The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/13/2005 PSAC Reports CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA MICHAEL LEWIS, a-IAIRMAN WIlliAM]. ARNOLD III, VICE a-IAIRMAN DAN UHLRY, PAST Q-IAIRMAN RON HEWISON, COMMISSIONER RAY KNIGHT, COMMISSIONER ROBERT BRADY, OTY MANAGER WWW.LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG (951) 674-3124 PHONE (951) 674-2392 FAX LAKE ELSINORE CULTURAL CENTER 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13,2005 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENTS A ny person uishing to addrfSS the Public Safety A d7.isory Commission on any rrntter must canplete a request formprior to ~ if the nmi/1f; (01mrrmts limited to 3 minutes). CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AU nuttm on the Consent Gdendar are apprm.ed in one mxion, unless a Commissioner or any m:rrhers if the public requests separate action on a spedji.c action . 1. Minutes a. Public Safety Advisory Commission - February 9 and March 9, 2005 BUSINESS ITEMS 21. Resignation Letter from PSAC Commissioner Daniel Uhlry RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File PAGE 2 PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA - APRIL 13,2005 22. Proposed Procedure for Processing Otizen's Requests Relating to Public Safety RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File 23. Proposed Guidelines and Frequency of PSAC Reports to the Oty Council RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File 24. Skate Park Exhibition Policy and Consistency with Posted Safety Rules REC0MMENDATION: Discussion 25. Report on Neighborhood Watch Meeting, Thursday March 24, at Stonewood Lane RECOMMENDATION: Discussion (Lewis) 26. Status of PSAC Requests (action log) RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File 27. Oty Council Actions Pertaining to PSAC RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File 28. Budget Status RECOMMENDATION: Discussion INFORMATIONAL ST AFF COMMENTS PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT MINUTES "...-.. PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 09, 2005 ************************************************************* CALL TO ORDER Chairman Lewis called the Public Safety Advisory Commission Meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: ARNOLD, HEWISON, KNIGHT, LEWIS ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: UHLRY Also present were: City Manager Brady, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, Lake & Aquatic Resources Director Kilroy, Police Lieutenant Koepp and Clerk of the Board Ray. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Knight. PUBLIC COMMENTS Vice Chairman Arnold commended staff on the PSAC website. CONSENT ITEMS MOVED BY HEWISON, SECONDED BY ARNOLD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES. ~ Agenda Item No. Page~Of~ Aage Three - Public Safety Advisory Commission Minutes - February 9, 2005 cItIzens. He noted that he was primarily interested in youth safety. He indicated that there were safety issues that needed to be addressed regarding the motocross track. Commissioner Hewison echoed Chairman Lewis comments regarding creation of a calendar. Vice Chairman Arnold questioned if there was a disaster preparedness plan in place. City Manager Brady confirmed. Mr. Brady also indicated that the required drills were conducted. Commissioner Hewison inquired if the PSAC Brochure had been distributed. Mr. Dennis indicated that it had been printed, but not widely distributed, although it had been available at City Hall. ,.,........ Lieutenant Koepp indicated that within the last two months there was a regional earthquake drill involving all the local school districts, the Sheriffs Department and partial City staff. He explained that it followed the State Emergency Management System guidelines. Commissioner Knight reminded everyone that the School District and the City were two separate entities. He suggested not waiting until later on in the year for Fire Department personnel to be present at meetings due to mud slides and summer fires. Commissioner Hewison indicated that his focus was information and not to double check professionals in their line of work. He further indicated that the more information was provided to the citizens, the more comfortable they would feel. MOVED BY ARNOLD, SECONDED BY HEWISON AND CARRIED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE PLACEMENT OF LAKE AND AQUATIC SAFETY ON THE MARCH AGENDA AND FIREWORKS SAFETY ON THE JUNE CALENDAR. r' Agenda Item No.-L Page--3-0f~ "....... Page Five - Public Safety Advisory Commission Minutes - February 9, 2005 Commissioner Hewison indicated that he would be interested in Citizen's Action Patrol; and suggested leaving 3 of the 4 task areas open for Commissioner Uhlry. MOVED BY HEWISON, SECONDED BY ARNOLD WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT FOR THE COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE RESPONSIBILITY TO THE FOUR KEY TASKS, COMMISSIONER UHLRY WILL REVIEW THE TASK AREAS AND EXPRESS HIS WISHES; AND THE COMMISSION WILL DECIDE ON THIS AT THE MARCH, 2005 MEETING. l (' i 24. PSAC Web Site Demonstration. /'"' Information/Communications Manager Dennis gave an overview of the item. He indicated that it was on the web site, but it was also in a testing phase. He indicated that there was an interactive online form for citizens. He commented on the different links for the web site. Vice Chairman Arnold commended Mr. Dennis on the web site. MOVED BY ARNOLD, SECONDED BY KNIGHT AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE REPORT. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Vice Chairman Arnold had no comments. r'"' Agenda Item No. l c- '(/l Page~ Of---+-- /"'" ~ /"'" MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, MARCH 09, 2005 ************************************************************* CALL TO ORDER Chairman Lewis called the Public Safety Advisory Commission Meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: ARNOLD, HEWISON, KNIGHT, LEWIS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: UHLRY Also present were: City Manager Brady, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, Lake & Aquatic Resources Director Kilroy, Police Lieutenant Koepp and Clerk of the Board Ray. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chairman Arnold. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT ITEMS None. Agenda Item No. ,;) pageLOf~ ~age Three - Public Safety Advisory Commission Minutes - March 9, 2005 Vice Chairman Arnold questioned if there were building code restrictions regarding the pad level of homes. Mr. Kilroy explained that the City had recently established a height of 1267' for homes. Commissioner Hewison questioned the possible damage that could occur if the Lake received another 3 or 4 inches of rain. Mr. Kilroy explained that he could not calculate how inches of rain fall translate into Lake rising and the damage it would cause. Commissioner Knight inquired if the weir was manually operated. Mr. Kilroy explained that all the flood control structures were preset and on automatic power. /"'" Chairman Lewis questioned the evaporation of9,000 gallons per minute; since the Lake received so much water. Mr. Kilroy explained that the volume increased but the evaporation amount per minute should not Increase. Chairman Lewis questioned the settlements in the water from Canyon Lake. Mr. Kilroy explained that Canyon Lake had an unusual ecology of bacteria in their Lake, but it was not necessarily harmful to humans. MOVED BY KNIGHT, SECONDED BY ARNOLD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE REPORT. Commissioner Knight commended Mr. Kilroy on the previous presentation and indicated that the presentation should be seen by all the citizens of Lake E18inore. 22. Public Information: Lake Management Education. City Manager Brady gave an overview of the item. Mr. Brady deferred to Information/Communications Manager Dennis. Mr. Dennis indicated that r" the City had proactive and reactive steps for public education in place. He Agenda Item No.----2-- Page ~ Of--Gz.- Aage Five - Public Safety Advisory Commission Minutes - March 9, 2005 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Brady commended Information/Communications Manager Dennis and Lake & Aquatic Resources Director Kilroy on the outstanding work they had being doing in regards to the Lake. He also commended the Public Works Department for their efforts during the storm season. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Commissioner Knight thanked staff for resolving an issue with a sign posting near the local High School. Commissioner Hewison requested an update on a possible Ordinance for the Lake. City Manager Brady explained that it was being reviewed and the item would be brought back to the Commission. ~ Vice Chairman Arnold commented that he appreciated the presentation. He commented that KCAL news had aired an expose', which indicated that there were residences that placed up to 33 sex offenders in a single dwelling in the middle of a residential neighborhood within walking distance of public schools. Lieutenant Koepp indicated that he was not aware if there was such a situation in Lake Elsinore. He indicated that sex offenders were required to register in the City in which they resided. He further indicated that if the same address was used by numerous sex offenders, it would be flagged. Chairman Lewis requested that each Commissioner select five issues they were concerned with and following each meeting the Chair and Vice Chair would meet and they would be adding five new topics to the Business Items each month. He informed City Manager Brady that he had repeatedly requested in the past that the PSAC be made aware of any ongoing and upcoming events that could have some area of danger. He indicated that it had come to his attention that California Skier was in the process of working out arrangements with the City or Lake Management to teach water skiing. He requested those events come before ,I"""' PSAC. He suggested a scheduled time for the Chair and Vice Chair to meet with Agenda Item No. d- page~Of---k- .' I""" CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY, CITY MANAGER DATE: APRIL 13, 2005 SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION RESIGNATION & CONCURRENCE WITH CITY COUNCIL TO ADVERTISE FOR PSAC TERM OP~NINGS (UHLRY, LEWIS) BACKGROUND Public Safety Advisory Commissioner Dan Uhlry submitted his resignation on March 24,2005, effective April 1, 2005 (copy attached). r-- Public Safety Advisory Commission terms were staggered last year when the Commission was reformed. As the initial Chairman, Commissioner Uhlry received a term running until June 30, 2005. Due to time constraints, it will not be practical to advertise and fill Mr. Uhlry's unexpired term before the June 30 term expiration. DISCUSSION Last year, the Electoral Reform Committee recommended that in the event of a vacancy, the application period for the two standing Commissions should run for four weeks, followed by a review process at the discretion of the City Council. In the case of the Public Safety ~\dvisory Commission, it should be noted that Commissioner Mike Lewis's original term will also expire on June 30, 2005. With two new PSAC term openings on July 1,2005 (Uhlry and Lewis), starting the recruitment process for filling the new term openings, while leaving Mr. Uhlry's unexpired term vacant, would be advisable. I""" ':...-_?:_L . . ._._L_- .:,,"1 {lit!} of LakE ELiino,[E '"UI2.':: Cit:J \ got c:::/I'{oL.'::" March 24, 2005 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Lake Elsinore 130 S. Main Street L.lke Elsinore, CA 92530 Re: Notice of Resignation Dear Hlmorab1c Mayor and City Council' -- ] regret to inform you that as a result ofa planned relocation out of the area, 1 am resigning from the Planning Commission and the Public Safety Advisory Commission, effective April 1,2005. It has been a p1cJ,urtc serving with my colleagues 01' the Planning Commission and I'd~li'_' el)' A(1-vlSory Commission, and 1 have grc:-'l pnde in ti;-:; ,vork that they arc doing on behalf of the community. Finally, : wish to thank the City Council for their suppoli, without which I would not have been given this tremendous opportunity to serve the City of Lake Eisinore. Thank you again for ailowing me to participate in the planning and safety of our great City. Walll1cst Regards, .; ~ /.,~ /' /".-..... /: "/') /~~.<."'/" ---' , j // -----/ J/f // I / /.-::_':.< /_c'; ~ /._~ ! Dan Uhlry Planning Commissioner/Pubic Safety Advisory Commissioner c: City Manager v--City Clerk/Director of Human Resources Roland "Ron" La Pere, Planning Commission Chairman Michael Lewis, Public Safety Advisory Commission Chairman ~ 730 ~~ldh ell/(ai/2 d)tu.d, .LakE 2t5il2(Y<.E, C~ 92530 'JEL'E(l/;O/2C (909 (~~(~.J(-t1. [a!~E- -E-{~it2o'lE._ 01::3 21 "'[_'" ~.!rc A"''-,_o;...tT'''''if.J. ~.,~ --:\,JoO' t\:\-!.. .......-4 - . ~~_~"4.vr~ . ~". ._] ",. 3 c\~__ ~. ,:; , 'c-'" ... ~ ~. ,":\'..<'-.-' ...~....~.....~...". - r- CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY, CITY MANAGER DA TE: APRIL 13, 2005 SUBJECT: PROPOSED PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING CITIZEN'S REQUESTS RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY BACKGROUND With the inception of the PSAC website and online citizen's request form, consider procedure for citizen feedback and response reporting and tracking to the PSAC. DISCUSSION ~ The City's web page and PSAC web page provide tools for citizens to e-mail city staff and the PSAC. The Information/Communications Manager is presently the central collection point for e-mails to the webmaster from citizens and PSAC online citizen forms. Below is an outline oftasks associated with e-mail handling and steps to ensure timely responsiveness and reporting. The procedure as proposed will: 1. Acknowledge all citizen communications related to public safety that are received either through the City's web site, telephone, or PSAC online citizen's request form; this will be accomplished within 24 hours of receipt or sooner via e-mail or phone. 2. E-mails will be forwarded to appropriate City staff with related notes for follow- up; a copy will be placed in the PSAC "tickler" file until the item is closed; 3. The PSAC will be provided a summary report of monthly citizen correspondence received via the monthly agenda packets; 4. Items requiring PSAC discussion and direction will be placed on the agenda for action with a full copy of the correspondence as back up; 5. Action items will be tracked according to their status as being "open" or ~, "closed". , C;/.ii:;.:-~S~~~ ~"~:-~:~j ~'.~o. e>r.~~ I r-"",,,,>~ 2-L CF 3 ~ ~ .' PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION MICHAEL LEWIS. CHAIRMAN WILLIAM J. ARNOLD III, VICE-CHAIRMAN RON HEWISON RAY KNIGHT '/ ) 22.- 3 c;c; ~ ~::XJ;~ ty~:~ rfO. 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET. LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 PH: 951 .674.3124 FAX: 951 .674.2392 WWW.LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG/PSAC p.J7.~~ ,..... CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY, CITY MANAGER DATE: APRIL 13, 2005 SUBJECT: PROPOSED GUIDELINES AND FREQUENCY OF PSAC REPORTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL BACKGROUND Set frequency and format of reports and recommendations from the PSAC to the City Council. ~ DISCUSSION City Ordinance Number 1116, which re-established the PSAC, lists objectives for reporting to the City Council on a regular basis and forwarding all PSAC recommendations to the City Council for consideration. To formalize this process, the following guidelines are recommended: 1. PSAC reports, correspondence and recommendations will be presented to the City Council following a majority approved vote by the PSAC; 2. Because PSAC minutes are an accurate and official public record of PSAC actions, PSAC minutes will be submitted to the City Council on a regular basis; 3. PSAC correspondence shall be directed to the Mayor from the PSAC Chairman; 4. .PSAC electronic letterhead shall be used for official PSAC correspondence; 5. When Council action has taken place on a particular PSAC 1 ecommendation, the Council's action will be listed on the next PSAC agenda entitled Council Actions Pertaining to PSAC; backup materials will be included. FISCAL IMPACT None. ,,-.. . .;.-, f', ~~: .:.:...;:,. ~ ;. '1 ;'...""'~ \ 3 " .4 ~,..",-,,~~-------~- ....''''~:-L .'.- ') ...O"\;..i.;:; . .... .:. <=-- ~. .. ------ ,,_ CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY, CITY MANAGER DATE: APRIL 13,2005 SUBJECT: SKATE PARK EXHIBITION POLICY AND CONSISTENCY WITH POSTED SAFETY RULES (MUNICIPAL CODE 10.56.070) BACKGROUND At the request of Chairman Lewis, this item is to discuss whether or not to recommend that professional skaters and/or exhibitors who perform at the Skate Park be required to wear the same safety gear required of park patrons; namely, ."..-... elbow and knee pads. Helmets are always required to be worn by all skate park users, including professionals. DISCUSSION This item falls within the PSAC's goals of promoting safety education for the public. At issue is sending a consistent message regarding posted safety requirements, rather than liability. A broader issue of consistency also exists: whether tightening down on skate park professional exhibitors is consistent with other "hazardous recreational activities" allowed by the City, such as the Lake Elsinore Grand Prix. Arguments for regulating "hazardous recreational activities" such as skateboarding must be careful not to bring into question why any "hazardous recreational activities" are allowed at any City facility, thus eliminating such hazardous activities from being allowed on City property in the name of safety protection and risk prevention. /"'" . The City's goal is to promote safety and to accommodate the popularity of such extreme events for participants and spectators. Attracting professionals, whether motorcycle riders or skateboarders, is part of accommodating public demand for these extreme activities. i:-''':'_-.~... 1:~G. L/ ~. ?- ~r r::~=:?:._-1~~.c:": .] animals, wheelchairs COrd. 808 ~ 1, 1987) 10.56.010 LAKE ELSINORE CODE r- Chapter 10.56 SKATEBOARDS AND ROlLER SKATES * Sections: 10.56.010 10.56.020 Scope. Operation in a business district prohibited. Reckless operation. Right-of-way. Operativn after dark. Incline device. Safety equipment. 10.56.030 10.56.040 10.56.050 10.56.060 10.56.070 10.56.010 Scope. The provIsIon of this chapter shall apply tD all wheeled objects not classified as motor vehicles, motorized bicycles or bicycles in this title or in the Vehicle Code, including, but not limited to, skateboards, roller skates, coasters, scooters and toy vehicles. COrd. 808 ~ 1, 1987) ~ 10.56.020 Operation in a business district prohibited. No person shall ride upon, propel or otherwise operate a skateboard or roller skate upon a sidewalk or parking area in a business district. COrd. 808 ~ 1, 1987) 10.56.030 Reckless operation. No person shall ride upon, propel or otherwise operate a skateboard or roller skates in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. COrd. 808 ~ 1, 1987) 10.56.040 Righklf-way. The rider or operator of a skateboard or roller skates upon any sidewalk or roadway shall yield the right-of-way tD all pedestrians, /""", * For st.-.tutory provisions pertaining to skateboards and roller skates, see Vehicle Code Section 21967 and 21969. ....: 10.56.050 Operation after person shall ride upon"' 1 . ' propol 'otnerwlse operate a skateboard or' ska~es upon any roadway durini, penod between sunset and sunri g,(,; 808 ~ 1, 1987) se."" 10.56.060 Incline device. No person co:-.struct, place or maintain or""', ramp or ot~er incline device to be.-us~;' skateboardmg or rollerskating, uponf' public sidewalk or roadway. COrd. 808' 1987) 10.56.070 Safety equipment. P€ participating in recreational activitr the McVicker Canyon Skate Park &'-'~o areas designated by the City Courici . . . .~. : -.J' actIvItIes which include the use skateboards, in-line skates or roller 's i shall wear the following safety equipm A. Helmet B. Kneepads C. Elbow pads (Ord. 1079 S 1, 2002) Chapter 10.60 VIOLATIONS Sections: 10.60.010 10.60.020 Penalty for violations. Deposit to traffic safety fund. 10.60.010 Penalty for violations. Wh~. ever in this traffic code or any rule .,' regulation promulgated pursuant ther:~ any act is prohibited or is mad~~~,P ..(,1 eT2~J~ r{.r)~ 1016 C'I""'- 3 t.~,w(,;:: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE r"., REPORT TO PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY, CITY MANAGER DATE: APRIL 13,2005 SUBJECT: REPORT ON NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH MEETING, THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 2005, AT STONEWOOD LANE BACKGROUND Chairman Lewis will present an oral report on a Neighborhood Watch Meeting attended by Chairman Lewis and Cvmmissioner Hewison. DISCUSSION ,.,-.. Chairman's action points for discussion include: 1. Advance notification of PSAC members of citizen meetings on public safety topics to facilitate PSAC participation; 2. Availability of PSAC brochure and materials to distribute (whether PSAC representatives can attend or not); 3. Feedback from the community about PSAC involvement; 4. Reporting to the PSAC by any member(s) who attend citizen or neighborhood meetings as representatives of the PSAC. FISCAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION Receive and file Chairman Lewis's report. PREPARED BY: MARK E. DENNIS "...-.., APPROVED FOR AGENDA BY: CITY -,,-' J--) -i. t.:.,-::,,~..__~~ U ""~, L 1,4,--', ,"'.!!1. ~'J:~-" -..-r" r;"'~:,;"" - ___ ...... ..", ~.. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY, CITY MANAGER DATE: APRIL 13, 2005 SUBJECT: PSAC REQUESTS AND TRAKING LOG BACKGROUND The attached letter and memorandum are provided to the Commission for their information. Several Commissioners have asked about these two items. The issues identified in the attached documents have been addressed by the Code Enforcement and Parking Enforcement Divisions of the City. ",- Also attached is a summary of running task requests and business items requested by the PSAC. Staff has updated the PSAC tracking log through April 13, 2005. RECOMMENDA TION It is recommended that the Public Safety Commission receive and file this item. PREPARED BY: Robert A. Brady, City Manager APPROVED FOR AGENDA LISTING: CIT ~ Attachments ,,~ 2( ~..\""..~~..... ...--- I -Z-1 :....--...---,--..' ...,-- ~... ~ , .;"'~.-., ......-- ~- ~---.I .. r-- Page Two In accordance with your local code (1005) each of the residents which prevented the sweeping of our streets should have been in violation. Failure to cite the additional violations becomes a unjustifiable cause for a citation. I request a hearing and wish to address this issue with the council of the City of Lake Elsinore or its administrative staff. I would like to request a review by the Safety Commission in regards to the safety of the children during sweeping and trash pick-up day after holidays. (Base on: (2,000) containers blocking the view, (1) street sweeper vehicle and (3) trash trucks all at once in one street. Not to exclude Mr. Scofield vehicle. Any additional information in regards to this request for review, may be obtain by contacting (951) 245-2606 or 678-3518. r- I ,', . v ~immy Flores ~ "",,"',... ) V'l';jj';:_ ') FEE 23 '05 13:13 245 2589 ~ ....~). 2fo .... 1..... ...-...q C~ 2~ 1 PAGE. 02 1 l' \ , ' 02-23-05 r--- Welcome Mayor Bob Magee Itinerary for Wednesday, February 23, 2005 Meeting with Tim Fleming 17970 lakeshore Drive lake E!sinore, CA 92530 951 245-7692 Protecting the Quality of lake Elsinore's Shoreline. 1. Review of 1980 Flood Book > City of Lake Elsinore Turnaround ,'-' 2. Plan "CIf Lake Overlay > Reference for General Plan 3. Folder of Properties in Question of City Code Violations > Back up documentation 4. Tour of Lake Front Properties 5. Crafting a Lake Protection Ordinance Review 6. Miscellaneous related attachments Thank you ,-., Pi~Q,E3 ') / ::.J. c:.- b .,---- ---. .-:> (~ --" _ c~'!:. <- L ~-, . ~'i ,f)~~ /'" T"J R. r--- CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE MEMORANDUM FROM: MA YOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~. \ DICK WATENPAUGH, CITY MANAGER \}JJ TO: DATE: DECEMBER 31,2003 SUBJECT: LAKESHORE OVERLAY AND RECREATIONAL DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT As follow-up to the City Council's request for staff to increase enforcement, be proactive, staff has prepared the attached memorandum outlining the schedule for resolving violations along the lake edge. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 674-3124, ext. 204. .'-' /dp Attachment C. Assistant City Manager City ClerklDirector of Human Resources City Attorney Department Directors ~, P.ID/('KIMEMOSiUKESIiORE OI'ERLA l'MDIO TO COUNCIL DOC < e~ ." :.;.~_ "'> ".' J c'~ z q F;'Y._"~_ __V~" _._" j ~~Po~ ~. ~.O,,2oo4. ity of 1!.akE ELiino'"lE ",n /7. '/2 _1111 " 1Um: cd!J 1- "::::lot C/VtO'U: January 2, 2004 Property Owner NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS OF LAKESHORE OVERLAY & RECREATIONAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS Dear Property Owner: The City of Lake Elsinore Code Enforcement Division is notifying property owners of the above referenced regulations. You have received this notice because you are listed as a property owner within the Lakeshore Overlay & Recreational Districts which encompass alllakefront properties along Lakeshore Drive, Riverside Drive, and Grand Avenue. ~ Several violations on lakefront properties within the Lakeshore Overlay & Recreational District have been observed. We are notifying all property owners of the municipal regulations that apply to these districts. Attached is a list of Municipal Code regulations & violations. These regulations' have been adopted by the City Council to protect the health and safety of human life, environmental concerns and to maintain the areas natural beauty. The list of municipal regulations is to assist property owners to better understand local ordinances. If any of these violations exist on your prope Weare sending advance notice to a 0 at maybe in VIO ation these City Ordinances. We will be conducting our next Inspect" on on January 27, 2004 and wou ask that all of these violations be corrected by this date to avOl Ie a If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at 909-674-3124 extension 229. Sincerely, CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE www.lake-elsin re.org Steve Alvarado Code Enforcement Officer II ~ 130 douth 01/tailZ dhu.t, LakE E[j. ilZ 0 7. E, Cd! 92530 C1dEpholZE: (909) 674-3124 9ax: (909) 674-2392 www.!akE-E[j.ilZou.07.'3 . ,~.'). 2-. (p .... C1 - - l ?' ',._L_C'']: .' 1 -~ Crafting a Lake Protection r~ Ordinance by Karen Cappiella and Tom Schueler Introduction Lake protection ordinances are an essential tool for protecting the quality of the 41 million acres of lakes and reservoirs in the United States that are under increasing development pressure. This article describes how to craft an ordinance to protect and maintain the quality of lakes from the pressures of both shoreline and watershed development. An effective lake protec- tion ordinance extends over four major zones: the actual shoreline, a forested buffer extending landward, a shoreland protection area that extends further, and finally, a watershed-wide zone used to control pollut- ant loadings to the lake or reservoir as a whole. (/-.. '-- A lake protection ordinance (LPO) is particularly critical around urban lakes, to guide how and where new development will occur. Historically, there has been limited guidance on how to craft an effecti ve LPO that protects lake resources, maintains the quality of the recreational experience, -and accommodates the property rights of landowners. Traditionally, most LPOs have primarily focused on a relatively narrow ring ofland around the shoreline where development is most visible. However, given that lakes are so strongly influenced by runoff from their watersheds, they often need to be managed from a watershed perspecti ve. Key Factors to Consider in Lake Protection Techniques for protecting lakes are markedly different from those used to protect streams. A water- shed manager must account for nine factors that are unique to the ecology of lakes and the nature of development that occurs around them: Shoreline development is a unique form of development_ Lake shorelines are a valuable piece of real estate, and command premium land prices. Purchasers often use these lots to build summer homes or cottages, and seek both good access to the water and an unob- structed view of the lake. Consequently, individual homes are oriented toward the lake. Over time, a ring of development is formed- around the lake, with the greatest density of homes within 500 feet of the lake, . "".......... and less density further away (Figure 1). '---- -~-=--- - -- .. -"~ Lake shorelines also tend to be developed incre- mentally over time. It is rare that the lakefront is devel- oped as a single subdivision (which would be much easier to regulate). Rather, shoreline development often happens on a "lot-by-Iot" basis, whereby individual lakefront lots are sold and subdivided to build second homes or cottages, often on a custom basis. In addition, each home and its accessory struc- tures tend to be continuously "im- proved" or expanded by successive owners, to meet their changing tastes and recreational needs. Conse- quently, an LPO should be written to provide continuous regulation of the shoreline development process. Techniques for protecting lakes are markedly different from those used to protect streams. Since lake front property is so de- sirable, it is quite common to have intense lake front development in otherwise lightly developed watersheds. This presents a real challenge for protecting lakes in rural areas, since these communities typically have limited staff and development review experience. G~Jr derl~jty (If homes Sl[ITOUndiilg t1~ Jake Buff.er is cleared ror lawns, l'ie-VlS of the lake, OOalhoosc'S. and access Figure 1. Typical Development Pattern Around a Lake Urban Lake Management 751 2-(, ,- ._.jJ_~c; 4--1 ~ ,-" ~l,'.i ~ Figures 2 and 3 are examples of shoreline lots with' unregulated and regulated "improvements." r~ While the individual effect of each of these im- provements is relatively minor, their cumulative im- pact on the integrity and attractiveness of a shoreline buffer can be severe. For example, a survey of users in a Minnesota lake found that a majority of the respon- dents felt that multiple shoreline structures and lawns had a negative impact on the lake (Warbach et aI., 1990). When a person is on a lake, he wants to see a natural shoreline. Yet, when the same person is on the shore, he wants to see a lake. This can create a lot of pressure on the buffer, as property owners clear trees and remove vegetation to promote a better view of the lake. How- ever, one individual's quest for a better view of the lake diminishes the quality of the view for another. Thus, all property owners share a common interest in limiting clearing along the shoreline to screen their neighbors, while still getting at least a decent glimpse ofthe lake themselves. Consequently, an LPO needs to carefully prescribe how and where view corridors can be created, and include realistic measures to inform land owners on what uses, structures and activities are restricted or prohibited in the shoreline buffer zone. Recreational issues are paramount management concern. Lakes that are actively used for fishing, boating, swimming and other forms of recreation require direct access to the shoreline and across the buffer. While some lakes do have public access and central facilities (such as boat ramps, swimming beaches, etc.), many do not. In these lakes, each waterfront owner creates his or her own recreational access. This can create an inherent conflict between the property owners and outside users of the lakes. Therefore, although the shoreline buffer usually remains in private ownership, it is important to address issues of both public and private recreational access in an LPO. -Table 1. Recent Research Documenting Ecological Benefits of Shoreline Buffers Key Finding Reference Location Coarse woody debris positively correlated Christensen et 17 north temperate lakes in with riparian tree density and negatively a/., 1996 northern Wisconsin and the correlated with lakeshore cabin density Upper Peninsula of Michigan Less fish activity, less fish feeding, and increased wave disturbance in fringe Collins et a/., no 2 sites on Lake Rosseau, zones adjacent to lawns versus date Ontario, an oligotrophic lake undeveloped shorelines Increase in development and decrease in Voight and vegetative cover is correlated with Broadfoot, 1995 Lake Muskoka, Ontario decrease in lakeside populations of white- tailed deer Increase in development and decrease in Buehler et a/., vegetative cover is correlated with 1991 Chesapeake Bay Shorelines decrease in shoreline populations of nesting bald eagles Increase in development and decrease in Heimberger et a/., vegetative cover is correlated with Northern Ontario lake decrease in lakeside populations of loons 1983 Increase in development and decrease in vegetative cover is correlated with Johnson and Eastern Maine lake decrease in lakeside populatioflc; of Brown, 1990 songbirds Species richness and abundance of fish Bryan and were greater along undeveloped Scarnecchia, Spirit Lake, Iowa shorelines versus developed shorelines in 1992 2266 hectare glacial lake nearshore and intermediate depth zones Decrease in plant cover from human Chick and Mcivor, activity is correlated with a decrease in fish 1994 Lake Okeechobee, Florida abundance Decrease in plant cover from human Hinch and activity is correlated with a decrease in fish Collins, 1993 Ontario abundance c~ "-- ,~, "-- Urban Lake Management 753 '7 I,'; ,. riO~. L- ~ ['r,c:: I 3 Co'f 2- I r~ In nearly all lakes, the ability to achieve manage- ment goals for a lake is heavily influenced by the amount and type of prior development along the shore- line or within the watershed. Thus, lake managers should engage both lake users and watershed residents to set realistic goals for lake protection very early in the ordinance process. In addition, communities that have many lakes and reservoirs may wantto classify them in order to manage them better. An example is the state of Minnesota's lake classification system shown in Table 2. The Four Zones of Lake Protection The four primary zones oflake protection are the shoreline, shoreline buffer, shoreland protection area, and the lake's contributing watershed (see Figure 5). The development criteria within each of the four zones are often different and include the following: c;- 1. Zone geometry 2. Vegetative target 3. Allowable uses 4. Restricted uses 5. Septic system siting 6. Stormwater treatment practice design 7. Residential lot design requirements 8. Zoning 9. Enforcement 10. Education The key development criteria for the four zones of an LPO are compared in a condensed fashion in Table 3. In general, the four-zone approach to lake protec- tion is most restrictive at the shoreline, and is more flexible as one progresses further up into the watershed. Greater detail on the key criteria for a lake protection ordinance is provided in the following pages. Zone 1: Shoreline ~. ~ The shoreline begins as the point where the mean high water mark meets the land. Given the importance of the shoreline to lake ecology and screening, it is essential that this zone be retained in a natural state, with minimal disturbance of native vegetation. A common approach to manage the shoreline is to require shoreline permits for any activity that modifies, alters, clears or otherwise disturbs the natural shoreline. Per- mits, which can be required by a local or state agency, place limits on tree clearing, buIkheading and rip- rapping. Exceptions may be granted to clear small Table 2. Example of Lake Classification System (Bernthal and Jones, 1998l lake Class acres water per # homes per lake shoreline mile shoreline mile denth Natural < 60 <3 <15 feet Environment Recreational 60 - 225 3 - 25 > 15 feet Develonment General > 225 > 25 > 15 feet Develonment " > L .. " ('" /q .--f ",v...-q, Figure 4. A Lake Use Plan Can Resolve Conflict Over Recreational Use (NIPC, 1995) Figure 5. The Four Zones of Lake Protection Urban Lake Management 755 2& } .-- , - ..L>... _. .1'-< L '1 -- ~- .- L c- ,.,..' ~ (~ width to six feet or less. Normally, pre-existing struc- tures are exempted from the shoreline permit process, but they may not be significantly expanded without one (Bernthal and Jones, 1998). Restricted Uses Many communities prohibit tree clearing or grad- ing along the shoreline, although individual trees can be removed for safety purposes. Boathouses and other accessory structures are generally prohibited within the narrow shoreline zone. In addition, no new storm- water outfalls should be allowed that discharge to the shoreline. Zone 2: Shoreline Buffer (--;.- " When natural shoreline buffers are maintained, they protect the integrity of the shoreline, provide habitat for wildlife and fish, reduce the likelihood of erosion, and help to reduce runoff and pollutant loads (Engel and Pederson, 1998; Wenger, 1999; Fuller, 1995). In addition, natural shoreline buffers support the aesthetic and recreational values that make lakefront development so desirable and economically attrac- tive. Natural shoreline buffers also protect the physical and ecological integrity ofIakes by providing shade, leaflitter, woody debris, erosion protection, and habi- tat. A common base width for a shoreline buffer is 75 feet (Heraty, 1993), although widths typically range from 50 to 150 feet. If a lake is used as a source of drinking water or is very pristine, buffer widths of200 to 300 feet are often used (RICRMC, 1994; Standing et al., 1997; Kitchell, this issue). The base width ofa shoreline buffer should be expanded to include steep slopes or wetlands, or contracted when pre-existing development is located close to the shoreline. Some communities set the base width of the shoreline buffer based on the surface area of the individual lake, and require wider buffers around their larger lakes. Most communities now clearly prescribe how the buffer will be delineated within the LPO. For natural lakes, the natural mean high water level is a good benchmark, whereas the water line at "full pond" is often used for reservoirs. Vegetation Management The vegetative target for the shoreline buffer is mature forest or native vegetation. This may involve actively re-vegetating areas or letting them gradually return to their natural state. Depending on the region, the natural state will not always bea forest. The use of native plants within the buffer usually requires less mainte- nance, and these plants are easier to establish. Some communities set specific restoration goals for the shore- line buffer. For example, New Hampshire requires that a plan be submitted that describes the species, number, and basal area of trees proposed for replanting a natural woodland buffer (Springs, 1999). Tree clearing for view corridors or access trails is inevitable, so many LPOs do allow for some clearing, or have guidelines for thinning or removing of dead trees. For example, Rhode Island Coastal Zone Buffer Program and Maine Shoreland Protection Standards indicate that shoreline access paths can be no more than six feet wide and follow a winding path that does not promote erosion (see Figure 6). In addition, clearing for a view corridor is generally limited to no more than 25% of the length of the shoreline forresidentiallots of two acres or less (RlCRMC, 1994). Other communities have opted for a more operational criteria, allowing a single view corridor per lot, and no opening greater than 250 sq uare feet in the forest canopy /" 2/3 tree height (-- (no pruning) ~ 1/3 tree height (pruning allowed) ~ 3' no clearing ~/". Figure 6. Example of Guidelines for Vegetation Thinning in the Shoreline Buffer for View Corridors and Footpaths (Illustration by Brian Kent) Urban Lake Management 757 "2_ ~ iIl"~ 2-1 ~~~:J.. _ . L I (;:;= .F" _"-{---.> ....:,u (~ c~ Zone 3: Shoreland Protection Area The shoreland protection area extends beyond the shoreline buffer and is primarily intended to regulate the geometry and nature of development on lots adja- cent to a lake. In away, the shoreland protection area is a special overlay zone for residential development, and includes various setbacks, impervious cover limits and forest conservation requirements. The width for a shoreland protection area typi- cally ranges from 250 to 1,000 feet, as measured from the shoreline. The state ofMinnesotahas a similar zone where shoreland standards apply to all land within 1,000 feet of the lake (ILCC, 1996). The actual width depends on the underlying lot size or zoning category in the area. In general, as lot size increases, the width of the shoreland protection area increases. At a mini- mum, the shoreland protection area should extend at least two lot lengths outward from the lake. Often, the exact boundaries of the shore land protection area are expanded to account for bluffs, wetlands, steep slopes, erodible soils, or othersensiti ve natural features around the lake. Vegetation Since development will occur in the shoreland protection area, vegetative targets are much less re- strictive than along the shoreline or in the shoreline buffer zones. Maximum clearing limits are imposed in this zone to keep the building footprints as small as possible and conserve natural areas. A typical example is prescribed under the Maine Shoreland Zoning guide- Maximum clearing 10,000 sq. ft.or 25% of lot, whichever is..........,..!" greater "..,... "1 . _ lines, which limit clearing during Construction to no more than 25% of total lot area or 10,000 square feet, whichever is less (MDEP, 1999, see Figure 7). In Waupaca County, Wisconsin, no more than 50% of each shore land lot or 25,000 square feet, whichever is less, may be disturbed for residential or commercial construction (Standing et a/., 1997). Restricted Uses A primary reason for establishing the shoreland protec~ion area as a zoning district is to exclude or set back uses or activities that have the potential to degrade the water quality of the lake or detract from its scenic character. Conseq uently, a long list of uses and activities are often excluded from the shoreland protection area. Examples of land uses that are frequently consid- ered to be non-conforming include livestock opera- tions; facilities that generate, store or dispose of hazard- ous materials; landfills; junkyards; surface discharges from sewage treatment plants; golf courses (unless they have an approved integrated pest management plan); above or below ground storage tanks; storm water hotspots (MDE, 2000); and non-residential roads. In addition, most communities consider the shoreland protection area to be an exclusively residen- tial zone, with exceptions for water-dependent opera- tions (such as boatlaunching areas, private campgrounds, and the like). Consequently, industrial, commercial, or institutional developments are often excluded from this zone, particularly if the lake is a primary drinking water supply. 60,000 sq. ft. lot: clearing limited to 15,000 sq. ft. "---~ Urban lake Management 759 i,...., . ,,"~.c.' ..'-' 2 (p ;~ ~:',~:"i r~1...>>. 11..."- 4~f?r:- F:.::~~_~c'} L '1 (r--. for residential lots in the shore land protection area. However, this per- centage can vary depending on land use, lot size, and the desired level of development around a lake. For example, Shawano County, Wisconsin has a limit of8% imper- vious cover on lots within 300 feet of the lake's ordinary high water mark (Standing, 1997), while the state of New Hampshire has a 20% impervious cover limit for alterna- tive developments such as PUDs, which incorporate residential and commercial areas in a planned com- munity (Bernthal and Jones, 1998). ISO FlIOt Septic System Setbad 2.Aere MiJlim4!m ltlt $1" Total Site lmpetlii&li$ne54 < 12$ ;. ~ of Site Reuined as. Natural Forest ~ Site Fingerprinting Prop~rty Lime c~ Many communities specifY that a minimum fraction of the lot be conserved in natural cover, and mandate that the lot cannot be cleared or otherwise disturbed dur- ing site construction, nor converted to lawn afterwards. Normally, area that must be conserved includes the shoreline buffer and additional areas within the shoreland protec- tion area. For thelot as a whole, the target for natural cover conserva- tion will vary according to zoning category, but typi- cally ranges 40 from 75%. Figures 10 and 11 contrast conventional and alternative techniques for clearing a site for development. french drains or rain barrels can be used to store rooftop runoff. Figure 12 illustrates how to use a rain barrel to store rooftop runoff. t.latlital COnsetvaUOfI Area .... Gr.-yel Dmemy " Q~ ~(Jii R(J~ Grass Cllamlel Figure 9. Example of Environmentally Sensitive Design for a Residential Shoreline Lot Grading Limits Limitations on Back Lot Development Any grading at the site should promote sheetflow, and avoid concentrating runoff. Often, driveways comprise much of the grading in the shoreland protec- tion zone. In this respect, driveways should be graded to follow contours and avoid the need for ditches. Otherwise, driveways should be constructed of more permeable material, such as river rock, blue stone, gravel or grass pavers. If the lot has a slope greater than 10%, or is less than one acre in size, berms, depressions or terraces may be required to capture runoff and encourage infiltration at the outer boundary of the shoreline buffer. Lake managers constantly struggle with the issue of backlot development, which drives up the overall den- sity of shoreline development. Backlot development allows off-water lots to share a narrow strip of waterfront land that provides access to the water. This often results in over-development of the lakeshore to accommodate docks and access points for a large number of people. Several zoning techniques can limit backlot develop- ment. First, zoning regulations can prohibit the develop- ment of shore lots with more than one owner or establish limits on the number of off-water lots served by one access lot (Standing, 1997). Alternatively, minimum lot sizes can be established for off-water lots by extending the width of the shoreland protection area further from the lake. Figure I3 illustrates the backlot or "keyhole" development concept. Rooftop Disconnection l~ Residential rooftop runoff can be easily discon- nected and conveyed as sheetflow across vegetated areas or into the buffer. In practical terms, this means that downspouts should not be connected to any con- veyance system. If soils are not suitable, then dry wells, Urban Lake Management 761 {'.,;'__ 7 I "':'><'" .' .:., he'd. <::- \p 2. · ~..~_~_ c'? 2--1 Reliance on Septic Systems (r' Communities often choose to rely on septic sys- tems for wastewater disposal within lake watersheds for two reasons. First, most communities find that it is not economical to service large lot development with sewers. Second, the presence of sewers can often induce more development density than originally intended. Therefore, a lack of sewer capacity acts as a secondary growth contro 1, and can reduce pressures to rezone land to a higher density in the future. While these land use strategies have been widely applied, they may not be appropriate for every lake watershed. For example, it may not be desirable to extend large lot zoning or exclude commercial devel- opment when a lake has a very large watershed, or has already experienced a great deal of past development. The strategy can also backfire if u::suitable soils or site conditions make widespread septic system failure likely, or if the community has no capacity to inspect and manage septic systems over time. These situations call for a more sophisticated land use strategy that may involve down-zoning, transferable development rights, or watershed-based zoning (CWP, 1998). (~ '- Another important component of zoning is a care- ful assessment of existing water pollution hazards in the watershed, with a strong emphasis on land uses or activities that may pose a risk of spills or accidental discharges. In particular, the potential risk of spills from existing or planned roadways should be assessed, and contingency response plans prepared. Land Conservation Land conservation is a critical tool for limiting where land development takes place in a lake water- shed. Many communities have secured easements or acq uired land in the watershed for the express purpose of lake protection. Generally, shorelines, shoreline buffers, and tributary streams are the key land acquisi- tion priorities, although large wetlands and public access areas may also be preferred. Stream Buffers Stream buffers are an integral part of any watershed protection strategy, and an LPO should strongly rec- ommend establishing them throughout the watershed. The buffer should apply to all perennial streams that drain to the lake. The basic design of stream buffers is described in Schueler (1995), and model ordinances can be found at the Stormwater Manager's Resource Center (www.stormwatercenter.net). In some cases, stream buffers in lake watersheds have a variable width depending on the distance of the stream from the primary water intake. A good example of this concept ',-- can be found in Georgia's reservoir protection standards, which require a 150 foot buffer around the reservoir, a 100 foot buffer along streams within a seven mile radius of the reservoir, and a 50 foot buffer along streams outside the seven mile radius for watersheds less than 100 square miles (Burnett and AsWey, 1992). Better Site Design Communities may also want to encourage open space designs for residential subdivisions located out- side of the shoreland protection area, since clustering has been shown to reduce the phosphorus loadings (Zielinski, 2000). Narrower road standards and the use of roadside swales are also particularly appropriate in most lake watersheds. j Figure 12. Rooftop Runoff is Collected in a Rain Barrel and Stored for Later Use >;-...--. Figure 13. An Example of a "Keyhole" or Backlot Development (Warbach et a/., 1990) 763 ~.~J~ Urban Lake Management L~ fY ,..:.- 2 2. ~ t ~"'i...~.....',.__~-J.. ,,', 2-, c;. ~ Reliance on Sewer (r' In some watersheds, communities have had such poor experience with septic systems that they rely instead on sewers to dispose of wastewater. Often, these communities are concerned with bacteria and phos- phorus discharges from failing septic systems or pack- age plants, or have large areas of the watershed that are simply not suitable for septic treatment. Some commu- nities pump the sewage out of the watershed for treat- ment, while others rely on advanced wastewater treat- ment within the watershed. In phosphorus-sensitive lakes, it is important to deal with all sources of phosphorus in the watershed. Many developing watersheds still have active agricul- tural operations that can contribute significant nonpoint phosphorus loads. Consequently, lake man- agers should carefully evaluate agricultural sources, such as row crops, confined animal feeding operations, dairies, hobby farms and grazing livestock, and coop- erate with farmers and ranchers to implement needed best management practices. Watershed Stewardship c~ The watershed is often the best scale at which to perform public education and outreach. In lake water- sheds, the outreach effort strives to meet two broad objectives. The first objective is to create an awareness among all watershed residents that they are connected to the lake downstream. Once residents become more connected to the lake, the next objective is to educate them about specific ways they can have a positive influence on lake quality through their daily actions. These include activities such as lawn fertilization, car washing, septic c1eanouts, fall leaf disposal, and pet waste disposal (CWP, 2000). Indeed, many of the most progressive watershed education programs have been created for lake watersheds. Examples include Lake Sarnmamish, Washington, and Lake Harriet, Minnesota (PCP, 1998; MDA, 1998). Figure 14 shows a graphic used on a billboard for the Lake Harriet Watershed Awareness Project. Lawn care has traditionally been the primary focus of many lake education efforts, which is not surprising given the potential phosphorus inputs from careless fertilization (CWP, 1995b). A handful of communities have gone as far as to place restrictions on the use of fertilizer/pesticide applications throughout the water- shed (Springs, 1999; NRC, 2000). Other communities promote fertilizer formulations that do not include phos- phorus. Most communities have stressed direct techni- cal assistance to homeowners on how to reduce or elimi- nate the use of fertilizer and pesticides. Several excellent fact sheets have been developed to educate lake resi- dents about environmentally friendly shoreline land- scaping techniques (PWD, 1995; UWEX, 1994). Summary: The Lake as a Commons Garret Hardin, in his famous essay on the tragedy of the commons, observed that the quality of a shared resource will always be degraded when everyone has access, but no one has control or ownership. Resource degradation can only be averted, he argued, if the parties agree to some form of self-regulation in order to mini- mize their collective impact on the resource (Hardin, 1968). In this sense, a lake is a classic example of a com- mons. Most of the residents in the watershed use the lake in some way, and all residents influence it directly through their impact on the watershed. The very quali- ties that attracted current residents to a lake are likely to lure new ones. As a consequence, most lakes will expe- "-- Urban Lake Management 765 '__~0-_ ~ '" ,~,,~ "} ':> e'c:<: /) - t1'1 f.;.......~J..;2.,__~~__.... ';; v_ ( ~ Heraty, M. 1993. Riparian Buffer Programs: A Guide toDevelopingandImplementingaRiparianBuffer Program as an Urban Stormwater Best Manage- ment Practice. Metropolitan Washington Coun- cil of Governments, EP A Office of Oceans, Wet- lands, and Watersheds. Hinch, S. G. and Collins, N. C. 1993. "Relationships of Littoral Fish Abundance to Water Chemistry and Macrophyte Variables in Central Ontario Lakes." Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50. Hinch, S. G., Somers, K. M., and N. C. Collins. 1994. "Spatial Autocorrelation and Assessment ofHabi- tat-Abundance Relationships in Littoral Zone Fish." Canadian Journal of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences 51: 701-712. Interagency Lakes Coordinating Committee (ILCC). 1996. Developing a Lake Management Plan. In- teragency Coordinating Committee. Johnson, W.N.Jr., andP.W. Brown. 1990. "Avian Use of a Lakeshore Buffer Strip and an Undisturbed Lakeshore in Maine." Northern Journal of Ap- plied Forestry 7: 114-17. Kerfoot, W.B. and S.M. Skinner. 1981. "Septic Leachate . Surveys for Lakeside Sewer Needs Evaluation." Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federa- tion 53: 1717-1725. Klessig, L., Sorge, B., Korth, R., Dresen,M., andJ. Bode. 1996. A Model Lake Plan for a Local Community. University of Wisconsin - Extension, Madison, WI. Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). 1999. State of Maine Guidelines for Municipal Shoreland Zoning Ordinances. MDEP. MDEP. 1992. Phosphorus Control in Lake Water- sheds: A Technical Guide to Evaluating New Development. Augusta, MA. Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2000. Storm water Design Manual. Maryland De- partment of the Environment. Michael, H. J., Boyle, K. J., and R. Bouchard. 1996. Water Quality Affects Property Prices: A Case Study of Selected Maine Lakes. Maine Agricul- tural and Forest Experimental Station. Misc. Re- port 398. Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA). 1998. Lake Harriet WatershedAwareness Project: Mak- ing a Difference Through Water Quality Educa- tion. Minnesota Department of Agriculture. National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Watershed Management for Potable Water Supply: Assess- ingtheNew York City Strategy. National Research Council. , ;1"""" '- North American Lake Management Society (NALMS). Website: www .nalms.org Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC). 1995.A Guide to fllinoisLake Management. North- eastern Illinois Planning Commission. Planning and Zoning Center, Inc (PZC). 1992. Grand TraverseBay Region Development Guidebook. Plan- ning and Zoning Center, Inc. Pomegranate Center Press (PCP). 1998. The Watershed Waltz and the Sammamish Swing. Pomegranate Center Press. Portland Water District (PWD). 1995. Sebago Lake Watershed News. Portland Water District. Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (RICRMC). 1994. The Rhode Island Coastal Zone Buffer Program. RICRMC. Robertson, W.D. and J. Harman. 1999. "Phosphate Plume Persistence at Two Decommissioned Septic System Sites." Ground Water 37 (2): 228-236. Schueler, T.1995. "The Arr.hitecture of Stream Buffers." Watershed Protection Techniques 1(4): 155-163. Schueler, T. 1987. r;ontrolling Urban Runoff: A Practi- cal Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Gov- ernments, Washington, D.C. Springs, G. 1999. The Critical Edge: Shoreland Protec- tion Reference Guide. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Standing, B. H., Bernthal, T. W., and S. A. Jones. 1997. Shoreland Zoning Resource Guide: An Annotated Model Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. University of Wisconsin- Extension (UWET). 1994. Shoreline Plants and Landscaping: A Series of Water Quality Fact Sheets for Residential Areas. University of Wisconsin- Extension. Urban lake Management 767 ..0.'. ?:-:-L II"A""" 'I 1 ,..... ') Cj F":;:~<.,.;,i.-~--.d'=___(::c.;~.;'-'~ V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- (9 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .....J (9 +-' Z '" ~ V ;::l ~ ~ .9 v '" U ...'.:! '" .... OJ <( 0.. .~ ~ ~ a: '" .9 ~ 0 E I- 0 '5 u E '", ..0 0 l- .:; 'E +-' 0 () Cf) v '" .... :a >. W "E '" v v '- :::> v .... +-' V) 0 a ;::l ~ 0 III a ..l: "0 ("<j S v u g. ...... "0 W E 0 -.::t .... -;,a:: '" ..0 v 0 Cll Vl t:: t:: .:: ~ 0- W 0 ~ if1 '" 0- ~ - ~ . <Ii ;:E u ..0 cu Vl .<:: Vl v ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ if1 oS Cf) I <( N M ~ v) -0 r-: 0\ ci ..;a ...... Vl 0.. I- ...... o:l f--; -:':' -'-.. '. ':.;.~~, 20 ~ 2. :...;,~.~ :;-:"-'~/" '1 ~ ~ .f\_'~ i%~ z-- -. \.ii' L ~, l!) ~ "'- "<t "0 OJ III "> OJ 0:: 00 N ..l: Vl u .~ ~ v;:E ...l..... ~ 0 ~ Cll E .S .- +-' o:l v ..l: v U a i::" .g .9 .:: '" v .- Cll ~ o:l .... v -B +-' o:l ;;.-,...... .... 0-...... oS 0 .:: u o ~ 'C ...c: o-+-' '6 .~ sg~ o:l C':l .P ti Cll"O .:: v :€~ ~ .- ;;; E <t::<2 ~ Cll .S +-' V v E ..l: B o:l ~ "0 o o ..l: .... o .r; ..l: Cll '0 -0 ZN B ~ ,9 'I o u B ~ o u ..... o .u u S o .'" v Cll ~ 0.. Vl V .... +-' V S .~ '6 ~ v). Od S2 .:: ...... 0 ...... .- --- +-' -.::t~ "0 ~ '" o 0- .g .S ~] Cllv ~ V) "0 S2 a M ;;; ...... .... ~oS v .... ;::l ..l: u o .... .r; ..... '" 0"1:: '" V V .... .- ""0 ~:;: u...... "0 U .S .~_ ~ -.::t" ~ ;::l N 0 J3.r;..l:~+-, == "5 ~ tt:: :.a ._ C/'.J ~ ro ~ ~Q;:EU5~ CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE /"""' REPORT TO PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY, CITY MANAGER DATE: APRIL 13, 2005 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS PERTAINING TO PSAC BACKGROUND Report to PSAC on City Council action items related to Public Safety Advisory Commission business or public safety from the regular City Council meeting of April 12, 2005. DISCUSSION /"""' The City Council met on Tuesday, April 12, 2005. Two items are relevant to the PSAC: Consent Calendar Item #3, Acceptance of Planning Commission & Public Safety Advisory Commission Resignations & Advertisement for Applications. Public Hearing, Item #23, Public Hearing on 2005 Justice Assistance Grant. The City Manager will present an oral report on the City Council's action. The City Council packet staff reports are attached for information. FISCAL IMPACT See Reports. RECOMMENDATION Receive City Manager's Report on City Council action and related backup information. PREPARED BY: MARK E. DENNIS APPROVED FOR r" AGENDA BY: .... 2J p~ -) .., :='~J~;_ '-'C;-- ? /""'"' Page Two - Acceptance of Commission Resignations RECOMMENDA TION Accept Resignation and Direct Staff to Advertise for Applications for both the Planning Commission '(d the Public Safety Advisory Commission. PREPARED BY: ~jJ1~ jw VICKI KASAD, CMC, CITY CLERK/ HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR APPROVED FOR AGENDA LISTING: . ~ ROB ",-- I -,-- .z'~ -':"--"-..J.~...\ ITf:f.;! ~l ( .....-......!, ,L..~ . I t_)"./l I~O_ '-.L PAGE~.LOF ~, ~ CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FRO M: ROBERT A. BRADY, CITY MANAGER DA TE: APRIL 12,2005 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON 2005 JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT BACKGROUND ~ The City of Lake Elsinore has been awarded a grant under the Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG). JAG replaces the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG). The $ 27,797 grant is administered by the Federal Bureau of Justice (BJA). DISCUSSION These funds are to be used for the Sheriff Department to support a range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system. FISCAL IMPACT The additional $ 27,797 from the JAG Program will assist in offsetting the Law Enforcement Budget for Fiscal Year 05/06 and costs for additional Crime Prevention Programs. There is no City match requirement. JAG Grant Funds are to be designated to the following programs: /""""' 1) 2) 3) 4) Holiday Enforcement Program................$ 18,531.32 City Enhancement Program.................. ...$ 3,088.56 Off-Road Vehicle Enforcement Program... ..$ 3,088.56 Central Business District Patrol Program.....$ 3,088.56 AGfiNOA ITEM NO. MOi 5- ).7 OF 6 --.- ~ CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION TO: CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY, CITY MANAGER DATE: APRIL 13, 2005 SUBJECT: BUDGET STATUS (FY 05-06) BACKGROUND An update on Fiscal Year 2005-06 budget issues of interest to the PSAC including the schedule of key budget meetings. DISCUSSION The City Manager will present an oral report to update the PSAC on budget issues affecting Public Safety and the schedule of key budget meetings. ~ RECOMMENDATION Receive City Manager's report. PREPARED BY: MARK E. DENNIS APPROVED FOR AGENDA BY: ~ '. .--, ~ .. ".-....... -; --',- ;}, 2.:y ~-_._~. <.--"-""-,.,,",,,,,,- ',\~e:; J C';~ L ~. '-"~_.__L_____. '~..--