Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-26-2002 City Council MinutesMINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2002 ~~~~:~*:~:~:~~~~~:~:~~**~~~~~x:~~:~~~:~~:~~~~~:~~*:~~*~~:~~*~~~:~~~:~:~~~**:~~~~~~~ CALL TO ORDER The Regular City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Kelley at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY, BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY NONE Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information/Communications Manager Dennis and Deputy City Clerk Paredes. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code §54956.9) City of Lake Elsinore, Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore v. Diamond Sports & Entertainment LLC et al (Riverside Co. Superior Court Case #356131) (F:40.1)(X:52.1) B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code §54956.9) Liberty PAGE TWO - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 Founders LLC v. City of Lake Elsinore, et al (Riverside Co. Superior Court Case #355890)(F:40.1)(X:52.1) C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code §54956.9) City of Lake Elsinore v. Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (Riverside Superior Court Case #35961). (F:40.1)(X:52.2) D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54956.8)(F:40.1)(X:48.1) Property: AP #'s 377-232-006 and 377-232-077 Negotiating Parties: City of Lake Elsinare and Dennis C. Rieger Under Negotiation: Price & Terms of Payment City Attorney Leibold announced the Closed Session Items as listed above. THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:02 P.M. The Closed Session discussion was completed at 6:55 p.m. RECONVENE PUBLIC SESSION (7:00 p.m.~ The Regular City Council Meeting was reconvened in public session, by Mayar Kelley at 7:04 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Fire Chief Gallegos. PAGE THR~E - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 INVOCATION The Invocation was provided by Pastor Mark Seitz, representing Lakeview Chapel. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, BRINLEY, HICKMAN, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, CiLy Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Fire Chief Gallegos, Police Chief Walsh, Information/Communications Manager Dennis and City C1erWHuman Resources Director Kasad. PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation - Report on Student Government Dav. (F:1423) Mayor Kelley noted that Callie Johnson and Chris Facundo were present representing Student Government Day. Ms. Johnson noted that a lot of issues were brought to the table by the students at Student Government Day, with a major concern being road improvements. She indicated that they would like to see Nichols Road paved from Temescal Canyon High School to Lakeshore Drive to aid with traffic. Mr. Facundo noted that the Student Advisory Board also participated in the Student Government Day activities and commented that there were many issues discussed. PAGE FOUR - CITY COUNCIL MINUTE5 - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 Information/Communications Manager Dennis presented a video highlighting Student Government Day. He noted that he had turned the camera and microphone over to three students and stressed the quality of the dialog and information shared at Student Government Day. Mayor Kelley explained that Student Government Day was held on February 25`~' at the Diamond and included participation by all three high schools. She further explained that the event allowed students the opportunity to learn about the City from the Council and Staff. She thanked the students for their attendance at this meeting and on Student Government Day, noting it was a fun day for everyone involved. She also noted that the Student Advisory Board was a result of last year's event. B. Presentation - Lake Elsinore Little Leaeue. (F:90.1)(X:114.6) Steve Slack, representing Lake Elsinore Little League, provided an update regarding the fields at Swick Matich park, and indicated that they were in great shape. He invited the City Council to Opening Day ceremonies on Saturday, March 2°d at 8:45 a.m.; and noted that they would like to present the City, Fire Chief and Police Chief with the plaque for "Freedom Field" and haee them throw out the ceremonial first pitches. He thanked and commended Community Services Director Sapp, Recreation & Tourism Manager Edelbrock and Maintenance Superintendent Fazzio for their assistance in completing the fields, and stressed that they were instrumental in completing the project. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Leibold announced that the City Council met in Closed Session to discuss the items as listed on the Agenda. She indicated that all four were discussed, with no reportable action. PAGE FIVE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS Requests were received to address the following item and deferred to that discussion: Item No. 31. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS The following item was pulled from the Consent Calendar for consideration at a later date: Item No. 6. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that the Recommendation on Item No. 4 should be corrected to adopt Resalution No. 2002-09 establishing City-wide speed limits. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 5 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE MOTION ON ITEM 4 AS AMENDED BY CITY MANAGER WATENPAUGH. The following Minutes were received and ordered filed: a. Planning Commission Meeting - February 6, 2002. (F:603) 2. Ratified Warrant List for February 14, 2002.(F:12.3) 3. Rejected and referred to Claims Administrator for handling, the Claim Against the City submitted by Milton W. James (CL #2002-02). (F:52.2) 4. Adopted Resolution No. 2002-09 Establishing Speed Limits for Mission Trail.(F:152.1) PAGE SIX - CITY COi1NCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, DESIGNATING THE PR1MA FACIE SPEED LIMIT FOR CERTAIN STREETS. 5. Approved the Agreement for Audit Services with Teaman, Ramirez and Smith, Inc., on behalf of the City, Public Finance Authority and Recreation Authority through fiscal year 2004-2005. (F:68.1)(X:24.1) 6. Consideration of Establishment of Traffic Offender Fund Resolution No. 2002-14. This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar for consideration at a later date. PUBLIC HEARINGS 21. General Plan Amendment No. 2000-03 for "Revised-Draft" Update to the Housin~ Element of the General Plan (Period 2000-20051. Resolution Nos. 2002-10 and 2002-11. (F:83.2)(X:87.1) City Manager Watenpaugh presented the item and stated that staff had been in process of revising the Housing Element. He asked Community Development Director Brady to present an overview and introduce the consultants involved with the project. Community Development Director Brady explained that the Housing Element was one of seven components of the General Plan, however it was the only one required by the State to be updated by the City and reviewed by the State on a regular basis. He indicated that to comply with State requirements, Council authorized staff to move forward to hire a consultant to develop and prepare the Housing Element for the City of Lake Elsinore. He noted that the Housing Element could be used for other things such as the Economic Development and other Planning issues. He noted PAGE SEVEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 that the Planning Center representatives John Douglas and Colin Drukker would be presenting a Powerpoint Program. He noted that they had presented the Program at a workshop held with the Planning Commission and comments and input were received at that time. He indicated that the Housing Element had been presented to the Housing and Community Development (HCD) at the State for their comments and review. He noted that their comments were included in the Agenda packet. He indicated that the suggestion from HCD had been incorparated into the document and sent back to them for final review. He explained that they had 60 days in which to respond on the final and return it to the City. He advised that the HCD review should be completed by the end of March or the first of April. Community Development Director Brady noted some corrections by Councilman Buckley to be made to the Housing Element and explained that the main concerns were thegoals and objectives that were being presented as part of the Housing Element. He noted a correction to the Housing Element Update on page 8, paragraph 3, 1 St sentence, which should read 8,285 instead of 18,285. He indicated that on page 63, Table 39, line A-1, it should read Alberhill Ranch with Total Units to be 3,000. He stated that the numbers on the chart would have to be changed to reflect the difference. He introduced Mr. John Douglas from the Planning Center. Councilwoman Brinley asked why Tuscana and Castellina were not included. Community Development DirectarBrady stated that those developments had been completed and the chart addressed those Specific Plans that have not been fully developed. Mr. Douglas commended staff on their cooperation and assistance. He stated that the interesting thing about the Housing Element was that it was the only element of the General Plan where the State had such a strong direct role in the reviewing and approving the document, which would eventually lead to certification. He introduced Colin Drukker of the Planning Center. PAGE EIGHT - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 Mr. Drukker presented a Powerpoint program regarding the contents of the Housing Element, and reviewed the following key points of the Element: Statewide Housing Goals: Decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family. Components of the Housing Element Housing Needs Assessment Constraints and Resources Review of the Previous Housing Element Goals, Quantified Objectives and Policies Five-Year Action Plan Housing Element Cycle Housing Element Evaluation Housing Needs Assessment Analyze Resources and Constraints Refine Goals, Policies and Objectives 5-Year Action Plan Implementation Significance of Certification Legally Adequate General Plan Eligibility for State Grant Programs PAGE NINE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 City Responsibilities Community Involvement Interagency Cooperation Adequate Provision for Housing Needs Address 5tatewide Goals Consider Local Economic, Environmental and Fiscal Conditions Key Issues Needs Assessment Growth Needs Existing Needs Special Needs Overpaying Overcrowding Population Growth Lake Elsinore - 1990 - 2020 Riverside County vs. Lake Elsinore -1990 - 2020 Household Growth Riverside County vs. Lake Elsinore - 1990 - 2020 PAGE TEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 Housing Growth Needs -1998 - 2005 Number of New Construction Units 1. Narco - 1,096 (1%) 2. Lake Elsinore - 3,763 (4%) 3. Riverside - 7,722 (8%) 4. Murrieta- 10,384 (11%) 5. Unincorporated - 30,677 (33%) 6. All Others - 39,951 (43%) Total in Riverside County - 93,593 (100%) Regional Housing Needs Assessment Income Category Units Needed Maximum 1998-2005 Monthly Rent Very Low Less than $23,700 978 (26%) $593 Low $37,920 639 (17%) $948 Moderate $56,879 829 (22%) $1,422 Above Moderate More than More than $56,880 1,317 (35%) $1,422 Occupational Wages & Income Categories Salary Range Income Category Police Officer $47-61K Moderate/Above PAGE ELEVEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 Firefighter $27-44K Low/Moderate Customer Services Representative $20-32K Very Low/Low Librarian Technician $25-32K Low School Teacher $48-52K Moderate Physical Therapy Assistant $37-46K Low/Moderate Computer Operators $21-34K Very Low/Low Industrial Production Manager $47-77K Moderate/Above Real Estate Property Manager $31-53K Low/Moderate MedicalTechnician $29-S1K Low/Moderate Existing Home Prices Lake Elsinore - $135,000 Riverside County - $140,000 Top 10 Occupations by Sector - Lake Elsinore 1990 Occupation Number l. Services 1,738 2. Manufacturing 1,576 3. Retail Trade 1,338 4. Construction 1,303 5. Fire, Insurance, & Real Estate 462 6. Wholesale Trade 316 7. Transportation 241 8. Communications 185 9. Agriculture 157 10. Public Administration 82 PAGE TWELVE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 Major Employers - Lake Elsinore 2000 Company Employees 1. Lake Elsinore Unified School Dist. 1,681 2. Lake Elsinore Outlet Center 1,169 3. Wal-Mart 400 4. Lake Elsinore Storm 250 5. Lake Elsinore Resort/Casino 200 6. Labeda Wheels/Precision Sports 150 Needs Assessment Growth Needs E~sting Needs Special Needs Overpaying Overcrowding Special Needs Elderly Persons 1,527 persons (8%) 1,191 Households (19%) Disabled Persons 621 persons (3.5%) Large Families 1,022 households (17%) Female-Head of Households 708 households (12%) Homeless Persons 8,820 persons Countywide Farmworkers 157 employees in agricultural industries (2%) PAGE THIRTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 Constraints - Governmental Constraints Land Use Controls Second Units Requirements Building Codes and Enfarcement Local Processing and Permit Procedures Development Fees Constraints - Non-Governmental Constraints Environmental Infrastructure Land Prices Construction Costs Financing Review of Previous Element -1989-1998 Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total Units RHNA 1989 - New Construction 84 Units 112 Units 520 Units 784 Units 1,500 Units Review of Previous Elements - Accomplishments (More than Accomplished Goals) Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total Units RHNA 1989 - New Construction 66 Units (-18) 519 Units (+407) 809 Units (+289) 1,027 Units (+243) 2,421 Units (+921) PAGE FOURTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 Quantified Objectives -1998-2005 Total of 3,763 - New Construction Total of 35 - Rehabilitation Total of 130 - Preservation/Assistance Response to HCD Comments Comments from the California Department of Housing & Community Development Housing Needs - Resources & Constraints 1. Rehabilitation & Replacement (more specific details) 2. Development Fees/Exactions (provided details) 3. Special Needs - Elderly (data issues provided) Housing Programs 1. Housing Programs (Land Use Element/Development Code, Site Availability, Density Bonus, Low Income Housing Tax Credit and 20% Set Aside Funding). 2. Emergency Shelter/Transitional Housing (specific wording provided) 3. Equal Housing Opportunity(provided specific time line) Public Participation (provided) Mayor Kelley opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Hearing no requests to speak on the item, Mayor Kelley closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Councilman Hickman commented that Commissioner Polk had highlighted a good point regarding incentives to churches to work with the homeless PAGE FIFTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 and questioned if it were feasible to do so. Community Development Director Brady explained that Commissioner Polk addressed the intent to allow churches to provide the services far the homeless shelters and temporary assistance shelter. He noted that prior to the comments to HCD this concept was not included, however, the Planning Commission suggested that churches be allowed to provide the services but monetary incentive was not part of it. Councilman Buckley commented that generally the document was fine, however some of the information was out of date, since the maps in Tuscany Hills had lapsed. He wished there were a little more grounding in current reality, however it was probably impossible. He indicated that he did like the shelter issue falling under a CUP. He addressed the renovation issue and indicated that he would like to see even more, since there were a lot of interesting stxuctures in the downtown area. He commented that he did not want to see more R-2 or R-3 development. Councilwoman Brinley addressed the Housing Element in regard to the Redevelopment Agency and asked if CDBG funds could be used for low interest rate loans in the Downtown or to improve on Capital projects in the Downtown area. Mr. Johnson stated that in terms of redevelopment, the 20% set aside that needed to be devoted to low and moderate income housing and could either be used for production of new housing or maintenance/preservation of existing housing, however it must be devoted to helping the low to moderate income stock. He commented that CDBG was a Federal Program that could serve a variety of purposes and could provide assistance to social services, help infrastructure improvements, and low-income housing improvements. Community Development Director Brady explained that the item before Council was the Housing Element and the intention of the various programs identified; and clarified that the sources of funding would be for housing development and not for business improvements. Councilwoman Brinley noted that the text addressed historic preservation and since the Downtown Business District was PAGE SIXTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 declared a historic area it prompted her question. She suggested the creative use of CDBG funds for low to moderate-income homes. Councilwoman Brinley asked for a definition of the Section 108 Loan Repayment. Mr. Douglas stated that there were a variety of Federal programs that were targeted at different groups of people and situations. She questioned if it was similar to the use of RDA funds to implement low to moderate-income housing. City Attorney Leibold explained that the 108 Loan Repayment came from CDBG funds and was a Federal program. Councilwoman Brinley questioned if the City had applied for the 108 Loan funds through the RDA. City Attorney Leibold stated that the City would be in a better position after the approval of the Housing Element and the City was looking at various funding sources to enhance the City's ability to promote affordable housing. Councilwoman Brinley asked how the CDBG funds were being used in regard to Code Enfarcement. Community Development Director Brady explained that CDBG funds could be used for a variety of improvements and needed to be used in the areas that qualified for the funds in terms of income levels. He Further explained that in relation to Code Enforcement CDBG funds could be used for funding a portion of the staff time to implement the enforcement of the codes and regulations within specified areas. Councilwoman Brinley questioned what area it could be used in. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the Downtown area would qualify. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the area from Chaney to the Avenues qualifies through CDGB for Code Enforcement. Councilwoman Brinley inquired if the section addressing Home Investment Partnership Program qualified far the Redevelopment Agency for First Time Homebuyers. City Attorney Leibold explained that the 20% set aside funds were deposited into a special account by the Redevelopment Agency, and could be spent on First Time Homebuyer or other assistance programs, however the Home Program was another Federal funding source for which PAGE SEVENTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 the City of Lake Elsinore was not a participating jurisdiction. She indicated that the County was a participating jurisdiction and it had been discussed that the City could apply through the County for an allocation of some Home Funds, which was a separate and distinct Federal Fund. Councilwoman Brinley asked if the RDA could act as a conduit for the program. City Attorney Leibold explained that typically the funds are delivered and allocated to a municipality, however the two could be used together. She suggested that with the County being the participating jurisdiction for home purposes it would be allocated to the City based on population and a variety of other criteria. Councilwoman Brinley requested clarification that when the City was in better standing with the Housing Element, then the RDA would be able to participate in more grant programs. City Attorney Leibold explained that the update and certification of the Housing Element would make the City eligible to apply for certain State grants and other loan programs that were available far low to moderate income housing purposes. She further explained that the Federal Programs could care less about the status of the Housing Element and look more toward housing needs, housing assessments, population, Countywide issues and matching funds. She noted that the Home Program required 25% matching funds. Mr. Douglas explained that in Sacramento there was an effort to change the approach from a regulatory approach to an incentive approach for housing. He noted that housing does not pay for itself in terms of taY revenue versus the cost of providing services. He indicated that in last year's budget the State allocated $500 million to a variety of grant programs devoted to housing and there was now a bond issue that would be headed towards the November ballot that would, if passed, provide another huge pool of funds that would be available to local governments. Councilwoman Brinley asked if that would include the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Douglas stated that it would be directed to Local Government and not just Redevelopment Agencies, however Redevelopment Agencies are a part of local government so they would benefit. Mr. Douglas restated that it was the intent of the PAGE EIGHTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 State to encourage an incentive approach versus a regulatory authority; and by having a Housing Element in compliance, it would make it possible for the City to compete for the available funds. Councilwoman Brinley inquired if the Redevelopment Agency participated in housing programs as a conduit, then could that be used toward the 20% set aside. Mr. Douglas stated that the 20% set aside was based on the tax increment, which was separate, and the other sources would be additional sources of money. City Attorney Leibold explained that if the City were allocated Home Funds, Help Funds or other Housing Assistant grant funds, the units provided, so long as they meet the parameters of the various Redevelopment requirements could count as a credit. She further explained that the units could credit the production requirements of the Redevelopment Agency, however it would not offset or count towards the 20% set aside. She stated that the 20% set aside was an absolute calculation based on an allocation of gross tax increment. Councilwoman Brinley indicated that last July there were grants that applied to the Redevelopment Agency being a conduit to the City and prompted her questions regarding Home Funds for the preservation and maintenance of the Downtown area. City Attorney Leibold stated that there were a number of interrelations between RDA and City regarding grants. She noted that in the legislature there was an ongoing effort to coordinate the Housing Element and Housing Need to be consistent with the Redevelopment Agency activities toward housing. She explained that the RDA and City were a compatible match, however they were distinct requirements. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner clarified that it was his understanding that the Housing Element was a mandated goal and had no relationship as to how housing was financed or where the money comes from. Mr. Douglas confirmed and stated that what the State said was through the Regional Housing Needs process a share of the region's total housing need was allocated to each jurisdiction. He commented that how each jurisdiction deals with that, how they develop their element, their programs and policies PAGE NINETEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 was up to the local jurisdiction and how they would accomplish the requirements. He further commented that a number of programs had been discussed and many jurisdictions draw upon such as Redevelopment; set aside, Federal programs, State programs, etc. Councilman Schiffner clarified that none of the programs were defined or required, and the Housing Element was just a goal, which was up to the City to utilize in order to accomplish the goaL Mr. Douglas stated that the Housing Element was a goal, however it was also an action plan as to what the City was committed to do over the next five years. Mayor Kelley stated that the Housing Element was interesting reading and gave the Council and the residents a snapshot of the community. She noted that the document before Council was an update of the Housing Element done in 1995 and was a State mandated document. City Attorney Leibold stated that as Council prepared to take action the resolutions were reversed. She stated that Council should take action on the Negative Declaration, identified as 2002-10 and once action has been taken on the Negative Declaration, then approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment should be considered, identified as 2002-11. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2002-10 AND RESOLUTION NO. 2002-11 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE UPDATE TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PALN (LAKE ELSINORE HOUSING ELEMENT 2002-2005) - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2000-03. PAGE TWENTY - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-ll A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, MAKING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE FIItST CYCLE OF CALENDAR YEAR 2002 TO UPDATE THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (LAKE ELSINORE HOUSING ELEMENT 2000- 2005) - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2000-03. FINDINGS: The proposed General Plan Amendment for the update to the Housing Element of the General Plan complies with the policy and intent of Government Code Sections 65580 and 65581. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment for the update to the Housing Element of the General Plan complies with the required contents outlined in Section 65583 of the Government Code. The proposed General Plan Amendment for the update to the Housing Element of the General Plan is consistent with other elements of the Lake Elsinore General Plan. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment for the update to the Housing Element of the General Plan COiJLD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared to serve as environmental clearance. The proposed General Plan Amendment for the update to the Housing Element of the General Plan and adoption of the Negative Declaration comply with the requirements of CEQA and the City's Guidelines for Implementing CEQA. PAGE TWENTY-ONE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 22. Amended Town of Lucerne Final Map. (F:160.2) City Manager Watenpaugh noted that this particular map was more commonly known as Torn Ranch and was being brought forward by the previous property owners for the new property owners. Community Development Director Brady explained that this tract was originally recorded in 1888 with 9601ots; and in 1994 it was amended to reconfigure the lots to modern day standards. He noted that the portion in question originally contained 48 lots, but due to the alignment of Terra Cotta there were several non-conforming lots; this amendment would bring them into confarmance with the latest standards. He explained that the street widths would be increased from 50 feet to 60 feet, and the lot widths would be increased from 50 fee to 60 feet. He also explained that Woodlake had been adjusted to address the road curvature, alleys were removed and the total lots had been reduced from 48 to 37. He advised that K-B Homes had purchased the property and would be moving forward with the development of the land. Mayor Kelley opened the public hearing at 8 p.m., asking those persons interested in this item to speak. Hearing no one, the public hearing was closed at 8:01 p.m. Councilman Buckley indicated that he had no comment, but it appeared to make sense. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that this was one step toward gaining land improvements in an area, which needs improvement. Councilwoman Brinley indicated that she had no problems, and noted that the developer was agreeable. Councilman Hickman indicated that he was happy that the property had been purchased. PAGE TWENTY-TWO-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE APPROVE THE FINAL TOWN OF LUCERNE MAP, SUBJECT TO THE CITY ENGINEER'S ACCEPTANCE AND AUTHORIZE RECORDATION OF THE MAP WITH ACCEPTANCE OF DEDICATIONS. BUSINESS ITEMS 31. Second Reading - Ordinance No. 1079 - Re arding the Use of SafetX Eauinment for Skateboarding. In-Line and Roller Skating. (F:114.14) City Manager Watenpaugh noted that this item was for second reading on the regulations for the new Skatepark facility. Chris Hyland, 15181 Wavecrest Drive, indicated that she could not believe the money that had been spent on the Skatepark, particularly after driving up to see it and reading the comments by students in the newspaper. She addressed the proposed park assessment and indicated that they had formed a new committee to oppose the assessment. She suggested that the campground would be coming back to the City and requested that property owners contribute to their opposition efforts. She suggested that the excess taxes collected would be used to run the City, and noted the previous borrow from the library fund and park funds. She indicated that donations to the opposition could be sent to the committee at P. O. Box 673, Lake Elsinore, CA 92531. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BRINLEY TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1079 UPON SECOND READING BY TITLE ONLY. ORDINANCE NO. 1079 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF I~AKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA ADDING SECTION 10.566.070 TO PAGE TWENTY-THREE-CITY COLINCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.56 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE, PERTAINING TO THE USEOF SAFETY EQUIPMENT BY PERSONS PARTICIPATING IN SKATEBOARDING, IN-LINE AND ROLLER SKATING IN DESIGNATED PUBLIC AREAS. UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY, BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE 32. Industrial Project No. 2001-04 - Mini-Storage Facilitv Expansion for Lake Elsinore Self Storage located at 29151 Riverside Drive. (F:86.2) City Manager Watenpaugh introduced this item. Community Development Director Brady explained this request and the location at the corner of Collier/Riverside. He noted that the facility had expanded in the past two years and was looking to expand further with five new buildings on one acre of land. He detailed the number of units and square footages associated with the project. He indicated that the design scheme would be identical to what was previously built, showed the material board and explained the configuration of the buildings on the lot. He advised that the proposed expansion had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and recommended for approval. Councilman Buckley had no comments. PAGE TWENTY-FOUR-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner commented on the previous expansion and noted that they did a beautiful job of landscaping; and looked forward to completion of the project. Councilwoman Brinley indicated that she had no problem with the project, but questioned Condition 26 regarding the drainage channel. Community Development Director Brady explained that the drainage channel was adjacent to the subject project, and was subject to review by the City Engineer. Councilwoman Brinley inquired if there was an erosion problem with the site. Community Development Director Brady indicated that he was not sure, but the intent was to prevent it. Councilman Hickman expressed support of the project, noting that it would increase the economic base. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 2001- 04, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, EXHIBIT'A' THRU'E', AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. Findines The project, as proposed, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning District in which the project is located. 2. The project complies with the design directives contained in Section 17.82.060 and all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. Subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, the proposed project is not anticipated to resultin any significant adverse environmental impacts. 4. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Chapter 17.82.070 of the Zoning Code, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been PAGE TWENTY-FIVE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 incorporated into the approval of the subject project to ensure development of the property in accardance with the objectives of Chapter 17.82. PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS 1. Design Review approval for Industrial Project No. 2001-04 will lapse and be void unless building permits are issued within one (1) year of City Council approval. An extension of time, up to one (1) year per e~ctension, may be granted by the Community Development Director prior to the expiration of the initial Design Review approval upon application by the developer one (1) month prior to expiration. 2. Conditions of approval shall be reproduced on page one of building plans prior to their acceptance by the Building Division. All Conditions of Approval shall be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. 3. All site improvements approved with this request shall be constructed as indicated on the approved site plan and elevations. Revisions to approved site plans or building elevations shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. All plans submitted for Building Division Plan Check shall conform to the submitted plans as modified by Conditions of Approval, ar the Planning Commission/City Council through subsequent action. 4. Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Elsinare Valley Municipal Water District. Proof shall be presented to the Chief Building Official prior to issuance of building permits and final approval. 5. Security lighting shall be required. All exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and directed on-site so as not to create glare onto neighboring property and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal plane of the fiature. The light fixture proposed is to match the architecture of the building. PAGE TWENTY-SIX-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 6. The Planning Division shall approve construction trailers utilized during construction. 7. All exterior downspouts shall be painted to match the building color. 8. Materials and colors depicted on the materials board shall be used unless modified by the Community Development Director or designee. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that all required fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District have been paid. 10. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that all requirements and Conditions of Approval of the Riverside County Fire Department have been met. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. 12. The Community Development Director or designee shall approve any signage in compliance with the Zoning Code. 13. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide a soils report for approval by the Engineering Division. 14. All storage yards shall be enclosed on all sides with the use of a decorative screen wall a minimum of six (6') feet in height as measured from the highest grade elevation wither side of the screen. The screen shall be a decarative solid masonry wa1L 15. No storage of scrap, waste, or other materials not utilized in the production process permitted. PAGE TWENTY-SEVEN-CITY COUNCIL MINLJTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 16. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgment of Conditions" and shall return the executed original to the Community Development Department for inclusion in the case records. 17. All exposed slopes in excess of three feet (3') in height shall have a permanent irrigation system and erosion control vegetation installed, approved by the Planning Division. 18.Trash enclosures shall be constructed per City standards as approved by the Community Development Director or designee, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 19. The final landscaping/irrigation plan is to be reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Architect Consultant and the Community Development Director or Designee, prior to issuance of building permit. A Landscape Plan Check Fee will be charged prior to final landscape approval based on the Consultant's fee plus forty percent (40%). a) All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler system with 100% plant and grass coverage using a combination of drip and conventional irrigation methods. b) Applicant shall plant street trees, selected from the City's Street Tree List, a maximum of forty feet (40) apart and at least twenty- four-inch (24") box in size. c) All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six inch (6") high and six inch (6") wide concrete curb. d) Planting within fifteen feet (15') of ingress/egress points shall be no higher than thirty-six inches (36"). PAGE TWENTY-EIGHT-CITY COUNCIL MINiJTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 e) Landscape planters shall be planted with an appropriate parking lot shade tree to provide for 50% parking lot shading in fifteen (15) years. fl Any transformers and mechanical or electrical equipment shall be indicated on landscape plan and screened as part of the landscaping plan. g) The landscape plan shall provide for ground cover, shrubs, and trees and meet all requirements of the City's adopted Landscape Guidelines. Special attention to the use of Xeriscape or drought resistant plantings with combination drip irrigation system to be used to prevent excessive watering. h) All landscape improvements shall be bonded 100% Faithful Performance Bond, for two (2) years (100% for material and labor). i) All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed within affected portion of any phase at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested for any building. All planting areas shall include plantings in the Xeriscape concept, drought tolerant grasses and plants. j) Final landscape plan must be consistent with approved site plan. ~ Final landscape plans to include planting and irrigation details. ENGINEERING DIVISION 20. All Public Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) prior to building permit. PAGE TWENTY-NINE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 21. Pay all Capital Improvement fees (LEMC 1634, Res. 85-26). Fees include the street capital improvement fee in the amount of $1,307.00 and the Master Plan of Drainage fee in the amount of $6,000.00. 22. Submit a"Will Serve" letter to the City Engineering Division from the applicable water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project. Submit this letter prior to building permit issuance. 23. Construct all public works improvements per approved street plans (LEMC Title 12). Plans must be approved and signed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit (LEMC 1634). Curb, gutter, parkway landscaping and '/z width street pavement improvements will be required on El Toro Road. 24. Street and alley improvement plans and specifications shall be prepared by a Calif. Registered Civil Engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to Riverside County Road Division Standards, latest edition, and City Codes (LEMC 12.04 and 1634). 25. If the existing street improvements are to be modified, the e~sting street plans on file shall be modified accordingly and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit. An encroachment permit will be required to do the wark. 26. The drainage channel side slope along the property line will be required to be improved to protect the site from erosion, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Improvements for the channel can be included in the grading plans and shall be prepared by a Calif. Registered Civil Engineer. 27. Pay all fees and meet requirements of encroachment permit issued by the Engineering Division for construction of public works improvements (LEMC 12.08 and Resolution 83-78). PAGE THIRTY-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 28. Process and meet all parcel merger requirements prior to issuance to building permit. 29. Arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.) out of the roadway or alley shall be the responsibility of the property owner or his agent. 30. Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by Riverside County Fire. 31. Provide street lighting and show lighting improvements as part of street improvement plans as required by the City Engineer. 32.If grading exceeds 50 cubic yards, grading plans shall be prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer and approved prior to grading permit issuance. Prior to any grading, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit and post appropriate security. 33. All natural drainage traversing site shall be conveyed through the site, or shall be collected and conveyed by a method approved by the City Engineer. 34. Roofs should drain to a landscaped area whenever feasible. 35.In accordance with the City's Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling, the applicant shall be required to contract with CR&R Inc. for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction. 33. Riverside Count,~~~xated Plan (RCIP, Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Program MSHCPI - Resolution No. 2002-12. (F:140.1) PAGE THIRTY-ONE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 City Manager Watenpaugh noted that this item had been on the agenda previously, however staff requested that it be removed. He explained that Riverside County had been working to come up with a program, and had requested that each city adopt, in concept, a resolution of support for the program. He further explained that the previous item had been pulled because three cities had issues and were meeting with the County representatives. He advised that although the issues had not all been resolved, it was staffs recommendation to move forward at thistime. He clarified that it was still not known what the fees would be, how much land would be taken within the City and what density tradeoffs might be available, but noted that the matter would be back before the Council at a later date. Councilman Buckley expressed whole-hearted support of the proposed resolution, noting that the RCIP and MSHCP were key to development of a balanced future in Riverside County and Lake Elsinore. He explained that part of the RCIP plan included the species habitat plan and set aside land for roads. He stressed that the Integrated Plan would balance land and habitat, and allow for the creation of transportation corridors for big new roads. He noted the potential for a new road off the I-15 between Lake Elsinore and Carona to tie into the 241 Orange County Toll Road. He noted the potential benefits of having such a road close to Lake Elsinore. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner concurred with Councilman Buckley that the road would be a wonderful thing, but stressed that it was not part of the project and a long time away in the future. He indicated that he disagreed with the gains by the habitat, but noted that this approval was in concept only and would keep the project working. He reiterated that he would conceptually support the plan, but was opposed to the entire habitat plan. Councilman Hickman noted that there were builders willing to put acreage into this plan, and indicated that his only concern was that it was only PAGE THIRTY-TWO-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 conceptual approval. He indicated that until there was a signed agreement, no one's feet would be held to the fire. Councilwoman Brinley concurred that the approval was conceptual at this time, but noted that the final outcome was pending. Mayor Kelley noted that work had been ongoing on this plan for several years and she concurred that it was important to work together to solve issues on the overall Integrated Plan. She commented that while it was important to work together, she was concerned with financing the land required to be set aside, whose responsibility it would be, legal issues and the total amount of land. She noted that she was encouraged that the developers were coming to a resolution with the County. She indicated that she had not problem supporting the plan in concept. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-12: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN (RCIP), INCLUDING THE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSHCP) COMPONENT. 34. Western Riverside Countv Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF~ - Resolution No. 2002-13. (F:108.13) Mayor Kelley noted that this was similar to the last item. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that the TUMF was a stand-alone program, but critical to the implementation of the RCIP. He indicated that it would implement a mitigation fee to be paid on new homes; and while the dollar PAGE THIRTY-THREE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 amount had not been established but there was talk in the range of $2,000 to $5,000. He noted that a final agreement would be coming back to Council in the future. Councilman Hickman indicated that it was intended to support the major infrastructure, and it was important to support it. Councilwoman Brinley stressed that it was conceptual, but noted that she still had some major concerns regarding the City's TUMF fees. She inquired if the City's program would be coming back soon. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that it would be coming soon, and staff anticipated setting a meeting for mid-March. Councilwoman Brinley reiterated that this was approval in concept, but would not impact the City's fee until it was reviewed and implemented. Councilman Buckley reminded the public that the TUMF fee would be imposed on new houses and buildings, and be included in the price of the home. He expressed support of this item. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner expressed support in concept, but indicated that they were not sure that when the final fee was determined it would make everyone happy. He stressed that this fee had been in the works for three years and there was still no number. He indicated that as a concept it was fine. Mayor Kelley noted that she served on the Committee for several years, and had a lot of concerns, but concurred that there was a need to work with the City's neighbors on transportation plans. She indicated that she had heard discussion of fees between $5,000 and $6,000 per new home, and this would be passed on to new buyers. She concurred that there was a lot to be spent for the transportation corridar in the valley, however the anticipated local costs were not near those projected for the TUMF. She expressed concern that with the TUMF fee, the City would not get the total benefit of PAGE THIRTY-FOUR-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 the dollars paid and stressed the balancing issues the Council needed to weigh. She indicated that she had no problem with approving this item in concept. MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-13. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN THE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF). THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS RECESSED AT 8:19 P.M. THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:24 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest, commented on a rumor over the past couple of weeks concerning a plot to ask for the resignation of City Manager Watenpaugh; and noted that the people had backed out. She noted letters, which were mailed from San Bernardino and San Diego, addressed to her; and noted that she personally never received a copy in the mail. She suggested that the City Manager should not resign unless it included the two councilwomen; as both give him orders and are equally responsible for the downfall of the City. She encouraged Mr. Watenpaugh to stay unless the others resign. Dan Uhlry, 150 E. Lakeshore Drive, provided an update on the Rodeo being planned for Labor Day Weekend. He also advised that the Circus Chimera would be in town April 5- 7, 2002, and tickets would be on sale the first week of March from Mayhall Print Shop, Main Street Barber Shop, the Albertson's stores and PAGE THIltTY-FIVE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 Wildomar Feed. He indicated that more information was available from lakeelsinorerodeo.com Randy Hiner, 33350 Elizabeth Road, Temecula, noted that he was present at the meeting in February to give back to the community. He indicated that this time he had chosen to recognize the efforts of LEMSAR for the great service they provide to the community. He presented a donation in the amount of $2,500 to LEMSAR representative Gil Lerma. Mr. Lerma thanked Mr. Hiner on behalf of LEMSAR for his support. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS No Comments. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS No Comments. COMMITTEE REPORTS None. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Buckley commented on the following: 1) Noted concerns voiced to him by Mr. Ash for trash cans being left out after the trash has been collected and reminded the community that they were to be taken in by the next day. He commented that while it was a low priority for staff, it was still important and the potential for citations did exist for the future. PAGE THIRTY-SIX-CITY COiTNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 2) Advised that the Bott Dots and additional signage, were going in near Rice Canyon Elementary to discourage racing in the area. 3) Announced the Circus Chimera scheduled for Apri15 - 7, 2002 and reiterated the locations for ticket sales. 4) Thanked Mr. Hiner far his donation and thanked LEMSAR far their efforts. Councilman Hickman commented on the following: 1) Announced that the Women's Club Heritage Dinner was a huge success. 2) Requested that Staff contact San Antonio, Texas, for information and a presentation on their Riverwalk. 3) Noted that the Rodeo is a lot of fun, and expressed hopes that lots of people would participate. 4) Indicated that after three months of evaluating the City he had several concerns. He suggested that Code Enforcement was being done selectively, noting a boat on Pottery Street, and piles of dirt on North Main Street. He further suggested that a postal card be sent out when a complaint is received to acknowledge it. Indicated that he was tired of calling stores about shopping carts and being put on hold for ten minutes. He stressed the importance of a positive image and suggested contacting a company to work with stores on the shopping cart issue. He indicated that he wished staff would cut weeds along I- 15, as he didn't want to do it. He addressed the hours at City Hall and indicated that it should be open five days, as the citizens need more attention. He suggested going to a 9/80 work schedule. He indicated that he would not mention the campground and drownings as they PAGE THIRTY-SEVEN-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 were inexcusable. He stressed the importance of economic development and expressed concern that the State would take money from the cities. He commented that there was a need to create additional revenue sources, and suggested that if the City Council had known that the Miller's Outpost was leaving they could have worked to keep them. He noted that it was being replaced by a 99-cent store, and questioned the need for another one in town. He requested that Economic Development work closer with the City Council and questioned the pending car dealership. He suggested that nothing was happening, and stressed that the City Council needed to be kept informed so they could provide incentives to keep businesses. He addressed the proposed tax assessment and suggested now was not the time, but possibly later. He indicated that the City had lost money running the campground. He noted the expenses for the fire station; and commented that the Skatepark was in private enterprise with no return on the citizens' tax dollars. He indicated that until there were changes to prove that staff could manage money he could not support the tax assessment. He noted the additional dollars allocated to old projects at the last meeting; and commented that LEAF had been without a contract for two years and suggested it was irresponsible. He indicated that he was being up front with City Hall and suggested that staff had three months to prove that it can manage the City, clean it up and solve problems. Councilwoman Brinley commented on the following: 1) Noted the death of Planning Commission Chairman A1 Wilsey and his contributions to the community. She commented that he was a City family member of high integrity and honor who loved the community. She noted that she served on the Planning Commission with him for six years and knew him to always be a thoughtful and courteous man, who always had the City's best interest at heart. She also noted that he was a good businessman with a big heart. She PAGE THIRTY-EIGHT-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 expressed condolences on behalf of the Council and sent their best thoughts, wishes and prayers to Rita, Desiree and Dusty. She commented that A1 was a good man and a good friend who would truly be missed. She announced his memorial service to be held at the Wilsey home on Saturday, March 2nd at 10 a.m. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner commented on the following: 1) Addressed the loss of Commissioner Wilsey, noting that he served with him on the Planning Commission for tl~ree years and he was a fine friend and good public official. He indicated that he would miss him a great deal, and encouraged Rita as some one who had lost a spouse that as time went on it would get better. Mayor Kelley commented on the following: 1) Congratulated the students on their participation in Student Government Day, and noted that staff worked hard and put on a very good program for the students. 2) Congratulated the Girls Softball program on their opening day and increase of 150 girls this year; and their improvements to the concession stand. 3) Announced the following upcoming events: a. Household Hazardous Waste Collection on March 2"d from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the City Yard. b. Swick Matich dedication of "Freedom Field" on March 2"a c. Open Air Market - Downtown on March 3rd. d. Outflow Channel Project Starts March 4~`. e. Skatepark Dedication following the Easter Egg Hunt on March 30~'. PAGE THIRTY-NINE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 f. Election Day on March 5`~' and encouraged support of Propositions 40 and 42. 4) Noted a letter from a new resident of Granite Homes regarding concerns about basketball hoops on sidewalks at several addresses. She indicated that there was already an ordinance in place, however there was no name on the letter to allow her to respond. She further indicated that staff was addressing the issue, and asked that the letter be included as part of the record of this meeting. The letter read as follows: Dear Lake Elsinore Council Members, I would like to bring to your attention a concern I have as a new resident to Lake Elsinore. I reside in the Castellina (Granite) Homes development. The past several months when I occasionally walk my neighborhood I have noticed a great number of Basketball Pole Backcourt units (24 hours, seven days a week) obstructing sidewalk paths and City traveled streets along the curbside. The attached photographs and the following addresses are a few examples just within a two street area: - 21050 and 21090 Kimberly Court, 31556 Canyon View, 31549 and 31524 SageCrest. At times the street sweeper has to maneuver around these obstructions not cleaning the area in proximity. Cars from visitors and residents nearby are not able to park by these units in public-street areas that were made for vehicle parking and traveling. When strong winds have occurred some have toppled over into the street. I am fearful that someone or a small child returning home from school will be struck and PAGE FORTY-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 seriously injured should a Basketball unit fall. In the evening I have witnessed those cars now traveling from the Franklin street access road onto Canyon Estates and not familiar with our streets come through our neighborhood at night and almost collide with these units. They veer to the left onto the oncoming residential traffic lane to avert a collision because no reflective paint or postings are on these black painted units. It is just a matter of time because no ordinance or code enforcement policy is in place that someone will be seriously hurt. Because these units are in the street I'm certain that someone injured will attempt to place blame on all parties (owners of units, City, etc.) I feel an ordinance, requiring these units be placed in rear or side yards after use on their own private property "only", be passed with a requirement of a fine after one warning. I grew up with a basketball stop on the garage. We seldom were in the street, only to retrieve a ball and NOT play in traffic lands, which is now common practice. We are required to place trash containers out of view of the public far away from the front area our residence. This should also be the case with these basketball units when not in play. I feel that this practice is not just a two-block area, this situation can be found throughout the City. It de-values our properties and possibly deters potential buyers from purchasing a home that is for sale in close proximity t a basketball unit because of the obstruction, congregation of play IN THE STREET, and the nuisance of possible damage to a vehicle parked within a street play area. I'm certain the realtor association membership would agree with me. Let me site an example, most recently my neighborhood was requested as a result of a repavement street project to park our cars on another street. I complied with this request, leaving my car parked one entire day two streets away. Unfortunately I PAGE FORTY-ONE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 parked by a basketball unit thinking nothing of it. When I retrieved my car I had a denY on my hood, coincidentally it looked like that of a size just smaller than a basketball. I confronted, suggested, to the adult/owner of the nearby basketball unit that the damage occurred by street basketball play. The response was that I should not have parked my car nearby? I guess our streets are not for parking and our streets are now replacing parks for basketball court play. Obviously, I do not want my name or address known to these residents because they are already aware of ine voicing my concern to them directly. Talking to these adults and neighbors has not worked. So I am appealing to my council leadership to take corrective action by passing a restrictive ordinance to protect its citizens, preserve the use of community streets for travel purposes (walking and driving), maintain our quality of life and property values, and lastly encourage basketball participants to use our parks as they were intended or keep their play on their private property. For those not complying with the ordinance and not using the public parks they can pay their way be a fine, let's say $39, which will go towards the parks assessment fund. Perhaps after a few contributions, these portable courts will be used as they were intended on private property only and placed away as indicated "portable" placement. In closing, I would also like to make the City aware of a homebased clothing operation in a residential garage...manufacturing and selling clothing. This resident has an average of 6 employees and cars parked at various times close to seven days a week. At the least, the City should be imposing a business license fee and collecting on the local sales tax, a revenue loss from a home-based operation. The address is 31512 Stoneycreek. PAGE FORTY-TWO-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES=FEBRUARY 26, 2002 Thank you for your attention and I hope to hear this written read into the record at the next council meeting that is aired on cable, under written communicationsreceived (public hearing) for those unable to attend a council meeting. A Castellina Home Development, Lake Elsinore resident. 5) Noted that everyone had received the Lake Elsinore Community Services Brochure and noted that there are a number of nice activities planned for the summer including the Photo Contest, and Concert Series. She noted that the dates for the concert series would be changed as the Philharmonic had to be moved to September 7`~', and noted the other concert dates. She commented on the need far funding for the concert series and asked Mr. Hiner for his participation, noting that she was currently seeking donations. 6) Indicated that Commissioner A1 Wilsey would be missed by everyone and noted that he had dedicated a lot of time to the City. She expressed condolences to Rita and noted the memarial service scheduled for 10 a.m. on Saturday. She also noted that A1 had been the Chairman of the Planning Commission since 1995, and on the Commission since 1988. She commented that he was always very positive about the community, jovial and upbeat, with a nice word for everyone. She indicated that he would be sorely missed. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BX BRINLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL PAGE FORTY-THREE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 26, 2002 MEETING AT 8:45 P.M. ~~ `~~~'~ U ~ ~~7~~~`~ G~TIE KELLEY, MAYOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE A~~t.ST: '~ ~ ~ < ~ VICIiI KAS , MC, CITY CLERK/ i~UMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CI~'Y OF LAKE ELSINORE