Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 1BMINUTES'. TOWN HALL MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TERRA COTTA JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 29291 ROBB ROAD LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1993 rrraarr• rrraarrrrrraierrrrrrararrrrr* r'`f�aarrrrarrrrrrarrrrrrr :rrar The Town Hall Meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor Washburn, with Councilmembers Alongi, Cherveny, Dominguez and Winkler also in attendance. LAKE EDGE SPECIFIC PLAN Mayor Washburn explained the format. of this meeting and future considerations of the Lake Edge Specific Plan and introduced City Planner Robert Christen and Consultant Joanna Craft, representing Ballew & Associates. City Planner Christen gave an overview of the Lake Edge,Specific Plan and noting the involvement of ' ;the County of Riverside, . in addition to the City of Lake Elsinore',. He further,noted that the plan stemmed from the opportunity to own the Lake and reestablish its vitality of the past. He explained that the State has requested that the land use plan be in place prior to the actual transfer of the Lake. Joanna Craft, representing Ballew &; Associates showed a slide presentation which included the proposed land use plan, and the community land use plan with beaches and trails noted. She clarified that contrary to the current misconception, there are no plans to place a greenbelt through private property. She further showed slides of the proposed elevation districts, a conceptual land, use plan, examples of typical .architectural styles and examples of waterfront developments and.,courtyards. Ms. Craft further detailed a list!' of questions and answers pertaining to the Lake.and the Specific Plan. A gentleman'in the audience questioned Launch Ramps.and requested clarification on the impact of the plan on personal launch ramps and existing commercial launch ramps. Mayor Washburn noted that this area is still the State's responsibility, but explained that the City has presented a.letter which indicates the City will work out a plan to allow launching from private property. The gentleman further questioned Assembly Bill. `1697 and. questioned the appropriateness of resolving this issue after the transfer. Mayor Washburn further stressed that the State still controls the Lake, and is required to have an approved plan prior to the transfer. Peter Dawson spoke on behalf of the Southshore Homeowners Group and indicated that he felt this meeting was the proper time to address the launching issue. He discussed the impact of the Lake Edge Specific Plan on the access issue, stressing that most of the Lake edge is private property. He addressed a legal document concerning property rights and questioned statements that would seem to circumvent the rights of access. Mayor Washburn expressed concern that too much was being read in to this document and noted a meeting where the access questions had been discussed and this document followed the discussion with legal possibilities. He stressed that the City does not want to give away commercial AGENDA AGMENDA ITEM, Nv. PPf3c-4— OF PAGE TWO - TOWN HALL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 4, 1993 opportunities which could help the Lake pay for itself. He further stressed that there isn't a problem with giving away access rights. Art Chaskin commented on the cost and investment in this document. He expressed concern with the City obtaining ownership first and negotiating access rights second. Mayor Washburn clarified the transfer process and the evolution of beach rights and the permit process. Mr. Chaskin questioned the existing commercial properties on Grand Avenue. Ms. Craft advised that the existing land uses would be allowed to remain, stressing that this is a planning tool. Mr. Chaskin addressed the existing concession agreement with *p2076XMr. Watkins and suggested that there is no exclusive right to operate a marina in that agreement. He stressed that the biggest issue for the County residents is the ability to launch boats. Mayor Washburn indicated that there was currently litigation involving the State and Mr. Watkins agreement and the City has been requested not to discuss this matter. A lady in the audience asked based on the assumption that this document is intended to guarantee the rights of County residents, what the potential for changing the document would be as leadership changes. Mayor Washburn indicated that changes to the document could occur, however, if residents would be impacted by the change there would be a notification process required. A lady in the audience read the following Open Letter Regarding the Lake Edge Plan, dated March 1, 1993, addressed to the Mayor & City Council from Joan & Dan Hoover, Lakefront homeowners in the County: We greatly respect the effort being put forth in the writing of an ambitious "lake edge" development plan, and the intent to obtain Lake Elsinore from the state. However, we are concerned that some individual rights, hopes and dreams may be damaged if the planners are not very careful. Of specific interest to those of use near the water's edge is the determination of the 100 year flood levels. Please consider carefully the following extracts from the preliminary planning document and our comments regarding them. Section 3, page 5 minimum surface Comment: surface level of 1240 level 1263.3 feet." feet and a maximum Your document sets 1262' as the new 100 year flood elevation. since people's existing homes and lives are development. No such simplification was found relating to any other elevation, or any other item in this extensive document. Further, as stated in Section 3, page 5, the 100 -pear flood elevation will be lowered to 1262. (Using 1263.3 in this section is a contradiction.) Therefore, allowing one full foot additional elevation above 1262 as a AGENDA ITEM PAGE—&- OF PAGE THREE - TOWN HALL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 4, 1993 "cushion ", development ' You are talking about dramatic effects'on people's lives and homes here. It should not be taken lightly for sake of convenience or simplification. The City planners need to develop a plan that works for the interest of these land /homeowners and the development programs. Using a higher number appears- to have a deceptive motivation. Every number in this planning_ document, teat and exhibits, should state the new correct level, which we believe to be 1263.0 Section 5.4 b, page 7 " ..The property below 12651 above mean sea level is subject to periodic' flooding involving the following considerations: - It-is unlawful to erect or maintain places for habitation by people or, other uses not specifically granted in the development standards of this specific plan (#) (# Emphasis added by writer.) Comment: Again we take issue reference point, even ; totally unacceptable t existing homeowners to with every inch the lev we request that 1263.0 the stated new flood 1 become the established and "habitable" land. »Ra_nr level a%^121A fic Section 3, page 6" with using 1265' as the or "simplification ". it is even suggest not allowing "maintain" greatly affected 1 designation is increased, level, one full foot above ne stated in this section, line for new "developable" "The three lake levels of 1240, 1252 and 1263.3 feet are key water levels toiconsider when planning lake edge land uses. Briefly stated: • Elevation 1240 feet -- stabilized lake water level • Elevation 1252 feet new outflow channel elevation at the lake edge - -under heavy water flows into the lake, this is the elevation at which water would begin exiting the lake. The outflow channel reaches a sill elevation of 1255 feet at its intersection with Wasson Canyon *. land is 1265.( #) This number may vary slightly when detailed plans are done. Additional land between 1263.3 and 1265''may be developable.' PAC-E-3— CF.._1__ PAGE FOUR - TOWN HALL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 4p 1993 * Elevation elevation. Comment: 1263.3 feet - future 100 -year flood We take great issue with using a higher number for "simplification" when referring to the elevation for their property and structures. (In some cases, homeowners are bound by association covenants to maintain their homes.) In any case this statement has no justification for being in the document. It appears to clearly indicate an intent to destroy ease remove any such reference from one last point concerns us. We own a home in the County. Why is the City attempting to set the rules which govern our land use? We question the legality of such an effort. We would like to be "partners" in the positive change in the Lake Elsinore area. The lake is our common asset. The lakefront owners are a part of the history and their future should be secure in any proposed plan. We feel that there has not been enough time to fully evaluate the proposal and hereby request more time to do SO. We also request receiving any and all documents related to the proposed plans, including but not limited to revised editions of the Lake Edge Plan and Environmental Impact Reports. Mayor Washburn clarified that the City and County Planning Departments are working together on this plan and that would continue to be :the intent,. even though the City is presently financing the project. This lady further inquired what the County has to gain from this plan. Mayor Washburn clarified that the State has required that this plan be in place to guarantee continued recreational opportunities will be maintained around the Lake. Ms. Craft clarified some of the simplifications noted in the letter presented and noted areas where further specific would still be necessary, such as hydrology studies, etc. She clarified that structures presently existing below allowed levels would not be required to be removed, but any new structures would be required to meet FEMA standards and comply with other Codes in place when constructed. Mr. Christen clarified that this document does not address building codes. Ms. Craft further clarified that the County would still be the approving body for the County residents. Mr. Miller inquired what could be done if an individual did not like the City's participation in this effort, noting distrust of the City. Mayor Washburn clarified the County's participation in this project and the City's interest in making it work for all. He stressed that if the County chooses not to approve the plan, it would not impact County residents. Mr. Miller stressed the need for agreements in advance. A lady in the audience questioned the Specific Plan process and why boat rights could not be part of the Specific Plan document. She questioned the ability to amend a Specific Plan and suggested the difficulty for an individual to have it amended. She further T " � PAS PAGE FIVE - TOWN HALL MEETING MINUTES'— MARCH 4, 1993 suggested that .the intent to guarant the Specific Plan. City Planner Chr concern would still fall in the Count access rights ten noted that planning area. be noted in the area of A gentleman in the audience'' commented "on the need for water on an ongoing basis. He expressed interest, in getting the outflow channel done right. He stressed that the channel is the first step with amenities such as boat slips to,,follow as a means of making money. Another gentleman in the audience questioned the City's ability to control the Lake. Mr. Howard questioned the possible commercial development around the Lake and inquired what it would be. Ms. Craft indicated that she would anticipate small retail, hotels, restaurants, and other businesses to draw local tourism, similar to the amenities at Seaport Village. He also questioned appropriate high density development. A lady questioned Lakeshore Drive and the restricted use areas. Ms. Craft clarified that private ownership and development would still be possible where it is currently private ownership. She further clarified that this type of 'development would still go through the normal review process. A gentleman questioned the adoption process and the process for revision of this plan. Mr. Christen clarified and advised that it could be revised at any -time. A lady inquired how historical sites would be handled. Ms. Craft indicated that any development is subject to archeological survey. Mr. Christen further noted that all historical sites are listed. A lady commented that she has been in the City for 16 years and is happy with the current direction and representation. Bob Houts spoke on behalf of the Vista del Lago property owners and noted recent flood concerns. He addressed the plan and suggested the need for breakdowns regarding income and costs of taking over the Lake. He expressed concern that this planning effort had been underway for the last 5 years and the public involved in the process only recently. A lady questioned the transfer of the Lake and who would be able to change the plan presented. Ms. Craft explained that County residents interested in changing the!, plan would go through the County staff and. City residents would address the City.. Mayor Washburn stressed that the County must also adopt the plan or the residents would not be included. A lady commented that she was a County resident and looked forward to the City improving the Lake, indicating that she felt the improvements would make the residents proud. Dick Knapp questioned the greenbelt area along Lakeshore and noted that 17 of the Municipal Code eliminated access from Lakeshore. He questioned the ability to tie this area in to sewers, since septic is a problem in the area. He also questioned the road elevation. Mr. Christen, stressed that this is a conceptual plan and no engineering has occurred'to date. PAGE SIX — TOWN HALL MEETING MINUTES — MARCH dp 1993 Mr. Miller inquired whether the residents could draw up their own plan. Ms. Craft stressed that the current effort is to obtain input on the plan. She further stressed that if residents see areas of concern or better ideas they need to be presented and discussed. She also.stressed the willingness of the City to work with the residents. She requested constructive input. Mr. Chaskin expressed amazement that there was so much agreement in this group. He expressed concern that the City and County are nearing agreement on the plan. He stressed the importance of having agreements in writing first. Mayor Washburn reminded the audience that copies of the plan are available through City Hall. He further stressed the requirements of the State for the transfer and the City's efforts to comply. A gentleman in the audience questioned the area along Grand Avenue and the designation for higher density. He stressed the need to plan for widening Grand Avenue to accommodate increased traffic flows. Ms. Craft clarified that higher densities are not being proposed as those presented are in compliance with the current County designations. Mr. Christen clarified that the roads are master planned in the specific plan. A lady in the audience questioned the deadline for this plan. Mayor Washburn indicated that there was not a deadline, particularly since this effort has been a five year process. A gentleman questioned the timing of the outflow channel. Mayor Washburn advised work would begin in April or May of this year. Councilman Alongi confirmed that the contract date was anticipated to be in May of this year. A lady addressed the outflow channel and commented on efforts to clear the channel in Temecula. Mayor Washburn stressed the problems with clearing due to endangered species. He noted the local emergency declaration and added flexibility it offers in this type of action. A gentleman questioned the current Lake closure whether is due to bacteriological concerns. Mayor Washburn explained that the Lake is closed due to debris and launching concerns. Another gentleman noted that an area in the County was in fact closed because of bacteria from septic systems. A gentleman questioned the plans for recreation on the lake such as jet ski areas or water skiing courses. Ms. Craft explained that this plan hopes to draw activities and vitality back to the Lake. Mayor Washburn noted that Director of Special Projects Watenpaugh has worked out a draft calendar of activities. A gentleman questioned the ability to ever have a large market on Grand Avenue with the zoning in this plan. Ms. Craft clarified that it is not the intent to discourage commercial development on Grand Avenue. Mayor Washburn stressed that the impact of this plan on the County residents is contingent on the County's approval of it. Ms. Craft clarified that this plan only addresses the Lake side of Grand Avenue. A lady questioned the ability to have an agreement in writing in advance of the transfer. Mayor Washburn advised that an attorney is addressing the arrangements with individual property owners as well as homeowner groups. PAGE SEVEN - TOWN HALL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 4, 1993 A gentleman questioned the plan for the airport area. Mr. Christen explained that there are three specific plans around the Lake, and the Lake Edge does not address that area. A gentleman thanked -the City for the efforts so far, indicating he felt that concerns would be addressed better when the City is in control, as the State has done nothing. THE TOWN HALL MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:15 P.M. ATTEST: VICKI KASAD, CITY CLERK CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE GARY M. WASHBURN, MAYOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE