisendanz said that this project was part ,.,+ of the 3~d Street Annexation which hasn't gone forward yet but they did annex it into the Ramsgate Specific Plan and recommended designation of Specific Plan. Robert L. Cartier, President of Elsinore Ready Mix, Lake Elsinore, California, stated that he has owned industrial property of approximately 5 acres for approximately 60 years and have maintained all City, County, and State .permits. He stated that there are other locations in operation but the tax dollars are in Lake Elsinore. Mr. Cartier indicated that their company has been involved with the community for over 60 years and requested that the land designation stay the same and not be changed to commercial -~ Director of Community Development Preisenda z t_ : ed that they are recommending General Commercial land use beau a the ~' anted to provide a commercial venue for Country Club Heights,~esid;~nts. He indicated that Mr. Cartier could continue its use as long as it is a legal non-conforming use under the new General Plan, but would not be allowed to in;tensify. ~~ ~, Chairman O'Neal asked Director of Community Development Preisendanz if the zone change allows Mr. Cartier to continue his business but not to grow. Director of Community Development. Preisendanz stated that this was correct. Chairman O'Neal stated That there may „6e significant legal ramifications and indicated that he didn't want~to make a decision on this issue. He indicated to Mr. Cartier that knowing the City's position. on the new commercial designation, if he doesn't agree to this, he should have time tb respond to this. Director of Community Development Preisendanz indicated to Mr. Cartier that the City's position is the best plan .for the area. Corrmmissioner Flores asked abut the additional 5 acres that currently have no activity. Mr. Cartier stated that he has an issue with another piece of property that is located on Larson and~Temescal Road that is approximately a 7 acre parcel that is all industrial in this area but is designated incorrectly as Hillside Residential. Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated that staff would review this, and he would meet with Mr. Cartier. Fred Crowe, Lake Elsinore, California, had a question about the circulation element of the General Plan. He stated that one of the problems is that when there are streets shown on the General Plan in the circulation element that there is no right of way. As an example, he indicated that Strickland has 20 mile per ~, hour curves and when the City makes the right curvature to build the road, they will sever approximately 200 lots of private ownership. He indicated that this has ~G~E~~A I~'E~~1 t~0. PAGE 11 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 15, 2008 r•~ been a problem since the first General Plan was adopted and the City needs to look at what the owners of these properties can do with their land before the City establishes exact alignment and how they are going to be compensated once the alignment is established because many of the lots are small and there are thousands of lots in that area. Chairman O'Neal stated that there could be circulation problems with other larger projects also. Mr. Crowe indicated that there should be a Policy Statement in the General Plan of what the private ownerships can do with their land until ' 's taken. Therefore, the agency makes the decision on the exact alignment o ds and then they purchase right of way from all of the properties that w' taken and there has to be a finance plan of how to accomplish those takin Director of Community Development Preise <~ larified hf as industrial, commercial, and residential projects move fonnrard, the City either requires the dedication of the right of way and/or thetrri veme ~ thereof, oring lieu fee and that is how they would like to acquire thos tree a indicated that in the Country Club Heights area there are roads th are not aligned with the right of way and those areas are difficutt~, but they dog , ve in those areas a slope easement dedication for a recorded ° easement o felt, to allow for that ~.~., flexibility. He asked Public Works Drect~~to ddress tl i ';issue. Public Works Director .:S~umalo stated at t e General Plan sets land use designation and the circulation elementyis a respor'e to that. ~. ` Mr. Crowe stated that once you have a new alignment that isn't exactly the same as the previous, there needs to be a policy of what to do with properties on each side. Public ~IVorks Director: Seumalo .stated that he did agree with Mr. Crowe regarding having a poli~c how~tley develop the alignments more closely. He indicated` toMr. Crowe at the land use is already set and the Circulation Element is #a ` sponse o that to efficiently move goods and services, and vehicles aroun ~ `he Cir or that. He stated that regarding curves on Strickland Avenue, he agreecl'3with Mr. Crowe that there is no alignment study that goes along with the General Plan Circulation Element, it is a Conceptual Circulation Plan for the City but there are engineering standards that require certain curve radiuses for the type of street and design speed. Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated to the Commission that anytime they have a policy or goal there is a financial affect which needs to be considered. Joseph Wulff, Escondido, California, stated that he owns 8.8 acres (APN: 373- 054-026) off Conklin Avenue and stated that the City has proposed the land AGENDA ITEINI 1V0. _._. PACE I ( Or ~ a- PAGE 12 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 15, 2008 designation as Hillside Residential and he is requesting that the density remain as existing. Director of Community Development Preisendanz viewed this property on Google Earth and stated that staff would review this again to determine exactly where the property is located because of the topography and suggested meeting with Mr. Wulff to review this. Lazar Chang, Rowland Heights, California, (APN: 363-130-060) zoned General Commercial C-2, and the City proposed to change zoning to tourist commercial and requested it to remain as General Commercial. t~~N Community Development Director Preisendanz reviewed,',the property on Google Earth and. confirmed that his property remain as General >Commercial on the Preferred Land Use Plan. ,~, Mr. Chang thanked everyone. -,~ ., ~ ~~ Chairman O'Neal stated that the meeting would t~e~r-ti~ued on April 29, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. at the Cultural Center. ~ ~ INFORMATIONAL ADJOURNMENT ~~ ~~~ THERE BE{NG °. NO FURTHER BU°SINESS, CHAIRMAN O'NEAL ADJOURNED THE'''~MEETING AT 9:24r>p.m. Michael O'Neal, Chairman ., Respectfu l ly. Submitted, Kris Herrington Office Specialist III ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz, Director of Community Development `.r~ AGENDr~ ITEMi N0. ~AGE~_®r I a- C 1 TY O F i/~c~. LADE ~ LSII`~OI~E ~~ DREAM E~fTREMEn CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MAY 20, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-03, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35869 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2008-01, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-06, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO.2006-17 APPLICANT: MATTHEW FAGAN, MATTHEW FAGAN CONSULTING ~'` SERVICES, 42011 AVENIDA VISTA LADERA, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591 OWNER: RON & DANA JIRON, 601 CRANE STREET, UNIT C, LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA 92530 PROJECT REQUEST: This is a request for review and approval of: • Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 pursuant to Article 6 (Negative Declaration Process) and Section 15070 (Decision to Prepare a Negative Declaration) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and • Tentative Tract Map No. 35869 For Condominium Purposes pursuant to Section 16 "Subdivisions of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and Chapter 17.39 (Condominiums and Condominium Conversions, (LEMC); and • Planned Unit Development No. 2008-01 pursuant to Chapter 17.37 (Planned Unit Development Overlay District) LEMC; and ,AGEAil9~ I S ~"4t l~J. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 20, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-03, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35869, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2008-01, CONDITIONAL USE ~ PERMIT NO. 2006-06, & RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-17 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-06 pursuant to Chapter 17.74, (Condominium & Condo Conversions) and Chapter 17.74 (Conditional Use Permits) of LEMC; and Residential Design Review No. 2006-17 pursuant to Chapter 17.37 (Planned Unit Development Overlay District), and Chapter 17.28 (R-3 High Density Residential District) LEMC. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located northeast of Grand Avenue at 15712 Grand Avenue (APN 381-030-005). ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING EXISTING LAND`USE ZONING GENERAL PLP,N_ Project Site Vacant C-1 (Neighborhood Future Specific Plan Commercial), R-3 Area "I" (High Density Residential), & R (Recreation) Northeast Lake Lake Lake Southeast Single Family R-1 (Single Family Future Specific Plan Residential Residential Area "I" Southwest Vacant CP (Commercial Park) Future Specific Plan Area "U " Northwest Mobile Home Park C-1 (Neighborhood Future Specific Plan Commercial), R-3 Area "I" (High Density Residential), & R Recreation PROJECT DESCRIPTION(S) Tentative Tract Map No. 35869 for Condominium Purposes ...r` The proposal is for a one (1) lot condominium map with a total of thirty-one (31) units. A recreation center is proposed to serve all of the units. The applicant has further divided the site into two (2) sections. Six (6) units will be utilized as mixed use type (Live/Work) units allowing retail, commercial, and office uses and twenty-five (25) units are standard townhome units on the same site. This mixed use development is established through the Planned Unit Development process as explained later in this report. ,~ R~E~~~ t~~~~ ~~. 2 P~cE Z ®- i' aQ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 20, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-03, r-- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35869, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2008-01, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-06, & RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-17 The condominium map will allow the applicant the ability to offer individual dwelling units for sale as defined by Tentative Condominium Map No. 35869 while sharing common interest, ownership and maintenance- responsibilities within the common areas. Common areas include a club house, swimming pool, play area, common walls and fences, driveways, pavement, accessory structures such as monument signs, mail boxes, landscape areas, and all related utilities. Planned Unit Development No. 2008-01 A process has been established to permit a creative mix of uses within a physically integrated and contiguous area that is smaller than generally appropriate for a Specific Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.37, Planned Unit Overlay District, LEMC. The Planned Unit Development Overlay District allows the mixing and clustering of land uses that are traditionally prohibited by conventional zoning. In this case the applicant is requesting approval of the mixing of Work/Live units which allow retail, commercial, and office uses with residential uses on the same site. ~,,, The applicant has divided the project site into two (2) sections. The section that fronts Grand Avenue is the Live/V11ork section that consists of two (2) buildings that include a total of six (6) Live/Work units. Each unit provides a ground floor room that can be used for retail, commercial and office .purposes while the upper floor will be used as the owner's residence. The rear section of the project is the townhome section of the project. This section is separated from the Live/Work units by a wrought iron fence and gates. The applicant proposes to construct twenty-five (25) townhome units that range in size from three to four bedrooms. This section also included the Recreation Center that will serve both the Live/Work units and the townhome units. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-06 The project site is located within the Future Specific Plan Area "I" that allows for Interim Development, however, if a if a project is proposed as an Interim Development a Conditional Use Permit is required. In additions to the CUP requirement for Interim Development, a Conditional Use Permit is required pursuant to Section 17.30.020 for the establishment of the all condominium projects as well. Therefore, Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-06 has been submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is empowered to grant and deny applications for Conditional Use Permits and to impose reasonable ~ conditions upon the granting of Conditional Use Permits. Residential Design Review No. 2006-17 A~END~ 3 ~ E~~ ~o. 2 PAGE~_0~ DO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 20, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-03, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35869, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2008-01, CONDITIONAL USE ,~ PERMIT NO. 2006-06, & RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-17 Siting The project includes the construction of eight (8) conventionally built buildings, a recreational facility and associated improvements on a 2.7 net acre vacant lot. The eight (8) multi family residential buildings will occupy approximately 34,865 square feet of the project site or thirty per cent (30%) of the lot area which is within the maximum floor area ratio allowance of thirty-five percent (35%) according to the HD (High Density Residential) designation pursuant to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Water and Sewer service will be provided by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. A Will Serve letter for these utilities is included in this report. The number of units per building will vary from two (2) units to five (5) units. Half or four (4) of the buildings will be two-stories and four (4) of the building will be three-stories. Each unit includes a kitchen, dining room, either a great room or living room and indoor laundry area. All of the units will have two (2) car enclosed garages. The number of bedrooms and bathrooms vary from two (2) bedrooms, two (2) bathrooms to four (4) bedrooms, four (4) bathrooms. Circulation/Parking The project site is accessed from a single driveway off of Grand Avenue, therefore the applicant will provide a right out only acceleration lane. There is a turn around area provided before entering the gated townhome portion of the site. The Live/Work units are easily accessed from this driveway. Each building is accessed via "streets" off of the main access driveway. The project is required to provide a total of seventy-three (73) covered and open spaces. The applicant has provided ninety (90) covered and open space. In addition to meeting the required number of parking spaces pursuant to the LEMC, the applicant has provided seventeen (17) guest parking spaces throughout the site including three (3) handicap spaces that are provided in the Live/Work section of the project. Private and Common Open Space Each unit will contain a first floor private patio. All private open space areas include a minimum of one hundred (100) square feet. The applicant is conditioned to provide a minimum of eighty five (85) cubic feet of storage space/compartment in an area external of the unit such as the garage or patio/terrace area. The applicant is also providing 27,868 square feet of common open space. A 15,412 square foot recreation facility is included in this calculation. The recreation facility includes a 1,430 square foot `~'''`~ A~EN[3A ITEM CIO. y PAGE_ ~ _o~ d PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 20, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-03, r TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35869, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2008-01, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-06, & RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW N0.2006-17 recreation building, 3,068 square foot pool and deck area, and a 706 square foot tot lot area. The recreation facility covers approximately thirteen percent (13%) of the project area. Landscaping and Fencing The applicant is proposing to provide landscaping over approximately twenty-four percent (24%) of the lot area. This common landscape area will include 288 trees of which twenty .percent (20%) will be 24" box trees or larger. This far exceeds the requirement for commercial or residential projects. A decorative concrete pathway will interconnect the buildings to the recreation facility. Decorative benches that will match the Spanish architecture will be placed at various locations along the pathway. The applicant will construct a solid six foot (6') decorative masonry wall along the northern and southern side property lines. A combination six foot (6') decorative masonry wall with wrought iron will be constructed along the rear property line allowing views of the lake. A six foot (6') wrought iron fence will separate the Live/Work units ~.,, from the townhome units and will enclose the recreation facility. Several meetings between the applicant and Staff have taken place regarding the location of the recreation facility as it relates to the 1267 foot elevation line. It has been agreed to by Staff and the applicant that during the review of the Precise Grading Plans the precise location of this elevation will be resolved. The applicant understands that no structures are allowed below elevation 1267, including walls, fences or playground equipment. Architecture The applicant has chosen to use a Spanish style architecture for the project. Features include arches over a variety of windows including pop out trim, Spanish style shutters, wrought iron features including- pot shelves, grills and railings, Spanish style ceramic tile, decorative wood entry doors and decorative garage doors, decorative lighting that match the Spanish architecture, exposed rafter tails, decorative foam corbels and decorative `S' type Spanish the roofs. Three (3) Color schemes have been proposed for the project. These schemes are listed in the Planned Unit Development document that is part of this request. AG~~D.~ aTE~ ~ F~~. ~- PA~E__,~___®F OG PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 20, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-03, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35869, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2008-01, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-06, & RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-17 ANALYSIS Tentative Tract Map No. 35869 for Condominium Purposes As mentioned, the applicant is requesting approval of a one (1) lot condominium map for thirty one (31) units. Primary concerns dealing with condominium projects are the establishment of appropriate mechanisms to ensure the successful and consistent aesthetic appearance of residential complexes. Moreover, the establishment of unmistakable rules and boundaries or covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's) for ownership, interest, and maintenance responsibilities of common areas as well as individual areas within the units sold will be required. The establishment of the CC&R's, corroborating each of these elements, will be recorded against the project as a condition of approval. Additionally, a homeowner's association (HOA) must be established prior to the sale of the first unit sold. The HOA will be empowered to administer and enforce the various elements of the CC&R's. To accomplish this, homeowner's associations in most cases will establish monthly fees that cover aspects such as landscape maintenance and parking lot maintenance (utility infrastructure improvements). Likewise, architectural design committees are often established to guarantee consistent design improvement within complexes. The plan submitted has been found acceptable ~, by staff. The CC&R's will contain language considered necessary to address more specific ownership, interest, and maintenance responsibilities. Planned Unit Development No. 2008-01 The project meets the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Overlay District requirements. The applicant has provided a document that details the uses allowed, development standards, design standards, and landscape standards for the development of the project. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-06 In compliance the requirements of the General Plan for Future Specific Plan Area `I', Interim Development and with Chapter 17.30 (Condominiums and Condominium Conversions) of the LEMC the applicant has filed a request for a Conditional Use Permit. This request for a conditional use permit is consistent with the findings and requirements set forth in Chapter 17.74 (Conditional Use Permits) of the LEMC which states that: The City realizes that certain uses have operational characteristics that, depending upon the location and design of the use, may have the potential to negatively impact adjoining properties, businesses, or residents. Said uses therefore require a more comprehensive review and approval procedure, `~ ~~Er~®~ I~EI~ ~~. 2- Ia~~E (~ ~~ GG PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 20, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-03, i--~ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35869, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2008-01, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-06, & RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-17 including the ability to condition the project, in order to mitigate any detrimental impact. In order to achieve this, the Planning Commission is empowered to grant and to deny applications for Conditional Use Permits and to impose reasonable conditions upon granting of Conditional Use Permits. Considering the potential ramifications to the general health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the community, staff has paid particular attention to specific aspects related to the development of the proposed use. These details included traffic impacts, local street circulation, internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation, landscape buffering, private common area amenities (i.e. swimming pool, spa, tot lots and picnic areas), architectural compatibility and related development standards. Pursuant to Section 17.30.040 of the LEMC, the applicant has been conditioned to convey the common open spaces and recreation facilities to a homeowner's association (HOA). In compliance, the applicant has been conditioned to submit a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's), to be reviewed by the City Attorney and reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director, which will govern ~ the association. Correspondingly, the applicant has been conditioned to establish said homeowner's association prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first dwelling unit. Residential Design Review No. 2006-17 Staff has determined that the proposed project conforms to all applicable development standards pursuant to Planned Unit Development No. 2008-01 including uses allowed, setbacks, building heights, parking, landscaping, and open space requirements. Any issues, standards, guidelines, etc, not addressed in the Planned Unit Development No. 2008-01 will revert to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and/or Zoning Code. Furthermore, staff is pleased with the architecture style proposed including the variety of additional features proposed. The three (3) color schemes will provide additional variation to the proposed buildings. The extensive landscaping proposed adds to positive aspects of the project. In addition, the project will provide some create new opportunities for small retail, commercial, and office uses to be located in a residential area and provide increases in the City's reserve of affordable housing. Regarding the question of the location of the 1267 elevation line, the project has been adequately conditioned to prevent any development below this elevation. Af ElVOA i s lr~~t &~tfl. 2- p~~lr~.®~ ~~~ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 20, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-03, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35869, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2008-01, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-06, & RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-17 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The City completed a comprehensive environmental analysis for the proposed project and prepared Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 2006-03. As of May 13, 2008, comments had been received from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), and the Pechanga Tribe. The NAHC letter was a standard form letter sent recommending coordination with the Tribes as well as mitigation measures. All recommendations in the NAHC letter are already part of the City's standard protocol for addressing cultural resources issues. Regarding the RCFCWCD letter, in addition to their standard comments, they raised issues related to flooding and to requirements for any future permits or easements. The MND was revised to include a mitigation measure to require consistency between this project and the future Lakeland Master Drainage Plan. The RCFCWCD also reminded the Applicant that a portion of the project is located within the 100-year flood elevation and should this area be impacted thus resulting in a reduction in flood storage capacity, this would need to be addressed prior to the issuance of any grading permit. ~,, The Pechanga Tribe letter raised several concerns, all of which are fairly standard on development projects. We have and will continue to consult with the Pechanga as we recognize their cultural affiliation with the Lake Elsinore area. The Pechanga letter agreed with the City's conclusion that implementation of mitigation does adequately address potential impacts to cultural resources. None of the comments received nor the responses provided resulted in a change to the conclusions presented in the draft MND. All mitigation will be carried over from the draft MND to the final MND. In summary, based upon the analysis conducted, and the implementation of mitigation, the proposed project will not cause substantial adverse effects to the environment. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2008 making findings that the project is consistent with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP); Resolution No. 2008 recommending to the City Council adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03; Resolution No. 2008- recommending to the City Council adoption of Planned Unit Development No. 2008-01; Resolution No. 2008 recommending City Council approval of Tentative Condominium Map No. 35869 for Condominium Purposes; Resolution No. 2008- recommending to the City Council approval of Residential Design Review No. 2006-17 and Resolution No. `-~'` ,~G~I~tO~, 6'f'~~Ji CVO. PA~~~_C3r ~ G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 20, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-03, ~-. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35869, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2008-01, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-06, & RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW N0.2006-17 2008 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-06. The recommendation is based on the findings, exhibits, and conditions of approval attached. Prepared By: Linda M. Miller, AICP Project Planner Approved By: Rolfe M. Preisendanz, Director of Community Developmen ATTACHMENTS: 1. VICINITY MAP 2. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 3. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4. REDUCTIONS 5. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-03 6. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2008-01 ~-- 7. LARGE EXHIBITS AGEN~a 0~~~~ s~o. ~_ P~GE~~OF ~~ VICINITY MAP APN 381-030-005 PUD 2008-01, CUP 2006-06 FOR MULTI FAMILY COMPLEX, TTM 35869 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2006--i;7 ...~ PLANNING COMMISSION r•~' ~cE~c~~ ~~~~m~ ~~. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2008- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-03 WHEREAS, Matthew Fagan, of Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development No. 2008-01, Residential Design Review No. 2006-17, Tentative Tract Map No. 35869 for Condominium Purposes, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-06 for the design and construction of 31 attached single-family residential units. on 2.7 acres of a 5.4-acre parcel (the "Project"), located on the east side of Grand Avenue, adjacent to the lake, APN 318-030-005 (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.: "CEQA") and the State Implementation Guidelines for CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines") because the Project involves an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and involves the issuance of a lease, permit license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies (Public Resources Code § 21065); and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study revealed that the project would have potentially significant environmental impacts but those potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels; and WHEREAS, based upon the results of the Initial Study, and based upon the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15070, it was determined appropriate to prepare and circulate Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 for the Project (the "Mitigated Negative Declaration"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15072, on April 14, 2008, the City duly issued a notice of intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15073, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review and comment for thirty days beginning on April 14, 2008 and ending on May 14, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council regarding mitigated negative declarations; and ~ 'WHEREAS, public notice of the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been given, and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by AGED®A ITE€vt I`tt#. 2.. ~A~G~~ t3e tOU PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION 2008- PAGE20F3 the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on May 20, 2008. ~r NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into these findings by this reference. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission has evaluated all comments, written and oral, received from persons who have reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Written responses to comments received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration during the public comment period were prepared and circulated. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that all public comments have been addressed. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is adequate and has been completed in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's procedures for implementation of CEQA. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration represents the independent judgment of the City. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission further finds and determines that none of the circumstances listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 requiring recirculation ~ of the Mitigated Negative Declaration are present and that it would be appropriate to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as proposed. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission hereby makes, adopts, and incorporates the following findings regarding the lack of potential environmental impacts of the Project and the analysis and conclusions set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration: 1. Revisions in the Project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Based upon the Initial Study conducted for the Project, there is substantial evidence suggesting that all potentia! impacts to the environment resulting from the Project can be mitigated to the less than significant levels. All appropriate and feasible mitigation has been incorporated into the Project design. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan contains an implementation program for each mitigation measure. After implementation of the mitigation contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, potential environmental impacts are effectively reduced to less than significant levels. ~/` AGEd~l3~ a~"E'4t1 F~t2. Z. ~.AC~ 1 ~-.. o~ oa PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION 2008-, PAGE30F3 ~ 2. There is no substantial evidence, in the light of the whole record before the agency, that the Project as revised may have significant effect on the environment. Pursuant to the evidence received, and in the light of the whole record presented, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program effectively decrease all potential environmental impacts to less than significant levels. SECTION 6. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the attached conditions of approval, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. SECTION 7. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 20th day of May 2008. Michael O'Neal, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: /~ Rolfe M. Preisendanz Director of Community Development AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: A~El~~A I~'~P~ Pda. ~-- PACE (. Q~ ,~(_C~~ RESOLUTION NO. 2008- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPT FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) WHEREAS, Matthew Fagan, of Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, (filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development No. 2008-01, Residential Design Review No. 2006-07, Tentative Tract Map No. 35869, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-06 (the "Project") for the design and construction of 31 attached single-family residential units on 2.7 acres of a 5.4-acre parcel, located on the east side of Grand Avenue, adjacent to the lake, APN 318-030- 005 (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that all projects which are proposed on land covered by an MSHCP criteria cell and which require discretionary approval by the legislative body undergo a Joint Project Review ("JPR") between the City and the Regional Conservation Authority ("RCA") prior to public review of the project applications; and WHEREAS, Section 6.0 further requires that development projects not within an MSHCP criteria cell must be analyzed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements"; and ~, WHEREAS, the Project is discretionary in nature and requires review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or City Council; and WHEREAS, the Project is not within an MSHCP Criteria Cell, Core or Linkage, but are within the Elsinore Plan Area of the MSHCP, and therefore, the Project was reviewed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements"; and WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that the City adopt consistency findings prior to approving any discretionary project entitlements for development of property that is subject to the MSHCP; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council regarding the consistency of discretionary project entitlements with the MSHCP; and WHEREAS, public notice of the Project has been given, and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on May 20, 2008. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: , AGE.i~DA t E E~"i ~b0. Z PAGE (. ~ Ala I (3 P~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2008- PAGE 2 OF 4 ~ SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed application and its consistency with the MSHCP prior to making a decision to recommend that the City Council adopt findings that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. SECTION 2. That in accordance with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and the MSHCP, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1. The proposed project is a project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval. The Property is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell. However, the Property is within the Elsinore Plan Area and as such, the Project must be reviewed for consistency with the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements," including Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines. 2. The proposed project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's Joint Project Review processes. As stated above, the Property is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell and therefore the Project was not reviewed through the LEAP or Joint Project Review processes. ~'` 3. The proposed project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. The Project site was assessed for the presence of riparian/riverine resources, vemal pools, and other potential fairy shrimp habitat. Although some scattered vegetation exists on the site that could be considered riparian/riverine resources under the MSHCP, all of this area will be avoided by the Project. No vernal pools or other potential fairy shrimp habitat occur on the site. The Project is therefore consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vemal Pool Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 4. The proposed project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. Per MSHCP requirements, the Property is not subject to the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.3. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 5. The proposed project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. ~~c~ 15 0~__ ° d __ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008- PAGE30F4 Per MSHCP requirements, the Property is not subject to any of the Critical Area Species Survey Area Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.3.2. No further action ~r regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 6. The proposed project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. The Property is located adjacent to the lake which is considered Public/Quasi- Public land pursuant to the MSHCP. As such, project design features and best management practices have been incorporated into the Project to address and minimize edge effects associated with run-off, night lighting, and noise- generating land uses. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Urban/Wildlands lnten`ace Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 7. The proposed project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. Per MSHCP requirements, there are no resources on the Property that require mapping. As such, the Project is not subject to the Vegetation mapping requirements set forth in Section 6.3.1. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 8. The proposed project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The Property does not encompass areas that would be subject to the Fuels `,,,r Management Guidelines. However, the site may occasionally require brush abatement to reduce fire risk. The City has a program in place to address brush abatement when necessary. As such, the Fuels Management Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP are not applicable to the Project. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 9. The proposed project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. The developer will be required fo pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. 10.The proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP. The Project is consistent with all applicable provisions of the MSHCP. No further actions related to the MSHCP are required. SECTION 3. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the attached conditions of approval, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore adopt findings that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. ...r A~~i~~~'~ l~~t~ 6~~. Z PA~~~_o~ I---UO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008-, PAGE40F4 ~"` SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 20th day of May 2008. Michael O'Neal, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz Director of Community Development AYES: ~~ NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: AGE~iDAI~EI~~ Fd~. Z RAGE I ~ ®~ [~OG- ----- RESOLUTION NO. 2008 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 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2008-01 WHEREAS, Matthew Fagan, of Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting review and approval of Planned Unit Development No. 2008-01 for a mixed use retail/commercial multi family residential condominium development and associated improvements (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the total area of the Project Site is approximately 5.3 gross acres (2.7 net acres) and is located at 15712 Grand Avenue (APN 381-030-005) (the "Project 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 Planned Unit Development requests; and WHEREAS, notice of the Project has been given and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on May 20, 2008. 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 prior to making a decision to recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development No. 2008-01 pursuant to Chapter 17.37 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). . SECTION 2. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning Law and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of the Planned Unit Development No. 2008-01: 1. The proposed development is capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability, or adequate assurance will be provided such objective will be attained. The project proposes to allow mixed use opportunities allowing neighborhood commercial uses as well as condominium uses on the same site. This mixed use component adds a neighborhood commercial use to an area that currently provides minimal commercial uses. Therefore, the project will create a new mixed use while adding to the affordable residential opportunities in the general area. 2. The proposed uses will not be substantially detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses, but will have a beneficial effect. v, A~El~13A I rE^~ Pd~. PAGE, w ~•O C'3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2008- PAGE20F4 ~ The proposed project will not be detrimental to the present residential uses that existing on either side of the project, but will add to the residential opportunities in the City. Affordable housing will be built as part of this Project and will contribute to the City's satisfaction of its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Housing at this location is ideal given its western lakefront location. Finally, the Project will provide additional neighborhood commercial uses in close proximity to the housing that will be built. This type of clustering of development will lead to a walkable community rich in amenities. 3. The streets and thoroughfares serving the development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and the development will not generate traffic that will overload the adjacent street network. The project has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the requirements of the City's Circulation Element. As part of the Project, the developer will complete certain infrastructure improvements including providing an acceleration lane leading out of the project, minimum of twenty-six (26) foot wide driveways and adequate turnaround lanes for fire access and residence access. Traffic mitigation fees will be imposed as required. 4. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area. The condominium project will be compatible with the neighboring residential uses. There are sufficient setbacks provided from the two adjacent projects. The ,•-- single family residential project to the south is setback by a Flood Control Channel and building setback of approximately forty-four feet (44 ). The condominium buildings are setback fifteen feet (15') from the mobile home project adjacent to the northern property line. The proposed residential condominium Project will be compatible with these two existing residential uses. The mixed use "neighborhood commercial" element of the Project will provide neighborhood commercial type uses that can be utilized by these existing residential uses. The area to the west is currently designated Commercial Park, which, if developed, would be compatible with the neighborhood commercial uses proposed along Grand Avenue. 5. The types and locations of any proposed commercial development can be economically justified. The commercial element of the Project is located along Grand Avenue where businesses can be easily accessed. The types of commercial uses proposed are those considered to be neighborhood commercial type uses that can be used by the residences of the development as well as the adjacent and neighboring residence, and are thereby, justifiable to this area. 6. The PUD Plan is in conformance with the General Plan, or a concurrent General Plan amendment in process. The project site is designated Future Specific Plan Area `I' in the General Plan. ~ The primary intent of this designation was that the entire Area "I" would be developed as one (1) Specific Plan. The vision to establish one (1) single Specific Plan for this area, however, has not come to fruition and is not likely to +I~gNL~A ITE;'~ ~a, Z ~ACF ~ ~' OF ~ 0O PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008- PAGE 3 OF 4 come about. A provision is Future Specific Plan "I" allows for "Interim Development." This section states That Interim Development is allowed "prior fo ~,./` the preparation and adoption of the Specific Plan." According to Chapter 17.37, Planned Unit Development Overlay District, the PUD process is "a process to permit creative mix of uses with a physically integrated and contiguous area that is smaller than generally appropriate for a specific plan." Therefore, this Project qualifies as an Interim Development under PUD allowances and is found compatible with the Interim Development Requirements of the Future Specific Plan Area "l"designation of the General Plan. 7. The mix of uses provides an increase in housing opportunities for the community and implements the objectives the Housing Element of the General Plan. The project provides the mix of Live/VI/ork units that are the first of their kind within the City. The condominium units will continue to provide a supply of affordable housing units on the western side of the City where few new residential developments are occurring. 8. Any exception from the standards and requirements of this Title is warranted by the design and amenities incorporated into the PUD Plan. The exceptions are also desired by the City Council. The project is the trst Live/VVork type of mixed use project within the City, and therefore, considered an exception from the standard type of development. The Live/Work units offer a unique opportunity for ownership of a commercial business and a residential unit in the same building. The Live/Work units are also located on the same site as a standard townhome development. `"~ In addition to proposing this unique mixed use development, the applicant has proposed to include an extensive amount of landscaping area, a complete recreation facility, and an abundant number of architectural features. Architectural features include arches over windows with pop out trim, Spanish style shutters, wrought iron features including pot shelves, grills and railings, decorative foam pot shelves, decorative ceramic tile, decorative wood entry doors and decorative garage doors, decorative lighting, exposed rafter tails, decorative foam corbels and decorative `S' type Spanish the roofs. 9. Existing and proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed uses. The applicant has contacted the utility services and has received a Will Serve Letter that is attached to the Staff Report. 10. The PUD Plan has complied with all applicable City requirements. The PUD has met and in some cases exceeded all City requirements per the General Plan, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code including Chapter 17.37, Planned Unit Development Overlay District. SECTION 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the Project, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Planned Unit Development No. 2008-01 for ~' aGEi+JO,~ ~TE~~~7~~~. 2- P~~E C~v 0~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2008- PAGE 4 OF 4 ~"' a mixed use retail/commercial multi-family residential condominium development to be located at 15712 Grand Avenue also identifiable as APN 381-030-005. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 20'h day of May 2008. Michael O'Neal, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz Director of Community Development AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ~AC~ 2 L ~~ v o RESOLUTION NO. 2008- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF `~''`f LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35869 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TO BE LOCATED AT 15712 GRAND AVENUE WHEREAS, Matthew Fagan, of Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 35869 for Condominium Purposes for the establishment of a mixed use retail/commercial multi family residential condominium (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of reviewing and making recommendations to the City Council regarding Tentative Tract Maps for Condominium Purposes; and WHEREAS, public notice of the Project has been given, and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on May 20, 2008. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed request `"~ for Tentative Tract Map No 35869 for Condominium Purposes and has found it acceptable. The Planning Commission finds and determines that this project is consistent with Section 16 "Subdivisions" of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Section(s) 66424 and 66427 of the California Government Code and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 is adequate and prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which analyzes environmental effects of the project. SECTION 2. That in accordance with Government Code Sections 66424 and 66427 and LEMC Title 16 "Subdivisions", the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of the Tentative Condominium Map: 1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan (Government Code Section 66473.5). The project as designed assists in achieving the development of awell-balanced and functional mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational and institutional land uses (GOAL 1.0, Land Use Element) as well as provide decent housing opportunities and a satisfying living environment for residents of Lake Elsinore (GOAL 1.0, Housing Element). AGElVDR 17EB~1 IV®. ~~ .i<?~GE o~-~. 0~ E OG PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008- PAGE20F3 ~'` 2. The effects this project is likely to have upon the housing needs of the region, the public service requirements of its residents and the available fiscal and environmental resources have been considered and balanced. Considering the effects this project is likely fo have upon the needs of the region a condition of approval was imposed on the Tentative Condominium Map and requires the applicant to either construct affordable housing or pay an in lieu fee calculated to provide sufficient funds to underwrite the long-term affordability of an equivalent number of affordable dwelling units constructed or substantially rehabilitated on other sites within the City's redevelopment project areas. 3. Subject to the attached conditions of approval, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant environmental impact. The project has been adequately conditioned by all applicable departments and agencies and will not therefore result in any significant environmental impacts. Moreover, the mitigation contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program sufficiently decreases the potentially significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels. SECTION 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the Project, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval to the City Council of the Tentative Tract Map No. 35869 for ~ Condominium Purposes to be located at 15712 Grand Avenue also identifiable as APN 381-030-005. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 20th day of May 2008. Michael O'Neal, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz Director of Community Development AGEA~J~ 8~~~¢r ~~. 2 PAGE- c~-~OF L ~ d PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2008- PAGE30F3 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ~../ R~E~~~~ ~~I~ ~a. 2 ~ RESOLUTION NO. 2008-, RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-06 WHEREAS, Matthew Fagan, of Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No.2006-06, for athirty-one (31) unit mixed use retail/commercial multi family residential condominium project located at 15712 Grand Avenue (APN 381-030-005) (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore recognizes that certain uses have operational characteristics that, depending upon the location and design of the use, may have the potential to negatively impact adjoining properties, businesses or residents and therefore are permitted subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, which allows the City to comprehensively review and approve the use; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of considering and approving, conditionally approving, or denying conditional use permits; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning ~.., Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-06 and finds that the requirements of Chapter 17.74 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code have been satisfied. SECTION 2. 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 CUP 2006-06: The proposed use, on its own merits and within the context of its setting, is in accord with the objectives of the General Plan and the purpose of the planning district in which the site is located. Issuance of this Conditional Use Permif will facilitate the creation of a well balanced and functional mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational and institutional land uses. The proposed land use substantially conforms to the objectives of the General Plan and the purpose of the planning district in which the site is located. 6e~~~d~~ I i~~1 I~~t~. 2 ~~1~E~~ 0~ ~ Q ~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2008- PAGE20F3 2. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the ..~' proposed use or the City, or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the City. All applicable City departments and agencies have been afforded the opportunity to review the use permit and their comments have been addressed in the conditions of approval attached to the staff report for this Project. Conditions have been applied relating to the installation and maintenance of landscaping, walls, regulations of points of vehicular ingress and egress and control of potential nuisance. The Project will not result in any negative impacts to the general health, safety, comfort, or welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or the City. 3. The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, and for all the yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping, buffers and other features required by Title 17 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. The proposed mixed use retail/commercial multi family residential condominium project been designed in consideration of the size and shape of the property, thereby strengthening and enhancing the immediate residential area. Further, the Project will complement the quality of existing development and will create a visually pleasing, non-detractive relationship between the proposed and existing projects in that the design has been reviewed to ensure adequate provision of screening from the adjacent properties. `~''` 4. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways with proper design both as to width and type of pavement to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use. The mixed use retail/commercial multi family residential condominium project has been reviewed in relation to the width and type of pavement needed to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the project. The City has adequately evaluated the potential impacts associated with the proposed facility prior to its approval and has conditioned the Project to be served by roads of adequate capacity and design standards to provide reasonable access by car and truck. 5. In approving the subject use, there will be no adverse affect on abutting property or the permitted and normal use thereof. The proposed use has been thoroughly reviewed and conditioned by all applicable City departments and outside agencies, eliminating the potential for any and all adverse effects on the abutting property. 6. Adequate conditions and safeguards pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.74.50 have been incorporated into the approva! of the Conditional •.r' AGEf~SDA IT~~ 6'~©. Z PA~E,..~_~,,.oF ~ O O ~_ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008-, PAGE 3 OF 3 ~' Use Permit to insure that the use continues in a manner envisioned by these findings for the term of the use. Pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.74.050, the Project has been scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission at the regularly scheduled meeting on May 20, 2008. SECTION 3. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the attached conditions of approval, the Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-06. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 20th day of May 2008. Michael O'Neal, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: ~- Rolfe M. Preisendanz Director of Community Development AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PAGE o2--Z.. 0~ O G RESOLUTION NO. 2008 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 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-17 WHEREAS Matthew Fagan, of Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting review and approval of Residential Design Review No. 2006-17 for athirty-one (31) unit mixed use retail/commercial multi- family residential condominium development and associated improvements (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the total area of the Project Site is approximately 5.3 gross acres (2.7 net acres) and is located at 15712 Grand Avenue (APN 381-030-005) (the "Project 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 Residential Design Review requests for mixed use retail/commercial multi-family residential projects; and WHEREAS, notice of the Project has been given and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on May 20, 2008. 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 prior to making a decision to recommend that the City Council approve the Residential Design Review No. 2006-17. SECTION 2. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning Law and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of the Residential Design Review No. 2006-17: 1. The Project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, Specific Plan and the Zoning District in which the Project is located. The Project complies with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code in that the approval of the mixed use retail/commercial multi-family residential buildings will assist in the creation of affordable housing within the community and provide opportunities for the combination of a home retail/commercial occupation on the same site as a residence. 2. The Project complies with the design directives contained in the General Plan ...r' and all applicable provisions of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. AO~t0~ ~~9 r`o. 2 PAVE a-~ ~ Cod PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2008- PAGE20F3 ~` The Project is appropriate to the site and surrounding developments in that the multi-family residential buildings have been designed in consideration of the size and shape of the property. Sufficient setbacks and onsite landscaping have been provided. The Spanish style architecture of the mixed use retail/commercial multi-family residential buildings comply with the requirements of the Planned Unit Development Overlay District and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Design features include arches over windows with pop out trim, Spanish style shutters, wrought iron features including pot shelves, grills and railings, decorative foam pot shelves, decorative ceramic tile, decorative wood entry doors and decorative garage doors, decorative lighting, exposed rafter tails, decorative foam corbels and decorative `S' type Spanish the roofs. 3. Subject to the attached conditions of approval, the Project is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Project has been reviewed and conditioned by all applicable City divisions, departments and agencies. The Project was not found to cause any significant adverse environmental impacts pursuant to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03. 4. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Chapter 17.82.070 of the Zoning Code, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the Project to ensure development of the ,.-.. property in accordance with the objectives of Chapter 17.82. Pursuant to Section 17.82.070 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Project has been scheduled for consideration and approval of the Planning Commission on May 20, 2008. SECTION 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the Project, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval to the City Council of the Residential Design Review for a mixed use retail/commercial multi-family condominium development to be located at 15712 Grand Avenue also identifiable as APN 381-030-005. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 20t" day of May 2008. Michael O'Neal, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore AGENDA 6TE ~®. 2 PAGE a.-9 t~E f_~ d PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008- PAGE30F3 ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz Director of Community Development AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ~.~+° ~..r ,AGEA419A i7~~~'I ~~~. 2 PA~~~.-~~~~. ~~~ ;;~ ~` ` ~r ~" ''~~'~ C,ONDITLONS OF~A~PRO.VAL~~FOI~~ f ~: << ' N t ~ n y 3S' ~ ~~ t Ili h.rP ~ , ~ ~ ~ "', ~ N3TATIVE{TRA , ~J{AP~NO 35, 69 .~OR'CQND.C~M~NIUM PURPOSES- j ` ~~.: ,~_,~`'`' 'Gr << ta,., D UtV~T~DE1fE ~PMENT~ ~ ~$ 01 ' Y.,. ` ~ ~ ~_~,~ `~ '' ~;~G~DNDITIONAL USE~PERMIT'N0~200 rD.6 &.,' „~~w~a ~,' x`, ~~+w';~ w RE;SI„QdLNTIAL DESIGN.REVIEW NQ~~~2006='~17~ ;; ~' ,~~~. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, and Agents from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, or Agents to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning the MSHCP Consistency Findings, Tentative Tract Map No. 35869 for Condominium Purposes, Planned Unit Development No. 2008-01, Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-06 and Residential Design Review No. 2006-17 project attached hereto. 2. The Applicant shall comply with all of the regulations and requirements of the Planned Unit Development No. 2008-01. Any modifications or changes to the plan shall be subject to the review and consideration of the Director of Community Development. ,~-- 3. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 for the Shore Haven on Grand Avenue project. 4. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be final fifteen (15) days from the date of the decision, unless an appeal has been filed with the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.80 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 5. The proposed PUD shall be substantially completed within four (4) years of the date approved. PLANNING DIVISION 6. Residential Design Review No. 2006-17 approval of a mixed use Planned Unit Development located at 15712 Grand Avenue (APN 381-030-005) will lapse and be void unless a building permit is issued within one (1) year of the approval date and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. ~ 7. 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 ac~~l~~ l~,~Yr~ l;e~. 2 P~~~__~ ~__~~ c aQ --___ 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 at (951) 674-3124. The sign shall be installed prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 8. All Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced upon page one of building plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division for Plan Check. 9. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the Applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgement of Conditions," and shall return the executed original to the Community Development Department for inclusion in the case records. 10. All Conditions of Approval shall be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. 11. All site improvements shall be constructed as indicated on the approved site plan and elevations. The applicant shall meet all required setbacks pursuant to Residential Design Review No. 2006-17, Planned Unit Development No. 2008- 01 and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). Any other revisions to the approved site plan or building elevations shall be subject to the review of the Director of Community Development or his designee. All plans submitted for Building Division Plan Check shall conform to the submitted plans as modified by Conditions of Approval, or the Planning Commission through subsequent action. 12. Materials and colors depicted in the Residential Design Review No. 2006-17 and the Planned Unit Development No. 2008-01 shall be used unless modified by the applicant and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. 13. All windows shall use surrounds and/or other architectural-type features as shown on the approved plans or modified with the approval of the Director of Community Development or designee. 14. At minimum the applicant shall use "S" type concrete the for the roofing material. Roofing materials shall have a minimum Class "A" Fire rating, and so noted on the construction plans. 15. The applicant shall meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 16. A cash bond of $1,000.00 shall be required for any construction trailers placed on the site and used during construction. Bonds will be released after removal of trailers and restoration of the site to an acceptable state, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development or designee. ...r~ ~..~ ../" AGEIVC3A IT~~~i 6~J~. 2- PAGE~o~ (~Oo 17. The applicant shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. Construction r activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and no construction activity shall occur on Saturdays, Sundays or legal holidays. 18. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance. Construction generated dust and erosion shall be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of Municipal Code, Chapter 15.72 and using accepted control techniques. Interim erosion control measures shall be provided thirty (30) days after the site's rough grading, as approved by the City Engineer. 19. Any exterior air conditioning or other mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted and screened so that they are not visible from public streets. 20. Driveways shall be constructed of concrete per Building and Safety Division standards. 21. The entrance driveway shall be enhanced with stamped concrete or similar material a minimum of twenty feet (20') in width. 22. The pedestrian pathway shall be constructed of enhanced concrete. ~ 23. The applicant shall construct a decorative six foot (6') block wall with pilasters along the northern and southern boundary lines. A combination of a three (3) foot (3') decorative block wall and three foot (3') wrought iron fence with pilasters shall be constructed along the rear property line. Minimum fifteen (15) gallon vines shall be planted every ten (10) feet along all interior walls and fences. The applicant shall submit final plans for all walls and pilasters prior to obtaining building permits 24. Chain link fences shall be prohibited at all locations. 25. The building address shall be a minimum of four inches (4") high and shall be easily visible from the public right-of-way. Care shall be taken to select colors and materials that compliment the residential development. 26. All trash enclosures shall be constructed per City standards as approved by the Director of Community Development or Designee prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. A solid cover shall be incorporated into the design of all trash enclosures. The trash enclosure shall blend with the architectural design of the development. 27. The applicant shall meet all Conditions of Approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. 28. All exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and directed on-site so as not to create glare onto neighboring property and streets. All light fixtures shall ~GEt~~~l~~~t ~f~. 2- .od compliment the architectural style of the building and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development of Designee. 29. The applicant shall comply with all ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. 30. No exterior roof ladders shall be permitted. 31. All exterior downspouts shall be concealed within the buildings. 32. The applicant shall provide a minimum for eighty-five (85) cubic feet of storage area with a minimum dimension of three (3) feet in a location external of the unit such as the garage area or patio/terrace area. 33. Any issues, standards, guidelines, etc, not addressed in the Planned Unit Development No. 2008-01 will revert to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and/or Zoning Code. LANDSCAPING DIVISION 34. All landscaping shall be installed as .indicated on the proposed "Preliminary Landscape Plan". Any proposed changes shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development or designee. 35. All proposed landscaping shall be installed and an automatic irrigation shall be fully operational, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 36. The applicant shall provide and maintain shrubs and plant materials as shown on the landscape plan. Any changes to this plan shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development or designee. The landscape plan shall be implemented prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 37. The applicant shall provide automatic irrigation systems for all landscaped areas as shown on the landscape plans. The irrigation system shall be implemented prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 38. The applicant shall provide a rain sensor. The rain censor shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 39. All exposed slopes in excess of three feet (3') in height shall have permanent irrigation system and erosion control vegetation installed. 40. Three (3) sets of the Final Landscaping/Irrigation Detail Plan shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Architect Consultant and the Community Development Director or Designee. A Landscape Plan Check & Inspection Fee will be charged prior to final landscape approval. ..~ a~~~~~~ l~l~~ ~~. 2 Paclo_~® a. All planting areas .shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler ~^ system with 100% plant and ground cover coverage using a combination of drip and conventional irrigation methods. b. All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six inch (6") high and six inch (6") wide concrete curb. c. Plantings within fifteen feet (15') of ingress/egress points shall be no higher than thirty-six inches (36"). d. Any ground mounted transformers and mechanical or electrical equipment shall be indicated on landscape plan and screened as part of the landscaping plan. e. Shrubs and vines shall be planted around the onsite trash enclosures to soften the structures. Final landscape plans shall include planting and irrigation details and shall include all tree and shrub container sizes to be reviewed and approved by the City's landscape architect consultant. g. The landscape plan shall provide for ground cover, shrubs, and trees and meet all requirements of the City's adopted Landscape Guidelines. ~ Special attention to the use of Xeriscape or drought resistant plantings with combination drip irrigation system to be used to prevent excessive watering. h. A Landscape Maintenance Bond shall be provided prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The bond shall cover one hundred percent (100%) of the total cost of landscaping improvements onsite. Release of the bond shall be requested by the Applicant at the end of the required one (1) year maintenance period subject to the approval of the City's Landscape Architect Consultant and Community Development Director or Designee. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed within affected portion of any phase at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested for any building. Final landscape plan must be consistent with approved site plan. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 41. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the Project, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore to provide (a) 15% of the units constructed in the Project ~ as affordable housing units in accordance with the requirements of Section 33413(b)(2) of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Sections 33000 et seq.), or (b) an alternative equivalent action as ~-~i FDA i~~~~ n~. Z PAC~~_c~ (o a determined by the City which may include (without limitation) dedication of vacant land, construction of affordable units on another site, or payment of an in-lieu fee at the rate of $2.00 per square-foot of assessable space for each .,~,,r dwelling unit in the Project. For purposes of this condition, "assessable space" means all of the square-footage within the perimeter of a structure, not including any carport, walkway, garage, overhang, patio, enclosed patio, detached accessory structure, or similar area. The amount of the square-footage within the perimeter of a residential structure shall be calculated by the building department of the City in accordance with the standard practice of the City in calculating structural perimeters. SCHOOLS/PARKS/LIBRARY/MSHCP 42. The applicant shall comply with any/all requirements of the Lake Elsinore Unified School District. 43. The applicant shall provide assurance that all required fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District have been paid prior to issuance of building permits. 44. The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees in effect at the time prior to issuance of building permits. 45. The Applicant shall pay all applicable Library Capital Improvement Fund fee. 46. The applicant shall pay the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Fee ~,,, (MSHCP) Local Development Mitigation Fee prior to obtaining building permits. WATER AND SEWER 47. The applicant shall submit water and sewer plans to Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and shall incorporate all District conditions and standards, including payment of applicable connection fees prior to the issuance of building permits. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 48. The applicant shall comply with any/all requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. CC&R'S/HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 49. All block walls shall be coated with an anti-graffiti material and shall be maintained clear of graffiti at all times per a Maintenance Program set forth by a Homeowners Association. 50. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare CC&R's against the condominium complex. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or Designee and the City ~'~' ,AGE.F~®A i o irltia IIIO. 2 P/~CE_E~~ 00 Attorney. The CC&R's shall include methods of maintaining common areas, ~` parking and drive aisle areas, landscaped areas including parkways, and methods for common maintenance of all underground, and above ground utility infrastructure improvements necessary to support the complex. In addition, CC&R's shall established methods to address design improvements. r 51. No unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to financially assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and duty to maintain, all said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 52. The Home Owner's Association shall be recorded prior to the sale of the first dwelling unit. 53. Membership in the Home Owner's Association shall be mandatory for each buyer and any successive buyer. 54. In the event the association or other legally responsible person(s) fail to maintain said common area in such a manner as to cause same to constitute a public nuisance, said City may, upon proper notice and hearing, institute summary abatement procedures and impose a lien for the costs of such abatement upon said common area, individual units or whole thereof as provided by law. ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION 55. The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department two (2) cashier's check or money orders to the City within 48 hours of the project's approval by the City Council for the filing of the Notice of Determination. The first check shall be in the amount of $1,876.75 and made payable to California Department of Fish and Game. The second check shall be in the amount of $64.00 and made payable to the Riverside County Clerk. 56. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program associated with the Mitigated Negative ~.. Declaration for the Grand Avenue Condominiums Project. Specifically, the measures related to impacts to biological and cultural resources have special importance and assurances must be provided that these have been AGEI~I9A 13E'E~ 6~do. Z PAGE,_p~ (o,v incorporated into the project. 57. As agreed to in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, all sensitive vegetation shall ~..r be avoided during construction activities, including grading. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION 58. The applicant shall meet all applicable Building and Safety Division requirements. 59. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide assurance that the Public Building Impact Fee has been paid. 60. The applicant must provide ADA Accessible Path of Travel to Public Right of Way from all buildings, and from all buildings to Recreation Center. Provide large scaled site plan to show compliance with ADA requirements prior to the issuance of building permits. 61. The number of Accessible Parking spaces based on provided information is four (4) for the habitable units. 62. ADA Parking spaces must be located on the shortest available route of travel to an accessible entrance. 63. This property requires a lift station to pump the sewage up to the street level. Provide letter from EVMWD to confirm agreement and responsibility for lift `''~ station. ENGINEERING DIVISION 64. A grading plan signed and stamped by a Calif. Registered Civil Engineer shall be required if the grading exceeds 50 cubic yards or the existing flow pattern is substantially modified as determined by the City Engineer. If the grading is less than 50 cubic yards and a grading plan is not required, a grading permit shall still be obtained so that a cursory drainage and flow pattern inspection can be conducted before grading begins. 65. Prior to commencement of grading operations, applicant to provide to the City with a map of all proposed haul routes to be used for movement of export material. Such routes shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 66. All grading shall be done under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer and he shall certify all slopes steeper than 2 to 1 for stability and proper erosion control. 67. Phasing Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. AGEP~DA !~a t~ ~0. 2 PAG~~_(:~ ~ 00 68. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained prior to any work on City or Caltrans '~ right-of-way. 69. Arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.) out of the roadway or alley shall be the responsibility of the property owner or his agent. Overhead utilities shall be placed underground. 70. Underground water rights shall be dedicated to the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.52.030 (LEMC), and consistent with the City's agreement with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 71. Applicant shall obtain any necessary Caltrans permits and meet all Caltrans requirements for any work within Caltrans right-of-way (Grand Avenue/SR74). 72. Applicant shall obtain any necessary County permits and meet all County requirements for any work within County right-of-way and/or encroachment to County Flood Control channel areas. 73. The applicant shall install permanent bench marks per Riverside County Standards and at locations to be determined by the City Engineer. 74. The applicant shall install blue dot markers at Fire Hydrant locations per Riverside County Standards. 75. Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by Riverside County Fire. 76. Applicant shall pay all applicable development fees, including but not all inclusive: TUMF, MSHCP, TIF and area drainage fees. 77. Ten (10) year storm runoff shall be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm runoff shall be contained within the street right-of-way. When either of these criteria is exceeded, drainage facilities shall be provided. 78. All drainage facilities in this project shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District Standards. 79. All compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8 '/~' x 11" Mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division before final inspection of public works improvements will be scheduled and approved. 80. Slope maintenance along right-of-ways and open spaces shall be maintained by a property owner's association or other maintenance mechanism approved by the City. ~ 81. All waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or other phases of the construction shall be disposed of at appropriate recycling centers. The applicant should AGE~J~A ITE~~6 iJ{3. 2- PA~~ ~~, ®r [OCJ contract with CR&R Inc. for recycling and storage container services, but the applicant may use the services of another recycling vendor. Another recycling vendor, other than CR&R Inc., cannot charge the applicant for bin rental or solid ~, waste disposal. If the applicant is not using CR&R Inc. for recycling services and the recycling material is either sold or donated to another vendor, the applicant shall supply proof of debris disposal at a recycling center, including verification of tonnage by certified weigh master tickets. 82. On-site drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility, accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance, or conveyed to a drainage easement. 83. All natural drainage traversing the site shall be conveyed through the site, or shall be collected and conveyed by a method approved by the City Engineer. 84. Roof drains shall not be allowed to outlet directly through coring in the street curb. Roofs should drain to a landscaped area. 85. Applicant shall comply with all NPDES requirements in effect; including the submittal of Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) as required per the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 86. Education guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be provided to residents of the development in the use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers as well as other environmental awareness education materials on good ~, housekeeping practices that contribute to protection of storm water quality and met the goals of the BMP in Supplement "A" in the Riverside County NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. (Required for lot of one acre or more) 87. Applicant shall provide BMP's that will reduce storm water pollutants from parking areas and driveway aisles. (Required for lot of one acre or more) 88. City of Lake Elsinore has adopted ordinances for storm water management and discharge control. In accordance with state and federal law, these local storm water ordinances rohibit the discharge of waste into storm drain system or local surface waters. This includes non-storm water discharges containing oil, grease, detergents, trash, or other waste remains. Brochures of "Storm water Pollution, What You Should Know" describing preventing measures are available at City Hall. PLEASE NOTE: The discharge of pollutants into street, gutters, storm drain system, or waterways -without Regional Water Quality Control Board permit or waver - is strictly prohibited by local ordinances and state and federal law. 89. Submit a signing and striping plan that addresses a turning lane from Grand Avenue to the project driveway, adjacent driveways, and striping transitions as needed. The signing and striping plan shall be approved by Caltrans and the City. ..o+` Ail: ~®~ s~~~~ ~~. Z ~sca:.~°~o~= ~` 90. Interior streets and drainage facilities within this project shall be privately maintained. A maintenance mechanism shall approved by the City. Prior to Approval of final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the subdivider shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, agreements executed and securities posted: 91. Dedicate right-of-way and construct street improvements on State Route 74(Grand Avenue), along the property frontage, per City's General Plan (part- width improvements). The improvements include ac pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, offsite ac transitions, street lighting, and signing and striping. The developer shall provide cash bond for the future median improvements on Grand Avenue. 92. Provide street lighting and show lighting improvements as part of street improvement plans as required by the City Engineer. 93. Applicant shall submit traffic control plans for the required street improvements and on-site signing/striping for the project. All signing and striping and traffic control devices shall be installed prior to final inspection of public improvements. This includes Street Name Signs and No Parking Signs for ----__ streets within the project. r- 94. -Civil Eng+nee~shall prepare the street and traffic improvement plans. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to Riverside County Road Department Standards, latest edition, and City Codes (LEMC 12.04 and 16.34). 95. Interior streets shall be approved as private streets. In addition, the map shall note that the City has access rights to the site for maintenance related access to/from the lake and emergencies on-site. 96. A portion of the undeveloped land facing the lake shall be dedicated as an easement for the future walking and recreation trail or recreational use along the lake. 97. Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for the construction of public works improvements and shall post the appropriate bonds prior to final map approval. 98. Applicant shall obtain all necessary off-site easements for off-site grading from the adjacent property owners prior to final map approval. 99. Single access only to the project shall be approved by the Fire Department. ~ 100. Make an offer of dedication for all public streets and easements required by these conditions or as shown on the Map. All land so offered shall be granted to AGEN~P I~'~!y t~~2. 2 the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the city. ..rr' 101. All Public Works improvements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) prior to final map approval. The improvements shall include street and drainage improvements, street lighting, and associated traffic improvements related to the project. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 102. Submit grading plans with appropriate security, Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer for approval by the City Engineer. Developer shall mitigate any flooding and/or erosion downstream caused by development of the site and/or diversion of drainage. 103. A portion of the project is in the floodplain. The minimum elevation of structures shall be at 1267 feet. Import of fill material shall not be allowed below the floodplain elevation of 1264 feet. Export of materials from the floodplain areas and out of jurisdictional waters maybe acceptable if Environmental requirements are complied with. The developer shall comply with other applicable City Floodplain and Lake Management requirements. ~ __ 104. A portion of the project is impacting ex~ting~railer stru tures on o adjacent to the project. The developer shall resolve potential property rights ~, issues prior to grading permit issuance. 105. The grading plan shall show that no structures, landscaping, or equipment are located near the project entrances that minimize sight distance standards. 106. Construction Project access and hauling route shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer, 107. Provide soils, geology and seismic report including street design recommendations. Provide final soils report showing compliance with recommendations. 108. An Alquist-Priolo study shall be performed on the site to identify any hidden earthquake faults and/or liquefaction zones present on-site. 109. The applicant shall obtain all necessary off-site easements and/or permits for off-site grading and/or drainage acceptance from the adjacent property owners prior to grading permit issuance. 110. Applicant to provide erosion control measures as part of their grading plan. The applicant shall contribute to protection of storm water quality and meet the goals of the BMP in Supplement "A" in the Riverside County NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. ~../ AGENDA PTEI'ii P~U. Z PAGE L~ ~i+ Cv~_ ~' 111. Applicant shall provide the city with proof of his having filed a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program with a storm water pollution prevention plan prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall provide a SWPPP for post construction, which describes BMP's that will be implemented for the development including maintenance responsibilities. The applicant shall submit the SWPPP to the City for review and approval. 112. An approved WQMP plan shall be provided. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 113. Unless other arrangements are approved by the City, all Public Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) prior to building permit. 114. Submit a "Will Serve" letter to the City Engineering Division from the applicable water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project and specify the technical data for the water service at the location, such as water pressure and volume etc. Submit this letter prior to applying for a building permit. r~ 115. No structures, landscaping, or equipment shall be located near the project entrances that compromise sight distance requirements. 116. Pay all Capital Improvement TIF and Master Drainage Fees and Plan Check fees (LEMC 16.34). Prior to Occupancy 117. Pay all fees and meet requirements of an encroachment permit issued by the Engineering Division for construction of off-site public works improvements (LEMC12.08, Res.83-78). All fees and requirements for an encroachment permit shall be fulfilled before Certificate of Occupancy. 118. All compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8 1/2" x 11" Mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division before final inspection of off-site improvements will be scheduled and approved. 119. All public improvements shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans or as conditions of development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 120. All signing and striping and traffic control devices shall be installed. This ~ includes Street Name Signs, No Parking Signs, signing and striping onsite and on Grand Avenue. AGENDA lTEI~ I'~il. Z R~4G~~~sC~ ~ O a 121. Water and sewer improvements shall be completed in accordance with Water District requirements. ..i~' 122. Proof of maintenance responsibility and acceptance shall be provided for all open space, slopes, and drainage facilities, outside the public right-of-way. 123. TUMF fees shall be paid. The TUMF fees shall be the effective rate at the time when the Certificate of Occupancy is obtained. 124. The applicant shall submit as-built plans and shall be responsible for revising the mylar plans. A digital copy of all completed public improvement plans shall also be provided. A bond (amount to be determined by the City Engineer) is required to guarantee compliance of this requirement. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT 125. Prior to approval of the Final Map, Parcel Map, Site Development Plan, Special or Conditional Use Permit or building permit (as applicable), the applicant shall participate in the Public Safety and Maintenance Services Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project. Applicant shall make a four thousand tow hundred dollar ($4,200) non-refundable deposit to cover the cost of the legal process to participate in the .CFD. Contact Dennis Anderson, Harris & Associates at (949) 655-3900 x 334 or danderson(a~harris-assoc.com. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT `~ 126. The applicant shall meet all applicable County Fire Department requirements for fire protection including paying all applicable fees. Gate Entrances 127. Gate entrances shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the traffic lane (s) serving that gate. Any gate providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located at least 35 feet from the roadway and shall open to allow vehicle to stop with out obstructing traffic on the road. Where aone-way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, 40 foot turning radius shall be used. Road Width 128. Fire Prevention Standard 06-05 requires fire department access roads serving buildings three (3) stories or more to be a minimum of 30 feet in width. 129. Provide a fire department turnaround at the end of the driveway by the clubhouse and lift station. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT 130. The applicant shall enter into the Crime Prevention Program, administered by `~'` ,AGE.AtCA 6TH^at ~0. ~ - .. the Riverside County Sheriffs Department and shall provide assurance of this ~` enrollment to the Planning Division 131. The Applicant shall comply with any/all requirements of the Riverside County Sheriff Department. AGF~I~~~ i3'Ir~JI ~o. Z PAG~_~_®F (CIo ~.~" April 8, 2008 City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division 130 S. Main St. Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 ATTN: Linda M. Miller PROJECT TITLE: Commercial Design Review 2006-06, Residential Design Review No. 2006-07, Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-06, TTM 34372 & PUD 1 APPLICANT: Ron & Dan Jiron OWNER :Same Dear Ms. Miller, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the development of the Planned Unit Development for a Mixed Use project located at 15712 Grand Avenue. All multi-housing development design reviews should be consistent with the Lake ~' Elsinore Crime Free Multi-Housing Program and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design specifications. Upon review of the plans submitted, the following issues of concern are offered: There is a concern with reference to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design that addresses the-areas of #14 -large open turf play area and #16 -Children's tot lot play area. An element of danger and liability exists at the perimeter wall that separates the open turf play area from the lake itself. As indicated for fencing, #19 -the 5'-0" high combination masonry and tubular steel fence lends to ease of accessibility to and from this area. It is recommended to attempt to build a solid block wall structure of not less than 5 ft. in height. It is further recommended that hostile vegetation such as "bougainvillea" or cactus be used at perimeters where possible criminal intrusion may occur. It is important to remember that CPTED aims to decrease the opportunity and appeal of a location for criminals and criminal intent. However, no crime prevention strategy by itself can completely eliminate crime; legitimate residents that use private and common areas must act proactively to ensure their own safety and that of their neighbors. ..o+ At~~l~®~ IT~tvt ~~. Z ~.._ PAGE ~~ Q~ ~ ~. . Furthermore, if not already preplanned, it is recommended that all garage doors are equipped with automatic openers w/lighting to provide additional safety to residents entering and exiting their respective property. GENERAL COMMERCIAL OPTED REO UIREMENTS/RECOMMENDA TIONS PRE-CONSTRUCTION & CONSTRUCTION PHASES: To reduce thefts and burglaries during the construction phases of this project, the developer and builders need to provide site security. The Lake Elsinore Police Department recommends the developer and builders use bonded security guards licensed by the State of California Bureau of Security & Investigative Services Department to handle project security. Prior to project completion, the surface of walls, fences, buildings, logo monuments, etc. should be graffiti resistant through either surface composition, applied paint type and/or planned shielding by landscaping or plants. Prior to construction on any structure, a material storage area should be ~-~ established and enclosed by a six-foot chain link fence to minimize theft of materials and/or equipment. A list of serial and/or license numbers of equipment stored at the location be maintained both, at the site and any off-site main office. The public and non- essential employees should be restricted in access to the construction areas. Current emergency contact information for the project should be kept on file with the Lake Elsinore Police Department, 333 W. Limited Ave., Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, phone number 951-245-3322. The developer and/or builder's name address, and phone number should be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Visibility into the construction site should not be intentionally hampered. Areas actually under construction should be lit during hours of darkness. All entrances and exits should be clearly marked. ADDRESSING: Address numbers should be illuminated during the hours of darkness and positioned to be readily readable from the street. Position the address numbers at a strategic and elevated section on the building. to facilitate unhampered views from vehicular and pedestrian vantage points. Numbers that are a minimum height of 12" are recommended. ~ SECURITY SYSTEMS: A~E~~~ 1~~~~ l~®. 2 P,~c~ ~ ~. ~~ E a d Silent or audible alarm systems should be installed. Comprehensive security systems should be provided for the following: perimeter building and access route protection, high valued storage areas, and interior building door to shipping and receiving area. Closed Circuit TV security cameras are recommended. DOORS: Adequate security hardware, such as dead bolt locks, should be installed. All glass doors should be secured with a dead bolt. Dead bolt locks shall be the type whose dead bolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside door knob/lever/turn piece. WINDOWS: Louvered windows should not be used. Large windows and any window accessible from the side and rear but not visible from the street shall consist of rated burglary-resistant glazing or its equivalent. The type that attaches to the window frame is recommended. ROOF TOPS AND OPENINGS: If the building has skylights, one of the following shall be utilized for every skylight: -Rated burglary resistant glass or acrylic material, ~'' -Iron bars of at least one half-inch diameter, flat steel bars of at least one quarter- inch width, spaced no more than five inches apart under the skylight and securely fastened, or -Grill of at least one eighth-inch steel and two-inch mesh. All hatchway openings on the roof of any building shall be secured as follows. If the hatchway is wooden, it shall be covered on the outside with at least 16-gauge sheet steel or its equivalent, attached in a manner making removal difficult. The hatchway shall be secured from the inside with a slide bar or slide bolts. Only a crossbar or padlock provided by the fire marshal shall be used. Outside pin-type hinges on all hatchway openings shall have non-removable pins. Exterior rooftop ladders should be eliminated or incorporated into the interior design. All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8" by 12" on the rooftop or exterior walls of any building shall be secured by means of: -Iron bars or at leasf one half-inch diameter, or flat steel bars of at least one quarter-inch width, spaced no more than five inches and securely fastened, -Grill of at least one eighth-inch steel and two-inch mesh, and/or ..~ ~~E~~~ ITEwi c~®. Z PA~E~~J OF ~ ~ ~ ~ -If the barrier is on the outside, it shall be secured with galvanized rounded-head, flush bolts of at least 3/8"diameter. LIGHTING: Interior night-lights shall be used during hours of darkness when premises are closed for business. Parking lots and associated car ports, driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses, and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises from at least 25 feet away during the hours of darkness. All exterior doors shall have their own light source, which will adequately illuminate entry/exit areas at all hours in order to: -Make any person on the premises clearly visible, and -Provide adequate illumination for persons entering and exiting the building. LANDSCAPING: Landscaping shall be of the type and situated in locations to maximize ~,,,, observation while providing the desire degree of aesthetics. Security planting materials are encouraged along fence and property lines and under vulnerable windows. Landscaping shall not conceal doors or windows from view, obstruct visibility of the parking lot from the street or business buildings, nor provide access to the roof or windows. LINE OF SIGHT/NATURAL SURVEILLANCE: Wide-angled peepholes should be designed into solid doors, which are located in areas where natural surveillance is compromised, and which will be utilized by employees to access parking lots and pedestrian paths during the hours of darkness. Single and double-binned trash enclosures should be located at the perimeter of the parking lot, not adjacent to buildings or contiguous to exterior building doors. Other line of sight obstructions (including recessed doorways, alcoves, etc.) should be avoided on building exterior walls, and interior hallways. Employees and/or security personnel should be positioned in areas where they cannot only monitor subjects entering and exiting the businesses but can survey restroom entrances. ~ PLAYGROUNDS /PLAY AREAS /RECREATION AREAS: (if applicable) ~~~~~~ ~T~~~ ~~. 2 t',~~1~:~0~ All playgrounds and/or play areas for children should be surrounded by residences on all sides for viewing and/or have security fencing as to prevent V, non-residents from accessibility. Recreation areas, whether for adults or children, should also be securely maintained as to prevent non-residents from accessibility. All children areas are to be protected, secured and maintained accordingly. SIGNAGE/PARKING LOT: All entrances to parking areas shall be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) C.V.C., to assist in removal of vehicles at the property owners/managers request. Should the community development department, developer or construction staff have any questions regarding the listed law enforcement and public safety concerns, please contact Officer Beth DeCou (951) 245-3322. Contact Information: Beth DeCou ~ Crime Prevention Officer / CPTED Specialist Lake Elsinore Police Department 333 W. Limited Ave. Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 ../ /~G~C~113~ I'b°c~~~ ~a~. Z PACE,~_®"w ~' d ~ ~ Service Commitment Letter # 2163-0 ~~ ; Vii; Friday, April 11, 2008 P.O. Box 3000 ~ 31315 Chaney St. -Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (951 j 674-3146 -FAX (951) 674-7554 Location: Grand Avenue, Lake Elsinore, CA # at Lots: 1 zoning: Residential-25 Townhomes Acreage: 5.3 G APN: 381-030-005 Tract Map: TTM 35869 '. _Phone: (951) 699-2338 ~ Fax: (951) 699-2338 Matthew Fagan Consulting Services 42011 Avenida Vista Ladera Will Sarve Fees Patd: ~~...._......_.._._........._.....~._.,...,....._.._.._.... Temecula, CA 92591 Pata Date: Attn: Angle DOUVreS Check I Receipt #: DEVELOPER ENGINEER Mr. & Mrs. Jiron Matthew-Fagan Consulting Services 601-C Crane Street 42011 Avenida Vis#a Ladera Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Temecula, CA 92591 Attn: Owner Attn: Angie Douvres ... _ .... Water Fees Effective Date 1/1/2008 to 6/30/2008 ; Project, lS in the Dlstrfct and is eligible for service, /''` Construct facilities per District approved plans. ' Before water connection fees are quoted, please submit stamped and signed engineer s water demand calculation . Also, provide recommended meter sizing for domestic service in accordance with ~AWWA M11. Fee Description Unit Per Unit _...._ ..............__....._.................._.... . Qry Base Fees Credit/ Adjust Net Fees Totat Amt Water Connection Fees will be Domestic 1 $0 00 quoted after Plan Check . $0.00 Fees. per Unit: $0.00 Tofa/Water Fees $0.00 Sewer Fees Effective Date 1/1/2008 to 6/30/2008 Project is eligible for service based on_ihe follow/ng_conditions: _ onstruct facilities per District approved plans. ~ ~ ~ ~~ Developer is to provide a Sewer Study that examines the project's sewer flows to the existing lift station as well as identify upgrades required to the existing sewer system. Capacity ..............................._Per EDU......... ................ Fee Description Unit Rry Ratio EDU Base Fees Credit/Adust Net Fees Totai Amt Regional Sewer Domestic 1 1 1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Connection Fees will be - quoted after Plan Check Fees per Unit; $0.00 Total Sewer Fees $0.00 7otat Water and Sewer Fees $0.00 _..- t ... .. .. .. , Sewer Lateral Location/Markin Procedure -------~~Y'~-'""" ~" -~ , .., ; ..._ _.. . To schedule an ins ection a ~ ~ ~ ~-~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ '~ ~ ~ E ~~~~ '~ p ppointment for a sewer lateral connection, call EV VI>~ e 1~~ i extension 8265, at least 48 hours in advance. ~~ , :. _ /~` . APR 17 2ooa ..~ ~ ~_' _"' Service Commitment Letter # 2'[63-0 Friday, April 11, 2008 ~"'~ P.O. Box 3000 - 31315 Chaney St. -Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (951) 67A-3146 -FAX (951) 674-7554 To schedule apre-construction meeting for sewer lateral construction, call EVMWD's t=ngineering Department at extension 8265, at least 48 hours in advance. See Procedures To Construct Sewer Lateral for additional information. Note, you must contact Underground Service Alert (USA Dig Alert) at 1-800-227-2600 for all utility marking at least three working days prior to digging. Current water and/or sewer connection fees are subject to change without notice by the Board of Directors and fees will be based on .the current fee in effect at the time of payment of fees. .... _... °... Additional Connection Fee Information p........... ~ .. ... .. A water and/or sewer service application must accompany the payment of fees to the Meter De artment, attention , of Stella Butler at ext 8222. A $10 service origination charge per new account wilt be billed on your first water/sewer bill. District Standards allow fora 30 day installation period upon payment for meter connection fees. Generally, meters are installed within 14-21 working days, The District requires seven days notification before intention to deliver payment in order to coordinate the most efficient placement and/or connection to facilities. Meters must be installed and connection to sewer facilitities must occur within sfx months of purchase date or any subsequent fee increases are applicable. If water service is being requested, a water meter location stake wilt be provided for placement on your parcel at time of payment. It is the responsibility of the customer to place the stake on the parcel. The Distrtict will not set the meter without stake placement. ~./ This quote does not contain an estimate for any engineering deposits or fees related to plan checking or inspection related deposits other than lateral inspection. Please contact the District Engineer at 674-3146 with any questions that you may have. Current water and/or sewer connection fees are subject to change without notice by the Board of Directors and fees will be based on the current fee in effect at the time of fee payment: Please note that all applications must include APN numbers. .. ... ... .................................. ' Sackflow Re uirements ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ .. ... ... ..........q ..... A backflow prevention device must be installed on each purchased domestic commercial or irrigation meter. A copy of the District's standards are attached for your review. The meter wilt be locked off after installation until the backflow device has been inspected. Please contact the Engineering Department at extension 8265 to schedule an inspection appointment. For all Commercial Development, please contact Keith Martinez at ext 8326 regarding District requirements, Industrial Waste Application, fees and inspection. Water/Sewer Fee Payments • i ;Paid Date: Check #: _____ .............__..._...................... Receipt #: Paid• ~.r~ AGEf~DA 1TEib~ ~~1~. PAGE~~- 0~ I ~~ I, ,i~~ Elsinore Valley Municipal Wafer District Authorized by owalski, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer Service Commitment Letter # 2163-0 Friday, April 11, 2008 P.O. Box 3000 - 31315 Chaney St. -Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 (951) 674-3146 ~ FAX (951) 674-7554 Date: 4/11 /2008 RGEF~DA iTE~~ EVG. pRGE~_®~_--= ~G Bi ~. ,~~ ~' "' l~ - ' - ~, Typical Lve/Work Product °. , Monumentation at Grand Ave. ~ r ;~ ~~~`~ r j ~.: m Typical Townhome Product 'v Cis ~' m .-t rs~ `'~ A P N 3 8 1- 0 3 0- 0 0 5 %,?: ~, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - NO. 1 ' a=mod soy pcians SHORE HAVEN O N G` R A N D R ~ a me. ii o ~~~~ KTCaY GF20UP , ~. - 4S7• a e13D3o `"'_°'° Lake E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a ~~_~ , ~~` ~ T _ \ !n~ . J rrc L ~x'r ^S 3-"' Y ~ec'o~'°`xc7 vR' '~ v , ,~ F ;-'.,~' 4:. / .~ ~F >~~ ~' ~ ~,:_5, ~ ~.;T~t, ~''sii~oY~to3~a3~s~Na+."`i'.3esmi~i'3',~",'Ts~";ov~ ~~ ,: _. ,: ,. ~ ~,e 5' 4o- 3 c . a ,, t3 ~•3'-^;tt4-, ~ r ~ ~r'{4': ~,~+?i.t2=~7 rG-f~: ' [y33,s3+6NA .a 1t• t ,.~ .. _ - N~16. ~~:~ ' .. a... ~~` -.. r; 'A Entry Gate at Townhome Community 11 SITE SUMMARY EMlstinB General Plan Desginaaon: Future Specific Type of Conatrucaan: Type V Bui16n~Caverege: 3d,tNiS 8 (. (B atl = 29.6% Plan Area'1' Ocpupanry; R-2 Pavement Cov_erage'. 54,951 a.l. (1.26 ac) = 46.7°4 Propoa d General Plen Uee: Future Specitc Plan Are - -- _ - 'I' Strae~ Secaone. Common Open Spat Ezielinq Zoning: C-1, R-3. R Raquiretl Common Open Space Typical Neighbomootl Street: 250 s.t./unit x 31 unite :7.750 s.r. Piopoeetl Zoning: C•1. R•3, R 28' ROW 26 GL (no perking) Provide0 Common Open Space Exiating,lantl Use; Vacant 27,666 e.l. (.6d ac) = 27.7% BuIlding Square Footagea: 27,668 s.l,l31 unid = 896 8.1./unit Proposed Lana Use: Mixed Use Bldg. t (J storyl-15,231 a.f. Parking Requirements: : S 2.7 Net Ac (5.3 Gross Ac) cras A Blag. 2 (7 storyl • 5.274 a.l. _ _ Bldg, 3 (2 story) • 6,282 s.f. Required Residence Open Spaces Densiry_ S 11.5 DWAO. Bldg, d (3 etoryl-11,445 s.f. N Btlrm • 1J5 apace/unit x 31 s q2 spaces Bldg. 5 (2 story) • 6,360 s.t. Total Open Parking Required'. 42 spaces Typrr of BuA6_ys: Bldg. 6 (3 story) -11,445 a.l. Total Open Perking Provided. 28 eDe<ea Townhomea (2J atoriw) Bltlg. 7 (2 storyl- 8.360 s.l. UveANork (3 Erodes) Bldg. 6 12 storyl • e.JfiO s.l. RagWred Residence Covered Spaces 2. Bdrm - 1 apace/unit x 31 = 31 agates Unite: 7 31 Unite Total Recnatlon GnHr: Tgtel Covered Parking Requires: 31 spaces x 6 Thres story UvaANOrk Units Total Covered Parking Prwldatl: 62 spaces t 25 Two 8 Three atary Townhoms Rec. Building • 1.430 e./. Unite Pool Deck • 7,Ofi6 a.l. LiveNVOrk: - Tot Lot - 706 a f. Total Park ng Required ICwered/Openl, 73 spaces 1 - U 11: 2 Bdrm = 1 827 s f Other Rardscaps • 2,436 c.r . Total Parking Prav dad (Cwared/Open): 90 spaces 1 • U t 2: 2 Bdrm ~ Loq = 1,956 a.f Shrub • 5 192 s f. d Un t 3: J Bdrm = 2 050 s 1. Tun - 2 170 e.t Total Rec Area = 15 4t 2 c.l. 17 Extra/Guest Spaces Induding 3 access ble cpacec (as ~c1 Tovmhome.' Reueation Center Cavarape . 130°/. Roadwayc=AC Pavement d - Unt is 2-3 Bdrm = 1 535.1 674 sf. Parking =Porous Pavement 14 • U 't 2' 3.4 Bdrm = 1 596-1 942 sl. Net Saleade Area: Q proDOaed Street Ught 6 • U it 3: 3 Sdrm ~ Lott • 1 761 s.t. 3 42.604 S.F. Tosvnhomen 'Prwate Open Space v411 be provided t 11 B63 S.F. UveANork al a minimum of one-hundred (100) t 54,567 S. F. Total s W are (eat per unit n DI ~ ~ 'li ~ ~ ~\~ \~ ~ _ ~.,I~~ m - D ~ (m ~ ~ _ V ~~ L O ~ Grand Solutions 601-C Crane Street ,,~ Lake Elsinore. CA 92530 0 (951)453-3030 K TCY N... 2tN17-rW:l ~ ~ ^ UTILITIES:_ SEWER: ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 31315 CHANEV STREET, LAKE ELSINORE. CA 92531 WATER: ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 31315 CHANEY STREET, LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92531 GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 465 SOUTH CORONA MALL. CORONA. CA 91720 ELECTRIC: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26100 MENIFEE ROAD. ROMOLAND, CA 82360 TELEPHONE: VERIZON 150 S, JUANITA STREET, HEMET, CA 82543 CABLE TELEVISION: ATBT CABLE SERVICES 556 BIRCH STREET, LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER IF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE MERIDIAN IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS SHOWN BY THE UNITED GOVERNMENT SURVEY. . cvnll _. __. _.. _.__. _.. _. _.. OWNER/DEVELOPER ~'~ v ' --------------------------• RON JIRON AND DANA S. JIRON ;. 1'fl __ ,~ . ~ ~ 601•C CRANE STREET ~ t 'wit.: -~,, LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 ~ c? '^ * J % ~~ % _~ "t ~ ~ - („r~1 ~ PHONE: 951.453.3070 - ~ - - ~~ ' _ -_ _~ -_ - _ ~. ~~i ~~~ ~ ~ ~n A °~> V U of •.,.1<s. c.':S 0 cn ~ ~~-- • _, 2B 1 ~ ~ o 2b o ~ ~ ~ o ~= ~ l ~ m --~~ --- ~ a m o e..... P ~ \ ~ ~ _._.~J_) 3~4 5 6:7 1`-- I l/<. / ~'~ ~ '° STREET IrAlt Live/ Work 0 era ~>.:,, SCALE: 1" = 20' CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-N0.1 APN 381-030-005 Shore Haven on Grand a 28' o ~ ° ° o ~ a m q ~ 0 Q R3 Zone Townhomes Lake Elsinore, California _ o o ~ o rn m a ~- ° m D - - C 8 9 1011 r;k~ S-1 ® KTGY GROUP, .RC. Rw1eM BubmltUl Memp g3. 300E Onelvl submlttel Dvc 19, 7007 SITE SUMMARY Esiaeng Generel_P_lan_Da_s_ginaM1an: Future Specific Plan Araa'I' Proposetl General Plan Use' Future Specific Plan Araa "I" Existing Zoning: C•1, R-3. R Propoaed Zoning: C•t, R•3. R Existing LanC Usc Vacant Proposed Land Uce: Mixed Use Acres: 3 2.7 Nel Ac (5.3 Grass Ac,) Oensrty_ S 11.5 DWAC. Type of Buildings_ Townnomas 12a stodea) LiveANOrk (7 stories) U_n_its: S 31 Unib Total S 6 Three story LiveMbrk Units t 25 Two 8 Fhree story TOVmhOma Unite Uv ANOIk:' 1 Unit 1: 2 Bdrm • 1 827 s.f. 1 Unit 2: 2 Bdrm + Log = 1 856 s.f d Unit 3:38drm •2050 s1 Townhome:• d Unt 1: 2-3 Bdrm • 1 535.1 874 s.l. 1d Udt 2: 3.4 Bdrm = 1 598.1 942 5,1. 6 • Unit 3: 3 Bdrm + LoR = t 761 s.1. •Private Open Space will be provided at a rtunimum of one•hundred (100) square lest per unit. ~v~~~~ U J I n 0 ~ r ~ o ~ ~ ' m ~ m ~ , -~ ~. S a m a ~ ~ t, 1~ \~ Type o(COnstruction;, TypeV Otpupancy_ R•2 sheetsec9ans: 7ypcal Neighborhocd Street 28' ROW 26' C/C (no perking) Buile ng square FooUgsc: Bltlg. 1 (3 story) • 15,231 a.l. Bldg. 2 t3 story) • 5,274 e.l. Bldg. 3 (2 story) • 8.282 >./. Bltlp. 4 (3 story) • 11,4d5 a,l. Bldg. 5 (2 story) - 8,360 s.l. Bldg. 813 story) • 11,445 s.f. Bldg, 7 (2 story) • 8,360 s.f. Bitlg. B (3 story) - 8,360 e.f. Racreatlon Canter Rec. Building • 1,430 s.f. Pool Dack • 3,068 e.f. Tot Lot - 708 s.t Other Hardccape • 2.436 c.f. Shrub - 5,182 s f. Turf - 2 130 e.f Total Rec area = 15 412 a.l. (a5 A<) Recreation Center Coverage: 13.0% Net Saleable Area S 42,604 S.F. Tovmhomee S 11.883 S.f. LiveM/ork r 54.587 S.F. Total Building Co>ve~e: 34.865 s.l, (,8 ac) = 29.fi Pavement Coverage: 54,951 s,l. (1.28 ac) = d6.7% Common Omen Space: Required Common Open Space 250 s.l,/unit x 31 unite = 7,750 s.t. Provideq Common Open Space 27.888 e.r. (.64 ec) = 23.7 27.868 9.1./31 units = 696 a.1./unit Parking Reguiremenh, Required Residence Open Spaces 2+ Btlrm - 115 epace/unit x 31 = d2 apacaa Total Open Perking Required: 42 spaces Total Opan Parking Provided. 28 spaces Required Reaidence Covered Spaces 2+ Bdrm • 1 apace/unit x 31 = 31 apacaa Total Covered Parking Required: 71 apacaa Total Covered Parking Provided: fit apacaa UTILITIES: SEWER: ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 31315 CHANEY STREET, LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92531 WATER: ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 31315 CHANEY STREET. LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92531 GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 465 SOUTH CORONA MALL, CORONA. CA 91720 ELECTRIC: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26100 MENIFEE ROAD. ROMOLAND, CA 92380 TELEPHONE: VERIZON 150 S. JUANITA STREET,HEMET, CA 92543 CABLE TELEVISION: ATdT CABLE SERVICES 556 BIRCH STREET. LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER IF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE MERIDIAN IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS SHOWN BV THE UNITED GOVERNMENT SURVEY. NOT TO SCALE n Total Perkin Re uirod ICovered/Opan 73 apacaa g q ) T l P OWNER/DEVELOPER U V '_~ ' 1 =~~~ j -7' ota arking Pravitled (COVereNOpen): 90 spaces - ~-{. - . ,i - .,Ff ~ - RON JIRON AND DANA S. JIRON ~ ` ~ L ; ~" , ~ 17 Exlra/Guest SDacea including 3 accecsi6le spaces 801-C CRANE STREET LAKE ELSINORE A I e ' 4 t ~°~~ , C 92530 PHONE 51 45 ~ -' "r Roadways • AC Pavement - : 9 3.3030 _ n ` ~ ' „~ ~ Parking = Porauc Pavement Propoaed Sbeet U9ht - ~~ G •-,--.~ '-~" "c=J - -r ~ _,~ I~t~`I-Ind lf'°l~ _ ~__z_~.~~_. _ %'; ~_. 8'19 2021222 ~, a ~'``~~'County Drainage C m ~ ~~ ~~ Grand Solutions 601-C Crane Street ~ Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 ~~ (951)453.3030 K T(iY Nn. 2r1n7•rW.l nel lJ - i ~/ ~ ,~~"'~~ R Zone reation SCALE: 1" = 20' ' CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - NO. 1 APN 381-030-005 Shore Haven on Grand Lake Elsinore, California l RECREATION AREA ~~~~ ~=~- ENTRY GATE i ~ I $-2 KTGY GROUP, ~ a~~ era. •' __~ Aavlsb Yuemlttal Maras 33, 300a Ortalnal aufimtapl Dae. 19, 300'! ~ r> > OWNER/DEVELOPER RON JiRON AND DANA S. JIRON 601-C CRANE STREET LAKE ELSINORE. CA 82530 PHONE: 851-453.3(130 LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER IF SECTION 71, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE MERIDIAN IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS SHOWN BY THE UNITED GOVERNMENT SURVEY. uKE ns~NO~E~ SITE VICINITY MAP GORTION OF SW 1/<OF SECTION 11. T_ 87. fl. SW NOT TO SCALE T, _ - - -_ - - _- T~ ~ ~ ~ i ^ (/ ~ I I r~ 'r - - - -- - I • - I i v 'p I ~ ~ L_ - - - - - ~-----~ ' - --- -~- _ -" '- ---- - - - --- - -- --- --- v .-~ - ' ~ - - - - _ _ ~ - - - - - ~--;P - - -]-- _- ~- ~-_~' - - L ~ J '-- - -LC - Z -_ - --- ---- -- -- - ---- ---- ------ °-- n m n y G7 fl7 -^! SCALE: t" = 30' P11 ~ SITE PLAN -EXISTING CONDITIONS ~ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - NO. 1 ~ APN 381-030-005 Grand Solutions 0 601-C Crane Street Shore Haven on Grand ~ Lake Elsinore. CA 92530 (951)453-3030 Lake Elsinore, California •1 K'I'riY N~~ ZIU17~W:1 A_. ~ e .~••~... S-3 ~~, KTGY GROUP..N ~ e~...,.. ...m~..m.~ RuvUM Submlttui Murop 37. 3001 OrItlnAl tubmltnl pu 19, 3001 SITE INCLUDING PORTION UNDER WATER I~ ~~ 11 aaSCALE IN FEET i I 1 I I I 1 I I 1~ II `~ ~A _ _ _ V E °"""'°°~ R'°dr>r ~ I l ~0e eR~mus u~r eaeue1°~''a wi I I ~~ m ran p ~ ~~ v Rcr miut uR afac o m h I ~~I ~I r ~I, ELIR ~RDAif OUAMT/iE4 ~~ ~ ~t: N.. ago r I L OEIIFRAL ~(F9: I o-~ ~ ~~ I . I; I~ ~, .ur a ^ Ra,R.a~a ,~~ /~1.. J fi~'fi:.°kRRm ~ I ~{ ~I° awMnww-nRwwaawsures~ I ~.j ~I PT7 e PRECISE GRADING PLAN FOR TENT. TRACT N0.35869 GTl'OY~LAKEK STAIFO~FCALFOV~'VSA ,7 APMICANTAEYELOPER: ~ ru . u •u ~//q~~ ~ wsc er-w-u ~.nenw..a.. wpm ~~~. ~EXISNNO a°O1~ iRACl l3e69 MOBILE HONES 'WRAC! !5899 CttfI.O'p ~~ IIW 9~~ n aoe ._ _ _ _~ ~~ T' .a.nKn.~.n~,,.ww w. nlo. ..;;-~ rRp^. RNXItl1rJ CRAMAIEN,E L/ 1A°'°. 9o[xNX ~TX.1V A' xru i -rei -re ~Lw. cwe A cwrLN v.• SECApV T o~ 3/T~T Q~G D MD E (I/PJ PIIEPAAEO IN L[CAL BE8CIWNOR ~w~' iMar m~ws~t faRini ~ f rus a~iv awa~°a r~• AauB9oR•s vARCB[ NWlER: aer.o99-o9e aff OAAIREQ MLIYFMRR 9A0> rtt CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE """ ..a~,~.~. PRfC/SE CRAOBIC PLAN .rrr...a.ru ......r..: FOR ~ '°°OL "~a'X.« w. ~_ 7ENTAT/VE TRACT MAP Nat JSBBD '~ ~~ re~ 7RICx' a3B~69 NRE ELSMORE ~' ~ % \ /X~/l roRn9N or sw~YZYV/TANP r. ex A !w "+..-,' Caa09 +~ w~ ~\ ' 4 /~ MKS BOLN'Gl4Y EXISNNB (RAC( !5869 MOBILE NOMES ~> '~ ~I p SECIKaV F YI£'- r r~ ~IKW if ExisnNC ~°°'u nrecr ssaa9 MOBLE NOMES ~>.~~~~ ~'ly il' F~ nucr ssaw ~^' naiicr r ~..,~ .u ..v..c „u~r~,e~",,, me R ewNwar rr /RACI 1Sa69 ExlsnNt R///E'''C. AREA MOBILE NOMES ~ Y / ~ ,.:~> I .,.ae ~ ~`~ ,...+r ~..v...~~~ .aw ffCTA7N F fl~ sc . ~~..~ t mm Mm r €~' €' ~1RaY X .,- ~~ .~o.~o~ L~. sar r gMYI~V... ,. ~crxw r ""'~ 9il~T ~G DAADE(i1PJ f a .~.~ - J // /' ABBElBOR'B -ARClL NLMlR: a9waaoos DAR N19RARFR Mo1HweR too) 1 °'X.ac .o .>~. am - m. w2 rsa JEMTAAYE T/lACT NAP Ma JbB1D IAACT J9B69 EX19ilNC "OfY rRAC/ SSB69 MOBRC NOMES „, , a ~~, ~aa~,..~waawa,,.~, ~ ~ J -~ I ~ wi ~CiIpV A' }I St ea.ar nw wuw.~a. swc r-~s „w,~.~, „ Q~ ~~ t- wars r r t~ ~ ~ ~rM. , 3. G ~aarr aia ~~/ n ~CiKYV N me •- ~ /RACT SSBB9 FXISTINO Rft. AREA MOBILE NOMES ~~~.. _to. was ar aat ~7XaV F r ~ r I w.Rr nw~ _ +.ar is w.~(aw a~Rlw~ .z"ril~v r s>r~rswG DANDEITYPJ `~a waw, ~Aq •J \lAlfE fi$rNORE //- / ~' SIlE M~I7YMAP %vrrow oT sw r/~~wpFCrrow rr, r. B; R. Bw // // j ~~ r ... ... . - - aEasssA s 4LasD !•s! • [GBlIcLYUlCY C 9BwaB-oos OA~E /RAARFR NOYEMlFR 6007 ~~~~~~ CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PRECISE CRAOMG PLAN - '°°O" w°"9.~c ~o ~. 1ENTATIYE TRACT MAP Na 95SB8 ~. wro - m spa .__.., TE/~N~T~A~yyT~II/E TRACT NO.~315/86~9~~~ Cj~ ~/r (~/jnC ~j4 ~ ill' {,E/ry„/ -y/ 1/1117 (AIIE ElS/NORE FOR CONDOM/NIUM PURPOSES ~n ~~~ ~(~ SCALE M FEET ~~~~ ~.~ ,. ~ ~ rr r ~/IPACE SSBBD j ~~ pa~0'p ' 1 e arsov E~ ~A~ nw. sxawru fG.~-~-~--~ie L E6~. BNB . ~N EX1511NC N0w'au rRACT !5869 IOBILf HOPES w .~~-_ :.~.a~wa ,aw ~..a. N _C ~ ~ ~ C >~ EXISNNC >. y fNAC! J3369 YOBM1f HOYCS 7 a .,e..~-- F :, aa. xnrMasrr v+ s* cronroD wars a'"rt ~1X)V L' rwtr eowmur EXISNNC fRACr !3669 MOBILE HOMES w. mue~_ ~ SfC71p'V F rorE. i =ro' ~M ~MVRK OU.iN11TEB: ¢ 6DTERAL NOlEB: _~~ ra«aa r o-rµa ~~w~ u ux • rr~fu waxy mq ~ gw~aW~n__ ~ p N w,rsree w,se~aa ivy of a4 arm ~~a~ _ Aww.axaa .Nrn.rm. nwle~ aa. ru.. t i '~ "°"' e-~._, a.~.m~.n ® _ raeaoxwn+uvn "°°>aL~.°J ~iON9 roDBBN a sw i%r or mrrorl rl, L rs, B. sw ~a i' "' r ~~' ~~' ww ~. pwlbr ~ ~ _ta I srU 0.w ~l~ r uwfln SfIgT q~G O MD E fTYPJ BNNAAEO BC LEGAL OIEBCINIT/ON ~~ r~"`..+N.+ .. ~ ~°11~aa .a ~ e.,c - . o.R mra ABBESSaIrs vANeBt ABAISEIE a6w6o-ooB BN>E M9AAr~ NOYEMAEA tDBX lENTATIYE TRAC1 MAi Na. 958Q8 OWNER/DEVELOPER RON JIRON AND DANA 5. JIRON 801-C CRANE STREET LAKE ELSINORE. CA 92570 PHONE: 951-453.7030 LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER IF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE MERIDIAN IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS SHOWN BY THE UNITED GOVERNMENT SURVEY. ' t '`. ' LAME EL SWORE ~~ f ~ 0 ` ~.,,, I r ~ `S ~ r/ I~~ ~ ~~~ , `.. • w. ~. SITE VICINITY MAP~~` PORTION OF SW 1/A OF SECTION 11. T. 65, R. SW NOT TOSOALE I ', ~ - J r , C~.: .a+.._ .v 11,; ~J ~1. ~.:-L /~ '~ _. ~~_ Jam. ~~_ _ _.~_ ~'~ ~ r-i /Ilj~\ ~ I ,' i 1~ `~~ _ \ _ - I Ji • 1J U l5 ~ I % -~ ~ ?,`I ` \\~11\ \ i j i' ~~ ~, I ~ ~~ ,~ I -+ I T 1 ~l I ~ ~ / I ~ I ~ ;^ II ~ I ~_ A ~~ ~~~~~' I i I . ~ ~ ) r'1 ~ vI ~ _ ~ 1 ~ ~ ( ~ L \ I v I ~~~,1 ~I ~~~ J r , ~~ ~ I i, ~ '+~ j i I~ ~ ~ Ll_~ 1\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~L__W,"@ ~ ~ II ~ t ', ~ I h ~, I ~ j~ 1~~'~~ ~ L _1. _~_ LJ- ~~+- -- J ~ ~~L- __' ~I I _ ~ I ~ ~ ,~~~ 11~1'~I III ~ I __ ~. ~~. ~~ I ~. ' ~' ~ '-'4 - \ 1~1 III I ~ ~ ,_ ~. 1 ~ ._. ~ I 1 _ _ I ~~ `~.. , ~~ ~; l v III • 1 ~~ 1, ~ ~ -`: ~ ~ - I ,~ ~" ~ _ I ;' f v ti n I ~. .» ~ L r ~ ~ i ;~- _ .~•~r.~ fi~~.r ~.. ~ r-r..~T: 1 ~.~{: s+' ~+i ~ ter. ..•/ : •~,~. It. r.r ~a~s l~ ~~ ~~. ~ 1 '~ / ~~ - ~ _ _, ~_______ ~____-___'___-__ T-I_ _ _ _ _ ______ 1 ~~. ~--..-.~ ~ c~ I .- .. __ ~ _ :f - ~~ i _ .I r ~ '.~ ~ __ - i' - ~ ~ ~ ~ v '~ i I . ~ ~ I m ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ _ ' Grand_Solutions ~ 601 •C Crane Street -~ Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 (9511453-3030 ^ 1 Kl'(iY Nn. 7Nl17/W:1 O O SCALE: 1" = 30' SITE PLAN -EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - NO. 1 APN 381-030-005 Shore Haven on Grand Lake Elsinore, California I-1 ~. ~~ S.3 ~~ ®~ KTGY GROUP, n~. RevlPeb SuhmlMl Merch 23, 30ae Orlolnel SuDml[tei Dec. 19, 2007 ~: SITE_INCLUDING PORTION UNDER WAT_E_R LIVE - W O R K PRODUCT n A m O Sj rand SDludona Ron t D{n{ Jlron ® 601•C CnM Stt-t L{t~ 8binerw CA 92570 .~ A , t9sD ~ssaoso r--. ICJ A P N 3 8 1 0 3 0. 0 0 5 PLANN ED U NIT DEV ELO PMENT - N O . 1 SHOR E H AVEN O N GRAND KTGY GROUP, Li ve /Work Prod uct ~ »„„ •~•• .LL -.M„o.,~ La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i A9vireC Submltui M~rob 35, t00{ f o r n i a ATOP 2097.0.21 Orl{In.l Submltt~l i>.w I9.1007 b m ~ ~ Gl ~ ~ P~ ~~ d °to ~~ nO ^'! Third Floor Area: 655 s.f. Second Floor Area: 844 s.f. .mro.~m rim r~, .r~wi rymR r ~,~. CONCEPTUAL UNIT PLANS - PLAN 1 - 1815 S. F. SCALE: I/{"=P~1" A P N 3 8 1 0 3 0- 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT DEVE LO PME NT - N O . 1 SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAN D a~R~ o ~o;~;~o>t9 { Live /Work P r o d u c t 601-C Cron 9trpt Like El.inerq ~,. 9]))D La (9511 {)3J070 ke E l s i n o r e , C a l i f o r n i a 21'•0" A- i KTGY GROUP~~~. e R~vlo9 896mltui A4rcb ]8, 3006 KTGY ]OD]-0{21 Orl{I,ul 9ubmltt~l D9w 19, ]007 First Floor Area: 316 s.f. ~ ~ M _se sa _ exercise _ ..a. ~.. (~ 9-0' ab9 ~`~ d fl V A ~ ~ ~ '" i" OPTIONAL EXERCISE 2 Car Garage zo+. zoa rr. Home Business ua . as va• n+a ipa..r." •Plc.rercrrr ,rivals .P000' n~MSila rl nfn~ en I punrc fool pe Third Floor Area: Second Floor Area: First Floor Area: 735 s.f. 875 s.f. 340 s.f. D Irv ~ ~ CONCEPTUAL UNIT PLANS - PLAN 2 - 1950 S. F. ~ ~ SCALE: I/S'=I'-U" A P N 3 8 1- 0 3 0- 0 0 5 -~ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - NO. 1 ~~ ~ SHORE HAVEN ON GRAND `~ Live/Work Product 'i'9 Grend Solutions Ron t D•n{ limn 6010 Cronu 8tnu1 ~.k. El.lnaru. ~„ 33370 Lake E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a (9717 •S7JOl0 O A-2 ~T~ KTGY GROUPy ,y, ~~' a ...,.. " .~ ..M...~ RuvgW {ubmiltul IAurob 33, 300{ KTOY 3007M31 Orl{Irul {ubmltgl Dua I{, 3007 +- I '" !llI 5'11 o~ ... . ca,S:: UI N, ~:i~ ..,e B ! e.;;; If ~ tl .8',8f I. 1 -r- . 9 ;., '" !llI C!' .- ~ >1' ;:l" ~ -< a ~~ """ "'", ti:M OJ ~ o o ii: -g~ 8~ Jl.,. 3 -< o o u:~ " .; .~ 0 F=t! M u:::;1 g g < ~:::U;; !5~'~!1 ~! o ::~ i -; ~ oJ ~ ... -: - Cl:.~ ~~ >:;:~ ~ i C); :~:: ! ~ ........ .. 0 :ll:: .~;o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o oZ z<: ~ ~d w (J V')~Z ::Ie,... o~ ~OO 0_ o ~ ""' as ~ W ~ cn'O>Z U z~ .:.4 -< ~ . .. ...J '" - W fT 1 ""' p...~ooO"'" 0 t) u ""' f-"'~ ::> - > ;;> 0 ; ~ "' s:: Z >-4 <: t).... ~ Z > III <...... =c ....- >-' ~W as u.; vi s:: o on o N ""' ... 0 r') Z <C ...J p... 't) .... ""'" ...J <C ;:l f- p... "'-l U Z o u ~~ t) .:.4 Z~ as ~ ~O ~=c ~ r/) ~ iJ ~J~o ~~~~ ...t)~~ ~ti~_ :!~J~ ""'" E" ~ ~,~" z... ACENDA IT;,:;:r.. i.v.. OF L 00 PACEJak ~ {~ -gin ~~ ~y ~~ •-~ ~~E`+a ~" N i Ron t Dum llron 601•C Crtn1 9tro<I 1,1k~ 3!I~Inor4 CA 923)0 (9517 13]30]0 SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN CONCEPTUAL 2-PLEX BUILDING - FLOOR PLANS SCALE: 1/4"=1'al" A P N 3 8 1- 0 3 0. 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT DEV ELO PME NT - N O . 1 SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAN D Live /Work P r o d u c t La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a A-4 KTGY GROUP, ' o .. .,.. _ ..M. _ R1H11A 6ubmpul M1rob 3J, 300{ KTGY 3007.0171 OrIS4~1 Subm1141 Dw. 19, 3007 ---- -- --- GI [~ -- - _ - I 250 s.f, = 2000 kw I - t- ( _... _ I - -~ ~ I - - - - - -- - ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I L I I -- Integrated I /J~ I __ Photovoltaic ~ ~ I I I ~ (- -1 Solar Panels r- -!~ I I I I I I_ _. _..._ _ _ _ I I _ _I I_ _ _.. _. _ I I I I i I ® Each Unit F" I I I I I I 5:12 (U.N.O.) I i I ~ ~- I _ ~ ~- I I ' I I I `_ -~ it c ~ a ~ ~- J _- - - _ _ .._ ~-- ._._._ _ _ __r~ - '- -~ - - - I'•0" EAV TYP. ROOF PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN rt9 C ONCE PTUAL 2-PLEX BUILDING - FLOOR PLANS SCALE: 1/J"=1'-0" A P N 3 8 1. 0 3 0 0 0 5 G ~ PLANN ED UNIT DEVELO PME NT - NO. 1 ~" SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAND '~ ^' Grand Solutions Ron a Dene !Iron Live /Work P r o d u c t 1 V (` 601~C Cnn{ 9tn°t L.3. EI.1^nra ~^ 9:33U (9311133-7030 La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i 9 f o r n i a o A-5 KTGY GROUP, ~~ 6 ~:» .~.. ,,..... Rev140 8ubm1141 9fereb 31. 300{ KTGY 3007.0131 ON{Inel Bebmlt4l Des 19. 3007 ~---- - - j ------ D nv ~o P~Pl -Ti 'TY f1 .~ O furs Ron t Dana !Iron 601•C Cnne Strwt L.R. et.+ne.., cA 9uw nSU X33.7030 1 FRONT "SPANISH" ELEVATION RIGHT "SPANISH" ELEVATION LEFT "SPANISH" ELEVATION REAR "SPANISH" EL1/VA I IUC CONCEPTUAL 2-PLEX ELEVAT IONS SCALE: IN"=I'•0" A P N 3 8 1 0 3 0- 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT DEV ELO PMENT - N O . 1 SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAN D Live /Work P r o d u c t La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a MATERIALSI,EGEI4D OI Concrete Flat Tile Roof wiW Inngnted Photovolnic Solar Panels Q Each Unit O2 Wood Trellis O Wood Fascia 4O Eapomd Rnfkr Tails Llght Lace Stucco Finish © Sand Finish Stucco over Foam Trim O7 Decore[ive Shutter © Dewntive Foem Potahelf 0 Wrought Uoo Potshelf 10 Wrought Iron Railing I I Wrought h'oR Grille I2 Decorative Ceremic Tiles 13 Decorative Foam Corbels 14 MeW Sectional Garage Door l5 Sound Attenuate Pleziglau 16 Mechanical Metal Entry Gate A-6 ~ KTGY GROUP, ~w o:~~ .,., .,. ,.»,. Rer1aW 6abnlttel Marob 23. 3001 KTDY x007.Oall Orl{iMl Sobmlltal Des n, 2007 D ---------- - .n ~ CONC EPTU AL 4-PLEX BUILDING - FIRST FLOOR PLAN ~,' ~ SCALE: I/4"=I'41" A P N 3 8 1 0 3 0- 0 0 5 ~ ° PLANN _ ED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - N O . 1 ® SHOR E HAVEN ON GRAND N Grand Soluttone R n t Dom !Iron Live /Work P r o d u c t 601•C Cnn4 9trwt L4k. 8lrlnor0. CA 92370 (9317 4A~7070 La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a 3 O O A-7 ~' KTGY GROUP. a » .,.. ' ~ .,..m...~ R.YIrnA Submllul Mveb 33, 3001 K7'OY 200]•0421 OrI31n.1 Submitul Dao. 19, 200] ~~ n ~ ~ ~ J 0 4 ~ flrand Solutions Ron L D{n{ llron 601~C Cnn. atrwt ux. eulnora cw suw (03i1 131J010 D CONCEPTUAL 4-PLEX BUILDING - SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/3"~i'-(1" A P N 3 8 1 0 3 0- 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT DEVE LO PMENT - N O . 1 SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAN D Live /Work P r o d u c t La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a A-8 ~~ KTGY GROUP, ~w~. e .,.. .,...... RrvluO avlmltttl M{rex T3, 100{ KTGY 3007.0131 Or1{In{I {ubmltul Ow. 19, 1007 D e°, m A ~ CON CEPT UAL 4-PLEX BUILDING - TH IRD FLOOR PLAN ~° era SCALE: I/J"=1'11" APN 381.030-0 05 ~~ PLANN ED UNIT DEVELO PMENT - NO. 1 SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAN D ~ `S7 Grena SD)DIIDD9 Ji o R t D Live /Work P r o d u c t on ,m r n 601~C Cnn, Street L,b El,lnor,, CA 91370 (931) ~SSJO70 La ke E l s i n o r e , C a l i f o r n i a Q ~ `L ! A-9 ~~ KTGY GROUP, ~_ o,~~ .,,. t~ .u.... Mvl„0 Submllnl Mcrcb 23, 3009 XTOY 100]~0l31 Orl.ln,l Sobmlu,l Dsa 19. 3007 FRONT "SPANISH" ELEVATION MATEBIALS_LEOJElID Concrete Flat Tile Roof with Integrated Photovoluic Soler Panels ~ Each Unit Wood Trellis O3 Wood Faacia ® Exposed Rafter Taila O Light Lace Stucco Finish © Sand Finiah Stucw over Foam Trim O7 DewraNve Shutten ® Decoative Foam Pouhelf O9 Wrought Iron Poahelf 10 Wrought Iron Railing 1 I Wrought Lon Grille 12 Decorative Ceramic Tilw 13 Decorative Foam Carbela 14 Motel Sectional Garage Door IS Sound Attenuate Plexiglas 16 Mcchaniwl Metal Entry Gete ~ RIGHT "SPANISH" ELEVATION ~ CONCEPTUAL 4-PLEX ELEVAT [ONS ~' SCALE: I/4"~I'•0" ra y A P N 3 8 1. 0 3 0. 0 0 5 ^'~ m PLANNED UNIT DEV ELO PMENT ~l~ ~ SHORE HAVEN O N G ~, C3 rand Solutions Live /Work P r o d u c t O ` Ron t D•n• Jtron 601•C Cnn• btrpl ut. El.lnar•. CA +:330 Lake E l s i n o r e C (931) 137.7070 a l i f o r n ,~ ~1 ~^ O e ~VOf [ - COLOR M4Tg1% _.___. --- w~- v„mn~r~•e~ni ~" cn „wn.vi _. lea m*+ - N O. 1 RAN D i a A-10 ~ KTGY GROUP, ~qe. a '». .,.. .,. ,..,. 0.•vl•W Submltal M•reh 33, 3008 KTGY 7007.0121 Orlala•1 8ubmltt•I Dw. la, 300'! REAR "SPANISH" ELEVATION tin ~ ~ ~ ~, n m ~ ~` -'~ ~. Grand Solutions ~, N Rem 601~C Cnna S[rear L.aa et.marw cA sxsso (9311 a33J030 ~~ O MATEAIAI.S_LESiEL~ID O Conerota Flu Tile Roof with Inmgra[ed Photovoltaic Solar Panels Q Each Unit O2 Wood Trellis ___-____ -_____ ^ O3 Wood Fascia 8 © Exposed Rafter Tails _ _ _ ___~ ~ Light Lace $mCCO Finish © Saad Finish Stucco ovtt Fosm Trim l --- ------___O O7 Daontiva Shutters _-_-_.~ © Decorative Foam Potahelf 9O Wrought Iron Potshelf - ----- ----~-- 10 10 Wrought Iron Railing --- -- - II Wroughtlron Grille ____ ~ ~ \ \ I$ ___ __OOIOR MATIa% __ ~_ ---_ __._ 12 Dewrativa Ceramic Tilp ,,. T ~,w~ ~~ ~ 13 Decorative Fouu Corbels _ase ~ <w...+~.e..w .. j " I4 Meml Sectional Garage Door ~~~, -~ --- 1$ Sound A[lenuam Pleziglus t^`-' 1 - 16 Mechmical Mewl Entry Gam ma. rr•.... ~....., v.. LEFT "SPANISH" ELEVATION _ CONCEPTUAL 4-FLEX ELEVATIONS SCALE: I/J"=I'•(1" A P N 3 8 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT N O . 1 SHORE HAVEN O N GRAN D Live /Work P r o d u c t Lake E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a A-11 ,,~~ KTGY GROUP `~ e a.vt.ea aaamura at.ree xs, xooa IcTOV xom~axl orlsi.a saamlrml wo. la, xoo'r l ~ } - - --- _- - r~ -- ------ ---- -- -- --- ---- -------- -I 4 r --- --Z-- -- ----- ~ I ~ a ~ I I 5:12 (U.N.O.) 1 __ I ... ~ I I ~ I r- I I ^ I I ~_.r~ J~ I I I F I I, I ~ -~ I I i ---- I ~~ - - - - - ~ I I I I I ~-- 250 s.f. = 2000 kw I ---------~-- ------ --- -~ i I I I I I I 1 I ~ I r I I L I _I I 1-t I I I ~~ I I I I I~n~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i_ ~ I ~ I _-I I I I I- - _ - ._ ._. - -- - -_ -1 I I I .... -- -~ I I L-_ _.__ -. _- - I I I - I I I- I I - ----_ _-.I I i I L I ~ ~~ ~ I I I I I I ~-_._.------~ ~ I I ~ I VVV VVV ~~ ~ ~ L-_~___ jai ~ I l_. ...___-. _ _____-J __6~- ~__ ~_._1 ~-(~- ...~1 __ 6.R- Integrated Photovoltaic Solar Panels ®Each Unit (T1 C7 CONCEP TUAL 4-PLEX BL DG - R OOF PLAN ~ SCALE: I/J"=t'~I" ~ °~ A PN 381.0 30.0 05 „J~ PLANN ED U NIT DEV ELO PMENT NO. 1 u1® ~ SHOR E H AVEN O N GRAND ~ Grand Solutions Ron ! D•n1 /Iron Li ve /Work P r o d u c t 601•C Cnnv Stn•1 L.t. Elvlnnrq ~„ 9u19 La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n l a f~ (9311 ISSJOSO O e A-12 ~ KTGY GROUP, ~~ e .. .~.. `~ ,LL .w.....,.~ RIV1~a0 9Ybmlllnl b1~rob 33, 3001 KTGY 3007.0131 Or1~In11 9ubmitt~l D•a 19, 1007 BLDG 1 DRIVE AISLE BLDG 2 TO ----/ TOWNHOMES m `'- CONCEPTUAL BUILDING SECTION SCALE: I/4"=I'•/1" ~ °I APN 381.030.005 r~~e PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - NO. 1 a SHORE HAVEN O N GRAND - KTGY GROUP, ,' 3 p~ Grand Solutions L 1 V e~ W O r k P r o Cl U C t ,, ""'"'' `~• '°"""•"-"' ~.,/ R t D•n• ]Iron ~ O"~:•i•~-•'•• ~u. is:iin.w o w ~•t• el•1^^r, ~„ 92~]^ Lake E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a aea.ea a^e~nuta w.rrn ss, 2000 (951) 15]•]0]0 f KTGY 20018121 Orl{In•1 Su4mltbl Dx I0, 2001 ~~ ff e ~ ~ l > > TOWNHOME PRODUCT ~.~ ~, _~ r Hsu J •-~ J~ Grand Solutions Ron ! D~n~ Jlron 601~C Cnn~ Strwt L ab 1 ]0 nb inorl, CA 9 S (931) IS]•)O]0 ~' e A P N 3 8 1- 0 3 0 0 0 5 ,_ PLANNED UNIT. DEVELOPMENT - NO. 1 SHORE HAVEN O N GRAND KTGY GROUP. ~.~. Townhome Product ~~e,,.~•." ,,,,,, Lake Elsinor e C a l i f o r n i a Rwlud f"km""' kJ.r"° a. 3°°' 9 KTGY 3007.0131 Orl~ltul Su°mlttll I)Ia 19, 1007 m n n m --~ ~ ~ C~ O {i rand Solutions R A Daea )Iron ~ 601 C Crana Strwt Lab ElaloorR CA 935)0 (99q a33J0)0 .Bdrm 3 as . ne 9P Wp OPT, BEDROOM 3 r ~ I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i Loft/_ 1 Bdrm 3 I -u-z. st- I 9 a+~o I I I I I I ~ I i i L _ J Third Floor Area: Second Floor Area: 339 s.f. 979 s.f. OCCURS ONLY (r~ 5-PLEX 21'•0" _ CONCEPTUAL UNIT PLANS - PLAN 1 - 1535 S.F. -1874 S.F. SCALE. 1/a"=1'al• A P N 3 8 1. 0 3 0- 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT DEVELO PMENT - N O . 1 SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAN D T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a l • Plan repot to eotnpotiu plan for emual Nuart r r.5aa A- I ~ KTGY GROUP, ~a 's' V.. .,.. ~ ,~,r. Rav4a0 Submittal Marcb 3), 1005 KTOY 3007.0131 OrI51na1 Submittal Dso. 19, 2007 First Floor Area: 556 s. f. r - - - r --_-_ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I T - - - - - liMl~l =_~ i, ~ l-- Loft/ I Bdrm 4 I B_.drm._4 °~••~ u.z. qa I 9a os9v 9v a.,o I I I I I I I I ---- I I ------ I ' I I OPT. BEDROOM 4 I I Third Floor Area: 344 s,f. OCCURS ONLY ~ 5-PLEX f9'1 ~ ~ C7 ~ ~ CONCEPTUAL UNIT PLANS - PLAN 2 - 1598 S. F. - 1942 S. F. SCALE: I /1^= I'-11" ~ A P N 3 8 1- 0 3 0- 0 0 5 ~~ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - NO. 1 ~ _ SHORE HAVEN O N GRAN D -~y Brand Solutions N e.n . an. ,Iron T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t am-c ogee str..t r..n. eleinerw cw 9xsso .~ 19sp .1x.xox9 Lake Elsinore C a l i f o r n i a O • Pleeee refer to composiu plm fm .dual square foolegaa A-2 KTGY GROUP . ~. e'».. .,.. aa,,.....~.. a..l..e a•br.m.l -sgren xs, xoog KTGY x007•M31 Original gubmltMl Dae. 19, 3007 _ - First Floor Area: 568 s. f. Second Floor Area: 1030 s. f. Bdrm_2 Bd__rm_3 qa. rvq qa. na 48 rew9 9P oW9 _ _. rerk - --._-_ Iwd._ - 2 Car Garase - ~ p-r.ao~w. ~ ~ ~~ ®--® F _- = _ Ba 2 ~~~_ ~ sa _ L un a yp r - ~ Loft/ Bdrm 4 pH,d~ q~a. q-0 90 oWq 90'ra.V Living M Ba ~ILr av ~, ~- caster , ~ a. ca Dining i~'so°`v I I 9-0'on9 oo.9a I wJ,C. ~ sa orlr0 Second Floor Area: lo°..r. ~~. • Pi.... rcr ro compo,u. Privaro Pe4o• plea for acNel pwrc 1130 s.f. roovs°` First Floor Area: ~ 631 s.f. m ~ •=~ CONCEPTUAL UNIT PLAN S - PLA N 3 - 17 61 S. F. ..a C9 SCALE: I/e"=I'-(1" ~ APN 381.0 30-0 05 C~~ PLANN ED UNIT DEV ELO PME NT.- NO. 1 SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAN D Grand Solutions Aoo !Deng )Iron 601~C Creoe Slreel T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t Lek9 Eltlnor0. CA 93370 "°°•°'~'°'° La ke Elsinore C a l i f o r n i a O' c A-3 KTGY GROUP, e:"~ .~.. ___ Aevlre0 S9lminel M9rch 35, 3009 KMY 3007.0131 Orl91MI Submllul De0. 19, 300'1 OPTIONAL-BEDROOM 4 D m ~ ~ ~~ ~~ r--- ~ A I Grand Solutions Ron t Dno~ )Iron 601•C CnN BIn91 L9kn E41nor9, CA 93310 (95i) aS)J070 I CONCEPTUAL 3-PLEX BUILDING - FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: I/4"~ I'•11" A P N 3 8 1- 0 3 0- 0 0 5 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT N O . 1 SHORE-HAVEN ON GRAND T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t Lake E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a A-4 KTGY GROUP e Rw1u0 Sobmitul M~reb 33, 3005 KTGY TOO7.0~21 Orlbinnl Submlrul I>•a. 19, 300] D Pe, ~' m -"".~ ~~ ' ~ ~ Qrand Solutions Rov ! D~n~ Jlrov ` 601~C Cnn~ itrest Lvty Culnore, CA 933!0 CONCEPTUAL 3-PLEX BUILDING - SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: I/4"=1'al" A P N 3 8 1- 0 3 0. 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT DEVELO PM ENT - N O . 1 SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAN D T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a A-5 ~ KTGY GROUP, e: ~~ .,.. .,...",.....me Rer1u0 8ubmitul M~reb 33, 3006 XTOY 3007~0~21 Ori~ln~l 8ubmitul Daa 19, 300] ['Y1 3 E'fi 9 ~~ ~~ _ W ra ~ Grand Solutlon{ Ron t Dana liron 60I~C Qene Srner Gh Elelnoro, CA 971)0 (9)p e)JJ9J0 O Q > > MAT .RiAL.~I,EiiEND lO Coner9te Flet Tile Roof with Integrated Photovoltaic Solar Panels Qa Each Upit O Wood Trellis 0 Wood Fascia © Exposed Ratter Teils OS Light Gce Stucco Finish © Send Finish Stucco over Foam Trim O7 Decoratve Shutters ® Decorative Foam Potehelf O9 Wrought Iron Potshclf 10 Wrought Iron Railing I 1 Wrought Iron Grille 12 Decorative Ceramic Tilw 13 Decorative Foem Corbels C°LOn MATPo% 14 MWI Sectional Garage Door _ sar.... IS Sound Attenuate Pleziglau ""=____ ' •^^+~ ____ 16 Machanieal Mehl Eotry Gate - ~'~~~"-~" 4' CONCEPTUAL 3-PLEX ELEVATIONS ~~%~•^" ~1~!°~-t~° SCALE: va^=r.~• - - '~~ •~" A P N 3 8 1 0 3 0- 0 0 5 PLANNED UNIT DEV ELO PMENT - N O . 1 _ SHORE HAVEN O N GRAND A-6 KTGY GROUP, Town home Prod uct e:,,.~..",~,„,,,, Lake E l s i n o r e C f a l i f o r n i a `'""°°'"°°""'' """"')•'°°' KTGY 2907.0131 Ort{Inel Sub.n)tul Dee. 19, 3001 FRONT "SPANISH" ELEVATION RIGHT "SPANISH" ELEVATION ~9 PPg " f C srt ~'~m s ~ ~ ons rt nHi e~m t ~~ o o n a. 601•C Cran. Stru[ L. a. Elsinore. CA 92570 /a { 1951) aa)~)O)0 Q IvIATi:ItT A T .S1.ES'iEND OI Concrote Flat Tile Roof with Integreted Photovoltaic Solar Panels ~ Each Unit O2 Wood Trellis O3 Wood Feaeia ® Exposed RaRer Tails O Light Lace $NCCO Finish © Send Einiah gNCCO over Foam Trim O Dxorative Shutterc ® Decoretive Foam Pomhclf 9O Wrought hon Potshelt 10 Wrought Iron Railing 11 Wrought Iron Grille 12 Decorative Ceremic Tiles I3 Dee9redve Foam COrbeib __ _ CDLOR M.TgIM _ 14 Meal Sectional Gengc Door ssx~e ..=...r~ - - -~ IS Sound Attenua4 Plexiglasa fir`*'••• --- - ---- LEFT "SPANISH" ELEVATION 16 Mechanical Metal Entry Gate CONCEPTUAL 3-PLEX ELEVATIONS ~~~-""a ~~ ry ~~~ ter.-~~~a r:-~~--~ SCALE: I/4"=1'11" `r`""""te.. -rte w _-_r-_...._w«,,.xw,~_ '"'~:,._ A P N 3 8 1- 0 3 0 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT DEV ELO PMENT N O . 1 SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAND A-' KTGY GROU Townhome Prod uct P a;; ::.,..~' La ke E l s i n o r e C a a l i f o r n i a "•°"°° a°°~'[`•' M.r°" ".:°4a KTOY 3007.0.31 Orlalnel Submh/al Dee. 19, 3007 REAR "SPANISH" ELEVATION 1 Integrated Photovoltaic Solar Panels ®Each Unit F~ f,'3 n^r M ~ ~ •~ ~~ 0 Q Grand Solutions ~/ Ann k Dan. 7iron I 60I•C Cnna Slrul Lake llrl0ora, CA 91370 ~~ (951) 137.1070 r O 'e CONCEPTUAL 3-PLEX BLDG - ROOF PLAN SCALE: I/1"~1'-0" A P N 3 8 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT DEVELO PMENT - N O . 1 SHOR E HA VEN O N GRAN D T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a A-8 KTGY GROUP, ~~. e .,.. .,..mom AavbeO 9u0mlual Marco 33, 3009 KTGY 7007.0131 Orl91na1 SuEmlrml Daa 19, 7001 ~°~ r1w ~ ~ '.~ P39 ~ t ~ ~~ a'` A f Grand Sol{~{iona Iv Aon ! iha9 liroo 601~C Crnn~ atnst Gte EI91nor9, CA 93530 ^- f9sU ~s3ao3o C O CONCEPTUAL 4-PLEX BUILDING - FIRST FLOOR PLAN A P N 3 8 1- 0 3 0- 0 0 5 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - N O . 1 SHORE HAVEN O N GRAN D T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t Lake E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a A-9 ~ KTGY GROUP, ~ O~i Asv1.9a aubmin.l t3unn Ss, Soo9 ATOY 7D07.0131 Orl~lnr.l 9ubmitt9l D99. 19, 3007 A m ~ ~ CONCEPTUAL 4-PLEX BUILDING - SECOND FLOOR PLAN A P N 3 8 1- 0 3 0- 0 0 5 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - N O . 1 SHORE HAVEN O N GRAN D o brand Solutions 't'i N Ron! Dono,Ir9n T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t I _ ~1.~ ~r.n. Str.a Gk9 El~lvore, CA 933,0 1931,•3,.,9,0 Lake E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a 0 ~4$ A-10 KTGY GROUP, ~w~. ~ ~ fir- aovlua Suhmla9l M.roh SSr 300k xror :oo~•a31 or19+n.1 s9hmual o«. 19, Som D ^^ ~ I m Z D ire ~ ( *a~ ~o G d S l i ran o ut ons Ron A Dene !Iron 60I~C Cnn. arreel L.ae et.mar., eft, Saso ~~ (9311133JO10 0 Q IMATERTAT.C T.F(:F.TTT) OI Concrok Flu Tile Roof wit6lntegrnted Phokvolfaic Sohv Panels Q Each Unil OZ Wood Trollis O Wood Fascia ® Expoud Rafter Tails O Light Lace Stucco Finish © Sand Finish Stucco over Foam Trim 7O pccoretive Sbuttere 8O Dewretiva Foam Potaheif 9O Wrought Iron Potahelf 10 Wrought Iron Railing II Wrought Iron Grille 12 Decoative Ceremie Tiles 13 Decorative Foam Corbels 14 Metal Sectional Guage Door l5 Sound Aeenuue Plexiglass COLOR MgTRIa RIGHT "SPANISH" ELEVATION Iti Machanlcal Metal Enby Gak CONCEPTUAL 4-PLEX ELEVA TIONS ~~„: ---- --------- A P N 3 8 1- 0 3 0- 0 0 5 PLANN E D UNIT DEVELO PME NT - N O . 1 SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAND A-" ~ KTGY GROUP, ~M<. Townhome Prod uct ~~e'~;;;,;••~ La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a •u.e»",.~ R.vias0 aMamtrlu )A.rol, :3,:aa, KTGY 3007.0131 Orltlnel aubminel Dee. 19, 3007 > > REAR "SPANISH" ELEVATION m ~ ~ A ~h tr9 ~ CAA ~® trend Solutions Ron t Dana Jlron St ut 601 C C ~ nna r Lake Elaloorn CA 923]0 (931) X37•]0)0 e 0 n MATF:RiAi_S~EGE~TD lO Concrem Flat Tile Roof with Integrated Photovoltaic Solar Panels 8 Each Unit 0 Wood TreUls O3 Wood Fascia O4 Exposed Rafter Tails SO Light Lace Stucco Finish © Send Finish Stncw over Foam Trim O7 Dccontive Shutters ® Decoratrve Foam Potshelf O9 Wrought Iron Potshelf 10 Wrought Iron Railing I I Wrought Iron Grille 12 Dxorative Ceramic Tiles I7 Decorative Foam Corbels 14 Metal Secdooai Gangc Dom 1 S Sound Attenuate Ple%iglw 16 MxWniul MeW Entry Gate DOLOR MaTRI% .sat.%«..,.,..•,.., I "-eat ~a s ~-'-~~ W.. - >w~. - .~, LEFT "SPANISH" ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL 4-PLEX ELEVATIONS SCALE: I/J"=1'-n" A P N 3 8 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT D E V E L O P M ENT - N O. SHOR E HAVEN O N G R A N T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a 1 D A-Iz KTGY GROUP, Rlvtaw bubmltul Marcb 35, IOOt KTOY 700TAa21 Orldnal 6ubtnltbl Dan t9, 1001 Integrated Photovoltaic Solar Panels ®Each Unit A m ~ ~ Op t3 rand Solutions Ron t Din )Iron ..~ 601~C Cr~n• Strwl L•kr Eirlnor0. CA 9]370 (9311 •37~)0)0 O Q CONCEPTUAL 4-PLEX BLDG - ROOF PLAN SCALE: I/J"=I'•(1" A P N 3 8 1- 0 3 0- 0 0 5 _ PLANN ED UNIT DEVELO PMENT N O . 1 SHOR E HA VEN O N GRAN D Town dome Prod uct La ke Elsin ore C a l i f o r n i a A-13 ~ KTGY GROUP, ROVING 6u0mhml Msr<p 33, 1008 KMY 3007.031 Or181n~1 Sukmltul IM. 19, 2007 ~'7 R1 G7 ~ ~ ~O' ® Grand Solutions R... w9 )Iroa aen N 601•C CnM Stmt )0 [ab Bl.lnora CA 973 (93U .3)JO)0 ~~ ~4 ' Q r CONCEPTUAL 5-PLEX BUILDING - FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: I/3"=I'•0" A P N 3 8 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT DEVELO PMENT N O . 1 SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAN D T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a A-14 KTGY GROUP, ~a~. e .,.. ~ ~ .u .~,,. 7c.rl..a a.bmu~.l •7a.en u, xooa K1'OY x007.Ofxl On91oa1 iubmllal D.o. 19, 1007 D m ~ ~ rti ~° N ^ Grand Solutions Ron ! Dnos !Iron 601 C C S V- • nm lrsel Lnt~ [!Irlnorr, CA 933)0 /•~ (931) 153•)0]0 CONCEPTUAL 5-PLEX BUILDING - SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: I/4"-I'-0" A P N 3 8 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT DEVELO PMENT - N O . 1 SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAN D T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t La ke Elsinore C a l i f o r n i a A-IS KTGY GROUPy ~ y< ~ o•u.. .,.. ~~ . ..N.. R9rIr10 8nbmltul ttnroh 23. 3001 KTGY 3007.0131 Or191nn1 Submllal Daa I9, 3007 ( l l A ~,l m til rat ~N Grand Solutions Ron t Ibn~ Jlron 601•C Cnn~ Strwt L~69 llrlnor{, CA 93570 A (SOq .57.7070 Q -- ~- ---~ r------z--- r------T- I L------1 ~---- r-------~ I I I I II I I I I I % I I I I I h I I I I I II p I 1 I I h II I I I I II I I I I I h fl I I I I_ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I ~J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I---- ---- --------- - (~- ----~--~ ~ 1 J L---------~--- ~--- CONCEPTUAL 5-PLEX BUILDING - THIRD FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/J"=I'a1" A P N 3 8 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT DEVELO PMENT - N O . 1 SHOR E HAVEN O N G R A N T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a D A-16 ~,~ KTGY GROUP. R{vlse0 aubmltul Mnreb 37. SOOy K7'OY 3007.0{31 Orlyln~l Submltbl Deo. 19, 2007 ~fl C~ ~ ~~ ::~ 0 ~ ^ - O Q FRONT "SPANISH" ELEVATION MAT_E_R_TAi.S i•E~iENU O Ceocrete Flat Tile Roof with Integrated Phobvolmic Solo Panek (~ Each Unit O2 Wood Trollie O3 Wood Fascia ® Exposed Rafter Tails SO Lig61 Inca SNcoo Finish © Send Finish SNCCO over Foam Trim O7 Decorative Shutters ® Daorativa Foam Potahelf O9 Wrought Iron Porahelf 10 Wrought Irou Railing I I Wrought Iron Grille 12 Decorative Ceramic Tiles l3 Decorative Foam Corhels 14 Metal Sectional Gsnge Door oOLOP MATPoX IS Sound Atknuete Plexiglas s~~r.....w....~. 16 Mecheninl Mete! Entry Gate :,"'..«e °~• " - -- RIGHT "SPANISH" ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL 5-PLEX ELEVATIONS ~~~~~w-••-"~ - SCALE: IN"=I'~I" • ,-,~ . A P N 3 8 1. 0 3 0- 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT DEV ELO PME NT - N O . 1 S HO R E HAVEN O N GRAND A-17 ~ d S G l i KTGY GROUP. ran o ut ons R t Dnna Iran 601~C C s Sr t r T o w n h o m e Prod uct ~' ru• ~•"'r'• ~u • X1 Late Elsinore, CA 93000 (9SI1 .J3°°'° La ke E l s- i n o r e , C a l i f o r n i a 9 • R.rLad a°bm"'•",tar°" 30, 3°°' KTOY 3007Af31 Orlalnal Submlrbl Dec. 19. 3007 ~ ~ PY'i ~. «~ O 0 ' ~ ~ ~' Sjrand Solutions Avn ! Dava Jiron {~ 601•C Cran9 Strwt Lab 8lalnora, CA 97370 (93p x37.7070 Q e ~TFRTAT.C i.F.GEND lO Concrete Flat Tile Rwf with Integntod Photovoltaic Solar Panels 8 Each Unit O2 Wood Trellis O Wood Faecia ® E%poaed Rafter Tails OS Light Lace Stmw Fioish © Sand Finish Stuew over Fouo Trim O7 Dewretive Shutters ® Decorative Foam Potshelf 9O Wrought Iron Pouhelf 10 Wrought Iron Railing I l Wrought Iron Grille 12 Decorative Ceramic Tiles l3 Docoretive Foam Corbels 14 Maul Sadoml Garege Dwr IS Sound Attenwte Ple%igless ____ COLOR MATRI%_ LEFT "SPANISH" ELEVATION le Mahenlcsl Metal Entry Gatn CONCEPTUAL 5-PLEX ELEVA TIONS scALE ur=r•n^ A P N 3 8 1 0 3 0- 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT DEVELO PME NT - N O . 1 SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAND - A-18 KTGY GROUP, T o w n h o m e Prod uct s' „ .~•• ,, La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i 9 f o r n i a AavWd Submittal March ss, 200a ICTOY 300]•0x31 DII{Inal Submittal Daa. 79, 3wr REAR "SPANISH" ELEVATION Integrated Photovoltaic Solar Panels ®Each Unit A ry ~ °Y9 Grand Solutions Roa d INn1 Jiron 601-C Cnne Stmt Leke ElNnon, CA 93530 (9317 133.3030 O c CONCEPTUAL 5-PLEX BUILDING - ROOF PLAN SCALE: I/i"=I'-0" A P N 3 8 1- 0 3 0 0 0 5 PLANNED UNIT DEVELO PME NT - N O . 1 SHORE HAVEN O N GRAN D T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t Lake E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a A-19 KTGY GROUP, Asvired BubmltNl Merob 33, 3001 K7'OY 2007.0131 Or181ne1 Submltul [N0. 19, 3007 1 ) ~ I I I l~ ~ I'-0" EAVE I `~ I TYP. `_~ ~~ ~ ----- -~ I I V VVV 1250 s.f. = 2000 kw I I I I II I I 11 I I ~I I I I lr I I ~ I L II i i I 5:12 (U.N.O.) I I I I I I I \J ~~ I t I __ -- _. __ -._ J i . . i ROOF PLAN Integrated Photovoltaic Solar Panels ®Each Unit D m ~`""y CONCEPTUAL RECREATION BUILDING - 1206 S. F. SCALE: I/4"~i'~l" A P N 3 5 1- 0 3 0- 0 0 5 ~ PLANN ED UNIT DEVELO PMENT - N O . 1 ° (~' ~ SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAND Cirend Solutions R t Dene ,lrnn 601•C Cnne Stmt T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t O [ape Elelnore, CA 915)0 (991, .s,.,w9 La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a e A-20 KTGY GROUP, yet:. e~»..,.. ...-,..t~ AevlwO Submnul plerep 1,, 200II KTGY 1001~M21 Orl/Inel 9ubmlttel Den 19, 1097 FIRST FLOOR PLAN MATERIALS_LES'xEI1D Coocrte Flet Tile Roof with Integreted Photovoltaic Solar Panels 8 Each Unit O2 Wood Trellis O3 Wood Fascia ® Exposed RaRer Tails 0 Light Lace Sacco Finish © Sand Finish SNcco over Foam Trim 7O Decorative Shutters ® Decoraive Feam Pouhelf O9 wrought Iron Potshelf 10 Wrought Iron Railing II Wroughtiroo Grille 12 Decorative Ceramic Tiles 13 Decorative Foam Corbels 14 MeW Sectional Garage Door IS Sound Attenuate Pl9xiglass 16 Mechanical Metal Entry Gete COLO0. ATRIA agar. r.r. x«iw r,.a"~• I ra ~..I_r".r"_n_rv~ - ~_wn_ - - _ _-_ t'Yf Fit --«~a rF. i °N O e S'irand Solutions aon a n.n. nron 601-C Cnna S[raat Gks 8lsinora, CA 93330 (931) 133-]030 ---u 5z" 5:12 TYP. - 17 ewve TYP. ROOF PLAN FLOOR PLAN I 4 +v e Q O c o ~ _ ~ 5 FRONT ELEVATION I I 4 ~4 x , 6 ~ ~ 5 ~ :.. o[ ° e, ~ S TYP. SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL RECREATION BUILDING ELEVATIONS & MAILBOX KIOSK SCALE: I/4"=1'11" A P N 3 8 1- 0 3 0- 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT DEVELO PMENT - N O . 1 SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAN D T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a A-21 ~~ KTGY GROUP, Rsvlse0 Subml[ul aiareh 73, 7001 KTGY 7007.0{31 Orltlnsl Subml[nl Dan 19, 700] l l FRONT "SPANISH" ELEVATION LEFT "SPANISH" ELEVATION RIGHT "SPANISH" ELEVATION REAR "SPANISH" ELEVATION 1 ~ ^ ]. aRa ¢st •-'~ en 0 $O U O na ' OO Roo ! D 601~C Crane Stover Late Plelnon. CA 933]0 ~- 19311 13]30]0 f t FLOOR PLAN -- -~ A Il 16 5 REAR ELEVATION TYP. SIDE ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL ENTRY GATE SCALE: 1/J"=1'~I" A P N 3 8 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT D E V E L O P M ENT - SHOR E HAVEN O N G R T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i MASEBIALS_LEf]ErID Concrete Flat Tile Roof wit6lntegrated Photovolreic Solar Panels @ P.ach Unit O2 Wood Trellis O Wood Fascia Exposed Rafter Tails OS Light lscc Stucco Finish © Sand Finish Stucco over Foam Trim Dccorative Shutten © Decorative Foam Polshelf O9 Wrought trop Ponhclf 10 Wrought trop Rsiling I I Wrought troy Grille l2 DewnUVe Ceramic Tiles 13 Decorative Foam Corbels I4 Mcnl Sectional Guage Door I S Sound Attenuate Plexiglax 16 Mahanical Menl Entry Gate COLOR MATXIa mr ~. N O . 1 A-22 AND ~ KTGY GROUP, sae. ' C rw me ~ es„w +ei~ eiw,e a Rwlwd 8ubmllwl Merob 33, 300a KTOY 3001.0131 Orldnel 9ubm11w1 Dee. 19, 3007 FRONT ELEVATION m Z ~ ~ m =~ m Oo ~~ r-, V TYPICAL SECTION AT DRIVE AISLE/GARAGES CONCEPTUAL BUILDING SECTIONS SCALE: 1/3"=I'{~" A P N 3 8 1- 0 3 0 0 0 5 PLANN ED UNIT DEVELO PMENT N O . 1 SHOR E HAVEN O N GRAN D Soiuoions •niJ1rn n. str.et T o w n h o m e P r o d u c t InorR CA 915)0 '°~° La ke E l s i n o r e C a l i f o r n i a A-23 KTGY GROUP, ~•~. e :.. .~.. t, .mn..o.,,. RevlwA Submlttel Mereh 33, look KTGY 3007.0431 Orl•Innl S9bmital 0.a 19, T007 TYPICAL SECTION AT PASEO BLDG 5 BLDG 5 BLDG 6 CITY OF LAKE ~ LSII`IOI~E ~` DREAM E~CTREME,~ CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MAY 20, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT N0.2008-03; A ~"`' REQUEST TO AMEND LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 17.82 (DESIGN REVIEW) IN ORDER TO MODIFY EXISTING GUILDEINES FOR TIME EXTENSIONS RELATED TO DESIGN REVIEW APPROVALS. APPLICANT: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET, LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 OWNER: SAME PURPOSE This report is intended to present information to the Planning Commission in orderto make a recommendation to the City Council regarding a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to modify a portion of Chapter 17.82 (Design Review) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). If approved, Text Amendment No. 2008-03 will provide the necessary guidelines to work with the development community in maintaining design review approvals valid over a reasonable amount of time, as well as providing mechanisms for time extensions. BACKGROUND Design Review approval is regulated by LEMC Chapter 17.82.110, which states the ~"' following: AGENDA ITEM (~f PAGE ~ OF ~t PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 20, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03 "Design Review approval shalllapse and become void one (1) yearfollowing the date on which the Design Review became effective, unless prior to the expiration of one year, a building permit related to the Design Review is issued and construction commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. Notwithstanding conditions to the contrary, a Design Review granted pursuant to this Chapter shall run with the land for this one (7) year period and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site which was the subject of the Design Review application." Under current LEMC guidelines, Design Review approval is valid for one (1) year. There is no guideline or other type of mechanism providing an extension of time to an applicant. If a building permit is not issued before the final one-year expiration date, the applicant must reapply for Design Review consideration, pay new application fees, and resubmit plans and other application materials for review and approval. ANALYSIS Communities employ an array of methods in their allowance of time extensions for development approvals. The following matrix reflects standards for nearby Inland Empire communities. City Expiration Method/Period of Time. Maximum Extension Period Possible Within two years of One year extension by Temecula development plan approving body (up to three 5 years approval extensions may be granted) Within two years of One year extension by Murrieta development plan Community Development approval Director (up to three 5 years extensions ma be ranted Within two years of One year extension by Corona development plan Community Development 3 years approval Director Within two years of One year extension by Perris development plan approving body (up to two 4 years approval extensions may be granted) Within two years of One year extension by Riverside development plan Community Development 5 years approval .Director (up to three extensions ma be ranted As indicated above, neighboring communities have adopted guidelines allowing extensions of development approvals for periods of between three (3) to five (5) years. Staff is ~,,, AGENDA ITEM PAGE ~_ OF~ d- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 20, 2008 ~` PROJECT TITLE: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT N0.2008-03 recommending a similar timeframe to be adopted through the new ordinance relative to approval expirations and extensions of time. The changes to the existing LEMC guidelines are as follows: • An expiration period of two (2) years from date of approval (currently one year). • The provision of a one (1) year administrative extension that can be granted by the Community Development Director. • The provision of an additional one (1 )`year extension by the approving body (City Councilor Planning .Commission:). • A total maximum extension period of four (4) years. If this text amendment is approved, the new time extension and expiration regulations would apply to all currently approved projects. A fee schedule will also be forwarded to the City Council with the draft ordinance for approval. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ~^ Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was completed to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project would have no significant environmental impacts. A Negative Declaration has accordingly been prepared and released for review. The review period began on April 24, 2008 and ended on May 14, 2008. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed zoning ordinance text amendment would make changes to existing time extension and expiration requirements for all Design Review approvals. The changes would not modify the overall scope or complexity of the standards and as such would require minimal staff time to administer. Furthermore, extension of time requests would be paid for through developer paid cost recovery deposits. There would be minimal fiscal impact to the City resulting from administration or enforcement of the proposed ordinance . RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2008- recommending City Council approval of Text Amendment No. 2008-03 in order to amend LEMC Chapter 17.82 (Design Review) AGENDA ITEM PAGE ~ OF~~-- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 20, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT N0.2008-03 Prepared by: Tom Weiner `~ Planning Manager Approved by: Rolfe M. Preisendanz '~/~~~ Director of Community Development 411" ATTACHMENTS: 1. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2. "DRAFT" ORDINANCE 3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY 4. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~.~+" AGEND (A ITEM (3 PAGE `I OF '1 a' RESOLUTION NO.2008- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03 AND THE ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION THEREFORE WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Lake Elsinore has initiated an amendment of Chapter 17.82 (Design Review) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC); and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore wishes to provide clear standards for the establishment and implementation time extensions and expirations for Design Review approvals which can be applied throughout the City of Lake Elsinore; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15070, the City of Lake Elsinore prepared a proposed negative declaration to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the City's adoption of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2008-03; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has been delegated with the responsibility ~ of making recommendations to the City Council regarding zoning ordinance text amendments; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing, held on May 20, 2008, 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 CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission considered the proposed Negative Declaration before making its recommendation that the City Council approve the environmental document. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that in accordance with Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15070 it was appropriate to prepare a Negative Declaration for Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2008-01 since the initial study revealed that there was no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The purpose of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2008-03 is to provide the necessary guidelines to work with the development community in ~ maintaining design review approvals valid over a reasonable amount of time, as well as providing mechanisms for time extensions. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0.2008 - PAGE20F3 SECTION 3. In accordance with Government Code Section 65855, the Planning Commission sets forth the following findings for its recommendation that the City Council approve Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2008-03: 1. Currently, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.82 (Design Review) outlines time extensions and expirations for approved Design Review applications. As development in the City continues and the regulatory environment as well as economic conditions warrant more flexibility for the length of Design Review approvals, it will be necessary to have the applicable tools to implement extensions. Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2008-03 provides the necessary guidelines to implement am more appropriate time frame for the length of approvals. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that Chapter 17.82 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code be amended as follows: Chapter 17.82 LEMC Section 17.82.110 Lapse of Design Review approval and Time Extensions. A. Design Review approval shall lapse and become void epe-{-1~ two (2) years following the date on which the Design Review became effective, unless prior to ~ the expiration of two (2) years, a building permit related to the Design Review is issued and construction commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. Notwithstanding conditions to the contrary, a Design Review granted pursuant to this Chapter shall run with the land for this two (2) year period and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site which was the subject of the Design Review application. B. The expiration date of an approved Design Review application may be extended for two (2) years. A first extension may be granted for one (1) year subject to the approval of the Community Development Director after consultation with other city departments if such Design Review complies with current law, standards and policies. A second one (1) year extension may be granted by the approving body (i.e City Council, Planning Commission) if such Design Review complies with current law, standards and policies. C. Application for such extension shall be filed prior to the expiration of the initial development plan review application and accompanied by a fee in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. SECTION 5. Based upon all of the evidence presented and the above findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Lake ~, A~E.~~~ f-`~:~ ~~~. 3 PAGE ~ ~J~ ~ ~- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0.2008 - PAGE30F3 Elsinore approve an ordinance modifying Chapter 17.82 to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore approve the Negative Declaration prepared therefore. SECTION 6. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May 2008, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Michael O'Neal, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz Director of Community Development AeENflw'1 f~E~y~ N~. PAGEe ®~ ~ ATTACHMENT 2 "DRAFT ORDINANCE REVISIONS" (Proposed Changes in Bold) LEMC Chapter 17.82.110 Lapse of Design Review approval and Time Extensions. A. Design Review approval shall lapse and become void efle~~1-) two (2) years following the date on which the Design Review became effective, unless prior to the expiration of two (2) years, a building permit related to the Design Review is issued and construction commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. Notwithstanding conditions to the contrary, a Design Review granted pursuant to this Chapter shall run with the land for this two (2) year period and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site which was the subject of the Design Review application. B. The expiration date of an approved Design Review application may ,,,,,,,r be extended for two (2) years. A first extension may be granted for one (1) year subject to the approval of the Community Development Director after consultation with other city departments if such Design Review complies with current law, standards and policies. A second one (1) year extension may be granted by the approving body (i.e City Council, Planning Commission) if such Design Review complies with current law, standards and policies. C. Application for such extension shall be filed prior to the expiration of the initial development plan review application and accompanied by a fee in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. -End Draft Revisions- AGENDA ITEd~ N0. PAGE~_C = a- CITY OF LADE ~ LSII`~OIZE ~~~ DREAM E1CTREME DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.2008-05 for Zoning Ordinance TextAmendmentNo. 2oo8-oi Prepared By: City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department i3o South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 April 2008 AGENDA 1~1=i',~ I~G. 3 PAGE__ ~ __ ~'~-.--~- INITIAL STUDY Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 2iooo, et seq.: "CEQA") and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (i4 Cal. Code Regs §§ i5ooo et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines"). According to Section i5o63(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purposes of an Initial Study are to: 1. Provide the Lead Agency (i.e., the City of Lake Elsinore) with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration; and to 2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project to mitigate adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to quality for a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration; and to 3. Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required; and to 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; and to 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the findings in a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and to 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and to y. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. ~''" ~GEtd®A I'~EP~i !~®.. 3 '~ ~ RAGE~_-~E--------' /'~ INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project T~tle• Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2008-01 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore 13o South Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Wendy Worthey, Environmental Planner (951) 674-3124, ext. 288 4. Project Location• Citywide. 5. Project Applicant Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore 13o South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 ~ 6. General Plan Designation(s): Not applicable. ~. Zoning• Not applicable. 8. Description of Project: The City of Lake Elsinore (City) is proposing to modify the existing Section 1.82.110 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) to allow requests for time extensions for design reviews. Currently, design review approvals remain valid for only a one (1) year time frame. This modification of Section 1~.82.11o would allow up to four (4) years to complete the design review process, obtain building permits, and commence construction. This allowance for a time extension is based upon the assumption that the developer is diligently pursuing completion of the proposed project. The first request for an extension for up to one (1) additional year would be handled administratively by the Community Development Director. Should a second extension be requested, up to another additional one (1) year, this would require approval by the Planning Commission or City Council. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Not applicable. 10. None. .AGEN[3A iT~E~I ~l€1. 3 P~G~ ~ ( fir= '7 ~ ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ~, The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ^ Aesthetics ^ Agricultural Resources ^ Air Quality ^ Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources ^ Geology/Soils ^ Hazards&Hazardous ^ Hydrology/Water Quality ^ Land Use/Planning Materials ^ Mineral Resources ^ Noise ^ Population/Housing ^ Public Services ^ Recreation ^Traffic ^ Utilities/Service Systems ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. r.rr` ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect i) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. April 24, 2008 Signature Date Wendy Worthey Principal Environmental Planner Print Name Title ~./+ .AGENDA ITEM N0. 3 PAGE_ (~OF t'I2- ,~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION CHECKLIST i. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect maybe significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level ~ (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," cited in support of conclusions reached in other sections may becross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section i5o63(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used-Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed-Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures-For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. ~. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to /'~ reduce the impact to less than significance. AGES®~ i~~ ~o. 3 5 PAGE~_G~-~--- A. AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Would the project: Impact 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ^ 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a ^ state scenic highway?) 3. Substantially degrade character or quality surroundings?) the existing visual of the site and its ^ 4. Create a source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime ^ views in the area? Less Than ~~ ,Than ~ Significant Significant No Impact nth Im act Mitigation p ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ B. AGRICULTURAI. RESOURCES* Sotelfic~ ~ S ssificant 3 ss Than No Would the project: Impact ~'~''~ Impact~t Impact ~.il Mitigation 5. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and^ ^ ^ Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? 6. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural^ ^ ^ use, or a Williamson Act contract? ~. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or^ ^ ^ nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. ~.r/ 6 A~E~l9~A iTEs~i 5~0. 3 PAGE~_C3 8. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of^ ^ ^ the applicable air quality plan? 9. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air^ ^ ^ quality violation? C. AIR QUALITY* Potentiall Less Than Less Than Significant ~~ficant Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact ~o. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality^ ^ ^ standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 11. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial^ ^ ^ pollutant concentrations?) 12. Create objectionable odors affecting a^ ^ ^ substantial number of people?) * LVhere available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Would the project: ~~ Mitigation Impact i3. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or^ ^ ^ regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 14. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional^ ^ ^ plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 15. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not^ ^ ^ limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 7 ACEPVDA ('i'E~~1 N0. PAGE~_p~ a- D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially S gnifican 'an Less Than ~~ Significant With Significant No Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact 16. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native^ ^ ^ resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1~. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree^ ^ ^ preservation policy or ordinance? 18. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other^ ^ ^ approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? E. Potentiall CULTURAI. RESOURCES t Less Than Significant Less than Si ifican gn With Si gnificant No Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact 1g. Cause a substantial adverse change in the `,/ significance of a historical resource as defined^ ^ ^ in Sectioni5o64.5? 20. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource^ ^ ^ pursuant to Sectioni5o64.5? 21. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique^ ^ ^ geological feature? 22. Disturb any human remains, including those^ ^ ^ interred outside of formal cemeteries? F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: 23. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Less Than Potentially Significant Significant Impact With Mitigation Less than No Significant Impact Impact mar/ 8 AGf HQA iTE~11 ~1G ~~ PAGE I b QF a- ,/^~ /`~ F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less Than Potentially Significant Would the ro'ect: Significant Impact With P J Mitigation Less than Significant Impact Impact a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on^ ^ ^ other substantial evidence of known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Pub. 42. b. Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ ^ c. Seismic-related ground failure, including^ ^ ^ liquefaction? d. Landslides? ^ ^ ^ 24. Result in substantial soil erosion, or the loss of^ ^ ^ topsoil? 25. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in^ ^ ^ on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse 26. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994) creating substantial risks to life or property? ^ ^ ^ 2~. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not^ ^ ^ available for the disposal of waste water? G. HA7.ARnS AND Ht~7_ARI)OUS MATERIALS Potentiall Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact With Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact 28. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, ^ ^ ^ use or disposal of hazardous materials? 29. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable up-set and accident conditions involving the^ ^ ^ release of hazardous materials into the environment? 9 AGE9VE?~ 6T~~ N~. PA~,E__~ ~___©r a G. HA7.ARilS AND MATERIALS Would the project: HA7.AR110US Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Impact ~th Mitigation Less than Significant Impact ~~ No Impact 30. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,^ ^ ^ substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? g1. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section^ ^ ^ 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 32. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport^ ^ ^ or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 33• For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety ^ ^ ^ ® hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ~, 34• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency^ ^ ^ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 35• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent^ ^ ^ to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY potentially Significant Would the project: Impact 36. Violate any water quality standards or waste^ discharge requirements? Less Than Less than Significant Significant No With Impact Impact Mitigation ^ ^ PAGE~C3~ "t a-- H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALTI'Y potentially ss Less than Significant No ificant S ~~ Significant Im act p Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact 3~. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production^ ^ ^ rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 38. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of ^ ^ ^ surface runoff in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? 39• Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm^ ^ ^ water drainage systems or provide substantial ~ additional sources of polluted runoff? 4o.Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ^ ^ ^ 4i. Place housing within a ioo-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard^ ^ ^ Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 42. Place within a ioo-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect^ ^ ^ flood flows? 43• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,^ ^ ^ including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 44• Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ^ ^ ^ I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: 45• Physically divide an established community? Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Impact ~~ Mitigation ^ ^ Less than Significant Impact No Impact 11 ~GE#~~~~ ~i°~m~t 6~~s. 3 PACE 19 of H a- I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Less Than ~~ than Significant Would the project: Impact ~~ficant Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation 46. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local^ ^ ^ coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 4~. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community^ ^ ^ conservation plan? J. MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Would the project: Impact Significant W'fi' Significant Impact No Impact Mitigation 48. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the^ ^ ^ region and the residents of the state? 49•Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site^ ^ ^ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? K. NOISE Would the project result in: Potentially Less ~~ Less than Significant Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact 50. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the^ ^ ^ local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 51. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-^ ^ ^ borne noise levels? 52. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels^ ^ ^ existing without the project? 53• A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity^ ^ ^ above levels without the project? r.../ 12 A~EN~~ lT~:P~ ~~.~ P~G~~O _c~~ ~12- /"~ K. NOISE Potentiall Less Taman Less than Si ificant Significant Si No Would the project result in: I pct ~'ifi' Impact~nt Impact Mitigation 54• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or^ ^ ^ public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 55• For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to^ ^ ^ excessive noise levels? L. POPULATION AND HOUSING potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation 56.Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for^ ^ ^ ,-. example, through an extension of roads or other infra-structure)? 57. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of^ ^ ^ replacement housing elsewhere? 58. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement^ ^ ^ housing elsewhere? M. PUBLIC SERVICES* Potentiall Less ~~ Less than y Significant Would the project result in substantial adversesignificant With Significant No Impact physical impacts to the following: Impact Mitigation Impact 59• Fire protection? ^ ^ ^ 60. Police protection? ^ ^ ^ 61. Schools? ^ ^ ^ 62. Parks? ^ ^ ^ 63.Other public facilities? ^ ^ ^ * Include potential effects associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services. 13 AGEN[?A 6Tr~ i~U. 3 PACE a~-- l OF ~- ~./ N. RECREATION Potentially S ~ificant Less than No Significant ~~ Significant Im act p Impact Mitigation Impact 64. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial^ ^ ^ physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 65. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of^ ^ ^ recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant With Significant No Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact 66. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and ~,~r capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a^ ^ ^ substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 6~. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the^ ^ ^ County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 68. Result in a change in traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in^ ^ ^ location that results in substantial safety risks? 69. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous^ ^ ^ intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ~o. Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ^ 71. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ 72. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation^ ^ ^ (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ..~- 14 AGENDA 4TE€~.~ ~€0._-3~-~ PAGE a-a- ~~ `'i d- P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant ~~ Significant Impact Impact Would the project: Mitigation Impact 73. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control^ ^ ^ Board? 74. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction^ ^ ^ of which could cause significant environmental effects? 75. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of^ ^ ^ existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ~6. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and^ ^ ^ resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ~~. Result in a determination by the wastewater ,,., treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve^ ^ ^ the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? '78. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid^ ^ ^ waste disposal needs? '79. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ^ ^ ^ and regulations related to solid waste? 15 AGEP~~~3 i~~~~ E~~l. PACE_~_0~ a- Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OFpotentially Less Than Less than ~' SIGNIFICANCE Significant ~g hificant Significant Im act P Impact Mitigation Impact 80.Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a^ ^ ^ plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 81. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project^ ^ ~ are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 82.Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on^ ^ ^ human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ ~, -End of Environmental Impact Evaluation Checklist - ~../ 16 ,A~E.IVDA IT~iul PLO. 3 _ PACE a-- ~ ©F a' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION DISCUSSION The following is a discussion of the potential impacts associated with the approval of the text amendment revising Section i~.82.iio of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) to allow for an extension of the design review timeframe from one (i) year to three (3) years, if necessary. Currently, design review approvals remain valid for only a one (i) year time frame. This modification of Section i~.82.iio would allow up to three (3) years to complete the design review process, obtain building permits, and commence construction. This allowance for a time extension is based upon the assumption that the developer is diligently pursuing completion of the proposed project. The first request for an extension for up to one (i) additional year would be handled administratively by the Community Development Director. Should a second extension be requested, up to another additional one (i) year, this would require approval by the Planning Commission. The City analyzes the direct and indirect environmental impacts of all projects as they are submitted for review. When applicants request a time extension for their design review as allowed under this text amendment, it is assumed that their projects have already been reviewed for environmental compliance. However, should there be justification for additional environmental review, this will be addressed on aproject-by-project basis as needed. Explanations for each of the checked boxes in the above Environmental Impact Evaluation Checklist are provided for each item below. '~ A. AESTHETICS. Would the project: i) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact: This text amendment allowing for a time extension is procedural only and would not result in any environmental impacts. There are no development proposals or ground-disturbing activities included as part of this text amendment. Specific to aesthetics issues, an extension of the design review timeframe would not impact scenic vistas or scenic resources, degrade the existing visual character or quality of a site, nor would it create a new source of light or glare. The City analyzes the direct and indirect environmental impacts of all projects as they are submitted for review. When applicants request a time extension for their design review as allowed under this text amendment, it is assumed that their projects have already been reviewed for environmental compliance as part of the original design review. However, should there be justification for additional environmental compliance, this will be addressed on aproject-by-project basis as needed. 2) No Impact: See A-i above. ~` 3) Substantially degrade the existing_ visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 17 ,AGENDA iTi~~.~ ~'~®. 3 PAGE,~_Oi~_~ ~- No Impact: See A-i above. 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversel~a, ect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact: See A-i above. Mitigation Measures for Aesthetics: None. B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 5) Concert Prime Farmland. Unique Farmland. or Farmland of Statewide Importance No Impact: This text amendment allowing for a time extension is procedural only and would not result in any environmental impacts. There are no development proposals or ground-disturbing activities included as part of this text amendment. Specific to agricultural resources, an extension of the design review timeframe would not result in the conversion of any farmland to anon-agricultural use, nor would it conflict with existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract. The City analyzes the direct and indirect environmental impacts of all projects as they are submitted for review. When applicants request a time extension for their design review as allowed under this text amendment, it is assumed that their projects have already been reviewed for environmental compliance as part of the original design review. However, should there be justification for additional environmental compliance, this will be addressed on aproject-by-project basis as needed. 6) Conflict with existin zq oninq for aaricultural use. or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact: See B-5 above. 7) Involve other changes in the existing environment. which due to their location or nature. could result in the conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact: See B-5 above. Mitigation Measures for Agricultural Resources: None. ~..~+ 18 ~~E.~~~~ a ~ ~~~ ~~. 3 P~~~_ ~.~o~a= C. AIR QUALITY. LVhere available, the sign}~icance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make thefollowing determinations. Would the project: 8) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality~lan~ No Impact: This text amendment allowing for a time extension is procedural only and would not result in any environmental impacts. There are no development proposals or ground-disturbing activities included as part of this text amendment. Specific to air quality issues, an extension of the design review timeframe would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. Further, this amendment to allow for design review extensions would not violate and air quality standard, result in cumulative increases in criteria pollutants, affect sensitive receptors, nor would it result in the creation of objectionable odors. The City analyzes the direct and indirect environmental impacts of all projects as they are submitted for review. When applicants request a time extension for their design review as allowed under this text amendment, it is assumed that their projects have already been reviewed for environmental compliance as part of the original design review. However, should there be justification for additional environmental compliance, this will be addressed on aproject-by-project basis as needed. 9) Violate anu air qualitu standard or contribute substantiallu to an existing or projected air qualitu violation? No Impact: See C-8 above. io) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase o,~y criteria pollutant for whfch No Impact: See C-8 above. li) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact: See C-8 above. 12) Create obiectionable odors a ecting a substantial number o,~yeople~ No Impact: See C-8 above. Mitigation Measures for Air Quality Impacts: None. D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 19 h~E~~A fTEd~ PLO. ~J P/AGE~_pET~ i3) re ig'onal plans, policies, or regulations, or bu the Cali ornia Department o Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildli e Service? No Impact: This text amendment allowing for a time extension is procedural only and would not result in any environmental impacts. There are no development proposals or ground-disturbing activities included as part of this text amendment. Specific to biological resources, this text amendment allowing for an extension of time for design reviews would not result in any effects on listed species, would not allow for habitat modifications, would have no effect on sensitive communities or wetlands, wildlife movement, local biological policies, nor conflict with any regional habitat conservation plan. The City analyzes the direct and indirect environmental impacts of all projects as they are submitted for review. When applicants request a time extension for their design review as allowed under this text amendment, it is assumed that their projects have already been reviewed for environmental compliance as part of the original design review. However, should there be justification for additional environmental compliance, this will be addressed on aproject-by-project basis as needed. i4) Have a substantial adverse e,~ect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies. regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildli a Service? ~../ No Impact: See D-i3 above. 15) No Impact: See D-13 above. i6) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact: See D-ig above. i~) Conflict with an ly ocal policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact: See D-13 above. 2 0 AGEl~~A IYE~ 6~0. 3 PACE a-~i (?~ ~~- i"~ 18) Conflict with the provisions o an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Natural Communitu Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact: See D-i3 above. Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources: None E. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: i9) Cause a substantial adverse chance in the signi e~cance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines SectioniSO64.S? No Impact: This text amendment allowing for a time extension is procedural only and would not result in any environmental impacts. There are no development proposals or ground-disturbing activities included as part of this text amendment. Specific to cultural resources, this text amendment allowing for an extension of time for design reviews would not result in any adverse changes to historical resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains. ~'` The City analyzes the direct and indirect environmental impacts of all projects as they are submitted for review. When applicants request a time extension for their design review as allowed under this text amendment, it is assumed that their projects have already been reviewed for environmental compliance as part of the original design review. However, should there be justification for additional environmental compliance, this will be addressed on aproject-by-project basis as needed. 20) Cause a substantial adverse chance in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuanf to CEQA Guidelines Section~SO64.5? No Impact: See E-i9 above. 21) Directly or indirectlt/ destrou a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic,feature? No Impact: See E-i9 above. 22) Disturb any human remains. includinq_those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact: See E-i9 above. Mitigation Measures for Cultural Resources: None. 21 AGENDA ITEM flf0. ~ _ PAGE a,9 (3~~ F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: ,~ 2g) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects fncluding the risk of loss. inLry. or death involving: a.) Rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alauist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued bu the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence o a known fault? Refer to Division o Mines and Geolog~Special Publication a2. No Impact: This text amendment allowing for a time extension is procedural only and would not result in any environmental impacts. There are no development proposals or ground-disturbing activities included as part of this text amendment. Specific to geology and soils, this text amendment allowing for an extension of time for design reviews would not expose people or structures to the risk if loss, injury, or death, would not expose people of structures to seismic ground shaking, seismic- related ground failure, or landslides. Further, this text amendment would not result in the loss of topsoil, does not result in placing a project on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or expansive, and does not involve any use of septic systems. The City analyzes the direct and indirect environmental impacts of all projects as they are submitted for review. When applicants request a time extension for their design review as allowed under this text amendment, it is assumed that their projects have already been reviewed for environmental compliance as part of the original design ,,~ review. However, should there be justification for additional environmental compliance, this will be addressed on ?project-by-project basis as needed. b.) Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact: See F-23 (a) above. c.) Seismic-related rg ound failure including lique action ~ No Impact: See F-23 (a) above. d.) Landslides? No Impact: See F-23 (a) above. 24) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact: See F-23 (a) above. 25) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable as a result of the nroiect. and potentially result in on- or o ff--site landslide lateral spreading, ~, 22 AQENDA ITEM N0. PAGE~„r,OF ~ d-µ---.. subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact: See F-23 (a). 26) Be located on expansive soil. as defcned in Table sB-i-B o the Uniform Building Code (i9cZ¢), creating substantial risks to life or propertu? No Impact: See F-23 (a) above. 27) Have soils incapable o adequatelq supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal sustem where sewers are not available for the disposal o waste water? No Impact: See F-23 (a) above. Mitigation Measures for Geology and Soils: None. G. HA7.AR1)S AND HA7ARnOUS MATERIAIS. Would the project: ~ 28) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use. or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact: This text amendment allowing for a time extension is procedural only and would not result in any environmental impacts. There are no development proposals or ground-disturbing activities included as part of this text amendment. Specific to hazards and hazardous materials, this text amendment does not involve any hazardous materials or work within an airport or airstrip, would not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plan, nor would it expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The City analyzes the direct and indirect environmental impacts of all projects as they are submitted for review. When applicants request a time extension for their design review as allowed under this text amendment, it is assumed that their projects have already been reviewed for environmental compliance as part of the original design review. However, should there be justification for additional environmental compliance, this will be addressed on aproject-by-project basis as needed. 29) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact: See G-28 above. 30) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutelu hazardous materials. substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an, existing or proposed school? 2 3 AC E P~I)A ITN{ ~i0.~~ PAGE_ 3 I OF_____ ~-__`1 No Impact: See G-28 above. 3i) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 6~g62.5 and as a result would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact: See G-28 above. 32) For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a salty hazard for people residing or working in the project area ~ No Impact: See G-28 above. 33) For a proiect within the vicinitcLof a private airstrip would the project result in a sq~h,~ hazard or people residing or working in the proiect area? No Impact: See G-28 above. 34) Impair implementation of or phusicallu inter ere with an adopted emeraencu response plan or emeraencu evacuation Ip an? ~•./ No Impact: See G-28 above. 35) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving wildland fires. including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact: See G-28 above. Mitigation Measures for Hazards and Hazardous Materials: None. H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: 36) Violate gnu water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact: This text amendment allowing for a time extension is procedural only and would not result in any environmental impacts. There are no development proposals or ground-disturbing activities included as part of this text amendment. Specific to hydrology and water quality, this text amendment allowing for an extension of time for design reviews would not violate any water quality or waste discharge requirements, would not deplete groundwater supplies nor interfere with groundwater recharge, would 24 A~C~t~~ E~'~~~ ~~J. Pq~~~_OF not alter any drainage pattern not alter the course of stream or river, nor would this text amendment result in an increase in surface run-off not erosion/siltation. Further, this text amendment would not result in actions that could exceed the capacity of storm water drainage systems nor provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, would not degrade water quality, would not place people or structures within ioo-year flood hazard areas, would not result in flooding, and would not result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, nor mudflow. The City analyzes the direct and indirect environmental impacts of all projects as they are submitted for review. When applicants request a time extension for their design review as allowed under this text amendment, it is assumed that their projects have already been reviewed for environmental compliance as part of the original design review. However, should there be justification for additional environmental compliance, this will be addressed on aproject-by-project basis as needed. 37) Substantiallu deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deft in aquifer volume or a lowering o the local groundwater table level (e.a.. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses or which permits have been granted)? No Impact: See H-36 above. 38) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or ricer, or substantially increase the rate or amount of the surface runoff in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or o -site? No Impact: See H-36 above. 39) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact: See H-36 above. 40) Otherwise substantiall~egrade water quality? No Impact: See H-36 above. 41) Place housing within aloo-near flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation man? ,~-~ No Impact: See H-36 above. 25 A~E~i~3Al~E~ pia. 3 PAGE 3 3 oP___L~ - 42) Place within a loo-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect ood, flows? No Impact: See H-36 above. 43) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss inLry or death incoding ooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact: See H-36 above. 44) Inundation bu seiche, tsunami. or mud ow? No Impact: See H-36 above. Mitigation Measures for Hydrolo~;y and Water Quality: None. I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: 45) Physically divide an established community? No Impact: This text amendment allowing for a time extension is procedural only and would not result in any environmental impacts. There are no development proposals or ground-disturbing activities included as part of this text amendment. Specific to land use, this text amendment would not divide an established community, would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation, nor would it conflict with any applicable regional habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The City analyzes the direct and indirect environmental impacts of all projects as they are submitted for review. When applicants request a time extension for their design review as allowed under this text amendment, it is assumed that their projects have already been reviewed for environmental compliance as part of the original design review. However, should there be justification for additional environmental compliance, this will be addressed on aproject-by-project basis as needed. 46) local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental a ect? Less Than Significant Impact: See I-45 above. 47) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation elan or natural community conservation plan? r..r/ 26 A~~~dt~taa ~ni:l~ E~~. 3 P~4CE_~`~ __ No Impact: See I-45 above. Mitigation Measures for Land Use: None. J. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 48) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be o value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact: This text amendment allowing for a time extension is procedural only and would not result in any environmental impacts. There are no development proposals or ground-disturbing activities included as part of this text amendment. Specific to mineral resources, this text amendment would not result in the loss of mineral resources. The City analyzes the direct and indirect environmental impacts of all projects as they are submitted for review. When applicants request a time extension for their design review as allowed under this text amendment, it is assumed that their projects have already been reviewed for environmental compliance as part of the original design review. However, should there be justification for additional environmental compliance, this will be addressed on aproject-by-project basis as needed. ~`` 49) Result in the loss of availability of a locall~portant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact: See J-48 above. Mitigation Measures for Mineral Resources: None. K. NOISE. Would the project result in: 50) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? No Impact: This text amendment allowing for a time extension is procedural only and would not result in any environmental impacts. There are no development proposals or ground-disturbing activities included as part of this text amendment. Specific to noise, this text amendment would not result in the generation of noise in excess of established standards, would not result in excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels, would not result in a temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels, nor is the project within an airport land use plan area or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The City analyzes the direct and indirect environmental impacts of all projects as they are submitted for review. When applicants request a time extension for their design ~, review as allowed under this text amendment, it is assumed that their projects have already been reviewed for environmental compliance as part of the original design 2 7 ACFE.iVt~ra1 { i EPA ~~®. review. However, should there be justification for additional environmental compliance, `,,rr this will be addressed on aproject-by-project basis as needed. ,51) Exposure of_persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No Impact: See K-5o above. 52) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the proiect vicinitu above levels existing without the pro'e~ ct? No Impact: See K-5o above. 53) A substantial temporaru or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the.. proiect vicinitu above levels existing without the project? No Impact: See K-5o above. 54) For a proiect located within an airport land use plan or. where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles o~public airport or public use airport. would the proiect expose people residing or working in the proiect area to excessive noise levels? No Impact: See K-5o above. ~ 55) For a project within the uicinitu of a private airstrip would the project expose people residing or workinq in the proiect area to excessive noise levels? No Impact: See K-5o above. Mitigation Measures for Noise: None. L. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: 56) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directli.,L(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (or example, through extension o,~ roads or other infrastructure,~~ No Impact: This text amendment allowing for a time extension is procedural only and would not result in any environmental impacts. There are no development proposals or ground-disturbing activities included as part of this text amendment. Specific to population and housing, this text amendment would not result in substantial population growth, nor would it result in the displacement of people or housing. r../ ~~~~~~ ~T~~ ~~~. 3 a s P~cE 3 a~ ~ a- The City analyzes the direct and indirect environmental impacts of all projects as they are submitted for review. When applicants request a time extension for their design review as allowed under this text amendment, it is assumed that their projects have already been reviewed for environmental compliance as part of the original design review. However, should there be justification for additional environmental compliance, this will be addressed on aproject-by-project basis as needed. 57) Displace substantial numbers o existing housing necessitating the construction o,~' replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact: See L-56 above. 58) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact: See L-56 above. Mitigation Measures for Population and Housing: None. r„~ M. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse ,physical impacts associated with the provision of new or ~h s~ ically altered governmental facilities need for new or ph sy ically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause sicLnificant environmental im.~acts in order to maintain acceptable service ratio response times or other performance obiectives or an~o the public service: 59 - 63) Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? No Impact: This text amendment allowing for a time extension is procedural only and would not result in any environmental impacts. There are no development proposals or ground-disturbing activities included as part of this text amendment. Specific to public services, this text amendment would not result in any impacts to fire or police protection, schools, parks or other public facilities. The City analyzes the direct and indirect environmental impacts of all projects as they are submitted for review. When applicants request a time extension for their design review as allowed under this text amendment, it is assumed that their projects have already been reviewed for environmental compliance as part of the original design review. However, should there be justification for additional environmental compliance, this will be addressed on aproject-by-project basis as needed. ,~ Mitigation Measures for Public Services: None. 2 9 ACEPIDA tTEP~ i~~..3 PAGE~_pF ~ ~..._. N. RECREATION 64) Would the proposed proiect increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial phusical deterioration of the acilitu would occur or be accelerated? No Impact: As mentioned above, this text amendment would not result in impacts to parks. 65) Does the proiect include recreational, acilities or require the construction or expansion recreational facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment? No Impact: Refer to responses M-59 and M-64 above. Mitigation Measures to Recreation: None. O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: 66) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing tra c load and capacity of the street sustem (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of Vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads. or congestion at intersections)? No Impact: This text amendment allowing for a time extension is procedural only and would not result in any environmental impacts. There are no development proposals or ground-disturbing activities included as part of this text amendment. Specific to transportation/traffic, this text amendment would not result in any increase in traffic, nor would it exceed a level of service standard or change traffic patterns. Further, this text amendment would not increase traffic hazards, would not result in inadequate emergency access or parking capacity, nor would it conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The City analyzes the direct and indirect environmental impacts of all. projects as they are submitted for review. When applicants request a time extension for their design review as allowed under this text amendment, it is assumed that their projects have already been reviewed for environmental compliance as part of the original design review. However, should there be justification for additional environmental compliance, this will be addressed on aproject-by-project basis as needed. 67) Exceed, either individually or cumulatiuelu. a level of service standard established by the coun _ congestion management agency, or designated roads or highways? No Impact: See 0-66 above. 3 0 AGEid®~ iTE~ i~4. 3 - -_._..-.. PAGE~O~,_,_.,~ ~- 68) Result in a change in tra~atterns including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results fn substantial safetu risks No Impact: See 0-66 above. 69) Substantiallu increase hazards due to a design feature (e g sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e g arm equipment) No Impact: See 0-66 above. ~o) Result in inadequate emergence access? No Impact: See 0-66 above. ~i) Result in inadequate parkino capacitu? No Impact: See 0-66 above. 72) Conflict with adopted policies plans or programs supporting alternative ,,-. transportation (e.g., bus turnouts. bicycle racks)? No Impact: See 0-66 above. Mitigation Measures for Traffic: None. P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: 73) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements o the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact: This text amendment allowing for a time extension is procedural only and would not result in any environmental impacts. There are no development proposals or ground-disturbing activities included as part of this text amendment. Specific to utilities and service systems, this text amendment would not result in the need for new or expanded water/ wastewater treatment nor storm drain facilities. This text amendment does not result in the need to evaluate water supply, wastewater treatment, landfill capacity, or compliance with solid waste regulations. The City analyzes the direct and indirect environmental impacts of all projects as they are submitted for review. When applicants request a time extension for their design review as allowed under this text amendment, it is assumed that their projects have already been ''~ reviewed for environmental compliance as part of the original design review. However, should there be justification for additional environmental compliance, this will be 31 ,AGENDA ITEM N0. 3_T~_____ PAGE addressed on aproject-by-project basis as needed. 74) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion o existing facilities. the construction of which could cause signi cant environmental a ects? No Impact: See P-73 above. 75) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental a ects? No Impact: See P-73 above. ~6) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact: See P-73 above. ~~) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or mau serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ~r.I No Impact: See P-73 above. 78) Be served bu a landfill with su dent permitted capacity to accommodate the pro'e~ ct's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact: See P-fig above. 79) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact: See P-73 above. Mitigation Measures for Utilities: None. ~../' 32 RC~Ef~mC3AITE[~ ~~0. 3 -- PAGE~-a~---a- /'~ Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. So) Does the proiect have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantiallu reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species cause a fish or wildl~e population to drop below self-sustaining levels. threaten to eliminate a plant or animal communitu, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact: This text amendment involves changes to the Municipal Code with no physical development activity that could affect biological resources. Therefore, the proposed amendment will have no impact on any sensitive plant or animal species nor habitat or populations. Likewise, there will be no impacts to any examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. 81) Does the proiect have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental e ects of a proiect are considerable when viewed in connection with the a ects of past proiects the effects of other current protects and the effects o, f probable ture ro'ec~ ts) a No Impact: This text amendment involves changes to the Municipal Code with no physical development activity that could result in any impacts considered project-specific ~` or cumulative. 82) No Impact: This text amendment involves changes to the Municipal Code with no physical development activity that could directly or indirectly affect human beings. -End of Environmental Impact Evaluation Discussion - 3 3 ElGE~lDA tT~hi ~~. 3 ~"a- PAGE~_0~________ CITY (JF ~~~ LADE ~ LSII`IOI~E ~~ DREAM E,~CTREME>r Notice of Public Hearing and Availability Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration NOTICE IS HEREBY. GIVEN that th"e-Planhing ,Commission of`the~City of=Lake`Elsinore ~v~~l"hold a Public Hearing in the LAKE ELSINORE CULTURAL CENTER 183. NORTH MAIN °STREET: Lake Elsihore, California,! on Tuesday, May 20 2008. at46:00 PM to solicit; input; ideas; and~.cor~ments o,n ~. ~.- ~, the subject project: _ - ~'~a . ,: ~ ~ y ~~t~~~s ~~ ~ , ~ ' .:~: s . .t x ~ ti ,. _ ~ ,~ From: Tom Weiner, Planning Manager (951) 674-3124 extension 270 Project Title: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2008-03 Applicant: City of Lake Elsinore Project Description: A request to amend Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.82 (Design Review) in order to modify existing guidelines for time extensions related to Design Review approvals. Project Location: City-wide in all Zoning districts "If you challenge the (nature of the proposed) action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing/meeting." Pursuant to the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Copies of the Negative Declaration are available for public review from April 24, 2008 through May 14, 2008 at Lake Elsinore City Hall 130 E. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend this hearing/meeting and express opinions upon the item listed above, or to submit written comments to the Planning Division prior to this date. FURTHER INFORMATION on this item may be obtained by contacting Tom Weiner in the Planning Division, at City Hall (951) 674-3124, extension 270. V otsce o r sc earsng eetsng - orm o. evsse agast, A P p, Page ] of 1 ,ACaEi~IDA {^I ~~ t,Y~~ 1r GE `~ ~" OF PA ~ C1TY OF ,,~~ LADE ~ LSII`~OI~E -~L ~~` DREAM E)CTREMEn TO: FROM: DATE: PROJECT TITLE: APPLICANT: ~`' PROJECT LOCATION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAY 20, 2008 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE The project site includes the City of Lake Elsinore's incorporated City limit, the City's Sphere of Influence and the City's Planning Areas. BACKGROUND At their regularly scheduled meeting on April 15, 2008, the Planning Commission considered the Comprehensive General Plan Update. City Staff presented an overview of the project, highlighting the various components of the General Plan. Subsequently, the City's General Plan consultant, "ICS International Jones & Stokes", also provided a Power Point presentation. Following the presentation, the Commission took testimony from various individuals who had submitted a "Request to Speak" form. A total of twenty-eight (28) "Request to Speak" forms were submitted to the Planning Commission. Of the twenty-eight (28) forms submitted, the Planning Commission heard eighteen (18) speakers. As such, the General Plan was continued to April 29, 2008. On April 29, 2008 the Planning Commission continued to hear additional land use requests and concerns relative to the General Plan Update, which prompted vigorous discussions relative to the areas along the lake edge (specifically along Lakeshore Drive), Country Club i'` Heights and other areas around City. Items that drew specific attention included concerns on the Circulation Plan, Pacific Clay land uses and circulation pertaining thereto and AG~t°~l~!~ l~°~a~t t~0. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 20, 2008 PROJECT TITLE: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE inclusion of and/or concerns with the relativity of the General Plan to the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Although staff provided direction on a number of items, additional time was requested where necessary. At the conclusion of the meeting the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. At the regularly scheduled meeting of May 6, 2008, Chairman O'Neal requested that the General Plan Update be placed on the regularly scheduled meeting on May 20, 2008 in order to allow staff the opportunity to come back to the Commission with responses to the various requests and/or concerns. The Commission unanimously concurred with the request, to which staff provided sufficient and legal noticing of the project (General Plan Update). Although staff has not had sufficient time to analyze all of the requests and/or concerns raised in the various Public Hearings to this point in time, the following is a general item of discussion and land use changes that staff has identified thus far. Item of Discussion 1. Land use "fine tuning" r..r/ Due to the contours and variations in topography of land throughout the City of Lake Elsinore (especially within the Country Club Heights District) and to insure that all ,,~ land uses are correct and applicable and will provide a well balanced community and are conducive to the topography, staff will be carefully "fine tuning" the preferred land use plan by performing extensive site visits. Land use changes 1. In order to allow for the development of custom homes adjacent to the lake along Lakeshore Drive, staff has identified a need to create a new land use designation for the area generally located between the juncture of Cowell and Lowell Streets to Lakeshore Drive (See Attachment No. 1). The proposed new land use designation, which would be included in the Chapter 2 (Community Form) in the General Plan, would be entitled "Lakeside Residential". The following is the proposed description for this land use: Lakeside Residential This designation provides for custom single family homes that provide orientation and accessibility fo the lake for private use only. Residential densities for new subdivisions should not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per 10,000 net square feet. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and lot coverage shall be calculated on the area of the property remaining above the "Ordinary High Water Mark". ~ ~4GE~~~,~, E~'~^~~ t~t0. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 20, 2008 ~"` PROJECT TITLE: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2. Due to the topographical conditions, staff has recognized and is recommending that the area to the north of intersection of Gunnerson and Pinnell Streets be designated low medium density (See Attachment No. 2). 3. Due to the existing land use and its proximity to Chaney Street and Lakeshore Drive, staff is recommending that the properties identified as APN's 375-342-017, 020, & 021 be designated Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Likewise, staff is requesting that the properties identified as APN's 375-344-003, 004, 010, 012, 013 & 015 thru 019 be designated Residential Mixed Use (RMU). (See Attachment No. 3) ,~--~ 4. Due to the proximity of the property to the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Machado Street and other retail venues in the area, staff is recommending that the properties east of Clement Street along Lakeshore Drive to the existing Stater Brother's Shopping Center be designated Neighborhood Commercial. (See Attachment No. 4). In conclusion, Staff will present Planning Commission at a futur Environmental Impact Report. RECOMMENDATION and provide an analysis and recommendation to the e Planning Commission hearing of the impacts to the Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the items referenced above and continue the General Plan Update off calendar in order to allow staff additional time to analyze the entire scope of requests and concerns heard to date. Prepared and approved by: Rolfe M. Preisendanz, Director of Community Developme ATTACHMENTS d4GE~3C~~ 6T~~a~ Via.