Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-2002 City Council/RDA Study Session_ NIINUTES CTTY COUNCIL/REDELOPMENTAGENCY STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002 ~~~~~~~~~~~,~*~~~*,~~,~~~~~,~,~~*x~,~~x~*,~*~*:~*,~~~~~~~,~*~,~,~~~~~~~:~,~ CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kelley called the Study Session to order at 4:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCII,MEMBERS: BUCKLEY, SCffiFFNER, KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRTNLEY, HICKMAN Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Devetopment Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Recreation and Toarism Manager Edelbrock and Deputy City Clerk Paredes. DISSCUSSION 1. Agenda Review. (F:44.1) City Manager Watenpaugh presented an overview and clarified the presentations to the Sheriff's Department Honorees. Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 2, regarding the Warrant List. He questioned Check Na 69117,to Dell Marketing. Ciry Manager Watenpaugh stated that was the company thatprovided the Gity's software. Councilman Buckley questioned CheckNa 69174 to _ Pistone and Wolder. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that Pistone and Wolder was a Law Firm that was doing work' with Civic Parmers. PAGE TWO - STUDY SESSION'= APRI[. 23, 2002 Councilman Buckley questioned CheckNo. 69192 to Scott Fazekas & Associates. City 1vlanager Watenpaugh indicated that was the firm the City contracted with for plan reviews. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that the fee for plan reviews was part of the cost recovery program. Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 4, regaxding a Clairn; Against the City from Carol J. Gates and asked if the claim of $21.75 had to be handled by the Claims Adinu~istrator. City Attorney Leibold stated that the Claims Administrator, as part of the agreement with the Joint Powers Authority, handled all claims. City Manager ' Watenpaugh stated that the Council could choose to pay the claim. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffiter stated that itwould be the responsibility of the contractor and the' claim would be their responsibility and should be referred to them. Councilman Buckley agreed. City Manager Watenpaugh addressed Item No. 5, regarding the Applications for Flanning Gommission. He advised that Council had received the letter of resignation from Planning Commissioner Polk, effective immediately. Mayar Kelteg indicated that there wouldbe tw.o positions open and they would be filled July 1S`. She asked if Commissioner Polk would be available fora presentation in appreciation of his service to the City. Community Development Director Brady indicated that Commissioner Polk wouid let staff know when he was available. Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 6, regarding Final Approval of Parcel Map 30254. He inquired if grading had begun at the site. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that they:had begun grading and would be moving on to one of the parcels for their new structure. Cauncilrnan Buckley addressed Item No. 7, regarding Change Order Number 1; for Lincoln Street; Collier and Grand Avenues Pavement Rehabilitation and asked for clarification. City Manager Watenpaugh presented an overview of the payment for the project and stated that the Change Order would be within the budget. PAGE THREE - STUDY SESSION - APRIL 23, 2002 City Manager Watenpaugh addressed Item No. 21, regard'mg the continued public hearing for consideration of objections ta the City's Weed AbatementProgram. Mayor Kelley asked for an overview. City Attorney Leibold presented an overview of the Weed Abatement lien procedure through the County. She explained that the County could not conduct a tax sale until the property was five years in arrears in t~es and then the liens would be included in the amount of the sale unless the City had objections. She noted that if a lien were on the property, it would have been a current lien and was not included as part of the redemption amount and would stay as a lien on the property. She:presented an overview of the Teeter Plan and explained that if the City found that a lien was filed in error, then the City wouldxefund it to the property owner. Mayar Pro Tem Schiffner ciarified that a lien would show on a title report. City Attorney Leibold clarified that if a title report were done, then the lien would appear on that report, however when the County conducts a tax sale they do not insure the title and therefore there would be no title report. She further e~cplained that the current lien would be the only item to appear on the title because the previous liens would ha~e been part of the properiy tax sale. Councilman Buckley questioned the timing of the Weed Abatement Year. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that it was July 1S` to July 1$`. Mayor Kelley addressed Item No. 31, regarding Extension of Time for ' Tentative Tract Map No. 27851 "Lusk Elsinore". She questioned the number of properiy owners from Tnscany Hills that were dissenting to the easement. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that he was told that there were three or four property owners that wonld not participate. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner commented on the grading :for the Tentative Tract Map and noted that the properties below the existing homes were approximately twenry feet above the street in front of the lot and questioned the necessity of the lats being that high. He further noted that the problem that had been ongoing was the elevation of the lots directly adjacent to Tuscany Hills. He commented that he could not see that there would be any problem to grade the lots tem feet lower PAGE FOUR - STUDY SES~ION - APRII::23, 2002 than the suggested elevation: He asked if there was some purpose for the higher elevation. Community Development Director Brady stated that the City did not req~ire the ~gher e~evatior~; i~owever it was part of the approvedplau. He stated ttiat he did not know what agreements were made with the Army Gorp of Engineers, however representatives from Lusk would be present at the Gouncil Meeting to answer any : questions. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stated that the only reason he could see having the higher elevations was to provide a view over the proposed houses in front of the lots in. question and he: felt it was not a. wise tliing to ruin the view of tt~e e~sYit;g houses to provide views for newer built homes since five feet would seem to- solve the problem and eliminate the need for an easement. Community Development Director Brady stated that the staf~ woutd have no objections to a reduction in elevarion. Councilman Buckley concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner. - Mayor Ero Tem Schiffner addressed•Item No: 32, xegarding the Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Riverside and the City of Lake Elsinore for the Riverside County Integated Project. He questioned how deeply the City would be involved ifthe Ciry approved the MOU at this time. He commented that he did not buy into the program and did not want to get past the point of "no retum". City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that the MOU the Cities of Riverside, Moreno-Valley and Corona negotiated with the County spells out some things that the County had not done in the past, and if they were: to move forward and be supportive, with no guarantees, to hy to implement the MSHCP and the RCII', then the County would work to look at the zoning and land use within the Spheres of Influence; develop standards similar to the cities; and charge residents for services, which they currently do not do. He explained that by getting involved in the MOU it stated that the County would participate in working with tlie ciries and limit COIs to a two year term, :unless they could be a viable eity. He stated that it did not guarantee, on either side, that it would be implemented, although a11 the cities were trying to establish PAGE FIVE - STUDY SESSION - APRIL 23, 2002 ` how to implement and work with the County: He indicated that otherwise the program would not work for anyone: Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner clarified that by approving the MOU the City was not locked into the program. City Manager Watenpaugh confirmed. Mayor Kelley commented that she feltthat the cities were being pushed into the program and there were still a lot of issues that needed to be resolved. City Manager Watenpaugh' stated that the TUMF and the Study that had been proposed for AB-1600, showed that if it were implemented the fee could be as high as $10;000 per unit. He noted that the fee implemented 'm Coachella Va11ey was $700, however they did not have the infrastructure issues the Ciry of Lake Elsinore was facing. He noted that there had been discussions regarding the implementation of only a portion of the plan, with the backbone of the projectrunning from Hemet to Orange County, and could amount to as much as $4,800 a year: Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner asked if the builders in Lake Elsinore would be subject to the lacal as well as the County T[7MF. City Manager confirmed that they would be responsible for both and defined the two pmjects and how they would impact the residents: Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that the City would be in competition with the unincorporated area. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that the fees would be equitable for both areas since the County would ha~e the Regional and County TLJMF. Cauncilman Buckley commented that the City would not be in a disadvantaged position. He noted that Riverside County fees were approximately $S,OOOxo $7,000 less than San Diego Gounty. There was general discussion regarding the TUlvff~' and where the County would utilize the money. Ciry Attorney Leibold indicated that there was a typographical error on point 6 of page 3, and should read on the last line as follows: "above to apply to City projects within one half mile of the City Limit". She stated that the purpose of the MOU was to create cooperative efforts between the County and the City regarding land use planning and development where the borders met. She indicated that it would require the Gity to allow the County to comment on projects wifihin one half mile of the Ciry Limits, therefore the Counry would have to adopt standards that were compatible with City standards on the County side. She commented that she felt the PAGE SIX - STUDY SESSION - APRIL 23; 2002 !: MOU was a good positive step. She noted that the MOU stated in poitits two and three that the City would support and work in good faitti with the County of Riverside and the Western Riverside Gouncil of Governments to develop and implement an MSHCP for Western Riverside County and similarly a TUMF for Western Riverside Counry. She stated that she thought it was impiicit that the City and the County work together to develop and implement a"mutually agreeable" or "mutually acceptable" TUMF fee and MSHCP. She stated that the City needed to make it understood that they would : work in good faith, however it must work for everyone, which was the concern of Council. She suggested that Council included verbiage that statecl "mutually acceptable to a11 parties". Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stated that he did not have a problem with the traffic plan; however what he was concerned about was the MSHGP and stated that if wording could be added to modify the meaning he would be more comfortable with the MOU. Councilman Buckley stated that if the words "mutually acceptable" were added it would be acceptable. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner requested that the City Attorney propose verbiage that did not totaliy obligate the City to the MSHCP, which would take 19,000 acres :from the City. He noted tl~at the City wanted to be a part of the process, however there were issues that were unacceptable to the City and he did not want to see the Gity locked into an agreement that would jeopardize the City. City Manager Watenpaugh addressed Item No. 33, regarding the Park and Recreation Maintenance Llistrict. He stated that Mr; Cooper would be at the City Council Meeting to answer any quesrions that Council might ha~e: He noted that staff was available for questions at this time. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that there was a reference to a five acre cap that was established at the request of Councii. He commented that he could not remember when thatwas done. Councilman Buckley stated that he had made a review of the minutes and stated that he did not mean to imply that vacant land should get a break with a cap. He indicated that since the property owner had more land, they would clearly get more benefits and that was not his intent. He stated that it was about voting, but not about paying, however he understood that the two could not be separated. He PAGE SEVEN - STUDY SESSION - APRIL 23; 2002 indicated that if the choice were to not vote and not pay versus vote and pay, he would choose vote and pay. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stated that to change to the five-acre cap would cause some considerable calculations to be changed. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that Mr. Cooper was trying to respond to Council's concern that the potential of large property owners carried a weighted vote because of the number of acres they held, and then would be able to control the outcome of the election regardiess of what the smaller property owners wanted. He explained that the thought was that if there were a ~ve-acre cap it would provide mare property owners an equal opporiunity xo vote for or against:the proposal and would not make a major change to the revenue amounts. Councilman Buckley stated that it was his understanding that the revenue amounts would drop by a third. Ciry Manager Watenpaugh stated that the proposal was at the maa~imum percentage the City could assess based on what the general fund was committed to and based on a cost benefit ratio. He commented that the services for the parks the City had been funding would not be eliminated; but rather would create a revenue source, so that in the future, should Council be placed in a position to cut - serviceS they would not be forced to close the parks again because they were a non- mandated item: He further explained that this action would a11ow Council to increase services to the level prior to tiie budget cuts that Council had to:make. He stated that it was staff's approach that Council felt it was fine for the large property owner to pay; howeuer they should not be weighted and allowed to pass a vote if it was opposed by a majority of the other residents votes. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner questioned the percentages in relationship to the General Fund. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that additional revenue would be generated as each vacantproperty was developed in the large pareels. He noted that there was a general benefit that the City could not assess for and that enfailed an area of three miles around each park. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner questioned the MOU with the County from the previous item discussed and noted that park benefits were not addressed in the MOU. He inquired, if in the future, the County would participate m the maintenance and operation of the PAGE EIGHT - STUDY SESSION - APRIL 23; 2002 : parks that were of benefit to them. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that in the MOU the County wouid be assessing new developments for parks and library services, which created an opportunity for the Councii to work with the County on that issue. He noted that the Mayor met with Supervisor Buster regarding a number of issues and one part of the discussion addressed the County sharing the load for services including the Lake, and he was willing to consider the issue. He commented that he felt that the door had' been opened and the opportunity did pose itself. Councilman Buckley questioned the estimate of costs and asked for an accounting of the additional -$900;000 that was spent on parks. Ciry Manager Watenpaugh : indicated that the $900,000 was for administrative overhead; Senior Center Gosts; and the Cultural Center: He explained that they were costs that were charged to the parks operation budget, however were not specifically from the parks operation budget. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that the $75,000 for Assessment Disirict Formation and Administrarion was a one-time'fee. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that itwould roll into the capital; which would allow $75;000 to provide improvements, and new capital items for the park facilities after the election. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner questioned the difference between the amount the City would contribute and the amount that the Assessment District would contributec City Ivlanager Watenpaugh explained that the Gity would contribute half of the ParkMaintenance and the rest was the Senior Center, Administrative costs and Gultural Center. He presented an overview of the services that the Assessment would a11ow the City to provide. Councilman Buckley questzoried the expenditure of the remainder of the balance of the Parks Budget. Administrative Services Director Boone stated that approximately $500,000 of the budget was for Lake Operations, which was now a part of the Parks Budget: Mayar Kelley.questioned the 3%. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that a maximum of 3% was the amount allowed as an escalator to allow Council to iricrease annually for cost of living increase; utilities etc., and that amount would have to be voted upon by Council. Councilman Buckley addressed the new development and the three proposed parks questioned and if the money from the assessments on the new homes in that azea supported PAGE NINE - STUDY SESSION - APRIL 23; 2002 the three parks. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated:that the ; assessment could not cover 100% of the cost since the General Pund must subsidize per the bene~t ratio analysis. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stated that currently the City was covering 100% of the cost and the Assessment would give some relief to: the General Fund. He noted that the City has been a position of ietting developers not build parks since the City could not maintain then and the Assessment would allow the City to provide the necessary parks. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that within the next two years there would be General Plan revisions based on what happened with the MSHCP and the number of units that would be built: Mayor Kelley noted that the user groups were very supportive of the Assessment and came out in support of the Assessment. She indicated that they expected their light fees to be paid by the Assessment. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that if Councii determined that the City should pay the light ` fees then the City would pay: Councilman Buckley stated that the user groups should pay the light fees. Mayor Kelley indicated that the user groups do more than pay for the lights and noted the amount of maintenance the user groups da on the various fields. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that it was common for user groups to pay for lighting and some maintenance m other cities and noted. that in some cities the user groups perform 100% of the field maintenance. Mayar Pro Tem Schiffner stated that he would like to see the day when additional income is received so a11 of the services could be paid for by the City through sales tax, however the Assessment was necessary at this time to provide services. Councilman Buckley stated that he was not necessarily in fa~or of the Park Assessment, however he wished to apologize if he gave the impression that the major landowners had too much power, howeverhe thought thatthe cap should be set at 50 acres. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner asked what it would take to recalculate the Assessment and commented thathe wouid like to know what the new calculation would be. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the Assessment wouid have to be recalculated and he would inform CounciL PAGE TEN - STUDY SESSION - APRIL'23, 2002 Councilman Buckley noted that Mr. Lewis who had been in charge of the "Ticket to Ride'? event was present and wished to speak to Council. Mayor Kelley invited Mr: Lewis to speak. . Mike Lewis, representative of "Ticket to Ride" noted that he had a business in the City: of Lake Elsinore. He indicated that he had been empowered by the Riverside County Sheriff's Depactment to put together a youth safety progam; and noted the recent fatal bicycle accidents on Highway '74. He commented on the number of children killed on bicycles in the United States. _He noted that the sotution to safety was education and the provision of safety equipment. He presented his eaperience m eatreme sports and stated that he was the current youth and fishing coordinator for the American Sport Fishing Association: He indieated that he did tl~ree safety expos a year : through Fred Ha11 and Associates in conjunction with the American Sport Fishing Association: He indicated that he became a volunteer in the "Ticket to Ride" program because he cared about kids safety. He : presented an overview of the various'organizations that were involved or had donated to the program. He noted that the.program asked for ,very little:from the City of Lake Elsinore and what they received was a bill for $1,000 deposit, a bill for a business license and a separate bill for insurance for one day. He stated that he felt that the City should be more supportive since it was for the safety of the children of Lake Elsinore and he felt that the City should be willing to absoxb the cost for the citizens. Mayor Kelley asked if Mr. Lewis had requested a waiver of fees. Mr: Lewis stated that he had started with the project after the Diamond Stadium was reserved, therefore he did not know about the cfiarges until recently. Mayar Pro Tem Schiffner asked if anyone from the organization had asked for a waiver. Mr. Lewis stated that he met with staff in February and explained that he was not informed that they needed to apply for a waiver. He stated that he felt that the City could provide the $1,000 fee; business license and insurance as their part of the "Ticket to Ride"event, since the other agencies were contributing to the program as we1L Mayor Kelley explained that if any organization was going to request a waiver of fee, then it shouid appear on a Council Agenda for Council consideration. Mr. PAGE ELEVEN - STUDY SESSION = APRIL 23, 2002 Lewis stated that unless someone informed him of the proper protocol there would be no way of knowing that he had to request an item to be placed on the Agenda. City Manager Watenpangh stated that he did not know when Mr. Lewis requested a waiver of fees, however staff - had waived some of the fees on an administrative 1eve1 and if the Council wished him to waive the fees_administrarively he would: He - reminded Council that the City did not have insurance to cover skateboarding and they would ha~e to pay for the insurance, however the $1;000 was a deposit that would be refundable. He noted that he did not know if the Sheriffls Department was sponsoring the event, however the fliers contained the Sheriff's logo and the City logo. He cornmented that he felt that the City was always supportive and noted that all the items that had been requested were set by Council Policy. Community Services Director Sapp stated that the request was consistent with all other events held in the City. He noted that the Downtown Merchants Associarion for Street Fairs, car shows, etc. and a11 other organizations were required to provide the City with a deposit, business license and insurance. He noted that the City dealt with Robert F: Drzver for insurance and the Ciry had just received the amount for the policy. Mr. Lewis noted the different activities and services that wouid be availabie and stressed his concern for the safety of the children and the ad~antages that each child and their family would receive from the event; and noted that he did notwant to eliminate any program because there was not enough money due to the requirement for deposits and insurance. Mayor Kelley suggested that Mr. Lewis meet with City Manager Watenpaugh to resolve the problems. Councilman Buckley stated that Mr. Lewis needed to have the issues addressed as soon as possible since the event was scheduled for May 4~' and there would not be time :to have it appear on the next Regular City Council Agenda. MayorKelley stated that she had a similar request from another entity and she noted that it was not an emergency item and as a result there was no waiver. City Attorney Leibold stated that if Council wished to consider the waiver for fees for the event it could be considered on the same day as their Study Session on Apri130`h and would predate the event. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stated that the reason that there had been so much PAGE TWELVE - STUDY SESSION - APRIL 23, 2002 discussion regarding the item was because the Council did notha~e the authority to add the item to the City Couneil Agenda. He expiained that it would be possible to set a Special City Council Meeting for Apri130'~' and explained that the reason the City billed "Kids on Track" was because it was notbrought before Gouncil; and to waive fees the procedure would be to present a request at a set City Councii Meeting to allow for consideration. Mr. Lewis stated that he was neverinformed of the fees that would be required of them to acqnire a waiver. Mayor Kelley stated_that Council appreciated his efforts and noted that there were several other organizations with events that were just as worthwhile as"Ticket to Ride", however staff aud Council must follow policy; and should an brganization wish to request a waiver, they must make a formal request. She stated that Council would set a Special Meeting for April 30~': Councilman Buckley asked if the Ciry cashed deposit checks. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner assured Mr. Lewis that Council would do everything that was possible to help. Mayor Keltey questioned the ability of the City to co-sponsor activities and suggesfed that would aliow a difference in fees. Mr. Lewis provided sponsorship.packages for Council, Redevelopment A~encv Aaenda Review No Comments. ADJOURNMENT THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENGY STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 5:32 P.M. PAGE THIRTEEN - STUDY SESSION - APRIL 23, 2002 G ~ KELLE `, YO TY OF LAKE ELSINORE Respectfully submitted, .~ A riaG~ des, Deputy City Clerk CTTY CLERK HU1~iIAN RESOURCES DII2ECTOR CITI' OF LAKE ELSINORE