Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-14-1989 City Council Minutes MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 545 CHANEY STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 ****************************************************************** ~ CALL TO ORDER The Regular City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Winkler at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Starkey ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCK, DOMINGUEZ, STARKEY, WASHBURN, WINKLER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: city Manager Molendyk, City Attorney Harper, Administrative Services Director Wood, Community Services Director Watenpaugh, Public Services Director Kirchner, Community t Development Director Miller and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. George G. Alongi, P. O. Box 901, Lake Elsinore, CA, addressed his concerns in regard to the planning Commission appointment. He stated that he felt that there was undue pressure placed upon one Council Member and that the candidate picked was not qualified. PRESENTATIONS/CEREMONIALS A. Mrs. Sam Newlin presented an overview of the services provided for Golden Spectrum and encouraged all persons in the community to be involved with the program through membership. B. Mayor Winkler introduced Mr. Tony Gilenson as the new appointed Planning Commissioner. He stated that Mr. Gilenson will be completing Mr. Kelley's term. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items were pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion and consideration. Item Nos. 9, 10, 13. The Mayor pulled consent calendar item 11 and 12. Item 11 became Business item 54 and item 12 became Business item 55 at the request of the City Clerk. MOVED BY STARKEY, SECONDED BY BUCK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE -- TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. L The following Minutes were approved: a. January 24, 1989 - Regular City Council Meeting. b. February 1, 1989 - Joint City Council/Planning Commission study Session. The following Minutes were 'received and filed: c. January 17, 1989 - Planning Commission Meeting. 2. Received and filed Building Activity Report for January, 1989. PAGE TWO - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 3. Received and filed Abatement Activity Report for January, 1989. 4. Received and filed Zoning Enforcement Activity Report for January, 1989. 5. Ratified Warrant List in the amount of $493,574.77 for the month of January, 1989. ...., 6. Received and filed Financial Statement for Fiscal Year 1987/88. 7. Approved advertisement for bids for 1989 Resurfacing Project. 8. Approved Major Outdoor Activity Permit 88-15 and waiver of fees for Circus scheduled for May 9, 1989 submitted by the Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce. 13. Approved acceptance of deed and instructed the City Clerk to have the document recorded. 14. Lake Management and Revitalization Status Report was approved to concur with the findings of the Lake Elsinore Redevelopment ~~~. I 15. The proposal for a Geological Survey was approved to concur with the findings of the Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency. 16. Approved public hearing date of February 28, 1989 for the following: a. Tentative Parcel Map 24099 = Cleveland Investment Company. ..... A proposal to redivide four (4) existing lots into two (2) lots each equaling 0.8 acres, in a General Commercial Zoning District, located on the southeast corner of Central Avenue (Highway 74) and Dexter Avenue. b. 15 Year Community Development Block Grant (C.D.B.G.) Funds. Inviting public input and project ideas for the 15th year (1989/1990) C.D.B.G. Program. Available funding will be in the amount of 99,000 for projects to begin on July 1, 1989. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 9. Facility Use Policies/Procedures and Fees. City Manager Molendyk asked for a continuance of this item to allow time for the affected groups involved with the use of City owned faci1itie~ to meet and confer with city staff. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY DOMINGUEZ AND CARRIED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO ALLOW FOR COMMUNITY INPUT. ...... 10. Lake Community Center Opening and Renovation. City Manager Molendyk presented an overview of the Community Center opening and renovation. He stated that there had been concern expressed by Council in regard to the expenditure of funds and asked if it was Council's pleasure to continue this item. Councilman Washburn stated that he did not wish to see this item continued, but that he had some serious concerns in regard to the allocation of expenditures and felt that this PAGE THREE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 should be examined. He questioned the types of renovations that would be done and stated that the C.D.B.G. funds were the monies which were in question and explained to the audience the way in which these funds were regulated. -- MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY STARKEY AND CARRIED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RE-OPEN THE LAKE COMMUNITY CENTER UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CONTINUE THE CONSIDERATION OF THE TYPES OF RENOVATIONS WHICH WOULD BE DONE. 13. Lakeshore Drive/Robb Road Intersection. Councilman Buck expressed concern that the City and the County would not be in conformance regarding road width. He stated that he thought that the County required 110 feet and that the City was requiring 100 feet. Public Services Director Kirchner stated that he felt that this dedication was in accordance with the County, but that his staff would contact the County for verification. MOVED BY BUCK, SECONDED BY DOMINGUEZ AND CARRIED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ACCEPT GRANT DEED FROM THE LAKE ELSINORE SCHOOL DISTRICT. CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECESSED TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT 7:20 P.M. CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Winkler asked that item no. 31, 32 and 52 be heard as one item as they are all related to cottonwood Hills - Pardee Construction Company. Council concurred. 31. General Plan Amendment 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report EIR 88-1 = Pardee Construction Company. A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to designate a presently unincorporated 1,968.7 acres as Specific Plan Area, with an overall residential density of 2.17 dwelling units per acre, located along Railroad Canyon, Cottonwood and Holland Roads, one-half mile south of Canyon Lake in a presently undesignated'portion of the City Sphere of Influence. 32. Specific Plan 88-1 (Cottonwood Hills) and Environmental Impact Report EIR 88-1 = Pardee Construction Company. - A request to approve a Specific Plan for development of 4,275 dwelling units on 1,958.7 gross acres located on Railroad Canyon, cottonwood, and Holland Roads, one-half mile south of Canyon Lake in a presently unincorporated area adjacent to the City boundary. 52. Annexation No. 44 and Environmental Impact Report 88-1 - Pardee Construction Company. A request to annex 1,968.8 acres of unincorporated land into the city of Lake Elsinore for development as a planned community located along Railroad Canyon, Cottonwood and Holland Roads, one-half mile south of Canyon Lake. Senior Planner Bolland gave an overview of the General Plan Amendment 88-1, Environmental Impact Report 88-1, specific Plan 88-1 and Annexation No. 44. He stated that the significant issues for this project relate to a consistency with City Planning goals and policies, physical impacts and the ability to provide services. PAGE FOUR - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 He stated that Condition No. 16, has been revised to address . ---Railroad Canyon Road, Planning commission proposed Condition No. 27, to require added study of Lost Road off-site traffic impacts, Condition No. 15, provides for two lanes of pavement on Holland ~oad with no off-site improvements for Cottonwood Canyon Road, Condition No.s 20 and 24, require more developed trails and park plans, Condition No. 23, requires the developer to negotiate to assist the School Districts to deliver schools when needed, Condition 19, requires developer participation in a new fire station to serve the southeast area and City commitment to provide law enforcement services as needed. - The City Clerk reported no written comments or protests. Mayor Winkler opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. and asked those in favor of General Plan Amendment 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report 88-1 to speak. The following persons spoke. Mr. Mike McGee, Project Manager for Pardee Construction, 29377 Rancho California Road, Rancho California, introduced the persons involved in the preparation of the proposal. He then gave a brief history of Pardee Construction Company and introduced Ms. Cherie Gossett. Ms. Cheri Gossett, Project Planner and author of the Specific Plan document, gave an overview of the entire project which included actual development surrounding the project. Mayor Winkler asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the project. Hearing no further comment in favor, Mayor - Winkler asked those in opposition to speak. The following persons spoke: A. Mrs. Sue Royalty, 32224 Cottonwood Canyon Road, Sun City, addressed the Council and presented them with a petition in regard to Cottonwood Hills project and stated the concerns persons who signed the petition are as follows: 1. Dangerous health hazard due to dust caused from increased traffic. The residents would not be able to have quiet enjoyment of the outside of their homes without breathing vast amounts of dust. 2. Inexperienced drivers losing control of vehicles on very slick muddy surfaces of Cottonwood when it rains. 3. All our children walk on Cottonwood twice a day going to and from the school bus at the corner of Cottonwood and Bundy Canyon Road. 4. Drivers losing control of their vehicles due to inexperience of driving on a hot-holed, washboard dirt road. - 5. Parts of the road are too narrow for two cars to pass at the same time. We must have speed limit and caution signs posted on the road. 6. Residents ride their horses on the road. Caution signs must be posted. Mrs. Royalty concluded her comments by stating that she would personally like to see Cottonwood Canyon Road paved through. PAGE FIVE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 B. Mr. Michael S. Geer, 32150 Navajo springs Road, stated his concerns are as follows: 1. Buffer zone and the integrity of the buffer zone as it will be on private property and in private property control. The trees involved in the Buffer zone are in jeopardy and this area should be treated as open space. 2. The condition of Lost Road, between the Cottonwood project to Lemon Street for the most direct route to the High School. Request a traffic count and treat this area for the impact this project will have upon it. C. Mrs. Lynn Volmer, P. O. Box 5286, Canyon Lake, stated that she feels that the density of this project is too high, and more could have been done to lower the density. D. Mr. Grant Olewiler, representing Canyon Lake Property Owners Association expressed the following: Page 5-16 of the Specific Plan, dated December 5, 1988 it states "the existing sewer ponds on site will not be required after the trunk sewer is installed. They may be relocated on an interim basis and ultimately be removed during the course of development"; and Page 9-16 of Specific Plan, EIR dated December 5, 1988, under Phase I of Public Facilities it states "Construct new trunk sewer connecting Railroad Canyon development to existing trunk sewer west of I-l5", "At occupancy of first dwelling unit in phase I, unless an interim connection is provided"; yet the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District EIR, Draft Supplemental for Waste Water at Railroad Canyon, which notes that an excessive amount of effluent is seasonally produced by this plan and presently disposed eusing evaporation ponds on this project site. Mr. Olewilder then asked where the excessive amount of effluent would be disposed of with the building of this project. He stated that the amount of effluent and proposed future plans would merit a supplemental sewer facility or again as the reports states, would be carried to the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. He questioned who was to pay for the improvements necessary to meet the projects needs. He further asked if the Wastewater situation will be addressed in a new EIR. He also stated that should it be necessary to close Railroad Canyon Road for construction of facilities, then there would have to be and E.I.R. to address this issue. Mr. Olewiler concluded by stressing concern for the existing residents and businesses in the area should Railroad Canyon Road be closed. E. Ms. Shelia Costa, 25710 Holland Road, Menifee Valley, stated her concern is in regard to density, pollution, traffic. She stated that she felt that the City showed a lack of concern for the eastern area of the project. She also stated that she felt that the EIR did not address her area. PAGE SIX - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 F. DeAnn Fiscus, 31765 Murrieta Road, Menifee Valley, expressed concern over the project. She stated that she has horses and uses the area for walking and feels that the area has grown a great deal and that the project would only lend to more problems if Holland Road were used as a route to Murrieta Road. She stated that the ~ area cannot handle the traffic currently on it and the proposed project would create a greater burden. She asked that Council reconsider the traffic circulation and the density of the project. G. Mr. Steve Uraine, 32255 Navajo Springs Road, commented as follows: 1. Commercial Centers in the project an surrounded by hills and will create a noise problem. He expressed a desire to see the Commercial area set off to the side of the project. 2. Lost Road is paved up to 300 feet from Navajo Springs Road and then further down on Lost Road it is pavement again. He suggested that the development be assessed for this unpaved portion and the monies set aside for the County to do the paving improvements. 3. If Railroad Canyon Road is closed for improvements and traffic for the construction of the project and Canyon Lake traffic is diverted, where will the cars be routed? He stated that during the closure of Railroad Canyon Road, due to ice, the cars were routed on Lost Road and the dust problem was enormous to all the residents due to the traffic. ... 4. The buffer zone has been addressed on the East side has been treated as a sensitive area. On the southerly side the buffer zone has not been addressed as a sensitive area. Mr.Uraine stated that this area needs more attention and suggested more of a buffer in the southerly side. H. Mrs. Cathleen Evans, 25190 Craig Avenue, Menifee commented as follows: General Comments: 1. According to the 'currently adopted forecasts of the perris Valley LUPA, the five specific plans approved for the area contain more units than the entire projected housing needs for Perris Valley between 1985 and the year 2000. The eastern 1270 acres of the proposed project lies within this area. Why is another urban development needed in this area? 2. Per the EIR, the County's Open Space and Conservation Map would tentatively limit development to one dwelling unit per ten acres. Also, the proposed Sun City/Menifee Valley Community, Plan would permit only 1 and 1/2 acre to 10 acre lots on the site. Why is the density so high? Why was the density increased from the first EIR by approximately 600 units? ... P!GE SEVEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 3. SCAG projects that the population in the Inland Empire will increase faster than the available jobs. The employment base is not in sync with the population, and this condition will increase at an increasing rate. It is currently estimated that 3 out of 4 workers commute out of Riverside County; by the year 2010, 5 out of 6 workers will commute. Between 1985 and 1986, congestion increased at the 71-Corona interchange from two hours in the morning to three hours; vehicles per day have increased from 90,000 to 145,000 (1982-1986) and are projected to increase to 250,000 by 2010. The latter is a gridlock condition. Would not any city in the County of Riverside serve its citizens better by encouraging the development of a better commercial and industrial base? Why encourage urban development? specific Comments: 4. The proposed lot sizes in areas designated as "sensitive interface between land uses" are too high. There should be a buffer zone of larger size lots - 2 acre minimum - in planning areas 9, 10, 14, 30, 31 and 33. An alternative to large size lots could be extensive open space buffer zones along the interfaces. The fifty foot set-back discussed in the EIR is totally inadequate to protect the rural nature of adjacent homeowners. 5. The EIR states that the preservation of over 900 acres of undisturbed natural open space would compensate for many of the project-related impacts to the biological community. The city is to develop plans to ensure the preservation of habitat values and the Cottonwood Hills Lighting and Open Space Maintenance District will be the responsible agency. It is necessary that this plan be implemented before construction begins on the site. The developer should be required to provide funds for the development of the open space plan prior to any activity occurring on the site. This is the only way to ensure that damage to the open space areas is minimized by construction crews, residents, and non-residents with access to the site. The district must be formed before final map approvals. 6. The EIR states that a signal will be necessary at Holland and Murrieta Roads because the number of daily trips will increase from 400 to 10,200 when full build-out occurs for this project and other projects in the area. This is an offset intersection on a blind curve with a huge rock on one corner. How will signalization be implemented at this corner? An if it is not, the intersection will. be a death trap. Mrs. Evans concluded by stating that most of the residents of this area are concerned with the amount of traffic that will come out of Holland Road onto Murrieta Road and thanked Council for their consideration. I. Mr. Dave Krewson, 28665 Tulita Lane, Menifee Valley, stated his concerns as follows: PAGE EIGHT - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 1. Page 27, paragraph D states: "The project incorporates several measures which promote the -conservation of resources in balance of ..land uses in large areas of open space". However, these measures do not reduce these impacts below a level of significance. This project would contribute substantially to the adverse conditions. These cumulative impacts are considered significant. - a. Loss of biologically significant habitat. b. Deterioration of the visual quality of the area. c. Poor air quality. d. Traffic congestion. 2. Page 97, last sentence states: "The schools in both the Elementary and High School Districts are overcrowded, however plans have been approved for construction of new facilities which will relieve the burden on the existing facilities." This is in regard to the perris Union High School District and the Menifee Elementary School District. In the Fall, Chester W. Morrison Elementary School will be opened and that will relieve approximately 400 children from the currently overcrowded condition at the existing school. However, It still leaves the existing school overcrowded by some 200 children; this does not include the children in the proposed project. 3. Page 147, last sentence states: "However, these measures would not alter the overall transition of natural or rural areas to urban areas. A regionally - significant problem." What we ask is that an overall reduction in density be made to this plan. Mayor Winkler asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Mayor Winkler closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECESSED AT 8:31 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:43 P.M. Councilman Buck asked if it were possible to ask the applicant to pave Lost Road? It appears from the discussion this evening that there is major concern regarding this road. Community Development Director Miller stated that the current traffic study projects about 500 trips a day from the development along that road. This road is very steep and winding and would require significant realignment and a study has been done to look at the potential of improving Lost Road and the cost would be approximately seven million dollars. He further stated that to pave it in two lane at the existing alignment would cost in excess of a million dollars. That is a significant amount to request in consideration of approximately 500 trips a day from that development. Mr. Miller further stated that one of the speakers expressed concern in regard to traffic to the high school. While at this time it is a direct route it should be considered that the new High School to be built off I-15 will be taking the students from this area and will not create a problem for a route to Elsinore High School. - Mayor Winkler questioned buffer lots on the eastern edge and the southern edge. PAGE NINE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 - Mr. Miller responded by stating that shown in the plan as SF1, is a very low density development requiring minimum half acre lot size that is consistent with the zoning on the adjacent properties within the County which has RR zoning, which allows a minimum half acre. Some of the properties immediately adjacent are currently subdivided into larger parcels, but just to the east of the project, before Murrieta Road, is an area of several sections that are divided into acre and half acre lots. Staff felt that SFl did provide lots that were consistent with the zoning that the County had that would permit half acre lots. The area along the eastern boundary does have half acre lots. He further stated that along the southern edge in the area of Cottonwood Canyon Road, there is an existing subdivision of 9,000 square foot lots in that area. Therefore it was felt that the SF2 in that area was consistent with the adjacent properties. To the south along Lost Road, the current development is subdivided into two to three acre parcels, while this is true, looking at the County zoning for this area is Rl which would permit 7,200 square foot lots. He stated that the plan does provide for a buffer. To the west of Lost Road there is significant open space areas. Councilman Washburn expressed concern regarding the cottonwood Specific Plan. The specific Plan, once adopted, becomes the General Plan for that area. The City's General Plan will have no impact on this area. The areas of Law Enforcement and potential ongoing maintenance with the open space are just some of the major concerns. Councilman Washburn asked for a continuance of this item for further consideration by Council. Councilman Washburn asked Mr. Miller if there was an updated traffic report on Holland Road? - Mr. Miller stated that Holland Road is designated as an arterial road in the county's Master Plan. The current intersection at Holland and Murrieta Road is a problem. The County has a road improvement fee of several million dollars to spread among various projects throughout the County, and while we recognize that this is a current physical problem, the traffic study does make reference to the fact that the future volume at that intersection will be significantly greater in the future. Those are arterial streets. Staff feels that the County has the ability to mitigate this situation. Councilman Washburn questioned Condition No. 19 and questioned the Law Enforcement issue. He stated that he felt that the City should not have to provide monies from the General Fund to cover the entire Law Enforcement cost. He suggested that a Mello-Roose District be addressed in this area. He also questioned the isolated oak tree removal mentioned in the EIR, What will go and what will stay? Mr. Bolland stated that the trees will be addressed at grading permit stage. This will be handled at each phase as the project develops. Staff will work with the developer to save the oaks that can be saved through alterations to the project. Those oaks that will have to be removed will have a replacement of a 10 to 1 ratio. Councilman Washburn questioned Condition No. 24, and what portion does this condition address. Mr. Bolland stated that as the various parks are to be addressed by conceptual plans done during the related development phase. The neighborhood parks would be "turn-key" facilities, which are put in by the developer, and the Community Park is envisioned as providing for City participation which would be negotiated in a Development Agreement to be approved by the Council prior to the first phase tentative maps. PAGE TEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 Councilman Washburn Questioned the City Attorney opinion regarding the Specific Plan. City Attorney Harper stated that a Specific Plan is another way of doing zoning. It functions as the binding zoning document for that area. A Specific Plan is subject to future potential change, hence the developers concern for the execution of a Developers Agreement. If the Council should decide at some future date that some areas of the Specific Plan were not going to work it is subject to amendment. A Development Agreement will freeze the zoning and many of the issues of concern are addressed in that document as opposed to the overall zoning document. ... Councilman Washburn questioned the open space dedicated to the city and wanted to know if it would be in phases or all at one time and the maintenance of this area. Mr. Bolland stated that in the project there are some private open spaces proposed as well as areas to be dedicated to the City. It will be done in phases. The maintenance is proposed to be done in an assessment district spread over the entire project. Councilman Washburn questioned Police Service Mr. McGee stated that the fiscal analysis stated that police protection had adequate revenues generated to address this issue. Mello-Roose is expensive and therefore Pardee has avoided the use of this. Mr. Lavander addressed the question of public service costs regarding residents paying for services. The Capital Improvements are now paid for by the developer and the other services are covered in assessment districts. This allows the property tax dollar to pay for the pUblic services such __ as police protection, fire protection, park maintenance, street maintenance and administrative overhead. For police service a ratio to 1.5 officers per thousand population was discussed, but the present study is based upon a 1.0 ratio, which is an improvement over existing levels of service. Mayor Winkler expressed concern regarding police and other services. Councilman Washburn questioned Riverside County Southwest Regional Plan and asked if staff received input in regard to the direction of their plans? Mr. Bolland stated that the City had not received any documentation in regard to the Menifee/Sun City area Master Planning. The Southwest Regional Plan addresses the Wildomar/Rancho California area. That boundary only extends up to the lower Lost Road area and does not come over into the project area. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY STARKEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE ITEM NUMBERS 31, 32, AND BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER 52 TO THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 28, 1989. .... 32. Specific Plan 88-1 (Cottonwood Hills) and Environmental Impact Report 88-1 = Pardee Construction Company. A request to approve a specific Plan for development of 4,275 dwelling units on 1,958.7 gross acres located on Railroad Canyon, Cottonwood, and Holland Roads, one-half mile south of Canyon Lake in a presently unincorporated area adjacent to the City boundary. This item was heard with item Number 31. ,"'l PAGE ELEVEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 33. Tentative Parcel Map 22385 ~ Dura Construction Company. A request to subdivide a ten (10) acre parcel into four (4) parcels, two (2) in a C-M Zone, totaling 3.3 acres, and two (2) in an M-1 Zone, totaling 6.9 acres, located on the south side of Collier Avenue between Third and Crane Streets. community Development Director Miller gave an overview of the project and stated that this item has been before Council before and Riverside County Flood Control District had expressed some concerns, subsequently the applicant's Engineer has reviewed the previous work with Riverside County Flood Control District and they have concurred with the conditions that we had originally recommended to city Council. Which would allow the two lots on the western side along Crane Street to be developed prior to the construction of the Third Street Channel, which is proposed as part of the outflow channel improvements. The Deputy city Clerk reported no written comments or protests. Mayor Winkler opened the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. asking those in favor of the project to speak. The following person spoke: Dennis Spahr, President of Dura Construction Company, 21351 Walnut Street Lake Elsinore stated that the company has been in contact with Riverside County Flood Control District and that the representatives of the Flood Control District have reviewed the project site. Dura Construction Company concurs with staff and would ask for approval based upon the listed conditions. Mayor Winkler asked those in opposition to speak. Hearing no one, the public hearing was closed at 9:31 p.m. councilman Washburn questioned Condition No. 30 and Mr. Miller responded that this condition was addressed in one of the previous meetings and Council directed staff to include this. MOVED BY DOMINGUEZ AND SECONDED BY BUCK AND CARRIED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION 88-40, AND APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22385, SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS: Findinqs: 1. - 2. 3. 4. 5. The project, as conditioned, will not have a significant impact upon the environment. The proposed project complies with zoning standards for the M-1 and C-M Zoning Districts. The proposal meets the City's Subdivision Standards. The proposed subdivision will be consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use designation for this site. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the findings established in the State Subdivision Map Act requirements. PAGE TWELVE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22385 P1anninQ Division: 1. Tentative Parcel Map 22385 approval is subject to approval of Street Abandonment 88-4, General Plan Amendment 88-9 and Zone Change 88-13. ~ 2. Tentative Parcel Map 22385 shall expire two (2) years from date of approval unless extended pursuant to State and Local law or recordation of final map. 3. Meet all Riverside county Flood Control District requirements. 4. All parcels shall hook-up to sewer. 5. The temporary Third Street Channel shall be fully maintained by the developer/property owner of the site, unless Riverside County Flood Control District accepts maintenance at no cost to them as indicated in the Environmental Assessment. 6. Prior to issuance of any grading permit or building permits, the applicant shall sign and complete and "Acknowledgment of Conditions" and shall return the executed original to the Community Development Department for inclusion in the case records. 7. Prior to recordation of final map, the applicant shall record CC & R's that prohibit development of parcels 2 and 4, until the permanent Third Street Channel is constructed. - Enqineerinq Department 8. Construct all off-site improvements and improvements shall be delineated on street improvement plans and must be approved and signed by City Engineer prior to recordation (Lake Elsinore Municipal Code 16.34). 9. Street improvement plan and specifications shall be prepared by a civil engineer and improvements shall be to Riverside County Road Department standards and City Codes (Lake Elsinore Municipal Code 12.04 and 16.34). 10. For construction of pUblic works off-site improvements pay all fees and meet all requirements of encroachment permit issued by the Engineering Department (Lake Elsinore Municipal Code 12.08). 11. Dedicate underground water rights to the city (Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.52.030). 12. Sign agreement for City Landscaping and Street Lighting District (Resolution No. 's 86-26, 86-27,. 86-36) . 13. Submit a letter of verification to the City Engineering -- Department, from the applicable water districts, stating water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project prior to applying for building permit. 14. Pay Riverside County Flood Control District fees for flood hazard review (Resolution 83-75 and 85-57). 15. Pay all Capital Improvement and plan check fees (Lake Elsinore Municipal Code 16.34). PAGE THIRTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 ..... 16. All public work requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 17. Provide 30 foot dedication for Third Street and improvements as part of Phase 3 and 4. 18. Provide 30 foot dedication on Crane Street and improve Crane Street and curve return with transition to existing Collier Avenue improvements to provide two (2) travel lanes and parking as part of the first phase of map on Crane Street. 19. Provide a 30 foot sewer easement in favor of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 20. Survey sufficient right-of-way on Collier Avenue to provide a 86 foot right-of-way and 76 foot curb to curb street (1/2 street 43 foot right-of-way and 38 foot curb to curb). 21. Provide a flood control easement for Riverside County Flood Control District for the ultimate Third Street Channel and a construction easement for construction. 22. Obtain slope easements off-site from adjacent property owners where necessary for grading. ~ 23. Obtain drainage acceptance letters from adjacent property owners on the southwest boundary to accept on-site drainage. 24. Developer shall provide ingress and egress easements for parcel 4 to access Crane Street. width to be approved by the City Engineer. 25. The developer shall cause to be recorded an irrevocable reciprocal parking, circulation, landscape maintenance and drainage easement in favor of all lots of Tentative Parcel Map 22385 subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. In addition, CC & Rls shall be approved by the city Attorney and Director of Community Development which enforce standards of building maintenance, participation in landscape maintenance, prohibition of outside vehicle or material storage. 26. Meet all requirements of Chapter 15.64 of the Municipal Code regarding flood hazard regulations. 27. Ingress and egress to Collier Avenue shall be limited to one driveway with right turn ingress and egress only for the entire project frontage subject to the approval of the City Engineer to be determined at development. ~ 28. Developer shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the city for construction of public work off-site improvements and submit bonds established by the City Engineer per phased map. 29. Developer shall contribute $11,000 for the design and construction of a traffic signal at Collier and Central. Development will increase traffic at least 9% at Collier and Central and $11,000 would be their prorata share. 30. Developer shall contribute $20,900 for one-half of the cost for the design and construction of a median on Collier Avenue along the site frontage. PAGE FOURTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 31. Developer shall contribute $1,000 for the City Entrance Sign Program. 32. Parking shall be prohibited along Collier Avenue abutting this site. 33. An environmental constraints map shall be filed with the city Engineer showing floodplain areas. __ 34. Provide street lighting as required by City Engineer. Lighting shall be shown upon street improvement plans. 35. All compaction reports, grade certification, monument certification (with tie-notes delineated on 8-1/2" xlI" mylar) shall be submitted to Engineering Department before final inspection of off-site improvements will be scheduled and approved. 36. Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by Riverside County fire protection. 37. Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to mitigate drainage impacts by paYment of a drainage mitigation fee. Whereas the City is in the process of developing a Master Plan of Drainage for this area, and the final plan has not yet been adopted but the previously completed Master Plan for Drainage for the West End indicate a fee of $4,000 per acre, the developer shall deposit such fee which may be partially refunded if the drainage fee for this area plan is lower. As part of the development of the project site, and as -- mitigation for potential flood impacts, a temporary. earthen channel will be excavated along the same alignment Riverside County Flood Control proposes for the ultimate Third Street Channel. This temporary channel will be used in conjunction with the proposed fill area and depth for parcels one and three to contain the QIOO of 1100 cfs between the existing top of curb on the southeasterly side of Third Street and the boundary line separating parcels one and three from parcels two and four, Exhibit "B" shows extent of the temporary channel. The final map shall be approved in four (4) phases. Prior to grading or building permits for phase 1 and 2 (parcels 1 and 3), a flood study shall be done in accordance with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and related regulations (44 CFR, Parts 59 through 73) and County Ordinance No. 458 to insure the adequacy of the temporary channel design. That prior to the grading and building permits for phases 3 and 4 (parcels 2 and 4) be conditioned upon installation of the ultimate channel along Third Street, designed to carry the QIOO flows tributary to it. It is also proposed that the temporary channel remain private with the owner of. the property being liable for maintenance until the ultimate channel is constructed. -- 38. Prior to recordation of any phase all perimeter dedications and flood control easements shall be dedicated or provided. 39. The developer shall also comply with recommendations 1 - 8 contained in the letter from the Riverside County Flood Control District dated February 8, 1989 PAGE FIFTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 ITEM NO. 39 (CONTINUED) - A. Parcels 1, 2, and 4 should not record until the construction of the ultimate Third Street channel has begun. The recordation of Parcels 1, 2, and 4 should be contingent upon the construction of a facility, either on-site or off-site, that would intercept local flows that are now tributary to the northeast boundary of this project (along Collier Avenue) and convey them to Third Street Channel. Plans should be approved by the District. B. The finished surfaces of lots along the Third Street Channel should be at or above the top of the ultimate channel embankment. C. A note should be put on the final map stating, "This property is entirely within the 100 year flood plain mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (F.E.M.A.)". Another note should be put on the final map stating, "Finished floors of buildings on Parcel 3 shall be elevated a minimum of 18 inches above the surrounding ground surface". - D. The right of way for the Third Street Channel should be delineated through the property on the final map and labeled drainage easement. A note should be put on the final map stating, "Drainage easements shall be kept clear of buildings and obstructions". A 50 foot wide temporary easement for the construction of the Third Street Channel should be shown on the final map along the channel right-of-way. A note should be put on the final map stating, "The temporary construction easement shall be kept clear of buildings and permanent structures until the Third Street Channel is constructed". E. If the configuration of the flow through area for the 1,100 cfs causes a diversion or concentration onto adjacent properties then drainage easements should be obtained from the property owners. Copies of the recorded drainage easements should be submitted to the District for review prior to recordation of the final map. - F. Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition of debris onto downstream properties or drainage facilities. G. An encroachment permit should be obtained for any work on district facilities or within District right of way. The encroachment permit application should be processed and approved concurrently with the improvement plans. H. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the district for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. Grading plans should be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. PAGE SIXTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 34. Zone Code Amendment 88-10 = city of Lake Elsinore. A request to amend the Zoning Code to amend. standards relating to fences, walls, and landscaping in residential districts; allow for keeping of farm animals; provide special standards for hillside development; make various technical corrections; change minimum lot sizes and permitted densities and setbacks in the R-3 District (High Density Residential); and change lighting, landscaping and landscape setback and outside storage requirements in non-residential districts which would apply City-wide. -- City Manager Molendyk suggested that based on concerns raised this evening, this item be continued. MOVED BY STARKEY, SECONDED BY DOMINGUEZ AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO FEBRUARY 14, 1989. PROJECT TO BE REVIEWED AT A STUDY SESSION ON FEBRUARY 25, 1989 AT 9:00 A.M. BUSINESS ITEMS 51. Second Readinq - Ordinance No. 852. Relating to Zone Change 89-1 - Manfredi/Summers. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY DOMINGUEZ AND CARRIED BY A FOUR TO ZERO VOTE WITH BUCK ABSTAINING TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 852. ORDINANCE NO. 852 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, REZONING 0.19 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF LASH STREET APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET WEST OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE, FROM R-3 __ (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO C-l (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT (ZONE CHANGE 89-1 - MANFREDI/SUMMERS) UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: DOMINGUEZ, STARKEY, WASHBURN, WINKLER. NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCK 52. Annexation No. 44 and Environmental Impact Report 88-1 = Pardee Construction Company. A request to annex 1,968.8 acres of unincorporated land into the City of Lake Elsinore for development as a planned community located along Railroad Canyon, Cottonwood and Holland Roads, one-half mile south of Canyon Lake. -- This item was combined with Public Hearing item no. 31. 53. Review of Siqn and Parkinq Requirements. City Manager ask that this item be continued to be reviewed at Study Session to be held February 25, 1989. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY BUCK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUED AND REVIEW AT STUDY SESSION OF FEBRUARY 25, 1989. PAGE SEVENTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 54. Reauest for Waiver of Street Improvement Reauirements - Co1anQe1o. 16372 Arnold Street. MOVED BY WINKLER, SECONDED BY STARKEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO FEBRUARY 28, 1989, FOR FURTHER REVIEW. ,-- 55. Reauest for Waiver of Street Improvement Requirements = Lowe, 505 !i.t. Sumner Avenue. Councilman Dominguez stated that he agrees with staff and feels that this item is long overdue. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY BUCK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO DENY REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF STREET IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS AT 505 W. SUMNER AVENUE. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager requested that the meeting be adjourned to the Redevelopment Agency and asked that Council recess at the end of the Redevelopment Agency and go to closed session. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS .-- Councilman Buck wished to remind the Community of the membership drive for Golden Spectrum and encouraged all the members OI the community to be involved. Councilman Washburn requested that staff look into the JPIA, and staff should draft a letter for the Mayor'S signature_regarding support of stream lining the JPIA. Councilman Dominguez requested that the Downtown Area be part of the Study Session on February 25, 1989. Mayor Winkler encouraged all members of the Community to get involved in Golden Spectrum. Mayor Winkler also announced the members of the General Plan advisory Committee. Mayor Winkler attended a meeting at the County regarding the Stephen's Kangaroo and asked Mr. Miller to give an update. Mr. Miller is currently working with the County and by next meeting will hope to have a report regarding the stephen's Kangaroo. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 9:47 P.M. TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 10:43 P.M. -- CLOSED SESSION THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 10:43 P.M. TO DISCUSS LITIGATION-CLEMENTS VERSUS THE CITY AND PASS THROUGH TO COUNTY. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 11:10 P.M. WITH NO ACTION TAKEN. PAGE EIGHTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY STARKEY, SECONDED BY WASHBURN AND CARRIED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 11:11 P.M. ....i ATTEST: - ......