The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-13-2004 City Council Minutes MINUTES - REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 *********************************************************************** CALL TO ORDER The Regular City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Buckley at5:04 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN, KELLEY, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER, BUCKLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, City Attorney Leibold, Assistant City Attorney Miles, Community Development Director Brady and City Clerk/Human Resources Director Kasad. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIP A TED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b )(3)(C) of Gov't Code Section 54956.9: (2 potential cases) (F:40.1)(X:52.1) B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code S54946.9) Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore, Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore (United States District Court Case No. CV 01-04842). (F:40.1)(X:52.2) C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code S54946.9) Arzola v. City of Lake Elsinore (Riverside Superior Court Case No. 377380). (F:40.1)(X:52.2) D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code 954946.9) Reimbold v. Brinley (Riverside Superior Court Case No. 377793). (F:40.1)(X:52.2) E. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION Page Two - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code S54946.9) Larios v. Santiago; Santiago v. City of Lake Elsinore (Riverside Superior Court Case No. TEC058066). (F:40.1)(X:52.2) F. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code S54946.9) D. Slama Company, Inc. v. Triquest Builders, Inc. City of Lake Elsinore (Riverside Superior Court Case No. 387185). (F:40.1 )(X:52.2) G. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code S54946.9)Interstate Asphalt Company v. Triquest Builders, Inc., City of Lake Elsinore (Riverside Superior Court Case No. 389997). (F:40.1 )(X:52.2) H. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Initiation of Litigation pursuant to subdivision ( c ) of Gov't Code S54956.9) One Case. (F:40.1)(X:52.1) City Attorney Leibold announced the Closed Session topics as listed above, noting that Items B - H had already been discussed as part of the 4 p.m. Special City Council meeting, with no reportable action. She further announced that Item A of this agenda would be discussed in Closed Session. - THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:05 P.M. The Closed Session discussion was completed at 6:55 p.m. RECONVENE IN PUBLIC SESSION (7:00 P.M.) Mayor Buckley reconvened the Regular City Council Meeting in public session at 7: 1 0 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Pete Dawson. INVOCATION - MOMENT OF SILENCE Mayor Buckley led the meeting in a moment of silent reflection for the U.S. Troops in Iraq and the Family of Gary Shelton. - Page Three - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 PRESENTATIONS/CEREMONIALS a. Presentation - Pedro Vasquez. (F:56.1)(X:114.2) Mayor Buckley called Pedro Vasquez & family forward for presentation. He noted the contributions of Mr. Vasquez to the community, detailing the history of City Park and Mr. Vasquez's efforts. He further noted Mr. Vasquez's participation with an adult soccer league. He commended Mr. Vasquez for his community spirit and displayed the new bronze plaque to be placed on the new building at City park later this year. Mr. Vasquez and his daughter thanked the City Council for this recognition. Mayor Buckley indicated that the official dedication ceremony would be advertised for the public. b. Presentation - Air Quality Management District. (F:36.2) Lisha Smith, liaison to the South Coast Air Quality Management District, noted the information packet providing regarding the AQMD. She indicated that her business card was included for questions or concerns relating to air quality. She detailed the function of AQMD and noted that nine local elected officials serve on the Board. She stressed the air quality improvements seen since the 1940's, and noted upcoming federally imposed deadlines to address air quality issues. She further stressed the need for State and Federal governments to accept their responsibility for the air quality issues, noting the cumulative impacts. She advised that AQMD had committed to improve communication and services to the City; and noted that she had already met with City staff to explain the areas of concentration. Councilman Magee expressed appreciation to Ms. Smith for her attendance at this meeting and commented that as a business person he had not had pleasant experiences with AQMD. He inquired whether concerns and questions from constituents could be referred to her as a buffer. He indicated that small business owners were being force to pay both literally and figuratively, and inquired if Ms. Smith was able to meet with local businesses to address their concerns and questions. Ms. Smith confirmed an noted that she also worked with the area Chambers of Commerce to establish contacts with the businesses and address their issues. She indicated that it was her personal mission to increase knowledge of their programs and mission. Councilman Magee indicated that he would be referring people to her. Page Four - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - c. Presentation - National Date Festival. (F:62.1) Mayor Buckley called upon Terri Neuenswander and Natalie Tarr for this presentation. Ms. Neuenswander thanked the Council for the opportunity to attend this meeting and indicated that the Date Festival was excited to have a representative from the west end of the County, specifically Lake Elsinore. Date Festival Princess Natalie Tarr explained her participation in the royal court for the festival and invited the residents and Council of Lake Elsinore to attend the festival. She detailed the events and activities and encouraged attendance. Mayor Buckley noted that the festival was in Indio and would run from February 13th to February 22nd. d. Presentation - Chamber of Commerce Update. (F:108.4) Jack McColley, Chamber of Commerce President, apologized for neglecting to recognize the selection of Mayor Buckley at the last meeting. He congratulated Mayor Buckley on his selection. He detailed upcoming events including: 55th Annual Chamber Installation on January 24th with the Mardi Gras theme, at the Diamond. - January Student of the Month Lunch on January 2ih at Sizzler February EDC Lunch on February lZh at 11 :30 a.m. at the Diamond February Mixer at the Elsinore Woman's Club on February 26t\ sponsored by the Women's Club, the Arts Network and the Historical Society. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Leibold reported that the Council held a special meeting from 4 to 5 p.m. to discuss Closed Session Items B thru H, noting that most of those items were concerned with existing litigation and provided as a status report. She indicated that with regard to those items there was no reportable action. She further reported that at the regular 5 p.m. meeting there was discussion of one case of anticipated litigation, with no reportable action. Mayor Buckley commented that due to the length of the agenda, he was hoping to do everything including the RDA meeting by 8:30 p.m., taking a short break and moving - Page Five - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 forward with the MSHCP. PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS - 1 MINUTE Paula Graver, 218 Ellis Street, read a poem by Helen Steiner Rice. Peter Dawson, 18010 Grand Avenue, commented that every organization has someone who stands out in a crowd, and noted that there was such a person in LEMSAR. He detailed the work of Les Cameron, monitoring the radio for long hours, dispatching LEMSAR members and assisting boaters, and mourned his loss. Senator Dennis Hollingsworth noted that he had to catch a plane and addressed the MSHCP consideration on this agenda. He noted a letter from Senator Battin, Assemblyman Haynes and himself, requesting that the MSHCP not be approved. He detailed his past involvement in the plan about ten years ago on behalf of the Riverside County Farm Bureau. He noted that the plan originally dealt with the Stephens Kangaroo Rat and looked for a way to protect species and provide for the ever growing population. He indicated that this plan had missed that mark in that it was not voluntary or incentive based, it was not better than the status quo and the acreage had been substantially increased. He commented that the plan said the State and Federal agencies would acquire about 97,000 acres, but questioned where that money would come from; noting that it would not be available in Sacramento for quite some time. He questioned the thought of replacing existing regulations with custom made regulations; noting that 75 species were being protected for which there were no current regulations. He stressed the costs and liabilities vs. the relatively few benefits of the plan. He further stressed the need for a plan that work for everyone, including Lake Elsinore, builders and farmers. Richard Gordon, 211 N. Scrivener, indicated that he was representing two organizations, being the NAACP of Lake Elsinore and the Friends of the Lake Elsinore Library. He noted that Monday, January 19th would be Martin Luther King's Birthday and announced that there would be a program on Saturday at 2 p.m. to include poetry and "Martin on the Mountain Top". He noted that Martin Luther King's Birthday was not a "black" holiday, but rather an American holiday. He invited everyone to attend the event on Saturday. George Alongi commented that he was glad to see Mr. Vasquez recognized by the City. He further commented on the systems in place in the United States, and requested that the Council make its decision on the MSHCP, based on what was good for the community. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Magee indicated that he would be abstaining from vote on the Minutes . . Page Six - City Council Minutes - January 13,2004 - included in item I.a. and I.b., as he was not present for those meetings. He further indicated that he would be abstaining from vote on items 12 and 13 as he was not on the Council for the original consideration of those maps. Mayor Buckley indicated that he would be providing corrections to item I.c, pages 6 of 12, and 11 of 12. MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT COUNCILMAN MAGEE ABSTAINED FROM VOTE IN ITEMS La., Lb., 11 AND 12. 1. The following Minutes were approved: a. Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session - November 25, 2003. b. Regular City Council Meeting - November 25,2003. c. Special City Council Meeting - December 1,2003, as corrected. d. Regular City Council Meeting - December 9,2003. (F:44.4) 2. Ratified the following Warrant Lists: - a. December 15,2003. b. December 31, 2003. (F:I2.3) 3. Received and ordered filed the Investment Report for November, 2003. (F: 12.5) 4. Adopted Resolution No. 2004-1, approving the Proposed Stop Sign Controlled Intersection - Lincoln Street and Westwind Drive. (F:I62.2) RESOLUTION NO. 2004-1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, DESIGNATING THE LOCATION OF CERTAIN STOP INTERSECTIONS. 5. Adopted Resolution No. 2004-2, Supporting a Statewide Ballot Initiative to Require Voter Approval Before State Government May Take Local Tax Funds. (F:30.1 )(X:96.I) RESOLUTION NO. 2004-2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE - Page Seven - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 ELSINORE, SUPPORTING A STATEWIDE BALLOT INITIATIVE TO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL BEFORE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY TAKE LOCAL TAX FUNDS. 6. Adopted Resolutions oflntention No. 2004-3 and 2004-4 to Annex Property into Community Facilities District No. 2003-1 (Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services) and to Authorize the Levy of a Special Tax within Annexation Area No.5 (La Laguna, Phase II) and Annexation Area No.6 (Villa Martinique). (F:22.3) RESOLUTION NO. 2004-3 A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TO ANNEX PROPERTY INTO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-1 (LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE AND PARAMEDIC SERVICES) AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN ANNEXATION AREA NO.5 (LA LAGUNA PHASE II). RESOLUTION NO. 2004-4 A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TO ANNEX PROPERTY INTO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-1 (LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE AND PARAMEDIC SERVICES) AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN ANNEXATION AREA NO.6 (VILLA MARTINIQUE). 7. Approved 2003-2004 Community Development Block Grant Supplemental Agreement with $2,500 for Operation School Bell, $2,500 for RO.P.E., $25,000 for the Lake Elsinore Senior Center, $20,000 for Code Enforcement, $50,000 Dangerous Structure Abatement, $160,025 for the Swick/Matich Park ADA Restroom Construction Project; and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the documents. (F:84.2) 8. Approved the Second Amended Agreement to Design, Fabricate and Install an Axial Flow Pump Destratification System for Lake Elsinore, between LESJW A and the City; and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement. (F:68.1 )(X:92.l) 9. Approved Bid Award with Change Order for Project No. 4228-DS; Fabrication & Installation of Docking Stations & Submarine Power Cable to the Meek Page Eight - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - Company in the amount of$610,000, and authorized the Mayor to execute the documents. (F:68.1 )(X:92.1) 10. Authorized the purchase of the Trailer Mounted Vacuum Unit from Holt of California in the amount of$33,968, as part of the 2003/2004 Vehicle Replacement Program. (F:48.1) 11. Approved Letter of Support to the City of San Jacinto for the San Jacinto River Levee Project - Phase 1. (F:44.1 )(X:92.1) 12. Approved Final Map 30492-3, Pardee Homes, Inc., subject to the City Engineer's acceptance; accepted all dedications at the time of recordation and authorized recordation. (F: 160.2) 13. Approved Final Map 30754-3, Pardee Homes, Inc., subject to the City Engineer's acceptance; accepted all dedications at the time of recordation and authorized recordation. (F: 160.2) PUBLIC HEARINGS - 21. Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 28214 and 30836. and Addendum No.2 to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report - Resolution No. 2004-9. (F:160.2) City Manager Watenpaugh noted that representatives of the applicant were present to address this item. Community Development Director Brady commented that this item was before the Council on November 25th and deferred to this date. He detailed the history of the property, with the original specific plan approved in 1989. He detailed the location and acreage involved in the two maps. He addressed the EIR, and noted that at the last meeting in November additional information had been presented by the applicant prior to the meeting. Mayor Buckley opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m., asking those in favor of the project to speak. Bob Parmele, representing Castle & Cooke, commented that after ten years plus, they were excited to be proceeding with the project. He noted that they had spent a lot oftime assuring that the project complied with the agreements and plans in - Page Nine - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 place. He indicated that they were also working with EVMWD to provide a Community Facilities District with ten other developers for sewer and water facilities. He noted that Castle and Cooke had plans for commercial development and expansion of the Outlet Center. He indicated that they would like to move forward this evening and try to work out the remaining issues with the City. He noted that one discussion at the last meeting was the transportation corridor, and indicated that they took that issue seriously. He explained that after a meeting with RCTC, they had an understanding that a $5 million contract would be let this year to address the options. He commented that the other half of the pie was the completion of the lane to Orange County. He clarified that the area from the 91 Freeway to Highway 74 included about six or more options. He indicated that Castle & Cooke were in support of the corridor coming through Lake Elsinore as it would be good for the City, good for Castle & Cooke, and good for the residents. He stressed that they had taken the time to try to determine the impact of those proposal on their project, and indicated that they felt that the approval of their project would not prohibit that opportunity. He pointed out the possible road configuration around their property and noted the possible internal phasing options. He noted the existing development agreement in place, and suggested that it would give the City the necessary latitude. He express their willingness and desire to work with RCTC and the City to explore the options for the corridor. Mayor Buckley asked those persons in opposition to the project to speak. No one spoke. Councilman Magee asked the City Attorney about the hearing on November 25th and questioned the additional information which caused the item to be pulled off the agenda. City Attorney Leibold indicated that the applicant submitted 25 pages of additional CEQA findings, which had been reviewed and incorporated much of it into the staff report on pages 5 - 10 of the staff report. She indicated that they related to project specific impacts and the need for the addendum and findings for CEQA documentation. Mayor Buckley commented that the Planning Commission did not have the additional information and questioned if there had been a problem if the Planning Commission had received it. City Attorney Leibold clarified that it was more comprehensive information and reports for the project. Councilman Hickman questioned the Murdock land, and whether there was land dedicated to the habitat. Bob Parmele indicated that he was not sure of the commercial Outlet property, but some land on the Pacific Clay property had been Page Ten - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - defined so far. Councilman Hickman questioned the requirement that they pay the habitat fees. Mr. Parmele indicated that the fee was not required. City Manager Watenpaugh noted the sites adjacent to the Outlet Center, which had been set aside for habitat. He noted a small area to the far east of the Outlet Center for habitat. Councilman Hickman inquired if there was a requirement for the fire station. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that there was not a requirement. Councilman Magee questioned Terra Cotta Road and where it currently ends. He inquired if there would ultimately be a paved link to that area. Community Development Director Brady indicated that one was not required at this point, so a gap would remain; but such a link would be approved with the adjacent property owner. Councilman Magee noted that he met with Castle and Cooke regarding this project; and indicated that in order to have a positive action discussion they needed to address the concerns from the last meeting, particularly with regard to preserving the corridor to allow for access if it was chosen for the route. He indicated that they went above and beyond the call of duty, and did research on the viability of the corridor extension, if approved. He commended them on their efforts. He noted his discussion with Congressman Calvert to obtain funds to study the six different alternatives; and his assurance that there would be some money to look at the Nichols Road alternatives. He expressed appreciation for the time and effort to look at options, and their willingness to work with the RCTe. - Councilman Schiffner indicated that this project had been around a long time and he looked forward to seeing it done. He commented that the project had tremendous views and it was a fantastic project. He indicated that he felt the commitment had been made to work with the City to accommodate the road, and the area would be protected at this point. He moved to approve the project. Mayor Pro Tern Kelley commented that the street improvements for Nichols Road would be four traffic lanes with a raised median, bike lanes, sidewalks and landscaped parkways; and Lake Street would be five lanes, two left turn lanes, medians, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. She concurred that this project had been around a long time and they already had a specific plan with building rights. She indicated that she was pleased that the Council concerns did not fall on deaf ears. She commented that she felt this would be a very nice project with larger lot sizes. - Page Eleven - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 Councilman Schiffner concurred that it was the intention to do considerable improvements on Lake Street, including increasing the turning radius on the sharp turn and possibly straightening out some minor curves on that road. City Treasurer Weber questioned the financials for the Community Facilities District for funding of roads, sewers and lighting. Mr. Parmele indicated that he was not certain of the funding process at this time, but knew there were conditions for some of the improvements. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that he could provide Mr. Weber with a copy of the development agreement, which would clarify the stipulation for public infrastructure. He indicated that it would either be a credit for infrastructure or be done through a CFD. City Treasurer Weber questioned what had been done to date. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that it had not been done yet. Mayor Buckley indicated that the main concern with this project was the potential elimination of the option for the road to Orange County. He noted the possible configurations and indicated that Nichols would be a four lane road. He further noted the potential for people to be irritated if it was not planned for a six lane road. He indicated that he appreciated the words of the Murdock representatives, but he would appreciate the words on paper more. He noted that Corona had put a moratorium in place to assure the ability to accommodate the road to Orange County; and stressed the different engineering standards around a freeway. He requested that they be a good corporate citizen and agree to an addendum to the preannexation agreement; and suggested that the addendum come back to the next meeting. Mr. Parmele indicated that he appreciated the concern for clarity, and stressed that they wanted to comply and cooperate with the request and be part of the process; but he did not think it was necessary to defer a decision based on a couple of weeks. He indicated that they wanted to work with the situation for the corridor, short of deferring the project. Darrin Stroud clarified that with regard to an addendum, it would not be possible, because there was no nexus to this project to allow such a mechanism. He further clarified that the matter was not noticed for tonight, so they could not commit to the requirement without violating the Brown Act requirements. He commented that while there was a request for the commitment in writing, it actually was already in writing; and noted the appropriate sections in the Preannexation and Development Agreement, the City's General Plan, and the Specific Plan. He reiterated that Castle & Cooke was willing and ready to work with the City, RCTC and Orange County to explore the possibility of a corridor through the Pacific Clay Property. Page Twelve - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - Mayor Buckley clarified that he was not asking for a vote tonight, but rather something at the next meeting. He commented that while Castle & Cooke objected to specific language when the agreement was approved, but the nexus was something both the City and the developer wanted. He stressed the potential timing of the project vs. the impact on the decision for the corridor, and questioned why there could not be something they both agreed on for the next meeting. Mr. Stroud indicated that such an opener would open it up for additional CEQA analysis. He clarified that the specific plan process was for making those determinations on transportation and other CEQA issues. He indicated that there was a commitment to work with the agencies to make the project happen and they stood ready to work through this issue. Councilman Magee indicated that he appreciated the comments by Mr. Stroud, and indicated he would like a copy of the Preannexation Agreement. He recognized the difficulty in obtaining entitlement and concurred that reopening the process was not appropriate. He stressed that the applicant had already obtained the approvals, like them or not. He noted that the applicants were ultimately business people and the corridor on their property would improve their property, as it would make the property work more. He indicated that if it made business sense, they would be economically motivated to make the project happen, and that was enough assurance for him. He commented that in light of what they had done in the last few weeks, he was satisfied with their progress. - City Attorney Leibold clarified the appropriate actions for this item. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 1 WITH BUCKLEY VOTING NO TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-9, CERTIFYING ADDENDUM NO.2 TO THE EIR: RESOLUTION NO. 2004-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CERTIFYING ADDENDUM NO.2 TO THE ALBERHILL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY HICKMAN AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 1 WITH BUCKLEY CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE TO APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 28214 AND 30836, BASED Page Thirteen - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: FINDINGS Addendum No.2 To Final Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR 1. The Addendum No.2 EIR has been prepared, submitted and reviewed in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's CEQA requirements, and are complete and adequate in its evaluation of all environmental effects of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 28214 and 30836 and associated discretionary approvals. Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 28214 and 30836 and associated discretionary approvals will not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts with implementation of mitigation measures. 2. The proposed vesting tract maps will not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Given that project impacts are insignificant, cumulative impacts are not foreseen. 3. The proposed vesting tract maps do not have the potential to adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly. 4. The City Council finds that the Addendum No.2 EIR is complete and adequate and provides appropriate environmental documentation for the project and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental clearance procedures. 5. The Addendum No.2 EIR and the records of the proceedings upon which this decision is based, are and will be on file with the City of Lake Elsinore, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California 92530. Vestin2: Tentative Tract Map No. 28214 1. VTTM No. 28214, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan and the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan (Government Code Section 66473.5). 2. The effects that VTTM No. 28214 are likely to have upon the housing needs of the region, the public service requirements of its residents and the available fiscal and environmental resources have been considered and balanced. Page Fourteen - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - 3. The design of VTM No. 28214 provides to the greatest extent possible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision. (Governmental Code Section 66412.3) Vestin2 Tentative Tract MaD No. 30836 1. VTTM No. 30836, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan and the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan (Government Code Section 66473.5). 2. The effects that VTTM No. 30836 are likely to have upon the housing needs of the region, the public service requirements of its residents and the available fiscal and environmental resources have been considered and balanced. 3. The design of VTM No. 30836 provides to the greatest extent possible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision. (Governmental Code Section 66412.3) - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28214 PLANNING DIVISION General Conditions 1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 28214 will expire two years from date of approval unless within that period of time a Final Map has been filed with the County Recorder, or an extension of time is granted by the City of Lake Elsinore City Council in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. Additional extensions of time (36 months maximum time per the Subdivision Map Act) may be granted per City Council approval. 2. Future development shall comply with those standards and guidelines contained in the Specific Plan Description, Specific Plan Regulations, Specific Plan Design Element, and Specific Plan Implementation Sections as contained in the 1992 Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan document, and conditions of approval established with the 1989 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and the 1992 Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. 3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 28214 shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and applicable requirements contained in the Murdock Alberhill - Page Fifteen - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 Ranch Specific Plan document and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), unless modified by approved Conditions of Approval. 4. Future development shall comply with those requirements and provisions contained in the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Development Agreement, dated January 4, 1992. 5. The applicant shall participate in the City of Lake Elsinore Citywide Landscaping and Street Lighting District, as appropriate. 6. The applicant shall provide all project-related onsite and offsite improvements as described in the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan document. 7. The applicant shall implement those mitigation measures identified in the 1989 Final Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR, 1992 Addendum No. 1 to the Final Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR, and the 2003 Addendum No.2 to the Final Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 8. All future proposals shall be reviewed by the City on a project-by-project basis. If determined necessary by the Community Development Director or designee, additional environmental analysis will be required. 9. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, Agents, and its Consultants from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, or Agents to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning implementation and construction of the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, which action is bought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Sections 65009 and/or 66499.37, and Public Resources Code Section 21167. The City will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City and will cooperate fully with the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, or proceeding, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 10. Provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance shall be satisfied during all site preparation and construction activity. Site preparation activity and construction shall not commence before 7:00 AM and shall cease at 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Construction activity shall not take place on Saturday, Sunday, or any Legal Holidays. Page Sixteen - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - 11. The applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgment of Conditions" and shall return the executed original to the Community Development Department. 12. The applicant shall revise the Draft Addendum No.2 EIR, per comments from the City Attorney, prior to City Council certification of the document. Prior to Final Tract Map Approval 13. All lots shall comply with applicable standards contained in the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan document, LEMC, or Zoning Code. 14. A precise survey with closures for boundaries and all lots shall be provided per the LEMC. 15. Street names within the subdivision shall be approved by the Community Development Director or Designee. 16. All of the improvements shall be designed by the applicant's Civil Engineer to the specifications of the City of Lake Elsinore. - 17. Future construction shall meet all Riverside County Fire Department standards for fire protection and any additional requirements requested by the County Fire Department (refer to attached). Prior to Desil!n Review Approval 18. All future structural development associated with the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and VTTM No. 28214, including building designs, landscaping improvements, site plans, etc. require separate Design Review approval. Prior to Gradin!! Permit Issuance 19. The applicant shall obtain all necessary State and Federal permits, approvals, or other entitlements, where applicable, prior to each phase of development of the project. 20. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit a final grading plan, subject to all requirements of the City Grading Ordinance to the City Engineer for approval. Said grading plan shall address those grading standards and guidelines contained in the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan document. Page Seventeen - City Council Minutes - January 13,2004 21. Grading shall not be permitted outside the area of the designated project boundary unless appropriate approvals have been obtained. 22. Grading easements shall be coordinated with affected property owners. 23. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, grading and construction plans shall incorporate erosion control measures. 24. Any alterations to the topography, ground surface, or any other site preparation activity will require appropriate grading permits. A Geologic Soils Report with associated recommendations will be required for grading permit approval, and all grading must meet the City's Grading Ordinance, subject to the approval of the City Engineer and the Planning Division. Analysis of impacts of fills and cuts greater than 60 feet shall be provided. Interim and permanent erosion control measures are required. The applicant shall bond 100 percent for material and labor for one year for erosion control landscaping at the time the site is rough graded. Prior to Buildim! Permit Issuance 25. The applicant shall pay all appropriate traffic impact mitigation fees. 26. The applicant shall annex into the City-Wide Community Facilities District for Police, Fire, and Paramedics. 27. Prior to approval of the Final Map or if deemed appropriate by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall initiate and complete the formation of a Homeowner's Association, approved by the City, recorded, and in place. All Association documents shall be approved by City Planning and Engineering and the City Attorney and recorded, such as the Articles of Incorporation for the Association; and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall include language to ensure the following conditions: · The HOA shall maintain landscaping along parkways and project streets, recreational areas, walkways, and drainage easements. . The HOA shall maintain all streets, entry gates, walls, and monumentation. 28. Prior to issuance of building permit, a Fuel Modification Plan and Program shall be approved by the Fire Department for future phases. Said Plan and Program shall show those special treatments necessary to achieve an acceptable level of risk in Page Eighteen - City Council Minutes - January 13,2004 - regard to the exposure of structures to flammable vegetation and shall describe the method of removal and installation, and provisions for maintenance. 29. The applicant shall comply with the following City programs: the City Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element, the County Solid Waste Management Plan and Integrated Waste Management Plan. 30. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit a letter of verification (will-serve letter) to the City Engineer, for all required utility services. 31. The applicant shall meet all requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). 32. The applicant shall pay applicable fees and obtain proper clearance from the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) prior to issuance of building permits. 33. Pay all applicable fees including park fees. 34. The applicant shall provide connection to public sewer for each lot within any subdivision. No service laterals shall cross adjacent property lines and shall be delineated on engineering sewer plans and profiles for submittal to the EVMWD. - 35. The applicant (master developer) shall prepare a Community-Wide Wall Plan for the entire VTTM No. 28214 area. 36. Prior to issuance of building permits for each future tract, the applicant (merchant builder) for each individual tract shall prepare a Final Wall and Fence Plan addressing the following: · Show that a masonry or decorative block wall will be constructed along all boundaries for the particular tract. · Show materials, colors, and heights of side yard fences for proposed lots. · Show that all front return walls shall be decorative masonry block walls. Front return wood fences shall not be permitted. · Show that side walls for comer lots shall be decorative masonry block walls. Page Nineteen - City Council Minutes - January 13,2004 37. The applicant shall submit plans to the electric utility company for a layout of the street lighting system. The cost of street lighting, installation as well as energy charges shall be the responsibility of the applicant and/or the HOA. Said plans shall be approved by the City and shall be installed in accordance with the City Standards. 38. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the providing electric utility company. 39. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the providing gas utility company. 40. The applicant shall meet all requirements ofthe providing telephone utility company. 41. A bond is required guaranteeing the removal of all trailers used during construction. 42. Future signage requires a permit and shall be subject to Planning Division review and approval prior to installation. ENGINEERING DIVISION 43. All Public Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) prior to final map approval. 44. Pay all Capital Improvement and Plan Check fees (LEMC 16.34, Resolution 85-26). The applicant shall pay the City's traffic mitigation fee of $1,197 per unit at building permit and the drainage fee is $7,645 per acre (Rice Cyn Distr) and some areas are $5,380 per acre (Nichols St. SW Distr.). 45. Submit a "Will Serve" letter to the City Engineering Division from the applicable water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project. Submit this letter prior to final map approval. 46. Construct all public works improvements per approved street plans (LEMC 12.04). Plans must be approved and signed by the City Engineer prior to final map approval (LEMC 16.34). 47. Street improvement plans and specifications shall be prepared by a Calif. Registered Civil Engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to Riverside County Road Department Standards, latest edition, and City Codes (LEMC 12.04 and 16.34). Page Twenty - City Council Minutes - January 13,2004 - 48. Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for the construction of public works improvements and shall post the appropriate bonds prior to final map approval. 49. Desirable design grade for local streets should not exceed 9.5%. The maximum grade of 15% should only be used because of design constraints. 50. The landscaped median in Lake Street and Nichols Road shall be 14 ft. wide and not 24 feet. 51. The intersection of Street II with Collector A shall be eliminated and Street II shall end in a cul-de-sac at Collector A. Street II shall connect to Street GG or Street JJ just south of Collector A. 52. The intersection of Collector A and Street C shall be relocated south and should be opposite H Street. 53. Collector "A" shall have a minimum horizontal radius of 650 feet and the minimum design speed shall be 35 mph. - 54. Terra Cotia Road shall have a 90 ft. Right-of-way, 70 ft. curb to curb and a 14 ft. painted median not a raised landscaped median. 55. Nichols Road shall have a 120 ft. right-of-way, 96 ft curb to curb and a 14 ft. raised landscaped median. 56. Lake Street shall have a 120 ft. right-of-way, 96 ft. curb to curb and a 14 ft. raised landscaped median. 57. Dual lefts may be required on Lake St. at Nichols Road, this section of Lake St. shall have the R/W increased 12 ft. with appropriate tapers installed. 58. Provide an in-lieu fee of $ 87,360.00 for half the landscaping in a raised landscaped median for Lake St. and Nichols Road. 59. Applicant shall pay a fee for reconstructing the existing ultimate half street width of Nichols Road and Lake St. to the ultimate full street width along the tract boundary, the amount for reconstruction subject to the approval ofthe City Engineer. 60. Pay all fees and meet requirements of encroachment permit issued by the Engineering Page Twenty-One - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 Resolution 83-78). 61. All compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8 W' x 11" Mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division before final inspection of public works improvements will be scheduled and approved. 62. The applicant shall install 3 permanent bench marks to Riverside County Standards and at a location to be determined by City Engineer. 63. Applicant shall obtain all necessary off-site easements for off-site grading from the adjacent property owners prior to final map approval. 64. Arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.) out of the roadway or alley shall be the responsibility of the property owner or his agent. 65. Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by Riverside County Fire. 66. Provide street lighting and show lighting improvements as part of street improvement plans as required by the City Engineer. 67. Developer shall install blue reflective pavement markers in the street at all fire hydrant locations. 68. Applicant shall submit a traffic control plan showing all traffic control devices for the tract to be approved prior to final map approval. All traffic control devices shall be installed prior to final inspection of public improvements. This includes No Parking and Street Sweeping Signs for streets within the tract. 69. All improvement plans and tract maps shall be digitized. At Certificate of Occupancy applicant shall submit tapes and/or discs which are compatible with City's ARC Info/GIS or developer to pay $300 per sheet for City digitizing. 70. All utilities except electrical over 12 kv shall be placed underground, as approved by the serving utility. 71. Apply and obtain a grading permit with appropriate security prior to building permit issuance. A grading plan signed and stamped by a Calif. Registered Civil Engineer shall be required if the grading exceeds 50 cubic yards or the existing flow pattern is Page Twenty-Two - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - substantially modified as determined by the City Engineer. 72. Provide soils, geology and seismic report including street design recommendations. Provide final soils report showing compliance with recommendations. 73. An Alquist-Priolo study shall be performed on the site to identify any hidden earthquake faults and/or liquefaction zones present on-site. 74. All grading shall be done under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer and he shall certify all slopes steeper than 2 to 1 for stability and proper erosion control. All manufactured slopes greater than 30 ft. in height shall be contoured. 75. Individual lot drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility or accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance or conveyed to a drainage easement. 76. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way should be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note should be added to the final map stating: "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions" . - 77. All natural drainage traversing site shall be conveyed through the site, or shall be collected and conveyed by a method approved by the City Engineer. 78. Submit Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports for review and approval by City Engineer and the Riverside County Flood Control District prior to approval of final map. Developer shall mitigate any flooding and/or erosion caused by development of site and diversion of drainage. 79. All drainage facilities in this tract shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District Standards. 80. Storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately stenciled to prevent illegally dumping in the drain system, the wording and stencil shall be approved by the City Engineer. 81. Roof and yard drains will not be allowed to outlet through cuts in the street curb. Roof drains should drain to a landscaped area when ever feasible. - Page Twenty-Three - City Council Minutes -January 13, 2004 82. 10 year storm runoff should be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm runoff should be contained within the street right-of-way. When either of these criteria are exceeded, drainage facilities should be installed. 83. Any concentration or diversion of drainage which increases flow from the pre- construction conditions requires a drainage acceptance letter from the downstream property owners for outletting the proposed stormwater run-off on private property. 84. Developer shall be subject to all Master Planned Drainage fees and will receive credit for all Master Planned Drainage facilities constructed. 85. Provide Tract Phasing Plan for the City Engineer's approval. Bond public improvements for each Phase as approved by the City Engineer. 86. Applicant will be required to install BMP's using the best available technology to mitigate any urban pollutants from entering the watershed. 87. Applicant shall obtain approval from Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board for their storm water pollution prevention plan including approval of erosion control for the grading plan prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall provide a SWPPP for post construction which describes BMP's that will be implemented for the development and including maintenance responsibilities. 88. Education guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be provided to residents of the development in the use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers as well as other environmental awareness education materials on good housekeeping practices that contribute to protection of stormwater quality and met the goals of the BMP in Supplement "A" in the Riverside County NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. 89. Applicant shall provide first blush BMP's using the best available technology that will reduce storm water pollutants from parking areas and driveway aisles. 90. Intersection site distance shall meet the design criteria of the CAL TRANS Design Manual (particular attention should be taken for intersections on the inside of curves). If site distance can be obstructed, a special limited use easement must be recorded to limit the slope, type of landscaping and wall placement. 91. The landscaping in the median and parkway on Collector A shall be analyzed by a traffic or civil engineer to insure that the sight distance meets Caltrans Design Manual criteria. Page Twenty-Four - City Council Minutes - January 13,2004 - 92. Intersecting streets on the inside radius of a curve will only be permitted when adequate sight distance is verified by a registered civil engineer. 93. No residential lot shall front and access shall be restricted on Collector A, Nichols Road, and Lake Street and so noted on the final map. 94. If right-of-way is abandoned as part of this development, then adjacent property affected by the abandonments must still have access to public maintained right-of- way. 95. Applicant shall record CC & R's for the tract prohibiting on-street storage of boats, motorhomes, trailer, and trucks over one-ton capacity, roof mounted or front yard microwave satellite antennas. The CC & R's shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to recordation of final map. 96. Applicant shall provide a homeowner's association with CC & R's for maintenance of the open space. 97. Developer shall provide an approved open space conservation easement dedicated to the HOA for the tracts' open space with a fuel modification zone for a fire break to be maintained by a homeowner's association. - 98. The large open space lots adjacent to residential lots shall have areas designated as fuel modification zones for a firebreak to be maintained by a homeowner's association. 99. All open space and slopes except for public parks and schools and flood control district facilities, outside the public right-of-way will be owned and maintained by either a home owner's association or private property owner. 100. In accordance with the City's Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling, the applicant shall be required to contract with CR&R Inc. for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction. 101. The phasing plan in the project's traffic study does not match that shown on Tentative Tract Map 28214. The traffic study's phasing plan shall be used in the conditions of approval. There shall be no C of 0 in Phase 2 until Phase 1 offsite infrastructure has been completed. There shall be no C of 0 in Phase 3 until Phase 2 offsite infrastructure has been completed. - Page Twenty-Five - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 102. The mitigation measures noted in the traffic study from page 1-5 through page 1- 13 (attached) shall be incorporated into these conditions and are modified, refined, corrected and/or added as follows. In the event of unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the developer, the CDD has the option of extending the C of 0 threshold for each Phase. Phase 1 Improvements · Lake Street curve alignment improvement north of Coal Road shall have a minimum design speed of 55 mph and a minimum radius of 1,750 feet and be completed by 240th C ofO. . Lake Street and the north/southbound ramps, the improvements shall be completed by the 240th C ofO. · Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road, the improvements shall be completed by the 240th C ofO. . Lake Street and Collector "A", the improvements shall be completed by the 240th CofO. · Lake Street and Mountain Street, the improvements shall be completed by the 240th C of O. Phase 2 Improvements · Lake Street curves, north of the curve improved in Phase 1, shall be realigned and improved to a design speed of 55 mph minimum and 1,750 foot minimum radius by the 464th C of 0 of Phase 2. · Lake Street interim roadway improvements may be reduced to 62 ft. of R/W to accommodate a 1,750 ft. radius. Interim roadway improvements may include a super elevation design to be approved by the City Engineer and shall include a reconstruction replacement cost. · Lake Street from Nichols Road to Mountain Street, the improvements shall be completed by the 464th C of 0 of Phase 2. The curves shall be realigned and improved to a design speed of 55 mph minimum and 1,750 foot minimum radius. Page Twenty-Six - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - . Nichols Road from Lake Street to Terra Cotta, construct at ultimate half section by the 464th C of 0 of Phase 2. . Construct Nichols Road from Terra Cotta Road to Collier Avenue as an interim 2- lane divided road including 2-lane bridge over Alberhill Creek by the 464th C of 0 of Phase 2. . Developer shall work with the City on a design to realign Collier Avenue at Nichols Road to the west away from the freeway allowing more storage for entry to the freeway ramps. . Nichols Road and the northbound 1-15 ramps, construct a traffic signal by the 464th C of 0 of Phase 2. . Nichols Road and the southbound 1-15 ramps, construct a traffic signal by the 464th C of 0 of Phase 2. . Nichols Road and Lake Street, signal and widening improvements shall be completed when Nichols Road is extended to Collector "A". - . Install pedestrian walkway along southerly side of Nichols Road from Terra Cotta Road to "A" Street in Tract 30836 as soon as Nichols is extended to Tract 30836. Phase 3 Improvements . Lake Street from 1-15 Freeway to Nichols Road, construct interim 4-lane section by the 650th C of 0 of Phase 3. . Complete Nichols Road from the project T AZ 4 west boundary to the project T AZ 4 east boundary to its ultimate full section prior to the last C of 0 for Lot 974. . Terra Cotta Road from Nichols Road to south project boundary, construct by the 1st C of 0 in lot 974. . Lake Street and 1-15 Freeway SB-ramps, install NB right turn lane by 650th C of 0 of Phase 3. . Collector "A" and Nichols Road construct traffic signal by the 650th C of 0 of Phase 3. - Page Twenty-Seven - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 . "A" Street of Tr. 30836 and Nichols Road, construct a traffic signal before occupancy of the school site or by the 100th C of 0 of Tr. 30836, whichever is first. · Collier Avenue and Nichols Road, construct intersection improvements by the 650th C of 0 of Phase 3. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30836 PLANNING DIVISION General Conditions 1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 30836 will expire two years from date of approval unless within that period of time a Final Map has been filed with the County Recorder, or an extension of time is granted by the City of Lake Elsinore City Council in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. Additional extensions of time (36 months maximum time per the Subdivision Map Act) may be granted per City Council approval. 2. Future development shall comply with those standards and guidelines contained in the Specific Plan Description, Specific Plan Regulations, Specific Plan Design Element, and Specific Plan Implementation Sections as contained in the 1992 Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan document, and conditions of approval established with the 1989 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and the 1992 Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. 3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 30836 shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and applicable requirements contained in the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan document and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), unless modified by approved Conditions of Approval. 4. Future development shall comply with those requirements and provisions contained in the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Development Agreement, dated January 4, 1992. 5. The applicant shall participate in the City of Lake Elsinore Citywide Landscaping and Street Lighting District, as appropriate. 6. The applicant shall provide all project-related onsite and offsite improvements as described in the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan document. 7. The applicant shall implement those mitigation measures identified in the 1989 Final Page Twenty-Eight - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR, 1992 Addendum No. 1 to the Final Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR, and the 2003 Addendum No.2 to the Final Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 8. All future proposals shall be reviewed by the City on a project-by-project basis. If determined necessary by the Community Development Director or designee, additional environmental analysis will be required. 9. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, Agents, and its Consultants from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, or Agents to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning implementation and construction of the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, which action is bought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Sections 65009 and/or 66499.37, and Public Resources Code Section 21167. The City will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City and will cooperate fully with the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, or proceeding, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. - 10. Provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance shall be satisfied during all site preparation and construction activity. Site preparation activity and construction shall not commence before 7:00 AM and shall cease at 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Construction activity shall not take place on Saturday, Sunday, or any Legal Holidays. 11. The applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgment of Conditions" and shall return the executed original to the Community Development Department. 12. The applicant shall revise the Draft Addendum No.2 EIR, per comments from the City Attorney, prior to City Council certification of the document. Prior to Final Tract MaD ADDroval 13. All lots shall comply with applicable standards contained in the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan document, LEMC, or Zoning Code. 14. A precise survey with closures for boundaries and all lots shall be provided per the LEMC. - Page Twenty-Nine - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 15. Street names within the subdivision shall be approved by the Community Development Director or Designee. 16. All of the improvements shall be designed by the applicant's Civil Engineer to the specifications of the City of Lake Elsinore. 17. Future construction shall meet all Riverside County Fire Department standards for fire protection and any additional requirements requested by the County Fire Department (refer to attached). Prior to Desif!n Review A1J1JrOval 18. All future structural development associated with the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and VTTM No. 30836, including building designs, landscaping improvements, site plans, etc. require separate Design Review approval. Prior to Gradinf! Permit Issuance 19. The applicant shall obtain all necessary State and Federal permits, approvals, or other entitlements, where applicable, prior to each phase of development of the project. 20. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit a final grading plan, subject to all requirements of the City Grading Ordinance to the City Engineer for approval. Said grading plan shall address those grading standards and guidelines contained in the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan document. 21. Grading shall not be permitted outside the area of the designated project boundary unless appropriate approvals have been obtained. 22. Grading easements shall be coordinated with affected property owners. 23. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, grading and construction plans shall incorporate erosion control measures. 24. Any alterations to the topography, ground surface, or any other site preparation activity will require appropriate grading permits. A Geologic Soils Report with associated recommendations will be required for grading permit approval, and all grading must meet the City's Grading Ordinance, subject to the approval of the City Engineer and the Planning Division. Analysis of impacts of fills and cuts greater than 60 feet shall be provided. Interim and permanent erosion control measures are Page Thirty - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - required. The applicant shall bond 100 percent for material and labor for one year for erosion control landscaping at the time the site is rough graded. Prior to Buildinl! Permit Issuance 25. The applicant shall pay all appropriate traffic impact mitigation fees. 26. The applicant shall annex into the City-Wide Community Facilities District for Police, Fire, and Paramedics. 27. Prior to approval of the Final Map or if deemed appropriate by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall initiate and complete the formation of a Homeowner's Association, approved by the City, recorded, and in place. All Association documents shall be approved by City Planning and Engineering and the City Attorney and recorded, such as the Articles of Incorporation for the Association; and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall include language to ensure the following conditions: . The HOA shall maintain landscaping along parkways and project streets, recreational areas, walkways, and drainage easements. - . The HOA shall maintain all streets, entry gates, walls, and monumentation. 28. Prior to issuance of building permit, a Fuel Modification Plan and Program shall be approved by the Fire Department for future phases. Said Plan and Program shall show those special treatments necessary to achieve an acceptable level of risk in regard to the exposure of structures to flammable vegetation and shall describe the method of removal and installation, and provisions for maintenance. 29. The applicant shall comply with the following City programs: the City Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element, the County Solid Waste Management Plan and Integrated Waste Management Plan. 30. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit a letter of verification (will-serve letter) to the City Engineer, for all required utility services. 31. The applicant shall meet all requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). - Page Thirty-One - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 32. The applicant shall pay applicable fees and obtain proper clearance from the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) prior to issuance of building permits. 33. Pay all applicable fees including park fees. 34. The applicant shall provide connection to public sewer for each lot within any subdivision. No service laterals shall cross adjacent property lines and shall be delineated on engineering sewer plans and profiles for submittal to the EVMWD. 35. The applicant (master developer) shall prepare a Community-Wide Wall Plan for the entire VTTM No. 28214 area. 36. Prior to issuance of building permits for each future tract, the applicant (merchant builder) for each individual tract shall prepare a Final Wall and Fence Plan addressing the following: . Show that a masonry or decorative block wall will be constructed along all boundaries for the particular tract. . Show materials, colors, and heights of side yard fences for proposed lots. . Show that all front return walls shall be decorative masonry block walls. Front return wood fences shall not be permitted. . Show that side walls for comer lots shall be decorative masonry block walls. 37. The applicant shall submit plans to the electric utility company for a layout of the street lighting system. The cost of street lighting, installation as well as energy charges shall be the responsibility of the applicant and/or the HOA. Said plans shall be approved by the City and shall be installed in accordance with the City Standards. 38. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the providing electric utility company. 39. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the providing gas utility company. 40. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the providing telephone utility company. 41. A bond is required guaranteeing the removal of all trailers used during construction. Page Thirty-Two - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - 42. Future signage requires a permit and shall be subject to Planning Division review and approval prior to installation. ENGINEERING DIVISION 43. All Public Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) prior to final map approval. 44. Pay all Capital Improvement and Plan Check fees (LEMC 16.34, Resolution 85-26). Applicant shall pay the City's traffic mitigation fee of $1,197 per unit and the drainage fee is $7,645 per acre (Rice Cyn Distr) and some areas are $5,380 per acre (Nichols St. SW Distr.). 45. Submit a "Will Serve" letter to the City Engineering Division from the applicable water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project. Submit this letter prior to final map approval. 46. Construct all public works improvements per approved street plans (LEMC 12.04). Plans must be approved and signed by the City Engineer prior to final map approval (LEMC 16.34). - 47. Street improvement plans and specifications shall be prepared by a Calif. Registered Civil Engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to Riverside County Road Department Standards, latest edition, and City Codes (LEMC 12.04 and 16.34). 48. Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for the construction of public works improvements and shall post the appropriate bonds prior to final map approval. 49. Desirable design grade for local streets should not exceed 9.5%. The maximum grade of 15% should only be used because of design constraints. 50. The landscaped median in Nichols Road shall be 14 ft. wide not 24 feet. 51. D Street shall have a right-of-way of 70 ft. with 50 ft. curb to curb to provide for a continuous left turn median. 52. If sight distance at B Street and G Street cannot meet Caltrans Design Manual criteria, then B Street shall end in a cul-de-sac and there shall be a connection between B Street and C Street just south of G Street. - Page Thirty-Three - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 53. Nichols Road shall have a 120 ft. right-of-way, 96 ft. curb to curb, and a 14 ft. raised landscaped median. 54. Pay all fees and meet requirements of encroachment permit issued by the Engineering Division for construction of public works improvements (LEMC 12.08 and Resolution 83-78). 55. All compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8 W' x 11" Mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division before final inspection of public works improvements will be scheduled and approved. 56. The applicant shall install 2 permanent bench marks to Riverside County Standards and at a location to be determined by City Engineer. 57. Applicant shall obtain all necessary off-site easements for off-site grading from the adjacent property owners prior to final map approval or grading permit which ever occurs first. 58. Arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.) out of the roadway or alley shall be the responsibility of the property owner or his agent. 59. Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by Riverside County Fire. 60. Provide street lighting and show lighting improvements as part of street improvement plans as required by the City Engineer. 61. Developer shall install blue reflective pavement markers in the street at all fire hydrant locations. 62. Applicant shall submit a traffic control plan showing all traffic control devices for the tract to be approved prior to final map approval. All traffic control devices shall be installed prior to final inspection of public improvements. This includes No Parking and Street Sweeping Signs for streets within the tract. 63. All improvement plans and tract maps shall be digitized. At Certificate of Occupancy applicant shall submit tapes and/or discs which are compatible with City's ARC Info/GIS or developer to pay $300 per sheet for City digitizing. Page Thirty-Four - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - 64. All utilities except electrical over 12 kv shall be placed underground, as approved by the serving utility. 65. Apply and obtain a grading permit with appropriate security prior to building permit issuance. A grading plan signed and stamped by a Calif. Registered Civil Engineer shall be required if the grading exceeds 50 cubic yards or the existing flow pattern is substantially modified as determined by the City Engineer. 66. Provide soils, geology and seismic report including street design recommendations. Provide final soils report showing compliance with recommendations. 67. An Alquist-Priolo study shall be performed on the site to identify any hidden earthquake faults and/or liquefaction zones present on-site. 68. All grading shall be done under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer and he shall certify all slopes steeper than 2 to 1 for stability and proper erosion control. All manufactured slopes greater than 30 ft. in height shall be contoured. 69. Individual lot drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility or accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance or conveyed to a drainage easement. - 70. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way should be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note should be added to the final map stating: "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions". 71. All natural drainage traversing site shall be conveyed through the site, or shall be collected and conveyed by a method approved by the City Engineer. 72. Submit Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports for review and approval by City Engineer and the Riverside County Flood Control District prior to approval of final map. Developer shall mitigate any flooding and/or erosion caused by development of site and diversion of drainage. 73. All drainage facilities in this tract shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District Standards. 74. Storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately stenciled to prevent illegally dumping in the drain system, the wording and stencil shall be approved by the City - Page Thirty-Five - City Council Minutes - January 13,2004 Engineer. 75. Roof and yard drains will not be allowed to outlet through cuts in the street curb. Roof drains should drain to a landscaped area when ever feasible. 76. 10 year storm runoff should be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm runoff should be contained within the street right-of-way. When either of these criteria are exceeded, drainage facilities should be installed. 77. Any construction or diversion of drainage which increases flow from the pre- construction conditions requires a drainage acceptance letter from the downstream property owners for outletting the proposed stormwater run-off on private property. 78. Developer shall be subject to all Master Planned Drainage fees and will receive credit for all Master Planned Drainage facilities constructed. 79. Provide Tract Phasing Plan for the City Engineer's approval. Bond public improvements for each Phase as approved by the City Engineer. 80. Applicant shall obtain approval from Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board for their storm water pollution prevention plan including approval of erosion control for the grading plan prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall provide a SWPPP for post construction which describes BMP's that will be implemented for the development and including maintenance responsibilities. 81. Education guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be provided to residents of the development in the use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers as well as other environmental awareness education materials on good housekeeping practices that contribute to protection of stormwater quality and met the goals of the BMP in Supplement "A" in the Riverside County NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. 82. Applicant shall provide first blush BMP's using the best available technology that will reduce storm water pollutants from this development. 83. Intersection site distance shall meet the design criteria of the CAL TRANS Design Manual (particular attention should be taken for intersections on the inside of curves). If site distance can be obstructed, a special limited use easement must be recorded to limit the slope, type of landscaping and wall placement. Page Thirty-Six - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - 84. Intersecting streets on the inside radius of a curve will only be permitted when adequate sight distance is verified by a registered civil engineer. 85. Developer shall provide a traffic study prepared by a traffic engineer to determine the traffic volume and the impacts on intersections in the vicinity and freeway on and off ramps prior to final map approval, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 86. No residential lot shall front and access shall be restricted on Nichols Road, G Street and A Street and so noted on the final map. 87. If right-of-way is abandoned as part of this development, then adjacent property affected by the abandonments must still have access to public maintained right-of- way. 88. In accordance with the City's Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling, the applicant shall be required to contract with CR&R Inc. for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction. 89. The phasing plan in the project's traffic study does not match that shown on Tentative Tract Map 28214. The traffic study's phasing plan shall be used in the conditions of approval. There shall be no C of 0 in Phase 2 until Phase 1 offsite infrastructure has been completed. There shall be no C of 0 in Phase 3 until Phase 2 offsite infrastructure has been completed. - 90. The mitigation measures noted in the traffic study from page 1-5 through page 1-13 (attached) shall be incorporated into these conditions and are modified, refined, corrected and/or added as follows. In the event of unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the developer, the CDD has the option of extending the C of 0 threshold for each Phase. Phase 1 Improvements . Lake Street curve alignment improvement north of Coal Road shall have a minimum design speed of 55 mph and a minimum radius of 1,750 feet and be completed by 240th C ofO. . Lake Street and the north/southbound ramps, the improvements shall be completed by the 240th C of O. - Page Thirty-Seven - City Council Minutes - January 13,2004 . Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road, the improvements shall be completed by the 240th C of O. . Lake Street and Collector "A", the improvements shall be completed by the 240th CofO. . Lake Street and Mountain Street, the improvements shall be completed by the 24th Certificate of Occupancy (C of 0). Phase 2 Improvements . Lake Street curves, north of the curve improved in Phase 1, shall be realigned and improved to a design speed of 55 mph minimum and 1,750 foot minimum radius by the 464th C of 0 of Phase 2. . Lake Street interim roadway improvements may be reduced to 62 feet of R/W to accommodate a 1,750-foot radius. Interim roadway improvements may include a super elevation design to be approved by the City Engineer and shall include a replacement cost. . Lake Street from Nichols Road to Mountain Street, the improvements shall be completed by the 464th C of 0 of Phase 2. The curves shall be realigned and improved to a design speed of 55 mph minimum and 1,750 foot minimum radius. . Nichols Road from Lake Street to Terra Cotta, construct at ultimate half section by the 464th C of 0 of Phase 2. . Construct Nichols Road from Terra Cotta Road to Collier Avenue as an interim 2- lane divided road including 2-lane bridge over Alberhill Creek by the 464th C of 0 of Phase 2. . Developer shall work with the City on design to realign Collier Avenue at Nichols Road to the west away from the freeway allowing more storage for entry to the freeway ramps. . Nichols Road and the northbound 1-15 ramps, construct a traffic signal by the 464th C of 0 of Phase 2. . Nichols Road and the southbound 1-15 ramps, construct a traffic signal by the 464th C of 0 of Phase 2. Page Thirty-Eight - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - . Nichols Road and Lake Street, signal and widening improvements shall be completed when Nichols Road is extended to Collector "A". . Install pedestrian walkway along southerly side of Nichols Road from Terra Cotta Road to "A" Street in Tract 30836 as soon as Nichols is extended to Tract 30836. Phase 3 Improvements . Lake Street from 1-15 Freeway to Nichols Road, construct interim 4-lane section by the 650th C of 0 of Phase 3. · Complete Nichols Road from the project TAZ 4 west boundary to the project TAZ 4 east boundary to its ultimate full section prior to the last C of 0 for Lot 974. . Terra Cotta Road from Nichols Road to south project boundary, construct by the first C of 0 in lot 974. . Lake Street and 1-15 Freeway SB-ramps, install NB right turn lane by 650th C of 0 of Phase 3. - . Collector "A" and Nichols Road construct traffic signal by the 650 C of 0 of Phase 3. . "A" Street of Tr. 30836 and Nichols Road, construct a traffic signal before occupancy of the school site or by the 100th C of 0 of Tr. 30836, whichever is first. . Collier Avenue and Nichols Road, construct intersection improvements by the 650th C of 0 of Phase 3. The public hearing was closed at 8 :20 p.m. 22. Public Hearing - Authorizing the Issuance of Bonds and Approving Bond Documents: Formation of CFD 2003-2 (Canyon Hills): Calling A Special Election: Canvassing Election Results: and Authorizing Levy of Special Taxes - Resolution No. 2004-5 thru 2004-8 & Ordinance No. 1114. (F:22.3) Administrative Services Director Pressey noted that the applicant was present to address this item as well. He explained that this was the public hearing for the issuance of bonds and formation of the District. He further explained that there - Page Thirty-Nine - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 would be an election and canvass of the votes. He explained that the Canyon Hills agreement, called for the establishment of a service CFD for the fire station operation costs, and a CFD for the fire station and other facilities including streets, parks, storm drains, EVMWD facilities and fees; and for the issuance of bonds for the improvement area. He detailed the recommendation, and noted that Harris & Associates had prepared the report. He explained the proposed district and noted that the public facilities would be financed for Phases 2 through 5 of the development. He further explained that there was a joint CFD agreement with the City, EVMWD and Pardee for financing through the bonds. He also explained that financing on any issuance could not exceed 2%, and the estimated tax rate on this issue was 1.85%. He advised that this was a land tax which would apply to all properties in the development, which would benefit from the infrastructure; and noted that the City would be faced with the long term impact of maintaining streets and other public facilities. He detailed the recommendations and the procedure for the public hearing. Mayor Buckley opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. asking those persons interested in this item to speak. There were no requests to speak. City Treasurer Weber addressed the map of Area A and noted the bonds were at an interest rate of6.75%. Administrative Services Director Pressey clarified that in the current market, as of today, the bonds could yield on a 30 year issuance about 6.5%. City Treasurer Weber questioned the proposed commercial section on Railroad Canyon Road, and where the V ons and other commercial development would be. Mr. Pressey indicated that it was not distinguishable on the map. Mr. Weber commented that no money for the district would come from the commercial aspect. John Yeager, Legal Counsel for Pardee, indicated that the commercial piece was not in the first phase, but Area A had been graded for homes and condominiums. He clarified the improvement Area B would include the commercial development, as Area A was all residential. Jim Stringer, representing Pardee, further clarified the area to be funded by this issuance. Councilman Hickman inquired if the total was up to $88 million or $65 million; and questioned the City's liability on the district. Mr. Pressey clarified that the City had an administrative responsibility to monitor the district, but it was not an obligation of the City or its agencies. Councilman Hickman questioned how often this issuance could be refinanced. City Manager Watenpaugh questioned the call to defease the bonds, and when that could first come up. Rod Gunn, Financial Advisor indicated that was a two part question, as it could be refunded at any point in time that would make financial sense. He clarified that there was a ten Page Forty - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - year call protection for the owners of the bonds, so part of the feasibility if refunded next year would put money in the bank for the next nine years, for call in the 10th year. He explained the potential loss with such a scenario, and noted that the economic reality was closer to ten years. Councilman Hickman questioned the opportunity for homeowners to prepay their taxes when they buy the home. Mr. Gunn indicated that homeowners could prepay their taxes at any time, including when they buy the home. Councilman Hickman questioned the difference between Marks-Roos and Mello-Roos. Mr. Gun indicated that it was a matter of specific provisions in the CFD. Mayor Buckley further clarified the ability to prepay the special taxes. Mr. Gunn indicated that the option should be offered at the time of sale of the home. City Treasurer Weber indicated that he was not told that when he bought his him in April. Mr. Gunn further clarified the total tax per unit, special taxes and the CFD. He noted that a lot ofthe City's policies on bonds came from the City's experience, nearly a decade ago. Councilman Hickman indicated that the report was very interesting, in that there was a decline of 1.5% in population in 2001. Mr. Gunn confirmed, noting that in the late nineties, building in Riverside County virtually stopped. - City Treasurer Weber questioned the fees paid for the District. Mr. Gunn indicated that the total fee for $12 million, was between $250,000 and $300,000. Mr. Weber commented that the City used the same group all the time and go through the same motions, and questioned ifthere was a discount. Mr. Gunn noted that there had been issues in Lake Elsinore for the past eight years, making each issuance different. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that there would be a workshop later in the week to clarify those issues. There was further discussion of the City fees and possible reimbursements to the City from the District. Mr. Gunn noted that the City had come a long way in restoring the public confidence in its bonds. Councilman Magee noted the Harris Report on the fire station, and questioned if this would fund the vehicles and equipment. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that this was the cost for the fire station, but questioned equipment for the station and vehicles for the cost. Dennis Anderson, representing Harris & Associates, indicated the costs incorporated in the district were received from the developer for operations and maintenance only. Councilman Magee noted page 3 relating to - Page Forty-One - City Council Minutes - January 13,2004 operation/maintenance of the equipment, and questioned the funding for the equipment. Mr. Yeager indicated that the District would fund construction and equipment in the first bond issues; and it was also already set up with the CFD for public safety services to fund the maintenance. Councilman Magee questioned the 300 unit CFD for the equipment and vehicles. Mr. Yeager indicated the cost estimate included a truck. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified that the Council was looking for the dollars for the fire engine; noting that Station 85 cost more than was originally planned. Councilman Magee inquired if the additional funding would have to come from the general fund. City Manager Watenpaugh confirmed that it would either be from the general fund or the development agreement fees. Mayor Buckley closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. MOVED BY HICKMAN, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-5: RESOLUTION NO. 2004-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-2 (CANYON HILLS) SPECIAL TAX BONDS (IMPROVEMENT AREA A) 2004 SERIES A AND THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A FISCAL AGENT AGREEMENT, A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, A PURCHASE CONTRACT, AND AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY MAGEE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-6: RESOLUTION NO. 2004-6 A RESOLUTION OF FORMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS AND ESTABLISHING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-2 (CANYON HILLS). Page Forty-Two - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-7: RESOLUTION NO. 2004-7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS IN THE AMOUNTS NOT TO EXCEED $14,000,000, $37,000,000, $13,000,000 AND $24,000,000 WITHIN IMPROVEMENT AREA A, IMPROVEMENT AREA B, IMPROVEMENT AREA C AND IMPROVEMENT AREA D, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-2 (CANYON HILLS) AND CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS PAUSED FOR TABULATION OF THE BALLOTS. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING CONTINUED WITH CITY CLERK/HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR KASAD REPORTING UNANIMOUS SUPPORT IN THE BALLOTS CAST FOR FORMATION OF THE DISTRICT. - MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY HICKMAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-8: RESOLUTION NO. 2004-8 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CANVASSING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION HELD WITHIN THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-2 (CANYON HILLS). MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY HICKMAN TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1114, UPON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY: ORDINANCE NO. 1114 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIAL TAX AND A SPECIAL TAX. - Page Forty-Three - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN, KELLEY, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER, BUCKLEY NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 31. Contribution to LEMSAR - $2.500. (F:30.1)(X:92.1)(X:127.1) Lake & Aquatic Resources Director Kilroy noted that the Lake lost a good friend, with the passing of Les Cameron, and commented that he would be sorely missed. He explained this item which would support the volunteer, non-profit organization in support of the Sheriff s Department, lake patrol. He indicated that this contribution would support their fuel account. Planning Commissioner Uhlry indicated that he got answers to some of his original questions; but questioned when the matter first came to council for funding, suggesting that it was for the purchase of equipment and fuel and out-of- pocket expenses. He questioned the funding for fuel and the past use of credit cards. He further questioned the reason for the six month allocation. Councilman Magee asked what the impact would be if the $2,500 was not funded. Mr. Kilroy indicated that the lack of support by the City could have a big impact on the group. He explained that if LEMSAR were to disband, the lake could not be operated at an acceptable level. City Treasurer Weber questioned how much was in their account right now. Gil Lerma, Commander of LEMSAR responded that there was very little, if any; noting that they had held off on equipment purchases. Councilman Magee questioned the impact no funding would have on the summer season. Mr. Lerma indicated that the members might fund themselves as they had done in the past. He further indicated that it was not mandatory, but would help to maintain the safety equipment and provide fuel for emergency call outs. He noted that they Page Forty-Four - City Council Minutes - January 13,2004 - spent their own money for general patrol, but this funding was used for equipment such as first aid, fire extinguishers and life jackets. Mayor Pro Tern Kelley commented that LEMSAR provides a wonderful service for Lake Elsinore and indicated that this commitment would not make a difference in spite of the State budget. She expressed support for this funding. Councilman Schiffner commented that LEMSAR has provided a very valuable service for many years; and were only recently assisted with their expenses. MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONTRIBUTION OF $2,500 TO L.E.M.S.A.R. FOR SUPPORT OF THEIR VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES THAT SUPPLEMENT A SAFE BOATING EXPERIENCE ON LAKE ELSINORE. 32. Acceptance of Planning Commission Resignation & Advertisement for Applications. (F:60.2) Mayor Buckley announced the resignation of Commissioner Nash from the Planning Commission; and noted that his term and the terms of Commissioners Barnes and Matthies would be ending in June of this year. He suggested filling the vacancy immediately, with the proviso that the appointee would have to reapply like everyone else if they are interested in continued service. He further suggested directing staff to start on May 1st to collect applications for the three open seats. - Councilman Schiffner indicated that under those circumstances he would agree to someone being appointed on an interim basis. Mayor Buckley recommended appointment of Michael O'Neal to the vacant seat. Mayor Pro Tern Kelley requested clarification that this was temporary, and the process would continue with interview and a public advertisement. MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY HICKMAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF COMMISSIONER NICK NASH AND APPOINT MICHAEL O'NEAL TO FILL THE VACANT SEAT UNTIL THE RECRUITMENT AND INTERVIEW PROCESS ARE COMPLETED FOR JUNE, 2004. - Page Forty-Five - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 Mayor Buckley reiterated that advertising would begin on May 1St, and run through the end of May, with two people to interview the applicants. Mayor Pro Tern Kelley noted that last time two Councilmembers and the Planning Commission Chairman participated in the last process and it was very well received. Planning Commission Chairman LaPere presented letters for the Council and expressed that as many people as possible could be involved in the process. He requested that Mayor Buckley participate with himself and another Councilmember in the interview process. He noted that he had provided a page of questions to be asked of the applicant for the Commission. Mayor Buckley clarified that the Council consensus would be to do a complete interview process. 33. Joint UseIField Lighting Purchase - Lake Elsinore Unified School District. (F: 142.1) City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that the School District had requested that this item be pulled and not addressed. 34. Public Safety Commission. (F:127.1)(X:59.1) Mayor Buckley noted that the Commission was created in 1984 and functioned until 1987; however it was still on the books and the Council was able to appoint people to the Commission. He noted the staff report and indicated that he felt it was a good idea to hold a joint City Council/Public Safety Commission meeting; and commented that Sheriff Doyle was in favor of the reinstitution of the Commission. He explained that it was an opportunity to connect the community to the law enforcement and fire representatives. He commented that the community was changing and this was a very important component. He suggested that the Commission could also be tasked with Disaster Preparedness, and work in concert with the local public safety professionals. He indicated that he would like to appoint the Commission tonight and set a meeting the last week in January as a joint study session with the Commissioners, so the Council could set priorities and the Commission could move forward. Councilman Schiffner suggested postponing the appointments, until the Council could have a study session to discuss the details and get input from the public. Mayor Pro Tern Kelley addressed the Municipal Code and indicated that what was done in the 1980's was no longer appropriate. She suggested that there appeared to be a conflict between the purpose of the Commission and the Council's policy. Page Forty-Six - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 ,.: She noted that there was also a lack of clarity with regard to compensation, appointments, etc.; and concurred that a study session would be appropriate so the Council could decide on the goals, objectives, appointments, and talk with the police and fire chief, since the Code requires that they attend meetings. She stressed the need for revisions before the Commission moved forward. She commented that she would assume each Councilmember could appoint a member to the Commission, and indicated that she was not prepared to make an appointment this evening, as the objectives are not clear. She stressed the need for a study session. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY TO SET A STUDY SESSION PRIOR TO REESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION. Mayor Buckley questioned if the study session should be joint or Council alone. Councilman Magee noted that there was opposition to this formation in July, 2002; as well as opposition from the Police Chief. He noted that he had significant reservations with the policy and indicated that he was not prepared to name an appointee at this time. He concurred that the study session was a good idea, and suggested that it occur soon. He indicated that while the Municipal Code section needed to be modified, he was strongly in favor of a Public Safety Commission. He commented on events in his neighborhood and indicated that his neighbors banded together with a Community Resources Officer to put people in jail. He stressed that the Commission could provide assistance to neighborhoods and the law enforcement professionals. He reiterated that while he strongly supported the Commission, he agreed that the policy matters needed serious work. - Chris Hyland, 15181 Wavecrest, indicated that the reestablishment of the Commission was a great idea. She commented that the Neighborhood Watch in her area was very accommodating to the neighbors in her area. She suggested that it would only enhance the coverage; noting that it was not always possible to get an answer right away, from the Police Department. She expressed support for this action. Edith Stafford, 29700 Hursh, indicated that she knew how the Commission got started and commented on a problem tenant. She indicated that in her own experience, people were afraid to report things; but detailed an incident in which ..,. Page Forty-Seven - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 Mayor Buckley indicated that he would support the motion if it included setting the study session in the last week of January. Councilman Schiffner commented that the two speakers were discussing a neighborhood patrol and that was not the proposal before Council. He clarified the intent ofthis item, but noted that he was in favor of Neighborhood Watch, under the Police Department. THE FOREGOING MOTION FOR A STUDY SESSION, AMENDED TO BE HELD IN THE LAST WEEK OF JANUARY, CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. 35. Design Review for Industrial Proiect No.2003-01 "Pasadena Business Park II". (F:86.2) Community Development Director Brady detailed this request and noted the location. He indicated that it would include 15 industrial buildings for about 104,100 square feet. He detailed the construction and amenities to be provided, and noted that staff had worked to reduce the impacts to the streetscape, by changing the parking area for better curb appeal. Councilman Magee questioned Condition No. 44 and requested clarity on 3rd Street, noting that it was not paved and did not touch this development. He questioned the nexus for paving Y:z of the street. Community Development Director Brady clarified that they were conditioned and bonded for those improvements, but the condition wsa modified by the Planning Commission at the request of the applicant. He noted that the concern was that the cost of putting in part of the road would be greater than the whole road, so an in-lieu fee was approved, so the road could be completed all at once; and the applicant agreed to that condition. Councilman Magee further questioned the bonding for the two properties up stream toward Collier. Mr. Brady clarified the agreement for Y:z street improvements. Councilman Schiffner inquired if there were more properties on the same side of the channel. Mr. Brady indicated that they were in the same situation as this property and clarified the property location vs. the channel location. Councilman Schiffner noted that it was unusual that they would be required to improve a property with no benefit or access to them. Mr. Brady clarified the connection of Pasadena Street to Third Street and the future developments which would generate traffic. Page Forty-Eight - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 -- Councilman Hickman inquired if this project was paying into the interchange at Central for $162,000, or their fair share. Mr. Brady indicated that they were paying the fee and paying the traffic impact fee, based on the square footage. MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 2003-01, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND THE EXHIBITS, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS 1. The project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning District in which the project is located. The proposed Industrial Design Review located at APN 377-151-057 complies with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, in that the approval of these industrial business park will assist in achieving the development of a well-balanced and functional mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational and institutional land uses as well as encouraging industrial land uses to diversifY Lake Elsinore's economic base. - 2. The project complies with the design directives contained in Section 17.82.060 and all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The proposed Industrial Design Review located at APN 377-151-057 is appropriate to the site and surrounding developments in that the proposed industrial business park has been designed in consideration of the size and shape of the property, thereby creating interest and varying vistas as a person moves along the street. Further the project as proposed will complement the quality of existing development and will create a visually pleasing, non-detractive relationship between the proposed and existing projects in that the architectural design, color and materials and site design proposed evidence a concern for quality and originality. 3. Subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed Industrial Design Review located at APN 377-151-057, has been reviewed and conditioned by all applicable City Divisions and Departments and Agencies, and will not have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2002-03 adopted by the City Council. 4. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Chapter 17.82.070 of the Zoning Code, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the subject project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of Chapter 17.82. Pursuant to Section 17.82.070 (Action of the Planning Commission) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMe), the proposed Industrial Design Review located at APN 377-151-057 has been scheduledfor consideration and approval of the Planning Commission. - Page Forty-Nine - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - DESIGN REVIEW 12003-1 PLANNING DIVISION 1. Design Review approval for Industrial Project No. I 2003-01 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-18 will lapse and be void unless building permits are issued within one (1) year of City Council approval. The Community Development Director may grant an extension of time of up to one (1) year per extension, prior to the expiration of the initial Design Review approval. Application for a time extension must be submitted to the City of Lake Elsinore one (1) month prior to the expiration date. 2. Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced on page one of building plans submitted to the Building Division for Plan Check. All Conditions of Approval shall be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. 3. All site improvements approved with this request shall be constructed as indicated on the approved site plan and elevations. Revisions to approved site plans or building elevations shall be subject to the review of the Community Development Director. All plans submitted for Building Division Plan Check shall conform to the submitted plans as modified by Conditions of Approval, or the Planning Commission/City Council through subsequent action. 4. Any revisions to the interior floor plans that could cause the requirement for additional parking shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director or designee. 5. All roof mounted or ground support air conditioning units or other mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened or shielded by landscaping so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets including Collier Avenue. Any material covering the roof equipment shall match the primary wall color. 6. All exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and directed on-site so as not to create glare onto neighboring property and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal plane of the fixture. All light fixtures shall match the architectural style of the building. 7. All loading zones shall be clearly marked with yellow striping and shall meet City Standards. Page Fifty - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - 8. Applicant shall meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. 9. The applicant shall construct a 6 foot decorative masonry wall along the southwestern boundary. The exterior surface of the decorative wall shall be coated with an anti- graffiti material. 10. Six foot opaque gates shall be required at the entrance of each outdoor storage area. 11. Trash enclosures shall be constructed per City standards as approved by the Community Development Director. A 5' landscaped planter is required on each side of the trash enclosure. 12. No exterior roofladders shall be permitted. 13. Applicant shall use roofing materials with Class "A" fire rating. 14. All exterior downspouts shall be painted to match with building exterior color. 15. The Planning Division shall approve the location of any construction trailers utilized during construction. All construction trailers shall require a $1,000.00 cash bond, submit a site plan and processed through the Planning Division. - 16. Materials and colors depicted on the plans and materials board shall be used unless modified by the applicant and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. 17. On-site surface drainage shall not cross sidewalks. 18. Parking stalls shall be double-striped with four-inch (4") lines two feet (2') apart. 19. All exposed slopes in excess of three feet (3') in height shall have a permanent irrigation system and erosion control vegetation installed, approved by the Landscape Architectural Consultant and Planning Division. 20. Any roof mounted equipment shall be screened from the pubic right-of-way. Ground mounted electrical equipment shall be screened with landscaping materials. PRIOR TO BUILDING/GRADING PERMITS 21. Prior to issuance of any grading permit or building permits, the applicant shall sign - Page Fifty-One - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 and complete an "Acknowledgement of Conditions" form and shall return the executed original to the Planning Division for inclusion in the case records. 22. A Sign Program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to building permits. 23. Three (3) sets of the Final Landscaping/Irrigation Detail Plan shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Architect Consultant and the Community Development Director or designee, prior to issuance of building permit. A Landscape Plan Check & Inspection Fee will be charged prior to final landscape approval based on the Consultant's fee plus forty percent (40%) City fee. a) All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler system with 100% plant and grass coverage using a combination of drip and conventional irrigation methods. b) Applicant shall plant street trees, selected from the City's Street Tree List, a maximum of forty feet (40) apart and at least twenty-four-inch (24") box m Size. c) All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six-inch (6") high and six-inch (6") wide concrete curb. d) Planting within fifteen feet (15') of ingress/egress points shall be no higher than thirty-six inches (36"). e) Landscape planters shall be planted with an appropriate parking lot shade tree to provide for 50% parking lot shading in fifteen (15) years. f) Any transformers and mechanical or electrical equipment shall be indicated on landscape plan and screened as part of the landscaping plan. 24. The landscape plan shall provide for ground cover, shrubs, and trees and meet all requirements of the City's adopted Landscape Guidelines. Special attention to the use of Xeriscape or drought resistant plantings with combination drip irrigation system to be used to prevent excessive watering. 25. All landscape improvements shall be bonded 100% for material and labor for two years from installation sign-off by the City. Release of the landscaping bond shall be requested by the applicant at the end of the required two years with Page Fifty-Two - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 .... approval/acceptance by the Landscape Consultant and Community Development Director or Designee. 26. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed within affected portion of any phase at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested for any building. All planting areas shall include plantings in the Xeriscape concept, drought tolerant grasses and plants. 27. Final landscape plan must be consistent with approved site plan. 28. Final landscape plans to include planting and irrigation details. 29. Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. Proof shall be presented to the Chief Building Official prior to issuance of building permits and final approval. 30. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that all required fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District have been paid. 31. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that all requirements of the Riverside County Fire Department have been met. - 32. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. ENGINEERING DIVISION 33. All Public Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) prior to building permit. 34. Dedicate a 20 ft. wide strip of additional street right-of-way along the frontage of Pasadena St. to the City prior to issuance of building permit. 35. Dedicate a 30 ft. wide strip of additional street right-of-way along the frontage of Crane St. to the City prior to issuance of building permit. 36. Dedicate additional right-of-way for a standard comer cutback for the future curb return at the westerly comer of the lot. - Page Fifty-Three - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 37. All buildings shall have direct access to public right-of-way or to be provided with minimum 30 foot ingress and egress easement to public right-of-way by separate instrument or with recordation of a final map and met condition for CC&R's. 38. The ingress and egress easements width and turning radii must be approved by the County Fire Dept. prior to building permit. 39. Public right-of-way dedications shall be prepared by the applicant or his agent. Deeds shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permit. 40. Pay all Capital Improvement and Plan Check fees (LEMC 16.34, Res. 85-26). The traffic mitigation fee is $73,589 and the drainage fee is $53,805. 41. Submit a "Will Serve" letter to the City Engineering Division from the applicable water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project. Submit this letter prior to applying for a building permit. 42. Construct all public works improvements per approved street plans (LEMC Title 12). Plans must be approved and signed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit (LEMC 16.34). 43. Street improvement plans and specifications shall be prepared by a Calif. Registered Civil Engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to Riverside County Road Department Standards, latest edition, and City Codes (LEMC 12.04 and 16.34). 44. Developer shall construct half street improvements on Third Street as part of this development, or pay an in-lieu fee for the construction of those half street improvements. 45. Developer shall construct half street improvements on Crane St. plus one 10ft. wide travel lane. 46. The applicant shall furnish a signing and striping plan for Pasadena St. and Crane St. Avenue, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 47. Pay all fees and meet requirements of an encroachment permit issued by the Engineering Division for construction of off-site public works improvements (LEMC12.08, Res.83-78). All fees and requirements for an encroachment permit shall be fulfilled before Certificate of Occupancy. Page Fifty-Four - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - 48. The driveway aisles should be designed so that at least 40 ft. is available between the street curb and the first parking stall in order to provide adequate on-site storage for entering vehicles. 49. All compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8 1/2" x 11" mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division before final inspection of off-site improvements will be scheduled and approved. 50. The applicant shall obtain all necessary off-site easements for off-site grading from the adjacent property owners prior to grading permit issuance. 51. Apply and obtain a grading permit with appropriate security prior to building permit issuance. A grading plan signed and stamped by a Calif. Registered Civil Engineer shall be required if the grading exceeds 50 cubic yards or the existing flow pattern is substantially modified as determined by the City Engineer. If the grading is less than 50 cubic yards and a grading plan is not required, a grading permit shall still be obtained so that a cursory drainage and flow pattern inspection can be conducted before grading begins. 52. Applicant to provide erosion control measures as part of their grading plan. The applicant shall contribute to protection of stormwater quality and met the goals of the BMP in Supplement "A" in the Riverside County NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. - 53. Arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.) out of the roadway or alley shall be the responsibility of the property owner or his agent. 54. Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by Riverside County Fire. 55. Provide street lighting, show lighting improvements on street improvement plans, as required by the City Engineer. 56. On-site drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility or accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance or conveyed to a drainage easement. 57. All natural drainage traversing the site shall be conveyed through the site, or shall be collected and conveyed by a method approved by the City Engineer. - Page Fifty-Five - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 58. Roof and yard drains will not be allowed to outlet through cuts in the street curb. Roofs should drain to a landscaped area whenever feasible. 59. Meet all requirements ofLEMC 15.64 regarding flood hazard regulations. 60. Meet all requirements of LEMC 15.68 regarding floodplain management. Over half this site is in FEMA flood zone AE and the finish floor elevation must be at or above the Base Flood Elevation. Most building must have their floor elevations above an elevation of 1263 ft. and some building must be above 1264 feet. Some of the site is in flood zone AO and the floor elevation must at least one foot above the adjacent grade. 61. The applicant to provide FEMA elevation certificates pnor to certificate of occupanCIes 62. Submit Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports for review and approval by City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. Developer shall mitigate any flooding and/or erosion downstream caused by development of the site and/or diversion of drainage. 63. All drainage facilities in this tract shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District Standards. 64. The applicant shall record a CC&R that provides for irrevocable reciprocal parking, circulation, ingress and egress, loading and landscaping maintenance easements in favor of all lots. It shall also enforce standards of building maintenance and participation in landscape maintenance. The CC&R shall be approved by the Community Development Director and shall be recorded prior to building permit. 65. Applicant shall obtain approval from Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board for their storm water pollution prevention plan including approval of erosion control for the grading plan prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall provide a SWPPP for post construction which describes BMP's that will be implemented for the development and including maintenance responsibilities. 66. Education guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be provided to building occupants of the development for outdoor storage, vehicle maintenance, building maintenance and landscaping as well as other environmental awareness education materials on good housekeeping practices that contribute to protection of stormwater quality and met the goals of the BMP in Supplement "A" in the Riverside County NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. Page Fifty-Six - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - 67. In accordance with the City's Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling, the applicant shall be required to contract with CR&R Inc. for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction. THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 9:25 P.M. THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:38 P.M. 36. Consideration Of The Western Riverside County Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan. (F:76.4) City Manager Watenpaugh reminded the community of the first presentation on this topic on June 24, 2000; and stressed that it had been almost three years in the process. Mayor Buckley requested that everyone keep their comments short and indicated that the three minute rule would be strictly enforced. Pete Dawson, 18010 Grand Avenue, indicated that the big problem with this matter was the disproportionate handling, with big brother deciding the City's destiny. He commented that it was clear that cities like Temecula or Canyon Lake could not be made to retract their development, and questioned how to even this out. He suggested that the proposal require that those who gave up less balanced the program by giving money to assist those who gave up more. He indicated that they would not agree, but it could start a more reasonable plan. - Dennis O'Neil, 19900 MacArthur Blvd., Irvine, indicated that no one was sure if the Council would adopt the plan, but noted that they were on record and continued to affirm that Canyon Hills had all of their entitlements and environmental permits. He suggested that if the MSHCP was adopted they would submit that appropriate language should be included to exempt projects such as Canyon Hills from the program. Ron LaPere, 16867 Wells Street, indicated everyone in the audience saw this as a hard spot for the Council, but if it was possible to condition items from the County the City could follow the progress on the implementation. He suggested that the Council was damned either way right now, but should consider written additions to make their position clear to the County and watch to see that development occurred as intended. - Page Fifty-Seven - City Council Minutes - January 13,2004 Carmela Loelkes, 25190 Hancock Ave., Murrieta, expressed trust that the Council would consider adopting the MSHCP, as they had received information in support of the plan. She commented that the small landowners were left out of the plan. She indicated that, as proposed, the plan was not perfect, but it would allow more developable land to be developed. She encouraged the Council to participate and not be left out, as most of the other cities had adopted the plan. Gail Barton, P. O. Box 1929, Fallbrook, thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak and for its cautious consideration. She noted the growth of the County and indicated that the MSHCP preserved open space, allowed for recreation and preserved the beauty of the County. She indicated that as a property owner in the criteria area, she supported the plan, and noted that the benefits outweighed the burdens. She further indicated that she would not want to be a property owner in a city that did not participate. She noted that he property adjoins the Southwest Multi-species Reserve, and her property was threatened by the recent fires, but because of the fire plan in place and the efficient response by the Reserve Manager, the back fires were set on the reserve and the lands outside were protected. She stressed consideration of the positive contributions the plan would make to the future of Lake Elsinore. Donna Franson, 7 Villa Valtelena, indicated that she was a 12 year resident of the City, and Chair of the Citizens for a Better Lake Elsinore. She advised that she had researched this issue for about six months and suggested that by accepting this plan, the Council would approve establishing another bureaucracy costing about $1 billion over the next ten years. She indicated that the City would be sued by property owners, as the plan would have an impact on their ability to build on their property. She noted that they would receive fair value for their property, but not anything close to the potential value if they were to build on their land. She questioned what would happen if the program ran out of funds; and expressed concern that much of the designated land was the most desirable for commercial and high-tech industrial. She suggested that not adopting the plan would save $1 billion, avoid eight pending lawsuits, and encourage business and land developers to provide more business opportunities. She indicated that she would support a reasonable plan, but was against the City being required to provide 7,800 acres. She asked that the Council plan for the future of Lake Elsinore and not adopt the plan. Ed Sauls, The Sauls Company, indicated that he did not envy the Council on this decision, and noted the amount of property impacted in the City. He indicated that solutions had been found to address 6,700 dwelling units in the City and other Page Fifty-Eight - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 I-. would be exempted by Development Agreements. He indicated that about 1,200 acres had not been resolved, but there was a willingness to work on solutions. He recommended adoption of the plan, with his study document attached as part of the resolution. He further recommended that the Council decide that the recommendations on the implementation were consistent with the MSHCP, as it would make life easier for the Council and the property owners, and remove uncertainties. He commented that no one was excited about the plan, and everyone would like improvements, but the Board of Supervisors had said that this was the plan. He indicated that the developers were forced to choose the best possible alternative, and after a review of the projects in the City, he would recommend adoption of the plan with specific conditions, such as the inclusion of his report. He commented on a number of general statements regarding the plan and reiterated the concern of Senator Hollingsworth that this was not a voluntary plan, and stressed that it represented about 80% of the undeveloped property in the City. Scott Woodward, resident of Murrieta, indicated that he had built a project here; and suggested that if the council did not approve the plan, it would delay the opportunity to move forward with growth and cause obstacles for building. He commented that it was not the best plan, but it was better than independent action. He indicated that it would protect 148 species for 75 years, and he would hate to see Lake Elsinore left out of the program. - Bruce Colbert, representing the Property Owners Association of Riverside County, indicated that he outlined four key concerns on January cjh. He indicated that the first was the potential loss of revenues, which would be far greater than the Measure A funds allocated to the City. He expressed concern that the plan could result in more land being proposed for habitat than the current regulations would require. He expressed further concern that the plan used an arbitrary approach, which was not based on the presence of species. He indicated that the proposed process was more burdensome that what was currently in place, and the plan was written to make the wildlife agencies the ultimate authority. He suggested that there was no reason to participate without some level of certainty. Jeff Drongesen, representing the California Department ofFish and Game, reiterated their support for the plan and assured the Council that they were dedicated to successful implementation of the plan. He indicated that after final approval, the final biological opinions would be finalized. - Page Fifty-Nine - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 Frans Bigelow, representing Castle & Cooke, indicated that they were always in favor of the concept ofthe MSHCP, but he could not support this plan without changes. He expressed concern with the loss of local control in land use decisions and the seven step process for permits. He indicated that the biological assessments were not accurate, would impact taxes, and the ultimate judge and jury will be the resource agencies. He stressed that the rules would be based on the written word and not the County's interpretations. He suggested changing the words to reflect with the County says they mean. He suggested that the City should negotiate on the verbiage, while there was still some leverage. Darren Stroud, representing Castle & Cooke, indicated that they submitted a letter earlier which detailed their concerns with the MSHCP, from the legal and practical perspectives. He noted the volume of information provided and stressed that there were major problems with the plan as drafted. He specifically stressed the issues of local control, fiscal impacts and administrative burdens. He asked that the Council not rush into approvals tonight, despite the County deadline, and noted that it was arbitrary and self-imposed by the County. He noted ongoing federal litigation on the biological review, and indicated that even if the litigation was circumvented, the City could not be arbitrarily cut out without additional work. He indicated that Lake Elsinore is the key to the plan with 7,000 acres; and noted the linkages and corridors necessary for the plan. He addressed 14. 1 of the implementing agreement and indicated that the service could not issue permits until all parties have signed the implementing agreement. He indicated that Measure A funds could not be lost or become an issue for five years. He stressed the need to work out the issues and develop a better plan before it is adopted. Ed Fitzpatrick, Eastbridge Partners, indicated that this matter had been discussed for a long time; and noted the impacts of mitigation on the Ramsgate project. He commented that with the adoption of the MSHCP he would have the opportunity to sell some conservation land and develop a deal with the regulatory agencies. He noted his past negotiations with the County and assistance from the regulatory agencies to allow him to develop 260 parcels. He noted that he worked with the Sauls Group on their study and indicated that his project would suffer further loss without the MSHCP. He urged the Council to support the MSHCP. Jane Block, representing the Endangered Habitat League, indicated that she was still on the committee mentioned by Senator Hollingsworth and they have achieved many of their goals. She expressed hopes that the elected officials would consider existing agreements and noted that the majority ofthe reserve would be in place one way or another. She indicated that the MSHCP would Page Sixty - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - provide recreational opportunities, enhance the quality of life for all citizens and attract businesses. She expressed hopes that the City would make the MSHCP a success. Jim Lunger, 15391 Regatta Way, urged a yes vote on the MSHCP. He noted the 1988 approval of Measure A, by a nearly 4 to 1 margin; and the additional funding for transportation improvements, approved in 2002. He indicated that a yes vote on the MSHCP would provide funding of$38 million. He indicated that the failure to approve the program would cause the City to forfeit tax dollars, which would go back to the County. He suggested that the approval, would make projects easier for the developers. He encouraged a yes vote to keep tax money in the City and promote the City as managing resources in a good manner. Jim Lacey, Mayor Pro Tern of Dana Point, and representative of the Save Proposition 13 Committee, indicated that as a founding member of the Howard Jarvis Tax Group he had long experience with Proposition 13. He advised that his organization was active in the opposition to the MSHCP. He presented a list of 884 homeowners who were opposed to this measure. He indicated that if the proposal was approved, project planning would be delayed and environmental specialist would be hit by the bureaucracy. He noted that the California Coastal Commission had not lived up to their promises; and indicated that as a Councilman in a coastal city, he knows that the Coastal Commission calls the shots. He suggested that adoption of the MSHCP would create another Coastal Commission to call the shots for the City. He addressed Measure A and indicated that they supported the Measure, because it was to help with infrastructure. He suggested that linking transportation to habitat was morally, voter fraud. He stressed that the City's arm was being twisted in an unfair way, as the plan was not well thought out and not properly funded. - Ed Roohan, President of Castle & Cooke, indicated that he was present to share brief views on the MSHCP. He indicated that the plan was hard work, put forth by good people, with great intentions, and while the concept is perfect, the application is too much and ill funded. He addressed the acreage involved and suggested that it was a massive environmentalist dream. He indicated that the proposed acreage could create an 8 lane highway from Los Angeles to New York, eight times. He commented that the County came up with the plan, but the resource agencies were the drivers, and the land owners did not have a chance to vote. He suggested that the plan would destroy land values, and he indicated that the voters were owed the chance to at least have good science say that it was well - Page Sixty-One - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 funded. He urged the Council to oppose the land due to too much money, too much land and too much government. Michelle Staples, representing the Riverside County Farm Bureau, indicated that the Bureau had negotiated a workable framework and would like to support the MSHCP; however in its present form, as submitted, they could not do so. She advised that the MSHCP increases exposure of farmers and ranchers to the illegal take of endangered species, and does not provide a workable framework for agricultural land owners. She stressed the heavy burdens in fees, studies and permitting; and reiterated that they did not support the MSHCP because it would add to the regulatory burden. She indicated that they were working with the County to try to amend the plan for a workable solution and streamline the regulatory process. She requested that the Council not approve the plan. Ron Hewison, 35 Villa Valtelena stated that there was no dog in this fight. He indicated that he chose to move to Lake Elsinore instead of Temecula. He commented that it was interesting that Castle & Cooke would not commit to the Mayor in writing with regard to the corridor, but would ask that the County add words to gain their support. He suggested that generally the comments against the plan were subjective, and noted that Senator Hollingsworth did not say no. He indicated that Lake Elsinore was late in joining the process and should make the move and get in. He concurred that the action was taking a gamble, but suggested there was too much speculation. He agreed that the plan was not perfect, but recommended that the City move forward and try to negotiate. Norm Gritton concurred with Ed Sauls, Ed Fitzpatrick and Scott Woodward on their comments. He concurred that this was not a perfect plan, but at this point it was all that was available, even though the options were not good on either side. He suggested that with the money spent by the County, it would be very expensive for the City to create its own plan; and suggested that anyone City could not fund creation of a better plan. He indicated that the problem with the environmental issues was that it was not getting any better and there would probably be more problems at the City level than at the County level. He suggested that joining the program was the best action for the City Council. Kathleen Hamilton, 42626 De Luz, indicated that joining the MSHCP, would give the City a chance to grow and create a lasting legacy for the future. Barry Jones, representing Helix Environmental, indicated that his firm was involved in 50 projects in Riverside County, and would benefit by the plan not Page Sixty-Two - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - being approved. He indicated that it would create more work for him, and while it was not a perfect plan it would be better for conservation. He indicated that as a landowner he sees it as a mechanism that is more user friendly to work with the County. He urged the Council to approve the plan. Eric Lunde noted that the reoccurring theme with this plan, was that there would be more requirements and administration, but the regulations today are already burdensome enough. He indicated that while the plan was far from perfect, it was superior to the current regulations. He noted that he was in escrow on a piece of property at the end of Main Street; and indicated that under the plan he could develop 750 units vs. no units without the plan. He suggested adoption of the plan, with conditions and if the doomsayers were correct, the City could opt out. He commented that it would be easier to opt out in the future than it would be to join in the future. He suggested that the agencies would take revenge and the bureaucracy would kill growth. He indicated that if the plan did not go through, he would probably not close on the property. He suggested that the plan was more of a win-win situation. He expressed hopes that the plan would be adopted. Ruth Atkins, 15237 Lake Trail Circle, commented on the Los Angeles County community of "Dairyland", which was originally dairy farms, but is now concrete with no greenbelts. She expressed hopes that the Council would support the MSHCP for future generations of the City. - Councilman Schiffner indicated that he had been involved in the program for about five years and had listened to hours and days of conversation from many people. He further indicated that he had read reams of documents, but he still did not know the answer to the problem. He commented that he had spoken with people on both sides of the argument, and good arguments had been presented tonight as well. He indicated that he could not disagree with anyone, but it was a very difficult decision and it was not possible to please both sides. He suggested that he would only be able, to the best of his ability, determine what he felt was in the best interest of the City of Lake Elsinore, and assumed that the rest of the Council would do the same. Councilman Hickman addressed Mr. Sauls and Mr. Lashbrook. He asked Mr. Sauls about his study of 15 builders and questioned the number of acres involved. Mr. Sauls indicated that it included 2700 acres to conservation, about 700 acres of voluntary participation. Councilman Hickman questioned the 3,836 acres of open space. Mr. Sauls indicated that included the properties within the sphere of influence, including some at the Lake Street off-ramp. Councilman Hickman - Page Sixty-Three - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 asked Mr. Lashbrook how much acreage they wanted. Mr. Lashbrook indicated that was difficult to answer, but they would not need the high end of the possible range. He noted references to 7,800 acres, which it would not be; and suggested it might be possible to meet at 6,000 acres. He indicated that less than that would depend on the issues being discussed, configuration of the properties and the biological arguments. He was confident that 6,000 would meet the obligation, but noted that analysis was underway to look at a little more than 4,000 acres, which might meet it. He said his best estimate at this time was 6,000 acres or less. Councilman Hickman questioned the acreage for open space. Mr. Sauls indicated that it was his understanding that his property would be exempt from the multi species plan, and they would not pay fees, as they had already been assessed. He noted that in the back basin there had been an agreement to contribute over 700 acres. He noted that the yellow areas in the study were the only ones that were still unresolved. Councilman Hickman addressed Mr. Lashbrook, and indicated that 7,870 acres was 47% of the existing vacant land; and stressed the impact that would have on the City's finances and growth. He suggested that anything over 6,000 was a problem, and stressed the issues it would create for the City. Mr. Lashbrook expressed recognition of the concerns and stressed it would not be the maximum numbers discussed. He indicated that Mr. Saul's numbers seemed to be in the range and he was sure it would be 6,000 acres or less. Councilman Hickman inquired how long it would take to buy the land. Mr. Sauls indicated that the total acquisition was just short of $23 million, and almost all of it was purchased or nearly funded. Councilman Hickman indicated that his only concern was that it was nearly in place. Mayor Pro Tern Kelley indicated that she was glad to have so many people say they felt for the Council on this decision. She stressed the difficulty of the decision, as the most difficult in the last eight years. She indicated that the difficulty was due to the fact that the program was in conflict with her personal beliefs. She suggested that as a society, human beings had gone crazy to save the species, over humans. She noted the impact of mitigation on fires and flooding. She stressed that the land designated would not be a greenbelt, but rather scrub, which can not be maintained. She noted the situation of a school being postponed because of a butterfly, when the schools are already full. She concurred with Senator Hollingsworth, and indicated that this plan was overboard and goes much further than is necessary. She noted the amount of information provided and indicated that it all depends on one's perspective. She indicated that she had heard from landowners who said they would loose their land, while other people Page Sixty- Four - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - have said the opposite. She noted that people at this meeting had said to make it work, and while she wished she could make it work, she had tried for almost four years. She concurred that there was a lot of arm twisting in this process, and expressed concern that it involved too much land, money and government. She stressed that it would create a costly bureaucracy and take 47% of the remaining developable land. She indicated that lots of property owners would be impacted. She stressed that while she would concur that greenbelts were needed, but this would not accomplish that as it would be scrub. She noted that the common thought is that no one likes the plan on either side; and questioned why it had not changed if no one liked it. She expressed disappointment that a better arrangement could not be found. She indicated that the concept was great, but it was creating another layer of government, taking dollars and increasing the price of homes. She stressed that the builder fees would be passed on to the homeowners, and there was already some difficulty affording homes in Lake Elsinore. She indicated that the plan was not being spread equally and Lake Elsinore was being impacted more than anyone. She stressed that there were still unknowns with regard to numbers and future costs. She commented that she had many concerns with the plan including the weighted vote, the costs to administer the plan, the amount of land involved the loss of revenue, the potential for litigation and the burdensome process. She stressed that she could not support the plan. - Councilman Magee questioned when "bugs and bunnies" became so important and shared the disappointment and frustration of many people. He concurred that this plan had made the species more important than the school children, noting that kids would be in temporary facilities because of the Endangered Species Act and a butterfly. He indicated that he was asked to state a position on this matter last September at a forum; and commented that it was a good idea, but too costly and requiring too much of the City. He noted that the situation was still the same. He addressed Mr. Lashbrook regarding his very pointed letter last week, and commended him on answering and addressing his concerns. He indicated that the possibility of an acreage reduction from 7,800 to 6,000 was a step in the right direction, and concurred that there was a need to indemnify the City against litigation. He addressed the acreage under negotiation, and expressed hope for a determination that 6,000 was the mark for the City for the next 75 years. He addressed Mr. Bigelow and noted that it was important to negotiate, while there was still some leverage; and the County would take that away if the plan was not passed tonight. He indicated that he had his arm twisted in his home, office and in the car on the cell phone; and noted that he had never had so many threats of lawsuits. He commented that information received today from Supervisor - Page Sixty-Five - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 Ashley's representative helped him greatly, and clarified that when the HANS process was complete and an agreement reached on the acreage to be acquired, the permit process could be done by the City and a grading permit issued. He indicated this was the most important information, if it would allow work to move forward. He advised that for him to take the step to approve the plan, he would want the County to continue to work with the Sauls Report, and include other people, such as Castle & Cooke; and maintain the ability for the corridor to Orange County to got through Lake Street or Nichols Road. He further advised that if the County proceeds to acquire property, he would need the assurance that the City is not slitting its own throat and hurting the ability to maintain the corridor. He indicated that he could not agree to adopt the plan to sell that property and have it not be touched. He further indicated that he would want County staff, at no cost to Lake Elsinore, to use the people to draft and fund the conclusion that we have reached the threshold at or before 6,000 acres. He commented that he would also love to hear from Fish and Game that they would be a good partner and act in good faith. He indicated that he would need assurance they would be there to assist. He noted that he was still uncomfortable with where the City would be legally if the plan was adopted. He indicated that he would need the County and RSA to indemnify against all legal actions, if the MSHCP is approved. Supervisor Buster noted that there had been a number of cooperative projects between the City and the County. He indicated that while the plan was complex, the basis was simple, and the cooperative approach had the most strength and flexibility. He stressed the onerous requirements of the regulatory agencies, and reiterated the need for a collaborative approach. He noted the options accomplished to date, and indicated that the school would be able to proceed with approval of the plan. He commented that the City should not join the plan because the other cities have, but because it is right for the City of Lake Elsinore. He stressed the desire to work with the City to address the complexities of the issues. He indicated that the City would be a partner at the table, with extra voting power. Supervisor Ashley concurred with Supervisor Buster, and indicated that the solutions by Mr. Sauls were on the right track. He indicated that the statements and requests were reasonable with the right approach; and it should not allow a future corridor to be locked up. He indicated that he would support the considerations as outlined and he felt Supervisor Tavaglione would support them as well. Page Sixty-Six - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - Jeff Drongesen, representing the California Department of Fish and Game, thanked the Council for their question and indicated that they were here to stay and had support at high levels. He noted that he had been on both sides of the table and had participated in the planning process. He indicated that he was still involved in the plan and was present to show support for successful implementation. Councilman Magee questioned their commitment to the plan. Mr. Drongensen confirmed their commitment and noted that they had obtained a grant for this area specifically to assist with the plan. Councilman Magee inquired if 6,000 acres would satisfy them. Mr. Drongensen indicated that the numbers were flexible. Councilman Magee indicated that he would like to hear about the staffing for continued negotiations and a report making the finding that the requirement has been met. Mr. Lashbrook indicated that was always a discussion by the Supervisors, so he believed there was support on the Board to do so. He indicated that he did not see a problem in working with the projects for a cooperative venture between the City and County staff and the property owner groups. He advised that all of that information would go to the findings; and explained that the goal was to draft the findings, narrow them down and justify the acres that would be required and layout the lines. Councilman Magee questioned the indemnification on the General Plan. Mr. Lashbrook indicated that they would indemnify all jurisdictions on issues relating to adoption of the MSHCP; however he clarified for full disclosure, that if the General Plan was amended, causing litigation, it would not be addressed. He explained that the Board had said they would deal with cities in terms of providing litigation support. Councilman Magee questioned their willingness to work with other members of the development community. Mr. Lashbrook noted the discussion this evening and indicated that there was a desire to work with Castle and Cooke, noting that it would take two to negotiate. He indicated that with regard to the corridor, the held important land for potential roads, and that land would not be included in the reserve system. He assured Council they would work to resolve the issue. - Mayor Buckley addressed the indemnification in Section 23 and suggested verbiage to show that RCHCA would indemnify the cities, which was the intent. Mr. Lashbrook indicated that the JPA document was a function of the authority, and while he had no person problem with the change, he would have to pass it on to the lawyers, and it would be a decision by the JP A. Mayor Buckley addressed the issue of weighted voting, and indicated that he would still maintain that it was a positive for the City, but noted an issues which had arisen on the matter. Page Sixty-Seven - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 Rick Bishop, representing WRCOG, addressed the weighted vote, and indicated that it would only be called for by a member of the board, to make sure that the vote is confirmed by both sides. He indicated that with regard to a veto of the weighted vote, both the Board and the cities would have to confirm the simple majority votes, so it would work both ways. Mayor Buckley addressed the map and concurred with Mr. Magee, that if it was just about "bugs and bunnies" he would agree. He indicated that it was more about including roads, such as the Trabuco Canyon alignment, at one of two locations. He commented that it was very possible that if the City did not participate in the MSHCP, that it would not have the possibility of that road. He indicated that he knew a lot of people who would be happy to have a quicker route to Orange County; and business owners who would love the jobs from Orange County to come to Riverside. He indicated that passing the MSHCP would not guarantee the road, but failure to do so would guarantee that it would not happen. He noted that with regard to property values, homes were scarcer, so existing home values would go up; and suggested that the MSHCP would increase the value of existing homes and encourage new homes to be of higher property values. He indicated that he heard a number of concerns about the plan, such as building a pool or deck requiring a new permit process, and a huge billion dollar bureaucracy; and stressed that someone from the Council would be sitting on the Board to decide what, when and where to buy property. He commented that the City did not have that power now with the State and Federal agencies. Mayor Buckley requested consideration of Resolution No. 2004-10. Mayor Pro Tern Kelley questioned the resolution and if it would include the proposed changes. City Attorney Leibold clarified the required actions, noting that there were five actions, four tonight and the fifth being the hearing on the ordinance. She indicated that the first resolution related to the CEQA findings. Councilman Schiffner requested that the votes on this matter be done by roll call vote. MOVED BY HICKMAN, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-10: RESOLUTION NO. 2004-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, MAKING RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINDINGS PURSUANT Page Sixty-Eight - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FO THE MUL TIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANINATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN AND APPROVING THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABIT A T CONSERVATION PLANINATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT OT THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER, BUCKLEY NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE - ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE City Attorney Leibold indicated that there was no need for discussion of the modifications to the implementing agreement. MOVED BY HICKMAN, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY TO APPROVE THE IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT FOR THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MUL TIPLE SPECIES HABIT AT CONSERVATION PLANINATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN. UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER, BUCKLEY NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE - Page Sixty-Nine - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 Mayor Buckley noted that there were a number of changes proposed for Resolution No. 2004-11. Councilman Magee suggested that the City Attorney read the changes into the record. City Attorney Leibold detailed the proposed changes as follow: Section II Findings and Purpose - Addition of a recital C - In light of the current habitat acquisition trends and habitat acquisition requirements within the boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore, the MSHCP poses a risk of excessive land removal from the City's tax base. The City therefore finds that suitable controls are necessary to buffer this risk while maintaining an incentive for early habitat acquisition and ensuring that Lake Elsinore doesn't bear a disproportionate burden and become a mitigation bank to support development throughout the region. Section III - Application of Regulations - Addition of Paragraph A to read: "Implementation of the MSHCP and approval of (1) this Resolution, (2) City Council Resolution 2004-10 makign responsible agency findings pursuant to CEQA, (3) the Implementing Agreement for the MSHCP, (4) the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement creating the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, and (5) an Ordinance establishing a Development Impact Fee in connection with the MSHCP (collectively, the "MSHCP Documents") is expressly conditioned upon approval by the City Council of each ofthe MSHCP Documents and where applicable, each and every party to the MSHCP Documents. Section IV - Exemptions, Paragraph C modified to read "Any project for which and to the extent that a vesting rights to proceed with the project notwithstanding the enactment of this Resolution exist under the common laws of the State of California, a vesting tentative map pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, a development agreement pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq., or other instrument, approved or executed by the City prior to adoption of this Resolution. Projects subject to this exemption must comply with all provisions of any applicable state and federal laws. Section IV - Exemptions - Addition of New Section E to read: Any action by the City of Lake Elsinore that is ministerial, not a project subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), or Page Seventy - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - otherwise exempt pursuant to the provisions of CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines. Section V (A. I ) Add "or a functionally similar Lake Elsinore Acquisition Negotiation Process ("LEAN"); or Add Section V (A.3) Several properties within the City of Lake Elsinore have undergone preliminary findings of consistency with the MSHCP. These properties include proposed development projects that are the current subject of ongoing negotiations with the MSHCP wildlife agencies with a few projects having been memorialized in a memorandum of understanding with the wildlife agencies. These projects include The Village, Alberhill, North Peak, Gritton, Simard, Clurman, Abusamra, Ramsgate, Greewald, Elsinore Lakeview Villas, Lakeview Estates, Tuscany Oaks, South Shore II, Colorado Pacific and Donlan. The current status of these projects concerning the MSHCP and preliminary findings of MSHCP consistency, is set forth in detail in Exhibit "A" to this Implementation Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. City Manager Watenpaugh questioned the list vs. the report. Mr. Sauls indicated that the sheet complimented the December 10, 2003 spiral bound report. - MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY MAGEE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-11, AS MODIFIED. RESOLUTION NO. 2004-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABIT AT CONSERVATION PLAN. UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER, BUCKLEY NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY - Page Seventy-One - City Council Minutes - January 13,2004 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Mayor Buckley indicated that the Joint Powers Agreement was already adopted by the WRCOG Board and a number of other cities with certain changes. He commented that he was the City representative to WRCOG, but when it came to the shift of authority, he would ask Councilman Schiffner to sit on the RCA Board, if he wished. Councilman Schiffner commented that the changes might not be accepted by others on the Board. Mayor Buckley inquired how to proceed. City Attorney Leibold indicated that it would be important to make it clear that the actions were a proviso, that would need to be approved by all members or the City was not willing execute the agreement and the approval would go away. Mayor Buckley moved to approve the Joint Powers Agreement, but questioned the "one city, one supervisor" issue. City Attorney Leibold noted the earlier discussion was a proposal under Section 7.c. for "one member one vote, with each regular member or alternate having one vote at meetings of the Board", and the deletion of other voting provisions. Mayor Buckley indicated that would probably be the only issue. Councilman Schiffner suggested that the City Attorney read all of the changes. City Attorney Leibold concurred that should be part of the record, so the only way to understand the action would be to read it. Mayor Buckley clarified that if it was not approved in its entirety, then the approval would not stick and that might result in future negotiations. He indicated that he would like to allow RCA to meet the first Monday in February and have the changes before the RCA Board. He indicated that it they failed to agree the other three documents would stand, but the agreement would come back. Councilman Schiffner indicated that he would not support the agreement under those conditions. City Attorney Leibold clarified that any rejections of the changes to the JP A would come back to Council for reconsideration, but all items would not need to be reconsidered. Mayor Buckley noted that the fee ordinance would be for the first meeting in February. Councilman Schiffner suggested reading the proposed changes. City Attorney Leibold noted that there was a request for a joint exercise of powers agreement, creating the authority, with changes to the quorum in voting. She indicated that there was a concern that the agreement as proposed would provide Page Seventy-Two - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - the County with veto power, so the Council would recommend a change to that end with the addition of a new paragraph D under Quorum and Voting: D. Once the lower range of estimated conservation of habitat on private lands is fulfilled within the City of Lake Elsinore (i.e., upon MSHCP acquisition of 4,830 acres of private land within the City of Lake Elsinore), habitat acquisition funds through the HANS process, imposition of the MSHCP Fee, or funding otherwise provided through the MSHCP or RCA, shall only be permitted for acreage acquisition in the City of Lake Elsinore if both of the following are fulfilled: 1) the proposed acquisition and/or funding is submitted to the Funding Coordination Committee for approval and the City of Lake Elsinore representative (or majority of representatives present) votes affirmatively to authorize RCA approval of the acquisition and/or funding, and; 2) the City of Lake Elsinore representative to the RCA votes affirmatively to approve the acquisition and/or funding. City Attorney Leibold further addressed Section 15 of the Agreement and suggested the addition of the following verbiage: - The Board shall not appoint more than two County representatives and shall not appoint committee members in a manner that dilutes any City representation to less than 1/17th of the total representation of the committee. And: Once 75% of the lower range of estimated habitat conservation has been achieved within the City of Lake Elsinore (3,623 acres), acquisition of private lands within the County and other participating jurisdictions shall be prioritized by the Funding Coordination Committee. City Attorney Leibold suggested that Section 19 regarding Contributions and Budget be amended to read: The Parties to this Agreement shall impose a development mitigation fee on all new development to support the acquisition of additional reserve lands pursuant to the MSHCP. All development mitigation fees collected - Page Seventy-Three - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 by the Parties shall be forwarded to the RCA within ninety (90) days after receipt by each Party, subject to any specific exception set forth in the ordinances implementing the development mitigation fees for the individual participating cities. The RCA may, in its discretion, conduct an audit of the development mitigation fees collected by any Party to this agreement. Likewise, participating cities may, in their discretion, conduct an audit of the development mitigation fees forwarded to the RCA and expended by the RCA for property acquisition. City Attorney Leibold suggested that Section 23 be amended to read: The RCA shall defend, indemnify and hold such Party free and harmless from any loss, liability or damage incurred or suffered by such Party by reason of litigation arising from or as a result of any of the following: the Party's development mitigation fee ordinance; the Party's participation in the RCA; actions taken to approve and/or implement the MSHCP; claims of inverse condemnation or unconstitutional takings against a Party; or any other act performed or to be performed by the Party pursuant to this Agreement, the MSHCP, its Implementing Agreement or the Permits; provided however, that such indemnification or agreement to hold harmless pursuant to this Section shall be recoverable only out of RCA assets and not from other Parties. For purposes of this Section 23, the phrase "actions taken to approve and/or implement the MSHCP include, without limitation; (a) a Party's execution of a resolution making responsible agency findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act in reliance on lead agency finding made by the County of Riverside; (b) Party actions or omissions of implementation of the MSHCP that result in litigation against the Party for violations of q California Planning and Zoning Law; and (c) Party withdrawal from implementation of the MSHCP in accordance with the terms of the Implementing Agreement (Section 22.0 et seq). For purposes of this Section 23, the phrase "actions taken to approve and/or implement the MSHCP include, without limitation: (a) a Party's execution of a resolution making responsible agency findings pursuant ot the California Environmental Quality Act in reliance on lead agency finding made by the County of Riverside; (b) Party actions or omissions of implementation of the MSHCP that result in litigation against the Party foroviolations of California Planning and Zoning Law; and (c) Party Page Seventy-Four - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 - withdrawal from implementation of the MSHCP in accordance with the terms of the Implementing Agreement. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY MAGEE TO APPROVE THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS DETAILED. UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER, BUCKLEY NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE City Attorney Leibold noted that the Council would need to schedule a noticed hearing on the fee Ordinance. - MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY TO PROCEED WITH NOTICING THE HEARING FOR THE FEE ORDINANCE. UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER, BUCKLEY NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS - 3 MINUTES No Comments. - Page Seventy-Five - City Council Minutes - January 13, 2004 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS No Comments. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS No Comments. COMMITTEE REPORTS No Reports. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS No Comments. ADJOURNMENT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11:58 P.M. A fEST: 0): no . J ~~ AD~MC, CITY CLERK! HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE