Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-28-2000 City Council/RDA Study Session1VIINUTES CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TiJESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2000 ~~*~~~~~~:~~:~~:~~~~:~:~~~~~:~x~~:~~~~~x~:~:~*~:~:~~~~x~:~~~~:~~~x~:~~:~*~*~:~~:~~:~~ CALL TO ORDER The City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session was called to order by Mayor Brinley at 4:03 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Brinley. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: COLTNCILMEMBERS: METZE, PAPE Also present were: Assistant City Manager Best, City Attorney Leibold, ' Community Development Director Brady, Information/Communications Manager Dennis and City C1erWHuman Resources Director Kasad. AEenda Review (F:44.11 Mayor Brinley noted the absence of City Manager Watenpaugh at this meeting; but advised that he would be present for the Council Meeting this evening. Presentations Mayar Brinley questioned the Reader's Choice Award. Assistant City Manager Best indicated that the Mayor would be accepting the award from representatives of the Press Enterprise. Assistant City Manager Best indicated that the Business of the Quarter would be My Buddies Pizza, and Mr. & Mrs. Richardson would be present to accept. Councilwoman Kelley noted that My Buddies delivered pizzas for three years at Grad Night festivities for Temescal Canyon High School; and worked Grad Night after the restaurant closed in the evening. She stressed that they have contributed heavily for many years. Mayor Brinley inquired if Information/Communications Manager Dennis would be providing the Website Demo. Staff confirmed. Consent Calendar City Attomey Leibold indicated that she would be pulling item no. 3 for discussion PAGE TWO - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 28, 2000 after the business items. Mayar Brinley noted the need to clarify that item no. 8 would consider changing the street name to Canyon Hills Parkway, rather than Canyon Hills Road. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Brinley suggested that item no. 21 was a housekeeping item. Assistant City Manager Best concurred, but explained that the grant had already been received, so this was the procedural requirement of a public hearing. She also noted the list of programs included in the agenda item. Councilman Schiffner suggested that there might be some interest in hearing about the item at the meeting. BUSINESS ITEMS Councilwoman Kelley noted the level of interest in the appointments to the Enron Committee requested by item no. 31, and inquired if there would be a need for alternates or more appointments. Assistant City Manager Best indicated that she knew they were not looking for elected officials, but Kathy Russeth would be in the audience to respond to the need for alternates. Mayor Brinley questioned the ability to pick a representative from outside the City, within the County area. City Attorney Leibold indicated that there were no legal grounds or statutes to regulate this committee or require residency. Councilman Schiffner suggested this might ease some of the concerns. Mayor Brinley noted that her choice was from the county area and had been involved in the community for a long time. City Attorney Leibold noted that Enron had requested a diversified group of community representatives. Councilman Schiffner noted that he would ha~e also had several options from the County area. City Attorney Leibold questioned the balance of the appointments. Councilman Schiffner indicated that issue had not been resolved as Supervisor Buster was not planning to appoint anyone to the Committee. Mayor Brinley noted that it was a City/County issue and she believed the Committee should be diversified, but wanted to be sure if there was any legal restriction. Councilman Schiffner noted that it was not necessarily a bigger issue for the City than the County. Councilwoman Kelley noted that she would ask about alternates; and indicated that her appointment would be a City resident, however an alternate would be a County resident. City Attorney Leibold advised with regard to the item 32 the report on the Graffiti Ordinance was not ready now, but analysis was underway. She suggested modification on Page 3 of the ordinance, moving the last sentence out of paragraph c. Mayor Brinley indicated that questions might arise on this item at the meeting. City Attorney Leibold indicated that she would check on the status of the review, prior to the meeting. Councilwoman Kelley noted that she had several addresses for graffiti clean-up. Mayor Brinley noted that the Police Department caught a tagger and suggested that the Police Chief provide an update at the meeting. PAGE THREE - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 28, 2000 Councilwoman Kelley questioned the project location on item no. 34. Community Development Director Brady clarified the location. Councilman Schiffner noted that there had been some controversy regarding use of the easement. Councilwoman Kelley expressed surprised at the inclusion of 101 parking spaces. Mr. Brady noted that staff desires to obtain more parking than is needed in the case of churches. Councilwoman Kelley stressed that this sounded like a large parking area for a residential area. Community Development Director Brady clarified that churches are allowed in residential area with a Conditional Use Permit; and noted that this one is located on a major thoroughfare, so the intent is to get all of the parking off the street, by putting it on-site. Councilman Schiffner noted that the parking would not be visible from the street. Council questioned the inclusion of play equipment on-site. Mr. Brady indicated that there were turf areas, but no play equipment was shown. He further indicated that the existing house would be an office. Councilwoman Kelley noted the future intent to take over additional parking and questioned the notification provided to the property owners in the area. Mr. Brady indicated that the standard notification had been provided and only one property owner came to the Planning Commission meeting, and the Commission tried to mitigate her concerns by providing a block wall. Councilman Schiffner questioned the neighbor's level of concern with the project. Mr. Brady clarified the discussion. Mayor Brinley questioned how soon they planned to add the school. Community Development Director Brady indicated that was a future plan, which would need to come back for further consideration, as there was no formal application for that use at this time. Councilman Schiffner inquired how the primary ingress and egress issues would be controlled. Mr. Brady indicated that the regulation would be through signage to encourage use of the primary driveways. Mayor Brinley inquired if it was possible to condition the use of the driveways. Mr. Brady indicated that it became a matter of enforcement. Councilman Schiffner questioned the ability to close off one driveway. Councilwoman Kelley questioned the reason for the barn design. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the area has a number of larger lots and some horses in the area; an presented a sample of the colors and materials to be utilized. He suggested that the project would improve the appearance of the existing property. Councilman Schiffner inquired if there would be hedges along the driveway. Mr. Brady indicated that he was not sure of the materials to be used, but plans would be submitted later in the process. City Clerk Kasad advised that the Resolution for item 35 should be 2000-51 rather than 2000-50. Councilwoman Kelley questioned the legality of a two year Council term, rather than a four year term, and how the terms would roll over. Councilman PAGE FOUR - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 28, 2000 Schiffner indicated that this was an issue that was not established. Councilwoman Kelley further questioned how such a change would impact the current elected terms. City Attorney Leibold addressed the laws for establishment of electoral districts and staggering of terms; but indicated that those issues are not specified in the Initiative. Mayor Brinley noted that there would probably be several questions at the Council meeting, but if they are asked at this point the City Attorney could be prepared to answer them. Councilman Schiffner noted the two options. City Attorney Leibold clarified that there are three options associated with an Initiative, but under the Government Code there is a requirement that the people vote on the establishment of districts, so the Council could not just enact the Initiative. Mayor Brinley inquired if the proponents would have an attorney present at the Council meeting. City Attorney Leibold indicated that she was not certain. Councilwoman Kelley questioned the two choices. City Attorney Leibold clarified that the election could be set for November, 2001, or a report could be ordered to respond to any questions or clarify issues; and noted the type of issues which could be identified by the Council to be included in the report. She explained the potential for consideration of fiscal and legal issues, noting that because of the brevity, there was not the full te~ of an ordinance, as would typically be presented. She indicated that there were several questions relating to legality, form and substance, however she had not yet done a substantial analysis. She noted that Council could utilize her office or independent counsel to review the matter and provide the report. She noted the experience of the independent counsel she would be proposing at the Council meeting, noting that the Council could ha~e anyone do this report, but cautioned that the report must be prepared and presented back to the Council within 30 days. She stressed the need to act quickly. Councilman Schiffner inquired if the report is requested and comes back with problems, whether it would still go to the ballot. City Attorney Leibold noted the benefit of third party counsel, and explained that in addition to an independent analysis, the report would include recommendations on how to proceed. She indicated that in the event the report comes back and says there are some ambiguities, but the statutes can fill in the holes and the issues can be resolved, the recommendation might be to set the election. However, if the findings are that the Initiative is not specific enough for clear direction or enforcement, then the matter could be set for election and those issues discussed in the materials, or decline to set the election. She stressed that she was not sure what the report would suggest. Councilwoman Kelley inquired what would happen if the Council set the matter for the election. City Attorney Leibold indicated that if the Council chose to set the matter for election, between now and then, there would be a series of deadlines and material to be prepared and the kinds of issues presented would come out in those materials, but flt would not be the same as a thorough analysis.