CITY OF ELK GROVE Incorporated July 1, 2000  MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, November 9, 2011  REGULAR MEETING  CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL  Mayor Detrick called the regular City Council meeting of November 9, 2011 to order at  6:23 p.m. Present: Absent:  Mayor Detrick and Council Members Davis and Hume.  Vice Mayor Cooper (arrived at 7:54 p.m.)and Council Member Scherman.  Council Member Hume led the Pledge of Allegiance.  Mayor Detrick requested the meeting be opened and adjourned in memory of Merwin Rose, former Trails Committee member, and asked that a moment of silence be  observed.  APPROVAL OF AGENDA  Motion: M/S Hume/Davis to remove Item 10.1 from consideration on the regular agenda, and approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed by the following  vote: Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2 (Cooper, Scherman).  CLOSED SESSION None.  PRESENTATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS  4.1 Mayor Detrick gave a presentation on the Annual Mayor's Volunteer Awards, and  recognized recipients as follows:  Tony Goularte and Kenny Alvarado were presented with Honorable Mention Connie Conley was presented with the award in the category of Residents, Frank Lucia was presented with the award in the category of Social and Nan Mahon was presented with the award in the category of Arts, Culture and Dan Woodward was presented with the award in the category of Children and The Elk Grove Youth Sports Foundation was presented with the award in the Austin Wu was presented with the award in the category of Young Volunteer  Certificates;  Neighborhoods and Community Groups;  Community Services; Heritage; Youth Support;  category of Sports and Recreation; and  ofthe Year  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, November 9, 2011 Page 1of14    PUBLIC COMMENT  Lynn Wheat stated in regards to Item 10.1, which was pulled from the agenda, her original opposition to the reduction in density of the Laguna Ridge Apartments Project. She noted that for approved projects, developers should be held to meet the conditions required, and at their own cost if in error on cost estimations. Ms. Wheat believed the project's proximity to the future Civic Center required a high standard for compliance. Kelly Gibbs announced the opening of PLO Youth Center at 8876 Vintage Park Drive, Suite 110, to provide community youth activities, tutoring, training, family support services and community outreach. Ms. Gibbs noted the center sought volunteers, and noted a second site was anticipated to be opened in the Elk Grove area.  GENERAL ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION  City Manager Laura Gill reviewed the November 9, 2011 Administrative Report (filed).  COUNCIL COMMENTS/REPOREPORTS/FUTURE AGENDAI ITEMS  Council Member Hume attended the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation Board of Directors (SAN Board) meeting which received verbal reports on the Delta Plan and a presentation on the Financial Plan. He noted a two dollar a month increase on utility bills would be seen over the next few years to defray the costs associated with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. He commented that int the presentation, SAN Board staff had revisited the manner of issuing bonds, and rather than issuing two large bonds, they would issue a series of small bonds on ana as- needed basis, effectively reducing the debt service owed on the bonds, and suggested City staff evaluate such an approach for future bond issuances of the City. He noted the appeal filed against the NPDES permit requirement continued under consideration. He stated the Sacramento Regional Transit District Board would meet November 14, and the Capital SouthEast Connector Joint Powers Authority Board would meet November 10. Mr. Hume stated he was exploring with staff a feasibility evaluation of Council Member Davis attended ceremonies hosted by the Sacramento County Tobacco Control Coalition which recognized Elk Grove for passage of recent smoking ordinances. He attended the Project RIDE Spaghetti Feed event and the groundbreaking ceremony of the Winn Center for Construction & Architecture at Cosumnes River College (CRC). Mr. Davis noted a CRC satellite campus would be locating in Elk Grove, that the Veterans Day Parade in Elk Grove would be held November 11, and requested implementation of a citizen request to create an In Memorium Program dedicated to the memory of City committee and commission members who had passed, which received support by consensus of the City Council. Mayor Detrick attended a ceremony hosted by Chase Bank which provided a refurbished, previously foreclosed home to a disabled veteran. He attended the  developing a design competition regarding the Civic Center.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting. November 9. 2011 Page 2of14    Sacramento County Tobacco Control Coalition award ceremony and attended the Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce's 57"h Citizen of the Year Award presented to Mark Hedlund. He stated receipt of donations would close November 10 for the urgent citywide clothing drive for Concepcion de Ataco, sister city of Elk Grove, which had endured a disaster flood event. He noted he would be traveling to Concepcion de Ataco tos support them during this time and to continue to build on the sister city relationship, noting he was using his own personal funds and would not be utilizing any City funds for the trip. Mayor Detrick announced the Jumpstart 21 Regional Celebrity Basketball Tournament would be held November 14, a fundraiser event to assist in providing youth  scholarships.  CONSENT CALENDARITEMS PUBLIC COMMENT None.  Mayor Detrick noted an email comment (filed) regarding Item 8.7 received from Sarah Johnson stating that she believed the process implemented by City staff in approving the item bypassed established procedures under the historic preservation ordinance. She disagreed with the opinion of the State of California that the Teen Center Building was not a historic resource, and contended that the Elk Grove historic preservation ordinance did consider the facility as a historic resource, and subsequently would create standing for project review and comment by the Historic Preservation Committee. The City Council agreed with the comments that the process established should be adhered to, but also noted that in this instance the benefits implemented under the item did not mar the appearance of the building, and provided a benefit to those operating Motion: M/S Hume/Davis to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2 (Cooper,  and utilizing the facility.  Scherman). Agenda Item No. 8.1: Agenda Item No. 8.2:  Received August 2011 Treasurer's Report  Received Automatic Clearing House Nos. 4256 through  4402 dated October 1, 2011 through October 31, 2011, General Warrant Nos. 61778 through 62149, and Electronic Fund Transfer Nos. 2012051 through 2012064  Agenda Item No. 8.3: Minutes Agenda Item No. 8.4:  Approved April 27, 2011 City Council Regular Meeting Received report on City Manager approved purchases and  contracts authorized by Elk Grove Municipal Code Chapter 3.42 Contracts and  Purchasing, filed through November 2, 2011  Agenda Item No. 8.5: and Bids  Received report on Requests for Proposals, Qualifications,  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, November 9, 2011 Page 3of1 14    Agenda Item No. 8.6:  Ordinance No. 29-2011 adopted adding Elk Grove  Municipal Code Section 22.10.090 defining "Final Parcel Map"; Section 22.20.040 designating authority to the City Engineer to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove Final Parcel Maps and to accept or reject dedications and offers of dedication made on Final Parcel Maps pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act; and Section 22.20.045 establishing an appeal process for the City Engineer's disapproval of  Final Parcel Maps to the City Council (Second Reading)  Agenda Item No. 8.7:  Resolution No. 2011-210 adopted finding the Elk Grove  Teen Center USA (8978 Elk Grove Boulevard) Replacement Window Project exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act; authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract with California Window Industries of Yuba City for the replacement of the Teen Center USA building windows in the amount of $18,490; and authorizing the City Facilities and Fleet Manager to approve change orders not-to-exceed $4,350 a bicycle and pedestrian easement on the Laguna Springs Corporate Center Phase 3  Agenda Item No. 8.8:  Resolution No. 2011-211 adopted approving the vacation of  project  Agenda Item No. 8.9:  Resolution No. 2011-212 adopted finding the Neighborhood  Livability (Speed Control) improvement Phase 2 and Phase 3 Project exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act; authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract with Vintage Paving Company, Inc. for the Neighborhood Livability (Speed Control) Improvement Phase 2 and Phase 3 Project for an amount of $188,634.40 and authorizing the City Engineer to approve change orders in an amount not-to-exceed $38,000; and authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract with the second lowest bidder if Vintage Paving Agenda Item No. 8.10: Resolution No. 2011-213 adopted authorizing the submittal of an application to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for funding under the CalHome Program; the execution of a standard agreement if selected for such funding and any amendments thereto; and any related documents Agenda Item No. 8.11: Resolution No. 2011-214 adopted authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Sutter Medical Foundation for pre- and post- employment medical services for a term of two years in the amount of $60,000 Agenda Item No. 8.12: Resolution No. 2011-215 adopted approving the Fiscal Year 2011-12 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Claim and authorizing submission by the City Manager to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) for Agenda Item No. 8.13: Resolution No. 2011-216 adopted suspending transit fares on local fixed routes and local Paratransit services on November 25-27, December 3-4,  Company, Inc. does not meet filing obligations  necessary to participate in the CalHome Program  Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and State Transit Assistance Funds  10-11, 17-18, 24 and 31  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting. November 9.2011 Page 4of14    PUBLIC HEARINGS Agenda Item No.9 9.1:  A public hearing to consider the General Plan  Amendments, Specific Plan Amendments, Rezones, and Tentative Subdivision Maps for the Laguna Ridge Phase 3 Subdivision Projects (McGeary Ranch and Arbor Ranch, Zgraggen Ranch, and Tuscan Ridge; the project sites are located in the Laguna Ridge Phase 3 development area bound by Whitelock Parkway to the north, Bilby Road to the  south, Big Horn Boulevard to the east, and Bruceville Road to the west)  RECOMMENDATION  The Planning Commission recommends (5-0):  1) Adopt resolution finding the Laguna Ridge Phase 3 Subdivision Projects exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 (State CEQA Guidelines) Section 15182; 2) Adopt resolution approving the General Plan Amendments for the Laguna Ridge 3) Adopt resolution approving the Specific Plan Amendments for the Laguna Ridge 4) Introduce and waive the full reading, by substitution of title only, an Ordinance amending the City of Elk Grove Zoning Map from RD-15 to RD-7 and RD-8 to RD-7 and redistributing the boundaries of the zoning districts for the Laguna Ridge Phase 3 Subdivision Projects specifically affecting Assessor Parcel Numbers 132-0050-061 &-062 (Arbor Ranch; 132-0050-119, -128, &-131 (Zgraggen Ranch); and 5) Adopt resolutions approving the Tentative Subdivision Maps for the Laguna Ridge Phase 3 Tentative Subdivision Projects consisting of McGeary Ranch, Arbor Ranch, Zgraggen Ranch, and Tuscan Ridge, subject to each project's findings and conditions of approval contained in each project's respective resolution. With the aid of an overhead presentation (filed), Gerald Park, Senior Planner, provided an overview of the staff report and recommendation. The McGeary Ranch, Arbor Ranch, Zgraggen Ranch, and Tuscan Ridge projects were previously approved in 2007 and 2008, and through state legislative extensions, the project approvals were extended to 2014 and 2015. Plans were submitted by applicants to redesign the various subdivision layouts, and because of project leakages in terms of the shared infrastructure between the projects, staff suggested moving the four projects forward together as one whole project. General Plan Amendments were requested to redistribute acreages for Arbor Ranch and change land uses for Zgraggen Ranch, which would require subsequent Specific Plan Amendments and Rezones, and Tentative Subdivision maps were submitted for all four projects. He noted the General Plan amendment would amend Housing Element Table 1-30 to recognize the proposed changes for zoned districts for Arbor Ranch and Zgraggen Ranch. Mr. Park detailed the changes created in the changes of land use and redistribution of acreages for the four projects. With the proposed rezones, for Arbor Ranch RD-10 densities would be removed, with increases of RD-7 and RD-8 acreages, and for Zgraggen Ranch, RD-8 and RD-15 uses would be eliminated, adding RD-7 uses. Regarding the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), only the RD-8 acreages were included in the General Plan Table, the RD-15 had never  and  Phase 3 Subdivision Projects; and  Specific Plan for the Laguna Ridge Phase 3 Projects; and  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, November 9,2011 Page5of14    been included as part of the City's RHNA table, and had never been considered as part Council Member Hume received confirmation from Planning Director Taro Echiburu that entitlements in place for a shopping center adjacent to the project sites had already  of the City's RHNA.  eliminated the RD-15 designation on the now commercial property.  Mayor Detrick declared the public hearing open. staff recommendation for project approval.  Clifton Taylor, representing Richland Communities and WSI properties, supported the Greg Van Dam, representing Pulte Group, addressed that the shopping center project referred to by Council Member Hume was rezoned and on longer had the RD-15 designation. He appreciated the staff approach in bringing the developers together to address linkages throughout the projects. Mr. Van Dam noted that the recent approval of the Laguna Ridge Supplemental Park Fee Program provided the needed assurances for the company to decide to move forward with these development projects.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  Lynn Wheat opposed the project noting the proposed rezones continued to reduce densities in the Laguna Ridge Specific Plan (LRSP), diminishing the effectiveness of the originally conceived master planned community under the LRSP. She noted she had forwarded an article to the City Council and staff regarding real estate in the current economy, and a book published in 2011 by the Urban Land Institute addressing the housing market and evaluating needs of the population through analysis of demographics and area circumstances. Ms. Wheat found the proposed project redesigned the various projects to make each more independent of one another, and though the numbers suggested only 285 housing units would be lost, she believed there was a continuing trend of additional rezones leading to a cumulative impact of lost  densities and housing types offered in the LRSP area. Mayor Detrick declared the public hearing closed.  Council Member Davis believed these residential projects in the LRSP demonstrated, in coming forward together, a desire by the developers to determine what could work best for the Laguna Ridge Area. He supported the project, but noted his belief that a General Plan update was needed, and additional lands needed to be rezoned to Council Member Hume believed the four projects were coordinated in concert, ensuring the linkages, parks, paseos, and parkways as originally intended under the LRSP were provided for. He supported the balance of the proposal, but expressed his disappointment that the Arbor Ranch project was substituting the RD-10 uses, which he believed would provide for a higher quality level of development, with RD-7 and RD-8 uses, which be believed created poor land use plans generating land intensive,  accommodate job growth.  unsightly, and compacted housing products.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, November 9, 2011 Page 6of14    Bruce Walters, planner for Arbor Ranch, noted that various design options existed for RD-8 products in terms of the house design, often with more variation in terms of architectural design than normally associated with a two-car attached garage format. Design details would be brought forward at the time of the design review process, and at that time could address issues of garage dominated types of architecture. Mr. Walters differed with limiting design options at this point with any conditions, hoping to maintain as many options as possible in order to provide a mix of architectural designs at the design and development stage, but noted the concern raised, which would be incorporated and addressed as part of the presented architectural designs. Planning Director Echiburu noted future master home plan design considerations would be handled at the director level along with design review by the Planning Commission. Les Hock, representing the Arbor Ranch project applicant, noted the concem to avoid a home frontage dominated by garage doors. He noted that the project landscape corridors and entry features had been improved over what was required in the design guidelines, and efforts would be made to present attractive elevations with aesthetic Motion #1: M/S Davis/Hume to adopt Resolution No. 2011-217 finding the Laguna Ridge Phase 3 Subdivision Projects exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 (State CEQA Guidelines) Section 15182. The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Motion #2: M/S Davis/Hume to adopt Resolution No. 2011-218 approving the General Plan Amendments for the Laguna Ridge Phase 3 Subdivision Projects. The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2 (Cooper, Motion #3: M/S Davis/Hume to adopt Resolution No. 2011-219 approving the Specific Plan Amendments for the Laguna Ridge Specific Plan for the Laguna Ridge Phase 3 Projects. The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Motion #4: M/S Davis/Hume to introduce and waive the full reading, by substitution of title only, Ordinance No. 30-2011 amending the City of Elk Grove Zoning Map from RD-15 to RD-7 and RD-8 to RD-7 and redistributing the boundaries of the zoning districts for the Laguna Ridge Phase 3 Subdivision Projects specifically affecting Assessor Parcel Numbers 132-0050-061 & -062 (Arbor Ranch; 132-0050-119, -128,8 &- 131 (Zgraggen Ranch). The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Note: Four (4) resolutions were considered under Motion #5 under Item 9.1 as follows: Motion #5a: M/S Davis/Hume to adopt Resolution No. 2011-220 to approve a Tentative Subdivision Map for McGeary Ranch (EG-10-059) Assessor Parcel Number: 132-0050-068. The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent:  features for the built units.  3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2 (Cooper, Scherman).  Scherman).  Absent: 2 (Cooper, Scherman).  Absent: 2 (Cooper, Scherman).  2 (Cooper, Scherman).  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, November 9,2011 Page7of14    Motion #5b: M/S Davis/Hume to adopt Resolution No. 2011-221 to approve a Tentative Subdivision Map for Arbor Ranch (EG-10-060) Assessor Parcel Numbers: 132-0050-061 & -062. The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Motion #5c: M/S Davis/Hume to adopt Resolution No. 2011-222 to approve a Tentative Subdivision Map for Zgraggen Ranch (EG-11-005) Assessor Parcel Numbers: 132-0050-119, -128, & -131. The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: 3; Motion #5d: M/S Davis/Hume to adopt Resolution No. 2011-223 to approve a Tentative Subdivision Map for Tuscan Ridge (EG-11-015) Assessor Parcel Numbers: 132-0050-011 & -025. The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: 3; Noes: 0;  Absent: 2 (Cooper, Scherman).  Noes: 0; Absent: 2 (Cooper, Scherman).  Absent: 2 (Cooper, Scherman). Agenda Item No. 9.2: public Works Services RECOMMENDATION Processing Fee Schedule.  A public hearing to consider resolution updating the fee  schedule for Planning and Building Services; and adopt resolution amending Resolution No. 2011-106 establishing processing fees and deposits for Planning, Building and  Adopt two resolutions: 1) updating the current fee schedule for Planning and Building Services; and 2) amending Resolution No. 2011-106 Exhibit A Development Services Marsha Ley, Finance Analyst, provided an overview of the staff report and recommendation. The item expanded descriptions and provided explanations for how building fees were calculated. Under the Planning Department a new parking reduction entitlement flat fee of $4,500 was proposed, and design review for projects in the Old Town area were updated from being flat fees to being structured with a deposit and task order model. No fee changes were proposed under Public Works, but fees were inadvertently omitted with the original introduction of the revised fees, and were Council Member Hume believed the parking reduction entitlement flat fee was excessive, and appeared to penalize proposed transit oriented development with Planning Director Echiburu stated such an entitlement was not expected to be requested on stand-alone basis, and if coming forward with a larger project, could be subject to the 25% reduction pursuant to the combined development entitlement. He noted the objective of the fee was cost recovery to recuperate the staff time required to verify application data and perform analysis on impacts by allowing such a reduction in parking. Mr. Echiburû noted the entitlement was a new process, with little prior data to analyze actual costs over a wide sample base, and as with any fee established it would  presented for inclusion in the fee schedule.  additional fees.  be monitored and adjusted accordingly. Note: Vice Mayor Cooper arrived at 7:54 p.m.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, November 9,2 2011 Page 8of14    Council Member Hume requested that for future presentation of proposed changes that increases, decreases, additions, and / or deletions be clearly identified in the report to demonstrate aggregate affects and to better determine how the changes would affect  end user applicants.  Mayor Detrick declared the public hearing open.  PUBLIC COMMENT: None.  Mayor Detrick declared the public hearing closed.  Vice Mayor Cooper stated that, as he returned to the meeting mid-way through discussion of Item 9.2, that he would recuse himself from voting on the matter, and have Note: Two (2) resolutions were considered under the Motion under Item 9.2 as follows: Motion: M/S Hume/Davis to adopt Resolution No. 2011-224 updating the current fee schedule for Planning and Building Services. The motion passed by the following Motion: M/S Hume/Davis to adopt Resolution No. 2011-225 amending Resolution No. 2011-106 Exhibit A Development Services Processing Fee Schedule. The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Abstain 1 (Cooper); Absent 1  the record note his abstention.  vote: Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Abstain 1 (Cooper); Absent 1 (Scherman).  (Scherman).  REGULAR AGENDA ACTION TENS/RECOAMENDATONS  Note: Item 10.1 was removed from consideration under Approval of the Agenda. Agenda-em-Ne.10.F-COnseraPPHGaRS-F8qH88L0-amend-OnEK-ceverage-tertne  Laguna-Ridge-Apartmente-ProjectEG-10-053)  RECOMMENDAHON:  Censiderte-appHGantsrequeste-redwce-PeamowRtFbAACOVerage-oFbudingsat Agenda Item No. 10.2: Review draft "Request for Proposals" documents for a Sports Park and an Aquatic Center to be located within the Civic Center and provide direction  nelaguna-R.age-Aparmentsproee:  as appropriate  RECOMMENDATION:  Review the draft Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for a Sports Park and an Aquatic  Center and provide direction as appropriate.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, November 9,2011 Page 9of14    Heather Ross, Economic Development Coordinator, provided an overview of the staff  report and recommendation. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. the facilities.  Vice Mayor Cooper voiced support for a public / private partnership for the operator of In reply to Council Member Hume, Ms. Ross noted the RFP process was to select a vendor with expertise in operating the types of facilities desired by the City, the vendor would be involved with the design of those facilities, and likely, by the end of the process, the vendor would become the operator of the facilities. The reasoning to have the operator involved during the design process was that staff had received feedback of other agencies proceeding with design to have a private operator come in later and find that the design did not work for their needs, subsequently leading to redesign costs. Assistant City Manager Rebecca Craig noted the scope of the aquatic center RFP was the creation of a destination pool amenity to host competitive swimming tournaments. Mayor Detrick noted a facility could hold an Olympic pool for swimming, but did not necessarily meet the needs of other aquatic events, and requested other aquatic sport needs be evaluated for accommodation in the design of the aquatic center. Inr reply to City Council concerns regarding what operators were identified that may respond to the scope detailed for the aquatic facility, Ms. Ross noted an objective was to advertise the release of the RFPS in national magazines that catered to sports marketing and destination type activities, expanding notice to attract interest from City Manager Laura Gill confirmed that both RFPS specifiçally requested that vendors detail their experience and knowledge of tournament circuits, methods of advertising to attract such tournament leagues, and the City expectation to make the facilities Council Member Hume believed the overall Civic Center and associated Civic Park design were still too early in design phases, and that proceeding with these facilities Assistant City Manager Rebecca Craig noted the RFPS had moved forward by direction of the City Council to pursue the two facilities in the first phase of development of the Civic Center, with funds having been identified to pursue the two facilities. She noted no debt was recommended for the two projects as they would not be considered necessary facilities for a governmental entity, and subsequently would not be well received on the market. The City would pay cash for the facilities, which would absorb nearly all the available cash on hand from the Civic Center Fund at this time.  vendors that could operate such a unique facility.  destination amenities.  was too soon in the process.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, November 9, 2011 Page 10of14    The City Council provided direction to ensure the aquatic center RFP would include accommodation of tournament play for a variety of aquatic events, and to provide notice to specific vendors with experience in tournament circuits for aquatic events. Agenda Item No. 10.3: Consider introduction of an ordinance adding Elk Grove Municipal Code Chapter 12.05 to Title 12 defining responsiblities for sidewalk maintenance, and introduce a City Sidewalk Maintenance Policy outlining shared responsibilities for sidewalk maintenance, including the City's scheduled sidewalk  maintenance program RECOMMENDATION:  Introduce and waive the full reading, by substitution of title only, an Ordinance adding Elk Grove Municipal Code Chapter 12.05 to Title 12 defining responsibilities for sidewalk maintenance and replacement. Staff also recommended that the City Council review and provide further direction on the draft Sidewalk Maintenance Policy.  The verbal staff report was waived. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.  Motion: M/S Hume/Davis to introduce and waive the full reading, by substitution of title only, Ordinance No. 31-2011 adding Elk Grove Municipal Code Chapter 12.05 to Title 12 defining responsibilities for sidewalk maintenance and replacement. The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent 1 (Scherman). Agenda Item No. 10.4: Consider review of Zoning Code regulations relating to  Recreational Vehicles RECOMMENDATION:  Receive staff report and provide direction as desired.  With the aid of an overhead presentation (filed), Shane Diller, Code Enforcement Manager, provided an overview of the staff report and recommendation. In June 2011 amendments to the Zoning Code expanded the specific definition of recreational vehicle to include traditional motor homes, travel trailers, watercraft, all-terrain vehicles and watercraft - including boats and jet skis. The prior Zoning Code, which had been in effect since 2006, had prohibited recreational vehicle parking in front and street side yard setbacks, restricted parking to 72 hours on the street, and for recreational vehicles parked on side yards and backyards were required to be screened by six foot fencing. Prior to 2006, the Sacramento County Zoning Code was in effect, as adopted at incorporation, and had no specific requirements for parking of recreational vehicles. Mr. Diller noted the regulations were enforced reactively based on citizen complaint, staff typically only proactively patrolled for safety hazard violations, and he reviewed the Code Enforcement process to cure and correct a violation. He noted that once a violation regarding a recreational vehicle required abatement, an option of the City was to tow and store the vehicle in violation. Since 2009 the department had enforced 110 such violations, and since the updated definition of recreational vehicle was implemented in June, the department had enforced 35 violations, with one third of the  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, November 9,2011 Page 11 of14    cases enforced occurring as result of adoption of new definitions, and 13 cases were currently open. Mr. Diller reviewed a regional survey conducted of how other agencies  addressed recreational vehicle parking and storage:  Roseville defined only trailer campers under recreational vehicle, had no setback requirements, and vehicles could park on the street for less than 72 hours, not West Sacramento included boats and boat trailers as recreational vehicles, regulations allowed parking on a property as long as the vehicle was operable and currently registered, and there was a restriction that recreational vehicles could occupy no more than 800 square feet of the improved area of the property; Rocklin had an inclusive definition of recreational vehicle similar to the City, and allowed parking on setbacks for up to nine days in one month with proof of a Folsom did not define recreational vehicle, held no setback regulations, and Citrus Heights allowed parking in front yards and setbacks in approved driveway areas, and though boats and watercraft were not included in the recreational vehicle definition, the parking regulation permitted an exception to allow boats to Rancho Cordova did not include boats in the definition, held a registration requirement, and required parking on an approved parking surface (which allowed for boat parking on a driveway as long as the vehicle was operable); Sacramento County did not include boats in the definition, required operable vehicles, and did not permit parking on corner lots due to visibility standards; The City of Sacramento had an inclusive definition of recreational vehicle, and did not allow parking in front yard setbacks unless there was 44 feet of driveway  more than twice in a 14 day period;  long-term storage contract;  street parking was limited to less than 72 hours;  park on the property as well;  from the location of the parked vehicle to the street frontage.  Mr. Diller provided a series of photos displaying Code Enforcement cases of recreational vehicle parking and storage that had resulted in citizen complaints. In regards to addressing policy direction, Mr. Diller noted the code could remain as it existed today, or direction could be provided to amend the code to address alternative definitions or general standards in regards to parking and storage of recreational Council Member Hume received confirmation that the Sacramento County regulations had remained the same since the date previously adopted by the City at incorporation, and were more permissive regulations that those in place six years prior. The county regulations were those followed by homeowners in residence of the community prior to 2006, and he believed recreational vehicle owners should receive an exemption based on grandfathering" those regulations previously complied with. He believed the code should also be amended to include requirements that a vehicle was registered and operational. Mr. Hume believed that well maintained vehicles, stored completely out of the public right-of-way, and since had been allowed back to the time a homeowner had  vehicles.  purchased their home, should be allowed.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting. November 9.2011 Page 12of14    Council Member Davis felt the decision to own a recreational vehicle included the responsibility to account for storing the vehicle in compliance with local regulations. Vice Mayor Cooper believed a balance needed to be maintained as the population expanded. He agreed with making requirements for operable, clean, and registered vehicles. He noted the perspective of neighbors who were not recreational vehicle owners, and the possibility that little to no regulation could lead to an attractive nuisance of excessive vehicles parked or stored on a property. Mr. Cooper believed that currently there was a low percentage of homes that had recreational vehicles, and emphasized the importance that when violations were enforced that a degree of reasonableness be Mr. Diller noted that in the majority of cases, recreational vehicle parking violations were not safety issues, and staff were lenient in regards to working with property or vehicle owners to provide the time necessary to take corrective actions prior to issuance of a Mayor Detrick believed that many homeowner Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&Rs) mirrored the City's current policies, and for some communities implemented stricter policies, but in his experience he found that CC&Rs were rarely followed nor enforced very well. Mr. Detrick supported current enforcement practices of staff and the reçent updates to the zoning code, and did not believe any further action was required  Mr. Davis supported the model of West Sacramento.  used prior to issuing citations.  citation.  at this time. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.  By consensus the City Council noted no change to the regulations relating to recreational vehicles was required at the current time, and for staff to continue to  enforce matters according to current regulations and practice. Agenda Item No. 10.5: Review Council Ad Hoc Committees Review and provide direction on Council Ad Hoc Committees.  RECOMMENDATION:  Jason Lindgren, City Clerk, provided an overview of the staff report and recommendation. Mr. Lindgren noted the requirement to review City Council ad hoc committees was initiated by the recent update to the City Council Norms and Procedures Manual, requiring review of ad hoc committees annually at the regular  November City Council meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.  City Manager Gill observed the Audit Committee would be classified as a standing committee going forward, and no longer necessitated the annual review now required of  ad hoc committees.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, November 9,2011 Page 13of14    Motion #1: M/S Detrick/Davis to terminate the Council Ad-Hoc Committee to provide selection of lobbying firms. The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: 4; Motion #2: M/S Hume/Davis to terminate the Council Ad-Hoc Benefits Committee. The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent 1 (Scherman). Motion #3: M/S Detrick/Hume to terminate the Council Ad-Hoc Committee for the purpose of examining local regulatory options with respect to State of California licensed group homes located in the City. The motion passed by the following vote:  Noes: 0; Absent 1 (Scherman).  Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent 1 (Scherman).  ADJOURNMENT  With no additional business to conduct, the November 9, 2011 City Council meeting  was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. in memory of Merwin Rose.   EOMINDGANIYCER  ATTEST:   M MX STEVEN M, DETRICK, MAYOR  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting. November 9,2011 Page 14of14