Lake Elsinore moves on annexation plans

By: JENNIFER KABBANY - For The Californian | Sunday, September 30, 2007 12:11 AM PDT ∞

LAKE ELSINORE ---- As officials push the process of annexing 320 acres just outside the city's northeast border forward, some residents who live in the area remain skeptical about whether they want to support the takeover.

The annexation process includes a litany of meetings and can take years to accomplish, but it passed a big hurdle Tuesday when the City Council voted unanimously to proceed with the effort. But it's ultimately up to residents to approve it.

Several homeowners in the proposed annexation area have voiced concerns about whether living under the city's thumb will benefit them.

They question whether the annexation will ruin their rural atmosphere, and also if city officials can be trusted to help them fix ongoing problems, such as flooding, in their neighborhood. Some say attempts to that end have been in vain thus far.

The land eyed for annexation included about 320 acres in the northeast section of Lake Elsinore just outside the city's boundaries. It's east of Interstate 15, south of Highway 74 and west of Old Ranch Road.

Residents describe the community, which about 500 people call home, as tight-knit and rural, with a lot of equestrian-use properties and plenty of open areas.

It's that empty space that city officials claim prompted the annexation effort. Developers want to build homes on it, but want the land to be located within the city's limits. What's more, a regional land commission has told city officials it makes sense to annex the area, that it's within the city's sphere of influence.

City officials are also working on a blueprint for future developments, and have their sights set on the territory as a place where "a village atmosphere," with a mix of homes with a variety of densities, shops and a business park, can be built and thrive.

Council members speak out

Whether all that comes to fruition remains to be seen.

At Tuesday's meeting, two council members, Robert Schiffner and Daryl Hickman, said they don't really care if residents vote down the annexation.

They said they don't understand what the fuss from residents is about, arguing that the annexation would benefit their lives because it would include road improvements and give them access to city services such as street sweeping and lighting and landscape maintenance.

"I'm not going out of my way to convince you of anything," Schiffner said. "If you want to come into the city, we're happy to have you, but if you don't, that's OK too."

His comments were directed to the 15 or so residents of the area who were in the audience.

Hickman said that "what really bothers" him is that he doesn't think county officials, who have jurisdiction over the land, have done much to help the residents, yet many are misdirecting their angst against city officials.

Mayor Bob Magee and Councilwoman Genie Kelley said that the residents can decide their future.

"We want to support and protect you," Magee said. "If you want us to serve you, we'll be proud to."

Questions answered

Several residents' concerns were also answered at Tuesday's meeting.

They were assured that existing homes would not be rezoned, and that residents within the annexed land will only pay an extra $45 a year for the city services they would be gaining.

As to the flooding and drainage problems, which are so bad that some residents say they drive through mud on a daily basis, Councilman Thomas Buckley pointed out that "it all becomes our problem to take care of" if the annexation is approved.

Also, council members said they would work to resolve that drainage issue sooner rather than later, and city officials said efforts to find solutions are already under way.

Ideas such as installing speed bumps to alleviate concerns about new drive-through traffic that would come with the developments were also tossed by council members as they discussed the issue.

Parking recreational vehicles on the street is also common in the area, but city officials stopped short of promising not to alter code enforcement efforts to appease residents.

After the meeting, some residents said that even though questions were answered, they still had concerns about whether their rural community could be maintained after an annexation, and whether city officials will be responsive to their needs.

So far, they said, that hasn't been the case.

Residents' concerns

With regard to the flooding, they said it's a relatively recent phenomenon that started after a city-approved housing development flanking their homes was built. All the run-off drains into their neighborhood, the residents said.

When they approached the city about it, not much was done, they said. Some residents even blame the drainage issues on their septic tank failures. Others point out that children are walking to the school through mud.

As to the questions answered at Tuesday's meeting with regard to the cost to residents of the annexation and the housing zoning issues, resident Mike Matthews said those responses were more than a year in the making.

He said the lengthy delay in getting those answers, coupled with a lack of responsiveness from city officials about the drainage problems, has caused some in the neighborhood to distrust City Hall.

"If you want commitment from us, we want honesty from you," he said to city officials during Tuesday's meeting.

Several other residents had also spoken about what they perceive as a lack of communication and a dearth of information about the proposal from city officials.

"We need answers and communication before any voting occurs," resident Mary Venerable said.

What's next

With Tuesday's vote, city officials are working to incorporate plans for the 320 acres into their blueprints, or general plan, for future developments. The plan is expected to be released in January.

The application for the city to annex the land will also go before Riverside County's Local Agency Formation Commission, which is responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries.

If the annexation is approved by the agency, then residents get to weigh in. If 100 percent agree with the annexation, it passes. If not, then the agency must conduct a so-called protest hearing.

There are about 160 registered voters living in the area. If less than 25 percent of the registered voters within the territory file a protest, the annexation passes. If between 25 percent and 50 percent file protests, it's put to a vote at the next regularly scheduled general election. If more than 50 percent file protests, all annexation proceedings are terminated.

If it fails, the process can start over again one year later.

However, denial of the annexation "does not prevent smaller annexations from occurring within this area," city documents state. "Private developers can propose other annexations involving land within the ... area that will allow them to develop under the city of Lake Elsinore's land use and zoning regulations."