Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-30-2007 SSMINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVEL,OPMENT AGENCY SPECIAL STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 2007 +Fi*Yt~.'i%~Ye:F'k%~fFWfF***leYt#Yt W W%k W ********k.k%WXYtYtY[W*fF*********#XXK'Yifnt*****.S*H'H'Yt%**N**:F*:F.FR'%'Yt*****.4*%'Xh~1'Yt%'yiYtYf CALL TO ORDER Mayor Magee called the Special Joint Study Session to order at 5:04 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: MAYOR MAGEE MAYOR PRO TEM HICKMAN COUNCILMEMBER BUCKLEY COUNCILMEMBER KELLEY COUNCILMEMBER SCHIFFNER ABSENT: NONE Also present were: City Manager Brady, City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services Director Pressey, Lake & Aquatic Resources Director Kiiroy, Public Works Director Seumalo, Community Development Director Preisendanz, Parks & Recreation Director Gonzales and Interim City Cierk Soto. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Magee suggested staff do their presentation first, and public comments would be taken afterward. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Civic Center Presentation and Discussion reqarding the Desiqn and Site Selection Administrative Services Director Pressey stated he had important issues to discuss regarding the Civic Center. He spoke on the topics that would guide the discussion. RDA Project Manager McCarty gave background information on what was done to involve the community with the project. He indicated, as part of the City's Public Outreach Carnpaign, a pubiic survey was sent to 21,000 households. He noted the City received 2,000 responses. He mentioned there was a diversity of opinions in the City. He commented on feedback that was given with regard to the responses received. RDA Project Manager McCarty commented on the Space Needs Analysis. He noted an office-by-office analysis was conducted for the new City Hall. Administrative Services Director Pressey commented on the Cost and Feasibility Analysis. He pointed out the construction costs for the facilities, parking structure and land. He indicated the grand total cost for Site No. 1 would be $75,753,214 and $74,768,401 for Site No. 2. Administrative Services Director Pressey indicated through a combination of resources, the project would be feasible. He noted a variety of revenue sources had been reviewed; in addition to debt structure, the need to attract and generate sales tax, continuing to control existing budgetary spending and potential phasing options. Administrative Services Director Pressey commented on the debt service structure. He noted debt service would begin in 2012 or five years. He further noted in five years, affording the interest and paying an escalating principal portion was probabie and a phased approach would not be required. Administrative Services Director Pressey spoke of phasing the project and how it would be done. He noted the advantages and disadvantages of phasing. Administrative Services Director Pressey gave a City Hall cost comparison. He noted the cost, square footage, number of employees and population for City Halls in surrounding areas. RDA Project Manager McCarty commented on design objectives. He indicated staff was looking for guidance on the layout and site placement, historic Lake Elsinore architectural design and standards, architectural style, design elements and design appropriate to context. RDA Project Manager McCarty commented on the layout and site placement. He noted the alternatives with each option. He indicated their goal was downtown revitalization. RDA Project Manager McCarty commented on historic Lake Eisinore architectural design standards. He pointed out that both sites feil within RDA historic design standards. He gave examples of each style that was suggested and design elements for the project. 2 RDA Project Manager McCarty indicated staff needed Council's feedback in regard to architectural style. Bill Liskim, Design Competition Juror, spoke on other Civic Center examples. He noted the identity of the City came from the lake. He commented on the importance of the lake and lake-front landscaping. Mr. Liskin introduced the Design Competition Finalists. Brian Healy, Brian Healy Architects, commented on his background and what attracted him to the competition. He indicated he was attracted to the idea of keeping the Civic Center downtown. Jim Gabriel, Architects Hanna Gabriel Wells, commented on the importance of the community's feedback and the importance of including the lake. He thanked everyone for allowing them to be part of the project. Julie Eizenburg, Koning Eizenberg Architecture, provided background on herself and her firm. She noted what attracted her firm to the project. She commented on how to make the City a legacy for future generations. She further commented on honoring the past. RDA Project Manager McCarty thanked the architects for attending the meeting. Edward Kotkin, Legal Representative for Ibarra's Market, introduced the president and vice president of the market. He indicated the owners had worked hard to make the market what it was. He noted they were in favor of a new Civic Center. He commented on the incentives of Site No. 1 as compared to Site No. 2. He stated Ibarra's Market would like to stay. He submitted a petition of 2,256 signatures of individuals in favor of keeping the market where it was. He noted he was interested in Council's feedback. He gave a letter that he previously addressed to Council to the Deputy City Clerk to place in the record. Carl Johnson, NEAR-CAL, Corp, indicated he was one of the Design Competition Jurors. He noted the feedback of the design concepts were very good. He spoke of the area and the type of building he felt would be desired. He noted the architect needed to be held to a budget. He suggested hiring a construction manager and uphold them to a certain criteria. He commented on what to be mindful of to reduce costs. Francis Henkel, Lake Elsinore resident, noted he was a property owner in Lake Elsinore. He commented Lake Elsinore was a diamond in the rough. He suggested having activity around the clock at the new Civic Center in an effort to bring people back. He stated there needed to be something to attract people to the area. 3 Kim Cousins, Chamber of Commerce President, noted the Lake Elsinore Valiey Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors preferred Site 2 over Site 1. He commented on the feedback they had received from the public survey. He noted Site 2 gave more room to expand and 48% of the people who responded to the survey preferred Site 2. Fred Dominguez, Lake Elsinore resident, thanked the Council for their commitment to keep the Civic Center downtown. He noted the Downtown Main Street Merchants had petitioned the Council since December of 2006 to use the site in front of the Cultural Center. He indicated they feit this was the most logical site. He spoke on the importance of historicai values. Leonard Leichnitz, LUMOS Communities, expressed his fiscal concerns with the project. He noted he had seen great designs for the Civic Center. He inquired if the City could afford the Civic Center. He stated the City should be cautious with debt. He spoke on the three architectural finalists and noted they were different from the design requested by the community. He commended staff for their hard work. Steve Allen, from Lee, Rubin, Allen Partnership, spoke on the aesthetics of the Civic Center. He noted the style did not need to be determined by the size of the project. He suggested going with a taller building. He stated it was possible to achieve a historic look with a tall building. Dick Knapp, Lake Elsinore resident, spoke of his concern for Site 2. He noted his recommendation for a location for the proposed Civic Center. He indicated Site 2 had a lot of acreage, but not a lot of property on high levels. He suggested putting the Civic Center on higher ground where it would not be affected by the rains. Michael O'Neal, Lake Elsinore resident, noted he appreciated the artwork submitted for the design of the Civic Center. He commented he did not find the submittals appropriate for the historic district of the City. He spoke on historical architecture. He indicated what he thought the design should reflect. He gave ideas for styles and enhancements. He indicated the style should reflect the ethnicity and culture of the City. He stated the love of Lake Elsinore was downtown. Barbara Anderson, Lake Elsinore resident, commented on her background. She asked for reconsideration of a 2-story library buiiding. She indicated it was very difficult to staff and expensive to operate. She noted there were a lot of potential problems when it came to a 2-story library buiiding. She commented a site near the Police station would be safe and convenient. 4 Jerry Harmatr, Lake Elsinore resident, noted Lake Elsinore would be a big city. He suggested going slow and taking the time to build. He commented by the time the bonds were paid off, the buildings would be inadequate. Administrative Services Director Pressey invited members of the Technical Committee to speak. Ruth Atkins, Technical Committee, noted 41% of the people favored a historic style. She further noted 21 of the 22 architectural design submissions were by the lake. She commented the survey showed a large number of residents liked the idea of the Civic Center being located near the lake. She thanked staff for their hard work. She commented it was important to recognize the residents desire to have a historicai image reflected in the Civic Center. John Gonzales, Lake Elsinore resident, noted he preferred alternative Site 9. He commented on Ibarra's Market being the only market downtown. He spoke on his concern with the budget. He indicated the designs the architects submitted did not impress him. Mr. Liskim commented on other ideas the jurors had who were not present. Councilmember Keiley thanked everyone for attending. She commented everyone agreed the project needed to be a destination place. She noted the Civic Center needed to provide a sense of pubiic pride. She indicated she had served on the jury and commented on her experience. She spoke of the importance of the architectural firms listening to everyone's comments. Councilmember Kelley indicated the jury had reached a point where decisions needed to be made by the Council in regard to design, style, budget and location. She noted the cost was an important factor. She stated some of the suggestions for revenue were questionable. She noted she would like to move forward at a slower pace and that she was in favor of phasing. Councilmember Kelley commented on the design elements. She noted the community would like something historic looking with a contemporary style. She spoke on connectivity and the need to honor the past. Mayor Pro Tem Hickman mentioned his concerns with the budget and the fiscal impact. He commented on what he favored for style and in what areas. He indicated he wouid be in favor of phasing the project. He suggested utilizing the outflow channel as a river walk. Councilmember Buckley stated the purpose of the Civic Center was not just to replace inadequate facilities, but to create new excitement and stimulate development in the downtown area. He suggested building up the water front. He noted he was not in favor of more than three or four stories. 5 Councilmember Buckley indicated he favored Site 2 for the Civic Center. He indicated he agreed with Carl Johnson on the budget. He noted the three designs submitted by the architects were innovative. He indicated 93% of people favored a pier. He noted this project was an opportunity to create a dynamic new image. Councilmember Schiffner stated there was a need for new facilities. He indicated the biggest reason for the project was to redevelop the downtown area. He noted he favored the site by the water. He explained it was easier for a City to develop the lake area compared to a developer. He noted he was in favor of phasing. Councilmember Buckley spoke of going with a modern style by the lake and more historic by "inland" Main Street. Mayor Pro Tem Hickman commented the private sector could do a better job than the public sector of developing the area around the lake. He stated if City Hall was not located on "inland" Main Street, the area would die. Mayor Magee thanked staff for their presentation. He also thanked the public and the architects for attending the meeting. Mayor Magee commented the project needed to be phased. He noted fiscal responsibility was important and he did not want to go through what the City went through with the stadium. Mayor Magee indicated he favored Site 1, Alternative 5. He noted he was drawn to the lake, but reverted back to the downtown area. He commented on what he was in favor of in regard to style and enhancements. He further commented he liked the neo-ciassical and Monterey-Spanish style. Mayor Magee stated he was in favor of moving forward with the project at a slow pace. Administrative Services Director Pressey summarized and confirmed Council's comments. RDA Project Manager McCarty requested a few points of clarification on several items. Councilmember Buckley responded the parking structure could be whatever size it needed to be. He suggested utilizing the Cultural Center for the Council Chambers if it is decided to buiid in "inland" Main Street. Councilmember Kelley noted she was in favor of a 1-story library. 6 Councilmember Buckley noted he was in favor of a 2-story library building. He noted the second story could be utilized for meeting rooms and storage. Councilmember Schiffner commented the style and size of the building depended on the location. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Magee adjourned the Special Joint City Cou ' Rede opment Agency Study Session at 7:29 p.m. ~ Mayor E. _...__ ___._._,~ Redevelopment E ATTEST: ~ ( ~~-=1~~ I Michelle Soto Interim City Cierk 7 LAW OFFICES OF WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART A PROFESSIONAL CORPOR4TION 707 SOUTH PARKER STREET, SUITE 8000 ~ ORANGE, CA 92868-4760 ~(714) 558-7000 ~ FAX (714) 8357787 DIRECT DIAL: (714) 564-2635 DIRECT FAX: (714) 565-2535 E-MAIL: EKO7KIN~WSS-IAW.COM August 28, 2007 VIA HAND DELIVERY City Manager Robert Brady City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Eisinore, CA 92530 Re: Ibarra's Market Dear Mr. Brady: My client Ibarra's Market, Inc. ("Ibarra") delivers this letter for your consideration as you select a site for the new civic center that will serve the City of Lake Elsinore ("City°) and its residents into the twenty-first century. As you know, Ibarra's primary place of business is located at 217 North Main Street, situated at the corner of Main Street and Franklin Avenue on land identified as assessor's parcel number 374-164-005 (the "Property"). The Ibarra's Property is part and parcel of prospective civic center "Site 1" as referenced in the City's consideration of this matter to date. Ibarra is proud to do business in Lake Elsinore and regards itseif as a stakeholder in its future. In fact, Ibarra has been considering the expansion of its City presence via the purchase of additional land, and placement of a second store in the community to help sustain Lake Elsinore's residents (the "Expansion"). As a thriving business serving its local neighborhood in the Downtown Historic District, Ibarra is excited about the prospect of the City's development of a new civic center (the "ProjecY'). Ibarra congratulates the City on its vision and looks forward to working with Cify staff to insure the Project's success. However, Ibarra's enthusiasm is tempered by its utmost desire to continue doing business at the Property. The Ibarra family purchased the Property in 2002. Through the past five (5) years, the Ibarra family has worked hard to make the market that it operates on the Property (the "Market") a valuable asset for the City's people. Today, the Market is a prosperous provider of high quality meat, produce and other grocery items to its loyal Lake Elsinore customers. Between 2002 and 2006, the Ibarra family increased Ibarra's annual sales around three hundred and fifty percent (350%) from approximately two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) to over seven million dollars ($7,000,000.00). TERRY C. ANDRUS ~ CINDY R. BECKER ~ EDWARD L BERTRAN~ ~ M. LOIS BOBAK ~ CAROLINEA B1RNE ~ PATRICK M. DESMONO ~ JAMES M. DONICH CHRISiINA M. DOriE ~ JAMES H. EGGART ~ CRAIG G. FARRINGTON ~ JOSEPH W. FORBATH ~ BR4DLEY R. HOGIN ~ DOUGLAS C. HOLLAND DAVID E. KENDIG ~ EDWARD Z. KOTICIN~ ~ R08ERTAA. KRAUS ~ MAGDALENA LONA-WL4NT ~ M4RK M. MONACHINO ~ LAURAA. MORGAN ~ THOM4S F. NIXON BARBARA RAI~EANU ~ JASON S. RETTERER ~ OM4R SANDOVAL ~ JOHN R SHAW ~ MATTHEW R. SILVER ~ GREGORY E. SIMONIAN ^ KENNARD R. SMART, JR. ~ DANIEL K SPR4DLM ~ ALYSON Q SWH ~ THOMAS L. WOODRUFF 547429.1 City Manager Robert Brady August 28, 2007 Page 2 • This success story has been driven by the Ibarra family's extensive efforts to build their reputation and the Market's goodwill in the community. Today, the Market has a strong repeat customer base, inclusive of a demographic cross-section of the City's residents. Through the years, this customer base has come to know the Market as its own grocery store. Regrettably, the intangible assets created by the ibarra family cannot be replaced by simply relocating the Market. The MarkeYs Relocation would require the Ibarra f8mily's re-establishment of the Market's reputation and the goodwiil that they have worked so hard to secure. The difficuity of this task is compounded by the Ibarra family's effective capitalization of the Market's unique location. Located in the heart of the community that it serves, the Market is walking distance from its customer base, largely derived from the surrounding residential neighborhoods. A large percentage of Market shoppers walk from their homes through the MarkeYs doors each day. The Market is the engine driving the entire Ibarra family's livelihood. It supports the five (5) family members who own the Property and Market, as well as their spouses and children. Additionally, consistently strong revenues flowing from the Lake Elsinore MarkeYs performance have allowed the Ibarra family to maintain a second less established and profitable market still taking root in Orange County. The Lake Elsinore Market is aiso a source of income for City residents, providing a living wage to its twenty-five (25) employees and their families. In addition, it warrants mention here that the Market leases a smail area to Ms. Margarita Gonzales who runs a successful travel agency and money wiring business on the premises. Ms. Gonzales leases this Market space for her business for six hundred doliars ($600.00) per month. Ibarra respectfully submits that the City's Lake Front Site, "Site 2" per the City's references throughout the ProjecYs consideration to date (the "Lake Front Site"), is the superior site being considered. The Lake Front Site offers more room for expansion than the above-referenced Site 1. Further, the Lake Front Site's development will benefit all of the businesses on Main Street by drawing more traffic from the freeway down Main Street. In addition, the Lake Front Site's utilization for the Project causes the least amount of business disruption as it is largely unimproved land. Ibarra certainly recognizes the benefit of, and need for a new civic center. We are hopeful that the Lake Front Site will be chosen inasmuch as it seems the most beneficial. However, if the City selects Site 1, ibarra is eager to work with City staff to explore the option of the MarkeYs continued existence in the City's Downtown Historic District, alongside the new Civic Center (the "Co-Existence Option"). In that context, Ibarra would welcome a discussion with the City of how the MarkeYs presence might advance the City's goals. Should the City ultimately determine that it must pursue the Project on Site 1 on September 11, 2007, we would ask that City staff contact our office shortly thereafter. We wouid like to cooperatively explore the Co-Existence Option as soon as possible. If on the other hand the Project will be implemented on Site 1 and the City does not 547479.1 City Manager Robert Brady August 28, 2007 Page 3 regard the Co-Existence Option as worthy of discussion, we will be representing Ibarra through City acquisition discussions. These discussions will necessarily require that the Property's appraisai, by both Ibarra and the City, and an assessment of the MarkeYs substantial goodwill and relocation costs, commence fairly quickly. Once it learned about the City's consideration of the Project, Ibarra's consideration of the Expansion necessarily came to a grinding halt pending this matter's conclusion. More specifically, Ibarra terminated substanti~l discussions with two (2) Lake Elsinore land owners when the company learned that the MarkeYs continued operation at the Property might be in jeopardy as a consequence of City acquisition. Ibarra looks forward to re-focusing its attention on opening its third market within the City and increasing its visibility and participation in the community. Toward that end, we want to cooperate in every way reasonably possible with the City, and we plan to be present at the August 30, 2007 study session and the September 11, 2007 City Council meeting. In the interim, should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART A Professi nal Corporation ~^~ EDWARD Z. f~ KIN cc: Barbara Leiboid, Esq., City Attorney Board of Directors, Ibarra's Market, Inc. 547429.1 LEE, RUBIN, ALLEN PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL TO PRESENT WHITE PAPER TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE The Lee, Rubin, Allen, Partnership is requesting a time to present a reseazched paper (or White Paper) to the City of Lake Elsinore. This paper will be presented to assist Council, Planning Commission and Staff in making informed decisions about a possible new direction for Lake Elsinore's future downtown business district. LRA would also like at that time to present 4,000 Lake Elsinore residents' signatures in support of this new direction. Below is a summary of the main points contained in the paper, which will have an accompanying PowerPoint presentation. • A request for the City to consider taller buildings downtown • Compazisons to similaz developments in other historically-renovated downtowns • Compaze this juncture of Lake Elsinore's downtown development to that of other ciries •3 Compazison between cities hos6ng taller buildings versus the alternative of conventional, land-consumptive development • Consideration that allows Main Street to enjoy new tall buildings without destroying the old facades • How ta11 buildings help create a pedestrian-oriented environment and significant economic stimulation for Main Street • How tall buildings can create a higher quality employment environment versus employment in tilt-up offices • How quality of life for Elsinore citizens will be enhanced by tall buildings • Savings in infrastructure costs resulring from tall buildings • The attractiveness of Lake Elsinore as a more prestigious business destination resulting from hosting tall buildings downtown • The ecological impact of reducing sprawling office parks versus tall buildings • How tall buildings can preserve green azeas that flow into tourism, recreation and aesthetic destinations around downtown and the lake 1(951) 674-1087 hc I hi 11-asc u~~~e-rizoo.ngt I of 2 8/30/07 1:28 PM LEE, RUBIN, ALLEN PARTERSHIP • Aesthetic benefits of tall buildings that compliment the historical cityscape of Lake Elsinore •A How tall buildings can revitalize Main Street • Why the present time is most cost-effective for Lake Eisinore to increase building height limits • Why Lake Elsinore's downtown Main Street is specifically the best place to allow tall buildings • That stable growth with higher paying jobs are possible in Lake Elsinore as a direct result of tall buildings being allowed downtown • How tall buildings can benefit Lake Elsinore more than any other single type of development THIS PAPER IS AIMED AT STIMULATING AND INFORMING DISCUSSION ON ARCHITECTURAL HEIGHT AND STYLE AND THEIR IMPACT ON LAKE ELSINORE'S FUTURE. white Daoer I. in many counMes, an official report setting out govemment policy on a particular issue to be wted on by the country's legislature. See also green paper. 2. an oRicial, authoritative, or heavilv researched reoort on a tooic for example, a report produced by a gmup ofjoumalists Encarta~ World English Dictionary ~ 1999 Microsoft Coryoration. AII ~ - rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. 1 (951) 674-(0871n_II_~ii.ime~ri:v_~.izuii ret 2 of 2 8/30/07 128 PM ~ ~~r ~ CHAMBER OF COMM August 30, 2007 Robert Magee, Mayor Daryl Hickxnan, Mayor Pro Tem Services; Code Enforcement; Economic Development & Local Job Creation; Lake Water Supply & Quality; and Parks & Recreation. • The Public 5urvey had several key points related to selecrion & value: o See Page 6 of 10 for Public Survey Results o Adequate Space; Located in Historic Downtown; Potential to redevelop; Accessibility to Freeway, Main Street and Lake; Use of Vacant Land o Pedestrian Friendly; Revitalize of Downtown; Historic Elements; Interpretation or Mix of Historic Traditionai & Innovative Architecture 132 West Graham Avenue • Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 (951) 245-8848 • Fax (951) 245-9127 • info@lakeelsinorechamber.com • www.lakeelsinorechamber.com o Citizens of Lake Elsinore felt we should spend more than we presently do on Downtown Revitalizarion; Emergency Preparedness; Police • Civic Center Study Session Materials: o Site 1 has 9.54 acres with significant hurdles on land ownership o Site 2 has 16.75 acres with more space to expand, partner with developers and has less land ownership issues 0 48% selected Site 2 their first pick which combines Lakeshore frontage, Main St access & the lazgest acreage. o Site 2 also answers the responses by residents wanting a Pier at the Lake, Visitors Center and Open Space/Pazk. In conclusion, the Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce sees the selection of Site 2 as the genesis behind the Revitalization of Historic Downtown Main Street. Site 2 has proximity to the Chamber of Commerce, SherifPs Station, City Park, Swick Matich Field, Seaport Boat Launch, Lake Point Park and the Senior Center. In response to the residents of Lake Elsinore concerns, this affords us an opportunity to create a Pier and Boazdwalk along a significant portion of the shoreline for Public Access and Enjoyment. The cities of Big Bear and Lake Arrowhead did not seize the moment to protect their citizen's rights to enjoy their lakes. We are 119 years into our Mission since Incorparation and we still have a chance to seize the moment!! Amazing!! No longer will be have to hear, "I can see the Lake but how do you get to it and get an chance to rest upon the shore?" Site 2 afFords Main Street an enticing anchor to drive visitors from the freeway through the downtown corridor and back. We believe it affards the opportunity to develop a hotel/restaurant entertainxnent section within lot B of Site 2 as well as allows the City to use an "interpretation or mix of historic traditional & innovative architecture" on lots B tlu~u E. Our vision is a gathering place along the shore for residents and visitors alike to take in the beauty that Lake Elsinore has to offer. We look forward to partnering with the City of Lake Elsinore to make this happen. Sincerely, ~~ ~~- ` Kim Joseph Cousins PresidenUCEO La1ce Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce 132 W Graham Avenue Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 951-245-8848 Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce • 132 West Graham Avenue • Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 (951) 245-8848 • Fax (951) 245-9127 • info@lakee~sinorechamber.com • www.lakeelsinorechamber.com SUMMARY OF LAKE ELSINORE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SERIES- ViSIONING HISTORIC LAKE ELSINORE'S FUTURE COMMUNITY WIDE V/S/ON/NG FORUM, JUNE 18, APPROX. 50 ATTENDEES NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOPS; BUTTERFIELD ELEMENTARY, JUNE 20, APPROX. 25 ATTENDEES CULTURAL CENTER, JUNE 23, APPROX. 30 A7TENDEES WITHROW ELEMENTARY, JUNE 29, APPROX. 25 ATTENDEES PROGRAM OVERVIEW At all workshops, the program was designed with an introduction to the General Plan Update project and an understanding of purpose of the workshop followed by an interactive visioning exercise. o The iniroduction provided by MJS staff explained the General Plan Update process, introduced the project team and provided a status report. The introducrion of the project also included an overview of what the General Plan is and why the City of Lake Elsinare is updating their Plan. Attendees included a range of citizens and interests: GPAC members, Planning Commissioners and City Council members, developers, business owners and residents. At all workshops, MJS staff prepazed a series of maps for participants to review to help understand and conceptualize the existing conditions and environmental constraints of Lake Elsinore as they envision and plan the city. The list of maps provided included: o Existing Land Use (from SCAG) o C~urently Adopted Circulation Plan o City of Lake Elsinore Slopes o City of Lake Elsinore Floodplains o MSHCP Lands of Interest o MSHCP Vegetation/ Criteria Cells o MSHCP Plan Areas & Lands of Interest o MSHCP Conservation Areas o Alberhill Draft Land Use Plan Additional graphics included: o MSHCP Species for the Elsinore Area Plan _-. ~ .~ o Current 1990 Land Use Plan Staristical Sumniary COMMUNITY WIDE VISIONING FORUM The Community Wide Visioning Forum was a unique program designed in conjunction with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG staff attended the event and provided critical support in designing and facilitating the program. The visioning program was an exercise by which participants were given a lazge map of the City of Lake Elsinore and a set of "chips" which represented different types of development. The "chips" accurately represented the densities for each land use designation that will be identified in the general plan and were to scale with the city map to illustrate the land consumption and land availabilily constraints. Participants were asked to break out into groups of appro7cimately eight (8) to ten (10) people with each group located at a table with a base map of the Cily of Lake Elsinore (to scale with the "chips"), a"chip" set and pens for an interactive visioning session. Each chip set included enough "chips" to accommodate the future projected population for Lake Elsinore and "tape" representing road improvements (black) and altemative transit routes (red). The following direction was given each group as a starting point: identify where you live and define your distinct neighborhood areas. The groups were then asked to use the chips and well as the tape to create their ideal vision of the city in hventy years. Participants used the chips to illustrate the development they would like to see, different colors of tape to define their future circularion and were also encouraged to draw or list their ideas, issues and concerns on the map. Participants were asked to discuss with members of their group while MJS project staff listened, facilitated, and documented all suggesfions, thoughts and concerns. NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOPS (3) At the neighborhood workshops, participants were again asked to create a vision for their city. Participants were asked to break out into smaller groups, with each group located at a table with a flip chart, base map of the City of Lake Elsinore, and pens for an interactive visioning session. As a starting point, each group was asked to identify where you live, define your neighborhood azeas, define your road system, and define yow downtown. Each group was also asked what they like best about their city as well as what can be improved. Participants were encouraged to draw and record their ideas and concems on the map as well as discuss with members of their group while MJS project staff listened, facilitated, and documented suggesrions, thoughts and concerns. ~--- y - SUMMARY OFCOMMENTS The forum and workshop participants provided a wide variety of comments. The input and feedback was comprehensive and will be very valuable in shaping the City's future land use altematives and General Plan policies. Of the many comments received, the main points and reoccurring ideas and concerns from all the discussions is detailed below: • Take advantage of the lake to revitalize and beautify the City, attract visitors, and improve the opportunities of the citizens. Make it a healthy focal point of the City. • Embrace Lake Elsinore's rich lustory ^ Redevelop/ revitalize/ "refurbish" Lake Elsinore's downtown by: o Bringing in unique services o Providing entertainment and dining opportunities o Developing mixed use with high density residential, entertainment, retail and office employment in and around downtown o Linking downtown to the Lake through urban design ^ Improve traffic and circulation throughout the City ~ Provide needed civic/ cultural institurions and healthcare seroices: hospitals, libraries; higher educational facilities • Create a sh-ong jobs/ housing balance with higher paying jobs ^ Establish azchitectural and other design criteria to improve the urban design to make Lake Elsinore distinctive and attractive • Create a comprehensive pedestrian/ bikeway path around the Lake • Preserve and expand Lake Elsinore's recreational (extreme sport) opporhmities • Create entryways/ gateways that invite people into the City ^ Improve the water quality of the Lake ^ Do not allow Lake Elsinore to become Temeeula & Murrieta NEXT STEPS The maps created by the citizens through the visioning sessions will be used to guide the City and MJS project team in developing the future land use alternatives. Workshop participants were also asked to complete a Workshop Quesrionnaire; all responses to the questionnaire have been tabulated and will be provided to the City and GPAC. ~-~ - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Please indicate how important you consider the followin Not Very Importaut g items to the future of Lake Elsinore. No Very OpiDion Ilnportent Historic Preservation - 0 1 1 6 24 Landscaping/Trees 0 0 2 6 25 Parks 1 0 0 8 25 Architecture of New Buildings 0 3 5 7 18 Location of New Housing 2 1 7 6 16 Schools 1 I 2 5 24 ConvenientShopping 3 1 5 12 13 Police Protection I 0 1 7 24 Mix of Housing Types (including seniors and low income) 3 0 7 11 12 ConditionofHousing ~ p Z g z3 Jobs Available in the City 2 0 3 8 20 Control of Graffiti 1 0 1 I 1 21 Bike Lanes 2 4 6 7 16 Fire Services 1 0 2 5 25 Emergency Medical Response 1 0 3 3 26 Traffic Congestion 1 0 1 9 23 Public Meeting and Gathering Places 2 0 3 15 13 RecreationalOpportunities 1 1 0 10 20 Restaurant and other Entertainment Opportunities 1 0 4 8 20 ~ Water Quality/ Tmprovement of Lake 1 0 ~ 2 3 28 TOTAL 25 12 57 155 421 2. The City allocates limited resources to address a wide range of issues. Consider the following items and indicate if a greater (or less or the same) amount of resources should be directed to them. Spend Spend te Same More Preserving and enhancing historic sites and landscaping ~ in historic areas 3 0 9 6 12 Road Maintenance 0 0 1 14 17 Emergency Preparedness 0 0 6 10 I S Dovmtown Revitalization 1 1 5 12 13 Encouraging ConvenientShopping 3 1 6 12 9 Encouraging a Wide Range of Housing Opportunities 3 2 5 10 12 Property Upkeep and Code Enforcement of Existing Ordinances i n 3 a i x Economic Development and Local Job Creation 0 0 6 12 15 ~_ ~ ~- uramn Bike I.anes 2 4 7 14 6 Redevelopment 0 2 4 11 16 Community Events 1 1 10 9 11 Road and Street Projects 0 0 2 14 15 Access to C~ty Govemment n s , ~ ., .. Lake water supply & quality ~ 0 1 4 g 1 g Parks and Recreation (activities & facilities) 0 2 2 13 15 TOTAI, 16 __ 18 108 186 245 ~_ ~ CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY, CITY 1~IANAGER'1~ ~ DATE: JUNE 22, 2007 SUBJECT: LAKE ELSINORE CIVIC CENTER DESIGN COMPETITION- UPCOMING EVENTS AND PROCESS SYNOPSIS As indicated in the Competition Briefpresented to the City Council at the April 26, 2007 Civic Center Study Session, the Lake Elsinore Civic Center Design Competition is scheduled to host several events throughout the coming weeks and months. This memo serves to outline the updated course of events that wil] occur and to provide a review of the Competirion process. The Lake Elsinore Civic Center Design Competition commenced with a reaistration process that saw 101 firms from five of the seven continents around the world express an interest in participatiug in the process. From that number, almost half proceeded tlu~ough Stage T.a Statements of Esperience and Qualifications, which allowed teams to demonstrate their leval of commihnent and capability eazly on in the Competition process. The screening process narrowed the qualified teams to 43. The first Competition event was held this past Saturday, June 16`h, The event, which was optional for the desi~t teams to attend, provided an overview of the Competition process and clarified the vision and purpose of the Civic Center project. At least 16 firms and 25 architects and p]anners from as far as New York attended the event, as well as the Mayor; the Chair of the RDA, a Planning Commissioner, the City Manager, the Competition Advisor, three Department heads, and several other City staff inembers. Today, 34 teams remain in the Lake Elsinore Civic Center Design Competition and Staff have been working with our Competition Advisor to answer their quesfions and usher them tl~rough the process. Typically, about 50%-G0% of the remainiug teams end up submitting their designs for review by the Competition Jury, which means that we should expect between 15 and 20 submissions for Stage I.b. The teams have until July 11`h to submit their designs for public exhibit and review at the Cultural Center. The public exhibit will display the teams' submissions and provide an opportunity for the public to provide comments on a standard forxn to be available at the eshibit. Comments received prior .._-_ ~-y - v MEMORANDUM JUNE 22, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 10 to the Jury review on July 14~' will be sunuuarized and presented to the Competition Jury and comxnents received after the Jury review will be focused on the three fmalists' designs in order to help provide guidance from the public to the three finalist teams. Staff aze also working to make the teams' submissions available for public review online. The online exhibit would help maacimize the opportunity for the public to provide input on the designs. Additionally, the 63 submissions from the Lake Elsinore City Hall Student Drawing Contest, which Staff developed to involve local students from grades K-6, wiil also be displayed at the public exFubit and the nine winning student designs may be displayed online as well. As a side note, the nine students who submitted winning designs were sent an invitation from the Lake Elsinore Unified School District to attend the City Council meeting on July 10`~ for official recognition of their exemplary designs. The Stage I.b public e~ibit will take place Thursday, July 12, 2007 through Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at the Cultural Center. Staff are coordinating volunteers to staff the public exhibit during the set hours of 11:00 am to 2:00 pm and 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm each day except for the following exceprions: • Friday, July 13, 2007 from 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm (only open from 11:00 am to 2:00 pm due to reception and working dinner meeting) • Saturday, July 14, 2007 all day and night (not open this day due to Jury Reviews) • Tuesday, July 17, 2007 from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm (only open &om 11:00 am to 2:00 pm due to a Planxung Commission meeting that evening) Staff are planuuig a working dinner meering for members of the Competirion Jury and Technical Committee on Friday, July 13~' at the Culhual Center. The Jurors from outside of Lake Elsinore will arrive at 4:00 pm on Friday to visit the sites with other members of the Competition Jury. The Technical Committee will also arrive at the Cultural Center at 4:00 pm, to review the design submissions. After the site visits the three outside jurors will check into their hotel and meet back at the Cultural Center at azound 6:00 pm for introductions, presentations, and a working dinner to be attended by the full seven-member Competirion Jury, ten-member Technical Committee, the Competition Advisor, the Competition Consultant, the City Manager, and related Ciry Staff. The working dinner will allow Competition personnel to take care of all administrative issues and introductions before the official review of designs the next day. Additionally, the working dinner will allow the Technical Cominittee the oppoii~uiity to express their technical insights into the design submissions. Results of the public survey and any public comments on the designs may also be discussed, or distributed, at the meeting. The first official Competition Jury review of designs will begin at around 830 am Saturday morning, July 14~h. There will be a continental breakfast on site at the Cultural Center. To help ensure the efficient use of time, the Jury review of designs is open only to the Competition Jury, ~ ~ _ MEMORANDUM NNE 22, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 10 Tecluucal Committee, and related Comperition Advisors. While the Competition 7ury will meet around 830 am, the Technical Committee will not be needed until lunch at 12:00 pm. Lunch will be provided on site at the Cultural Center. Begiuning at lunch, the Technical Committee will help answer the Competirion Jury's quesrions regarding any of the remaining designs. The Technical Committee may also ask questions regarding any of the eliminated designs. The review of designs is expected to last until about 4:00 pm. After the Competition Jury recommends the three fmalists on July 14`h, the City Council will review the Jury's report and select one of the two sites for the final stage of the Competition at the Council meeting on July 24`h. Staff will inform the three finalist teatns of the CounciPs fmal site selection immediately following the July 24`h Council meeting. The fmalist teams will complete a mid-point review with the Technical Cominittee and City Staff tentafively scheduled for August 13`h. This mid-point review will provide the Technical Committee and City Staff with the opportwuty to help refine the finalist teams' designs for the Civic Center campus. Stage II design submissions aze due by 5:00 pm on September 5`h. Finalist teams will be awarded an honorarium of $20,000 for the completion of their designs; as discussed at the Study Session on Apri126`", this honorarium will only support a fraction of the costs incurred by the teams in preparing the design submissions. Designs will be on public and online exhibit from September 5-8. While the precise times of this public exhibit have not been finalized, they will likely occur &om 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm on September 5`h, and 11:00 am to 2:00 pm and 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm on September 6`n 7`n and 8`~. While the teams will retain ownership of their designs, the City may use them for certain purposes, such as archives, exhibits, publications, media releases, and other public relations related acrivities. On Sunday, September 9~h, the Competirion Jury is scheduled to review the three finalists' designs. In addition to the Comperirion Jury, the City Council, the Technical Committee, related City Staff, and the public are invited to attend this final event. This review will include a public presentation of the three potential degigns beginning at azound 12:00 pm. Each team will be allotted 1 hour and 30 minutes, which includes an up to 35-minute presentation, 40 minutes for quesrions and answers, and 15 minutes of setup and cleanup. Under the Competirion Rules, only the Competition Jury is permitted to ask questions during the questions and answers period of the presentations; should a member of the Technical Committee, or a member of the City Council not on the Comperirion Jury, have a question for one of the teams the member may write out the quesrion and give it to the Competition Advisor for presentation. At about 4:30 pm each team will present a 5-minute suumiary of their design. The public event will conclude by 5:00 pm. After the event, the Competition Jury will begin private deliberations to recommend the wiuuing team, and will help prepaze a Jury Report for review by the City Council. The Competition Jury should complete their deliberations by 7:00 pm. The City Council will announce the Jury's decision at the Council meeting on September 25`h. Subject to approval by City Council, the wiuuing team would be commissioned to develop the design for the Civic ~_ I Q ..~ MEMORANDUM JLTNE 22, 2007 PAGE 4 OF 10 Center campus. The winning team will be awarded $10,000 as an advance on fees. The City has the right to negoriate an agreement with the winning team; should no agreement be reached, the City reserves the right to cease negoriations with no further obligarion to the winning team. For your quick reference, please find the attached Competition timeline, public survey results, and guest list for the July 13`h working dinner. cc: PSAC, Competition Technical Committee, Depariment Directors, City Staff MEMORANDUM JUNE 22, 2007 PAGE 5 OF 10 ATTACHMENT A: COMPETITION TIMELINE Con;nr~ncement ivlarch Com etition Br~ief Released Tuesda , iUiav 1. 2007 Sta e L~i Qualifications Due/Re .isCration Cioszs «ed~iesday, \Qav 30; 2007 Atmouncement of Eli~rible Teams for Sta~e Lb Tuesday, )une 5, 2007 Optional Competition Briefing/Sife tiisits ~~ith [~IigiUle S~hnday, June 1G, 200? Teams First uestion and Answer Period Closes Monda , June 30, 2007 Sta e I.b Submissions Due to Axrive at Ci Hall Wednesda , Jul 11, 2007 Public EJChibit of Stage I.b Submissions Thursday, July 12-Tuesday, July 17, 2007 (with certain exceptions as ouflined abovel Jur Review of Sta e I.b Submissions Saturda , Jul 14 2007 Announcement of Stage II Finalists and Site Selection by Tuesday, July 24, 2007 Second uestion and Answer Period ens Thursda , 7u1 25, 2007 Sta e II Discussions with Teams Au ust dates to be deterniined Mid Point Review of Designs with Technical Monday, August 13, 2007 Second uestion and Answer Period Closes Monda , Au st 6, 2007 Sta e II Submissions Due to Arrive at Ci Hall Wednesda , Se tember 5, 2007 Public E~chibit of Stage II Submissions Wednesday, September 5- Sahuda , Se tember 8, 2007 Public Presentation of Stage II Submissions (35 minute Sunday, September 9, 2009 presentation/40 minute Q&A total per finalist)/Jury Review of StaQe II Submissions Announcement of Competition Winner and Awards/City I Tuesday, September 25, 2007 '~- ( `~. ._---.. MEMORANDUM NNE 22, 2007 PAGE 6 OF 10 Adequate space for growth 1 48% Cost Z 42o~a Located in Historic Downtown 3 39% Potential to redevelop azea 4 36% Accessibility from freeway 5 30% Proximity to Main Street 6 29% Proximity to Lake 7 27% c Pedestrian friendly environment 1 51% Revitalizarion of downtown 2 43% Openness and accessibility 3 43% Historical elements of the area 4 41 % Interpretation or mix of historic traditional and innovative architecture 5 35% Civic pride 6 34% Promoting a downtown nighflife 7 33% Environmental sustainability 8 30% "Green" building strategies 9 29°/o Modernarchitecture 10 21% Traditional architecture 11 18% "Dream Extreme" theme 12 13% ~ 13 ~ ATTACHMENT B: PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS MEMORANDUM NNE 22, 2007 PAGE 7 OF 10 Pier at the Lake 1 45% Museum/visitor center 2 44% Open space/park 3 42% Library 4 42% Community meeting/events space 5 42% City Hall 6 42% Water feature/monumenUart 7 40% Community theatre/stage 8 39% Children's Lake Ecology Center 9 36% Retail shops 10 36% Council Chambers 11 31% Restaurants 12 31% Recreational facilities/space 13 31% Playground 14 30°/o County/State/Federal offices 15 24% Post office 16 24% Private offices 17 10% Business incubator 18 7% 1 48% 2 19% 3 12% Overall Site Rank A downtown site with the largest available acreage Overall Site Rank 1 1 21% 2 30% 3 25% 2 -- l ~f ____ A downtown site that combines Lakeshore frontage, Main StreeUfreeway access and largest acreage MEMORANDUM JIJNE 22, 2007 PAGE 8 OF 10 A downtown site on Main Street with freeway access, regazdless of available acreage 1 14% 2 28% 3 42% The Lake: central focus, recreation, view, pier, boardwalk 1 93% Travel: traffic issues, additional parking, handicap/emergency access, bus transit 2 90% Refurbish Environment: streets, code enforcement, technology, lighting 3 80% Safety Issues: police intervenrion, gangs, graffiti, illegal aliens, prostitution, homeless, ghetto 4 70% Beach town: hotel resortlcasino, tourist attraction, little shops, water park, 5 62% Entertainment: multi-purpose auditorium, concerts, nightlife, mall, revenue 6 58% Old Town: memorials, old-fashioned, heritage, preserve/use of old buildings 7 57% Park and Recreation: family oriented, activities, sports park, gym 8 42% Busiuess: police station, DMV, courthouse, larger firms, hospital 9 36% The Civic Center Specifics: Diamond location, vacant lands, avoid evacuation, low taxes 10 21% .~-- ] f~- Occasionally 1 43% Infrequently (less than 5 days a year) 2 29o~o MEMORANDUM JUNE 22, 2007 PAGE 9 OF 10 ATTACHMENT C: JULY 13T" GUEST LIST Competirion Thomas Buckley Counciimember and City CounciURDA Jury Chair of the RDA Comperition Genie Kelley Councilmember and City CounciURDA Jury Vice-Chair of the RDA Competition Carl Johnson President of Neaz-Cal Near-Cal Corporation Jury Corporation Comperition TBA TBA (A Community TBA J~ Representative) Competirion William Fain Jr. ~ President of AIA Los Angeles and Managing AIA Los Angeles/7ohnson J~ FA Partner of Johnson Fain Fain Director of Graduate Com erition p Ming Fung Programs at SCI-Arc and Principal at SCI-Arc/Hodgetts+Fung J~ Hodgetts + Fung Design Associates Design Associates Com erition P Principal-In-Charge at Moore Ruble Yudell J~ James O'Connor Moore Ruble Yudell ~chitects and Planners Architects and Planners Technical Committee John Gonzales Planning Commissioner plamuiig Commission Technical Rolfe Preisendanz Director of Community City of Lake Elsinore Committee Development Technical Committee Ken Seumalo Director of Public Works City of Lake Elsinore Technical Ruth Atkins President Lake Elsinore Historical Committee Society Technical ~ck Carpenter President Downtown Merchants' Committee Association Technical Committee ~ Cousins President Chamber of Commerce ~ I i~J MEMORANDUM JUNE 22, 2007 PAGE 10 OF 10 Committe Nancy Johnson Librarian, (or Bazbara County Library e Howison) Technical Committee Leiloni Purcell ? Friends of the Library Technical (Facilities Committee TBA TBA Engineer/Eost Office Post Office Representative) Technical Robert Whipple Water Conservation Elsinore Valley Municipal Committee Specialist Water District Competition Advisor gill Liskamm, FAIA Compefltion Advisor N/A Competition Competition Collyer; Consultant, Editor of Competitions Magazine Consultant Stanley Ph.D, Hon. Competitions and The Compefition AIA Magazine, and Project Inc. Author/Lecturer City Manager Robert A. Brady City Manager City of Lake Elsinore Director of Director of Administrarive Matt Pressey Administrative City of Lake Elsinore Services Services Redevelopment Project Steven McCa ~ Redevelopment Project City of Lake Elsinore Manager Manager 1 "7 -