Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-2004 City Council MinutesMINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The Regular City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Buckley at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN, KELLEY, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER, BUCKLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: Assistant City Manager Best, City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services Director Pressey, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Fire Chief Gallegos, Lake & Aquatic Resources Director Kilroy, Police Chief Fetherolf, Engineering Manager Seumalo, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, Public Works Manager Payne, City 1Yeasurer Weber and City Clerk/Human Resources Director Kasad. CLOSED SESSION None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by E.V.M. W.D. Director Kristine Anderson. Page Two -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 INVOCATION -MOMENT OF SILENCE Mayor Buckley led the meeting in a moment of silent prayed remembering Fernando Hannah and his family. Presentation - Lea~;ue of California Cities -Mayor Pro Tem Kelley_(F:108.8) Mayor Pro Tem Kelley detailed the League of California Cities conference in Monterey, and noted the benefits of this Conference. She indicated that it was the best Conference there had been in Monterey and noted the surprise visit from Governor Schwarzenegger. She noted that these events were opportunities to network with other public officials and share ideas. She advised that the Annual League Conference was coming to Long Beach soon, and encouraged participation. She provided a PowerPoint presentation detailing the core beliefs of the League, the benefits of participation, the highlights of the Monterey Conference, the topics presented at the Conference and their relevance to Lake Elsinore, the purposes of Leadership and the Creed of a Public Servant. She stressed the new solutions and strategies presented and noted that the Conference included leaders from all over the State. She indicated that the keynote speaker was John Alston, author of "Stuff Happens and then you fix it". She noted the difficulty in attending all of the programs of interest with only one City participant, and commented that it would have been great to cover more of the topics presented. She encouraged the Council to attend the League Conference in September. CLOSED SESSION REPORT No Closed Session items. PUBLIC COMMENTS -NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS -1 MINUTE Philip Seis, 28963 Calle Del Lago, #A, provided a prayer for this meeting, seeking Page Three -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 wisdom and discernment for the Council and lifting up those fallen soldiers in Iraq and well as lead a prayer of blessings on the meeting. Prayed for opening up the city to blessings. Prayed for wisdom and discernment for the Council. Lift up those fallen in Iraq and those serving in Iraq. Barbara Cady, 32524 Wildomar Road, thanked everyone for their participation in the Music with a View series. She noted that there had been a great response; and Mark Dennis did wonderful things in the newspaper. She indicated that there were two more concerts, and noted that this week would be Jazz for a New Age, followed by Riverside Philharmonic the next week. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS - 3 MINUTES Requests were received to address the following items and deferred to those discussions: Item Nos. 31, 32, 37, 39. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED WITH THE CORRECTION AS NOTED AT 4:00 P.M. The following Minutes were approved: a. City Council Study Session -June 24, 2004. (F:44.4) The following Minutes were received and ordered filed: b. Planning Commission Minutes -July 20, 2004. (F:60.3) c. Planning Commission Minutes -August 3, 2004. 2. Ratified Warrant List for August 16, 2004. (F:12.3) Page Four -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 3. Accepted the Notice of Completion for the McVicker Canyon Park Landscape Project. (F:114.12) 4. Approved Contract for Traffic Striping and Markings. (F:156.1) PUBLIC HEARINGS None. BUSINESS ITEMS 38. Animal Shelter JPA. (F:18.4) Assistant City Manager Best highlighted the proposed Joint Powers Agreement with the Animal Friends, noting that it had been under discussion for quite some time. She indicated that at this time the commitment did not include a fiscal responsibility for participation, but it might at some time in the future with the construction of the facility. She noted that staff and the representatives of Animal Friends were present to answer questions. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley reiterated that she had asked Animal Friends to keep the Council posted on the cost of the Animal Shelter, noting that she was very concerned about that cost. MOVED BY MAGEE, SECONDED BY HICKMAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONCEPTUAL FORMATION OF A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A SOUTHWEST COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER. 31. Second Reading; -Ordinance No. 1126 -East Lake Specific Plan Amendment No. 6. (F:150.2) Assistant City Manager Best noted that this item was a second reading Page Five -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 regarding the John Laing Homes project. She noted that the public hearing was held on July 27~' and the second reading of the Ordinance was attempted at the last meeting, but a number of issues were raised and it was deferred. Carmella Loelkes, commented that she sounded like a broken record, but was in attendance to request approval of the second reading. She noted that there had been recent articles in the paper and discussions about the project, and expressed hopes that the concerns had been resolved and the Council would be able to act on it tonight. James Stroffe yielded his time to Mr. Filler. Michael Filler, John Laing Homes, 31900 Mission Trail, commented that pursuant to the last second reading, he had his consultants available to answer any questions. He indicated that he was surprised, after going through the CEQA documents and meeting with all the agencies, that the two letters were presented from County Transportation and County Flood Control. He noted that they had been working with the Flood Control District for a HEC 5 analysis. He indicated that he was looking forward to their letter to respond to their comments. He commented that last week one of his consultants tried to contact Supervisor Buster's office to discuss concerns, but never received a-mail or phone call back. He offered to answer questions. Wendy Kolk yielded her time to Dave Stahovich. Dave Stahovich, representing the County and Supervisor Buster, indicated that he had Faxed materials earlier this afternoon, but communications had been underway as late as about 3 p.m. today. He read the following letter into the record: Page Six -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 Dear Mr. Watenpaugh: In addition to representing the 1 S` District, I am here at the request of the entire Riverside County Board of Supervisors who took this matter under consideration this morning in their Closed Session meeting. The Board has asked me to convey that they are extremely concerned about this matter I am attaching additional comments from George Johnson, County Transportation Director; and Dusty Williams, General Manager/Chief Engineer of the Flood Control District. As you will note, the Transportation issues have not been addressed. Additionally, in regards to the CEQA issues raised by the Flood Control District, as the result of a conference call that took place yesterday afternoon at 1: 00 p. m. between Councilman Magee, City staff and Mr. Williams, a copy of the EIR was sent via courier to Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Obviously, the District was unable to fully evaluate the document within the few hours allotted. For these reasons, the County respectfully request that the City continue this matter off calendar until such time as we can insure that these critical matters have been fully addressed. To move forward with this project prior to that time would leave the County few alternatives. In the unfortunate event that the City decides to move forward with this project despite the issues raised, in addition to the attached County Transportation Department and Flood Control District comments, the County hereby advises the City of each of the following: The City failed to adequately respond to the County's and/or the District's comments as required by CEQA guidelines Section 15088. 2. The County's and/or the District's comments contain sign cant Page Seven -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 new information because they establish that traffic and/or drainage impacts would not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Accordingly, the City should have revised the Draft EIR as a result of the County's and/or the District's comments and recirculated it as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. 3. The City violated Public Resources Code Section 21092.5 by failing to provide the County and/or District with a written response to its comments at least 10 days before the cert~ing of the EIR. 4. The City Failed to adequately assess traffic and drainage impacts and has failed to mitigate those impacts to a level of insignificance as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15092. S. The City erroneously relies on mitigation measures conditioned upon Tentative Tract Map #31920 (approved July 27, 2004). Neither the impacts nor mitigation measures associated with TTM #31920 were addressed in the EIR. 6. The City improperly deferred traff c and drainage mitigation measures in violation of GENTRY V. CITYOFMURRIETA and SUNDSTROMV. COUNTYOFMENDOCINO. The City failed to adopt feasible traffic and drainage mitigation measures as required by CEQA guidelines Sections 150932. 8. Because traff c and drainage impacts are not mitigated to a level of insignificance, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these impacts as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. 9. The City's proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program required Page Eight -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 by CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 is inadequate. 10. The EIR did not consider a range of reasonable alternatives as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. 11. The City failed to consider the cumulative and growth inducing impacts of the project as required by CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130 and 15126.2. Sincerely, DAVID P. STAHOVICH SENIOR LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO SUPERVISOR BOB BUSTER He also noted the memo from Dusty Williams, at Riverside County Flood Control, dated today, and indicated that it would take about two weeks to fully address the adequacy of the responses. He further noted the memo from the Transportation Director addressing a letter from the City dated August 19th, stating that the issues were worked out. He commented that the letter was forwarded to both agencies and indicated that the comments were unrelated to the project. Mayor Buckley addressed the eleven issues in the letter and requested input from staff. Assistant City Manager Best called Community Development Director Brady, Engineering Manager Seumalo and Associate Planner Morita for response, noting that City staff had been working on the project for a number of years. She advised that staff had been addressing a number of letters over the last couple of weeks since the last City Council meeting, but noted that this particular document was received only about an hour ago. Community Development Director Brady confirmed that he just received this letter a little after 5:00 p.m. today. He indicated that there were some inconsistencies and errors in what was presented, some of which he could respond to at this time. Assistant City Manager Best questioned the status Page Nine -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 of the discussions prior to this letter. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the County did present issues to the City regarding the project at the last meeting, and since that time staff prepared a response; copies of which were provided to the Council. He noted that he believed that all of the issues raised at that time had been adequately addressed. He commented that while he would be happy to respond to those questions, the Council had received copies of the memo. Mayor Buckley questioned responses to items 1 through 11 as presented in the letter this evening. Community Development Director Brady indicated that he could not answer all of the items at this time, but could after he had time to adequately review them. He suggested that the City Attorney might be prepared to comment on them. He commented that generally he did not agree with the comments as presented. City Attorney Leibold indicated that some of the comments in the letter were conclusionary statements that City staff had failed to respond. She disagreed with this stance and noted the technical studies, responses, Mitigation Monitoring Program were certified and approved on July 27th. She indicated that the comments were presented "post certification", and she would disagree with concern no. 1. Councilman Hickman commented that the County was asking for two more weeks, and suggested that this would give staff time to review the concerns. Councilman Magee clarified that the request was to continue the item indefinitely, or off=calendar. Councilman Schiffner indicated that he would like to have as much explanation as possible this evening. Mayor Buckley requested succinct responses to the items presented. City Attorney Leibold inquired if there was a copy of the final Mitigation Monitoring Program in house. Assistant City Manager Best provided a copy. City Attorney Leibold indicated that she believed the EIR concluded that the traffic impacts and drainage impacts were mitigated to a level of insignificance. She indicated that information attached to the Page Ten -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 letter suggested levels of service at intersections, absent the mitigation measures proposed, however with the mitigation measures and installation of improvements, there were no significant impacts that could not be mitigated, so item no. 2 was incorrect. City Attorney Leibold addressed item no. 3, and indicated that she did not believe there was a violation of the Public Resources Code, as all responsible agencies were included in the process and they all received a notice of preparation, a notice of availability, a draft EIR, etc. She indicated that staff had the printout of the UPS delivery for each recipient. She suggested that there might have been a mishap at their end, but the City had no procedural defect. Community Development Director Brady noted the document showing the date and time the draft EIR was delivered to each Agency. City Attorney Leibold indicated that the EIR the Council certified disagrees with item no. 4. City Attorney Leibold indicated that she believed that the Mitigation Monitoring Program includes mitigation measures compatible with the tract map and related to the tract map in response to item no. 5. Community Development Director Brady noted that the traffic study was part of the EIR. City Attorney Leibold advised that she did not believe that the City improperly deferred mitigation measures, in response to item no. 6. City Attorney Leibold commented that the City had adopted feasible and appropriate measures; and did not believe the City had failed in that regard, as suggested in item no. 7. City Attorney Leibold commented that the Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted, although she did not recall if the drainage and traffic were included. Mayor Buckley mentioned that it did mention Page Eleven -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 traffic. City Attorney Leibold indicated that if they were not mitigated, they were included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, as questioned in item no. 8. City Attorney Leibold responded to item no. 9, noting that the Mitigation Monitoring Program was included with the EIR and she felt it complied with CEQA and was adequate. City Attorney Leibold addressed item no. 10, and indicated that the EIR did consider a range of alternatives, so it was the City position to disagree with item no. 10. City Attorney Leibold responded to item no. 11, indicated that it did address the impacts under the CEQA guidelines. City Attorney Leibold stressed that she had limited opportunity to review the items as presented, so there might be additional comments from the experts who conducted the studies. Community Development Director Brady addressed item nos. 10 and 11, and noted that the document related to this item was a supplemental EIR, and under CEQA some items are not required or applicable. City Attorney Leibold concurred. Councilman Magee questioned the level of communication late this afternoon, and inquired if there were documents after 2:30 this afternoon. Engineering Manager Seumalo indicated that he was in communication with the Transportation Director regarding the Specific Plan conditions, and they were Faxed to show the requirements, with the last documents being sent about 2:30 or 3:00 p.m. Councilman Magee indicated that he had confirmed that the information was in their hands this afternoon, and reiterated that the letter was received at 6:35 p.m. and it said they had not seen any conditions of approval. He suggested that based on the information presented the letter was moot at this point. Page Twelve -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 Mayor Buckley requested input from Mr. Stahovich. Mr. Stahovich indicated that there had been contact on August 10`h and August 17th, and had not heard from the City. He further indicated that they got a letter dated August 19th, from the City Manager, saying that there were no concerns. He indicated that letter was sent about 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, and no one was in on Friday, so he talked to staff on Monday. He noted that he talked to Councilman Magee on Monday, and clarified that there were two separate issues, being engineering issues and CEQA issues. He stressed that the CEQA issues were still outstanding, and as of yesterday copies of the draft EIR and final EIR were couriered over. He commented that Flood Control was separate from the County, and they had not received the materials. He advised that the Board's action was this morning about 11 or 11:30 a.m.; and the letter from Transportation, although the issue of conditions of approval was moot, the rest of the letter stood. He indicated that there was a specific concern that the EIR called for off-site mitigation, but the off-site mitigation was through TUMF and City generated fees, and the TUMF does not mitigate project level impacts. He commented that some of the issues have been addressed, but a lot of the issues are intertwining. He stressed that he had tried to have open communications since August 10th. He noted that the City Manager was on vacation this week, so it was not possible to meet this week either. City Attorney Leibold reiterated that there was verification that the notice of preparation and the EIR were delivered to the Flood Control District, as well as the County. She noted that the final report had a letter from Transportation, and the responses were incorporated into the EIR. Councilman Hickman questioned what Mr. Stahovich wanted the Council to do. Mr. Stahovich indicated that Flood Control wanted two weeks, but the County would like the matter off calendar. He indicated that he was not sure how long it would take to resolve the issues. He advised that he was available to meet with staff and get the discussions done as quickly as possible and two weeks should be sufficient. Page Thirteen -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 Councilman Magee noted that he was concerned that the applicant said they reached out to the Supervisor's office and received no communication in response. Mr. Stahovich indicated that Steve Sheldon called and said he was representing Laing Homes; and suggested giving him a call if there were any questions. Councilman Magee inquired if there were any other contacts. Mr. Stahovich indicated that he was not aware of any other contacts. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley indicated that since she had missed the last meeting, she had been reading the letters back and forth and keeping current with staff. She noted that she understood that the County was satisfied at one point. Assistant City Manager Best indicated that when staff spoke with Flood Control yesterday, they appeared to be satisfied. She indicated that staff had couriered a copy of the EIR over to Flood Control as well. Community Development Director Brady clarified that staff did have contact with the County staff on August 12th, only two days after the last meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley inquired who staff was in contact with. Community Development Director Brady indicated that it was with John Perez, regarding the meeting and a discussion on Bundy Canyon Road. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley questioned the outcome of that contact. Community Development Director Brady indicated that they set up a meeting for September 8th. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley questioned Mr. Filler regarding his contact with the County. Mr. Filler indicated that it started in middle of June or July, 2003, with the notice of preparation. He further indicated that they received a letter from Flood Control and were assisting staff with responses, as needed, on the letters from the last meeting. He noted that they also met during the MSHCP and received a letter of compliance from the County. He advised that they had also submitted HEGS analysis and were working with staff to review the document and get a response, which was recently received. Mayor Buckley questioned the notice of preparation delivery verification. Community Development Director Brady confirmed that it went out by certified mail. Mayor Buckley inquired if the same was true for the EIR. Page Fourteen -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 Community Development Director Brady indicated that it was sent by UPS. Councilman Schiffner commented that a project such as this would be different from the one proposed several years ago. He noted that the project previously went beyond this point in the approval process, so the County was a little late on this objection. He commented that this was a difference of opinion, but questioned if the concerns today were actually issues to be mitigated at this time. He inquired if there would be another chance to address them in the approval process. He noted that there were still final tract maps to be approved. Community Development Director Brady indicated that with regard to the flood control issues, they would be handled prior to the final map. He further indicated that the transportation would be addressed as the project was being developed, with the traffic signals installed based on the number of units completed. He commented that a variety of items would be addressed, as the project moved through the process. Councilman Schiffner inquired if there were any issues for which this would be the last chance to review. Community Development Director Brady indicated that there would still be opportunities for discussion and staff would be working with the applicant and the other agencies to get the approvals as well. Councilman Schiffner indicated that it was very possible that the objection at this meeting was a question of bad timing. Community Development Director Brady indicated that some of the questions will and have been addressed in the EIR and the conditions of approval. He noted a comment in the letter from Mr: Johnson regarding intersections, and indicated that the statement was correct, but the tables do not include the improvements for the project. He noted that the General Plan showed the levels as acceptable. Councilman Hickman inquired if the project were approved by the City, whether the County could stop it. City Attorney Leibold indicated that the County or any party could file a CEQA challenge as threatened in the letter. Councilman Hickman questioned the request for a two week continuance. City Attorney Leibold indicated that the difficulty was that the EIR had been certified and the letters presented post date the comment period and Page Fifteen -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 certification. She advised that it was the Council's discretion if they wanted to continue the matter. She indicated that she was not sure that the response was adequate for the CEQA issues. Councilman Hickman questioned the lawsuit. Councilman Magee indicated that this was a serious question, and the letter indicated that if the City moved forward before the issues were addressed, it would leave the County a few alternatives. He questioned the alternatives mentioned, noting that the matter could either be continued or move forward. Mr. Stahovich indicated that he could not disclose the discussion in Closed Session, but noted the possible topics. Councilman Magee noted that either way there was the potential that they would move forward on a CEQA challenge. Mr. Stahovich indicated that they were willing to work with the City, but the problem was that when the comments were sent, they were never received. He noted that had been the problem all along, and stressed that there were a number of one-way correspondences. He indicated that they tried to get through the EIR today and they noted that some comments were included, but they were requesting a couple of weeks to determine if there were responses and if they were adequate. He noted that he heard and saw in memos that some of the issues might be able to be worked out. He indicated that the clock was running and there was not a lot of opportunity to be sure the matters were adequately addressed. He commented that the transportation issues and a lot of the mitigation measures had been deferred. He noted that he did not know what was in the developer agreement, but the bottom line was that if the roads and drainage were worked out he did not want the County or the City left holding the bag for improvements. Councilman Magee inquired if the project moved forward, whether the County would continue to process the information separate from the potential litigation. Mr. Stahovich indicated that he was not sure how the Board would proceed. Councilman Magee questioned past practice. Mr. Stahovich indicated that their past practice was to avoid litigation at all costs. Councilman Magee indicated that he trusted that staff would process the project appropriately, but it was unfortunate that the information was received at 6:35 p.m. He noted that he Page Sixteen -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 was hearing from Legal Counsel and City staff that the project was o.k.., and from Mr. Stahovich that he thought we could get there, and they wanted to avoid litigation at all costs. He expressed hopes that either way, the County would take a serious look at the project. Assistant City Manager Best questioned Mr. Stahovich, in that this was an amendment to the existing specific plan; would they approve of the existing specific plan with the higher intensity use as it was presently on the books. Mr. Stahovich indicated that a lot had been learned in the past ten years, but the Statute of Limitations had run out on the original approval. He noted that every environmental process reopened the gate again. He expressed concern that everyone would continue to learn and apply the appropriate standards. Councilman Hickman inquired if Mr. Stahovich was specifically asking for only two more weeks. Mr. Stahovich confirmed. MOVED BY HICKMAN, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM FOR TWO WEEKS. Councilman Magee inquired if this motion was successful, how would the same exercise be prevented at the next meeting. Councilman Hickman indicated that he did not appreciate communications coming in at 6 p.m. Councilman Magee noted that the same thing happened at the last meeting. Councilman Schiffner indicated that approval would not stop the County's efforts or the process. He reiterated that the things being questioned would come up for approval at a later date, so there was no reason to put it off. He stressed that the project had been going on for over teri years, and now the County believed the plan that was greatly reduced, was not as good as the old one. He indicated that he was in favor of moving ahead and letting the process continue. He stressed that they would not build anything that was not in compliance. Councilman Hickman indicated that he saw two distinct groups, and conciliatory action was required. He suggested giving the County two Page Seventeen -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 more weeks and that would be it; but stressed that the City would need the County some time down the road. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley indicated that after reading the letter that was just delivered, she would note that this was years into this project, the first reading had already been done and the County decided to jump in at the eleventh hour. She commented that there had been a lot of discussion and what she was hearing was not what she had been told this week by staff. She indicated that she trusts City staff, as they have not failed her this far regarding conversations with the County. She asked City Attorney Leibold at the 11 items mentioned by Mr. Stahovich. City Attorney Leibold indicated that there was a real live, present threat of litigation regarding an item scheduled for discussion, so the Council could go to Closed Session for further clarification. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley requested a Closed Session discussion. THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 8:07 P.M. THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:29 P.M. City Attorney Leibold reported that the Council met in Closed Session regarding threatened litigation, with no reportable action. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley thanked the City Attorney for clarifying the relevant issues, and after that review she found that the County could file a lawsuit if they chose to, as they still had the prerogative under CEQA. She expressed concern with the County stepping in at the 11`~ hour and asking that the item be pulled. Mayor Buckley called for the question to continue this item to the next meeting. THE FOREGOING MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE TO 2 TO 3 WITH Page Eighteen -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 COUNCILMEMBER KELLEY, MAGEE AND SCHIFFNER CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTES. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1126, UPON SECOND READING BY TITLE ONLY: ORDINANCE NO. 1126 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE EAST LEAK SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT N0.6. UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN, KELLEY, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE 32. Second Reading; -Ordinance No. 1127 -Development Agreement Amendment -Laing Homes. (F:150.2) Assistant City Manager Best explained that this item goes with the previously approved specific plan. She indicated that if there were comments or concerns, staff could answer questions. Carmella Loelkes expressed support. Edith Stafford, 29700 Hursh, indicated that she was disappointed in this Council over a project like this. She stressed the existence of a Priolo zone Page Nineteen -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 and earthquake faults and suggested that no one seemed to care. She indicated that there was the potential for 100 and 500 year floods, and the Council only seemed to care about the money. She suggested that was what this project was all about, was money. She indicated that she had some questions. She commented that she wondered if all of the signatures were included for the permits, suggesting that FEMA, Fish & Wildlife and Fish & Game should all have input into the project because they were part of the origina1404 permit. She suggested that if they were left out, the City could probably look there for lawsuits as well. She questioned why the City was creating lawsuits, since the taxpayers would have to foot the bill. She indicated that someone had to do something about it and it appeared the citizens would have to do so. She stressed that representatives were elected to look out for the taxpayers money; and indicated that she did not agree that this project was in the best interest of the public. She questioned the rush to approve it and suggested that it made the project suspicious. She inquired why it could not wait two more weeks. She noted that the County sent letters over a year ago and got no response, and the County only received their EIR this morning. She questioned the sense of fair play, and noted that she did not like unfair play and would fight against it. She indicated that she would treat this item the same as anything that was not right, and suggested that there was an ulterior reason for this action. She suggested that the taxpayers would be spending money for lawsuits and the lawyers would be the ones to benefit, including the City Attorney. Mayor Buckley indicated that there was the same County argument from the last discussion. He noted that there was a memo on this item from the City Attorney today. He commented that he was sure it was all well and good, but everyone should be held to the same standard; and the Council should not be provided the information at the last minute. He indicated that this was a bad deal for the City. Councilman Hickman indicated that it was bad for the RDA and the citizens because it was not returning the incentive. Councilman Schiffner commented that if this project did not go forward there would be no RDA money or DAG money. Page Twenty -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1127, UPON SECOND READING BY TITLE ONLY: Councilman Mage thanked Mr. Stahovich for coming to the meeting and for his efforts in the intervening week. He expressed hopes that Mr. Stahovich would take back the desire of the Council to work together, protect public safety and give the Valley something it can be proud of. ORDINANCE NO. 1127 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING ORDINANCE N0.956 AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT IN PART AND TERMINATION IN PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND EASTLAKE COMMUNITY BUILDERS. UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS; KELLEY, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN, BUCKLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE 33. Fire Station Naming Committee. (F:1273)(X:59.1) Mayor Buckley noted that this was for the new fire station; and as was done at McVicker, this was to appoint a fire station naming committee. Page Twenty-One -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 Mayor Pro Tem Kelley appointed John Gonzales, noting that she would have to verify his availability. Councilman Schiffner appointed Ray Knight. Councilman Hickman indicated that he would have to come up with a name later. Councilman Magee appointed Tom Hunt, President of the Volunteer Fire Department. Mayor Buckley appointed another Volunteer Fire representative Larry Unsworth. City Treasurer Weber indicated that he had not chosen a name yet. MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE COMMITTEE AND THE APPOINTMENTS AS RECOMMENDED. 34. Allocation to Lake Elsinore Marine Search and Rescue (LEMSAR)_for FY 2004-2005. (F:30.1)(X:108.1)(X:92.1) Lake & Aquatic Resources Kilroy noted that the LEMSAR was anon-profit organization that supported the City and the Sheriff Lake Patrol. He indicated that they were primarily made up of shoreline property owners in support of Lake safety. He explained that the Sheriff oversees their activities and provides workers compensation insurance. He noted that their personal expenses could be quite high, particularly with the cost of fuel and equipment. He recommended approval of the allocation in support of their efforts, and noted that Gil Lerma was in the audience to respond to any questions about LEMSAR Mayor Pro Tem Kelley commented that LEMSAR did a wonderful job and Page Twenty-Two -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 indicated that it was a pleasure to support this allocation. Councilman Hickman inquired if these funds were allocated in the budget. Administrative Services Director Pressey indicated that this would be in addition to the budget. MOVED BY MAGEE, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE FUNDING FOR LEMSAR IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000. Mayor Buckley thanked LEMSAR for their efforts. 35. League of California Cities Annual Conference -City Representatives. (F:108.8) Mayor Buckley noted that this Conference would be held in September with Councilmembers Schiffner and Hickman planning on attending, as well as possibly himself. MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY TO DESIGNATE COUNCILMAN HICKMAN AS THE CITY'S DELEGATE AND FLAG BEARER. Assistant City Manager Best noted that whoever was chosen as the delegate, needed to vote on League Policy issues. THE FOREGOING MOTION CARRIED BYA VOTE OF 4 TO 1 WITH HICKMAN CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE. 36. Maintenance Vendor Agreements. (F:68.1)(X:128.3) Assistant City Manager Best explained that this item was an effort by staff to bring all agreements into standard language, as requested by the City Council. She advised that staff met with the City Attorney to input; and the proposal outlined the method to apply for on-call maintenance services. Page Twenty-Three -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 She detailed the types of services and noted the document presented for review. Mayor Buckley indicated that he thought it was a nice first step, but suggested considering maximum percentages per business and maybe a three year update. MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER TO APPROVE THE MAINTENANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT AND APPROVE THE QUALIFICATION PROCESS FOR MAINTENANCE SERVICE CONTRACTORS AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Councilman Hickman commented that he liked that this would emphasize Lake Elsinore businesses. THE FOREGOING MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. 37. Design Review No. R 2004-04 for the "Ramsgate Apartment Homes" b~ Fairfield Development, L.P. (F:138.2) Community Development Director Brady explained that this item was for 352 apartment homes, located one mile north of I-15 on the south side of Highway 74. He detailed the site plan which would include 14 buildings, a pool and recreation facility. He detailed the access points, noting that the project was just over 17 acres in size, with a density of just over 20 units per acre. He noted that it would be well under the allowed density. Mayor Buckley questioned the detail on the location. Community Development Director Brady outlined the location. Mayor Buckley further questioned an area adjacent to the project. Mr. Brady indicated that the area in question would be single family homes, in the County area. Councilman Magee indicated that his only concern was that there were currently several businesses in the County area, and once this project was Page Twenty-Four-City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 elevated above Highway 74, the new residents might be impacted by the dust and light from the existing businesses. He suggested a condition be included in the rental agreement to acknowledge the existence of businesses and had the right to do so. David Wright, applicant, introduced Ed McCoy representing Fairfield Development. Mr. McCoy indicated such a condition would be fine with them, as they had done it elsewhere near agriculture or airports. Councilman Magee inquired if he could run the proposed language by staff. Mr. McCoy confirmed. Councilman Hickman indicated that he was glad to see that they were using recycled water, but they were also using drip irrigation. He expressed concern with recycled water getting into the Lake. He also questioned the affordable housing. City Attorney Leibold indicated that under the MOU, they would be paying for affordable housing on lots 256, 258 and 259. She clarified that they were to be included within the project, but there was an opportunity for them to make a payment of $2,500 per unit, not to exceed $392,000. Councilman Hickman questioned if they would have wood fences or view fences. Mr. Wright indicated that the majority of the project had slopes around it, and those would be retaining walls with railing on top; and otherwise there would be no fencing. Councilman Hickman suggested round galvanized tubing. He questioned if this company was associated with Fairfield Inns. Mr. McCoy indicated that they were not associated. Mayor Buckley questioned the affordable housing. Mr. McCoy indicated that they were paying the in-lieu fee for 157 units for the entire specific plan. Councilman Hickman. inquired if the drains in the street would be covered to protect them. Community Development Director Brady indicated that there would be filters required to address the run-off. MOVED BY HICKMAN, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER THAT THE CITY Page Twenty-Five -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 COUNCIL AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW NO. R 2004-04, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND EXHIBITS `B' THROUGH `G', AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Findings 1. The project, as conditioned and approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Ramsgate Specific Plan Third Revision in which the project is located. The Planning Commission has reviewed the project with these documents and finds that with conditions of approval these objectives have been met. 2. The project complies with the design directives contained in Section 17.82.060 and all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, and with standards and guidelines contained in the Ramsgate Specific Plan Third Revision and its Design Guidelines. The Planning Commission has reviewed the project with adjacent neighborhoods and finds that it complements their quality of construction, provides a pleasing use of color and materials, demonstrates a respect for privacy and views, and offers visually attractive landscaping and monument treatments. 3. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Section 17.82.070, including guazantees 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 this Chapter and the planning district in which the site is located. The Planning Commission has approved conditions regarding architectural design and landscaping. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING DIVISION (Note: Fees listed in the Conditions of Approval are the best estimates available at the time of approval. The exact fee amounts will be reviewed at the time of building permit issuance and may be revised.) 1. Design Review approval for Residential Project No. R 2004-04 will lapse and be void unless a building permit is issued within one (1) year of the approval date. The Community Development Director may grant an extension of time for up to one (1) year prior to the expiration of the initial Design Review. An application for a time extension and required fee shall be submitted a minimum of one (1) month prior to the expiration date. Page Ttiventy-Six -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 2. All site improvements shall be constructed as indicated on the approved site plan with any revisions as noted herein. Any other revisions to the approved site plan shall be subject to approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. 3. The project shall not be constructed in phases unless a phasing plan is first reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the Engineering Manager. 4. All site improvements shall be constructed as indicated on the approved building elevations on file with the City for Design Review R 2004-04. Materials and colors depicted on the approved materials boazds approved for R 2004-04 shall be used unless modified by the applicant and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. a. Building heights aze limited to three-stories and a maximum 42 feet. 5. Applicant shall comply with all applicable Ramsgate Specific Plan Third Revision and Design Guidelines requirements and standazds, or where they aze silent, City Codes and Ordinances. 6. Applicant shall comply with all applicable Mitigation Monitoring Program measures imposed upon Tentative Tract Map No. 25479, as printed in Appendix "F" of Addendum No. 2 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Ramsgate Specific Plan. 7. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures of the Noise Control Analysis prepazed by RBF Consulting, dated April 14, 2004. 8. Applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval of the underlying Tentative Tract Map No. 25479 Revision No. 2. a. A traffic signal shall be installed and be operational at the intersection of Street "A" and State Highway 74, prior to Certificate of Occupancy of the 176`x' apartment unit. 9. The project shall connect to sewer and meet all requirements of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). Applicant shall submit water and sewer plans to the EVMWD and shall incorporate all district conditions and standards, including payment of applicable water and sewer connection fees. a. The applicant shall utilize recycled water for landscaping purposes, if available to the site. Page 'I~venty-Seven -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 10. The applicant shall comply with Conditions of Approval received from the Riverside County Fire Department dated July 27, 2004. 11. The applicant shall participate in the Police Department's Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Program, with regards to proper lighting, natural surveillance, and graffiti reduction. 12. The applicant shall provide a detailed Exterior Lighting Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director or his designee prior to issuance of building permits. Such Plan shall indicate locations, fixture types with visual display, consistent with conceptual designs as noted in landscape plans on file with the Planning Department, and in compliance with City Codes. 13. A cash bond of $1,000.00 shall be required for any construction trailers placed on the site and used during construction. The location of trailers is subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director or his designee. Bonds will be released after removal of trailers and restoration of the site to an acceptable state, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or designee. 14. The applicant shall meet affordable housing requirements imposed upon the project by the Ramsgate Specific Plan, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding executed by the City and the property owner. 15. Garages shall be constructed to provide a minimum of nine-feet-six-inches by nineteen-feet- six-inches (9'-6" x 19'-6") of interior clear space. 16. All theme walls are required to be coated with anti-graffiti paint. 17. Any interior retaining walls shall match perimeter stucco walls in color and style. 18. All signage, flags and banners shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or his designee. Prior to Issuance of GradingBuilding Permits 19. Prior to issuance of any precise grading permits or building permits, the applicant shall sign and complete an "Aclmowledgment of Conditions," and shall return the executed original to the Community Development Department for inclusion in the case records. Page Twenty-Eight -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 20. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall merge the underlying parcels. 21. Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance. Construction generated dust and erosion shall be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 15.72 and using accepted control techniques. Interim erosion control measures shall be provided thirty (30) days after the site's rough grading, as approved by the City Engineer. 22. These Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced upon Page One of the Building Plans prior to their acceptance by the Building and Safety Division. 23. The building addresses shall be a minimum of four inches (4") high and shall be easily visible from the public right-of--way. Developer shall obtain street addresses for all project lots prior to issuance of building permits. The addresses (in numerals at least four inches (4" high) shall be displayed near the entrance and be visible from the front of the unit. Caze shall be taken to select colors and materials that contrast with building walls or trim. 24. Prior to Building Pernits the Construction Supervisor shall meet with Planning Division staff to review the Conditions of Approval. 25. Landscaping Plans and Irrigation Details for each plan shall be required, and a Cost Estimate shall be submitted for review and approval by the City's Landscape Architect Consultant and the Community Development Director or designee prior to issuance of building permits. A Landscape Plan Check Fee and Inspection Fee shall be paid for the entire project at the time of submittal. a. Final landscape plan must be consistent with approved site plan. b. Street tree species along State Route 74 and "A" Street shall be consistent within the Ramsgate Specific Plan. c. The design of the Ramsgate monumentation at the intersection of State Route 74 and "A" Street shall be consistent with the Ramsgate Specific Plan Third Revision and Design Guidelines. Plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director. Installation including landscaping shall be completed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the project. d. The use of the Hong Kong Orchid tree is subject to further review and approval by the City Landscape Architect. The applicant shall provide Page Twenty-Nine -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 evidence that this specie survives in our climatic zone. e. All trellises above tandem pazking spaces shall have plantings installed at a sufficient size to result in "instant" growth. f. All trees planted along State Highway 74 and along the boundary with the Community Park to screen carports from public view shall be installed at a sufficient size and canopy spread to result in "instant" growth. g. Planting within fifteen feet (15') of ingress/egress points shall be no higher than thirty-six-inches (36"). h. The landscape plan shall provide for ground cover, shrubs, and trees and meet all requirements of the City's adopted Landscape Guidelines. Special attention shall be given to the use of Xeriscape or drought resistant plantings with combination drip irrigation system to prevent excessive watering. All exposed slopes in excess of three feet in height within the subject site shall have a permanent irrigation system and erosion control vegetation installed, as approved by the Landscape Architect and Planning Division, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 25. Under the provisions of SB 50, the applicant shall pay school fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District prior to issuance of building permits. 26. All mechanical and electrical equipment on the building shall be ground mounted, unless properly screened by building parapet or other azchitectural features. All outdoor ground or wall mounted utility equipment shall be consolidated in a central location and architecturally screened along with substantial landscaping, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director, prior to issuance of building permits. If the equipment is placed behind fencing, landscaping will not be required. Prior to Final Approval 27. The applicant shall meet all Conditions of Approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. 28. Prior to final approval, all wood fencing shall be painted or treated with ahigh-grade, solid body, penetrating stain approved by the Community Development Director or his designee. Page Thirty -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 29. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall annex into Community Facilities District No. 2003-1 and the Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for City-maintained street lights and landscaped areas. ENGINEERING DIVISION 30. Driveway entrance into the project shall be a minimum of forty (40) feet deep with no parking or turning conflicts. 31. The property owner shall dedicate and improve full half-width right-of--way for Central Avenue (S.R. 74) consistent with General Plan circulation requirements of 67-feet and 55- feet half-width street improvements. 32. The property owner shall dedicate full half-width right-of--way for Street `A,' and construct full half-width street improvements. Dimension of the dedication shall be consistent with Ramsgate Specific Plan requirements. 33. Construct full half-width street improvements for Street `A.' Improvements shall be consistent with Ramsgate Specific Plan requirements. 34. Provide railing or wrought iron fencing on top of all perimeter retaining walls adjacent to parking, walking or driveway areas. Railing or wrought iron fencing shall be rated for pedestrian safety. 35. Provide compaction reports for all fill slopes. Soils report shall be provided to confirm slope stability with respect to structure surcharge. 36. All drainage shall be conveyed to the public right-of-way. 37. Provide detention for difference in storm run-off of the 100-year storm between the developed and undeveloped stone water run-off. 38. Provide desiltation basin as a "first flush" measure for clean water run-off. 39. Comply with all conditions of underlying Tentative Tract Map No. 25479. 40. All Public Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as Page Thirty-One -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) prior to final map approval. 41. Underground water rights shall be dedicated to the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.52.030 (LEMC), and consistent with the City's agreement with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 42. Pay all Capital Improvement and Plan Check fees (LEMC 16.34, Resolution 85-26). 43. 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. 44. 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). 45. 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 Standazds, latest edition, and City Codes (LEMC 12.04 and 16.34). 46. 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. 47. Applicant shall obtain any necessary Caltrans permits and meet all Caltrans requirements. 48. Desirable design grade for local streets shall not exceed 9% unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 49. Intersecting streets shall meet at a maximum grade of 6 % with a minimum approach landing of fifty (50) feet in each direction. 50. 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). 51. All compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8 ''/z' x 11" Mylaz) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division before final inspection of public works improvements will be scheduled and approved. Page Thirty-Two -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 52. The applicant shall install two (2) permanent bench marks to Riverside County Standazds and at a location to be determined by City Engineer. 53. Applicant shall obtain all necessary off-site easements for off-site grading from the adjacent property owners prior to issuance of grading permits. 54. 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. 55. Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by Riverside County Fire. 56. Provide street lighting and show lighting improvements as part of street improvement plans as required by the City Engineer. 57. Developer shall annex to the City's Street Lighting and landscaping Maintenance District. 58. Developer shall install blue reflective pavement markers in the street at all fire hydrant locations. 59. Applicant shall submit a traffic control plan showing all traffic control devices for the site for review and approval. All traffic control devices shall be installed prior to final inspection of public improvements. This includes No Parking and Street Sweeping Signs. 60. All improvement plans 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. 61. All utilities except electrical over 12 kv shall be placed underground, as approved by the serving utility. 62. 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 yazds or the existing flow pattern is substantially modified as determined by the City Engineer. If the grading is less than 50 cubic yazds 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. 63. Provide soils, geology and seismic report including street design recommendations. Provide final soils report showing compliance with recommendations. Page Thirty-Three -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 64. An Alquist-Priolo study shall be performed on the site to identify any hidden earthquake faults and/or liquefaction zones present on-site, unless a study is already on file with the City that addresses the site. 65. 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. 66. Prior to commencement of grading operations, applicant to provide to the City with a map of all proposed haul routes to be used for movement of export material. Such routes shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 67. Applicant to provide to the City a photographic baseline record of the condition of all proposed public City haul roads. In the event of damage to such roads, applicant shall pay full cost of restoring public roads to the baseline condition. A bond may be required to ensure payment of damages to the public right-of--way, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 68. 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. 69. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of--way should be contained within drainage easements. Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. 70. 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. 71. Meet all requirements of LEMC 15.64 regarding flood hazard regulations. 72. Meet all requirements of LEMC 15.68 regarding floodplain management. 73. The applicant to provide FEMA elevation certificates prior to certificate of occupancies, if required by the Engineering Division. 74. 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. Page Thirty-Four -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 75. All drainage facilities in this project shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District Standards. 76. Stonn 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. 77. 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. 78. Ten-yeaz 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 is exceeded, drainage facilities should be installed. 79. A drainage acceptance letter will be necessary from the downstream property owners for outletting the proposed stonnwater run-off on private property. 80. Developer shall be subject to all Master Planned Drainage fees and will receive credit for all Master Planned Drainage facilities constructed. 81. Applicant will be required to install BMP's using the best available technology to mitigate any urban pollutants from entering the watershed. 82. Applicant shall provide the city with proof of his having filed a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program with a storm water pollution prevention 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 including maintenance responsibilities. 83. 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 including maintenance responsibilities. 84. 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. Page Thirty-Five -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 $5. Applicant shall provide first flush BMP's using the best available technology that will reduce storm water pollutants from parking areas and driveway aisles. 86. Intersection site distance shall meet the design criteria of the CALTRANS 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. 87. Intersecting streets on the inside radius of a curve will only be permitted when adequate sight distance is verified by a registered civil engineer. 88. 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. 89. Existing access easements over property must be addressed to the satisfaction of the easement owners prior to final map approval. 90. If the CFD has not been formed at building permit, then the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to mitigation drainage impacts by payment of a Drainage Mitigation fee. Per recommendations of the Master Drainage Plan developed by RCFCD for the West End, the developer shall deposit $4,000 per acre. If a Drainage Assessment District is formed in the West End and that drainage fee is lower than the present fee, a partial refund will be returned. _91. All waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or other phases of the construction shall be disposed of at appropriate recycling centers. The applicant should contract with CR&R Inc. for recycling and storage container services, but the applicant may use the services of another recycling vendor. Another recycling vendor, other than CR&R Inc., cannot charge the applicant for bin rental or solid waste disposal. If the applicant is not using CR&R Inc. for recycling services and the recycling material is either sold or donated to another vendor, the applicant shall supply proof of debris disposal at a recycling center, including verification of tonnage by certified weigh master tickets. 92. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall annex into Community Facilities District No. 2003-1 to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project on public safety operations and maintenance issues in the City. Page Thirty-Six -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 93. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall annex into Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project on public right-of--way landscaped areas to be maintained by the City, and for street lights in the public right-of--way for which the City will pay for electricity and a maintenance fee to Southern California Edison. 94. 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. 39. Statement of Qualifications for Special Audit Enaa eg merit. (F:24.1)(X44.1)(X:116.1) Mayor Buckley noted that a few weeks ago the City Council approved a sub-committee for this effort, to return to Council for approval. He noted that the staff recommendation was based on three qualified firms. He clarified that on Friday the sub-committee mailed out a request for proposal and time frames for submittal. He explained that there was clarification of what to audit and the time frame for completion of the audit. He suggested that the action on Friday would render this item moot. Councilman Magee commented that the original intent was to put together a sub-committee, with Council working or directing staff to put together a Request for Proposals, but instead there was a Request for Qualifications. He fitrther commented that at the last Council meeting, he presented a list of 33 firms, some of which were on the original list. He noted that three of the auditing firms he recommended had not received copies of the RFQ. He indicated that when he contacted them, they expressed interest in participating in the process, so he and the Mayor did letters and developed a scope of work which they sent to the six auditors. He advised that the letter requested a response by September 7`h, so they could take action to select a firm on September 14`h, and have the report by October 15th. He concurred that this item was moot based on the proposed plan, as the sub-committee was moving forward and should be able to report back on September 14th Edith Stafford, 29700 Hursh, indicated that this item raised suspicions, and Page Thirty-Seven -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 she was going on record saying, that in her opinion it was very hard to believe so many letters went out with so little response. She indicated that - she was glad that someone followed up on whether the letters had been received. She commented that she had been suspicious for almost a month. She questioned if a guilty person would investigate themselves. She suggested that the only way to stop the foxes from eating up the chickens was to remove the fox. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley commented that at the 4 p.m. meeting, it was her understanding and she brought it up that the audit would include City Council Credit Cards, which she supported. She indicated that the Minutes of the prior discussion on June 29th were pulled, and she noted page 14 reading the following excerpt: "Mayor Pro Tem Kelley requested clarification if that included Council credit cards. Councilman Magee reiterated it would include all City issued credit cards." Mayor Pro Tem Kelley requested that when a firm was chosen, the Council action be upheld, as that was what the majority voted for. She indicated that in another vein, the City Council was elected to set policy and the majority does that. She indicated that at the prior meeting, was when it was decided to get a professional firm to do the auditing. She noted that the original proposal was for asub-committee of Councilman Mage, City Treasurer Weber and Mayor Buckley to do the audit, but the Council voted not to do that, and instead go to a professional firm for the audit. She stressed that Council made an unanimous vote and it was much to her dismay that a Council Member and the City Treasurer took it upon themselves to go and interrogate the Assistant City Manager and run their own investigation. She indicated that such action was not authorized by the City Council, it was against the vote of the City Council and not within the right of the City Treasurer to do. She indicated that the City Council oversaw the City Manager, the City Attorney and half of the City Clerk; so if there was a staff person involved, the proper process would be to go to Page Thirty-Eight -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 City Manager to investigate and report back. She noted that the City Treasurer talked with the Assistant City Manager for one and one half hours, taking her away from City business. She indicated that Ms. Best was open and honest with him and requested that any written follow-up go back to her, but instead it went to the newspaper. She indicated that his report was racked with personal interpretations and judgments, and that was why she wanted an outside auditor. She indicated that it was reprehensible that the City Treasurer would step out of bounds to interrogate a staff member to the point that she had grounds to claim harassment. She stressed that this was against the Council action, clearly against direction, and she was concerned that there could be legal ramifications. She indicated that she wanted the Council to know that this bothered her and upset her, and was not the action they voted on. She suggested that this action was to the point where a reprimand was appropriate. She noted that Assistant City Manager Best probably had comments on this matter as well. Mayor Buckley noted that the original plan discussed the four persons to choose the audit firm, not conduct the audit. He clarified that any resident could ask for public records. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley noted that during the discussion a lot of time was spent discussing that she did not want the Council of the Treasurer to be part of the audit team, and instead wanted a professional audit. She further noted that any member of the public could ask for records and the City Treasurer could do so as well, but she questioned the right to interrogate a City employee, and then making a judgment and turning it over to the newspaper. Mayor Buckley requested a comment by Assistant City Manager Best. Assistant City Manager Best suggested that City Treasurer Weber have the opportunity to comment first. City Treasurer Weber indicated that he went into this item because it was not Health/Wellness, but a trip. He commented that any person could ask for documents and noted recent article in the paper and Elsinore Magazine. He indicated that this was so obvious that it was something other than a Page Thirty-Nine -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 vacation. He indicated that he looked into it and asked if she wanted to talk about it and stop the innuendo in the newspapers. He noted that he wanted the truth known about what happened on the trip and any disciplinary action required, taken. He indicated that something should happen with that. He indicated that he got the records and Ms. Best indicated that she would meet with him. He commented that it was not an interrogation, and he was not a jail warden getting it out of someone. He indicated that it was a very cordial conversation and Ms. Best was the one who said to look at the receipts for a dinner. He noted that she did not remember it in the first interview, but did on a follow-up interview. He indicated that she did not have the names at that time. He further commented that initially she had five days per diem to meet with Mr. Gibbons on their Economic Gardening Program; but questioned if it could have been done over the Internet or via e-mail. He indicated that she went for five days per diem and took the RV with the family. He noted that she drove in on Sunday to meet on Tuesday and Wednesday. He indicated that she spent part of the morning, lunch and part of the afternoon with Mr. Gibbons, but did not return for the second day as planned. He commented that she never made any notes or talked to anyone. He indicated that the real problem was that she had five days per diem, but took three days vacation. He indicated that this was not a fact of the $126, but no one should go on vacation using per diem. He commented that his report was very factual with no accusations, and he only said that the policy should be changed to compensate for situations like this. He indicated that he never said that she should have been fired; but in the interview she said it was the same price to fly, as it was to drive there. He suggested that since she stayed only one day, she could have gone Monday, met with them and flown back for $450, for a savings of about $500. He suggested that there were probably other reasons for doing what she did, as she said she got a chance to go with her family. He noted a luncheon with the people in Littleton, and commented that she said she bought snacks to go see the people. He indicated that what she said was for lunch was actually for a dinner with an unknown businessman. He indicated that he was going to give it to the audit team for review. He commented that Councilwoman Kelley was like a mother hen protecting her chicks. He indicated that Ms. Page Forty -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 Best was a professional, and to say that he was harassing her was absurd. He indicated that if there was a lawsuit, he did not want the City Attorney representing him. He suggested that it would not be adequate legal representation. He commented that he was really tired of the comments, as Ms. Best took a trip, and people could look at the report and make their own decisions on what happened. He indicated that the truth was out there and it was done, with no further investigation. Councilman Magee indicated that the trip in question was asked for by Ms. Best and approved by her boss, the City Manager who was a City Council employee. He suggested if there was a problem with this situation, it needed to be taken up with the City Manager. He noted that was the point of the audit, to find out what past practices have been. He indicated that he would hold his opinion of the trip and review it after the audit team looked at it. He suggested that with respect to Mr. Weber's involvement, the Council recently passed a policy regarding the Treasurer, who can coordinate requests for staff time through the City Manager; and the City Manager will request direction if there is a conflict with the City Council priorities. He indicated that if the City Manager felt the interview was against the priorities of the Council, he should have stopped the meeting, as the policy is quite clear; however he was not present to defend himself. He stressed if the discussion was not appropriate, he could put an end to it. He indicated that his problem with City Treasurer Weber was that the press releases should be issued per set policy, and he was not sure how the press got this story. He noted that he was simply going to refer the matter to the audit team, and was shocked to see it in the newspaper. City Treasurer Weber indicated that he was not sure how the press got the report, nor how Elsinore Magazine got it. Councilman Magee indicated that with respect to future litigation, he was not sure what the cause of action would be because he was not sure of the damages, as one could not put a price tag on embarrassment. He commented that he could see no potential litigation from this matter, whatsoever. He indicated that the reason the discussion got to this point was Mayor Pro Tem Kelley wanting to sanction the City Treasurer. He stressed that this was the direction the Council voted on for Page Forty-One -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 the independent audit. He reiterated that there was a Statement of Qualification request that had already been mailed out, and he was very concerned that staff did not follow direction. He commented that he provided additional audit teams to add to the list and three did not receive the information. He stressed that the process needed to stay with the sub- committee and audit team, who would bring something back on the 14~'. He asked that everyone wait for the results of the audit and hand the matter appropriately and professionally. Assistant City Manager Best noted that there were a couple of issues pertinent to this item and noted that with regard to the three additional firms, Mr. Pressey made every effort to get them sent out, but she was happy to follow-up. She commented that this discussion was very interesting and somewhat like a game of telephone. She explained that as information is passed on, it becomes a completely different story. She indicated that City Treasurer Weber made a serious effort to try to stop the innuendo relative to the audit; and noted that she believed that when he started it was his intent to resolve those issues, City Council action aside. She commented that it was very interesting that she let Mr. Weber know that if something was in writing to the Council, it was a public document; and noted that she did ask to see his findings prior to it being distributed, but that did not happened. She noted that she received the document at the same time as the Council. She further noted that once the discussions began, they were hard to stop. She indicated that if there were questions, she was more than happy to answer them, as she did not think she had done anything wrong. She stressed that she had nothing to hide, but noted that at this point all of the staff was feeling ill at ease. She indicated that it was a matter of trust, and there was an obvious lack of trust that might, or might not be justified. She stressed that staff was here to lead the City and she hoped to raise the level of public discussion. She indicated that the trip was interesting, but that was not what the community wanted to hear. She indicated that the public wanted to see leadership and trust, and she had worked in the field for more than 25 years and had never had issues such as this come up. She indicated that she signed many large checks on behalf of the City and if she Page Forty-ltvo -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 was not trusted, she would like the Council to let her know. Mayor Buckley referred back to the agenda item, and inquired if there was any action required. City Attorney Leibold suggested that the appropriate action, based on the sub-committee recommendation and the proposed scope of work, would be to consider the sub-committee recommendation and received comments on the proposed scope of work. Mayor Buckley noted that the Council created the sub-committee to develop the scope of work and find an auditor. City Attorney Leibold suggested that the sub-committee might be interested in input from the Council. MOVED BY MAGEE, SECQNDED BY HICKMAN TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO SEPTEMBER 14'x. Councilman Schiffner indicated that he wanted reassurance that the scope of work would include all credit cards, including the Council's. Councilman Magee indicated that he would assure the Council that would happen. He read the staff recommendation and indicated that it did not mention continuing education, travel, or per diem, which were all part of the action on June 29"'. Councilman Schiffner concurred and requested that those items be included. Councilman Magee expressed concern that those items were not included in the staff recommendation. Mayor Buckley indicated that the scope of work was to include Council and Staff. THE FOREGOING MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WA5 RECESSED AT 9:28 P.M. THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:31 P.M. Page Forty-Three -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 PUBLIC COMMENTS -NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS - 3 MINUTES Edith Stafford, 29700 Hursh, indicated that she was a straightforward person and someone had to have the guts to tell it like it is; and that person was her. She commented that she did not like wrongdoing and fought it hard. She indicated that she had distrusted the past action of 20 years or more, and indicated that her concerns could be documented. She requested that no one play the fooling game on her, as she does her homework and knows what is going on. She commented on the City Treasurer and noted that the past City Councils had not allowed the City Treasurer to do his rightful duties. She indicated that the public elected a strong treasurer this time, who would not allow anyone to topple him over. She expressed complete support for his actions; noting that he did the right thing. She indicated that she had questions and suspicions; and when someone changes the story it gives rise to suspicions. She addressed a story in the paper in July regarding a 2-1/2 day trip on behalf of the City. She reiterated that she does her homework and requests documents, and sees all kinds of flutters and flaws. Vida Boice, 17 Ponte Negra, addressed Councilman Magee and thanked him for following up on the letters that were sent out. She indicated that it was very appropriate to see that staff was following through. She thanked the Council for their hard work, but expressed concern with the Railroad Canyon intersection. :She noted that there were Council members who have run saying they did great things for the City but she hadn't seen it. She commented that there was $230,000 allocated for work on Railroad Canyon; but it was not getting better, it was getting worse. She requested an update on the status of Railroad Canyon and the time frame to get something done. She indicated that she gets very irritated when she is in that intersection and would like to have something to look forward to seeing the traffic ease. Mayor Buckley noted that it was about $850,000 and the work would start soon. Engineering Seumalo offered to meet and give Ms. Boice an update. He advised that staff was waiting for the Caltrans permits for the interim improvements. He further advised that the second prong would be for the ultimate improvements, with the project report engineer selected, then the environmental and finally the Page Forty-Four -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 plans, specs and estimates for the improvements. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Assistant City Manager Best commented on the following: 1) Highlighted a recent article on a local company in the Press Enterprise, being Vertigo, in the back basin. She explained that the company was working on a retrieval system for the satellites. She indicated that this was a positive program for the City and noted that it was good to see new technology. She congratulated Vertigo on their efforts. 2) Advised the City Council that she would be attending the funeral services for the son of Councilman McAllister in Murrieta. 3) Wished everyone a safe Labor Day Holiday. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS No comments. COMMITTEE REPORTS None. CITY TREASURER COMMENTS City Treasurer Weber commented on the following: 1) Noted the newsletter of the California Debt Investment Advisory Commission, which tracks the sale of bonds. He commented on the number of bonds issues each year, and indicated that a lot of the disclosure statements were not factual, as they were doing other Page Forty-Five -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 things with the money. He indicated that local officials needed to be involved in the writing of disclosure statements and the review of the statements, because the City is liable. He commented that the Laing Homes disclosure would probably need some kind of risk analysis, as they would probably be looking for over $250 million in bonds. He stressed that the Council needed to be sure the statements were fully truthful. He indicated that he was investigating the bonds and one series in 1984 was to pay for rebuilding after the 1980 flood, but noted that the citizens would be paying unti12032. 2) Indicated that the investigation of Assistant City Manager Best had to happen, and advised that he would provide copies of his report for free. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Hickman commented on the following: 1) Reminded homeowners and renters of the tax rebate for senior citizens, with forms being completed at the Senior Center on Mondays and Tuesdays. 2) Congratulated Chris McColley on getting Congressman Issa to attend the EDC Luncheon. 3) Noted his enjoyment of the concerts in the park and gave Kudos to Mayor Pro Tem Kelley. 4) Noted that Vertigo would make history on September 8`h with the catch of the space shuttle. 5) Extended prayers to the family of Fernando Hannon who lost his life in Iraq and to the family of Councilman McAllister in Murrieta. Page Forty-Six -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 6) Noted that Lake Elsinore was rated the 360' best sports cities in the United States and offered kudos. 7) Wished everyone a safe holiday. Councilman Schiffner commented on the following: 1) Thanked the Council for joining him to move forward with an extreme improvement project. He indicated that it would raise property values and provide great recreation. Councilman Magee commented on the following: 1) Indicated that he had several requests of staff. He advised that he had received a lot of correspondence regarding Code Enforcement/Law Enforcement on North Langstaff. He requested a brief report on the status of that situation. 2) Indicated that he was contacted by a constituent regarding street repairs on Poe Street. He noted that he contacted City staff and was pleased to see that he advised the constituent saying almost exactly what staff told him. He indicated that it was not included in maintenance this year, so it was an unfunded capital improvement project. He indicated that he would try to get it higher up on the list by mid-year. 3) Indicated that he was receiving constituent calls regarding free coffee for seniors at the Senior Center. He noted that it was only served until 10:30 in the morning and he would like input on what would be an appropriate time. He suggested that if the Council desired that could be promoted. 4) Noted that the Rental Housing Program had been funded for two years and requested an update on what had been done in the two Page Forty-Seven -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 years. 5) Requested an update on the General Plan Review process, noting that the Council had approved an adequate RFP and was only waiting for the new fiscal year. 6) Responded to Mrs. Boice, noting that staff had talked to her about Phase I; and commented that on Phase 2, the long term ultimate resolution, the County sub-committee met yesterday and approved $13.5 million in concept for plans & specifications, right-of--way, and construction. He indicated that this was a large step in making the project happen. He indicated when the project was ready it could be funded and the staff was ahead of the curve, so the City would get the money before some other project. 7) Indicated that he needed to hear from more people on what goes on at City Council meetings and in the community. He stressed his need for input, and advised that he had a dedicated line in his home for concerns. He encouraged the constituents to call him at 678-4515. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley commented on the following: 1) Reminded everyone of the Concert series and thanked Councilman Hickman for his comments. 2) Responded to Mr. Weber, that she might seem like a mother hen at times, but she would disagree with the process that was followed. She stressed that he should try not to get personal. She indicated that she might be a mother hen because she had worked with staff for eight years. She indicated that the City has a quality staff, with experience and professional demeanor. She noted that the staff's average amount of services was between 10 and 15 years. She indicated that staff works hard for the City and bends over backwards to assist the Council. She noted that they also try to answer Page Forty-Eight -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 questions from the public and have settled numerous lawsuits. She stressed that they are very capable and knowledgeable. She indicated that under the leadership of City Manager Watenpaugh and Assistant City Manager Best the City was moving forward in a positive way. She indicated that this was true of all of staff, as they are all kind and considerate. She reiterated that she might be a mother hen, but hates to see staff undermined or embarrassed unnecessarily. She noted that the audit was already requested, but to release the document to the paper without giving Ms. Best the opportunity to correct errors, release it and say he would pass it out, embarrasses the City, the City Council and should embarrass him; it also embarrasses staff and is highly inappropriate. She indicated that in this instance she would take the title mother hen as a compliment. She stressed that Ms. Best had not had a chance to speak since the report and would like that opportunity before it was distributed further. Councilman Magee reminded Mr. Weber that the City Manager would guide him to staff and this matter should wait until he returns. Mayor Buckley commented on the following: 1) Addressed the scheduling of meetings and indicated that on September 8th at 4 p.m. t here would be a Special RDA/Council Closed Session regarding ongoing negotiations and due diligence on the Stadium. He also noted the need for two more study session on Code of Ethics, and Logo/Public Relations/Branding. He suggested that Council a-mai13 or 4 possible dates to staff. 2) Requested that the second meeting in September be cancelled or moved, and an item to reset it be placed on the next agenda. 3) Advised that there was a letter concerning a new post office, and noted that the City clearly needed one. He noted that he spoke with Supervisor Buster, and he was looking for a new post office site in Temescal Canyon. He requested the Council consensus for a letter to Page Forty-Nine -City Council Minutes -August 24, 2004 be drafted based on specific examples. Councilman Magee indicated that it needed to include how to take the next step, based on direction from the Federal government. He questioned how to do that. 4) Announced the following upcoming events: Music with a View Concerts August 28th Cruise Night September 4`h Music with a View September 4th Household Hazardous Waste Collection September 5th Open Air Market September 9th EDC Lunch September 18th Familia Celebration ADJOURNMENT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P.M. CITY CLERK/ HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE