Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-2002 City Council/RDA Study SessionMINUTES CITY COUNCIL/REDELOPMENTAGENCY STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2002 :~~~:~~~:~:~~:~~~~~:~,~*~~~~~~x~:~~~~~:~~~~~:~~*:~~:~~:~*~*~:~~***:~~~~~~*~~ CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kelley called the Study Session to order at 4:10 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY, BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, City Attorney Leibold, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, Building and Safety Manager Russell and Deputy City Clerk Paredes. Aeenda Review. (F:44.1) Mayor Kelley addressed the Presentation and asked for clarification. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that Mr. Mark Norton from the Santa Ana Watershed Authority would be present to present an update on the Lake Elsinore/San Jacinto Watershed Authority. He indicated that Mr. Norton would be asking Council for some suggestions for projects that could be addressed by a new Park Bond issue or Water Bond issue. PAGE TWO - STUDY SESSION - FEB.12, 2002 Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 3, regarding the Declaration of Weeds, Rubbish, Refuse and Dirt as a Nuisance with notification to property owners. He asked what happened to the Weed Abatement Lien after the property defaulted. City Attorney Leibold noted that there were various procedures that applied to a property regarding Weed Abatement and other related liens. She outlined the various ways that a lien could be addressed upon the "tax sale" of a property. Mayor Kelley asked how other cities handled Weed Abatement liens. City Attorney Leibold stated that she would make a review of the issue and respond latter. There was general discussion regarding tax lien subordination. Councilman Hickman questioned who selected the properties abated for weeds and further questioned if citizens in the community could report a rubbish complaint. City Attorney Leibold stated that the City responded on a complaint-by-complaint basis and Code Enforcement issued citations for such issues. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that Code Enforcement patrolled the City and issued citations without complaints being filed by the citizens, however if someone did file a complaint then Code Enforcement did respond. Councilman Buckley clarified that what he was addressing was vacant land that had been abated and ended up in a taY sale. Administrative Services Director Boone explained that the City operated under the Teeter Plan and when an assessment was placed on a parcel the money was rendered to the City the same year. He further explained that it would then be up to the County of Riverside to collect the money or waive collection of the assessment for the tax sale. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified the Teeter Plan. He indicated that he, City Attorney Leibold and Administrative Services Director Boone would talk to the County to try and clarify the issue brought before the Mayor's attention. Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 7, regarding the Grant Submittal and Agreement Extension - Wildlife Conservation Board. He stated his opposition to this item and questioned the RTP grant that was declined and asked if it was one of the grants that Mr. Molendyk was assisting the City with. Councilman Hickman clarified the cost M PAGE THREE - STUDY SESSION - FEB. 12, 2002 for Mr. Molendyk's services. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that it would amount to $2,000 a month for four months. Mayor Kelley asked what services the City received from Mr. Molendyk. City Manager Watenpaugh presented an overview of the services that had been provided by Mr. Molendyk and the proposed services. He explained that through successful meetings with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, Mr. Harrison and Mr. Molendyk presented the City's desire for property acquisition and development to the State with favorable comments and recommended that the City combine various grant requests into one grant request for acquisition of property at the Four Corners area in the amount of $5 million. He indicated that what staff was requesting was to eatend Molendyk and Associates agreement for four months to allow finalization of a program; allow for Mr. Harrison to walk the grant through with the agencies in Sacramento; and following that, the issue would be heard by Wildlife Conservation Board in May or August. Councilman Hickman asked what type of remuneration the City would receive. City Manager Watenpaugh outlined the requirement of identification of property and the procedure for acquisition of the grant monies. He indicated that the City was advised to apply #'or additional monies for public access and Habitat Restoration. He noted that the total would be $7 million in grant money. Mayor Kelley addressed Item No. 31, regarding the Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map No. 27851 " Lusk Elsinore". She invited Mr. Hewison to address Council. Mr. Ron Henison, 35 Villa Valtelena, presented an overview of the history of the project. He criticized the Planning Department and explained that he felt that they were representing the interests of the developer and not the rights of the existing property owners. He noted previous elevations and the resolution that Council reached which required easements from lots 1 through 10 in Tuscany Hills. PAGE FOUR - STUDY SESSION - FEB. 12, 2002 He noted that the property owners had not signed the easement deeds and Lusk made no effort to meet with the property owners to resolve the existing problems. He asked that Council consider limiting extension of time for Lusk to meet the conditions set by Council. He noted Condition No. 26, which had not been met. Councilwoman Brinley asked if Mr. Hewsion was addressing the Conditions of Approval on the Tentative Tract Map. Mr. Hewsion stated that he was and further noted Minutes from the February 22, 2000, City Council Meeting and indicated that Planning Commission Chairman Wilsey had stated that the project could not go forward without the easements. He indicated that later in the Meeting Community Development Director Brady stated that the project could be done without the easements, however it would be more difficult to do so. He noted that Chairman Wilsey indicated in the Minutes that without the easements the project would have to address grading. He concluded the easements had not been granted and he felt that it should be addressed now, rather than two years from now. He again encouraged Council to limit the e~ension of time. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner questioned the status of the project and what the next step would be. He clarified that Lusk had not met the Conditions of Approval and would start at square one. Community Development Director Brady stated that he did not believe the easements were necessary for Lusk to proceed with the project, based on the Conditions of Approval that were approved by the City Council. He stated that Lusk had been moving forward in their process to prepare their Tract Map. He stated that they had not met all the Conditions of Approval, since some of the Conditions would have to be met at various times at later stages. He explained that under the Subdivision Map Act, Lusk could request an eactension of time; they did so; and staff was recommending approval of the eatension. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner clarified that the reason for the easements was to set the elevation. He asked if they did not receive the easements, how would they proceed. Community Development Director Brady stated PAGE FIVE - STUDY SESSION - FEB.12, 2002 that they would use retaining walls. He indicated that Condition No. 26 was designed to keep the roofline elevations four feet below the adjacent grades. He stated that if Mr. Jolulson from Lusk Developers could not get the easements, then Condition No. 26 would not apply. There was general discussion regarding Condition No. 26 and the intent of the easements. Mayor Kelley stated that the issue could be resolved. Councilman Hickman stated that he was on the Property Owners Board at Tuscany Hills. He stated that Lusk never came back to the property owners to resolve the easement issue. He indicated that to protect the citizens, Council should allow a six-month extension with the condition that Lusk meet and work with the property owners in Tuscany Hills. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner asked if the Subdivision Map Act allowed Luck to request an e~ension of two years. Community Development Director Brady confirmed. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner asked if Council could refuse the e~ension. Councilwoman Brinley stated that Council could refuse the extension or condition the e~ension. She suggested amending Condition No. 26 to require Lusk to meet with the homeowners and come to a resolution. Councilman Buckley suggested putting teeth in Condition No. 26 and narrow the time line which provides the window of opportunity to meet with the property owners. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that given the past history of this project he felt that there was no agreement that could be reached. He noted that Lusk would either have to come to an agreement with the property owners or revise the Tentative Track Map to include retaining walls and he was not sure that Council would even approve the retaining walls. PAGE SIX - STUDY SESSION - FEB.12, 2002 Councilwoman Brinley stated that she did not want the property owners to lose their view shed. Mayor Kelley assured Mr. Hewison the issue would be addressed at the City Council Meeting. Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 33, regarding the Change Order for McVicker Fire Station - Triquest Builders. He asked why the site was changed to McVicker Park instead of using the original site located on Lincoln Street, since it was so much more expensive to build on the park site. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that the relocation of the site was at the request of the Fire Department. He fi~rther eaplained that they had requested that the site be moved to a higher elevation. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that four years ago it was proposed to place a temporary Fire Station at Lincoln and Machado Street and the surrounding residents opposed that action due to noise. Mayor Kelley addressed Item No. 36, regarding LSA Associates Traffic Impact/Koadway Fee Program and stated that it had taken LSA far too long to produce the project. She questioned what the problem was with the project. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that staff had the first draft for review and what was before Council was a request for additional funds for monies they expended preparing documents and additional time in research for data to facilitate the comparison. Community Development Director Brady stated that staff was in the process of commenting on the original program that was submitted and it would be mailed to them tomorrow. He indicated that a Study Session would be proposed for Mid March with the Council and Development Community to review the fee process. He explained that the original model addressed total build out and the circulation element did not match which threw the study off, however staff instructed them to revise the model to 20 to 25 year build out, which was another reason it took longer than originally expected. Mayor Kelley stated her frustration, since Council wished to have the study complete prior to the County having their TUMF Fee in place. PAGE SEVEN - STUDY SESSION - FEB. 12, 2002 Councilwoman Brinley stated that Council had been waiting for the study for over a year and stated that she felt it needed to be addressed quickly. She stressed her frustration and asked Community Development Director Brady to expedite the matter within the next thirty days. Councilman Hickman asked how the study would be impacted by the habitat. Community Development Director Brady stated that the study was based on existing Land Use and did not include the possible habitat; however not going to full build out and the land lost to habitat would offset each other. Councilman Hickman questioned the purchase of necessary software for the program. Community Development Director Brady stated that the City would have the data, however the City did not own the program to run the data. He explained that in order to run the program the City would ha~e to purchase the program or utilize LSA's services. Councilman Hickman questioned the price of the software. Community Development Director Brady stated that it would cost approximately $10,000. Councilman Schiffner concurred with Mayor Kelley and Councilwoman Brinley regarding frustration at the length of time it had taken to produce the study and the additional cost, however the study must be finished and the City had little choice but to proceed. He noted that all of the money was reimbursable from the Fees once the program was implemented. Councilwoman Brinley noted that when the Council approved the contract with LSA, the study was suppose to take 90 days, and now Council was looking at almost a year and the study was not complete. She indicated that staff needed to stay on top of the situation and make sure that the firm produced the product that the City contracted for. Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 39, regarding the Pro-Rata Contribution and TiTMF Consultant Activities. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that the pro rata share of the Traffic Mitigation Fee was a request that came from WRCOG last October and was tabled by Council. He indicated that Council tabled the item to provide an opportunity to track the program and to allow the City's PAGE EIGHT - STUDY SESSION - FEB.12, 2002 TUMF to be in place. He explained that the City had just received another request from WRCOG asking the City to reconsider their Pro- Rata Contributions for the Region in the amount of $2,400. Councilman Hickman questioned the WRCOG collection of the TUMF. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that it would be a fee placed on a regional basis for every residential unit and commercial development, which would pay a portion of street improvements, roads, etc. Mayor Kelley noted that the item was tabled in October because so much money had been spent on the whole process due to WRCOG underestimating the total cost. Mayor Kelley asked how much the Regional TiJMF has cost to date. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that it was approximately $22 million. Mayor Kelley noted that the project was still not done and when WRCOG has overruns, they look to their members to make up the difference. Councilman Buckley stated that he was under the impression that the Regional Study should have been complete some time ago and noted that they seemed to have experienced the same thing as the City with LSA. Councilwoman Brinley stated that the private sector would~ expect a job done in a timely fashion, however because the~firms are working for government they do not feel that they need to follow the same business practices. She noted how frustrating the situation was. Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 40, regarding Park Maintenance Assessment District - Proposal from Harris and Associates and asked for clarification on the Council's vote. He stated that if the Council did not approve going forward with the item, the assessment was essentially dead. Mayor Kelley agreed. Councilman Buckley stated that if the item were approved, then there would be another vote in ApriL Mayor Kelley agreed and explained that the item before Council, if approved, would allow Harris and Associates to move forward with the next step to prepare the item for the ballot procedure. City Attorney Leibold asked that after Closed Session was adjourned and the Council reconvened into Public Session that she be allowed to announce the Closed Session Report in the beginning of the Meeting. PAGE NINE - STUDY SESSION - FEB. 12, 2002 Redevelopment Aeency Agenda Review No Comments. ADJOURNMENT THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOiIRNED AT 4:50 P.M. GE ~ KELLEY, AYO C~Y OF LAKE ELSINO Respectfully submitted, ~ dria L. Paredes, Deputy City Clerk ,M.C., CITY CLERK ~IUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR ~~'Y'~Y ~T LAKE ELSINORE