HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.19.2006 PC AGENDA
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
[CORRECTED]
MICHAEL O'NEAL, CHAIRMAN
JOHN GONZALES, VICE CHAIRMAN
JIMMY FLORES, COMMISSIONER
AXEL ZANELLI, COMMISSIONER
PHIL MENDOZA, COMMISSIONER
ROLFE PREISENDANZ, DIR. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
WWW.LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG
(951) 674-3124 PHONE
(951) 674-2392 FAX
LAKE ELSINORE CULTURAL CENTER
183 NORTH MAIN STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530
*******************************************************************
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2006
6:00 P.M.
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!
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON AGENDIZED ITEMS - 3 MINUTES
(Please read & complete a Speaker's Form at the podium, prior to the start of the
Planning Commission Meeting).
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
(All matters on the Consent Calendar are approved in one motion, unless a
Commissioner or any members of the public requests separate action on a specific
item).
PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA- DECEMBER 19, 2006
1. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 19, 2006,
October 3,2006, and December 5,2006
2. Minor Design review of a Residential Duplex Located at 408 N. Lewis Street
(APN: 374-032-007)
. Staff is requesting that this project be tabled to further review the design concept
and work with the applicant to make the proposed project consistent with the
Zoning Map and General Plan Designation. Therefore, the proposed project
would be scheduled "off calendar".
CASE PLANNER:
Agustin Resendiz, Associate Planner
Ext.232, aresendiz@lake-elsinore.org
RECOMMENDATION:
Continue
3. Minor Design Review of a Single-Family residence Located on 16428
Gunnerson Street (APN: 378-244-016)
. The applicant is requesting design review consideration for a conventionally
built two story single-family dwelling unit pursuant to Chapter 17.92 (Design
Review), Chapter 17.14 (Residential Development Standards), Chapter 17.23
(R-1 Single-Family Residential District), and Chapter 17.66 (Parking
Requirements) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC).
CASE PLANNER:
Agustin Resendiz, Associate Planner
Ext.232, aresendiz@lake-elsinore.org
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).
4. Minor Design Review of A Two Story Single-Family Residence Located at
17395 Bromley Avenue (APN: 378-142-016)
PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA- DECEMBER 19, 2006
. Staff is requesting that this project be continued in order to further review the
fire flow pressure test required in order to satisfy the Riverside County Fire
Department requirements in regards to acceptable water pressure and
accessibility to the site. Therefore, the proposed project would be rescheduled
for the Planning Commission meeting as early as January 2,2006.
CASE PLANNER:
Agustin Resendiz, Associate Planner
Ext.232, aresendiz@lake-elsinore.org
RECOMMENDATION:
Continue
5. Sign Program No. 2006-03 for Collier Development Company
. The request before the Planning Commission is for the approval of a Sign
Program for The Collier Avenue Business Park. The Pertinent Lake Elsinore
Municipal Code chapters relating to sign programs are: Chapter 17.94 (Signs-
Advertising Structures), Chapter 17.38 (Non-Residential Development
Standards), and Chapter 17.54 (C-M Commercial Manufacturing District).
CASE PLANNER:
Kirt Coury, Associate Planner
Ext.274, kcoury@lake-elsinore.org
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
6. Canyon Hills Estates: Environmental Impact Report No. 2006-02, General Plan
Amendment No. 2006-04, Specific Plan No. 2006-01 and Tentative Tract Map
No. 34249
. Staff is requesting a continuance of the proposed project.
CASE PLANNER:
Kirt Coury, Associate Planner
Ext.274, kcoury@lake-elsinore.org
RECOMMENDATION:
Continue
BUSINESS ITEMS
INFORMATIONAL
PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA- DECEMBER 19, 2006
STAFF COMMENTS
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
MINUfES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
183 NORTH MAIN STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2006
CALL TO ORDER:
6:03:30 PM Chairman O'Neal called the Regular Planning Commission Meeting to order.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Deputy City Attorney Santana led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS:
O'NEAL, GONZALES, FLORES
MENDOZA AND ZANELLI
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
NONE
Also present were: Community Development Director Preisendanz, Planning Manager
Weiner, City Engineer Seumalo, Deputy City Attorney Santana, Senior Planner Harris,
Project Planner Miller, and Office Specialist Porche'.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (Non-A1!endized items)
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chairman O'Neal addressed the fact that for the past couple of meetings there has been no
minutes to be approved.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated that we have been short staffed and
are in the process of contracting out to get someone to complete the minutes. Director of
Community Development Preisendanz also stated that there would be minutes available to be
approved in the near future.
ACENDA ITEM NO. . I
PACE I OF g
PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION:MINlITES -SEP1EMBER 19, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Commercial DesieD Review No. 2006-04 "Medical & Office BuildiDe Complex".
6:03:12 PM Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearing.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz presented a review for the proposed
Medical Office Building located off of Canyon Estates Drive, just north of the future
Holiday Inn Express, in the Summerhill Specific Plan.
Senior Planner Harris indicated that this is a 33,240 square foot Professional Medical
Office Building. He stated that these are two separate buildings with some common
connecting exterior walls, but for building code purposes they are considered two separate
buildings. He noted that this is a 5.19 acre site in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone of
the Canyon Creek Summerhill Specific Plan. He stated that the architectural design would
be Spanish style. Planner Harris went on to state that Staff has worked with the developer
to get well articulated buildings. Senior Planner Harris also stated that 33% of the site
will be landscaped and the buildings will be set on an island of landscaping. He stated that
the applicants have agreed to install enhanced paving treatments at the building entrances
to achieve a courtyard effect that would go along with the Spanish architecture. In addition
they have agreed to a large decorative fountain adjacent to the main building entrance that
would formalize this space on the property and really provide a focal point to find the main
entrance. Staff has determined that the site conforms to all applicable element standards
of the Canyon Creek Specific Plan and the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance,
including setbacks, building height, landscaping and floor area ratio. Moreover, the
building conforms to all the architectural design guidelines of the Canyon Creek Specific
Plan.
Senior Planner Harris stated that the potential impact from this project has already been
addressed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration associated with the Canyon
Creek Summerhill Specific Plan Amendment No.1. Therefore, no subsequent review or
analysis is needed for this project at this time. Therefore, staff is recommending that
Commission recommend that the City Council adopt findings of consistency with the
Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and Commercial Design Review
2006-04 subject to the 78 Conditions of Approval.
Senior Planner Harris stated that the applicant was present for any questions that the
Commission may have.
Chairman O'Neal requested the applicant to approach the podium
Dan Henson (project applicant and architect), 250 E. Rincon, Corona, agreed to the
Conditions of Approval.
Chairman O'Neal stated he thought the architecture and plans are fine. He stated that the
details submitted were a very handsome addition in the area and is much needed in the
community. He also stated that he would like to see color swatches as an example of
ACENDA ITEM NO.
PACE;l OF e
PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUIES -SEPTEMBER 19, 2006
what colors will be used. Dan Henson (applicant) stated that a reduced materials board can
be submitted in the staff report as an attachment.
Chairman O'Neal stated that a traffic study was not submitted. He asked specifically how
many tenants are involved.
Mr. Dan Henson stated Canyon Hills Drive is a congested area because of the intersection
at Railroad Canyon Road. He stated that he spoke with the traffic engineer regarding this
specific project and that he has a condition in the project requiring a traffic study and
implementation of results of the traffic study, particularly if a signal may be needed at the
intersection of the entrance. He also indicated that this would be looked at with a critical
eye because this is an entrance into a residential area as well and that a traffic study is
being done to address the impact that this project may bring.
Commissioner Zanelli asked if there will be a left turn lane or will there be room on
Canyon Estates Drive for a left turn lane.
Senior Planner Harris stated this will be addressed by the traffic engineer.
Commissioner Flores stated this is a beautiful building and agrees with the need for the
traffic study.
Commissioner Mendoza indicated that he has the same concerns regarding the traffic
issues. He asked if there was any idea of how many employees will be working in this
building, because that could take away from the 318 parking spaces available to the public.
He also stated a "no parking" sign may be needed on Canyon Estates Drive to alleviate
anyone parking there and local residents from having to dodge traffic or any other
unnecessary congestion. He also requested that a sign be erected in front that states the
working hours of the construction zone, to prevent residents from being bothered by
weekend construction or sub-contractors trying to catch up on work after hours.
6:18:29 PM Chairman O'Neal closed the Public Hearing and requested the reading of the
Resolutions.
MOVED BY FLORES AND SECONDED BY ZANELLI,
AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO 2006-95, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF
CONSISTENCY WITH THE MUL TI-SPECIES
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) FOR THE
PROJECT KNOWN AS LAKE ELSINORE MEDICAL.
ACENDA lTtM NO.
PACE ,3 OF R
-
PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSIONMINlITES -SEPTEMBER 19, 2006
MOVED BY FLORES AND SECONDED BY ZANELLI,
AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO 2006-96, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF COMMERlCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW 2006-04 FOR A 2-STORY MEDICAL
OFFICE BUILDING AND A 2-STORY
PROFESSSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING, WITHIN THE
CANYON CREEK/SUMMERHILL SPECIFIC PLAN
2. Miti ated Ne ative Declaration No. 2005-12 General Plan Amendment No. 2006-03
Pre-Zonin No. 2006-04 and Annexation No. 77 for the ro er located ad'acent to
State route 74. Easterlv of Trellis Lane and Rams2:ate (Centex) Specific Plan.
6:21:05 PM Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearing.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated that this is Annexation No. 77.
This Annexation was A Condition of Approval for an Annexation known as the Merritt-
Luster Annexation. The Commission originally heard this item on August 1, 2006. He
indicated that because there were a number of questions that needed be resolved this was
continued to tonight's meeting.
Project Planner Miller stated this is the Annexation of for 154 acres consisting of 45 parcels
and it was continued at the request of the Planning Commission to answer any other
questions from the public. Five residents have contacted staff with general questions and
they did not state whether they were for or against the Annexation. Staff received a letter
dated, August 21, 2006 from Marcy Wilson and Clara C. Smith. The request for the
Annexation is pursuant to a directive from the Local Agency Formation Commission which
is known as LAFCO, to close the pocket areas adjacent to the city boundaries. She stated
that because of this request and because of the Merritt-Luster Condition of Approval, the
City of Lake Elsinore is going forward with the Annexation. She recommended that the
Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending City Council adopt Mitigated
Negative Declaration No. 2005-12, recommending that the City Council approve General
Plan Amendment 2006-03, recommending the City Council approve the pre-zoning 2006-04,
and recommending the City Council approval to commence with the proceedings for the
properties described in Annexation 77.
Vice Chair Gonzales commented that he is all for the annexation.
Commissioner Mendoza concurs that he is also for the annexation.
Commissioner Flores commented that he hopes all the public's questions were answered
accordingly and it's time to move to the next level ofthe process.
ACENDA liEM NO.~
PACE~OF B
PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUfES -SEP1EMBER 19, 2006
Commissioner Zanelli thanked Project Planner Miller for taking the extra step in responding
to the residents in the area.
MOVED BY ZANELLI AND SECONDED BY
GONZALES AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 TO
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO 2006-97, A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION 2005-12.
MOVED BY GONZALES AND SECONDED BY
ZANELLI AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 TO ADOPT
RESOULTION NO. 2006-98 A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMMENDMENT NO.
2006-03 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS ON 154 ACRES ADJACENT TO
STATE ROUTE 74 EAST OF TRELLIS LANE.
MOVED BY MENDOZA AND SECONDED BY
ZANELLI AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-99 A RESOULTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
APPROVAL OF PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 SUBJECT
TO THE COMPLETION OF ANNEXATION NO. 77
MOVED BY ZANELLI AND SECONDED BY
MENDOZA, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 TO
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-100, A RESOULTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE
COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX
THE TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS ANNEXATION
NO. 77 INTO THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF
THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE.
ACENDAlii:M NO.
PAGE 5
f
OF 8
PAGE 6 - PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUfES -SEP1EMBER 19, 2006
3. General Plan Conformity Determination for Proposed Roadway Easement Vacation
of JOY Street.
6:32:38 PM Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearing.
Chairman O'Neal stated considering the nature ofthis item being a vacation of Joy Street and
General Plan Conformity Determination, he would ask Ken Seumalo, City Engineer, to go
over this with the Commission and answer any questions.
Ken Seumalo stated the item before them is a request to find the proposed vacation for a
portion of Joy Street in conformance with the General Plan. The area in question is a
remainder piece from the realignment of Joy Street. He indicated that the plans shown on the
screen is the portion requesting to be vacated and it belongs to the adjacent piece and as you
can see, Joy Street has been realigned, so the piece is no longer necessary for street right of
way.
Chairman O'Neal requests the property be given back to the adjacent property owner.
MOVED BY ZANELLI AND SECONDED BY MENDOZA AND
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, BASED UPON THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
THE PRESENTATION BY CITY ENGINEER, KEN SEUMALO,
AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES,THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION FINDS THE PROPOSED VACATION OF A
PORTION OF JOY STREET MIDWAY BETWEEN MACHADO
STREET AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE CONFORMS WITH THE
LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN AND TO DIRECT STAFF
TO FORWARD THIS CONFORMITY DETERMINATION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL.
STAFF COMMENTS
City Engineer Seumalo commented on the following:
· He stated Railroad Canyon and 1-15 construction is overly congested because the
contractor is at the stage of construction where the loop is being grinded out, the
traffic loop will tell the signal that there is a car there. The signals are on fixed time,
cars or no cars and this will be resolved as soon as possible.
· Auto Center Drive may be open next week.
· The signal at Corydon & Palomar is now working.
Communitv Development Director Preisendanz commented on the following:
· Thanked Linda Miller for her hard work on the Annexation proj ect.
· Building & Safety did a sweep of the Old Town area and approximately 700 tons of
trash and debris was picked up.
ACENDA IrEM NO.
PAGE ~
I
9
OF
PAGE 7 - PLANNING CDMMISSIONMINUfES -SEP1EMBER 19, 2006
· Met with the PSAC regarding the graffiti ordinance and Staff is polishing that up.
· Code Enforcement is working on graffiti.
· The K-Mart building has a new owner doing renovations and staff had to slow them
down, an application is in now to look at the outside and inside of building.
· Still working on General Plan update.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Zanelli commented on the following:
· He asked if the City of Lake Elsinore responds to calls on the graffiti hotline pertaining to
county areas.
Chairman O'Neal responded by stating that the city only respond to city areas.
Commissioner Flores commented on the following:
· He thanked everyone for information on the Annexation process.
· He asked when the last time a city road was paved? City Engineer Seumalo replied by
stating stated the last road paved was Machado. Commissioner Flores asked for a listing
of what roads are targeted for paving and when.
Commissioner Mendoza commented on the following:
· He stated the biggest problem on Railroad Canyon is not being able to turn when the
exit is closed. City Engineer Seumalo stated there is a weekly meeting with the
contractor and this will be addressed. He stated that this may be a CALTRANS
situation. Commissioner Mendoza suggested that Conditions of approval on future
developments should indicate that a sign must be erected in front of developments
regarding working hours. He indicated that construction can be shut down for safety
reasons and Code Enforcement has the authority to shut down construction or impose
fines. Code Enforcement is complaint driven.
Chairman O'Neal commented on the following:
· He thanked staff and asked if there were any concerns about the changed seating.
(There were no objections from the Commission).
ACENDA ITa.-4 NO.
PACEM, "7
" ,.
OF
8
PAGE 8 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEP1EMBER 19, 2006
ADJOURNMENT
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, CHAIRMAN O'NEAL ADJOURNED
THE MEETING AT 7:02:19 PM ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2006.
Michael O'Neal, Chairman
Respectfully Submitted,
Dana C. Porche'
Office Specialist III
ATTEST:
Rolfe Preisendanz,
Director of Community Development
!~C~NDAiTEM "NO.
PACE a. OF 8
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
183 NORTH MAIN STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2006
CALL TO ORDER:
6:05:24 PM Chairman O'Neal called the Regular Planning Commission Meeting to order.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Tom Weiner led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS:
O'NEAL, GONZALES, ZANELLI,
FLORES, MENDOZA
Also present were: Planning Manager Weiner, City Engineer Seumalo, Deputy City
Attorney Santana, Senior Planner Harris, Associate Planner Carlson, Associate Planner Coury,
Project Planner Miller and Office Assistant Arsi Baron.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (Non-Al!endized items)
Ms. Donna Franson President of the Lake Elsinore Citizens Committee, reminded the
commission that on Thursday, October 12, 2006 at 7:00 pm in the Lakeside High School
auditorium, there will be a candidate's forum. Invitations were mailed to all interested in running
for the two empty council seats this fall.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes.
Regular Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 2006.
MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY FLORES AND
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 BY THOSE PRESENT, TO
APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF
AUGUST 1, 2006.
BUSINESS ITEMS
Agenda Item No.
I
of , Lf
Page I
PAGE 2 - PLANNING CDMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 3, 2006
2. Public Convenience and Necessity (PCN) Notification of State Department of Alcoholic
Bevera e Control for the Tar et Store Location at 18287 Collier Avenue Oak Grove
Shoppinl! Center).
Chainnan O'Neal requested the reading of the staff report.
Planning Manager Weiner stated that Target would only be selling wine; however approval
of this will allow them to sell beer in the future.
Target representative, Beth Abalafia, 260 California Street, San Francisco, is present.
Commissioner Flores questioned her regarding ABC training of employees. Ms. Abalafia
stated that all cashiers obtain ABC training prior to the start of employment. Employees were
trained on how to check identification, how to handle customers, and watching for fraudulent
identification. Commissioner Mendoza questioned whether Menifee or Murrieta have a type
20 license.
Ms. Abalafia stated that she did not know.
MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY FLORES AND,
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0. BASED UPON STAFFS
PRESENTATION, THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY (PCN) WILL BE SERVED BY THE BEER AND
WINE SALES AT THE TARGET STORES, AND TO
APPROVE THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY LETTER ADDRESSED TO ABC, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM ATTACHED TO THE
STAFF REPORT AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO FORWARD
THE PCN LETTER TO ABC AFTER THE DOCUMENT IS
EXECUTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Reclamation Plan No. 2006-01. Pacific Al!l!rel!ates, Incorporated (Pacific Al!l!rel!ates),
a wholly owned subsidiary of Pacific Clay Products Incorporated (Pacific Clay), has
submitted an application for approval of a Reclamation Plan for a 211.40-acre mininl!
site.
6:14:56 PM Chainnan O'Neal opened the Public Hearing and requested the reading of the
staff report.
Planning Manager Weiner introduced Proj ect Planner Coury to the Commission.
Project Planner Coury stated that Pacific Aggregates, Inc. is requesting review and approval
of a Reclamation plan known as, Nichols Canyon Mine. The Reclamation plan outlines how
Agenda Item No.
Page :;)..
I
of~
PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 3,2006
mine lands will be reclaimed, rehabilitated and re-vegetated. The plan has been reviewed
pursuant to State law, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 14.04 and the Alberthill Ranch
Specific Plan Amendment No.3. The site is located in the northern part of Lake Elsinore
adjacent to Interstate 15 Freeway. The goal of the reclamation plan is to restore the min~
lands to a useable condition, compatible with the underlying zone and general plan. The
mining activities will be broken down into multiple phases and when each phase is complete,
Pacific Aggregates will begin reclamation activities for that portion of the project. The life
of the project is expected to be 3-5 years for mining activities and reclamation with the
implementation of Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Mitigation monitoring, reporting
program and conditions of approval, all potentially significant environmental impacts have
been Mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Planner Coury went on to say that any appeal process associated with this project is given 10
days to file. Staff met with the applicant throughout the process to discuss changes to the
conditions, a memorandum has been submitted, including hours of operation which will be
7:00 am to 12:00 am.
Gerald R. Chapman 28437 EI Toro Road is concerned regarding dust as well as noise and
blasting.
Tim Fleming, a General Plan Advisory Committee member, is concerned why the Committee
was not made aware of this project. Mr. Fleming stated the Committee would like to see an
access road for the trucks removing debris.
Robert Lesser, 27785 EI Toro Road, is concerned regarding the time frame of working until
midnight; will there be light pollution and what will the residents complaint format be once
the mining operation begins. How many trucks will be used? Will residence access to the
school and canyon through Nichols Road be compromised? He stated the residents would like
more information on the scope ofthe project.
Randy Hopola, 27560 Lindell Road, concerned about getting to the school through Nichols
Road that is the only way in and out. He stated being against this project because of the noise
echoing off the canyon.
Randall Seegert, 27590 Lindell Road, indicated his concern with the hours of operation. He
questioned the number of trucks that will be used. What kind of aggregate mining will be
done? What kind of dust control will there be and is it dangerous?
Liddie Walker, 18078 Carmela Court, was also concerned with the hours of operation and
concerned about traffic on Nichols Road.
Janet Tim, 28045 Lindell Road, stated her concern about the location of the project and air
quality. She asked if this project will compromise the health of the children at the school
and the residents with the air pollution this project will cause.
Agenda Item No.
Page . 3
I
Of~
PAGE 4 - PLANNING CD:MMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 3, 2006
Associate Planner Koury addressed a few of the resident's concerns regarding the plan. He
stated the mining activity of the site is a vested right by the property owner; the city only has
authority over the reclamation of the site, in terms of the finished grade and the re-
vegetation to a natural state. The site is being mined for the resources, shell, and clay and
there is no intention to mine for asphalt or concrete. Once the project is complete the site
will be rough graded to a state complying with the underlying zoning. The site can then
become a commercial operation or business. Notices were sent to residents within 300 feet
of the site, so if you are outside of that area you did not receive notice, but there is a notice
posted on project site. There is a Mitigated Negative Declaration associated with the project
that identified and looked at several environmental concerns and issues. Air quality or dust
was identified and the document was distributed to the South Coast Air Quality
Management District. Comments were sent back regarding the Reclamation plan and those
comments were incorporated to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Traffic circulation
associated with the project was identified and a document was sent to Cal- Trans. There will
be 400 truck trips associated with the project, future commercial activity that may occur
from the site could generate up to 1600 trips per day, in and out of a future commercial site.
A condition for modification proposed by the applicant is the existing hours of operation,
limiting the mining reclamation activity from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. The applicant is
identifying truck trips hours of operation. No hauling of aggregate material from the site to
Pacific Clay on Nichols Road shall occur between the hours of 7:00 am - 9:00 am and 2:30
pm to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. No truck traffic shall occur on Sundays or legal
holidays. Extractive activity will be restricted between the elevations associated with the
site 1650 down the hill to 1310 and shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 am -7:00 pm,
Monday through Saturday. Processing activity (crushing, conveying, washing, separating
and loadings of aggregates) shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 am to 12:00 am Monday
through Friday. Processing activity will also be permitted on Saturday between 7:00 am _
7:00 pm; No processing or extractive activity shall occur on Sundays or legal holidays.
Associate Planner Koury further indicated that a sign will be posted at the entrance of the
site that would identify the approved days and hours of operation, and a phone number for
complaints.
Pacific Aggregates, Incorporated representative Tom Tomlinson was present. He stated that
hillside grading will be limited to daylight hours and the actual operation at lower elevations
will be lit with lights that only shine within the site. On October 19, 2006, Mr. Tomlinson
indicated that he will make a presentation to the School Board regarding the project and
work with the School District to take into consideration the hours of operation and school
functions.
7:00:29 PM Chairman O'Neal closed, Public Hearing and requested Commissioner's
comments.
Agenda Item No.
Page 4
I
of-R
PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 3 2006
,
Commissioner Mendoza questioned whether the site will be secured in order to prevent off-
road riders from entering the site. He also stated that he would also like to see signs one in
English and one in Spanish regarding the open pit and slope. Commissioner Mendoza also
questioned inspectors being available for local residents claiming the blasts are cracking
their foundation.
Mr. Tomlinson responded that seismographs are put near and around the operation (blasts).
He also stated there will be very little if any detectable ground motion. Commissioner
Mendoza also indicated he would like the hours of operation to only be Monday through
Friday and not on the weekend.
Mr. Tomlinson stated he was concerned not working on Saturdays would push the project
out quite a bit.
Commissioner Flores stated the Reclamation plan was found to be in conformance with the
County of Riverside as RPl12, prior to incorporating into a city. The applicant has requested
separate approval of the plan from the City of Lake Elsinore and the Planning Commission.
The Department of Conservation, Mine Reclamation has reviewed the Reclamation Plan and
has fully addressed concerns.
Commissioner Zanelli read conditions 26 and 27 relating to traffic control along the area of
the project.
Chairman O'Neal suggested putting in a warning sign or maybe a stop sign on the curves of
the Nichols Road overpass. Chairman O'Neal also recommended that staff work with the
applicant to process an application with CALTRANS for traffic control within State right of
way.
Mr. Tomlinson stated activity will probably be started in less than 60 days.
MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY ZANELLI AND
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
NO. 2006-101, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-6.
MOVED BY MENDOZA, SECONDED BY GONZALES AND
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION,
NO. 2006-102, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
Agenda Item No.
Page S
I
Of-LL
PAGE 6 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 3, 2006
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT THE
PROJECT IDENTIFIED AS RECLAMATION PLAN NO.
2006-1 IS EXEMPT FROM THE MULTI-SPECIES
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN.
MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY MENDOZA,
AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-103, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RECLAMATION
PLAN NO.2006-1.
4. Commercial Desie:n Review No. 2006-02 and Tentative Condominium
Tract No. 34864 "Office Buildine: Complex"
7:30:27 PM Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearing.
Planning Manager Weiner stated that this project is a request for a Commercial Design Review
and Tentative Condominium Tract Map for a new office building complex on Canyon Estates
Drive.
Planning Manager Weiner introduced Senior Planner Matt Harris, who presented the Staff
report.
Senior Planner Harris presented the staff report and stated that the project is a 2 story 14,500
square foot, Professional Office Condominium Building. It is being proposed along with a
Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes. The vacant site is located on the south side of
Canyon Estates Drive, west of Summerhill Drive. It is in the Canyon Creek Summerhill
Specific Plan and zoned neighborhood commercial. There are three rows of parking proposed
in front of the building, two main access points on the east and west sides of the parking lot and
there are also two secondary access points where the existing driveways of Washington Mutual
Bank exist. 17% of the site has been landscaped with an assortment of trees. There will be 14
different office suites within the building to be sold separately and also CC&R'S will be
required. Parking spaces further away from the building will be designated for employees.
Staff believes that all parking provisions have been met. Staff is requesting the number of
spaces on site be considered appropriate. The CC&R'S will incorporate language indicating
that employees are not allowed to park directly in front of the building. The project has been
found exempt from Environmental provisions, given that it was already evaluated previously
within the Specific Plan.
Lon Bike, with the architectural firm working on the project, Brett Keshtkar, a representative
from the owner partnership, Brett Keshtkar and civil engineer John Rogers were all present to
address any concerns that the Planning Commission may have.
Agenda Item No.
Page Co
I
Of~
PAGE 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 3, 2006
John Rodgers CLE Engineering of Murrieta, he stated he has not had an adequate amount of
time to review the conditions, they were just received within the last few days. He apologized
to Staff for not getting back to them with questions. He went on to state regarding the reciprocal
parking with Washington Mutual Bank, the "and parking" was mentioned in the fourth line, but
it should also address "and parking" in the fifth line, allowing the motoring public to travel on
either property in order to access the other property. He stated there are an additional couple of
words they would like to be removed from Condition No. 17. He also stated that some
conditions were put in prior to issuance of grading and building permit, they have to do with
traffic on Canyon Estates Drive, specifically Conditions No. 65, 66, and 68 they have to do with
the revising signing and striping on Canyon Estates Drive for about one thousand feet from
Summerhill to Ridgecrest Drive, re-constructing the driveway to the project across from
Boulder Vista Drive with right in, right out. He also stated the applicant would not object to
sharing one ninth of the cost, but this project does not contribute to the majority of the traffic to
the loop road in the Specific Plan. Mr. Rodgers would like to ask that these conditions be
stricken from the approval. He stated he would accept an alternative Condition that would
require the applicant to not oppose, and actively work with the city to support the cooperation of
the other eight property owners. He stated he felt it was not appropriate to put these conditions
on this one project. Finally he stated that under "Administrative Services" this project is being
tasked with annexing to and contributing to a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District and to
a Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District. The other eight property owners are not
being tasked with these conditions. He questioned why they are the only applicants being asked
to contribute to this condition
City Engineer Seumalo stated that Condition No. 65 is a requiring revision of the signing and
striping. He also stated that he does not agree with removing the conditions of approval. He
went on to state that he does agree with the applicant regarding the fair share cost, and he would
be willing to investigate reimbursement agreement or a type of cost sharing.
Chairman O'Neal suggested continuing this item to the next meeting.
MOVED BY MENDOZA, SECONDED BY FLORES, FOR A
CONTINUANCE OF THIS MATTER TO THE NEXT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON OCTOBER 17,
2006
Tim Fleming, resident of Lake Elsinore and on the General Plan Advisory Committee stated that
this project was not presented to the committee. The Committee is concerned with traffic on
Canyon Estates Drive.
Page
-,
I
Of~
Agenda Item No.
PAGE 8 - PLANNING COMMISSION MlNUfES - OCTOBER 3, 2006
7:52:14 PM Chairman O'Neal closed the Public Hearing.
5. Commercial Deshm Review No. 2006-104 for constructions of a
Clubhouse for the future Golf Course known as "The Links at
Summerlv".
7:52:56 PM Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearing and requested the reading
ofthe staff report.
Planning Consultant Miller presented the Staff report and stated that a request for approval of a
Clubhouse that will be associated to the future Golf Course Complex, known as the "Links at
Summerly." The project is located within the East Lakes Specific Plan, Amendment No.6 also
known as the Laing Home Project. The clubhouse will be 5,186 square feet and located on a 3.5
acre parcel. The building covers approximately 3% of the parcel area. The building will include
a pro-shop, kitchen, restaurant, offices and restrooms. The outdoor area will include an outdoor
public area with a terrace restaurant, barbeque and fire pit area, and seating wall. The building
proposed is a Craftsman Style building. Staff feels the Craftsman Style Clubhouse will blend
well with the proposed future residential products to be built within the development.
Michael Filler, John Laing Homes, 331881 Corydon Avenue, Lake Elsinore, was present and
thanked Staff for their work on this project.
Chairman O'Neal stated the hard work put forth by Mr. Filler and Staffis obvious.
7:59:32 PM Chairman O'Neal closed the Public Hearing
Commissioner Gonzales questioned when the Golf Course and Clubhouse would be completed.
Mr. Filler stated he is anticipating construction to start in October 2006, with completion in
July 2007 for the clubhouse and October 2007 for the Golf Course.
Commissioner Mendoza commented that this Golf Course will be a tremendous
asset to the City of Lake Elsinore.
Commissioner Flores stated that he would like to see a correction in putting the boiler room next
to the electrical as this could be an unsafe location.
Commissioner Zanelli stated he would like to see a larger area to maybe hold weddings or
receptions.
MOVED BY MENDOZA, SECONDED BY GONZALES AND
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
Agenda Item No.
Page 8 of
PAGE 9 - PLANNING CDMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 3,2006
NO. 2006-104, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW NO. 2006-05 AS CONSISTENT WITH THE
MULTIPLE-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
(MSHCP)
MOVED BY MENDOZA, SECONDED BY ZANELLI AND
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
NO. 2006-105, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW NO. 2006-05, FOR A CLUBHOUSE FOR A
FUTURE GOLF COURSE FACILITY ASSOCIATED WITH
THE LAING, LAKE ELSINORE, LLC DEVELOPMENT.
6. Minor Desi!!:n Review of a Residential Duplex located on Kello!!:!!: Street
(APN 374-044-007)
8:06:55 PM Chairman O'Neal indicated that the next item was pulled from the Consent
Calendar, and requested the reading of the staff report.
Planning Manager Weiner introduced Project Planner Miller and indicated that she would
present the Staff report and be available to answer any questions that the Commission may
have.
Project Planner Miller stated that this is an approval for a duplex building to be constructed
on Kellogg Street. Each unit is 1,651 square feet with an attached 2-car garage of590 square
feet. The total building area is 3,218 square feet. Each garage has an 80 square foot storage
area. The duplex will be constructed using Craftsman Style architecture with wrap around
covered porches. The applicant will landscape approximately 39% of the lot area. Staff
determined the residential project complies with the requirements of the Lake Elsinore
Municipal Code and the Historic Elsinore standards.
Applicant, Kevin Duman of Rancho Santa Margarita, California, stated he agrees to all
conditions.
8:10:19 PM Chairman O'Neal requested comments from the Commission.
Commissioner Zanelli questioned the exact location ofthe elevation ofthe
project.
Commissioner Flores had no comment.
Commissioner Mendoza had no comment.
Agenda Item No. I
page~Of~
PAGE 10 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUfES - OCTOBER 3, 2006
Commissioner Gonzales questioned the space between each garage, with a concern of bird
nesting. The applicant stated there will be a wall and roof overhang between the space.
MOVED BY ZANELLI, SECONDED BY MENDOZA AND
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
NO. 2006-106, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MINOR DESIGN REVIEW
FOR A RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX PROJECT LOCATED ON
KELLOGG STREET.
7. Industrial Deshm Review No I 2006-01
8:14:00 PM Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearin&
Associate Planner Carlson presented the proposed project as an industrial building located at
570 Third Street. Associate Planner Carlson indicated that the applicant is requesting Design
Review consideration for the development of a pre-cast concrete industrial building, available
for lease on an approximate 1.1 acre parcel. The site has been previously graded. The primary
access of the site will be off of Third Street, with a main drive aisle about 25 feet in width.
Associate Planner Carlson said Staff would like to notify the commission that the compact
parking ordinance will go into effect in October. Staff has reviewed the project and has found
that the project meets all minimum requirements of Chapter 17.56, Limited Industrial Sector
Ml, Chapter 17.66, Parking Requirements, Chapter 17.82 Design Review, and Chapter 17.38
Non-Residential Development Standards. Additionally, Staff would like to read two items into
the record. Staff recommends the Resolutions be modified. He stated that currently, the project
is exempt under CEQA.
Associate Planner Carlson indicated that the applicant notified Staff that he has decided not to
install a security gate on the site plan. The applicant has asked staffto remove Condition No. 35
and 36, which talks about showing elevations to Community Development Director to see what
the gate will look like off of Third Street. Staff agrees to remove conditions since there will be
no gate and asks that a condition be added as follows: Prior to an issuance a Building Permit the
applicant shall submit revised site plans showing a continuous split face block wall, extending
west from the existing wall along the southern property line, ceasing approximately 82 feet back
from the front property line. The design and materials shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director or designee.
The Project Architect, Howard Parsell, 4854 Main Street, Y orba Linda, California, stated he has
a problem with Condition No. 27, which states he must obtain a notarized letter from the
adjacent property owner for maintenance of the wall on the property line. The design was not
Agenda Item No. ---1-
page~Of I 4
PAGE 11 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUfES - OCTOBER 3, 2006
based on a 5 foot set back. The concrete wall can be maintained from the applicant's property.
Project Planner Carlson stated that Staff had some concerns about the applicant being able to
access the wall without encroaching on the neighbor property. Staff did notify the applicant of
this condition approximately 3 weeks ago.
Property owner, Byron Bishop 32931 Bryant Street, Wildomar, stated he is currently developing
three projects in Lake Elsinore. He stated that two of the projects are on property lines. Mr.
Bishop stated there would be a great deal of money lost if the property was decreased.
Commissioner Zanelli stated he would have no problem with someone on his property to
maintain or paint a wall on the property line. He suggested striking Condition No. 27.
Commissioner Flores suggested striking Condition No. 27.
Commissioner Mendoza questioned why the neighboring property owner had not been
contacted to work something out.
Mr. Bishop stated he has tried to contact the property owner but he is not on the property. He
also stated this is the first time he has come across this problem.
Commissioner Mendoza suggested striking Condition No. 27.
8:34:36 PM Chairman O'Neal closed the Public Hearing.
MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY ZANELLI AND
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
NO. 2006-107, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PROJECT KNOWN AS,
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-01 IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE MSHCP.
MOVED BY ZANELLI, SECONDED BY MENDOZA AND
PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
NO. 2006-108, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
REVIEW NO 2006-01 FOR AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
WITH TWO STORY OFFICES AND THE STRIKING OF
CONDITION NO. 27.
INFORMATIONAL
None
Agenda Item No.
Page~of
I
/4
PAGE 12 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 3, 2006
STAFF COMMENTS
City Engineer Seumalo commented on the following:
Regarding Railroad Canyon Road and 1-15, they have started pouring the foundations for the
retaining wall and the widening project is moving along. There have been a couple of delays in
the project that was anticipated to be completed by October 18' 2006, and is now looking to be
completed by mid December. Staff is working with the contractor to try and complete the
project by November 18, 2006.
Staff is still waiting for the encroachment permit from Cal- Trans regarding the signal and
intersection widening at Ortega and Grand. Staff is taking forward an agreement that was
provided by Cal-Trans and Cal-Trans will be contributing $120,000 towards the project.
The signal at Auto Center Drive was scheduled to be operational today, but this has not been
confirmed.
Planning Manager Weiner commented on the following:
Regarding the various sheets and memos received tonight with additional, deleted and modified
conditions, Staff does Fed-Ex the Conditions of Approval to the Applicant once they are
approved, we also offer to email them or they can be picked up so there is ample time for review.
Attorney Santana commented on the following:
Regarding the discussion on property lines, is the Commission comfortable with the current
status of the Municipal Code which does permit the zero property line? Should we consider
potential revision to the set back standard so this is not a problem in the future with a
maintenance issue?
PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Chairman O'Neal commented on the following:
. None
Commissioner Zanelli commented on the following:
Agenda Item No.
Page ~ of I Lf-
PAGE 13 - PLANNING C01v1MISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 3,2006
. Commissioner indicated that there is still a delay regarding the lighting standards on
Lakeshore. City Engineer Seumalo indicated that Staff is struggling to get a full cast of
the light standard and we have a goal of having it lit by Christmas. We may have a more
positive report to give in two weeks.
. The Central Avenue off ramp has two projects in the planning stages. An interim project
was submitted to Cal-Trans last week for review. This would be an encroachment permit
project. The other is a partial clover with a lobe on the Southwest comer of Central.
. Commissioner Zanelli thanked staff for their hard work.
Commissioner Flores commented on the following:
. None
Commissioner Mendoza commented on the following:
. None
Vice Chair Gonzales commented on the following:
. When will the overpass on Riverside Drive and Dexter be done? City Engineer Seumalo
stated that at this time there is no funding for that proj ect.
. Across from Costco on the North side of Dexter, there has been a lot of erosion on the
drainage structure, this must be filled with something more solid.
ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Item No.
Page ~ :3
of
Ilf
PAGE 14 - PLANNING CDMMISSIONMINUfES - OCTOBER 3, 2006
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, CHAIRMAN O'NEAL ADJOURNED THE
MEETING AT, 8:57:11 PM ON OCTOBER 3,2006.
Michael O'Neal, Chairman
Respectfully Submitted,
Arsi Baron
ATTEST:
Tom Weiner, Planning Manager
Agenda Item No. I
Page {If Of~
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
183 NORTH MAIN STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2006
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman O'Neal called the Regular Planning Commission Meeting to order at 6:06 PM.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Planning Manager Weiner led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS:
O'NEAL, GONZALES, FLORES,
MENDOZA, ZANELLI
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Also present were: Director of Conununity Development Preisendanz, Planning
Manager Weiner, Deputy Gty Attorney Santana, Engineering Manager Seumalo, Associate
Planner Resendiz, and Office Specialist Herrington.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (Non-Agenda Items)
Hector Zubieta, Murrieta, said a Minor Design Review for two (2) Single Family Residences
(SFRs) located at 29315 and 29327 Gunder Avenue was presented to the Planning
Commission on November 7, 2006, and he was unable to attend. Regarding the Conditions
of Approval, Mr. Zubieta said he feels Staff should check with other Agencies before putting
Conditions of Approval in projects because some of these conditions cannot be met. His
concern is that Staff is requesting a letter from the Fire Department asking that they certify
that there is enough water pressure in the street in case of a fire.
Mr Zubieta spoke to Todd Letterman of the Fire Department and he said he can't do that
because it is not an Agency. Mr. Zubieta said he doesn't know if it is a lack of trust between
the Planning Commission and the Water Department but it started with a "Will Serve"
letter, and then it went to a detailed "Will Serve" letter, and now staff has gotten the Fire
Department involved. He feels staff should check with other Agencies before putting it in
as a condition because when you get your permit, they can't issue you a "Will Serve" letter
Agenda Item No. I
Page of ~
PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINlITES - December 5, 2006
Therefore, you can never get your Building Pennit. Mr. Zubieta indicated he spoke to
Planning Manager Weiner about this matter.
Mr. Zubieta stated that within the last fifteen (15) years, it was his understanding that
whenever the Fire Department requested a water pressure test, they went to the Water
District and they relied on their testing. When you request to pull a pennit, if you don't
have the "Will Serve" letter, you'll be stuck there. Also, another issue he had was that some
of the conditions do not apply. For instance Staff is asking for street improvements, then
they are asking for in lieu fees (?), and when you go to pull a pennit, they want street
improvements even though in lieu fees are listed. Mr. Zubieta indicated that Staff should
pay more attention to what conditions are going through on every project because on one
page it says you need in lieu fees and on another page it says you should provide street
improvement plans so which is which.
Commissioner O'Neal asked Director of Community Development Preisendanz to address
these concerns.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz said he talked to Todd Letterman of the
Fire Department and requested they review all of the Minor Design Reviews for
conditioning. One of the things that staff didn't have was the fee for that review. They have
given us a fee which we are looking at and will assess that fee for a Minor Design Review.
Todd Letterman did confirm that Fire does not provide a letter to the applicant or to the
Gty regarding water pressure as does the Water District. Director of Community
Development Preisendanz said they are still in negotiations with the Fire Department on
this. Therefore, it is not a closed matter. He said he needs a little more time to talk the Fire
Chief and Todd Letterman about this. He further said they don't do it historically though.
Mr. . Zubieta said he would like to be updated on this because he has a lot of projects in that
area, that do not only affect this project but also other projects he will have.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz is working on establishing better
communication between Riverside County Fire and Gty of Lake Elsinore. We will have a
Riverside Fire Inspector and Plan Checker on staff at Gty Hall within the next few months
which will help.
Mr. . Zubieta said he understood Director of Community Development Preisendanz is
concerned, and he knows Commissioner O'Neal lives in the area being discussed, and if
there is a fire, water has to be available.
Mr. . Z ubieta reiterated the documentation is hard to get.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz said Fire is doing Conditions of
Approval but sometimes the Conditions can or cannot be met.
Agenda Item No.
Page d-
I
of I 5
PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 5, 2006
Mr. . Zubieta said when he talks to someone at the counter, they are requesting
documentation and sometimes the request can't be met and then you are stuck
Director of Community Development Preisendanz noted to Commissioner O'Neal that the
Planning Division with working with Fire on this project and they are working on
establishing policy with Fire for future projects.
Mr. . Zubieta also stated if there is no water, does the Gty work in conjunction with the
Water District to bring the water lines up to the area because there are a lot of empty lots
there. Miguel Flores is a friend of his and he owns 50 lots there. If there is a problem with
the water, he thinks the Gty and the Planning Commission can do something about it.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz reiterated that the Gty is getting Fire
more involved. They have responded but they normally do not provide a letter. The Gty is
still working with them. The Conditions of Approval should be consistent.
Commissioner O'Neal stated that it's not only his concern but also that ex-Commissioner
Lapere had been fighting for this for a couple of years in order to get adequate water service
and water pressure in the area. He said his experience as a resident in dealing with the Water
District has been difficult.
Mr. .Zubieta said the water fees are very high.
Mr. .Zubieta said the Gty of Lake Elsinore is an old town and a lot of the water
infrastructure has to be rebuilt. He would like to see that done and hopefully the Gty and
the Planning Commission can do something about that.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes
a. Regular Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2006 and November
21,2006
Regarding September 5, 2006, Meeting Minutes, Commissioner Flores asked that there be a
correction made and please add his comment under Planning Commission Comments, Page
three (3) of fourteen (14).
MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY MENDOZA
AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 TO APPROVE
CORRECTIONS TO THE MEETING MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006.
Page
'3
I
of -15-
Agenda Item No.
PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUfES - December 5, 2006
2. Minor Desil:n Review of a Residential Duplex located at 905 W. Sumner
Avenue (APN: 374-082-017)
Director of Community Development Preisendanz provided a brief overview of the
proposed project and requested Associate Planner Resendiz review it with the Commission
and answer questions.
Associate Planner Resendiz provided an overview of the project.
Enrique Flores (Applicant/Owner), 23741 Lodge Drive, Quail Valley, stated that he read
and understood the staff report and conditions of approval.
Barbara Anderson, 304 N. Lewis Street, Lake Elsinore, requested to address the Planning
Commission on this item
Barbara Anderson said she lives right next door to 905 W. Sumner Avenue and the entrance
to the house is on Lewis Street, the front of the house is on Sumner. She stated that her
property covers three (3) lots, and her house straddles those. She is there to object to the
project. She said she hadn't realized that the Commission had approved the project and
wondered how they can approve a project without the public having any say in it. She gave
the following reasons for objecting, and hoped that the Commission took them seriously.
· There are no duplexes between Poe and Chaney or from Lakeshore to Pottery, and
this is an area of about thirty (30) to forty (40) blocks. It is zoned R-1 Single Family
Residence (SFR). During the past few years, this Commission has allowed modular
homes to come in and some of them have remained for sale from the time they were
constructed which is a year. She was concerned that it's a small lot and the house is
going to stretch across the whole lot and end up at her side fence. She also heard
there could be reduced parking.
Ms. Anderson would like to know why in an R-1 area, would the Commission allow
something like this? If it is built, it would serve as a model for other vacant lots in
this area. The duplex changes the nature of the community. Currently there are
SFRs which are owned and rented out. The neighbors know each other by sight.
The residents know who does not belong in the community, and who are potential
mischiefs.
Ms. Anderson further related that if duplexes are allowed, how can it be considered
an historical area? It seems like your changing the nature of the community.
Duplexes and rentals means a transient population and you are also changing the
nature of the population of the community. It is a quiet community, and the
residents don't have problems. They feel safe at night. There are empty lots
surrounding her property and she thinks this gives the potential of having these
empty lots turn into multiple family developments.
Agenda Item No. ~
Page ~
of
15
PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 5, 2006
Ms. ~derson said a SFR supports the community. They are stable and they don't
move ill an out. There are other places in the city to build duplexes. She suggested
to build past Poe (sp?) where there are a number of empty lots.
· Ms. Anderson said if the duplex is built, would the area lose its historical value? She
said in another community, she owns a historical house, and the Gty wanted her to
move it so they could build a warehouse. She said it does have a historical
designation. She is concerned that in the future, the community will lose its
historical value if these duplexes are to be built in this area.
Ms. Anderson asked, "If the point of the Planning O:>mmission is to plan for the future
of the community, not just approve the houses or dwellings that can be built". When
does the public get to say anything about it? She reiterated again that she wasn't aware
of the project until the sign went up and she didn't know there was any way to address
this issue until she got a notice and saw the sign.
Ms. Anderson thanked the O:>mmission for their time.
Michelle Randolph, 305 N. Lewis Street, also requested to address the Planning
O:>mmission on this item
Ms. Randolph said she lives on the comer of Sumner and she also has all of the same
concerns as Ms. Anderson. She is worried about the temporary- housing, she has
children. The property backs an alley, she is worried about the high turnover of rentals.
She said her family bought the house in the historical district so that they could have a
family. They know their neighbors and it's in an established neighborhood. She is
concerned that a duplex is being built where there are SFRs. She is also concerned about
the parking in the garages. She said there is going to be cars in the garage and at least
two (2) more cars in each parking space and the driveways are short.
O:>mmissioner O'Neal referred to Deputy Gty Attorney Santana regarding legal issues with
the matter.
Deputy Gty Attorney Santana said the Planning O:>mmission has not yet, as of December 5,
approved this project. Therefore, at this point in time, the public is invited to come to the
meeting and provide their comments. Thus, inform the Commission with their concerns.
The comments are timely and they did respond to the notice appropriately.
Deputy Gty Attorney Santana stated that with regard to duplexes, they are an appropriate
development use for this area as it is zoned medium density and it does allow for up to
twelve (12) units per acre, therefore, they are below the maximum allowable density for this
area.
Agenda Item No. I
Page 5 of I 5
PAGE 6 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 5, 2006
With regard to modular homes, the Cty is required pursuant to state law to treat modular
homes in the same way as it would treat a SFR that is stick built so the Cty cannot treat a
mo~~ar home .any differently than it would treat a home that was going to built in the
traditIonal fas.hion. As long as ~~e modular home complies with minimum required
setbacks, rnaxtmum allowable denSItIes, the modular home must be approved so long as it
complies with the Cties zoning requirements.
Commissioner O'Neal asked Associate Planner Resendiz to address the historic guidelines.
Associate Planner Resendiz said this property is located in the historic district. The
architectural design that is being presented is Monterey architectural design.
Regarding the parking requirements, the back of the space is twenty eight (28) feet. There is
a requirement for additional parking on the space and the parking requirements are being
met. He said for a two (2) unit development, they must have a total of six (6) parking
spaces, with a minimum of two (2) covered parking spaces. The applicant is providing four
covered with two (2) open.
Community Development Preisendanz clarified to the guests and the citizens that this
project is a conventionally built duplex. It is not a manufactured project. It is still built so it
is conventionally framed.
Planning Commissioner Comments
Vice Chainnan Gonzales said he went by the property and it is narrow but the
Commissioners have approved other duplexes that have been built with the same style.
There are rentals there. He didn't see a problem with this project. It meets all of the
requirements.
Commissioner Mendoza emphasized about what Vice Chainnan Gonzales said about there
being rentals available there now except they are SFRs and you can never tell what your
going to get in a SFR as far as a renter goes and what kind of a neighbor they are going to be
and the same goes with a duplex. That is the whole purpose of people trying to find a good
place to live to fit in with communities. The project meets all of the guidelines that is
required by law and is required by the Cty and that it what the Commissioners are basing
their decision on.
Commissioner Zanelli thanked the public for coming to the meeting. He didn't have a
chance to drive by this project. He said he does understand their concerns and he would
feel the same way if he lived in that area.
Agenda Item No.
Page ~
(
of Is
PAGE 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 5, 2006
Commissioner Zanelli confirmed with Associate Planner Resendiz that these are not
enclosed garages but they are carports and he asked Associate Planner Resendiz for
confinuation that the reason for this is because of the space limitation?
Associate Planner Resendiz stated yes it was because of the space limitation. He said at this
point even if the applicant requested that there be an enclosed garage it can be done based
on the provisions in the code.
Commissioner Zanelli said he thought that would improve the project. People tend to fill
up car ports and storage spaces and become an eye sore very quickly. He would like to have
the garages enclosed.
Associate Planner Resendiz stated he had a correction on this, the section of the code says
the overhang may encroach two (2) feet into the required set back
Commissioner Zanelli commented that aesthetically it is a nice looking project but he
understands the residents concerns but the Commission is bound by the codes.
Commissioner Flores asked the applicant if the Duplexes will be rentals?
The applicant indicated they were going to be rentals, but after they are built, he and his
brother will be living there or sell them.
Commissioner Flores said based on the information that he heard, and he thanked the
residents for giving the Commission their concerns, he does agree with the statements that
they made but he also agreed with Staff that they have looked at the project and it is in
conformance with the additional projects that have been placed with this Commission since
he has been on board. Therefore, he concurs with his fellow Commissioners.
Chairman O'Neal thanked Staff for the color swatches.
Chairman O'Neal stated that this project does conform with State and Local guidelines. He
said he understands the issues that the residents raise but as a Commission, their hands are
tied when it comes to some of those issues that they do raise.
MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY MENDOZA
AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 TO APPROVE
RESOLUfION NO. 2006-125, A RESOLUfION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A RESIDENTIAL
DUPLEX AT 905 WEST SUMNER AVENUE (APN:
374-082-017).
Agenda Item No.
Page {
(
of--L2
PAGE 8 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 5, 2006
Staff Comments
Engineering Manager Seumalo has two (2) updates.
· Grand Ortega Intersection Signalization project IS gomg to Gty CDuncil for
consideration on December 12, 2006.
· Railroad Canyon Road Slope Repair project. The Railroad
Interchange is moving forward slowly, but it is moving forward.
pursuing lighting the street lights along Lakeshore Drive.
Canyon Road
They are still
Planning Manager Weiner advised the CDmmission that Lone Star Steak House has
submitted an application for a new restaurant on Dexter, just south of :Highway 74, visible
from the 15 Freeway. .
Director of CDmmunity Development Preisendanz reminded the CDmmission of the Joint
Planning CDmmissionlPublic Safety Advisory CDmmission (PSAq meeting on December
13 and will provide them with a Staff Report and an Agenda this week It is very short and
brief and is regarding the Lakeshore Drive Overlay District and the issues related to that.
CDmmissioner Zanelli confirmed with Director of CDmmunity Development Preisendanz
that the meeting is going to be held at 4:00 p.m
Director of CDmmunity Development Preisendanz confirmed that it is at 4:00 p.m as was
discussed in the last Planning CDmmission meeting.
CDmmissioner Zanelli said the last notice said 3:00 p.m. even though it was after they
discussed it.
Director of CDmmunity Development Preisendanz recollection was that it was changed to
4:00 p.m
CDmmissioner O'Neal said his recollection was that he wanted the time changed to 4:00
p.m
CDmmissioner Zanelli stated that it is what everyone agreed to but the last written notice he
received said the meeting was at 3:00 p.m. and he wasn't sure if it got changed in the shuffle.
Director of CDmmunity Development Preisendanz said he appreciated the reminder and he
will make sure it's 4:00 p.m
Director of CDmmunity Development Preisendanz also said the resolution for the Planning
CDmmission compensation is still being worked on and is looking at putting it on the
Agenda Item No.
Page 8
I
Of~
PAGE 9 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 5 2006
,
January 12 Gty Council Agenda. He will let the Commission know for sure before the
Agenda goes out so Chainnan O'Neal will be prepared.
~mmissione~ Zanelli aske.d Engineering Manager Seumalo if he is aware of what they are
gomg to do With the electncal on Lake between Mountain and the Boys and Girls Oub. It
appears that they are going to put it under ground or are those additional power lines?
Engineering Manager Seumalo said he not aware of the under grounding. He understood
they would move the power poles. He said he would look into it and give him an answer on
Wednesday.
Commissioner Zanelli said they have been trenching a lot of conduit and he wasn't sure if it
was for additional power supplies to the area or to put those lines underground?
Engineering Manager Seumalo said he would call Commissioner Zanelli on Wednesday.
Commissioner Zanelli wanted to know if it was decided that two (2) of the members of the
Commission would meet with the Engineering Division on road projects?
Engineering Manager Seumalo deferred the question to Director of Community
Development Preisendanz.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz said they haven't decided how they are
going to proceed with that as far as choosing how they are going to appoint Committee
members but it is something that they want to do. There is a lot they need to do to
communicate better with the Commission and they are looking to improve that.
Commissioner Zanelli asked Director of Community Development Preisendanz about the
relocation the Sky Diving operation?
Director of Community Development Preisendanz asked Planning Manager Weiner to
discuss this.
Planning Manager Weiner said Planning Consultant Miller has been working on the project.
Staff forwarded a lot of comments back regarding extension of the landing strip and other
items in the plan. They re-submitted the plan about ten (10) days ago for Staff review. Staff
is reviewing them and will get back to them within thirty (30) days from the time of their
submittal and give back any comments. If they have addressed everything then Staff can
proceed to bring it to hearing. The Commission should be seeing that in the first quarter of
next year if not sooner.
Commissioner Flores thanked Engineering Manager Seumalo for the copy on the Bike Lane
information. He did speak to Planning Manager Weiner and asked if there was a map that
Agenda Item No.-L
Page q Of-15-
PAGE 10 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUfES - December 5, 2006
show:ed the areas that the Gty has controlled the markings of those bike lanes and hopefully
we will have one.
Commissi~:me~ F!ores also wante.d to know who striped these bike lanes in places the bike
lane lettenng, IS It done by the Gty personnel or is it a contract issue?
Engineering Manager Seumalo said the Gty Maintenance Department is under contract with
the striping crew that will place the bike lane stripes, as well as the legends.
Commissioner Flores said it would make him very happy if he could get a map.
Engineering Manager Seumalo contacted Parks and Recreation, they were not aware of a
map but deferred him to GIS Division and he said he would contact them on Wednesday.
Commissioner Flores said he called Gty Hall today and it took him twenty five minutes to
get through to get a warm body. He was transferred numerous times to an answering
machine. He never gave his last name or the position that he held because he said when he
does, he gets in right away and he thinks that needs to be worked on. He did commend the
Receptionist for being so patient. He also went into the office today to tell her that she did
an outstanding job receiving his transfers back, transferring back up and being placed on
hold. Commissioner Flores indicated that he was hung up on once and had to call back and
then the lines were busy. He believes that the Gty should have a staff member that can tell
an individual that they will get back to them within an hour instead of being sent from one
voice mail to another.
Commissioner Flores said he didn't get mad because he knew everyone is busy. When he
walked into Gty Hall today he said there about fifteen (15) people ready to climb over the
counter which is a good thing.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz said he has talked to Gty Manager Brady
about this problem and one of things they want to do is to improve the phone system. They
want to make sure that there is live person at the front and at each Division. If they are not
at their desk, the call should be forwarded back to the Receptionist. He knows there needs
to be improvement. The goal is to have a live person answer. If the call can't be answered,
it is the responsibility of the person taking the call get back to the public and find out the
answer. We are busyso it is a challenge.
Commissioner Flores asked Engineering Manager Seumalo if he knew anything aboutysurveyors at Lakeshore and wanted to know what that surveying was for and what they were
doing there? He said hopefully they would be building something on that empty lot.
Engineering Manager Seumalo stated he attends a weekly Engineering Staff Meeting on
Wednesday morning and he would find out.
Agenda Item No. ~
page~Of J 5
PAGE 11 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 5, 2006
Engineering Manager Seumalo asked Conunissioner Flores for the approximate location.
Conunissioner Flores told him at Lakeshore Drive in front of Stater Bros.
Eng~e~ring Manager Se~lo indicat~d a concern from the Police Department regarding
traffIc ill that are~. Ht: said that mIght have been the striping crew doing preliminary
sw:veys. The Police CJJfef also ~ked that we look into having a barricade angled at that
pOillt to protect pedestnans walking next to Las Palmas. He is speculating so he will ask
Staff about that on Wednesday.
Conunissioner Mendoza wanted to know if they would be seeing any plans for the future use
of the old K-Mart building soon.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz said that it has been a problematic
project. The Building Plans are in Building Safety for plan check and they have not been
released or issued. We have been told to stop work on that. They were going to paint the
exterior of the building. Planning was going to approve it administratively because there
weren't any major exterior renovations to the building. However, the interior of the building
(bowling alley, and arcade was proposed) is not approved yet. They have hired an outside
consultant that works nationwide and manages projects of this type to watch the project and
see if it is going well.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz also said there has been a Tentative
Parcel Map that has been submitted for that site. They want to subdivide that site into the
K - Mart building and outlying pads, not to develop the outlying pads but to subdivide only.
Conunissioner Mendoza asked Engineering Manager Seumalo what is going in at Railroad
Canyon Road at Canyon Hills where all of the grading is?
Engineering Manager Seumalo said Pulte Homes is putting a multi family site and the
clearing and grubbing for weed abatement. He said he would ask them to clarify that.
Vice Chairman Gonzales asked Engineering Manager Seumalo about the house on Hunt that
the guy dug out of that hill, he wanted to know what happened with that.
Engineering Manager Seumalo said he spoke to the Inspector and the property
owner/ developer has permits to continue working and they have all of the permits required
and were in compliance with the Gties regulations.
Conunissioner Gonzales wanted to know if they are building a house there.
Engineering Manager Seumalo said yes they are building a house there and the permits are
for grading only.
Agenda Item No. ~
page-1L-of~
PAGE 12 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 5,2006
Commissioner Gonzales stated that the Commission has not gotten the house plans yet.
Pla~g Manager Weiner stated that there is no Building Plan Check or Pennits that have
been ISsued on that according to our Building Department.
Commissioner Gonzales noted that he has dug into the hill.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz said we would verify whether or not they
have gone to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Gonzales said if that is the case, it's been two (2) years but as long as they are
doing it right.
Commissioner O'Neal asked Engineering Manager Seumalo if the grading was done by
Administrative Approval?
Engineering Manager Seumalo said yes the Grading Plan Check process in an Administrative
process.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz confirmed that it gets sent through Plan
Check
Chainnan O'Neal said he has heard twice this evening about Administrative Approvals and
he is disturbed by that. He said he has never been one not to give Staff headway but in this
particular case, he wanted to know how Engineering can give Grading Plan Approval when
you don't know what is going to go on top of that grading. Don't you have to have some
idea of what is going to go there in order to understand what it is being graded for?
Engineering Manager Seumalo stated that he is not saying that he is correct but he disagreed.
He said the property owner has a right to do with his property what they will and as long as
they are in compliance with the statutes that the Gty is held to enforce that he would issue
the Grading Pennit.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz said we would look at the extent of the
grading. For instance, if they were going to calVe out a hillside which, in this case they did,
and If he were asked to issue a Grading Pennit, his answer would be "no", because we need
to see a design of the project. He indicated that he did not know when this was issued, but
he would not do that now.
Commissioner O'Neal said as an example, he could build a fireplace but it's meaningless
unless everyone understands the context of what is around the fireplace. Commissioner
O'Neal stated that unless you know the notion of the entire project and put the grading into
the context of that project then it doesn't make sense to give approval for that.
Agenda Item No. l
Page~of (5
PAGE 13 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 5, 2006
Engineering Manager Seumalo agreed with Commissioner O'Neal and Director of
Comm~ty Development Preisendanz. He stated that the Planning Division and the
Commuruty Development Department, as a whole, does have a view of the big picture. He
stated that he needs to have a better line of communication with the Director of Community
Development as to what direction and what their philosophy is. His thought was that these
are the regulations that we need to follow, and if they are followed then he has no restriction
to issue a permit. However, he reiterated that he does agree with Commissioner O'Neal
one hundred (100) percent.
Commissioner O'Neal said he has specifically talked about in fill projects on a number of
occasions and he was probably the only Commissioner that would have allowed in fill
projects to be done administratively but he made it very clear at the time that he also stated
that it did not apply to Country Oub Heights, and it did not apply to commercial. Thus,
regarding the K - Mart building, he heard that evening, that it gets an Administrative
Approval for a color that they want to paint on the outside, and he did say that the color the
Staff chose will look good, but it should have come to the Commission.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz said there was discussion with the
Developer regarding the color of the building, and the Developer was going to have it
painted a neutral color.
Commissioner O'Neal said regarding a neutral color, the Regal Gnema that is next it to the
K-Mart building, is not painted a neutral color. A Neutral color does not necessarily fall
into place with what is already there.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz said if there is a neutral color they would
be safe.
Commissioner O'Neal said that this is supposed to be a fun zone, and if it were his project,
he would want the outside of the building to look fun, whether you use neons which go
along with bowling alleys and roller skating rinks.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated that the Administrative Approval
was for the outside of the building only for paint and tile work There is going to be an
arcade going in and that needs to go through Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, the uses
that are going in there, the arcade and any bar/lounge needs to go to the Planning
Commission. He stated that he understands Commissioner O'Neal's concern and Staff will
make sure that this does not happen again.
Commissioner O'Neal referred to Edwards Gnema's design and colors and how nice it
looks. It would be nice to encourage that design.
Director of Community Development Preisendanz agreed with Commissioner O'Neal.
Agenda Item No. ~
Page 13 Of~
PAGE 14 - PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUfES - December 5,2006
Director of Community Development Preisendanz did say there will be more opportunities
to establish architecture and color with the out lying pads/four (4) lots.
Commissioner Zanelli asked Engineering Manager Seumalo about the inlet channel by the
stadium there is some grading work going on and some laying down of cement shoreline?
Engineering Manager Seumalo said that is Rivers Edge project which is an apartment
complex that was previously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
NONE
BUSINESS ITEMS
NONE
INFORMATIONAL
NONE
ADJOURNMENT
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, CHAIRMAN LAPERE
ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 7:03 PM ON DECEMBER 5,2006.
Mike O'Neal, Chairman
Respectfully Submitted,
Kristine Herrington
Office Specialist III
Agenda Item No.
Page --1L of-12
PAGE 15 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 5, 2006
ATTEST:
Rolfe Preisendanz, Director of Community Development
Agenda Item No. I
page~of-12
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:
DECEMBER 19, 2006
PREPARED BY:
AGUSTIN RESENDIZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
PROJECT TITLE:
MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A TWO STORY
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 17395
BROMLEY AVENUE (APN 378-142-016)
RICK MOON/NOW CONSTRUCTION
15403 GRAND AVENUE,
LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
AH TANDRA
SANTIAGO COMMUNITIES
591 LA CADENA
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
PROJECT REQUEST
Staff is requesting that this project be continued in order to further review the fire flow
pressure test required in order to satisfy the Riverside County Fire Department
requirements in regards to acceptable water pressure and accessibility to the site.
Therefore, the proposed project would be rescheduled for the Planning Commission
meeting as early as January 2,2006.
PREPARED BY:
AGUSTIN RESENDIZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
APPROVED BY:
---r= ~r:J.
-, nfZ (2('
ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ,
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AGENDA ITEM ~
PAGE -L OF --L
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:
DECEMBER 19, 2006
PREPARED BY:
AGUSTIN RESENDIZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
PROJECT TITLE:
MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A RESIDENTIAL
DUPLEX LOCATED AT 408 N. LEWIS STREET
(APN: 374-032-007)
APPLICANT/
OWNER:
JOSE CESAR
31172 WISCONSIN STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530
PROJECT REQUEST
Staff is requesting that this project be tabled to further review the design concept and
work with the applicant to make the proposed project consistent with the Zoning Map
and General Plan Designation. Therefore, the proposed project would be scheduled
"off calendar".
RECOMMENDATION:
Table Minor Design Review
PREPARED BY:
AGUSTIN RESENDIZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
APPROVED BY:
-r= k ~ . --=> FOQ I2P
Rolfe M. Preisendanz,
Director of Community Development
AGENDA ITEM 3
PAGE-L OF-L
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:
DECEMBER 19, 2006
PREPARED BY:
AGUSTIN RESENDIZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
PROJECT TITLE:
MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE LOCATED ON 16428 GUNNERSON
STREET (APN: 378-244-016)
APPLICANT
fOWNER:
DANIEL RODRIGUEZ
1317 N. CUSTER STREET
SANTA ANA, CA 92701
PROJECT REQUEST
The applicant is requesting design review consideration for a conventionally built two-
story single-family dwelling unit pursuant to Chapter 17.82 (Design Review), Chapter
17.14 (Residential Development Standards), Chapter 17.23 (R-l Single-Family
Residential District), and Chapter 17.66 (Parking Requirements) of the Lake Elsinore
Municipal Code (LEMC).
BACKGROUND
On November 23, 2006 the Design Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the plans for
the proposed single-family dwelling unit and provided several substantive comments
on the proposed architectural design, building massing, fencing, and landscaping. The
DRC recommended that the applicant incorporate additional architectural elements on
the front-entry, window surrounds, proposed fencing, and landscaping, and the
incorporation of tile roof materials. Once revised, the applicant re-submitted plans
along with building elevations which incorporated the DRC recommendations.
AGENDA ITEM L.J.
PAGELOF31
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 19, 2006
PROJECT TITLE: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 16428 GUNNERSON STREET
PROJECT LOCATION
The approximately .10 acre vacant site is located approximately 450- linear feet south
of Ulmer Street. More specifically, the property is located within the R-l (Single-
family Residential) Zoning district and has a General Plan designation of Medium
Density (MD) (APN: 378-244-016).
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project Site Vacant R-l (Single-Family Specific Plan "J"
Residential District Count Club Rei hts
North Vacant R-l (Single-Family Specific Plan "J"
Residential District Count Club Rei hts
South Residential R-l (Single-Family Specific Plan "J"
Residential District Count Club Rei hts
East Vacant R-l (Single-Family Specific Plan "J"
Residential District) Count Club Rei hts
West Vacant R-l (Single-Family Specific Plan "J"
Residential District) Count Club Rei hts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting design review consideration for the design and
establishment of a 1,683 square-foot single-story single-family residence with an
attached 439 square-foot two (2) car garage and a 105 square-foot front entry porch.
The proposed 1,683 square-foot residence will include three (3) bedrooms, two and
one-half (2 1/2) bathrooms, dining room, living room, kitchen, and a laundry room.
The proposed two-story single-family dwelling unit will be located on a relatively flat
lot within the R-l (Single-Family Residential) zoning district. More specifically at
16428 Gunnerson Street (APN: 378-244-016). It should be noted that the applicant is
required to dedicate approximately fifteen-feet (15' -0") of land along the front of the
subject property for future road widening for a total forty-five foot (45'-0") right-of-
AGENDA ITEM -.!J.
PAGE~OF 3-1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 19, 2006
PROJECT TITLE: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 16428 GUNNERSON STREET
way from center line of the road. The dedication is required for compliance with the
street right-of-way dimensions as outlined in the Circulation Element of the General
Plan.
Architecture
The applicant has chosen to construct the proposed single-family residence using
elements similar to a "Spanish" Architecture style includes characteristics such as
exterior walls that are usually stucco or brick, often painted white or cream to contrast
the roof ofthe home, terra cotta or brightly colored roof tiles and low-pitched gable or
hipped roof.
Color and Materials
Roof
Walls
Window Trim/Door Trim
Window Shutters
Goldenrod
Cream
Mocha
Driftwood
Light Weight Concrete Tile
Stucco
Stucco
Wood
Landscaping
The front yard will be fully landscaped and will include an automatic irrigation system
and a rain sensor, which will assist in the conservation of water. Prior to Certificate of
Occupancy, the applicant will plant one (1) twenty-four inch (24") box street tree for
every thirty-feet (30') of street frontage. The proposed street trees, will be selected
from the City approved street tree list and approved by staff for planting location.
ANAL YSIS
Staff has reviewed the project and found that with the attached conditions of approval,
the project meets all minimum requirements of Chapter 17.82 (Design Review
District), Chapter 17.14 (Residential Development Standards), Chapter 17.23 (R-l,
Single-Family Residential District), and Chapter 17.66 (Parking Requirements) ofthe
AGENDA ITEM 4
PAGE~OF~I
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 19, 2006
PROJECT TITLE: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 16428 GUNNERSON STREET
Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) including but not limited to; density, setbacks,
landscaping, parking, and lot coverage.
As part of the conditions of approval for development within the Country Club Heights
Area, a "Will Serve" letter from the Elsinore Water District is required. As a result, the
applicant contacted the Elsinore Water District in September 2006 and requested a
"Will Serve" letter (see attachment). The applicant was also notified by Staff that
although water service exists, a fire flow test with the results acceptable to the
Riverside County Fire Department would also be required. Consequently, the applicant
contacted the Elsinore Water District to conduct a fire flow test and a copy has been
provided as part of this report. Additionally as per the conditions of approval attached,
no building permits will be issued until an acceptable fire flow test and emergency
accessibility to the site is approved by the Riverside County Fire Department.
Siting
The total building footprint, which includes the dwelling unit, a two (2) car garage, and
front-entry porch will occupy approximately twenty-six percent (26%) of the net lot
coverage and is consistent with the R-l (Single-Family Residential) development lot
coverage requirements; which permits maximum net lot coverage of fifty percent
(50%). In addition, the proposed project complies with all of the applicable
development standards and criteria outlined in the R-l (Single-Family Residential)
Zoning district and the Residential Developments Standards outlined in the LEMC.
It should also be noted that, although a septic tank is indicated on the site plan, the
applicant will be required to connect to the sewer system recently installed on
Gunnerson.
Architecture. Colors and Materials
The "Spanish" architecture style selected for the proposed two-story single-family
dwelling unit located at 16428 Gunnerson Street is consistent with the style and design
of existing single-family residences located within the vicinity of the project site.
Furthermore, the proposed colors and materials to be incorporated into the single-
family dwelling unit are consistent with the objectives and intent of the City of Lake
AGENDA.~TEM ~
PAGE~OF 31
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 19, 2006
PROJECT TITLE: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 16428 GUNNERSON STREET
Elsinore's design guidelines in that the residence provides an aesthetic quality that
lends to the overall achievement of a well balanced single-family residential district.
Landscaping
The applicant has met the requirement of Chapter 17.14 (Residential Development
Standards) by proposing a fully landscaped automatically irrigated front-yard.
Furthermore, the applicant is proposing to turf and automatically irrigate the rear yard
and incorporate a rain sensor for the front and rear yards, which will assist in the
conservation of water.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA), this project is
categorically exempt from CEQA; (Cal. Pub. Res. Code SS 21000 et seq.: "CEQA")
and the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. SS 15000 et seq.) pursuant to a class 3(a)
exemption for new construction or conversion of small structures because the "Project"
involves construction of up to three single-family residences. (See 14 C.C.R.
S 15303(a)). Staff has determined that the proposed is categorically exempt from
CEQA. Therefore, no additional environmental clearance is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2006-
approving the proposed single-family residence located at 16428 Gunnerson Street,
also known as (APN: 378-244-016) based on the Findings, Exhibits, and the proposed
Conditions of Approval.
PREPARED BY:
AGUSTIN RESENDIZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
APPROVED BY:
-1= ~::l - > f.5a- ~
Rolfe M. Preisendanz,
Director of Community Development
AGENDA !rEM Y
PAGE20(31
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 19, 2006
PROJECT TITLE: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 16428 GUNNERSON STREET
ATTACHMENTS:
1. VICINITY MAP
2. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
3. PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
4. CEQA-NOTICE OF EXMEPTION
5. EXHIBITS
6. WILL SERVE LETTER WITH FIRE FLOW
7. COLOR SWATCHES
AGENDA ITEM Y
PAGE JQ OF =3-1
MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE
FAMILY AT 16428 GUNNERSON STREET
c}
~
~
'I ~~
~~
"
..,..~
o<-~
..,..~
,,<\
0+
~~
i
6<:S
, f., i
,I" "
~~
~
~
~",
.~
<-
.~~
<J>.'
~i,.
~.-i;.
<J>
""T~
SilfIl'If '" Pp
,C}
~6
~~
#
~<.I'..s-
..,..~
~~
~~.
""T~
,,<\
~<v
,~
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 19, 2006
(
y
31
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-_
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TWO-STORY SINGLE-
FAMILY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 16428
GUNNERSON STREET
WHEREAS, Daniel Rodriguez filed an application with the City of Lake
Elsinore requesting approval of a Minor Design Review for a two-story single-
family residence located at 16428 Gunnerson Street (APN: 378-244-016); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has
been delegated with the responsibility of considering, approving, conditionally
approving, or denying Minor Design Review requests for residential projects; and
WHEREAS, notice of the Project has been given and the Planning
Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development
Department and other interested parties with respect to this item on December 19,
2006.
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 and
finds that it is consistent with R-l Single-Family Residential standards and
citywide parking requirements as set forth in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code
("LEMC").
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the
Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(Cal. Pub. Res. Code gg 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14
C.C.R. gg 15000 et seq.) pursuant to a class 3(a) exemption for new construction
or conversion of small structures because the Project involves construction of one
single-family residence. (See 14 C.C.R. 9 15303(a)).
SECTION 3. That in accordance with LEMC Chapter 17.82, the Planning
Commission makes the following findings for the approval of the Project:
1. The Project will comply with the goals and objectives of the intended
General Plan and the Zoning District in which the Project will be located.
The Project complies with the goals and objectives of General Plan
designation Medium Density (MD) as well as R-l (Single-Family I'
AGENDA ITEM NO. ---r
PAGE B OF 3 l
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-_
PAGE20F4
Residential) zoning district. The General Plan designation of Medium
Density (MD) is intended for quality single-family homes in areas of
generally level topography with available public services and infrastructure
and has been located in areas where services are not immediately available
but can be extended without causing substantial over-extension of facilities.
The R-l (Single-Family Residential) zoning district is intended to
accommodate low density projects comprised of quality single-family
residences developed in an urban environment with available public services
and infrastructure. Approval of the Project will assist in achieving the
development of a well balanced and functional mix of residential, limited
commercial, limited industrial, open space, recreational and institutional
land uses by providing additional affordable housing within R-l (Single-
Family Residential) zoning district and the City of Lake Elsinore. The
Project contributes to the development and maintenance of a broad range of
housing types for all income groups and age categories.
The Project, which incorporates elements of "Spanish-Mediterranean"
architectural style, will provide a well-rounded design while maintaining the
desirable rural characteristics and base framework to achieve quality and
compatibility in the physical design of the developing portions of the City,
and to enhance the existing developed areas within General Plan
designation Medium Density (MD) and R-l (Single-Family Residential)
zoning designation.
2. The Project complies with the design directives contained in Section
17.82.060 and all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code.
The Project is appropriate to the site and surrounding developments in that
the single family dwelling unit integrates a twenty foot (20') front yard and
rear yard setback, sufficient front yard landscaping and safe and sufficient
on-site vehicular circulation. Further, use of the " Spanish-Mediterranean"
architectural style in the Project complements the quality of existing
development and will create a visually pleasing, non-detractive relationship
with existing projects in the area.
3. Subject to the attached conditions of approval, the Project is not anticipated
to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 1 5303(a), the Project is exempt from
environmental review because it involves the construction of one single
AGENDA ITEM. NO. Lf
PAGE~OF31
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-_
PAGE30F4
family residential structure. Even though the Project is exempt from CEQA,
it has been reviewed by all City divisions and departments, which have
imposed a series of conditions of approval on the Project to ensure that the
Project does not have a significant impact on the environment.
4. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Chapter 17.82.070 of the Zoning
Code, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions,
have been incorporated into the approval of the subject project to ensure
development of the property in accordance with the objectives of Chapter
17.82.
Pursuant to LEMC Section 17.82.070, the Project has been scheduled for
consideration and approval of the Planning Commission. The applicant
shall meet all required setbacks and development standards pursuant to
LEMC Section 17.23 (R-1 Single-Family Residential District). Any revisions
to the Minor Design Review shall be processed in a similar manner as the
original Minor Design Review. All plans submitted for building division
plan check shall conform to the submitted plans as modified by the
Conditions of Approval.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
AGENDA ITEM NO. Ll
PAGE lQ OF:i I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-_
PAGE 4 OF 4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of December, 2006,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Michael O'Neal, Chairman
City of Lake Elsinore
ATTEST:
Rolfe Preisendanz,
Director of Community Development
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
PAGElLOF31
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT NAME:
MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 16428
GUNNERSON STREET (APN: 378-244-016).
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
DECEMBER 19, 2006
DECEMBER 30, 2006
PLANNING DIVISION
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and
hold harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, and Agents from any
claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees
or Agents to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning the Single-
Family residential development project attached hereto.
2. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be final ten (10) days from the
date of the decision, unless an appeal has been filed with the City Council
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.80 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal
Code.
3. If the project proposes an outdoor storage tank, the applicant shall locate the
unit within the side or rear yards. If location must be within the front yard, the
applicant shall provide a method of screening subject to the review and
approval of the Director of Community Development or his designee.
4. Minor Design Review approval of a single-family dwelling unit located at
16428 Gunnerson Street (APN: 378-244-016), will lapse and become void one
(1) year of the approval date unless a building permit is issued and construction
commenced and the project is diligently being pursued toward completion.
AGENDA ITEM NO. Y
PAGE ~F -3-1
5. All Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced upon page one of building
plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division for Plan Check.
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall provide the
Community Development Department confirmation that fire flow availability
and emergency access has been found to be acceptable by the Riverside County
Fire Department.
7. 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.
8. All materials and colors depicted on the plans and materials board shall be used
unless modified by the Applicant and approved by the Community
Development Director or designee.
9. All site improvements shall be constructed as indicated on the approved site
plan and elevations, with revisions as noted herein. The applicant shall meet all
required setbacks, and development standards pursuant to the R-l (Single-
Family Residential) development standards. Any revisions to the Minor Design
Review attached hereto shall be processed in a similar manner as the original
Minor Design Review. All plans submitted for Building Division plan check
shall conform to the submitted plans as modified by the Conditions of
Approval.
10.All windows shall use foam surrounds and/or other architectural-type features
approved by the Community Development Director or designee.
11. The applicant shall provide coach lights on each side of the garage doors.
12.All necessary exterior/ancillary equipment shall be effectively screened from
public view. All proposed screening methods shall be reviewed and approved
the Community Developer Director or designee.
13.All roofing materials shall have a minimum Class "A" Fire rating, and so noted
on the construction plans.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
PAGE00F~1
14.The Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances.
15.A cash bond of $1,000.00 shall be required for any construction trailers placed
on the site and used during construction. Bonds will be released after removal
of trailers and restoration of the site to an acceptable state, subject to the
approval of the Community Development Director or designee.
16.The Applicant shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. Construction
activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through
Friday, and no construction activity shall occur on Saturdays, Sundays or legal
holidays.
17.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.
18.Any exterior air conditioning or other mechanical equipment shall be ground
mounted and screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or
public streets. Air conditioning units and related equipment may not encroach
more than two-feet (2') into the required minimum side yard setback.
19.Garages shall be constructed to provide a minimum interior clear space of
twenty feet (20') x twenty feet (20') for two cars.
20. The Applicant shall provide shrubs and plant materials as shown on the
landscape plan. Any changes to this plan shall be subject to the approval of the
Community Development Director or designee. The landscape plan
improvements and plantings shall be fully installed prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
21.Planting within fifteen feet (15') of ingress/egress points shall be no higher than
36 inches.
22.Driveways shall be constructed of concrete per Building and Safety Division
standards.
AGENDA ITE~ ,No. Y
PAGE L:tOF 31
23.All walls or fences located in any front yard shall not exceed thirty-six inches
(36") in height with the exception that wrought-iron fences may be five feet (5')
in height. Chain link fences shall be prohibited.
24. The applicant shall be required to remove and replace any existing chain link
fencing and any fencing that is in poor condition. It will be the responsibility of
the applicant to contact the effected neighboring property owners. If the
existing fencing is in good condition, this requirement may be waived per the
approval of the Community Development Director or Designee.
25.The applicant shall provide a flat concrete pad a minimum of 3'- 0" by 7'- 0"
adjacent to each dwelling unit. The storage pad for trash barrels shall be
concealed from public view.
26. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $64.00 made payable to the
County of Riverside for a Notice of Exemption. The check shall be submitted to
the Planning Division for processing within 48 hours of the projects approval.
27.The applicant shall place a weatherproof 3' x 3' sign at the entrance to the
project site identifying the approved days and hours of construction activity and
a statement that complaints regarding the operation can be lodged with the City
of Lake Elsinore Code Enforcement Division (951) 674-3124.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
28.All walls and/or fencing need to be located off the property line and so
indicated on the construction plans. If the Applicant proposes to place any walls
and/or fencing on the property line he/she must submit a notarized agreement
between the subject property owner and the adjacent property owner to the
Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
29. 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.
30.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall indicate on the site
plan and elevations plan that he will be incorporating six-foot (6') wood fence
along the perimeter of the property. In addition, the proposed return walls and
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
PAGE 150F 3 I
pilasters shall aesthetically match the exterior materials of the proposed
dwelling unit.
31.The applicant shall pay the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Fee
(MSHCP) Local Development Mitigation Fee (fee for density less than 8 du/ac)
prior to obtaining building permits.
32.Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the Project, the Developer shall
enter into an agreement with the City and the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Lake Elsinore to provide (a) 15% of the units constructed in the Project
as affordable housing units in accordance with the requirements of Section
33413(b)(2) of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health &
Safety Code Sections 33000 et seq.), or (b) an alternative equivalent action as
determined by the City which may include (without limitation) dedication of
vacant land, construction of affordable units on another site, or payment of an
in-lieu fee at the rate of $2.00 per square-foot of assessable space for each
dwelling unit in the Project. For purposes of this condition, "assessable space"
means all of the square-footage within the perimeter of a structure, not
including any carport, walkway, garage, overhang, patio, enclosed patio,
detached accessory structure, or similar area. The amount of the square-footage
within the perimeter of a residential structure shall be calculated by the building
department of the City in accordance with the standard practice of the City in
calculating structural perimeters.
33.The applicant shall pay all applicable Library Capital Improvement Fund fee,
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
34.The applicant/developer shall submit a "Will Serve" letter to the City Planning
Division from the applicable water agency stating that water and sewer
arrangements have been made for this project and specify the technical data for
the water service at the location. such as water pressure and volume etc. The
applicant shall submit this letter prior to applying for a building permit.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
35.The applicant shall pay park fees of$I,600 per unit.
AGENDA ITE~ NO. 4
PAGE/!:E- OF 3l
36.The applicant shall be required to participate III the "public facility" fee
program.
37. The applicant shall comply with all NPDES storm water requirements.
38.The applicant shall participate in the City-wide LLMD.
39.The applicant shall comply with all City Ordinances regarding construction
debris removal and recycling as per Section 8.32 of the Lake Elsinore
Municipal Code.
40. The applicant shall meet City curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
41. The Applicant shall plant twenty-four inch (24") box street trees along all street
frontages selected from the City Street Tree List, a maximum of thirty feet (30')
apart. Planting is subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director or designee prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
42.The applicant shall provide an irrigation system for landscaped areas onsite as
shown on the landscape plans. The irrigation system shall be fully installed and
operational prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
43. The applicant shall provide a rain sensor as shown on the landscape plan. The
rain censor shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
44.All exposed slopes in excess of three feet (3') in height shall have permanent
irrigation system and erosion control vegetation installed, as approved by the
City's Landscape Architect. A Planting and Irrigation Plan shall be submitted,
approved and planted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Fees
are required for review of plans and inspections.
45. The building address shall be a minimum of four inches (4") high and shall be
easily visible from the public right-of-way. Care shall be taken to select colors
and materials that contrast with building walls or trim. Installation of building
address shall be done prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
46. The applicant shall meet all Conditions of Approval prior to the issuance of a
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
PAGEOOF3/
Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
47.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.
48.Submit a "Will Serve" letter to the City Engineering Division from the
applicable water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been
made for this project 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.
49.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.
50.Provide fire protection access and facilities as required in writing by Riverside
County Fire.
5l.1n accordance with the City's Franchise Agreement for waste disposal &
recycling, the applicant shall be required to contract with CR&R Inc. for
removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish
generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of
construction.
52.Protect palm trees in place, or contact the Community Services of City of Lake
Elsinore for Palm Tree Preservation Program, LEMC 5.78 Ordinance 1044.
53.All grading and street improvement plans submitted to engineering shall be
drawn on 24" x 36" Mylar and be set into City's specific border and title block
and include city specific general notes for grading or street improvements
AGENDA ITEM NO. ~
PAGE 1fl OF 3/
respectively. Digital files for the border and the notes are available by request
to "agutierrez@lake-elsinore.org".
DEDICATION:
54.Dedicate 15' wide strip of additional street right of way along the Gunnerson
Avenue property line for, a total of 45' right of way from centerline of the road,
to the City prior to issuance of building permit.
55.Public right-of-way dedications shall be prepared by the applicant or his agent.
Deeds shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval
and recordation prior to issuance of building permit.
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
56. Work done under an encroachment permit for off-site improvements of utility
lines shall be delineated on the street improvement plans and approved and
signed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits.
57.Pay all fees and meet requirements of an encroachment permit issued by the
Engineering Division for construction of off-site public works improvements
(LEMCI2.08, Res.83-78). All fees and requirements for an encroachment
permit shall be fulfilled before Certificate of Occupancy.
GRADING
58.Developer shall obtain all necessary off-site easements for off-site grading from
the adjacent property owners prior to issuance of grading permit approval.
59.Apply and obtain a grading permit with appropriate security prior to any
grading activity.
60.A grading plan stamped/signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer is
required if the sum of the cut and fill in grading exceeds 50 cubic yards and the
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4-
PAGEl!1-0F=3 ,
existing drainage flow pattern is substantially modified as determined by the
City Engineer. The grading plan shall show volumes of cut and fill, adequate
contours and/or spot elevations of the existing ground as surveyed by a
licensed surveyor or civil engineer. Contours shall extend to minimum of 15
feet beyond property lines to indicate existing drainage pattern. Apply and
obtain a grading permit with appropriate security prior to grading permit
Issuance.
61.Provide soils, geology and seismic report, as part of this report address the
requirement of the Alquis-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Provide final
soils report showing compliance with recommendations.
62.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.
63.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.
DRAINAGE:
64.0n-site drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility, accepted by adjacent
property owners by a notarized letter of drainage acceptance, or conveyed to a
drainage easement.
65.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.
66.Roof drains shall not be allowed to outlet directly through coring in the street
curb. Roofs shall drain to a landscaped area. Driveways shall be sloped to drain
into landscaping prior to entering street facilities
67.Submit Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports for review and approval by City
Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Developer shall mitigate any
flooding and/or erosion downstream caused by development of the site and/or
diversion of drainage.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4-
PAGEdQOF =3 \
FEES:
68.Pay all Capital Improvement and Plan Check fees (LEMC 16.34). The current
traffic mitigation fee is $1,369.00; the current drainage fee is $359.00 (Nichols
Street SE. Dist.) and the current TUMF amount is $9,693.00; the amount of
fees shall be adjusted according to the fee schedule current at the time of
payment.
69.Provide in-lieu payment for future off-site public improvements prior to
building permit. (Res. 86-35) In-lieu payment shall be calculated by
developers' engineer or architect and submitted for city engineers approval. The
estimate shall be based on current cost of street improvements from property
line to centerline of the street within the property limits, plus a 15% added cost
for engineering and construction administration.
STORMW ATERI CLEANW ATER PROTECTION PROGRAM
70.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 prohibit the discharge of waste into storm drain system or
local surface waters. This includes non-storm water discharges containing oil,
grease, detergents, trash, or other waste remains. Brochures of "Storm water
Pollution, What You Should Know" describing preventing measures are
available at City Hall.
PLEASE NOTE: The discharge of pollutants into street, gutters, storm drain
system, or waterways -without Regional Water Quality Control Board permit or
waver - is strictly prohibited by local ordinances and state and federal law.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4-
PAGQ1 OF:3 I
Notice of Exemption
City of Lake Elsinore
Planning Division
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
(909) 674-3124
(909) 471-1419 fax
Filed With: 0
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
[g]
County Clerk of Riverside County
2724 Gateway Drive
Riverside, CA 92507
Project Title:
Minor Design Review for a one story Single-Family Residence at 16428 Gunnerson Street (APN: 378-244-016).
Project Location (Specific):
The proposed project is located on the south side of Gunnerson Street, approximately
450 lineal feet south of Ulmer Street:
Project Location (City): City of Lake Elsinore
Project Location (County): Riverside County
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project:
The applicant is requesting design review consideration for the design and development of a 1,683 square feet single-
family dwelling unit, with an attached 439 square foot two-car garage. The total building footprint including the residence
and garage is approximately 1,220 square-feet, which will have a net lot coverage of approximately twenty-six (26%)
percent. The property is located within the R-I (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District and has a General Plan
designation of Specific Plan "MD" Medium Density.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Lake Elsinore
Name of Person / Agency Administrating Project: Agustin Resendiz, Associate Planner, City of Lake Elsinore
Exempt Status:
D Ministerial (Section 15073)
D Declared Emergency (Section 15071 (a))
D Emergency Project (Section 15071 (b) and (c))
129 Categorical Exemption (state type and section number): Article 19 Categorical Exemptions Section 15303,
Class 3 (a); New Construction or Conversion
of Small Structures
Reasons why project is exempt:
This project meets the requirements pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Contact Person: Agustin Resendiz
Telephone Number: (951) 674-3124
Signed:
Rolfe M. Preisendanz
Title: Director of Community Development
ACENOA ITEM NO. . ~ -
(.":'.01::_ d-~OF I
D
r
.~
.~I '
--,.
:~~..-l.i
I' :
~
~
't
\ "
~
~
"
..
.f,
z
"L.-r.h~ ."" vJ...H-Y"'" ~~~~J]".,~ E
4IQ.1ri'Z. 'L.f!i NH !
~'~i:)\'iJ"'.>13 -sliZ' .j..;,. N O<j.~ I i I i ~ -
." -;;t;>~I~ q~"'tt I j (l:.
f
N\I1d Ej9VNI'iltlO , ONJOVl:ID AI:NNlWI"lWl:l I
H
"I
t -e 1
J 1 nH
ll,! Q~"_'
.... .. - -~-
rUt ~ f~ ~lH
t~.~ )..8,l ~ i~
,,-th I~ ~ ;':t{~~!
~~ ~ hiiJ~~'
{~~~ 'li~r~~~
5}, 'l~ I~~1
~~! ~~jU!4d
t"..l<< l
.~
m
a
!
~
iii
.~
~
)IOVliil8 OYV" WWilW
.0-.01'
~~ ~
.. ~ ~
"
4> ~ ~
h !! ~
!
.d1 I-t
~H i~ t
fl.. ,,~
31~ tl ~
~
~
!
""
."
8
~
i
I
~
..
~
~
,/rill
~
~I)
1.~
(),
I\I~
~
()~
\
\,
,,0_,
~
~
8
g, '"
2\.~.. ~ rg
~; ...,""' " <#
i
I
~
..
;
=
!
~
lr
..
J.:,H
.............. NOU....OI(QQ OWY,," J.NO~"
)lQYBJ.!J9 ow.&.. .L.....__
.Q-.Sl
CD
\-
~
~
i
i~
i~
ll.
<C
:l'i
.~
Z
13
>
z
S
ll.
W
(!l
<C
Z
<
0::
0..
oll
(Jl
Z
O~
~
(Jl
>-
.0::
<C
Z
~
::J
w
0::
ll.
EM NO. 4
PACE :;)... 3 OF 3 (
..
rnIIllIJ
dJJ<>'-H>,,'fI~t l"#
I . ,.". v? ...,.." '(1..""" J-S7'l-s\iW ..~ :,~,I.;Y,
;1.~~~J ,ni'~'a
..,..;>'-;I>IOI'''''oa ~.i>'l j,.", l'....,j"""r~ J. l
J..,r 'in~I~. a -;f~'Q "'I""
I'lVld -gJv?? dH1'l Q.VAJ-N"<i::l ).1 V~I I'<%J
!
II : I i
. i -
I -1
I
Ii
"I
t ~ 1
"::z ~~ . E
" 1 '.. r~
~! h~-'
tU~ "t:::U
ill::' ~ let; i t~ 1 {.f
H ' ,. ~ ! --'" <1>1 '
,,- ~ l,... ~.
:H!~ ":i lid ~~
~~~i ~ In~Li
di i~ ~H.4l1
t-~~ ~ ..
i
~
~
\' - I~
iFI
I
)l:)WBU8 OWVA. ..Vi..
.0-.01
.J.
"
1If~ -..:
.. ~ 'Ii
"
$ ~ ~
h !1 ~
lL
<
~
~
z
o
:>
~
.
8
i I
i I
'1 '1
~ "
.
.U'lZl ~
000
~~ I
r
,~
'to
~
~
~
"""
~
11.
>-
IJ:
~
CD'~
~' ,.f
\7. ,
j~
~
~
I
'1
~
~
z
~I)
1,.-.\
1>,
'8
".;
i
~
8
a
'1
~
HII
.0-.111
)loyaLBS ow.... J.NOHoI
NOIJ.VOlOaa OW" .1NOY..I
;! ~
~ ~i
111 1
'"
~ !i
~O
}.. ~
o O'}'l
'fi
~ ~i ~i
I
I
~EM NO. 4
PACE~OF 31
mIIillJ .'" - m ,~
lot <" "" ~"" YWl"_ i-~ .....,1-]'7 ~ I.l~
~~~d'~'~~
."."IS"'~'~ ~ v., t<"S:>fgI'~r~ d
j.:" -<l"'f"IaI~ (j<o.,.j <j
~ V1 d "Ii 001::1 ]..":>11.:1
II i I !
II I! -
I
.---------
,
I
~ i
I
I
1 1
l
I
I I
, .
.... ~ll iiH-md ~
~; ..M-..I ~
n____ ____.....IV I
-T"~" ''f''''1If-.I
tlllj mlj
t ~ ~
.....
....,.:. ;
II
-c!!l
Z : 81=:;;
.........
:s -
~ 11;1
II IlC lfif
~ ~8 III
8~~ ~IIB
g in~ II t
~fllll~! .
If U~
.111
I
I
ACENDA EM NO. Lf
~CE d S OF 3 I -
-
mrnm
'J/O '_fit.. N/V
I"L?b<r.> '.." .J-"~ j..<, -,-sJ-"""'/"U.,
""'iZ-ifl>>')tJatj "~\H~()
, ).e ~~ 'll'T\l
_""'"", $"13 ~'+1 ).'0 ~Q';-h/l"t<I:;>
j.... ~al~ q;.~d ""J
t'lVld (jo01J (JllO?$
I . i i
, I I lr-\
I i j
!
- I
- r - r~ ~-t'-
... -----------""- -...:s..-.... I~-.,.....-~ 1
j--------{- tf~ GIl'L!ll ~ l ~
~ i : x: ::::: J Im~:
: l1 I 1I!8~ I jg ~r .~I f*
' : III I I!!II!I I 1/"'\ ..c~ I
. C I~ .,~ l.ft' ~ -- - 1
: t:1 ~G LEPI : IVI ~ oJ '__' I
~ ! 0: m /' 1 tl ~ lI' --, : --;: -- :
! : M .- 11"": I'"U 11!. ..... · /j3 ::- '-~j' r-111l:
11ft- IIlI. f"~ ~=! ,.. ! 1-" f-i-'.f':;';'~ ~ l .~ ~ ..=..J~ l_.J III!
, r.-... I ~~~53 ai... ,.,~ - ,J." . .IV"_~l-!__ W-m-l~
. ,:::J7 I .'la l" .~< I i""'"- " 1\ UIII. JaIN! - r 1.....'
~ ! _I ~ '<f)::t ,- IWIWI- h
~ loot- ~ I~~ tw Iln - ~ -, - - ~ - I
1 -+-. .:... F= rflOO 83 ~', i 83 1
'1-~ 3 It II!~ ' II!~ I
l m~II\[iJ/ I 0 ) S1 ~lm ~ ',~
l ~I-+---!Li~ f~l---T---- -~-------- .
.....'\. ~J
,\4:~) .....
"
l l
~
-~l
_ t
l
i i
l
A
"-'-'
-
-
rTEM NO.. 4
PACE, ~~ OF 31
. ,._~~
E
I i i !
! I .
! . I f'{)
.
I
I dl."th'" ',,.. 'J...N ~~1.;';1'71~\ uti
)-~ hf'd1l16 ~
"<" ' ""'I""'~ <;l~'l J-v ~""''''''~H~J7
ty ~lt;61<;'t1 If1<;oj Old
f'l oIl-vA 'f1-J iq,IL!"$.)(:;f
I b b 'i III11 In IIII
· I z: t ~I ~. I S I~
I ~ ~ ~ I dl; 'h'p't!'
~ 1 ~,Id~ ~! :11 ~ I;HUI;d
~ r II sa It;;: I itl'I.II:[I)lall
~ ~ 1 r ~I ~ J f III ~ ~"~: 9 ~
[ I' I~; 1111 ~ ~lnl~I'~1111111
IL ~ ~ llll ,~., II, It I I
~ ~ IUIII ~ . I UH ,!n! ,!,
lll..~. lU . . ,
"'I~ III I .' t I he. II' I
JIll. gllll I~ III f n'lll! ~ I~II
rfsllll~l!illll II II, lu I !lll~l~i !/II III
!!~lllllilllli!lllflll~lii!!I!li!llli~I'11111 ! II
"d' 4.....! :dHHtHgiidg ~g~~i~hlU~:i~: i, ~ "H f~
<I
1.j
z
Q
t-
o(
>
W
-I
W
t-
z
()
Or!
u.
0(1
1.j
z
0(
-I
0..
lL
o
o
llr!
L I! 1.11.1 lill~ It
ull I lilllll~ k t: IJ 'I
III dip! 1'1 g II
D'f !i,311 I, :11 Ii ,. ~I
~:' I 1~1~llf~~~1 i
:. Illnlll~ IIII ~~ ,
~~ Ii dill ~IM; ~Iu IIIII I~I
I
AGENDA I EM NO. 4
E d- r OF 31
mrnm
.,"'- ~"~
~~~iW;~,;m
J:, Wol'1'! <"..,a
y? I~O"'&r,I -'-l'ii1 Lh ~ "?"MI'Hf\!;>
Lv 3>...a~ ~dOjd
1'l41.u'Ad'tl (j 4111 <I.L xj
I
I i I I i i
t
I I ! ~
:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I "nn___ I'
'~"T:-" I
I , ~ I
I hi I
I I
I :, ..:..=. I: :
I ,~~---_.... I
I
M ", m _~.l~L
~ I
:UJ----- ____:_h____n_
I
I
I
I
I
I
"-------,,
I ,~___ _ _ -1 I
U~LJ
..... .....
-(I
1.1
t-
IL
W
..J
-(I
1.1
~
-(
W
~
~n~1l
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
t:
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
l'lrpl
I I
I I
+ : · ~f
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
...-
.....
HLJ.
n ,
....
-(I
1.1
t-
r
~
~
I
I
.
-, teMNO. 4
PACE ;rB OF 3 I
FORM B
Page 1
Name DANNY RODRIGUEZ
APN 378-244-016
PUBLIC WATER SERVICE
CERTIFICATION
This certifies that the above referenced property is within the service area boundaries of this
water service utility and that:
Service Information: (Check one)
X There are currently existing adequate source, storage and distribution line
capacities to provide potable water to the referenced site in sufficient quantities
to satisfy the domestic water service and fire protection requirements of the
proposed use. The water mains to serve each proposed service connection are
currently installed and operable.
Financial arrangements have been made to install water mains for each
proposed service outlet and any other necessary facilities to insure
that the proposed use will have adequate source, storage and distribution line
capacities for each proposed service connection that will satisfy the domestic
water service and fire protection requirements of the proposed use.
It is financially and physically feasible to install water service facilities that will
provide adequate source, storage and distribution line capacities for each
proposed service connection that will satisfy the domestic water service and fire
protection requirements of the proposed use.
Easement Information: (Check one)
X This agency has no known water lines or easements on the subject property line.
This agency has water lines and/or easements on the subject property but they
do not conflict with the proposed use as currently designed.
This agency has waterlines and/or easements on the subject property which
conflict with the proposed project as currently designed. Applicant must revise
plans and resubmit them to this agency for approval.
Fire Flow Information:
>1000
Gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for a minimum two-hour
duration.
A WHARF HEAD
above referenced parcel.
hydrant is located 380'
feet from the
.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
PAGE ;). 9 OF ~ I .
,
ELSINORE WA TER DISTRICT
WA TER WILL SERVE LETTER REQUEST CHECKUST
Date of Request ~.,J8' () (p IAccount #
Owner's Name ~owner's Phone # C:! I <y q 24 - tf~fJ '1
Mailing Address ~/1 JJ. cu~~1'
City/State/Zip '.~ TA. AJ.J ^", cA- 1:;'71) I
Contact Name ~~'( .$..~ Contacfs Phone #
Track/Lot/Block APN # ~ 7'1. zl/Lf ~ () I t.,
~'KN~1?~~ s.}""
Street Address
Type of Request:
Residential
J\
Commercial
"
Other
Type
New Construction
Remodel
Received:
Date Initials Comments
Grant Deed
Preliminary Title Report
Plans of Addition (Remodels Only)
Payment .check #
Date
Field Check:
Remodels:
/ If /'
Size of Main Line l; Location of Main Line ULA..yU{~ aN 14" f.
Served by Hydro Tank f'Jo Within Easement
Zone Backflow Device Needed Type
Static water pressure less than 45 psi
Static water pressure greater than 90 psi
Meter Size Location
J 7-0 .:#=:-
Customer Shut Off
Street Lateral Size & Materials
Building Lateral Size & Materials.
Fire Service
Engineering Date Sent
Date Approved by Engineering
Prepared By:
ro~
Date
Approved By:
Date
~-Z7-0G
1-2-7- D~
FINAL WILL-SERVE LETTER ISSUANCE:
Date Prepared
q - "G-7--Bb
Will Serve Issued
Date to Customer
9 -'2-~ -0(;
Conditions of Will-Serve, if applicable:
ACENOAtT'=M NO.~
PAGE 3CJ OF '3 L
Address /31'7 N c Cu.>ril:
CityS YtJ{f}t A}JJ4 I C4-
./
APN # '3 '1 ~ - 2t.fLl-O;t,
ZIP ~ilol
----
Street Name GUMJ1~t:J tJ 5 I
ESTIMATED COST
fi Water Account Deposit
0 Fire Hydrant
rf Meter Installation
If Connection Fee/Capacity Charge
t Permits
0 Hot Patch
0 Miscellaneous
$ /CJO
<!DO
$
<!JO
$1---1tJo -
C!)(}
$ S2>/Y
()eJ
$ 1::>00 --~
$
Total:
$
$ S~ Il/, ~C>
o Due to the lengtl1 of line extension, it will be necessary for you to contact a Civil
Engineering company of your choice for cost estimate and installation. "Exhibit
An attached hereto lists requirements for first plan check. Cost of Plot Plan
Check dependent on estimated cost of project.
**Note: Estimate valid for 60 days. **
ELSINORE WATER DISTRICT
~~Jt~~
Field Supervisor
ACENDA ITEM NO. Y.
PACE-3LOF 31
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: DECEMBER 19,2006
PREPARED BY: KIRT A. COURY,
PLANNING CONSULTANT
PROJECT TITLE: SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2006-03 FOR
COLLIER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
APPLICANT/
OWNER:
JEFF JOHNSTON, COLLIER DEVELOPMENT CO.
9902 BRIER LN., SUITE 100, SANTA ANA, CA 92705
PROJECT REQUEST
The request before the Planning Commission is for the approval of a Sign Program
for The Collier Avenue Business Park. The pertinent Lake Elsinore Municipal
Code chapters relating to sign programs are: Chapter 17.94 (Signs - Advertising
Structures), Chapter 17.38 (Non-Residential Development Standards), and Chapter
17.54 (C-M Commercial Manufacturing District).
PROJECT LOCATION
The 4.89-acre project site is located on Collier Avenue between Riverside Drive
and Nichols Road, and is identifiable as APN: 378-030-014 (Exhibit "A").
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project
Site
North
Vacant
C-M (Commercial Freeway Business
Manufacturin )
M-l (Limited Manufacturing) Specific Plan Area
Vacant
"T"
South C-M Building C-M (Commercial Freeway Business
Manufacturin )
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5
PAGE---L- OF I Cf
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2006-03
DECEMBER 19, 2006
East Vacant M-l (Limited Manufacturing) Freeway Business
West Vacant M-l (Limited Manufacturing) Specific Plan Area
"T"
PROJECT BACKGROUND
On April 5, 2005 and May 10, 2005, respectively, the Planning Commission and
City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 32911 "For Condominium
Purposes," and Industrial Design Review No. I 2004-07 for "Collier Avenue
Business Park" to subdivide a 4.89 acre parcel of land into two (2) parcels for the
industrial development (the "Project" or "The Collier Avenue Business Park").
The applicant is now requesting approval of a Sign Program for that industrial
development Project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2006-03
The applicant requests approval for a Sign Program for The Collier Avenue
Business Park. The conditions of approval imposed upon the Project required that
the applicant submit a sign program for the Project prior to issuance of a building
permit for any structure on Tentative Parcel Map No. 32911.
Unfortunately, building permits were issued for the Project before the applicant
submitted a sign program. Nevertheless, staff has worked with the applicant to
design an appropriate sign program which should be in place prior to the issuance
of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project.
The objective of the proposed sign program is to provide standards and
specifications regarding quality, composition, size and placement of signage in
order to ensure consistency throughout the Business Park. Moreover, the sign
program will be used by staff when creating future signage in the Business Park
Area. Finally, the Sign Program will assist the landlord and/or Property
Management Group in selection and approval of all proposed signage.
ANAL YSIS
The Sign Program includes standards for both attached and detached signs on-site.
Attached (wall) signs range in size from thirty three (33) square feet to forty four
(44) square feet, while the proposed detailed four foot (4') high monument sign,
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PACE .l
5
OF I q
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2006-03
DECEMBER 19, 2006
located adjacent to the entry driveway on Collier Avenue, measures thirty four (34)
square feet.
The proposed sign program is consistent with the goals and objectives of Chapter
17.94 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code in that it will avoid the indiscriminant
and substandard assembly, locations, illumination, coloring and size of signs and
will mandate proper maintenance within the Business Park (Exhibit "B").
Additionally, the Sign Program complies with Section 17.94.170.D of the Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code, which requires that: "Businesses in an integrated
development shall comply with a uniform sign program approved by the Planning
Commission. "
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to. the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA), this project has
been deemed exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301{a). Section
15301 exempts projects that "consist of the operation, repair, maintenance,
permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private
structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving
negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead
agency's determination." Subdivision (a) of the CEQA exempts interior or
exterior alterations for existing facilities.
The proposed sign program involves the permitting of a private structure and
topographical feature, the sign. The sign program involves a negligible expansion
of use beyond the use which was permitted, and conditionally required, when the
City Council approved the Tentative Parcel Map and Industrial Design Review for
The Collier Avenue Business Center.
RECOMMENDA TION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2006-_
approving Sign Program No. 2006-03. This recommendation is based on the
findings, exhibits and conditions of approval attached to this Staff Report.
PREPARED BY:
KIRT A. COURY, PROJECT PLANNER
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE 3
5
OF J 9
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2006-03
DECEMBER 19, 2006
APPROVED BY:
-=t~ L ')~ ..~~
ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ,
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ATTACHMENTS
1. Exhibit "A": Location Map.
2. Resolution No. 2006-_ approving Sign Program No. 2006-03.
3. Conditions of Approval.
4. Exhibit "B": Sign Program.
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE 4
5
OF I q
LOCA TION MAP
SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2006-03
(APN: 378-030-014)
'\....
"
"
"
"
'-
..~
I::-:--~
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5E.XHIBlt" A". . T
PAGE S OF I q
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SIGN
PROGRAM NO. 2006-03
WHEREAS, Jeff Johnston, Collier Development Company, has initiated
proceedings for Sign Program No. 2006-03 for the industrial business park known
as the Collier Avenue Business Park, which is geographically located on a 4.89
acre lot on Collier Avenue between Riverside Drive and Nichols Road (the
"Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has
been delegated with the responsibility of approving Sign Programs; and
WHEREAS, public notice of 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 December 19,2006.
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 reviewed and analyzed Sign
Program 2006-03 according to the standards and guidelines set forth in Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.94.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the
Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(Cal. Pub. Res. Code ~~ 21000 et seq: "CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14
C.C.R. ~~ 15000 et seq.) pursuant to a class l(a) exemption for existing facilities.
(See 14 C.C.R. ~ 15301(a)). A class l(a) exemption is applicable in this instance
because the construction of the sign involves negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that which was approved as part of the Design Review for the commercial
buildings that comprise the Collier Avenue Business Park.
SECTION 3. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning law and
the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings for the approval of Sign Program No. 2006-03:
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PACE Co
5"
OF 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
PAGE20F3
1. The Project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the
General Plan and the Zoning District in which the Project is located.
The Project complies with the goals and objectives of the General Plan in
that the approval of this Sign Program will assist in achieving the
development of a well-balanced and functional mix of residential,
commercial, industrial, open space, recreational and institutional land uses,
diversifying Lake Elsinore's economic base.
2. The Project complies with the design directives contained in Section
17.82.060 and all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code.
The Project is appropriate to the site and surrounding developments. The
Project has been designed in consideration of the size and shape of the
property, thereby creating interest and varying vistas as a person moves
along the street. Further, the Project will complement the quality of existing
development and will create a visually pleasing, non-detractive "relationship
between the proposed and existing projects in that the architectural design,
color and materials and site design proposed evidence a concern for quality
and originality.
3. Subject to the attached conditions of approval, the Project is not anticipated
to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
The Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to a class 1 (a) categorical
exemption. Nevertheless, the Project has been reviewed by all applicable
City divisions and departments, which have imposed a series of conditions of
approval on the Project to ensure that the construction of the sign will not
have a significant effect on the environment.
4. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Chapter 17.82.070 of the Zoning
Code, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions,
have been incorporated into the approval of the Project to ensure
development of the property in accordance with the objectives of Chapter
17.82.
Pursuant to LEMC Section 17.82.070, the Project has been scheduled for
consideration and approval of the Planning Commission.
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE f
5
OF I q
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
PAGE30F3
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of December, 2006,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Michael O'Neal, Chairman
City of Lake Elsinore
ATTEST:
Rolfe Preisendanz,
Director of Community Development
ACENDA iTEM NO.
PACE ~
5
OF ( l1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2006-03
COLLIER AVENUE BUSINESS PARK
GENERAL
1. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and
hold harmless the City, its Official, Officers, Employees, and Agents from any
claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Official, Officers, Employees,
Contract Employees or Agents to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of
the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Sign
Program No. 200-03 for the project known as the Collier Avenue Business Park,
which action is bought within the time period provided for in California
Government Code Sections 65009 and/or 66499.37, and Public Resources Code
Section 21167. The City will promptly notify the Applicant of any such claim,
action, or proceeding against the City and will cooperate fully with the defense. If
the City fails to promptly notify the Applicant" of any such claim, or proceeding,
the Applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City.
SIGN PROGRAM NO. 2006-03
2. The decision of the Commission shall be final ten (10) days from the date of the
decision unless an appeal has been filed with the City Council pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 17.80.
3. Prior to issuance of any sign permit the applicant shall sign and complete an
"Acknowledgement of Conditions" form and shall return the executed original to
the Planning Division for inclusion in the case records.
4. The applicant shall apply for a sign permit and pay appropriate fee for any sign
installed at the project site.
5. The location, size, style, and color for all signs shall comply with the Sign
Program (Approved herein). Any additions or revisions to the Sign Program shall
require Planning Division review and approval.
6. No portion of the proposed monument sign shall be located closer than five feet
(5') to any property line, nor be located in such a manner as to constitute a hazard
to pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
Planning Con'Unis~lon ;\P?lD'..>(.d
Lkccfl1bt'r 19} 20e6
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PACE q
5
OF '9
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Page 2 of2
COLLIER AVENUE BUSINESS PARK
SIGN PROGRAM NO.2006-03
7. The approval for Sign Program No 2006-03 for the project known as The Collier
Avenue Business Park shall lapse and become void one (1) year following the
date on which the Sign Program became effective, unless prior to the expiration of
one year, a building permit related to the Sign Program is issued and construction
commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. The Sign Program
granted herein shall run with the land for this one (1) year period and shall
continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site.
8. Any alteration or expansion of this Sign Program approval shall be reviewed
according to the provisions of Chapter 17.94 (Signs-Advertising Structures) of the
Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. .
9. All exterior sign lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director or designee.
10. The applicant shall incorporate the City brand and logo into the proposed
monument sign. Said logo shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director or designee.
ENGINEERING
11. The location of the proposed monument sign shall be behind the City right-of-way
and shall be located to meet City sight distance requirements.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5
PA.GE l 0 OF {q
t1!~,.. ;;
~... '"
SoeD ~
(J)ll:c lit
~:z:a. 0
~ ~~ ~
ffi~
W CAMBERN AVE. ...0
... ::>....
~~
ZLaJ -<
W::::> ffi
uz< DEXTER AVE. ~
a::: fn ~z
0 fn<25
lL.. W Q:: L&..
::a: Z LaJ::J CORONA FREEWAY
-::J<
<( U) ...J 0 -
a::: ~8.
'-' ID LaJ
0 W Il) 25 COLLIER AVE.
a::: ~mz
m_
e.. z r--- ~ * t..J
W .... LaJ
Z :;CILaJ 11 ~ >
'-' 0 <(
en ~~~ -l
= W <
wm - 0 ~
_r--- fn en t-
....... ~ z
... ~ w
0 u
U ~
Il)
....
o
::I
).:'
~ 0
a..LaJ~
~::::>o
Ozm
~~<
z<oll)(O
a: ~~~~~
1M a.. z z I r---
a. OlLJ_. I
Q ~O::O::~~
... >OD.."~
;: LaJri:!(I)mm
... C LaJ--
= 0:: t..J L&.. ~ ~
i: LaJ 0 ~ ell)
a: :J ~ .- -..-
~ 60z....
i o~(}js:~
a.
o I=!
z_
-::::>
,..:(1)
o .
I=!~
-z
i5~
0::<
<
.k~co~~
<zgm~
Ii 0:: <(.... I I
zo::<mcoco
eDO~<j:~
-CZO"~
fn < _
... 0(1) .CO-
=0 <N~
2 (I):ZC co co
CLaJ <-..--..-
!!::Er'l~....
-<r'l..-..cx
i'r'l<D..L&..
a.
EXHIBIT " B ..
AGEND!-\ rn:::.~ NO. ::5
PACE it OF--1...i-
u;
1:1:
...
I:i
Ii
CIC
a:
2
:E
:I
CD
=
1:1:
a.
:z
CD
;;,;
LtJ
0:::
~(/)
<(/)
Zw
z~
-(/)
..-::>
zm
Wc
~~
::Eo
0:::0:::
LtJe..
0..0..
w<
mLtJ
~F
<
~~
..->
UJ=!
~U
oW...:
0:::9:-
o..cz
::>
(/)z
--LtJ
F~j;
0:::
O:::Wz
00..-
..
-IC
(/)-I~
z<o
c):I:_
-(/)-
(/) C
-ICZ
-JZO
<<0
..->w
<<j!:
::E
C)zl.L.
~oo
9FLtJ
-0::0
::>0<
mo....
LtJoLtJ
FZj!:
~~:;:
<0
C 0:::
W >= l.L.
:I: ....J.
oz<o
~oz
<(/)<
w~j;
mFw....J
-J<O::=:J
-Jgo~
<-J::E~
:I:
(/)o"-C)
oz
(/)~~C
ZI:i:O::!
Qwo::::>
(/)co..m
LL.i
0:::
o ....J
~c<
(/)->
....J<O
W(/)o:::
~~8:@5~
<z<o:::~
-J:cco:::W<
l.L."-~25ffi
om -Jo:::
~~~~~
0~u05 .
LtJLtJ~WW::E
j!:=:JFj!:O:::<
g;! o:::~
>(/)2000
mz...-F-..o:::
c~zco:::o..
I:!:!(/)Ql:!:!wz
J=W(/)J=C)C)
_ 0::: (/) - < -(/)
:;: -:;:z
o:::(/)~m<(/)
w-::J::J::E-
o..o::(/)(/) F
WW wZ
mi~m~F
~00:::~~;E
<"",o<ow
~~&:~~~
(/)< (/)<<
ZZuSz(/)::E
C) LtJ ~ C).. 0:::
(/)- ..- - (i) 0::: 0
::E LtJl.L.
-J!=O:::-Jzz
....Jzw....J~O
<::>0..<00
0:::
.0
0:::l.L.>0
<w~F-
fh..J LtJ
o:::m..o::
(i)00
oz..-z
OOz(i)
o 0.. w....J
C)~::Ew
zo:::WLtJ
- o~
cw<<
LtJm~-J
~::ILtJl.L.
< 0:::0
~<
Z:I:O>
-(/)ZI-
< .--
"""I: -u.
...c:;0:: 0:::
wWJLtJ:CC
mi~j;fh
~oo>o:::
<,~ml.L.
:I:..-O:::co
(/)z Wc
(/)<~::EW
ZZWLtJW
Qj:!:!::E~Z
(/) F Z
..- z-
::Iz~C)w
<::JF(/)m
wl.L.
j!:o
o~
..-0
ow"":
~F~
-:I: 0
::EFW
m-=:I:
::>~U
(/)::E
(/)O:::::E
wo<
-J..O:::
o..zC)
::EO 0
<00:::
(/) 0..
o:::::iz
0<C)
-J:I:-
0(/)(1)
03:::E
owO:::
z>~
<LtJ-
....JO:::~
<o:::w
0:::00::
j:!:!"o
<O:::Z
::ELtJii)
o..-J
..0 W
(/)~
Z~LtJ
:5w~
0..0:5
~~N~
;2;8'" ..;
l:So::CD~
lIlll.C1C lOt
~t5a. 8
(i;ri5 ..,
iil:2i
0::
..,0
::>!!:
zz
~::>
<
0::
~
ACENDJ\ HEM NO. 5
PAGEY OF J 9
JONMI8J11103
:z
"
UlC'l
Ol-W
WZ"
(/)W<(
~~a.
OZW
a::OW
o.~VJ
,ro-gs:f
""8 . "on
iiI!! ClI .~
ID~ i!! ID_
b !I
CD i5
.
Go
III 0
'bd
co ClI CD~
CD :Ill CD
!i
i5
.
N
CD
CD
CD
c:JCIllJ
z
~
~ ~W
~ a.~
o eU
- ~iE
o i!!i
o III
z::>
;
a.
1M
...
Ui
Z
Q
-
=;
U
Q
...
Z
CD
-
en
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE I 3
Il!~ C":I q
t513 1M '"
o~CD~
g:ll.C lit
~ga. ~
~~
~~
zz
!i;!:::>
-<
'"
~
C)
OF /9
en
::z:
=
5;
e W
_ CJ)
!: 0
e a..
... e:::
a. ::>
en a..
b
I
ir>
N
b
I
~
lo.I
Z
in
::>
a:J
>-
~
::::l!
a:
Q.
t
1=
r5
e
z
:5
Q.
\!!
in
~
i
o
:I:
en
en
<
e:::
w
m
::'!:
::>
z
::'!:
::>
::'!:
x
<(
::'!:
"03
..o-.r
..9 ,r~
"03
i II ,:
i II H
i I Ii
, I "
~._......m..mmif=o=...;i...............
D
b
I
'"
"03 ..0- ,r .03
::l
~
f2
~
is
8
9
o
~
>=
...J
is
~
~
Q.
lo.I
~ ~
Z Z
~ 0
lo.I a;
2E ::J
en C)
iil r5
~
9
~
en
Q:
~
~
...J
<
::>
o
:>
C5
~
z
o
i=
<(
I-
Z
W
e:::
o
z
o
F
u
:::>
~
CJ)
z
o
u
-;.:.
a..
o
u
z
'"
CJ)
en
o
Q:
<
o
Z
~
en
~
(3
ffi
Q.
~
o
~
:i
ffi
Q.
z
o
I-
<(
Z
::'!:
::>
....J
....J
..
o
'"
o
....J
D
D
."=c..fi'c.,,'-",.... ...:..j I
! I' !
I i' I
'I~ll
~
~ ~ is
0<>-1=
~ ~ ~ ~
~ 9 ~ -<
:5 Q: 8: en
a:J ~ < ffi
~ fa ~ ~
f2 l= Ii; II::
a: :i ::> 0
offi::::l!Q:
~Q.Zlo.lQ:
~l1)~25lo.1
>- (5 < r:-! ~
15~~~~
uuoo:=!:
~
Q:
~
~
>-
Z
<
Q.
~
W
~
CJ)
e:::
w
~
W
....J
e:::
o
....J
o
U
\
\
\
I
i5
I=I-z
(So-
oZo
...J!!::\!!
~8gd
zgD..r:&:
~{58t5
-<lL.2EUi
ACENDA ITEM NO.
PACEJ 4-
C
:z
CD
-
en
~~.~
G'i13"';;!
u~CD:;t
",n.c lit
'" z'"'
~"'-8
u;~ ~
ffi~
wO
",u..
zz
!$!'"
<
a:
~
5
OF 19
en
:z:
=
-
5
-
...
-
e
...
~
en
CD '0
I I
N ~
~
l.IJ
Z
Ii)
::)
CD
>-
~
::!i
it:
a..
t
F=
Z
l.IJ
Q
w
(/)
o
a..
a:::
::>
a..
Z
j
a..
~
li5
Z
o
~
:J:
VI
VI
-<
0:::
W
CD
:2:
::>
Z
~
::>
~
X
<(
:2:
l!
II
Ii
i
iI
II
il
~ !!
I II
I_...._.JL
II, i
. .....J
...-.-.!
-Ir....
D
'0
I
;.,
G
"03 ..o-,r '03
~
~
~
...J
~
<
~
D..
>=
...J
~
o
<.:l
o
...J
Q
:ri
l.IJ
~ ~
Z ~
~ ~
~ ::J
VI C>
ffi i5
z
o
I-
<(
I-
Z
W
a:::
o
-;:.
a..
o
()
z
'-'
(/)
..9-,rz
~
~
~
9
~
~
...J
(I)
Q
a:::
<
Q
~
VI
~
u
ffi
a..
~
o
Q
~
:i
ffi
D..
;:J
::)
Q
:s:
Ei
~
z
o
i=
()
::>
g:
(/)
z
o
()
z
o
i=
<(
Z
:2:
::>
.-J
.-J
o
'-'
o
.-J
D
D
~
VI
~
~
>-
Z
<
a..
~
~
< >- ~
~~>-F=
D.. CD-<
~cnAg
~ 8 ~ ~
o 9 ~ -<
j~8:Y1
CDI.I..-<ffi
~ S ~ i
ol=~o
Fo-Vla:::
a::: ::IE ::) 0
o IE ::IE a:::
6D..zwa:::
o VI :;2 15...J l.IJ
>-~< ~
2i6~~~
OOOO::IE
w
~
(/)
a:::
~
w
.-J
a:::
o
.-J
o
()
Z
o
F=~z
<0-
oZA
SI.I..~
~8-<Q
< ~i:iJ
ZSD..G:
~~~~
;:J1.I..~li5
ICICII ~~ In ~
_ ii]!3......;
- u~=~
S! 11l1l.C~
en ~t5~ 8
(j)1iS -.J
iil~
~~
zz
~:::>
-<
'"
w
~
ACENDA ITEM NO.
PAGEJ 5
5
OF -Li-
0 a
I
N ;:
U:i
:z
=
-
....
aW
_ (.f)
== 0
U D-
... a:::
a. =>
en D-
!a
z
li'5
;::)
In
>-
~
::!
li:
D..
>-
~
F=
z
ILl
e
z
:s
D..
~
li'l
~
~
iJi
en
<(
a::
W
rn
~
=>
Z
~
=>
~
x
<(
~
o
w
o
I
";t
o
w
D
~
~
::I
~
g
o
C)
9
o
~
ILl
~ ~
Z Z
~ 0
ILl m
~ ::J
en C)
ffi ffi
~
~
D..
z
o
i=
<(
t-
Z
W
a:::
o
>=
D-
o
U
z
'-'
(.f)
;j
Ii
II
~
'03
[I II I'
l::::::::::::I.L::::::::::-..................M_.........-
G
.0-,1'
'03
.9-,!;(;
~
~
en
o
9
~
!
-l
<
;::)
o
:>
2i
3\;
en
o
II::
<(
o
Z
~
en
~
<:3
ffi
D..
~
~
::E
IIi
D..
z
o
t-
U
=>
a:::
t-
(.f)
Z
o
u
z
o
t-
<(
Z
~
=>
...J
...J
o
'-'
o
...J
D
D
~
~
~
>-
z
<(
D..
~
~
< >- ~
~ ~ ~ ~
15u;~g
~ @ 0 ~
~...JII::<
:s l5 ~ en
In~<(ffi
~ fi:l ~ ~
g ~ In It:
II::::::!!~O
o 15 ::e II::
8~~~ffi
>-l5<g!~
&d~lLI~
uuoo::e
w
~
t-
(.f)
a:::
~
W
...J
a:::
o
...J
o
U
z
o
F=t-z
(30-
OZR
..:J~~
~8g~
zgD..1:L:
~l5~~
<(~~en
AGENDA lTEM NO.
PAGE ( Co
e
:z
CD
;;
~~= ;;
i5"'... ...;
u~CD~
!:lIl.C~
!;:tt5a. 8
(iifi'S -:)
ijl:::e
'"
",0
::>"-
:z:z
~::>
<(
'"
3
8
s-
OF fq
CJ
"0 "0 D
I
N ~
d
'0 D
I
:.r
z
; 0
r'- ....! F=...z
.O-,v 1'03 ~o-
I oZc
I I
! ~!:!:~
I r- .....-., ["'-' ~o<~
i I II <e>25
i~9-,~Z zgO-J:i:
~~~(ii
;ie~en
~ >- z
>= ~ ~ 0
0 >- ~
~ ~ 0-
~ ~ lD (3
0 :g ~
~ en (,) ~
e>
~ 0 8 ~ 9 0 <
LaJ 5 <.:) 9 en ~
z 9 c :5 ~ 8: en
en ~ ~ b::
::> 0- old < lD < LaJ
lD C C LaJ LaJ i
~ ::l ~ en
~ ~ z en lD ~ lD
liS ~ ~ ~ ~ I- 0
LaJ
Z ~ >= en ~ en ~
::! ~ ::) 0
a: 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi ::!
z lS ~
0- i ~ ~ 0 c >- 0- lS LaJ
t ~ < ~ ~ ffi
0 as ::) ffi z (,) en
::J: LaJ 0 < ~ F= ~
F= en z ::J => 0- :2 0- >- <
is ~ en e> is ffi ~ ~ => z
en ::) is :x:: LaJ LaJ <
9 < 0- lD ~ 0 0- (,) (,) 0 c :::lE
0:::
u; W
(D z
:z :::i: ..
= :::J Z 0 z Iii
- ~ 0 ~
it z 0 ~
u ~
w :?; ~ a.. :::J <( ~
U') <( 0 U')
;:c 0 :::J ~ U ~ z a:::: a::::
- :::i: Z w
e a.. X w z U') :::i: 0 ~ 0
... 0::: Z :::J C> I- .-J
a. :::J <( a:: C> 0 .-J 0 W 0
In a.. :?; 0 U') U .-J .-J .-J U
ACENDA lTEi'.~ NO.
PACE..J..=1.- OF
1:1
:z
CD
-
In
~~..... ~
Q~"'ri
o~CD S
(f)~Cli:!,
elt;a. 0
~17J ~
ffi~
.....0
::>"-
~~
<(
'"
.....
~
5
I 9
~
d
w
LJ
a>
I
.",
o
w
-:..r
I
<0
.
o
I
D
'0
.9-,S;Z
~ >-
<( z
~ 0: ~ 0
0 >- 1=
a.
~ z ~ ID <(
...l 0 V; ~ ~
t5 ~ 0 0
C)
~ 0 C) ~ 9 0 VI
<(
W Z C) 9 VI a:
z :5 9 0 <( a: a. !/l
en ~ ...l ~
.llS a: ID ~ ffi
:::I a. 0 <(
ID ~ :::l ~ VI 0 llJ W i
>- ~ z VI ID ~ ID
~ Iii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
w VI VI
::IE z ~ ::E ~ ~ ;:) ~
0: 0 <( ...l ...l ~ ~ ~ ffi ::E
a. ~ z ~ ...l 0 C a:
~ ~ ~ <( ~ >- a. z w ffi
~ ;:) ffi ~ o VI 0 a.
1= 0
1= ~ c >- 25 ...l ~
~ :J :> a. :is a. <( ~
Z ~ VI C) is ffi ~ 25 d :> Z
w ~ ffi G5 ~ w w <(
Q a. ~ 0 a. 0 o u c C ::E
C::
en w
lD
Z :::E Z
c::t :::> z: 0 z w
- F
=: z 0 ~ 0 ~
W F 0... <..> i= ~
e (J) :::E <( 0 :::::> <( (J)
i:C :::> a::: z
0 t- U t- O::: a:::
- :::E Z ~
U a.. (J) :::E 0 0
... 0::: X w z z: :::> C> ..J
a. :::> <( a::: C> 0 ..J 0 W 0
en a.. :::E 0 (J) <..> ..J -1 ..J U
z
o
I=~z
(30-
OZA
...It...~
~8-<(9
<( ~w
~g~t:L:
~2S8t;
<(t...~1ii
...
z:
CD
-
en
~~=~
158'" ,.;
(.)lk:CD~
l:l"'a:~
w~a. 0
~V5 ~
i6~
lk:
~{;
~3
-<
'"
w
:J
8
AGENDA rrE~jj NO. ~5
PACE~OF lor
to
I
10
-
~ lr)
<I> 0'\
fj 0'\
.13 t-
rg ,..-.4
l::tl I
0 lr)
5 0
-< 0'\
t- .
~ ,..-.4 I
:=
(
~
~ ~
~ .
ID
ClCl
ZZ
15~
o~m
z::E
OenO
UII::I'"-
t.J....<
uu..~
~~o
n.l5F-
Z I-
-'z
Q~<t.J
t.Jon.~
O::z t.J
Ba .0
~13~(II
lll::09~
~<5cS
IDmmo
.O-,V
II::
9
en 0
0:: U
~ Cl
Z .
- 0
9 <
- ...J
0 m m
t.J
~ I- :J :J: t.J
l::i n. en u m
z 2c w
~ l= 0 ~ ~
~ n. en , Iii ::E Cl
~ i= .
~ ~ Q l2 ~
~ ...J
Iii F 0 0 ~ ~
t.J m m
z ~ ~ z
Iii :J 0:: en
...J n. w t.J z ~
;:) a iJi ~
m ~ i ~ F= :((
~ is ~ . n. W
is 0 W
F= ai :J: 5 z F a5
n. (II ...J
is ffi i5 ...J ::E ~ l5
(II (II ~ w
Q < n. < 0 Cl n. en
a:::
en w
CD z
:z ::E
= :::> z 0 z w
- I- 0 ~
a z 0 >=
<..> t-
w ::E F= a.. :::> <( t-
(J") <C 0 (J")
w: 0 :::> I- <..> g: z a::: 0::
- ::.:E Z ::E w
e a.. x w z (f) I- 0
... e::: z :::> t- -.J
a.. :::> <( a::: '-' 0 -.J W 0
rn a.. ::.:E 0 (J") <..> -.J -.J U
ACENDA \rEM NO.
PACE I ~
tl!~=c;
~~=~
l:lll.C~
....8'a..o
~17J ~
15::1;
""
....0
::>!!:
zz
~::>
<(
:z
c::I
;;;
...
:z
...
:E
=
:z
= ""
:E ~
5
OF -L!i-
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: DECEMBER 19, 2006
PREPARED BY: KIRT A. COURY,
PLANNING CONSULTANT
PROJECT TITLE: CANYON HILLS ESTATES: ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 2006-02, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 2006-04, SPECIFIC PLAN NO.
2006-01 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 34249
APPLICANT:
VICKI MATA, TRUMARK COMPANIES, 9911
IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 150, IRVINE
CA,92618. REPRESENTATIVE JEREMY KROUT,
RGP PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES,
8921 RESEARCH DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92618
OWNER:
VICKI MATA, TRUMARK COMPANIES, 9911
IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 150, IRVINE
CA, 92618.
PROJECT REQUEST
Staff is requesting a continuance of the proposed project.
BACKGROUND
Although staff has endured to bring the project forward, staff is requesting a
continuance of the proposed project to allow for the environmental review period
to be completed on its scheduled date of December 27, 2006. Therefore, with the
AGENDA lTEM NO. (0
PAGe) # OF :+ -..
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CANYON HILLS ESTATES
DECEMBER 19,2006
PAGE 2
consent of the Planning Commission, staff is requesting the project be continued to
January 16,2007.
PREPARED BY:
KIRT A. COURY, PROJECT PLANNER
APPROVED BY:
i= ~ ~,,(2. ~[>
ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ,
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AGENDA ITEM NO. Co
PACE~OF ~