Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-1990 City Council Minutes MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 28281 ROBB ROAD LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1990 ****************************************************************** - CALL TO ORDER The Regular city council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Washburn at 7:06 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by City Attorney Harper. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCK, DOMINGUEZ, STARKEY, WINKLER, WASHBURN ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: city Manager Molendyk, Assistant City Manager Rogers, City Attorney Harper, Administrative Services Director Wood, Community Development Director Gunderman, Community Services Director Watenpaugh, Public Services Director Kirchner and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Mr. Roger Hyde, 41503 Ave. De La Reina, addressed Council regarding Hang Gliding and the Hang Gliding Association ~nd requested continuance of positive support for the acquisition of a hang gliding landing field in Lake Elsinore. 2. Miss Aisha Miller and Mrs. Miller, P.O. Box 1377, presented Council with a painting of the mountains in Lake Elsinore and her concept of what was happening with the development and asked Council to pay special consideration to the amount of development which was occurring in Lake Elsinore and preserve the open space for the enjoyment of all the children. PRESENTATIONS/CEREMONIALS A. Proclamation = Cents for Seniors Makes Sense. Mayor Washburn present a proclamation regarding "Cents for Seniors Makes Sense". The Proclamation was accepted by Councilman will Buck who explained the purchase of a Van for use by the Seniors was the purpose of the penny drive. B. Mr. Jim Rhodes President of the Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce presented the candidates for the Miss 'Lake Elsinore Pageant which will be held on November 10, 1990 at the Lake Elsinore Community Center at 7:00 p.m. C. City Manager Molendyk introduced Mr. Bill Bashom of B.S.I. presented an up-date on the Railroad Canyon Road construction. He stated that the south side was complete and that work is in progress on the remaining roadway and that the project is on schedule. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items were pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion and consideration: Item No. 6 - PAGE TWO - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1990 MOVED BY STARKEY, SECONDED BY DOMINGUEZ AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED WITH MAYOR WASHBURN ABSTAINING ON ITEM NO.9. 1. The following Minutes were approved: a. City Council Meeting - September 11, 1990. The following Minutes were received and ordered filed: ... b. Planning Commission Meeting - September 12, 1990 c. Planning Commission Meeting - September 19, 1990. 2. Received and ordered filed the Building Activity Report for September, 1990. 3. Received and ordered filed the Code Enforcement Activity Report for September, 1990. 4. Received and ordered filed the Structure Abatement Activity Report for September, 1990. 5. Ratified Warrant List for September 28, 1990. 7. Approved adoption of Resolution 90-94 - Contract Renewal for City Manager. RESOLUTION NO. 90-94 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RENEWING AND AMENDING THE CITY MANAGER CONTRACT. - 8. Approved adoption of Resolution No. 90-95 - Annexation No. 52. RESOLUTION NO. 90-95 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, CONSENTING TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CERTAIN UNINHIBITED TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND DESIGNATED "ANNEXATION NO. 52 _ HOMESTEAD LAND DEVELOPMENT (FORMERLY TMP INVESTMENT)". 9. Approved Sales Agreement and final terms for the sale of surplus property to Frank H. Ayres and Son Construction Company, Mayor to execute the agreement and staff to proceed with property transfer process. (Washburn abstained) . 10. Approved adoption of Resolution No. 90-96 and Resolution No. 90-97 - Acquisition of Easement - Railroad Canyon Road. RESOLUTION NO. 90-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBING A CERTAIN PROJECT; MAKING A STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC USE FOR WHICH CERTAIN PROPERTIES TO BE TAKEN AND REFERENCE TO STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE SAID PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN; DESCRIBING THE __ GENERAL LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SAID PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN; DECLARING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR SAID PROPERTY; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS TO BE COMMENCED IN SUPERIOR COURT TO ACQUIRE SAID PROPERTY INCLUDING APPLICATION FOR POSSESSION OF SAID PROPERTY PRIOR TO JUDGMENT; AND MAKING OTHER DETERMINATIONS. PAGE THREE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 90-97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SETTING TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ORDER THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN. 11. Approved adoption of Resolution No. 90-98 - Northwest Sewer Assessment District - Bond Indenture and Purchase Agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 90-98 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF BONDS, APPROVING BOND INDENTURE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. 12. Approved the request by the Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce for the City of Lake Elsinore to take over the Annual Fireworks Show as part of the City's annual July 4th Program. 13. Approved public hearing for October 24, 1990 for the following: Tentative Parcel Map 26052 = withrow Ranch. Inc./The Keith Companies. ..... A request to divide existing tentative Tract Map 24213 consisting of 56.93 acres into three (3) parcels in order to provide for separation of financing. This tract of land is located south and adjacent to the northwest extension of Lincoln Street east of Grand Avenue. 14. Approved adoption of Resolution No. 90-99 - Rescheduling a Special Election within Community Facilities District No. 88-3. RESOLUTION NO. 90-99 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE POSTPONING AND RESCHEDULING A SPECIAL ELECTION WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-3 TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF SUCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT THE COMBINED PROPOSITION OF LEVYING A SPECIAL TAX, ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT, AND INCURRING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS. ITEM PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Fire Protection Services Aqreement = Fiscal Year 1990-91. Councilman Starkey explained the purpose of the agreement was to increase the level of service provided to the public. MOVED BY STARKEY, SECONDED BY WINKLER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990-91. - PAGE FOUR - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS 31. General Plan Revision and Related Environmental Impact Reports. Community Development Director Gunderman gave an overview of the project to date and submitted information to clarify Public and Planning Commission concerns. Mr. Gunderman detailed the use of the Specific Plan in the General Plan and ~ explained that this is a zoning tool. The City Clerk reported no written comments or protests. Mayor Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. asking those people interested in this item to speak. 1. Ms. Stephanie Smith, 29053 Forest View, spoke in favor of Item No. 2 in regard to proper development by Santa Rosa Development utilizing proper land use. 2. Mr. Duane Vest, 28891 Hobb Rd., stated that he was in favor of the Santa Rosa Development and stressed that the people living in the area 'should be fair in their opinions and give others the option to develop on the land that they own. 3. Mr. Brian Esgate, 5225 Canyon Crest, Riverside, stated that as the Engineer for Santa Rosa he felt that the project proposed is a proper land use and would contribute to the community and agreed with the Specific Plan areas. 4. Mr. Wayne Kunze, 16519 Kiwi Way, stated that he was in favor of the Santa Rosa project for a balance in shopping areas within the City. He felt that the project would offer first class sites and bring a good tax revenue to the City. - 5. Mr. Harold Langston, 16511 Mountain Street, stated that he would like to see a commercial center on the Santa Rosa site which would provide the greatest good for the most people. 6. Mrs. Chris McColley, 29072 Palm View, expressed her concern regarding a commercial project proposed by Santa Rosa Development and stated she opposed this land use in the proposed area, citing several city documents which designate the proposed area as R-l. 7. Mr. Robert C. Sellevold, 29078 Palm View, stated his objection to the commercial development proposed by Santa Rosa Development and stated that the financial facts do not accurately represent the commercial-retail proposal. 8. Ms. Jeannie Martineau, 29042 Mango Court, stated her objection to the proposed commercial development by Santa Rosa Development which is adjacent to two schools, Terra Cotta Jr. High and Torn Ranch Temporary School. She further stated that the safety of the children to and from school was in question as well and increasing potential truancy. - 9. Mr. John Sellers, 15610 Mountain Street stated his opposition to the Santa Rosa Development's proposal for a commercial center due to traffic circulation concerns. Mr. Sellers further commented on the current vacancy percentage found in the existing commercial centers and questioned the numbers presented by Santa Rosa Develop- ment. PAGE FIVE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1990 10. Ms. Diane Crouse, 15171 Kings Way Drive, stated that she is opposed the commercial development proposed by Santa Rosa Development because of the location and imbalance it could cause the community. She suggested that the four corners area be addressed for commercial for the west end of Lake Elsinore. ..... Mayor Washburn asked if anyone else would like to speak on item # 2, Santa Rosa Development. Hearing no further comment Mayor Washburn then asked city Attorney Harper if Planning Commission did a consensus of these items presented? City Attorney stated that Planning commission did review the items and is a consensus of the items has been provided. Mayor Washburn asked Council for their input. Councilman Winkler addressed property rights in respect to the General Plan and the City Council's responsibility to the General Plan and the community. He thanked the persons who took the time to address City Council for their input. Mr. Winkler further explained that the City does need more commercial but the best place is the question he needs to consider. Councilman Buck stated that he is opposed to a commercial project adjacent to the schools or backs up to any residence. He further stated that he is not opposed to a specific plan project, if at the time of submittal they can show a good reason for a specific project. Councilman Buck stated that there is an alternate piece of property which could be addressed as commercial. Councilman Dominguez stated that one way or the other this is going to please some and not others. He further stated that if the developer addresses Council's wishes and concerns that he has no problem with the project. Councilman Starkey stated that this is a no win situation. He further explained feelings of opposition in regard to the commercial project due to the location. He commented with a specific plan there might be a way to address the project area. Mayor Washburn stated that he felt that specific plans make the best possible choices for Council. MOVED BY DOMINGUEZ, SECONDED BY BUCK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO DESIGNATE ITEM NUMBER 2 AS A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. Mayor Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak. The following persons spoke: 1. Mr. Bob McClellen, 1730 Manly, NewPort Beach, addressed item No. 38 and questioned the underlying use of the Specific Plan and what mixture of uses it would give. He further stated that the State Law requirements must be met and he questioned the use by the City of the Specific Plan. city Attorney Harper stated that the use of the Specific Plan designation gives a broad perimeter of what will be done and does not create an obligation to define it in exact language. Councilman Dominguez questioned what the person is looking for. Staff stated that at the time of adoption that the specific language is addressed and that is heard by the Council at the time of Public Hearing for decision. PAGE SIX - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1990 2. Ms. Barbara Nations - 15651 Laguna addressed item No. 38 - General Commercial and Medium High Density (18 Dwelling units Per Acre)/Low Density (3 Dwelling units Per Acre) - Patton, Malthy, Summers, Prijatel. Ms. Nations stated that in previous zoning attempts Medium to Low density was the issue. She requested that Council consider avoiding high density due to traffic concerns. Mayor Washburn asked what it would allow. ..", Director Gunderman stated that there would have to be a Public Hearing in order to rezone. 3. Mr. Bob Charles - Lake Elsinore - addressed item No. 38 _ and stated that he was also concerned regarding the traffic and he felt that the Council has listened to the people and that he would not like to see high density residential in the area and stated he would like commercial. Mr. Charles commented that overall the proposed General Plan was good. Mayor Washburn asked for Council comment. Councilman Buck stated that he felt that the only decision that Council could make at this time was a Specific Plan designation. Councilman Starkey agreed with Councilman Buck and stated that he felt that the corner was not deep enough for a market, but he is personally opposed to high density in that area. Councilman Dominguez also concurred with the Specific Plan and would have future questions regarding commercial. ....... MOVED BY BUCK, SECONDED BY WINKLER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE ITEM NO. 38 AS A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. Mayor Washburn addressed item No. 1 - Specific Plan Area/Non Residential. Mayor Washburn stated that this was a change in topography and conditions. It is a different use for adjacent sites. Not residential, but more suited to industrial, recreational or institutional plans. Possibly some commercial at the intersection. Mr. Washburn further stated that he feels that there is not enough commercial and industrial on the General Plan in his judgment. Councilman Buck inquired as to what distance was proposed? Community Development Director Gunderman stated that because of E.V.M.W.D., the area that is being discussed is addressed as a specific plan and the non-residential is because of the usage by E.V.M.W.D. We did not want to specify in the General Plan what the adjacent area is going to be. In other words let the process determine what the distance is going to be and what type of uses there are going to be in that area. He further recommended there be no residential uses next to that facility. ...... Mayor Washburn then asked if it would then be better to designate this area as a specific plan. Mr. Gunderman agreed that it should be a specific plan. MOVED BY BUCK, SECONDED BY WINKLER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVED ITEM NO. I AS A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA/NON RESIDENTIAL. Mayor Washburn then asked Council to agree to staff recommendations of Category "A". PAGE SEVEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1990 - Mayor Washburn asked anyone interested to speak. Hearing No one he asked if Council had any further questions. Councilman Buck asked if the approval of the above items would concur with the decisions of the Planning Commission. Mayor Washburn responded that they would. MOVED BY WINKLER, SECONDED BY STARKEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE ITEMS 4, 5, 12, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37.A, 41, 42, 44, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, AND 58 AS LISTED IN CATEGORY "A" AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION. Mayor Washburn introduced Item No. 3 - Specific Plan Area/ Specific Area w/ Tourism Commercial on front 50 Acres - Tomlinson Enterprises. Mayor Washburn questioned the Commercial designation in regard to this item as a Specific Plan Area already addresses that. Consultant Planner Smothers stated that the applicant wished to make the Tourism Commercial specific. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY BUCK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE ITEM NO.3. It was suggested by Councilman Buck that the public address council on any items listed which they have any concerns with. Council concurred. Mayor Washburn then asked the public to come forward to state their concerns which were as follows: Mr. John Hyde, 32424 Murrietta Road, Sun City addressed Item No. 35 - Mountainous/Low Density (3 Dwelling units Per Acre) - Hodge. He stated that he agreed with Planning commission and Staff recommendation. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY BUCK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 35. Miss Mariana Mohylyns, 145 Prospect Park West, Brooklyn, N.Y., addressed Item No. 53 - Specific Plan "G"/Low Medium Density (6 Dwelling units Per Acre) and Tourist Commercial. She asked for further information and clarification. Mr. Gunderman explained that this area be addressed as residential and tourist commercial. MOVED BY DOMINGUEZ, SECONDED BY WINKLER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER NUMBER 53. Mayor Washburn asked for any further testimony, hearing none he asked for Council input. - Mayor Washburn commended Planning Commission and Staff for their decision on Item No. 25 - Public and Institutional/ Specific Plan Area - Cordial. Mayor Washburn further commented on Item No. 43 - Mixed Use/High Density (24 Dwelling units Per Acre) stated that he felt that this density was too high for current zoning. Director Gunderman stated that this area is specifically in the downtown area and was included in the General Plan because this is the latest and greatest downtown plan. The downtown plan will go through several changes, but right now what is seen in the downtown area is a reflection of that plan. r PAGE EIGHT - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1990 Mayor Washburn asked that items 43 and 47 be left open for further discussion and be considered separately. Council concurred. MOVED BY WINKLER, SECONDED BY BUCK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBERS 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 19.A, 20, 25, 26, 31.A, 32, 33, 33.A, 37.B, 37.C, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, 51 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION. ." councilman Dominguez requested a map which indicated the different zones and their definitions for public use. Director Gunderman explained that the General Plan does not reflect zoning, but when the Zoning Maps are done they will be available for public view and assistance. Mayor Washburn questioned the term "yield". He called for a definition in regard to medium and high density in regard to "yeild". Planner Smothers explained that High Density is R-3 which is 23 units per acre, Medium Density is R-2 which is 12 units per acre and the new zoning designation is Medium to High Density which is 18 units per acre and would require a new zone be written for the City between R-2 and R-3. Below R-2 are the various R-I category. From the current R-I to the acreage forms of residential. Councilman Dominguez stated that Commercial Yields are very confusing. Staff clarified zoning and designation. The policy of the General Plan was discussed and staff clarified several issues. A final draft of the policy will be brought to council for review and approval at the next meeting. Mayor Washburn requested clarification regarding traffic circulation. Mr. John Kain of Robert Kahn/John Kain and Associates, traffic engineer, gave an overview of the traffic circulation plan and the projected future of the City of Lake Elsinore. ....". MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY WINKLER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE GENERAL PLAN REVISION AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO THE NEXT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. BUSINESS ITEMS 51. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance - Adopting the August 2, 1990 Flood Insurance Study and Flood Hazard Boundary Map. Ordinance No. 906. Director of Public Services Kirchner explained that in order to maintain compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program the proposed ordinance updates to their current standards which reflect the new study and maps. .... MOVED BY DOMINGUEZ, SECONDED BY STARKEY TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 906: ORDINANCE NO. 906 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING EXISTING CHAPTER 64 OF TITLE 15 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE (ORDINANCE NO. 832), ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 64 TO TITLE 15 OF SAID CODE WHICH SHALL BE KNOWN AS "FLOOD DAJ.1AGE PREVENTION". PAGE NINE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1990 UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCK, DOMINGUEZ, STARKEY, WASHBURN, WINKLER - NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE CITY MANAGERS COMMENTS None. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Starkey commented on the approved request for the City to assume responsibility for the fireworks for the 4th of July celebrations. He stated that the Chamber of Commerce had organized the fireworks in the past and in doing so helped to bring the businessmen and community together and that will be missed. He also stated that the City will do a fine job and make the occasion a bigger and better 4th. Councilman Winkler addressed Proposition "A" and asked that a letter be sent in opposition to Orange County spending Proposition "A" funds on construction of highway and then charging for use of the same roadway. He further thanked staff for their work on the General Plan Amendment. Councilman Buck encouraged the public to become involved with the penny fund drive for the Senior citizens. Mayor Washburn gave an update on the G.T.E. phone books and stated that there is a meeting set to resolve the name problems. He further announced that he had appointed Mr. Hugh Walker to sit on the County of Riverside Centennial Board and also thanked staff for all their work on the General Plan Amendment. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 9:48 P.M. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:50 P.M. CLOSED SESSION THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNED TO JOINT R.D.A.jCITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION AT 9:50 P.M. TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL LITIGATION AND KUNZ VS. CITY. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 11:10 P.M. WITH NO ACTION TAKEN. ADJOURNMENT - MOVED BY DOMINGUEZ, SECONDED BY BUCK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AT 11:11 P.M. TO THE NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL ~ETING. . . GAR~.y:!s~~~J!;;;;;- CIT~F LAKE ELSINORE A:J'SI: .Cp .~ {U/dlt/ ;7/. ADRIA L. BRYNING, DEP CITY OF LAKE ELSINO~ MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 545 CHANEY STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1990 ****************************************************************** CALL TO ORDER The Regular City Council Meeting was called to order by Deputy City Clerk Bryning at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCK, DOMINGUEZ, STARKEY, WINKLER, WASHBURN ADJOURNMENT At 7:01 p.m. Deputy city Clerk Bryning declared the meeting adjourned, due to lack of a quorum, to October 24, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium of Terra Cotta Junior High School, 28281 Robb Road, Lake Elsinore, CA 92330.