Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-30-1993 Special Joint CC/RDA MeetingMINUTES SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY.OF LARE ELSINORE 3131'S CHANEY STREET LARE EL3INORE~ CALIFORNIA TUESDAY~ MARCH 30~ 1993 *~t~kfr~k**tk~k~k*****#~t*ik*****it*tkit*irtr~k*~ktk***~ItAitfrtk*tk~k~k~t#r~ktk*~k~kk**i*~ittklk*** CALL TO ORDER The Special Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Mayor Washburn at 4:10 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS/BOARDMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS/BOARDMEMBER: Washburn. ALONGI, CHERVENY, DOMINGUEZ, WINKLER, WASHBURN NONE Also present were: City Manager Molendyk, City Attorney Harper, Administrative Services Director Boone, Public Services Director Tecca, Manaqer of Special Projects Watenpaugh, Special Projects Coordinator Wood, City Treasurer Pape and City C1erk Kasad. BII3INESS ITEM Lake Transfer Aqreement.(F:68.1)(X:92.1) Councilman Winkler commented on the ongoing process to obtain the Lake Transfer Agreement and advised that he had been in Sacramento negotiating on Friday, March 26 and Monday, March 29, with the final document faxed this date. He noted that there was a separate underlying agreement for lake operations. He read the following memo from Gregory V. Moser, Special Counsel dated March 30, 1993: The State of California has proposed an agreement to transfer the Lake Elsinore Recreation Area. It is my understanding that this proposal is being provided concurrently to the City and the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. This memorandum summarizes the most significant features of this aqreement. Lake Transfer. The Lake Elsinore Recreation Area would be transferred to the City of Lake Elsinore as of July 1, 1993. At that time, the City would receive from the State $1.5 million to be used in connection with the lake. The City would also accept an assignment of the concession agreement from the State; however, the State would remain responsible for the current litigation with the concessionaire over the payment of certain fees. y: The City will receive title to the lake, the exclusive right to the use of the surface of the lake, and the PAGE TWO - JOINT 3PECIAL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 30~ 1993 right to add or remove water from the lake for recreation aesthetic purposes. This is in precise accord with the agreement between the City and the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. The City would be obligated to use these assets for public park and recreation purposes; if it fails to do so, the State of California could reenter the property. Patrol Services and Management. Under a related agreement, the State will continue to provide the current level of park patrol and management services through June 30, 1994. Thereafter, the City would gradually increase its role in lake patrol and management until it becomes fully responsible in October, 1995. The State would also provide the equipment currently being used at the lake to the City. Water Rights. The State would reserve, for subsequent grant to the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, its water rights, and an easement to store water in the lake above the 1240' elevation, and the right to use the island wells, in precise accordance with the language of the agreement between the City and District. The District's easements for water storage, water rights and the use of the island wells would have to be used in a manner consistent with the City's use of the Lake Elsinore Recreation Area for public park and recreation purposes, or be subject to reversion to the State, just as the City~s rights are. These property rights would not include the right to use the surface of the lake, wh.ich is specifically reserved to the City. Upon execution of this proposed agreement with the State by the City, and its approval by the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, the City would have an obligation to pay $3 million to the District, under the terms of the City-District agreement. Councilman Winkler noted that since this was a business item, public comments were not necessary, but yielded the floor to those requesting to speak. Ken Van Vechtan, representing Supervisor Bob Buster read the following letter to Mayor Washburn from the Supervisor dated March 30, 1993: It is with grave concern that 2 am writing in reqard to the pending lake transfer agreement. while I support =t local control of Lake Elsinore, I am bothered by the timing of this meeting, the dearth of information regarding the transfer and the inability of the pubic to properly review and comment on this particular transfer agreement. I am specifically concerned about the following: * As of 10 a.m. this morning, the City, hence Riverside County, other local agencies and interested residents, did not have in its possession a copy of the agreement. It troubles me that such an 'important decision would be contemplated without the public and affected agencies PAGE THREE - JOINT SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 30~ 1993 having the full and complete opportunity to review the document. * City staff comments aside, the County and residents of the unincorporated areas do have a vested interest in the lake transfer and what transpires in its aftermath. Land-use in adjoining areas, recreational development and launch rights are but three areas of concern that are directly affected by lake ownership. * Public utterances notwithstandinq, the City appears to have done little to assuage public fears that launch ,:. rights will cease when the City assumes control of the lake. The City has even gone so far as to seek outside legal counsel's opinion on launch rights, and that opinion does not bode well for Lakeland Villaqe residents. i do not advocate a free-for-all on Lake Elsinore. The City will need to police the lake and control the use of it. However, I cannot sit idly by and watch County residents being denied access to the lake. * When transfer negotiations began, the City was required to develop a lake use, development and recreation plan. No such plan exists, nor does it appear as if one will be required. However, the City is proceeding with the Lake Edqe Specific Plan. I continue to be willing to work with the City on Lake Edge, but only with the continued input of Lakeland Village residents. I empathize with the City's desire to secure the lake. However, a transfer authorized today will prove no more beneficial to the community than one authorized next week, or next month. It would be inappropriate.to take precipitous action on a document few people have seen. The importance of this issue demands a full public accountinq. To that end; I hope that you will postpone a decision on this matter and join with me in co- sponsoring public hearings on this version of the lake transfer agreement. Thank you for your time and best wishes to you and the Council. I look forward to hearing from you on my concerns and my offer. Carol Shackleford, 16022 Grand Avenue, representing Weekend Paradise R.V. Park, echoed the comments of Supervisor Buster. She commented on the process which was to include working with the County. She stressed the rights of the residents to have lake and beach rights. Bob Williams, P.O. Box 519, commented that he had not seen the agreement. He indicated that Councilman Winkler is his attorney and expressed concern that this agreement would impact his property holdings and water rights. i Lela Cardoza, 30o Ellis, questioned the hurry for this meeting. She commented that she was surprised that Councilman Dominguez would allow Councilmembers Winkler and Washburn to tell him how to vote. She suggested more time be taken for this decision. PAGE FOOR - SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 30~ 1993 B.J. Grant, questioned whether there were side-line agreements to this contract. He suggested that the Council had not fulfilled its obligations to the State under AB 1697, to meet and negotiate with the County residents. Ken Howard, 17540 Grand Avenue, commented on the Lake Edge Plan and the 2oning for the south shore. He suggested that the Mayor h.ad used his authority to do Collier Avenue for the Outlet Center to draw businesses selling foreign merchandise. He stressed that the County residents are entitled to their launch rights due to the high prices paid for their property. He commented on population estimates for the future and noted that the lake is already too small for the population. Helena Holman, addressed Mayor Pro Tem Dominguez suggesting that the credit deserved is not being given. She noted that if Mayor Washburn is recalled then Mr. Dominguez will be the Mayor and receive the feedback and consequences of this agreement. Marge Rieder, 300 Ellis, questioned the big deal of lake ownership. She stressed the difficulties in keeping water in the lake and the concerns with reclaimed water use. Leon Strigotte, 216 Chaney Street, commented on the County residents who don't want to be in the City limits, but want to dictate to the City. He indicated that this agreement is the result of a long term effort. He noted that he did not hear that the agreement intended to cut out launch rights. He stressed the importance of this agreement, in allowing the City to control the lake and cle.an it up. He stressed that this is the culmination of 13 years of negotiations and discussions. He further stressed that he had heard no mention of loss of launch rights. Dick Knapp, 29690 Dwan, indicated that he was uncertain what was occurring and questioned the receipt of this document. He questioned the level of planning on this issue and suggested that the Council wait to approve the contract. Edith Stafford, commented that this action supports her belief that the recall is the right action. She hoped for the Council to use their conscience in voting on this issue. She demanded that the County residents and the City residents be provided with the document. She further demanded that she see a copy of the agreement before action is taken. Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest, asked why this meeting was being held. She questioned the remaining town hall meetings on the lake =R and why the City could not wait for this action. She suggested that everythinq had occurred behind closed doors. Daniel Orrey, 150 E. Lakeshore, indicated that he was appalled that the Council would consider a document of this magnitude without reviewing it. He stressed the importance of the Lake for the Community. He asked for consideration of tabling this agreement for further study. Peter Dawson, 18010 Grand Avenue, representing Southshore Homeowners Association, commented on the 500 water front residents in the County area versus 7 in the City." He stressed the concerns of the County residents, indicating that the Southshore Homeowners PAGE FIVE - SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 30~ 1993 Association is not comfortable with this approval without an agreement on their launch'rights. He requested that the Council allow time for the inspection of the document. Councilman winkler commented on proposed agreement indicating that it does more than transfer the lake from the State to the City; it incorporates the City/Water District Agreement, which nothing in this agreement would intend to change. He explained that launch rights are not an issue of the transfer itself, noting that any rights held by the State will be acquired. He noted that the Lake Edge Specific Plan was still being reviewed, and a letter has been sent to County residents by the Mayor indicatinq that launch rights should be protected. He indicated that the only other issue in this agreement is the payment of $1.5 million to the City from a 1986 Bond issue. He noted that this transfer was his goal when he assumed the Chairmanship of the Redevelopment Agency. He stressed that his meeting with the State was to wrap up pending issues. He detailed the levels of service to be provided by the State through the transfer and equipment to be provided by the State. MOVED BY ALONGI, SECONDED BY CHERVENY TO POSTPONE THIS AGREEMENT TO THE NEXT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING. MOVED BY WINKLER, SECONDED BY WASHBURN A SUBSIDIARY MOTION TO APPROVE THE LAKE OPERATIONS, AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR OR MAYOR PRO TEM TO SIGN ALL APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION RELATING TO THE TRANSFER AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO PUT INTO ESCROW $3 MILLION AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE POINT IN TIME. Councilman Winkler noted that another issue of urgency is the recall election being held this date. He suggested that if the recall is successful the City may close down and he wants to ensure that the agreements are finalized. THE SUBSIDIARY MOTION WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 0 WITH ALONGI AND CHERVENY ABSTAINING FROM VOTE. Councilwoman Cherveny indicated that she had abstained from vote because the information was not provided in sufficient time for review. ADJOURNMENT THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:50 P.M. TE T:, ~ VICKI KA AD, CITY CLERK CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TTEST: CKI-KA~AD, CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~~~V~~G~ GAR~~~ WASHBURN, MAYOR CIT LAKE ELSINORE C/,~''" "~ JIM WINKLER, CHAIRMAN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ti: