Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-1990 Adjourned City Council Meeting MINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 29291 ROBB ROAD LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1990 ****************************************************************** - CALL TO ORDER The Adjourned City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Washburn at 7:04 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Pro Tem Starkey. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCK, DOMINGUEZ, STARKEY, WINKLER, WASHBURN ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: City Manager Mo1endyk, Assistant City Manager Rogers, City Attorney Harper, Administrative Services Director Wood, Community Development Director Gunderman, Community Services Director Watenpaugh, Public Services Director Kirchner and City Clerk Kasad. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Emerson Brigham, 33500 McGrew, Lake Elsinore, showed a map of his property and requested that Council expedite the appraisal work for that property. B. Elbert L. Smith, 5241 Marview, La Palma, advised that he is the owner of five parcels in the proposed island annexation area, and expressed opposition the the annexation. He further expressed concern with the potential zone change from County Commercial to City High Density Residential. He commented that all of the property owners in that area would prefer the commercial designation to remain. C. Irene Danon, Los Angeles, expressed concern with the Main Street project and the adjacent roadway closures. She also expressed concern with the zoning on Spring Street, she explained that her property has in the past been Industrial and that type of tenant is being denied licenses by the City. She requested more cooperation from the Water District and the City Staff in drawing tenants to the area. D. Terry Pebley, 30905 Corte de los Santos, Temecula, requested permission to address Item #10 when appropriate to do so. E. Robert G. Williams, P. O. Box 519, Lake Elsinore, commented on property held by Mr. Kramer and the impact of the proposed General Plan on that property. - F. Dick Knapp, 29690 Dwan Drive, commented on the proposed General Plan Revision and expressed concern with the final product. He suggested that approval be postponed until more work is completed. G. Robert Martinez, representing Golden Spectrum, presented Councilman Winkler with a Certificate in appreciation for his contributions to the Penny Parade fund raising drive. - PAGE TWO - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1990 PRESENTATIONS/CEREMONIALS A. Proclamation = united Way/American Cancer Society Camoaign. 1990. Mayor Washburn read the Proclamation and presented it to Leslie Covey and commended her for her efforts toward this worthwhile cause. B. Mayor Washburn introduced Stew McKinley, magician, in recognition of Magic Week. Mr. McKinley advised that this week is designated Magic Week in connection with Houdini's death. He performed a magic trick for the audience. - THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 7:23 P.M. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 7:35 P.M. King Videocable showed an updated video of the newly opened Railroad Canyon Road and staff advised that a full opening should occur on December 1, 1990. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items were pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion and consideration: Item Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11. MOVED BY STARKEY, SECONDED BY BUCK 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 - October 9, 1990. The following Minutes were received and ordered filed: - b. Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1990. c. Regular Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1990. 2. Received and ordered filed the Animal Control Activity Report for September, 1990. 3. Received and ordered filed the Investment Report for September, 1990. 4. Ratified Warrant List for October 15, 1990. 5. Approved Request to Co-Sponsor "Miss Frontier Days" SUbject to the following conditions: 1. Council Policy allows Chamber of Commerce use of the Lake Community Center rent free except for the $50 cleaning fee, and staff costs beyond normal hours. 2. Any costs for security are to be paid by the Chamber of Commerce or another sponsor. 3. The City will provide space for the pageant application in the Recreation Program Brochure on a space available basis. If additional pages are necessary, the Chamber will be required to pay the additional cost at $300 per page. 6. Adopted Traffic Control Resolution No. 90-100 relating to No Parking Zones on Lincoln Street and on Graham Street. - PAGE THREE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 90-100 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ESTABLISHING NO PARKING ZONES ON CERTAIN STREETS. (LINCOLN STREET AND GRAHAM STREET). 9. Adopted Resolution No. 90-103 - Relating to Claim for Funds Under the Transportation Development Act of 1971 (Article 4). ~ RESOLUTION NO. 90-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, SIGNIFYING ITS INTENTION TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FOR FUNDS UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1971 AND AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR TO COMPLETE ALL DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT CLAIMS FOR FUNDS. 12. Approved Public Hearing date of November 13, 1990, for the following: a. Tentative Parcel Map 25242 = Finkelstein. A request to subdivide the 16.98 acre parcel into 39 single-family lots. The project is located at the east side of the "T" inter-section of Hoff Avenue and pierce Street. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR 7 . Resolution No. 90-101 Acceptinq Grant Funds for Lakepoint Park Perimeter Walkways. ...... councilman Buck recognized Assemblyman Clute for his efforts in obtaining these grant funds. Mayor Washburn suggested the Mr. Buck send a personal note on the City'S behalf. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY BUCK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 90-101. RESOLUTION NO. 90-101 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR PUBLIC RESOURCES GRANT PROJECT KNOWN AS LAKEPOINT PARK WALKWAY PROJECT. 8. Resolution No. 90-102 = Relating to Lake Jurisdiction. Mayor Washburn read Resolution No. 90-102 in full for information to the public. MOVED BY BUCK, SECONDED BY STARKEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 90-102. RESOLUTION NO. 90-102 ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE EXPRESSING A DESIRE OF THE CITY TO ACQUIRE A EXERCISE JURISDICTION. 10. Resolution No. 90-104 = Amendinq Resolution No. 90-77 Relatinq to Annexation No. 56. City Manager Mo1endyk introduced Consultant Fred Christensen. PAGE FOUR - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1990 Fred Christensen detailed the annexation efforts in the West end of Lake Elsinore and explained the resulting request from LAFCO for annexation of the "hammerhead" area. He also detailed some of the concerns expressed by residents and property owners in that area. Councilman winkler requested clarification of the potential inconsistencies between zoning and the general plan discussed by the property owners, and what level of compliance would ultimately be required. City Attorney Harper explained the code requirements with regard to establishing consistency between uses. - Councilman winkler advised that he had attended the neighborhood meeting regarding this potential annexation, and that he was the one who suggested their attendance at this meeting. He also commented that their input might be more appropriately applied to item #31 regarding the General Plan. Mayor Washburn inquired whether the property owners of that area understood this reasoning. Mr. Elbert Smith stressed the need to resolve these issues at the earliest possible date before the consideration proceeds any further. City Attorney advised that the zoning could not be resolved tonight because of noticing requirements, but the County zoning could be addressed with the General Plan consideration. MOVED BY WINKLER, SECONDED BY BUCK TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 90-104. Ms. Terry Pebley, 30905 Corte De Los Santos, Temecula, further stressed the need to resolve these issues as soon as possible so the property owners can determine whether to support or oppose the annexation. THE FOREGOING MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. - RESOLUTION NO. 90-104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 90-77. 11. Lake Community Center/Council Chambers. Councilman Dominguez advised that he is opposed to Staff's recommendation. He expressed concern with the City'S inability to utilize its own building, and suggested that the program participants be advised that their activities will be rescheduled. Councilman Winkler disagreed with Mr. Dominguez's recommendation because of the community's interest in recreation programs and facilities. He stressed the number of requests previously received from residents of the City. He also stressed the extensive use of the programs and their popularity. He supported the Staff recommendation. Councilman Buck agreed with Mr. Dominguez in that the city should have its own permanent meeting facility, but questioned the need to terminate existing programs at this time. He suggested that when the School District relocates to its new facility the staff work toward finding a permanent facility. He agreed that at that time the City should move to a more professional facility. Councilman Starkey supported Mr. Winkler's comments for the moment. He expressed concern with interrupting the programs I .. " - PAGE FIVE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1990 already in progress and agreed that a new facility would be appropriate at a later date. Mayor Washburn advised that he feels strongly that the City needs its own facility and agreed that we will have it at some point. He commented on the popularity of the programs and facility and stressed that now is not the time for action. ~ MOVED BY WINKLER, SECONDED BY BUCK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. PUBLIC HEARING 31. General Plan Revision and Related Environmental Impact Report. continued from October 9, 1990. Mr. Gunderman explained that this matter was continued from the October 9, 1990, City Council meeting for further consideration, review and clarification by staff regarding questions Council had at the last meeting. He further stated that material was distributed to Council to clarify some of the questions regarding Specific Plan Areas and the Central Business Designation. Mayor Washburn asked that Mr. Gunderman address the questions brought forth by Mr. Smith in connection with the previously discussed hammerhead annexation. Mr. Gunderman explained that the annexation area will need to be examined by staff to determine what existing uses there are in that area, what the designation is on our General Plan and whether there are inconsistencies to be resolved. He further stated that the majority of the proposed annexation is single family residences on large lots and the Planning Department would like it to remain so. Mayor Washburn commented on the possibility of conversion from County to City Classification and requested that the property owners meet with the Planning Department to resolve the inconsistencies prior to the next meeting. Councilman Winkler asked Mr. Gunderman if it would be possible for the Planning Department to address the proposed annexation area and get back to Council by the next meeting to clarify usage for the General Plan in that area. Mr. Gunderman confirmed that he felt it could be addressed. Mayor Washburn requested Mr. Ballew's input on the Central Business District inquired whether it would allow for more flexibility than previously presented. Mr. Ballew explained the Central Business District and stated that the aim of this area is for higher density. He further stated that this addresses the historic part of town with the density being less the further out you progress from the Central Business District, to promote preservation of the historical areas of the City. Mr. Ballew further explained that the language proposed allows for constructive flexibility in the downtown area Mayor Washburn then clarified that this area is a CBD Specific Plan. Councilman Dominguez asked if the Council could leave the zoning as it is in the Central Business District and work with that. Mr. Ballew explained that there are severe PAGE SIX - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1990 inconsistencies that need to be addressed and that there is a risk that development could encroach inconsistently. Councilman Dominguez inquired whether the Council could grant some inconsistencies to allow work on solutions for that area to continue. Mr. Ballew explained that that is what the City is attempting with the Tourist Commercial area and commented that this works well as long as the property owners are willing to work with the City. Councilman Dominguez suggested more review in regard to this area before a decision is made. -- Councilman Buck questioned the flexibility of the language in regard to the CBD and if it would be flexible enough without costing the potential builder fees for zone changes. Mr. Ballew explained that this would be part of the entire downtown plan and procedures for processing are being established. Councilman Buck further questioned the map and wanted to know if there would be a future map which would define streets and the particular zone attached to each street. Mr. Ballew affirmed that one will be prepared. He further questioned any change that might occur in the area if the general plan revisions were adopted tonight. Mr. Gunderman stated that a better map would be developed to clearly define designations and boundaries. He further stated that no changes would occur in the CBD because of the designation which means the Council would adopt the Downtown Plan and the Overlay Zone at a later time. Mayor Washburn requested that the final map provide a clear definition of the boundaries within the General Plan. Mayor Washburn asked Mr. Harper if since we have reconvened ~ the meeting does he need to open the Public Hearing? Mr. Harper advised that the Public Hearing is still open. Mayor Washburn called for anyone with a concern regarding the General Plan to speak. The following persons spoke: 1. John Schwab, 1426 West 6th Street, Corona, stated that he represents four property owners along Lakeshore Drive. He further stated that the common concern of his clients are zoning matters. The concern is the County zoning along Lakeshore Drive/Machado which is C-l CP4 - General commercial, versus the City staff designation along LakeshorejMachado proposed as Low Density Residential. Mr. Schwab stated that if this were approved his clients would be forced to oppose annexation, therefore he is asking Council to continue the General Plan and change the designation to what currently exists to prevent opposition to annexation and satisfy everyone's needs. 2. Cappy carpenter, 16755 Grand Avenue, stated she is appearing on behalf of a client who owns the northwest corner of Machado and Lakeshore and she is not objecting to annexing into the City, but does not want to give up her zoning designation. She requested that the General Plan conform to the existing zoning. 3. Mr. Robert G. Williams, P.O. Box 519, Lake Elsinore, stated that he still objects to the R-l designation and several persons in Machado Pines are concerned with the zoning. He further addressed Mission Trail and Corydon .... PAGE SEVEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1990 - Road which the County had zoned General Commercial and now the City has proposed Office Commercial. He stated that this created a conflict. Mr. Williams questioned the intersection of the Freeway and Franklin Drive. He stated that all the former General Plans have designated this area different. This time it was designated as Mixed Use. Mr. Gunderman explained that Mixed Use is a designation that permits a mixture of residential and commercial uses or commercial-office and residential type uses.- He further stated that it allows for commercial on the bottom floor, residential on the top floor, it allows for apartments/condominiums adjacent to office or commercial type uses. Mr. Gunderman further stated that the City will have to create a zone for this use. 4. Mr. Doug Moreland, 565 Chaney Ave, addressed the proposed Schools, goals and language. Mr. Moreland further stated that under State Law local jurisdictions do not have the right to condition land use decisions to mitigate school impacts. We understand that there are not adequate schools for the new developments for children coming to Lake Elsinore and we share the desire to negotiate with the School District. Mr. Moreland stated that currently the state has the responsibility to fund school and legislate for such and if the proposed language were passed the School District would be relieved of the responsibility of going to the State and pass on the responsibility to the developer to mitigate the impact therefore the new residents would be paying twice, through the bond issues and through the cost of their house for the school facilities. Mr. Moreland further stated that earlier this week he had sent some proposed modifications to the language regarding the schools and would like Council to consider the proposed changes. Mr. Ken Meddock, Brighton Homes, 505 North Tustin Ave., Santa Ana, stated that Brighton Homes shares the same opinion of the last speaker in regard to language addressing schools. He further stated that schools are a problem in terms of providing adequate facilities and this gives the School District power over the developer and power over the City in the ability to zone properly. 5. Mike Magee, Pardee Construction Company, 41593 Winchester Road, Temecula, stated that he concurred with the two previous speakers. This type of language in Murrietta has caused several law suits and does not solve any problems. He further stated that the local school district has the opportunity to avoid this problem. "Mayor Washburn asked if any other person wished to address the General Plan, hearing none he brought the discussion back to Council. -- 6. Mayor Washburn stated that he would not have a problem approving in concept item number 4 which is the housing element, but he stated he has other concerns that he would like to address later on. Councilman Buck stated that after listening to the three developers discuss the school issue, he would like Mr. Harper to review the section and the language in the General Plan and give a ruling on it. Mr. Harper requested that Mr. Moreland provide the proposed PAGE EIGHT - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1990 language for his review. Councilman Winkler stated that he would like to continue the General Plan to the next meeting in order to review some of the issues brought up in former discussion. He further stated that the language in the General Plan gives the City the power to control the school situation. Mr. Winkler stated that the state is not addressing the entire problem. Mayor Washburn stated that he is in concurrence with continuance, but he feels that there should be more input from consultants. He further stated that he is in concurrence with the school situation. ... Councilman Buck expressed concern in regard to the section regarding schools. He stated that he would not like to see the City put at a disadvantage. He further stated that he would like to see a fair spread of responsibility to prevent a shut-down of new construction in the City, which would still allow the County to impact our school situation. Councilman Starkey concurs with previous comments and feels that the City can work out the problems. Mayor Washburn questioned the traffic analysis regarding equestrian trails, the element of the General Plan classification, and that if traffic circulation and mitigation are not met, could the City hold up a project until the Council is satisfied. Mayor Washburn also questioned bike lanes. The consultant briefly discussed the traffic circulation plan. Mayor Washburn further questioned implementation, once the General Plan is adopted, and we have a major artery around the lake through the older parts of town where we don't have sufficient right of way, and a person comes forward with a project and we state we need an extra 20 feet of dedication, what avenue do we have to adequately provide the necessary lanes we are after without jeopardizing the project that is feasible now, but not feasible after we adopt these. Mayor Washburn stated that we are going to face a lot of these types of situations. - Consultant stated that there is some flexibility to give the City some leeway. Policy statements can also be used as a tool to help with the problem, this gives the Council the final decision in order to mitigate the problems of widening. He further stated that the City will pursue a City wide study to address the road improvement to assist in establishing a funding mechanism to assist in this problem. He further stated that it is a combination of policies and standards that give Council the ability to work through road-way problems. Mayor Washburn concurred with Councilman Buck regarding the definition of boundaries with streets. He further questioned job generation area provisions. He further questioned staff on the advisability of addressing the housing element. Mr. Gunderman stated that this would allow us to get this information to the State. - MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY WINKLER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT IN CONCEPT THE HOUSING ELEMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (ITEM NO. 4) . PAGE NINE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1990 MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY DOMINGUEZ AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE THE GENERAL PLAN REVISION TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. ""- Mayor Washburn encouraged the public to get their questions and opinions to staff for further clarification and review. 32. Tentative Parcel Map 26052 = Withrow Ranch. Inc. (The Keith Companies/Butterfield). A Financing Parcel Map application for approved Tentative Tract 24213. The proposed parcel map contains three (3) parcels on 56.9 acres located northwesterly of Machado Street, at the terminus of Prince Street. Community Development Director Gunderman detailed this request and stressed that it is strictly for financing purposes. The City Clerk reported no written comments or protests. Mayor Washburn opened the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. asking those in favor of this request to speak. No one spoke. Mayor Washburn asked those in opposition to speak. Hearing no one, the public hearing was closed at 8:55 p.m. MOVED BY DOMINGUEZ, SECONDED BY STARKEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90-15 AND APPROVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26052 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Findinas 1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. 2. The Planning Commission has considered the effects of its action upon the housing needs of the region and has balanced these needs against the pUblic service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. (Government Code Section 66412.3) . 3. The design of the subdivision provides to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural solar heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision. (Government Code Section 66473.1). 4. The Planning commission has determined that the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system would not result in a violation of the requirements as set out in Section 13000 et seq. of the California Water Code. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed waste discharge will not result in or add to a violation of said requirements. (Government Code Section 66474.6) 5. The Tentative Parcel Map complies with the Goals, Policies, and Objectives of the General Plan and the R-l Zoning standards. 6. The project, as conditioned, complies with the City's subdivision standards and the State Subdivision Map Act. PAGE TEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1990 7. The project, as conditioned, will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the immediate area and will have minimal adverse impacts on abutting properties. 8. The proposed parcel map is for financing purposes only, as such no construction or grading will be permitted, therefore the proposal is a categorical exemption from the CEQA Guidelines. Conditions ... 1. The approval of this Tentative Parcel Map 26052 is for financing purposes only. No building permit or grading permits or any other building or construction activity is authorized pursuant to this Tentative Parcel Map 26052. 2. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore (Municipal Code 16.52.030). 3. All parcels shall have access to public right-of-way or be provided a minimum forty (40) foot ingress/ egress easement for public right-of-way purposes to be recorded with the map or by separate instrument. 4. Execute an agreement to annex to the City's Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District. 33. Resolution of Necessitv to Order Acquisition RY Eminent Domain (McTeaguel. Resolution No. 90-96. city Attorney Harper explained this action. He advised that attempts have been made to negotiate for the additional utility easements needed with no success. He further explained that this is not in any way negotiation for market value, but merely authorizes the filing of action. ~ The City Clerk reported no written comments or protests. Mayor Washburn opened the public hearing at 8:56 p.m. asking those in favor of this action to speak. No one spoke. Mayor Washburn asked those in opposition to speak. Hearing no one, the public hearing was closed at 8:57 p.m. MOVED BY BUCK, SECONDED BY STARKEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 90-96. 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. .... BUSINESS/DISCUSSION ITEMS PAGE ELEVEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1990 51. Extension of Time = Tentative Parcel Map 23381 = K-Mart. Community Development Director Gunderman detailed prior considerations and actions on this matter and the progress being made by K-Mart and Camelot Properties. Councilman Dominguez questioned the removal of dirt and when it would begin. Mr. Gunderman advised that it began on Tuesday, October 23, 1990. Councilman Starkey commented that he hopes the dirt is not being moved and piled somewhere else in the City to cause another eyesore. MOVED BY DOMINGUEZ, SECONDED BY BUCK TO APPROVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO NOVEMBER 27, 1990. Councilman Buck inquired when the ultimate widening of Malaga would occur. Mr. Gunderman advised that that would be part of Phase II. THE FOREGOING MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. 52. ReQUest to the Riverside County Local Aqency Formation Commission to Amend the Sphere of Influence of the City of Lake Elsinore. Resolution No. 90-105. Mr. Fred Christensen, Special Consultant for Annexation addressed the Sphere of Influence of the City of Lake Elsinore. He explained that the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission is reviewing the Sphere of Influence and at the same time a number of annexation requests have been received by the City, including several which are currently not in our Sphere. Mr. Christensen suggested several amendments which are an extension of the sphere to include six sections of land north of the City and minor adjustments on the east to conform with the sphere of influence of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. He further suggested two minor adjustments if Canyon Lake and Murrieta incorporate and a major revision to the south and west to include the territory requested to be part of the sphere in 1985, but was excluded by the commission at that time. Mr. Christensen recommended adoption of the "Report Accompanying a Request for Amendment of the Sphere of Influence of the City of Lake Elsinore" as part of the documentation required by section 56425 of the Government Code and further recommends the adoption of Resolution No. 90-96. Mayor Washburn stated that under the social/economic interests of the areas in the sphere it is in everyone's best interests. He further stated that the High School located on Walnut st. is named Lake Elsinore High School. He stated that it is an element of cultural interest that should be brought to L.A.F.C.D.'s attention and Gene HaYman was a school that was placed on site by the cooperation and dollars of the Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency and that the school exists because of the financing abilities of the City. ..... Councilman Winkler stated that he felt the City had no choice in regard to the Sphere of Influence decisions due to the increase of the commercial projects along the freeway and the potential mall. He further stated that by expanding the Sphere we share the wealth with all the residents due to the commercial expansion we are creating a broad economic base in which the residents in the sphere will eventually profit by. Mr. Winkler further stated that even with a group of Wildomar residents opposed to being in the City sphere of influence he PAGE TWELVE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1990 still felt that it would be beneficial to the Wildomar area to go ahead. Mr. Winkler further stated that overall planning is necessary to the entire area and is the responsibility of the City to keep our standards consistent within our sphere to continue to maintain the standards for the entire population. He further stated that the City with the support of other agencies in the valley keep the County planning department and Commission informed of the standards of the City. Mr. Winkler encouraged Council to vote yes on the Sphere of Influence in order to avoid the creation of excessive agencies and bureaucracy within the area. - Mayor Washburn stated that we have provided the LETS bus service for sometime, but has always stopped in various areas not within City limits and this shows the obligation the City has to the people in its sphere of influence. MOVED BY WINKLER, SECONDED BY WASHBURN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE AND ADOPT THE "REPORT ACCOMPANYING A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE; ADOPT FINDINGS LISTED BELOW AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 90-105: Findings ,1. Adopt the "Report Accompanying a Request for Amendment of the Sphere of Influence of the City of Lake Elsinore" as part of the documentation required by Section 56425 of the Government Code. 2. Adopt the accompanying Resolution formally requesting the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission to amend the sphere of influence of the City of Lake Elsinore as recommended in the Report. RESOLUTION NO. 90-105 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REQUESTING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION AMEND THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE. 53. City Allocation of Take 2! OccuDied SteDhen's Kanqaroo Rat Habitat under the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan. Resolution No. 90-106. City Attorney Harper requested a Closed Session to discuss potential litigation. CLOSED SESSION THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 9:35 P.M. TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF POTENTIAL LITIGATION. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 10:06 P.M. Community Development Director Gunderman advised that through the Agreement with the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Fish and Game Service the City has been allocated one hundred acres of Kangaroo acreage for the first six months of the two year program. He advised that two acres have already been allocated to Railroad Canyon Road with 98 remaining. He explained that while the city will ultimately have 352 acres of take, we cannot allocate any more than that within the first six months of the program. He detailed the means by which this property could be acquired. He also detailed ongoing discussions with the involved developers and - PAGE THIRTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1990 the recommendation based on those discussions, as follows: - City of Lake Elsinore L.D. Johnson (Ramsgate) Murdock Development Company (Alberhill) Brighton Homes (Alberhill) Long Beach Equities (Alberhill) Pardee Construction Company Homestead Land Development Company 20 acres 17.44 acres 7.33 acres 14.65 acres 11.5 acres 28.47 acres .53 acres city Attorney Harper advised that the Council had received a letter dated October 23 from Pardee Development suggesting alternatives for the exercise of options on some Kangaroo Rat Habitat. Mayor Washburn also noted a number of supporting letters from Brighton Homes, Homestead, L.D. Johnson, Murdock Company, all Long Beach Equities, and T.M.C. He advised that while this is a business item not necessarily requiring public hearing, he would like to receive input from the various development teams. Hugh Hewitt, law firm of Pettis, Tester, Cruz and Krinski, representing Pardee Construction, commented on the offer mentioned by City Attorney Harper, and advised that in his opinion it was a good faith offer to solve the problem. He commented on the excellent working relationship between Pardee and the City. He commented that the staff report is fundamentally flawed and urged City Council denial of that proposal and instead award of 87 acres to Pardee Construction. He commented on Pardee's need for the allocation "today" versus his perception of the status of other projects. .-- Charles Burke, representing Pardee, commented on correspondence with the City and their need to file litigation if the Council approves staff's recommendation. Chris Taylor, Homestead Land Development, 355 N. Sheridan, suite 117, Corona, commented on ongoing work for resolution of the Kangaroo Rat situation, and that his company has probably been dealing with is longer than anyone else. He also commented on the counterproductivity of the approach of Pardee and supported the collective efforts of the other developers to work out the fairest alternative. He reminded the Council of the 304 acres piece of property provided by his company to assist in this mitigation problem. John Friedman, Long Beach Equities, further commented on the work with staff and the other developers and their attempts to be fair to everyone. He commented on his company's 76 flat acres at Nichols Road on the east side of the freeway and his disbelief that this property has Kangaroo Rats. He further commented on the regional nature of this problem and the funds invested by other developers to date. He advised that while he is not thrilled with the 11 acres he will receive, he feels it will keep everyone working together toward a common goal. Ken Meddock, Brighton Homes, 505 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 250, Santa Ana, commented that while Pardee makes it sound like the rats are the City's problem, it is really a matter that is everyone's problem. He commended the Council and staff for the efforts thus far and the recommendation for this action. He further commented that the language in the development agreements are all substantially the same and Pardee should expect nothing more than the other developers. PAGE FOURTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1990 Joel cooperberg, attorney, Rutan & Tucker, commented that he was not present to threaten the Council with lawsuits, and commented that the type of proceedings suggested by Pardee's attorneys is not very likely at all. He supported staff's recommendation because it constitutes a fair share allocation, with an equitable system of sharing burdens and benefits. He also commented that the City's development agreements and specific plans approved thus far demonstrate that the city owes no particular duty or responsibility to Pardee above and beyond the other developers. Susan Horay of Paleon, McCallahan, McComb and Winton, representing Murdock Development Company, commented on the equality of the developers in this consideration in that they are all halted in their development processes, and eager to proceed. She commended staff for their efforts in developing an equitable recommendation. She opposed the request of Pardee for allocation of 87 acres at this time. She explained that her client has a total 56 acres of habitat on its property and the City program provides only 7 acres for mitigation, which they are willing to continue to work toward resolution of the situation. .... Bill Frey, L.D. Johnson Company, Ramsgate Project, 180 North Riverview in Anaheim, concurred with staff's recommendation. He commented on the difficulty of this decision and the equitability of the proposed mechanism and recommended City Council approval. Consultant Hardy Stroizer, commented that the City's allocation will cover small municipal projects occuring in the next 12 to 24 months. Community Development Director Gunderman advised that after extensive research on the status of the projects discussed, and although Pardee has a number of entitlements for their project, they are not at the point where they could grade immediately as has been indicated. .... Mayor Washburn advised that he had worked on this committee with Councilman Buck for a number of months. Councilman Buck commented that the solution presented is the most equitable they could reach. He inquired of the City Attorney with regard to violation of Pardee's civil rights. city Attorney Harper advised that while he could not guarantee the city would win, he also could not guarantee Pardee would win, however he speculated that it was more likely than not that the City would be the successful party. Mayor Washburn commented on the need to find a methodology to appropriately handle and satisfy the needs of the community. He also commented that he feels there is still room for more conversation on this matter. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY STARKEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 90-106 AND APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS FOLLOW: RESOLUTION NO. 90-106 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE CITY'S ALLOCATION OF STEPHEN'S KANGAROO RAT TAKE UNDER THE INTERIM HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN. .... PAGE FIFTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1990 Staff Recommendations 1. Pursue the acquisition of the remaining 252 acres of occupied habitat that will be available to the city during the two (2) year Interim Habitat Conservation Plan; 2. Require that the development community participate in the acquisition of additional habitat within 30 days of the effective date of the accompanying Resolution in exchange for release of occupied habitat for take (in accordance with Exhibit A of Resolution No. 90-106 or using the actual purchase price); 3. Reserve 20% of the allocation of take for city or other public projects; and 4. The City Hall allocate the take received during the first six month period (i.e., 100 acres) and any take received thereafter during the IHCP in accordance with Exhibit B with Resolution No. 90-106. BUSINESS ITEMS 54. Second Readinq = Ordinance No. 906. Relating to Flood Damage Prevention. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY STARKEY TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 906. ORDINANCE NO. 906 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING EXISTING CHAPTER 64, 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 DAMAGE PREVENTION". UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCK, DOMINGUEZ, STARKEY, WINKLER, WASHBURN NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Molendyk advised that the Friedman Homes Assessment District Public Hearing had been set for Thursday night, October 25th and this potentially conflicted with Council schedules. After Council discussion, it was decided to reschedule this hearing to Friday, October 26 at 8:30 a.m. -- CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Buck thanked Pardee Construction for their diligence in completing Railroad Canyon Road. Councilman starkey commented on the League of California cities Annual Conference and information obtained on functional Day Worker programs. Councilman Winkler recommended a yes vote on Propositions PK and K on November 6 to help develop more parks and recreational facilities Countywide. PAGE SIXTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1990 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY BUCK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 10:50 GARY . WASHBURN, MAYOR CIT~ F LAKE ELSINORE l - A TEST: ~(V .~ VICKI ~~ CLERK CITY OF LAKE_ELSINORE - -