Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-1993 City Council MinutesrtixumEs CITY COIINCIL MEETING CITY OF LARE ELSINORE 31315 CHANEY STREET LARE ELSINORE~ CALIFORNIA TOESDAY~ AIIGIIST 24~ 1993 #****,k**tta*****teratt+r*,k***************,k********r**+t,k*,k,k,ka**,t***+r+r CALL TO ORDER The Regular City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Washburn at 7:01 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Winkler. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ALONGI, CHERVENY, DOMINGUEZ~ WINKLER, WASHBURN ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: City Manager Molendyk, Assistant City Manager Rogers, City Attorney Harper, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Leslie, Cor.:munity Services Director Sapp, Public Services Director Tecca, Mar.ager of Special Projects Watenpaugh, City Treasurer Pape and City Clerk Kasad. PRESENTATIONS/CEREMONIALS Lake Update. (F:92.1) City Manager Molendyk noted that the micro-organism process had been started approximately 60 days aqo on the lake. He further noted that at that time it was indicated that the process would take 60 ~0 90 days for resolution. He commented that the Lake again appears to be very green and suggested that the Council receive an update from the contractor on this project. Mr. Grubbs, representing the manufacturer of the micro-organisms, advised that they are very plea~ed with the progress to date. He explained that the algae now being seen is of the single cell type and much less healthy than would normally be expected. He clarified the multi-step process underway. City Manager Molendyk commented that he viewed the Lake from the Look out today and the change is much more noticeable from that vantage point. He noted the additional treatment today and inquired whether further results would be seen over the next 3 to 4 days. Mr. Grubbs confirmed. Mr. Grubbs commented that they are currently seeing a more even coverage by the algae, rather than in pockets as was originally seen. He further commented that this is addressing a century of accumulation and the unknown factors associated. City Manager Molendyk noted that there do not appear to be any fish floating to the top. Mr. Grubbs confirmed noting that fish are a good indicator of the overall health of the Lake. PAGE TWO - CITY COUNCIL MYNQTES - AUGUST 24~ 1993 City Manager Molendyk inquired what could be expected in the near fu~ure as the problem is resolved. Mr. Grubbs indicated that it was difficult to predict in that it depends on the climate, etc. He noted that further follow-up would continue as needed. Stadium Uodate. (F:134.10) City Manager Molendyk summarized the work completed on the Stadium to da~e and indicated that the concrete work would be considered ~onigh~ and proceed from there. He further noted that it will be necessary to convene a special meeting on August 31, 1993, to award additional contracts and keep the project on schedule. He advised that a team announcement could be expected very soon. Archaeoloav Uodate. Mayor Washburn noted the work which is beginning on the Outflow Channel this week, noting that the Corps of Engineers Archaeologists were investigating the site for artifacts. He further noted that they would be on site approximately 8 weeks. City Manager Molendyk advised that Ken Edwards of Riverside County Flood Control District called this date advising that the bids were opened on the 0utflow Channel Project, with a bid lower that the earlier estimates. The bid was for $9,658,285. He further advised that the con~ract is to be awarded in September and work is to start in October. He noted that the groundbreaking for this projec~ would most likely be the first week of October. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 7:14 P.M. TAE CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 7:35 P.M. EIIBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZSD ITEMS Requests were received to address item nos. 21, 33, 34, and deferred to those considerations. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items were pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion and consideration: Item Nos. 4 and 5. MOVED BY DOMINGUEZ, SECONDED BY CHERVENY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. The following Minutes were approved: a. Regular City Council Meeting - August 10, 1993. (F:44.4) b. Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session - August 12, 1993. (F:44.4) The following Minutes were received and ordered filed: c, Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1993. (F:60.3) 2o Received and ordered filed the L.E.A.F. Animal Control Activity Repor~ for July, 1993. (F:18.2) PAGE THREE - CITY COIINCIL MINQTES - AIIGIIST 24~ 1993 3. Received and ordered filed the Investment Report for July 31, 1993. (F:12.5) 6. Approved South Coast Air Quality Management District Lease. (F:68.1) 7. Accepted Dedication of Park Site from 888 Development and authorized recordation. (F;132.1) 8. Approved Public Hearing Date of September 14, 1993, for the following: a. Zone Chanae 93-2 - Stanley N. Mullins Carlson Design and Construction. (F:172.2) Request to rezone .70 acres from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to C-2 (General Commercial) to bring the current zoning into conformance with the General Plan. The site is located at 321 Summerhill Drive. A Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the environmental quality act. ITEMS PIILLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Warrant List - Aucrust 13. 1993. (F:12.3) Councilwoman Cherveny detailed the revenue, expenses and current account balance for the Lake Park and Recreation Trust Fund. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY CHERVENY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RATIFY THE WARRANT LIST AS PRESENTED. 5. Master Plan of Recreation and Parks. (F:114.1) City Manager Molendyk requested that this item be continued. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY WINKLER AND CARRIED BY VOTE TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM. PIIHLZC HEARINGS 21. City Manager Molendyk explained that this project consists of a specific plan which establishes design standards for a mixture of commercial, medium density residential, and public lots. He further explained that the site is broken down into 7.1 acres of retail commercial, 4.3 acres of office commercial, 4.8 acres of residential and a 0.78 acre pre- school/child care facility. He detailed the Planning Commission consideration on Auqust 4, 1993, and advised that they determined that the project as proposed, does not provide sufficient sensitivity to adjacent uses and therefore is not consistent with the Objectives of the General Plan for the subject specific plan area. He also detailed the staff recommendations. City Planner Leslie offered to answer questions. PAGE FOUR - CITY COIINCIL MINtTTEB - AIIGUST 24~ 1993 - Les Cooley, Architects Pacifica, representing the applicant, detailed the background of this project and the meetings with the residents and stated that they have changed ~he attached single-family residences to detached single-family residences. He further stated tha~ his firm has done a complete review and addressed the concerns that were stated in the Planning Commission report which included land use compatibility issues, potential loss of neighborhood identity and loss of views for existing residential. Mr. Cooley stated that the planned residential will act as a buffer for the existing residents and special attention has been given to landscaping which will be used as a buffer. He cited Condition No. 15 and stated that the project has been addressed in this manner. Mr. Cooley explained that the project before Council is a mixed use development and the neighborhood center provides for various services, items and food for the publico Mayor Washburn then opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. and asked if:there was any written correspondence. City Clerk Kasad reported that there were 11 pieces of correspondence in opposition to the project from the following residentse David and Linda Rogoff, 15233 Windjammer Way Fred and Dorothy Wilkes, 29220 Northpointe St. Christine and Gary Belinda, 29260 Northpointe St. Dennis and Christine Burkhart, 29252 Northpointe St. Mike and RaeLynn Alvord, 15180 Ironwood St. Glen Jordan, 29236 Northpointe St. Mr. and Mrs. Steven Silberman, 29184 Outrigger St. Andrew and Allyson Trantum, 29268 Northpointe St. James and Evelyn Meloy, 29060 Palm View Mary Kauffold, 29076 Palm View Brom and Jill Allen, 15031 Vista View Mayor Washburn asked those in opposition to the project to speak. The following people spoke: Jack McColley, 29072 Palm View, spoke in opposition to the project because of the commercial development and explained that the traffic and public safety issues have not been addressed adequately. He indicated that he felt that this project would increase crime in the area. He further explained that he felt that this project has been influenced by politics and the Recall Election has been allowed to influence this project further. He questioned the credibility of Mr. Garcia, Councilman Alongi, Chris Hyland and the developer. He asked that Council deny the project. David Long, Superintendent of Lake Elsinore Unified School District, 22409 Loch Lomond, spoke in opposition to the project and explained that the School District is not opposed to development however, they are opposed to this development. He explained ~hat this project is incompatible due to the proximity of the school and creates problems with student safety, traffic circulation, potential crime and truancy. He stated that this site was designated agricultural at the time the school was built. He requested that Council deny the project. PAGE FZVE - CITY COIINCIL MINOTES - AIIGUST 24, 1993 Chris McColley, 29072 Palm View, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that the development is a question of land use incompatibility and creates traffic and safety hazards. She gave a history of the project and stated that there is a existing use of a farmers marke but it is not raeant to be commercial. She asked that Council consider the conformity of the project with the surrounding residences and rezone it as R-1. She advised that their committee had conducted a poll which received 479 responses, with 324 residents in opposition to the project. Pam Hendrix, 29074 Palm View, commended the Council for the stadium project. She then spoke in opposition to this project due to commercial development and the safety issues related to a commercial center. Jack Hennessy, 29052 Forest View, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that he did not think this was a proper place for-a commercial center. He further stated that this is a residential area with an adjacent school and the project would create a traffic burden and safety hazard to the residents and the children. Carlos Hanon, 29200 Northpointe St., spoke in opposition to the project and explained that he has serious concerns regarding increased crime and traffic, incompatible land use and loss of community identity. Ae requested that the Council zone the property R-1, Single Family Residence, to keep this situation from happeninq again. Ronald T. Hendrix, 29074 Palm View, commended the Council for the stadium and spoke in opposition to the project. Douqlas Moffett, 29080 Tangerine Way, spoke in opposition to the project stating that he would like to see single-family homes in the entire area. Ross Thomas, 16523 Mountain Ave., spoke in opposition to the project. Lois Knight, 16504 Mango Way, spolce in opposition to the project and stated that she and her neighbors met with Mr. Les Cooley and they were assured that their concerns would be mitigated. She further stated that she felt their opinions had since been ignored and the developer has promoted misinformation. She asked that Council deny the project. Russ Burns, 15032 Vista View, stated his concerns regarding existing commercial vacancies in the Community and the misinformation in a pamphlet distributed by Komerica. He stated his opposition to the project. Linda Spencer, 15014 Navel Way, stated that she is in opposition to the project due to the impact it will have on her neighborhood and all the surrounding neighborhoods from traffic and safety concerns. She explained that the majority of the proponents do not live in adjacent neighborhoods and the impact of this project will not directly affect them. Ray Knight, 16504 Mango Way, spoke in opposition to the PAGE SI% - CITY COiTNCIL MINIITES - AIIGIIST 24, 1993 project and stated that this area should not be zoned commercial because of the surrounding land uses and asked that Council deny the project. He stressed that commercial vacancy is a problem and in the General Plan for the City of Lake Elsinore there are zoned commercial sites better suited to the design of this projecte Kathleen Foster 29256 Northpointe St., spoke in opposition to the project and explained that she does not want her quality of life changed by a shopping center and her safety compromised by increased traffic, crime and air pollution. Donald C. Foster, 29256 Northpointe St., spoke in opposition to the project and stated that ~his project should not be allowed to be zoned commercial due to the surrounding land uses. He criticized the developer for circulating a petition on the other side of the Lake and collecting signatures from citizens who will not be directly affected by the project. He expressed concerns with increased traffic, pollution and commercial vacancy. Carlos Lorenzo, 29248 Northpointe St., spoke in opposition to the project and stated that there are plenty of vacant commercial sites more appropriate for the project and this is not appropriate for an area where there is a school because of the concerns with safety, traffic and crime. Wayne Kunze, 16519 Kiwi Way, spoke in favor of the project and stated tha~ he felt that the center would provide services needed by the surrounding residences and stated he does not feel that it would create that much of an increase in traffic and safety hazards. Norma DeSues, 16514 Nectarine Way, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that the commercial development is inappropriate for the area and will create a safety hazard for ~he local residents. Jane Moffett, 29080 Tangerine Way, spoke in opposition to the project and explained that she has concerns regarding traffic, safety, ~he pollution from the gas station and existing vacancy of commercial sites. She stated that only input from the people directly affected by the project should be considered and asked that Council zone this area R-1. Jackie Y,each, 29074 Tangerine Way, spolce in opposition to the project and explained that she does not want the entryway to their tract affected by this project and she wants it to be xetained. She concurred with the other speakers in opposition to the project which had already spoken. Joseph DeSues, 16514 Nectarine Way, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that this project would require a zone change ~o commercial and the area is not compatible to this ~ype of use. He cited the danger of a gas station in the proposed site and the traffic hazard it would create. He criticized the petition circulated by the developer as signatures are from citizens who are not directly affected by this project. Jeanie Corral, Lake Elsinore Unified School District PAGE SEVEN - CITY CODNCIL MINQTES - AIIGIIST 24~ 1993 Boardmember, 16410 West Lakeshore Drive, stated her opposition to the project and explained that when a commercial project was proposed by Santa Rosa Development for this site, the School Board was in opposition and the Board is in opposition to this proposal as well. Mrs. Corral further explained that although she is not a resident of Lake Terrace, the down stream run-off does affect her property and she is concerned with what impact this project will have on her home. Jeannie Martineau, 29042 Mango Court, spoke in opposition to the project and explained that she is a Boardmember of the Lake Elsinore Unified School District and has major concerns regarding a commercial project next to a school. She gave a history of the building of the school and the process required to acquire the land. She stated that at the time of purchase it was zoned aqricultural and she felt that a commercial site in that area would be improper land use. She asked that Council deny the project. Ray Corral, 16440 W. Lakeshore Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and explained that there are major drainaqe problems in his area and development upstream affects the percolation. He asked that drainage be considered and storm drains be placed before any more development occurs. He stated that this development will compromise the safety of the school children. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 9:25 P.M. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:36 P.M. Mayor Washburn then asked those in favor of the project to speak. The following people spoke. Will Buck, 29610 Hague, spoke in favor of the project and stated that when the property was in the County it was zoned agricultural and Mr. Pees put in a form of mini mart. He explained that when the new General Plan was done, because of the market in existence, it was zoned specific plan to allow discretion for the future development of this area. Mr. Buck e~lained that he felt that the problems that the residents have stated can be mitigated and that this is a very good commercial site which will provide necessary services. Gary T. Barker, 15014 Notnil Way, spoke in favor of the project and presented a petition with over 2,000 signatures of persons in favor of the project. He stated that the commercial center will enhance the neighborhood and provide necessary services to the public and he felt that the developer had done everything possible to solve the concerns of the Lake Terrace residents. Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest Drive, spoke in favor of the project and stated that she has as much or more credibility as Mr. McColley. She explained that the center provides necessary services to the public and is an asset to the area. She further explained that the people circulating petitions in favor of the project were threatened by the persons in opposition and suggested that this conflict should stop. She also explained that the developer has bent over backwards to cooperate with the residents in the area and to mitigate their concerns. PAGE EIGHT - CITY COIINCIL MINDTES - AIIGIIST"24`~ 1993 Joe Garcia, 29066 Tangerine Way, spoke in favor of the project and stated that he has a right to his opinion and the ability to change his opinion because of the revisions that the developer has made. Martin Poloni, 15030 Navel Way, spoke in favor of the project and stated that he felt that the shopping center is a necessity. He stated that this center will provide services very much needed for the area. Tony Romero, 33225 Mandaville, spoke in favor of the project and stated that the west end of the Lake needs another market and all the current development is bccurring at the other end of the Lake and does not answer the needs of the west end. He stated that he has seen several built schools next to small shopping centers and he felt that this project would improve the quality of life and not endanger it. Kim Boehm, 33170 Zellar St., spoke in favor of the project and stated that she felt that the children in the surrounding ~racts are safer than many other children in the community who must walk long distances on unimproved roadways. She stated that Terra Cotta Middle School was built next to existing Tee- Pee ranch market which has always sold tobacco and liquor and it has not seemed to create a problem. Mrs. Boehm suggested that this type of project must go in someone's back yard and the west end cannot wait for someone else to provide these types of stores and services. Louise Scroggins, 16496 Mountain St., spoke in favor of the project because of the convenience it will provide. She stated that there is vandalism already and she does not feel that crime is a valid issue as it is already there. Way, John Vermillion, 15017 Notnil spoke in favor of the project and stated that the center is needed for the various services they will provide. He stated that a market and medical facility will be a welcome addition to the area. Mr. Vermillion explained that in fairness to the developer this project should be approved. Kris Baldwin, 228 S. Terra Cotta Road, spoke in favor of the project and explained that she felt that the developer did answer the questions; and stated that she voted no on the recall and is sti1T in favor of this project and she was never under the impression that the project was at four corners. She further explained that Gangs are everywhere, but the only way that the problem can be dealt with is by joining together as a community. She stated that it is the responsibility of tfie parents to address the safety of the children, not the developer or the schools. She stressed that this center is needed for the projected future development in the area. Inga Hughes, 18174 Brightman Ave., spoke in favor of the project and stated that she spends much time.in the Lake Terrace area and that she would like to see that area grow and fill the needs of the citizens. She stated that there is a necessity for the services which it will provide. She explained that the shopping center has been presented as some type of monster which will lure the children away from school and create a truancy problem, However that is not the center's PAGE NINE - CITY COIINCIL MINQTES - AIIGIIST 24~ 1993 fault, rather parenting skills. She indicated that trucks to service the market would be in a curfew area and would not disturb the residents in the very`early morning hours. Sheri Durbin, 29055 Fig Way, spoke in favor of the project and explained that she felt that the developer had done all that he could to mitigate the concerns of the residents. Barbara Romano, 15004 Vista View, spoke in favor of the project and explained that she was one of the first residents who moved into the Lake Terrace tract and she felt that the prograss of a commercial center would be an asset. She stated that she had talked to the residents of 19 of the 31 homes on her street and she explained that they were all in favor of the shopping center. She stated that she would like to see the entrance to Lake Terrace remain as it is. Mayor Washburn ask for anyone who would like to speak on the matter. >The followinq people spoke: Nancy Fusckino, 16523 Nectarine Way, spoke in favor of the project. Anita Wilhite, 29056 Palm View, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that there has been a great deal of misinformation and stated that when Mr. Buck was on Council he demanded that the words "commercial purposes" be deleted from the Specific Plan. She also noted that Mr. Buck failed is a consultant to this developer. Cathy Davis, 16960 Grand Ave., spoke in favor of the project and explained that she is responsible for her children and she uses the Lake Terrace area because of the school and feels that the shopping center would provide needed services. Steven Hanna, 29068 Palm View, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that he felt that there was a real danger regarding public safety and traffic circulation problems. Neani Mee, 174 California St., spoke in favor of the project and stated that the shopping center is needed and she felt that the safety of the children had been addressed. Catherine Martinez, 28857 Robb Road, spoke in favor of the project and explained that the gas station and market are very much needed in the area. A woman addressed Council spoke in opposition to the project. She explained that there has been a great deal of miscommunication and misinformation. She stressed the problems which will occur in regard to emergency services. Mike Johnson, 29050 Palm View, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that he does not want a gas station in his back yard and expressed concern regarding traffic and the center next to the school. Matthew Marquard, 16449 Mango Way, spoke in opposition to the project. George McDonough, 16514 Mountain St., stated that the PAGE TEN - CITY COIINCIL MINQTES - AIIGIIST 24~ 1993:, developer should qet a good attorney and see if he can recover any of the investment he has made. He further explained that he was approached to sign a petition in opposition to the project and told the person that he lived in Big Bear and they told him to sign anyway. He did sign using Big Bear as his name to show that they were not concerned with the need fox information for the project, but rather to have the signatures. Mayor Washburn closed the public hearing at 10:38 p.m. and called for Council comment. MOVED BY WINKLER, SECONDED BY DOMINGUEZ, TO DENY SPECIFIC PLAN 92-2, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27415 (LAKE TERRACE PLAZA), AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 91-3 - KOMERICA LAND DEVELOPMENT WITH THE CAVEAT THAT IF THEY BEGIN ANOTHER PROJECT THE FEES BE WAIVED OR THAT THEY BE GIVEN CREDIT FROM THIS PROJECT. Councilman Winkler explained that the staff position was neutral and the Planning Commission did eventually reject this project. Mr. Winkler explained that when the General Plan was revised, Alan Manee the consultant for the General Plan, advised against the commercial strip centers in the General Plan for that area. He noted that when this area came to Council before he stated that he was opposed to the project, and he is still opposed to commercial in that area. He explained that he has always felt that this area should be single-family residential and that was a specific action of the General Plan. Mr. Winkler aqreed with the concept that all commercial should be clustered in certain areas and not have pockets of commercial spread throughout the Community. He cited two possible commercial sites which are zoned commercial, one at four corners and the other on Grand Avenue and Ortega Highway. He indicated these sites would be ideal for the type of center which is being proposed. He further indicated just because there is a concept doesn't mean that there will be a market for the concept. He stated that the School District cannot be iqnored and he does not feel that the center is appropriate for that area due to traffic and truancy. He cited the Rancon site and the previously proposed project and the fact that the traffic is not there and the project has not proceeded. Mr.- Winkler stated that residential should be away from commercial and suggested that if there is a marlcet for this type of project there are plenty of commercial areas that are vacant where it could locate. He questioned that the proposed buffer created by homes in this project, and the impact on the homes that act as a buffer. He stressed that this project does not 'git and it is not profitable for the developer to build a center which will have a high rate of vacancy. He stated that the decision should be wfiat is best for the community over the long run. Councilwoman Cherveny stated that the opinions on this project are evenly split and she questioned why this project got to this point, and questioned if it was so wrong for the area why was the project allowed, by staff, to progress this far. She stated that she sat on the General Plan Advisory Committee and ~his piece of property was discussed and because of the existing market was set as a C-1, R-1. Mrs. Cherveny stated that if the project is built then the developer is at risk and PAGE ELEVEN - CITY COIINCIL MINIITES - AUGUST 24~ 1993 not the City. She stated that the population has doubled since she has moved to Lake Elsinore and since Grand Avenue has been developed, it does make sense to have services there. She explained that she does care about the safety of the children and suggested that children are responsible for their own actions and it is the parents responsibility to teach them the proper conduct. She noted that the developer is providing a walkway to qet to school without walking on the road. She pointed out other sites in the City where the children must walk past commercial developments. She stated that a commercial would not have a negative impact on the residences, since one of the selling points is that a home is close to shopping and close to schools. Mrs. Cherveny explained that since the opening of Grand Avenue there has been an increase in traffic which would aid the center. Councilman Alongi stated that during the Santa Rosa project there was a large number of people in favor of the project and he felt that this was a superior project with not as many in favor. He produced documents which showed that at the time of annexation of this area it was zoned R-1 and C-2. Mr. Alongi stated that the City has a responsibility to the developer who has a piece of property which is zoned for the type of project and is obligated to see this type of project proceed. He stated that the Council's both the current and past have expected a high standard to building and this is not an exception. Mr. Alongi stated that he does not want to see liquor or video arcade stores in this proposed center, but it is the responsibility of the parent to teach their children where they are supposed to be. Graffiti is a problem that is not confined to one area and to deny a development because there might be graffiti, or truancy or crime when we cannot know for sure what is going to happen, then there should not be any other stores in the area either. He indicated that it is his opinion that this neighborhood development needs to be there. Mayor Pro Tem Dominguez explained that he welcomes development, but his first priority is the welfare of the City and its residents. He stated that his main concern with this project is the affect on schools and the testimony of Superintendent Long in opposition to this project and his stated concerns must be taken seriously and considered. Mr. Dominguez stated that the developer and the School District along with the residents need to work further on mitigating the major problems and concerns of each party. Mayor Washburn stated that a lot of good points were made by both sides and his concerns are based on schools, land use issues, and the decision of the Planning Commission. THE FOREGOING MOTION TO DENY THE PROJECT CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: DOMINGUEZ, WINKLER, WASHBURN NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ALONGI, CHERVENY FINDINGS - DENIAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 92-2 l. The Lake Terrace Specific Plan is not consistent PAGE TWELVE - CITY COIINCIL MINUTEB -'AIIGIIST 24~ 1994 with the Goals, Policies and Objectives of the General Plan in that it does not demonstrate considerable sensitivity to the adjacent uses. 2. The proposed location of the project does not allow the development to be well-integrated with its surroundings. 3. The overall design of the Specific Plan will not procluce an attractive, efficient and stable development compatible with the surrounding uses. 4. The proposed project may be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing in the surrounding area. FINDINGS - DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27223 1. The proposecl subdivision, ~ogether with the provisions for its design and improvement, is not consistent with the General Plan. The proposed subdivision is not compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. (Government Code Section 66473.5) ' BUSINESS YTEM~ 3I. Minutes - July 19, 1993. (F:44.4) MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED ~Y WINKLER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 19~ 1993, AS REVISED. 32. Second ReadincP - Ordinance No. 962 - Reaarding Fencing. (F:80.1) MOVED BY DOMINGUEZ, SECONDED BY WINKLER TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 962: NO. 962 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 17.14.130 (d) 5, REGARDYNG FENCING. UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: CHERVENY, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ALONGI ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERSe NONE , WINKLER, WASHBURN ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS9 NONE 33. Consolidation of Future Municipal Elections. (F:72.1) MOVED BY CHERVENY, SECONDED BY ALONGI TO DENY THE RECOMMENDATION TO CONSOLIDATEe Kevin Pape, City Treasurer, indicated that the main consideration in this recommendation is that it would save PAGE THIRTEEN - CITY COIINCZL MINLiTES - AIIGIIST 24, 1993 $13,000 per election. He further indicated that it would have the advantage of increased participation in voting, because of the number of matters on a June ballot. He noted that the intent is to eventually have all local agency elections at the same election, thus allowing residents to vote on all local issues at the same time. He also noted that it is the intent of the Registrar to initiate this program throughout the County. Councilwoman Cherveny clarified that the recommendation is for the April, 1994 election to be consolidated with the June, 1994 election and all future City elections to be held in November of odd years. She noted that the November odd-year election has previously seen the lowest turn-outs of all. She suggested that City issues should remain City issues; and if people care enough they will show-up and vote. She indicated that she would like to see elections remain as they are. Councilman Alongi read minutes of the prior discussion on this topic on July 28, 1992, as follows: Councilman Winkler explained although it is a good way to save $12,000, he is concerned that when an election is combined the voters tend to loose focus. Councilman Dominguez advised that the City tried the November election time several years ago and went back to the April election to maintain voter focus. Mayor Washburn stated that consolidati.on is a good way to save money and that is an issue the Council needs to address and be aware of. Councilman Alongi expressed concern with Councilmembers Dominguez and Winkler changing their minds. He noted that while the terms of Dominguez and Winkler would be extended by two months, the other terms will be shortened by 6 months. He further noted the turn-out at the November, 1991, election versus the March, 1993 election; stressing that if the issue is important enough, the voters will turn-out. He indicated that he does not see the big difference and he feels the elections should stay as they are. THE FOREGOING MOTION FAILED TO CARRY BY A VOTE OF 2 TO 3 WITH DOMINGUEZ, WINKLER AND WASHBURN CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTES. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY DOMINGUEZ TO APPROVE CONSOLIDATION OF THE NEXT MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE JUNE, 1994, PRIMARY ELECTION AND ALL FUTURE CITY ELECTIONS WITH THE NOVEMBER ODD-YEAR ELECTIONS. Councilman Winkler responded to the comments of Councilman Alongi and indicated that his prior comments were that he had weiqhed the issues and thought it best to retain the April election; however he had indicated that he would like to look at it again. He commented that he has had many discussions on this topic. He also commented on the increased turn-out at the June elections. He noted that the Registrar is pursuing this to reduce costs and if the system is changed and the City does not change it will require an independent local election. PAGE FOIIRTEEN '- CITY COIINCIL MINIITES - AUGOST 24, 1994 He noted that this would substantially increase the cost of this election. He suggested that if the County-wide program does not move forward, it might be appropriate to stay with the June election. Councilman Alongi indicated that he was fully aware of the cost savings issue. Councilwoman Cherveny inquired whether this could be changed back. She also inquired whether it was true that the Council could not make decisions on matters impacting their own terms in office, such as pay raises. City Attorney Harper indicated that limitation was solely on pay raises. He also indica~ed that consolidation of elections has been occurring since 1984 when the legislation allowed it. Councilman Alongi questioned what would happen if the Council did not agree to the November, odd-year portion of the proposal. City Attorney Harper indicated that the only way the June election would be accepted was with the November odd- year commitment as well. He noted that it would still be possible to go back to running independent elections, however most cities are not inclined to do so. THE FOREGOING MOTION WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 2 WITH ALONGI AND CHERVENY CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTES. 34. Council Policy - Church Conditional Use Permit Fees. (F:120.1) City Manager Molendyk explained that there is an existing Conditional Use Fee structure which covers all Conditional Use Permits. He further explained that the reason for this item is a request from a church for which the City worked out an arrangement; however they never pursued the application. Since that time staff has received several more requests for similar consideration. Mr. Molendyk explained that the Conditional Use Permits are on the cost recovery program, and based on experience the processing is no less for a church than any other application. Mayor Washburn then called upon the persons who had requested to address Council as follows: ' Kevin Brown, P.O. Box 952, New Vision Minister, a law enforcement officer and minister of the New Vision Church which is currently holding services at Lake Elsinore Elementary School, explained the financial hardship of the church and stated that his members are very low income and are not able to support a fee of $1,000. Ae asked that Council give consideration to his situation. Cauncilwoman Cherveny indicated that the Municipal Code offers no areas in which a church could locate without a Conditional Use Permit. She s~:ated that there is no zone for a church. Neil Parker, 30690 Brookstone Lane, Assistant Pastor, Elsinore Valley Friends Church explained that he appreciated Council~s review of this policy. He stated that the church had approached the City to acquire a permit to start an independent church, however the permit will cost $4,500. Mr. PAGE FIFTEEN - CITY COIINCIL MINiJTES - AQGUST 24, 1993 Parker explained that they are currently meeting at Terra Cotta Junior High and the church is youth oriented and has a membership of approximately 150 people. Under the present circumstances it has been made impossible for them to pursue another place to hold services and activities. He indicated that there appears to be discrimination, but not purposely. City Manager Molendyk e~cplained that it is not a matter of the orqanization being unwilling to pay; it is a matter of having all the money up front. He further explained that the intent of bringing this before Council was to obtain authorization for staff to work with the applicant. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY WINKLER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO DIRECT STAFF TO INVESTIGATE WHAT AVENUES ARE AVAILABLE TO ASSIST. 35. Public Safety - Private Securitv. (F;127.1) MOVED BY CHERVENY, SECONDED BY ALONGI AND FAILED TO CARRY BY A VOTE OF 2 TO 3 WITH DOMINGUEZ, WASHBURN AND WINKLER CASTING THE DISSENTING TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. MOVED BY WINKLER, SECONDED BY WASHBURN AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 2 WITH ALONGI AND CHERVENY CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTES TO DENY THIS RECOMMENDATION. 36. Resolution No. 93-54 - Outflow Channel Proiect. (F:92.2) Mayor Washburn explained this item which was intended to encourage the Corps of Engineers and Riverside County Flood Control District to proceed with the project as soon as possible. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY ALONGI AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 93-54. RESOLUTION NO. 93-54 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, EMPHASIZING THE NECESSITY FOR THE LAKE ELSINORE OUTFLOW CHANNEL PROJECT TO PROCEED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. COUNCILWOMAN CHERVENY LEFT THE MEETING AT 11:58 P.M. 37. Reauest from Classic Western Productions. (F:108.17) City Manager Molendyk noted that a repre~entative of the organization was coming in to town to discuss thi~ matter. Councilman Alongi indicated that he would be here to ~~~nsider making alternate arrangements for rodeo grou:~ds. Mayor Pro Tem Dominguez indicated that he has ~. ~c~rlem with this item being on the agenda, noting that he is nat in favor of this discussion with a loan still outstanding. MOVED BY DOMINGUEZ, SECONDED BY WINKLER AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 0 WITH ALONGI ABSTAINING AND CHERVENY ABSENT TO DENY THIS REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. PAGE SI%TEEN - CITY COIINCIL MINOTES - AUGOST 24~ 1993 PIISLZC COMMENTS - 1~YON-AGE2~YDIZED YTEMB Don Butensohn, Director for H.O.P.E., detailed their efforts to broaden their cause and generate more interest.- He noted that the efforts are doing well. He invited the Council and staff to attend their upcoming fund-raising dinner on September 25, 1993, at the Lake Community Center. Peter Dawson, 18010 Grand Avenue, representing the Southshore Horaeowners Association, noted that they are still here awaiting information on launch rights and will not be going away. He encouraged the City to continue efforts to clean-up the Lake. ~ITY MANAGER COMMENTS City I4anager Molendyk indicated that he would need a Closed Session. CITY COUNCIL COMMENT$ None. TAE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 12:03 P.M. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 12:04 P.M. CLOSED SESSIONY THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A JOINT CLOSED SESSION WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT 12:05 P.M. TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS AND PERSONNEL MATTERS. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 1:00 $.M. NO ACTION TAKEN. ADSOURNMEN'i' MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY WINKLER AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 ~'O 0 WITH CHERVENY ABSEN~.' TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 1:01 $.M. ~ ~, ~~ . WASHBURN MA , YOR CIT F LAKE ELSINORE P, 'TEST ~ V CI KY I`iFi5AD, C:.'Y CLERK CITY OF LAK~ ELSINORE