Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-2002 RDAMINUTES CITY COUNCIL/REDELOPMENTAGENCY STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kelley called the Study Session to order at 4:04 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 1, BUCKLEY, HICKMAN SCHIFFNER, KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY (Councilwoman Brinley arrived at 4:17 p.m.) Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, City Attorney Leibold, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information /Communications Manager Dennis, and Deputy City Clerk Paredes. DISSCUSSION 1. Agenda Review. (F:44.1) 0 Mayor Kelley addressed the Presentations and asked who would be the Business of the Quarter and Business of the Year. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that the Business of the Quarter would be Vincenzo's Olive Tree Restaurant and Business of the Year would be Sizzler Restaurant. Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner addressed Item No. 8, regarding the Centennial Station Building Repairs. He asked what would I PAGE TWO — STUDY SESSION - JAN. 89 2002 specifically be done with the money requested. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that there was need for some structural repair, and presented an overview of the items that needed to be addressed. Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 7, regarding the Lease Agreement with the Historical Society — Lake Elsinore Cultural Center Basement. He questioned the section of the Lease Agreement, which addressed "Care and Maintenance ". City Manager Watenpaugh noted that staff had met with the Historical Society and noted that they understood what would have to be done to rehabilitate the Basement. Councilman Hickman addressed the pews in the basement and asked if the Historical Society could sell the pews for a fundraiser. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that the Historical Society had approached the City regarding the sale of the pews, and at that time, it was found that the City would have had to declare them as surplus property, since the sale of the pews would have been considered a gift of public funds. City Attorney Leibold explained since the Historical Society had proposed to enter into a Lease Agreement with the City, a consideration for the sale of the pews could be used to provide funds for the repair of the building which would benefit the City. Mayor Kelley indicated that she was under the impression that some of the pews had inscriptions on them. Community Services Director Sapp stated that there were no inscriptions on any of the pews. He indicated that there were some six -foot pews that would remain in the Cultural Center, however the larger pews could be sold. City Attorney Leibold presented an overview of the lease. Mayor Kelley stated that she would like to have his item thoroughly explained at the Council Meeting. Community Services Director Sapp stated that he would contact the representatives from the Historical Society to discuss the issue of the pews. Mayor Kelley addressed Item No. 6 regarding the Contract with Riverside County Environmental Health — Response to Trash and Sewage Complaints and asked for clarification. City Manager Watenpaugh presented an overview of the services rendered by the PAGE THREE — STUDY SESSION — JAN. 89 2002 County and explained that if they did not perform the required services then the City would have to contract with a private lab to perform the tests. Mayor Kelley requested clarification on the issue of trash. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that testing was required for anything that might contain possible contamination. Community Development Director Brady explained that the Building Department and Planning Department would occasionally use the services, however it was not on a frequent basis. Councilman Hickman addressed Item Nos. 4 and 5, regarding Contract Renewal with Berryman and Henigar and Harris and Associates for Plan Check. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the private firms listed were used for plan checking and the cost is passed on to the customer. He noted that it was part of the City's cost recovery program. Mayor Pro Tem. Schiffner clarified the cost to the City for plan checking services. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that the costs charged by the City for City Services would not be increased, however the increased cost for plan checking would be passed on to the users. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that he had several complaints regarding the time it took to have a plan check. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the City made a frequent review of the time line for plan checking and each plan is dated in and out of the City, however he offered to look into it. He noted that outside architects were used by the customer for their design land when they get behind, they tell the customer that they have submitted the plans to the City and when the subject was investigated, it was found that they had not. U Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner addressed Item No. 9, regarding the First Financial Group, Inc. Settlement. He indicated that he wished to have the comparison between the possible $4 or $6 million obligation and the actual settlement of $150,000. He asked if the City Attorney would present an explanation of the item. City Attorney Leibold stated that she would suggest that the item was listed on RDA Agenda and would give a full explanation at that time. PAGE FOUR — STUDY SESSION — JAN. 812002 Mayor Kelley addressed Item No. 31, regarding City Council Appointments and suggested the following: CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Appointee Alternate California Joint Powers Insurance Authority Kelley Brinley Habitat Conservation Agency Schiffner Hickman Chamber of Commerce - EDC Hickman Kelley Riverside Transit Agency Brinley Kelley Riverside County Transportation Commission Schiffner Buckley Western Riverside Council Of Governments Buckley Kelley Lake Elsinore /San Jacinto Watershed Authority Schiffner Brinley Crime Free Multi- Family Housing Project Brinley Hickman Task Force 2002 Hickman Brinley Elsinore Valley Arts Network Kelley Hickman Mayor Kelley addressed Item No. 31, 28th Year Community Development Block Grant Allocation. She indicated that one question PAGE FIVE — STUDY SESSION — JAN. 8, 2002 was left after the CDGB Study Session, regarding the endorsement of H.O.P.E. as opposed to Operation School Bell. She stated that she had the opportunity to talk with Dr. Lindsey from the School District and Ms. Lindsey indicated that they had a very close association with H.O.P.E., however they did not anticipate severing relations with Operation School Bell and they would work with both of them. Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner stated that an explanation should be given at the Council Meeting. Councilwoman Brinley stated that she had been in contact with Pastor Butenshon, and he stated that he had been in contact with the School District and Operation School Bell. Mayor Kelley stated that it would have been nice if Reverend Butenshon had notified Council of his intent. City Manager Watenpaugh asked if Reverend Butenshon had provided any information from Wal -Mart or Target. Community Services Director Sapp stated that Reverend Buntenshon had nothing in writing at this time, however he had verbal commitments. He stated that Reverend Butenshon would be following up in writing. Mayor Kelley stated that there was nothing that stated that Council could still compromise by funding each with $2,500. She stated that her concern was if H.O.P.E.'s program did not come to fruition. Councilman Hickman suggested giving Operation School Bell $1,000, since they are so well financed and H.O.P.E. $4,000. He suggested that the seniors could be cut as well. Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner noted that if Operation School Bell were to resign from certain schools, then they could not go to other agencies for funding for the students that were dropped. He suggested that it was such a small amount that Council should continue on as it has been done in the past. Councilwoman Brinley questioned if H.O.P.E. was totally prepared to take over the program. Councilman Hickman noted the amount of meals that H.O.P.E. provides and noted that more was needed. There was general discussion in regard to H.O.P.E. and the ability to provide the same service as Operation School Bell. There was general discussion in regard to the amount allocated to each organization and how it could be reallocated. V PAGE SIX — STUDY SESSION — JAN. 8, 2002 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY No Comments. ADJOURNMENT THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:50 P.M. MEIR = c, pectfully submitted, is L. Paredes, Deputy City Clerk A EST: VICKI KASAD, C.M.C., CITY CLERK HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE I►tl_ILU11MI REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Brinley called the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: NONE 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:52.2) B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code §54956.9) Liberty Founders LLC v. City of Lake Elsinore, et al (Riverside Co. Superior Court Case #355890) (F:52.2) Legal Counsel Leibold announced the Closed Session Items as listed above. THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:04 P.M. PAGE TWO - RDA MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 200 The Closed Session discussion was completed at 6:50 p.m. RECONVENED PUBLIC SESSION (7:00 P.M.) The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order in public session by Chairwoman Brinley at 8:02 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: NONE Also Present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Police Chief Walsh, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, Clerk of the Board Kasad and Deputy Clerk of the Board Paredes. CONSENT CALENDAR The following item was pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion and consideration: Item No. 4 MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. The following Minutes were approved: V PAGE THREE - RDA MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 200t$• a. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session — December 11, 2001 (F:134.3) b. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting — December 11, 2001. 2. The following Warrants Lists were ratified: (F:12.3) a. December 14, 2001 b. December 31, 2001 3. The following Investment Reports were received and ordered filed: (F:12.5) a. October, 2001 b. November, 2001 ITEM PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR 4. First Financial Group, Inc.. Settlement. (F:52.2) Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that Item 4 as described on the Consent Calendar was the same as Item 9 on the City Council Consent Calendar. She further indicated that she had been asked to explain what the Settlement Agreement provided. She explained that in early 1993 the Agency acquired certain real property, including that property that the Stadium is now located on and other properties in that area. She noted that at the same time the City and the Redevelopment Agency entered into a series of agreements with a developer, at the time identified as Eastlake Community Builders, regarding an increment of tax financing for the acquisition and development of what is now called the Eastlake Specific Plan. She explained that in response to the acquisition of that property by the Agency, and the agreements that the City and the Agency entered into with the Developer; another entity known as Lake Elsinore and Associates (LEA) and later known as First Financial Group filed a 0 PAGE FOUR - RDA MINUTES - JANUARY 8,20W lawsuit against the City and the Agency and the developer (with whom the City and Agency had entered into an agreement in 1993), claiming that the acquisition of the property and the agreements interfered with preexisting contractual obligations and interfered with certain business advantages, filed a Les Pendence on the Agency property. She further explained that in 1996, in order to settle that litigation, the City, Agency, First Financial Group and the developer (Eastlake Community Builders) entered into a settlement agreement. She also explained that the City and Agency entered into a series of other agreements to effect the settlement agreement that got rid of the 1993 lawsuit. The agreements that the Agency and the City entered into to implement the settlement agreement included a purchase and sale agreement which gave First Financial Group the legal right to buy 80 acres of Agency property. She noted that the Agency had to. do certain things including some lot line adjustments to create the 80 acres, but it gave First Financial Group the right to buy the Agency property. Legal Council Leibold stated that the purchase price was $2,000,000, which was less than the Agency paid for it, therefore it was not such a good deal; the City also entered into a development agreement with First Financial Group that gave First Financial group the contractual vested right to build a particular project on the 80 acres, which included approximately 450 houses. She indicated that it equated to somewhere in excess of 5 units per acre density. She explained that it required the City and the Agency to install and finance infrastructure improvements to support the residential development; and it required the City and the Agency to provide the fill dirt necessary to allow for development. She noted that depending on which engineer and whose estimate was to be believed, the possible liability to the City if the builder actually built the project would have been somewhere between $4 and $6 million dollars. She noted that it had been hanging out in the air since First Financial Group had things that they had to do; and quite frankly the elected body asked if there were something they could do to get some certainty and get out of the clouds and constraints that the City and Agency had been in with the old agreements. Legal Counsel Leibold explained that what they were able to effect was: First Financial Group had agreed to assign their rights and interests to the Redevelopment Agency of the development agreement; to terminate the purchase and sale agreement (they no longer have any rights to acquire the Agency property); and the whole thing to eliminate First Financial Group, cost $150,000. She stated that it provides the Agency and the City a great deal of certainity. Boardmember Schiffaer requested confirmation that the City took back 80 acres and eliminated a possible $4 to $6 million dollar obligation. Legal Counsel Leibold confirmed. Boardmember Buckley commented that although the City was getting out from under an obligation that cost the City $150,000, it could have cost a whole lot more, the $150,000 was not the exact total for 80 acres. He asked exactly how much the Agency was in the hole from the beginning by making the purchase. Legal Counsel Leibold stated that the Agency brought approximately 100 acres for approximately $3.1 million dollars, therefore including the settlement it would amount to $3.25 million dollars. Boardmember Schiffaer commented that the past money was really irrelevant to the action that had just occurred. He noted that the money was already gone and there was still a $4 to $6 million dollar liability hanging over the Agency and City's heads. He further commented that the Agency placed $150,000 more into the site and completely owned the property with the elimination of the $4 to $6 million dollar obligation. Legal Counsel Leibold stated that the Agency owned the property, however the Agency had no ability to do anything with it, since it was subject to the rights of First Financial Group to acquire it. U PAGE SIX - RDA MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 2009- MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE RATIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION WITH FIRST FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS No comments. LEGAL COUNSEL Legal Counsel Leibold announced the Closed Session discussions as listed on the agenda and noted that both items were discussed and there was no reportable action. BOARDMEMBERS COMMENTS No comments. ADJOURNMENT THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:12 P.M. U PAGE SEVEN - RDA MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 2008-, Respectfully submitted, y ria I L. Paredes, Assistant Clerk of the Board OF THE BOARD OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY U MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2002 ................................. .............. :......................... CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kelley called the Study Session to order at 4:02 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN SCHIFFNER, KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY 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. DISCUSSION 1. Agenda Review. (17:44.1) Mayor Kelley addressed Presentations and questioned who would do the presentation from LEMSAR. Community Services Director Sapp stated that Commander Gil Lerma would do the presentation. Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 4, regarding Claims Against the City and asked how it was handled. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that Council rejects the claim and refers the claim to the Claims Administrator for handling. He gave a brief explanation of the process and noted that it was done through the U PAGE TWO — STUDY SESSION — JAN. 229 2002 California Joint Powers Insurance Authority. Councilman Buckley stated that he would pull the item to abstain from the vote. He stated that he would not address the specific legal issues, however he hoped that the new concessionaire would address the problems. He noted a conversation he had with City Manager Watenpaugh regarding the repair of the boat ramp and at that time indicated that it could be fixed for under $100,000. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the conversation was regarding $100,000 for an apron on the front of the boat ramp, which is the flat area in front of the ramp. He indicated that the City was told to stop. He clarified that repairs on the ramp itself would cost approximately $5 million. Councilman Hickman asked if the City's Boat Launch was closed for the winter. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the Boat Launch was closed due to the water elevation. Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 6, regarding the establishment of parking restriction for the Public Parking Lot for Swick/Matich Park. He stated that he understood the desire for no parking, however he was somewhat uncomfortable restricting parking at a public facility that was paid for by the general taxpayers. Mayor Kelley clarified that the resolution would not prohibit parking by the public, however it would prohibit overnight parking, since the local residents were overflowing into the parking lot, therefore when activities were planned at Swick\Matich in the evening the people there for the sports did not find adequate parking. Community Services Director Sapp noted that the resolution addressed the problem the City had experienced with overnight parking and the people who use the lot for park and ride. He noted that the purpose of the parking lot was to provide parking for the youth groups and was not intended for a general - purpose parking lot. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner clarified that the parking lot was built with park funds and he felt that was what it should be used for. Councilman Hickman asked if there was more parking for the groups. Community Services Director Sapp explained that with the Boat Launch closed, that PAGE THREE — STUDY SESSION — JAN. 229 2002 parking lot could be utilized, however when the Boat Launch reopens that parking would be eliminated since it would be utilized for cars with boat trailers. Councilman Hickman noted the three fields and the lack of parking the new field would generate. Community Services Director Sapp stated that it was adequate as long as only the sports groups utilized the parking lots. Mayor Kelley questioned the use of the parking lot for Park and Ride. Community Services Director Sapp explained that the reason for setting the time from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., was because the majority of the people that utilized Park and Ride left before 7:00 a.m. City Manager Watenpaugh noted the problems that occurred at Summerhill Park with people utilizing it for Park and Ride and it had to be posted as well. He indicated that it allowed Code Enforcement to regulate the use of the parking lots and control the problem. Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner noted that it would not be more restrictive to the local neighborhood than prior to the development of the parking lot. Councilman Hickman clarified the time that the parks in the City were closed. Mayor Kelley asked for clarification in regard to the use of the parking lot. Community Services Director Sapp stated that it was both residents and Park and Ride cars that were impacting the parking lot. He explained that the purpose of the set hours was to get control of the situation before it got out of hand. Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 31, regarding the award of contract for Lincoln Street, Collier and Grand Avenues Pavement Rehabilitation. He requested clarification on the transfer of Street Capitol Improvement Funds. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that when the project was placed for bid, it was bid with two base items and one alternate. He indicated that to do all three projects it would cost an additional $15,000 and he felt that it would be prudent to V PAGE FOUR — STUDY SESSION — JAN. 229 2002 complete all three projects at one time. He noted that no project would be cut if the funds were transferred. Mayor Kelley asked if All- American Asphalt was the lowest bidder. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that they were the lowest qualified bidders. Councilman Buckley addressed both Item No. 31 and Item No. 35 regarding paving and asked if there was a Paving Schedule for the entire City. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that staff was in the process of revising the Paving Schedule and placing it on the computer. He indicated that once that was done it would smooth out the process and make the process more efficient. Community Services Director Sapp noted that it was part of the GASB 34 inventories and would include all of the streets in the City. He noted that based on the findings in the inventory, priorities would be set. Mayor Kelley noted that it had been the policy of the Council that if the streets set for pavement did not get done in this fiscal year, then they were set first on the list for the next fiscal year. Community Services Director Sapp explained how priorities are set from the inventory for maintenance and repaving. Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner clarified that last year the City had hired a consultant to do the inventory and that was what was being input. Community Services Director Sapp confirmed. Councilman Buckley suggested that traffic use be an issue for maintenance of roadways and suggested a Schedule A, B, & C that would set priorities. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that the City had used a formula similar to the one suggested by Councilman Buckley and would continue to do so with the funds available. He noted that when the Study becomes available there would be a Study Session to discuss the priorities. Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 32, regarding the award of contract for the Outlet Channel Landscape Project. He asked for clarification regarding the significant palm trees that still needed to be pulled. Mayor Kelley asked how many of the trees selected by the Palm Tree Committee were going to be used for the project. PAGE FIVE — STUDY SESSION — JAN. 229 2002 Community Services Director Sapp indicated that there would be twelve additional trees used for the project. She asked how many had been moved already. Community Services Director Sapp stated that thirteen had been moved so far. Councilman Hickman asked if the trees in question were the palm trees from Riverside Drive. Community Services Director Sapp stated that the tress came from Riverside Drive, Strickland, and Lakeshore Drive. He noted that all of the trees were from power line corridors and were eligible per the Palm Tree Ordinance. There was discussion regarding the removal of dead trees along the Cal -Trans right -of -way. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that it was the City's responsibility to remove the dead trees, however Cal -Trans had cooperated with the City in removal of Palm Trees that were in danger of being cut because of power lines. Councilman Hickman commented that he hoped that the City was trying to achieve the same look as San Antonio's River Walk. Mayor Kelley asked if there were renderings of the Landscape. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that he had renderings in his office and he would be glad to have them available for Council's review. He explained that it was the purpose of the project to convert the channel into a River Walk type setting with restaurants along the channel. Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 33, regarding McVicker State Park Concession Agreement. He commented that the City had invested approximately a half million dollars with City and grant monies. He noted that the concessionaire was only offering $25,000. He commented that it seemed that he wanted his money out immediately. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that the concessionaire was going to spend $25,000 up front on a trailer, however he would be operating the facility as well as providing the equipment and all electricity. He indicated that the concessionaire requested that Council waive the 5 %, however staff did not have a potential figure of revenues for the park and the concessionaire should U PAGE SIX — STUDY SESSION — JAN. 229 2002 be able to provide the figures at the Council Meeting. Councilman Hickman asked how much the concessionaire was going to charge. Mayor Kelley stated that was one of the issues that the Committee for the Skate Park was going to address. She indicated that they wished to make it attractive to the concessionaire since he would be running the concession; renting the safety gear; and act as the supervisor of the Skate Park. She indicated that Temecula had a 3 -hour skate period for $7.00. Community Services Director Sapp stated that 2 to 3 hours per session at a fee of between $5.00 and $6.00 a session was being considered. Councilman Hickman asked what the City was going to do about the inner -City kids that don't have the $6.00. Mayor Kelley stated that the Skate Board Park Committee was taking several issues under consideration and was looking at different alternatives. Councilman Hickman suggested a sliding scale. Mayor Kelley stated that a sliding scale was a good idea and she would be glad to take that back to the Committee. She asked for the total cost of the Skateboard Park. Community Services Director Sapp indicated that it was $412,000 of which $275,000 was Park Bond money. Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest, asked how much insurance the concessionaire would have to carry. Community Services Director Sapp stated that the concessionaire would have to carry $1 million per incident and $5 million aggregate. Mayor Kelley explained that under State law, skate boarding was defined as an extreme sport. Ms. Hyland asked the City Attorney for a copy of the State Law. City Attorney Leibold stated that she would provide a copy. Councilman Hickman stated that he wanted the concessionaire to manage the Skate Park, however he wanted to make sure that the Skate Park was equitable for everyone. Mayor Kelley indicated that was the Committee's goal. Councilman Hickman clarified the options available to Council and suggested that a percentage should come back to the City once the concessionaire has recouped his investment. Councilman Buckley noted that Option A, stated that the City would not receive 5% of the gross until the end of the year. He suggested it PAGE SEVEN — STUDY SESSION — JAN. 229 2002 be changed to read: Until the end of the year and/or the concessionaire has received gross receipts of $50,000, whichever comes first. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that he felt that the concessionaire would be receptive to that suggestion. Councilman Buckley address Section 3 of the contract and asked if the verbiage "City Manager" could be changed to "City Council ". Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stated that he had no preference either way since he was confident that City Manager Watenpaugh would advise the Council as to what his opinion was and gain Council concurrence. City Attorney Leibold commented that the City's Joint Powers Insurance Authority reviewed and approved the insurance provisions found in the contract. She noted that it was a contractual obligation to operate and provide the concession services under the agreement and explained that the concessionaire could not walk away from the agreement until its completion. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stated that he would have no problem waiving the 5 %, until the concessionaire has recouped his investment. Councilman Hickman stated that it would be best to set a fixed number of $75,000. Mayor Kelley stated that the Committee was looking at March 30, 2002 as the date for the Grand Opening. She noted that the Student Advisory Board was very active and had planned the Grand Opening. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner addressed Item No. 34, regarding the Task Force 2002. He indicated that he had been the representative for the last four or five years and noted that the Water District would like to see the Committee move forward. He noted that the goal of the Committee was to investigate the possibility of using recycled water in the Lake. He stated that the Committee did study the situation and provided a recommendation. He noted that it was suggested that there be more tasks set for the Committee and he felt that was not appropriate. Councilman Hickman stated that he would need more time to review the Committee. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner invited Ms. Hyland to address the issue. U 9 PAGE EIGHT — STUDY SESSION — JAN. 229 2002 Ms. Hyland stated that she felt that the Committee should continue until all the issues regarding recycled water and its use were addressed. She felt that the Committee should stick to the main goals and purpose and when those were met, it should disband. There was general discussion regarding the goals and objectives of the Task Force Committee. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that when a Task Force was appointed, its purpose was to consider one item or issue and it would be a Standing Committee that would review all other things. He indicated that the Task Force was appointed to study reclaimed water and as was discussed, once the purpose has been accomplished it should go away. He indicated that should there be a need for further study, then the Task Force could be reformed. Councilman Buckley stated that the Task Force had built up a great volume of knowledge and the disbandment of the Task Force would create a great loss of institutional knowledge. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner agreed, however he explained that should similar issues arise and there was a need to form a Citizens Task Force, he was sure that the members that served on the 2002 Task Force would be willing to serve again. Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 35, regarding repaving of Greenwald Avenue — Tri -Party Agreement with the County of Riverside and the City of Canyon Lake. He asked how often the residents of the City use Greenwald, or if the repavement was for Canyon Lake's benefit. Mayor Kelley stated that it would most benefit Canyon Lake, however it was a City street; and noted that Canyon Lake and the County are willing to chip in. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that the RCTC recently approved the intersection of Greenwald and Highway 74. He explained what Cal -Trans required of the intersection. Mayor Kelley asked if there was commercial land on Greenwald. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that there was a small parcel of commercial property on Greenwald in the City. Councilman Hickman asked how long the road would last. City t PAGE NINE — STUDY SESSION — JAN. 22, 2002 Manager Watenpaugh stated that with proper maintenance it should last 8 to 10 years or longer. Councilman Hickman inquired if Tuscany Hills would develop over to Greenwald. Community Development Director Brady noted that once the north half of Tuscany Hills had been developed, Summerhill Drive would extend through to Greenwald. Councilman Hickman stated that he did not want to spend all the money improving the road and then in five years have the developer come in and tear the roadway up. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that at the time the development moved forward they could be conditioned to recoup the costs. He noted that at the Study Session on January 30, 2002, some of those issues would be discussed. Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 37, regarding the support for the Lake Elsinore /San Jacinto Watershed Authority Request. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that Lake Elsinore /San Jacinto Watershed Authority had been looking at State Park Bond Grant Funds to pursue habitat wetlands in the back basin. He explained that at the point of applying for the grant it was found that the Lake Elsinore /San Jacinto Watershed Authority did not qualify for grant funding. He noted that it was City Attorney Leibold's opinion that they did have the authority and in their formation took on the authorities of the individual members of the group; however, since the deadline for the grant was February 1, it was decided to ask the City to act as the lead agency. He explained that they would perform the work and the funding, however the City would be listed as the applicant for the Park Bond Fund. Councilman Hickman asked which land in the back basin was being discussed. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that it was not site specific, however it would be between the levy and the Inflow Channel. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner presented an overview of the LESJWA Meeting where this was discussed. Councilman Buckley clarified that the City would act as a pass through for the Park Bond Funds. City Manager Watenpaugh confirmed. U PAGE TEN — STUDY SESSION — JAN. 229 2002 City Manager Watenpaugh addressed Item Nos. 38 and 39 regarding the Riverside County Integrated Plan and the Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan and the Western Riverside County Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee. He explained that an MOU was being done by the cities of Moreno Valley, Corona and Riverside to address the listed subject and he felt that it would be incumbent upon the City to wait and see what occurred through negotiations and explained that whatever came from the MOU would affect the other cities as well. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY There was no request for discussion. ADJOURNMENT THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 5:10 P.M. E KELLEY, MAY R ITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Respectfully submitted, Ad r L. Paredes, Deputy City Clerk PAGE ELEVEN - STUDY SESSION - JAN. 229 2002 A EST: VICKI KASAD, CMC, CITY CLERK/ HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE u I MINUTES REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Brinley at 5:11 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Assistant Legal Counsel Van Blarcom, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information /Communications Manager Dennis and Deputy Clerk of the Board 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:52.2)(X:40.1) B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code §54956.9) Liberty Founders U PAGE TWO - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JANUARY 22, 2002 LLC v. City of Lake Elsinore, et al (Riverside Co. Superior Court Case 9355890) (F:52.2)(X:40.1) C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Government Code §54956.9) California Bank & Trust v. City of Lake Elsinore, et al (Riverside County Superior Court Case #444190) (F:52.2)(X:40.1) City Attorney Leibold announced the Closed Session items as listed above. THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:11 P.M. The Closed Session discussion was completed at 7:15 p.m. RECONVENE PUBLIC SESSION (7:00 p.m.) Chairwoman Brinley reconvened the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting in Public Session at 8:57 p.m. CLOSED SESSION REPORT Legal Counsel Leibold announced the Closed Session Items as listed on the Agenda and noted that the Board did address the California Bank and Trust Litigation and briefly addressed Items A and B. She recommended returning to Closed Session at the end of the meeting to further discuss Items A and B, and indicated that she would return to public session with any necessary announcement. She indicated that there was no reportable action on Item C. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. PAGE THREE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JANUARY 22, 2002 1. The following Minutes were approved: a. Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session - January 8, 2002. (F:134.3) b. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting - January 8, 2002. 2. Ratified Warrant List for January 15, 2002. (F:12.3) 3. Received and ordered filed the Investment Report for December, 2001. (F:12.5) BUSINESS ITEM 4. Concession License Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and a Storm LLC Affiliate. (F:134.7)(X:134.10) Chairwoman Brinley indicated that she would like to continue this item to a Special meeting on January 30th, due to the fact that the contract was not received by Boardmember Buckley or herself. Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that she would like to give a brief staff report and noted the presence of Storm representatives. She noted that she informed them of the logistical problem and they understood the need for more time to review the agreement. Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that she was pleased to present this agreement, and apologized for the logistical problem. She detailed the history of the Stadium lease beginning with the abandonment of the prior lease. She noted the agreements in place for the last baseball season which allowed for continued operation. She noted the past concession agreement, and indicated that the Storm representatives had approached the City with a proposal to provide their own food and beverage services at the Stadium. She indicated that at this point an agreement had been reached for concession services for an initial term through 2007, with the potential for extension to 2012. She provided an overview of the major terms of the 0 PAGE FOUR - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JANUARY 229 2002 agreement, under which the Storm will provide exclusive concession services for six years, during that time they will pay the Agency 5% of gross receipts for all concessions generated at Storm Baseball events. She explained that the 5% concession fee to the Agency applied to all gross revenues up to $1.5 million; and any revenues over $1.5 million will generate 7% for the Agency. She further explained that in the event the Storm events income was $1 million, the Agency would receive $50,000; $1.5 million would generate $75,000; and $2 million would generate $110,000. She indicated that for other events at the Stadium, such as concerts, etc., the Storm would be responsible for providing concession services, with a 36% concession fee, and with respect to the Diamond Club there would be a one year trial period for the exclusive provider, with 15% revenues from the Diamond Club events. She advised that after one year the Storm's exclusive rights would be extended on a two year basis. She noted that the Storm had agreed to pay the Agency fee of $50,000 for the exclusive rights under the agreement in three increments, over three years. She highlighted the general provisions of the agreement and introduced the representatives of the Storm. Bob Lapidus, 500 Diamond Drive, General Counsel for the Storm and Jacobs Investments, advised that when the Jacobs Company bought the team last summer, it set a goal of providing the best possible baseball experience to the fans. He indicated that after a quick study of priorities, they determined that the quality of food services and concession operations was the highest priority. He noted that the trend was for baseball teams to be running their own concessions at the stadiums; and advised that nine out of ten in California would be running their own concessions. He indicated that when they approached the City with the concept of taking over the concession operation, they did so knowing they had the ability and experience to do so. He noted that General Manager Dave Oster came to them with many years of experience in operating teams and providing food service. He introduced Paul Engel, food and beverage manager, and noted his experience in food service. He indicated that they were pleased to be the steward of one of the "Jewels" of Lake Elsinore and would do their best to PAGE FIVE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JANUARY 22, 2002 make the community proud. He thanked City staff for the opportunity to discuss and develop a very fair and promising agreement. Dave Oster, Storm General Manager, indicated that they were looking forward to moving forward as Opening day approached. He expressed hopes that this was the last piece of the puzzle to take the team to the level they wished to achieve. Paul Engel, Food & Beverage Manager, indicated that it was a pleasure to be present and noted that he relocated to Lake Elsinore from Virginia. He noted the team's commitment to excellence and expressed pride in working with the Storm. Chairwoman Brinley noted that she met with Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Oster to discuss several issues at the Diamond. She looked forward to a good relationship with the team and welcomed them to the community. She reiterated that it would be discussed again on January 30`h, and thanked them for their time and patience. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO A SPECIAL MEETING ON JANUARY 30, 2002. PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON - AGENDIZED ITEMS No Comments. U EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS Executive Director Watenpaugh commented on the following: 1) Echoed the comments of Mr. Lapidus, that Legal Counsel and staff had spent a lot of time on this agreement, and expressed hope that it would be a good agreement for everyone. Legal Counsel Leibold 9 PAGE SIX - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JANUARY 229 2002 noted that the meeting on this agreement would be at 10:00 a.m. on January 30tH BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS No Comments. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 9:14 PM. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:48 P.M. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 9:49 P.M. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RECONVENED AT 10:06 P.M. WITH NO REPORTABLE ACTION. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AT 10:07 P -M-- -) CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 30, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Special Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Brinley at 10:11 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Legal Counsel Leibold. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: HICKMAN Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information /Communications Dennis, City Treasurer Ferro, and Clerk of the Board Kasad. U BUSINESS ITEM 1. Concession Agreement with the Storm, LLC Affiliate re ag rding Concession Operations at the Diamond Stadium. (F:134.7)(X:134.10) Executive Director Watenpaugh noted Legal Counsel Leibold had been working on negotiations with the team and had reached an agreement. He 9 PAGE TWO - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 309 2002 also noted that Mr. Jacobs was present at this meeting. Legal Counsel Leibold noted that the draft agreement had been presented to the Council on Tuesday Night. She provided an overview of the breach of Lease by Lakeside Entertainment, after which the Agency and the Storm entered negotiations for an agreement on Operations and Maintenance. She reminded the Board that in March, 2001, they entered into License and Maintenance Agreements for the Stadium. She explained that during the last season, Golden State Sport Services had continued to provide concession services; however near the end of the season, the Jacobs family purchased the Storm and approached the Agency with a proposal to take over concession services at the Diamond. She further explained that they felt it would make them more efficient, increase attendance and improve the overall experience. She advised that negotiations were initiated by Agency direction and a this point a mutually beneficial agreement had been drafted. Legal Counsel Leibold highlighted the proposed agreement, including the Storm being given the exclusive right to provide concessions at the Stadium for all Storm and other events at the Stadium.. She indicated that for Storm events, the Agency would receive 5% of the gross concession receipts; and noted that the Agency previously did not share in these receipts. She advised that on other events, the Agency would receive 36% of the gross receipts, and by receiving that, the Agency would have money to attract promoters and other potential users of the Stadium. Chairwoman Brinley reiterated that this was something the Agency had not received before, and had been limited in its ability to provide events. Legal Counsel Leibold continued to highlight the proposed agreement, noting that the Storm would have exclusive rights to cater events at the Diamond Club. She advised that the initial term of the agreement would be six years through the 2007 season, with the potential exercise of the option to extend the agreement co- terminously with the License Agreement; with the exception that the first year would be on a trial basis for the provision of PAGE THREE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 309 2002 exclusive catering services for all events. She indicated that after the one year trial basis, if the Agency and the Storm want to extend the exclusivity, it will renew in two year increments after the first year; and if for any reason during the term of the agreement, the Agency and the Caterer agree to change the exclusivity of services, it would be necessary to coordinate the service of alcoholic beverages and the use of the facilities. Mr. Jacobs explained that this was necessary, as the Storm would hold the liquor license. Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that the Agency stood to receive 15% of catering gross receipts for Diamond Club Events. She noted that the Storm had agreed to provide the Agency with up to twelve events per year with "at cost" catering services. She advised that some of the other primary terms included payment to the Agency of a $50,000 concession fee, as consideration for the agreement. She explained that the $50,000 would be paid in three increments, with the first upon execution of the agreement for $10,000, followed by $20,000 at year two and $20,000 at year three of the agreement; she added the Jacobs Investment LLC would be guaranteeing the $50,000. She further detailed the agreement noting that it provided for first class catering services, good quality of services, maintenance of facilities, good and accurate accounting records and insurance. Chairwoman Brinley questioned the process for addressing complaints. Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that the entire relationship is based upon good and ongoing communications between the Agency and the Storm. She noted that many times patrons will address their issues either directly to the Storm or directly to the Agency. She explained that the agreement provides for the parties to get together on a regular basis to review issues. Chairwoman Brinley requested a verbal commitment for meetings on at least a quarterly basis. Legal Counsel Leibold noted that the agreement called for periodic meetings; and commented that the License Agreement called for twice a month meetings during the season. Robert Lapidus indicated that they would welcome such meetings, as noted in the License U PAGE FOUR - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 309 2002 Agreement, at least quarterly. He stressed their emphasis on customer service. Chairwoman Brinley noted that her concern was based on the past relationship, and the lack of communication; and stressed that she wanted to assure that the Agency and the Storm would have total communication. Legal Counsel Leibold suggested the addition of a provision for periodic meetings, as required in the License Agreement. Boardmember Kelley questioned the Agency holding the master calendar of events, and whether someone planning a special event would first go to the City or to the Storm. Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that even if someone went to the Stadium first, the Storm would have the forms and fee schedules and could discuss the catering, before referring people to the Community Services Department. She stressed the need for shared information, and the benefit of improved communication. Boardmember Kelley noted the provision in the agreement for small meetings to use an outside vendor for up to 25 people, but noted that the Executive Summary said up to 50 people. Legal Counsel Leibold clarified and noted examples of meetings where sandwiches or snacks are brought in; and indicated that the Storm had acknowledged that type of meeting and concurred that it would not violate the exclusivity of the Concession Agreement. She stressed that this would relate to small events of up to 25 people. Legal Counsel Leibold noted that a question had been raised relating to the parking lot, but indicated that it had been clarified in the agreement; with the Storm having exclusive rights to sell in the parking lot for events, but not precluding tailgate parties. Mr. Jacobs confirmed that the intent was not to discourage tailgate parties. Boardmember Buckley questioned the Recitals on Page 1, and inquired why Lakeside/Mandalay references were included. Legal Counsel Leibold explained that it was to show that this agreement was mitigating damages. She indicated that both parties wanted to show that it was related to the litigation. Boardmember Buckley questioned Page 7, Section 2.2 on the PAGE FIVE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 30, 2002 option to extend, and if the option was purely with the Storm. Legal Counsel Leibold confirmed and noted that if the Storm exercised its option to extend the License Agreement, it would automatically extend this Agreement. Boardmember Buckley indicated that it was fine if it matched the License Agreement, but indicated that the License Agreement was a bit of a problem, in that it extended to seven after five years, and suggested that there should be some mutual City control. Executive Director Watenpaugh indicated that part of the discussion had been, if the Storm wasn't providing the services the patrons wanted, they would not want to stay, so it would be to their benefit to keep the crowds coming. Chairwoman Brinley inquired if this was a line of protection for the Agency. Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that there were performance requirements if they were not meeting their obligations, then the Agency would have remedies for a default. She reiterated that the Agreement would start with a proposed one year term, but stressed that there would be a substantial capital outlay including the payoff for Golden State Sport Services, therefore to justify the investment and amortize it, the longer term was finally agreed to. Dave Oster noted that the Storm took over more cost than the prior lease. Legal Counsel Leibold noted that the original agreement was to have run through 2012, prior to the abandonment of the agreement. Boardmember Buckley indicated that it was fine if it matched the Licnese Agreement. He commented that in general when the City /Agency enters into contracts of any significant length, he would not be in favor of the automatic options on beahlf of the other party. Boardmember Schiffner noted that the License Agreement was not under discussion. Boardmember Buckley addressed Page 8, indicating that he felt the other way on this issue; noting that the number of times it would need to be extended seemed excessive, and suggested knocking a couple of options out. Storm Legal Counsel Lapidus addressed the option, and noted that it was based on the economic terms agreed to, and while they didn't necessarily think the catering was the way to pursue it, but it was negotiated U PAGE SIX - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 309 2002 that way and they were willing to live with it. Legal Counsel Leibold noted that the issue initially was to take over exclusive catering, etc. including the booking of the Diamond Club; however at the staff level it was felt that it was a good arrangement to keep check on other events and use of the Diamond Club. Boardmember Buckley indicated that he could accept fewer options in larger chunks of time. He questioned Page 9, Section 7, regarding off -site events and the ability to use the existing equipment; and whether the City still gets 15% of the revenue. He suggested that the percentage was too low, because the City was providing the capital equipment, and he would like to see it increased. Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that the percentage mirrored what was received from Diamond Club events. Storm Legal Counsel Lapidus clarified that this was due to the fact that food for delivery was higher than "in- park" food service, so it was felt that 15% was the right number based on the likely profit margins. He noted that they would not anticipate a lot of off -site catering, but see the Diamond Club and Stadium as being underutilized in the past. Boardmember Buckley addressed Page 12, Section 5, Paragraph D, regarding promotional events. Legal Counsel Leibold reiterated that the Storm believes the facility has been underutilized and it would be mutually beneficial to increase the number of events and promote the facility more fully. She indicated that it was not felt that the Agency should be bound to a standard of promotion, which might cause a default issue in the future; so there was no monetary obligation, but the money could be used for promotion if it is available. She stressed the effort to assure that Agency and Storm staff work together, and noted the added verbiage to meet and confer annually on events, service, etc. Executive Director Watenpaugh noted that staff was putting together an option to meet with the team and promote other activities. Boardmember Buckley suggested the inclusion of costs in the issues for annual meeting discussion. Storm Legal Counsel Lapidus concurred that was a good suggestion. Boardmember Buckley noted the relevance to the costs mentioned in the last section. PAGE SEVEN - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 309 2002 Boardmember Buckley addressed the $50,000 payment for the concession agreement which will run until 2012, and clarified that it was separate from the percentage of gross receipts. Legal Counsel Leibold confirmed that it was separate. Boardmember Buckley suggested waiving the "no ticket tax" clause in exchange for waiving the $50,000 concession agreement fee. Chairwoman Brinley questioned the intent of that comment. Boardmember Buckley indicated that when there might be discussion of entertainment taxes in the City, he wanted to be sure that their exemption won't exempt others. Executive Director Watenpaugh indicated that if there was a tax, the Storm would be reimbursed for Storm events, but not other events. Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that the License Agreement covers the issue, in that any applicable ticket tax would be paid by the Storm, but there is a mechanism to reimburse that tax. She clarified that this would not prevent the City from looking at a ticket tax in the future. Boardmember Buckley inquired if the utilities would be paid by the Agency. Legal Counsel Leibold confirmed, but noted that if electrical service exceeds $125,000 during the Season, the Storm pays the additional amounts. She explained that on Storm events in the Diamond Club, under the License Agreement, the Storm pays the Agency's actual costs. Chairwoman Brinley inquired if the Storm intended to hire employees from within the City, and asked if it was legal to set a percentage requirement from within the City. Mr. Engel noted that they held a job fair last week and it drew predominately local residents. Chairwoman Brinley stressed her interest in this emphasis since the residents pay the taxes and should be given top priority if they are qualified for the jobs. Storm Legal Counsel Lapidus indicated that they would be happy to do additional publicity in Lake Elsinore to recruit from the community. Mr. Oster noted that they already provided job flyers to the area high schools. Chairwoman Brinley stressed the support the Storm receives from the local community and indicated that she would like to see them given the priority. She accepted the Storm representatives comments as verbal agreement to do so. Storm Legal Counsel Lapidus indicated that the Storm management had very U PAGE EIGHT - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 309 2002 strong ideas about the people they were looking to hire in terms of service. Chairwoman Brinley reiterated that the community first priority would be appreciated. Boardmember Kelley concurred that the Stadium had been underutilized for years and commented that this agreement would be a good step forward, as it was a better contract than ever before. She congratulated Legal Counsel Leibold on her efforts. She inquired on behalf of Vice Chairman Hickman how many of the twelve events could go to the non - profit organizations. Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that there was no definite arrangement or schedule established between the Storm and the Agency, and advised that it was still within the Agency's discretion. She noted that there were certain events that would historically be held at the Diamond. Boardmember Kelley stressed the need to program those events for the Agency's benefit. She commented that she was very supportive of the agreement as written, as it appeared to be beneficial. Executive Director Watenpaugh confirmed that there had been no formal action on any of the twelve events. Boardmember Schiffner noted that it was an assumption that the twelve events would be adequate. Boardmember Kelley indicated that the Agency would need to be cautious about offering those events to outside parties. Chairwoman Brinley indicated that she believed the Agency should cooperate with the community organizations, and noted her respect for those local entities. Boardmember Schiffner noted that he had been concerned with the ability to allow tailgating, as was Vice Chairman Hickman, however that was clarified. He indicated that he had not intended to try to renegotiate the agreement after the work done by staff so far. He further indicated that he was in favor of approving it. Chairwoman Brinley addressed Page 12 regarding complaints, and inquired if the Board could require meetings on a quarterly basis to be sure things don't get out of hand. Storm Legal Counsel Lapidus indicated that they would anticipate meeting more often. Chairwoman Brinley expressed PAGE NINE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 30, 2002 appreciation to City Staff and Mr. Jacob's Staff for their work on this agreement, noting that the Board had never before been presented with a contract that was this fair. She indicated that it had always been an uphill battle for the Agency to negotiate contracts, so it was good to negotiate with someone who understood the Agency's position. Boardmember Schiffner suggested that any issues could be discussed at the twice a month meeting required by the License Agreement. Chairwoman Brinley concurred, but indicated that they would at least meet quarterly. Mr. Jacobs commented that it was in their best interest to solve any issues as soon as possible. Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that she was happy to have the Storm, and a better agreement, and wished them great success. MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER TO APPROVE THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM PRESENTED, AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRWOMAN TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT IN SUCH FINAL FORM AS APPROVED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND AGENCY COUNSEL. Boardmember Buckley inquired if the new verbiage on promotions and meetings was included. The Boardmembers confirmed. THE FOREGOING MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT. THE SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 10:57 A.M. U THE SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RECONVENED IN JOINT SESSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AT 11:04 A.M. 2. Discussion of Civic Partners - Back Basin Developingnt. (F:134.10)(X:134.7) Executive Director /City Manager Watenpaugh noted previous discussions regarding the back basin with Civic Partners. He introduced Civic Partners PAGE TEN - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 30, 2002 representatives Steve Semingson and Jim Strofi. Mr. Semingson noted his background in Real Estate Development and Mr. Strofi's experience in development prior to becoming an attorney. Mr. Semingson indicated that his discussion would focus on the extraordinary costs that would be incurred in the process of developing in the back basin, and noted that they were problematic issues for the prior developers involved in the project. He indicated that this was the type of project Civic Partner worked on, and noted the public /private partnering approach. He indicated that his background was in public finance, which gave him the knowledge to work out the financial constraints through partnering. He presented photos of some of the projects Civic Partners was currently involved in, advised that they had about $700 million in projects under development and would be starting another $280 million in the next 30 days. He indicated that the projects all involved public /private partnering to overcome financial hurdles. He detailed a variety of their projects in the cities of Modesto, California and Boise, Idaho, including mixed use residential /commercial, office buildings, a courthouse and the University of Idaho campus. Mr. Semingson addressed the Village One area of the back basin and noted that a portion of the property was under an Option Agreement with the Lehrs, and the rest was a City /Agency owned property previously under an Option with another developer. He commented on the challenges of the first village, but noted that with the challenges come opportunities. He detailed the challenges including the Army Corps of Engineers looking for an additional parcel of property to bring the Lake Management Plan into compliance, extraordinary grading requirements, the need to raise building pads between 10 and 12 feet to meet the 100 year flood requirements, and an average of five feet of unstable soil to be removed, recompacted and replaced. He further detailed the open space requirements and a need for ten additional acres for every nine acres developed to meet the environmental, and cut/fill needs of the site. Mr. Semingson advised that PAGE ELEVEN- REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 309 2002 the golf course would be built very early in the development of the first village, however the first village would not be large enough to sustain the costs of the golf course. He further advised that because the project was within a Redevelopment Agency Project Area, it would trigger low and moderate housing requirements, which were substantial. He also advised that the Redevelopment Agency had some unmet low /moderate housing needs that they were accustomed to meeting, and prepared to deal with them, however it would add more costs. He noted recent discussions of the environmental mitigation, and the impact of the Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Mr. Semingson commented that with the extraordinary costs, come some very good revenue generating opportunities. He indicated that they would be oversizing the infrastructure in the first phase to address whatever happens in the next phases. Boardmember /Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner inquired if they could use any of the engineering work, etc. from the prior developer. Mr. Semingson indicated that they could not use very much of it, but there was a history which they would capitalize on as much as possible. He advised that the agreements with the regulatory agencies had expired. Boardmember/Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner noted that there was still a lot of information which would be helpful. Mr. Semingson concurred that there were some issues that wouldn't need further work, as much of the information had been studied multiple times. Mr. Semingson indicated that time was an enemy of their business, so they wanted to move very quickly. He noted the area to the northwest of the mitigation area, which would serve as wetland mitigation for the Lake Management Program; and indicated that there would be 79 acres needed to comply with the Lake Management Plan. U Chairwoman /Councilwoman Brinley inquired if any progress had been made toward purchasing any of the properties required. Mr. Semingson indicated that they held the existing option with the Lehr family for the area being discussed, and they were requesting the Agency's property. He PAGE TWELVE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 309 2002 further indicated that they had made a proposal to acquire the Agency's property as part of the first phase of Village One. Chairwoman/ Councilwoman Brinley inquired if they had approached the other owners in the area, and questioned their commitment to purchase of the property. Mr. Semingson indicated that they wanted an agreement with the RDA/City before contacting the property owners, so they are sure of what they are doing. He stressed the importance of meeting certain investment criteria first. He indicated that the land value had been estimated at $20,000 /acre, making the total nearly $1.6 million. He noted that there was a possible alternative with the Corps to trade for some property, which is currently under their control. Mr. Semingson readdressed the issues of soil instability, and the requirements for removal and compaction. He reiterated the need for between 10 and 12 feet of fill for the building pads, and indicated that caused the need for more area to allow for cutting. Boardmember/ Councilman Buckley inquired how much of a cut would be required. Mr. Semingson indicated that it would be about a 15% cut because of the soil condition and another 5% or so to meet the flood storage requirements. Boardmember/Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that this would work in favor of the flood plan. Mr. Semingson concurred and showed the scale relationship between the golf course, and the homes. He indicated that stabilization of the five feet of soil would cost about $6 million for Village One, and the cut necessary to bring the site above the 1265' level and create water storage would cost just over $14 million. He stressed that these number were best case scenarios, assuming that there would be no need to haul dirt in. He reiterated that for each ten acres, they would need to acquire an additional nine acres, at a cost of about $7 million for Village One. Mr. Semingson advised that the golf course was estimated at $12 million beyond the cost of the acquisition of the property and digging the hole for PAGE THIRTEEN - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 3092002 flood storage. Boardmember /Councilman Buckley inquired if the unrecoverable costs less the estimated value, could be considered promotional use, noting that he did not see it as unrecoverable costs. Mr. Semingson indicated that the golf course would improve the appeal of the houses and accelerate the sales potential. Mr. Semingson indicated that they would be paying about $14 million for low /moderate housing requirements, including the unmet set asides and depending on the applicability of the tax credit programs. He noted that about one in four applicants for tax credits is selected. He indicated that in addition to the above mentioned known factors they had set -aside $1.5 million in contingencies. Chairwoman/Councilwoman Brinley requested copies of the cost breakdown. Mr. Semingson indicated that staff had already received the information. He summarized that the total cost of extraordinary factors would be approximately $54,710,000. Boardmember /Councilman Buckley inquired how much this project would cost if it was not planned for the back basin. Mr. Semingson indicated that all of the costs presented were extraordinary. Chairwoman/Councilwoman Brinley requested clarification that the total cost of the first phase was $54 million. Mr. Semingson clarified that those costs were in addition to housing costs. Boardmember/Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner questioned the low /moderate housing costs. Mr. Semingson detailed the loss of revenue from those units. Legal Counsel /City Attorney Leibold noted that this included the cost of unallocated housing. Chairwoman/Councilwoman Brinley suggested that based on the costs presented it would appear that the houses would have to be in the $500,000 range to meet the costs. Mr. Semingson detailed the extraordinary resources PAGE FOURTEEN - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY- JAN. 309 2002 the project will bring based on the increased lot value due to the Lake and golf course. He noted that the Village One project would benefit by almost $10 million and the lake environment. He commented on favorable equity ratios which would impact the project. He thanked the Lehrs, the Urdels and Carmella Loellkes for their attendance at this meeting and for helping them to resolve issues. He noted their willingness to hold the property and allow a phased take down, so they did not have to go to the equity markets to hold the property. He stressed the importance of timing for this project, and noted that transferring dollars from equity to debt brings down the ultimate cost of the project, as $4.5 million dollars of equity servicing payments were not required. He advised that the average home price for a single family home will be $225,000. He further advised that this did not reflect the low /moderate housing which would range from $500 /month to $190,000, depending on the requirements. Chairwoman/Councilwoman Brinley inquired if they would be qualified for HUD lending. Mr. Semingson indicated that there were new HUD and Fannie Mae programs. Legal Counsel /City Attorney Leibold noted that there had been discussion of low /moderate housing requirements being coordinated partially off -site to satisfy the requirements, and there might be some opportunity to adjust those numbers. Mr. Semingson noted that as they look at off -site requirements, it improves the potential for tax credits; and the participation of the Redevelopment Agency would allow for bonds to be tax exempt. Boardmember/Mayor Pro Tem. Schiffner asked how many of the 1,750 homes in Village One would be low /moderate units. Mr. Semingson indicated that the 1,750 homes would require 220 low /moderate units as an off -set. Legal Counsel /City Attorney Leibold explained the requirement which applies to all Redevelopment Agencies in California and explained the relevant calculations. Boardmember /Councilman Buckley questioned the appropriateness of meeting the requirement off -site. Legal Counsel /City Attorney Leibold indicated that if it could be met within the Redevelopment Project Area, appropriate findings could be made to meet the obligation. She further PAGE FIFTEEN - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 309 2002 indicated that if it was within the City, but outside the Redevelopment Agency Project Area it could be counted toward the requirement, but it would be on a two to one basis, however she would prefer to avoid that situation. Boardmember/Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner noted that they could be built on downtown properties as well. Mr. Semingson indicated that if they were going to solve the deficiency through building something new, the most advantageous economic model was to do it in the downtown setting. Boardmember /Councilman Buckley indicated he thought off -site would be fine for rehabilitation of existing housing stock, but he didn't think it was appropriate to move everything from one neighborhood to another. He further indicated that he would be very concerned if they were considering building completely new buildings separate from the project. Mr. Semingson indicated that they were very strong proponents of mixed income within neighborhoods, and stressed the need to keep within the realities of project economics. He commented that they would endorse any model that encouraged mixing incomes throughout the neighborhood. Boardmember /Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner noted that the in -fill lots in the downtown area were in need of improvements and development, and this would be a great opportunity to have those improvements done. Mr. Semingson indicated that although they wanted to guard their opportunities in the back basin, he would be happy to make his public finance expertise available to look at other projects as well. Legal Counsel /City Attorney Leibold indicated that there were a variety of solutions available. Mr. Semingson noted that these issues come with the territory, but stressed their commitment to proceeding with the project. He addressed the capitalized value of the tax increment, and indicated that whatever assistance was needed in the debt service would be able to be viewed as a loan rather than a contribution; which impacts how much financing can be created. He advised that they were looking to solve as much as possible through tax increment financing. He suggested that after additional costs are determined, the project should come down to about a $15 million gap to fill. Boardmember/Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner questioned the final gap after the U PAGE SIXTEEN - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 30, 2002 Agency's assistance. Mr. Semingson indicated that the increment was only relative to Village One, so it was a question of how to deal with the $14 million. He suggested that there was a very high probability of contributing towards the debts service of the existing senior lien, which was unmet. He indicated that they would like to view the tax increment financing as a loan, and that they were not asking for any kind of public domain taking of property. Chairwoman/Councilwoman Brinley inquired if the Agency were to reinstate the power of eminent domain, if it would alleviate problems. Mr. Semingson indicated that if that meant that they could develop the entire project, it would assist with the funding, however they had made the assumption that action was not possible. He noted the concerns of the lender with regard to the golf course, and the proposed tax increment off- set. There was general discussion of the accuracy of the numbers presented and the associated risks. Chairwoman /Councilwoman Brinley inquired how much Civic Partners had spent on the project so far. Mr. Semingson indicated that they had spent about $800,000; and noted that once they have amended the Disposition and Development Agreement, they would be in a slightly less risky position. He commented that their proposal was based on the assumption that as the property values escalate the increased amount would be available for tax increment financing. He indicated that the acquisition of property would take the project to a new level, and stressed that it was important to get the advantage of the base year assessment. Boardmember /Councilman Buckley noted that by talking about buying property it would make the property more valuable. Chairwoman/Councilwoman Brinley inquired if it would be appropriate to start gathering up property. Mr. Semingson indicated that would only accelerate the problem, but commented that when the Tax Increment Financing is used as a future repayment source, the equity provider was not needed. Boardmember/Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner asked about the need to raise the grade of the property, and whether it would be difficult to proceed in PAGE SEVENTEEN - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 309 2002 increments. Mr. Semingson indicated that without the golf course and mitigation measures, none of the property would have any value, but once the problems were solved, others could benefit from the improvements. There was further discussion of the lending requirements, risk factors, project timing, and the importance of moving forward quickly. Chairwoman /Councilwoman Brinley questioned the options, and noted that the community had been promised a golf course for a very long time. Mr. Semingson clarified that they want to build the golf course, but noted the concerns based on the phasing requirements. There was general discussion of the golf course timing and funding. Mr. Semingson indicated that the best option for everyone would be to build as soon as possible so the project would more quickly absorb the cost of the golf course. Mr. Semingson commented on the business philosophy they used when they took over the project and their efforts to reduce the project into manageable pieces and reduce the initial cost impacts. He addressed the FEMA and Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional lines in the back basin and noted the steps required to shift the lines and make this project feasible. He indicated that they were still working to solve those issues, but they were limited until they knew what they could develop. Chairwoman/ Councilwoman Brinley indicated that she did not see a problem as long as their efforts did not place the City in harms way with the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Semingson indicated that they were proposing to be part of the solution, possibly through the use of available grants; once they have received the permit to bring the City /Water District into compliance on the overall Lake Management Plan. Boardmember/Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner commented that if the project as proposed was found acceptable, he wanted a nice project. He indicated that generally speaking he would be in support of their proposal. U PAGE EIGHTEEN - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 309 2002 Boardmember /Councilman Buckley commented on "being had" and requested an outline of Civic Partners' current and former relationship with TMC. Mr. Semingson indicated that the people at TMC were nice, good people, but Civic Partners was present at this meeting as a settlement of a dispute with TMC whereby they obtained control of the project. Legal Counsel /City Attorney Leibold confirmed that Civic Partners was present at this meeting because of their settlement with TMC and because of the City's dispute with TMC. Mr. Strofi indicated that they were able to offer a solution to the Agency /City dispute with TMC. Mr. Semingson indicated that this would solve the problem for everyone. He noted that TMC's proposal was based on good intentions, but not well thought through. He noted that when contacted regarding this project, TMC had been cooperative. He stressed that Civic Partners was a separate entity and received this project as part of the settlement property of Minora Chen. Boardmember /Councilman Buckley questioned the status of the Civic Partners project underway in Vista, CA. Mr. Semingson indicated that it was going great, with four new leases signed yesterday. He encouraged Mr. Buckley to talk with the City Manager or Redevelopment Agency Director in Vista. Boardmember /Councilman Buckley indicated that he had concerns about the phasing and the lack of up -front land purchases, but that could be discussed later. Mr. Seminson indicated that they would be acquiring about $16 million in land very shortly after the execution of the agreement. He noted that was close to 700 acres in Village One. Boardmember/Mayor Kelley indicated that most of her questions had been answered, but reiterated that the golf course was a concern. Chairwoman/Councilwoman Brinley indicated that she enjoyed the presentation, and her only concern, as Chair of Agency, was what the project would look like. She noted that they had promised a beautiful package, but expressed hopes that the quality of the project would be a high priority. She indicated that she was also concerned with the golf course, as it was important to the community. She stressed that the community PAGE NINETEEN - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JAN. 309 2002 deserved a good product. She thanked Civic Partners for their presence and presentation and indicated it was nice to put a face with the name. 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:52.2)(X:40.1) B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code §54956.9) Liberty Founders LLC v. City of Lake Elsinore, et al (Riverside Co. Superior Court Case 4355890) (F:52.2)(X:40.1) Legal Counsel /City Attorney announced the Closed Session discussion items as listed above. THE SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY /CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 12:40 P.M. THE SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RECONVENED AT 12:59 P.M. WITH NO REPORTABLE ACTION. ADJOURNMENT THE SPECIAL R 1:00 P. O N� AGENCY MEETING AS ADJOURNED AT 1:00 P.M AT ST: A B NX REDEVEL PM VICKI DSAD,JCMC , CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY U e MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/REDELOPMENTAGENCY STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kelley called the Study Session to order at 4:10 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY, BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, City Attorney Leibold, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information /Communications Manager Dennis, Building and Safety Manager Russell and Deputy City Clerk Paredes. 1. AeendaReview. (F:44.1) 0 Mayor Kelley addressed the Presentation and asked for clarification. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that Mr. Mark Norton from the Santa Ana Watershed Authority would be present to present an update on the Lake Elsinore /San Jacinto Watershed Authority. He indicated that Mr. Norton would be asking Council for some suggestions for projects that could be addressed by a new Park Bond issue or Water Bond issue. 9 PAGE TWO — STUDY SESSION— FEB. 129 2002 Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 3, regarding the Declaration of Weeds, Rubbish, Refuse and Dirt as a Nuisance with notification to property owners. He asked what happened to the Weed Abatement Lien after the property defaulted. City Attorney Leibold noted that there were various procedures that applied to a property regarding Weed Abatement and other related liens. She outlined the various ways that a lien could be addressed upon the "tax sale" of a property. Mayor Kelley asked how other cities handled Weed Abatement liens. City Attorney Leibold stated that she would make a review of the issue and respond latter. There was general discussion regarding tax lien subordination. Councilman Hickman questioned who selected the properties abated for weeds and further questioned if citizens in the community could report a rubbish complaint. City Attorney Leibold stated that the City responded on a complaint -by- complaint basis and Code Enforcement issued citations for such issues. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that Code Enforcement patrolled the City and issued citations without complaints being filed by the citizens, however if someone did file a complaint then Code Enforcement did respond. Councilman Buckley clarified that what he was addressing was vacant land that had been abated and ended up in a tax sale. Administrative Services Director Boone explained that the City operated under the Teeter Plan and when an assessment was placed on a parcel the money was rendered to the City the same year. He further explained that it would then be up to the County of Riverside to collect the money or waive collection of the assessment for the tax sale. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified the Teeter Plan. He indicated that he, City Attorney Leibold and Administrative Services Director Boone would talk to the County to try and clarify the issue brought before the Mayor's attention. Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 7, regarding the Grant Submittal and Agreement Extension — Wildlife Conservation Board. He stated his opposition to this item and questioned the RTP grant that was declined and asked if it was one of the grants that Mr. Molendyk was assisting the City with. Councilman Hickman clarified the cost PAGE THREE — STUDY SESSION — FEB. 129 2002 for Mr. Molendyk's services. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that it would amount to $2,000 a month for four months. Mayor Kelley asked what services the City received from Mr. Molendyk. City Manager Watenpaugh presented an overview of the services that had been provided by Mr. Molendyk and the proposed services. He explained that through successful meetings with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, Mr. Harrison and Mr. Molendyk presented the City's desire for property acquisition and development to the State with favorable comments and recommended that the City combine various grant requests into one grant request for acquisition of property at the Four Corners area in the amount of $5 million. He indicated that what staff was requesting was to extend Molendyk and Associates agreement for four months to allow finalization of a program; allow for Mr. Harrison to walk the grant through with the agencies in Sacramento; and following that, the issue would be heard by Wildlife Conservation Board in May or August. Councilman Hickman asked what type of remuneration the City would receive. City Manager Watenpaugh outlined the requirement of identification of property and the procedure for acquisition of the grant monies. He indicated that the City was advised to apply for additional monies for public access and Habitat Restoration. He noted that the total would be $7 million in grant money. Mayor Kelley addressed Item No. 31, regarding the Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map No. 27851 " Lusk Elsinore ". She invited Mr. Hewison to address Council. Mr. Ron Henson, 35 Villa Valtelena, presented an overview of the history of the project. He criticized the Planning Department and explained that he felt that they were representing the interests of the developer and not the rights of the existing property owners. He noted previous elevations and the resolution that Council reached which required easements from lots 1 through 10 in Tuscany Hills. U PAGE FOUR — STUDY SESSION — FEB. 129 2002 He noted that the property owners had not signed the easement deeds and Lusk made no effort to meet with the property owners to resolve the existing problems. He asked that Council consider limiting extension of time for Lusk to meet the conditions set by Council. He noted Condition No. 26, which had not been met. Councilwoman Brinley asked if Mr. Hewsion was addressing the Conditions of Approval on the Tentative Tract Map. Mr. Hewsion stated that he was and further noted Minutes from the February 22, 2000, City Council Meeting and indicated that Planning Commission Chairman Wilsey had stated that the project could not go forward without the easements. He indicated that later in the Meeting Community Development Director Brady stated that the project could be done without the easements, however it would be more difficult to do so. He noted that Chairman Wilsey indicated in the Minutes that without the easements the project would have to address grading. He concluded the easements had not been granted and he felt that it should be addressed now, rather than two years from now. He again encouraged Council to limit the extension of time. Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner questioned the status of the project and what the next step would be. He clarified that Lusk had not met the Conditions of Approval and would start at square one. Community Development Director Brady stated that he did not believe the easements were necessary for Lusk to proceed with the project, based on the Conditions of Approval that were approved by the City Council. He stated that Lusk had been moving forward in their process to prepare their Tract Map. He stated that they had not met all the Conditions of Approval, since some of the Conditions would have to be met at various times at later stages. He explained that under the Subdivision Map Act, Lusk could request an extension of time; they did so; and staff was recommending approval of the extension. Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner clarified that the reason for the easements was to set the elevation. He asked if they did not receive the easements, how would they proceed. Community Development Director Brady stated PAGE FIVE — STUDY SESSION — FEB. 129 2002 that they would use retaining walls. He indicated that Condition No. 26 was designed to keep the roofline elevations four feet below the adjacent grades. He stated that if Mr. Johnson from Lusk Developers could not get the easements, then Condition No. 26 would not apply. There was general discussion regarding Condition No. 26 and the intent of the easements. Mayor Kelley stated that the issue could be resolved. Councilman Hickman stated that he was on the Property Owners Board at Tuscany Hills. He stated that Lusk never came back to the property owners to resolve the easement issue. He indicated that to protect the citizens, Council should allow a six -month extension with the condition that Lusk meet and work with the property owners in Tuscany Hills. Mayor Pro Tem. Schiffner asked if the Subdivision Map Act allowed Luck to request an extension of two years. Community Development Director Brady confirmed. Mayor Pro Tem. Schiffner asked if Council could refuse the extension. Councilwoman Brinley stated that Council could refuse the extension or condition the extension. She suggested amending Condition No. 26 to require Lusk to meet with the homeowners and come to a resolution. Councilman Buckley suggested putting teeth in Condition No. 26 and narrow the time line which provides the window of opportunity to meet with the property owners. Mayor Pro Tem. Schiffner noted that given the past history of this project he felt that there was no agreement that could be reached. He noted that Lusk would either have to come to an agreement with the property owners or revise the Tentative Track Map to include retaining walls and he was not sure that Council would even approve the retaining walls. U PAGE SIX — STUDY SESSION — FEB. 129 2002 Councilwoman Brinley stated that she did not want the property owners to lose their view shed. Mayor Kelley assured Mr. Hewison the issue would be addressed at the City Council Meeting. Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 33, regarding the Change Order for McVicker Fire Station — Triquest Builders. He asked why the site was changed to McVicker Park instead of using the original site located on Lincoln Street, since it was so much more expensive to build on the park site. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that the relocation of the site was at the request of the Fire Department. He further explained that they had requested that the site be moved to a higher elevation. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that four years ago it was proposed to place a temporary Fire Station at Lincoln and Machado Street and the surrounding residents opposed that action due to noise. Mayor Kelley addressed Item No. 36, regarding LSA Associates Traffic Impact/Roadway Fee Program and stated that it had taken LSA far too long to produce the project. She questioned what the problem was with the project. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that staff had the first draft for review and what was before Council was a request for additional funds for monies they expended preparing documents and additional time in research for data to facilitate the comparison. Community Development Director Brady stated that staff was in the process of commenting on the original program that was submitted and it would be mailed to them tomorrow. He indicated that a Study Session would be proposed for Mid March with the Council and Development Community to review the fee process. He explained that the original model addressed total build out and the circulation element did not match which threw the study off, however staff instructed them to revise the model to 20 to 25 year build out, which was another reason it took longer than originally expected. Mayor Kelley stated her frustration, since Council wished to have the study complete prior to the County having their TUMF Fee in place. PAGE SEVEN — STUDY SESSION — FEB. 129 2002 Councilwoman Brinley stated that Council had been waiting for the study for over a year and stated that she felt it needed to be addressed quickly. She stressed her frustration and asked Community Development Director Brady to expedite the matter within the next thirty days. Councilman Hickman asked how the study would be impacted by the habitat. Community Development Director Brady stated that the study was based on existing Land Use and did not include the possible habitat; however not going to full build out and the land lost to habitat would offset each other. Councilman Hickman questioned the purchase of necessary software for the program. Community Development Director Brady stated that the City would have the data, however the City did not own the program to run the data. He explained that in order to run the program the City would have to purchase the program or utilize LSA's services. Councilman Hickman questioned the price of the software. Community Development Director Brady stated that it would cost approximately $10,000. Councilman Schiffner concurred with Mayor Kelley and Councilwoman Brinley regarding frustration at the length of time it had taken to produce the study and the additional cost, however the study must be finished and the City had little choice but to proceed. He noted that all of the money was reimbursable from the Fees once the program was implemented. Councilwoman Brinley noted that when the Council approved the contract with LSA, the study was suppose to take 90 days, and now Council was looking at almost a year and the study was not complete. She indicated that staff needed to stay on top of the situation and make sure that the firm produced the product that the City contracted for. U Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 39, regarding the Pro -Rata Contribution and TUMF Consultant Activities. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that the pro rata share of the Traffic Mitigation Fee was a request that came from WRCOG last October and was tabled by Council. He indicated that Council tabled the item to provide an opportunity to track the program and to allow the City's PAGE EIGHT — STUDY SESSION FEB. 129 2002 TUMF to be in place. He explained that the City had just received another request from WRCOG asking the City to reconsider their Pro - Rata Contributions for the Region in the amount of $2,400. Councilman Hickman questioned the WRCOG collection of the TUMF. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that it would be a fee placed on a regional basis for every residential unit and commercial development, which would pay a portion of street improvements, roads, etc. Mayor Kelley noted that the item was tabled in October because so much money had been spent on the whole process due to WRCOG underestimating the total cost. Mayor Kelley asked how much the Regional TUMF has cost to date. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that it was approximately $22 million. Mayor Kelley noted that the project was still not done and when WRCOG has overruns, they look to their members to make up the difference. Councilman Buckley stated that he was under the impression that the Regional Study should have been complete some time ago and noted that they seemed to have experienced the same thing as the City with LSA. Councilwoman Brinley stated that the private sector would expect a job done in a timely fashion, however because the firms are working for government they do not feel that they need to follow the same business practices. She noted how frustrating the situation was. Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 40, regarding Park Maintenance Assessment District — Proposal from Harris and Associates and asked for clarification on the Council's vote. He stated that if the Council did not approve going forward with the item, the assessment was essentially dead. Mayor Kelley agreed. Councilman Buckley stated that if the item were approved, then there would be another vote in April. Mayor Kelley agreed and explained that the item before Council, if approved, would allow Harris and Associates to move forward with the next step to prepare the item for the ballot procedure. City Attorney Leibold asked that after Closed Session was adjourned and the Council reconvened into Public Session that she be allowed to announce the Closed Session Report in the beginning of the Meeting. PAGE NINE — STUDY SESSION — FEB. 129 2002 Redevelopment Agency Agenda Review No Comments. ADJOURNMENT THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:50 P.M. i GENIE LLEY, MAY R CIT OF LAKE ELSINORE Respectfully submitted, Paredes, Deputy City Clerk AT' EST: VIC�KI SAD, M.C., CITY CLERK HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE U 9 MINUTES REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 129 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Brinley at 5:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information /Communications Manager Dennis, Building & Safety Manager Russell and Deputy Clerk of the Board 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:52.2) U 9 PAGE TWO - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES - FEB. 129 2002 B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code §54956.9) Liberty Founders LLC v. City of Lake Elsinore, et al (Riverside Co. Superior Court Case #355890)(F:40.1)(X:52.2) Legal Counsel Leibold announced the Closed Session as listed above. THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:07 P.M. The Closed Session discussion was completed at 6:55 p.m. RECONVENE PUBLIC SESSION (7:00 p.m.) Chairwoman Brinley called the meeting to order in Public Session at 9:35 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BOARDMEMBERS BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY NONE. Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Fire Chief Gallegos, Police Chief Walsh, Information/ Communications Manager Dennis, and Clerk of the Board Kasad. CLOSED SESSION REPORT Legal Counsel Leibold announced that the Redevelopment Agency met in Closed Session to discuss the two items listed on the agenda. She indicated that both items were discussed, with no reportable action. PAGE THREE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES - FEB. 129 2002 BOARDMEMBER BUCKLEY LEFT THE MEETING AT 9:36 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS None Requested. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 0 WITH BUCKLEY ABSENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. The following Minutes were approved: a. Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session - January 22,2002.(17:134.3) b. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting - January 22, 2002. C. Special Redevelopment Agency meeting - January 30, 2002. 2. Ratified Warrant List for January 31, 2002. (F:12.3) PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON - AGENDIZED ITEMS No Comments. LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS U Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that Chairwoman Brinley had submitted a letter to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board, as required under Redevelopment Law, disclosing her acquisition of real property in Project Area 2 as her principal residence. She noted that such acquisition is permitted as principal residence. She requested that the following letter be entered into the record of the meeting: (17:134.1) PAGE FOUR - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES - FEB. 129 2002 To Mayor Kelley & Vice Chairman Hickman: The purpose of this letter is to disclose to the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency Board that I have purchased real property for personal residential use in Redevelopment Project Area No. 2. The property is located at 31540 Canyon View Drive and serves as my principal residence. This disclosure is being made in accordance with the requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law. In accordance with those requirements, I would request that this disclosure be entered into the minutes of the Agency. Sincerely, PAMELA BRINLEY, CHAIRWOMAN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Legal Counsel Leibold noted the general disclosure requirements with regard to residential ownership in a Project Area; and explained that the law prohibited acquiring property in the project area unless it was for personal residential property. She noted that this disclosure was required of Agency Members and certain critical staff members. Executive Director Watenpaugh gave kudos to Chairwoman Brinley and Legal Counsel Leibold for their work with the team to finalize the Concession Agreement. He noted that staff met with an individual interested in submitting a proposal for marketing the Stadium. He indicated that the proposal had not yet been received, but staff was prepared to discuss it. PAGE FIVE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES - FEB. 129 2002 BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS Boardmember Schiffner indicated that he would reserve his kudos for his first hot dog. Boardmember Hickman indicated that he was anxious to use his parking space. Chairwoman Brinley indicated that she was pleased with the Concession Agreement and the Community would enjoy the new relationship with the team. She commented that the Storm Team was Number 1, looked forward to a good working relationship with Mr. Jacobs, and expressed hopes of successful promotion for more activities. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 0 WITH BUCKLEY ABSENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AY MEETING AT 9:42 P.M. f OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE A HEST: VICKI KASAD, CMC, CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE U n MINUTES CITY COUNCIVREDELOPMENTAGENCY STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kelley called the Study Session to order at 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN SCHIFFNER, KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY 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. 1. Agenda Review.(F:44.1) City Manager Watenpaugh stated that he would announce a correction of the recommendation for item No. 4, Speed Limits for Mission Trail — Resolution No. 2002 -09. He noted that Item No. 6, Consideration of Establishment of Traffic Offender Fund Resolution No. 2002 -14, needed to be pulled in order to change it from a Resolution to an Ordinance and it would be ready for the next agenda. Mayor Kelley clarified that the item would be pulled. There was brief discussion between City Attorney Leibold and U PAGE TWO — STUDY SESSION — FEB. 269 2002 Mayor Kelley on the best way to correct the item as it read on the Agenda. Councilman Hickman addressed the warrant list with respect to the expenditures for auto parts and repairs. City Manager Watenpaugh gave an overview of the type if repairs made by the City Mechanic and the type of work done by outside entities. Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 5, Agreement for Audit Services — Teaman, Ramirez and Smith, and clarified that the firm had been doing the audits for the City in the past. There was general discussion about the firm, their reputation and references. He questioned the existence of a Auditing Board available to provide such information comparable to the State Bar Association for attorneys. There was no confirmation of such an organization. Councilman Hickman inquired as to if the City accepted bids for the Auditing Service and Administrative Services Director Boone indicated that the last bid had been accepted eight years ago, however the City could go to bid in the future. Administrative Services Director Boone confirmed his satisfaction with the firm's performance and noted that they also worked for E.V.M.W.D. There was general discussion on the method of correction for item No. 4 on the Agenda. Councilman Buckley inquired as to the disbursement of funds in consideration for Item No. 6 City Manager Watenpaugh explained that the funds would be put back into the program to help fund additional service. There was discussion of the language in the Resolution with respect to the use of the funds. Mayor Kelley addressed Item No. 21, General Plan Amendment for the revised update of the Housing Element. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that the consultants would be attending the Council Meeting to give a Powerpoint presentation to introduce PAGE THREE — STUDY SESSION — FEB. 269 2002 the program and answer questions. There was general discussion regarding the process of certification for the City's Housing Element and the information provided by the consultants for the presentation. Councilman Hickman requested clarification as to how the fees collected by the City would be used. Community Development Director Brady clarified the goals of the plan and zoning issues. Councilman Hickman addressed the possibility of using the monies to provide homeless shelters. There was brief discussion on zoning issues with regard to emergency shelters and housing. Councilman Hickman commended the Planning Department for a job well done. Mayor Kelley requested clarification of the Density Bonus Ordinance from Community Development Director Brady. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that the recently approved housing elements had not taken into account the Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan, which would have requirements for Density Bonuses. City Attorney Leibold provided a detailed overview on the State's requirements for a Density Bonus in new construction. Councilman Buckley addressed the need for an EIR to be included in the General Plan Amendment to establish where houses should go. City Attorney Leibold advised the General Plan Amendment and that the EIR Assessment conducted with the General Plan adoption was sufficient. She detailed the significance of a General Plan Amendment. Councilman Buckley addressed the amount of vacant land that was available in the City. Community Development Director Brady clarified that the amount of vacant land specified was zoned Residential only and did not include all vacant land in the City. There was general discussion about the residential property inventory in the Specific Plan and the traffic issues. City Attorney Leibold explained that the infrastructure requirements were triggered by the needs of the individual developments; therefore it was the obligation of the developer to U 9 PAGE FOUR — STUDY SESSION — FEB. 269 2002 provide the infrastructure to meet the needs of the developments. There was general discussion of the goals of the housing element as opposed to the requirements of the General Plan. Councilman Buckley called out corrections in the Housing Element on pages 8 and 63. City Manager Watenpaugh gave an overview of Item No. 22 and Community Development Director Brady provided a detailed` explanation of the map and the proposed dedications. There was general discussion about the lot sizes and the improvements. City Manager Watenpaugh addressed Item No. 33 and noted that local City Managers had unresolved issues with the County. He indicated that staff suggested that the City had been supportive of participating in the Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Program and the Riverside County Integrated Plan from the beginning. He indicated that staff recommended adopting Resolution No. 2002 -12 to continue support of the programs while the City continued to work through the process. He gave an overview of the application process. City Manager Watenpaugh noted recent complaints by the public who could not hear the Council speak and requested Council to speak clearly into the microphones. Redevelopment Agency genda Review No Comments. ADJOURNMENT THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:45 P.M. PAGE FIVE — STUDY SESSION — FEB. 269 2002 G E) ,�k-kELLE`4Y, MXV7OW C Y OF LAKE ELSINO E Respectfully submitted, A L. Paredes, Deputy City Clerk VICKI KASA�, CMC, CITY CLERK HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE U I MINUTES REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Brinley at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information /Communications Manager Dennis and Deputy Clerk of the Board 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 Founders LLC v. City of Lake Elsinore, et al (Riverside Co. Superior Court Case #355890) (F:40.1)(X:52.1) U 9 PAGE TWO - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES N Legal Counsel Leibold announced the above listed items for Closed Session discussion. THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 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 Redevelopment Agency Meeting was reconvened in public session, by Chairwoman Brinley at 8:20 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Fire Chief Gallegos, Police Chief Walsh, Information/ Communications Manager Dennis, Planning Manager Villa and Clerk of the Board Kasad. CLOSED SESSION REPORT Legal Counsel Leibold announced that Closed Session met and discussed the two items identified on the agenda, with no reportable action. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS No Comments. PAGE THREE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES CONSENT CALENDAR The following item was pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion and consideration: Item No. 3. MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. The following Minutes were approved: a. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting - February 12, 2002. (F:134.3) 2. Ratified the Warrant List for February 14, 2002.(F:12.3) 4. Concurred with City Council Action to Approve Industrial Project No. 2001 - 04 - Mini - Storage Facility Expansion for Lake Elsinore Self Storage Located at 29151 Riverside Drive. (F:86.2) ITEM PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Agreement for Audit Services - Teaman, Ramirez and Smith, Inc. (F:68.1)(X:24.2) Executive Director Watenpaugh explained that this item was for the provision of audit services and detailed the recommendation. He stressed the importance of the City and Redevelopment Agency considerations being handled separately. Chairwoman Brinley indicated that she pulled this item because it referenced a major change for this business. Legal Counsel Leibold clarified that the major change was due to new legislation. Executive Director Watenpaugh explained that the change was with regard to the GASB legislation and the requirement that all facilities be inventories and valued. He further explained that the study was underway and keeping the existing auditors V I PAGE FOUR - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES would help in that process. MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY HICKMAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE AUDIT BID FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BY TEAMAN, RAMIREZ AND SMITH, INC. THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2004 -2005. PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON - AGENDIZED ITEMS No Comments. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS No Comments. LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS No Comments. BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS No Comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOUR1�i�REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AT 8:24 P. r, ATTEST: CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 7 MINUTES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Brinley called the Study Session to order at 2:02 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN (Boardmembers Buckley & Hickman arrived at 2:10 P.M.) Also Present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, and Clerk of the Board Kasad. DISCUSSION ITEM 1. Goal Settin isioning_(F:134.1) U Chairwoman Brinley indicated that Boardmembers Buckley and Hickman would be late and the Clerk would note their arrival in the minutes. Executive Director Watenpaugh indicated that although the RDA had an Implementation Plan, he felt that it was important for the RDA to set annual goals. He explained that the purpose of this Meeting was to 9 PAGE TWO — RDA STUDY SESSION - MARCH 7, 2002 present an overview of the Redevelopment Agency and where it would go in the future. He noted that although there was only one mandate on the RDA, which was affordable housing, there were a number of functions and purposes that the RDA could serve. He presented an overview of the number of accomplishments that the RDA had accomplished and asked Legal Counsel Leibold to address the definition of Redevelopment. Legal Counsel Leibold presented an overview of the California Community Redevelopment Law, which provides that every community in the State of California has a Redevelopment Agency, which lays dormant until the City Council takes an action to activate the Agency. She noted that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore took action to implement the Redevelopment Agency in 1980 with Redevelopment Agency Area I. She explained that the first action of a Redevelopment Agency was to evaluate the physical, economic and social conditions of its territorial jurisdictions, which covered the City Boundary. She indicated that since 1980 the City had adopted three separate Redevelopment Areas, which are identified as Areas I, II, and III. She presented an overview of blighted conditions, which the Agency addresses as well as an overview of the various functions of the RDA. COUNCILMEN BUCKLEY AND HICKMAN ARRIVED AT 2:10 P.M. Chairwoman Brinley explained to Boardmembers Buckley and Hickman that Legal Counsel Leibold was in the process of defining the parameters of the Redevelopment Agency. Legal Counsel Leibold noted that the only mandate on the Redevelopment Agency was the 20% Set Aside Housing Fund to be used for the purposes of increasing, preserving, and improving the community supply of Low and Moderate Income Housing available at affordable housing costs. She explained that the Redevelopment Law did include a definition of Redevelopment and presented an overview PAGE THREE — RDA STUDY SESSION — MARCH 7, 2002 of the definition. She indicated that the City of Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Plan was very general in nature and provided a template of future actions. Executive Director Watenpaugh presented an overview of the accomplishments of the Redevelopment Agency Project Areas I, II, and III. Executive Director Watenpaugh indicated that the RDA was in the process of certification of the Housing Element to meet the requirements of the Redevelopment Law. Legal Counsel Leibold explained that the Redevelopment Agency was funded through Tax Increment Financing. She further explained that when a Redevelopment Project was established, the assessed value of the property within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Project Area were, for accounting purposes, set and that established the base year assessed value of the property. She indicated that as redevelopment occurs within the Project Area and property values increase, the increased property taxes over the base were called tax increment. She noted that the tax increment was then allocated to the Redevelopment Agency. She explained pass - through increments to other agencies pursuant to agreements that the RDA enters into with other taxing agencies. Legal Counsel Leibold explained that of the tax increment, 20% must be deposited into the Low to Moderate Housing Fund. She further explained that tax increment financing was the primary revenue stream to a Redevelopment Agency. She indicated that tax increment funds could be leveraged and used as a stream of revenue to secure bonds and other funds through State and Federal agencies, which could be compatible with Redevelopment Agency funds, most particularly in regard to housing and could be combined to benefit the Agency. Executive Director Watenpaugh indicated that what Council was being asked to do was take a look at some of the available funding mechanisms and evaluate what they felt would best serve the City as V 9 PAGE FOUR — RDA STUDY SESSION — MARCH 7, 2002 part of the Redevelopment Agency. He noted that finding out what the Board would like to see, as future goals would make it possible for staff to follow -up with suggestions to bring back to the Agency. Chairwoman Brinley stated that she would like to see the Redevelopment Agency have the ability to enact the eminent domain process. She indicated that the Agency needed the authority to perform eminent domain as a tool to promote development. Chairwoman Brinley explained that she and Vice Chairman Hickman met with Mr. Henry Agonia, Former Parks Director for the State of California. She indicated that they had learned about the changes in 2000, for new mechanisms available to Redevelopment Agencies, which could be used as development tools. Executive Director Watenpaugh indicated that staff would note all comments and suggestions; formulate and research the answers; and bring the items back to the Agency for further consideration. Chairwoman Brinley agreed. Boardmember Kelley indicated that she would like to see the Redevelopment Agency rehabilitate the homes that were deteriorating within the City. She suggested areas such as the Bird Tract, Presidential Tract and the downtown area. She noted that the Four Corners area needed attention, as well as the Lake itself. She indicated that she would like to see some assistance for first -time homebuyers. She commented that she had always wanted to see the Redevelopment Agency refurbish homes that would count toward the City's Low and Moderate Housing requirements. Vice Chairman Hickman stated that he would like to see efforts made in the Downtown Residential Area for refurbishing and rehabilitation. He stated that the citizens really needed to hear some success stories and be educated about the RDA to know that there was more to the RDA and what it has accomplished, beside the Movie Theater and PAGE FIVE — RDA STUDY SESSION — MARCH 7, 2002 Stadium, which were seen as negatives. He voiced his doubts regarding the Liberty Project and indicated that the Downtown needed more attention. Boardmember Buckley stated that he felt that the Agency should be limited in scope with specific targets. He agreed with Boardmember Hickman' comments. He noted the three "R's" of Redevelopment, which were recreation, renovation, and restoration. He indicated that the Redevelopment Agency should further recreation at every opportunity. He agreed with Boardmember Kelley regarding rehabilitation in the downtown area. He suggested that at some time in the near future he would like to see an RDA pamphlet distributed in various areas of the City, which would explain how to be a first -time homebuyer. He further stated that he would like to see the RDA Board separate from City Council, chaired by the City Treasurer with members appointed by the City Council. Chairwoman Brinley stated that if the RDA were a separate Board, then the Council would have no say over the type of projects that the Redevelopment Agency would choose to pursue. He addressed restoration and stated that if it would meet the 20% set aside, that would encourage more renovation and restoration in the Downtown Area. Vice Chairman Hickman questioned if the City had been investigated for not having the 20% set - aside. Legal Counsel Leibold stated that the Housing and Community Development Agency was in the process of review and evaluation of Redevelopment activities throughout the State. Lake Elsinore's Redevelopment Agency was audited and it was found that the moneys were set - aside; that the monies had been expended for debt service; and the action was validated by a Riverside Superior County. Boardmember Schiffner commented that he was not necessarily proud of what the RDA did in previous years, however that was what happened and noted that there was nothing illegal done. He stated U 9 PAGE SIX — RDA STUDY SESSION — MARCH 79 2002 that he felt that it should be strongly noted that nothing illegal was done, although the current board did not agree with what was done. He commented that the RDA was in debt approximately $7 million, plus what it owed the City. Chairwoman Brinley commented that there was a time in the past when the RDA gave the City money. Executive Director Watenpaugh stated that in times past the RDA used to pay the City $1+ million annually for staffing. He explained that the RDA and Council were two separate entities, but were meant to work together to render services and eliminate blight. He indicated that the Board and staff were present to figure out how to provide positive growth for the RDA. Boardmember Schiffner further commented that the RDA owed the City and the RDA Low Income Housing Fund and he felt that this should be addressed. He stated that if there were other funding sources available, he felt that the Agency should pursue the funding, however he felt that how the money should be spent should be the first priority. He indicated that when the increments were increased the RDA should begin to pay back its debts. He indicated that the City would be in much better shape if they had the $6 million that the RDA owed it. He commented on the potential of aiding development in the back basin and the incentive would be the increments that the project earned, and would not affect how other funds should be spent. He stated that in that way a new project would improve the City however would still leave money to address the Downtown Area. He agreed that the RDA did need to reestablish the right to eminent domain to assist development. He stressed that he was in favor of redeveloping any area that needed rehabilitation, however he did not want to forget any new development that could benefit the City as well. Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest Drive, asked to have the RDA debt clarified. Boardmember Schiffner clarified that the RDA owed $5 million to Low Income Housing Fund and $6 million to the City of PAGE SEVEN — RDA STUDY SESSION — MARCH 7, 2002 Lake Elsinore, however the total between the two was $11 million. Executive Director Watenpaugh stated that the RDA had adjustments of $906,000 and that money was reallocated to other obligations. Vice Chairman Hickman asked how the RDA put itself in debt. Executive Director Watenpaugh stated that it was the economy. Chairwoman Brinley stated that her main goal was developing partnerships. She indicated that the City could partner with the following: the Outlet Center; Main Street and the local merchants; Country Club Heights through private development; the Storm promoting concerts and activities; and the County to redevelop roadways. She commented that the County Club Heights area could be a true asset to the City and if developed properly could compete with Tuscany Hills for viewshed and beauty. She indicated that she wished to see the RDA work closely with the EDC and the Economic Gardening program. She stated that she felt the RDA should be instrumental in acquiring property along the Lake to make it available for public access as well as acquiring property along Lakeshore Drive for development to end blight in that area. She stated that a program should be developed to allow return of money that could be used for low interest loans. She indicated that the Downtown Area needed to be revitalized. She noted the need to "clear -off' the litigation problems to allow the RDA to promote the old K -Mart site and the Theater site. She agreed with Boardmember Kelley regarding the rehabilitation of the residential areas Downtown. Vice Chairman Hickman stated that to succeed there should be a one - year; a two -year; a five -year plan; and then proceed with the plans. He stated that he felt all the efforts of the RDA should be put money on one or two projects the first year and then expand each year toward the five -year plan. Chairwoman Brinley agreed with Boardmember Kelley that there was a need for the 20% set -aside and concurred it should be a priority, U PAGE EIGHT - RDA STUDY SESSION — MARCH 7, 2002 however the only way that it could be done would be by rehabilitating homes to qualify. Boardmember Schiffner noted the cost of the Stadium and its maintenance, K -Mart and the theater have caused the debt the RDA has experienced. Chairwoman Brinley expressed her frustration regarding the RDA litigation. Executive Director Watenpaugh asked that the Board set guidelines and projects. He suggested that the money from the CDBG could be applied to rehabilitation instead of abatement. He noted that the increment was increasing, however the City does not get the final amount until August, and the budget must be adopted in July, so the amounts are presented on a conservative basis. He suggested that the increased amount could be used as a payback to the City to show that the RDA was meeting goals. There was general discussion regarding attainable goals. Executive Director Watenpaugh asked that each Boardmember give their top two priorities for the RDA. Boardmember Kelley indicated that she would like to see the RDA pay back the City and 29% set -aside and work on rehabilitation of existing areas. Vice Chairman Hickman concurred with Boardmember Kelley's priorities, and added he would like to see assistance with Economic Development to promote new businesses. Chairwoman Brinley stated that she would like to see the RDA pay back its debts on a percentage of available revenue. She agreed with the 20% set -aside and would like to see that built up along with rehabilitation and restoration. PAGE NINE — RDA STUDY SESSION — MARCH 7, 2002 Boardmember Buckley stated that he would like to see restoration and renovation as well as clearing the debts. He stated that he would like to see better marketing of the RDA programs. Boardmember Schiffner stated that he would like to see the debt paid and rehabilitation of the City that the Redevelopment Agency could address. He stated that he would like to see the RDA seek other funding sources to implement rehabilitation. Vice Chairman Hickman referred to the conversation regarding the CDBG Funds and asked if the money were used for rehabilitation instead of abatement, could the City fast track the projects for the contractors. Executive Director Watenpaugh stated that the City could process the project as fast as the Engineer or Architect provided materials to staff. Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that part of the material that the Boardmembers received included a handout that she and her partner developed, but noted that there had been some legislative changes that were not included in the handout. She stated that it was included as a guideline. ADJOURNMENT THE REDEVELOPMENT ADJOURNED AT 3:11 P.M. U PAMELA BRINLEY, CHAIRV� REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT EST: VICKI KASAD, CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY I MINUTES REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Brinley at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY, BRINLEY ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information /Communications Manager Dennis and Deputy Clerk of the Board 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:52.1)(X:40.1) B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code §54956.9) Liberty U PAGE TWO - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES - MAR. 129 2002 Founders LLC v. City of Lake Elsinore, et al (Riverside Co. Superior Court Case #355890) (F:52.1)(X:40.1) Legal Counsel Leibold announced the Closed Session Items as listed above. THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:03 P.M. The Closed Session Discussion was completed at 6:25 p.m. RECONVENE PUBLIC SESSION (7:00 p.m.) The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was reconvened in public session by Chairwoman Brinley at 7:05 p.m. CLOSED SESSION REPORT Legal Counsel Leibold reported that the Redevelopment Agency Board met in closed session regarding the two items listed on the agenda; with both items being discussed and no reportable action. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS None Requested. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. The following Minutes were approved: (F:134.3) a. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session - February 12, 2002. b. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session - February 26, 2002 PAGE THREE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES - MAR. 129 2002 C. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting - February 26, 2002. 2. Ratified Warrant List for February 28, 2002. (F:12.3) 3. Received and ordered filed the Investment Report for January, 2002. (F:12.5) PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON - AGENDIZED ITEMS No Comments. No Comments. LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS No Comments. BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS No Comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AT 7:08 P.M. ATTEST � U/V V L&Y, j PAMELA BR REDEVELOP CKI KASAD CMC CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENCY U n MINUTES SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Brinley called the Special Redevelopment Agency Meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone and Deputy Clerk of the Board 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) B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code §54956.9) Liberty Founders LLC v. City of Lake Elsinore, et.al (Riverside Co. Superior Court Case #355890) V PAGE TWO — SPECIAL RDA MINUTES — MARCH 19, 2002 Legal Counsel Leibold announced Closed Session discussion items, as listed above. THE SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 3:35 P.M. THE SPECIAL , REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RECONVENED AT 5:01P. M. WI NO REPO ABLE ACTION. r . n // � R] spectfully submitted, 17�Zh-J Iria L. Paredes, Deputy Clerk the Board OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Brinley at 5:10 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information /Communications Manager Dennis and Deputy Clerk of the Board 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) B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code §54956.9) Liberty Founders LLC v. City of Lake Elsinore, et al (Riverside Co. Superior Court Case #355890) U I PAGE TWO - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Subdivision ( c ) of Gov't Code §54956.9) Property: AP #373 - 025 -006 and 373 =025 -007 Negotiating Parties: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore and Any Interested Party Under Negotiation: Price & Terms of Payment Legal Counsel Leibold announced the Closed Session discussion items as listed above. THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:12 P.M. The Closed Session discussion was completed at 6:50 p.m. RECONVENE PUBLIC SESSION (7:00 p.m.) Chairwoman Brinley reconvened the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting in Public Session at 8:25 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Fire Chief Gallegos, Police Chief Walsh, Information/ Communications Manager Dennis and Clerk of the Board Kasad. PAGE THREE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES CLOSED SESSION REPORT Legal Counsel Leibold announced that the Redevelopment Agency Board met in Closed Session for the discussions listed on the agenda, but advised that items A and B were not discussed and would be rescheduled for another meeting. She further advised that following this public session, the Board would return to Closed Session for discussion of Item C. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS None Requested. CONSENT CALENDAR The following item was pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion and consideration: Item No. 3. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. The following Minutes were approved: a. Redevelopment Agency Study Session - March 7, 2002 b. City Council /Redevelopment Agency Study Session - March 12, 2002. C. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting - March 12, 2002 2. Ratified Warrant List for March 14, 2002. U PAGE FOUR - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES ITEM PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Commercial Project No. 2001 -03 Design Review of Proposed Commercial/Restaurant Building including Starbucks Coffee Shop and four other suites within Elsinore City Center Walmart Shopping Center and Specific Plan Area. City Manager Watenpaugh noted staff s efforts to separate Council and Redevelopment Agency matters. He explained that even though this item was formally approved by the City Council, it was located within the Redevelopment Agency project area. Chairwoman Brinley commented that the Walmart project was a very controversial Redevelopment Agency item, but had proven to be very successful and continued to do so. She indicated that the operator had done a great job. BOARDMEMBER BUCKLEY LEFT THE MEETING AT 8:28 P.M. Chairwoman Brinley expressed hopes for a new restaurant at some point and noted that the center produced good revenue. She commended the developers on doing a good job. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 0 WITH BUCKLEY ABSENT TO CONCUR WITH THE CITY COUNCIL'S ACTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON - AGENDIZED ITEMS No Comments. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS No Comments. PAGE FIVE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS No Comments. BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS No Comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 0 WITH BUCKLEY ABSENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGE'NCI'LMEETING AT 8:29 P.M. AGENCY ATTEST: 6'&� VICKI KASAD, CMC, CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Y u v,� MINUTES REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Brinley at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information /Communications Manager Dennis and Deputy Clerk of the Board 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 Founders LLC v. City of Lake Elsinore, et al (Riverside Co. Superior Court Case #355890) (F:40.1)(X:52.1) U PAGE TWO - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - APRIL 9, 2002 Legal Counsel Leibold announced the Closed Session discussion items as listed above. THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:03 P.M. The Closed Session discussions were completed at 7:00 p.m. RECONVENE PUBLIC SESSION (7:00 p.m.) The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order in public session by Chairwoman Brinley at 8:37 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Fire Chief Gallegos, Police Chief Walsh, Information/ Communications Manager Dennis and Clerk of the Board Paredes. CLOSED SESSION REPORT Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that the Redevelopment Agency Board met in Closed Session for discussion of the above listed items and both were discussed with no reportable action. PAGE THREE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - APRIL 9, 2002 PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS None Requested. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY HICKMAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. The following Minutes were approved: a. Special Redevelopment Agency Meeting - March 19, 2002. (F:134.3) b. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session - March 26, 2002 C. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting - March 26, 2002. 2. Ratified Warrant List for March 28, 2002. (F:12.3) 3. Received and ordered filed the Investment Report for February, 2002. (F:12.5) PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON - AGENDIZED ITEMS Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest, noted the discussion at the last meeting of a $22 million golf course, and study session on January 30`h, which she missed. She indicated that she was appalled because the project appeared to use public tax funds. She noted comments by the developer that time was an enemy of their business and they wanted to fast track the project. She questioned why the project had come up again, when the first shovel of dirt had never been moved. She inquired if this discussion would result in more lawsuits or settle an existing one. She expressed concern that the projects involved public /private funds. She questioned how the City could participate financially with its existing debt, and if it was contemplating refinancing. She suggested that the floodplain should be limited to commercial and mainly recreation. She noted an article from a 1997 newspaper regarding the "Eastlake" project and detailed the participants at the U 9 PAGE FOUR - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - APRIL 9, 2002 time. LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS No Comments. BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS Boardmember Buckley indicated that mistakes were made in the back basin, but he hoped that the future project would not fall prey to the syllogism of politicians. Boardmember Schiffner commented that he was not sorry he had commented on the golf course at the last meeting, as the Board was trying to negotiate a way out of a problem it was stuck with. He stressed that the Board inherited problematic agreements, but this seemed to be one way to get out of them. He indicated that if the discussions went well, the Board would be free to discuss the benefits. Vice Chairman Hickman noted the concerns of citizens not wanting to make the same mistakes and stressed that the City had learned from its past and would do proper due diligence. He stressed that there would be time for public input, but until then he was holding his decision because the Council had a financial responsibility. Chairwoman Brinley commented that the Board was aware of its responsibilities and had been very public with the efforts in the back basin. She stressed that the Board was working with the City Attorney through negotiations for something beneficial to the City. She further stressed that the issues would be discussed and disclosed the Board would see that the due diligence had been done. Executive Director Watenpaugh commented that concerned citizens were a positive factor, but stressed that public meetings were not back room discussions. PAGE FIVE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - APRIL 9, 2002 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY HICKMAN TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT 8:45 P.M. TEST: VICKI KASAD, CMC, CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY u n MINUTES REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Brinley at 9:14 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, KELLEY SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: HICKMAN Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Fire Chief Gallegos, Police Chief Walsh, Information /Communications Manager Dennis and Clerk of the Board Kasad. CLOSED SESSION U None. CLOSED SESSION REPORT No Report. I PAGE TWO - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS No Comments. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. The following Minutes were approved: a. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session - April 9, 2002. (F:134.3) b. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting - April 9, 2002. 2. Received and ordered filed the Investment Report for March, 2002. (17:12.5) PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON - AGENDIZED ITEMS No Comments. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS No Comments. LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS No Comments. PAGE THREE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS No Comments. ,.VMI 1[►�E�►M_l MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR RED LOPMENT AGENCY,' MEETING AT 9:15 P.M. �, 'PAMELA BRINLEY, CHAIRW REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY(_) A EST; VICKI KASAD, CMC, CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY u 9 MINUTES REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Vice - Chairman Hickman at 8:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, HICKMAN ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BRINLEY Also present were: Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Police Lieutenant Snodgrass, Information /Communications Manager Dennis, Recreation /Tourism Manager Edelbrock, Public Works Manager Payne and Clerk of the Board Kasad. CLOSED SESSION None. U CLOSED SESSION REPORT None. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS None Requested. PAGE TWO - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. The following Minutes were approved: a. Special Redevelopment Agency Meeting - April 16, 2002. (F:134.3) b. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session - April 23, 2002. C. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting - April 23, 2002. PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON - AGENDIZED ITEMS Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest, expressed hopes that many residents had received notices regarding the new tax assessment. She commented on the "fat" salaries paid to City Staff. She noted that the assessment could be increased by 3% annually and speculated that it would be increased and it would be $100 in five years. She further noted that the money was only for parks, but commented on money borrowed from the library fund, which had not been paid back yet. She commented that it was hilarious that the City suggested that opposition to the tax would take the benefit away from the children. She read portions of a letter from the Howard Jarvis Organization regarding Proposition 218, and stressed that funds could not be transferred for use on other purposes. She further stressed that if funds were transferred from the parks and recreation assessment to other accounts it was a violation of State law and the City would be subject to penalties. She indicated that if the assessment were to pass there was still a means of challenging it under Proposition 218 through the initiative process. Edith Stafford, 29700 Hursh, inquired into the status of insurance for Boardmember Brinley; and noted that she was sorry that Mrs. Brinley was not present to answer her questions. She suggested that the City was not being cooperative and something seemed to be wrong. She expressed concern with a PAGE THREE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES Councilperson putting a grandchild on their insurance when the father was gainfully employed and the taxpayers were paying for the benefit. She indicated that Mrs. Brinley would have had to be the legal guardian and support the child in her home all of the time. She questioned what happened to the necessary forms and the affidavit, which would have been signed. She commented that the taxpayers were being asked to pass an assessment when tax dollars were being used unfairly. She questioned the City's credibility and trust and noted the loss of documentation. She expressed concern that the residents were being asked to trust the City with their money. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS Assistant Executive Director Best commented on the Park Assessment and clarified that a five year increase at 3% would only increase the assessment to $44.28, not $100. She deferred to Legal Counsel regarding the insurance issues. LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS Legal Counsel Leibold noted that the park assessment was not an appropriate topic for the RDA Agenda. She commented on the issue of insurance, and indicated that CalPERS had found the request for termination in 1996 and no claims had been made after 1996, so the City had requested a reimbursement from CalPERS. She indicated that at a point in time the grandchild had been a dependent and covered for a short period of time by the insurance. BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS No Comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY AND CARRIED BY U PAGE FOUR - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AT 8:11 P.M. G G RYL ICKMAN, VICE- CHAIRMAN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ATTEST: VICKI KASAD, CMC, CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, MAY 289 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Brinley at 5:09 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BOARDMEMBERS: BRINLEY, BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Engineering Manager O'Donnell, Information/ Communications Manager Dennis, Deputy Clerk of the Board Paredes, and Clerk of the Board Kasad. CLOSED SESSION U A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Government Code §54965.8) Property: A.P.N. 373 - 210 -040 & 371 - 030 -021 (Lake Elsinore Diamond Stadium and parking lot) Negotiating Parties: Impact Capital Consulting, L.L.C. and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore Under Negotiation: Price and Terms PAGE TWO - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES City Attorney Leibold announced the Closed Session discussion item as listed on the Agenda. THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:10 P.M. The Closed Session discussion was completed at 6:55 p.m. RECONVENE PUBLIC SESSION Chairwoman Brinley reconvened the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting in Public Session at 8:40 p.m. CLOSED SESSION REPORT Legal Counsel Leibold announced that the City Council met in Closed Session on one item as listed on the Agenda, with no reportable action. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS None. Requested. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS Chairwoman Brinley requested that Item No. 4 be pulled from the Consent Calendar for consideration as a Business Item. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONSIDER ITEM NO.4 AS A BUSINESS ITEM. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. PAGE THREE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES 1. The following Minutes were approved: a. Special Redevelopment Agency Meeting - April 30, 2002. b. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting - May 14, 2002. 2. Ratified Warrant List for May 16, 2002. 3. Received and ordered riled the Investment Report for April, 2002. BUSINESS ITEM 4. Park & Recreation Maintenance District Assessment Ballots. Executive Director Watenpaugh noted that this item was a counterpart to the item before the City Council regarding the casting of ballots. He reiterated that there would need to be a vote on whether to vote the ballots, possibly followed by a vote on how to vote. He detailed the number of ballots and the value of the ballots. Chairwoman Brinley inquired if there had been calls or correspondence relating to this item. Chris Hyland passed on the opportunity to speak. Max Aragon, 8 Corte Cervati, indicated that after what he had heard at this meeting, he would suggested that a lot of calls had not been received on this issue was because the public was not aware of the votes the Redevelopment Agency was able to cast. Boardmember Schiffner noted that the council and the RDA did not have to be voted the same way. He indicated that he believed he had conceded sufficiently to the opposition and stopped the vote on 76 ballots. He indicated that he thought he should divide them up, so he would be in favor of voting on the RDA ballots. Boardmember Buckley requested that his comments from the City Council V I PAGE FOUR - CITY COUNCIL. MINUTES - MAY 2$9 2002 meeting be duplicated for this meeting to include bad public relations, double taxation, conflictgs, etc. He expressed concern with voting on the ballots. The following are Boardmember Buckley's comments from the City Council Meeting: Councilman Buckley addressed the process, and indicated that there was a point before the ballots were mailed that if the Council had decided they should have mailed ballots to every public agency to see if they believed their property to be exempt, which would have prevented this issue. He explained that most public agency property does not pay property tax, so independent invoices would be required, and the City would have to hope they would pay. He indicated that another problem was whether the Stadium was included, and how it was classified by the Assessor and the Engineer. He indicated that he asked about the Stadium in the beginning; but if the Stadium was a park and not included in the budget, it couldn't be back filled because the budget was already set. He noted that it was his first year to participate in the budget process, but he was in favor of cutting first and taxing second. He agreed that it would look bad if the City voted and expressed concern with issues of double taxation. He indicated that the City was d ferent from other public agencies; as the Water District should vote if it has to pay, however they were not voting to give themselves more money. He indicated that "legally defensible" was not enough for Lake Elsinore, and it needed to be better. He expressed concern for the potential of the City Council voting 3,700 votes and having the measure pass by 3,500 votes, as it would negate the will of the residents. Vice Chairman Hickman called for a point of order with regard to splitting the votes, either 3 - 2 or all one way. Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that the Board votes would be voted all one way; based on the majority vote. Vice Chairman Hickman indicated that he was against the Park Assessment. Boardmember Kelley indicated that her comments were the same, that the ballots should be cast. PAGE FIVE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES Chairwoman Brinley indicated that her comments stood. MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 2 WITH BUCKLEY AND HICKMAN CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTES TO PROCEED WITH VOTING THE BALLOTS ON BEHALF OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY HICKMAN TO REVERSE THE PREVIOUS DECISION. MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 2 TO 3 WITH BRINLEY, KELLEY AND SCHIFFNER CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTES. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 2 WITH BUCKLEY AND HICKMAN CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTES TO VOTE YES ON THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S 27 BALLOTS, VALUED AT 650.83 VOTES. PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON- AGENDIZED ITEMS, No Comments. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS No Comments. BOARDMEMBER BUCKLEY LEFT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AT 8:49 P.M. LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS Legal Counsel Leibold commented on the following: 1) Announced disclosure by the City Clerk/Redevelopment Agency Clerk of the Board, regarding acquisition of real property in Redevelopment Project Area 2, as a personal residence; and advised V PAGE SIX - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES' that this disclosure was provided pursuant to Redevelopment Agency law requirements. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 8:50 P.M. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:55 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE. BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS No Comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AT 8:56 P.M. 7,L EST: VICKI KASAD, CMC, CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, JUNE 119 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Brinley at 8:18 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Police Lt. Snodgrass, City Engineer O'Donnell Information/Communications Manager Dennis, City Treasurer Ferro and Clerk of the Board Kasad. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session Matters for Discussion. PUBLIC COMMENTS — AGENDIZED ITEMS None Requested. U PAGE TWO - RDA MINUTES — JUNE 11 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. The following Minutes were approved: a. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session - May 28, 2002. PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON- AGENDIZED ITEMS George Alongi, 649 Mill Street, indicated that he was present to comment on the vote at the last meeting regarding the Parks Assessment. He congratulated Boardmember Schiffner on his vote, but expressed concern that the RDA had supported it. He indicated that he would agree that was an option, if the Agency was made up of private citizens who end up footing the bill, instead of Councilmembers. He suggested that in essence he should have voted yes as a Councilmember. He expressed hopes that Mr. Schiffner would reconsider his vote, suggesting a moral conflict, even though there was no legal conflict. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS Executive Director Watenpaugh addressed the Park Ballot, and noted that the Stadium had come up as exempt, but there was a possessory interest tax on which they were allowed to vote the ballot. He also noted that the funds for maintenance of the stadium were not included in the calculation. LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS Legal Counsel Leibold commented on the following: 1} Advised that there were no Closed Session items for discussion by the Redevelopment Agency. t1. 1 IF 1 1 Boardmember Buckley inquired since the Storm held possessory interest in the property, would the campground concessionaire also have possessory interest in the campground property. Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that the Proposition 218 ballots were to be voted by the underlying fee owner, but there were some outstanding issues to be resolved on the Stadium. She further indicated that her understanding was that under Proposition 218 the underlying fee owner held the right to vote, and the possessory interest holder wold not enjoy that voting privilege and the ballot should be returned. She also indicated that the Campground concessionaire would not have ownership or a vote. Boardmember Buckley indicated that there was an issue with the Spanish translation on the envelope; and indicated that it said "Official Property Owner Ticker ". He suggested that there was a big difference from a "ticket" in the mail and a "ballot' in the mail, and commented that the work ticket might be easily misinterpreted. He suggested that the Consultants should respond to that issue. Executive Director Watenpaugh indicated that this matter had been discussed with staff and it was his understanding that the word would suggest "admissions ", although there are a number of terms for ticket which are used differently. Boardmember Buckley stressed that the word did not signify "ballot'. Executive Director Watenpaugh indicated that staff would address this issue and noted that in the process of obtaining property and going through escrow would require the ability to speak at least a little bit of English. U Boardmember Schiffner commented in response to Mr. Alongi, that he could understand his feelings on the vote at the last meeting, however he did not feel that it was the responsibility of the Council to cast ballots in a number over 3,000 votes. He noted that while that was a considerable number of votes, the votes on the RDA ballots were only about 600, but stressed that he had a personal feeling on how he wished the ballots would.go. Re indicated that he felt he had made a considerable concession and he wanted to express his feeling on the ballot and he chose to vote 9 PAGE FOUR - RDA - JUNE 11, 2002 those ballots. He commented that while there may be disagreement, that was how he felt and it was his choice to make. Boardmember Kelley had no comments. Vice Chairman Hickman indicated that with regard to the election, his only fear was that the public wanted assurances that the count would be correct. He stressed the need for public participation, and questioned if the count would be open. - Clerk of the Board Kasad confirmed that the count would be open to the public in City Hall, starting on June 26`". Chairwoman Brinley inquired about new housing areas and noted that they had not received Park.Assessment ballots. She encouraged new residents to contact the City Clerk's Office for ballots. Executive Director Watenpaugh noted the concern discussed regarding the number of votes cast, and reminded the Board that after the ballots were counted, there would still have to be a vote to approve formation of the District. He stressed that regardless of how the votes come out, the formation of the District ultimately required City Council approval. Chairwoman Brinley noted that new residents would need to bring a copy of their Deed of Trust and a written request for a replacement ballot: Boardmember Schiffner commented that if people didn't get ballots; it was not a question of some one messing up, it was a matter of the timing of the information. He stressed that any one had the opportunity to get a replacement. He indicated thatstaffhad no way to know who did not receive ballots, if they did not contact City Hall. Chairwoman Brinley stressed that the City wanted residents to vote and suggested that anyone with questions call City Hall for more information. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THKREGULAR REDEVELOPMENT PAGE FIVE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES - JUNE 119 2002 AGENCY MEETING AT 8:31 P.M. PAMELA BRINLEY, CIiAIRW REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY u I MINUTES' REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, JANE 259 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Brinley called the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting to order at 7:55 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY,`HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: Executive Director W atenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Police Chief Walsh, Fire Chief Gallegos, City.Engineer O'Donnell, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, City Treasurer Ferro and Deputy Clerk of the Board Paredes. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session Matters for Discussion. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEM Requests were received to address the following item and deferred to that discussion: Item No. 8 V PAGE TWO - RDA MINUTES - JUNE 259 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR The following items were pulled from the consent calendar for further discussion: Item Nos. 4 and 6. MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 1 2. The following Minutes were approved: a. Joint Redevelopment Agency Study Session— May 28, 2002. b. Joint Redevelopment Agency Study Session — June 11, 2002. C. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting — June 11, 2002. Ratified the Warrant List of June 14, 2002, 3. Received and ordered filed the Investment Report for May, 2002. 4. Adopted Resolution No. RDA 2002 -02 approving the Agreement of Purchase and Sale for Lakeside Apartments: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002 -02 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN ASSIGNMENT, ASSUMPTION AND CONSENT AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF THE TITLE TO THE LAKESIDE VILLAGE APARTMENTS PROJECT TO ALS LAKESIDE, LP, A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF ANY AND ALL NECESSARY AND RELATED DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREIN. PAGE THREE - RDA MINUTES JUNE 25, 2002 7. Concurred with Council Action to Approve Liberty SPA No. 3, General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -02, Zone Change No. 2002 -02, and Design Review for 12002-01. BUSINESS ITEMS 8. Park and Recreation Maintenance District Assessment Ballots. Executive Director Watenpaugh presented an overview of the item and noted the confusion regarding the ballots for the Stadium. He explained that through the Tax Assessors records ballots were mailed to the Storm due to possessory interest. He noted that after further investigation corrections were made and the ballots before the Agency were available for consideration. Legal Counsel Leibold explained that the ballot that was improperly issued had been returned. She noted that it was in the custody of the City Clerk. She indicated that the Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency was prepared to issue ballots should it be the decision of the Agency to make a "yes" or "no' vote. Chairwoman Brinley called upon those persons who requested to address this item. Jim Morris, 15220 Golden Sands, noted the previous votes on ballots for the Park Assessment District. He asked that theAgency consider the wishes of the public. He stated that he did not feel that it was the intent of the City Council or'the Agency to deceive the people; however he asked that the Agency consider public opinion. Legal Council Leibold stated that the first item the Agency would consider was taking action to cast the ballots issued with respect to the Diamond Stadium and parking lot parcels. Chairwoman Brinley asked how many ballots were being considered. Executive Director Watenpaugh stated that it was 3,673 ballots. U I PAGE FOUR - RDA MINUTES JUNE 25, 2002 Vice Chairman Hickman stated that the problem he had with the Park Assessment was that there was no cap on the Assessment, or time limit on the Assessment. He indicated that in a previous Agency Meeting the Board made the decision to vote on the Assessment Ballots and on this occasion, he did not feel that the Agency should vote. He indicated that he felt that the public should make the decision. Boardmember Schiffner stated that his opinion was well known and stated that he had no idea what the majority of the people wanted, but the Agency and Council would find out soon. He stated that he was opposed to casting the ballots since he did.not think it was proper to vote on them. Boardmember Kelley stated that she was supportive of the Park Assessment Ballot and she would vote in favor of the Assessment. She stated that she felt that the Agency should vote the ballots. Boardmember Buckley stated that he felt that it was inappropriate for either the City or the Agency to cast ballots, since the City and the Agency were the beneficiaries of the Assessment. Chairwoman Brinley stated that there were many children within the City and she felt that the parents of those same children would like to see the parks well maintained. She indicated that the user groups were in favor of the Park Assessment to facilitate maintenance and safety of the parks. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND DENIED BY A VOTE OF 2 TO 3 WITH BUCKLEY, HICKMAN AND SCHIFFNER CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTES, TO CAST THE BALLOTS FOR THE PARK ASSESSMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE DIAMOND STADIUM AND PARKING LOT PARCELS. MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY HICKMAN AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF TO 2 WITH BRINLEY AND KELLEY CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTES,'TO NOT CAST THE REMAINING BALLOTS FOR THE PARK ASSESSMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE DIAMOND STADIUM AND PARKING LOT PARCELS. PAGE FIVE - RDA MINUTES - JUNE 259 2002 ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Resolution 2002-03 authorizing continuing appropriations for Fiscal" Year 2002 -03. Councilman Buckley noted that the item was identical to the item heard by Council. MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4X0 1, WITH SCHIFFNER:CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-03 AUTHORIZING CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 -03, WITH THE ADDITION OF LANGUAGE THAT LIMITS THE RESOLUTION TO THIRTY DAYS AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. RDA2002 -03 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS OF ALL FUNDS NECESSARY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 -03 UNTIL ACTUAL BUDGET CAN BE ADOPTED. 6. Design Review for Commercial Project No. C2001 -02 located at Riverside Drive and Joy Street - APN 379 - 131 -010 and 379 - 131 -012.. Councilman Buckley noted that the item was considered by Council and noted that Mayor Kelley had commented that that because there was a 10- day window for appeals and once the window has closed for an appeal, it was impossible to undo a Conditional Use Permit. He asked staff to be sure that each Conditional Use Permit reached Council in a timely manner to allow Council the opportunity to make proper consideration of the item. U PAGE SIX - RDA MINUTES -JUNE 259 2002 MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONCUR WITH COUNCIL ACTION TO APPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT NO. C 2001 -02 LOCATED AT RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND JOY STREET. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that if there were a better way for staff to communicate with Council, then they would do so, however staff does forward copies of the Planning Commission Agenda to Council and note in the Weekly Information Memos what has been approved. He stated that he would appreciate any suggestions for staff to improve communications. PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON - AGENDIZED ITEMS' None. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS None. LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS None. BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chairman Hickman thanked the Board for not voting the ballots for the Park Assessment District. ADJOURNMENT - MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AT 8:15 P.M. PAGE SEVEN - RDA MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2002 PA MLA BRINLE LAKE ELSINORE AGENCY L. Paredes, Deputy Clerk of the Board A EST: CHI KASAD, CLERK OF THE BOARD LAKE ELSINORE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY u n MINUTES REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, JULY 99 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Brinley called the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting to order at 5 :00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN KELLEY, SCHIFFNER BRINLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Fire Chief Gallegos, Police Lieutenant Lopotosky, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, City Engineer O'Donnell, Lake Operations Manager Kilroy, City Treasurer Ferro and Deputy Clerk of the Board Paredes. CLOSED SESSION a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code Section 549568) Property: APN 373 - 210 -040 & 371- 030 -021 (Lake Elsinore Diamond Stadium and parking lot). Negotiating parties: Impact Capital Consulting, LLC and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore. Under negotiation: Price and Terms. U I PAGE TWO — RDA MINUTES'- JULY % 2002 Legal Counsel Leibold announced the Closed Session discussion item as listed above. THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:02 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Brinley called the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting to order at 8:17 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN KELLEY, SCHIFFNER BRINLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Fire Chief Gallegos, Police Lieutenant Lopotosky, Information /Communications Manager Dennis, City Engineer O'Donnell, Lake Operations Manager Kilroy, City Treasurer Ferro and Deputy Clerk of the Board Paredes. CLOSED SESSION REPORT Legal Counsel Leibold stated that the above listed item was discussed with no reportable action. PAGE THREE — RDA MINUTES — JULY 99 2002' CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY HICKMAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED: 1. Approved the Minutes of the Joint Redevelopment Agency Study Session from June 25, 2002. 2. Concurred with Council Action to approved the Design Review for Residential Project No. 2001 -10, an eight (8) unit apartment complex located at 138 Graham Street (AP 378 -151 -028). BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Fiscal Year 2002 -03 Operating Budget. Executive Director Watenpaugh recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Fiscal Year 2002 -03 Operating Budget by approval of Resolution No. 2002 -03. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002 -03, ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2002 -03 OPERATING BUDGET. RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002 -03 U A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 -03 AND APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS NECESSARY TO MEET THE EXPENDITURES SET FORTH THEREIN. 4. Jul 2y 3.2002 Meeting. I PAGE FOUR — RDA MINUTES - JULY 99 2002 City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the purpose of the item was to reschedule the July 23, 2002, Redevelopment Agency Meeting to Tuesday, July 30, 2002. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER,. SECONDED BY BUCKLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RESCHEDULE THE JULY 239 2002 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TO TUESDAY, JULY 309 2002. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS None. LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS None. BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS Boardmember Buckley commented on the following: 1. Advised that the reason that he voted in favor of the Operating Budget for the RDA was that it was in balanced. Vice Chairman Hickman commented on the following: 1. Indicated that he was glad to see the RDA going in the right direction. Chairwoman Brinley commented on the following: 1. Indicated that she was pleased to see the Redevelopment Agency be in a position to make a $400,000 payment to the City. PAGE FIVE — RDA MINUTES — JULY 99 2002 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGE N ETING AT 8:22 P.M. 7 G / 2-- PAMELA BRINL Y. CHAIRWO N REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Respectfully Submitted, A ria L. Paredes, Deputy Clerk of the Board A EST: tea` VICKI KA AD, CMC, CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY U MINUTES REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, JULY 30, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Brinley at 5:10 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Assistant Legal Counsel Van Blarcom and Clerk of the Board Kasad. 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 Founders LLC v. City of Lake Elsinore, et al (Riverside Co. Superior Court Case #355890) (F:40.1)(X:52.1) C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code Section 54956.8) u PAGE TWO - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JULY 309 2002 Property: APN 373 - 210 -040 & 371-030-021 (Lake Elsinore Diamond Stadium and parking lot) Negotiating parties: Impact Capital Consulting, LLC and The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore. Under negotiation: Price and Terms. (F:40.1)(X:134.10) D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code Section 54956.8) (F:134.7) Property: APN 373 - 025 -006 located at 120 East Franklin (Parcel 1); APN 373- 025 -007 (Parcel 2) and APN 377 - 292 -017 located at 284 Ellis Street (Parcel 3). Negotiating parties: Century Builders and The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore. Under negotiation: Price and Terms. Legal Counsel Leibold announced the Closed Session items as listed above. THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:10 P.M. The Closed Session discussion was concluded at 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Brinley at 8:21 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: NONE PAGE THREE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JULY 309 2002 Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Police Chief Walsh, Information /Communications Manager Dennis, City Treasurer Ferro and Clerk of the Board Kasad. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS None Requested. CLOSED SESSION REPORT Legal Counsel Leibold announced that the Closed Session items listed on the Agenda were discussed, with no reportable action. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1 2. 9 El The following Minutes were approved: a. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting - June 25, 2002. (F:134.3) b. Redevelopment Agency /City Council Study Session - July 9, 2002. C. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting - July 9, 2002. Ratified Warrant List for July 15, 2002. (F:12.3) Received and ordered filed the Investment Report for June, 2002. (F:12.5) Adopted Resolution No. RDA 2002 -04 - Confirming Fiscal Year 2002 -03 Special Taxes - CFD 90 -2 (Tuscany Hills Public Improvements). (F:22.3) U PAGE FOUR - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JULY 309 2002 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002 -04 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE TAX COLLECTOR OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO PLACE SPECIAL TAXES ON THE BILLS OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES FOR CFD 90 -2. 5. Approved RDA - Amended and Restated Reimbursement Agreement (City), with additions for Fiscal Year 2001 -02. (F: 134.7) BUSINESS ITEMS 6. Resolution No RDA 2002 -05 - Authorizing the Issuance of Refunding Bonds and all related documents (CFD 90 -2 - Tuscany Hills Public Improvements). (F:22.3) Executive Director Watenpaugh highlighted this item on the refunding of bonds. There were no Board comments. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002 -059 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE REFUNDING BONDS FOR CFD 90 -02 AND RELATED DOCUMENTS. RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002 -05 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 90 -2 (TUSCANY HILLS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS) SPECIAL TAX PARITY BONDS, 20029 SERIES A, APPROVING AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION OF A PAGE FIVE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JULY 30, 2002 THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL FISCAL AGENT AGREEMENT, AN ESCROW AGREEMENT, A PURCHASE CONTRACT, A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND A FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL ACTIONS AND EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO. 7. RDA Strategy. (17:134.1) Executive Director Watenpaugh indicated that this item was provided at the request of the RDA Chair and Vice - Chair, based on a discussion of strategies. He explained that there was an interest in looking at Project Areas, Projects, evaluating potential use of Eminent Domain as a tool, and establishing a task force to report back to the Board. He noted that there was also an interest in looking at funding sources for low income housing assistance. Chairwoman Brinley addressed her meeting with staff to discuss issues on the RDA. She stressed the interest in looking at low and moderate housing availability, review of the project areas, and available grants. She indicated that she was requesting the Board's permission to pursue these items and bring the information to a study session to work on those issues. Vice Chairman Hickman stressed his interest in working on the 20% set - aside for low and moderate housing. Boardmember Schiffner commented that in view of the fact htat the RDA may have some money in the near future and quite a diversity of ideas on the Boad, it would be appropriate to hold a study session for discussion. He suggested that it might also be appropriate to hold a joint RDA/Planning Commission study session. Chairwoman Brinley suggested sticking with the RDA alone at this time. MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO DIRECT STAFF TO ESTABLISH A STUDY U PAGE SIX - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - JULY 309 2002 SESSION TO DISCUSS THESE TOPICS AND CONSIDER ESTABLISHMENT OF A TASK FORCE. PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON - AGENDIZED ITEMS No Comments. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS Executive Director Watenpaugh had no specific comments, but noted that it would be nice to see some action by the RDA in the next several months. LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS No Comments. BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS No Comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN y4fE-Rft.,GULAR RI AGENCY MEETING AT 8:29 P.M,,' f A EST: Xj VICKI KASAD, CMC, CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ENCY EM MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kelley called the Study Session to order at 4:07 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Services Director Sapp, Planning Manager Villa, Building and Safety Manager Russell, Recreation/Tourism Manager Teri Fazzio, Information/ Communications Manager Dennis and Deputy City Clerk Paredes. DISSCUSSION 1. Agenda Review. (F:44.1) Mayor Kelley confirmed that Loraine Watts would be present to accept the proclamation for the NAACP. City Manager Watenpaugh asked that the Chamber Up -Date be added to Presentations as Item B. Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 2, regarding the Warrant List. He questioned the purpose of Check No. 70294. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that it was for a blood analysis. Councilman U PAGE TWO — STUDY SESSION — AUGUST 13, 2002 Hickman questioned the purpose of Check No. 70375. Administrative Services Director Boone stated that it was a refund for a performance bond. Councilman Hickman questioned the purpose of Check No. 70432. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that it was for the Fire Station project. Councilman Buckley questioned the purpose of Check No. 70402. Community Services Director Sapp stated that it was a refund of deposit on the use of the Diamond Stadium. City Manager Watenpaugh addressed Item No. 21, regarding the public hearing for consideration of objections and confirmation and placement of charges on property tax bills for Weed Abatement and Nuisance Abatement costs; and distributed replacement resolutions for Nuisance Abatement. Councilman Buckley questioned the procedure of notification for abatement. Building and Safety Manager Russell presented an overview of the program and explained the procedure of notification for vacant property. He explained the inspection process and the time lines for the process. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that during the inspection photographs were taken. Building and Safety Manager Russell noted that due to lack of rain there was minimum growth and the contractor did not have to clean as many parcels. Councilman Hickman questioned the process and purpose of Nuisance Abatement. Building and Safety Manager Russell presented an overview of the Nuisance Abatement process and noted that each Nuisance was taken before the Nuisance Abatement Board and a finding was made before the City took action. There was general discussion regarding the hard and administrative costs of abatement. City Manager Watenpaugh addressed Item No. 22, regarding a joint public hearing with the Redevelopment Agency regarding the sale of property. He asked if the Council would move.to concur with the RDA or if it would be heard separately. City Attorney Leibold stated that the item was a joint public hearing and would be heard by both the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board at the same time under the Redevelopment Agency Agenda PAGE THREE - STUDY SESSION — AUGUST 13, 2002 Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 31, regarding the request for waiver of fees for Project Kids and asked about ticket sales. Community Services Director Sapp advised that the most expensive seats were moving well, but he had no idea about general admission ticket sales. Councilman Hickman clarified that the request was to waive the cost, so the money could go directly to the Temecula Valley Assistance League. Mayor Kelley clarified that they were charged the Non - Profit fee. Community Services Director Sapp stated that the City had saved them $2,000 on the rental rate by using the Non- Profit Fee for rental. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that all of the fees were direct cost, with the exception of the 25% Administrative Fee which was used to off -set staff costs. He stated that if Council were to waive the fees, the City would end up paying since the City contracted with the Storm. Community Services Director Sapp explained that staff met with the Storm and they indicated that they had reduced their costs as much as they possibly could. Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner was opposed to the waiver since the City would have to pay the fees. He noted that the $2,000 reduction that the City had given was money that usually went to maintain the Stadium and other than that reduction, there was very little else that could be reduced without the City paying the fees from General Funds. Councilman Buckley asked for clarification regarding the award of the "Non - Profit" reduction. Community Services Director Sapp presented an overview of the "Non- Profit" status within the City. Councilman Buckley questioned if the City would get a percentage of merchandise sales. Community Services Director Sapp stated that the City received a percentage of the sales from the Storm's merchandise, however none from the Beach Boy's merchandise. Councilman Hickman commented that in the future the City might consider getting a percentage of the sales from merchandise. Mayor Kelley reminded Council that although the Temecula Valley Assistance League was not based in the City of Lake Elsinore they did operate Operation School Bell, which had benefited the children in the City. Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner noted that H.O.P.E. had offered to take over the program for the City. U I PAGE FOUR — STUDY SESSION — AUGUST 13, 2002 Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 32, regarding the Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto Watersheds Authority. He asked what had been changed. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner explained that the amendment was to clarify the voting rights of the delegates and how votes would be distributed. Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 33, regarding Abbacy Holding Company request. He asked for clarification of the extension of payment. City Manager Watenpaugh explained the agreement with Abbacy Holding Company and presented an overview of the methods of refunding money to Abbacy. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner clarified that if the taxes had been paid, then there would be money for the refund; and asked when the City would receive the tax money. Administrative Services Director Boone stated that the money should be received this month. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner clarified that they were asking the City to allow them to pull permits with an approved delay in payment of fees, while at the same time there was a threat of litigation. He stated that he would not be in favor of doing any favors for Abbacy, unless the threat of litigation was removed. Councilman Hickman clarified the amount that Abbacy would gamer from the taxes. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that it would be approximately $1,300 per unit. Councilman Hickman concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner regarding the removal of litigation before the City would move forward. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that he would like to see the issue brought to closure. He stated that a - postponement of fees with a guarantee of no litigation would benefit all parties involved. Mayor Kelley questioned the amount of land that Abbacy held at this point. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that there were a few remaining commercial parcels. Councilman Hickman clarified the TUMF fee status and stated that he would like to see the project move on, and eliminate the litigation. City Attorney Leibold explained that it was a case of the old fees versus the new fees. Planning Manager Villa presented an overview of the fees. Councilman Buckley clarified the local TUNT fees versus the County TUNE. There was general discussion regarding the difference of fees and possible litigation. PAGE FIVE — STUDY SESSION — AUGUST 13, 2002 City Manager Watenpaugh addressed Item No. 34; regarding the amendment to the Household Hazardous Waste Contract with the County of Riverside. Recreation and Tourism Manager Fazzio explained that the County of Riverside was proposing expansion of the Household Hazardous.Waste facility since the use of the facility had increased dramatically; and noted that the cost would be approximately $30,000, which the City would expend and the County of Riverside would reimburse. Redevelopment Agency Legal Counsel Leibold addressed Item No. 3, regarding the Joint Public Hearing with City Council regarding the sale of property to Century Builders LLC for development of Affordable Housing. She explained that in September, 2000, the City had entered into an Agreement to allocate $100,000 toward assistance in the development of single - family homes on infill sites with an emphasis on the Downtown area, to be constructed and sold at affordable housing costs to low and moderate homebuyers. She noted that the maximum amount of assistance allowed per home was $7,500, which was to off- set building permit fees associated with the construction of the homes. She indicated chat the Agency owned three parcels in the Downtown area, near Ellis and Franklin and in an effort to implement the commencement of the construction of the single- family homes; the Agency offered the three parcels to Century Builders to build homes. She explained that Century Builders had expressed an interest in the three parcels, however based on further investigation by Century Builders they had opted out of acquisition of Parcel No. 3 and would like to proceed with the acquisition of Parcels No. l and 2. She further explained that based on the square footage of Parcel No. 1, it could be divided into two parcels consistent with existing building and zoning standards, which would allow Century Builders to construct three single - family homes. She indicated that the action before Council was a request to sell Parcels 1 and 2 to Century Builders for the purpose of building single - family homes in accordance with the Affordable Housing Agreement. She further indicated that when a U I PAGE SIX — STUDY SESSION — AUGUST 13, 2002 Redevelopment Agency proceeded with the disposal of property, the Redevelopment Agency law required that the City and Agency hold a joint public hearing and the City Council must consent to the conveyance. Legal Counsel Leibold explained that as contemplated under the purchase and sale agreement, the sale of the parcel would be an all cash transaction with the purchase price due and payable upon close of escrow; however Century Builders requested that the Agency carry papers during the construction period. She indicated that they would execute a Promissory Note and Deed of Trust; the Deed of Trust would be recorded to secure the parcels in the full purchase price; the Promissory . Note would accrue interest at 5'/2 %; agreed to a Quick Claim Deed to be held by escrow in the event of a default; construction period to be not more than six months. She explained that the payment would be made upon the sale of the home. Boardmember Buckley asked if the Agency had to cant' their paper because they could not afford a S 16,000 price for three lots. Legal Counsel Leibold stated that they would be present at the Meeting and Boardmember Buckley could pose that question to them. Boardmember Buckley stated that he would be opposed to carrying the paper on the parcels. Vice Chairman Hickman clarified the construction requirements. He asked where they were going to get the additional seven parcels required. Executive- irector Watenpaugh stated that they had been examining other parcels and would be meeting with various property owners. Boardmember Schiffner noted that the action would not cost the City any out of pocket money and in turn would be secured with a Deed of Trust. He stated that he would like to see the project proceed. Vice Chairman Hickman noted his concern regarding the other seven lots. Boardmember Buckley questioned the size of Parcel No. 1. Executive Director Watenpaugh stated that it was a double lot. Planning Manager Villa stated that it was 100 feet by 140 feet. ADJOURNMENT THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION ADJOURNED AT 5:05 P.M. PAGE SEVEN - STUDY SESSION - AUGUST 13, 2002 va.a� a - a.�a.,a:. a, aura a vas Ci F LAKE ELSINORE YL QHIC'K-MAN, VICE CHIARMAN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Respectfully submitted, ak 14 C Adria L. Paredes, Deputy City Clerk ATTEST: VICKIKASAD, C.M.C., CITY CLERK HU:1L -XN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE U n MINUTES REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE'ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002 x kdt �F �F dt 9c ka'exx' aAkaF * * *x *kne a'e aF aF knkkx k9e dekx &kaF *x *kx *xnY ne xat �F a'e nF 9ck *9c *ka2xnekx' nFk *x* CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Vice - Chairman Hickman at 5:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, HICKMAN ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BRINLEY Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Legal Counsel Leibold, and Clerk of the Board Kasad. CLOSED SESSION a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code §54956.9) California Bank & Trust vs. City of Lake Elsinore et al (Riverside County Superior Court Case #344190). (F:52.2) V Legal Counsel Leibold announced the Closed Session item as listed above. THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:07 P.M. The Closed Session discussion was completed at 6:40 p.m. 9 PAGE TWO - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES RECONVENE PUBLIC SESSION (7:00 P.M.) Vice Chairman Hickman reconvened the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting in Public Session at 7:55 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, HICKMAN ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BRINLEY Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Services Director Sapp, Police Chief Walsh, Building /Safety Manager Russell, Information/ Communications Manager Dennis, Recreation /Tourism Manager Fazzio, City Treasurer Ferro and Clerk of the Board Kasad. CLOSED SESSION REPORT Legal Counsel Leibold announced that the Redevelopment Agency Board met in a Joint Closed Session with the City Council, as listed on the agenda, with no reportable action. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS No Comments. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. PAGE THREE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES 1. The following Minutes were approved: a. Redevelopment Agency /City Council Meeting - July 30, 2002. b. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting - July 30, 2002. (F:134.3) 2. Ratified Warrant List for July 31, 2002. (F:12.3) JOINT PUBLIC HEARING 3. Joint Public Hearing with City Council regarding Sale of Property to Century Builders LLC for Development of Affordable Housing - City Council Resolution No 2002 -46 & Redevelopment A,• e�ncy Resolution No. 2002 -06. (F:134.7) Vice Chairman/Councilman Hickman opened the Joint Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. Legal Counsel /City Attorney Leibold clarified that both the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency Meetings were in session jointly. She explained that there were two items before the Redevelopment Agency Board and one before the City Council. She further explained that the Redevelopment Agency owned three parcels and had proposed to convey them to Century Builders, which under RDA law required a published notice and a joint public hearing. She also explained that the City Council would be required to approve the conveyance prior to the Redevelopment Agency taking action. She advised that the Agency parcels proposed to be conveyed to Century Builders would commence implementation of the Affordable Housing Development Agreement. She provided a summary of the existing Development Agreement which was approved in 2000; and noted that the proposed amendment would make the agreement consistent with the law changes. She noted that the original agreement allowed $7,500 per home to off -set the cost of building permit fees; however additional issues arose in working to comply with the downtown requirements, which would prohibit garage doors on the main streets, and it was proposed that the allowance be increased to $10,000 per home. She clarified the total U PAGE FOUR - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 13, 2002 commitment to the program would remain at $100,000. She noted that another change required by law changes would require a 45 year resale restriction. She indicated that the agreement would extend the term of the existing agreement to allow the developers to acquire the property and build the homes. She noted that the developer had been looking for parcels to meet the criteria in the agreement and identify Agency parcels for which they would pay fair market value. She indicated that based on research and investigation, the developer had declined the purchase of Parcel No. 3. She advised that while the agreement as presented provided for an all cash purchase price at fair market value, after meeting with the developer this date, they had requested a modification to allow the RDA to convey title and carry the paper secured by a deed of trust, and the purchase price would be paid upon actual resale to the homebuyer. Leonel Alvarado, President of Century Builders, expressed happiness at getting to this point in the process, and noted that their process had been slowed by a personal health issue which impacted the project. He commented on his research in the downtown area, and explained that he was looking at the two parcels for the construction of three single family homes. He indicated that he spoke with City staff about other resources for the area, and noted that they were committed to doing at least 10 homes, but they would hope for more. He explained that deferring the payment for these lots until the close of escrow with the end user would assist in keeping the rates appropriate for low and moderate owners. He further explained that this would help to keep the houses in the $125,000 to $145,000 range. Boardmember /Councilman Buckley questioned the two lots for three houses and indicated that it was about $9,500 a lot and the City was kicking back another $10,000 in permanent reductions. Mr. Alvarado clarified that the City would ultimately only be into the program for $10,000 per house in permanent reductions. Boardmember /Councilman Buckley continued that essentially Century Builders would only be into the lots for about $500 each, and he would expect them to carry their own paper. Mr. Alvarado indicated that he could do so, but he was trying to hold the cost down and pass the benefits on to the buyers. PAGE FIVE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 13, 2002 Boardmember /Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner indicated that he would like to see this project get started, and the three homes built and purchased. He advised that in an attempt to accomplish that as soon as possible, he would approve the request and be happy to support it. Boardmember/Mayor Kelley noted that affordable housing was quite needed in the City and she also wanted to keep the costs as low as possible, in light of rising housing costs. Vice Chairman/Councilman Hickman inquired how long it would take to complete the three proposed houses. Mr. Alvarado explained that the process would include parceling out or splitting the parcel through the City, which generally took about 30 or 45 days; and there would also be the Planning Commission review of the proposed product. He suggested if they were run concurrently they could be ready to proceed in the next 45 or 60 days. He noted that in the meantime, they had begun marking and working with non - profit groups to identify potential buyers quickly. He advised that he was working with Wells Fargo Mortgage on loan applications and would hope to bring the City ten qualified buyers as well. He suggested that overall it would be six months at the outside. Vice Chairman/Councilman Hickman questioned the timing for all ten homes. Mr. Alvarado indicated that it would be prior to 2004. Vice Chairman/Councilman Hickman noted the location for the three new low and moderate income homes, and explained that they would go toward meeting the 20% set aside requirement. He stressed his interest in development in the downtown area. Boardmember/Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner asked if the two processes could be done concurrently with building as suggested by Mr. Alvarado. Building /Safety Manager Russell indicated that they could not, but the plan check could be done concurrently. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified the ability to run as much as possible concurrently. Jim Morris, 15220 Golden Sands, expressed concern with Century Builders opting out of one lot and questioned if it would be useable in the future, or if the City would be stuck with it. Boardmember/Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner U n PAGE SIX - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 13, 2002 indicated that it was not adjacent to the other parcels. Mr. Morris indicated that was his major concern, but he was happy to see someone moving forward with this type of project. He noted that he wanted to see things starting to happen in the downtown area. He addressed the budget discussions in June regarding more fees and inspections for rental property, and suggested consideration of else the Redevelopment Agency could do to assist renters in the area. He stressed that he wanted to be able to give people a decent place to live at a decent rate. He commented that he was very interested in serving on a committee for this area. Councilman/Vice Chairman Hickman noted that Mr. Morris was in the process of rehabilitating old homes and inquired if he could assist in rehabilitation rather than abating. Mr. Morris indicated that was his passion, as he had seen several homes torn down and which were important and he would like to see the costs applied to repairs. He stressed that the buildings could be restored, as they have wonderful architecture and were solidly built. Vice Chairman/Councilman Hickman stressed that it would be good to work out such a program. Legal Counsel /City Attorney Leibold indicated that those issues would be discussed at the strategy session; but clarified that the units proposed in this item would be for owner occupancy by the principle owner. She requested that any motion include the developer request for promissory note secured by a deed of trust, with 5 -1/2% interest, and approval for the necessary modifications. Vice Chairman/Councilman Hickman closed the public hearing at 8:23 p.m. Boardmember /Councilman Buckley indicated that he was not against the project or low income homes going up, and it was a wonderful idea, but he would prefer the sale be much cleaner. MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 1 WITH BUCKLEY CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE AND BRINLEY ABSENT TO ADOPT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2002-47 RELATING TO PARCELS 1 AND 2, WITH PAGE SEVEN - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 13, 2002 THE ELIMINATION OF PARCEL 3, AND THE MODIFICATION TO ALLOW THE AGENCY TO CARRY THE PAPER AS DISCUSSED. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CONSENTING TO THE APPROVAL BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BY AND BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND CENTURY BUILDERS LLC AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 1 WITH BUCKLEY CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE AND BRINLEY ABSENT TO ADOPT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002 -06, CONSENTING TO THE PROPOSED CONVEYANCE OF PARCELS 1 AND 2; APPROVING THE PURCHASE PRICE TO BE CARRIED IN A PROMISSORY NOTE DUE AND PAYABLE UPON TRANSFER TO THE BUYER, FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED SIX MONTHS AND AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AGREEMENT. RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2002 -06 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BY AND BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND CENTURY BUILDERS LLC AND AMENDMENT NO.1 TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND CENTURY BUILDERS, LLC, DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 20029 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. u PAGE EIGHT - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON - AGENDIZED ITEMS No Comments. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS No Comments. LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS No Comments. BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS No Comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AT 8:27 P.M. L HICKMAN, VICE CHAIRMAN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT ST: VICKI KASAD, CMC, CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kelley called the Study Session to order at 4:06 p.m. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY 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. 1. Agenda Review. Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 2, regarding the Warrant List. He questioned the purpose of Check No. 70577. Administrative Services Director Boone stated that it was for CFD 90 -2. Councilman Buckley questioned the purpose of Check No. 70479. Administrative Services Director Boone stated that it was for a payroll seminar. Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 3, regarding the proposed mid -block crosswalk for Graham Avenue at the Outflow Channel. He questioned the position of the crosswalk and asked if there would be U I PAGE TWO — STUDY SESSION - AUGUST 27, 2002 bollards marking the crosswalk. •City Manager Watenpaugh explained that the crosswalk would be on the west side and noted that there would be signage, however there would be no bollards, in an effort to maintain the aesthetics of the location. Councilman Hickman questioned the area of the Riverwalk that was fenced off. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that it was private property, and therefore the Riverwalk was located from Limited Street up to the private property: Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 4, regarding the lease,of a new office copier and asked if there were limits. Information/ Communications Manager Dennis explained that the City would not . be limited on the amount of copies, however the City would be charged .007 per copy unit cost. Councilman Buckley asked how much a copier would cost if it were purchased outright. Information/Communication Manager Dennis stated that it would be in excess of $50,000. Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 5, regarding the purchase of new office computers. He asked what would be done with the old computers. Information /Communications Manager Dennis stated that the computers that were in good shape would be used at the Senior Center and the rest would be declared surplus. Councilman Buckley asked if the old computers could be donated to other charitable organizations or to schools. Information /Communications Manager Dennis stated that the remaining computers were not worth sending to other entities, since they had been used for parts and were not functional. Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 6, regarding the Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance Agreement. He questioned the term "in kind service ". City Manager Watenpaugh explained that if the City were to pay the full amount it would be $25,000 up front and the County would do all the work, however in this case the City had PAGE THREE — STUDY SESSION — AUGUST 27, 2002 budgeted $10,000, therefore the City's staff would be doing "in kind service" for the support of the program to create the match. Mayor Kelley addressed Item No. 32, regarding the designation of League of California Cities Annual Conference City Delegate, Alternate and Flag Bearer. There was general discussion regarding the selection of the Delegate and Flag Bearer. Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner addressed Item No. 33, regarding the draft response to the Grand Jury Report. He commented that he felt that the response staff had prepared was very generous to the Grand Jury. Councilman Hickman addressed the Code of Ethics and questioned if there was a provision to prohibit Council and employees from doing business with the City for a set amount of time after they left office. He stated that he would like to see some type of provision made to address that issue. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stated that he did not think that action was legal. City Manager Watenpaugh suggested a study session to discuss the Code of Ethics and the requirements. City Attorney Leibold stated that there were some constitutional considerations with respect to rights of association and free speech, which should be considered, however this could be discussed during a study session. She suggested that if a study session was set for a date specific, she felt the two new Planning Commissioners should be included. Mayor Kelley stated that she would like to see a review made of Council Policies at the same time. Councilman Buckley suggested that the Study Session be split with the first hour for Council Policies; and then a Joint Study Session with the Planning Commission in the second hour in there were changes to the Code of Ethics or Council Policies. City Attorney Leibold stated that the City Attorney's Office did not need to have them included in the Study Session, since her office could set a separate meetings with the Planning Commission to review the Brown Act and the Political Reform Act. Mayor Kelley stressed the need to review the Council Policies to allow the Council to stay on the same page. ` City Attorney Leibold stated that the City was bound by Governing State Law and the City and RDA had adopted the standard form Conflict of Interest U PAGE FOUR — STUDY SESSION — AUGUST 27, 2002 Code; and as such the Code was self amending, however every other year the City must evaluate and acknowledge the Code. Councilman Hickman asked if the money made from Lake Use and Launch passes was applied to the Lake loan. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that the money collected for Lake Use and Launch Fees was placed in the Lake Enterprise Fund to offset the cost of maintenance for the Lake. Councilman Hickman asked what the payment was for the loan on the Lake. Administrative Services Director Boone stated that it was approximately $500,000 a year. Redevelopment Agency Chairman Hickman addressed Item No. 7, regarding the Lake Elsinore Diamond Stadium Parking Lot request. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that the Storm was proposing two designated parking spaces per Suite. He further explained that the City's contract with the Storm required approval by the City to change the parking. There was general discussion regarding the Appeal Process. Mayor Kelley noted that Council would meet and have dinner with Congressman Calvert and Congressman Issa. City Manager Watenpaugh reminded Council that it would be a social affair and they should refrain from talking about City business. City Attorney Leibold noted the importance of following the Brown Act and explained that one of the exceptions of the Brown Act where the Council could meet as a body was asocial gathering. She, stressed that no City business should be discussed. ADJOURNMENT THE CITY COUNCIU/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION ADJOURNED AT 4:37 P.M. PAGE FIVE — STUDY SESSION — AUGUST 27, 2002 GENIE L -EY, CITY LAKE E DAItYL HICKMAN, VICE CHIARMAN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Respectfully submitted, 4na WL.aredes, Deputy City Clerk AT EST: VICKI KASAD, C.M.C., CITY CLERK HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE U Y . , - MINUTES REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Brinley at 8:36 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Police Chief Walsh, Engineering Manager O'Donnell, Information /Communications Manager Dennis, City Treasurer Ferro and Clerk of the Board Kasad. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS None Requested. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY HICKMAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. The following Minutes were approved: U PAGE TWO - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 27, 2002 a. Redevelopment Agency /City Council Meeting - August 13, 2002. b. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting - August 13, 2002. (F: 134.3) 2. Ratified Warrant List for August 15, 2002. (F:12.3) 3. Concurred with Council Action to Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 30395 for The Cornerstone Group. (F:110.2) 4. Concurred with Council Action to Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 30181 for The Cornerstone Group. (F:110.2) 5. Concurred with Council Action to Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 30680 for Alesco Development, LLC. (F:110.2) 6. Concurred with Council Action to Approve Design Review for Industrial Project No. I- 2002 -02 - Triple J Development. (F:86.2) BUSINESS ITEM 7. Lake Elsinore Diamond Stadium - Parking Lot Request. (F:134.10) Executive Director Watenpaugh explained that this was a request for 22 parking spaces to be reserved for use by the Luxury Suite holders; and clarified that the Storm gets the revenue for the parking. He further explained that pursuant to the Agreement with the Agency, any modifications or changes require Board approval. Chairwoman Brinley questioned how this would impact the City suite. Executive Director Watenpaugh indicated that the Redevelopment Agency Board already had reserved spaces, and that would not change. PAGE THREE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 27, 2002 Boardmember Buckley had no problems or comments. Vice Chairman Hickman indicated there was no reason to fight this request. Boardmember Schiffner had no problems or comments. Boardmember Kelley had no problem with the request. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE LAKE ELSINORE STORM'S REQUEST TO RESERVE UP TO 22 PARKING SPACES FOR THEIR SUITE HOLDERS AT THE LAKE ELSINORE DIAMOND STADIUM. PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON - AGENDIZED ITEMS None requested. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS No Comments. LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS No Comments. U BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS No Comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE I PAGE FOUR - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 27, 2002 REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AT 8:39 P.M. REDE AGENCY AT EST: ICKI KASAD, CMC, CLERK OF THE BOARD/ HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Brinley at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Police Chief Walsh, Information /Communications Manager Dennis, City Treasurer Ferro and Clerk of the Board Kasad. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) City of Lake Elsinore, Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore v. Diamond Sports & Entertainment LLC et al (Riverside County Superior Court Case # 356131). B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Liberty Founders LLC v. City of Lake Elsinore, et al (Riverside County Superior Court Case #355890). U PAGE TWO - RDA MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 City Attorney Leibold announced the Closed Session items as listed above. THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:01 P.M. THE CLOSED SESSION DISCUSSION WAS COMPLETED AT 6:40 P.M. RECONVENE PUBLIC SESSION (7:00 P CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Brinley at 8:20 p.m. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Leibold indicated that the Redevelopment Agency met in Closed Session on the items listed above and there was no reportable action. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS None Requested. CONSENT CALENDAR The following item was pulled for discussion: Item No. 5 MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. The following Minutes were approved: PAGE THREE - RDA MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 a. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session - September 10, 2002. b. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting— September 10, 2002. 2. Ratified the Warrant List of September 16, 2002. 3. Received and ordered filed the Investment Report for August, 2002. 4. Concurred with Council action to authorizethe acquisition of vacant Lake Front property on Acacia Drive known as Assessors Parcel Number 374- 312 -020 -4 and directed the adjustment of the Park Fund Budget. 6. Concurred with Council action to approve Design Review for Commercial Project No. C- 1002 -02 for a church facility that will include a 5,892 square foot sanctuary and related improvements subject to Findings and Conditions of Approval. ITEM PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR 5. Tentative Condominium Plan for Parcel No. 2 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 30680 and I -No. 2002 -03 for Design Review of an Industrial Project (Alesco Development LLC). Executive Director Watenpaugh stated that the item was heard and considered by the City Council. Boardmember Buckley stated that he pulled the item to vote consistently from the City Council to the Redevelopment Agency. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 1 WITH BUCKLEY CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE TO APPROVE THE TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM PLAN FOR PARCEL U 9 PAGE FOUR - RDA MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 NO.2 OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 30680 AND DESIGN REVIEW OF I- NO.2002 -023 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE BUILDINGS WHICH ENCOMPASS APPROXIMATELY 639400 SQUARE FEET, BASED ON THE RECOMMENCED FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON - AGENDIZED ITEMS Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest Drive, commented regardingthe removal of campaign signs on Riverside Drive by Cal Trans. Shenoted that some of the signs were on private property and should have remained standing. She stated that the sign situation had gotten "out of hand ". EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS No comments. LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS No comments. BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS No comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AT 8:25 P.M. _ BRINLEY/ CHAIRWOMAN �OPMENT AGENCY PAGE FIVE - RDA MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 AT EST: VICKI KA AD, CM C, CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY u n MINUTES . CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, October 8, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kelley called the Study Session to order at 4:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY 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/Communication Manager Dennis and Deputy City Clerk Paredes. DISSCUSSION 1. Agenda Review. (F:44•I) Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 2, regarding the Warrant List. Administrative Services Director Boone clarified to whom the checks in question were made payable and their purpose. Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. lb, regarding the Minutes of the Planning Commission. He asked if it was possible to add a condition to Item No. 2, regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 2002 - 06 that would allow the City to revoke the CUP if there were problems at the establishment. Community Development Director U PAGE TWO — STUDY SESSION - OCTOBER 8, 2002 Brady explained that as part of the Conditional Use Permit provisions, the permit could be revoked if there was aproblem. He explained that the item would have to go back through a public hearing at Planning Commission level to allow the City to revoke the CUP. Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 3, regarding 2002 -2003 CDBG Supplemental Agreement. He questioned if the City could get more money for the Senior Center. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that the City requested $44,000 from the County, however the City received $10,000. Councilman Hickman questioned the City's ability to turn away non- residents. City Attorney Leibold stated that the item should be discussed in Closed Session. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that most of the Senior Centers have reciprocal agreements to allow the seniors from the City of Lake Elsinore to use other facilities in the County. Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 4, regarding the Memorandum of Understanding with Employees' Union. He asked for clarification regarding the change in the percentage of retirement. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that it was part of the negotiating package. There was general discussion regarding the proposed benefits. Councilman Buckley questioned how much would be spent over the course of the next three years. City Manager noted that it was calculated on a two year basis since the actuarial would change after that period and was figured at $17,000 for the two year period. Councilman Hickman questioned the vesting period. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that it was five years. Councilman Buckley asked how many other cities paid the employees share of PERS. Administrative Services Director Boone stated that most of the cities paid PERS. Mayor Kelley noted that the MOU before Council had been discussed several times in Closed Session and Council had agreed upon the items listed. She indicated that based on the questions brought forward, she had the impression that the item had not been settled. City Attorney Leibold stated that the item being discussed was a consensus of Council. She noted that the action was not final until Council took formal action. PAGE THREE — STUDY SESSION — OCTOBER 8, 2002 Mr. O'Neal requested clarification of the increase in benefits and the cap on insurance that would take effect in the third year of the contract. Administrative Services Director Boone presented an overview of the benefits. Councilman Hickman questioned the purpose of the Parity Study. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that the PERS amount could not be changed until the expiration of the MOU and the Parity Study would give Council the information regarding the position and pay. He noted that in three years Council could return to the table to make a review based on the Parity Study as well as consideration of PERS Benefits. Mr. O'Neal questioned the 9/80 plan and if it was best for the public. City Manager. Watenpaugh noted that the need for the 9/80 occurred when staff was reduced by 50 %. He noted that recently City Hall had changed hours to be open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and it was under consideration to split staff on Fridays and be open five days a week. Mr. O'Neal questioned the Bilingual clause in the MOU. City Manager Watenpaugh presented an overview of the process to qualify for bilingual. Councilman Buckley questioned the Deferred Compensation Plan and asked how many employees were on Deferred Comp. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the City paid for the City Clerk and the rest of the employees paid for their own. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that in the past Deferred Compensation was awarded to the City Clerk and City Manager instead of a raise. Councilman Hickman stated that he felt that if a benefit was given to one it should be given to all and asked what it would take to have the item placed on the Agenda. CityManager Watenpaugh stated that it would take a consensus from.Council: or the Mayor could place it on the Agenda. Councilman Hickman asked the Mayor to place the City Clerk's Deferred Compensation on the next Agenda. Mayor Kelley stated that she would consider placing it on a future Agenda. She questioned if the item would go to Closed Session. City Attorney Leibold stated U I PAGE FOUR — STUDY SESSION — OCTOBER 8, 2002 that it would not be a Closed Session Item if it addressed compensation. There was general discussion regarding Deferred Compensation. Councilman Buckley requested clarification of the Retirement Compensation received from the Union. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that it was paid for by the employees. City Attorney Leibold addressed Item No. 6, Biennial Review of the City of Lake Elsinore's and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore Conflict of Interest Code. She presented an overview of the item and its purpose. City Manager Watenpaugh asked why the positions of City Attorney, City Manager and Administrative Services Director were not on the list. City Attorney Leibold explained that State Law required that the City Attorney, City Manager and Finance Director filed with the State of California. Councilman Buckley asked if the list could be changed. She confirmed that it could, and noted a future Study Session that would address the Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics. Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 21, regarding Zone Change No. ZC 2002 -04 and Design Review for Residential Project No. R- 2001 -12, Multi - Family Apartment Complex located at Rupard Street and Pottery Street. Mayor Kelley noted a letter in opposition to the project. Councilman Buckley asked if anyone had spoken in opposition to the project at the Planning Commission: Community Development Director Brady stated that there were no objections. Councilman Buckley questioned the size and design of the project. Mayor Kelley questioned where the project would fall in the Housing Element. Community Development Director Brady explained that the applicant had not decided yet whether it would:be moderate to low income or just low income. Mayor Kelley questioned if there would be a manager on site. City Attorney Leibold explained that it was a State Law that if there were 16 or more units then an on site manager PAGE FIVE — STUDY SESSION— OCTOBER 8, 2002 was required. Mayor Kelley asked if the applicant was required to be part of the Crime Free Multihousing Program. Community. Development Director Brady stated that it was not part of the conditions; however, Council could condition them to participate in the Crime Free Multihousing Program. He noted that the applicant ' would be available atthe Council Meeting to answer any questions. Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 22, regarding an amendment to various sections of Title 17, Zoning of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code in accordance with Chapter 17.84, amendments to revise the Land: Regulations related to churches, schools and other places of assembly. He questioned the areas where a church could be built. Community Development Director Brady stated that the majority of the City was Residential and that would be where a church could locate. There was discussion regarding litigation and churches in commercial areas. City Attorney Leibold addressed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and presented an overview of what was occurring at the legislature. There was discussion regarding Legal Conforming Uses and Legal Non - Conforming Uses and the processes required. City Attorney Leibold explained that the first three categories of the Ordinance would require a Conditional Use Permit. There was general discussion regarding zoning, land requirements and parking standards for churches. Redevelopment Agency Vice Chairman Hickman addressed RDA Item No. 4, regarding consideration of termination of the Maintenance Agreement with the Lake Elsinore Storm and asked why the Agency Board was not appraised of any problems. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that the item was not on the Agenda for problems, but rather for the required annual review. He noted that this would allow the Agency to terminate the agreement should they choose to do so. He explained that the action would provide the opportunity for the Agency to take the Maintenance of the Stadium back and the Storm would then pay V 9 PAGE SIX — STUDY SESSION — OCTOBER 8, 2002 the full amount; or allow the Agreement to continue and the Storm would continue to get the $175,000 break to off -set the labor on the field. Councilman Buckley questioned the problems that were mentioned in the Staff Report. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that some members of the Council had expressed concern over the condition of the field. He stated that the agreement was discussed with Mr. Oster, General Manager of the Storm and it would be up to the Agency if they wished to continue with the contractor terminate the contract. City Attorney Leibold presented an overview of the terms of the contract. Mr. Oster presented a background of the lease and explained the condition of the field. He commented that he felt that there was as lack of communication. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that he was not taking shots at the Storm and noted that the Agreement was considered and reviewed annually. City Attorney Leibold stated that if the Agency wished, and Mr. Oster agreed, the time could be extended for further discussion. There was general discussion regarding the condition of the field and problems with irrigation. ADJOURNMENT THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION ADJOURNED AT 5:20 P.M. OF LAKE ELSINORE -DARYL HICKMAN, VICE CHAIRMAN CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAGE SEVEN — STUDY SESSION — OCTOBER 8, 2002 Respectfully submitted, Y a L. Pare es, Deputy City Clerk AT EST: Z VICKI KA AD4C.C., CITY CLERK HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE u I TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 269 2002 ................................................ ..............................1 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Brinley at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: 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, Engineering Manager O'Donnell 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:52.2)(X: 134. 1 0)(X:40. 1) B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code §54956.9) Liberty Founders LLC v. City of Lake Elsinore, et al (Riverside Co. Superior Court Case #355890). (F:52.2)(X:40.1) C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING U PAGE TWO — REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code §54956.9) California Bank & Trust v. City of Lake Elsinore et al (Riverside County Superior Court Case 4344190). (F:52.2)(X:40.1) City Attorney Leibold announced the Closed Session Items as listed above. THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:02 P.M. The Closed Session discussion was completed at 6:50 p.m. RECONVENE PUBLIC SESSION (7.00 P.M.) Chairwoman Brinley reconvened the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting in public session at 7:51 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: Executive Director Watenpaugh, Assistant Executive Director Best, Legal Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Police Chief Walsh, Information /Communications Manager Dennis, Engineering Manager O'Donnell, Public Works Manager Payne and Clerk of the Authority Kasad. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Leibold reported that the Redevelopment Agency Board met in Closed Session for discussion of the items listed on the Agenda. She further reported that items A and B were discussed with no reportable action, however PAGE THREE — REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES item C had not yet been discussed. She requested that the Board return to Closed Session briefly following the public meeting, with announcement of any action to follow that discussion. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS Requests were received to address Item No. 6 and deferred to that discussion. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. The following Minutes were approved: a. Joint Special Meeting— November 6, 2002. (F:134.3) b. Redevelopment Agency /City Council Meeting — November 12, 2002. C. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting — November 12, 2002. 2. Ratified Warrant List for November 15, 2002. (F:12.3) 3. Received & ordered filed the Investment Report for October, 2002. (F:12.5) 4. Concurred with Council Action to Approve Zone Change No. 2002 -03 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 30792, Located at 301 Summerhill Drive —APN 363 -550 -008. (F: 110.2)(X: 172.1) U 5. Concurred with Council Action to ApproveTentative Tract Map No. 30670 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2002 -04, for Elsinore Homes. (F:160.2) PUBLIC HEARING 6. Disposition and Development Agreement by and among the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore, Laing-CP Lake Elsinore, LLC, and PAGE FOUR — REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES Civic Partners — Elsinore LLC. (F: 134.7)(X:68.1) Executive Director Watenpaugh noted that this item had been continued to the December 10th Meeting. MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY HICKMAN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; THIS MOTION FAILED TO CARRY BY A MOTION OF 2 TO 3 WITH BRINLEY, KELLEY AND SCHIFFNER CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTES. Legal Counsel Leibold noted that the proposed agreement was available at City Hall for review and copying. She explained that based on earlier discussions, clarification would be needed on a few items, so staff had recommended continuance. Chairwoman Brinley questioned the availability of maps, since none were provided in the exhibits. Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that at the next meeting when the presentation was made, she would be happy to provide maps, noting that maps were a good suggestion. Boardmember Schiffner commented that it might be advantageous to clarify that an issue came up in Closed Session. Chairwoman Brinley confirmed, noting that there were legal issues which needed to be revisited; and reiterated that the hearing would not be opened for that reason. She also reiterated that copies of the materials were available at City Hall. Legal Counsel Leibold indicated that the agreement was available for copying at about $37.00, with 89 pages of text, plus exhibits. She clarified that copies were also available for review or selected portions would be copied if desired. PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON - AGENDIZED ITEMS Pete Dawson, 18010 Grand Avenue, presented a written statement in opposition to any permanent dwellings in the floodplain. He stressed that the area was a floodplain and would remain so in perpetuity; noting that anything in that area would be subject to flooding. He noted that he had boated on the area, all the way to Corydon, and indicated that it would be foolish to put houses there. He PAGE FIVE — REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES indicated that while it was a 100 year floodplain, it could still be inundated with water, noting flooding in 1969, 1980, 1983, and 1995. He suggested the need for recreation in that area, which could draw Orange County dollars to the community. He commented that houses were only one -time money, so the best use would be recreation. He expressed concern that if houses were built, the Orange County developers would be gone when the floods occurred, so the disaster would have to be paid for with federal tax dollars. He stressed the importance of opposing this issue. Chairwoman Brinley noted that there would be dher uses besides housing, and the plan included raising the land for homes. She indicated that while she understood Mr. Dawson's concerns, the Board's hands were somewhat tied. She further indicated that this agreement would give the Council /Board more control than it had ever had before. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS No Comments. LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS No Comments. BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS No Comments. THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 8:04 P.M. U THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:04 P.M. THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 9:05 P.M. THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING PAGE SIX - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES RECONVENED AT 9:54 P.M. WITH NO REPORTABLE ACTION. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY HICKMAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AT 9:56 P.M. :CKI ASAD, C C, CLERK OF THE BOARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY