Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-2004 City Council Study Session MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19,2004 ************************************************************* CALL TO ORDER Mayor Buckley called the City Council Study Session to order at 6: 10 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER, BUCKLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, Deputy City Attorney Steve Miles, Administrative Services Director Pressey, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information/ Communications Manager Dennis, Planning Manger Villa, Engineering Manager Seumalo, and Deputy City Clerk Ray. DISCUSSION ITEMS (F:60.1)(X:172.1) Mayor Buckley indicated that the City Council had authorized City Staff to hire consultants to perform a study of the Country Club Heights area. He stated the consultants would be giving a presentation of their findings; and noted the presentation would reflect options and concepts. City Manager Watenpaugh deferred to Community Development Director Brady to give a brief overview Community Development Director Brady commented there had been a lot of interest in the Country Club Heights area. The City Council had directed staff to move forward with a study of the area, which originally started out PAGE TWO-STUDY SESSION-FEBRUARY 19,2004 - with the area of Country Club Heights between Chaney Street and Riverside Drive; but later Council directed Staff to expand the study to include the area northeast of Riverside Drive. The area now included an estimated 800 acres and over 5,300 lots in that particular area. Staff mailed over 3,000 notices, of this meeting it was advertised in the Press Enterprise and on the City website. He noted the City had retained the services of The Planning Center to conduct the study. He noted the purpose of the study was to know the opportunities and constraints for development in the Country Club Heights area. He indicated that the area was unique in terms of the topography, road structure, and layout of roads. He further indicated there were a number of issues that had been identified by The Planning Center in regards to development (land use, zoning, utilities, infrastructure, etc.). He stated that Staff needed direction from the City Council as to the types of development, and input from the community as to what they would like to see the area developed into. He indicated road widths would need to be reviewed, and from a public safety standpoint how the fire department could service the area. He introduced Brian James and Collin Rukus from The Planning Center. - Brian James stated they were asked to provide a basic understanding of the site, they were not proposing any concrete plans, but giving a basic understanding of the opportunity, the constraints and give a conceptual plan. He stated when the property was originally subdivided in the 1920's it was done without regard to the construction ability of the lots, without regard to access, and without regard to infrastructure; and the area was subdivided without consideration of the ability of the land to support the level of development. He indicated the City was fortunate that the property did not develop the way it was subdivided; as there was no way the existing circulation system could handle the level of traffic, there was no way the land could support the septic system and there was not adequate water for fires in that area. He reiterated there were 5,300 individual lots, some less than 1,000 sqft., which equated to about seven dwelling unit an acre; if that was to build out there would be 13,000 residents and about 53,000 daily trips. He indicated that was an urban level of development in that area and it demanded an urban level of services. He commented that the Planning Center did not think an urban level of development was appropriate on that - PAGE THREE-STUDY SESSION-FEBRUARY 19,2004 site and would provide background data to support their decision and a different land use pattern for the site. He noted their main goal was to provide the City Council with information to have an informed discussion on the area. Collin Rukus provided a PowerPoint presentation. He indicated the location of the area, centrally located between the downtown area and the Outlet area. He noted that it was located near some compatible residential in support of commercial development. The only constraints were the Temescal Wash and the light industrial development that needed to be buffered. He commented on the external road access to Lakeshore Drive and Highway 74. He noted there were over 3,000 owners, which put a substantial constraint on the ability to form cohesive development. He continued with the presentation with a brief discussion of each of the following issues: 1. ZONING The current General Plan and Zoning Code treated the site with a vision of a resort oriented development. The high density development was focused along the corridor and adjacent to the lake. In the southern portion it was high density R-2 and R-3. He continued to say at maximum build out the site could support over 6,000 units, but that did not mean it was appropriate or the units could actually be built, it only meant that it was permitted. Taking minimum lot size requirements the red portion of the slide indicated they did not conform to the minimum lot size requirements for their zone; the green lots did conform to the minimum lot size requirements. He noted that the properties were subdivided in the 1920's and were considered lots of record and therefore were not obligated to conform to the minimum lot size requirements, however the other lot standards such as; the lot frontages and set backs still did apply. PAGE FOUR-STUDY SESSION-FEBRUARY 19,2004 - 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS They also studied the physical constraints on the site. Being that the property was next to the lake, they reviewed the flood hazard. He indicated that most of the topography worked in the site's favor, raising most of the land out of the reach of the 1,263 ft. floodplain. The Temescal Wash did not impact the site in a significant manner. The MSHCP would mostly likely be defined and follow the natural shape of the Temescal Wash. He indicated the next constraint was Wildland fires. He indicated the site was completely contained within a high fire hazard severity zone. He reminded everyone of the Old Waterman Canyon Fire. He also commented on the Oakland- Berkeley Hills Fire in 1991, which resulted in a loss of over 3,400 units and a total of twenty five deaths. The narrow roads and deep terrain played a significant role in the accessibility of emergency vehicles. The next environmental issue was the infrastructure of the water supply. He noted according to the Fire Department pipe lines had to be a minimum of 6 inches in width in order to provide a sufficient flow and capacity. He noted the majority of the site was inadequately served. In the central portion of the site where most of the development would occur there were no water lines. He indicated that to put development in that portion of the site could be a fire risk; he added with the slope of that area it would be very expensive to build. He indicated the limit of feasible development slope was 20% to 25%; any higher would call for a need of extremely technological advance building methods. He further indicated on the 15% to 25% degree slope it was risky and would be hard to build. He noted slopes were in favor of the fires and allowed the fire to travel up the slope and expand on the crest, which makes it difficult for fire trucks to reach. - - PAGE FIVE-STUDY SESSION-FEBRUARY 19,2004 3. ACCESSIBILITY He indicated that many of the roads suffer from steep slopes primarily unpaved; and the majority of the roads could only be accessed with 4x4 in good weather. He also indicated that most of the roads that were paved were far to narrow, and in order to expand to the full right-of-way there would be an extreme amount of grading, which would be expensive. 4. SERVICE He noted the location of the existing sewer lines, and the 200 ft. proximity to sewer was identified in the slide presentation. The Planning Center did a review of the size of the lots. The reason for the review of the size of the lots in relationship to the sewer was to get rid of waste water if the site was to be built upon. The only two ways to do it was (1) connecting to the existing sewer system or creating a subsurface septic system. He noted the Regional Water Quality Control Board informed the Planning Center they had a standard for new development that would require a lot to be Y2 acre in size to be allowed to use a septic system, due to the varying degrees of percolation rates, which differ depending on the amount of slope and the type of soil. He noted the areas that had a 200 ft. proximity to sewer, and presumed those areas could feasibly connect into the existing sewer system without too much cost. He indicated that 90% of the site was not large enough to develop individually and use a septic system. 5. CONSOLIDATION OPPORTUNITIES He indicated the red parcels in the slide presentation represented owners that owned 1 to 3 parcels, yellow indicated 4 to 10 parcels, and green indicated 11 or more parcels. He noted that a majority of the small lots were owned by individuals that owned maybe 1 or 2 parcels, so they would not be able to consolidate their parcels. The PAGE SIX-STUDY SESSION-FEBRUARY 19,2004 - individuals that owned 11 or more were more likely to be able to buy up the other property of those single lot owners or merge their own properties. 6. POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO He indicated at build out it would be 763 gross acres of residential, keeping the 14 acres of commercial development as commercial. He commented that 2,000 units developed at the moderate density level. Area 1. He indicated for the scenario they drew in Y:z acre lots for the area that suffered from high slopes and limited sewer access. Area 2. He indicated this area had existing development the northern section was primarily developed and suffered from minor slope constraints, but had major road access. This area was treated as a transition zone. - Area 3. He indicated the area had some reasonable sewer expansion, moderate slope constraints and could serve as a transition zone. Area 4. He indicated the area consisted of minor slope constraints, which allowed for greater density. The area had major road access and was in close proximity to sewer lines. - PAGE SEVEN-STUDY SESSION-FEBRUARY 19,2004 Area 5. He indicated this area had the greatest development potential. The area had immediate sewer access, minor slope constraints and major road access. Area 6. He indicated that this area was commercial. Mayor Buckley indicated the idea for a Country Club Heights Overlay District was that the integrity of the existing neighborhood, as the preservation of the neighborhood was a primary concern, but it was difficult for individuals to build custom houses. He stated this was not a Trojan horse to bring in standard tract houses. Audrey Dunn, 26481 El Toro Road, indicated that he was concerned with the price that he was quoted $30,000.00 for permits and for improvements fees to put a manufactured home on the lot. He indicated he would like to put his home on the lot. George Bloomfield, 24532 Quintana Drive, indicated that he and his wife had purchased lots recently; and over the years he was told that he owned the lot with a surrounding private road. He was concerned that as development took place where the line would be drawn for the private road. The road was located off Champion. He indicated it was a very steep drop off from Champion to go across to their property. He commented that they had concerns regarding drainage and for getting construction equipment to the property; and if there was any support from the City for that particular intersection (Champion and Leinberg). He asked if the Powerpoint presentation would be accessible on the City website. Mayor Buckley indicated it would be accessible on the City website. J.J. Swanson O'Neal, 1403 W. Heald, noted she was a member of Lake Elsinore Historical Society; she inquired if and noted the street lamps in that PAGE EIGHT-STUDY SESSION-FEBRUARY 19,2004 - area located on Lakeshore Drive in regard to the Overlay there was a chance to have those lights activated. She stated the lamp could be activated by solar panels made for each lamp. She indicated the price was $700.00 for the purchase and would probably be minimal to install the panels. She noted the street lamps had been in the area since 1926; and commented it would add some civic pride to the area. Terry Thiehen, 17937 Lakeshore Drive, indicated the septic tanks were 3 blocks west of Chaney. He indicated there were 10 houses along there that had septic tanks. He further indicated the Planning Center presentation showed that the sewer did not connect. He indicated that and had been in contact with the Regional Water Quality Control Board he complained to the Board that the sewers could contaminate the Lake. He noticed in the presentation it was zone as a R2 which was good to see. He noted it was 2,000 ft and asked who could put in the sewer line. He indicated he had spoken to EVMWD and they said they could put in the sewer line. Ron LaPere, 16867 Wells Street, indicated his concern was the amount of pounds per square inch of water. He noted they had a low water pressure and presumed it was from EVMWD. He noted the need for adequate fire protection in order to protection current homeowners in that area. - Marjorie Kinney, P.O. Box 2219, Laguna Hills, CA, indicated she owned 14 lots in the Country Club Heights area. She indicated the area was a sleeping giant, and each owner of those lots had their own story to tell. She stated she realized it would take deep pockets to have the beauty and an appreciation in the price of the property. She noted some of her ideas to consolidate the lots were (1) to request eminent domain of any of the property that was currently delinquent in their state taxes. (2) A 90 day melt down, which was a current value of the property that was currently there and figure out based on the access to roads, whether it be flag lots or lots without access to roads, the location, the view, which would be a value to the owner and during a 90 day period the City would buy back those lots. (3) Find out which landowners would like to donate their land to the City. (4) A consortium of builders. (5) Consider a forum of the existing owners. - PAGE NINE-STUDY SESSION-FEBRUARY 19,2004 Dick Knapp, 16450 Monterey Street, noted that the Old Coastal Oil was left out of the presentation which was north of Gunnerson Street. He indicated he was on the Country Club Heights Advisory Committee in 1987 and the General Plan Advisory Committee 1987-1990. He indicated that he lived in the Country Club Heights area in 1981 and was responsible for getting the roads in the area. He noted they were able to get 4 miles of pavement in for less than $25,000.00, but the roads before that were made of oil and full of pot holes. He indicated the City would need to remove the landscape easement. Willeta Graves, 16748 Gunnerson Street, decided not to make a comment. Denise Fleming, 17970 Lakeshore Drive, commented that she was passionate about the Country Club Heights area. She felt it might be a Pandora's Box. She noted that her family had lived in the area for 10 years. She indicated that many of the roads had been inaccessible to the residents in that area. She noted that Country Club Heights was the reason for people coming to Lake Elsinore back in the 1920's and 30's. She indicated that the developers that had come into the town lately had built pretty pictures on the outside, but shallow structures on the inside; and she was looking forward to a developer coming into the town preserving the history and the integrity in making Lake Elsinore what it originally wanted to be and should be in the future. Rick Weir, 621 W. 7th, Upland, CA, decided not to make a comment. Tim Fleming, 17970 Lakeshore Drive, stated the consultants presented a lot of negatives. He noted in California there was Studio City in Los Angeles, Hollywood Hills, Bel Air, Laguna Niguel, and other coastal city communities that had the same topography as Country Club Heights, and these communities have worked through their topography road blocks. He indicated that development in the area was possible and the owners should have the opportunity to make the area a matching gem to the focal point of the valley, the Lake itself Lake Elsinore. Michael O'Neal, 1403 Heald Avenue, decided not to make a comment. PAGE TEN-STUDY SESSION-FEBRUARY 19,2004 - Weldon Page, 2301 E. Santa Fe, Fullerton, CA, indicated he had been buying property since the early 80's. He stated he did not hear any positive points for the area from the presentation. He suggested one way roads, sidewalks adjacent to the one way roads, and bike lanes. He commented the area could be developed and understood there were a number of lots in that area. He suggested having minimum size lots and it was the decision of the property owner to buy or sale. He indicated he was against eminent domain; and noted he owned 8 properties in the City and realized he might need to fight eminent domain. He suggested a meeting that reflected positive ideas for the area. Phil Williams, EVMWD, he indicated the sewer lines did not go completely down Lakeshore Drive. He further indicated in order to install a sewer line the street would be closed for a minimum of3 weeks. He stated if the area was going to be developed the Fire Department required a fire hydrant roughly every 250 to 300 ft. He indicated EVMWD had been meeting with EWD about bringing in the water lines. He noted the cost of a water line was roughly $50.00 per ft. $1,500 to $2,000 per hydrant, back flow valves and other issues, including pressure zones and sewer lines would be expensive. He suggested the only way EVMWD could help would be if the residents in that area or at least 2/3' s (Prop 218) requested that services be put in, bonds could be sold, but it would be added to the property owner's tax bill. He commended the City for reviewing this area. - Ron Hewison decided not to make a comment. Mayor Buckley asked Community Development Director Brady to comment on the fees. Community Development Director Brady explained that there were a number of fees associated with developing property and that was similar throughout the entire City. Mayor Buckley asked about the lots and the road division in that area. - PAGE ELEVEN-STUDY SESSION-FEBRUARY 19,2004 Community Development Director Brady explained that there was a subdivision on the property in that area. He noted there were roads identified, many of which might be paper streets that did not actually exist. He indicated some of the roads did not exist in the location where the actual right of way was located. For private roads in the area if they existed, the property owner was responsible for maintaining the road. Mayor Buckley asked if an Overlay District allowed for the levying of fees to support items of public historic interest, such as street lamps. Community Development Director Brady indicated that he would have to say no, an Overlay District was a land use tool, so in terms of levying fees or placing fees as part of an Overlay District, would likely be something the Council would need to adopt in another way. Mayor Buckley asked Staff to investigate the cost for solar panels and hooking up the existing lamps. Councilman Schiffuer indicated that most likely all the street lamps had parts broken and might be on private property. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated staff could bring the cost back to Council. He noted that the Lighting Landscape Maintenance District that was in place was not paying a street lighting fee in that area. The only way to assess the property owner's was if they voted for it. Councilman Magee indicated Mrs. Swanson from the Historical Society had information on the street lamps and perhaps they could provide a data base for City Staff. He also indicated that Pete Dawson was involved in some reclamation of some of the light standards and suggested staff contact Mr. Dawson. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that Staff would contact Mr. Dawson. Mayor Buckley asked Community Development Director Brady for his views on the water and sewer issue for the site. PAGE TWELVE-STUDY SESSION-FEBRUARY 19,2004 - Community Development Director Brady indicated that the comments Mr. Williams from EVMWD made earlier touched bases on some of the financial issues as to some of the cost. He indicated taking a look at the land use issues in that area, felt the water issue was the greatest constraint. Mayor Buckley asked if individual above ground waste water treatment plants were legal in California. Community Development Director Brady commented he was not familiar with that type of system. Councilman Schiffuer indicated the idea for the Overlay District was to find a way to revise the planning and zoning requirement, so it would make it possible to build in that area. He further indicated he never thought the City was going to develop the area, and it was probably a lot of landowners would like to develop their property if the requirements were reasonable. He stated the purpose of the study he believed was to find out how they could adjust in an overlay or a specific plan of that area. He noted neither City nor County built improvements; improvements were made by a land owner or a developer when the land is developed and the price was added to the price of the house. He stated there were two ways to accumulate money to make improvements; (1) an assessment district, he indicated 2/3 of the owners needed to vote for the district and (2) Possible RDA project. He noted it was possible to build in that area. - Mayor Buckley noted that it was his understanding that CalTrans looked negatively at building anything right on Highway 74. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the Mayor was correct in that CalTrans did not like to have direct access onto their highways. The idea would be to have the high density development, but not the direct access to the highway. Mayor Buckley asked Deputy City Attorney Miles to explain eminent domain. He further indicated that the City did not have the power of eminent domain. - PAGE THIRTEEN-STUDY SESSION-FEBRUARY 19, 2004 Deputy City Attorney Miles explained that eminent domain was a power by which government could for public purposes obtain property. He indicated with this particular issue it was residential property that would require the use of eminent domain for a plan to reestablish a new residential use would be pushing the use of eminent domain. He further indicated there was a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hawaii that actually upheld the right to actually take private residential property and resale. The facts of that case were to break up large property ownership due to a shortage of property for individuals and housing, but that was not the fact pattern in the Country Club Heights area. He commented the utilization of eminent domain would have some difficulties. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated the Mayor was correct that the RDA did not have eminent domain power and the Agency had established a sub committee that was researching a variety of issues. He also indicated the City did have eminent domain powers for street right of way. Michael Lewis, indicated that he bought a house in the Country Club Heights area. He noted he purchased 13 lots to prevent looking down on manufactured homes. He also noted before the rain he planted 2.25 acres of wildflowers. He indicated he had to pay to water this land from his property, although there was no water service to those lots, but he was paying $1,000 annually to the Water District for lots that had no water and if he wanted water he would need to pay $50,000 to bring water to the lots. He stated they he was informed that he paid taxes on the infrastructure. He noted there was no infrastructure unless he used a water hose from his home to the lots. He suggested appointing a committee or a group of property owners that was willing to make what ever changes that needed to be made. Phil Molitor, suggested creating a list of all property owners that were present that was willing to become an assessment district. Maria Keffor noted she had property at Gunnerson Street and Riverside Drive, she asked if there was anything scheduled for that area. She noted that the property was in the flood plain and was lower than Riverside Drive. PAGE FOURTEEN-STUDY SESSION-FEBRUARY 19,2004 - Mayor Buckley stated she could choose to donate the property to the habitat plan or sell it to the habitat plan. Councilman Magee thanked the property owners for being at the Study Session and thanked the Consultants for the presentation. He indicated that there were comments about the outline he explained that the consultants listed the constraints to development, which was the first step before identifying the opportunities. He noted it was not often that the public asked to be taxed. He agreed with Mr. Molitor in circulating a note pad around the Study Session and everyone that was willing to participate an assessment district write their name, address, and telephone number. Councilman Hickman commented the RDA Committee was scheduled to meet in April and would be giving this to the Committee to research. He indicated he would support development in the area. Councilman Schiffuer commented that an assessment district did not need to be formed for the entire area it could be one block or a street. - Mayor Buckley commented the presentation would be on the City website. He requested that everyone listing their name indicated whether they owned a home or lots, if lots list the number of lots owned. He noted that a City email box cch@lake-elsinore.org to email suggestions and comments. He noted at the first Council meeting in March, a Country Club Heights Citizens Committee would be formed and each Councilmember would elect someone to the committee that lived in Country Club Heights. ADJOURNMENT THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M. - PAGE FIFTEEN-STUDY SESSION-FEBRUARY 19,2004 ~. .~-~ CITY OF LAK LSINORE / Respectfully submitted, // ~ :a&:puty City Clerk ~~ VICKI KASAD, CMC, CITY CLERK! HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE