Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Agenda Packet 10-23-19901. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Laky Elsinore City Council Agenda TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1990 - 7:00 P.M. (TO BE ADJOURNED TO OCTOBER 24, 1990) POLICY OF THE CITY COU11CIL: "Only those items filed with the City Clerk's Office by aon, luesday, priorroo Fie following Tuesday meeting, not requiring departmental investigation will be considered by the City Council at said meeting". PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENTS Note: Any person wishing to address City Council on any matter not on the Agenda, must complete a request form available at the speakers podium and submit it to the City Clerk prior to commencement ,of the meeting. (Comments limited to 3 minutes). PRESENTATIONS/CEREMONIALS A. Proclamation - United Way/American Cancer S Campaign, 1990. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes a. Regular City Council Meeting - October 9, 1990. b. Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1990. c. Regular Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1990. Animal Control Activity Report - September, 1990. Investment Report - September, 1990. Warrant List - October 15, 1990. Request to Co -Sponsor "Miss Frontier Days". Traffic Control Resolution No. 90-100 - No Parking Zones. Resolution No. 90-101 - Accepting Grant Funds - Lakepoint Park Perimeter Walkways. Resolution No. 90-102 - Relating to Lake Jurisdiction. Approve. Rec. & File. Rec. & File. Rec. & File. Rec. & File. Ratify. Approve Staff Recomm. Adopt Res. No. 90-100. Adopt Res. No. 90-101. Adopt Res. No. 90-102. PAGE TWO - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 23, 1990 9. Resolution No. 90-103 - Relating to Claim for Funds Under the Transportation Development Act of 1971 (Article 4). 10. 11. 12. 31. 32. 33. 51. 52. 53. 54. Resolution No. 90-104 - Amending Resolution No. 90-77 Relating to Annexation No. 56. Lake Community Center/Council Chambers. Set 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. PUBLIC HEARING General Plan Revision and Related Environmental Impact Report. Continued from October 9, 1990. Tentative Parcel Map 26052 - Withrow Ranch, Inc. [The Keith Companieslautterfield). 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. Resolution of Necessity to Order Acquisition Eminent Domain McTea ue . Resolution No. 90-96. BUSINESS DISCUSSION ITEMS Extension of Time - Tentative Parcel Map 23381 K -Mart. Request to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission to Amend the Sphere of Influence of the City of Lake Elsinore. Resolution No. 90-105. City Allocation of Take of Occupied Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat under the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan. Resolution No. 90-106. BUSINESS ITEMS Second Reading = Ordinance No. 906. Relating to Flood Damage Prevention. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS CLOSED SESSION ADJOURNMENT Adopt Res. No. 90-103. Adopt Res. No. 90-104. Approve Staff Recomm. Approve Hearing Date. Approve Staff Recomm. Adopt Neg. Dec. 90-15; Approve Tent. Parcel Map 26052, Based on Fndgs & Subject to Conditions. Adopt Res. No. 90-96. Approve Extension to 11/27/90. Approve Staff Recomm. Approve Staff Recomm. Adopt Ord. No. 906. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Lake Elsinore el C., City Council Agenda TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1990 - 7:00 P.M. (TO BE ADJOURNED TO OCTOBER 24, 1990) POLICY OF THE CITY COUNCIL: "Only those items filed with the Citv Clerk's Office by Noon, ues ay, prior to lWe following Tuesday meeting, not requiring departmental investigation will be considered by the City Council at said meeting". PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENTS Note: Any person wishing to address City Council on any matter not on the Agenda, must complete a request form available at the speakers podium and submit it to the City Clerk prior to commencement ,of the meeting. (Comments limited to 3 minutes). PRESENTATIONSZCEREMONIALS A. Proclamation - United Way/American Cancer Soci Campaign, 1990. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes a. Regular City Council Meeting - October 9, 1990. b. Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1990. c. Regular Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1990. Animal Control Activity Report - September, 1990. Investment Report - September, 1990. Warrant List - October 15, 1990. Request to Co -Sponsor "Miss Frontier Days". Traffic Control Resolution No. 90-100 - No Parking Zones. Resolution No. 90-101 - Accepting Grant Funds - Lakepoint Park Perimeter Walkways. Resolution No. 90-102 - Relating to Lake Jurisdiction. Approve. Rec. & File. Rec. & File. Rec. & File. Rec. & File. Ratify. Approve Staff Recomm. Adopt Res. No. 90-100. Adopt Res. No. 90-101. Adopt Res. No. 90-102. 9. 10. 11. 12. 31. 32. 33. 51. 52. 53. 54. PAGE TWO - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 23, 1990 Resolution No. 90-103 - Relating to Claim for Funds Under the Transportation Development Act of 1971 (Article 4). Resolution No. 90-104 - Amending Resolution No. 90-77 Relating to Annexation No. 56. Lake Community Center/Council Chambers. Set Public Hearing date of November 13, 1990, for the following: a. Tentative Parcel MaR 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. PUBLIC HEARING General Plan Revision and Related Environmental Impact Report. Continued from October 9, 1990. 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. Resolution of Necessity to Order Acquisition hy Eminent Domain McTeague). Resolution No. 90-96. BUSINESS DISCUSSION ITEMS Extension of Time = Tentative Parcel Map 23381 - K -Mart. Request to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission to Amend the Sphere of Influence of the City of Lake Elsinore. Resolution No. 90-103. City Allocation of Take of Occupied Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat under the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan. Resolution No. 90-106. BUSINESS ITEMS Second Reading = Ordinance No. 906. Relating to Flood Damage Prevention. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS CLOSED SESSION ADJOURNMENT Adopt Res. No. 90-103. Adopt Res. No. 90-104. Approve Staff Recomm. Approve Hearing Date. Approve Staff Recomm. Adopt Neg. Dec. 90-15; Approve Tent. Parcel Map 26052, Based on Fndgs & Subject to Conditions. Adopt Res. No. 90-96. Approve Extension to 11/27/90. Approve Staff Recomm. Approve Staff Recomm. Adopt Ord. No. 906. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore does recognize the months of September and October 1990, as the official Lake Elsinore Valley United Way and American Cancer Society Campaign and believes that service to the community provides long term benefits to the community; and WHEREAS, the community of Lake Elsinore is better served by the hard work and devotion of caring individuals who donate their time and money toward the needs of the less fortunate; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that illness, accidents and tragedies may befall anyone and that an important part of living in today's society is supporting agencies that provide services to victims of illness, accidents and tragedies; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore does heartily support the efforts of the United Way and the American Cancer Society. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE on this 24th day of October, 1990 does hereby recognize and commend the efforts of the individuals who gave of their time, money and effort in the months of September and October, 1990, for the United Way/American Cancer Society Campaign. GARY M. WASHBURN, MAYOR AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ PAGE OF � i 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 and 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 7:04 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 AG,Eh'DA ITEM NO. PAGE OF PAGE TWO - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 91 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. S. 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)et. 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. AGENDA ITEM NO. C PAGE a OF PAGE THREE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 91 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 Parcelapa 26052 = Withrow Ranch. Inc./The a th 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 Agreement = 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. AGENDA ITErvi A'�-- "', PAGE,_11._ OF ee s: r` 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 Robb 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 con unity 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 McCulley, 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-1. 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. S. 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. AGENDA ITEM ted. PAGE OF- 12-- ' 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. AGENDA ITEM NO -A1-%1--1 PAGE GF—!Z� 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. 1 AS A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA/NON RESIDENTIAL. Mayor Washburn then asked Council to agree to staff recommendations of Category "A". AGENDA ITEM NO. ` ` PAGE OF� PAGE SEVEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 3.990 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, 291 30, 31, 341 361 37.A, 41, 421 44, 481 491 501 52, 541 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. AGENDA ITEM NO. `Q PAGE OF PAGE EIGHT - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1990'2'' 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, 81 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 neer 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 -Z and R-3. Below R-2 are the various R-1 category. From the current R-1 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 N0. 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 DAMAGE PREVENTION". AGENDA ITEM NO. • PAGE OF PAGE NINE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1990 UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCII24MBERS: 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./CITY 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 MEETING. GARY M. WASHBURN, MAYOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ATTEST: ADRIA L. BRYNING, DEPUTY CITY CLERK CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AGE':'DA ITEM NO. ' PAGE. 4? CIF MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED-WEETING HELD ON THE 3 RD DAY OF OCTOBER 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:04 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brown, Wilsey and Saathoff ABSENT: Commissioners: Brinley Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Consultant Planner Smothers, Special Project Planner Ballew, and City Attorney Harper. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Saathoff stated that this is a continuance of the Public Hearing on the General Plan, continued from September 19, 1990, and asked for those in the audience wishing to speak on any item on the agenda. Mr. John Hodge, 31421 Murrieta Road, Sun City, #35 designated Mountainous/Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre)- requested at the last meeting Very Low Density - There needs to be a category between Mountainous and Very Low Density. Create a new category that would be consistent with the Southwest Area Plan --Hillside which would allow for five (5) acre minimums. Requested Very Low Density, or creation of a new category, or modify Mountainous into Mountainous 5. Discussion was held on staff recommendation for Very Low Density and the designation of .5 dwelling units per acre; topography and 25% slope used for the scale; intensity of development on the 35 acres. Ms. Eleanor Martin,P.O. Box 4027, Canyon Lake, commented on #12 and it retaining the Neighborhood Commercial designation. Discussion was held on this once being shown as Commercial Office and staff has corrected this to reflect a Neighborhood Commercial designation. Mr. John Friedman, Long Beach Equities, 2038 Armacost, West Los Angeles, #15 - requested Freeway Business and leave the zoning Specific Plan. Discussion was held on staff recommendation of Specific Plan with Freeway Business designated as the use; 25% slope used for scale; access and secondary access possible off the north side of this site. Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to address the Commission on any item on the Agenda. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked Special Project Planner Ballew to address the Downtown Area Plan. special Project Planner Ballew expanded on the Downtown Area Plan covering the Downtown Historic District; High Density/Low Density; Cutlet Channel; Circulation Element and the realignment of Pottery; discussion with the State relative to an expanded Park and Marina downtown; Visitor serving Commercial is actually Tourist Commercial, at the end of Main Street by the freeway, and the Downtown Area Plan Map should be corrected to reflect this, the Marina Village Specific Plan also fits into this category. Mr. Ballew stated that he would recommend that this plan be adopted, pretty much intact, but on record, with the understanding that it may be modified sometime later. AGENDA iTEIM NO. �! PAGE OF� Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 Page 2 GEI ERAL PLAN REVISION CON'TIN p A brief discussion was held on the Downtown Pian and, if adopted, changes could only be made through a General Plan Amendment, limited to four times a year; Downtown Plan having an overlay Zone with its own Design Guidelines; whether or not the Limited Street bridge is part of the contract for the Outlet Channel, whether or not there were any other new bridges proposed --their location and funding; alignment of new Pottery connecting to Collier and if consideration should be given to connecting at Pottery; area designated for Low Density and findings for same. Mr. Joe Hemeniz, owns property on Main Street, commented on the proposal to change the designation from Commercial to Residential, referring to the Downtown Area. Chairman Saathoff asked Special Project Planner Ballew to address this issue. Mr. Ballew stated that most of the Commercial in this area is actually Residential that has been, more or less, converted to commercial uses and a number of driveway and parking issues around that right -of -way --we are going to have to widen that road, 100-110 foot street. I felt by limiting the number of access points along that area, by putting Medium Density or project level residential in there would soften that traffic impact --would create a better use being across from the Civic Center, and transition up the hill to Lower Density Residential. A brief discussion was held on the Zoning/General Plan designation transition over the years; intensity of traffic; whether or not the City would be interested in having small pods of commercial sites; existing zoning and the proposed General Plan designation. Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to address the Commission on any item on the Agenda. Mr. Fred Crowe, Butterfield Surveys/The Keith Companies, represent- ing Mariana Mohylyn, #53, inquired about the intent of the density specification, as it is listed on the Specific Plan Land Use. Ms. Mohylyn's concern pertains to the resort area, and density for the total 80 acres. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that Ms. Mohylyn was informed, at the last meeting, that what she was proposing was consistent with what staff was recommending. Discussion ensued on the intent of the density being somewhat dictated by surrounding development and topography; density of 3 units per acre established as a workable density for the area; provision for commercial use needs to be in the Specific Plan and Possibly a General Plan adjustment; density trade offs. Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to address the Commission on any item on the Agenda. Mr. Lawrence Buxton, Courton & Associates, 121 South Main Street, representing four property owners currently in the process of annexing their property into the City of Lake Elsinore, in the vicinity of Dexter and Second Street. These property owners include: Rob Partin, Partin Development; Mary Thomas, A & G Engineering; William Schell, and four other parcels that front on Second Street. We have been working with the City for the formation of a Community Facilities District in this area, for the purpose of constructing the extension of Dexter Avenue across these Properties, in question, and connecting in the vicinity of Main Street to Camino Del Norte. Requested a Freeway Business designation at Second Street and Dexter. AGENDA { T t;:; ,.�. -A iVe PAGE OF ,' Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 Page 3 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED It was the consensus of the Commission to add this as 454. Discussion was held on staff's recommendation for this area; letter from Mr. Schell, 3rd paragraph, and whether or not we can require this; Thomas property --zoning consistent with use; exact location of the Thomas property on the proposed General Plan. Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to address the Commission on any item on the Agenda. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff stated he would like to call a recess, which would allow the commissioners time to review any maps or new items brought up, and stated that the public hearing would remain open in case someone comes in. At this time, 6:05 p.m., the Commission recessed. At this time, 6:20 p.m., the Commission reconvened. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone in the audience that did not have an opportunity to address the Commission, and would like to do so at this time. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table, and suggested that the items be considered individually for Commission and Staff concurrence: 1. Specific Plan Area/Non Residential - E.V.M.W.D. - Incorporate this consideration into Specific Plan for this area. Commission concurred with staff. rcial - Santa Rosa 2. NeigorhooDevelopmentd - Des gnate Specific Plane S and allow Commercial uses. Commission concurred with staff. 3. Specific Plan Area/Specific Plan Area with Tourist commercial on front 50 acres - Tomlinson - Describe this Specific Plan as allowing Tourist Commercial as well as a wide range of Residential uses. Commission concurred with staff and add General Commercial uses. 4. Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre)/Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) - Partin/Courton - Recently approved by the City. Commission concurred with staff. 5. Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre)/Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) - Elsinore Meadows/Partin/Courton. Commission concurred with staff. 6. Specific Plan Area/Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) - Gold Hills/Courton - Describe this Specific Plan as allowing up to a maximum of 6 dwelling units per acre. Commission concurred with staff. 7. Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre)/Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) - North Elsinore Hills/Courton - Current development studies are at 2.o dwelling units per acre. Commission concurred with staff --maintain at 3 dwelling units PAGE 3 OF ,' Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission meeting� October 3, 1990 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTIhIaD per acre. 8. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre)/Commercial or Multi -Family units - Villelli Enterprises. Commission concurred with staff. 9. Specific Plan Area/Limited Industrial - Hamilton/Manee - Specific Plan can include consideration for this land use. Commission concurred with staff. 10. Specific Plan Area/Limited Industrial - Montgomery/Manee - Specific Plan can include consideration for this land use. Commission concurred with staff. 11. Commercial Office/Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) - Davis - Incorporate into Country Club Heights Specific Plan. Discussion was held on designation for site: Commercial Office or Specific Plan. The area in question being within the Country Club Heights Specific Plan and currently zoned Commercial office, since it is part of the hillside area it should be evaluated in the Specific Plan. Commission concurred with staff. 12. Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre)/Neighborhood Commercial - Martin. Consensus of Commission to designate Neighborhood Commercial. 13. Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre)/Commercial Manufacturing (Business Park) - Levenson. Consensus.of Commission - add note referring to #58. 14. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre)/General Commercial - Martinez. Commission concurred with staff. 15. Specific Plan Area/Freeway Business - Long Beach Equities - Consider this use with Specific Plan. Consensus of Commission designate Freeway Business and maintain Specific Plan Zoning. 16. Mountainous/Specific Plan Area and Neighborhood Commercial - The Baldwin Company - Evaluate limits of commercial site in Specific Plan. A brief discussion was held on designation of Specific Plan and the Neighborhood Commercial being included within the Specific Plan. Commission concurred with staff. 17. Specific Plan Area and Mountainous/Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) - Hodge - Consider this density with Specific Plan. Consensus of Commission maintain Specific Plan with 3 dwelling r PAGE -41 OF� Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting eek,: October 3, 1990 Page 5 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED units per acre. 18. Limited Industrial/General Commercial - McCoy Construction. Commission concurred with staff. 19. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre)/Limited Industrial - Best done as an amendment when a Specific project can be shown. Consensus of Commission - add note referring to #55. 19A. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre)/Medium Density (12 dwelling units per acre) - Poulter. Commission concurred with staff. 20. Commercial Office/Neighborhood Commercial - Huang. A brief discussion was held on requiring Specific Plan on 5 acres with a Neighborhood Commercial designation. Consensus of Commission to designate Specific Plan Area and allow Neighborhood Commercial uses. 21. Commercial Office/General Commercial - Seers. Commission concurred with staff. 22. General Commercial and Specific Plan Area/Freeway Business. Commission concurred with staff. 23. Mountainous/Specific Plan Area (Low Density) - Morger. Commission concurred with staff. 24. Resource Conservation and Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre)/Specific Pian Law Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) - Murdock Development/Pacific Clay. Commission concurred with staff. 25. Public and Institutional/Specific Plan Area - Cordial - Could view this favorably once the site is abandoned for public use. A brief discussion was held on the designation Public and Institutional or Specific Plan; designation for the area is Public and Institutional. Consensus of Commission - Concur with staff and add note referring to #55. 26. Specific Plan Area/General Commercial - Mission Development - Consider this use with the preparation of a Specific Plan. Commission concurred with staff. 27. Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre)/Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) - Tomlinson. Commission concurred with staff. 28. Mountainous/Tourist Commercial - Chen. A brief discussion was held on the exact location. AWIZA ITE:111 Ko.-Ui— PACE dF Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 Page 6 GEhTERAL PLAN REVISION CONTI NC]ED Commission concurred with staff. 29. Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre)/Limited Industrial - Chen. Commission concurred with staff. 30. Floodway/Specific Plan Area - Chen. Commission concurred with staff. 31. Low Medium Density (5 dwelling units per acre)/Medium Density (12 dwelling units per acre) - Somerville - See current land use map; previous map was in error. West of Lookout is designated as Tourist Commercial. Discussion was held on what designation was being applied, and this being resolved by the Downtown Area Plan. Commissioner Gilenson recommended that #55 be added and, the items included in the Downtown Area$ under the Planning Commission Recommendation Section a note be added to refer to #55, which is adopting the Downtown Land Use. Consultant Planner Smothers referred to #3IA and this falling within the Medium Density area and their request for High Density would not be accommodated by this action. Commissioner Gilenson stated that his recommendation is that on #42, #19, #25, #43, #51, #47, #39, #31 and #31A a note be added referring to #55. Discussion ensued on this recommendation, and #42 being outside the Downtown Area. Consensus of Commission - add note referring to #55. 31A. Low Density (6 dwelling units per acre)/High Density (24 dwelling units per acre) - DiGiovanni. Consensus of Commission - Concur with staff and add note referring to #55. 32. Freeway Business/General Commercial - Maisel - Staff will recommend that many of the General Commercial uses be permitted in the Freeway Business category. Commission concurred with staff. 33. Business Park/General Commercial - Also wants commercial uses allowed in Business Park category - Brookstone Development. Consensus of Commission to remain as Business Park. 33A. Same as above (#33) - Morris. Consensus of Commission to remain as Business Park. 34. Specific Plan/Limited Industrial - Le Clerc. Commission concurred with staff. 35. Mountainous/Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) - Hodge - With very Low Density (0.5 dwelling units per acre) may be appropriate. AGENDA I i Etl NC -1. 14 PACE CE� Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting max` October 3, 1990 Page 7 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED Consensus of Commission to designate Very Low Density and Zone area sensitive to topography. 36. General Commercial and Commercial Office/Specific Plan - Commercial Mixed Use - Tozai, Inc. - Intends to allow Residential uses as well as Commercial uses. Commission concurred with staff. 37A. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre)/Commercial - Williams - Review at time of annexation. Discussion was held on the Southwest Area Community Plan, adopted by the County --request is that the General Plan reflect the land uses that are within the Southwest Area Community Plan, and this added as number 56. Consensus of Commission - add note refer to #56. 37B. Open Space/High Density (24 dwelling units per acre)/Freeway Business - Williams - Changed request to Freeway Business. A brief discussion was held on the location; whether or not Freeway Business is an appropriate designation --there being an over abundance of Freeway Business in this area; access and traffic flows in this area; surrounding land uses; Mixed Use being an appropriate designation. Consensus of Commission designate Mixed Use. 37C. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre)/Commercial - Williams - Extended Mixed Use category across Adelfa (See #41) . Commission concurred with staff. 38. General Commercial and Medium High Density (18 dwelling units per acre)/Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) - Patton, Malthy, Summers, Prijatel - Designate entire site Specific Plan Area and allow Commercial and Multiple Family Residential uses. Commission concurred with staff. 39. Low Medium Density/High Density (24 dwelling units per acre) - Schmaling - See # 31. Consensus of Commission - add note referring to #55. 40. Circulation Element: Affect on Missing Link site. Wants City to delay decision until Specific Plan is completed - Consider re -alignment at the time a Specific Plan is submitted. Commission concurred with staff. 41. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre)/Mixed Use - Spahr see #37C. Commission concurred with staff. 42. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /commercial Office - Shook - Site is adjacent to Limited Industrial Area. Consensus of Commission - add note referring to #55. AC -ix DIk-1 Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 Page 8 GEhiERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED 43. Mixed Use/High Density (24 dwelling units per acre) - Spacer - Mixed Use category will permit High Density Residential. Consensus of Commission - add note referring to #55. 44. Very Low Density (0.5 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space/Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) and Specific Plan - Chen - With verification change Very Low Density to Low Density - General Pian Map shows Open Space which is Federal Land. If they dispose of it, the City can re -designate to Specific Plan. Consultant Planner Smothers stated that there are some corrections in this category. We had Very Low Density and it has actually been developed at one acre lots --it needs to be adjusted to the Low Density Category. Discussion ensued on the location and staff recommendation for Specific Plan; relationship of zoning with the actual sub- division pattern. Commission concurred with staff. 45. Low Density and Open Space/Specific Plan (3 dwelling units per acre) - Chen - More appropriate for a future General Plan Amendment when all land is privately owned. Commission concurred with staff. 46. Low, Medium, Mountainous and Resource Conservation/Specific Plan (3 dwelling units per acre) - Chen - Boundaries need to be verified with closer review. Commission concurred with staff. 47. High Density (24 dwelling units per acre)/Commercial Office - Fuess - Downtown Area. Consensus of Commission - add note referring to #55. 48. Mountainous/Specific Plan Area - Outdoor Safaries, Inc. - Specific Plan Area 3 dwelling units per acre). Commission concurred with staff. 49. Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre )/General Commercial - Bramalea California, Inc. Commission concurred with staff. 50. Commercial Office/General Commercial - Markulis/Grimes. Discussion was held on the location, and the area designated General Commercial on the General Plan Map. Consensus of Commission to designate site General Commercial. 51. Medium Density Residential (12 dwelling units per acre)/ General Commercial - Moucka. Consensus of Commission - add note referring to #55. 52. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre)/Low Density (1- 2 dwelling units per acre) - Wilsey. - Consensus of Commission designate Low Density. Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 Page 9 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CCNTINU D 53. Specific Plan "G"/Law Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) and Tourist Commercial - specific Plan can address non- residential uses. Commission concurred with staff. 54. Limited Industry and Low Density Residential/Freeway Business - Courton. Commission concurred with staff. 55. Adopt Downtown Plan Land Uses. Commissioner Gilenson recommended the following corrections to the Downtown Area Plan Map: - Area, shaded yellow, currently designated Low Density be changed to Low Medium Density. - Change the Visitor Serving Commercial designation to Tourist Commercial, at each end of Main Street (Marina Area and Highway 15 Area), on the Downtown Area Map. Commission concurred with staff, change northwest area from Low Density to Low/Medium Density and add Tourist Commercial at each end of Main Street. 56. Southwest Area Community Plan Areas within the Sphere of Influence shall reflect, in the General Plan, the same designation as the Southwest Community Plan. Commission concurred with staff. 57. Low Medium Density/Business Park - Consultant Planner Smothers referred to the proposed General Plan Map, Highway 74 and Central, we think that the Business Park classification applied further out on Highway 74 should come across and fill that area, down to the General Commercial designation. Discussion ensued on the development of the area, and transition of uses. Commission concurred with staff. 58. Low Density/Country Club Heights Specific Plan - To evaluate possible Business Park uses. Commission concurred with staff. At this time, Chairman Saathoff recognized Mr. Carl Valente. Mr. Valente, bad Central Avenue, representing Sue Hamilton who owns property on Strickland, requested this property (A.P. # 377-360-003 and 004) be designated M-1, Industrial. Consultant Planner smothers responded that this area is within the Specific Plan for Country Club Heights. Staff would probably concur that this is the direction for that area, but it probably should be done as part of the specific Plan. The outflow Channel would remove this property from the Floodplain. Consultant Planner smothers commented on #13, raising the issue of Business Park on the extension of Nichols Road, where it comes through the Alberhill area. The island that was annexed, when Alberhill was annexed, was designated Low Density. In looking at the area, acknowledging what was done with area $29, we feel there ACE -1, 1,T E'� Nn. RAG:= 0'.17 __LL Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission MeetingL October 3, 1990 Page 10 GE?3ERAL PLAN REVISION CONTIMD is some logic in extending Business Park or that kind of use in that area. I would recommend that this area be incorporated into the Specific Plan for #13, and let the Specific Plan deal with everything out to Alberhill. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else in the audience wishing to address the Commission. Mr. Dick Knapp, commented on the request for a park for the Country Club Heights residents, part the park area would encompass the Least Bells Vireo area; presently the area is un -buildable -- floodplain area. Consultant Planner Smothers stated that since this is in the area of parks, and the General Plan really relies on the creation of a Master Parks Plan to locate parks, this has been passed on to the Community Services Director for review, as well. There is not an effort in the General Plan to specifically designate future park sites. Cornissioner Wilsey asked if this property is within the Specific Plan for Country Club Heights. Consultant Planner Smothers responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Brown stated that his concerns would be with a Specific Plan an entire re -alignment of Riverside Drive in that area; changing Gunnerson into a "T" intersection; location of a park site on two main thoroughfares. Commissioner Brown stated that the way the topography sits, envisions, possibly, High Density Residential or Commercial -- Commercial fronting directly on Riverside Drive, High Density Residential or Commercial behind it and possibly a park system, maybe where McBride crosses. At this time, Chairman Saathoff stated the Public Hearing on the General Pian will be continued to the close of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Chairman Saathoff reconvened the Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting at 7;12 p.m., and asked if there was anyone else in the audience wishing to address the Commission. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. Considerable discussion ensued on the Noise Element; whether or not the City should adopt a standard of 60-65 Idn, and the recommen- dat_on for the adoption of 60 ldn; construction parameters between 60-65 ldn; traffic volumes and projected volumes and the determi- nation that walls may be required to meet the 60 Idn standard, along the 1-15 corridor; if this would have an effect on the Airport --if the lower standard would shut down the Airport. Consultant Planner Smothers referred to *33 - editing change - definition of the Business Park classification --concern is how limiting the City would be with respect to commercial uses. Mr. Smothers referred to the last paragraph on page 11 out of the errata. This has the term that this land use category permits a limited amount of business --Commercial and Personal Services that directly serve users and employees of business parks. This tends to set an impression that you are going to allow very little comr.ercial. Staff's attitude is that through zoning you should create a list of permitted commercial uses. Discussion at the table ensued on the editing change, and personal services are allowed to directly serve those users. . J. PAGE ��% 0FA Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 Page 11 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED City Attorney Harper, commented on the editing change on #33 - and suggested the words "that directly" be deleted and replace with "specifically to serve". Consultant Planner Smothers stated that he received a request this evening, for an amendment to the plan, Cambern Avenue, northeast side of the freeway, the property owner is requesting this be designated as Industrial. Community Development Director Gunderman requested that staff be allowed to research this request, and address this at City Council level. Commission concurred. Chairman Saathoff asked if there were any other comments from staff, or if there was anyone in the audience that did not have an opportunity to address the Commission, and would like to do so at this time. Ms. Mariana Mohylyn, commented on pedestrian access in the Downtown Area. Chairman Saathoff asked if there were any other comments from the audience. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Chairman Saathoff asked for further discussion at the table on the General Plan. There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called for a motion. Moved by Commissioner Gilenson to recommend to City Council adoption of the General Plan, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4-0 Community Development Director Gunderman stated that a recommendation is also need for the Environmental Impact Report. Moved by Commissioner Gilenson to recommend to City Council adoption of the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4-0 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4-0 Respectfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary Approved, Bill Saathoff, Chairman KGE1_. OF - �� MINUTES OF HELD ON THE 3RD LAM ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION DAY OF OCTOBER 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brown, Wilsey and Saathoff ABSENT: Commissioners: Brinley Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, and City Attorney Harper. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve minutes of September 12, 1990 and September 19, 1990, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to address the Planning Commission, Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 26052 - Withrow Ranch, Inc./The Reith Companies - Community Development Director Gunderman presented a request to divide existing Tentative Tract Map 24213, consisting of 56.93 acres, into three (3) parcels for financing purposes. This tract of land is located north- westerly of Machado Street, at the terminus of Prince Street. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Larry Truman, Butterfield Surveys/The Reith Companies, commented on condition number 4, annex to the City's Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District. This is already a condition on the tract, can they annex at that time? Community Development Director Gunderman responded in' the affirmative. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for those opposed. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Gilenson requested that the following be added as condition number 5: Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 24213 shall be incorporated into this condition of approval. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that this map is for financing purposes and you can not place those conditions on this map, because there are conditions relevant to that tract and not acceptable under the Map Act for financing maps. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90-15 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 26052 based on the Findings and subject to the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4-0 pAGF / OF Minutes of Planning Commission October 3, 1990 Page 2 2. Conditional Use Permit 90-8 - Lake Elsinore Christian Fellowship - Chairman Saathoff stated the applicant has requested this item be withdrawn, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brown to accept withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit 90-8, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4-0 CONMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONERIS COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner wilsey Nothing to report Commissioner Brown Commented on Elsinore west Marina/Roadrunner being combined now and qu_te a bit of acreage/residents back there. I think we have only ane access --is this sufficient for emergency vehicle access. Asked for status of the triplex on Riverside Drive and Robertson. A brief discussion ensued on this triplex being in the abatement process. Chairman Saathoff Nothing to report. commissioner Brinley Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Cor -mission adjourned the Regular Meeting at 7:12 p.m. Motion by Con-missioner Wilsey, second by Commissioner Gilenson. App -roved 4-0 Respectfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary Approved, Bill Saathoff, Chairman AG=i :D �..�L' PAGE OF� CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 24, 1990 SUBJECT: ANIMAL CONTROL ACTIVITY REPORT Submitted By: Prepared by: R`chard �.atenpiag ' A e Washington Executive DirectorAMole Community Services Director Approved By: yk City Manager BACKGROUND Attached is the lnimal Friendsntrol (L E.AcFl)lty for the�monthas reofreOctobere Lake Elsinore Anima 1990. In addition, Ann Washington, Executive Director for L.E.A.F., has included updates on several pending items; i.e., adopted Golden Retriever (report attached), and budget breakdown (attached). It should also bnoted that is continuing to resolve issues with the local RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the Animal Control Activity Report for the month of October, 1990. RJW/mj AGEUMA E i EM ",•4❑ ice. y"',-v,..y; •3�.'._-^gin', a;''•-._ _ iw_' _ - _ - _ - _ F•-• n• Ftp--S.��-•�' ��aw�� -_ '..!.. f•:..�� - _ � �"--}�' --_-_ .. � _ - '• _ _ .-- _. y �•}`•�. •.}.� y +Y� 4 a+•S -.'yL i Lxz �ar'Y•,�=' E _:���.��'w_ i•-+�.-�, . __ _ _ _ Ste. -+ ;�.=sy` _ .•.7� .. i7� •_ _ - _4-T.• ^a^: - _ _ _ - - - J ...r fir=* -�t�'. .-ir+'uts! i� - v, ^ _ ,.•-_ t.-• LIMP Tixs• =N"•- y! .t�- )� _ xM �S S� jRr-,�r.� T•L... _ �`aa ,.''�� F- 51Y, .i�. .�'�.h`'- - .•1' ±, �'.:{?�•_��_.,a•"r _�•"X1-��i��. ;�a �. ..Tyr'' •+�''�; v..� .N..+ r��i R� � -,-...•..1 .. --�sl•._:iY:` � .,,. :•r-•",.��•-=u`;,�� ESS.... 7'�•Si.� " �` �` - Ta`. w7•e=a::�•. _- _ :��:'_ _ iy-- .:;i'�� ^.s,. ;'•'�;ti2xrY• :-} - - - _--'�•�=Y.--••�,,,w._ r1?¢ W .,w�4sv: - -f ^''d"�.` _ .r fT}• .r. '.'� � � •- a. -e' i-' ��::- _�_ I'- _ �/ Ft cs?,�4�it�t. ii .• .Y ��.�� ��•,�- '�� nr ��. : i � .� J i'r �'i°�.�: il:`-r•i I'- rIf, _: �i.r ': - _ y •� �.-�i: `%�.+-�'Cr"• _ *. • •,•r'_•• -,s�- �'r'ci •.;�?'•• '3'a,-`'a:C:'' a:4; -yN:�'L'=: -::rsr:'rs;,. �r T -.L- :'.ANIMAL CDH `µ:?:" R ,,•; :-, _ TR0LJ'ACTIVITY REPORT SEPTEf'�9ER MONTH - - AUGUST ... SEPTEMBER YEAR �� _ - r -:: 'x= DATE .. CAL15 RESPONDED - -� �z..,': 7228 bDG •-8IT£5-�REPCRT£p�°'''�'?.��� _ .-� h.•7 - - _ . _._ _ _ 26 SO zt— yt "v_ s •.• i:�'� �'� ■.. 7ri,• ■'s .,■• . •-r•..r • .+.a-: s� •_:-'r'25• ••;,,_ 7 sF IIARANTINE' EEL EAS E& � T'�,_;s=;��= :-CITATIONS ISSUED:;';'.. •-.^+ -. ~ L . ._-i4ti. _Y•r �: - �- . _ .. _ r ���-��s:�IQLATIflNS TSSVin . {--:n.:.w��.,�.� ,.,. , '------ ----- 335 ,t= '•Ti1RHEI't�+.4....-r�s'�;•k�+i:•.L-,:�.�. �i:�+ ►}r� A'�' ycf:r " i5pi :Dy •D• l[ a.y�i r±-. r.. -.y. -i .3 "Y- _.:2-7�i�..- .LJS-l•-r�';��6F ;-�R +'w+.+'i.n • fa a .i+■ r':a -:■ .■ y . w • ■:n • t -.: {.i•r �'= q .r�-'r�. :..4- :'•'. �..s7•-� 5•..�•!�:-�?r'�• �`i 3J � •. �'�'�,•?�:• s+rSti'�;y Mf••'� r .�� 1���7 155 RR WN ESS .,.: -,• �.,.:� ' _. 6 •- - �; _- - 8 220 -:+r, •�■'T=, -. +vv ;�. �/ ± ►.++� •:( a a r..y . 74 'Y . -;:.:Y. 5� rf..:�'� �., - DV f ~F ^�fii��':•...:�"YJ. :ti`.•"-- r W;7--7 _- - - _ _ -- r�� . y7 •. • - u.. s_ • _- ;��OGS;` SUTHANIZED- J` . r�� r- w = �' _ - • . .:. �' -330 �.;='_ 315 i-' .•K.L• �JY Z �;'� _'Y.�~Liy�- •:� -■ �--�••+�• •�� 2353 'i.i :�Y�•_l 4:DtAD `�I1�G5 -.P £D= -13P.' IN "C T3� •1f] -3B 'LIMITS CATS ;TURNED .N :RY. O:3 THER.' ' ;"a' .. :':' . �` 160 147 1416 -CATS. Im' 'poU.NDEp. 19g -_g_ 1444 ,AAs:TTSS"'AR.•�bE:-LOPtTAnES: EI�,'�`-'_ �a�yi`;�Ef=iR_�;.-Si�-'•a;.�: ■..�' ��.:, `�_,}.•�-.�:■... .<i. •a. .• ' •�...,.-.:.r,.r■_.._ . .r .•.' �- - D . ��..::�- -�.� �• ,. 3o1p _ ti -• =7:;:.;-' . -.. l k 28 �tAT5, JU RAND��� ��:�c j r.x��� rte' - : •.,•. 4^r►. i _.�i a s''a + •,::• 3412667 - - IiEA3Pal;IN'rCITY-.-:Lt ;TS.. '.:�:':, g - -.- •° �� �� r-�:�_:i ^-�� r'�fr.�.�� S :,a�..s�s �:� kSs.a:. � .-- r-'d•J� -. _ �• .:. _ r:• S �� .� �3�- = -_�'i. -, •_ "' �: ir I MA`s} ►+�• µ"3's ae: _.:;;_ _ _ e -� �:�1 rM•■�._ � ���'F�1�'A�i i1r��.••�7S D'�Y'�tii •Tfi-.��si`'i'-".1�_-'.c: �.. :..----'-----''#�"-`3!.ykfa+r.=.,:_�s,.s.�-�.� - �...._�"?ysr'�:tr.� jit - �a •fir-`+�•-, 'yr "'''S� - '�- ^'.+�. - *';; _ = : � : vii fir- �`�� . • • � � ;.�•�''-�•�'•�'� - �: Jam•+`+. ��.v�Y -..:y;.a 7' 'T`:_`:'•s'-^�i•:+." ._.i-�.:r:� •y:FG-�i�-1��.p: i YF� •.�.�,•.:`:,L! ,��v • rye ... _ •'.i%' -'��+i;L' l;r rte'-__ • '�?•''' _ M'.i •�►s�i=• 3� �. � 3%':i-•6•t1•s^ o.': =�.� :'FiV':'?i. r :,. + O E``'RR- • ....,�.' �i'q 4 • r _�� i -v s a.�•��. tils�x =G 1'' vy. x 7� - .may . ��► �:x.. no: ter• _�•:�.`l :+ r7.T3� .RSR S •j I _ LSF F 1C@ PUUP1S Gf Its L-AVU 12,-1 -LWQ U i a furl 1 • .+ .•+y,+ ••+ ••••••••••.•� �• • —!7 � - - - —'-: "-rt- :rJ..yit _t*.;� r==.:-• .. �-r. -'.. .. :'- - ,,,,- is r' -� :.. ., -_- _• - - '--••• -' - ... .. - - 'ri "?"'"rY 3} 'Animal held 5 (five)' full days as a stray and 2 (two) additional days -for adoption. . -�- �4)l Animal adopted on 7th (seventh) day. r Approximately one Week later shelter received call from old owners. 7h2y wasp informed that it appeared their dog Was here as a stray, kept the local amount of days and Was adopted into a good home. They asked the shelter to contact the new owners and ask if they Would be grilling -, to give the dog back. L.E.A.F. called the new owners, talked With them at lencht and found that they were not willing to give up the dog. _They were very attached to and happy with the animal. L.E.A.F. called '-7- the old owners and gave them that information. Approximately 3 (three) weeks after the adoption, the old owners att=_ -orney contacted L.E.A.F. and requested that we once again call the new r :owners of the dog. Their position remained the same. , They feel that;'Y r' .they came to the shelter _and in good faith adopted a dog for their._.F71-, T, , .:family. They stated they and their grandaughter are very attached teJ. ' �. hd the dog and would be heartbroken if they_had to give it up.'`'""= �~Y -.'-7) Our situation' is that we held the dog for the required! timeL!e then ti leaailly adopted this dog -to its new owners. We have informed the old s- "•" owners and their attorney of the new owners pc_�.tion. We now willhave to let them settle the mattzr. AGENDA ITEM NOS O PAGE F. _. T LEMENTAL INVESTIGATION REPORTA�;! IMPOUND a 1ANGE COUNi; N 4q THCARE AGENCY. ou BLIC HEALTH & MEDICAL SERVI GLATION (Sec. Ciwo ow Ord. tie. ww Wine)-- �,r TYPE OF VI TER tN A RY PUBLIC HEALTH D'� I Imay ti -A slu-zooft South, Otaft_qw.'Cql if.. ;•'•. "i M - ;;V-4. .QTMEX 'f,_' '3 fiA CITATION 1 r�—,rawT'42 111 K; I? M-1 F! �_-4 7j ANIMAL OWNER. L, ADDRESS end ZIP COVE PHO 9 4_111 fu A VICTIM Q COMPLAINANT _5USP CT •!y,rA ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS WITHESS(es) QVICTIM(s) T .-C3 4HIMALOWNER COMPLAINAN (a) �;l TAKEN AND ATTACHED by 0wck)'. OTHER 49 TT . : Se ."I*d (3) Indicate Como or approz imate, To[ation (S)'. tim,efs), anj 4. of Y' :'(4) zd4itiomai derail (S) related to incident (9 onif occwrronce(z) :_-451 CWE$TGCK IMPOUND (s),';VjR_C'w'Q "'(1) and 4� '. , for! Viinessfes), i" su"'marite related iml tion,- Inalgc&t* - - - 11 . orwa Pfef1xq_"*14.­ - —I pt�2' i jf,;� �'.! .74 W�k' 46� TiiLs', _5 WAI fl. 7- E: _PE4_ejAPj'6� �4/ 4e 4 t f-4' s' j= - P k5e2 Q/ 411A x iflpnef sil ('q111 ;fkfess rC. z4 jnL� rz-1 t) P A .Is. I rT-P-'j - SuPoW�14or Approving Re..&. By • Doi. end 7ame AdVifieftol Copies To AGENDA ITEM -NQ Sk PAGE OF "Volk. J. LS new RM Li OL r f9 ak �C7 IL 7 20 Its 4. _4 Z. - I r 23 Tk 4 PI 65 11A All Sw AP 27 28 _Ccl 40 11 29 30 31 A2 ld lia, < 1AA- 4EI(37 D e 33 3 r-12AIAJ ;AJ 4 34 f 1)42 r7 3 36 1, Li r 4�' 37 41 od 36 C. 39 I'LL C6 40 6JO e A AA) '21 42 -43 44 ASENBA PAGE OF '• �� : :moi_ - `-.''' : •'sem � �„iy��w '•,' _ _ ..t _ va +�'�wl - - � r+�." ���.. R ��' "i're?•�•:9 :sc'�Crh i'�i •,:�.: �'_ _ �iJ•i _ •sr•--•� C �'{`+'•�'�i;• v$lti••.:� yam++ +''� r ' =• �' , _ • � v' ; � f ���:.•�'�.'�.�'4�'�'1a>�: ''3: 7t��'S' : �rn. '�! H i ^ -_; •s'=�ic 'r- 9r` i' ,3.'� �`� '•.� .;#r•C _ .• •:v.� ¢aat;.' C,•1;+Y,y r:.:ai �•'�• 7it.e �„. }.:.. I g �•� .+� ry nil •.1- � +'�'ir7irxr� r •%'i'�� t � "y� •. �. ;;f •r. •,�.y z r: `"� ''= rx`j'�w�; y �,- ;.: 'f'��1::•.:z-•w..'�tyd= ' :;ti"�•7,• � .r%r;s.2.j.fna��' � . �:- kms' �;�'. `: .r 20 i'�r�4:..w=.+%C �-f�.��.. �• N.i e� sC�'.Cl.r. ..Y i. '��' ..r �� � 'f•+•,�,y�_� •�•r� �.� 22 23 21 Z � ' � i�^,•^: ti_ � �{e- .'icL. � . ✓��` =ry7i� r.`.--. • � z'L/L.1 �� r --• .� :} � . s _ .. � �`t�. •24.- ;.-�-. � .r;,�` ��;� .r�•�--•'� "y ���: '.� • .z��. yam• � �� `uy •! • - _ . A F vi 26 -27 >4 j++ ! I - - k ....r`'="•fir .r .•�.;` _ 'rte J�' :. n'j� L.4�n 1.4 �ax,ii ��./Sc�LR ::' _ wi'. 28 Coo 29 30 31 T'LY f To -34 �� L� �` kl .36 A se r 37r o., j , 39 40 � �`�(r� S 1L� C L. � '[ir 1� 1 �`/''I�.-•4�] �l� --� L 1 %_ r � �� �� L41 YV 42 43 44 AGENDA ITEM NO.' = ' r • TIS r �:' r^♦ifs+, n ! s Etr'- •'1r'�'='�'.' �'�,"�•; :'fi.. :3_',. i�, - .•4•"y'".'•. 'tf:- S� "U ,� d :.. Ste• r�. �� . ajY '�q 1, h w'i d`:^Cn.- '�,s Y ySt Y��s.�i• �i -.' i4_ ....,e low, Z•,rJ yr . �- : 3'����i :� S. S_ {ts�.7� �.T•��'s ,�:��:�-•C•r� % ti—• a _ ��• -- 20 Z'y 21'i s_�r�� • ,,�� � •;4 '- � ...; _:, 'i ' .: tr.,� cae : , xsy .? - - '-i •~ . +'`a.' �w.S�•..'•=+,.�,, 6 AS Air � I _ ,_ 22 _ � •i.' �;�: �' i y �. • .ley � rc .4�:'A�'��' Sly i:.,°a'-'E`v- �•..r '. --T�,. Y, Y.s' w� �;' _ :�� .,..-�;.�_ "': sly" .•-•• �• - 'r- •x.` !•� .,c :.,• '� .acn :Y �..:; .:•�,!•� ti: ='�'!s 26 Y -li } fy %a.•r_e1;;i'�+•:.`r'L•,,}� ,,�,.i��%>;r�.;_+ / 1�-�JM�•,.`Gt�/!'1 t/ •� � ��) Ate. � TT 111 f / •.`•yam r �%.�• � : �C . Y'y.'!%' 1-�.a • a i .'i i �`-• e=_`�•}'s � l�. 1 3 � 29 32 - -a,:7W 0� � - �'iA 114 0 f� 2. I Ili �L� 4f ,7 ,t � r- ! 33 34 35 PEttj Gt �4,8 �7 4R[_Ef y 37 36 39 /� [ / � /� _ � ` r ^ {-�Y -fir �,�J•�r_f; ..� .r T _ ,���iC !`� tf 40 f 141 / i` la �Z?, r^l•'� i� i I. r'`• C C� �-1l-� /,/ I} r �• i� r �r� /rte �T! ! �r� ��"��'T I f�� Y/ !� 7 -ti AA 1, c.' AI -�7 FW­ .i� 7 . .7 chl ;O.V WE 7 w '..' q�STIG-ATIORRET PPL 2 NF L EPOR DATE &,TIME lt�pr!� I DATE E (Occurred) j ASE GE COUNTY HEALTH CARE CARE AGENCY URLIC HEALYN & MEDICAL- SERVICES VETERINARY PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION 561 cl7 Drive S". Orange, C;OM 8 66 f.e�'. TYPE OF VIOLATION (Soc., C94 os� Ord. No. and Def inQ "J` air �_H fi'-� *phone 634-7301 �.. �.d w.�i't_S:�s=t_-_i: _,;.T_':a_��_ l' '. ;' •>��$�R..,��.q:.-xr: .. �=-��`{�'-z� _ T ", 71 •�F F. !+,-.! •CITATION �_��: �r;'y' _rY_•' _fy:a :��. �::..: �,,y qui ANIMAL OWNER.- .-W4. RES. (w) BUS.- ADDRESS and ZIP CODE (indicate R—B) q* PHONE R-5 -u+; VICTIM COMPLAINANT SUSPECT ir AOL J_ ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS WITHESS(es) Q VICTIM(:). R/P N). -:'ANIMAL OWNER TAKEN AND ATTACHED -(Wm=m by C," OTHER- 0' NONE ( a e-s-Cribe' witnessed 40- 1) Reconstruct incident (2) D w4t essed evidcnc� and indicate I e4ede"ct is in-formili'On6l, 'f"-' m tuck info­m�0'1304 was accepted (3) Indicate correct or approximate location (s), time (s), and dote (s) of occurrence (s),- and briefly describe such occurrence (s) and disposition(s).1A4) Summarize additionolJetail (s) related to incidents) and occurrence (s):-­(a..jjVESTOCK IMPOUND (s) 'indicatis R/P (s) and (or) witness (es), and summarize related information. indicate reporting, starting, arrivin Completing letin g time(s). _4 -Z - 76 A - DETAILS 'Pi - 1Y rn -0(2 L=LCL 0 tj �Ll T -F -T -4 4i, 1-7c7d9 1, 'C� jjj;2.4E� P_ C. onnuE 6—Af 0 -A xorl ,2 14 U�2_0 0S, 14 4r 4t_A A k) is investigating A.C.O. N Supervisor Appeoving Review By Dot* and Time Additional Copies To MI F272-22.21.12; (7/78) �L int 9p•� fi.: .. � .. ";�: F: irti �'-"." �- "y�. � 1 �,�i! s��� lti -. ., .:r�.:•^! pl y� n�,�1�x �:r��i-�'i�i '!� 3 .►•i. �iY.Yr-...-t.Y �v. _ Y'�t -vr-• -. ?C {-:.. �,�_ <f:":'R'SS?IC'yj'��.•a�+a�T•,f�'`;�?5�n �..",''�••�i�;[' i:" � �"? r4.��,5_.' «� • ;.ic`• .15,0' '�.ti�„w'S� _ _ --. V�.• J� � � � Y$`3!i����µ ��,� `: �'Sy �•'�_�:'r'� • �$��� >i-6'��;�.�•�_ ' - • �' `ter •'�`'•'7� _ • �. ... Sy"�}x ::�.1!'d a-i7� L-; �INNVETAIU S {i _- r� � -_ • y>.:,+ - rte' - ��'.'" .a.:'� �•�,r. � -�..'- 18 4 .; • 211 22 23ILL' 14. 1-0 ". � -yam• s L j j r. 1 �'t- _ � y .�. -i 'fir 26 -1 e � t I .-5. • ! ` 27 r . 28 LIP+ 29 f( -- ~-- r(,�1 1 _ - � n. 31 h 32; ^ Pr 33�- �, �. 34 r 35 fta 441 I } f '] .� . i Ap�L_�+2 37 peS Ake ,\ Q 40 J 42 ��� 1-1 X ' 43 1 '-�' 44 �� F)� A f o)'::7 1 PAGE OF ► _=. .i r v- = x+J Kl.•-. # -'+ F-: I S : - Li - rte^ +� �• Y• � s A�I NiSs. [.. , x"i�.`� •. '" .:.� � , a r• ': � ca.• .svK•�rr= ' +'-�,_ _ �7 .ti -� +� �r'•�rT ,,, ri L7�> •z G1 -T r`w �� H T.. 1�j��p! .��' .;4::� . ��. b. �. 1-c �• • Y " i�•:i.. .: •..��:.KwT. . rf. �%�Y.y :.r?y. ".}: L�'�`y .ru1��. T•�.C'::ii.-ir. `i. •r;�� Y �L� eye •,�L.�� .Y { • Y - ;F - a./i.•; K ili.�•`A•.. r �' . 7�.r :.+.Y'�. _ _ 2Yr[ _ •Y_', 3t"';i.�' . ; � '.:VL z.`- •^- ,i�..r:r^�I'i�'a .Y f_ y' f.ey.F•2 '• v_.... .� ._� . :"�- .,.�c�`::< . `. 3•�yCityYk;.�..-•{..,��..'��'s::.•+t:i" ..a:S'e'C'- • "r` �••rqr�- ' -Y-Lake:E�sinorermat friends -•F c.R .. _: °; ,.,�= post Dffice •Boy X143 s _ ,:"� �. 1. t._: Lake Sinoref CA 9330 (714) 674-0618 ••S' : .�..�"-yF• _ - _ .,f`::: - '} r$:�'i yR�: ,� •.fix:•- f-;•;�.. .a'��•,-". �w'y;��%k':. r• Y :' TF.ti{ :C r:R.a f' L y,•. - iJ": V _ _ S� k ►e'er- V - WA- .ti 7 - �{., rte}•- ve._ - '•f 7 T . �PITY ••t3FLAKE ELSIAIQRE PORTION ',OF LE.A.F. ExPE'SES I'IONTHL`'' ' • i �'-; -. �•j- ��. -. - a ::i = t � • ter. a++c - _ SAR 41 7• .ti.• • .a :;��. : �i"F ` •' •i it Y'3r:�.s -.^ h'ti.. L J�, r:L t •!,r!�a°•m, 'ii.'s.r B-S:,ea{ -:- ' ti•...:. ?.;:.• ::}{ s..,�rfir..r]r�:s•rw_":K .��r�=F:i""-.�,.:4;: .:;�9 3 CitYo Lake Elsinore J_ viarz! availin aS aiaer1c themselv' `+/Z C6unty dnimals_shel.srad"ai ,}�f.Y' :.i%r� au+�'_.�. a"'�,"-�•f: . -- ��L�-�.� '."4.:,'r�i�''�- f•:.",L-:��-•a•'€_•"`'��n{•�._ .. :�:�f.Z ;-..�.+-;.a'�::� '.��:'1:.:`..:i::„ =.���r:. '_�:•�•.-.',�..�� _. . �. •:.� �;'•� �- ,- '[5, :r.. �s I •Y�4:.^.)4 foe - ' - �z=i�'..., , :.5, �f :7 `a ;..•y►:�� f s!��-'• -=r ,'p- :�,:,. ,�_ :•-.�:"�'.=-�•��•,rYY 11yy •}fit•' :µ-.,; ZU!''� iji'• •�, �'- _ ... ' 4 .1 'w'. .. �.• =i.2 _ ..i~7f'=~Y•�':.'��..:1! e �.9" �??��� i1..C��'S`e � - ^»"1....L Salaries 2 =Animal 'Control Officsrs ..: < = Af ter hours calls , . - . - - »:�=150. QO .. •�,.' �"��� � ` - _� . �"=r��-: " Salary ex enses - -. J'% ='324.00 31 T4.�0 :Administrative Supervisor $1558==: _ - Salary expense -187,00 _ $1"^ 5.CJ0" ;.: nnei Person t1 of 3Be[)88�] 0 :L �4e_=- . i z- "r'�, Salary expense 105.00 - Of "ice Person (1 of 3} $ 960.0[ Salary expense 115.00 - $1075.00 . 'Vehicle maintenance and gas " $ 310.00 •Insuranca- 270.00 $ 580.00 Pagers for Animal Control Officers $ 50.00 i113 of totalltilities - _ - Jelsohone :':_ _ �: $ 143.00 Electric and Wate: 2fl0.OD $� 343.00 1/3 Kennel and office operating • ._ supplies $ 652.D0 $ 692.00 _ 1/3 Repair and'ms_ntenance 31100 ;11.00 +. - • 1/3 Animal food - - 750.00 - � r' 750 . QO 913 Animal disposal �= r- f. 72 00 ` - _ t - "_ .F _e�`•-" _ `,' 72.00 9/2 Accounting services Veterinarian emergency care ��=. >v _ - _ " • . •�:. ' - _��. $9952.00Tota1 Monthly Expenses •-- - _ -- :;�;�:�.•--r -Income from City $5161.00 .Expenses $9952.00 Licenses1236.00 City Inccme 7097.00 ImFound and board fees 660.00 Total income $7097.00 Deficit - $2855.00 -{ A GENDA ITEM N0: #'AGE -+-=0f I CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE MONTHLY REPORT OF INVESTMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1990 INTEREST DATE MATURITY RATE PURCHASED DATE AMOUNT LOCAL AGENCY INVEST FUA@ 8.333% DAILY GOVERNMENT BACKED SECURITIES - NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL HOME MORTG. CO. 8.000% 02-09-87 GOV. NATIONAL MORTG, ASS. 8.000% 05-17-88 24-HOUR $4,100,000 06-01-16 211,316 11-15-00 94,398 305,714 CITY INVESTMENT TOTAL 4,405,714 AVERAGE ANNUAL RATE....... 8.31% ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES - OCTOBER 1990 $ 800,000 **Will meet anticipated expenditures AGENDA ITEM NO, —3,. RAGE —I— OF .AKE ELSINORE ;MAND/WARRANT REGISTER NO. 91-041 PAYEE DETAIL OF DEMANDS PRESENTED DESCRIPTION �. A. EQUIPMENT RENTAL CO.I - Z BUS SALES 4CE LOCK & KEY 4MERICAN EXPRESS CO. 4PPLE ONE ARBOR PRO TREE SERVICE BALLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. DONALD BANFIELD BIG AL OIL CO. CYNTHIA BLOOD -WILSON BOB BOONE PAM BRINLEY S.S.I. CONSULTANTS, INC. WILLIAM S. BUCK .C.C.E. & L.S. CALIF. BOARD OF EQUALIZATIO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION CALIF. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPME STATE COMPENSATION INSURANC CA. STREET MAINTENANCE INC. CAPITOL LEASING CO. DIANNA CARROLL ACCOUNT CHG'D I INV. NO. PAGE NO. 1 DATE 10/15/90 WARRANT CHECK WRITTEN AMOUNT NO. AMOUNT 20882 55.16 2088 332.00 2088 26.69 2088. 112.50 20886 1164.80 2088 3250.00 2088 5329.86 20889 200.00 20890 3002.88 20891 12322.00 20892 50.00 20893 250.00 20894 18637.82 0895 500.00 ac 896 355.00 * 20897 14.20 20898 533.71 20878 2745.33 20871 7691.64 0899 1170.00 0900 161.94 0901 51.20 ITEM LAKE ELSINORE DEMAND/WARRANT REGISTER NO PAYEE HER DETAIL OF DEMANDS PRESENTED DESCRIPTION 91-041 COM SER CO. CORONA INLAND FIRE EGUIPMEN' DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIF. E.V.M_W.D. E.V.M.W.D_ EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUPPLY,: ELSINORE OFFICE PRODUCTS -ELSINORE PIONEER LUMBER CO. ELSINORE READY MIX CO., INC. ELSINORE VALLEY RENTALS EXPRESS BLUEPRINT INC. FRA SERVICES INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. FIRST TRUST BANK FLAIR DATA, INC. FONTANA PAVING, INC. FRED'S ELECTRIC G.T.E.L_ GENERAL TELEPHONE CO. TONY GILENSON aLOBAL ACCOUNT CHO'D I INY. NO PAGE NO. 2 DATE 10/15/90 WARRANT CHECK WRITTEN AMOUNT I NO. AMOUNT 0902 165.98 0903 159.11 0904 534.2220 0905 4233.55 0906 3758.19 0907 319.69 0908 22054.75 0909 444.51 0910 678.72 0911 1076.29 0912 49.50 0913 163.11 0914 262.50 0915 31.00 0875 20903.51 0916 1018.80 0917 291.53 0918 727.50 0919 190.22^8 0920 1651.05 0921 250.00 e09221 74.18 AGEN A ITEM 0. G>= OF LAKE ELSINORE :MAND/WARRANT REGISTER NO. 91-041 PAYEE DETAIL OF DEMANDS PRESENTED DESCRIPTION GOLDEN OFFICE TRAILERS, INC. JOE A. GONSALVES & SON DAVID A. GUNDERMAN BROWN,HARPER,BURNS,6 HENTSC HEWLETY PACKARD COMPANY HEWLETT PACKARD CO. HINKLEY & SCHMITT HOMESTEAD LAND DEVELOPMENT I.C.M.A. RETIREMENT TRUST I.I.M.C. J & R LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE JOBS AVAILABLE JOHN'S SERVICE CENTER KACHINA ENGINEERING VICKI LYNN KASAD RONALD F. KIRCHNER KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES KOBATA ASSOCIATES, INC. L. E. DOWNTOWN BUSINESS LAKE ELSINORE AUTO PARTS LAKE ELSINORE AUTO RECONDITI CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ACCOUNT CHO'D I INV. NO. 1 AMOUNT PAGE NO. 3 DATE 10/15/90 WARRANT CHECK WRITTEN NO. AMOUNT 0923 240.18 0924 22000.00 092S 300.00 0926 10289.93 0927 2615.09 0928 2239.12 0929 25.25 0930: 105.00 087G 1393.77 '0931 65.00 !0932 5882.64 ".0933 278.15 !0934 103.00 '.0935 5065.00 ?0936 204.07 ?0937 99.60 ?0938 5160.49 ?0939 100.00 ?0940 5295.70 20941 2590.03 20942 948.50 20874 57264.67 P.vcivE-IT E"�5 0. F' 'icE OF LAKE ELSINORE DEMAND/WARRANT REGISTER NO. 91-041 PAYEE :NER DETAIL OF DEMANDS PRESENTED D. DESCRIPTION LAKE ELSINORE LOCK d KEY LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED LAKE ELSINORE VALLEY SENIOR LAKESIDE CHEVROLET, INC. MBC CONSTRUCTORS LTD MCCUTHEON, DEBBIE METROMEDIA PAGING SERVICES RON MOLENDYK MORROW PLUMBING N. C. R. CORPORATION NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM R. J. NOBLE COMPANY THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER PACIFIC IRRIGATION SUPPLY, I PACTEL CELLULAR - LA PACTEL CELLULAR - LA { PACTEL CELLULAR - LA SILL PAYNE AMBER POULTER THE PRESS ENTERPRISE PRESTIGE ASSOCIATES,INC. DB PRICE SECURITY SYSTEMS ACCOUNT CHG'D I INV. NO. i AMOUNT PAGE NO. 4 DATE 10/15/90 WARRANT CHECK WRITTEN NO. AMOUNT 20943 43.92 ?-0944 990.00 20945 5525.00 ?0946 33180.21 10947 118458.00 1.0948 500.49 10949 58.00 10954 465.00 10951 165.81 :0952 112.37 '0868 569.00 '0953 1560.00 0954 4210.40 0955 470.23 0956 278.19 0957 208.47 0958 26.03 0959 100.00 0960 292.00 0961 1077.07 0962 6S9.39 09631 16622.50 AGEND 1 ITEM Or LAKE ELSINORE DEMAND/WARRANT REGISTER NO. 91-041 PAYEE DETAIL OF DEMANDS PRESENTED DESCRIPTION PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY LINDA PTOLEMY PERS-BOARD OF ADMINISTRATIO PERS-BOARD OF ADMINISTRATIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT QUAST TREE SERVICE, INC. QUILL CORPORATION RAMSEY BACKFLOW d PLUMBING MARGARET RIEDER RIVERSIDE COUNTY FEDERAL COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE - OFFIC 'RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE - SHERI RODRIGUEZ DISPOSAL CO. PHYLLIS ROGERS SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. DAVID W. SAPP SECURITY PACIFIC NAT'L BANK SECURITY PACIFIC NAT'L BANK SECURITY PACIFIC NAT'L BANK SEERS LUMBER ACCOUNT CHG'D I INV, Na PAGE NO. 5 DATE 10/15/90 WARRANT CHECK WRITTEN AMOUNT NO. AMOUNT 20964 497.90 2096S 46.00 20966 63.92 20870 19769.33 20869 2193.92 20967 6420.25 20968 1.06 20969 110.00 20970 64.00 20877 2866.56 20971 2550.31 20879 30.00 20734 5014.08 20972 256.80 20973 1103.75 0974 400.00 0975 1622.37 0976 52.89 0977 28.222 0978 248.13 20979 15.18 0980 37.94 N0._ 4 LAKE ELSINORE DEMAND/WARRANT REGISTER NO. 91-041 PAGE NO. DATE 10/15/90 ,HER 0. PAYEE DETAIL OF DEMANDS PRESENTED WARRANT CHECK WRITTEN DESCRIPTION ACCOUNTCHG'D INV. NO. AMOUNT NO, AMOUNT SELF'S JANITORIAL SERVICE 20981 3330.00 * SETOPQ NAME PLATE CORP. 20982 495.81 * SHAMROCK SALES 6 SERVICE 20983 283.04 * GREGCRY K. SMITH 0984 15550.00 * SUSAN SORIA 20985 400.00 * SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON C 20986 581.82 * SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON C 20987 9.90 * SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20988 515.00 * SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. 0989 44.54 * STANDARD INSURANCE 0733 1315.2225 * STANDARD INSURANCE 0867 38.40 * SILL STARKEY 20990 500.00 * STEVE'S AUTO PARTS 20991 709.77 * TEMECULA VALLEY PERSONNEL 20992 600.00 * THOMAS TEMPS 20993 2393.50 * RUSSELL TOURVILLE CONSTRUCTI 0994 4900.00 * TRAMS/AIR MANUFACTURING CORP 20995 57.64 * U. P. S. 20996 40.59 * U. S. AUTO GLASS, INC. e0997 101.61 * JOHN UNSWORTH e0998 57.50 * GARY WASHBURN 20999 600.00 * RICHARD WATENPAUGH 21000 100.00 AGENDA ITEM NO. — ma GEOF LAKE ELSINORE :MAND/WARRANT REGISTER NO. 91-0 PAYEE DETAIL OF DEMANDS PRESENTED DESCRIPTION JEST COAST WINDOW CLEANING JESTERN HIGHWAY PROD., INC. JESTLAKE MEDICAL GROUP JHITNEY MACHINERY WILLDAN ASSOCIATES -PLANNING JIM WINKLER RAY WOOD ASSOCIATES RAY WOOD ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY ZUMAR INDUSTRIES WILLDAN ASSOCIATES- ENGR. KNIGHT PRINTING & COPY CENT UNION -TRIBUNE PUBLISHING ALL AMERICAN HEATING KEYE PRODUCTIVITY CENTER THE HEMET NEWS THE HEMET NEWS D. W. JENSEN CORPORATION CITY OF COACHELLA SAN DIEGO AREA CHAPTER -ICBG RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT URBAN LAND INSTITUTE ACCOUNT CHG'D i INV. NO. PAGE NO. 7 DATE 10/15/90 WARRANT CHECK WRITTEN AMOUNT NO. AMOUNT 3 21001 665.00 21002 1482.62 21003 140.00 Z1004 5351.41 2100E 8152.00 2100 500.00 2100 38225.00 2100 400.00 21009 273.89 21010 3249.45 21011 944.00 21012 132.37 aloll 896.04 21014 138.38 2101 E 99.00 21016 997.60 0866 457.52 21017 11101.3.6 20873 60.00 21018 15.00 2101 487500.00 21020 120.00 ITEM0. ;E OF LAKE ELSINORE DEMAND/WARRANT REGISTER NO. 91-041 PAYEE CHER DETAIL OF DEMANDS PRESENTED 10. DESCRIPTION ACCOUNTCHO'D INV. NO. 'ROD ANDERSON AMERICAN EXTERMINATOR CO. HARRINGTON d SONS INC. MYERS TIRE SUPPLY CO. PAGE NO. 8 DATE 10/15/90 WARRANT CHECK WRITTEN AMOUNT NO. AMOUNT 0872 91.80 * 1021 50.50 * 1022 794.00 * 1023 958.12 * AGENDA lrr9M �1D PAG Of LAKE ELSINORE DEMAND/WARRANT REGISTER NO. 91-041 I PAYEE ER Itl DETAIL OF DEMANDS PRESENTED DESCRIPTION ACCOUNTCH3'D INV. NO. RECAP BY FUND GENERAL FUND 100 LIGHTING/LANDSCAPE DISTR 130 PARK CAPITAL PROJECTS FU 221 L.E.T.S. FUND 4S0 OTHER FUNDS 999 PAGE DATE AMOUNT I NO. RITTEN REPAID CCRUED OTAL RE -PAID 120018.79 22349.222 .00 36.77 .00 NO. 9 10/15/90 WARRANT CHECK WRITTEN AMOUNT ACE:! -!A IT '.4 ?:0 PA r 63 8393322.21 122404.78 .00 961736.99 RITTEN 176311.23 24769.00 18774.56 3492.92 615984.50 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1990 SUBJECT: REQUEST TO CO-SPONSOR "MISS FRONTIER DAYS" Prepared by: PApproved By: R chard J aten a Ron Mole dyk Community Services Director City Manager BACKGROUND The Lake Elsinore Chamber of Commerce has requested the City of Lake Elsinore co-sponsor the annual Miss Frontier Days Pageant for 1991. Their request is to use the Lake Community Center, waive all fees, absorb the cost of sheriff deputies, if needed, have the City, through its Community Services Department, include the pageant application in its recreation program brochure, and absorb any additional costs. The request to waive all fees for use of the Lake Community Center was previously addressed for any activity sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce in the Lake Community Center when the City Council, on March 14, 1988, approved the fees structure and policies for use of the Lake Community Center. This policy provided for the Chamber to use the Lake Community Center, when approved, free of rental costs with one condition. The Chamber must pay staff costs if the facility is used during hours that are normally not scheduled. The second request, for the City to absorb the cost of required sheriff deputies, should be paid for instead by the Chamber itself or possibly another sponsor. It would be difficult for the City to absorb the cost as it was not anticipated or budgeted in this year's budget. The final request, to include an application for the pageant in the Recreation Program Brochure, can be accommodated at no cost to the Chamber of Commerce, providing there is ample space without adding additional pages. If additional pages are necessary, the Chamber would be required to pick up the cost at $300 per page. FISCAL IMPACT It is not possible to determine the actual cost to the City as the application form has not yet been filed. It is, however, important to note that the cost to the City would be staff time (if waived), and any other costs the Council approves waiving. It is staff's feeling that the City Council Policy approved in March of 1988, provides a substantial financial aid to the Chamber by waiving facility fees, normally $55 per hour, and that further subsidy, if desired, should be considered during the budget process, not at mid -year. RECOMMENDATION �r�' It is recommended the Mayor and City Council approve the co-sponsorship of the Miss Frontier Days Pageant with 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. RJW/mj r.,_ .Lake 54uroze ?/aCQey &4w&ot o6 6mmeotee 132 West Graham Avenue + Lake Elsinore, Co. 92330 • (714) 674-2577 October 5, 1990 Community Se ry Richard Watenpaugh, Director OCT ~+a'eA ices Community Services Department 0 1990 City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 Re: City co-sponsorship of "Miss Frontier Days" Pageant Dear Dick: As you know, the Rodeo Committee of the Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce annually present the "Frontier Days" Rodeo on Memorial weekend each May. We traditionally select a Queen and a Junior Queen to reign over the festivities and to represent our Rodeo in various events throughout the year all over the Southern California area. We would like to request that the City of Lake Elsinore co-sponsor the "Miss Frontier Days" Pageant in 1991 inasmuch as she carries the name of the Lake Elsinore Valley with her whenever and wherever she appears. It is the intention of the Queen's Committee to present the pageant at the Lake Community Center on May 11, 1991. The event would not only feature the pageant but would involve a catered dinner with a no -host cocktail bar available. We anticipate that the type of individual who would attend this event would not be inclined to present any problems inasmuch as we tend to attract parents as well as local and county wide elected officials and dignitaries. We would request that the City co-sponsorship would entail the following: 1) Provide the facility with a waiver of all fees attached thereto, e.g., rental fees, kitchen fees, staff fees and clean-up fees; 2) Should the Sheriff require the presence of officers, the City would absorb the costs; and AC END.' ITER --.'o -_6 FMr T_ _3 - L 5erv:ng the Entire V❑0ey Page Two Richard Watenpaugh October 5, 1990 3) We would like to put an application in the City Community Services Department Spring 1991 Recreation Program. We understand there is no charge if there is left over available space but there is a $300.00 per page charge after that. We would request this fee be waived. It is our intention to sell no more that 264 (two hundred and sixty four) tickets. Consequently, we do not intend to fill the building to capacity. We anticipate that we would be utilizing all of the 28" x 8' tables presently stored at the Community Center as well as the public announce- ment system and a podium.as well as the 12 (twelve) 4' x 8' platforms. Please advise us as to the next step in this request process. Thankyou for your anticipated cooperation and courtesy in this worthwhile community endeavor. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact either me at 674-0973 or the Pageant Director, Merilou Jenkins at 674-0358. Sin �reiy, Dave Vik Rodeo Manager REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 241 1990 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC CONTROL RESOLUTIONS PREPARED BY: 44APPROVED: C- 4" W= an irchner Ron Mol ndyk Director of Public City Manager Services Staff has prepared the attached Resolutions to address certain traffic control problems as follows: NO PARKING ZONES 1. The apartment complex at 15200-15236 Lincoln Street is developed with closely spaced driveways which leaves inadequate curb length for parking between driveways. Our traffic engineer has recommended that this frontage be established as a No Parking zone to prevent blockage of driveway openings and mailboxes. 2. The zone on Graham in front of the Community Center is needed to provide proper sight distance for cross street entering traffic. FISCAL IMPACT Minimal RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Resolution. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE / OF RESOLUTION NO. 90-100 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ESTABLISHING NO PARKING ZONES ON CERTAIN STREETS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code provides for the establishment of "No Parking Zones" on certain streets by resolution of the City Council; and, WHEREAS, it has been determined that the establishment of such zones on certain streets or portions thereof, is necessary to promote public safety and/or highway aesthetics. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore hereby establishes certain "No Parking Zones" on those streets or portions thereof set forth as follows: Name of Street Side of Street Limits of No Parking Zones Lincoln Street Northerly From 67 feet west of ECR Robin Drive west 256 feet. Graham Street Southerly From Langstaff east 60 feet. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Services is hereby directed to post signs and/or paint curb markings properly identifying said "No Parking Zones". AGENDA ITEM NO. _.., PAGE ? OF RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 27th day of March, 1990, upon the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTENTIONS: COUNCILMEMBERS: JIM WINKLER, MAYOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ATTEST: VICKI LYNNE KASAD, CITY CLERK CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: JOHN R. HARPER, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AGENDA ITEM NO. ...� PAGE OF -� CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 24, 1990 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT FUNDS Prepared by: JApproved By: ATMIL R c and J. Wa enpaugh Ron k6lbfidyk Community Services Director City Manager BACKGROUND In the Spring of 1990, Assemblyman Clute requested information relating to capital projects the City was unable to fund in the current year's budget. He was especially interested in senior related projects. One of the projects was the perimeter walkways around Lakepoint Park. As a result, Assemblyman Clute was able to secure funding for the project from alternative funds; i.e., Public Resource Funds in the amount of $45,310. This will allow the completion of the perimeter walkways and allow the Seniors the use of the facility for their exercise programs. FISCAL IMPACT None RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Mayor and City Council adopt the attached Resolution No.90-101accepting the grant funds and authorize the Mayor to sign the document. AGV110A':TE1 1 r4'Q- FM.7TOF 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 PARR WALKWAY PROJECT WHEREAS, the Legislature and Governor of the State of California have approved a grant for the project shown above; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the grant project, setting up necessary procedures; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of application(s) before submission of said application(s) to the State; and WHEREAS, said application(s) contain assurances that the applicant must comply with; and WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into an agreement with the State of California for subject project(s). NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore does as follows: 1. Approves the filing of an application for Lakepoint Park - PR -33-004 Walkway Project assistance for the above project(s); and 2. Certifies that said agency understands the assurances and certification in the application form; and 3. Certifies that said agency has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project(s); and 4. Certifies that said agency has reviewed and understands the General Provision contained in the State/local agreement shown in the Procedural Guide; and appoints the City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project(s). PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 1990, upon the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Gary Washburn, Mayor AGEP'DA !TP.i Pik ' - 0 �- RESOLUTION NO. 90-102 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE EXPRESSING A DESIRE OF THE CITY TO ACQUIRE AND EXERCISE JURISDICTION WHEREAS, at the present time Lake Elsinore is operated under the jurisdiction of the California State Parks and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, Lake Elsinore is within the corporate boundaries and sphere of influence of the City of Lake Elsinore, and WHEREAS, Lake Elsinore is central to both the purpose and welfare of the community residing within the City of Lake Elsinore in that it provides both significant recreation opportunities and economic support to the community through tourist related aspects; and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore and the City of Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency are the most appropriate Agencies for owning and operating Lake Elsinore as a consequence of the breadth of both civic and economic powers; and WHEREAS, it is clearly in the best interest of the community to have a local agency responsive to local citizenry reponsible for operating the lake; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the foregoing recitals are true and correct. 2. That the City of Lake Elsinore does hereby request that the State of California and its Agencies, State Parks and Recreation Department, enter into discussions with the City of Lake Elsinore concerning the potential over Lake Elsinore. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1990. ATTEST: Vicki Lynne Kasad, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY John R. Harper, City Attorney CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Gary M. Washburn, Mayor AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF I, VICKIE KASAD, CITY CLERK of the City of Lake Elsinore of LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested by the City Clerk, all at the Council held on the day of meeting of said City , 1990, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Executed this day of , 1990, at LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA. City Clerk AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL/L.E.T.S. BOARD OF DIRECTORS DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1990 SUBJECT: A CLAIM FOR FUNDS UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1971 (ARTICLE 4). PREPARED BY: (_( APPROVED BY: C. Ray Wood, Administ ive Ron Molen k, Services Director City Manager BACKGROUND: Annually the City and District receives an allocation of SB325 money consisting of Article 4 monies for transit operations (LETS) and capital outlay. Transit operational costs are "off the top" and this year it amounts of $261,400. FISCAL IMPACT: The claim for funds for F/Y 1990-91 totals $255,400 and represents a request for $6,000 for Capital Outlay and the balance for maintenance and operation costs. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution to submit claims for the 1990-91 funding under Article 4, and authorize the Administrative Services Director to act as the City's and Boards representative for completion of all documents supporting said claim. AGENDA ITE M No 3, PAGE y OF RESOLUTION NO. 90-103 A RESOLUTION 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. WHEREAS, the Lake Elsinore Transit System has been allocated portions of Fiscal Year 1990-91 Transportation Development Act funds from the Riverside County Transportation Commission; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elsinore Transit System has substantial need for these funds for the planning and demonstration of a local transportation system. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Lake Elsinore Transit System will' actively participate in the program, and request, in accordance with Chapter 1400, Statutes of 1971, and applicable Rules and Regulations, the payment of funds by the Riverside County Auditor with approval by the Southern California Association of Governments; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Lake Elsinore Transit System claims $261,400 for the maintenance, operations and capital outlay during Fiscal Year 1990-91. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of October, 1990 on the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: VICKI LYNNE KASAD, CITY CLERK CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: JOHN R. HARPER, CITY ATTORNEY GARY M. WASHBURN, MAYOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE .OF REPORT TO CITY COUNCMMEDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: October 24,1990 SUBJECT: Amendment to Resolution 90-77. PREPARED BY: 1►APAdua A. . Special 0 APPROVED BY: City Manager Backgt do On August 14, 1990, your Council approved a Resolution initiating a proposal to annex certain territories to the City of Lake Elsinore. That annexation, designated Annexation No. 55 to the City of lake Elsinore and includes the proposed Marinita and Meeker Developments, as well as the inhabited territory bounded generally by Lincoln Avenue on the south, Lash Avenue on the north, and. Machado Street on the east. The inclusion of the inhabited area was done at the request of the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission to Comply with its standard discouraging the formation of islands of unincorporated area completely surrounded by a City. Iliiscussitan: Following discussions with the. LAFCO Executive Officer, we have dctermined that exclusion of the Marinita/Meeker parcels from this proposal would be a more effective WTin processing of these two proposals. A separate proposal, designated Annexation 47, is already on file with the Commission o. °s Executive Officer. Your Council consented to that proposal by adopting Resolution No. 90-49 an May 22, 199(}- The importance of approval of Annexation No. 47 b4 the Commission is that inclusion of that te�rntory within the City is critical to the approval of the West Lake Elsinore Assessment District. However, based an the policy of the Commission, inh inhabited are Commission referreded to thatconsideration aricontained in have to be Ven to also annexing th Parcel #2 of Annexation No, 55. In order to expedite processing of both proposals, your Council adopted Resolution No. 90- 77, a Resolution ap�a lyuIS to the Commission to initiate annexation pzviceedin s, which the contains both the Ivianrdta-Meeker proposal and the inhabited territory. Since Cotnmissinn staff is processing both proposals at present, it has been agreed that the two proposals should stand alone and that no overlapping territory be included. By amending the original Resolution No. 90-77, the Commission will have the opportunity to evaluate each part (thc MarinitarMeeker proposal and the Machado inhabited area FFrvpvsal) independently and to approve each separately, thereby allowing the MarinaafMeeker proposal to proceed in an expeditious manner. In response to your Council's action approving an active program to provide information to the residents and property owners within the inhabited area, letters were sent to each registered voter and owner of record within the subject area, and a public forum was scheduled at Machado Elementary School the evening of October 22nd to respond in person to any additional questions the property owners and residents may have had. Recommendation: Based on the facts outlined above, it is recommended that your Council approve the Resolution amending Resolution No 90-77 excluding Parcel #1 (which contains the Marinita-Meeker developments and is contained in Annexation No. 47), so that the application to the Coi-,=ission seeldng initiation ofrocecdings for annexation would apply only to the inhabited territory contained in Parcel # of said Resolution. AGENDA 17CM NO - PAGE � PAGE ---L OF RESOLUTION NO. 90-104 A RESOLLMON OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. W77 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore on August 14, 1990 adopted Resolution No. 90-77 requesting the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission to initiate proceedings for the annexation of certain territory to the City of Lake Elsinore; and WHEREAS, Parcel #I of said annexation, designated Annexation No. 56 by the City and LAFCO 90-79-1 by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission contains territory also included in Annexation No. 47, designated as LAFCO 90-78-1 by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission; and WHEREAS, in all other respects, Resolution No. 90-77 is consistent with the requirements of Section 568Wc) of the Government Code setting forth the matters to be contained in said Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Manager is directed to submit a letter to the Executive Officer of the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission together with a certified copy of this Resolution notifying the Executive Officer of the action of this Council amending the Resolution of Application for Annexation #56 WCO 90-79-1) by excluding therefrom Parcel #1. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, this 24th day of October, 1990, by the following vote.- AYES: ote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES. COUNCH24EMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL.MEMBERS: i AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE., OF CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 24, 1990 SUBJECT: Lake Community Center/Council Chambers Approved B Prepared by:(�NVPP : " Vj-1--nY R c and J. ratdnpaugh Ron Molendyk Community Services Director City Manager BACKGROUND Attached for your review and/or discussion is staff's memorandum of September 13, 1990, explaining the effects of relocating both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings from the School District Board Room to the Lake Community Center. The memorandum briefly outlines the rescheduling and/or cancellations necessary to accommodate the use of the auditorium. FISCAL IMPACT Annual impact to the City would be approximately $11,000 in lost program revenues. RECOMMENDATION It is staff's recommendation that alternate facilities be used for special meetings, and the City Council and Planning Commission meetings remain in the School District Board Room. /mj Aw"ENDA !TC"r w. I I PACC��Q� yes servk ocT 4 9 1990 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayo. & City Council FROM: e dYk, City Manager er DATE: ctober 1, 1990 SUBJECT: Future City Council Meetings Oct eo,z We have been asked to evaluate possible use of the Community Center for Public Meetings. I would appreciate your review of the memo from Dick Watenpaugh, sinc the present facility has been accommodating the City. RM/jt cc: Assistant City Manager Community Services Director L--� A�`�st?n ".TE,A NO. a5 W CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 1y0aVT6)11NV TO: Ron Molendyk, City Manager FROM: Dick Watenpaugh, Community Services Director'3 DATE: September 13, 1990 SUBJECT: Use of Lake Community Center for Public Meetings The Lake Community Center is currently the City's only recreation facility. It houses over thirty (30) recreation programs each week, as well as meetings, special events and our new teen programs. In January of this year, the Community Services Department began its recreation programming, as directed by the City Council. The community response to these programs has been fantastic, and extremely positive. One of the main keys to the success of these programs has been the stability of the Center's availability for these scheduled activities. The Lake Community Center has been made available for September 19, 1990, regarding the continuation of the General Plan Public Hearing from September 12. In order to accommodate this meeting, our Karate program, which has a total class registration of 55 participants, was canceled. If other meetings are to be scheduled at the Center, then the Community Services Department and the City will lose the credibility with all the participants it has fought so hard to establish. As a result, programs will become sporadic and inconsistant which will have participants frustrated and cause them to look elsewhere for recreation programs and services. If Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings are relocated to the Community Center, we will displace 2,860 participants annually and the City will loose $11,000.00 in program revenues this year. The programs most affected by a relocation, are the drop-in volleyball (which averages between 40-55 per night) and the PM Aerobics (which averages 15-20 per class) . I would suggest the possibility of exploring the use of the auditorium at Terra Cotta Junior High School for these meetings. The facility can accommodate 200 spectators, and the stage lends itself nicely to the set- up of City Council and Planning Commission meetings. The auditorium currently has some basic theatrical lighting which would work well for televising the meetings. I would recommend that we consider utilization of other facilities to avoid the City's recreation programs being labeled as inconsistent and unreliable, as were Ortega Trails programs. DW/it cc: David Sapp, Community Services Manager Bill Payne, Community Services Park Manager Chris Rosenberg, Recreation Program Coordinator L pGE�:DAI'CEt��t� OF VAV NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore on the 13th day of November, 1990, in the District Board Room, 545 Chaney Street, Lake Elsinore, California, at 7:00 p.m., relative to the following: PROJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25242 _ FINKLESTEIN A request to subdivide the 16.98 acre parcel into 39 single-family lots. LOCATION: The project is located at the east side of the "T" intersection of Hoff Avenue and Pierce Street. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that at said time and place, all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard in favor of or opposition to said matter, either orally or by written communication to the City Council. For further particulars, all interested persons are invited to call at the office of the City Clerk where information regarding this matter is on file and available for;I public inspection. DATE: October 18, 1990 SIGNED 1 CKI KASAD, CITY CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON: October 24, 1990 F AGENDA ITEM X10. ' ' '*', -PAGE OF.-L•�-� CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DAVE GUNDERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1990 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC HEARING BACKGROUND On October 9, 1990 the City Council held public hearing on the updated General Plan, reviewed and decided on a collection of 58 requested revisions. The meeting was continued to October 24, 1990 for the purpose of completing the review of the Draft General Plan. In response to the City Councils decisions on land use revisions, the Land Use Plan Map has been revised to reflect the changes the Council favored. This map has been modified to improve land use boundary legibility, mainly by adding street names where they serve as boundaries. ANALYSIS 1. Specific Plan Areas Several of the land use revisions created new Specific Plan Areas and so it has been necessary to prepare the text that describes the land use characteristics of these areas. These descriptions are attached and are indexed to their requested revision number and a letter label that will be the area's reference in the General Plan. 2. Central Business District (CBD) The Central Business District (CBD) Plan was briefly discussed, but we want to make it clear how this plan relates to the General Plan. It is shown on the land use plan in the same fashion as the adopted Specific Plans. That is, it is subject to revision itself, without revision to the General Plan,unless of course, the revisions represented a significant change in the land use concept. In this regard the Land Use Plan will only show the boundaries of the CBD Plan, thereby allowing the CBD Plan to provide the basis for zoning that would guide development in this area. The CBD Plan also provides the basis for an overlay zone that allows for special regulation of architectural and urban design amenities. What the CBD Plan portrays in land use patterns represents the most current status for this plan, and these land uses have been used in the General Plan process of measuring the intensity of development throughout the planning area. And, while the land uses shown on the CBD Plan are subject to revision, it is not essential that it be revised at this time of consideration of the General Plan. 3. Policies Also attached is a new errata which incorporates some minor editing as well as revisions per City Council comments. This also includes the proposed revisions to policy regarding school services and facilities. AGENDA ITEM NO. PA rF_ -J_„_ OF Page 2 October 24, 1990 Subject: General Plan Public Hearing 4. Housing Element The State Department of Housing and Community Development has reviewed the Draft Housing Element, as required by State law. Their review resulted in a list of requests for additional information which they ask be incorporated in the Final Draft. Once the City Council is satisfied that all the necessary revisions to the Draft General Plan have been identified it would be appropriate to approve the General Plan in concept. After this action the consultant, PBR will incorporate the errata material into a single Final Draft General Plan. This document can be returned to the City Council for their final action by resolution, approving the General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. It is recommended that the City Council approve the Draft General Plan, Land Use Plan, and General Plan errata in concept and continue this matter to the November 6, 1990 meeting for final action. /cm AGENDA ITEM] NO. PAGE � CF New 8 ecific Plan Areas The public review process for the General Plan, Land Use Plan resulted in several new areas being designated as Specific Plan Areas. The following is the language that is proposed as descriptions for these new areas. The number proceeding them is their original revision request number and the letter their description identity in the General Plan text and maps. #2 - specific Plan Area N This area is an 18 acre site consisting of two (2) nine (9) acre parcels on each side of Orange Grove Way and fronting on Robb Road. This site is adjacent to Terra Cotta Junior High school and a single-family neighborhood. Development of this property will have to demonstrate considerable sensitivity to the adjacent uses and the routes to school of the surrounding neighborhoods' children. No commercial uses on this site shall be adjacent to the school or residences. The Specific Plan shall specify the range of acceptable land uses for this site. Uses allowed will be those that have minimum physical impact on this otherwise residential setting. The maximum development intensity shall not exceed .40 FAR for non-residential uses and 12 dwelling units per acre for residential uses. #3 - Specific Plan Area P This area is a 105 acre site. The site has its primary frontage on Riverside Drive, but also fronts on Grand Avenue and Machado Street. The development of this property may consist of a wide range of land uses. General Commercial and Tourist Commercial uses may be appropriate for the Riverside Drive frontage, while single-family use would be most appropriate on the Machado Street frontage. Multiple family housing, of densities not exceeding eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, may be appropriate if access can be directed to the Riverside Drive frontage. 17 - 8 ecific Plan Area D (this to be added to existing text) This area is a 290 acre site located in the hillside area north of Walker Canyon. The maximum development intensity shall be three (3) dwelling units per acre. The Specific Plan shall address methods of development that will be sensitive to the topography in this area and its visual prominence. 20 and f36 - S ecific Plan Area This area is 51.2 acres consisting of multiple landowners. The site is located along the south side of Lakeshore Drive between Riverside Drive and Machado Street. The development of this area will consist of a community commercial shopping center at the east end, at Riverside Drive; a series of residential projects some of which may have densities at a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre; and the Machado end, lower intensity neighborhood commercial uses may be considered. 123 - Specific Plan Area R This site is 840 acres located in the hillside area north of Interstate 15 in the Temescal Valley. The development AGENDA ITEM NO. I k. PAGE OF New Specific Plan Areas Page 2 intensity shall be a maximum of three (3) dwelling units per acre. The Specific Plan shall address the need for sensitive grading so as to minimize negative impact on the topography and visual prominence of this area. 24 - Specific Plan Area 8 This site is 1,374 acres located on the Pacific Clay property west of Lake Street and south of Interstate 15. When this mining area is completed the reclamation and ultimate use of this area will be for a planned residential community. The development intensity of this area shall be a maximum of six (6) dwelling units per acre. Included may also be non-residential land uses such as Neighborhood Commercial and others suited to the freeway access and proximity. 30 - SiDecific Plan Area T This area, while currently within a floodplain zone has some development potential for Limited Industrial use. The Specific Plan for this; area will have to address methods of land development that can be sensitive to the wetland features and flooding conditions of this site. 38 - S Decific Plan Area II This site is 12.6 acres located at the southwest corner of Grand Avenue and Ortega Highway (Highway 74). While this site is favored for its commercial land use value some multiple family use may be considered. Maximum development potential for commercial uses shall be .40 FAR with a maximum residential density of twelve (12) dwelling units per acre. The development of this site is most suited for Neighborhood Commercial uses but some Tourist commercial use could be considered. Multiple family use should be oriented to Grand Avenue for access and integrated into the sites commercial uses. This site may be suited for family oriented housing but tourist oriented housing - condos and/or housing aimed at senior/retirement needs is the most favored. 46 - S ecific Plan Area V This site is 225+ acres located north of the mouth of Rice Canyon. The development intensity for this area shall not exceed three (3) dwelling units per acre. 48 - specific Plan Area R This site is 365+ acres located along and above the Temescal Wash and Lee Lake. The development intensity of the site shall not exceed three (3) dwelling units per acre for residential use. Non-residential uses ranging from Neighborhood Commercial to Limited Industrial may be found appropriate where neighboring land uses would be compatible. This site is varied in terrain and prominent in view from Interstate 15, thereby warranting careful methods of grading and site planning. 53 - Specific Plan Area G (add this to existing text) In some locations in this area, tourist oriented land uses may be appropriate, providing direct access and sensitive separation from the areas residential uses can be assured. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY . DATE: OCTOBER 24,_199_0 SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel May 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. PREPARED BY: WAPPROVED BY: 16-� ZLA:i�� r oa s Dave G derman A sistant Planner Comm. v. Dir. APPROVED BY: Ron M&4endyk City Manager Tentative Tract Map 24213 was approved concurrently with a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to R-1 (Single -Family Residential) in November of 1989. The approved subdivision consists of 160 single family lots on 56.9 acres. Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 26052 is a parcelling for financing purposes. The proposal consists of three (3) parcels which overlay Tentative Tract Map 24213. DISCUSSION Tentative Parcel Map 26052 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 3, 1990 by a vote of 4-0. The Commission inquired as to the appropriateness of attaching the Conditions of Approval of Tentative Tract Map 24213 to this application. Staff indicated that no development or grading would be allowed by this application, and therefore it would not be necessary to attach those conditions. Commission had no further concerns with this request. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Negative Declaration 90-15 and approve Tentative Parcel Map 26052 based on the following Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency concur with City Council action. FINDINGS 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. (Government Code Section 66473.5) AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 0F Page 2 October 24, 1990 Subject: Tentative Parcel Map 26052 - Withrow Ranch, Inc. 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-1 Zoning standards. 6. The project, as conditioned, complies with the City's subdivision standards and the State Subdivision Map Act. 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. /cm AGENDA ITEM NO. 31 PAGE OF to CONDITIONS OF APPZOVAL FOR TENTATIVE FINANCIAL PARCEL MAP 26052 �.. 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. AGENDA ITEM NO.3 PAGE r OF..� 1� � - a : 4 r 3 R-1 /0" 3 . yp r OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION - HELD THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 199 THE MEETI WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 P.M. ROIL CALL PRESENT: Commiseio rs: Gilenson,:ent rown, W mosey and Saathoff ABSENT: Commissioners. Brinley Also present were Community vel Director Gunderman, and City Attorney Harper. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commission 1990 and September Gilenson. Approved 4-0 wj-)Ac11q "ilsey to approve utes of September 12, , 1990, as submitted, s and by Commissioner being no requests to address the Planning Commion, irman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 26052 - Withrow Ranch, Inc./The Keith Companies - Community Development Director Gunderman presented a request to divide existing Tentative Tract Map 24213, consisting of 56.93 acres, into three (3) parcels for financing purposes. This tract of land is located north- westerly of Machado Street, at the terminus of Prince Street. Chairman Saat-hoff opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Larry Truman, Butterfield Surveys/The Keith Companies, commented on condition number 4, annex to the City's Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District. This is already a condition on the tract, can they annex at that time? Community Development Director Gunderman responded in the affirmative. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for those opposed. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Gilenson requested that the following be added as condition number 5: Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 24213 shall be incorporated into this condition of approval. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that this map is for financing purposes and you can not place those conditions on this map, because there are conditions relevant to that tract and not acceptable under the Map Act for financing maps. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90-15 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 26052 based on the Findings and subject to the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4-0 AGENDA ITEM NO. -3-9V PAGE O J� PREPARED PLANNING DIVISION REPORT TO PLANNING cOMMISSION - Public Hearing TPM 26052 October 3, 1990 BY: G•c APPROVED BY: Dav underman ssistant Planner co Dev. Dir. APPLICANT OWNER The Reith Companies/Butterfield Withrow Ranch, Inc. 565 Chaney Street, Suite F 33044 Machado Street Lake Elsinore, California 92330 Lake Elsinore, California 92330 REQUESTED USE A Tentative Parcel Map for financing purposes consisting of three (3) parcels on 56.9 acres. SIZE AND LOCATION The proposed map consists of 56.9 acres generally located northwesterly of Machado Street, at the terminus of Prince Street. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING EXISTING LAND USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN Project Site - Vacant R-1 Low Density Residential North - Elementary School R-1 Floodplain East - Vacant R -R Specific Plan (County) South - Single -Family R-1 Low Density Residential West - Single -Family R-1 Specific Plan BACKGROUND The area proposed for this parcel map has a previously approved Tentative Tract Map currently in place. Tentative Tract 24213 was approved with a General Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential and a Zone Change to R-1 in November of 1989. The approved Tentative Tract Map consists of 160 single-family lots on 56.9 acres. DISCUSSION The proposed tentative parcel map is requested for financing purposes only. No grading or construction will be permitted through this application. Where development is concerned, the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract 24213 still apply. Recordation of Tentative Tract Map 24213 will be necessary prior to any consideration of any development. ZONING ANA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed parcel map is in conformance with the standards in the AGENDA ITEM No. PAGE OF ek�- Public Hearing TPM 26052 October 3, 1990 Page 2 R-1 zone in relation to size and access. The parcel map is also consistent with the current General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential. ENVIRONMENTAL The proposed Parcel Map will not have a significant impact on the environment. Negative Declaration 90-15 has been prepared. It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90-15 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 26052 based on the following Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. The propcsed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. (Government Code Section 66473.5) 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 shall determine whether the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system would result in a violation of the requirements as set out in Section 13000 et seq. of the California Water Code. If the Planning Commission finds that the proposed waste discharge would result in or add to a violation of said requirements, the Planning Commission may disapprove the tentative map or maps of the subdivision. (Government Code Section 66474.6) 5. The Tentative Parcel Map complies with the Goals, Policies, and Objectives of the General Plan and the R-1 Zoning standards. 6. The project, as conditioned, complies with the City's subdivision standards and the State Subdivision Map Act. 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. S. 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. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE____ OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 241-13 Planning Division 1. Tentative Tract Map 24213 is approved subject to the approval of General Plan Amendment 89-10 and Pre -Zone Change 89-11 and Annexation to the City. 2. Tentative Tract Map 24213 shall expire two (2) years after City Council approval date, unless extended as provided by the State of California Subdivision Map Act. 3. A precise survey with closures for boundaries and all lots shall be provided, per City Ordinance. 4. Subdivider shall record CC & R's for the project prohibiting on -street storage of boats, motorhomes, trailers and trucks over one (1) ton capacity. CC & R's shall also include screening any ground base disk and no roof -mounted or front yard disk shall be allowed. CC & R's shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director, or designee, prior to recordation of any deeds or final map. CC & R's -shall be recorded prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the units when developed in the future. 01 5. House plotting, architectural drawings, floor plans, landscap- ing and fences/walls shall require Minor Design Review approval prior to issuance of building permits. All standards of development and procedural steps in effect at the Minor Design Review submittal shall apply for this project. 6. A combination of walls and/or fences shall be constructed around the perimeter of the subdivision and adjacent to the McVickers Canyon Flood Control Channel. Precise design materials and location to be determined through Minor Design Review process. 7. Applicant shall meet all Conditions of Approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. S. Prior to Issuance of any grading permit or building permit, subdivider shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgment of Conditions" and shall return the executed original -to the Community Development Department. 9. Applicant shall submit and receive approval of landscape and irrigation plans for model homes (if such as desired), back-up wall areas, street trees and slope planting in accord with the City Landscape- Guidelines, prior to issuance of building permits. 10. Signage for this subdivision shall require City Permits. 11. All trailers used during construction, mailboxes and signage shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval prior to installation. 12. Street names within the subdivision shall be approved by the Planning Department. 13. Prior to issuance of building permits, subdivider shall provide assurance that all required fees have been paid to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District. 14. Comply with all conditions of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 15. Prior to approval of a Final Tract Map by the City Council, all lots within this subdivision shall. conform to the minimum dimensional standards of the R-1 Zoning District. AGENDA ITEM NO. +-�77� FAGE OF ! CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24213 Ct)RTINUED 16. Subdivider shall provide a 25 -foot wide multi-purpose recreational trail along the rear of Lots 14, 15, 16, 171 18, 19, 46 and 47 with final location, design and improvement subject to the approval of the City Public Works Director and the Community Development Director. Said easement to be dedicated to the City. 17. If Lot 6 is re -configured to take vehicular access from De La Lama Street, a variance may be needed to allow a lot to be created with substandard frontage. DELETED. 18. Annexation to the City's Landscaping and Lighting District is required prior to approval of a Final Tract Map. 19. Comply with all conditions of the Riverside County Fire Department. 20. Comply with applicable environmental mitigation measures contained in Environmental Impact Report 88-2: a) Architectural standards shall be implemented to utilize building materials and site designs thaw minimize noise intrusion and that provide exterior noise -sheltered environments. b) The proposed project shall be consistent with all applicable criteria outlined in the General Plan, and Grading Standards identified in Ordinance 772. C) Grading Plans shall preserve significant vegetation stands. d) Use native plant material for re -landscaping. e) Prior to issuance of grading permits, soil sampling and testing shall be conducted on any agricultural portions of the site to test for residues of pesticides, herbicides and/or fungicides. f) Should a City-wide or area -wide fee program be adopted by the City for increase in police services, this project should be required to participate along with other developments. Engineer -in De artnent: 21. All Publ=c Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code at the time a building permit is issued. 22. Dedicate underground water rights to the City (Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.52.030). Document can be obtained from the Engineering Department. 23. Pay all Capital improvement and Plan Check fees (Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.34; Resolution No. 85-26). 24. Submit a "Will -Serve" letter to the City Engineering Department, from the applicable water district, stating water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project. Submit this letter prior to applying for building permits. 25. Construct all public works improvements per approved street plans (Municipal Code, Title :12). Plans must be approved and signed by the City Engineer prior to -final map. 26. Street improvement plans and specifications shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer. Improvements shall be to Riverside County Road Department Standards latest edition, and City Codes (L.E.M.C. 12.04 and 16.34). ?. AGENDA ITEM NO. �,-'` �`?; l CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24213 CONTINUED 27. Pay all fees and meet requirements of encroachment permit issued by the Engineering Department for construction of off-site public works improvements (Municipal Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.08 and Resolution No. 83-78). 28. All compaction reports , _ grade certification, monument certification (with tie -notes delineated on 8-1/2" x 11" mylar) shall be submitted to Engineering Department before final inspection of off-site improvements will be scheduled and approved. 29. Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by Riverside County fire protection. 30. Provide street lighting and and show lighting improvements on street improvement plans, as required by the City Engineer. 31. Drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility or accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance or conveyed to a drainage easement. 32. Hydrology and hydraulic study shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval by the City Engineer and Riverside County Flood Control District prior to final map approval. 33. Applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City for construction of public works improvements and post appropriate bonds prior to final map approval. '34. Applicant shall obtain all necessary off-site easements for off-site grading from the adjacent property owners prior to final map approval. 35. Developer shall agree to participate in and join a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for infrastructure improvements and operation and maintenance for the West Elsinore Infrastructure Improvement District. No Certificate of Occupangy will be issued on lots sold until the West Lake Elsinore District has been formed. 36. Contribute $300.00 towards the City's Master Entryway Sign Program. 37. Developer shall be subject to all conditions of Riverside County Flood Control District for development of this site. 38. Lot 6 may have access to Grand Avenue upon prior review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit for non-residentail uses of the lot. 39. No lots shall have access to Lincoln Street. 40. Lincoln Street shall be improved to provide 2 lanes of travel to existing improvements to the east prior to first Certificate of Occupancy. 41. Audelo Street shall be improved to provide one parking lane and 2 travel lanes (30 -foot). 42. Increase in downstream drainage in De La Lama, Audelo and Princo Streets shall be mitigated. 43. All drainage swales across adjacent properties shall be in easements approved by the City Engineer. 44. Drainage swales and slopes off-site must be secured from the adjacent property owners prior to final map approval. 45. Storm drain easements for 36 inch storm drain pipe will require City Engineer approval. AGENDA 1IEM NO. �'�', ijr �ty gq O PAGE � : -- �� l CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24213 CtNTINUED 46. All major drainage facilities in this tract shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District standards and agreement entered into with the District for construction, ownership and maintenance. 47. Provide soils, geology and seismic report including street design recormendations. Provide final soils report showing compliance with preliminary and finish grade certification. 48. All storm facilities shall provide tract and downstream property owners with 100 year storm flood protection and be approved by Riverside County Flood District. 01 AGENDA ITEM NO. r OFFIC as -1 2= Negative Declaration No. 90-15 Project: TO 25052 CITY QE IA ELSINORE £t��IRONMEHIAL ASSESSMENT LM 1. Developer or Project: Withrow Ranch, Inc. Contact Person: Address: 33044 Machado street Laze Elsinore, CA. Z �P� 92330 City: 578-5089 r Telephone Number. ( 7 4 )_ 2. Environmental Information Address:_ 130 South Main City:_ Lake Elsinore, Telephone Number: ( 714 Prepared by:, Mark Rhoades Street : 92330 CA. 574-3124 0 ' 3. Proposed Project Title: Tentative Parcel Map 25052 Location: Sou-herli adjacent to the northwesterly extension of Lincoln Street, easterly of Grand Aven"L. Total site acreage: Gross: 55.93 Net: For Residential Project: Number of units: - Dwelling units per acre: Unit sizes (square feet): Attach brief description of proposed project, including intended use, and phasing of project, or if present project is a phase or portion of a larger project. 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by local, regional, state, and federal agencies, not including approvals from the City, fire department, sheriff's department, and Elsinore Valley Municipal water District. 5. Environmental Setting: Attach a description of the existing environmental setting of the project site and surrounding pro- perties, including information on topography, geo- logy, sail stability, plants, animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. GENERAL EXISTING LAND USE ZONING PLAN Low Density Project sit2 Vacant R-1 Residential Surrounding4 Floodplain/ North Elementary School R-1 Floodway Surrounding R -R Specific East Vacant (County) Plan - Surrounding Low Density South Single -Family R-1 Residential Residential Surrounding R-1 FSPWest Single -Family Residential AGENDA ITEM NO. _� a P A G 7 f f OF_J..� x► >� x, x, xl xl xl xl rxl xi xl xi •� ► I I I I I I I I I I I I r na.�ro yCyY eEg • o4r ,:° "_" g'� cw i �QQ o .✓irAu �iC ■�icS O .Yiq p 11 +■Ip E g M1 O�■ Y� � C p * O. arir M R •9 ss s �t goo s a CCY •aMp r1"u M0Y" «� • 'y --r-:r� :° OO$° au -4� � Ic ` CC as y 4164 M ic++■A M"• CCi+c C.4 +/ ac/rw.Ui Ma: CwEa OQ ■ C• �• M • .moi ilr"a U O w Ow r■ .1 • �.r O a O-40 lY++ Or,.la «.y Y ■; ° O Oo i° '" 604 61110" s ���5: Q�a "•"� ° •:E: oawM1 i r .rS s �;'a CC a+./C ii u✓W•M1 OY tiC+lw " .� •• O o" iti ap% s �yyC• 9�LCr Y~ .a... ••a■•+ Y �?.anai 14610i.a. •pi0 .�1.. Cpm v • .IC O. .Iw C01.•a 73 M 06 's O7M ri.Ci UU F M � M�F�F «w Y C~p japp[,i {•Q��• �•a 3, , y«•.�rM� arfa r- .4 C% �;;$' -C 4d MOM/■ E.. +aiN .IS iir v�Q y7 bYM ■ s rp a i M i /i O 40 4 M i FM ■ F Y " i � xl x I xl xl x I xl � x l xl xl xl x i xi ( (( I 11 1 1 I I l f l �( ► I I ( I I I I I I I I e« " .01 ed ai o .✓i ate+ a .•+ v •coo .Y.• O~ ° a �a ■ • w LL: "• M/ " Ype U9 ° Cq..� ..s A9 C ✓ 0 M .M1 " O- i Y r' � � ° i {a1 y i.L1 Y i A. M y M,c �F C k •'a O '• iY " C/ Y �y.41i.s O pu g1.IQ1 U CC /.r■ 0.P +.Pgo -U. o.+ O w .w .r .nM �+ Ctl4N ■ •C• °� Yi 00 54 M•✓ R>. �M CCK7i.C✓ Y✓..1 .al 0M ■ ■O 11 YO aY0 L SC YO°.wafp•f 7p7 6" io Yom= O. C".yrl� "e « ° ■ we iiu� w wl✓i•r o"✓ •'' o/rriaci «� a�+iou •r E rV ci L "piY.Ci i,Zaa9M1 Z. •" «e r.rlU.y x "+O✓La .4 4j •w OM M L• ..'�"C90Y Z P4 1.pM M ■ae • M/U/D. O Y C •n 1• >• w 0 C G Y y Y C • i C R O O 1- « O -s 0. +n C M r. aI;; ou " +/. M• M1 O i M i w • Y .ai +pi .✓.� ++" o tr,0 7C �O �i 00• .+Yi +aiw wp -1 -0 CVp YO.r r a0 •+ pw 4101 ati yk.. ■ 9OO Y C .� OY i •O�CM Mpp.� wA■VL Ya F.O•■ C li■ "✓// NQ a Mea w !yr Y O O7L.�. .meq ■ d • ■ 4 D Old • V ■io✓.r Y •✓a rG rf�}.1 i7�d oY*� v ✓ a O'410 u• o c r s U s< •ti P r M1 L" ./.•1 7 1+ /" '�L oc00 Z " Y.. Y-. 7+0 FV Q 6M r"•/ .yq" /D9 •aA r•0•�a} OO" w✓d ld +i°a 1. it E7+ met A. 'a A O V �.. 10o6. l+i <AG•Oi O U U a ° 9Mi <O �i■S oaY?FYo <0i e•YG�IA m/• ■ 1.t��o m C < +. i L O i� ■ 411 O V • t ' h ^ I xl I io s xl I Yrrl x, I € o I v doe I r = ago `e I I .L«. n a W'. or al. .aa+r+a.v.'.i�i &9 0 a .. O YO" C C ■ L O• C � co g i Y "y "'C' ■ "n ++ g w QC✓Y Tse f°iyrLLa U••. p"YQ CCr- �>Y O "i. 1. 9a w�.p.ar 0A i .«qp� UO t+w Crd pO■r �;OxOew « aC..° HIUn �.� %rrGVC� GYi �aNCN O� LkwO 09 aa> 6• y. Uw C Y r O iM� I. c -Z iL A 00 : ■ ,y on ■••.4 r-- ■-,• ■ 7 - " Y� C L R O •L+. 9Y ■iLxiM�VKt< Oaf 8 wstl ACY i 0.+°iJ y 't A✓F� ■ R/Y C +C+ CV i 8• a ■ " � T. 4 . 9 •p•� O • O" ^� .02 V Q.c - 7 CCL0a1✓ ✓ F1✓1D.O+ Yrr++ke ■ Y tiL 0.0 /• .0i.Q. ■.. U a CC k� r• 0-:3 " CQM1 ■... O k U C p.. V r. .ram a" • 1.0741a+O0. w0�+1+ a Q✓6k •• _6o •Pk +. +.■ O MO.•A C ..• YU as 0r�V r■ �r kU 1 Yv.a.� •c►.• A F •9M Y-Y�O'lan .+ .r a a+ r r , r r re 1... O L. eV abCa Q -7n 6 �Lr.�i.p+•■a r0.aA V 0.✓1.w •orb U c^s 0. Y 1 r. a.00• a416 P T.• C •++ S . AY.+ i a0 fa U •�++►Yr :•r0 � s 6 i" CY CO.Yc C4 Ca+. N O• • .+ a0 a ■ r r c S�� cuo ua'" lu a 0 r L■ a ■r A ■v> F i yl 1.• ■ u ■ CQY RA• µkOrr+ Aj C • -60".a•� ■ Ji Y ..4 r 1.0 Yk CY u Q.V C6 .�s0•pGyL"�PG U% .. 0 6, 1U r'+4O O c Rwrtv x,41• tlwIE !. } Y ■ Ui.4d r. 0 SLr0. V OF Or. xl I xl I xl I xl I xl I x, I xl l I I I I I I I >.Tr j M y1 � � •� wg g w aa+ "a=ii�iaF+O f°iyrLLa �>Y O "i. 1. 9a w�.p.ar 0A i .«qp� UO t+w Crd pO■r �;OxOew u aC..° HIUn �.� Yr" COL +.rY �aNCN 6• r ■ 00 iM� .a. VJa[aF•ri r■�' 00 eO eo« rtrAe•T� ppu•+.+Fe/ $grµ• V Oeu w .. O R■�■■wL y 't 8• ■ "w OM1 O r a/ Y O • O" V A■ u 0 C w• 1. ti- Cw C O O O Pr z « •■■ V • C C+. coo " CQM1 U O wrM1 • r ■OC w0�+1+ a Q✓6k •• .� •Pk +. +.■ ..a■ YM V. i. Rd tai✓r +moi �rY •9M Y-Y�O'lan CY" YBaCS.7+p e0 e✓wr•Y �U� ipR1Ua ■�✓ 000 Ye+.O !.V✓ UO %Y7-�. -4 040. Lk• YCr Ca+. A"Cwsa uYura°o.. wA•r• c S�� cuo ua'" <sY Y •• {d .C•1 ■ Ji Y L r ~ P -� AGENDA ITEM NO. Z ' PAGE OF C xl xI xl xl x f I 4 I ( C" x( x xl xl x( xI x( xf x f t I I f l f l l f( f f ( I f f f l f ( f I .. ■ Ny. ., II. ; p1 - r �.t a 1 •�Q .Ci C1+ O w�+ ■f w N R V $ Oe Cix Z. p. Y+ `■ ■ II • 7 i i! i A N A h y e 0'. i 'y FOC 6 • .tC ■p i 1■e C ° RY �f.�D� a Y C %r F {Y111 U... rF V ..~iCiY « y w rt a C■ C` ■ ■ '1 F rq x s w ■ O n F L w e a. Ii1 Y w A r .� • Y C O �+ aI i a+ F F *.°a■iF c as A°t a•+ w .,a y:°Fa° eve + v p �" c 66 ..I .� O L 41 C■+�■ �tw a+Q r. 4' ww C✓ C w O C R co Cx ■ i r yra•� M ■ r y .w.I ial ■ R• wM itwft0. i�e17■ yy «C ■ rilCSy as .t 7 s EC i .w.IOyii°a+YD CCS° L i i•wq F y uFw�y �a■r?~ C N M • C «�• «F p * • �** {tet •r °yip °.r i s�■ii7v�rii ■■vc i O OV V■ i y .t�0a+ iCMi y0 i 7 Y•y1 ��0R✓ • Av. ■'� .lu1 0'C v 0. p~ CL O�� +wi 0.0 o CO ■r■ ■yy O �+ wa +0+13Fc 0C yy UAipiC■ � Z � +� 0. ■ D ■ e y�� id s� O« y U� � +GI ° y y C i y `y 10. i q 'K a R ■p� -m -0 r ✓ ■ > fr 3 F w A✓ ✓ ■ ■r.rw ■AAi �■ 1•. .~•I L MO .CtUe FM ■ C r i Y O ■ F !!w4 X !✓v■•Qr r i m m m cw vri.t .Fiarycs •MY 0: yl Do iiia .uaA rG" • � 0■■✓U>• w O U MM rrt 000 r rt O r •,. •� • V a m 64, ✓ _ • ■■ MIC T 7 r r r..s ■ g p F r C C yM«w w R a� ■ � D C r Y Y T.+� rr ■I ■t k i✓4 � :i �t y • t+ Ra+ o a YMf. rw • C V ay■•Y ■ i1 V d 0.00■ ! « W y • C r ■ X1 x x xf x( I 1 1 I 1 ! f � I I( ( l f f I I I f I f ( I I _ N ! ✓.1.I '� ..Ir 1� .40 pp ■ y ar+itC 1 7✓ ■ .•iQ yC i O �M ! �■ 0■ !r C�A �•� '.�yis r0� �� C■ �i V �iJd Is, A0 -.0.V OU 4 MO 017 pts yw p tysXO +.1 t •y O • !■g Ny rUt 7 v i es y C V ■ O� � d i O fJ Q■ C C q a .0'.. .•t C fm ■ ■O .~, ii ✓C r q °! MoD C*+ R� � R�• w V � ar1°N OO �w • Id ■t ppC .a ■!r F y ■w ■ P 0.6 wrr OM y✓ C� i V s y y a.ii : gL tC V c i V Cr � a� r o .:., « i 1�1 Y+Fi .I q .0 u 0; •ucu •c i� ■o �„ ro�r+v awr.°+G� un oa ia�tlx+ .ty •«✓ • ; IoM FY■ r+� ✓■ Qi =! CO C li c �/+ OpH�O sit S ■Cy � .rCC G p C.t Crre w✓ p° 'a pM✓ .YiO«L Y✓ �y .at Fp,I.. M M! y✓ O =■� ,.,I •w0 O C O• 00. y r. +I■■O` .r 10, r r 3 0 0✓ » ■ w y ti ✓ O .+Ci .Mi O y Cyt ✓i W >G ✓✓ ✓ f rr y y 0 r v i CCM i� C V ✓ .w ; S .t r.■w OM iC FCS �L i■i "'ICS .�Y1. C~MR s+r�19 �0. •w Y•i •..t■ p Mist ryU wC+° ■M !?. tC P k 6+ p,■.t /l ✓a 10M ■...'° M O V G? X Yom✓ Ur«C Mir 4►7 i C�+ yi T. ✓G7 iiM ■I+✓ yy wLitt ••� �+i CSC �t PM �wM 1�✓ ryi UNU .tOUM 6 F MCO 7XT .+iMC .60 M Circ •• MO L T>C Y■ 00✓ y ■Ji ✓'G D L70 �+✓9 C✓! C +IM Mi■ ■AO i <Q✓ MFA Cy.t ■ Lam. C L O 9 O++ U+t w y Fh �✓ •• A V O e O .• IL, m >~ 0 1✓o a i die 40 U✓■✓ J y C✓1✓o O YCRG 9 Q. wO Y 0 0¢✓w V " F � L ■ L C 0. ■ F AGENDA ITEM N'0. PAGEOF ° in a gal, ac Rw.s rI E 0 0 N ti ■+■s 7 .w t � r s■RCG O�Caa� ✓Ort• •Mi1C✓ ■ ■ U Q pppppp ir/ y 7 •;XYZ U raj'�'�!N µ1Y1 P • +1■� : �iwFy {4L .t0I.n� 0.- -!■� y .riA�f h i°.riYi1,■ see p l.itCpa► r� •r A U �IOlCN �`sx-42u Caw ami .. #s j .fit .YdM^ raw■ i .� �i+4aw.. F10O$' w✓ ✓ wi uuu.� ■! •M ✓rN7 c aI c PI■ ■ Yl .tw M �-XZZ �c'D $,41la+ axa✓pp IF" "0 R hili YY a i.tYir ice+■i4d0 s� w C" x( x xl xl x( xI x( xf x f t I I f l f l l f( f f ( I f f f l f ( f I .. ■ Ny. ., II. ; p1 - r �.t a 1 •�Q .Ci C1+ O w�+ ■f w N R V $ Oe Cix Z. p. Y+ `■ ■ II • 7 i i! i A N A h y e 0'. i 'y FOC 6 • .tC ■p i 1■e C ° RY �f.�D� a Y C %r F {Y111 U... rF V ..~iCiY « y w rt a C■ C` ■ ■ '1 F rq x s w ■ O n F L w e a. Ii1 Y w A r .� • Y C O �+ aI i a+ F F *.°a■iF c as A°t a•+ w .,a y:°Fa° eve + v p �" c 66 ..I .� O L 41 C■+�■ �tw a+Q r. 4' ww C✓ C w O C R co Cx ■ i r yra•� M ■ r y .w.I ial ■ R• wM itwft0. i�e17■ yy «C ■ rilCSy as .t 7 s EC i .w.IOyii°a+YD CCS° L i i•wq F y uFw�y �a■r?~ C N M • C «�• «F p * • �** {tet •r °yip °.r i s�■ii7v�rii ■■vc i O OV V■ i y .t�0a+ iCMi y0 i 7 Y•y1 ��0R✓ • Av. ■'� .lu1 0'C v 0. p~ CL O�� +wi 0.0 o CO ■r■ ■yy O �+ wa +0+13Fc 0C yy UAipiC■ � Z � +� 0. ■ D ■ e y�� id s� O« y U� � +GI ° y y C i y `y 10. i q 'K a R ■p� -m -0 r ✓ ■ > fr 3 F w A✓ ✓ ■ ■r.rw ■AAi �■ 1•. .~•I L MO .CtUe FM ■ C r i Y O ■ F !!w4 X !✓v■•Qr r i m m m cw vri.t .Fiarycs •MY 0: yl Do iiia .uaA rG" • � 0■■✓U>• w O U MM rrt 000 r rt O r •,. •� • V a m 64, ✓ _ • ■■ MIC T 7 r r r..s ■ g p F r C C yM«w w R a� ■ � D C r Y Y T.+� rr ■I ■t k i✓4 � :i �t y • t+ Ra+ o a YMf. rw • C V ay■•Y ■ i1 V d 0.00■ ! « W y • C r ■ X1 x x xf x( I 1 1 I 1 ! f � I I( ( l f f I I I f I f ( I I _ N ! ✓.1.I '� ..Ir 1� .40 pp ■ y ar+itC 1 7✓ ■ .•iQ yC i O �M ! �■ 0■ !r C�A �•� '.�yis r0� �� C■ �i V �iJd Is, A0 -.0.V OU 4 MO 017 pts yw p tysXO +.1 t •y O • !■g Ny rUt 7 v i es y C V ■ O� � d i O fJ Q■ C C q a .0'.. .•t C fm ■ ■O .~, ii ✓C r q °! MoD C*+ R� � R�• w V � ar1°N OO �w • Id ■t ppC .a ■!r F y ■w ■ P 0.6 wrr OM y✓ C� i V s y y a.ii : gL tC V c i V Cr � a� r o .:., « i 1�1 Y+Fi .I q .0 u 0; •ucu •c i� ■o �„ ro�r+v awr.°+G� un oa ia�tlx+ .ty •«✓ • ; IoM FY■ r+� ✓■ Qi =! CO C li c �/+ OpH�O sit S ■Cy � .rCC G p C.t Crre w✓ p° 'a pM✓ .YiO«L Y✓ �y .at Fp,I.. M M! y✓ O =■� ,.,I •w0 O C O• 00. y r. +I■■O` .r 10, r r 3 0 0✓ » ■ w y ti ✓ O .+Ci .Mi O y Cyt ✓i W >G ✓✓ ✓ f rr y y 0 r v i CCM i� C V ✓ .w ; S .t r.■w OM iC FCS �L i■i "'ICS .�Y1. C~MR s+r�19 �0. •w Y•i •..t■ p Mist ryU wC+° ■M !?. tC P k 6+ p,■.t /l ✓a 10M ■...'° M O V G? X Yom✓ Ur«C Mir 4►7 i C�+ yi T. ✓G7 iiM ■I+✓ yy wLitt ••� �+i CSC �t PM �wM 1�✓ ryi UNU .tOUM 6 F MCO 7XT .+iMC .60 M Circ •• MO L T>C Y■ 00✓ y ■Ji ✓'G D L70 �+✓9 C✓! C +IM Mi■ ■AO i <Q✓ MFA Cy.t ■ Lam. C L O 9 O++ U+t w y Fh �✓ •• A V O e O .• IL, m >~ 0 1✓o a i die 40 U✓■✓ J y C✓1✓o O YCRG 9 Q. wO Y 0 0¢✓w V " F � L ■ L C 0. ■ F AGENDA ITEM N'0. PAGEOF C r FOR OFFICE USE ONLY EES MAYBE NO I. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? All of the above must be answered "no" for a negative declaration to be issued. II. DETERIMINATION: X X X X The proposed project should not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. Although the proposed project could have a signifi- cant effect on the environment, it will not in this case because of the attached mitigation measures. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. The proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. An EIR is required. III. REVIEWED BY: DATE: — 17 4fl L ) PLANNING DIRECTOR: ATE:I� d AGENDA ITEM NO_ 5X PAGE _LL OF J4-- 1-23-86 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 24, 1990 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ORDER ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN (MC TEAGUE) PREPARED BY: APPROVED: <P� rwl"� Ron Kirchner � Ron Mol ndyk Director of Public City Manager Services The Council has previously authorized through eminent domain the acquisition of rights of way and easements not acquired by negotiation. A design change to the construction plans now provides for the installation of a reclaimed -water line to service the irrigation system in the median. Said line originates at the EVMWD waste water plant adjacent to Railroad Canyon and will necessitate a wider easement from the road to the plant than originally planned. This same easement is used for access to the plant as well as utilities. Negotiations with the property owner for the additional easement width have not been successful. One acquisition agent recommends that the City proceed with eminent domain proceedings. FINDINGS This is the time and place for the Public Hearing on the matter of the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity to acquired subject easement by eminent domain. FISCAL IMPACT All costs associated with this action are funded by the road benefit district. There will be no direct cost to the City. RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive and consider all testimony presented at Public Hearing 2. Adopt the Resolution of Necessity. (Exhibit A) AGENDA ITEM NO. 33 PAGE,. OFA/ e RESOLUTION NO. 90-96 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IMM EISINORE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBING A CERTAIN PROJECT; MAKING A STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC USE FOR WHICH CERTAIN PROPERTIES TO BE TA = AND REFERENCE TO STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE SAID PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN; DESCRIBING THE GENERAL LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SAID PROPERTY TO BE TART; DECLARING FINDINGS AND DET13UGMTIONS ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR SAID PROPERTY; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EXTENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS TO BE COIUNCED IN SUPERIOR COURT TO ACQUIRE SAID PROPERTY INCLUDING APPLICATION FOR POSSESSION OF SAID PROPERTY PRIOR TO JUDGMENT; AND PDLI=G OTHER DILATIONS WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore is a public entity organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore intends to undertake a certain project for public purposes; and WHEREAS, in order to accomplish said project, the City Council believes that it is necessary to acquire by eminent domain certain property, hereinafter collectively called "subject property"; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1245.235 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the City Council has fixed a time and place for the public hearing on the matters referred to in Section 1240.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has given each person who owns or claims a right in said subject property proposed to be -acquired by eminent domain and whose name and address appears on the last Equalized County Assessment Roll noticed, a reasonable opportunity AG ENDA ITEM NO. 3 3 EXHIBIT A PAGE OF�l to be heard in the time, form and manner required by Section 1245.235 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and, WHEREAS, the City has complied with the requirements of Government Code Section 7267.2 in making a fair market value offer to acquire subject property; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the City Council did hear and consider all testimony, written and oral, to the matters referred to in Section 1240.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct. Section 2. That said subject property be taken by eminent domain is for a public use, to -wit: Acquisition of property for the construction of sewer line facilities HEREINAFTER called "Project"; and, Section 3. That the City is authorized and -empowered to commence eminent domain proceedings to acquire said subject property pursuant to the eminent domain law, being Title 7, Part III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 4. That a description of the general location and extent of said subject property to be taken by eminent domain is set•forth on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof. -2- A VEENDA ITEM NO. �-- PAGE � OF�� Section 5. That this City Council does find, determine and declare as follows: (a) That, to the extent acquisition of said subject property results in a remnant, said remnant shall be acquired by eminent domain herein, pursuant to Section 1240.410 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (b) That, to the extent that said subject property or interest therein is already appropriated to a public use, the proposed use for the subject property will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of said public use as it presently exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future, pursuant to Section 1240.510 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and (c) That, to the extent said subject property or interest therein is already appropriated to a public use, the use proposed herein is a more necessary public use than that use to which said subject property is presently appropriated, pursuant to Section 1240,610 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or, in the alternative, the use proposed herein is a compatible public use which will not unreasonably interfere with the continuance of the existing public use, pursuant to 1240.630(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 6. That this City Council does hereby further find, determine and declare as follows: (a) That the public interest and necessity requires the Project; -3- AGENDA ITEM N�. PAGE OF (b) That said Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and (c) That said subject property sought to be acquired is necessary for said Project. Section 7. That Brown, Harper, Burns & Hentschke, Attorneys for the City of Lake Elsinore, are hereby authorized and directed to commence an action in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Riverside, in the name and on the behalf of the City, against those persons who appear on record or who are known to have a claim or interest in said subject property described in the Exhibit "A", for the purpose of acquiring said subject property by eminent domain for the public use described herein and to make application for possession of said subject property prior to Judgment. Section 8. That the officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to withdraw necessary sums to deposit with the Superior Court as the probable compensation that will be awarded in the eminent domain proceedings to acquire said subject property described in Exhibit "A". -4- SNDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF Section 9. That the officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take any appropriate action consistent with the purposes of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS day of ATTEST: VICKI LYNNE KASAD City Clerk CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVED AS TO FORM: JOHN R. HARPER City Attorney CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE GARY WASHBURN, Mayor CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 1990. -5- AGENDA ITEM NO.. PAGE. OFZ.: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE it , CITY CLERK of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested by the City Clerk, all at the meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 1990, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTAIN: COUNCI124MMERS EXECUTED this day of at Lake Elsinore, California. City Clerk City of Lake Elsinore State of California [SQ] -6- (LE#13/Reso2/p.1-6) , 1990, AGENDA [TEM NO. 33 PAGE 0F /- 90 ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01'19'23" A DISTANCE OF 68.35 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 0.336 ACRES - MORE OR LESS. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED EASEMENT LIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 14, 1983 AS FILE NO. 83-027590 ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. SEE EXHIBIT 'B' ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART THEREOF. AGENDA ITEM NO. - 33 PAGE �OFZ-�Z-- -SW4 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 10 T.ES. "W. S.B.M. ra�rea�etir ahs• � Fit1EDMAN it iii � � �I1r71e�a•�r w� � z �E�� . (nom v ' C • A 7► g p O � 4 : 9 a• � a E I..�� V r,\.V�aJn i CIYI IVV. E+r PAGE., OF Z 'o ,� ACCESS ROAD EASEMENT AND GENERAL UTILITY FOR E.V.M.W.D. PARCEL "RR 1" (McTeague) ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF.SECTION 10; THENCE NORTH 00"08'38" WEST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOU_'HEAST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 237.99 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RAILROAD CANYON ROAD'AS SHOWN ON RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP 30X ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY SURVEYOR OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING ON THE ARC OF'A 1960.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, A RADIAL FROM SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 12055109" EAST; THENCE -ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, EASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL. ANGLE OF 19'05138" A DISTANCE OF 653.18 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 83049'31" EAST, 153.40 FEET TO THE BEGINNING . OF A TANGENT 2960.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE 08'24'320, A DISTANCE OF 434.42 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, A RADIAL FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 14035102" WEST; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY.RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE IN A NONTANGENT DIRECTION NORTH 83"47'22" WEST, 85.21 FEET; THENCE NORTH 69010146" WEST, 193:86 FEET; THENCE NORTH 59'23'02" WEST, 284.28 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF A 20 -FOOT SEWER EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT; RECORDED MAY 10, 1983 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 91732 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG* SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, -NORTH 52041'32" EAST, 26:98 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE SOUTH 59'23'02" EAST, 272.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 69'10146" EAST, 188.52 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 83'47'22" EAST, 145.61 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A 2960.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE -NORTHERLY, A RADIAL FROM SAID POINT BEARS'NORTH 15'54'25" WEST, SAID POINT BEING ON SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID RAILROAD CANYON AGENDA ITEM NO...�,� PAGE 1d OF CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DAVE GUNDERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1990 SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23381 - K -MART BACKGROUND This Tentative Parcel Map has been extended four (4) times since the June 26, 1990 City Council hearing. On the September 25, 1990 hearing there were continued discussions regarding unsolved issues such as grading, drainage, illegal dirt piling and landscaping. After discussion this item was continued to the October 24, 1990 meeting. PROGRESS REPORT Staff met with Roger Kobata and Richard Reinhardt, K -Mart Project Representative, regarding landscaping maintenance on September 28, 1990. Mr. Reinhardt has indicated that landscaping will be brought up to acceptable standards by October 30, 1990 (See Exhibit A and B) . Staff also met with Fred Crowe, Butterfield Engineering, and Leonard O'Byrne, Camelot Property Counselors, Inc., on October 17, 1990. A verbal agreement was made with staff that exporting of illegal dirt piling on Phase II will start on October 23, 1990 and will be completed by November 21. A drainage plan will be submitted by October 24, 1990 by Mr. Crowe. Concerns regarding gasoline storage tank have been resolved by securing proper permits from the Riverside County Department of Health for the temporary closure of the tanks. The septic tank has been removed (See Exhibit C). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends extension of the map until November 27, 1990. At that time, if the above items are not completed, staff recommends the map not be extended. /cm AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 1 05 OCT 9 190 13:22 FROM K MART WESTERN REG. K MART CORPORATION 11x4 N. CITRUS AVENUE COVINA, CALIFORNIA 91722 MAILINO ADDRESS a 1—t COVI-4A. CAIIf GRN1A 91794 ►NONE. (0167 91+•7700 Mr. Ron Molendyk City Manager City of Lake Elsinore 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 October 9, 1990 U PAGE. 001 CITE' 1-D' : Z I0.'06i1990 09x36 FROM KO ASSOCIATES INC. TO CITYLSINORE P. 02/02 M E M 0 R A N 0 U M October 5, 1990 TO: City of Lake Elsinore Attn: Planning Department FROM: Roger Kobata RE: K -Mart Landscape I met with Mr. Richard Reinhart of K -Mart at the site on September 28, 1990, to discuss the City's concern over the appearance of the existing landscaping. Mr. Reinhart stated that the landscaping has been neglected for some time and that K -Mart will correct the situation. A now landscape maintenance company has been hired and will start renovating the existing landscape. The following landscape work will be accomplished: 1. Weed abatement. 2. Fertilizing of all planting areas. 3. Removal of trees, shrubs which were not on original landscape plan. 4. Removal and replacement of all dead plant material, ground cover and turf. Mr. Reinhart was told that all renovation work on the landscaping must be completed by October 30, 1990. Aink 1, ; cz:xb �,f� . a PAGE OF N W AMIN W, 9MV N 5wiw W W 11 ��w LANDSCAPE ARCHITEOURE 0 607 N. Mahaim Blvd. - Anaheim, California, 92805 - (714) 520-5795 0 Lk. No. 1219 CANCLOT PROPERTY COUNSELORf, INC. P.O BOX 1149 WILDOMAR, CA 92395 (714) 677--9339 October 15, 1990 Mr. Dave Gunderman Community Development Director City of Lake Elsinore City Hall HAND DELIVERED 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 Dear Mr. Gunderman: This is a report on the status of correcting the City's objections to the K -Mart site. 1. K -Mart Store Site I am attaching copies of a memorandum from Roger Kobata, Landscape Architect Consultant, dated October 5, 1990 and a letter from Mr. Reinhardt of K -Mart Corporation dated October 11, 1990. They are self explanatory; and, as you can see, the landscaping particulars are.to be furnished by October 30, 1990. 2. Phase II -Camelot Center -(Site along Mission Trail -South of K -Mart Store.) A. Dirt -Storage I have reviewed at length with Mr. Fred Crowe, of Butterfield Engineering what will most quickly solve the problem. I have even gone so far as to have a rather expensive grading plan prepared by his office. Frankly, in this economic climate the only thing that makes sense is to move it. I had an agreement with a materials exporter to move all of it and he reneged. I will persue it until it is done. I ask to have 60 days to complete it. B. Gasoline Storage Tanks I have obtained an underground storage tank permit for closure of the tanks from the County of PAGE OF C Mr. Dave Gunderman Page Two C rm rz Riverside, Department of Health. The permit number is 90-244., I have engaged Elmer J. Wood, Inc. of Riverside, California to handle the matter. (It is one of the approved contractors on the County's list.) I met with Mr. Brad Nicolet, of the County Health Department on October 4, 1990 and gave him a status report. I -am in compliance with his Department. C. Septic Tank At the Council Meeting on September 25, 1990, I misstated that there was not an abandoned septic tank. 'There was one. ;t whs pumped over two years ago -the cement broken and hauled away. The hole has been safely filled with dirt and com- pacted. 3. Phase III -(Days Inn site -Casino Drive.) A. Compaction Reports a Copies of the compaction (and sods test) reports were hand -delivered by me to Kevin Shear, City Building Department on 10/12/90. (My files show these were submitted sometime ago by Buena Engineers, Inc. Apparently, they were not.) These reports show compliance with City Ordinances in regard to soils and compaction. B. Gradin On Wednesday, October 17, 1990 at 9:00 a.m., I will meet at the site with Kevin Shear of the City and Fred Crowe of Butterfield Engineers. At that -time I will address each deficiency and attempt to work out a reasonable plan for cure. C. Drainage The same as in above paragraph. Note re Phase III: Days Inn has submitted the re- quired revisions so its application can go to Planning Commission. The entire site will be regraded with new landscaping and new provisions for drainage made. In that their approval process is well along and this property has been leased to Days Inn, to the extent I can, I would like to avoid duplication of effort and expense. AGENDA ITEM NO. �. PAGE OF Mr. Dave Gunderman Page Three Hopefully, this letter addresses all your concerns. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly'yours, CAMELOT PROPERTY COUNSELORS, INC. I T. Leonard O'Byrne President TLO:sjo AGENDA ITEM, NO. �1 PAGE Or 10/ilE/19y0 09:36 FROM KOBATA ASSOCIATES INC. TO CITY EL51NORE ME M 0 R A N 0 U M October 5, 1990 TO: City of Lake Elsinore Attn: Planning Department FROM: Roger Kabata RE: K -Mart Landscape P. 02/82 I met with Mr. Richard Reinhart of K -Mart at the site on September 28, 1990, to discuss the City's concern over the appearance of tib existing landscaping. Mr. Reinhart stated that the landsooping has been neglected for some time and that K -Mart "ill correct the situation. A new landscape maintenance company has boon hired and will start renovating the existing landscape. The following landscape -work will be accomplished: 1. Weed abatement. 2. fertilizing of all planting areas. 3. ._Flemoval of trees, shrubs which were not on original landscape plan. 4. Removal and replacement of all dead plant material,.ground cover and turf. Mr. Reinhart was told that all renovation work on the landscaping must be completed by October 30, 1990. F -A AGENDA ITVA. NO.WWU . i> PAGE OF� LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • 607 N. Anaheim Blyd. Anaheim, Caiifornia, 92805 • (714) 520-5795 . Lk. No. 1217 . ,OCT 9 '90 13:22 FROM K MART WESTERN REG. K MART CORPORATION 116A N. CItRU3 AVeNUe COVINA, CALIFORNIA 91772 MAT010 Aoellcss • uw.s Cov.vA, CALII4SRMIA ♦1777 PMON[. 4@161 115.7700 Mr. Ron Molendyk City Manager City of Lake Elsinore 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 October 9, 1990 FINUE . UU I CITY �.�.�-; ., ���JRE RECc.1VED OCT 1 1 199U PLANNING DEPT. �ost-Its' brand tax transmittal memo 7671 o of pays+ ► 7e� 0 Z,A 5 r~ H "m " l' ! .•- G rad - L 5.1,V'L?- '. '4 1-17— Dept. Ph"* � "Y1 44- - •s 32250 Mission Trail Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 WRO - Landscaping Mr. Molendyk: On Friday September 28, 1990 Mr. Roger Cabata, your City Landscape Architect.Consultant, Mr. Saied Naaseh your City Assoicate Planner and this writer met on the site of the referenced K mart to review the on going landscape rejuvenation project. We agreed progress has-been made but, additional work needs to be done. We intend to bring.this site up to our standards and yours prior to October 30, 1990 and keep that way. As you know, we have had many problems with the water pressure, irrigation system and theft over the preceeding months. We believe we now have the system balanced and Performing as.. ; -designed. We have also hired private security- to keep oiir ' property intact so the progress we make will remain. Our apologi ies for the delay'. If . you have any questions, please contact my office. Sincerely, gich Reinhardt Project Representative 818-91S-7233 :1j1 r I v 1 U cc: J. W. Godwin ti ACENDA iTciA NO PACE-: PAGE SIX - CITY COOT CIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 25, 1990 v suggested future consideration of a CUP process or this typ of license. Councilma uck questioned the applicant' willingness to provide privy security. Mr. Davis arified that they are willing to prow security durin usiness hours, not 24 hours a day. He a o advised at they are willing to provide upgraded trash pick -u and intenance. Council discussed the need for a revised Ord ce andthe ime constraints of further considerat on th project. MOVED BY WINKLER ECONDED BY BUCK CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 1 WITH DOMING CASTING THE DISSENTING E To REFER THIS ITEM BACK TO TH LANNING COMMISSION WITH INSTRU ON FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY S TO LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AND A REQUIRE T THAT THEY FOCUS AB DETY To ENFORCE THEIEW AND OUNSEL DESIRESOOK OF ATHEAPPROPRIATE TE S FOR COMMI N AND AB TY COUNCIL. 53. Extension of me = Tentative arcel Maw 336 = -Ma • Community Development Director Gunderman detailed the concerns with this project and the mitigation which has already occurred. Leonard O'Byrne, Camelot Properties, detailed his efforts to resolve concerns. Bill Boyer, K-Mart,.advised that work is continuing to replace the landscaping and detailed some difficulties they have had in this effort. City Manager Molendyk advised that he had visited the site this date and the main concern remaining is the erosion control and drainage. Mayor Washburn questioned the ability to grade the property to mitigate these concerns without removing dirt that would later need to be replaced. Fred Crowe, Butterfield Engineering, advised that he believed this could be accomplished with rough grading. Mr. O'Byrne advised that he is willing to pursue this. After further discussion of timing for grading, a one month continuance was suggested. MOVED BY WINKLER, SECONDED BY BUCK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM FOR ONE MONTH. Councilman Starkey stressed the need to proceed with this work quickly to beat the rainy season. Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Allgqation Engg ram. Camra 'ty Development Director Gunderman a ained the recommen 'on and the need to proceed w' acquisition of K -Rat areas. MOVED BY DOMINGUEZr BLICSECON NG BY STCTOBER 23,CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO SET 1990. BUSINESS ITEMS 55. Selection o otin De]egate and Alternate a e of Califor Cities Annual Conference. or Washburn appointed Mayor Washburn as Delegate ancl_Mayor ro Tem Starkey as alternate for the Annual conference. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE ❑� _L__� r C CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL _'- FROM: RON MOLENDYK, CITY MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1990 SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23381, K -MART HACAGRO_UND This time extension has been extended three (3) times since the June 26, 1990 City Council meeting. Some minor issues have been resolved, i.e., restriping of parking lot and removal of storage containers. However, main issues regarding landscaping, grading, drainage and illegal dirt piling have not been resolved. DISCUSSION Roger Kobata has visited the K -mart site recently and has made the following comments and recommendations: Comments 1. The level of maintenance is minimal to non-existent. 2. Many plants, turf, ground cover are dead and are in a unhealthy state due to lack of care (proper watering, fertilizing, spraying). 3. Trees are not properly staked throughout the project. Recommendation 1. Replace all dead plant material with same species. 2. Add additional plant material as agreed upon with City to upgrade the appearance of the landscape throughout the center.(Meet with City Landscape Architect). 3. Provide to the City an acceptable landscape maintenance program for the center which will insure that the quality and appearance (aesthetics) will be maintained at that level. 4. In good Faith, K -Mart to put up a Performance Bond for landscape maintenance (1 year) to the City to assure the City of a quality landscape product. Kevin Shear has expressed the following concerns about drainage, illegal grading and dirt piling: 1. The building pad above the K -mart building was not graded to the approved plans. 2. No erosion control measures have been taken on the site. 3. Drainage inlets are missing. 4. Compaction report on grading has not been provided. 5. The applicant has been storing over 35,000 cubic yards of fill dirt on the site without the benefit of permits. 6. Gas tanks and septic tanks have not been removed. t AGENDA {TEP,, No. PAGE Q' - v'" — r C Page 2 September 25, 1990 Subject: Extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map 23381 - K -Mart 7. Proper erosion control measures have not been performed on the vacant pads. S. Drainage at top of the rear slop not per grading plan. 9. Rain will cause erosion problems on this site. Furthermore, the Council has expressed concern on the timing of improvements to Malaga Road. The original Parcel Map was only conditioned to dedicate ten (10) feet to Malaga Road and was not conditioned to improve it. Therefore, it will not be improved until Parcel 2 is developed. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council deny the Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map 23381 for the following reasons: /cm, 1. No significant steps have been taken towards recordation of this map; 2. Public health and welfare is endangered by illegal grading and drainage issues which might require redesigning of the lot configuration; 3. There are no guarantees that the applicant will address the issues discussed in this staff report if the map is further extended. � f AG_r�JA if trv, -51 — PAGE + OF AGENDA ITEM NO. • PAGE -- - - ----- -- -- - - !""CITY =PAGE TWENTY-SIX COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 28, 1990 t,_ - oilman Dominguez questioned whether a full year neces Mr. Gunderman advised that the ease s had not all been alized and the year would sure ve them enough time to begin ork. MOVED BY STARKEY, SEGO BY BUCK CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO EXTEND THE DESIGN REVIE FP THEFOR FOLLOWINGCIAL FINDINGSECT 89-1 FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BAS Finding I. The,-roject will not result in en onmental impacts. The project meets the design review reements of the Municipal Code. 53. Time Extension Request for Tentative Parcel Map 23381 _ Camelot Properties. Community Development Director Gunderman detailed previous concerns with the site and the improvements which have been completed to date, including debris clean-up and replaced landscaping. Additional landscaping work will be continuing. He recommended continuance to September 25. Councilman Starkey inquired whether additional landscaping work would be done on the slopes. Community Development Director Gunderman confirmed that additional landscaping would be done with completion the end of September. Councilman Starkey emphasized the need for additional work. Councilman Buck questioned the future improvement of Malaga Road and suggested that it not be postponed until the Casino improvements occur, those improvements need to begin right away. Community Development Director Gunderman advised that he would convey that information to the developer and provide a report back on the timing. City Manager Molendyk advised that this is the last time staff will be recommending an extension. Councilman Dominguez recommended that in the future projects stand alone and are not tied to each other. MOVED BY BUCK, SECONDED BY DOMINGUEZ AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO REAFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-38 AND CONTINUE THIS EXTENSION TO SEPTEMBER 25, 1990. 54. eal of Plannin Commission Conditions of Approval bens 1., 23,. 25�. 2_, 29, 39- 42 and 42 for Residential probe 9a-10 = George Alon i. Community D elopme-ntDirectorGunderm detailed the above mentioned con 'tions and explained a purpose of each condition. Councilman Buck expre a oncern with the requirement for a trash enclosure as on not required by law, but the applicant has plan to b 'ld one. He also advised that the applicant has a oached the re department but not received a response wi regard to the p 'ect. Staff clarified that i as long ha a has given the Fire partment the opportunity to respo he has complied with the ndition. Cau ilman Buck questioned the need for th bonding in c diti.on #43 and why it would not be adequateto condition the applicant to build the improvements. AOENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF� CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE fx' MEMORANDUM T0: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DAVE GUNDERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: AUGUST 281 1990 SUBJECT: TIME E%TENSION REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23381; CAMELOT PROPERTIES BACKGROUND The City Council on its July 24, 1990 meeting extended the above referenced project to the August 28, 1990. PROGRESS REPORT The K -Mart store management has been cooperative with staff in fulfilling all requirements of the'Planning Division. The parking lot has been restriped, the storage containers have been removed and the outside storage by the Garden Center has been removed. Landscaping and irrigation have been improved and will be in substantial compliance with the approved plans upon completion. Grading and drainage issues are still contingent upon the development o+ other sites (i.e. Days Inn, Phase II and the north parking lot). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council reaffirm Negative Declaration 87-38 and to extend Tentative Parcel Map 23381 to the September 11, 1990 City Council meeting. /cm AGENDA ITEt.. NO. S PAGE OF PAGE NINE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 241 1990 DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PREMIER HOMES, MEEKER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, TOMICH/JONES, TORN RANCH, AND GOLDEN STATE DEVELOPMENT) . UPON FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCK, DOMINGUEZ, STARKEY, WASHBURN NOES: UNCILMEMBERS: -NONE ABSENT: CO CILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUN LMEMBERS: -NONE City Attorn Harper advised that in connect n with this agreement, h has been notified that the el tion will now need to be po tponed to August 15, 1990. requested that the resolution a added to the agenda. MOVED BY STARKEY, SE\BY BUCK AND TO ADD RESOLUTION 90THE AGENDA. MOVED BY WINKLER, SEBY WASHBURN VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLU. 90-71. I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY POSTPONING A SPECIAL ELECT DISTRICT NO. 88-3 TO SUBMIT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DIS TR LEVYING A SPECIAL TAX, ES A AND INCURRING BONDED IND BT BY UNANIMOUS VOTE CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS ON 2T0. 90-71 dL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES i THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF SUCH THE COMBINED PROPOSITION OF HING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT, [E 34. Recover of Enenditur,4s for the jkbatement of Weeds, Rubbish,. Refuse and Dirt. Community Developm t Director Gunde an explained this program and the p ocess for the recove of expenditures. The City Clerk eported no written commen s or protests. Mayor Washbu opened the public hearing at 0:20 p.m. asking those in fa r of this item to speak. No one spoke. Mayor Was urn asked those in opposition to thi item to speak. earing no one, the public hearing was c used at 10:20 p.m. MOVED BY UCK, SECONDED BY WASHBURN AND CARRIED BY UNAN OUS VOTE TO CONF THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMIN TRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR TO PLACE AN ASSESSMENT W THE COUN TAX ASSESSORS OFFICER TO RECOVER ALL PERTINENT COSTS AND INT ST ACCRUED THEREON. SINESS DISCUSSIONT� EMS 51. Time Extension Request for Tentative Parcel Maw32 381 _ Camelot Properties. Community Development Director Gunderman addressed a letter received from Camelot Properties and detailed the current progress with the necessary improvements. He also suggested modification of the timeline for completion of all work. Leonard O'Byrne, Camelot Properties,. -advised that he would have no problem with the 30 day review period. He also AGENDA ITEM. NO. PAGE Or--- r PAGE TEN - CITY IMCIL MINUTES - JULY 24, 1990 advised that the landscaping work would begin on July 25, but he is concerned with the timing for removal of the tanks in that he is unsure of the County's processing of the permits. Mayor Washburn advised that he would have no problem with a 90 day extension. City Manager Molendyk inquired how long the County would take to process the permit. Building Manager Shear estimated 30 to 45 days for final approval. Councilman Buck questioned the delays for the widening of Malaga. Mr. O'Byrne advised that he is ready to proceed, but he would like to discuss with the new owners of the Casino prior to beginning work. - MOVED BY STARKEY, SECONDED BY BUCK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUSV E TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO AUGUST 28, 1990. BUSINESS ITEMS . Second Reading _ Ordinance No. 897. lating to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act/of 1975. WIN XLER, SECONDED BY STARKEY TO ADOPT ORDIWCE NO. 897: ORDINANCE NO. 897 AN OR INANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PLEMENTING THE SURFAC MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 197 L . UPON THE FOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCI r3EMBERS: BUCK, DOMINGUEZ/1 STARKEY,.WINKLER, WASHBURN NOES: COUNCILMMME RS : NONE ABSENT: COUNCI LMEMBF NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE 53. Second Readinq _ Ordin face div- 898. Relating to the Central siness Overlay District. MOVED -BY DOMINGUEZ, SECOND BY BUCK TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 898: DINANCE SIO . 898 AN ORDINANCE OF TF�t CITY COUNCI OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, AMENDING CHAPTER 7.11.050 REGARD NG THE CENTRAL BUSINESS OVERLAY DISTRICT. UPON THE FOLLOWIN"V ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCI BERS: BUCK, DOMINGUEZ, 7RKEY, WASHBURN NOES: COUN ILMEMBERS: WINKLER ABSENT: COL*CILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: UNCILMEMBERS: NONE 54. Pla in Commission AAMuaintments. Ma or Washburn advised that he and Mayor Pro Tem *arkey had i terviewed the five applicants for the two Plannin ornission seats. He thanked all applicants for their AGE -NIDA I:4. PAC- OF r CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE C MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DAVE GUNDERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: JULY 241 1990 SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23381, CAMELOT PROPERTIES BACKGROUND The City Council on its June 26, 1990 meeting extended the above referenced project for 30 days. Further extensions of the Tentative Parcel Map is contingent on the satisfaction of the City Council on the progress of improving landscaping and outside storage on the K -Mart site and grading and drainage concerns on the whole site. PROGRESS REPORT Camelot properties has been in contact with the Planning staff and has submitted the attached letter. Outside storage has been eliminated from the back of K -Mart and according to the applicant landscaping contracts have been signed and all landscape improvements will be completed by August 20, 1990. Grading and drainage issues are still contingent upon the development of other sites (i.e. Days Inn, Phase II and the north parking lot). RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the City Council to re -affirm Negative Declaration 87-38 and to extend Tentative Parcel Map 23381 to the August 28, 1990 City Council meeting. /cm AGENDA ITEEM tSo. sL. PAGE �� GFS CAMEOT PROPERTY COUNSELORS`iNC. P.O. BOX 1149 WILDOMAR, CA 92395 (714) 677-9339 July 17, 1990 Mr. Saied Naaseh-Shahry Associate Planner City of Lake Elsinore Re: K -Mart Final Map 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA Dear Saied: This is a written follow-up to my telephone progress reports of last week regarding the K -Mart site. 1. K -Mart has granted a $43,000.00 contract to Landscapte Design, Ontario California for the re -doing of the landscaping. It will be done according to the original approved plans; with the work starting on Mission Trail and proceeding easterly until completed. This work is to be completed by August 20, 1990. 2. Upon the landscaping being completed by K -Mart, the northerly portion of the site will be paved for temporary additional parking. Mr. Rich Williams of K -Mart's regional office has submitted a preliminary plan to you. He is now incorporating your suggested changes. This plan will take care of any concerns regarding drainage expressed by Kevin Shear, in Building and Safety. The scheduled completion date for the additional parking is September 30, 1990. 3. Days Inn has made application for approvals and last week submitted a letter to you re- garding the time frame for the landscaping plans to be submitted. I understand they are on schedule. pGEhD A ;TE,',?- NO— L- P,,SE� OF A e'r C C Mr. Saied Naaseh-Shahry Page Two 4. The status on Phase II -(the parcel im- mediately south of K -Mart) is as follows: (a) A permit has been obtained and fees paid to begin the removal process of the gasoline tanks on the corner of Mission and Malaga. This is sched- uled to be completed within 120 days. (b) A grading plan was prepared and sub- mitted some time ago. Finalization of it is presently on hold primarily for two reasons: i) We, along with the Mayor, recently met with the head official of a major bank in regard to locating a branch on the site. The bank is now investigating it with dispatch. In that a bank is a high priority on both our and the City's list, if it committed, we would develop _ the remainder of Phase II around it. We will keep you and the City Council up to date on this; and, ii) The development of Phase II needs to be coordinated with the renovation of the Sahara Dunes Casino in the areas of the widening of Malaga Street, the installation of sewer, and the pedestrian access. We are not privy to their time schedule; however, on several occasions, both orally and in writing, we have re- quested to meet with the appropriate parties in this regard. To date we have had no reply. We would hope the City would indulge us on moving the dirt stored there for another ninety days so we can await the outcome of what we have discussed above. 5. Mr. Bill Boyer, store manager of K -Mart has AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE .. 0 C Mr. Saied Naaseh-Shahry Page Three C t�i - rx confirmed that all the things he is re- sponsible for, such as moving the storage containers in the rear of the store and other objectionable items outside, have been completed. Thank you. TLO:sjo Very truly yours, CAMELOT PROPERTY COUNSELORS, INC. Tv-&4'r,4t,� . T. LeonardO' Byrne President AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF C c PAGE SEVEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1990 ar Washburn explained that staff would wo a -write the crsndi and return for review. MOVED BY WASHBURN, DED BY BU D CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO DIREC TO PROCEED WITH THE RE -WRITE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED CO ON. COMMUNITY PMENT DIRECTOR GUNDERMAN ADV HAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN ST ORIGINALLY ADVERTISED FOR THIS DATE HA'11— S DRAV'Di BY THE APPLICANT. 52. Time extension for Tentative Parcel Man 23381 (K -Mart). Proposed Extension for 90 days. Community Development Director Gunderman detailed this request and some of the problems that have been encountered in working with the applicant thus far. These included poor landscape maintenance, outward appearance of the store, outdoor storage of excess merchandise, etc. For this reason he recommended granting of a 30 day extension with review at that time for further extensions. Leonard O'Byrne, Camelot Properties, representing the applicant advised that they would be agreeable to the 30 day extension subject to review. MOVED BY BUCK, SECONDED BY STARKEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE A 30 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME. ITEMS 53. econd Reading _ Ordinance No. 895. Re)ting to the Zone Change for South Lake Estes Joint vent e. / MOVED BY ST KEY,NDED BY BUCK TO ADOPT 4 INANCE NO. 895: ORDINANCE NO. 895 AN ORDIE CITY COUNCIL OF HE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORG 29.5 ACRES L ATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF STONEMA'TH SIDE OF T CURRENT CITY LIMITS FROM RURAL R(R } TO SIN -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) (SOUTH S JO T VEN RE. UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL E: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BU STARKEY, WASHBURN NOES: COUNCILMEMBER NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMB S: DOMINGUE WINKLER ABSTAIN: COUNCI BERS: NONE 54. Second Readin _ Ordinance No. 896. Relating t ,the Lake Elsinore Outlet Center gecific Plan McArthur/ en Group. MOVED BY S K, SECONDED BY STARKEY TO ADOPT ORDIN E NO. 896: ORDINANCE NO. 896 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, IFORNIA, APPROVING THE LAKE ELSINORE OUTLET CENTER PECIFIC AGENDA ITEM, No. PAGE OF �� C CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE MEMORANDUM C TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DAVE GUNDERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: JUNE 201 1990 SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23381 (K -MART) DACKCROUND The applicant is requesting a one (1) year time extension on the Tentative Parcel Map that expires on June 26, 1990. Grading, drainage, landscaping and outside storage has been a concern to the City since construction of K -Mart. Staff has had extensive contacts with Mr. Leonard O'Byrne and the K -Mart Corporation. Grading and drainage issues are still unresolved. These issues are a result of grading not in conformance with approved grading plans including off-site grading performed by Camelot Properties. The development of the Days Inn on Parcel No. 3 will solve these issues; however, it will cost the developer extra to correct the drainage problems. Also, illegal dirt piling on Parcel No. 2 is not in conformance with the approved grading plans. Landscaping issues have been discussed with staff. A new water pump has been installed on the Mission Trail property line to provide necessary pressure for irrigation. The applicant claims improvements to the existing landscaping will shortly follow. Outside storage of Garden Center has been partially cleaned up; however, staff is not satisfied with the progress. Storage containers in the back of the K -Mart building are expected to be removed by July 15, 1990. Staff site inspections have revealed that one of the containers was removed from site but now it is back on the premises which is in conflict with the agreement reached between the staff and applicant. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Time Extension for a ninety (90) day period extending the Tentative Parcel Map till September 26, 1990. Issues discussed in the Staff Report and the attached letters shall be in full compliance to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director before additional extensions are granted. /cm 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 WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore has been notified by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission that the Commission intends to review the sphere of influence of the City of Lake Elsinore; and WHEREAS, Section 56428 of the Government Code provides that a local agency may file a written request with the Executive Officer of a Commission requesting amendments to a sphere of influence adopted by the Commission; and WHEREAS, the City has conducted a study to determine the appropriate logical and orderly future physical boundaries and service area of the City, and said study entitled "Report Accompanying a Request for Amendment of the Sphere of Influence of the City of Lake Elsinore" has indicated several areas where changes are appropriate to the existing sphere of influence of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore has determined that a request formalizing the changes to the sphere of influence recommended in said Report be submitted to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission to assist the Commission in its review of the sphere of influence of the City and to provide to the Commission the position of the City with respect to the City's sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, a map showing the various proposed changes in the City's current sphere of influence is contained in the aforementioned report; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Resolution Requesting Amendments to the Sphere of Influence of the City of Lake Elsinore is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to file certified copies of this Resolution and the accompanying Report with the Executive Officer of the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, this 24th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCII.MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEM 3ERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIIIVIEMBERS: AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 3 03F Prepared for THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE October 17, 1990 REPORT ACCOMPANYING REQUEST FOR A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AGENDA ITEM NO. _„hj�X PAGE PAGE TWO - REPORT ON REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Recommendation: In order that the Commission may have before it a formal review of the sphere conducted by the City, as well as a formal request from the City to amend its sphere of influence consistent with the conclusions of the report, it is recommended that your Council: L Adopt the "Report Accompan $ a Request for Amendment of the Sphere of Influence of the City of Lake I snore as part of the documentation required by Section 56425 of the Government Code. I 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. AG _ . '6a PAGE OF L4 < REPORT TO CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: October 24, 1990 SUBJECT: Request to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission to Amend the Sphere of influence of the City of Lake Elsinore. PREPARED BY: -�—� Marcus F. Christensen Special Consultan xa io APPROVED BY: Y, City Manager Discussion: The background of this matter is dealt with at some length in the accompanying report entitled "Report Accompanying a Request for Amendment of the Sphere of influence of the City of Lake EIsinore." In brief, the salient points are: 1. The Board of Supervisors has asked the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission to review the spheres of influence of several cities, including Lake Elsinore. That review is currently underway by LAFCO staff. 2. At the same time, a number of annexation requests have been received by City staff, including several in areas not currently included within the City's sphere of influence. 3. In order that the staff of LAFCO and the Commission members themselves may have a comprehensive look at a logical and orderly extension of the ultimate boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore, the accompanying report, together with a survey of public opinion with respect to the City of ICke EElsinore to the Wildomar and Sedco areas, were prepared as documents to accompany the request for the sphere amendment. It is our understanding that the review of the sphere of influence of the Ci of Lake Elsinore is tentatively scheduled to go before the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission at its regular meeting of January 24, 1991. The Report prepared for the City concludes that several amendments to the sphere should be requested from the Commission. These include: 1. An extension of the sphere to include six sections of land north of the City, where property owners have indicated interest in annexing to the City. 2. Several minor adjustments to the east of the City's current sphere to conform with the sphere of influence of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 3. Two minor adjustments that will be required should both the communities of Canyon Lake and Murrieta incorporate at the November 6th election. Each adjustment involves a section of land now within the sphere of the City of Lake Elsinore which would be within the boundaries of the newly -incorporated cities. 4. A major revision to the south and west to include the territory requested to be part of the City's sphere in 1985, but excluded by the Commission. This extension would bring the entire territory known as "Wildomar" to the proposed boundary of the City of Murrieta within the sphere of the City of Lake Elsinore. Accompanying the Report is a public opinion survey conducted in the communities of Wildomar and Sedco Hills, together with an analysis of the results of that survey. The analysis concludes that residents within these two areas have common social and economic communities of interest with the City of Lake Elsinore, but also demonstrate a variety of misconceptions about the. effect of annexations on property taxes. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 PAGE ,._, OF REPORT ACCOMPANYING A EQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE - TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Present and Planned Land Uses 1 7 Present and Probable Need For Public Facilities and Services in the Area 9 Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services 12 The Eidstence of Social or Economic Communities of Interest 13 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE DE- REPORT ACCOMPANYING A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE INTRODUCTION Legislative Background: Local Agency Format'bn Commissions, established under the Knox -Nisbet Act in 1963, are countywide regulatoryagencies directed by State law to discourage urban sprawl. A 1971. amendment instructed Commissions to "Develop and determine the Sphere of Influence of each local government agency within the County." Such spheres are intended to provide a long-range plan to assist the expansion and organization of local government boundaries. Section 56076 of the Government Code defines a sphere of influence as "a plan for the probable ultimate physical boundaries and service of a local agency." Until January 1, 1985, the sFheres were a discretionary tool for the Commissions in reviewing proposals for the formation of new local agencies, or the annexation of territory to and detachment of territory from the local agencies. A 1984 amendment, however, changed spheres from discretionary planning tools to mandatory actions by the Commission. Factors to be Considered: In determining spheres of influence, Section 56425 of the Government Code requires that a commission "consider, and prepare a written statement of its determinations" with respect to four factors. These factors are: I. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agriculture and open space lands. 2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. 3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agency provides or is authorized to provide. 4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. AGENDA ITEM h.p. SdZ PAGE aF a- Background of this Proposal: e•: V - Following the Legislative decision to require that annexations would be allowed only for territory within the sphere of the annexing agency, five cities situated in eastern Riverside County cooperated in working out proposed sphere extensions. During the early months of 1985, the cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, Perris, Corona and Lake Elsinore held a series of meetings which culminated in proposed sphere extensions which were jointly reviewed by the Local Agency Formation Commission in the summer of 1985. Most of the proposed'sphere extensions were approved. However, the proposed extension for the City of Lake Elsinore was reduced by eliminating the southwestern portion lying west of interstate 15 Freeway within the unincorporated community of Wildomar. With the exception of some relatively minor adjustments or extensions relating to specific annexation proposals (such as the Cottonwood Canyon annexation which extended the sphere of Lake Elsinore to the east), the spheres established in 1985 remained in place for the five ©ties. In January of 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors suggested to the Local Agency Formation Commission that the spheres of several cities, including Lake Elsinore, be reviewed. The impetus for this request appparently came from residents within the adopted spheres who asked to be removed. In the case of Lake Elsinore, the requests originated from activist groups in Wildomar who have consistently opposed being considered within the Lake Elsinore sphere. It should be noted that the Board of Supervisors established a municipal advisory council for the Wildomar area. A municipal advisory council (MAC) is authorized by the Government Code as an advisory group to the Board of Supervisors. Its role is to recommend to the Board on matters involving services provided by the Board to unincorporated territories. In establishing the MAC, the Board set the northern boundary at Bundy Canyon Road. This boundary resulted in an overlap between the sphere of influence of the City of Lake Elsinore which extends beyond Bundy Canyon Road on both sides of the I-15 Freeway. During 1989, the Commission discussed the request for a review of the spheres from time to time, finally directing staff in December, 1989, to conduct such reviews, including one for the City of Lake Elsinore. The scope of the reviews, however, was narrow_ ed, so that staff was asked to review only the southwestern boundary of the sphere which included the unincorporated community of Sedco Hills. The area being reviewed by staff, consequently, involves the portion of the Lake Elsinore sphere which is now included in the Wildomar MAC. In January, 1990, the City of Lake Elsinore contracted with Christensen & Wallace, Inc. to review the sphere of influence and prepare a report to be submitted to LAFCQ in conjunction with its hearing into the sphere review. Christensen & Wallace, Inc. also prepared the sphere study that was submitted to L.AFCO in 1985 and served as the basis for the boundary finally approved by the Commission. In contracting with Christensen & Wallace, Inc., the City noted that it was involved in an aggressive annexation program and asked that the sphere study not be limited, but review the entire existing sphere and make recommendations for any modifications, including extensions from the existing boundaries. This report is the result of that review. 2 AGENDA ITEM NO.1 PAGE__ OF Proposed Revised Sphere Boundary The proposed sphere boundary would generally follow the current boundary of the sphere of influence of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and encompass the major portion of the Elsinore Valley. The relationship of the proposed sphere to the EV VrD sphere is fflustrated on the neap on Page 15 of this Report. The choice of the major water purveyor in the Valley as a pattern for the City's amended sphere is logical for a number of reasons. One of the paramount considerations in urban development is the availability of an adequate water supply. Develo went may be expected to take place in areas where adeq,, ate water supplies exist. Water, however, is only one aspect of a service. delivery system. As development intensifies, a need is created for a broad range of municipal -type services, and provision of these services is a logical function of mutucipalities. The only municipality within the Lake Elsinore Municipal Water District is the City of Lake Elsinore. The City, therefore, has a vested interest in the geographic area served by the EVMWD. Buttressing this common geographic interest is a degree of common dependence. The future of both agencies is inexorably intertwined in their dependence on water. The EVNRVD, because it is their raison d'etre, and the City, because the dominant natural feature in the area, Lake Elsinore, constitutes the focal point for future economic prosperity. However, the economic benefits of the lake have not been predictable up to this point A problem which hasplagued the City of Lake Elsinore since its beginning has been the fiuct.:ating lake water level. The history of the area has been marked by periods of drought, when the lake has essentially dried up, or wet years, when the lake has overflowed to flood adjacent areas. Recent action, however, indicates that the problem may be close to resolution. The EVhILWD has been designated the lead agency in a federally -funded lake management project which will hopefully stabilize the lake level. This will, in turn, allow the City to place a greater dependence on lake recreational activities. Areas Reviewed for Inclusion in the Sphere of Influence: While the proposed sphere of influence would approximate the Water District's sphere, somv exceptions have been made to take into consideration concerns regarding future expansion of the District, community identification, and anticipated development. It is not the intent of the City of Lake Elsinore to blanket areas with its sphere of influence without due consideration given to the eventual provision of services to these areas. Theropposed sphere of influence of the City of Lake Elsinore would depart from the EVh1WD sphere in three areas: On the northwest, approximately 3 square miles of the Water District sphere have been excluded since, in the western section, the topography of the area will preclude intensive development in the foreseeable future. At the time of this Report, a property owner -sponsored proposal has been filed with the Commission for the annexation of approximately 4.75 square miles to the District that would fill in the gap between the City sphere and District, and extend the District boundary north of the City 7 AGENDA ITEI 47. U501 A P GE ❑F sphere to provide water and sewer services toproperty owners in that area. In the event that the District annexation is approved by the Commission, it would be appropriate for the City sphere to be extended to include the newly annexed area. This Report, however, does not recommend extension of the City sphere at this time, as the current City sphere abuts the sphere of the City of Corona in the area of the District annexation. Concerns for topography also dictate that a large area to the southwest (a portion of the Cleveland National Forest) be excluded from the proposed sphere. On the east, Canyon Lake, a gated community, has been excluded from the City's proposed sphere sinthis community has asserted their independence by initiating an isince this proposal, which will be sent to the voters on November 6, 1990. Likewise, on the southeast, the community of Murrieta also has an incorporation proposal on the November ballot. Changes to Existing Sphere The proposed sphere of influence differs from the existing sphere in five areas. The smallest change involves a single section (Section 26) north of the proposed City of Canyon Lake. This area is identified as Area "A" on the map on Page of this Report. The area in question is within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and is currently undeveloped. It has been included in the proposed incorporation of the community of Canyon Lake The withdrawal of the sphere from this area will occur automatically as a condition of the LAFCO approval if the voters in Canyon Lake support incorporation in November. A second equally small and incorporation -related change is indentified as Area "E" on the same map. This single section of land (Section 33) lies within the boundary approved for the proposed City of Murrieta. The withdrawal of the sphere from this area will be required if the voters of Murrieta support incorporation in November. The third change is to the northern sphere boundary, and includes six sections that are within no city sphere. Prior to the revision by the Commission of the Riverside sphere of influence, this area was bounded by the Riverside sphere on the north, the Perris sphere on the east, and the Lake Elsinore sphere on the south and the west. The City has received numerous requests for annexation of properties within the territory in question. (As shown on the map on Page 15, annexation of these individual properties would not create logical boundaries for the City; however, at some later date, more appropriate annexation proposals would be prepared.) The fourth change to the existing sphere of influence is the extension of the eastern sphere boundary to make it coterminous with the existing sphere of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. This change would involve the addition of relatively small areas to the existing sphere boundary on the east; with one area just north and the second just south of the Cottonwood Canyon development. It is identified as Area "C' on the map on Page 15. The final change would establish contiguity with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District sphere boundary (excluding the proposed City of Murrieta and the previously -noted territory within the Cleveland National Forest), by extending the southern City sphere boundary. This extension is identified as Area "D' on the map on Page 15, and showii independently on the map on Page b. In addition to matching the boundary of the EVMWD sphere, this change would also enable the City to have some input regarding new development beyond its current sphere. This has become an issue due to the City's attempts to both add consistency between County land use decisions outside the City and City land use policies, and also create an aesthetically pleasing environment with 4 4* AGENDA ITEM N0. PAGE. OF L architectural controls and guidelines. Since a visitor to Lake Elsinore, or a City resident, for that matter, would not know where the City begins and ends, the benefits of good land use policy and architectural guidelines enacted by the City would be reduced by adjacent development not up to City standards. It is the policy of riverside County to accept input from cities regarding land use within their spheres, although this policy has not been implemented uniformly. This issue is of such importance to the City of Lake Elsinore that it has budgeted a full-time planning staff position to monitor planning issues within the City sphere, and to make recommendations to the County regarding those decisions. By extending the sphere, the City would be better able to effect the quality of development. 5 00 AGENDA ITEMNO %5 � PAGE. ) OF ' drn 1�11c - F: Sedco Hills.. ' .oF ,. �•:y„'tea-L•,. �,;!_'��. �.• -. Ir ds i' H 'Area w. ., Ildomar- . AGENDA ITEM NO. '\ PAGE. OF REPORT ACCOMPANYING A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF 1 f THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES The area proposed for inclusion within the sphere of influence of the City of Lake Elsinore encompasses a portion of the Lake Mathews, Perris Valley and Southwest Territory land use planning areas. The majority of the proposed area is within the Southwest Territory. The proposed sphere area to the north of the City's existing sphere is amenable to Category I, Il, and III land uses. Thes t� categories are defined as: Cate gory I (Heavy Urban) - This category is characterized by intensive commercial and industrial land uses and higher residential densities. Examples include regional and community commercial centers, industrial uses and residential densities of eight to twenty dwelling units per acre. Category II CUrbanj - This category represents a broad mix of land uses including many types of commercial and industrial uses, and residential uses with a density of two to eight dwelling units per acre. Category III (Rural) - This category is characterized by rural land uses including lower densities and fewer public facilities and improvements. These may include a variety of different uses, ncluding agricultural, small-scale commercial, residential densities of one dwelling unit per acre to one dwelling unit per five acres, and industrial uses such as marrifacturing, service commercial, and medium industrial uses. In general, Categories I and H appear appropriate along the 1-15 corridor north of the City's sphere. This type of development would be consistent with the City's long-range economic goals. The remaining area north of the existing sphere is projected for Category III uses. Development in the area to the south of the existingsphere has been restricted due to flooding and water quality problems. Until such time as the basic infrastructure of this area has been improved, development will be restricted to Category III and lower density Category II uses. Existing County zoning in the Lee Lake area is primarily R -R (rural residential). Zoning in the general vicinity of Alberhill is more vaned and includes R -R, R-1 (single family dwelling), R-2 (multiple family dweilin ), R-5 (open area combining residential developments), M -R (mineral resources, M -R -A (mineral resources and related manufacturing), and C -P -S (scenic highway commercial). The remaining proposed sphere north of the existing sphere is M -R and M -R -A east of Alberhill, R -R as one progresses easterly, and R -R, C-]/GPgeneral commercial), R -A (residential-agn'cultural), and C -P -S as one approaches Perris. The Sedco Hills area and east of Sedco Hills is predominantly zoned R -R. 7 AGENDA ITEM NO. _ PAGE A OF Major developments currently planned in the proposed sphere area include: Harsethief Canyon and Laguna Heights on the west, with a total of 3,059 dwelling units and a papulation of 9,483; North Peak on the north, with 4,670 dwelling units and a population of 14,477; and The Farm and Tract 21025 (Sterling Bui.lders} on the south/southeast, with a total of 1,944 dwelling units and a population of 6,026. When completed, it is anticipated that the various developments will foster increased commercial activity on the I-15 corridor north and south of the City. 0 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE FOF REPORT ACCONTANYING A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF i THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE s PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES IN THE AREA The proposed sphere area s currently unincorporated and served with the necessary public facilities and services through the County of Riverside or appropriate public agencies or private utilities. Should any portions of the subject area annex to the City of Lake Elsinore, ser% ce levels would be upgraded as required. The following paragraphs will review present and probable future facilities and services in the area. Police Protection Police protection to the proposedsphere area is currently provided by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department from a She ' s substation located in the City of Lake Elsinore at the level of 0.7 officers per 1,000 population. This substation serves an area of approximately 700 square miles. In addition to providing police protection to the unincorporated areas of the County, the Sheriffs Department provides protection to incorporated areas on a contractual basis. This contractual arrangement is currently utilized by the City of Lake Elsinore, at the rate of 1 cfi-cer per 1,000 population. As areas are annexed and service recl�irements increase, the existing contract would be amended to reflect the increased area of responsibility. Fire Protection Fire Protection to the proposed sphere area as well as the City of Lake Elsinore is currently provided by the California Division of Forestry/Riverside County Department of Fire. As listed below, ten full-time stations and one volunteer station currently service the proposed sphere area as well as the City of Lake Elsinore: Station #5 (Quail Valley), 58971 Goetz Road; one engine, one squad. Station #7 (Sun City), 27860 Bradley Road; two engines, one squad. Station #9 (Goodmeadow), 21565 Steele Peak Road; one engine, one attack, one water tender. Station #10 (Elsinore), 410 West Graham Avenue; five engines, one squad. Station # 11 (Lakeland Village), 17643 Brightman Avenue; two engines, one squad. Station #51 (El Cariso), 32353 Ortega Highway; one engine, one squad. Station #60 (Canyon Lake), 28730 Vacation Drive; one engine, one squad. 4 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF Station #61(Wildomar), 32637 Grumwell Street; two engines, one squad.+ Station #68 (Sun City), 26020 Wickard Road; two engines, one squad. Station #74 (Rancho Capistrano), 35240 Calle Grande; one engine (volunteer), one squad (volunteer). Station #75 (Bear Creek), Clinton Keith Road, (proposed). Revenues to fund fire protection services to the City of Lake Elsinore currently accrue directly to the County from a dedicated portion of property taxes collected within the City. Inasmuch as this is the same funding mechanism utilized in the proposed sphere area, annexation would not result in changes to the level of service or funding arrangements. Streets Street maintenance in the proposed sphere area is currently the responsibility of the County of Riverside Road Department. Maintenance of the two major arterial highways, I-15 and Highway 74, is the responsibility of the California Department of Transportation. Street maintenance and construction within the City of Lake Elsinore is the responsibility of the City's Public Works Department. As development occurs in the sphere area, street construction is the responsibility of the developers with the County assuming responsibility for maintenance. In the event areas are annexed, construction responsibility would still rest with the developers while the City's Public Works Department would assume maintenance responsibilities. Annexations would not affect existing maintenance responsibilities for Interstate 15 or Highway 74. Parks and Recreation At the present time, park and recreation services are provided to portions of the proposed sphere, as well as the City of Lake Elsinore by the City park and recreation department. Other portions of the proposed sphere are under the jurisdiction of the Ortega Trails Recreation and Park District. The City owns the parks within the City and is responsible for related equipment, facilities and recreation programs. The City park program is funded out of the City's general fund with no additional cost to residents. The Commission recently approved an annexation of territory within the sphere area south of Bundy Canyon Road to the District conditioned on the imposition of a benefit assessment. At present, the District provides very limited services, although it is receiving an allocation of property tax revenue from territory located within the City as well as the District. It has been the policy of the City to detach annexation areas from the District to the City for the provision of park and recreation services, and, in fact, the City has initiated a proposal to LAFCO to detach from the District the portions of the District currently within the City, so as to eliminate this inequitable situation where City property owners are in effect being double taxed for this service. It should be noted that the level of service provided by the City is such that the Elsinore Valley Unified School District has recognized the City as the primary provider of park and recreation services to the entire Elsinore Valley. 10 AGENDA ITEM NO..► PAGE OF—a� Domestic Water and Sewage Disposal Three agencies provide domestic water in the subject area: the Elsinore Water District, the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD), and the Lee Lake Water District. A fou.th agency, the Temescal Water Company, has been acquired through condemnation proceedings by EVMWD. Although the acquisition has been challenged in court, EVMWD is currently operating the Water Company as a division. At the present time, consideration is being Oven to a transfer of water provision from Lee Lake Water District to EVMWD. Annexation of territory to the City would not affect the manner in which domestic water services are provided. Waste water disposal services are provided to the proposed sphere area as well as the City of Lake Elsinore by the EVMWD. Annexation to the City would not affect the provision of this service. Solid Waste Refuse collection for the City is performed by a private disposal company by contract, with the City performing billing functions and retaining approximately 20% of the revenues collected. Refuse collection is not required in unincorporated areas of Riverside County and is, therefore, not provided to the proposed sphere area. in the event of annexations, refuse collection services would be extended to the annexed area. Street Lights Street lights are currently provided within the City limits by the City of Lake Elsinore. Street lighting in the proposed sphere area is provided by the County through County Service Areas within residential and commercial developments. As development occurs, both in the City and the proposed sphere area, developers are required to provide street hgl s and dedicate these lights to either the City or, in the case of the unincorporated area, annex to a County Service Area. For street lights within City limits, energy costs are funded through a City-wide landscape and lighting assessment district. As development occurs in the proposed sphere area, energy costs are funded through the assessment district by lot fees levied against lots within each development. Storm Drains The proposed sphere area is now provided with storm drains through the Riverside County Flood Control District. On-site drainage is provided by developers, while the storm drain system is funded through fees collected by the District. No change is anticipated in this service. Planning and Land Use Regulation Planning and land use regulation in thepproposed sphere is currently provided by the Riverside County Planning Department. As areas are annexed, planning responsibilities would be assumed by the Planning Division of City of Lake Elsinore Department of Community Development. Current County policy provides that cities be informed of any land use requests being processed within their spheres. As already noted, such coordination is both appropriate and beneficial to an orderly and effective planning process as these areas urbanize. 11 PAGE OF REPORT ACCOMPANYING A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF.t THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES WHICH THE AGENCY PROVIDES OR IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE Given the varied nature of municipal services and the precarious nature of local revenues, the City of Lake Elsinore has proven more than capable of providing a high level of service in an innovative and cost-effective manner. In cases of capital intensive services, i.e., water and sewage services, the proposed sphere area is within the sphere of an existing water agency and the provision of this service would not be altered in the event of annexations. Likewise, fire protection services or funding would not be altered by the City's expansion into the proposed sphere area. Given the primarily rural nature of the area in question, other city services such as police protection, roads, and park and recreation could be extended to the area with minimal impact on existing City services. In addition, with increased commercial development along Interstate 15, a higher level of service could be provided to this area if the revenues collected were to remain in the area. This could be accomplished through an orderly annexation program following approval of the expanded sphere by LAFCO. A number of annexation proposals are currently being processed by the City. With respect to proposed annexations involving major developments or large tracts of land, fiscal impact reports are currently under preparation which will detail the cost/benefit relationship of the proposed annexations and the City's ability to fund required services at municipal levels. The overriding concern in the proposal, however, is that the development of the Elsinore Valley be coordinated as a whole. Inclusion of this area within the City's sphere would enable the City to develop a long-range plan for growth which would benefit all residents of the region. 12 AGENDA ITEM NO. r PAGE OE ri REPORT ACCOMPANYING A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF '-ee_ THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE THE EXISTENCE OF SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST In establishing the sphere of influence for the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, the Local Agency Formation Commission staff report identified the City of Lake Elsinore as the focal point for the communities of Alberhill, Canyon Lake, Sedco Hills, Wildomar, and Lakeland Village. With the exception of Canyon Lake, which is proposed to incorporate, and Alberhfli, which has annexed to the City, approval of the proposed sphere would place all of these communities within the City's sphere of influence. That the Elsinore Valley is considered a cohesive community may be evidenced by the local newspaper, the Lake EIsir.ore Sun -Tribune, which identifies all of the communities in the existing and proposed sphere as within a common circulation area. In a' cant revision of the 1985 proposed sphere of influence, the Commission excluded the Wildomar area from the final sphere, at the reuest of a group of Wildomar area residents. This Report recommends the inclusion o? that area in the revised sphere of influence for the following reasons: the area can best be served by the City of Lake Elsinore, with the immediate extension of services; inclusion would establish greater contiguity with the primary water purveyor; development within the area has both a direct and indirect impact on the City; and there are clear social and economic communities of interest between the area and the City. The first three of these factors have been addressed in earlier sections of this Report. The fourth factor is based on the results of a survey of registered voters of the areas of Wildomar and Sedco Hills. In -esponse to public claim that an "overwhelming" number of residents in the Wildomar area were opposed to the City of Lake Elsinore, Christensen & Wallace, Inc. retained the services of Dr. Oscar Kaplan of the San Diego Poll to get an objective analysis of the views held by the voters of these areas. Dr. Kaplan prepared a questionnaire that was used for a Mone survey of a random selection of the registered voters of the Wildomar and Sedco is areas. A copy of this survey, and a summary of the responses, is included with this Report In short, there was general ambivalence toward the City, but considerable opposition toward annexation. However, this opposition was substantially coupled with the misconception that taxes would be increased upon annexation to the City. In the face of these misco:iceptions, the City has initiated a program to better inform the res=dents of this area. One positive result of the program is the fact that interest in annexation for the area within the sphere of influence (west of I-15 Freeway and north of Walnut Avenue) has resulted in the circulation of a petition seeking initiation of proceedings to annex the area to the City of Lake Elsinore. In fact, the Wildomar leadership has as much as conceded that attempting to provide "municipal -type" services, such as park and recreation services, as an unincorporated area requires additional taxes in the form of a benefit assessment. It should also be noted that this assessment is required despite the fact that the Ortega Traits Recreation and Park District now receives property taxes from residents of the City of Lake EIsinore provides only minimal services to these tax?ayers, while the City is actuall providing such park and recreation services as are. available to them out of its General Fund. 13 AGENDA ITEM Np. PAGE DF �' ee It is interesting to note from the survey that a substantial number of residents of both Wildomar and Sedco Hills use City parks and go to the City for shopping as well as for work, further emphasizing the social and economic communities of interest that exist between the City of Labe Elsinore and the communities of Wildomar and Sedco Hills. The City of Lake Elsinore constitutes the economic and commercial heart of the Elsinore Valley. As such, there exists a community of interest in more than a geographic sense. All communities in the Valley share a common interest in future growth and the most logical agency to coordinate this growth is the City of Lake Elsinore. 14 AGENDA ITE t.' NO. 45-1— PAGE a OF� 1 s• to cc ... r.j• ...—._ -!.. -----------t---: —.—..1.--. • ��a.w_x--.. "..—_"«. + ,• ' �r ,` .' • a- ■ �`i3w'-1.•1!4 . 1./,` w. F� °S ��. ''•L► It ;.: _{ iv,•It • �a� ,r to List 4Ov '41 ' .7 yiL:: --iii ��'' ! ;f.. „►' :�'r !�: ;' "It�...—. ; Al a 311 IN , 1 �. . �" �!_: mer ��.'af�•.r• - ar''...F "�..!•` � •�S+i4• � �• _ -�.: , � � 1 •- i�'\r Irf--Fi- �r 1 ■ '•1 - • ,'re'1 • +'Z\I- L- 1 • ` - _'\./ • ,- to pFL a�� •I • ! is `'. 1 •r ~ 11— <' � •`tW�A� ��, ` . »S 4 1 W AGENDA 1700 4WO ga PAGE 0F ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY INTO ATTITUDES REGARDING THE CITY OF LATE ELSINORE IN THE CONUdUNITIES OF WILDOMAR AND SEDCO HILLS INTRODUCTION Background As an integral part of the development of an annexation strategy for the City of Lake Elsinore, and also in conjunction with the forthcoming review of the Sphere of Influence for the City, Christensen & Wallace, Inc. recommended, and the City of Lake Elsinore agreed, to have The San Diego Poll conduct a public attitude survey in the communities of Sedco Hills and Wildomar. These two communities, lying immediately south and southeast of the existing CIrrieta limits, are unincorporated. Wildomar is bounded on the south by the community of. Voters within that community are scheduled to vote on the question of incorporation in the November election. Should they approve the issue, then Wildomar and Sedco Hills will be unincorporated pockets between the City of Lake Elsinore and the new City of Murrieta. A group of activists in the community of Wildomar has, for the past several years, been outspoken in its opposition to the City of Lake Elsinore and in its members' ultimate desire to incorporate Wildomar as a separate City. _ Their protests at the hearings into the Proposed sphere of influence for the City of Lake Elsinore in 1985 resulted in the exclusion of the Wildomar area from the requested spheres approved the i�rtclusy�n of Sedco HtH�ls Commission. At those same hearings, however, LLAAFF into the sphere of influence of the City. Given the fact that the Formation Commission has determined to review the sphere of influence of the City of Lake Elsinore, a review that is currently underway by LAFCO staff and will probably be scheduled for action before the Commission at a meeting in the near future, the City needs to obtain all the possible information to reach decisions as to how it will address the most recent action of the Wildomar community in seeking to withdraw Sedco Hills from the City's sphere and maintain its current position as being outside the sphere. Rationale for the Public Opinion Surve The rationale for the public opinion survey is based on three specific reasons: 1. There is a statutory basis for such a survey. In reviewing the sphere of influence of a local agency, the Formation Commission may include as a factor "the existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency.,(5echon 56425[a][4], Gov't. Code). By its prior action in 1985, the Commission has indicated concern for the existence of communities of interest between the City and these two adjacent geographical areas. OL AGENDA 1, PAGE 1OF!r— Analysis of Public Opinion Survey Wildomar-Sedco Hills Areas Page 2 2. There is a practical basis for such a survey. Both of these areas have been and are exp eriencing rapid growth. Substantial residential development has resulted in the itifiux of many new residents. While the attitudes of many older residents, particularly those who have appeared and testified before LAFCO is weU known, the attitudes of these newer residents is unknown or, at best, speculative. 3. There is a strategic Iasis for such a survey. In determining the best approach for the Cq of Lake Elsinore, it is essential that as much as possible be known about the attitudes and perceptions of these residents since, in the final analysis, the decision to be included or excluded from the City of Lake Elsinore will be in their hands. An effective strategy for the City will be substantially assisted by knowing how the people in these areas feel about the City, as well as knowing whether these feelings are based on facts, perceptions, or misconceptions. The Survey Instrument A 2P -question survey instrument was prepared by The San Diego Poll, under the direction of Dr. Oscar Kaplan. The i:astrument was reviewed by Fred Christensen, the City Manager, the City Director of Commznity Development, and other relevant City staff. A final instrument was then approved. 'The questions that were included can be divided into four general categories: I. Basic information: This category consisted of five questions designed to determine the respondents' current relationship with the City of Lake Elsinore as well as their own home community, including when and why the respondent went to the City, how long they have lived at their present address, and the name of their home community. 2.. Service information; This category consisted of elevenuestions dealing with the respondents' knowle3ge of and experience with four basic Jocal government services. These are: police, E --e, paramedic and parks and recreation. For each service, the respondent was asked which agency provided it; whether he or she made use of it; and how the respondent rated the service. In the case of paramedic services, respondents who indicated the service was not being provided (which is the case) were asked if they thought the area should be served by paramedics. 3. Attitudes towards the City of Lake Elsinore: This category consisted of four questions designed to elicit the respondents' attitudes towards the City, as well as determine the respondents' perceptions concerning the government of the City of Lake Elsinore. 4. Attitudes towards annexation to the City: This category contained five questions. It explored the respondents' attitude towards annexation to the City as well as their understanding of the impact of annexation with respect to service levels and taxes. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGEa�pE Analysis of Public Opinion Survey Wildomar-Sedco Hills Areas Page 3 While most questions involved specific choices for the respondents to identify (for example, specific time periods during which the respondent went to the City, or a choice of ratings for services), several were open-ended and elicited opinions or impressions through probing. In these cases, no answers were provided, but respondents were asked to respond of their own knowledge (as in the case of identifying the agency providing specific services) or supply their own opinion (as in the case of explaining why they favored or opposed annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore). The Survey Field Work Actual interviews by telephone took place Thursday, May 24 through Wednesday, May 31, 1990. A total of 300 telephone interviews were conducted with registered voters in the unincorporated areas designated as Wildomar and Sedco Hills. of the 300 interviewed, 180 involved residents of Sedco Hills and 124 residents of Wildomar, reflecting the 60%40% breakdown of registered voters between the two communities. €nterviews were conducted from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays and between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekend days. Since Monday, May 28th was the Memorial Day holiday, calls were made between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. that day. Half of the respondents were men, half were women. Only one interview was conducted per household. In the combined areas, eight percent of the respondents were between 18 and 29 years of age; 31% between 30 and 4.4; 32% between 45 and 64; and 29% were 65 and older. Within, the communities themselves, the major difference in age brackets occurred among senior citizens. in this category, 35% of the respondents in Sedco Hills were seniors, while a smaller percentage, 19%, were seniors in Wildomar. Thus, a higher percentage of respondents in Wildomar were in the 30-64 age bracket as compared to Sedco Hills. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS General Findin 1. There would appear to be a significant and substantial degree of economic interdependence between the residents of both communities and the City of Lake Elsinore. The survey indicated that 93% of the Wildomar respondents and 97%Q of those from Sedco Hills had gone to the City during the preceding week, and that 88% did their shopping in Lake Elsinore. I The respondents generally identify quite strongly with their community. The identification is much stronger in Wildomar than in Sedco Hills, but even in Sedco Hills, over 50% (56%) volunteered the name of their community correctly. AC-ENDA 17 -EM Fk� ^_ OF I� � Analysis of Public Opinion Survey Wildomar-Sedco Hills Areas Page 4 3. "Newcomers" (those who moved in to their current address within the past three years) make up 40110 of the population, or two out of five families. Surprisingly, however, half of the respondents in each community had lived at their current address five years ormore. 4. Familiarity with service providers varied by service. For example, four out of five knew the Sheriff provided police protection. However, only one of three knew the County Fire Department was responsible for fire protection; more than half (56%) did not know who provided park and recreation sernces; while only one of four was aware that the City of Lake Elsinore was the only agency providing this service. 5. Rating of the quality of services also varied by service. Just over half (51%) gave the Sheriffs Department positive ratings; four out of five (81%) gave the Fire Department positive ratings; and less than one-third (31%) felt park and recreation services rated positive (excellent, good and adequate) ratings. 6. In the area of paramedics, 50%a believed they received these services, while 42% did not know. Only eight percent were aware that the area does not receive true paramedic services. However, of the 50%a who either did not know or were aware the service was not provided, 92% believed the area should receive this service. ?. The misconception over taxes that is experiencedin many areas was prevalent in this survey. Better than two out of three respondents (72°7❑ in Wildomar and 67% in Sedco Hills) believed their property taxes would go up if they were annexed to the City of Lake Elsinore. Fincinizs Specific to Attitudes Involving the Ci of Lake Elsinore: 1. Perhaps the most inconsistent set of findings would involve this area. While there appeared to be overwhelming opposition to annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore (83% of the respondents in Wildomar opposed and 63% of those in Sedco Hills expressed opposition), the general attitude towards the City was almost aually ambivalent. For example, 36% of those responding in Wildomar and 46% in Zdco Hills gave the quality of City government positive ratings Another 28% in Wildomar and 29% in Sedco 'Hills had no opinion. The 'poor" and `very poor" responses amounted to 36% in Wildomar (actually even with the positive responses) and only 29% in Sedco Hills (compared to 46% positive). 2. The negative perceptions of the City appeared to break down to attitudes dealing with the manner in which the respondents felt the City was governed. The three responses most often volunteered this was an open-ended question) were: a. The City is not well -organized; it is inefficient; there is a lot of bickering; nothing ever gets done (38% in Wildomar and 54% in Sedco Hills). AGENDA ITEMS NO.- PAGE ..OF Analysis of Public Opinion Survey Wildomar-Sedco Hills Areas Page 5 b. The City government is not interested in people; it is run by a clique; there is poor communication with the community (19%❑ in Wildomar and 9% in Sedco Hills). c. The City government is corrupt; it favors developers; its members are interested in personal gain (17% in both communities). Interestingly, the issue of poor quality of services drew one of the lowest responses -- 9%Q in Wildomar and 6% in Sedco Hills. 3. When asked what they liked least about the City of Lake Elsinore, however, it is interesting to note that "poor government" rated relatively low in Wildomar (8%❑ and in Sedco Hills (11%). The biggest single complaint in Wildomar (24%) involve "urban blight" and dealt with ugly property, old deteriorating buildings, Junkyards, etc. In Sedca Hills, rapid growth was the number one culprit, with 23% of the respondents citing heavy traffic, congestion, lack of parking and loss of rural quality. 4. On the positive side, the City's "rural, small town atmosphere" ranked high with both community's respondents, amounting to 28% in Wildomar and 37% in Sedco Hills. Next highest positive rating went to "shopping," a response which drew 13% of the Wildomar answers and 12%❑ of those in Sedco Hills. Interestingly, however, 32%❑ of those responding in Wildomar could find nothing positive about the City, -while the same response drew 22% of the Sedco Hills respondents. 5. As to the specific reasons for favoring or opposing annexation, the following results are noted: a. ,Among those favoring annexation (only one percent in Wildomar and 14% in Sedco Hills), the malar reason was to obtain better services (67%❑). Next highest response came from those who "liked the City" (19%). The remaining 14% wanted to be "part of a larger area." b. Among those opposing annexation, there was a much greater number of specific reasons. The rank order differed between the two communities, with the largest percentage in Sedco Hills preferring incorporation of Wildomar 34%❑ , followed by "poor government" (26%) and the fear of increased taxes 22%). For Wildomar respondents, however, the fear of taxes ranked first 18% with three other reasons tied for second: these individuals didn't want to uy into Lake Elsinore's problems", thought Lake Elsinore had "poor government"; and preferred the status quo (14% for each reason). Interestingly, the incorporation of Wildomar ranked a poor fifth (13%) of the seven reasons given. AGENDA 11 -EM NO. 1! PAGL�L OF October 16,1990 Analysis of Public Opinion Survey Wifldomar-Sedco Hills Areas Page 6 CONCLUSIONS 1. The survey results indicate conclusively, in our opinion, that: a. A basic interdependence between the two communities and the City of Lake Elsinore exists, as evidenced by the survey responses which indicate residents of the two communities shop in Lake Elsinore, one in ten works in Lake Elsinore, and residents of the two communities use Lake Elsinore parks. b. There exists a truly ambivalent general impression of the City of Lake Elsinore. In Wildomar, where a highly negative rating could be anticipated given the strong and historical antagonism towards the City by certain elements within the community, positive and negative responses to the question of the quality of government in Lake Elsinore were equally divided at just over one of three, with another group of almost equal size having no opinion. Perceptions in the Sedco Hills area were actually more positive or neutral, with almost three out of four expressive a positive or no opinion, and only 29% a negative opinion. c. The survey also identified large areas of misconceptions or simply erroneous impressions among respondents. Chief among these was the belief that property taxes would rise if the property were annexed to the City of Lake Elsinore. These erroneous impressions can be corrected with an effective information program. 2 _ With two out of five families new to the areas, an effective information program can also assist in providing accurate information and in changing attitudes and perceptions. 3. Most of the negative opinions concerning the City of Lake Elsslinore reflected impressions involving amorrpphous "political' matters, as evidenced by the fact that only nine percent of the Wildomar respondents and six percent of those in Sedco H171s noted "poor quality of services" as their reason for disliking the City. 4. Other perceptions which could be susceptible to change given an effective information program are opinions about the physical conditions in the City: urban blight, unsightly property, traffic congestion, etc. With the City engaged in numerous programs of development and civic improvement, these attitudes could be changed. AGENDA ITEM NO. —5 PAGE Of r-= -r--Z 5409 Hewlett Dr.. San Diego, California 92115 :L22�5 (= Zl +MO -0 Telephone: 582-0080,582-1213 City of Lake Elsinore Sphere of Influence Survey ?iay 1990 Prepared for The City of Lake Elsinore By The San Diego Poll San Diegol California Under the Direction of Oscar J. Kaplan, Ph.D. AGENDA ITEM, NO PAGE OF 1 I. Description of Field Work The field work of the -City of Lake Elsinore Sphere of Influence survey took place Thursday, May 24 through Wednesday, 1 -fay 31, 1990. Three hundred telephone interviews were made with registered voters of the unincorporated areas designated as Wildomar and as Sedco Hills in Riverside County, California. Current precinct books were obtained from the -Riverside County Registrar of Voters. The Sedco Hills books used carried the precinct numbers: 12-003, 12--0101 12-0110 12-012, 12-0280 12-055, 12-056, 12-058, 12-0649 12-065, and 12-067. The Wildomar books carried the precinct numbers: 12-013, 12-041, 12-0429 12-044, 12-0530 12-063, 12-066, and 12-068. At the time the survey was made, approximately 60% of the registered voters resided in the Sedco (fills area, and 40% resided in the Wildomar area. Therefore, 180 interviews were completed with Sedco [fills area voters and 120 interviews were completed with Wildo- mar'area voters. Every voting precinct of the Wildomar and Sedco Hills areas was represented in the sample. Within each precinct the percentages of persons in the various party registration categories were determined and each category was properly represented in the sample for the precinct. Political party distribution in the two areas under study was as follows: Republicans, 47%; Democrats, 45%; and all others, 8%. Tabulations of party registration of the 300 respondents who par- ticipated in the survey showed exactly the same ratios. AGENDA f i , PAGE OF The telephoning took place in the offices of the San Diego Poll, San Diego California from S to 9 PM on Meek days and between 10 AM and 6 Ptd on the week end days. Since Monday,6. 'lay 28 was the Memorial Day holiday, some calls were made between 9 AM and S PIM on that day. Half of the interviews were made with men.. Only one interview per household was permitted. - The survey was made for the City of Lake Elsinore under sub- contract from Christensen and Wallace, Inc. AGENDA ITEM NO. q G1 PAGE 0 II. Summary of Results Efello! My name is The City of Lake Elsinore is studying its relationship—fo nearby unincorporated communities such as yours. For example: 1. When were vour or a member of your family last in the City of Lake Elsinore? - (1) One to 7 days ago (2) Eight to 14 days ago (3) Fifteen to 28 Days ago (4) One to 6 months ago (5) More than a year ago/never WILDOMAR SEDCO TOTAL !TILLS BOTH AREAS N-120 N-180 N-300 93% 97% 95% 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 100% 100% 1001 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF 4 2. Why do you or members of your family go to the City of Lake Elsinsore? TOTAL BOTH AREAS N-300 Cl) Shopping 88% (2) Work 10 (3) Recreation 8 (4) Church 5 (5) medical/dental 5 (6) Visit friends 3 (7) School 2 _ Percentages total to more than 100 because of multiple answers. AGENDA ITEf NU. PAGE31 OF — 3. How often do you or a member of your fanily go to the City of Lake Elsinore? WILDOMAR SEDCO TOTAL HILLS BOTH ' AREAS N-120 N-180 N-300 (1) Every day 294 474 4-04 (2) -Less than once a week 43 32. 36 (3) Once a week 17 13 14 (4) Occasionally 8 7 8 (5 ) Rarely/never 3 1 2 Total 1004 1004 1004 4. What is the name of the community in which you live? WILDOMAR SEDCO HILLS ,(1) Ifildomar (2 ) Sedco Hills (3) City of Lake Elsinore (4) The Farm (5) Don't know Total y■120 964 3 1 0 0 1004 N-180 174 56 5 11 11 1004 TOTAL BOTH AREAS N-300 494 35 4 6' 6 1004 5 AGENDA ITEM NO, AGS � ;PAGE,. OF t,:- 6 S. How long have you lived at your present address? 6. Do you happen to know which unit of government provides police protection for your home? WILDOMAR SEDCO TOTAL HILLS BOTH AREAS N=120 • N:180 N-300 Cl) Less than one year 81 9% 9% (2) One to 3 years 32 31 31 (3) Four to S years 10 10 10 (4) More than S years SO SO SO Total 100% 100% 100% 6. Do you happen to know which unit of government provides police protection for your home? AGENDA ITEM NO.. PAGE OF WILDOMAR SEDCO TOTAL HILLS BOTH AREAS N-120 N=180 N=300 (1) Sheriff 80% 82% 81% (2) City of Lake Elsinore 9 10 10 (3) Don't know 11 8 9 Total 100% 100% 100% AGENDA ITEM NO.. PAGE OF 7 7. Have you ever called a law enforcement agency while residing in your present home? AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE— �F WILDOWki SL•DCO TOTAL BILLS BOTH AREAS N-120 N-180 N-300 (1) Yes 564 44% 498 (2) No 44 56 51 Total 100% 100% 100% 8. Based on your own experience, or what you have heard, how would you rate police protection in your area? Is it excellent, good adequate, poor, or very -poor? WILDOMAR SEDCO TOTAL IiILLS BOTH AREAS N-120 N-180 N■300 (1) Excellent 3% 6% 4% (2) Good 23 23 23 (3) Adequate 26 23 24 (4) Poor 25 19 22 (S) Very poor 13 9 10 (6) Don't know 10 20 17 Total 100% 100% 100% AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE— �F 9. Do you happen to know which unit of government provides fire protection for your home? Cl) Yes (2 ) ;:o Total WILDOIAR SEDCO WILDOI•IAR SEDCO TOTAL BOTH HILLS BOTH N-180 N-300 254 174 AREAS 75 83 N-120 y-180 N-300 Cl) County 334 344 334 (2)_City of Lake Elsinore 5 13 10 (3) Local District/Volunteers 44 29 35 (4) Don't know 15 21 19 (5) Dept. of Forestry 3 3 3 Total 1004 1004 1004 10. Have you ever called a fire protection agency while residing in your present home? Cl) Yes (2 ) ;:o Total WILDOIAR SEDCO TOTAL HILLS BOTH AREAS N-120 N-180 N-300 254 174 20 75 83 80 1004 1004 1004 AGENflA ITEM ND. PAGE QF �e . 9 Ile Based on your own experience, or what you have heard, how would you rate fire protection in your area? Is it excellent, good, adequate poor, or very poor? 12. Does any unit of government now provide paramedic services in ;your area? WILDOMAR SEDCO TOTAL HILLS BOTH AREAS N-120 N-180 N-300 (1) Excellent 334 244 284 (2) Good 41 33 36 (3) Adequate 18 16 17 (4) Poor 2 3 2 (5). Very poor 1 1 1 (6 ) Don't know 5 23 16 Total 1004 1004 1004 12. Does any unit of government now provide paramedic services in ;your area? 15 24 AGENDA ITEM NO. - _. r PAGE OF. WILDOMAR SEDCO TOTAL HILLS BOTH AREAS N-120 N=180 N-300 (1) Yes 524 494 SO (2) No 8 8 8 (3) Don't know 40 43 42 Total 1004 1004 100: 15 24 AGENDA ITEM NO. - _. r PAGE OF. 10 13. IF '".VO" OR "DON'T KNOW" IN QUESTION 12, TILE INTERVIEWER ASKED: Do you think your area should be served by paramedics? WILDOMAR SEDCO TOTAL HILLS BOTH AREAS N-60 N-96 N-156 (1) Yes 884 944 92: (2) No S 3 3 (3) Don't know 7 3 S Total 100,10- 10 1004 14. Do you happen to know which unit of government provides park and recreation facilities for your area? WILDOMAR SE•DCO TOTAL HILLS BOTH AREAS N-120 N-180 N-300 (1) County 124 104 11; (2) City of Lake Elsinore 24 27 25 (3) Local district 4 S 5 (4) Don't know 56 54 55 (S) State of California 4 4 4 Total 1004 1004 1004 AGENDA ITEM NO. 901 PAGE. OF � 11 15. Based on your own experience, or what you have heard, how would you rate park and recreation facilities in your area? Is it excellent, good, -adequate, poor, or very poor? WILDOAtAR SEDCO TOTAL BILLS BOTH 16, Within the last 12 months, have you or has any member of your family used park and/or recreation facilities in the City of Lake Elsinore? (1) Yes (2) No Total 111 LDOI• AR SL•DCO TOTAL A RL• AS BOTH N-120 N-180 N-300 (1) Excellent 21 8% 5% (2) Good 10 13 12 (3) Adequate 13 14 14 (4) Poor 31 12 20 (5) Very poor 20 5 11 (6) Don't know 24 48 38 Total 100% 100% 100% 16, Within the last 12 months, have you or has any member of your family used park and/or recreation facilities in the City of Lake Elsinore? (1) Yes (2) No Total 111 LDOI• AR SL•DCO TOTAL HILLS BOTH AREAS N=120 N-180 N-300 30% 25% 28% 70 75 72 100: 100% 100% AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE, OF 17. IF "YES" IN QUESTION 16, THE INTERVIEIVER ASKED: "Which park or recreation facility was it?" N-84 Cl) Lakepoint 25% (2) Park on ?lain Street 23 (3) Lake Elsinore State Park 14 (4). Park at the lake 114 (S) Downtown, City Park 10' (6) Swick Field 7 (7) Machado Park 5 (8) Community Center 4 (9) Don't remember 3 (10) Other answers:Skinner Lake, Lake Paris, 7 Elementary school, baseball parks Percentages total to more than 100 because of multiple answers. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE J_ nF 13 I8. Overall, how would you rate the quality of government in the City of Lake Elsinore? Is it excellent, goods adequate, poor or very poor? AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE u OF— H W I LDO. IAP. S EDCO TOTAL HILLS BOTH AREAS N-120 N-180 y-300 (I) Excellent It 3% 2t (2) Good 15 17 16 (3) Adequate- 20 26 24 (4) Poor 24 18 21 (S) Very poor 12 11 11 (6) Don't know 28 2S 26 Total 1001 1001 1001 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE u OF— H 14 19. Why do you rate it as "poor" or "very poor"? THIS QUESTION WAS PRESENTED TO THE RESPONDENTS 11110 STATED THAT THEY RATED THE GOVERN:IENT Or THE CITY• 01= LAKE ELSINORE AS "POOR" OR "VERY POOR' 11ILDOMAR SEDCO TOTAL HILLS BOTH AREAS N-43 N=52 N -9S (1) Not well organized: inefficient, 381 541 461 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF , bickering, never accomplish any- thing (2) Not interested in people, run by 19 9 14 a clique, poor communication with community (3) Need new people in government, 10 6 8 younger, new ideas, keep up with times (4) Government is corrupt: favor 17 17 17 developers, interested in personal gain (S) Too many restrictive rules: make 2 4 3 it difficult to start businesses, householders limited in how they can use property (6) Government has a bad reputation 5 4 4 (7) Quality of services is poor 9 6 8 Total 1001 1001 1001 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF , 20. What do you like best about the City of Lake Elsinore? WILDOMAR SEDCO BILLS Cl) Shopping ' (2) Improvements to City (3) Good services (4) Rural, small town atmosphere (S) Attractive natural surroundings, hills, lake (6) Friendly people (7) Library (8) Climate: clean air, no smog (9) Can't think of anything Total N=120 13 6 2 28 13 N■180 12 9 3 37 6 15 TOTAL BOTH I AREAS N-300 12 8 3 33 9 4 S S 1 1 1 1 S 3 32 22 26 1004 1004 1004 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE q;` OF 21. What do you like least about the City of Lake Elsinore? WILD0114AR SEDCO HILLS (1) Polluted lake (2) Unpleasant people: drug sellers and users, prostitutes, street bums, criminal element (3) Not enough activities for teens (4) Urban blight: ugly property, old deteriorating buildings, front lawn junkyards, poor/no landscaping (5) Too rapid growth: heavy traffic, congestion, lack of parking, loss of rural quality (6) Poor government ''(7) Limited shopping; no good department stores (8) Badly maintained streets and roads (9) Can't think of anything (10) Other answers: too isolated, poor schools, inflated prices, resistance to change, bad drivers, too hot in summer Total hl -120 y=180 114 64 12 8 S 2 24 12 9 23 8 11 5 3 8 6 13 2S 5 4 1004 1004 16 TOTAL BOTH AREAS N-300 84 9 3 16 17 10 4 7 21 S AGENDA ITEM NO. S2,11 PAGE O, L f 17 22. Overall, would you say that you get better public services in incorporated areas or better public services in unincorporated areas or is the level about the same? 23'. If your area is annexed to the City of Lake Elsinore, do you think that your property taxes would go up, go down, or remain about the same? (1) Go up C2) Go down (3) Remain about same (4) Don't know Total WILDOMAR SEDCO TOTAL HILLS W I LDO. SAP. SEDCO TOTAL AREAS N-120 N-!80 Si I LLS BOTS! 67% 69% 3 2 AREAS 10 7 N-120 N-180 N-300 20 Incorporated areas 281 20% 23% (2) Unincorporated areas S 9 7 (3) Level, about same 40 37 39 (4) Don't know 27 34 31 Total 1001 1001 100% 23'. If your area is annexed to the City of Lake Elsinore, do you think that your property taxes would go up, go down, or remain about the same? (1) Go up C2) Go down (3) Remain about same (4) Don't know Total WILDOMAR SEDCO TOTAL AGENDA ITEM NO. �� PAGE OF HILLS BOTH AREAS N-120 N-!80 N-300 72t 67% 69% 3 2 3 10 7 8 is 24 20 100% 100; 100% AGENDA ITEM NO. �� PAGE OF 18 resent time, are you inclined to favor or oppose 24. At the p our area to the City of Lake Elsinore? annexation of y r: I LDOMAR SEDCO HILLS NF120 N-180 1t 141 (1) Favor 83 63 (2).Oppose 16 23 (3) Undecided _. 100% 100% TOTAL BOTH AREAS N-300 8% 71 21 100% Total QUESTION WAS PRESENTED TO THE 25. Why do you favor annexation.? THIS Q RE SPONDENTS WHO STATED THAT THEY FAVORED DISNGEXATIONVEN TO EHTIiCITY OF LATE ELSINORE . ONLY 'TOTAL BRE WAS ONLY ONE PERSON IN TtiE 1V I LDO�•tAR AF�EA WI i0 FA�'O� D ANNEXATION TOTAL BOTH AREAS N-25 67% (1) Would receive better services 14 (2) Dant to be part of larger area 19 (3) Like the City of Lake Elsinore 100% Total AGENDA ITEM N PAGE � J_ 26. I%'hy do you oppose annexation? THIS QUESTION WAS PRESENTED TO THE RESPONDENTS 1%110 STATED THAT THEY OPPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF LAKE E-LSINORE. (1) Mould prefer annexation to some other area: Temecula, A-turrietta, non specific (2) Do not wish to take on/pay for the problems of the City of Lake Elsinore (3) Taxes would go up (4) City of Lake Elsinore has poor government, can't take care of present problems (S) City of Lake Elsinore has poor image, do not wan= to be associated with it, property values would go down (6) Wish to remain unincorporated, status quo (7) Want Wildomar to become incorporated; want to annex to Wildomar (8) No special reason Total 19 WILDWAR SEDCO TOTAL 13 BILLS BOTH 20 6 AREAS N=100 N-113 N- 213 5% 2% 3% 14 2 7 18 22 20 14 26 20 2 3 3 14 S 9 13 .34 25 20 6 13 100% 100% 100% NOA ITEM NO.. AGE PAGE _1L OF ��b 20 27. Here is a question we need for statistical purposes. In which one of the following age brackets are you? Stop me when I come to your bracket? (1) 18-29 (2) 30-44 (3) 45-64 (4) 65 and above Total 28. Sex: (1) 1-fales (2) Females Total WILDO;•tAR SEDCO TOTAL HILLS BOTH ARE -AS N-120 N-180 N=300 94 84 84 34 29 31' 38 28 32 19 35 29 1004 1004 1004 WI LDO14AR SEDCO TOTAL HILLS BOTH AREAS N-120 N-180 N-300 504 504 504 50 50 SO 1004 1004 1004 AGENDA ITEM NO. S 29. Political Party Registration: (1) Republicans (2) Democrats (3 ) All others Total 21 WILDOMR SEDCO TOTAL HILLS BOTH AREAS N-120 N=180 N-300 S2t 4St 47t 42' 46 45 6 9 8 1008 100% 1001 AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE � OF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: OCTOBER 24. 1990 SUBJECT: City Allocation of Take of-Occul2ied PREPARED BY: BACKGROUND Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Under the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan. Hardy Stro.zier Hardy Strozier The Planning Assoc. APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: )e 4,o Dave underman Col Dev. Dir. (?W Ran Molendyk City Manager On August 14 and 20, 1990, the City Council considered a Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR) allocation of take policy (see staff report from August 14, 1990 public hearing attached). No decisions or recommendations were made at those meetings due to the fact that the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan (IHCP) was not effective. The IHCP is now in place, so the City Council may consider its allocation of take policy. DISCUSSION The Council SKR Subcommittee (Mayor Washburn/Councilman Starkey), as well as the City Attorney, met on September 20 to discuss the current status of the allocation. Their recommendation was to set a public hearing to take testimony from interested developers and property owners on allocation of take policies and procedures. City staff was directed to solicit developer/property owner written comments on the policy and the developers/owner individual: A. Needs for allocation identified with as much precision as possible; B. Time frames for development areas that require allocation; and C. Status of all necessary permits (e.g. 1601, 404, etc.) Letters have been received from the developers/property owners with respect to the above request and are attached to this staff report. The SKR Subcommittee will be meeting on October 18 to discuss any revisions to the recommended policy that was presented at the August 14, 1990 public hearing. If any changes are requested, that information will be forwarded to you. The City has begun proceeding with the JPA to obtain the 304 acre parcel in order to provide the total City SKR take authorized under the IHCP for future development projects. AGtEF 10A ITEM fM. Page 2 October 24, 1990 Subject: City Allocation of Take of Occupied Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Under the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan It is recommended that the City Council: /cm 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 the accompanying Resolution or using the actual purchase price); 3. Reserve 20% of the allocation of take for City or other public projects; and 4. The City shall 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 the Resolution accompanying this Staff Report. AGENDA E i EM N 0. 1-3- PACE OF RESOLUTION 90--1.06 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 TARE UNDER THE INTERIM HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, adopted Resolution No. 90-62 on June 26, 1990, adopting the Agreement Regarding Allocation of Take for occupied Stephen's Kangaroo Rat habitat; and WHEREAS, the City has received 100 acres of occupied habitat under the Agreement Regarding Allocation of Take for the first six month period of the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan; and WHEREAS, the City currently has developer requests for occupied habitat that exceed the 100 acres; and WHEREAS, the City is currently exploring options to obtain the entire 352 acres it can be allocated during the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan and under the Section 10 (a) Permit; and WHEREAS, the City is still likely to receive requests for occupied habitat that exceed the entire 352 acres of occupied habitat available under the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council met on August 14 and August 20 to discuss potential allocations of the City's Stephen's Kangaroo Rat take; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore: 1. The City shall use its best efforts to pursue the acquisition of the remaining 252 acres of occupied habitat that will be available to the City during the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan. 2. The City shall require the development community to participate within 30 days of this Resolution in the acquisition of additional habitat in exchange for release of occupied habitat for take in accordance with Exhibit A. 3. The City shall reserve 20% of the allocation of take for City or other public projects. 4. The City shall allocate the take received during the period of the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan as shown on Exhibit B. 5. In the event that suspension of the Section 10 (a) Permit appears eminent, the Community Development Director, with the approval of the City Manager and Mayor, is authorized to allocate all remaining take acreage that the City has received. 6. The City shall make Stephen's Kangaroo Rat allocations and work to obtain additional Stephen's Kangaroo Rat land on behalf of City developers/property owners in exchange for limits on developer litigation directed towards the City with respect to the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat. AGENDA ITEM NO. " PAGE 3 OF�— Page 2 Resolution No. 90 - PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of October, 1990, upon the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: Vicki Lynne Kasad, City Clerk City of Lake Elsinore (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: John R. Harper, City Attorney City of Lake Elsinore Gary M. Washburn, Mayor City of Lake Elsinore AGENDA ITUA NO. PACE Or �� EXHIBIT A OCCUPIED HABITAT FEE FORMULA FOR THE STEPHEN'S KANGAROO RAT October 24, 1990 352 acres (total allocation under Short Term HCP) - 100 acres (allocation during first 6 month 10 (a) Permit period) 252 acres 252 acres of take $5,000 per acre* 75% occupied** 1/.75 = 1.3 252 x 1.3 = 336 336 x $5,000 = $1,680,000 $1,680,000 + 352 = $4,773 per acre*** * If actual acre acquisition cast is less than $5,000 per acre, that differential, less administrative costs, will be refunded to the developer. If actual acre acquisition cost is greater than $5,000 per acre, the additional costs will be collected from the developer. ** If actual occupied habitat percentage is less than 755, mitigation fees will increase to that amount of the actual percentage of occupied habitat; conversely, if actual occupied habitat percentage is greater than 75%, mitigation fees will be proportionately decreased. *** Required payment by developers requesting allocation = $4,773 per acre + regular mitigation fees under Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fee Ordinance. /cm AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF� EXHIBIT B CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ALLOCATION OF STEPHENIS KANGAROO RAT TAKE INTERIM HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN October 24, 1990 t Based on 100 acres for first six month allocation. These same percentages will be used throughout the life of the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan. /cm AGENDA iTLI e- 1r3- PAGE(P OF J7 Project Percent Acreage Allocated* 1. City of Lake Elsinore N/A 20.00 2. LD Johnson Companies 1,190 17.55 3. Murdock Development Company 500 7.38 4. Brighton Homes 1,000 14.75 5. Long Beach Equities, Inc. 790 11.65 6. Pardee Construction Company 1,943 28.66 Total 100% t Based on 100 acres for first six month allocation. These same percentages will be used throughout the life of the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan. /cm AGENDA iTLI e- 1r3- PAGE(P OF J7 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: AUGUST 14, 1590 SUBJECT: City Allocation of Take of Occupied Stephen's Kan aroo Rat Habitat Under the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan PREPARED REVI4DaveG APPROVED BY : BY :i�.�,�i1 Y : Hardy Strozier ermanRon Molendyk The Planning Assocs. Dev. City Manager BACKGROUND: On June 26, 1990, the City Council adopted several documents as part of the Section 10(a) Permit application for the Interim Habitat Conservation Pian for the Stephen's kangaroo rat. In addition to the Interim Plan and supporting environmental documentation, documents detailing procedures and policies for implementing the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan were also adopted. one of the implementation documents that was adopted was an Agreement Regarding Allocation of Take (Attachment A). DISCUSSION: The Interim Habitat Conservation Plan and implementation Agreement authorize the County and participating cities to incidentally take up to 4,400 acres, or 20% of the total occupied habitat of the Stephen's kangaroo rat in the Habitat Conservation Plan fee area, whichever is less. Based on 4,400 acres, the City of Lake Elsinore would be allocated a maximum of 352 acres of occupied Stephen's kangaroo rat habitat over the two-year period of the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan. The ability of the City to achieve all 352 acres, however, is not likely, as the amount of occupied habitat available for incidental take to the City of Lake Elsinore is a function of the amount of Stephen's kangaroo rat impact fees collected. Since it is likely that, relying on impact fees alone, the City would not be able to take the entire 352 acres, City staff is currently exploring options to obtain the full 352 acres. However, even if all 352 acres were to become available to the City during the two-year Interim Habitat Conservation Plan period, requests for future development currently exceed this amount. The City of Lake Elsinore has received approximately 100 acres of available take of occupied habitat to distribute amongst public and private projects for the First six months of the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan. Because development requests exceed the 100 acres of available take, staff has developed an allocation formula based on an assumed cost for acquisition of additional habitat and public and private development requests (Exhibit of the Resolution) which allocates take based on a proportion of project size. Once a developer has paid fees for occupied habitat take, that take becomes vested. If, however, the developer fails to pay the fee for occupied habitat acreage, then that acreage will be re- apportioned amongst the other developers in the City. Further, if a developer chooses to pay for its occupied habitat in accordance with Exhibits A and B of the Resolution, and not use it, that developer may sell its allocated take acreage to another developer at whatever price is negotiated between the parties. AGENDA ITE1.9 NO. PAGE -2,07" e!__ Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Allocation of City Take August 14, 1990 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Pursue the acquisition of the remaining 252 acres of occupied habitat that will be available to the City during the two-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 Attachment B or using the actual purchase price); 3. Reserve 20% of the allocation of take for City or other public projects; 4. The City shall allocate the take received during the first six-month period (i.e., 100 acres) as shown on Exhibit B in the Resolution accompanying this Staff Report. 5. Direct Staff to return with an update to the acquisition project in eight weeks. At that time, a formal policy for distribution of either the 100 acres or the entire 352 will be adopted. 6. Authorize the Community Development Director to immediately allocate the remaining take acreage that the City has received, upon approval of the City Manager and Mayor, if suspension of the Section 10(a) Permit appears eminent. AGENDA ( i EM NO.11�_ PAGE LL D- -57 Pardee Construction Company October 15, 1990 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Qcr+clvcn OCT 15 1990 PLANNING DEPT. Mr. David Gunderman Director of Community Development CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 Dear Dave: P.O. Ba 1556 Twmh, Cdiform 92390 TO 17141676.1377 VNeyerhxuser FAX (7141 MUM Michael V. McGee Va Padrx HAND DELIVERED Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1990. I am glad to provide the requested information, and believe it will help the staff and the Council arrive at a fair and equitable distribution of incidental take, and one that meets the City's legal obligations. My attorneys oblige me to state at the outset, however, that Pardee again reaffirms its position that the City has the present ability to award Pardee the 87 acres of incidental take that Pardee needs immediately; that the City is obliged to allocate that amount; and that Pardee has not and will not waive the damages it has suffered and continues to suffer as a result of the City's delay in issuing that allocation. I am attaching, as background, copies of all correspondence on this subject that Pardee has provided the City. The following requested data is based upon newly updated biological assessments of the entire Cottonwood Hills project area completed just last week by RECON and thus, some occupied acreage figures will differ from previous discussions. I. Allocation Need A. Immediate Need: 87 acres of incidental take to complete suspended grading on Phase I of Cottonwood. B. Long Term Need 1. Phase II of Cottonwood: 49.2 acres of incidental take. Projected date of grading: January, 1992. 2. Phase III of Cottonwood: 96.8 acres of incidental take. Projected date of grading: January, 1994. 3. Phase IV of Cottonwood: 70.9 acres of incidental take. Projected date of grading: January, 1996. AGENDA (TEM NG. �` PAGE OF t --- Mr. David Gunderman (cont.) October 15, 1990 Page Two 4. Phase V of Cottonwood: 34.7 acres of incidental take. Projected date of grading: January, 1998. 5. Phase VI of Cottonwood: 45.2 acres of incidental take. Projected date of grading: January, 2000. 6. Phase VII of Cottonwood: 0 acres of incidental take. Projected date of grading: January, 2002. 7. Phase VIZI (Open Phase) of Cottonwood: 0 acres of incidental take. Projected date of grading: January, 1992. II. Development Time Frame and Status of Permit Processing A. Cottonwood, Phase I (A residential development including 977 units, 13.4 acre commercial site and 15.6 acre school/park site). EIR/EIS Section 404 Permit Section 1603 Permit Specific Plan Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23848 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25274 Development Agreement Design Reviews SER Biological Survey Grading Permit Grading Suspended* Section 1603 Permit Recertified with Vesting Tentative Maps. None Required. Issued June 20, 1990. Approved March 14, 1989. Approved October 23, 1989. Approved April 24, 1990. Approved May 22, 1990. Approved June 5 and July 18, 1990. October 11, 1990 (Updated). Issued June 26, 1990. September 15,-1990. Issued June 20, 199 AGEI<DA I7EIA too. PAGE � OF � Mr. David Gunderman (cont.) October 15, 1990 Page Three *On June 26, 1990, the City issued Pardee grading permits allowing Pardee to grade a portion of the major roads in Phase I. Grading permits covering the balance of the project are held -up pending only the issuance of necessary incidental take allocation. Summary: Phase I of Cottonwood is fully entitled, having secured all approvals necessary to recommence suspended grading and begin construction except for the allocation of 87 acres of incidental take. B. Cottonwood Phase II. (A residential development, including 782 units). EIR/EIS To be recertified with Vesting Tentative Tract Map applications. Section 404 Permit Section 1603 Permit Specific Plan Vesting Tentative Tract Map Development Agreement Design Review Grading Permit In process. Completion projected first quarter, 1991. In process. Completion projected first quarter, 1991. Approved. In process. Sub- mission scheduled first quarter, 1991. Approved. Anticipated subsequent to Tentative Tract Map Approval. Required by January, 1992. AGENCA 340. —0— PAGEf? OF Mr. David Gunderman (cont.) October 15, 1990 Page Four C. Cottonwood Phase III (A residential development including 533 units, a 27.7 acre community park and an 11.3 acre school site). EIR/EIS To be recertified with Vesting Tentative Tract Map applications. Section 404 Permit In process. Completion projected first quarter, 1991. Section 1603 Permit Specific Plan Development Agreement In process. Completion projected first quarter, 1991. Approved. Approved. Vesting Tentative Tract Map Submission scheduled first quarter, 1993. Design Review Anticipated subsequent to Tentative Tract Map Approval. Grading Permit Required by January, 1994. D. Cottonwood Phase IV (A residential development including 356 units). EIR/EIS To be recertified with Vesting Tentative Tract Map applications. Section 404 Permit In process. Completion projected first quarter, 1991. Section 1603 Permit In process. Completion projected first quarter, 1991. AGENDA ITE%' INC. Jr,5 PAGE OF �� — Mr. David Gunderman (cont.) October 15, 1990 Page Five Specific Plan Development Agreement Vesting Tentative Tract Map Design Review Grading Permit Approved. Approved. Submission scheduled first quarter, 1995. Anticipated subsequent to Tentative Tract Map Approval. Required by January, 1996. E. Cottonwood Phase V (A residential development including 379 units, and a 15.7 acre school/park site) . EIR/EIS To be recertified with Section 404 Permit Section 1603 Permit Specific Plan Development Agreement Vesting Tentative Tract Map Design Review Grading Permit Vesting Tentative Tract Map applications. In process. Completion projected first quarter, 1991. In process. Completion projected first quarter, 1991. Approved. Approved. Submission scheduled first quarter, 1997. Anticipated subsequent to Tentative Tract Map Approval. Required by January, 1998. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE I J CP �� Mr. David Gunderman (cont.) October 15, 1990 Page Six F. t�k Cottonwood Phase VI (A residential development including 397 units). EIR/EIS To be recertified with Vesting Tentative Tract Map applications. Section 404 Permit In process. Completion projected first quarter, 1991. Section 1603 Permit In process. Completion projected first quarter, 1991. Specific Plan Approved. Development Agreement Vesting Tentative Tract Map Design Review Grading Permit Approved. Submission scheduled first quarter, 1999. Anticipated subsequent to Tentative Tract Map Approval. Required by January, 2000. G. Cottonwood Phase VII (A residential development including 93 units). EIR/EIS Section 404 Permit Section 1603 Permit Specific Plan To be recertified with Vesting Tentative Tract Map applications. In process. Completion projected first quarter, 1991. In process. Completion projected first quarter, 1991. Approved. OpENDA 1-f a.w. !'O. -53- PAGE OF tri Mr. David Gunderman (cont.) October 15, 1990 Page Seven Development Agreement Approved. Vesting Tentative Tract Map Submission scheduled first quarter, 2001. Design Review Anticipated subsequent to Tentative Tract Map Approval. Grading Permit Required by January, 2002. H. Cottonwood Phase VIII (Open Phase) (A residential development including 758 units and a 7.8 acre commercial site). Please note that all information set forth above relative to timing may fluctuate (and most likely accelerate) depending upon market conditions. However, the approved Specific Plan and Development Agreement both provide that phasing and timing are vested rights within the discretionary control of Pardee. III. Additional Considerations In addition to the legal grounds set forth in the attached correspondence, Pardee calls the Council's attention to a number of additional considerations supporting a Council decision to award 87 acres of incidental take to Pardee at the conclusion of the October 24, 1990 Public Hearing. A. 15.6 acres of the 87 acres needed will be used to grade an area reserved for a park and a school site. B. Pardee has fronted to date 6.1 7nillion to com lete improvements to Railroad Canyon Road. No other develo er has invested the money and manpower to com fete such a vital ro'ect prior to being—permitted to develop its—Rroperty and generate revenues to recoup its investment. In addition even given the two month delaV associated with 5KR Pardee has managed to perform in an exenrlaU manner and we expect to re -open the road within 3 weeks of its originally ro'ected opening date. AGENDA 1TE%,1 NO. PAGE �' Mr. David Gunderman (cont.) October 15, 1990 Page Eight C. No other residential developer has secured all permits and approvals necessary to begin grading for residential development immediately. Pardee commenced such grading on June 26, 1990. D. Allocation requests based upon surface mining permits should not stand on equal footing with Pardee's as Pardee's grading will immediately result in the construction of homes and the generation of property tax revenues, and customers for existing businesses. E. Pardee's Development Agreement with the City is the earliest executed with any developer presently seeking an allocation of incidental take. F. Pardee has received reports that other developers have been affected by the apparent recession, have reduced work -forces, and have altered schedules calling for the construction of homes in Lake Elsinore. Pardee remains ready, willing, and able to commence the suspended work at Cottonwood upon receipt of take, and to open its sales office for the site within an estimated six months of the issuance of 87 acres of incidental take. G. Pardee is aware that the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) has been informed that legal challenges to the HCP could be forthcoming shortly. Pardee is also aware that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has expressed reservations regarding the Section 10(a) permit, and that the Service retains the right to revoke the permit at any time. Finally, Pardee is aware of the objections of the Audubon Society to the operation of the HCP, and of the appearance of Audubon's counsel at the October 4, 1990, meeting of the RCHCA. Pardee is concerned that incidental take presently available for allocation by the Counsel may be frozen or disappear entirely, and urges the Council to allocate the 98 acres it has available AGENDA ITEM NO, .,15,*�` PACE �' Mr. David Gunderman (cont.) October 15, 1990 Page Nine to applicants presently positioned to immediately use that allocation in the best interests of immediate economic development. Pardee is not aware of even a single other applicant who proposes to use such take immediately for the Rurposes of building homes. H. Pardee remains committed to assisting the City in the accelerated acquisition of the additional 252 acres of Study Area land containing occupied SKR habitat. To that end, Pardee has already accruire discussions with the City_ on how_ the _property could assist the City,if and only—if, the 87 acres of incidental take is allocated to Pardee following the close of the public hearing on October --24- 1990. I. Pardee will continue to cooperate with the City to provide legislative and environmental consultants with regard to sensitive habitat matters. IV. Summary As Pardee has stated in the past, we see no compelling reason not to award Pardee the allocation it needs, and to do so immediately. We further believe that a disinterested review of all applications will lead the Council to award Pardee 87 acres of incidental take, and to accept Pardee's other continuing offers of assistance. Our cooperation with the City on all phases of Cottonwood Hills has always been exemplary, and our regard for the Council, Planning Commission, City Staff, and the people of Lake Elsinore remains high. We earnestly hope to avoid the lawsuit that looms, and to be able to continue our endeavors in the best interests of the City. Mr. David Gunderman (cont.) October 15, 1990 Page Ten Please call me with any questions. Sincerely, PARDEE-GROSSMAN/COTTONWOOD CANYON, a California General Partnership By PARDEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a California Corporation, Operational Partner Michael V. McGee MVM/dh cc: Mayor Gary Washburn Mayor Pro Tem Bill Starkey Councilmember Will Buck Councilmember Fred Dominguez Councilmember Jim Winkler John Harper; Brown Harper, Burns & Hentschke Hugh Hewitt; Pettis Tester, Kruse & Krinsky Charles Birke, Sandler & Rosen Ted Cullen, PCC/MCO - AGi IZA ITF ` Ivo—ao PAG -E 0 OF� . 1. PME HOMESTEAD LA CORPOREVEA ON NT September 26, 1990 CITY OF LAv7 ri F LORE RECEII'V'tU City Council SEP 2 8 IQ -90 of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main STreet Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 PLA "`' k�; :.yG DEPT. RE: Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Allocation Dear Council Members: Pursuant to your action on setting a Public Hearing for Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SRR) allocation within the City of Lake Elsinore, Homestead Land Development hereby requests allocation for two projects. The first project, Tuscany Hills, will require 46.7 acres of occupied SKR allocation pursuant to that Conservation Agreement by and between the United States Fish & Wildlife Service, the City of Lake Elsinore, and Homestead Land Development. The allocation is requested for "take" anticipated to begin in November of this year. The second project, 36 acres north of Tuscany, will require 16.8 acres of allocation as indentified in a Biological Report by Dr. O'Farrell dated September 7, 1990 and the approval by the JPA for removal from the Kabien Park study area. This project is currently the subject of annexation proceedings from the County of Riverside to the City of Lake Elsinore with our expectation of "take" to occur in late 1991. Those Council Members on the K -rat Steering Committee know that Homestead has contributed significantly to the City's efforts to solve this important issue. Homestead and our consultants knowledge of the laws and procedures gained from our success in obtaining a Section 7 clearance from the Fish & Wildlife Service was shared with the City Staff. We also identified the 304 acre preserve property on which the City is pursuing condemnation and funded the appraisal. Our Tuscany project has received all necessary discretionary approvals from the City to initiate development, including the Specific Plan, Development Agreement, and Tentative Tract approvals. The Department of Fish & Game has issued a 1603 permit covering the entire project. A determination has been made that the Army Corp of Engineers does not have jurisdiction on the project and no 404 permit is required. AGER DA ITEM. i:�. q� PAGE OF 2 355 NORTH SHERIDAN STREET. SUITE 117 • CORONA. CA 91720 • (714) 279.1060 FAX (714) 279-8019 I f* City Council City of Lake Elsinore September 26, 1990 Page Two Final engineering for the currently undeveloped northern section of Tuscany is proceeding and seven out of the eight rough grading plans have been submitted to the City for plan check review. Because of our Section 7 agreement with the Fish & Wildlife Service, allocation of "take" on the Tuscany project will not be included in the limits imposed under the County/JPA 10(a) program. I hope the above information provides sufficient justification to allow the Council to provide for our needs. If additional information is required, please do not hesitate to contact me at 714/279-1060. Thank you for your consideration. a or Planning & Engineering CJT/dvdm:allocation.skr cc: Hardy Strozier Dave Gunderman John Harper Ron Molendyk AGENDA ITEM, V0. FAGr OF / ek�e SENT BY:BRIGHTON HOMES October 11. 1990 00-11-90 ; 1:45PM ; 7145571142♦ ton os Mayor Gary Washburn City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Lake Elsincrv, CA 92330 RE Allocation of Stephens Kangaroo Rat "Take" Dear Mayor Washburn: 6742392;# 2 The City will consider on October 23, 1990, how it will allocate the first 1D0 acres of Stephens Kangaroo Rat "take" amongst the various competing interests that have requested it. Brighton Homes believes that the Staff recommendation of allocation based on total project acres is the most equitable and rational solution tc this problem. other allocation methods have been proposed, usually by those who would stand to gain the most if their proposal was adopted. Brighton is most strongly opposed to the notion that those who can most quickly deliver a house should receive all of their requested allocation first. This might have merit for eliminating the developer who suddenly walks through your door and tells you he's thinking about building some houses someday but not with the current group of developers that are requesting allocation. We halve all been at this for several years now and the fact that one developer might be able to deliver a house a few months sooner than another is splitting hairs. Brighton desires and needs to have at least fifteen acres of Stephen's Kangaroo Rat take allocation in order to start its first phase grading operation. You heard me testify at our Development Agreement hearing that the problem with delivering the golf course in a timely manner lies with the complexity of our grading operation. Almost all of the entire 34,000,000 cubic yards of earth must first be moved before construction of the golf course can begin. Brighton has cormitted to a schedule Calling for the first and second nine holes to be operational within rive and seven years, respectively. We desire, as I am sure you do, to deliver all IS holes ahead of schedule. The clock is now ticking; we must get underway. 505 N. TUSTIN AVENUE, S= 230 9MgrEN►D.A ITEM F-O..a./� SANTA ANA, CA 9 7141667.3999 P.I�v' CE O r go.Z SENT BY:BRIGHTON HOMES :10-11-90 ; 1:46RM ; 7146671142-* Mayor Gary Washburn Allocation of SKR Take 6742392:# 3 Page Z In summary I would like to reiterate that Brighton Homes is ready to move forward with its project as soon as it receives its allocation of SKR take and that Brighton supports the Staff's recommendation as being the most equitable method of distributing that allocation amongst those requesting it. Sincerely, B RIGN iiDMES R. Meddock Director of Land Development cc: Mayor Pro Tara Bill Starkey Councilman Will Buck Councilman Fred Dominguez Councilman Jim Winkler Ron Molendyk, City Manager Dave Gunderman, Director of Community Development Hardy Strozier, The Planning Associates AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE_ — OF - f SENT BY:BRIGHTON HOMES October 110 1990 00-11-90 ; 1:46PM ; 7146671142-+ H O M E S Mr. David Gunderman Director of Community Development City of Lake Elsinore 130 Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 Subject: Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Allocation Program Dear Mr. Gunderman: 6742392;8 4 Brighton Homes has been requested to provide the City of Lake Elsinore with specific information relative to our Alberhill development project and the related need for allocation of "incidental take" of Stephen's Kangaroo Rat. We hope the following information regarding the extent of Brighton's need, the timetable for development of Alberhill and the status of the required entitlements will be useful to both you and the City Council. Our most recent study of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, conducted in 1989, identifies about 130 acres of occupied habitat in several locations on our property. That study shows occupied areas next to Temescal Creek coincident with our golf course layout. The largest single area is towards the southern and of the property encompassing the junior high school site. All areas significantly impact the grading operations necessary to balance the site and provide sufficient fill to construct the golf course. The attached exhibit shows the occupied locations. While Brighton is in the process of updating this 1989 study because it was undertaken over twelve months ago, and while the preliminary results of this update indicate that the extent of occupied habitat has decreased somewhat, the remaining occupied habitat still significantly impairs development of the site, since the remaining occupied acreage is located in the midst of areas designated for major grading operations, and thus cannot feasibly be avoided. 503 IN. TVSTM AVBNIM, SLS 230 AG.7-(IDA {TEAR N10.5)- -SANTA ANA. pC�Ap 42MS 7W667-3999 SENT BY:BRIGHTON HOMES ;10-11-90 ; 1:47PM 7146671142-* 6742392;# 5 Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Allocation Program Page 2 We desire to begin grading followed by construction of the 18 -hole golf course at the earliest possible date but cannot do so without entitlement to take some twenty to forty acres of Kangaroo Rat habitat. You have heard me repeatedly make reference to the sheer size of this grading operation which involves moving some 34,000,000 cubic yards of earth. Most of this material must be moved before construction of the golf course can begin. it is imperative that we get underway as soon as practical. Thus, while Brighton may ultimately require up to 130 acres of take in order to fully develop the Alberhill project, we have a present, i=ediatq need for fifteen acres in order to begin the grading operation. In addition to the fifteen acres, we will need a second allocation of twenty to twenty --five acres in six to nine months to allow grading to continue without interruption. The golf course represents the most significant amenity being offered by any project now proposed within the City of Lake Elsinore, 1t will do us little good to develop the golf course at the end of our project. But without an allocation of take, early development of the golf course cannot occur. With respect to the status of our entitlements, Brighton's Reclamation Plan has been approved which gives us the means to begin our grading operation in advance of other approvals that may be needed later in the project. While we are conducting the first phase of our Reclamation Plan, we will continue to prepare and process these other entitlement documents. The Amendment to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan is being finalized and should be ready for City review shortly. Concurrent with the Specific Plan Amendment, an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report is being prepared. The Tentative Tract Map for the first phase of the Alberhill project and 1140 Scale" Grading Plans are currently in preparation and will be submitted for approval following approval of the specific Plan Amendment. Other discretionary approvals outside the jurisdiction of the City of Lake Elsinore are proceeding on schadule. I believe you are aware that we have received our "Section 1603" Permit from the State Department of Fish and Game and the "Section 404" Permit from the Army Corps of Enginesrs is expected shortly. Both of these permits are essential to allow construction of the golf course adjacent to Temescal Creek. Since there are no other outstanding permits relating to this project, it is our expectation that by October 23, 1990, the only thing that might prevent us from starting construction would be a lack of allocation of SXR take. AGwNDA ITEC` rt4-�� SENT BY:BRIGHTON HOMES :10-11-90 ; 1:48PM ; 7146671142♦ 5742392;# 6 ft Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Allocation Program Page 3 We hope the above information is helpful in your decision-making process. Should you have any questions regarding the extent of need, status of permits or development schedule relating to Alberhill, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, B/nneth N RMeddock K R. Director of Land Development attachment cc: Mayor Gary Washburn Mayor Pro Tem Bill Starkey councilman Will Buck councilman Fred Dominguez councilman Jim Winkler Ron Molendyk, city Manager Hardy Strozier, The Planning Associates ASSISTANT wCc PpIrsic[NT MURDOCK PLAZA 10000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 00024 (213) 200-7066 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE RECEIVED 0 C T 0 5 1990 .2 October 1990 PLANNING DEPT. The Honorable Gary Washburn Via Federal Express Mayor, City of Lake Elsinore The Honorable Will Buck Councilman, City of Lake Elsinore ,130 Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92330 RE: Comments on the Proposed Allocation of City Take Gentlemen: Pursuant to your request for comments on the proposed "City Allocation of Take of Occupied Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Under the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan," that will be reviewed by the City Council at its Tuesday, October 23rd meeting, Murdock Development Company ("Murdock"), the developer of Murdock Alberhill Ranch ("Alberhill") respectfully submits the following comments. We request that our comments be placed in the record and provided to the Council accordingly. You have requested information on the policy as well as our need for the allocation, development time frames, and the status of all necessary permits. We fully support the recommendation that the remainder of the permitted take be allocated pursuant to a pro rata distribution. We believe that this is the only fair and equitable means of distribution so that all developers having approved projects in the City stand on equal footing in the allocation line. Although some developers may have positioned themselves in such a manner to enable immediate commencement of work, their overall needs should not be considered any more or less significant than developers of other approved projects who are scheduled to commence sometime thereafter. AGENDA ITEM NO. PACE OF J f .� a me" City of Lake Elsinore 2 October 1990 Page 2 of 3 With respect to our own development time frame, Murdock is in the process of preparing applications to conduct mining reclamation and grading activities on the site in order to prepare the project area for development. We would like to obtain the allocation that we would receive under the City's distribution in order to commence our pre -development activities. Although we most likely will need much more than the approximately seven (7) acres that has been allotted to us under the City's formula, we are currently examining our grading plans to determine what changes can be made in our phasing so that we can use the seven acres most efficiently without adversely impacting other habitat areas until such time as a second allocation is made. Although some developers have made claims that they are standing closer to the front of the allocation line than others and therefore more deserving of a greater number of acres than their pro rata share, we do believe that the City should treat all developers equally. As stated previously, their needs are no more or less significant than any other developer in your City. Given the current state of uncertainty regarding the continued viability of the Section 10(a) permit due to the fact that additional developable habitat acres have not as yet been made available, we do not have any assurance that we will be able to develop our project as proposed. Allocation by the City of a pro rata share of habitat acres, however small, will provide Murdock with some assurance that the City is acting in good faith to identify the means by which all developers wishing to build in your City will be permitted to do so. To deny a developer an allocation of take acres merely because another developer may have obtained more permits or filed his or her application a week sooner than another would not provide the requisite assurance that the timely development of our project is a mutual goal of both Murdock and the City. Consequently, we believe that the only fair allocation is one that equitably apportions the take acreage among all interests. Such a program will not only treat all developers equally, but will provide each developer with an indication of the City's intent to work in good faith with each of us to assure orderly development of the area. without the use of a pro rata allocation program, the City would place itself in the position of assigning priorities to projects and choosing whether to favor one developer over another. This should not be the City's role. The City should focus on ensuring that all developers are treated equally and achieving the objectives of the Interim HCP, i.e., acquisition of additional habitat. AGENDA ITEM NO. i3�__ RAGE- 22 07.�L_ City of Lake Elsinore 2 October 1990 Page 3 of 3 With respect to the other elements of the proposal, Murdock is entirely supportive of the City's desire to pursue the acquisition of the remaining 252 acres of occupied habitat and any more acres of habitat that may become available to the City either through exchanges with other jurisdictions, identification and acquisition of additional SKR habitat, or any other means that are identified during the period in which the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan ("Interim HCP") is in effect. Moreover, we intend to be supportive and to participate, as appropriate, in the City's acquisition of additional habitat as we believe that such efforts must be undertaken in order to achieve the orderly development of Alberhill and other development projects in the City.. We are also supportive of the City's desire to retain some portion of the allocated take for its own public projects that is addressed in recommendation #3. As a matter of fact, one public project included in our first phase of development is the 34 acre Alberhill Ranch Community Park. Although we do not know at this time what the City's needs are, with the exception of the two (2) acres needed to complete Railroad Canyon Road, we understand and agree that some reservation of allocated take be made for public works projects. Murdock will continue to endorse, support and participate in the City's effort to develop and implement and equitable allocation policy and acquisition program to meet our needs and those of the City. Respectfully submitted, cc: -David Gunderman Hardy Strozier Kenneth R. Meddock Johathan Friedman Susan Hori, Esq. Jeffrey O. Henley AGENCA iTE3 PAGE OCT -15-190 16:52 ID:PACIFIC HOLDING TEL NO: 14 Ki�FTwHT V•CL Fs1 LSs¢LM► 15 October 1990 MURDOCK PLAZA IOSOO wILSMIRE BOULEVARD LO; ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 00024 1213) 200-7000 r.z - #724 P02 Mr. David Gunderman Via Fasd& Director of Community Development CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE C: Hall 13 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 RE: Stepbens' Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Allocation of Take Dear Mr. Gunderman: Tie following is in response to your letter of October 3, 1993 requesting certain information required by the City Council to ensure that the development needs of Murdoch Alberbill Ranch with respect to the allocation of take of SKR habitat will be duly considered. This letter also further clarifies our development plans as provided in my letter to Council of October 2,1990. 1, Apnea±ion Needs. According to the latest SKR study prepared for Alberhill Ranch, our Portion has approximately 53 acres of SKR occupied area. Tlie study is dated May 31, 1989, and was prepared by SJM Biological Consultants (the "SJM Study"). Although the S3M Study was completed over one year ago and considered obsolete under the SKR program standards, it is indicative of anticipated habitat needs, We will be conducting a new SKR study within the next sixty (60) days, subject to the availability of a licensed biologist. Wben it is completed, any change in our allocation needs wilt be communicated to the City. 2 Of the acres of SKR ocicu ied area. shown in the SJM Study, approximately 12 acres are located within our first phase of development, This development area also contains the 34 -acre Aiberhill Ranch Community Park to be completed with phase one. We intend to conduct numnge eclamation and grading activities in this area shortly upon receipt of necessary approvals. remaining approximately 41 acres of SKR occupied area is in later phases which also require reclamation, which we intend to conduct sL-nultaneously ,Aith reclamation of the phase one area. AGENDA 1 °r J. OCT -15-190 16:52 ID:PACIFIC FOLDING TEL NO:14 #724 P03 eon Mr. David Gunderman October 15,1990 ,Page two of two I Permits= Our engineering consultants are preparing rough gradingTans for the Murdock Aberhill Ranch development in order to obtain necessary approvals to conduct mining reclamation, No other permits are necessary for this stage of development. Please let me know if you or the members of the City Council r wire any additional information regarding our development plans for Murdock Alberhill Ranch. Very truly -yours, IM/ct W. Mayor Gary W ashbu rn Mayor Pro Tem Bill Starke Councilmember Fred Dominguez Councilmember William S. Buck Councilmember Jim Winkler Hardy Strozier Susan Hori, Esq. Jeffrey O. Healey AGENDA ITEM N4, r! PA �-:!E r -3 Builders Developers Inc. ArmacostAve. LONG BEACH EQUITIES, West Los Angeles. CA 90025 (213) 207-9969 CITY LA'€1-31 MORE October 30, 1990 a� 12 1990 PLANNING DEPT, The Honorable Gary Washburn Mayor, City of Lake Elsinore The Honorable Will Buck Councilman, City of Lake Elsinore 130 Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 Re: Comments on the Proposed Allocation of City Take Gentlemen: Pursuant to the request from Mr. Gunderman in his letter to me of October 3, 1990, Long Beach Equities would offer the following as ,:o our feelings on the "SKR" allocation. We feel that the prior staff report whereby the permitted take was allocated based on total acreage owned was the most fair. All parties involved have spent a great deal of time and capital to advance their projects to this stage. For any one developer to say he has spent more than another developer and should therefore receive more allocation is not right. The problem of allocation must be solved by all the parties. That means the City and all the developers must continue to work together. our particular project needs can basically be broken into two areas: Nichols Rd. and Lake St. At Lake St. we have three acres of occupied habitat. We also have a reclamation plan submitted to the staff to grade this area. The application is tentatively scheduled for the Planning Commission on November 7, 1990. As this project is freeway/offramp commercial property, it is very important to both the City and us that this grading operation be implemented without delay. Nichols Road is slightly different. Nichols Road is probably the major undeveloped interchange in the City. We have an old study that says 76 of the 95 commercial acres are occupied. If we have no allocation for this property, it is impossible to get any commercial users to even consider this interchange. Therefore, both the City and us run the risk of losing out to areas like AGENDA ITEM PdG, ��J �� •� �� The Honorable Gary Washburn The Honorable Will Buck October 10, 1990 Page 2 Temecula and Corona. It is vital that we have some allocation in which to be able to entice users with. In conclusion, I am supportive of the prior staff report and would also say that I agree with and support the letter of October 2, 1990 from Murdock Development. I appreciate the difficult position the City is in with respect to this issue and look forward to working on a fair and equitable solution. Sincerely, / Jonathan Friedman Vice President JF/ss cc: Dave Gunderman Hardy Strozier AGZNIDA ITEM NO. -.0 T M C D E V E L O P M E N T S October 12,1990 Mr. Dave Gunderman Director of Community Development CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 RE: NORTH PEAK PLANNED COMMUNITY STEVENS KANGAROO RAT [SKR] ALLOCATION Dear Mr. Gunderman: OC T 12 1990 PLANNING DEPT. This letter is in response to your letter of October 3, requesting North Peak's re- quirements regarding SKR allocations. Currently, North Peak Partners is proposing to process a Section 7 Permit through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Using the Section 7 Permit, the North Peak project would not require any SKR allocation from the Section 10(a) HCP or the City of Lake Elsinore. The HCP document makes specific reference to Section 7 consultations with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and allows for taking permits outside of the Section 10(a) program. The Section 7 Permit requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make a Non -jeopardy Biologi- cal Opinion for the taking of the SKR specific to the North Peak project. North Peak Partners has acquired mitigation land in SKR study areas recommended by the HCP and will be mitigating any SKR disturbance on the North Peak site on a one-to-one basis. Currently, North Peak Partners controls SKR acreage in Estelle Mountain, Motte Reserve, Steele Peak and Kabian Park. Thank you very much for considering the North Peak project in the City's allocation program. Sincerely, s ELOPMENTS, 'C. e. oreland Vice President of Development \file\d gunderman-LE AGENDA ITEM NJ....._...�- 10SO SOUTH BRISTOL STREET SUITE 150 COST• MESA. CALIFORNIA 92626 FACSIMILE 714 557-4415 TELEPHONE 714 557-7100 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS SIEMON, LARSEN & MARSH LAW OFFICES I9600 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD. SUITE 350 IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92715 TELEPHONE 714-752-1538 TELEFAX 714-752-6604 October 12, 1990 Mr. Dave Gunderman Director of Community Development City Of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92330 BOCA RATON. FLORIDA Q1 _ VIED 0 C T ' 6 1990 PL4Nt1111V G DEFpr Re: SYR Allocation Needs for the Ramsgate Project Dear Mr. Gunderman: On behalf of our client L.D. Johnson Company ("Johnson"), the following is in response to your letter of October 3, 1990, requesting information regarding allocation needs, development time frames and status of project permitting. Pleases be advised that Johnson plans to initially grade planning areas 1 through 8 of the Ramsgate Project (the "Project"), including most of Phases 1 and II of zhe Project as shown on the attached Map. 1. . This initial grading effort contemplates the "incidental take" of 142 acres of occupied Stephens' Kangaroo Rat habitat based on earlier surveys. From an economic standpoint, the Project cannot avoid the incidental take of this habitat, because the grading for the project must be accomplished in a single coordinated effort. Therefore, Johnson requests an allocation of 142 acres of take from the City. 2. Regarding the timing of development, it is anticipated that the final engineering work for the grading will begin by January 1991 and it is anticipated that initial grading will begin June 1991. AGENDA IiE11. ;SG. PAGE �.= — =�— Mr. Dave Gunderman Director of Community Development City Of Lake Elsinore October 12, 1990 Page 2 3. Beyond obtaining the necessary local building and grading permits, approvals and allocations of take, this initial grading effort requires no further state or federal permits. No state streambed alteration agreement or federal Clean Water Act Section 404 permit will be required for the initial grading. While further work is contemplated for the Project including the construction of crossings in Wasson Canyon which may require appropriate state and federal permitting, Johnson is not presently requesting allocations of take for these areas. I trust that the foregoing provides you with the necessary information. However, should you need further information or assistance please do not hesitate to contact me or Dennis R. Acker of this office. Respectfully 1-4 � T i L 'M SIEMON, LLM/DRA/jls cc: Hardy Strozier, Esq. Mayor Jim Winkler Mayor Pro Tem Fred Dominguez Councilmember Bill Starkey Councilmember Gary Washburn Councilmember William S. Buck itted, sh SEN & MARSH AGENDA ITEM N.0- r�.�-� . OCT 12 '9D 11:19 LD JCN-ui5oii C.Oh'PAtilE9 7142n3_n 3 � y.':nL'i f•'a •'� 4. yi Y4 5.. "•�l•'' r_ •r I • . is },_ _ . i' .: .. ' • _ .' Y 3;.: � ;� •'e a ... :s- •- .25477 nk 7, .: •[•'�'-':..' -may. i.,• ?,7.25A79 •: ;•ti; � is .� :•ti :::. , T.T. 25471 ATB - : S �- pKI 7.1. 25472 25473 RAMSGATEINDSX MAP ^ ,. _ •. i ;AG ND -ITEM N' 0 - -7 p;4�Es� Qi7 >! f ORDINANCE NO. 906 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF I = ELSINORE CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING EXISTING CHAPTER 54 TITLE 15 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE N=CIPAL CGDE (ORDINANCE NO. 832), ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 64 TO TITLE 15 OF SAID CODE WSICH SHALL BE KNOWN AS "FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION'* 1.1 The Legislature of the state of California has in Government Coda Sections 653020 55550, and 65800 conferred upon local government units authority to adopt regulations designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore does ordain as follows: 1.2 FINDINGS OF FACT A. The flood hazard areas of the City of Lake Elsinore are subject to periodic inundation which results in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare. B. These flood losses are caused by Uie cumulative effect of obstructions in areas of special flood hazards which increase flood heights and velocities, and 'when inadequately anchored, damage uses in other areas. Uses that are inadequately floodproofed, elevated or -otherwise protected from flood damage also contribute to the flood loss. 1.3 gTA?hMEN"I'of P'MZQSE. It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed: A. To protect human life and health; B. To minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; C. To minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; D. To minimize prolonged business interruptions; E. To minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard; F. To help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the second use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas; G. To insure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard; and H. To insure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF 1.4 In order to aceomplish its purposes, this ordinance includes methods and provisions for: A. Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or velocities; B. Requiring that uses 'vulnerable to floods, including } facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction: . t C. Controlling the alteration of natural floodpiains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate of channel flood waters; ' D. Controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; and E. Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas. SECTION 2.0 DEFINITIONS Unless specifically defined below wards or phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and give this ordinance its most reasonable application. "Anoeal" means a request for a review of the Floodplain Administrator's interpretation of any provision of this ordinance or a request for a variance. " a designated AO, An Zone on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRr'!) . The base flood depths range from one to three feet; a clearly defined channel does not exist; the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate; and velocity flow may be evident. "A ea ofsoecja ds d [i.e.��ttudfw)_h�I$ is the area subject to severe mudslides (i.e., mudflows). The area is designated as Zone M on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). "Base Flood_ means the flood having a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year (also called the "100 -year flood"). "Basement" means any area of the building having its floor subgrade (below ground level) on all sides. 1 -,"Breakaway walls" are any type of walls, whether solid or Lattice, and whether constructed of concrete, masonry, wood, metal, plastic or any other suitable building material which is not part of the structural support of the building and which is designated to breakaway under abnormally high tides ar wave action without causing any damage to the structural integrity of the building on which they are used or any. buildings to which they might be carried by flood waters. A breakaway wall, shall have a safe design loading resistance of not less that ten and no mare than twenty pounds per square i foot. Use of breakaway walls must be certified by a registered engineer or architect and shall meet the following conditions: AGENDA ITEM NO..wtg�L PAGE= OF �" 1. Breakaway wall collapse shall result from a water load less than that which would occur during the base flood; and 2. The elevated portion of the building shall not incur any structural damage due to the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously in the event of the base flood. "peveloRMe= means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations. "Fl❑ed or -f14odinmeans a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from (1) the overflow of flood waters, (2) the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source, and/or (3) the collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an unusually high water level in a natural body, of water, accompanied by a severe storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature, such as flash flood or an abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable event which results in flooding as defined in this definition. "Flood Bounda= an FlocdwAX May" means the official map on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency or Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of flood hazard and the floodway. "Flood Insuran " means the official map on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency or Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. "Flood ns an a ud " Deans the official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration that includes flood profiles, the FIRM, the Flood Boundary and Floodway flap, and the water surface elevation of the base flood. "Floodrlain or flood -Drone area_ means any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source (see definition of "flooding"). rFloodp a n manageen,ent_ means the operation of an overall program of corrective and preventative measures for reducing flood damage, including but not limited to emergency preparedness plans, flood control works and floodplain management regulations. "Flvodnl in nanagitnent recOulat�._o_ns m e a n s z o n i n g ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as floodplain ordinance, grading ordinance and erosion control ordinance) and other applications of police power. The term describes such state or local regulations in any combination thereof, which provide standards for the purpose of flood damage prevention and reduction. "Floodprogfin means any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE. OF 1 t LAY, *Floo y" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. Also referred to as "Regulatory floodway". ffrunct-ignally—dgren-dent us" means a use which cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is located or carried out in close proximity to water. The term includes only docking ' facilities, port facilities that are necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or passengers, and ship building and ship repair facilities, but does not include long-term storage or related manufacturing facilities. F rzighest adjacent grade!' means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls of a structure. " west floo " means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed rea (including basement). aAn unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building's lowest floor; provided, that such 1 enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non -elevation design requirements of this ordinance. "Manufactured homes means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or'without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. For floodplain management purposes the term "manufactured home" also includes park trailers, travel trailers and other similar vehicles placed on a site for greater than lao consecutive days. " anufactu_ a home Bar% or subdivision means a parcel:.* (or continuous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for sale or rent. "Mean sea level'" means, for purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 or other datum, to which base flood elevations shown on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map are referenced. "New nst= " means, for floodplain management purposes, structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain management } regulation adopted by this Community. "One hundred year flccd"_ or 1'100 -Year flood" means a flood which has a one percent annual probability of being equalled or exceeded. It is identical to the "base flood", which will be the term used throughout this ordinance. "Pers -means an individual or his agent, firm, partnership, association or corporation, or agent of the aforementioned groupso, or this state or its agencies or political subdivisions. "Remedy a v ` of at iO10- means to bring the structure or other development into compliance with State or local floodplain management regulations, or, if this is not possible, to reduce } the impacts of its noncompliance. ways that impacts may be reduced include protecting the structure or other affected development from flood damages, implementing the enforcement provisions of the ordinance or otherwise deterring future similar violations, or reducing Federal financial exposure with regard to the structLire or other development. "Riverin " means relating to, formed by, or resembling a river (including tributaries), stream, brook, etc. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2a PAGE OF r L ee. wspegiai fioozard" means an area having special flood or flood -related erosion hazards, and shown on an FHS or FIRM as Zone A, AO, Al -30,r U. A99■ A8. "start of _Construgt iOn" includes substantial improvement, and :weans the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, placement, or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading, and filling, nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement,, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation' on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. "Structure" means a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank, that is principally above ground, as well as a manufactured home. " ubstantialimprover ent" means a n y r e p a i r, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds So percent of the market value of the structure either: 1) before the improvement or repair is started; or 2) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include either: 1) any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state of local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions; or 2) any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places. "Va " means a grant of relief from the requirements .:•of this ordinance which permits construction in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by this ordinance. "Violation" means the failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the eoxaunity's floodplain management regulations. A structure or other development without the elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in this ordinance is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided. SECTION 3.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS 3.1 L=5 TO WHICH THIS oRDINANCE APPLIES. This ordinance shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards, and areas of mudslide (i.e., mudflow) hazards within the jurisdiction of the City of Lake Elsinore. AGENDA ITEM N0-55_ PAGE 0F_LL t 3.2 BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD. E The areas of special flood hazard, and area of mudslide (i.e., rrudflow) hazards identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Federal Insurance Study for the City of Lake Elsinore ' dated August 2, 1990, with an accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. This Flood Insurance Study is on file at 130 South Main Street. This Flood Insurance Study is the minimum area of applicability of this ordinance and may be supplemented by studies for other areas which are recommended to the City Council by the Floodplain Administrator. 3.3 COMPLIANCE. No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered without full ` compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations. Violations of the provisions of this ordinance by failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with conditions) shall constitute a misdemeanor. Nothing herein _shall prevent the City Council from taking such lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. 3.4 ABROGATION AND GREATER RESTRICTIONS. This ordinance is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance and another ordinance easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. 3.5 INTERPRETATION. In the interpretation and application of this ordinance, all provisions shall be: A. Considered as minimum requirements; B. Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and, C. Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes. 3.6 WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY. The degree of flood protection required by this ordinance is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes. This ordinance does not i=ply that land outside the areas of special flood hazards and areas of mudslide (i.e., rudflow) hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of the city of Lake Elsinore, any officer or employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. 3.7 SEVERABILITY. This ordinance and the various parts thereof are hereby declared to be severable. Should any section of this ordinance be declared by the courts to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole, or any portion thereof other than the section so declared to be unconstitutional or invalid. AGENDA ITEM NO...�� PAGE OF SECTION 4.0 ADMINISTRATION 4.1 ESTABLISHM= OF DEVELOPMENT PE=T. A Development Permit shall be obtained before construction or development begins within any are of special flood hazards, or areas of mudslide (i.e., mudflow) established in Section 3.2. Application for a Development Permit shall be made on forms furnished by the Floodplain Administrator and may include, but not be limited to: plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevation of the area in question: existing or proposed structures, till, storage of materials, drainage facilities; and the location of the foregoing. specifically, the following information is required: A. Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures; in Zone AO or VO, elevation of highest adjacent grade and proposed elevation of lowest floor of all structures. B. Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure will be floodproofed; C. All appropriate certifications listed in Section 4.3.D of this ordinance; and D. Description of the extent to which any watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of proposed development. 4.2 DESIGNATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN ADD=STRATOR. The City Manager. of his designee, is hereby appointed to administer and implement this ordinance by granting or denying development permits in accordance with its provisions. 4.3 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF FLOODPLAIN AD=TSTRATOR. The duties and responsibilities of the floodplain administrator shall include, but not be limited to: A. Permit review. 1. Review all development permits to determine that the permit requirements of this ordinance have been satisfied; 2. All other required state and federal permits have been obtained; 3. The site is reasonably safe from flooding. 4. The proposed development does not adversely affect the carrying capacity of areas where base flood elevations have been determined but a floodway has not been designated. For purposes of this ordinance, "adversely affects" means that the cumulative effect of the proposed development when combined with all other existing and anticipated development will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point. B. Use of other Base Flood Data. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with Section 3.2., the Floaaplain Administrator shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize -any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a Federal, State or other source, in order to administer Section 5.0. Any such information shall be submitted to the City Council for adoption. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGOr E C. Whenever a watercourse is to be altered or relocated: 1. Notify adjacent c===ities and the California Department of Water Resources prior to such alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal j Insurance Administration; 2 . Require that the flood carrying capacity of -the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse is maintained. D. Obtain and maintain for public inspection and make available as needed: 1. the certification required in Section 5.1.0.1 (floor elevations); 2. the certification required in Section S.I.C.2 (elevations in areas of shallow flooding); 3. the certification required in Section S.1.C.4.c (elevation or floodproofing of nonresidential structures); 4. the certification required in Section 5.1. C. 4. a or 5.1.C.4.b (wet floodproofing standard); 5. the certified elevation required in Section 5.3.B (subdivision standards); 6. the certification required in Section 5.5.A (floodway encroachments); 7. the reports required in Section 5.7.D (mudflow standards). E. Make interpretations where needed, as to the exact location of the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazards, or areas of mudslide (i.e., mudflow) (for example, where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions). The person contesting the location of the boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the interpretation as provided in Section 6.0. F. Take action to remedy violations of this ordinance.as specified in Section 3.3 herein. SECTION 5.0 "PROVISIONS FOR FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION. 5.1 STANDARDS OF CONSTRUCTION. In all areas of special flood hazards the following standards are required: A. Anchoring 1. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. 5 2. All manufactured homes shall meet the anchoring standards of Section 5.4. AGENDA ITEM NO. .51A PAGE OF ��— B. Construction Materials and Methods. 1. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. 2. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. 3. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. 4. Require within Zones AH, AO adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes to guide flood waters around and away from proposed structures. C. Elevation and Floodproofing 1. New construction and substantial improvement of any structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or above the base flood elevation. Nonresidential structures may meet the standards in Section 5.1.C.3. upon the completion of the structure the elevation of the lowest floor including basement shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor, or verified by the com=ity building inspector to be properly elevated. Such certification or verification shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator. 2. New construction and substantial improvement of any structure in zone AO shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM, or at least. two feet if no depth is specified. Nonresidential structures may meet the standards in Section 5.1.C.3. upon the completion of the structure the elevation of the lowest floor including basement shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor, or verified by the community building inspector to be properly elevated. Such certification or verification shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator. 3. Nonresidential construction shall either be elevated in conformance with Section 5.I.C.1.. or 2. or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities: a. be floodproofed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; b. have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; and ce be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the standards of this subsection are satisfied. Such certifications shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator. AGENDA ITEM NO. -$-_!L PAGE OF _� I&I 4. Require, for all new construction and substantial improvements, that fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement ];fust either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: a. Either a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters;or b. Be certified to. comply with a local floodproofing standard approved by the Federal Insurance Administration. 5. Manufactured homes shall also meet the standards in Section 5.4. 5.2 STANDARDS FOR UTILITIES. A. All new and replacement water supply and sanitary and sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system and discharge from systems into flood water, B. on-site waste disposal systems shall be located to -avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. 5.3 STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISIONS. A. All preliminary subdivision proposals shall identify the flood hazard area and the elevation of the base flood. B. All final subdivision plans will provide the elevation of proposed structure (s) and pads. If the site is filled above the base flood, the final pad elevation shall be certified by registered professional engineer or surveyor and provided to the Floodplain Administrator. C. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage. D. All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas; electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. E. All subdivisions shall provide adequate drainage to reduce exposure to flood hazards. 5.4 STANDARDS FOR MANUrAG-RED HOMES. All new and replacement manufactured homes and additions to manufactured homes shall: A. Be elevated so that the lowest floor is at or above the base flood elevation; and B. Be securely anchored to a permanent foundation system to resist flotation, collapse or lateral movement. AGENDA ITEM NO. � PAGE OF 5.5 FLOODWAYS. Located within areas of special flood hazard established in Section 3.2 are areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles, and erosion potential, the following provisions apply: A. Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, L substantial improvements, and other development unless certification by a registered professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall _ not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. B. If Section 5.5.A is satisfied, all new construction and i substantial improvements shall comply with all other applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Section 5. 5.6 MUDSLIDE (i.e., MUDFLOW)-PRONE AREAS. A. The Floodplain Administrator shall review permits 'for proposed construction or other development to determine if it is proposed within a mudslide area. B. Permits shall be reviewed to deteraine that the proposed development is reasonably safe from mudslide hazards. Factors to be considered in making this determination include but are not limited to: 1. The type and quality of soils; 2. Evidence of ground water of surface water problems; 3. The depth and quality of any fill; 4. The overall slope of the site; and 5. The weight that any proposed development will impose on the slope. C. within areas which have mudslide hazards, the following requirements apply: 1. A site investigation and further review shall be made by persons qualified in geology and soils engineering; 2. 'The propose grading, excavation, new construction - and substantial improvements shall be adequately designed and protected against mudslide damages; 3. The proposed grading, excavations, new construction and substantial improvements do not aggravate the existing hazard by creating either on-site or offsite •, disturbances; and 4. Drainage, planting, watering and maintenance shall not endanger slope stability. D. Within zone M on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, the community shall adopt a drainage ordinance which at least complies with the standards of Sections 7001 through 7006 and Sections 7008 through 7015 of the most recent amendment of the 1973 Uniform Building Code: 1. The location of foundation and utility,systems of new const: sc ti on and =ubstantial .4 rp oveaents; 2. The location, drainage and maintenance of all excavations, cuts and fills and planted slopes; AGENDA ITEM NO. -54 -- 3. protective measures including but not limited to retaining walls, buttress fills, subdrains, diverter terraces, benchings, etc.; and to be 4. Engineering 1 drawings al submitted for corrective meatures,ications accompanied by supporting soils engineering and geology reports. 6.0 APPEAL BOARD A. The City Council Of and requ City for of cElsinore oati ccs shall from bear the and decide appeals requirements of this ordinance. B. The City Council shall hear and decide appeals when it is alleged there is an error in any requirement, decision, or determination made by the Floodplain Administrator in the enforcement or administration of this ordinance. C. In passing upon such applications+ the City Council shall consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other sections of this ordinance, and: 1. the danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; 2. the danger of life and property due to flooding or erosion damage; 3. the susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; 4. the importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community; S. the necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; 6. the availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage; 7. the compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated developmemt; roposed use to $ comprehensive planandfl floodplain of the management program fo r that area; 9.tfor ordinary andcess to the emergency vephiclesin time of flood 10. the expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site; and 11, the costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water system., and streets and bridges. D. Generally, variances may be issued for new construction and substantial to be erected on a lo: of one- half acre of less in sire contiguous to and sumrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level, providing items 6.1.0.1. through 6.1.C.11 have been fully considered. calAs ustification required folot size increases r issuing ond half the acre, the techs j variance increases. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF J $. 'Upon consideration of the factors of Section 6:3..0 and the purposes of this ordinance. the City Council may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it deems necessary to further the purposes of this ordinance. F. The Floodplain Administrator shall maintain the records of all appeal action and report any variances to the Federal Insurance Administration upon request. 6.2 CONDITIONS FOR VARIANCES A. Variances may be issued for the reconstruction,, rehabilitation or restoration of structures listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Invantory of Historic Places, without regard to the procedures set forth in the remainder of this section. B. Variances shall not be issued within any designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. # C. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood i hazard, to afford relief. D. Variances shall only be issued upon.- i. pon. 1. a showing of good and sufficient cause; 2. a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; and 3. a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of; the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. E. Variances may be issued for new construction and substantial improvements and for other development necessary for the conduct of a functionally dependent use provided that the provisions of Sections 6.2.A through 6.2.D are satisfied and that the structure or other development is protected by methods that minimize flood damages during the base flood and create no additional threats to public safety. F. Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that the structure will be permitted to be built with a lowest floor elevation below the regulatory flood elevation and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest floor elevation. A copy of the notice shall be recorded by the Floodplain Board in the office of the Riverside County Recorder and shall be recorded in a =anner so that is appears in the chain of title of the affected { parcel of land. Li '�LAGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF --L— r L NOW, TSEREFORE, THE CITY Co== OF THE CITY OF LAEE FISINORE,COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN*AS FOLLOWS: The existing Chapter 64 of Title 15 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Ordinance No. 832, is hereby rescinded in its entirety and a new Chapter 64 of Title 15, as contained in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby added to said Code, and shall be known and may be cited as the KF1ood Damage Prevention" Ordinance, and the newly revised Flood Insurance Study, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FM's), and Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FSBM18) all dated August 2, 1990 attached hereto, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. SECTION 7.0 This ordinance shall take effect as provided by law. INTRODUCED AND PASSED UPON FIRST READING this day of October 9, 1990, upon the following roll call vote: AYES: COM;CISHEMBERS: BUCK, DOMINrUEZ, STARKEY, WINKLER$ WASHBURN NOES: COVNCILX MBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCIZXMBERS: NONE ABSTENTIONS: COUNCIL: NONE PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED UPON SECOND READING TSIS, 9th day of October, 1990, upon the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMTEEZS : NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: COVNCIIMEMBERS: COUNCILE MBERS: COUNCILMEI'SBERS : Vicki Lynne Kasad, City Clerk Gary Washburn, Mayor - ArrRU Y..0 A:► /'O F R. 5' Arlo/ ..r.wYr�r • AGENDA ITEM NO. Za PAGE DF I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. A G E N D A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1990 POLICY OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: "Only those items filed with the Secretary of the Redeve opment Agency by Noon on Tuesday, prior to the following Tuesday meeting, will be considered by the Agency at said meeting." CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT CALENDAR All matters on the Consent Calendar are to be approved on one motion unless a Boardmember requests separate action on a specific item. A. Minutes 1. October 9, 1990 - Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting. B. Investment Report - September, 1990. C. Tentative Parcel Map 26052 - Withrow Ranch Inc. (The Keith Companies/Butterfield). D. Request to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission to Amend the Sphere of Influence of the City of Lake Elsinore. E. City Allocation of Take of Occupied Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Under the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan. F. Community Facilities District 90-2 - Tuscany Hills. G. Lake Elsinore Regional Center Complex - Lehr Plaza. PUBLIC HEARINGS BUSINESS ITEMS EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CLOSED SESSION ADJOURNMENT RECOMMENDATION Approve. Rec. & File. Concur with Council Action. Concur with Council Action. Concur with Council Action. Adopt Resos. Presented. Approve Staff Recomm. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 28281 ROBB ROAD LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1990 1. CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairman Buck at 9:48 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCK, DOMINGUEZ, STARRY, WINKLER, WASHBURN ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: NONE Also present were Executive Director Molendyk, Assistant City Manager Rogers, Legal Counsel Harper, Administrative Services Director Wood, Community Development Director Gunderman, Community Services Director Watenpaugh, Public Services Director Kirchner and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. `3. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY WINKLER, SECONDED BY WASHBURN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. A. The following Minutes were approved: A. September 25, 1990 - Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting. B. Ratified the Warrant List for September 28, 1990. C. Concurred with Council Action to continue the General Plan Revision and Related Environmental Impact Report to the next regular meeting of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 5. BUSINESS ITEMS None. 6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT Executive Director Molendyk reported on the Main Street Test Block and stated that it is on schedule and will be open soon. 7. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS None. 8. CLOSED SESSION THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING ADJOURNED TO JOINT CLOSED SESSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AT 9:50 TO HEAR POTENTIAL LITIGATION AND KUNZ VS. CITY. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF PAGE TWO - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 25, 1990 THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RECONVENED AT 11:10 P.M. WITH NO ACTION TAKEN. MOVED BY DOMINGUEZ, SECONDED BY WASHBURN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT 11:11 P.M. TO THE NEXT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING. ATTEST: ADRIA L. BRYNING, DEPUTY CITY CLERK WILLIAM S. BUCK, CHAIRMAN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. -3A' PAGE OF.:2.� REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE MONTHLY REPORT OF INVESTMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1990 LOCAL AGENCY INVEST F�'UNQ 8.333% DAILY 24-HOUR 5 8,149,000+- GO'l7ERNMENT BACKED SECURITIES - NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL HOME MORTGAGE CO. 8.75% 03-16-88 05-01-08 263,630 GOV. NAT'L MORTGAGE ASSN. 7.500% 04-10-87 04-10-07 19,259 GOV. NAT'L MORTGAGE ASSN. 7.500% 04-28-87 04-28-07 40,883 323,772 AGENCY INVESTMENT TOTAL 8,472,772 AVERAGE ANNUAL RATE...... 8.340; ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES - SEPTEMBER 1990 —Will meet anticipated expenditures $600,000 r AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 _ PAGE L ' OF REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1990 SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 260527 Withrow Ranch. Inc. (The Keith Companies/Butterfield): A f_inancinq 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. PREPARED BY: WAPPROVED BY: 40�� oa s Dave G derman A�m'57� sistant Planner Comm. v. Dir. AAPPROVED BY: Ron M&4endyk City Manager Tentative Tract Map 24213 was approved concurrently with a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to R-1 (Single -Family Residential) in November of 1989. The approved subdivision consists of 160 single family lots on 56.9 acres. Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 26052 is a parcelling for financing purposes. The proposal consists of three (3) parcels which overlay Tentative Tract Map 24213. DISCUSSION Tentative Parcel Map 26052 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 3, 1990 by a vote of 4--0. The Commission inquired as to the appropriateness of attaching the Conditions of Approval of Tentative Tract Map 24213 to this application. Staff indicated that no development or grading would be allowed by this application, and therefore it would not be necessary to attach those conditions. Commission had no further concerns with this request. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Negative Declaration 90-15 and approve Tentative Parcel Map 26052 based on the following Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency concur with City Council action. FINDINGS 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. (Government Code Section 66473.5) AGENDA ITEM Nn. �'r PAGE j OF---�• Page 2 October 24, 1990 Subject: Tentative Parcel Map 26052 - Withrow Ranch, Inc. 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-1 Zoning standards. 6. The project, as conditioned, complies with the City's subdivision standards and the State Subdivision Map Act. 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. /cm AGENDA ITEM ND. - 3 ` C ' PAGE ..OF . REPORT TO CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: October 24, 1990 SUBJECT: Request to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission to Amend the Sphere of influence of the City of Lake Elsinore. PREPARED BY: - C_aTl� -- Marcus F. Christensen Special Consultant�T exaliop APPROVED BY: Discussion: City Manager The background of this matter is dealt with at some length in the accompanying report entitled "Report Accompanying a Request for Amendment of the Sphere of Influence of the City of Lake Elsinore." In brief, the salient points are: 1. The Board of Supervisors has asked the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission to review the spheres of influence of several cities, including Lake Elsinore. That review is currently underway by LAFCO staff. 2. At the same time, a number of annexation requests have been received by City staff, including several in areas not currently included within the City's sphere of influence. 3. In order that the staff of LAFCO and the Commission members themselves may have a comprehensive look at a logical and orderly extension of the ultimate boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore, the accompany.no report, together with a survey of public opinion with respect to the City of Lakelsinore to the Wildomar and Sedco areas, were prepared as documents to accompany the request for the sphere amendment. It is our understanding that the review of the sphere of influence of the City of Lake Elsinore is tentatively scheduled to go before the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission at its regular meeting of January 24, 1391. The Report prepared for the City concludes that several amendments to the sphere should be requested from the Commission. These include: 1. An extension of the sphere to include six sections of land north of the City, where property owners have indicated interest in annexing to the City. 2. Several minor adjustments to the east of the City's current sphere to conform with the sphere of influence of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 3. Two minor adjustments that will be required should both the communities of Canyon Lake and Murrieta incorporate at the November bth election. Each adjustment involves a section of land now within the sphere of the City of Lake Elsinore which would be within the boundaries of the newly -incorporated cities. 4. A major revision to the south and west to include the territory requested to be part of the City's sphere in 1985, but excluded by the Commission. This extension would bring the entire territory known as "Wildomar" to the proposed boundary of the City of Murrieta within the sphere of the City of Lake Elsinore. Accompanying the Report is a public opinion survey conducted in the communities of Wildomar and Sedco Hills, together with an analysis of the results of that survey. The analysis concludes that residents within these two areas have common social and economic communities of interest with the City of Lake Elsinore, but also demonstrate a variety of misconceptions about the effect of annexations on property taxes. AGENDA ITEM NO. 0. PAGE I OF PAGE TWO - REPORT ON REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Recommendation: In order that the Commission may have before it a formal review of the sphere conducted by the City, as well as a formal request from the City to amend its sphere of influence consistent with the conclusions of the report, it is recommended that your Council: 1. Adapt 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 55425 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. PAGE, OF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: OCTOBER 24. 1990 SUBJECT: City Allocation of Take of Occupied PREPARED BY: BACKGROUND Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Under the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan. Hardy Strozier Hardy Strozier The Planning Assoc. APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: 7. ©ave underman Co Dev. Dir. a(� "' Ron Molendyk City Manager On August 14 and 20, 1990, the City Council considered a Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR) allocation of take policy (see staff report from August 14, 1990 public hearing attached). No decisions or recommendations were made at those meetings due to the fact that the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan (IHCP) was not effective. The IHCP is now in place, so the City Council may consider its allocation of take policy. DISCUSSION The Council SKR Subcommittee (Mayor Washburn/Councilman Starkey), as well as the City Attorney, met on September 20 to discuss the current status of the allocation. Their recommendation was to set a public hearing to take testimony from interested developers and property owners on allocation of take policies and procedures. City staff was directed to solicit developer/property owner written comments on the policy and the developers/owner individual: A. Needs for allocation identified with as much precision as possible; B. Time frames for development areas that require allocation; and C. Status of all necessary permits (e.g. 1601, 404, etc.) Letters have been received from the developers/property owners with respect to the above request and are attached to this staff report. The SKR Subcommittee will be meeting on October 18 to discuss any revisions to the recommended policy that was presented at the August 14, 1990 public hearing. If any changes are requested, that information will be forwarded to you. The City has begun proceeding with the JPA to obtain the 304 acre parcel in order to provide the total City SKR take authorized under the IHCP for future development projects. AGC-t•;DA ITEM NA _ OF Page 2 October 24, 1990 Subject: City Allocation of Take of Occupied Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Under the Interim Habitat Conservation Plan It is recommended that the City Council: /cm 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 the accompanying Resolution or using the actual purchase price); 3. Reserve 20% of the allocation of take for City or other public projects; and 4. The City shall 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 the Resolution accompanying this Staff Report. AGENDA ITIEV. No. 3.E PAGE QF REPORT TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1990 SUBJECT: COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 90-2 - TUSCANY HILLS PREPARED BY: c_z APPROVED BY: OA/� C. Ray wood, Admini ative Ron Molendyk, Services Director City Manager BACKGROUND: We have been working for sometime of a Financing Vehicle for the public infrastructure in Tuscany Hills. We have now reached the point of putting the financing in place. Community Facilities District 90-2, a Mello -Roos District, is the specific vehicle. The Mello -Roos Bonds will be acquired by our Lake Elsinore Public Financing Authority established under the Marks -Roos Bond Pooling Act of 1985. The approximate size of this financing if $30,000,000. - FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impact upon the RDA since all costs will be borne by the CFD. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board initiate the proceedings of CFD 90-2, Tuscany Hills by adoption on Resolutions No. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE __�__ OF, RESOLUTIONS NOT RECEIVED AT TIME OF PRINTING WE WILL PROVIDE THEM PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. AMNDA FMM Plycw 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. A G E N D A LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT SYSTEM CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1990 POLICY OF THE LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT SYSTEM BOARD: "Only those items filed with the Secretary of the Board by Noon on Tuesday, prior to the following Tuesday meeting, will be considered by the Board at said meeting." CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT CALENDAR All matters on the Consent Calendar are to be approved on one motion unless a Boardmember requests separate action on a specific item. A. Minutes 1. Regular Meeting Lake Elsinore Transit System - September 25, 1990. B. Monthly Financial Statement - September, 1990. 1. Warrant List - September, 1990. 2. Statement of Operation. 3. Monthly Performance Report. 4. Operation Summarization - September, 1990. C. Claim for Funds Under the Transportation Development Act of 1971 (Article 4). PUBLIC HEARINGS BUSINESS ITEMS TRANSIT COORDINATORS REPORT REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS ADJOURNMENT ret-- RECOMMENDATION Approve. Ratify. Rec. & File. Rec. & File. Rec. & File. Concur with Council Action. Mr. Ron Molendyk Page 3 October 12, 1990 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Burbank, as a 50 percent cash flow participant: is assured of a solid return on its investment in acquiring the site and securing all necessary off-site work. With this structure, we are able to make the required financial deals with the major department stores to attract them to the site and begin the development process. During the second phase of development, if we wish to attract a fashion department store, it may be necessary to provide additional subsidies, which may be repaid through tax increment or sales tax commitments. However, based upon the financial structure outlined above, the first phase of the shopping center project could be accomplished without additional subsidy by the city. I -further believe such a financial structure would allow us to get this project off the ground and moving immediately, and the timing of our ability to deliver would only be subject to the ability of the City and Redevelopment Agency to provide the necessary off-site and on-site infrastructure to allow the project to proceed. Ron, we had all hoped to have a major regional developer such as Arvida in place to provide the infrastructure and ambiance which we felt would be essential for the overall development of the project. At this time, in order for us to preserve the major stores and to be the winner in the extremely competitive environment in the Valley today, we must now address those technical issues which are so necessary for the development of the site. Further, we should have a clear economic arrangement set forth between us so that we, in turn, may make financial commitments to the major department stores. With 'this in mind, I would hope that if the above -referenced terms and conditions are acceptable to the City of Lake Elsinore, we would enter into documentation in January of 1991 with a completed Development and Disposition Agreement and that in the interim we would be able to schedule our meetings with the major department stores so that you may assess for yourself their level of commitment to the project and the state of the competitive environment in the area. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience with respect to this proposal. Sincerely, 17 Fred W. Bruning FWB:jw cc: Alexander Haagen M AGENDA ITEM NO. J PAGE,.OF 3500 SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD t�K BOX 10010 MANHATTAN BEACH. CALIFORNIA 9026643010. 213/546-4520 • FAX 545.8455 VIA FASCIMILE October 12, 1990 Mr. Ron Molendyk City Manager City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92330 RE: Lake Elsinore Regional Shopping Center Dear Ron: This letter will set forth the basic terms and conditions under which The Alexander Haagen Company would propose to develop a major regional shopping center complex near the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road and Interstate 15 in the City of Lake Elsinore. Given the current interest of the major department stores, the competitive environment in the valley, and the strategic ability of The Alexander Haagen Company to move forward on projects during these critical economic -- times, I believe we are now at the optimum time to strike a deal and announce a specific time schedule for development of the property with the major retail stores. Failure to act in the near future could well result in a fragmentation of the market and a loss of retail opportunity to the City of Lake Elsinore. By way of introduction, I know you are aware that we had•been waiting for the Arvida master plan to be reviewed and put in place prior to entering into a specific deal with the City of Lake Elsinore. Since that now appears to be a moot point, we are prepared to proceed with a phased retail development. Phase I of the project would require approximately 50 acres, and would consist of power center retailers. Phase II would require approximately 75 additional acres, and would be reserved for the development of a more traditional regional shopping center complex, or, in the alternative, additional power center retail development, depending upon competitive circumstances. In my esti- mation, the opening date for Phase I of the project would be Fall of 1992, with an anticipated date of Spring, 1994, for Phase II. This approach would, in our opinion, maximize sales tax and other revenues to the city. Ron, you and your economic staff of Wayne Wedin as Consultant and Phyllis Rogers as Assistant City Manager, have suggested that the city's primary goal is the development of a significant retail nexus in the City of Lake Elsinore, combined with the opportunity to retain a significant percentage of the cash flow benefits from the retail project. Using this as a guideline, we have established the following development proposal. Should the city be in agreement with this economic scenario, we would be prepared to immediately enter into a Development Agreement based on the terms and conditions outlined herein below. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE Mr. Ron Page 2 October MoTendyk 12, 1990 The Alexander Haagen terms and conditions complex to the City Company is pleased to present the following for the development of this regional retail of Lake Elsinore: I. ACQUISITION OF LAND: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore will provide sufficient land for Phase I of the retail project, and will complete all necessary entitlements and infrastructure improvements to allow the project to achieve a targeted opening date of August, 1992, or April, 1993. The city would agree to provide sufficient acreage for Phase II of the proposed development, together with necessary infrastructure and entitlements, to allow for a Spring, 1994, opening date. Land so acquired by the Redevelopment Agency will be contributed to the partnership as part of the Agency's contribution to the overall development. ekt*. 2. OFF-SITE COSTS AND ON-SITE PREPARATION WORK: The Redevelopment Agency will be responsible for all off-site costs, including augmentation of the street system as required by the major department stores, as well as potential relocation of pad tenants so as -_ to provide an acceptable entry way into the project and to allow for adequate traffic flow to and from the project. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency will deliver a site that is certified clear of the 100 -year flood plain, and free from any unusual develoment characteristics which would unduly increase the development costs of the project. 3. DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIBILITIES: The Alexander Haagen Company will assume all responsibility for the development of the project including pre -development work, leasing, financing and long-term management of the site. The Alexander Haagen Company will guarantee completion of the project as it will be defined in the Development Agreement with the City and Redeveloment Agency of Lake Elsinore. 4. CASH FLOW PARTICIPATION: In exchange for the contributions of the Redevelopment Agency as set forth in item numbers 1 and 2 above, The Alexander Haagen Company agrees that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore, or the city itself, shall receive 50 percent of all net cash flow proceeds from the shopping center, including any net proceeds of refinancing, as well as any proceeds occasioned from a sale of the property. Icon, the financial program as outlined above is identical to that which we have just completed with the City of Burbank, California, 'in the development of Burbank's regional mall project. AGENDA ITEM NO. - PAGE„ OF CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE MEMORANDUM REPORT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: OCTOBER 23, 1990 SUBJECT: LAKE ELSINORE REGIONAL CENTER COMPLEX LEHR PLAZA (2 Prepared by: `— ndr", C," Ron Mai e dyk phyv i s en's Executivd Director Assistant Executive Director Approved by: 01�� Ron M endyk Executive Director BACKGROUND As you are aware, the Redevelopment Agency Board and the Agency's economic staff have been working with Alexander Haagen Development Company for four years. In a meeting with Fred Bruning, partner, he has presented the Agency with an updated market study as agreed, along with Haagen's discussion with the major department stores that we enter into a Letter -of -Intent to be immediately followed by a Development Agreement. Attached is a proposed outline of the business and agreement to allow for a One Hundred Twenty Five (125) acre retail complex in two phases. Phase I, will include fifty (50) acres with major retailers, ten-plex theatre, restaurants and shops. Phase II, is proposed to be seventy-five (75) acres, with enclosed regional mall of one million square feet based upon market. Opening as outlined in Haagen's letter. The Redevelopment Agency staff feels that this is a positive development for the City and county residents as this site allows for the expansion of retail as the area grows, and the financing places no additional taxes or sales tax loss to City or county residents. RECOMMENDATION Accept Letter -of -Intent and direct Redevelopment Agency staff to work with Haagen representatives on necessary engineering and development disposition agreement. The Development Agreement will ascertain the specific requirements for major store commitments, detailed economic analyses, time schedule for construction and appropriate guarantees from developer to assure performance. Attachment: Exhibit A/Letter-of-Intent AGENDA ITEN4 h''a. PAW"E . OF MINUTES LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT SYSTEM CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 545 CHANEY STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1990 1. CALL TO ORDER The Lake Elsinore Transit System Board Meeting was called to order by Chairman Dominguez at 9:25 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCK, STARKEY, WASHBURN, WINKLER, DOMINGUEZ ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: General Manager Molendyk, Assistant City Manager Rogers, Legal Counsel Harper, Administrative Services Director Wood, Community Development Director Gunderman, Community Services Director Watenpaugh, Public Services Director Kirchner and Clerk of the Board Kasad. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY STARKEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. A. The following Minutes were approved: 1. Regular Meeting Lake Elsinore Transit System - August 28, 1990. B. Received and ordered filed the Monthly Financial Statement - August, 1990. 1. Ratified Warrant List - August, 1990. 2. Received and ordered filed the Statement of Operation. 3. Received and ordered filed the Monthly Performance Report. 4. Received and ordered filed the Operation Summarization for August, 1990. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 5. BUSINESS ITEMS None. 6. TRANSIT COORDINATORS REPORT None. 7. REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS None. AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF PAGE TWO - LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT SYSTEM MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 25, 1990 8. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY BUCK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT SYSTEM BOARD AT 9:26 P.M. ATTEST: VICKI KASAD, CLERK OF THE BOARD LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT SYSTEM FRED DOMINGUEZ, CHAIRMAN LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT SYSTEM AGENDA ITEM NO.��� PAGE OF LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT SYSTEMA 130 SO. MAIN STREET, LAKE ELS INOIRE, CA. 92330 (714) 674-3124 - (714) 674 -LETS Chairman of the Board: FRED DOMINGUEZ Boardmembers: WILL BUCK BILL STARKEY GARY WASHBURN JIM WINKLER General Manager: RON MOLENDYK General Counsel: JOHN HARPER Clerk: VICKI KASAD Treasurer: TERESA CHERVENY Controller: C. RAY WOOD Coordinator: DELORES MC DANIELS REPORT TO L.E.T.S. BOARD SUBJECT: MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 1 PREPARED BY: KIMBERLY JONES APPROVED: APPROVED: ITEM #1 WARRANT LIST FOR RATIFICATION ITEM #2 STATEMENT OF OPERATION ITEM #3 MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REPORT ITEM #4 OPERATION SUMMARIZATION AGENDA ITEM NO. � ' - PAGE,OF REPORTING PERIOD: SEPTEMBER 30, 1990 TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTORS LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT SYSTEM THE FOLLOWING LIST OF WARRANTS, DRAWN ON GENERAL DEMAND, IS PRESENTED FOR YOUR RATIFICATION: PAID TO SERVICE ACCT # WARR # AMOUNT STATE COMPENSATION WORKERS COMP -AUG 070 20593 6.30 CA STATE COMPENSATION WORKERS COMP -AUG 070 20680 693.23 CA. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOP SDI TAX P/E 09-07-90 080 20591 29.83 A -Z BUS SALES REPAIR PARTS - BUS 607 110 20575 380.14 TRANS -WEST FORD MISC PARTS - BUS 606 110 20686 4268.67 CA BOARD - EQUALIZATION USER FUEL TAX -JULY 111 20588 21.68 GENERAL TELEPHONE PHONE BILLINGS 223 20618 68.87 A -Z BUS SALES REPAIR PARTS V607 & V606 330 20575 168.36 DANIELS TIRE SERVICE BUS TIRES - 609 & 610 330 20601 318.70 ELSINORE PIONEER LUMBER MISC PURCHASES -AUG, '90 330 20606 56.46 GEARHARTS SERVICE BUS 610 REPAIR 330 20617 55.00 GRAHAM BRAKE & DIESEL REPAIR PARTS - BUS 609 330 20620 15.82 LK ELS AUTO PARTS BUS REPAIR PART 330 20631 24.02 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL LETS UNIFORMS 330 20649 20.10 STEVE'S AUTO PARTS PURCHASES IN AUG, 190 330 20681 1123.09 BACKEN'S AUTO REPAIR REPAIR PARTS -606/607 330 20702 496.27 A -Z BUS SALES WHEEL CHAIR LIFT -BUS 607 440 20575 2734.94 STATE COMPENSATION WORKERS COMP -SEPT 070 20828 917.62 CA. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOP SDI TAX P/E 09-21-90 080 20747 28.45 MR. TIRE SERVICE TIRE PARTS -BUSES 609-510 110 20799 82.47 BIG AL OIL CO. LETS BUS FUEL 111 20738 1578.13 CA BOARD - EQUALIZATION USER FUEL TAX -AUG 111 20726 23.38 R.M.R.S. POSTAGE REIMBURSEMENT 170 20721 11.40 INLAND VALLEY REGIONAL EMP PHYSICAL-GONZALEZ 200 20785 165.00 GENERAL TELEPHONE PHONE BILLINGS 223 20773 66.91 A -Z BUS SALES REPAIR PARTS -606/607 330 20735 967.62 DIETRICH INT. TRUCK BIDS SEAT V607 330 20757 320.51 GRAHAM BRAKE & DIESEL BRAKE SHOES -BUS 609 330 20776 128.90 PRUDENDIAL OVERALL LETS UNIFORMS 330 20807 20.10 TRANS -AIR BUS REPAIR PARTS 330 20833 23.15 Respectfully Submitted, C. Ray Wood, Control e 14,815.12 AGENDA ITEM NO.`� • • PAGE OF �_ REPORTING PERIOD: SEPTEMBER 30, 1990 LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT SYSTEM STATEMENT OF OPERATION FISCAL YEAR 90/91 OPERATING EXPENSES 020 Part Time Employees REVENUES/EXPENSES YR TO DATE PERCENT OPERATING REVENUES BUDGET AUG SEPT 1,000 136 3480 Passenger Fares 33,500 1,539 1,543 3,082 9.2% 3461 Bus Advertising 1,500 0 0 0 0.0% TOTAL OP REVENUES-P/Y 27,234 2,577 2,479 5,056 18.6% NON-OPERATING REVENUES 1,200 85 58 143 11.9% 3329 State Grants 0 0 0 0 0.0% 3339 County Grants 280,000 0 0 0 0.0% 3349 Federal Grants 0 0 0 0 0.0% TOTAL NON -OP REVENUE-C/Y 280,000 0 0 0 0.0% TOTAL NON -OP REVENUE-P/Y 0 0 0 0 0.0% TOTAL REVENUE -CURRENT: 315,000 1,539 1,543 3,082 1.0% OPERATING EXPENSES 020 Part Time Employees 70,000 6,019 6,459 12,478 17.8% 030 Over Time 1,000 136 155 291 29.1% 065 F.I.C.A. 6,000 471 506 977 16.3% 070 Work. Compensation 9,500 2,124 1,617 3,741 39.4% 080 SUI/SDI 1,200 85 58 143 11.9% SUB -TOTAL: 87,700 8,835 8,796 17,631 20.1% SUPPLIES & SERVICES DEPT.OPERATING TOTAL-C/Y 389,800 18,046 0 39,231 100 Advertising 1,500 0 0 0 0.0% 101 Community Promotion 3,000 0 0 0 0.0% 110 Auto Service 55,000 405 4,731 5,136 9.3% 111 Fuel,Oil/Lubricants 35,000 2,996 1,623 4,619 13.2% 140 Insurance -Liability 35,000 1,984 1,984 3,968 11.3% 141 Insurance -Casualty 1,000 0 0 0 0.0% 150 Maint/Repair-Equip 500 0 0 0 0.0% 170 Postage/Freight 100 0 11 11 11.4% 180 Publication/Member 200 0 0 0 0.0% 200 Prof, Other Serv. 82,500 1,549 165 1,714 2.1% 210 Travel & Meetings 1,500 0 0 0 0.0% 211 Training/Education 1,000 0 0 0 0.0% 220 Utilities 0 133 136 269 0.0% 300 Office Supplies 1,000 0 0 0 0.0% 330 Special Dept Supply 5,000 2,144 3,738 5,882 117.6% TOTA SUPPLIES/SERVICES: 222,300 9,211 12,389 21,600 9.7% CAPITAL OUTLAY 430 Furniture/Equipment 0 0 0 38,063 0.0% 440 Automotive Equip. 6,000 3,143 2,735 33,444 557.4% 453 Machinery/Equipment 0 0 0 67,539 0.0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY: 6,000 3,143 2,735 139,047 2317.4% FIXED CHARGES 540 Depriciation Exp* 73,800 6,150 6,150 12,300 16.7% DEPT.OPERATING TOTAL-C/Y 389,800 18,046 21,185 39,231 10.1% AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE OF F/Y 1990/1991 QTR: 1ST XX 2ND 3RD 4TH LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT SYSTEM TRANSIT COORDINATOR'S MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REPORT OPERATING DATA Passengers: Regular Elderly Handicapped Student Child Transfers Tickets Total PASSENGERS Total Vehicle MILES Passengers Per Mile Total Vehicle HOURS Passengers Per Hour FINANCIAL DATA: Operating Expenses Revenues: Fares Other Total Revenues Net Expense (Subsidy): Subsidy/Passenger Subsidy/Vehicle Hour -----------MONTH----------- QUARTERLY TOTAL JULY AUG SEPT. 1,568 1,155 1,162 3,885 11,241 1,257 1,077 3,575 369 408 201 978 1,749 1,559 1,851 5,159 756 835 710 2,301 159 97 70 326 91 185 172 448 5,933 5,496 5,243 16,672 11,394 11,838 10,614 33,846 1.92 2.15 2.02 6.10 626 678 594 1,898 9.48 8.11 8.83 26.41 18,173 18,046 21,185 57,404 2,148 1,539 1,543 5,230 0 0 0 0 2,148 1,539 1,543 5,230 (16,025) (16,507) (19,641) (52,173) 3.06 3.28 4.04 10.39 29.03 26.62 35.66 91.31 AGENDA ITEM NO. ;n3 PAGE, OF Chairman of the Board: FRED DOMINGUEZ Boardmembers: WILL BUCK BILL STARKEY GARY WASHBURN JIM WINKLER General Manager: RON MOLENDYK General Counsel: JOHN HARPER Clerk: VICKI KASAD Treasurer: TERESA CHERVENY Controller: C. RAY WOOD Coordinator: DELORES MC DANIELS REPORT TO L.E.T.S. BOARD SUBJECT: OPERATION SUMMARIZATION DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 1990 PREPARED BY: DELOREMEL APPROVED: GENERAL AGER Ridership 5,243 Operating Days 24 Ridership/Day of Operation 218 Non -Operational Hours 0 Total Fare Revenue 1,548 Operating Expense 21,185 Expense/Passenger 4.04 AGENDA ITEM NG. r•6& PAGE OF REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL/L.E.T.S. BOARD OF DIRECTORS DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1990 SUBJECT: A CLAIM FOR FUNDS UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1971 ARTICLE 4). �7 PREPARED BY: ti APPROVED BY: C. Ray Wood, Administ eve Ron Moles k, Services Director City Manager BACKGROUND: Annually the City and District receives an allocation of SB325 money consisting of Article 4 monies for transit operations (LETS) and capital outlay. Transit operational costs are "off the top" and this year it amounts of $261,400. FISCAL IMPACT: The claim for funds for F/Y 1990-91 totals $255,400 and represents a request for $6,000 for Capital Outlay and the balance for maintenance and operation costs. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution to submit claims for the 1990-91 funding under Article 4, and authorize the Administrative Services Director to act as the City's and Boards representative for completion of all documents supporting said claim. AGENDA ITEM NO. • PAGE l OF�--