Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-10 City Council Agenda Item No. 9CITY OF LADE LSIROKE IN ` DREAM EXTREME. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY, CITY MANAGER DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2009 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DISCUSSION REGARDING COUNTRY CLUB HEIGHTS, THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND PROGRESS REPORT/TIMEFRAME Background Staff has completed its analysis of the land use change requests that were presented to the Planning Commission and subsequently to the City Council in the latter part of 2008. Over 80 separate land use change requests have been considered and modified based on citizen input and subsequent Planning Commission and City Council direction. Staff also has been working on making changes to cure errors identified in the draft General Plan text as well as modifications to strengthen stated goals identified by the City Council. Discussion There are two (2) areas of the General Plan update that require final evaluation prior to committing resources towards moving to the next step of fully revising the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This process will also include generating responses to nearly 200 separate comments received during the public review period of the draft EIR in the early part of 2008. The two (2) areas in question are the Main Street section of the Historic District and portions of Country Club Heights. Main StreetlHistoric District The preparation of the Downtown Master Plan (DMP) was initiated in November 2008 and completion of the plan, which has been progressing at a good pace, is anticipated by summer of this year. Community workshops were held on December 6, 2008 and on January 29, 2009. Information regarding community needs/recommendations, economic conditions, and the patterns of potential development were discussed. These discussions and analysis by staff and the project consultant formed the basis of creating different Agenda Item No. 9 Page 1 of 27 General Plan Update February 10, 2009 Page 2 "neighborhoods" within the plan. Most importantly, a shift away from retail/commercial zoning dominating the entire Main Street corridor from Interstate 15 to the lake has been implemented in order to create a more balanced land use condition that becomes economically more feasible while directly addressing community input regarding the plan. General Plan consistency is key to implementing the vision that is being created for the DMP. The Historic District General Plan Update draft land use alternative I (Exhibit 1) reflects land use changes from the originally proposed Historic District land use plan (Exhibit 2) that have been identified in the DMP process. A DMP map (Attachment 1) reflecting proposed neighborhoods (districts) within the plan is also included for reference. Proposed land use modifications for the downtown area is as follows: 1. Creation of a "Gateway Commercial" land use designation. This new land use designation has been established to encourage the development of a consolidated office park at the gateway to the downtown. This area is bounded by Interstate 15, Flint Street, Spring Street, and Ellis Street. Under the original proposed General Plan Update draft land use plan, this area was designated as "General Commercial." The new "Gateway Commercial" definition is as follows: Gateway Commercial This designation is exclusive to the Downtown Master Plan area and is bounded by Spring Street, Flint Street, Ellis Street, and the 1-15 Freeway. The Gateway Commercial designation is established to encourage the development of a consolidated office park at the gateway into the downtown that will generate employment, minimize environmental impacts, stimulate nearby commercial uses and create a high quality image for the historic Lake Elsinore town center. Only Class A, mid rise professional and administrative offices and parking structures will be permitted, together with supportive uses such as retail, services, restaurants, hotels and motels, public and quasi-public uses, and similar and compatible uses. Non-office uses shall not exceed 20% of the total building square footage. The floor area ratio for the 7.9 acre area as a whole shall not exceed 2.0 and buildings shall not exceed 6 stories in height. 2. Creation of a "Downtown Recreational" land use designation. This new land use designation has been established to create a special lakeside recreational environment that in essence is an extension of downtown. This area is bounded by the Temescal Wash (outflow channel), the Lake Elsinore waterfront, Lakepoint Park, and Lakeshore Drive. Under the original proposed General Plan Update draft land use plan, this area was designated as "Recreational." The new "Downtown Recreational" definition is as follows: Downtown Recreational This designation is exclusive to the Downtown Master Plan and is bounded by the Temescal Wash (outflow channel), the Lake Elsinore waterfront, Lakepoint Park, Agenda Item No. 9 Page 2 of 27 General Plan Update February 10, 2009 Page 3 and Lakeshore Drive. The Downtown Recreational Designation is established to create a special lakeside recreational environment that is an extension of the historic downtown. This area will be developed to maximize the opportunity for citizens and visitors to enjoy the downtown together as a destination. This area is set aside for public and private permanent open space, and allows for passive and active recreation combined with limited retail, dining, entertainment, cultural, and lodging uses. Permitted uses are limited to open space, local parks, passive and active recreation, nature/interpretive centers, hotels, open-air markets, restaurants, water-oriented recreational commercial uses and special events. All commercial facility development is required to have exceptional architecture, site design, and amenities, and the floor area ratio for the 19 acre area as a whole shall not exceed 0.35. 3. Several land use modifications throughout the Downtown area are proposed in order to coincide with the Downtown Master Plan. Some of the areas affected by these changes are as follows: • The section identified as the "Garden Neighborhood" within the DMP. This area is bounded by the outflow channel, Ellis Street, Sumner Avenue, and Flint Street and is located directly adjacent to the Gateway Commercial section of the plan. Modification of previously identified "Commercial," "Commercial Mixed Use," and "High Density Residential" areas have been changed to "Residential Mixed Use." • Properties located on the east side of the outflow channel between Sumner Avenue and Peck Street (approximately 15 parcels) have been modified from "Low Density" and "Low-Medium Density" to "Commercial Mixed Use" and "General Commercial." • Parcels along Spring Street, directly north and south of Limited Avenue, have been changed to "Commercial Mixed Use." Parcels in this area were previously designated as "General Commercial" and "Medium Density Residential." • The City RDA owned "Spring and Limited" vacant site has been changed from General Commercial to "Residential Mixed Use." • Lakefront parcels south of Lakeshore between the outflow channel and Lakepoint Park have been changed from Recreational to "Lakefront Recreational." The Historic District Revised Alternative I Land Use Plan illustrates proposed changes to properties within the Downtown Master Plan area. This map (Exhibit A) including previously considered land uses has been included for reference. Agenda Item No. 9 Page 3 of 27 General Plan Update February 10, 2009 Page 4 In addition to the required legal public notice, property owners throughout the master plan were also provided with customized notices and vicinity maps (Attachment 4) explaining potential land use modifications to their properties. Country Club Heights The Country Club Heights area of the City is characterized by multiple ownerships, areas of steep slopes, infrastructure constraints, and a poorly designed circulation system. Many of the infrastructure constraints are a result of the antiquated subdivision pattern, established in the 1920s, that has precluded orderly and substantial development in the area under existing zoning, grading, and building requirements. Comparatively, the area boasts premium views of the lake and surrounding hillsides as well as including a mix of some of the City's most unique custom homes. At the City Council meeting of October 14, 2008, many points were presented regarding Country Club Heights. These ideas included varying opinions as to density thresholds and the possibility of either lower density "Hillside Residential" development or tract development that would entail a "Low Medium" or "Medium" residential designation. Meeting Minutes (Attachment 2) from the October 14, 2008 City Council meeting are included for reference. Since that time, staff has surveyed certain areas of Country Club Heights, while maintaining contact with Mr. Joe Huband, who owns numerous properties throughout the Country Club Heights area and is desirous of low-medium and medium density residential designations in certain areas of the plan. For clarification, current and proposed density levels for Country Club Heights are as follows: Current Land Use Designation and Density Future Specific Plan Area J, average residential density of six (6) dwelling units per acre. Proposed General Plan Update Land Use Designations and Densities Hillside Residential, one (1) dwelling unit per acre (based on a slope at or below 1596) Low-Density Residential, one (1) dwelling unit per acre Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre Medium Density Residential, up to 18 dwelling units per acre There are two specific areas within Country Club Heights where land use changes are suggested. First, is the assemblage of parcels running perpendicular to and south of Strickland Avenue. A combination of Medium and Low-Medium density is being recommended as shown in Figure 1 below. Agenda Item No. 9 Page 4 of 27 General Plan Update February 10, 2009 Page 5 ~Hma.m.e..raJ..J ® IJmHN IVJU.WG ®f Ytammrtda °./;jr, Nel6pborliopE COm~.ertkl J Twrty [OmmamYl Glenf) fommertiJ ® Cmmmitl MkM Ifu m. V. HHhWe Retltlevbl Im Oemlry RnltlnHJ !i~j iw-MNI.m RNhN1J MdNm RmHy RnlHnlhl ® High Ontlry ftaMnHY ,ii R[[mNml ®OawJOw.AKrtYb.sl ®~Pn Rryae PodM/IVIIMIboel Medium density is proposed for property directly abutting Strickland Avenue, with Low - Medium Density designations as the grade begins to increase away from Strickland. The photographs below give an indication of the existing topography of this area (Strickland Avenue). The second area under consideration is in the northeast portion of Country Club Heights and encompasses several dozen parcels of land adjacent to the intersection of Gunnerson Street and Pinnell Street. Low-Medium density is being proposed and is reflected in Figure 2 below. Agenda Item No. 9 Page 5 of 27 General Plan Update February 10, 2009 Page 6 Low-Medium Density is proposed for this section of Country Club Heights, which is located in a "canyon" setting surrounded by gentle hillsides. The photographs below give an indication of the existing topography of this area. Although staff and Mr. Huband "agreed to disagree" on density issues in several areas of the Country Club Heights District (particularly those with prominent hillsides and steep topography), the areas presented above were looked at as being possible opportunities for low-medium or medium density designations under the draft General Plan Update land use map. A map (Exhibit 3) showing suggested modifications from the original draft General Plan Update land use map has been included for reference. Agenda Item No. 9 Page 6 of 27 General Plan Update February 10, 2009 Page 7 General Plan Update Completion Timeframe The following schedule reflects timeframes and tasks related to finalization of the General Plan Update process. February/March 2009 General Plan Update land use maps, district plans, and text will be updated to reflect any changes to Country Club Heights and/or the Downtown area. The draft Housing Element Update (currently completed and being reviewed by Planning staff and the City Attorney's office) will be forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review. The Housing Element, once approved by HCD and adopted by the City Council, will be incorporated into the General Plan document. A request for contract approval with Urban Crossroads will be presented to the City Council. If approved, the traffic analysis process for the multiple land use changes and density modifications will commence in order to incorporate the information into the Draft EIR. The contract proposal presented by Urban Crossroads is included (Attachment 3) for reference. April/May 2009 Fully revise the Draft EIR and incorporate responses to the approximately 200 comments received from the first Draft EIR review into the revised document. June 2009 Commence with 45-day public review of revised Draft EIR. July 2009 Prepare Final EIR, which will include: 1. Response to any new comments received over the 45-day review period. 2. Full analysis of the Housing Element 3. Errata reflecting corrections made to the Final EIR document. 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. 5. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. August 2009 Commence with Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. Fiscal Impact As the Council is aware, the changes to land use maps and text modifications will be completed "in-house" by Planning Division and GIS staff as the General Plan Update Agenda Item No. 9 Page 7 of 27 General Plan Update February 10, 2009 Page 8 consultant is no longer working on this project. The Urban Crossroads cost estimate for additional traffic impact analysis is $27,000 (as reflected in Attachment 3). Additional funds will be used for the remaining environmental work to be completed by outsourcing to staff still under contract. This will maintain time efficiency and control costs. The remaining project budget is approximately $80,000. Recommendation Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Prepared By: Tom Weiner, Acting Director of Community Development Approved By: Robert A. Brady, City Manager Attachments: 1. Downtown Master Plan Neighborhood/District Plan (Draft) 2. Meeting Minutes from the October 14, 2008 City Council meeting 3. Urban Crossroads proposal for required traffic analysis, dated January 21, 2009 4. Sample Notice and Vicinity mailed to Downtown Master Plan property owners in mid January 5. Map Exhibits (A, B, and C) A. Historic District (Downtown Master Plan Area) revised alternative land use map with notations reflecting proposed changes B. Historic District (Downtown Master Plan Area) original proposed land use map C. Country Club Heights revised alternative land use map with notations reflecting proposed changes Agenda Item No. 9 Page 8 of 27 bm Or " G!TY OF LlkKE ELSINORE, DISTRICT PLAN LAY,E Cj LSi no kL - - DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN PROJECT SCALE: I'=200' Agenda Item No. 9 ;oYI'P~`9 of 27 Attachment 2 r F C MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008 *****RR*R**kW*Wk*#*#####****k*#k*##*i****kkkk**k**k*i*k*fF*ftkiiii*kk*******kii#ii*ii****#k******#WW** CALL TO ORDER - 5:00 P.M. The Regular City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Hickman at 5:22 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: MAYOR HICKMAN MAYOR PRO TEM KELLEY COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY COUNCILMAN MAGEE COUNCILMAN SCHIFFNER ABSENT: NONE CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Leibold indicated the following items were to be discussed during Closed Session: (1a) CONFERENCEWITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Gov't Code Section 54956.8) Properties: APNs 363281024-3, 3635400034, 373082021-8, 373083020-0, 373132052-0, 373132059-7, 373133001-7, 373133002-8, 373134026-3, 373135019-0, 373152001-6, 374262004-6, 374262011-2, 375031023-6, 375152048-3, 375152049-4, 375201019-8, 375223037-2, 375274009-5, 375274010-5, 375293023-6, 375293029-2, 375293030-2, 375321030-8, 375321031-9, 375321032-0, 375321054-0, 375324010-9, 378055055-0, 378100017-5, 378157040-1, 378182017-9, 373061009-3, 373132053-1, 373134024-1, 374043014-8, 375042027-4, 375201020-8, 375274046-8, 375321006-7, 375321033-1, 378100008-7, 378182018-0, 373062005-3, 373132058-6, 373134025-2, 374072026-9, 375042028-5, 375223036-1, 375274047-9, 375321029-8, 375321053-9, 378100009-8, 378182035-5, 379191004-2. City/RDA negotiator: City Manager/ Executive Director Brady Negotiating parties: Redevelopment Agency, City of Lake Elsinore, and the County of Riverside, et al. Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment Agenda Item No. 9 Page 10 of 27 A S: MAYOR HICKMAN Fit MAYOR PRO TEM KELLEY COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY UNCILMAN MAGEE CO ILMAN SCHIFFNER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE PUBLIC HEARING(S) (18) General Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report Recommendation: Consider the staff/Planning Commission recommendation and direct staff/Planning Commission accordingly. Mayor Hickman opened the Public Hearing at 7:37 p.m. City Manager Brady indicated that the General Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report has gone through several Planning Commission hearings and deliberations and what is being brought forward is the recommendation of the Planning Commission. He asked Acting Director of Community Development, Tom Weiner, to review the staff report with the City Council and respond to any questions. Acting Director Weiner advised Council that staff completed its analysis of the land use requests that were presented to the Planning Commission during public hearings held in April and May of this year. The requests are included in a matrix in the staff report provided to Council. While reviewing the change requests, staff did identify many errors in the General Plan Update text, Land Use Map and the District Plans. Recommendations to correct these errors have also been made and are included in your report. At the September meeting of the Planning Commission certain concerns were raised related to the procedure of evaluating traffic impacts as well as. land use concerns in the Alberhill Land Use area and the Country Club Heights Land Use area . He made clear that based on the City Council's choice this evening there is a window of time where these areas can be re-evaluated before being brought back to the Planning Commission and the Council. The City Council has the following options this evening: Consider and approve all of the changes recommended by staff and the Planning Commission so far. That would give staff the direction to move forward with making those changes and any subsequent changes that are 6 Agenda Item No. 9 Page 11 of 27 made can be made before re-circulating the Environmental Impact Report. This option would cause the EIR to be re-circulated. • Approve and/or reject in part the recommended changes. Council can recommend those changes not approved by Council not be made and staff will proceed with the balance of the changes. This could possibly cause modification to the EIR. • Consider and reject all of the recommended changes and the General Plan land use stays as was previously presented. If the City Council chooses the first option it will allow staff to make final changes corrections and re-evaluations as well as ensure the environmental document is re- circulated and finalized in order to complete the General Plan Update. Acting Director Weiner advised that he has met with interested parties over the past few weeks and has several future meetings scheduled to discuss these issues, and he intended to do that in a timely manner in order to have the General Plan Update before the Council, the community, the development community and the business owners. Mr. Weiner made himself available to answer any questions. Tom Tomlison representing Castle & Cooke stated that they supplied an update to the Council today where they would like to be and how they would like to proceed with the Alberhill Specific Plan area. He advised there were several items he addressed with several individuals and both the City Manager and Acting Community Development Director have met with them to review the changes and he felt confident that the changes can be worked out in the future. He respectfully requested the City Council to allow that time to work out the differences between what's been presented to the Planning Commission and move forward with the re-circulation of the EIR. Miguel Flores expressed his opinion that Country Club Heights should remain the same. He indicated that he purchased property in that area in 9990 and if the area is rezoned Hillside Residential he will not be able to build what he thought he would be able to build. He expressed his wish that the City leave the parcels the way they are. Councilman Magee expressed his concerns regarding the process taking much longer than had been hoped having gone 30 months past the deadline with requests for more time and study. He pointed out as part of the North Central Sphere there are two parcels at the El Torro turnoff that were created as part of the Highway 74 realignment that don't appear on the map and the proposed zoning is for Business Professional. If business professional includes outdoor storage he would be in support of it, otherwise that area needs to be re-evaluated and the two parcels that aren't on the map need to be General Commercial based on their location and physical characteristics. With respect to the C concerns relating to the traffic study in the Alberhill Ranch area, he felt the City needed to take another look at the number of dwelling units proposed and 7 Agenda Item No. 9 , Page 12 of 27 allowable. Based on the documents he has if the dwelling units are underestimated at two dwelling units per acre in 1400 acres that is 2800 dwelling units and over 10,000 vehicle trips a day, which in his opinion equates to another lane for an arterial street. Mr. Magee felt that needs to be seriously examined. For the residents along Lakeshore, he wanted it made clear that staffs recommendation for public access for a boardwalk not be permitted on any private property. Staffs recommendation is that public access only be included on public property or on public right-of-way. Finally, he felt the City needed to find a way to address and encourage reasonable and responsible development in Country Club Heights. He thought Mr. Huber's paper, "A Bridge to Nowhere" which discusses combining 4,000 square foot parcels rather than changing the zoning to Hillside Residential where only one dwelling unit per lot is allowed, and which runs contrary to what Council is trying to promote, which is to collect parcels and then be able to build on them. He expressed his support of allowing staff to continue to work with property owners to re-circulate the environmental document and to go through and address the errors and omissions including the parcels he previously mentioned. Councilman Schiffner stated his opinion that Country Club Heights would never be developed unless a developer be allowed to accumulate parcels because the infrastructure would not be done by individuals. He expressed his view that the lots had to be accumulated and put together projects large enough. He felt the same thing would need to be done along the shore line. I,. ! Mayor Pro Tem Kelley thanked the Planning Commission for their hard work holding numerous meetings going over the document, listening to public comments and trying to adjust the General Plan. She felt the gentleman who submitted the "Bridge to Nowhere" report brought up some very good points and expressed her concerns that Country Club Heights needs to have a second look at it. The second area was along the Lakeshore. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley feels the City's General Plan is, and should be, a visionary document guiding the City Council. The General Plan is supposed to be revised every ten years. This General Plan has to guide all of the city councils in the future as to how the development in this City should go, where it should go and what it should look like. In that respect it has to have a common thread of vision and that vision has to be shared by everyone that sits at the dais and all of the residents of the community. Working from that standpoint, the vision that she has always accepted held onto and thought was the majority of this City, was open recreational along the lakeshore. She expressed her disappointment that residential has been recommended along the lakeshore and thinks it is almost impossible to do because the requirements are 10,000 square feet lots. Lakeshore would have to be widened and it would be very difficult to have houses on the lots, sewers and other infrastructure that would be required to make that happen. She felt the City's policy on rezoning to residential is misleading and would prefer to see that remain recreational. The Council. has had the goal to purchase as much land as possible with the idea of developing it 8 Agenda Item No. 9 Page 13 of 27 E into a view shed with bicycle trails, picnic areas and beaches, and that is the F1 vision she would like to hold onto. She expressed her concern that Council needed to take a close look at Country Club Heights which should be the most spectacular developed area in this town with the most beautiful view. She wants something different along the lakeshore. She can support the other changes made. Councilman Magee indicated he agreed with Mayor Pro Tern Kelley on everything except the lakeshore. He is a proponent of private property owner rights. There are some very difficult and unique situations along Lakeshore Drive; topography, flood plain and access or right of way issues. If the Council can go through and purchase these properties for public use and public access as envisioned by Mayor Pro Tern Kelley, he would agree. This Council has done some of that. However, if a private property owner can create something in that area then their investment has been realized. He believes to lessen the value of their property by zoning it commercial, artificially devalues their investment. He would like to encourage that investment in our town. Councilman Buckley asked some questions regarding the process. He wanted to know why this had to go back to the Planning Commission after the Council decided what to do and what changes to make. City Attorney Leibold explained that the Planning Commission needs to make a recommendation with respect to P the EIR and the EIR has not been completed even to date with the preferred land use plan as stated in the project description. If the Council recommends the changes or accepts and directs staff to make the changes recommended by staff and the Planning Commission then the text changes and the General Plan, the map changes, and the corresponding changes in the EIR will be re-circulated then it has to go back to the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council. He questioned whether the parts of Wildomar that were left in the City's sphere had been removed. Staff confirmed that it has and they would confirm that. Councilman Buckley reviewed the changes to be made In the General Plan Update starting with Book 1, section 2.17 he suggested a bullet be added concerning mixed use bonuses, in section 2.3 he requested 5.6 be stricken as "true to form" is indefinable. He suggested under Railroad Section 2.43, that a reference be added concerning SCAG, RCTC and Metro link are potentially looking at a Metro link rail coming down the 15. Under section 2.43 Airport Transportation, he requested a reference that a permanent lit runway would be unacceptable and impossible because it would have to be paved and it is in the floodplain and the other difficulties associated with those issues. Under section 2.53 he noted a couple of anomalies between the City and the School District at North Peak and the end of Canyon Hills. He asked that a reference be added encouraging the rationalization of those boundaries. 9 Agenda Item No. 9 , Page 14 of 27 Mayor Hickman confirmed that Councilman Buckley meant to encourage the other school districts to allow Lake Elsinore Unified to expand contiguous with the City's boundaries. Councilman Buckley continued with 2.61 Adequate Electrical, Natural Gas and Telecommunications Systems.-He requested a reference in this section for newer tracts to promote telecommuting and be fully wired for telecommunications when created. Under section 6.2 - 22.5 There is a ratio of 1.5 officers per thousand and Council may want to consider an ordinance or resolution establishing a higher rate but to have 1.5 officers included in the General Plan is just never going to happen. It was noted the County standard was 1.2. Section 2.73, he noted a typographical error, "Villa" Rochelle should be "Via" Rochelle. Under Section 3.3 Air Quality Goals and Policies AB 375 and SB 32 are new and not referenced and should be referenced as "in accordance with the rational implementation of AB 375 and SB 32", if possible. Section 4.20 - Councilman Buckley noted that palm trees had been discussed. He asked if live oaks and different types of oaks also be listed for preservation. He referenced Map 4.8 which indicates the lake is visible from Lowe's parking lot. He felt there were problems with the map as to where the Lake can be seen and asked that that be resolved. Page 4-77 the City should consider an actual view shed ordinance in the coming future where legal and where appropriate. Book 2 - Business District Map - he asked how the Limited Industrial area was going to be accessed, whether access would be off Nichols or south coming off the 74. Historic District - residential mixed use at 5%, he thought it had gone up significantly and asked for confirmation that the numbers in the books were going to be changed to match the maps. Staff confirmed they would. He noted under 2.6 on HD 9 the phrase "true to form is indefinable" should be stricken. HD 11, under 3.2 the language "encouraging development to incorporate historical. architectural themes into building facades," he suggested striking the remainder following that phrase. Referring to North Peak, he noted there isn't a reference to the high school district line. Currently there is a line that defines Perris and Lake Elsinore and it would be better in the eventual Specific Plan not to change that line. He felt north of that line be strongly considered for senior housing. He suggested looking at expanding the auto mail area between 5 and 7 and asked about the area between Avenue 7 and 10 on Lakeshore, it is listed as Tourist Commercial and is maintained as Tourist Commercial on the modified map. He added that there are several zoning issues to consider in that area. Referencing the revised maps he felt the Business District was okay as is. He did not have any changes for Eastlake. He agreed with Mayor Pro Tern Kelley and Councilman Magee regarding the Lakeshore; that it is a vital part of the City and should be preserved. However, he felt with some very restrictive design standards calling for gaps, setbacks, minimum square footage, etc., there may be a way to allow building in that location. He asked if the designation in downtown at the corner where the Ambassador Hotel is mixed use? It was confirmed that it is Residential Mixed Use. He suggested coming back with consideration for changes to the Downtown Master Plan. He addressed the area between 10 Agenda Item No. 9 Page 15 of 27 Graham, Limited and Lakeshore from Poe to Lewis where it changes to high F1 density residential indicating he is not sure if it is appropriate especially since the idea is to encourage higher density downtown to create the people to support the businesses in the mixed use area. He asked about the Alberhill Map, indicating the 9+ acres isn't showing as part of the flood plain and asked that it be looked at. Lake Elsinore Hills the density has significantly increased on the hillside to Medium; the original had been Hillside Residential. In his view there was no question that it had to go back to Hillside Residential. Staff confirmed it was changed to Low Medium: Councilman Buckley felt it should be Low or.Hillside Residential considering the topography and the surrounding use. Under the Lakeview District at the corner of Lincoln and Riverside, he asked whether General Commercial would allow for Commercial Mixed Use. Staff confirmed that after talking with the property owner it was being considered for Commercial Mixed Use to allow for flexibility. Referencing Country Club Heights, Councilman Buckley stated the landowners have rights and residents have rights as well. According to the Residents Committee Report that was approved unanimously by the City Council the residents do not envision tract homes; they envision custom homes. He felt the proposed reference from SITL development is not a good idea. He confirmed, after being questioned by Mayor Hickman, that he was talking about the area from Gunderson Canal that is now designated Low Medium. He stated that considering it is surrounded by Hillside Low and Industrial makes it a planning island and it is inappropriate for that area. He noted the area along Strickland that is designated Medium Density is also inappropriate. He asked whether the area between Strickland and Trelevin, designated Business Professional was to transition between the floodway and the sewer plant. Mayor Hickman indicated he had numerous changes himself, a lot of them he thought Staff had heard. In Country Club Heights he would like to see Medium Density. He would like to see someone come in and develop that area mentioning a person has purchased several lots and he felt he had.every right to develop those lots and especially on Gunder Avenue where it is designated Hillside, he felt it should be Medium Residential. He indicated that a lot of the maps he had were not up to date and he planned to give Staff all of his changes rather than take the time to discuss them at the Council meeting. Mayor Hickman stated the County owns a lot of the area along with DLM in the North Central Sphere. They have a corridor that comes through next to Syntex in that area and there is no cutoff for the El Torro Road that belongs to the County. He suggested Staff obtain a County Map to coincide the County's designations since that area does not yet belong to the City. There are mapped areas that are not included in these maps. There is a lot of the open space in that area and in Fj North Peak that should be noted. He indicated that he would meet with Staff to 11 Agenda Item No. 9 Page 16 of 27 review the remainder of his changes. He felt time was not of the essence, it was more Important that the General Plan be done right, Councilman Magee added to the Mayor's comments regarding the El Torro cutoff, indicating the County was designating the area from Highway 74 to Nichols as a six lane road and there were several blue line streams in that area. He stated that Staff needed to match up with what the County Road Department was proposing in that area so that the City's maps are consistent with what the County has proposed whether or not annexations go forward, so the public receives the correct information. The Mayor invited further comments from the public. Daniel Uhlry, a citizen of Lake Elsinore referenced a General Plan study group for Country Club Heights several years ago and expressed his concerns that water and sewer were discussed In the General Plan update. He mentioned that on Strickland the water provider was EMWD and on the other side of the hill was Lake Elsinore Water District, which has very small water lines in that area. Before any development is done in that area something will have to be done about the water before anything is considered because there is not enough water up there now. The sewers may also be an issue and should be considered in the General Plan. Fill The Mayor directed Staff to go back to the General Plan Report of 2006 and look at it because in reference to Country Club he thinks Mr. Huband has enough lots to help develop that area. There being no further comments, the Mayor closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Mayor Pro Tern Kelley requested clarification regarding the options that were presented and the comments she heard whether the motion would be to make the changes that were spoken about. City Attorney Leibold confirmed that what she heard was Council would like to direct Staff to make certain adjustments and revisions in the preferred Land Use Plans, the corresponding text, make the necessary changes to the Environmental Impact Report, and re-circulate it if necessary. She indicated there is a long laundry list of changes recommended by staff to the Planning Commission and from the Planning Commission to the City Council. She heard some differing opinions with respect to specific areas, Country Club Heights, the Lake edge, Lake Shore and she felt Staff needed clarification She mentioned there was one comment on the methodology of the traffic study and the Pacific Clay area which would be a different methodology than used throughout the balance of the Environmental Impact Report and typically used by the City in evaluating traffic on a General Plan Land Use designation. To the extent that there is no 12 Agenda Item No. 9 Page 17 of 27 disagreement, the direction would be to make the changes as recommended by the Planning Commission. With respect to those few items where their appears to be a different opinion staff needs more specific direction or they wont know what to_bring back to Council. She advised that does not mean the Council is making a final decision. Whatever is prepared and presented as the project and evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report will be re-circulated, comments will be received and responses will be made to those comments, at which time it will be presented to the Planning Commission and then to Council; but staff needs direction on those few items. Mayor Pro Tern Kelley moved to reject the Planning Commission's changes regarding the Lake edge area and direct staff to revise the General Plan update consistent with the original designation on the preferred Land Use Map; second by Schiffner. The following vote resulted: AYES: MAYOR HICKMAN MAYOR PRO TEM KELLEY COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY COUNCILMAN SHIFFNER NOES: COUNCILMAN MAGEE ~I ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Buckley moved to approve everything on the revised Country Club Heights Map recommended by the Planning Commission except for two modifications between Strickland and Key; one area to be designated Hillside Residential and the other area as Low Density. The motion died for lack of a second. Thereafter a motion was made by Mayor Hickman to send the Country Club Heights Land Use Map back to the Planning Commission to make changes; second by Mayor Pro Tern Kelley. No vote was taken. Thereafter followed a brief discussion regarding the land use designations on the Country Club Heights Land Use Map and Councilman Buckley suggested changing an area to Low and changing Hillside to Low and change another area to Low. Staff confirmed Councilman Magee's question that if Country Club Heights is designated all Low Density or Hillside Residential then existing medium or high .I 13 Agenda Item No. 9 Page 18 of 27 density units become legal non-conforming; and if they were to become destroyed they would have to meet the new standard. I The City Attorney advised that absent an action, Staff would proceed with the Planning Commission's recommendation for purposes of completing the Environmental Impact Report which will be presented to the Planning Commission with a recommendation to the City Council and ultimately the City Council by way of a Public Hearing will make a final determination. So if Council can't make a majority vote tonight to accept or reject the Planning Commission's recommendation Staff will proceed with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Councilman Magee suggested moving past this item and going forward with the third item of contention which is the Alberhill Traffic Analysis. He stated he both heard the attorney and read the report that states the standard is to use four dwelling units per acre in this particular area where there is a maximum allowable of six and he concluded from the report that there would be 10,000 more trips a day. He did not understand why that would not be analyzed. Staff indicated it was more a matter of consistency. There would be more flexibility using six; however, a new traffic study would have to be done. It was confirmed that the Specific Plan has always recognized it as six but the General Plan has not analyzed it as six. It was explained that four was in line with everything else that was analyzed as a baseline number. Attorney Leibold explained that it was her understanding that throughout the entire General Plan Update and in the City's regular course of business that traffic is analyzed at the midpoint of the allowable range and in this case the mid- point would be three, but it was analyzed at four. That same methodology was used throughout the General Plan update. So to take one specific area and analyze it differently for that area raises the question whether the methodology is wrong throughout the entire General Plan Update. Further explanation was provided for purposes of the General Plan land use designation. There is a range and the Specific Plan is then adopted to be consistent with the General Plan. If a specific project is consistent with the Specific Plan and the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan then no additional environmental analysis is required and the developer can rely on the General Plan EIR. If a denser project within that range but at the high end is proposed then additional analysis is required because the General Plan allows for a range and the adopted method has been to analyze at the mid-range. Staff suggested that if Council directs Staff to analyze at six because of the potential for development, then that can be explored. After further concerns expressed by Councilman Magee, Attorney Leibold explained that Castle & Cooke's comments with respect to the traffic engineers analysis was for the 14 Agenda Item No. 9 Page 19 of 27 Pacific Clay property, not Alberhill. Alberhill has an adopted Specific Plan and there will be no additional environmental analysis required. Thereafter followed a lengthy discussion regarding the traffic circulation in the North Peak area and whether the City could use Castle & Cooke's traffic study to save costs and whether there were other areas where there were pending specific plans where the traffic study does not match. Mr. Tomlinson addressed Council indicating that Castle & Cooke has a Pre- Annexation Development Agreement with the City that specifically calls for six dwelling units per acre and that is what they would like to include in the Environmental Impact Report. He indicated that they did instruct and pay for the consultant to modify the traffic report to include that quantity. Attorney Leibold confirmed that there is a Pre-Annexation Development Agreement but it does require that a Specific Plan be submitted subject to the discretion of the Planning Commission and City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley moved to go forward with the Study at the higher level for the Pacific Clay area; second by Mayor Hickman. Councilman Magee requested the motion include direction to have Staff analyze whatever work already completed by the developer and add it, modify it or delete j it as deemed appropriate by Planning staff and recognizing that the City was not tying the hands of future councils with respect to density, but is providing a tool to adequately analyze future impacts; Second by Mayor Pro Tem Kelley. The final vote resulted: AYES: MAYOR HICKMAN MAYOR PRO TEM KELLEY COUNCILMAN MAGEE COUNCILMAN SCHIFFNER NOES : COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Attorney Leibold advised that she thought those were all the items that required specific motions and if there was nothing else then a motion should be made to have staff proceed as recommended by the Planning Commission. 15 Agenda Item No. 9 , Page 20 of 27 Mayor Hickman noted that on the North Central Sphere Map there were a lot of I I things that needed to be.changed and stated he will go through them, if that is I I the wanted. The City Attorney advised that the issue is that if the Mayor takes his concerns up individually with staff, then the Council is delegating to the Mayor the authority to delegate to staff without being considered by the entire body and the Planning Commission, otherwise it will need to be considered by the entire Council. Mayor Hickman presented his concerns on the North Central Sphere Map beginning with North Peak on Vista Lane the yellow box is BLM.land and the other gray boxes are County land. He would like those area designations to coincide with the County's maps. El Torro cutoff is not shown and needs to coincide with the County map. The purple area where Sunblaise is marked Business Professional; he felt it should be Light Industrial. He suggested Staff check with the County because they have different markings. Mayor Hickman clarified for staff that he was looking for MSACP land. He indicated the El Torro cutoff should be the same as the County designation. What the County shows in purple which is just above Sunblaise, Staff is recommending Business Professional he felt it should be Industrial just like the County has designated. He felt the squares where the purple ends going west abutting the yellow was being used as Industrial. I. ' Staff advised the Mayor that that area is residential and is in code violation of the County. That area was designated residential RA 20,000 square foot lot minimums and there are currently code violations against the County. The County has a habitat corridor going through near Sharon Street, in the green area and half of the red and purple and goes south at an angle. The area that says Lake Elsinore Hills is all habitats currently. All of the area that says Lake Elsinore Hills in yellow is currently a mapped land. He felt the three large yellow squares below the location marked Third Street heading toward 74 should be Light Industrial. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley moved to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation with respect to the entire North Central Sphere with the specific changes outlined by Mayor Hickman and move forward with the General Plan; second by Mayor Hickman. After which a brief discussion regarding whether Spyglass has been mapped. Staff confirmed it had not The following vote resulted: AYES: MAYOR HICKMAN MAYOR PRO TEM KELLEY COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY COUNCILMAN MAGEE 16 Agenda Item No. 9 Page 21 of 27 F F R (19) (20) COUNCILMAN SCHIFFNER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE City ager Brady advised this ordinance had been reviewed by the Public Safety A isory Commission. Mark Dennis advised the Public Safety Advisory Commissio ad unanimously voted and he was available for comments. Mayor Pro Tem elley moved to introduce the ordinance by reading the title only and waived furthe eading; second by Councilman Magee. The City Clerk read the title of the ordin \resulte rd and called the roll for the vote: AN ORDINANY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINOA, ADDING CHAPTER 8.13 TO THE LAKE NICIPAL CODE REGARDING REGULATION The following roll cAYES: COUNCILMAN MAGEE COUNCILMAN SCHIFFNE MAYOR PRO TEM KELLE Y MAYOR HICKMAN NOES: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY ABSTAIN: NONE City Manager Brady advised this ordinance was for the Tree Preservation Guidelines which would allow the City to receive a Tree City USA designation. 17 Agenda Item No. 9 Page 22 of 27 Attachment 3 AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL WORK January 21, 2009 Mr. Tom Weiner CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Subject: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Additional Land Use Changes Review - Contract Amendment #2 Dear Mr. Weiner: Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal agreement to the City of Lake Elsinore (Client) for approval of additional work necessary to complete traffic analysis services for the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Traffic Study project in the City of Lake Elsinore. SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL WORK The following scope of additional work is based on our recent electronic (e-mail) and verbal communication with the project team regarding the team's desire to perform a complete analysis of the current "City Council Directed" plan for the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update project. Task 1 Develop SED conversion factors for new land use categories (Gateway Commercial and Downtown Recreational). Task 2 Convert the revised land use data to socioeconomic data (SED) suitable for use in the transportation model. Task 3 Provide the new SED to City staff for review and approval. Task 4 Summarize recommended roadway network changes per the Pac Clay project and most current SR-74 / 1-15 interchange project (e.g. Riverside Drive and interchange configuration) for review and approval by City staff. Task 5 Perform transportation model run (re-run up to 3 times to provide reasonable results). Task 6 Calculate peak hour and daily traffic volume forecasts for the "City Council Directed" scenario. Task 7 Analyze operations and provide recommendations at the same study area locations as in the published study. 05059-07 Amend 2 Agenda Item No. 9 Page 23 of 27 Mr. Tom Weiner CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE January 21, 2009 Page 2 Task 8 Prepare a supplemental letter report to reflect new analysis. Task 9 Attend up to two meetings with City staff to coordinate the work effort. ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL FEES In order to complete this additional work, the professional fee is $19,700. This increases the current contract authorization of $9,200 to a total project amount of $28,900. DELIVERABLES/TIMING We estimate the supplemental letter report will be completed in 40 working days (assuming one week turnaround on City staff review of SED and roadway network data) after receiving the signed contract and materials documenting the changes to the draft Land Use Element. TERMS If agreeable, this letter serves as our mutual, contractual agreement and authorization to proceed with additional work to the original agreement approved by Client on August 16, 2007. By signing this additional work authorization, Client acknowledges that all original contractual details remain intact and unchanged including Deliverables, Liability and Timing issues due to unforeseen circumstances. Please sign one copy of this authorization for additional work and return it to us for our files. We look forward to continuing to serve you on this project. This proposal offer is valid for 60 days. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 660-1994 ext. 210. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Carleton Waters. P. E. Principal CW:rd JN: 05059-07 Amend 2:doc Attachment CONTRACT Approved by: Title: Firm: Date: APPROVAL: ie Whiteman, P.E. Senior Associate CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 05059-07 Amend 2 Agenda Item No. 9 Page 24 of 27 Mr. Tom Weiner CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE January21, 2009 Page 3 EXHIBIT A BILLING RATES FOR URBAN CROSSROADS. INC. Senior Principal $150 - 185 Principal $140 - 175 Associate Principal $125 - 160 Senior Associate $110 - 145 Associate $100 - 135 Senior Analyst $85 - 120 Analyst $70 - 105 Assistant Analyst $50 - 85 Senior Technician $55 - 90 Technician $45 - 80 Assistant Technician $35 - 70 Administrative Manager $75 - 110 Administrative Supervisor $60 - 95 Administrative Assistant $45 - 80 General (1) Reimbursable direct costs, such as reproduction, supplies, messenger service, long- distance telephone calls, travel, and traffic counts will be billed at cost plus ten (10) percent. (2) Hourly rates apply to work time, travel time, and time spent at public hearings and meetings. For overtime work, the above rates may be increased 50 percent. (3) Client payment for professional services is not contingent upon the client receiving payment from other parties. (4) Billing statements for work will be submitted monthly. Statements are payable within thirty (30) days of the receipt by client of statement. Any statement unpaid after thirty (30) days shall be subject to interest at the maximum permitted by law. February 14, 2006 05059-07 Amend 2 Agenda Item No. 9 Page 25 of 27 CITY OF Attachment 4 LADE ~ LSIf10P\.E DREAM EXTREME, NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER On February 10, 2009, at 7:00 p.m., the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore will consider an update of the City's General Plan. The proposed General Plan Update will address outstanding issues within both the Downtown and Country Club Heights areas of the City. The General Plan Update includes the modification of the existing General Plan land use designation for a property or properties undleryour ownership (see attached map). The current land use designation for the subject property is Tourist Commercial (TC). The previously proposed land use designation associated with the general plan update was Commercial Mixed Use (CMU). The subject property is now included within the boundary of a Downtown Master Plan. In- order to ensure consistency between the General plan and Downtown Master Plan documents the proposed land use designation is now Residential Mixed Use (RMU). Additional noticing regarding this project will be forthcoming. Further information on this. item may be obtained by contacting Tom Weiner, Acting Community Development Director, at (951) 674-3124, ext..270. Agenda Item No. 9 Page 26 of 27 City of Lake Elsinore / EXISTING GENERAL PLAN: TOURIST COMMERCIAL t '' I / / / GENE PLAN UPDATE: COMMERCIAL MIXED USE i ; ; DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN: RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE 1 �.,� `_� ` + y t r J r! !! r j ,� a t Nom ` f fy J ■ 1 ,1` .t I �� _� f i # - '`` t, / i r Ij i f iv 4 ma y ' % / ''�rr PLf y f reef `� - �' �r ' r r �YI��H4Y ��tt /7/, t 1 -- -�. �a4t /i4 t `---- -` • i 17r-....,..-■__.• . f '''''-*.-//'''.- -,...„. - , / ' : : , ■• -', , ' .. / / , / � �/ � 1 /( „,,,,,::.::_,,,,...,,,..iiiii.kiii, 4.,63” ■ 7 ' , :..„.,:,,,,,;..i.:,,,-,-;::',",:,,,,,,i.,,,,,- ...._____/ -------/ 1 '''$ ft. _ ;� / 1 4 �^ 1/ _ -ti`At � �tt4t a r t (" i.. } w 4. '$ I, 71 J �` " +� .. rte- a r f� ! � rr -� 1 y k � a��,z � <E r � `- r I 1 �-_ `_ c�'�y _ . # t �'4. t Y `-'ji ifs ------7 / x per ,,.t� �_ f ti. F:----------------- / ---- r r / / 1 '11 _ 11 8 an �/A, A. k ° ; terWis.9.W� r.rsmo GENERAL PL A N UPDATE €� �"� ", ;,°°' o , 2�`. 2Z crs