The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09.19.2006 PC AGENDA CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 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, SEPTEMBER 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- SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 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.) 1. Commercial Design Review No. 2006-04 "Medical & Office Building Complex. . The applicant is requesting Design Review consideration for the design and construction ofa two-story 33,240 square-foot professional office building and a 31,900 two-story square-foot medical office building with related improvements within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-l/SP) zoning district of the Canyon Creek "Summerhill" Specific Plan. Review is pursuant to the Canyon Creek Specific Plan and Chapter 17.82 (Design Review) ofthe LEMC CASE PLANNER: Matt Harris, Senior Planner Ext. 279, mharris@lake-elsinore.org RECOMMENDATION: Approval 2. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2005-12, General Plan Amendment No. 2006-03, Pre-Zoning No. 2006-04 and Annexation No. 77 for the property located adjacent to State route 74, Easterly of Trellis Lane and Ramsgate (Centex) Specific Plan. CASE PLANNER: Linda Miller, Associate Planner Ext. 209, lmiller@lake-elsinore.org RECOMMENDATION: Approval BUSINESS ITEMS 3. General Plan Conformity Determination for proposed roadway easement vacation of Joy Street. . Applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission review the request for the roadway easement vacation of Joy Street and find it in conformance with the Lake Elsinore General Plan. ...f. PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA- SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 CASE PLANNER: Ken Seumalo, City Engineer Ext. 244, kseumal@lake-elsinore.org RECOMMENDATION: Approval INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT - 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: SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PREPARED BY: MATTHEW C. HARRIS, SENIOR PLANNER PROJECT TITLE: COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-04 "MEDICAL & OFFICE BUILDING COMPLEX" APPLICANT: HC&D ARCHITECTS (ATTN: CHRIS LINDHOLM), SUITE 106, CORONA CA 92879. OWNER: OMNI WEST GROUP INC. (ATTN: KIPP DUBBS) PROJECT REQUEST The applicant is requesting Design Review consideration for the design and construction of a two-story 33,240 square-foot professional office building and a 31,900 two-story square-foot medical office building with related improvements within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-l/SP) zoning district of the Canyon Creek "Summerhill" Specific Plan. Review is pursuant to the Canyon Creek Specific Plan and Chapter 17.82 (Design Review) of the LEMC. PROJECT LOCATION The 5. 19-net acre project site is located on the south side of Canyon Estates Drive and west of Summerhill Drive, Assessor Parcel Number 365-550-014. BACKGROUND The subject property, which consists of a previously graded and improved vacant pad, is located within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-l/SP) zoning district of the AGENDA ITEM l PAGE~OF ')8 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PROJECT TITLE: COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-04 Canyon Creek ((Summerhill" Specific Plan. Since project submittal, staff has worked successfully with the applicant to achieve additional articulation along both the front and rear building elevations by adding additional roof plane breaks and building ornamentation. In addition, at staffs request, the applicant has added significant decorative paving treatments, trellis structures and a large decorative "water feature" adjacent to the main building entrance. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Proj ect Vacant C-l/SP Site Neighborhood Canyon Creek Commercial "Summerhill" S eci IC Plan Specific Plan North Residential Single-Family Canyon Creek Residential (R-l) "Summerhill" S eci IC Plan South Interstate 15 Freewa East HotellMedicalOffice C-l/SP Canyon Creek Neighborhood "Summerhill" Commercial Specific Plan S eci IC Plan West Vacant C-l/SP Canyon Creek Neighborhood "Summerhill" Commercial Specific Plan S eci IC Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-l/SP) zoning district of the Canyon Creek "Summerhill" Specific Plan. Section 020.B. & V. of the Specific Plan allows offices and medical complexes, including medical, dental and health related services as permitted uses. AGENDA ITEM \ PAGEloF~ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PROJECT TITLE: COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-04 Siting The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story professional office building and a two-story medical office building at the center of the project site. The site has been previously graded and supplied with necessary improvements and utilities. The total footprint of the buildings is 33,022 square-feet and will cover approximately 14.6% of the site. Moreover, a floor area ratio (FAR) of29% is proposed onsite. The remainder of the property will consist of onsite parking facilities and landscaping. Circulation and Parking Svace Lavout A single access point shall be provided off of Canyon Estates Drive. The access point has been designed to align with Ridgecrest Drive located across Canyon Estates Drive to the north. Parking will be provided around all four sides of the building and is accessed via two-way drive aisles. An on site trash enclosure has been provided at the northwest comer of the parking lot. A loading area has been provided at the main building entrance. Architecture The architectural style ofthe proposed office buildings is "Spanish" in accordance with the Canyon Creek Specific Plan Architectural Design Guidelines. The front elevations of each building, which extend over 220' feet in length, have been sufficently articulated with six-foot deep main entry elements and three-foot deep pop-outs on either side of the main entrance. The side building elevations, which will be visible from Interstate 15, mandate elevations that are well articulated in order to provide visual interest. Building articulation has been achieved with three and one-half foot deep "pop-outs" along both the elevations. Moreover, a decorative connecting wall has been added between the two buildings which include large decorative arches and wrought iron elements serving to further break-up the elevations and add interest. In addition, decorative trellis features will be utilized to create significant variation in wall planes and strong shadows at main building entrances. The height of the parapet walls has also been varied to break-up and add interest to the building's roofline. Proposed window and door types compliment the architectural style and have been appropriately ornamented. Moreover, architectural elements that add interest, scale and character have been incorporated throughout the project. These elements include decorative wrought iron and trellis structures, archways, and window surrounds. AGENDA ITEM \ PAGE~OF~ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PROJECT TITLE: COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-04 Landscaping The applicant is proposing to develop the site with 75,541 square feet oflandscaping which constitutes thirty-three (33%) percent of the site. A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the site is required to be landscaped. The proposed tree palette includes the use of 36" box size Crape Myrtle trees at the site entrance and 36" box Western Redbud trees within the interior courtyard between the two buildings. Five (5) other tree species will be utilized on site including Mexican Fan Palms at the main building entrances which serve to compliment and formalize the proposed architectural style of the buildings. The buildings will be sited on an island of landscaping. A variety of foundation and parking lot plantings are proposed which will serve to soften building elevations, including, but not limited to Daylily, Acacia and Purple Hopseed Bush. Enhanced paving has been provided at both the site entrance and the main building entrances. The enhanced paving will serve to create a courtyard effect. In addition, a large decorative fountain has been added on the east side of Building 2 serving to further formalize and enhance the main entrance into the facility. Color and Materials The applicant is proposing six (6) different colors on the buildings. The architectural design will be further enhanced and the appearance of additional offsets and depth will be achieved with the chosen color scheme. The contrasting colors are complimentary and have been chosen to enhance architectural elements within the project. The proposed green glass windows will further serve to compliment the building color scheme. ANALYSIS Sitinf! The proposed site plan meets all applicable development standards and criteria outlined in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-l/SP) zoning district of the Canyon Creek "Summerhill" Specific Plan and the Non-Residential development standards outlined in LEMC Section 17.38. Moreover, the project complies with the on site parking standards listed in LEMC Section 17.66. Pursuant to the C-l/SP zone, the maximum AGENDA ITEM \ PAGE~OF ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PROJECT TITLE: COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-04 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) allowed is forty percent (40%). The applicant is only proposing a twenty-nine percent (29%) FAR, well below the maximum allowed. Additionally, the project siting complies with all perimeter setbacks. Circulation and Parkinf! Space Lavout The circulation and parking space layout meets the requirements set forth in LEMC Section l7.66.Additionally, adequate turning radii and turnarounds have been provided for emergency vehicles, trash and delivery trucks. Staff has determined that three- hundred and eighteen (318) parking spaces are required onsite including one-hundred thirty-five (135) spaces for Building No.1 and one-hundred and eighty-three (183) spaces for Building No.2. The amount of parking spaces provided for the medical building complies with the recently adopted requirement of one space per one-hundred seventy-five feet of floor area. Moreover, no compact spaces have been provided onsite. Architecture The architectural design ofthe office buildings complies with the Architectural Design Guidelines listed in the Canyon Creek "Summerhill" Specific Plan. Additionally, the architecture of the buildings has been designed to achieve harmony and compatibility with surrounding residential, commercial and office buildings in the vicinity of the project site. Correspondingly, the applicant has provided a variety of building design features and forms by employing treatments, such as articulated planes along the exterior walls, which will create depth and shadow. Moreover, the maximum height of the buildings are below the building height requirement specified in the C-l/SP zoning District (35-feet). Landscavinf[ The landscape design for the project site complies with the requirements set forth within Section 070 of the Neighborhood Commercial (C-l/SP) zoning district. The proposed landscaping improvements serve to enhance the building design and soften portions of building elevations, as well as complimenting surrounding properties. AGENDA ITEM I PAGE --s..- OF 3 & ,PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PROJECT TITLE: COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-04 Noise The project site is located within the 65 Ldn noise contour which emanates from Interstate-I 5 traffic noise. However, General Plan Noise Element Table X-I indicates that professional office uses are clearly compatible with the 65 Ldn noise level without having to achieve any special attenuation methods. Color and Materials The colors and materials proposed for this project meet the intent of the Design Guidelines of the Canyon Creek "Summerhill" Specific Plan, in that the colors and materials proposed, will serve to produce diversity and enhance the architectural effects. Additionally, the colors and materials proposed will assist in blending the architecture into the existing landscape. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has determined that the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of the medical office facility have all been previously addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Canyon Creek "Summerhill" Specific Plan Amendment No.1. In addition, 1) No substantial project changes are proposed that would require major revisions to the MND; 2) No substantial changes will occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken and 3) No new information of substantial importance has been identified since the previous MND was certified. Therefore, no subsequent environmental analysis is necessary pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt; Resolution No. 2006-_ recommending City Council adoption of findings of consistency with the Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Resolution No. 2006-_ recommending to the City Council approval of Commercial Design Review No. C 2006-04 based on the following Findings, Exhibits "A" thru "I" and the proposed Conditions of Approval. AGENDA ITEM \ PAGEl OF ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PROJECT TITLE: COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-04 PREPARED BY: MATTHEW C. HARRIS, SENIOR PLANNER APPROVED BY: Rolfe M. Preisendanz, Director of Community Development ATTACHMENTS: 1. LOCATION MAP 2. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 3. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 5. EXHIBITS . REDUCTIONS (8 ~ xII) Exhibit A Site Plan Exhibit B Site Details Exhibit C Grading Plan Exhibit D Landscaping Plan Exhibit E 1 st Floor Plan Exhibit F 2nd Floor Plan Exhibit G Building Elevations Exhibit H Building Cross-Sections Exhibit I Cross-Sections · FULL SIZE PLAN SET AGENDA ITEM \ PAGEloF~O VICINITY MAP C 2006-04 N ..-; w ::> z ~; PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE ~ J OF ~~ RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 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 MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS LAKE ELSINORE MEDICAL WHEREAS, HC&D Architects, C/O Chris Lindholm, has submitted application for Lake Elsinore Medical located on the south side of Canyon Estates Drive and west of Summerhill Drive; and WHEREAS, the application comprises the "project" as defined by California Public Resources Code Section 21065, which is defined as an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and which includes the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies; and WHEREAS, the project has been found exempt from further environmental review in accordance with California Public Resources Code, Article II, Section 15162; 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 September 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 proposed application and its consistency with the MSHCP prior to making a decision to recommend that the City Council adopt Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP. SECTION 2. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning laws, the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) and the MSHCP, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for MSHCP consistency: ACENDA ITEM NO. PACE ~ 1 OF ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006- PAGE20F4 MSHCP CONSISTENCY FINDINGS 1. The proposed project is a project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval. Pursuant to the City's MSHCP Resolution, the project is required to be reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including consistency with other "Plan Wide Requirements." The proposed project site lies within Criteria Cells #4646 and #4647. However, based upon a verbal "common law vested rights agreement" between the City and the previous landowner, the site was exempted from the MSHCP. This agreement was the result of the previous landowner's extensive costs associated with infrastructure and road construction in that area prior to the City's involvement in the MSHCP. Accordingly, the current proposed project would also be subject to this same agreement. City Planning Staff conducted a site reconnaissance survey to ensure that no issues could be raised regarding consistency with the MSCHP 's other "Plan Wide Requirements". The only requirements potentially applicable to the proposed project were the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, ~ 6.1.2) and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, ~ 4). The proposed project site has already been graded as approved under the previous agreement and no habitat is present on site, including riparian/riverine areas or vernal pools. 2. The proposed project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's Joint Project Review processes. As stated above, the City exempted this site from the MSHCP and therefore it was not processed through a Joint Project Review. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vemal Pools Guidelines. The proposed project was exempted from the MSHCP. Further, a site reconnaissance survey was conducted, and no riparian, riverine, vernal pool/fairy shrimp habitat or other aquatic resources were identified on the proposed project site. As such, the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP are not applicable to the proposed project. ACENDA ITEM NO. PAGE \ (> OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006- PAGE30F4 4. The proposed project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. The proposed project was exempted from the MSHCP. Further, the site does not fall within any Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas. Neither a habitat assessment nor further focused surveys are required for the proposed project. Therefore, Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP are not applicable to the proposed project. 5. The proposed project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The proposed project was exempted from the MSHCP. Further, the MSHCP only requires additional surveys for certain species if the project is located in Criteria Area Species Survey Areas, Amphibian Species Survey Areas, Burrowing Owl Survey Areas, and Mammal Species Survey Areas of the MSHCP. The project site is located outside of any Critical Area Species Survey Areas. Therefore, it can be concluded that the provisions as set forth in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP are not applicable to the proposed project. 6. The proposed project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. The proposed project was exempted from the MSHCP. Further, the project site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP criteria or conservation areas. Therefore, the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.4 in the MSHCP are not applicable to the proposed project. No additional mitigation measures or conditions of approval are required. 7. The proposed project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The proposed project was exempted from the MSHCP. Further, the entire proposed project site has been rough-graded. There are no resources located on the project site requiring mapping as set forth in Section 6.3.1 of the MSHCP. 8. The proposed project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The proposed project was exempted from the MSHCP. Further, the project site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP criteria or conservation areas. Therefore, the Fuels Management Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.4 of AGENDA ITEM NO. \ PAGE \\. Of '1 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006- PAGE40F4 the MSHCP are not applicable to the proposed project. No additional mitigation measures or conditions or approval are required. 9. The proposed project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. As a condition of approval, the project will be required to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee at the time of issuance of building permits. 10.The proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP. As stated in No. 1 above, the proposed project was exempted from the MSHCP based upon a "common law vested rights agreement" between the City and the previous landowner. That exemption continues to apply to the current proposed project. SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Michael O'Neal, Chairman Lake Elsinore Planning Commission ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz Director of Community Development ACENDA HEM NO. PAGE \ ~ \ OF ~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 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 COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-04 FOR A TWO- STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND TWO-STORY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING WITHIN THE CANYON CREEK "SUMMERHILL" SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, Chris Lindholm, HC&D Architects, has initiated proceedings for Commercial Design Review No. 2006-04 for the design and construction of a two-story medical office building and a two-story professional office building with related improvements located at APN 363-550-014; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council for Design Reviews; and WHEREAS, public notice of said application has been given, and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on September 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 Commercial Design Review No. 2006-04 prior to making a decision to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed medical office building and professional office building. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15162. SECTION 3. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning Law and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of the Commercial Design Review No. 2006-04: ACEI'~~:~EM\~. OF ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -50 PAGE20F3 1. The project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, Specific Plan and the Zoning District in which the project is located. The proposed Commercial Design Review located within Assessor Parcel Number(s) 363-550-014 complies with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and, Canyon Creek "Summerhill" Specific Plan in that the approval of these medical and professional offices will assist in the creation of additional job opportunities and increased medical facility options within the community. Moreover, the project will assist in achieving the development of a well-balanced and functional mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational and institutional land uses as well as encouraging commercial land uses to diversify Lake Elsinore's economic base. 2. The project complies with the design directives contained in the Canyon Creek "Summerhill" Specific Plan, Section 17.82.060 and all other applicable provisions of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. The proposed Commercial Design Review located at Assessor Parcel Number(s) 363-550-014 is appropriate to the site and surrounding developments in that the medical office building and professional office building have been designed in consideration of the size and shape of the property. Sufficient setbacks and onsite landscaping have been provided thereby creating interest and varying vistas as a person moves along the street. In addition, safe and efficient circulation has been achieved onsite. Further, the project, as proposed, will complement the quality of existing development and will create a visually pleasing, non-detractive relationship between the proposed development and existing projects in that the applicant is providing a "Spanish" architectural design with various elements which serve to enhance the building. Moreover, a variety of materials and colors are proposed including decorative wrought iron accents, decorative light fixtures and earth tone colors that serve to blend with surrounding developments and provide evidence of a concern for quality and originality. 3. Subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Commercial Design Review 2006-04, located at Assessor Parcel Number 363-550-014, as reviewed and conditioned by all applicable City divisions, AcermA ITEM r~o. \ PAGE \~ OF ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -50 PAGE 3 OF 3 departments and agencies, will not have a significant effect on the environment. The potential impacts associated with the project do not result in substantial change to the previously certified Canyon Creek "Summerhill" Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration. Therefore, no additional environmental review is necessary for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15162. 4. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Chapter 17.82.070 of the Zoning Code, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the subject project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of Chapter 17.82. Pursuant to Section 17.82.070 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the proposed Commercial Design Review located at Assessor Parcel Number(s) 363-550-014 has been scheduled for consideration and approval of the Planning Commission. SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of September 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Michael O'Neal, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz, Director of Community Development ACENDA ITEM NO. \ PAVE \ 5 OF?> ~ PLANNING General Conditions: 1. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Official, Officers, Employees, and Agents from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Official, Officers, Employees, or Agents to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning the commercial project, which action is bought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Sections 65009 and/or 66499.37, and Public Resources Code Section 21167. The City will promptly notify the Applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City and will cooperate fully with the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Applicant of any such claim, or proceeding, the Applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 2. Approval for Commercial Design Review No. 2005-08 will lapse and be void unless building permits are issued within one (1) year following the date of approval. 3. Any alteration or expansion of a project for which there has been a "Design Review" approval as well as all applications for modification or other change in the conditions of approval of a "Design Review" shall be reviewed according to the provisions of Chapter 17.82 in a similar manner as a new application. 4. No structure which has received a "Design Review" or "Minor Design Review" approval shall be occupied or used in any manner or receive a Certificate of Occupancy until the Director of Community Development has determined that all Conditions of Approval have been complied with. ACfi~DA ITEM NO. \ PAGE 1 ~ ~OF ~'g CONDITIONS OF APPROV AI.. COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW NO.2006-04 Page 2 of u 5. Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced on page one of building plans submitted to the Building Division Plan Check. All Conditions of Approval shall be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. 6. All site improvements approved with this request shall be constructed as indicated on the approved site plan and elevations. Revisions to approved site plans or building elevations shall be subject to the review of the Community Development Director. 7. Applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures associated with the Environmental Impact Report for the Canyon Creek Specific Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Canyon Creek Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 as applicable. 8. Plan Check shall conform to the submitted plans as modified by Conditions of Approval, or the Planning Commission/City Council through subsequent action. 9. All roof mounted or ground support air conditioning units or other mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened or shielded by landscaping so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Any material covering the roof equipment shall match the primary wall color. 10. All exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and directed on-site so as not to create glare onto neighboring property and streets. All light fixtures shall compliment the architectural style of the building. 11. Applicant shall comply with all ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. 12. Trash enclosures shall be constructed per City standards as approved by the Community Development Director or Designee prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 13. No exterior roof ladders shall be permitted. Agenda \ Page \'\ of 3~ CONDITIONS OF APPROV AI.. COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW NO.2006-04 Page 30fu 14. All exterior downspouts shall be concealed within the building. 15. The Planning Division shall approve the location of any construction trailers utilized during construction. All construction trailers shall require a cash bond processed through the Planning Division. 16. Materials and colors depicted on the plans and materials board shall be used unless modified by the Director of Community Development or designee. The colors and materials include the following: Upper Field Color Vista Paint 8592 "Fresh Sawdust" Lower Field Color Vista Paint 8599 "Brighton Beach" Roofing Monier Lifetile, San Carlos Blend 6123 Storefront Green Tint with Anodized Aluminum Frame 17. On-site surface drainage shall not cross sidewalks. 18. Parking stalls shall be double-striped with four-inch (4") lines two feet (2') apart. 19. All exposed slopes in excess of three feet (3') in height shall have a permanent irrigation system and erosion control vegetation installed, approved by the Planning Division. Prior to Issuance of Building/Grading Permit: 20. Prior to issuance of any grading permit or building permits, 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. 21. Three (3) sets of the Final Landscaping/Irrigation Detail Plan shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Architect Consultant and the Community Development Director or designee, prior Agenda \ Page~ of.3'i CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW NO.2006-04 Page 40fU to issuance of building permit. A Landscape Plan Check & Inspection Fee will be charged prior to final landscape approval. a. All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler system with 100% plant and grass coverage using a combination of drip and conventional irrigation methods. b. All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six inch (6") high and six inch (6") wide concrete curb. c. Planting within fifteen feet (15') of ingress/egress points shall be no higher than thirty-six inches (36"). d. Applicant shall plant street trees, selected from the City's Street Tree List, a maximum of thirty feet (30) apart and at least twenty- four-inch (24") box in size. e. Any transformers and mechanical or electrical equipment shall be indicated on landscape plan and screened as part of the landscaping plan. f. Shrubs and vines shall be planted around the on site trash enclosure to soften the structure. The landscape and irrigation plan shall be revised accordingly. g. The landscape plan shall provide for ground cover, shrubs, and trees and meet all requirements of the City's adopted Landscape Guidelines. Special attention to the use of Xeriscape or drought resistant plantings with combination drip irrigation system to be used to prevent excessive watering. Thirty percent of shrubs required on slopes shall be five-gallon container size. h. All landscape improvements shall be bonded 100% for material and labor for two years from installation sign-off by the City. Release of the landscaping bond shall be requested by the applicant at the end of the required two years with approval/acceptance by Agenda \ page~ of 3R CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW NO.2006-04 Page 5 of 12 the Landscape Consultant and Community Development Director or Designee. 1. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed within affected portion of any phase at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested for any building. Final landscape plan must be consistent with approved site plan. J. Final landscape plans to include planting and irrigation details. k. The African Sumac trees proposed around the perimeter of the onsite parking lot shall be replaced with a variety of tree that has a wider canopy at maturity such as a Camphor Tree. Please revise final landscape plan accordingly. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that all required fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District have been paid. 23. Decorative light fixtures shall be placed within the on site parking lot. The fixtures shall be ADA compliant and shall compliment and enhance the architectural style of the buildings onsite. The specific fixture type shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or designee and shall be shown on the construction drawings. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT General Requirements: 24. A grading plan signed and stamped by a Calif. Registered Civil Engineer shall be required if the grading exceeds 50 cubic yards or the existing flow pattern is substantially modified as determined by the City Engineer. If the grading is less than 50 cubic yards and a grading plan is not required, a grading permit shall still be obtained so that a cursory drainage and flow pattern inspection can be conducted before grading begins. Agenda~ Page~of~ CONDITIONS OF APPROV AI.. COMMERICAL DESIGN RE VIE W NO.2006-04 Page 6 of 12 25. Prior to commencement of grading operations, applicant to provide to the City with a map of all proposed haul routes to be used for movement of export material. Such routes shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 26. 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. All manufactured slopes greater than 30 ft. in height shall be contoured. 27. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained prior to any work on City right-of-way. 28. Arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.) out of the roadway shall be the responsibility of the property owner or his agent. Overhead utilities shall be undergrounded. 29. Underground water rights shall be dedicated to the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.52.030 (LEMC), and consistent with the City's agreement with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 30. The applicant shall install permanent bench marks per Riverside County Standards and at locations to be determined by City Engineer. 31. Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by Riverside County Fire. 32. Applicant shall pay all applicable development fees, including but not all inclusive: TUMF, TIF, Railroad Canyon Road Benefit District Fees, and area drainage fees. 33. Ten 10 year storm runoff shall be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm runoff shall be contained within the street right-of-way. When either of these criteria is exceeded, drainage facilities shall be provided. 34. All drainage facilities in this project shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District Standards. Agenda \ Page cl. \ of 3'b CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW NO.2006-04 Page 7 of 12 35. All compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8 'li" x 11" Mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division before final inspection of public works improvements will be scheduled and approved. 36. Slopes and landscaping along Canyon Estates Drive including within public right-of-way shall be maintained by property owner's association. 3 7. All open space and slopes except for public parks and schools and flood control district facilities, outside the public right-of-way shall be owned and maintained by property owner's association. 38. In accordance with the City's Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling, the applicant shall be required to contract with CR&R Inc. for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction. 39. On-site drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility, accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance, or conveyed to a drainage easement. 40. 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. 41. Roof drains shall not be allowed to outlet directly through coring in the street curb. Roofs should drain to a landscaped area. 42. Applicant shall comply with all NPDES requirements in effect; including the submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) as required per the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The requirements of WQMP may affect the overall layout of the project. Therefore, WQMP submittal should be during the initial process of the proj ect. 43. Education guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be provided to residents of the development in the use of herbicides, Agenda page~of ~'& CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW NO.2006-04 Page 8 of U Pesticides, fertilizers as well as other environmental awareness education materials on good housekeeping practices that contribute to protection of storm water quality and met the goals of the BMP in Supplement "A" in the Riverside County NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. (Required for lot of one acre or more) 44. Applicant shall provide BMP's that will reduce storm water pollutants from parking areas and driveway aisles. (Required for lot of one acre or more) 45. 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. Prior to Approval of final site plan and grading plan, unless other timing is indicated, the applicant shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, agreements executed and securities posted: 46. The applicant shall dedicate 2' of additional right-of-way on Canyon Estates Drive such that the ultimate right-of-way width to centerline is 45 feet. Canyon Estates shall be widened to meet General Plan street of 35 feet from centerline to curb face. In-lieu fee based on recent engineer's estimate may be substituted for construction of ultimate improvements as approved by the City Engineer. 47. The driveway access shall be widened to provide two lanes for egress (right and left/thru). Median nose shall be located out of public r/w. The queing storage for entrance to the site shall be at least 50 feet from the ultimate curbline of Canyon Estates Drive. Agenda ~ Page d.) of 3'8 CONDITIONS OF APPROV AI.. COMMERlCAL DESIGN REVIEW NO.2006-04 Page 9 of 12 48. Sidewalk improvements shall include ADA ramps at curb returns. 49. The applicant shall provide a revised signing and striping plan for Canyon Estates Drive, from Ridgecrest/project access to Franklin. 50. The applicant shall provide a traffic study. The study shall be per County guidelines and scope of work approved by the City. The study's recommended traffic improvements, if approved by the city, shall be completed by the applicant as part of this project. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit: 51. Submit grading plans with appropriate security, Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer for approval by the City Engineer. Developer shall mitigate any flooding and/or erosion downstream caused by development of the site and/or diversion of drainage. 52. The grading plan shall show that no structures, landscaping, or equipment are located near the project entrance that minimizes sight distance standards. 53. Construction Project access and hauling route shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer, 54. Provide soils, geology and seismic report including street design recommendations. Provide final soils report showing compliance with recommendations. 55. An Alquist-Priolo study shall be performed on the site to identify any hidden earthquake faults and/or liquefaction zones present on-site. 56. The applicant shall obtain all necessary off-site easements and/or permits for off-site grading and/or drainage acceptance from the adjacent property owners prior to grading permit issuance. 57. Applicant to provide erosion control measures as part of their grading plan. The applicant shall contribute to protection of storm water quality Agenda , Page ~ '-\ of :) ~ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW NO.2006-04 Page 10 of 12 and meet the goals of the BMP in Supplement "A" in the Riverside County NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. 58. Applicant shall provide the city with proof of his having filed a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program with a storm water pollution prevention plan prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall provide a SWPPP for post construction, which describes BMP's that will be implemented for the development including maintenance responsibilities. The applicant shall submit the SWPPP to the City for review and approval. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit: 59. 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. 60. 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. 61. The applicant shall show that no structures, landscaping, or equipment are located near the project entrance that minimizes sight distance standards. 62. Pay all Capital Improvement TIF, Railroad Canyon Benefit District Fees, and Master Drainage Fees and Plan Check fees (LEMC 16.34). Prior to Occupancy: 63. Pay all fees and meet requirements of an encroachment permit issued by the Engineering Division for construction of off-site public works improvements (LEMC12.08, Res.83-78). All fees and requirements for an encroachment permit shall be fulfilled before Certificate of Occupancy. Agenda \ page~of ~8 CONDITIONS OF AFPROV AL COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW NO.2006-04 Page 11 of 12 64. All compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8 1/2" x 11" Mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division before final inspection of off-site improvements will be scheduled and approved. 65. All public improvements shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 66. All signing and striping and traffic control devices shall be installed. This includes Street Name Signs, Parking and Stop signs, for streets within the proj ecL 67. Water and sewer improvements shall be completed in accordance with Water District requirements. 68. Proof of acceptance of maintenance responsibility of slopes, open spaces, and drainage facilities shall be provided. 69. TUMF fees shall be paid. The TUMF fees shall be the effective rate at the time when the Certificate of Occupancy is obtained. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 70. The applicant shall pay park fees of $0.10 per square foot for all interior commercial/industrial space. 71. The applicant shall comply with all NPDES storm water requirements. 72. The applicant shall participate in the City-wide LLMD. 73. The applicant shall annex into LLMD District 1 for all exterior landscaping to be maintained by the City. 74. Developer to comply with all City Ordinances regarding construction debris removal and recycling as per Section 8.32 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Agenda l Page J.b of )~ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW NO.2006-04 Page U ofu RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 75. The applicant shall comply with all Riverside County Fire Department conditions and standards. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 76. ADA Path of Travel to the public right-of-way shall be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 77. "Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall annex into the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District 2006-5 to fund the on-going operation and maintenance of the new parks, open space and public storm drains constructed as a result of the development and federal NPDES requirements to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project. Applicant shall make a $4,200 non-refundable deposit to cover the cost of the annexation process. Contact Dennis Anderson, Harris & Associates at (949) 655-3900 x334 or danderson@harris-assoc.com." 78. "Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall annex into Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District No.1 to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project on public right-of-way landscaped areas to be maintained by the City and for street lights in the public right- of-way for which the City will pay for electricity and a maintenance fee to Southern California Edison. Applicant shall make a $4,700 non- refundable deposit to cover the cost of the annexation process. Contact Dennis Anderson, Harris & Associates at (949) 655-3900 x334 or danderson@harris-assoc.com. " Agenda \ page-.nof '3~ ) I I I - --- --- -- ~~!0 !li'P~ 1'1' g8 ill ~z [~ ~ II rIRffl ~-g III ~nJ)O.~0~. ~o~oo 0 ~ I ~: :1 U U I II II I III a : I : I ~~ H ~I ~ I' I ~ u · rll q Ii 1111 'I I, i! il i! li i I I ~ - 11jl I ~~I , ~ I ~ I ~ I I I 'I H ! ~ 1'1 I I ~ I I I I i':; i iI ~ R.. j ~ I ~ I ~ LAKE ELSINORE MEDICAL -- ..... ---.. OMllI WEST GROll', INC. a GARlET IRVINE, CA 821120 !;~~~~I - ~ ~-- ACENOA IiEM NO.~ I I ._ _u.PAGE cl~ ~ ~I Iln! "I ~ h~~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~ )0 ~ )- . t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !~~~ I !w~ I ~~~~ ~g~~~ i~~ ii~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~h~ ~ ~;2 ~ ~ ~~ ::j Ii ~ ~ -< o m~! m~i ~ ~. II ~ ~ en ~.. Q i I!f~ I n!~ i ~~.~ !W i,~ d~ i1 ~ i c: ~. ~ ~ ;;1 ~ ~ > s!::! ~ ~ <:J1~g ~ zU I ~ .... ~ ~ i . ~ nt . il1 lii > Ii> 1)1> ~n~ lii>n~ ,,0" .:oU m- " " ;; .... N< U ,," ~i z ::I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lillll! !lli i!!lil ill II II! ! ! I '! I! !llll! Ii! III 1m jl !IIII !i II ! i!1 II! iI I! !Ii Iii II! il! !!!! Ill!! ! Ililll! Ii II II! IIi !llllll i i i!1 II j 1!1 Ii! IIi !!ll III! illll Ii i 1111 i ! ~l! !ll II I:! I!ll. ~l!l ! ; ". ~ ~ .. ;~ ~~~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ "! U ~~i i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R~ ! ~i ~~ i ~ U ~!~ i~ ~~i iU ~n~ [;l ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ - ~ 2 > > 0 ~ .. ~ 2 ~.~ I ~ ~ ~ -~> ~h ~ ~ ~ '" > ~mi ~ d ~ G d ~ G d ~GdHUI H In i Im~ r ~"n j ~! ~ i ~ q ~ a I H r I r !U ~ ; ~ ~!~~; "~In 'I! ~! ~ ~ H H I n ~ ~ s I ~ ~ ~ I~ liP ~ z g ~ o~~. ~.~ ., ij ~ p ~' i il ~ ~ Ii ~* q en ~ ~~~~ iw nl ~il~ ~ & ~ ~ g~g~ H; ~~ r~ ~~I- iii ~ ~Ii! ~nl ~~ II ~ ~ ~ ~ CC ::: H ! ~~i i ~ !~.~ ~ il.~ Ii m ~ ~ lno~ ." ~ u ~ h ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ii ~ ~ ~~ .~ ... ~ ~ s g o~~~ i~ ir~ ;~ ij" ~ i ~~~h ~ [ [~ . i~ ~ j ~t) mo )> a a, ! I , ~. I ~ ~ i ~~~~~~~ ~ .... ~ ill: ~-: ;:;,,;; ~ 00 ARd<Y~CT~ ~ SITE PLAN LAKE ELSINORE MEDICAL "'PM: HlUOO14-1 LAlCE lLSlNOlll!. CA OMNI WEST GROUP, INC. 3 G1RIIET IRVINE. CA 82820 PAGE ~\ I -l Jl > en :J: m z o r- o en c Jl m m z r- > ~ :l~~IWH ~ ~~Hi:~i ~ .~~~~~~~ ~~ d~~ m~l~ h~~~~ ~ iij rn~ )> ! '0 i ~N ~ ~ h~~~ ~sliU ~~~~u h ~~a H~ i~~ ~u " \ \ =~ ==; I / " <:: " \ = \ =~ / / " " \ = \ =~ / / " " \ \ ~ / / " " \ \ =~~ / / <::" ,-. mm ;i&~~~ l-" " \ \ ~o 1>0 Z -l Jl o r- '- o Z -l o m -l > ;= I ]?il ,,.. ~~ ~ I ~~ i .;~ > ~~ b ~ . :"1"><>"'" l..\"\"" -'Y.. .,',-/" ....e!:';''. U ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~,~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~."~;\' ..'.~~.r.X-i~.'.'.'. '..'t'- i';';t:fi' 12 I~ ~m b ~ ~ 10 ~~ '12 i -t . U UH ~~ ~I i~ ~~ f2lGG B GGGGB BIZ ~r I iiun!n~~tIH~ ~I~i; ~ ~ . ~i ~~ ~~~ ~~ s~ . ~J ~~~~i ~ ~ h Iii if! '~~I : ~i N~~ ~ ! .qi~ ! P Hi~~~ ~en !Pc m ~~ ~ ~. ~u " .a o ~. cV Jl ~i ~ ~. m -l > ;= ~~ cc ~~ 4> r- r- ~i. ~ I ~~ W I I I ~ II ~J m~ ~~; H ~ ~ ~ ~~. '0' .' -----.J ~ ~ ~~~ ;U~ ~" ~~ ~ ~I t ~~ ", ". ". ~~ . pl ~i ~~~~ ~ ..' I~~ H .> ,en i:I: h i~l~ Ni 6m 'z ~~ . 0 .~ ~~~" ~ ~ r- ~~ ~~! 0 il ~~; en M ;~~~ c Jl ~ ~~~2 m I\J. n~ m ~ ~g~ .~ ~i r- m ~ < > -l rffi (5 z ~i \ / ~, , '..._--_..../ "- SITE DETAILS OMNI WEST GROUP, INC, If!!;.''J =,"':~:= "b.~ ARCHTECT~ ~n ~ o ~ . l~.g~~ ~ iE.' ~ I~~ LAKE ELSINORE MEDICAL "PM: ..$NOO.... LAIU! !LllMOlll!:, CA ~- DATI!: BY 3 GARNET IRVINE. CA 92020 I I 11....,. ........ ~'... "." U'.' @ @G e ~~ C$Hv (~ ~ iil~ LJ '--' '--' '--' I,J II II II n n "- I u '-J I n II 11 11 " --ry-f.. I r-,~ ~ I I ~ ~I IbJ I f.\ C[ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I I r--. Llk I PJ ~ I I W- -~------- -W. I " I '=:.J . rr ~ lh II 0 [ (TIel ~ ~ (' -" [v"] Oil h '\ L/ 1\ \1 ~ ~ ~ I ~ ? \.J ~ _L DIU II ~ ~_JjJ ~~jl " ~D ~ T ==' " I ~ ~ ~ , I I = C[ I -~ I ~ ~ I ~ . P\ .-- ;= ~I I~ =; \81 L-k I !=! I I -@- I I l, ~ ~ II II Il ,--., ,--., ,--., JI II II P\ II \t:!I ~ , "'.' I ,~ I ,'.r I I I ".' I l , I -I '" )'''' "., U' , ,'_ ,',rl\ "-r .' , ~',.' I ~ ~ IW ~ ~- ~:: "- .'~,- ARCHTu:T~ OMNI WEST GROUP, INC, ~~~~N~~~~~O:~~D ~11tC1S1<Hll~"'LNOT8Eca>IIll ~"~~~rri!~1fu:;:.s:~_ ' ~~~~ ~I~~ ~p~~:ii ,\ OF MEDICAL BUILDING FLOOR PLANS LAKE ELSINORE MEOICAL APM:lUlJfOO...... LAIC.! I!UIMOIU!, CA 3 GARNET IRVINE, CA 921120 AG PAVE I ." ,... o o ~ ~ ~ ~ z , '" ~ Co ." ,... o o JJ '@ rn~ )> ~ , I\) i ~N .... 1'-.' 4 @G r., ~ II II II II I I * I ~ I ~I I I ere ~ I . I I Ll!: I I ~ I I . rr '\ k II I ,- "'--'L.JJ [0'] OIl 1/ 1\ ~I I "_L DILJ II ~ ~, Droll 1 ere I I I Qi ~I ~r;= f'---- I I I I I lit )..... II IT . . I .. I .'.W I w_ I '.' I I $ II T'II'.fl' @ ~~ U L.....J L.....J L.....J I,j n n U n II IW ~ I U'o' $~ ~ '" CJ II II II r'\ :::~ '-:J '" RJ 'C./ r-- fJ 'V r -~--~ --- -W: ~ ? [ [ '" 'V = ~ ~hOII A ( '" \..:;I ~ojl '1D ~ '7 ==" '" \;J '" C.I ~ RJ po, ~ 1= -Q1- . " po, II II \C:<I "oW I I l 3'-41', ,.... ~ ,., ~ JI II .... I.. I _'oW MEDICAL BUILDING FLOOR PLANS LAKE ELSINORE MEDICAL APft: HalMOO...... LAKE I!LlIMOA!, CA ;.;:." '","" '"' [iii.. :';.= I ~!i :. NO. 3 GARNET "b~ '. IRVINE, CA 82620 ARCHTECJ':' m z -i JJ > Z (") m ~ o JJ -i (5 o ~ > r " ~ > -< ~ I~ ~ s ~ ---' ~. ~ [B ~19 G " ~I~ i ~~~ ~ ~I ~I~ ~ H~ ~ Iii g I~i ~ i~ i~II!H z II ! II j II I! II' ~ ~I ~~ ~ ~" ~ ~ EI IID[B ~ BJ 2~ H! ; m~ U~ I ~i ~t 2~H f~i g h ~~~ ~,~~ J ~ ~i ~i~ ~~n U ' ~ ~I ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii1J I! I! i! Ii I~~ 22 2~ 2~ ~:; H~ ~I ~~ ~~ l!~ !~~ ~nHI ~ d ~ ~ 2 ~ i m z -i :rJ > Z (") m ~ > -i m JJ ." o C Z -i > Z ." m > -i C :rJ m L~~ II I I ~in '; ..:.. ~ Xx e'<lJolI' l)o~~~ ~:r ~l~~ :n'...... ~ , ~ [. [. -i . -< -, . I ~ ;1] u .:~ II p 1- . ~, .J c-- CI~ ~ . .;1] <:>-~ ): a I........ i , .'-' .~ m p, ':0 (JJ .(JJ llll ., r "// " 't!I~ -i " // / ,," " ~~~ <:>- m , ~ ' ~c < .... JJ JL ~." ~, , O~fil .11./ .';: 't!I > -i .JJ , ,0' -i -< ' ..::. ' " " " 0 r'" > <5 ' , , , z , " " "- ~ :!l , " 'I , > z Ii JJ '.i =;;; , '0 m .'.j 0 , r , , , , / m , , -"", J;; P, !::J , '" / =- , r , , . 'I' , ""I m < , > '2J ~"" < > -i '~ ~\ > , , , , , -i <5 1 ,,, "'I; -i , , , , , ~ <5 , N, , z jD i----- 0 Z , , , , '::" s- i Z '"' . Iii '; - ""7 JL: " -.::::;7 =- ""iJ - '8J . - , ' , . . '..:.... ' ~ ,'-2- 'f ' ' , ' ' , N, 'u , 1:>- " , 9 , j ,-2- , '... , , ,,-~ . . '.iI' i.' ~ ,~'. , , ~ ..c. , , , r\' , ~ 'H' ' , hi" ...1 :1:.I1i.J'1 , ", , / 'CI , , ,: el~. ..... l<jL ~ , h / , '~' '.\..L. li' l' . .'\1 .., k .>',. ,~ '~' ,~' , './ 5t'-<4~ , N ' " ~ " , , , , ,- , , "'" , " , ~ - ~ ~. . \n . /1.1 " " ", ' ' . . , ' .\ .. , , ' , . , , , , " , , , . ' , , t ' 'lfllll, , , , " " " " " ",,- ~ \ ,'-' , f------ . : ~ ~"" '1[11l1li . . '"' ( , , , " , " [. , , , - .f '"' , p) , , " // ,I 'V , 'Ik'd;;l , ", , " , , ---e , , , , ,II .n , N, , " , , , , , , , , , ''1 " ' , , , N, , . , , , , / " , . , , ' , J [:, .11 . / /oj" ~ ' , N' '':j , '" , , , f------ ~ n , '0 T , / , , . .:...' '~ , , , '- r1'";-, do ' , , ( .:.. I-'- '..ill' - " , . . r.'\ , / " , 'CJ I . t---e , , / , ',. '~' , , ~' , , , N, , , H J , , , 1 ~,.JL ;'"7'1 , / , /1 / II I,," ~~. ,W , ~ r' 'd i, , " 1 ':"IF ',. 'V ;~ ~ hr' '0 , , '" ]P'f 1:0; 'C/ 11'.' , r. =- ~ -'t!I It:u 'C/ ~ ~I- "V " ii ~ ~ ........... CI ........... ,,' ". ". 22'-"1' 22'-"1' 22'..... 2'1'-6' 71'-6' :<T'-&>' 2'11'-:;1' :2""-2' 2"1'-:;1' ~n~ ii2J ~i~ H ~~. ~ OMNI WEST GROUP, INC. ~ :lIt:-- ~'M o=.=-...,., i/"-'l:! .........,...._ -19' ARCHT.E.CT~ MEDICAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS LAKE ELSINORE MEDICAL "PM: HS65OO14-1 LAKE ELlIMOM!, CA 3 GARNET IRVINE, CA 82820 PAOE I ~ ~ ~ IW PI! I ~ ~ .. l~~~-"O ~ - II I !.;x:r E ~~~ aJ C ;= C Z G) o :JJ o (Jl (Jl (Jl m o -i o Z l . " ," i 6 ~ ~ iq~ ~~ P . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ , ~ ~ i I ~ " , ~ ~ ~ ~I! ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,/ In J - ----- ----- - -- i I ------------------- -- I ,,~ m~ ~~ ~~. ~: ~ BUILDING SECTIONS OMNI WEST GROUP, INC. LAKE ELSINORE MEDICAL ......., "'MOO".' U.IU! elSINORE, CA 3 GARNET IRVINE, CA 92620 ~:: - .'~,.... ARCHTJ::cr~ , i'~ ~d"~1 ~Q~"I~ ~ ~ qt. ~. t ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i; i Ii I ~ ~ ~aJ ~s;; ., \i2 iZ ~G) o :JJ o (Jl (Jl (Jl m o -i o Z I- I- ~ ~ ~ ~ I- I- 1- ===:;j I- I- ----- ---- -- ---- t.......mJ I !- ~ i I! ~ NO. Rf"'IIOM DATI! IV "" O...~N~~~~,~,^_ .1 THEJl(OHllIlItEPIlDPt!U'VCfHe.o r.IlCH'TEcn.....05l<AU-NCTIlECOPEO OlIll/SEDDlctPTFOIIflltPUllPOS[ FOR~IT15[.PlIES~TF\JRNlSHEO n;c O~"'IIING 41<<1 ...... COl"C$ THlillEllf. p....n...OfICQWPU:~~-"U.III:I![- TVRNUlT(lT><E~VP'(lHOCIOANO. '.. --..u'\ -. PAGE ~4~ I ~~ or- -g ~z .", (JJ m n -i (5 Z t Q i ~ ~ di ~ ~ . ~;J ~ .. ~ Ii! Ji1l/ I : I : I I I --~ ~ ... ~ =.'ll=.: .. f" III .ign .~ ~ ARCHT.e:CT~ i~ ~ In!!! ~t: II U ~" r ~ . . ~~ i il~ :~ ~ ge ,. ~~ ~~ "Ii . ~ r " n il i~ : ~p Ii Ii ! ! Ii ~I ~i i ~ u ~ " ~~ o " ~~ m ~ n 0 0 ~ n ~~ ~ ~ . r ~ i i ~~ ~~ P E E i~ ~~ ~ 0 ~~ t~ . . ~. ~ , I: ~ I] ~N BUILDING SECTIONS OMNI WEST GROUP, INC. LAKE ELSINORE MEDICAL AI'tt: aNNOO14-8 UK! 1LItNOIllE. CA 3 GARNET IRVINE, CA 82020 PACE I tll c: F o 62: .G) (Jl m o -i 5 z ~ ~ [~ ~ I] ~W I ~ ~ \: ; Ii ,I ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ U! ~~ [}= ~o n~ i~ Ill! i! il "~ ~2 ; ~ ! i !l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ !l ~ ~ ~n !~!~ Ii ~ Iii 1111 i i ~I "" ! H ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ I BUILDING SECTIONS LAKE ELSINORE MEDICAL APM: :tnllOO14-1 LAKIILIlMOIlt!, CA ~. VIerA ~AII..T ePtfGl..lTON eEACl-lM'!I\!II'INI&l-l OMNI WEST GROUP, INC. ~"o. I"ItJ'AAEDIrI':: ~"l ::,;:",,:.: ([)!~ _. .' . "'" = ARCHTECT~ 3 GARNET IRVINE, CA 82020 I L1~ I] >- jJ o :I: :::j m o -I C jJ >- r- <:1 m -I >- ;= "\ . u ~~ nil! ~ m~, ~ ,,!~ <:1 ~o2 "\ m-l ~~~ ""\ >- 1'2. ;= ~ ~ I ~ l~i~$ri>p ~ I ~!'Ir ~ ~5: ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS LAKE ELSINORE MEDICAL "PM: MSUO()14... LAKE ELSINORI!, CA OMNI WEST GROUP, INC. 3 GARNET IRVINE, CA 821520 JIB:"'J 't2>.~ ARcHI"J'.e:CT~ ~"T1 lor- '>- (f) :I: Z Gl <:1 m -I >- ;= ~~' ~ I PAGe ,~ n UII!il! illll! ,Ili!li!!ll II iIUI!I!!!! II!I; II; In!;.' I~i ! i! I :UIII; ;.-; II;: .II~! I~. t In:~11 .~'~ ~~ ~ I~ - I ~ 6-1'1 ,~i~ .n :I\ii. IlR ,.. ~i / -,~~ .~ ~'~I! ' l!! ~'-IL' 1\ ... , ! r~ ! · 0 f..,o ::j o~1j;: ~ "'0:>: E ."r1r1 0 ..~r1" "'c:r- ~~~ r ~I "r- Z):lJo ~",Cl~" ~ -o~1""1 PI ": i:~~ 1'1 11 III Cl2 Iii N""'CO - ~Ij;:~ ~ z ;:u 1'1 II ~'.."..'.' ~'.'.'.':.: ~'..: '~", ,i,. < , ' , , ,". ~ . . ' , In 1111 I ~ lU al~ a ~ I~ '. ',.1 'I':' .,': I'.:,,;.j: I .'..,.. 1;'~1 I,.\, \', \/ l\\,:/lil..':.". ,r."'".\..'"i'_ . ,Ii \ _..,' IF'?',.......... .... .................1 ~.Il....... I C I\~ ,!,\.} /\\...:.I!..:......\..........'..... . ".:" . '\"'\'\\" 'J. ,\.: ." d{.:..........a~-it\ ". ~ . ,\,.\1\ \ ,\',')'f'::i.: iiif',:,:, '. :; '" ..""\\,1 1.'("":, .iii'" '.'. ::,!",~~___~ol\T1.J, '\I\~' /~! ~.ii"/",.,. ',\\'Zii r .'<."",~t)!'T' / ..... 7; ....,:')\ .".,,~ ,\.. ",'i,'" \\V,f"'f;i':3J:'^ (\ 'i, ~ j \1 \A~ \If .'f'" "'~~'~;\"'''/ ... ....../,\ ,!I,.j.J', I,\~,'::f;l:~~ . ' 1\....\\ '. .'.':'.". III T , \t~:,\\ \ "r\L!: Ii' ,i .i.!.' .. \1\ '~" t'\.\~,Yi!i,)I~; I, . fit, ,'_II '\"1.:-'. '..1'... ':i'.. T "['1 .. ,'. ,,\ 1'\~\\ 1/iih<< IWr'/ '~'.',JI.,\.'.' II I I I{"l" '~.';.I...'II' ,,1. '.. '..."..' T.fiT iI, "', \ -j 1 "'f"'" 'f'" (/ ',,\ '.\',.' I !11,11'~ 1\. i ',1"" " /" 1\ !"Ii. 'f/ i'.....l.,.\,,\. .. I 'i 'fNt ':'.' 'I 111'1/1.' '.: .'.!......',.,.'. o", ' "'. "1' I, .,. 'I" I,,"' .,.:, Hill.. "~'l'\ .\. I. r 11. ;),'\ ,'" if I 1/ f !"".i'. < ift '" ,11',1, i ',!,'.'itU\\\', .iJ,/It, 'HI' i I I: lr'>,',i:\,\ \ CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DA TE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PREPARED BY: LINDA MILLER, PROJECT PLANNER PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO STATE ROUTE 74, EASTERLY OF TRELLIS LANE AND THE RAMSGA TE (CENTEX) SPECIFIC PLAN APPLICANT: THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET, LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA 92562 PROJECT REQUESTS . Mitigated Negative Declaration No 2005-12. The City of Lake Elsinore intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for annexation purposes pursuant to Article 6 (Negative Declaration Process) and Section 15070 (Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration) as established by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). . General Plan Amendment No. 2006-03. The City of Lake Elsinore is initiating an amendment to the City's Sphere oflnfluence (SOl) and General Plan Land Use Map by changing the land use designations of the subject property consisting of approximately one hundred fifty-four (154) acres. The review and analysis of this General Plan Amendment is pursuant to Government Code Section(s) 65350 through 65362, the Lake Elsinore General Plan and Chapter 17.92 (Hearings) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). ACENOA ITEM NO._ d. PAGE \ OF 4 ~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE20F5 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 . Pre-Zoning No. 2006-04. Conforming and consistent to the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map, the City of Lake Elsinore is also initiating an application to change the Zoning (Pre-Zoning) of the subject project area from the County of Riverside's zoning designations to the City of Lake Elsinore's Pre-Zoning designations. The review and analysis of the requested Pre-Zoning is pursuant to Government Code Section(s) 65350 through 65362 and Chapter 17.92 (Hearings) & Chapter 17.84 (Amendments) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). . Annexation No. 77. The City of Lake Elsinore is proposing an annexation of approximately one hundred fifty-four (154) acres from the County of Riverside's jurisdiction within the Sphere oflnfluence (SOl) area of the City of Lake Elsinore. The annexation has been initiated by the City of Lake Elsinore pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of2000 (Government Code Section 56000-56001) and the standards, policies and directives of the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). BACKGROUND The project is being brought back before the Planning Commission for reconsideration from the previous regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of August 1, 2006. Several property owners who attended that meeting stated that they felt that unanswered questions remained as to how the proposed Annexation would affect them. The Planning Commission felt that it would be appropriate to continue the project to a future regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of September 19, 2006 in order to give ample opportunity for the residents to ask all of their questions. The Planning Commission stated that the residents would have two (2) weeks to contact the City with their questions (August 15,2006). Between August 1, 2006 and August 15, 2006, five (5) residents and/or associates came into City Hall to request general information relating to the Annexation. One AGENDA ITEM ':l PAGE~OF~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE30F5 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 resident questioned a rumor that the City was planning to exercise the use of "eminent domain" once the Annexation was approved. Staff explained that this was a rumor and not true. Further, a letter dated August 21, 2006 from Marcy Wilson and Clara C. Smith was received at City Hall via email. The letter stated it was "written on behalf of the registered voters and land owners associated with and living at involved parcel[s] of the annexation into Lake Elsinore." Staff sent a response letter, dated August 30, 2006, to all property owners answering the questions raised in Ms. Wilson and Ms. Smith's letter. A copy of Ms. Wilson and Ms. Smith's letter as well as a copy of the City Staff s response letter is attached. Staff feels that all questions have been sufficiently answered and again recommends approval of the Annexation. Staff has included the original Staff Report dated August 1, 2006 which includes the Resolutions and Conditions of Approval. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project description remains the same per the Staff Report dated August 1, 2006. The Staff Report and Resolutions are attached for your convenience and reference. Essentially, the request is a proposal to annex one hundred fifty-four (154) acres of unincorporated County land that has been previously subdivided into forty-five (45) parcels. Of the forty-five (45) parcels, twenty-six (26) parcels are occupied with rural type residential uses and a few commercial uses, while the remaining nineteen (19) parcels are vacant. The parcels are owned by many individual land owners. The topography of the land area ranges from relatively flat areas to hills consisting of natural vegetation and substantial rock outcroppings. The area is under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside but within the City of Lake Elsinore's Sphere of Influence (SOl) area. The Annexation process requires that the City of Lake Elsinore approve a General Plan Amendment and Pre-Zoning in order to establish a regulatory procedure for future development. Ultimately, the annexation AGENDA ITEM ~ PAGE~OF~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE40F5 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 process will concurrently remove the area from the City's Sphere of Influence and place the area within the City of Lake Elsinore's incorporated City boundary. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolutions: . Resolution No. 2006- _, recommending City Council adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2005-12; . Resolution No. 2006-_ recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2006-03; . Resolution No. 2006-_ recommending to the City Council approval of Pre- Zoning No. 2006-04; and . Resolution No. 2006-_ recommending to the City Council approval to commence with proceedings for the properties described in Annexation No. 77. (Approval is based on the Findings, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval). PREPARED BY: LINDA MILLER, AICP, PROJECT PLANNER APPROVED BY: Rolfe M. Preisendanz, Director of Community Development AGENDA ITEM '1.. PAGE~OF~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE50F5 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 ATTACHMENTS: 1. VICINITY MAP 2. RESIDENT LETTER DATED AUGUST 21,2006 3. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE RESPONSE LETTER DATED AUGUST 30, 2006 4. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED AUGUST 1,2006 WITH THE FOLLOWING REVISED RESOLUTIONS: . RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005-12 . RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROV AL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03 . RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 . RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION NO. 77 5. FULL SIZED COLOR EXHIBITS (Presented at Hearing) P:\ALL FILES\2006 Projects\Annexation 77 - Centex\PC Staff Report Annexation 77 2nd report -continuance 9-19-06.doc AGENDA l.TEM ~ PAGE20F ~ (/) (/)i!! G G" e ~~~ ~ 't!'~Q ~~;.;~w~ "'C k~~~~~ ~ Q) c:: l~:! ~ ~~Q. 0 ill;~.!! ~~E It= :;::: ~ e~~.!'l U(/) m o.u U ~> Z It= 0 (/) ~ ---1Z ~I 0 Q) Z '" <I u ~- --- m ....: LL , a.. 0 I 0 c:: ('I') I 0 I :;::: (/) m Q) x I Q) e ~ c:: m \: c:: a.. Ctl <( I "'C (ij c:: "'C I ::J Q) c:: I 0 (/) 0 : OJ 0 :;::: . Co :0 ~ e "'C 0 a.. <( ..~ I .,<Ii <~ ..... ..... d z z o i= ~ w z z <( o '" -'" '" !i~ ~ .~~~~ g m<!~~ ~~~~% ~:ii:a~~ o.jlQ)~~ 8~ ~ ~ ~ --- ~ ... '''<'I.). ACEUDx t I ~.. -6 PAGE Monday, August 21, 2006 To whom it may concern: RE: Annexation #77 My concerns are with the long time effects as well as now, on the way of life most of the residents have lived over the past 20+ years. The annexation is to give paved roads, lighting. landscaping alonwith other services we would be paying money for. Mr. Salome briefly mentioned Public Works is the option to paving the roads and a 6-10 year contract with 6 years into it as an option. In other words NO we would not have paved roads unless there were a need to pave and a long process took place. Something like we already have as an option. If you could explain exactly what options available to us regarding the roads paved, lighting, and landscaping and such if the annexation were to go through, and the process, how long of time would be involved, exactly the options that would change from county to city for these issues. I am sure there are other services regarding the appearance and surroundings affected by annexation into the city. Annexation is bacily about appearance correct. Please supply me and other residents with some if not all of at least the top 10 codes ordnances that will change and necessary to comply with annexing into the city of lake Elsinore. Also explain in detail or supply us with the code or ordnance of unconditional I believe that is the term used, of what the parcels will be considered and how this fits into the annexation rules. To assure the laws will be followed by the residents with out misunderstanding by the land owners. There has not been very much communication done between the City of lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, and the ACENDA ITEM NO. ~ PACE 1- . OF 4 ~ residents effected by the annexation as well as the development taking place. We as residents have been burdens by the development of the ramsgate tracks, this has been taking place for more the 1 year and looking like going to take up the 2 years before the first resident will be moving in to any of the homes being built on the suite. As a resident we have been subjected to loud noises of beating on rocks for long periods of time (months) heavy equipment moving long into the evening hours as well as the weekends. Our path of travel is extremely damaging to our vehicles several of the residents have had damage to tires suspension, and breaks, effecting the performance. This being the means of travel we use several times daily. There is mud from running fire hydrant making grooves and ruts along the path. Keeping your car clean from the residue of mud and dust is impossible. The muddy conditions cause scratches and affect the condition of the paint, CV joints, getting into the wheels and break system. The amount of air born pollutions is amazing there is a haze hanging you can see form 10 miles a way. I would like to request the PM10 levels from the airborne dust and diesel emissions to be checked. The access is unreliable even for the fire department to have access to the residents. It was to my understanding when development of homes with in an occupied area every precaution is taken not to disturb and burden the residents living within the development. The means of travel are to be safe as possible. The path of travel for the trucks is not the same as the residents to cause as little burden as possible. There is supposed to be some form of monitoring of safety by the city or county and other regulating services. Responding to the response sent to residents regarding the issues with the development, not only was it a month before the letter sent but it was only invest aged 1 day May 18, 2006 by 1 person. To date there is serious safety issues having to do with access for fire department as well as us residents. I as well as other have requested several times that some city official come and observe for a few days the manner of ACENDA ITEM NO. PACE <B 'l OF 4~ business taking place. Nothing has changed. I am sure if your life was disrupted the way our lives have been your concerns would be important to you as well. Please take the time your selves to drive through and experience what we drive and live in on a daily biases. Try to imagine have to drive over and over day after day and live with dust noise and damage for over a year. There are several disturbing incidents taking place daily. The water being one, there is none. It is very hard to want annexation into a city that is allowing and not address issues that are hazards to the safety and well being of residents affected by the conduct taking place. On a daily basis our health and belongings are affected in a negative manner as well as peace of mind. Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion and will be waiting for your response to them. Sincerely Marcy Wilson And Clara C. Smith This letter is written on behalf of the registered voters and land owner associated with and living at involved parcel of the annexation into Lake Elsinore. Address: 28140 Missouri Trail Perris, Ca 92570 Our votes will be No on the annexation #77 NAME Marcy Wilson Clara C. Smith Lenore Clark Hailey Wilson resident 26yrs owner 26 yrs resident 15 yrs resident 18 yrs SIGNITUER X X X X AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE '\ - ~ OF ~ 1> - .... {lit!} of ...fakE CLiino'l-E ",1\ /], , Q _1111 " UIU. c.d!J 1. '::;Jot Clvto~e August 30, 2006 Property Owners Within the Boundaries of Lake Elsinore Annexation No, 77 RE: CITY RESPONSES TO PROPERTY OWNER COMMENTS ON ANNEXATION 77 Dear Property Owner(s): Several years ago the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") requested that the City of Lake Elsinore ("City") annex into the City's boundaries all "pocket" areas created by previous annexations. Property you own is located within a 154 acre "pocket" area created in 1992 as a result of another annexation. LAFCO has requested that the City annex the 154 acres. In order to ensure that this annexation occurs, LAFCO has conditioned other annexations on the City's filing of an application for Annexation 77. The Lake Elsinore Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider Annexation 77 on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 in the Lake Elsinore Cultural Center. Many interested parties attended the public hearing and expressed concerns relating to public services and the effect of the annexation on their property rights. In response to the public comments shared at that meeting, Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the public hearing be continued. Staff indicated that a continuance would afford all property owners additional time to express their concerns in writing and provide staff an opportunity to respond. Acting on Staff s recommendation, the Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearing on Annexation 77 until the regularly scheduled meeting of September 19, 2006. The Planning Commission requested community members to submit written questions to City Hall within two (2) weeks, which meant the deadline to submit comments was August 15,2006. In response to the extended comment period Staff received one letter from property owners affected by Annexation 77. The letter was written by Ms. Wilson and Ms. Smith on behalf of several different property owners and was dated August 21, 2006. Below is a list of the questions that were presented in that August 21, 2006 letter, followed by the City's responses. 1. Comment: "The annexation is to give paved roads, lighting." Response: The annexation will not immediately include improvements to any roads nor will the annexation provide street lighting. Roads and streets within the City that need attention are placed on a capital improvement program list and are addressed as funds become available. 730 c:South d/!{ain c:Stu,d, -CakE. EtiinotE., Cd! 92530 fJc.LE.phonE.: (909) 674-3724 Sax: (909) 674-2392 www.LakE.-diinotE..ot9 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ PACE. .\0 OF 4 X Annexation 77 Property Owners RE: City's Response Letter August 30, 2006 Page 2 of6 2. Comment: "Landscaping alonwith [sic] other services we would be paying money for." Response: The only new bill that you will receive as a result of being annexed into the City is for a city- wide Street Lighting and Maintenance District fee of $24.90 per year per home or $29.88 per acre for vacant land. 3. Comment/Question: "Mr. Salome [sic] briefly mentioned Public Works is the option to paving the roads and a 6- 10 year contract with 6 years into it as an option. In other words NO we would not have paved roads unless there were a need to pave and a long process took place. Something like we already have as an option. If you could explain exactly what options available to us regarding the roads paved, lighting, and landscaping and such if the annexation were to go through, and the process, how long of time would be involved, exactly the options that would change from county to city for these issues." Response: Your understanding is correct. Mr. Ken Seumalo, the City Engineer, stated at the August 1, 2006 public hearing that the area would first have to be added to the Gravel Street Paving Program before it is scheduled for any improvements. There is currently a waiting list of approximately six (6) years for any new street improvement projects within the City. 4. Comment: "Annexation is basically about appearance correct?" Response: No, annexation is not about appearance. This annexation is being processed pursuant to a request made by LAFCO that the City annex all "pocket" areas into the City's boundaries. Your property lies within a "pocket" area. In addition, LAFCO has conditioned another annexation in the City to require that the City submit an application on Annexation 77. Generally, annexations address local governmental boundaries and efficiency in the provision of governmental services. A representative of LAFCO will be present at continued Planning Commission public hearing which will take place on September 19, 2006, to answer any further questions regarding LAFCO's review of the annexation. 5. Comment: "Please supply me and other residents with some if not all of at least the top 10 code ordinances that will change and necessary to comply with annexing into the city of Lake Elsinore. Also explain in detail or supply us with the code or ordnance of unconditional I believe that is the term used, of what the parcels will be considered and how this fits into the annexation rules." ACENOA ITEM NO. PAGE \ \ ~ OF 4~ Annexation 77 Property Owners RE: City's Response Letter August 30, 2006 Page 3 of6 Response: The City's Building and Safety Division oversees the Code Enforcement Department and they collectively address code compliance. According to Mr. Robin Chipman, the Building and Safety Manager, the most important Code violations would be any and all types of illegal structures and illegal occupancy. Illegal structures could include structures that have been built without permits from Riverside County including accessory structures such as garages, carports, room additions, patios, and barns. Illegal occupancy could include R V type trailers used as residences and occupancy of illegal structures. The following are equally important Code Enforcement issues: a) exceeding the number of allowable animals on site; b) health related issues such as failing septic tanks, on site cesspools; c) abandoned/inoperable vehicles; d) trash and debris; and e) overgrown weeds. In your question above you refer to "unconditional." Based upon the discussion at the August 1, 2006 public hearing, we believe that you are asking about non-conforming uses. Non-conforming uses can be both legal and illegal. Legal non-conforming uses will be permitted to continue despite the annexation. However, illegal non-conforming uses may be pursued by Code Enforcement. Non-conforming uses are addressed in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code at Chapter 17.72. A legal non-conforming use is a use that is legal under the County's zoning but that does not conform to the City's zoning once annexed. The effect of having a legal nonconforming use is that you have a right to continue using your property in the way that you were under the County's zoning. Therefore, the fact that the City has similar but not identical zoning classifications to the County does not automatically prohibit your use. Regardless of the City's zoning application, you may continue using your property as you currently are if the use of your property was legal under the County's zoning. An illegal non-conforming use is a use that is illegal in the County and which does not conform to the City's laws once the property is annexed. Illegal nonconforming uses are strictly prohibited. If the proposed annexation is approved, the 154 acres will no longer be in the County's jurisdiction and, consequently, would no longer be subject to County Code Enforcement actions. Instead, illegal nonconforming uses in this area may be pursued by City Code Enforcement. At the August 1, 2006 public hearing, several property owners expressed concern regarding the keeping of horses and other farm animals on their property. The speakers were concerned that they would be prohibited from keeping horses and other farm animals once they are annexed into the City. At the public hearing, Staff explained that property owners who currently keep horses and other farm animals on their property, consistent with the County's zoning regulations, would ACENDA ITeM NO. Q PACE \ d. ~OF 4Q Annexation 77 Property Owners RE: City's Response Letter August 30, 2006 Page 4 of6 be permitted to maintain such use once their property is annexed into the City so long as they qualify as non-conforming uses. This continues to be the case. For individual site specific questions relating to Building and Safety or Code Enforcement, please contact Robin Chipman, Building and Safety/Code Enforcement Manager at (951) 674 3124, extension 226. 6. Comment: "We as residents have been burdens by the development of the Ramsgate tracks, this has been taking place for more the 1 year and looking like going to take up the 2 years before the first resident will be moving in to any of the homes being built on the suite." Response: Centex Home representative, Jane Blasingham has prepared a response to the issues related to the Ramsgate development. Her responses are as follows: 1. Development has been taking place for more than 1 year and it will be 2 years before the first residents occupy the homes. a. Construction (grading) began on September 7, 2005. b. The first residents will occupy the homes (Tract 25477 Phase 6A) on November 13,2006. 2. Loud noises (beating on rocks). Heavy equipment into evening hours as well as weekends. a. The blasting work was completed several months ago. Rock breaking activities are complete unless Southern California Edison's contract crews need to break rocks to relocate the transmission poles on Riverside Street. b. Our sub-contractors only work during the hours we are allowed to work pursuant to the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. A City Inspector is on-site almost everyday and monitors these activities. 3. Path of travel is damaging to vehicles. Dust and mud make it hard to keep the vehicles clean. a. We can provide photos showing the condition of Riverside Street prior to the start of our construction work. Riverside Street was a pitted, rocky, rolling dirt road that provided little to no protection from damage, it was dusty and water would collect in the low spots when it would rain. The temporary road that we have constructed is superior to the road that was formerly being used by the residents. Our activities have lessened the amount of dust because of the 8 water trucks that are in use at the site. If we lessen the amount of dust, then in consequence there will be some mud. However, we monitor the water trucks and the mud is not to the level that it was prior to the start of our construction work. 4. Air pollution is high and there is a haze seen 10 miles away. a. We have filed notices of construction activity with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). We maintain logs and records on-site as required by the SCAQMD. We have been inspected and have not received an~ AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE \?> OF 4: ~ Annexation 77 Property Owners RE: City's Response Letter August 30, 2006 Page 5 of6 violation notices. We have signs posted at the site with the number to call if there is a complaint regarding the amount of dust being generated from the site. We have not had any complaint calls to this number regarding our site. Between us and our sub-contractors there are 8 water trucks on-site every day. 5. Safety issues regarding fire access and resident access. a. The Riverside County Fire Department has physically been at the site and inspected access. They have provided approval for both tracts. Primary access is provided via Riverside Street. Secondary access is provided for through the paved emergency access road that links tract 25478 (to the south) with tract 25476. In addition, Wasson Canyon Road and Steele Valley Road (through the 25477 tract) are paved. The County Fire Department is able to also use these streets as a third access point. Fire hydrants within both tracts 25476 and 25477 are fully functioning and have been passed by Riverside County Fire Department for Fire Flow Protection. We also have water tanks at the site to provide additional fire protection. b. As part of our improvement work, we are placing fire hydrants on Riverside Street. Prior to our construction work, the existing residents in this area had little to no fire protection. The level of protection to the existing homeowners will greatly increase as the result of our improvement work. 6. Request city officials observe construction activities. a. A City Inspector is assigned to our project and is at the site almost daily monitoring construction activities. The City Inspector drives the temporary detour road as part of his construction monitoring. If the City Inspector requests that we make any changes based on his observations, we make the changes. 7. No Water a. I am not sure of the meaning of the statement regarding water. I can answer that the existing residents have water. We are installing new water lines in Riverside Street that will increase the amount of pressure that is supplied to each existing residence. If there are issues regarding lack of water, the resident may contact our office or Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. In addition to the comment letter above, Staff also received five (5) personal visits and telephone calls from people who did not attend the meeting of August 1, 2006. Those individuals were primarily requested general information about the annexation. One (1) individual requested clarification regarding whether the City intends to use eminent domain to acquire all the properties within the Annexation area. The City does not intend to exercise the use of eminent domain to acquire any property within the Annexation area, nor does the City have any pending applications to develop any property within the Annexation area. As previously stated, the Annexation 77 application was filed by the City pursuant to a directive from the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The continued Planning Commission public hearing will be held on September 19, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Lake Elsinore Cultural Center. We invite all residents to attend the meeting ACENDA ITEM NO. ~ PAGE \ 4 OF 4 ~ Annexation 77 Property Owners RE: City's Response Letter August 30, 2006 Page 6 of6 and speak on the project. It is the City's hope and goal to make sure that all of your questions are answered and to keep you informed throughout the process. Sincerely, CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE www.lake-elsinore.org " ;,1 J 11 ;1 L./t!tA./a~tL //l~iL_- Linda M. Miller, AICP Project Planner Cc: Robert A. Brady, City Manger Barbara Z. Leibold, City Attorney Rolfe Preisendanz, Director of Community Development Tom Weiner, Planning Manager Ken Seumalo, Engineering Manager Robin Chipman, Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager AcnlDA ITEM NO. PAGE \5 OF ~ 4~ CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DA TE: AUGUST 1,2006 PREPARED BY: LINDA MILLER, PROJECT PLANNER PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO STATE ROUTE 74, EASTERLY OF TRELLIS LANE AND THE RAMSGA TE (CENTEX) SPECIFIC PLAN APPLICANT: THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET, LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA 92562 PROJECT REQUESTS . Mitigated Negative Declaration No 2005-12. The City of Lake Elsinore intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (.tvfND) for annexation purposes only pursuant to Article 6 (Negative Declaration Process) and Section 15Q70 (Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration) as established by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). . General Plan Amendment No. 2006-03. The City of Lake Elsinore is initiating an amendment to the City's Sphere of Influence (SOl) and General Plan Land Use Map designations by changing the land use designations of the subject property consisting of approximately one hundred fifty-four (154) acres. The review and analysis of this General Plan Land Use Amendment is pursuant to Government Code Section(s) 65350 through 65362, the Lake Elsinore General Plan and Chapter 17.92 (Hearings) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). ACENDA ITEM NO. 1. PAGE \ ~ OF 4- ~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1,2006 PAGE 2 OF 13 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 . Pre-Zoning No. 2006-04. Conforming and consistent to the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map, the City of Lake Elsinore is also initiating an application to change the Zoning (Pre-Zoning) of the subject project area from the County of Riverside's zoning designations to the City of Lake Elsinore's Pre-Zoning designations. The review and analysis of the requested Pre-Zoning is pursuant to Government Code Section(s) 65350 through 65362 and Chapter 17.92 (Hearings) & Chapter 17.84 (Amendments) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). . Annexation No. 77. The City of Lake Elsinore is proposing an annexation of approximately one hundred fifty-four (154) acres from the County of Ri verside' s jurisdiction but within the Sphere ofInfluence area of the City of Lake Elsinore. The annexation has been initiated by the City of Lake Elsinore pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of2000 (Government Code Section 56000-56001) and the standards, policies and directives of the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). PROJECT LOCATION The one hundred fifty-four (154) acre, irregularly shaped, Annexation area is located adjacent to State Route 74 (SR-74). Forty (40) parcels are located south ofSR 74 and four (4) parcels are located north ofSR-74. Trellis Lane creates the western boundary. The southerly property line "zigzags" along the boundary of the neighboring Centex development currently under construction and within the City of Lake Elsinore's City Limits. The eastern boundary is just past the residential lots fronting Missouri Drive. The central access road is Riverside Street. The existing County of Riverside General Plan Designation is Very Low Density (VLD) and Commercial Retail (CR), and the Zoning Designations are R-A-20,000 (Residential Agriculture) and C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial). ACENDA ITEM NO. '1 PACE-D-OF ~ ~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1,2006 PAGE 3 OF 13 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Project ResidentialN acantlCommercial C-P-S & RA VLDR & CR Site 20,000 Coun ) (Coun North ResidentialN acant Very Low VLDR (County) & Density (County) North Peak & Commercial Specific Plan (City) Ci ) South ResidentialN acant R-A-20 000 Future SP Area 'F' , (County) & RR, & Ramsgate MD (Ci ) S ecific Plan Ci East ResidentialN acant . MD (Medium Ramsgate Specific Densi (Ci ) Plan (Ci ) West ResidentialN acant MD (Medium Ramsgate Specific Densi (Ci Plan Ci BACKGROUND The land area of Annexation No. 77 is known as one of two "pocket" areas created by the approval of the City of Lake Elsinore's Annexation for North Peak. The North Peak Annexation was approved in 1992 pursuant to LAFCO Annexation No. 1991-43- 1, 5. At that time LAFCO approved the annexation with the understanding that the pocket area annexations would follow the North Peak Annexation. The first of the pocket area annexations was brought before LAFCO for approval on October 27, 2005. This Annexation is known as LAFCO Annexation 2005-50-1 (City Annexation No. 71- Merritt Luster). LAFCO has conditioned final approval of Annexation No. 71 (Merritt Luster) on the submittal of City of Lake Elsinore's Annexation No. 77 to LAFCO. AGENDA'TEM NO. PAGE \~ ~ OF ~~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1,2006 PAGE 4 OF 13 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 LAFCO suggests that Cities hold Public Meetings prior to processing annexations to provide an opportunity for residences to comment and ask questions concerning the annexation proposal. Staff held a Public "Outreach" Meeting on May 17,2006 for that purpose. Approximately 50 to 70 residences attended the meeting. The majority of the questions were focused on the existing neighboring Centex Home development. Other questions related to possible costs that could be assessed to the existing residences if the Annexation were approved. Staff explained at the meeting that the only increase in costs to the property owners associated to the Annexation would be a Street Lighting and Maintenance District fee of$24.90 per year per home or $29.88 per acre for vacant land. All questions were answered in a City letter sent to residents on June 19,2006. This letter is attached as an exhibit of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION(S) The proposed annexation consists of one hundred fifty-four (154) acres that has been previously subdivided into forty-five (45) parcels. Of the forty-five (45) parcels, twenty-six (26) are occupied with rural type residential uses and a few commercial uses, while the remaining nineteen (19) parcels are vacant. The parcels are owned by many individual land owners. The land area ranges from relatively flat areas to hills consisting of natural vegetation and substantial rock outcroppings. The area is under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside but within the City of Lake Elsinore's Sphere of Influence (SOl) area. The Annexation process requires that the City of Lake Elsinore approve a General Plan Amendment and Pre-Zoning designations in order to establish a regulatory procedure for future development. This process will concurrently remove the area from the City's Sphere of Influence and place the area within the City of Lake Elsinore's city boundary. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03 The City of Lake Elsinore is initiating this amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map as part of the Annexation process. Annexation will allow the City to change the ACiENDAITEM NO. ~ PAGE \'\ OF 4~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1,2006 PAGE 5 OF 13 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 existing County of Riverside's General Plan Designation's of Very Low Density (1 dwelling unit/.5 acre) and Commercial Retail (FAR = .3) to City of Lake Elsinore's General Plan Land Use Designation of V ery Low Density (1 dwelling unit/2acres) for the four (4) parcels identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN' s) 374-110-071, 347- 110-074,347-110-075 and 349-400-034, Low-Medium Density (6 dwelling units/acre) on forty (40) parcels and Medium High Density (18 dwelling units/acre) and Low- Medium Density (6 dwelling units/acre) on one (1) parcel (APN 347-100-003). Staff has concluded that with single family residential uses approaching on two sides of this project area, a continuation of the Low-Medium Density residential designation would be acceptable. The Very Low Density designation was proposed on the northern side of State Route 74 since the land area begins to rise, creating rolling hills from State Route 74 which could restrict residential development to more rural type uses. PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 Prior to the annexation of the land area, the City Council is required to adopt a Pre- Zoning ordinance to delineate the zoning that will apply to the property to be annexed to the City (Government Code Section 56375 (a). Corresponding and consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment (referenced above), the City of Lake Elsinore is also initiating changes from the County of Riverside's Zoning designations ofC-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on APN 347-100-003 and R-A-20,000 (Residential Agriculture) on the remaining parcels to R-3 (High Density Residential District) and R-l (Single Family Residential District) on APN 347-100-003, RR (Rural Residential District) onAPN's 374-110-071,347-110-074,347-110-075 and 349-400-034, and the remaining parcels to R-l (Single Family Residential District). The proposed Pre- Zoning designations are pursuant to the regulations governing all applicable chapters of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). ACENDA ITEM NO. d- PAGE ~O OF ~R REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1,2006 PAGE 6 OF 13 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 ANNEXATION NO. 77 The Annexation is being initiated by the City of Lake Elsinore pursuant to the directive of LAFCO. As mentioned, the North Peak Annexation approved in 1992 was approved with the understanding that at a future time the City would annex the two (2) "pocket" areas created by the North Peak Annexation. The larger of the "pockets" is the current Annexation, Annexation No. 77. The second "pocket" is Annexation No. 71 (Merritt Luster/Centex - City Council approval December 14, 2004). Since residential development slowed shortly after the LAFCO directive and the developers of the North Peak project experienced financial difficulties, the processing of the "pocket" annexations were postponed. Now, due to the recent surge in residential development including the adjacent single family development known as Ramsgate, this directive has become a priority. Approval of the Annexation will comply with the LAFCO requests to "close" the "pocket" created by the previously approved and conditionally approved annexations. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005-12 As defined by Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study was prepared in order to provide the City with information necessary in determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration would be the appropriate necessary environmental documentation and clearance for the subject project contained herein. According to section 15070(b) ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a Mitigated Negative Declaration was appropriate since it deemed that although the proposal for the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Pre-Zoning of the one hundred fifty-four (154) acres could result in significant effects, mitigation measures were available reducing these significant effects to insignificant levels. The Initial Study, Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated to the State Clearinghouse for the required thirty (30) day public and agency review period. The thirty (30) day review ACENDA'TEM NO. ~ PAGE 'Q \ OF b. ~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1,2006 PAGE 7 OF 13 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 period ended on June 3, 2006. No comments were received. The documents were revised to accommodate a request by the owner of APN 347-100-003 to designate his property to Medium High Density with a Pre-zoning of (High Density Residential District) instead of the originally planned General Plan Designation of Low Medium Density with a Pre-Zoning designation ofR-3 (High Density Residential). A narrow strip ofland will be designated Low Medium Density with a Pre-Zoning ofR-l (Single Family Residential District), consistent with the properties adjacent and across from this narrow strip. The environmental consultant found that this change did not constitute recalculating the documents. ANALYSIS This proposal is limited to the action of Pre-Zoning the property and amending the City's Sphere of Influence and General Plan to incorporate the site into the City's boundaries. Pre-Zoning the property establishes a regulatory procedure that must be followed for future development to occur, subject to future City of Lake Elsinore approvals and environmental review. Therefore, Pre-Zoning the property does not permit development of the property. . The State of California Government Code Section 56653 requires that an applicant for annexations of parcels into the City of Lake Elsinore include a "Plan of Services" report as a critical element ofthe annexation process. As required, the Plan of Services Report (see attachment) provides a comprehensive evaluation ofthe existing municipal services to the Project, as well as an evaluation offuture services upon annexation. The report enumerates and describes the services to be provided, the levels of service (LOS) and range of those services, the feasibility of extending such services, any upgrades or additional facilities required by the City, and a description of when services will commence. The report found that none to minimum municipal service impacts would occur due to the annexation of the area. ~ 41 AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE d.~ OF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1,2006 PAGE 8 OF 13 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 ENVIRONMENT AL DETERMINATION The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2005-12 has been prepared pursuant to Article 6 (Negative Declaration Process) and Section 15070 (Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on staffs evaluation, the proposed project will not result in any significant effect on the environment. Further, pursuant to Section 15073 (Public Review of a Proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the intended Mitigated Negative Declaration was submitted to the State Clearinghouse on May 1, 2006 for the required 30 day review period, which ended on June 1, 2006. No comments have been received. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolutions: Resolution No. 2006-_, recommending City Council ad~ption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2005-12; Resolution No. 2006-_ recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2006-03, Resolution No. 2006- _ recommending to the City Council approval of Pre-Zoning No. 2006-04, and Resolution No. 2006-_ recommending to the City Council approval to commence with proceedings for the properties described in Annexation No. 77. Approval is based on the following Findings, Exhibits, and attached Conditions of Approval. FINDINGS - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005-12 1. Revision in the project plans or proposal made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. ACENDA ITEM NO. PACE ~> Of ~ {~~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1,2006 PAGE 9 OF 13 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 The applicant has made revisions to the project or has agreed to specific conditions which would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects of the project to a point where no significant effects would occur. 2. There is no substantial evidence, in the light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. Pursuant to the evidence received in the light of the whole record presented by staff to the Planning Commission, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment considering the Mitigation Monitoring Report Program. FINDINGS -GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not be; a) detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed amendment or within the City, or b) injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been analyzed relative to its potentiality to be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed amendment. Staff believes that the health, safety and welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the property may be improved due to the future development that could include improvements to infrastructure such as water and sewer lines, lighting and paving of existing dirt right of ways. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment will permit reasonable development of the area consistent with its constraints and will make the area more compatible with adjacent properties. Staff, concluded that the current rapid development of a major single family residential development adjacent to the Annexation area (Ramsgate) is a strong indication that the area is rapidly changingfrom rural type uses to an area with , ACENDA ITEM NO. ~ PACE ~4 OF U. ~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1,2006 PAGE 10 OF 13 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 more suburban type uses. The General Plan Amendment proposes land use changes from the County's designation of Very Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density will allow the continuation of the single family home development. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment would establish a land use density and usage more in character with the subject property's location, access, and constraints. The Annexation will establish land uses more consistent with the land uses adjacent and nearby the area. The neighboring major single family residential development is bringing infrastructure improvement to the western boundary of the Annexation. Improvements include all required utilities as well as major road improvements. Major commercial development (Costco/Lowe's, Home Depot and Target Cent~rs) are currently open and operating or are near completion and are located less that five miles from the Annexation area. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed General Plan Amendment was included within the description of the project's Initial Study. Based on the Initial Study, staff intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which concluded with mitigations that the project, upon annexation, will not have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS - PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 1. The proposed zone change will not be; a) detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed amendment or within the City, or b) injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City. The proposed Pre-Zoning has been analyzed relative to its potential to be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed amendment. Staff believes ACENDA ITEM NO. ~ PACE ~ 5 Of '-\ <K REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1,2006 PAGE 11 OF 13 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 that the health and safety of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the property may be improved due to the future development that could include improvements to infrastructure such as water and sewer lines, lighting and paving of existing dirt right of ways. 2. The proposed action will be consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the General Plan and the development standards established with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). Based on its analysis, staff has concluded that the requested Pre-Zoning, allowing the annexation of the subject property is consistent with GOAL 1.0 of the General Plan in that this Pre-Zoning will assist in achieving the City's goal to provide "decent housing opportunities and a satisfying living environmentfor residents of Lake Elsinore". FINDINGS - ANNEXATION NO. 77 1. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to the City of Lake Elsinore and will not create pockets or islands. The proposed annexation area is contiguous on two sides to the Ramsgate Specific Plan area on the easterly boundary of the project and will be a reasonable extension of the city boundary areas in that the annexation of the proposed parcels will not create any pockets or islands an, in fact, is removing an existing pocket. 2. The proposed annexation will not result in any adverse significant impacts on the environment. As defined by Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study was prepared in order to provide the City with information necessary in determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration would be the appropriate necessary environmental documentation and clearance for the subject project contained herein. According to section 15070(b) of the ACENOA ITEM NO. d- PACE~OF 41 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1,2006 PAGE 12 OF 13 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a Mitigated Negative Declaration was appropriate since it deemed that although the proposal for the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zoning could result in significant effects, mitigation measures were available reducing these significant effects to insignificant levels. 3. The proposed annexation will eliminate an existing undesired pocket of the county area. The annexation is being initiated by City of Lake Elsinore pursuant to the directive of the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCD) regulations originally commission in 1992 and again requested by LAFCD in 2004. The one hundred fifty-four (154) acre project is an existing pocket of County of Riverside jurisdiction. Approval of the Annexation will eliminate this pocket and create a continuous City of Lake Elsinore boundary. PREPARED BY: LINDA MILLER, AICP, PROJECT PLANNER APPROVED BY: ~ Rolfe M. Preisendanz, Director of Community Development ACENOA ITEM NO. 1 PACE ~\ OF ~ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1,2006 PAGE 13 OF 13 PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005- 12, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 ATTACHMENTS: 1. VICINITY MAP 2. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 3. PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4. PROPERTY OWNERS LETTER DATED JUNE 19, 2006 5. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION - NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6. REDUCED EXHIBITS: a. REGIONAL AND VICINITY MAP b. EXISITNG GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION c. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION d. EXISTING ZONING e. PROPOSED ZONING (PRE-ZONING) f. SITE PHOTO MAP 7. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005-12/MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN 8. SCOPE OF SERVICES REPORT 9. FISCAL ANALYSIS REPORT 10.FULL SIZED COLOR EXHIBITS (same as Exhibits listed above, presented at Hearing) ACENDA ITEM NO. ~ PACE ~~ OF 4. ~ .; VI VI!!! "0 ~ a Q) c N 6<; " ~ ;0::: 0 g :2g~ ~ ~ "ii co t! .~a 0 <U ..w8.~ii1< Z 0 ~.=~~ii-=~ ;0::: !~~!'O~:i !!1 ~ !: ~ :! fa} Q) 0 0 z .!:u:iC!l85b'J <U ...; <,\z a.. LL d 0 C 0 0 ('t) ~ I <U en 8 x a; <; Q) ~ ~ C <U C <U "0 <( a.. c "0 ro :J Q) C 0 en 0 m 0 E a. ~ e "0 "0 0 a.. <( +.. II ~ ~~ ( ~ r-- r-- d Z Z o j:: ~ W Z z <t o '" -'" !!~ ~ .~ ~ (3 ~ iD< e~.~ ~~g'?l ~S:!i;!~ _OUJ<O<<J ;~~;=-i o~~e~ .~ OF ~~ RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 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 NO. 2005-12 WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore has initiated an application for General Plan Amendment No. 2006-03, Pre-Zoning No. 2006-04, and Annexation No. 77 for a one hundred fifty-four (154) acre site located adjacent to State Route 74, East of Trellis Lane (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, Annexation 77 qualifies as a "project" under California Public Resources Code Section 21065, which defines a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code SS 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") as any activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and which includes the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council regarding environmental documents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the Project at a duly noticed public hearing on August I, 2006; and WHEREAS, in response to the public comments shared at the August 1, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearing on the Project until the regularly scheduled meeting of September 19,2006; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 2006, the Planning Commission considered additional evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with regard to the Project. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: AGENDA 'TEM NO. 2 PACE '3Q OF 4~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006- Page 2 of3 SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2005-12, prior to making a decision to recommend approval to the City Council. The Planning Commission finds and determines that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2005-12 is adequate and prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. SECTION 2. That in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, State Planning and Zoning law, and the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2005-12: 1. Revision in the project plans or proposal made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. The applicant has made revisions to the Project and has agreed to specific conditions which mitigate the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project to a level of insignificance. 2. There is no substantial evidence, in the light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. Pursuant to the evidence received in the light of the whole record presented, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment considering the Mitigation Monitoring Report Program. SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. AGENDA tTEM NO. PACE 3 , Q OF <J.. ~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006- Page 3 of3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this nineteenth day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Michael O'Neal, Chairman Lake Elsinore Planning Commission ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz, Director of Community Development ACENDA ITEM NO. Q... PACE 3'd.. OF 4,'\ RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 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 AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ON ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-FOUR (154) ACRES ADJACENT TO STATE ROUTE 74, EAST OF TRELLIS LANE WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore has initiated proceedings to amend the General Plan Land Use Map for the one hundred fifty-four (154) acres of land adjacent to State Route 74, East of Trellis Lane, and which is commonly known as Annexation 77; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code SS 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. SS 15000 et seq.), Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2005-12 was prepared to mitigate to a level of insignificance any potentially significant environmental effects presented by Annexation 77; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council for changes to the General Plan Land Use Map; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on Annexation 77 at a duly noticed public hearing on August 1, 2006; and WHEREAS, in response to the public comments shared at the August 1, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearing on Annexation 77 until the regularly scheduled meeting of September 19, 2006; and WHEREAS, on September 19,2006, the Planning Commission considered additional evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with regard to the annexation application. ~ ACENDA ITEM NO. 4. ~ PAGE ~~ OF 1 PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION NO. 2006- Page 2 of 4 NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2006-03, prior to making a decision to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed changes to the General Plan Land Use Map. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2006-03 is acceptable. SECTION 2. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning law and the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2006-03: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not be; a) detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed amendment or within the City, or b) injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been analyzed relative to its potential to be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed amendment. The health, safety and welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the property may be improved due to the future development that could include improvements to infrastructure such as water and sewer lines, lighting and paving of existing dirt right of ways. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment will permit reasonable development of the area consistent with its constraints and will make the area more compatible with adjacent properties. The current rapid development of a major single family residential development known as Ramsgate, which is adjacent to the Annexation area, is a strong indication that the area is rapidly changing from rural type uses to an area with more suburban type uses. The General Plan Amendment proposes land use changes from the County's designation of Very Low ACENDA ITEM NO. ~ PACE 34 OF ~~ _ PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION NO. 2006- Page 3 of 4 Density Residential to Low Medium Density will allow the continuation of the single family home development. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment would establish a land use density and usage more in character with the subject property's location, access, and constraints. The General Plan Amendment will establish land uses more consistent with the land uses adjacent and nearby the area. The neighboring major single family residential development is bringing infrastructure improvement to the western boundary of the territory to be annexed. Improvements include all required utilities as well as major road improvements. Major commercial development (Costco/Lowe's, Home Depot and Target Centers) are currently open and operating or are near completion and are located less that five miles from the annexation area. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed General Plan Amendment was included within the description of the project's Initial Study. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and mitigated all potentially significant environmental effects to a level of insignificance. SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. ACENDA ITEM NO. ~ PP.CE 3 S OF lL 'b PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION NO. 2006- Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this nineteenth day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Michael O'Neal, Chairman Lake Elsinore Planning Commission ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz, Director of Community Development ACENDA ITEM NO. &. PACE 36 OF ~~ RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 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 PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 SUBJECT TO COMPLETION OF THE ANNEXATION NO. 77 WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore (the "City") has commenced proceedings to annex 154 acres of land into the City's corporate boundaries and is concurrently initiating proceedings to change the zoning designation on 154 acres of land located adjacent to State Route 74, East of Trellis, from the County of Riverside's zoning designations to City's Pre-Zoning designations as set forth below; and WHEREAS, the Pre-Zoning application conforms to and is consistent with the City of Lake Elsinore's General Plan Land Use Map, as amended by the general plan amendment which is also being processed simultaneously with this Pre-Zone application; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code SS 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. SS 15000 et seq.), Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2005-12 was prepared to mitigate to a level of insignificance any potentially significant environmental effects presented by Annexation 77; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council for changes to the approved Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the Annexation 77 at a duly noticed public hearing on August 1, 2006; and WHEREAS, in response to the public comments shared at the August 1, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearing on Annexation 77 until the regularly scheduled meeting of September 19,2006; and ACENDA ITEM NO. ~ PAGE 31 OF ~1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006- Page 2 of3 WHEREAS, on September 19, 2006, the Planning Commission considered additional evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with regard to the annexation application. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed Pre- Zoning No. 2006-04 prior to making a decision to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the Pre-Zoning No. 2006-04 is acceptable. SECTION 2. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning law and the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code ("LEMC"), the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of Zone Change No. 2006-04: 1. The proposed zone change will not be; a) detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed amendment or within the City, or b) injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City. The proposed Pre-Zoning has been analyzed relative to its potential to be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed zone change. Staff believes that the health and safety of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the property may be improved due to the future development that could include improvements to infrastructure such as water and sewer lines, lighting and paving of existing dirt right of ways. 2. The proposed action will be consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the General Plan and the development standards established with the LEMC. The Pre-Zoning is consistent with GOAL 1.0 of the General Plan in that this Pre-Zoning will assist in achieving the City's goal to provide "decent housing opportunities and a satisfying living environment for residents of Lake Elsinore". ACr:rJDA ITEM NO. PAGE 38 ~ OF ~1> PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006- Page 3 of3 SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this nineteenth day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Michael O'Neal, Chairman Lake Elsinore Planning Commission ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz, Director of Community Development ACENDA ITEM NO. ~ . PAGE 3\ OF 4 ) RESOLUTION NO. 2006- A RESOLUTION 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 WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore (the "City") has initiated proceedings to annex into the City's boundaries approximately one hundred fifty- four (154) acres of land which is located adjacent to State Route 74, East of Trellis Lane ("Annexation 77"), and which is presently within the jurisdiction of the county of Riverside but within the City's Sphere of Influence; and WHEREAS, Annexation 77 is being processed pursuant to the provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Cal. Gov. Code SS 56000 et seq.: "Cortese-Knox Act"); and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Cortese-Knox Act, and as a condition of the proposed annexation, the City of Lake Elsinore has initiated Pre-Zoning No. 2006-04 for Annexation 77; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code SS 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. SS 15000 et seq.), Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2005-12 was prepared to mitigate to a level of insignificance any potentially significant environmental effects presented by Annexation 77; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council for annexations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on Annexation 77 at a duly noticed public hearing on August 1, 2006; and WHEREAS, in response to the public comments shared at the August 1, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearing on Annexation 77 until the regularly scheduled meeting of September 19, 2006; and ~ ACENDA \'1'EM NO._ Ur ~ - pAGE_ ~O v_Of - - PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION NO. 2006- Page 2 of3 WHEREAS, on September 19, 2006, the Planning Commission considered additional evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with regard to the annexation application. 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 request for the annexation (Annexation 77), prior to making a decision to recommend that the City Council commence proceedings to annex the subject territory. The Planning Commission finds and determines that Annexation 77 is acceptable. SECTION 2. That in accordance with the Cortese-Knox Act, State Planning and Zoning law, and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of Annexation 77: 1. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to the City of Lake Elsinore and will not create pockets or islands. Annexation 77 borders the City and is within its Sphere of Influence. The annexation proposes reasonable extension of the city boundary area in that the annexation of the proposed parcels will eliminate a pocket area. 2. The proposed annexation will not result in any adverse significant impacts on the environment. Based upon the mitigation measures contained in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2005-12 and the conditions of approval attached to the Staff Report, all potentially significant environmental impacts presented by Annexation 77 will be mitigated to a level of insignificance in satisfaction of the requirements of CEQA. A(jt;k..",;., I (;.)<11 I""'. PAGE 4\ OF ~ ~1> PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION NO. 2006- Page 3 of3 3. The proposed annexation will eliminate an existing undesired pocket of the county area and will assist in the efficient provision of government servIces. The 154 acres of land proposed for annexation are presently within the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside. The land which makes-up Annexation 77 is flanked on all sides by the City of Lake Elsinore's corporate boundaries. The current configuration creates a pocket area of land which is within the County of Riverside but which would be more effectively serviced by resources available through the City. Annexation of the 154 acres of land into the City will eliminate the undesired pocket area. SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this nineteenth day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Michael O'Neal, Chairman Lake Elsinore Planning Commission ATTEST: Rolfe M. Preisendanz, Director of Community Development AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ PAtE.. 4~ Of ~~- GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The City of Lake Elsinore shall defend (with counsel), indemnify, and hold harmless City Official, Officers, Employees, Consultants and Agents from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Official, Officers, Employees, or Agents to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning the project, 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. ANNEXATION NO. 77 2. The annexation of said property shall comply with the requirements contained in the Cortese-Knox-Herzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56000-56001) and the standards and policies established by the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). 3. All entitlements contained herein are subject to the completion and approval of the annexation of the subject property. AGENDA nE'tt NO. pAGE ~)_Of ~ 4~._ Property Owner( s) Within Annexation No. 77 (lit!) Of ..fakE E[iinotE "<.Om: Cd!) , 1. got dli(07E" ~ / ~~ ;?' ,,:~)O I><~ u\~.'~.:(\ ~o ~ ~~\\~(/ rr June 19,2006 RE: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS DISCUSSED AT THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING Dear Property Owner(s): Your attendance and participation at last month's (May 17, 2006) Annexation Public Scoping Meeting was appreciated. Staff is pleased to provide you with this follow up letter in response to the questions that were raised at that meeting. CENTEX RELATED ISSUES Although many of the questions associated to the project known as "Centex Homes" were not directly related to the Annexation in question, it was made clear that there are several concerns regarding the current construction situation. Therefore, the City asked Centex to respond to questions related to dust, mud, blasting, cliffs, detour road/signs, Wasson Canyon Road closure, riding horses, and rude behavior. Jane Blasingham, of Centex Homes went to the Centex site the next day (May 18, 2006) and reported the following: Dust: Centex has nine (9) water trucks on the site. The trucks work throughout the day to keeping down the dust. Ms. Blasingham reported that she drove the site and her vehicle did not generate any dust. She also watched approximately five (5) residents drive through the site, and their vehicles did not generate dust. Mud: Ms. Blasingham found that the mud was the result of the water trucks trying to control the dust. She stated that there was an excessive amount of mud at the east of Riverside Street due to water trucks stopping at that location. She discussed this with the truck drivers and the over watering situation has been resolved. Blasting: Ms. Blasingham stated that the blasting was to stop as of May 18, 2006, except for one man-hole. A neighboring track to the Centex tract is blasting and that may be were the noise is coming from. 130 ~ou.tr;. c:M.ain ~hed, ..f!ake ELiino7e, Cc/f 92530 CleLepfwne: (909) 674-3124 9ax: (909) 674-2392 www.Lake-eLj.ino.te.o.tf} AGENDA nEM NO. ~ PAGE 4~ OF 4~ Property Owners within Annexation No. 77 June 19,2006 Page 2 of4 Cliffs: Ms. Blasingham was unsure of the cliffs in question. This issue may need to be discussed at a subsequent meeting. She directed the on-site manager to place orange fencing or caution tape along the tops of slopes. Detour Road/Signs: She felt that the Detour Road was maneuverable. There seemed to be problems keep detour signs on the site. She was told that the Detour Road signs were removed or knocked down at night. She asked the field manager about the report of someone driving in a ditch, but no incident was known or reported. Wasson Canyon Road Closure: This road has been closed with permission from the City. Resident's have been directed to use Riverside Street. Horse Riding: Since the Centex site is in a state of on-going'construction, riding horses through the area is considered to be unsafe. A property owner was stopped from riding his horse through the project by the on-site field manager. No horse trails were planned for the new Centex development, primarily, because the development is all standard sized, R-l, Single Family Residential development lots. Rude Behavior: Ms. Blasingham spoke to the construction team and no incidents were reported or known by anyone. Since this initial research, Ms Blasingham has decided that it would be a benefit to both the property owners and Centex to hold an additional meeting at the Centex project site to discuss these issues and any other issues regarding the Centex development. An invitation to this more informal meeting will be forthcoming. UTILITIESIINFRASTRUCTURE CONCERNS A property owner will not be required to connect to any utility company such as water, sewer, or gas unless the property owner's system creates a health hazard for the property owner or neighboring owner. Water Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) was contacted regarding the question of whether current property owners with private wells would be required to join the Water District if the property was annexed. The answer is NO. The only reason that a well owner would be required to join a water district is if it was fOund that the well was providing unsafe water and thus was determined to be a health issue. Currently, waterlines have been extended down Riverside Street, Missouri Trail and Laister Road. If a property owner decides to join the water district, the water connection fee for a %" meter is $5,971.00. ACENDA ITEM NO. PACE 45 OF ~ 4~ Property Owners within Annexation No. 77 June 19, 2006 Page 30f 4 Sewer Currently there are sewer lines in the Centex project to the west of Trellis Lane. Sewer lines will be extended as the neighboring Centex project is built. A property owner could contact EVMWD for a cost to hook up to a sewer system. Gas According the Southern California Gas Company the closest gas line is currently in State Route 74. To determine the cost of bring gas to a site the Gas Company suggesting going to their web site at socalgas.com. Cost to bring a gas line to a residence is calculated on a case by case basis. Several property owners could join together to bring a line to their properties for a possible savings. Eventually, a gas line will be brought down Riverside Street. KEEPING EXISTING ANIMALS The City will not require a property owner to remove any existing animals, but if the number of animals exceeds the City's zoning code and as the animals are removed for various reasons, the animals would not be allowed to be replaced more than what is allowed per the zoning requirement. Currently four (4) equine, bovine, swine, sheep or goats are allowed per acre in the R-l zone, which is the zone proposed for the site. For each additional acre, two (2) additional animals are allowed (for example, six (6) animals on two (2) acres). EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USES All existing non-conforming uses such as commercial businesses located in the residential land use designated areas will be allowed to remain as long as the business continues operating. If a business ceases to operate for a period of six (6) months or more, the land use will revert to the approved land use. ANNEXATION PROCESS The Annexation process goes through the City process prior to being sent to Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) process. An Environmental Document is prepared and circulated. After the Circulation period has closed the project will be scheduled for a Planning Commission Public Hearing and a City Council Public Hearing. It is recommended that a Public Scoping Meeting be public meeting is planned before the project will be scheduled for Planning Commission. It is anticipated the Planning Commission meeting will take place in July or August. If the Annexation project is approved by the City Council, the project will proceed to the (LAFCO) for consideration. LAFCO staff will review the document to determine whether the application is complete. LAFCO staff will set the proposed annexation for public hearing before the Local Agency Formation Commission. If approved, LAFCO will notify registered voters and property owners and send them a protest form to return, if they are opposed to the annexation ACENDA ITEM NO. PACE 4b OF Q. 4l Property Owners within Annexation No. 77 June 19,2006 Page 4 of 4 HOW TO PROTEST AN ANNEXATION If more than 25% of the registered voters or property owners owning more that 25% of the assessed value of the property within the area are opposed to the Annexation, an election will be scheduled by LAFCO. If 50% or more of the registered voters of the area or property owners whose holdings constitute 50% or more of the assessed value of the land and improvements vote against the annexation, then the annexation process is terminated. CLOSING Since the reason for the City of Lake Elsinore to process this Annexation is a directive from LAFCO, it would be the City's preference that the Annexation be approved. Staff has found that there will be little or no change in costs to the property owner if their property was annexed into the City. Specifically, the only increase would be a Street Lighting and Maintenance District fee of $24.90 per year per home or $29.88 per acre for vacant land. Currently the processing time for an Annexation is approximately eight(8) months. The next step in the process will be another neighborhood meeting to be held on Centex property. The Annexation request will be presented to the Planning Commission and all property owners within the area will be notified. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (951) 674 3124, extension 209 or Email at lmiller@lake-elsinore.or@;. Sincerely, CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE www.lake-elsinore.or@; Linda M. Miller, AICP Project Planner CC: Rolfe Preisendanz, Community Development Director Tom Weiner, Planning Manager ACENDA ITEM NO. ~ PAGE 4\ OF 4~ Notice of Determination Negative Declaration (In compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code) City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 (909) 674-3124 (909)471-1419 fax Filed With: o Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 ~ County Clerk of Riverside County 2724 Gateway Drive Riverside, CA 92507 Project Title: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2005-12, General Plan Amendment No. 2006-03, Pre-Zoning No. 2006-04, and Annexation No. 77. State Clearinghouse Number: SCH No: 2006051003 Lead Agency Contact Person: Linda Miller, Project Planner Telephone Number: (909) 674-3124 x 209 Project Location (include County): The one hundred fifty-four (154)) acre, irregularly shaped, Annexation area is located adjacent to State Route 74 (SR-74). One hundred fifty (150) parcels are located south of SR 74 and four (4) parcels are located north of SR-74. Trellis Lane creates the western boundary. The southerly property line zigzags along the boundary of the neighboring Centex development currently under construction and within the City of Lake Elsinore's City Limits. The eastern boundary is just past the residential lots fronting Missouri Drive. The central access road is Riverside Street. The existing County of Riverside General Plan Designation is Very Low Density (VLD) and Commercial Retail (CR), and the Zoning Designations are R-A-20,000 (Residential Agriculture) and C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial). Project Description: The proposed annexation consists of one hundred. fifty-four (154) acres that has been previously subdivided into forty-five (45) parcels. Of the forty-five (45) parcels, twenty-six (26) are occupied with rural type residential uses and a few commercial uses, while the remaining nineteen (19) parcels are vacant. The parcels are owned by many individual land owners. The land area ranges from relative flat areas to hills consisting of natural vegetation and substantial rock outcroppings. The area is under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside but within the City of Lake Elsinore's Sphere of Influence area of the City of Lake Elsinore. The Annexation process requires that the City of Lake Elsinore approve a General Plan Amendment and Pre- Zoning designations thereby establishing a regulatory procedure that must be followed for future development to occur. Approval of the Annexation does not permit development of the property within the one hundred fifty-four (one hundred fifty-four (154)) acre project site. This process will concurrently remove the area from the City's Sphere of Influence and place the area with the City of Lake Elsinore's city boundary. Environmental clearance for the proposed applications is provided by Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2005-12, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is to advise that the Lake Elsinore Ci1;y Council (Lead Agency) has approved the above projects and has made the following determinations regarding the above described projects: Reasons why project is exempt: Section 15162 (Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations) The project does not propose any substantial changes to the City of Lake Elsinore's Municipal Code. Additionally, no new significant environmental effects are anticipated. Further, the project complies with the exiting Mitigation Measures already in place. Considering this, the Planning Commission and City Council determined that no further environmental documentation is necessary. Signed: Title: Community Development Director Rolfe M. Preisendanz ACENDA ITEM NO. ~ PAGE 4, OF 4 ~ 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: SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PREPARED BY: KEN A. SEUMALO, CITY ENGINEER PROJECT TITLE: GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMINATION FOR PROPOSED ROADWAY EASEMENT VACATION OF JOY STREET APPLICANT: JOY STREET HOLDINGS, LLC OWNER: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PROJECT REQUEST Applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission review the request for the roadway easement vacation of Joy Street and find it in conformance with the Lake Elsinore General Plan. PROJECT LOCATION A portion of Joy Street approximately midway between Machado Street and Riverside drive. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This request is a roadway vacation of a remainder portion of Joy Street between Machado Street and Riverside Drive. In the realignment of Joy Street, a remainder -i AGENDA ITEM .:; PAGE \ OF 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 2 of3 PROJECT TITLE: GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMINATION FOR PROPOSED ROADWAY EASEMENT VACATION OF JOY STREET piece of Right-of-way was created from the new alignment. The area of the vacation is approximately 1,810 feet. BACKGROUND In accordance with Section 65402 of the Government Code, a request for a roadway easement vacation requires the review of the Planning Commission for a conformity determination with the City's General Plan. If this finding is made, the document is brought before the City Council for consideration. ANALYSIS All appropriate parties have been notified and the Notice of Public Hearing has been published and posted as required by law. Staff has received no reports of conflicts with the utility companies. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Planning Division Staff reviewed the vacation request and has determined that for the purposes of the street vacation, the request is exempt from further CEQA clearance. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Determine that the roadway easement vacation is in conformity with the guidelines of the General Plan. 2. Direct Staff to forward this request to City Council for consideration. AGENDA ITEM 3 PAGE d... OF "-\ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 3 of3 PROJECT TITLE: GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMINATION FOR PROPOSED ROADWAY EASEMENT VACATION OF JOY STREET PREPARED BY: Ken A. Seumalo, City Engineer APPROVED BY: ~ Rolfe Preisendanz, Director of Community Development ATTACHMENTS: Vicinity Map AGENDA ITEM 3 PAGE ~ OF ~ VICINITY MAP VACATION OF A PORTION OF JOY STREET PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ PAGe 4 Of ~