Perris planning commission approves 106‑unit Ironwood condominium development with conditions

The Perris Planning Commission voted 5‑0 on July 15 to approve the Ironwood cluster condominium project, a 106‑unit development in the Green Valley Specific Plan area, adopting Resolution 26‑12 and finding the project covered by the fifth addendum to the Green Valley SPEIR under CEQA Guidelines §15162.

Contract planner Nathan Perez told the commission staff’s recommendation was to adopt Resolution 26‑12 and approve the tentative tract map and development plan review for the 8.71‑acre site, noting the project provides a 1,659‑square‑foot clubhouse, required parking, accessible stalls and electric‑vehicle parking spaces. “Staff recommendation is to adopt resolution 26‑12, finding that the project is adequately covered by the adopted 5th addendum of the Green Valley specific plan EIR,” Perez said.

Miley Macabio, the applicant and a project manager with Lennar Homes, described design changes made after review by an ad hoc committee and asked the commission to align construction‑hour conditions with the municipal code. “I come before you to see if you would reconsider our hours of operation to align with the municipal code, which is 7 to 7, Monday through Saturday,” Macabio said, arguing tighter limits could lengthen the multi‑year construction schedule.

Engineering staff explained why a narrower construction‑hours window had been proposed: recent complaints about early‑morning noise at infill projects prompted a change intended to reduce disturbance to adjacent residents. “We’ve had an influx of complaints regarding construction happening right at 7 a.m.,” an engineering staff member said, adding that non‑noise activities such as painting could still occur earlier with city approval.

Commissioners debated the tradeoffs between resident sleep and contractors’ ability to work in hot weather. Several commissioners favored a compromise that permits later evening work while protecting mornings. The commission agreed to conditions on construction hours and clarified the rule applies Monday through Friday; commissioners signaled support for an 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekday window as a reasonable compromise on the record.

The commission also required a reciprocal emergency‑vehicle secondary access agreement with the neighboring property owner to the west prior to track‑map approval and ordered that the emergency access road be paved to Getz Road before any certificate of occupancy is issued, per staff’s safety recommendation. Commissioners added a condition calling for a pedestrian gate and a walkway to the neighboring commercial parcel to be provided prior to occupancy if feasible and negotiated with that property owner.

On design details, the applicant agreed to provide alternatives for the 42‑inch enclosed patio materials and additional landscaping and lighting at the main entrance; commissioners pressed for options less visually heavy than full split‑face masonry. Commissioners and applicant also discussed four open turf dog areas, a tot lot and a pool; the applicant said the project meets amenity requirements but noted space constraints limit larger courts such as pickleball.

Commissioner Jimenez moved to adopt Resolution 26‑12 approving TTM 25‑00005 and DPR 25‑00002 with the conditions and amendments made on the record; Commissioner Menendez seconded. The motion carried 5‑0. The conditions described on the record — including the emergency‑access agreement, paving requirements and the construction‑hours compromise — must be met at the stages specified in the track‑map and permit approvals before final occupancy.