Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-2002 City Council MinutesMINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2002 :~~~~~~x~~~x~:~:~~~*:~~~r*:~~~r~~~~~x:~~x~x:~*x~x*~*x~:*~~*:~~*:~~~r*:~*~r~r*:~~*~x~e:~~ CALL TO ORDER The Regular City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Kelley at 5:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY, BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Building & Safety Manager Russell, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, and Deputy City Clerk Paredes. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WI'TH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING I,I'f'IGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code §54956.9) City of Lake Elsinore, Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore v. Diamond Sports & Entertainment LLC et al (Riverside Ca Superior Court Case #356131) (F:40.1)(X:52.1) PAGE TWO - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code §54956.9) Liberty Founders LLC v. City of Lake Elsinore, et al (Riverside Co. Superior Court Case #355890)(F:40.1)(X52.1) C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Gov't Code §54956.9) City of Lake Elsinore v. Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (Riverside Superior Court Case #35961). (F:40.1)(X52.2) City Attorney Leibold announced the Closed Session as listed above. THE REGULAR CTTY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:07 P.M. The Closed Session discussion was completed at 6:55 p.m. RECONVENE PUBLIC SESSION (7:00 p.m.~ Mayor Kelley called the Regular City Council Meeting to order in Public Session at 7:06 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Information/Communications Manager Dennis. INVOCATION The Invocation was provided by Pastor Gary Adams representing The Power House Church. PAGE THREE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY, BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY NONE Also present were: City 1Vlanager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, City Attorney Leibold, Adm-nistrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Fire Chief Gallegos, Police Chief Walsh, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, and City C1erWHuman Resources Director Kasad. PRESENTATIONS a. Presentation - Update on Lake Elsinore/San Jacinto Watershed Authoritv. (F:92.6) Ndark Norton, representing LESJWA, provided a status report and noted some of the upcoming projects including fish harvesting, the addition of metal salts, and retrofitting of the island wells for additional water. He advised that they had hired a specialist to review the various types of systems for the EIR, so the projects could move into the implementation phase. Councilwoman Brinley asked City Manager Watenpaugh if Lake Operations IVlanager Kilroy was in agreement with regard to the alum treatment issues. City 1Vlanager Watenpaugh confirmed. Mr. Norton addressed future funding opportunities for additional improvements and water, including the 2002 Park Bond, Proposition 40. He presented the Council with charts detailing future projects and potential funding sources. He also presented a chart showing the prioritization of PAGE FOUR - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 future projects. He addressed the potential for lobbying efforts and noted that such efforts could not be funded by LESJWA due to the regulations on the Proposition 13 funds. He advised that LESJWA was doing a public relations program through O'Reilly and Associates. Councilwoman Brinley inquired of City Manager Watenpaugh regarding the EIR and whether the City had been reimbursed for those costs. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that the City had been reimbursed for some of the costs, with the balance in the process of being requested. Councilwoman Brinley inquired how much of the money had been reimbursed. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that the City had received about $35,000 of the $120,000 expended. Councilwoman Brinley inquired why it was such a slow process and stressed the need for timely reimbursement. Mr. Norton inquired if the Council saw any need for changes to the priorities as proposed. Mayor Kelley indicated that she had no changes. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that he had no changes. Councilman Buckley suggested passing a resolution at the next meeting in support of Proposition 40. City Manager indicated that the Council had already done sa CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Leibold announced the Closed Session items as listed on the agenda; and indicated that all three items were discussed with no reportable action. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS Requests were received to address the following items and deferred to those discussions: Item Nos. 6, 31, 32, 37, 38 and 40. PAGE FIVE -'CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS The following items were pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion and consideration: Item Nos. 6 and 7. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. The following Minutes were approved: (F:44.4) a. Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session - January 22, 2002. b. Regular City Council Meeting - January 22, 2002. c. City Council Study Session - January 24, 2002. d. City Council Study Session - January 29, 2002. e. Special City Council Meeting - January 30, 2002. The following Minutes were received and ordered filed: f. Planning Commission Meeting - December 19, 2002. (F:603) 2. Ratified Warrant List - January 31, 2002. (F:12.3) 3. Adopted Resolution No.2002-05; Declaring Weeds, Rubbish, Refuse and Dirt as a Nuisance. Notification of Property Owners. (F:166.1) RESOLUTION NO. 2002-05 ESTABLISHING WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENT LIENS AND DECLARING THAT CERTAIN WEEDS, RUBBISH, REFUSE AND PAGE SIX - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 DIRT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 14875 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND CHAPT~R 8.32 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MLJNICIPAL CODE CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE AND REQUIRE A NOTICE OT BE GIVEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIVISION 12, PART 5, CHAAPTER 2, OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFONRIA AND CHAPTER 8.32 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MiJNICIPAL CODE AND PROVIDING FOR A HEARING IN THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ON OBJECTIONS, TOGETHER WITH FILING OF COST REPORTS AND ASSESSMENTS AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS. 4. Approved One-Year Extension of Weed Abatement Contract with Smith Tractor Service at the current rates. (F:68.1)(X:166.1) 5. Ratified Emergency Replacement of HPIOSScm Plus Plotter for the GIS Department. (F:65.2) BUSINESS ITEMS 3 L; Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map No. 27851 "Lusk Elsinore". (F:160.2) City Manager Watenpaugh noted that this was a request for extension of time on an existing Tentative Tract Map. Community Development Director Brady explained this request to e~end the tract map, which is adjacent to Tuscany Hills Site Plan area and the City of Canyon Lake. He further explained that they were requesting additional time to complete the required work, particularly the mitigation monitoring requirements. He recommended a 24 month extension of time and the addition of Condition 81 as shown in the staff report. He also noted that Condition #20 should be amended to include the prohibition of site preparation activity on Saturdays. PAGE SEVEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 Ron Hewison, 35 Villa Valtelena, noted that this project had been ongoing for two years and suggested that the residents had initially been hustled by this developer. He indicated that the request for e~ension of time had failed to mention that the applicant did not receive the signed easement documents. He further indicated that the proposed elevations had changed, but he stressed that the developer had not received signatures from the majority of property owners of lots one through ten. He questioned how Lusk Homes would handle the properties on which they have been unable to obtain easements. He suggested that requesting an additional two years, after the initial two years was negligent on the part of Lusk Homes; and the additional two years proposed was too generous. He expressed concern that the project would continue to drag on; and suggested three or six months would be a better extension to allow for preparation of the tract map and a decision on how they plan to proceed. He indicated that there was no dispute on 98% of the Lusk lots, but requested that the Council delve into the concerns of the residents. Mayor Kelley noted that this item had been heavily debated at the earlier study session. Councilwoman Brinley requested that the Lusk Homes representative step to the podium to respond to questions. Wes Lind, representing Lusk Homes, presented himself at the podium to respond to questions. Councilwoman Brinley noted the questions regarding adequate communications between Lusk and the homeowners regarding the issues raised at the Planning Commission. Mr. Lind indicated that there had been extensive debate at the ariginal hearings and numerous other meetings. He advised that subsequent to those meetings some of the property owners had signed easements, however some had not; and no one had contacted him since that time. He indicated that the previously discussed conditions still existed and they had to go forward with the Corps of Engineers to pursue their processing. Councilwoman Brinley questioned Condition No. 26 PAGE EIGHT - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 regarding easements; and indicated that view shed appeared to be the issue. She suggested the need for an additional condition to require meetings with the homeowners to address the remaining lots. Mr. Lind indicated that he would have no problem with such a condition, but questioned how he could prove that the condition had been met. He further indicated that he had no problem with such meetings, but there had been no real changes to the project. Councilwoman Brinley indicated that she would like to continue this item to the next meeting to give the Lusk representatives a chance to meet with the homeowners, and provide more information based on the status of the discussion. She indicated that she believed that Lusk had been very generous in working with the viewsheds, however there were still ten or twelve properties on which issues needed to be addressed. Mr. Lind indicated that they had already done so to a great extent, and expressed concern that they might not be able to hold such a meeting prior to their map expiring. Councilwoman Brinley inquired if without the extension, their time would be up. City Attorney Leibold indicated that so long as the application is deemed completed, it would not expire based on no Council action. She clarified that submittal of the application within the time limit, keeps the map alive; and the Council could continue the item if it chose to do so. Councilwoman Brinley asked if that would be satisfactory with Lusk Homes. Bill Brasher, Vice President, Lusk, Lake Elsinore, stressed that numerous meetings had already been held and they were down to a very few people with concerns. He stressed Condition 26 and the issue it addressed. Councilwoman Brinley indicated that she did not disagree, but reiterated that there was an opportunity for further discussions with the remaining property owners. She stressed that iY would be in Lusk's best interest to meet with them. Councilman Hickman questioned the ability to get ten or twelve people to meet with them. Mr. Brasher indicated that no one had contacted them with regard to this issue. Councilwoman Brinley stressed that they should contact the homeowners in a timely fashion to resolve issues. She asked if that would work. City Attorney Leibold reiterated that the application PAGE NINE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 would protect the map. Councilman Hickman stressed the need to address the residents' concerns; and noted his past service on the board for Tuscany Hills and would like to see it developed. He suggested a six month extension of time to work with the property owners. Councilman Buckley requested clarification that the developer had not been contacted by the residents, and had not met with them since the tract map was approved. He noted that the project had overwhelming support of the Tuscany Hills group. He asked if it would be possible to send a staff member to meet with Lusk and the homeowners. Councilwoman Brinley concurred that it would be a good idea to send a staff inember. Councilman Buckley suggested that Assistant City Manager Best attend the meeting. Mr. Brasher clarified that the intent was for him to meet with the people who did not sign easements. Councilman Buclcley suggested that two weeks might not be enough time to set up such a meeting, but questioned if tabling the item would stop the clock. Councilwoman Brinley suggested that it be rescheduled for the first Council Meeting in March. City Attorney Leibold indicated that once the application is deemed complete, the law does not force a decision or allow it to expire. Mr. Brasher noted his involvement in a similar case in another jurisdiction, which was not the case. City Attorney Leibold clarified further. Mr. Brasher suggested that the time would not expire if the map application for the "final" map was deemed complete. Councilman Buckley reiterated that staff should attend a meeting between Lusk and the property owners, with a three month extension of time contingent on a the new joint meeting. Mr. Brasher inquired if they would be granted further extensions. City Attorney Leibold confirmed the ability to allow further e~ensions. Mr. Brasher inquired if a new application would be required. City Attorney Leibold indicated that a three month e~ension could be granted, and the same application used for the next extension, with the decision at that time on the balance of the extension. PAGE TEN - CITY COiTNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 Councilman Buckley stressed that he would want a report back from the meeting with the property owners. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that not everyone was aware of the physical constraints of the area, and suggested that there was little possibility that further meetings would solve anything. He suggested that the only options were to obtain the easements or build retaining walls. He indicated that he was in support of the extension of time; and he would like to see the project get moving, but was not in favor of addit'ional conditions. He further indicated that he was in favor of a six month e~ension with no requirements other than coming back to give an update on their progress. He stressed that he was sending the message that he wanted the deeeloper to get on the ball and get something done. Mayor Kelley indicated that in fairness to the homeowners that meetings had been held and several'=of the concerns were resolved, but it was difficult to make everyone happy. She noted that based on the time frames, there might even be new homeowners at this point. She indicated that she would have no problem with an extension for a shorter period of time. She strongly encouraged the developer to meet with the homeowners to see what could be worked out, but noted that it should be kept in mind that it would be impossible to make everyone happy. Mr. Brasher indicated that he would have no problem meeting with the homeowners again, but noted his concern with the comments that they had done nothing for two years. He noted their difficult annexation process, the Corps of Engineers permit and the Regional Water Quality Control Board issues; and stressed that it had not only been very time consuming, but also very expensive. Mayor Kelley noted that the homeowners haven't been in communication for two years. Councilwoman Brinley noted that this process began when she was the Mayor, and expressed appreciation for their efforts to date. Mr. Brasher noted that Mr. Johnson would have been present, however he was very ill PAGE ELEVEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 this evening. Councilwoman Brinley indicated that she would like to see this matter again at the first meeting in March, and concurred that it had been a long process with LAFCO. Mr. Brasher noted the potential that a resolution might not be reached. Mayor Kelley noted that a variety of motions had been suggested and requested a formal motion. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER TO GRANT A SIX MONTH EXTENSION OF TIME, WITH A STRONG REQUEST THAT THE DEVELOPER MEET WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND MAKE EFFORTS TO SATISFY THEIR CONCERNS. THIS MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilman Hickman suggested a three month extension of time. Mayar Pro Tem Schiffner suggested that there was too much to be done in three months. Mr. Brasher inquired if they would have to re-file and pay the fees again. City Attorney Leibold clarified that the time could be extended for a shorter period, with the balance being granted later. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY HICKMAN TO GRANT A THREE MONTH EXTENSION, RESERVING THE RIGHT TO PURSUE THE BALANCE OF THE REQUESTED TWENTY-FOUR MONTH EXTENSION, AND DEEMING THE APPLICATION COMPLETE AS SUBMITTED, BASED,ON THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. Councilman Buckley suggested a subsequent motion with no actual time period, but as soon as a meeting is held between Lusk, Staff and the homeowners, and a report is returned to Council, an extension could be granted for whatever the balance is at that time. He stressed the condition that the meeting was required to be attended by staff. Councilman Hickxnan suggested that it could take at least three months to get all of the PAGE TWELVE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 together. MAYOR PRO TEM SCHIFFNER CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. Councilwoman Brinley strongly encouraged the developer to arrange the meeting. THE FOREGOING MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs - specified in the General Plan (Government Code Section 66473.5). 2. The effects this project is likely to have upon the housing needs of the region, the public service requirements of its residents and the available fiscal and environmental resources have been considered and balanced. 3. The design of the subdivision provides to the greatest extent possible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision. (Governmental Code Section 66412.3) 4. The proposed subdivision will cause unavoidable adverse impacts on the environment. A statement of overriding consideration has been approved by the City Council (FEIRNo. 98-1) ResolutionNo. 2000-6. PLANNING DIVdSION 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 28751 shall be deemed approved and effective at such time as Annexation No. 69 is approved by the City Council, received final approval by the County's Local Agency Formation Commission PAGE THIRTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 (LAFCO), and recorded as territory under the jurisdiction of the City of Lake Elsinore. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 28751 shall be deemed approved and effective at such time as GPA No. 98-3 and ZC No. 98-3 receive final approval by the City Council. 3. Tentative Tract Map No. 28751 will expire two (2) years from date of approval unless within that period of time a final map has been filed and recorded with the County Recorder, or an extension of time is granted by the City of Lake Elsinore City Council in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. Additional extensions of time (thirty-six months maximum per the Subdivision Map Act) may be granted per City Council approvaL 4. Tentative Tract Map No. 28751 shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Title 16 unless modified by approved Conditions of Approval. 5. Developer of this subdivision shall comply with all mitigation measures established within the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Final Environmental Impact Report No. 98-1. 6. The applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgement of Conditions" and shall return the executed original to the Community Development Department, Planning Division. 7. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Official, Officers, Employees, and Agents from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Official, Officers, Employees, or Agents to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the - City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning the PAGE FOURTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 Annexation No. 69 and Sphere of Influence, GPA No. 98-3, ZC No. 98-3, TTM No. 28751, and FEIR No. 98-1, which action is bought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Sections 65009 and/or 66499.37, and Public Resources Code Section 21167. The City will promptly notify the Applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City and will cooperate fully with the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Applicant of any such claim, or proceeding, the Applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. PRIOR TO FINAL TRACT MAP 8. Prior to Final Tract Map approval by the City Council, all lots within this subdivision shall conform to the standards of the R-1 Zoning, Section 17.23 (Single-Family Residential Zoning) of the LEMC. 9. Prior to Final Map approval, the Final Map shall be in compliance with approved Tentative Tract Map No. 28751 as stamped approved by the Planning Division. 10. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall pay appropriate fees to the Planing Division for implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for FEIR No. 98-1. 11. A precise survey with closures far boundaries and all lots shall be provided per LEMC. 12. Street names within the subdivision shall be approved by the Planning Division. 13. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Riverside County Fire Department. PAGE FIFTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 12, 2002 = 14. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). 15. The applicant shall provide connection to public sewer for each lot within the subdivision. No service laterals shall cross adjacent property lines and shall be delineated on engineering sewer plans and profiles for submittal to the EVMWD. 16. Meet all requirements of Southern California Edison Company. In addition, the developer shall submit plans to Southern California Edison for a layout of the street lighting system. The cost of street lighting, installation as well as energy charges shall be the responsibility of the developer and/or the established Home Owner's Association. Said plans shall be approved by the City and shall be installed in accordance with the City Standards. Lighting on - streets that are directly adjacent to the City of Canyon Lake shall be properly shielded to protect direct light and glare contrary to the lifestyle currently desired by the CanyonLake residents. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT 17. The applicant shall enter into a pre-excavation agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians to ensure that Native American monitor(s) shall be present onsite during grading, site preparation and groundbreaking activities and to provide for the treatment and disposition of Native American human remains and cultural resources. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of California Public Resource Section 5097.98 should any Native American human remains be uncovered. 18. The applicant shall be required to submit a Construction Management Plan subject to the approval of the City Engineer and the Community Development Director or designee. The applicant shall be required to provide a bond at an amount agreed to by the City Engineer and applicant. Construction traffic shall not impact neighboring existing homes. PAGE SIXTEEN - CITY COl~NCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 19. The applicant shall acquire proper clearances and approvals from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and/or the California Department of Fish and Game, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, or designee. 20. The City's Noise Ordinance shall be met during all on site preparation activity. Construction shall not commence before 7:00 a.m. and cease at 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Construction activity shall not take place on Sunday, or any legal holidays. 2L Any alterations to the topography, ground surface, or any other site preparation activity will require the appropriate City permits from the Engineering Division. A Geologic Soils Report with associated recommendations will be required for all grading permit approval, and all grading must meet the City's Grading Ordinance, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Interim and permanent erosion control measures are required. The applicant shall bond 100% for material and labor for one year for erosion control landscaping at the time the site is rough graded. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OFBUILDING PERMITS 22. The applicant shall be required to form a Home Owner's Association or join an existing Home Owner's Association for adequate maintenance of common open space and related landscaping. 23. The applicant shall be required to annex the project site into Zone T of the Citywide Landscaping & Street Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD). 24. Arrangements shall be made between the City and the applicant for fiscal impacts by the project prior to issuance of the first building permit. The applicant shall participate in a Cost Recovery Program or make other PAGE SEVENTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 arrangements with the City to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project on public safety and maintenance issues in the City, including city- wide improvements and facilities relating to fire and police protection and maintenance of roadways, etc. 25. The applicant shall comply with all laws including the payment of fees based on State Law Requirements. 26. All development associated with this subdivision requires separate Design Review consideration and approval by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 17.82 of the LEMC prior to building permit. Special attention shall be given to the preservation of existing views to Canyon Lake along the south and west property boundaries. This may include requiring the roof ridgeline of future proposed dwellings within Tract No. 28751 to be at the same or lower elevation as the pad elevation of lots within Tuscany Hills. 27. House plotting, architectural drawings, floor plans, landscaping and fencing shall require Design Review approval prior to issuance of building permits. All standards of development and procedural steps in effect at the Design Review submittal shall apply for this project. 28. All interior fencing shall be approved subject to Section 17.14.130.D of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. A Fencing Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval at the discretion of the Community Development Director, that designates where various types of fencing are to be located prior to issuing of building permit. Splash walls will be required for down slope property boundaries at the discretion of the City Engineer. 29. All trailers and/ar mobile homes used during construction, mailboxes and signage shall be subject to Planning Division review and approval prior to installation. All trailers and/or mobile homes used during construction shall require a cash bond to guarantee proper removal. PAGE EIGHTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 30. The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees in force at the time, (including park in lieu fees), prior to the issuance of building permits. PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 31. Slopes on individual lots in excess of three-feet in height shall be installed, landscaped and irrigated by the developer. These slopes shall be maintained by Individual Home Owners. 32. All common slopes shall be installed, landscaped, and irrigated by the developer. All common slopes shall be maintained by the established Home Owner's Association. 33. The applicant shall meet all the requirements of the serving gas utility. 34. The applicant shall meet all the requirements of the serving telephone utility. ENGINEERING DIVISION 35. All Public Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinare Municipal Code (LEMC) prior to final map approval. 36. 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. 37. 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. PAGE NINETEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 38. 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). 39. Street improvement plans and specifications shall be prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to Riverside County Road Department Standards, latest edition, and City Codes (LEMC 12.04 and 16.34). Modified Standards may be approved subject to the discretion of the City Engineer. 40. Maximum desirable grade for local streets is 9%. The maximum grade of 15% should only be used because of design constraints. - 41. Interior streets shall be designed with 9% as the desired maximum grade and intersecting streets shall meet at a maximum grade of 6%. 42. Applicant shall obtain all necessary off-site easements for off-site grading and drainage outlet structures from the adjacent property owners prior to final map ar grading plan approval. 43. Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by Riverside County Fire. 44. Provide street lighting and show lighting improvements as part of street improvement plans as required by the City Engineer. 45. Applicant shall submit a traffic control plan showing all traffic control devices for the tract to be approved priar to final map approval. All traffic control devices shall be installed prior to final inspection of public improvements. This includes No Parking and Street Sweeping Signs for streets within the tract. PAGE TWENTY - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 46. All improvement plans and tract maps shall be digitized. At Certificate of Occupancy applicant shall submit tapes and/or discs which are compatible with City's ARC Info/GIS or developer to pay $300 per sheet for City digitizing. 47. All utilities except electrical over 12 kV shall be placed underground, as approved by the serving utility. 48. If grading exceeds 50 cubic yards, grading plans shall be prepared by a Calif. Registered Civil Engineer and approved prior to grading permit issuance. Prior to any grading, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit and post appropriate security. 49: Provide soils, geology and seismic report including street design recommendations. Provide final soils report showing compliance with recommendations. 50. An Alquist-Priolo study shall be performed on the site to identify any hidden earthquake faults and/or liquefaction zones present on-site. 51. 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. 52. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way should be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note should be added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions". 53. All natural drainage traversing site shall be conveyed through the site, ar shall be collected and conveyed by a method approved by the City Engineer. PAGE TWENTY-ONE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 54. Submit Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports for review and approval by City Engineer and review by the City of Canyon Lake and the Property Owners Association of Canyon Lake prior to approval of final map and/or grading permit. Developer shall mitigate any flooding and/or erosion caused by development of site and diversion of drainage. 55. All drainage facilities in this tract shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District Standards. 56. 10 year storm runoff should be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm runoff should be contained within the street right-of-way. When either of these criteria are exceeded, drainage facilities should be installed. - 57. A drainage acceptance letter will be necessary from the downstream property owners for outletting proposed stormwater run-off on private property, if applicable. 58. If the existing Canyon Lake storm drain system does not have the capacity to accept the storm water discharge from the developed site, then additional storm water detention will be required on site. The inlets to the Canyon Lake storm drain system may need improvements to increase their inlet capacity. The existing vegetation in the low areas upstream of the inlets in Canyon Lake shall be maintained to provide an efficient hydraulic section for storm water runoff to enter the Canyon Lake storm drain system. 59. Applicant shall agree to join the Railroad Canyon Road Benefit Reimbursement District and be subject to the same fee as the Tuscany Hills Development Projects. ($1,846 per unit) 60. 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 PAGE TWENTY-TWO -CITY COUNCIL'MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 applicant shall provide a SWPPP for post construction, which describes BMP's that will be implemented for storm water pollutants discharging into the Canyon Lake Reservoir. 61. 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. 62. 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. 63. Intersecting streets on the inside radius of a curve will only be permitted when adequate sight distance is verified by a registered civil engineer. 64. Local streets shall have sixty (60) ft. right-of -way with forty (40) ft. curb-to- curb. 65. Single- loaded local streets shall not have less than a 43 ft. right-of-way with 30 ft. curb-to-curb. Parking will be permitted only on one side of the street. 66. Applicant shall connect H Street with Via De La Valle. All right-of-way shall be acquired prior to final map approval. 67. Applicant shall record CC & R's for the tract prohibiting on-street storage of boats, motorhomes, trailer, and trucks over one-ton capacity, roof mounted or front yard. The CC & R's shall be approved by the Community Development Director or designee prior to recordation of final map. PAGE TWENTY-THREE-CITY COiJNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 68. Applicant shall provide a homeowner's association with CC & R's for maintenance of the open space. 69. 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 homeowner's association or private property owner. 70. Applicant shall be exempt from paying any drainage fees with the developer constructing the storm drain system. 71: DELETED. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERNIIT 72. Pay all Capital Improvement and Plan Check fees (LEMC 1634, Resolution 85-26). 73. 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). 74. All compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8'/z" x 11" Mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division before final inspection of public warks improvements will be scheduled and approved. 75. Developer shall install blue reflective pavement markers in the street at all fire hydrant locations. 76. 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. PAGE TWENTY-FOUR-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 77. Storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately stenciled to prevent illegally dumping in the drain system, the wording and stencil shall be approved by the City Engineer. ~ 78. Developer shall contribute $60,000 for off site traffic mitigation for their fair share of infrastructure improvements to intersections in the vicinity and I-15 freeway ramps. This shall equate to a fee based on the number of units, payable at building permit. 79. 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 provided that the recyclable materials are either donated or sold to the vendor. Another recycling vendor, other than CR&R Inc., cannot charge the applicant for recycling bin rental, recycling services, or other services related to recycling or solid waste disposal. Unless the applicant is using CR&R Inc. for recycling services, the applicant shall supply proof of debris disposal at a recycling center, including verification of tonnage by certified weighmaster tickets. 80. Developer shall install two bench marks in accordance with Riverside County Standards and at a location to be determined by the City Engineer. (added by City Engineer) 81. Applicant shall obtain approval from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board for their storm water pollution prevention plan including approval of erosion control for the grading plan prior to issuance of grading permits, The applicant shall provide a SWPPP for post construction which describes BMP's that will be implemented for the development and including maintenance responsibilities. PAGE TWENTY-FIVE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 32. Collier Avenue Median Landscaping. (F:95.2) City Manager Watenpaugh advised that funding for this item had been applied for several years ago. Community Development Director Brady explained that this item proposed matching funds for Collier Avenue Median, in cooperation with the Transportation Enhancement Activities Federal Highway Program. He explained that funding had become available because the City of Palm Desert relinquished $572,000 of their funding, which moved Lake Elsinore's project up the priority list, subject to the City's willingness to allocate the matching funds. Keith Cook, 16495 Nectarine Way, requested consideration of spending money on other open areas of the City before commercial areas. He noted that one corner had been completed at Grand/Lakeshore, and stressed that other areas.,needed landscaping. He suggested that the City was paying - excessive costs for landscaping; and stressed that he would like to see the residential areas addressed and cleaned up before the commercial areas. Councilman Buckley indicated that he had questioned this item when he read his agenda, and noted that this had been requested for Collier. He inquired it the City would have to apply the funds to the original project for which they were requested. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that the projects are taken in the order of submittal, so while other projects could be submitted they would fall into the order of submittal. Councilman Buckley clarified that it could not be switched to another project. Councilman Hickman expressed support and commented that putting in $58,000 in funding would give the City a$282,000 project. Councilman Buckley noted a comment in the staff report regarding an RCTC meeting on February 11"'. Community Development Director Brady indicated that action had not been taken at that meeting, and anticipated that the action would move forward some time in March. Councilman Buckley PAGE TWENTY-SIX - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 inquired why this matter had not been discussed at the last meeting. Community Development Director Brady indicated that staff was not aware of the new funding availability at the last meeting. Councilman Hickman inquired if the City was guaranteed the $282,000. Community Development Director Brady indicated that it was not yet guaranteed, but the project had been moved up on the ranking, so there were three other projects at the same level. He commented that it was a good chance, but there were no guarantees; however they were looking for a City commitment to matching funds. Councilman Hickman inquired if $58,000 was the City's full requirement. Community Development Director Brady confirmed. Councilwoman Brinley noted that the City had already applied and was on the list; and inquired if annual applications were required. Community Development Director Brady indicated that applications were submitted whenever funding was available. He suggested that other projects could be identified in the next budget process. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that he had no comments, but was in favor of approving the item. Mayor Kelley indicated that she had no problem with this item, noting that it had been applied for quite a while ago and the City had moved up the list. She commented that it was a good opportunity for further capital improvements. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VO'I'E TO TdtANSFER $58,510 FROM THE GENERAL FUND RESERVES AND/OR TRANSPORTATION FiJNDS IF AVAILABLE AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE COLLIER AVENUE MEDIAN LANDSCAPING PROJECT. PAGE TWENTY-SEVEN-CITY COLTNCIL NIINLT:fES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 ^ i.~. 33. Chan~e Order for McVicker Eire Station - Triquest Builders. (F:127.3) City Manager Watenpaugh highlighted this item, and noted that the necessary funding would come from the contingencies. Community Development Director Brady reiterated that this item was from the contingencies and this was confirmation of the change order. He detailed the additional items included in the Change Order and explained the contingency fund. He noted that this Change Order was for just over 1% of the total project. Councilman Buckley questioned the original bid, the change order and the actual total cost to date. Community Development Director Brady indicated that he wasn't certain of the total amount, but it was the original bid plus $150,000, as the balance was from the contingency. Councilman Buckley noted that this was the second Change Order for soil problems, and inquired why it had not been discovered before. Community Development Director Brady clarified that the previous amount was $150,000, however as it went through the process it actually cost another $10,000 for the grading portion, with the other $15,000 for other items. Councilman Buckley inquired when construction would be complete. Community Development Director Brady indicated that it was anticipated to be completed by April/May if there was no rain. He advised that the roof sheeting and trusses were up, plumbing was complete and most outside grading was complete. Councilman Hickxnan noted that the total cost was estimated at $2.3 million and expressed hope that it would be completed soon. He further noted that the County built their facility cheaper. Councilwoman Brinley had no comments. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that he had no objection, but clarified that the original $150,000 Change Order was for a change in the elevation and grading, after which other problems were discovered. He stressed that ~ PAGE TWENTY-EIGHT-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 they were two separate issues; and not a redo of the same thing. Mayor Kelley noted the discovery of huge boulders on the property. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE AND CONFIRM THE CHANGE ORDER FOR THE McVICKER FIRE STATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,480.64. 34. Contract with SC En ing eerin~ for a Project Stud~port for Railroad Canyon Road and I-15 Freewav Interchan~e. (F:68.1)(X:822)(X:162.3) City Manager Watenpaugh explained this item which was a Caltrans requirement for additional studies on the Freeway footings. Community Development Director Brady explained that the City was in the process of completing'the Caltrans required study for this location. He further explained that as part of the process a number of alternatives were provided, however before work could continue, they requested additional studies on the foundations, bridge structures and traffic analyses. He advised that the total anticipated cost for this study was $36,715. Councilman Buckley had no comments. Councilman Hickman noted that this project started in May, 2000 and was nearing completion. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that he was very disappointed with the problems encountered with the bureaucracies. He noted the previous engineering study and the various alternatives, of which none were acceptable to the State; and after many months they had come up with another requirement. He indicated that he was very unhappy with the whole process, but the City was a captive in the process. He suggested that this PAGE TWENTY-NINE - CITY COiJNCIL MINLJTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 was the City's most important project and stressed the need to proceed with it. Councilwoman Brinley concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner and stressed the need to proceed and make sure the intersection could be reconstructed. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that there was no guarantee. Mayor Kelley noted that she had no problem continuing to "dance" with the Caltrans process. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO TRANSFER $36,715 FROM MEASURE A AND GAS TAX FUNDS TO THIS PROJECT. 35. Central Avenue/Collier Avenue and Collier Avenue/Riverside Drive Traffic Sienals Ri~ht-of-Way Purchase. (F:162.4) City Manager Watenpaugh noted that he had met with the new Regional Director for Caltrans, and while they were receptive to the City's issues, a year or year and a half delay was standard procedure. He advised that staff had been warking on this item for almost two years, and Caltrans had returned with additional requirements several times. He explained that this item was a request for acquisition of additional right-of-way. Community Development Director Brady explained that this item was part of the signalization project. He noted that it had been a long process of dealing with design and Caltrans; and commented that at one point they wanted to increase the road widths further, but they came back with different requirements for the turning radius. He explained that because of Federal monies it was necessary to get an appraisal and allow the right-of- way agent to move forward.- He advised that the necessary lots were estimated at about $1,000 each; and while one owner had agreed to that the other one believed their property was worth significantly more, PAGE THIRTY - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 approximately $6,900. He recommended moving forward and purchase the lots due to the fees related to condemnation and potential delays. He further recommended allocation of the full $7,900 for acquisition. Councilman Buckley questioned the original appraisal and the cost of the right-of-way agent, and if it was originally $13,000 for appraisal and right- of-way costs. He noted the costs of the prope~rty and noted failing to approve this item would delay the traffic signal; but commented that it was galling. Community Development Directar Brady indicated that it was also very frustrating for staff, but they were trying to move forward. Councilman Buckly noted that a lot of land buying was done in Closed Session, and he was balancing whether to set the precedent or cause 90 mare days on the traffic light. Councilman Hickman inquired when the lights would be installed. Community Development Director Brady indicated that if the item moved forward, they would probably be installed by August of this year. He expressed hopes that it might be earlier, but noted the lead time for ordering the equipment. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner inquired if the design was complete. Community Development Director Brady confirxned. Councilwoman Brinley indicated that she agreed with Councilman Buckley that it came down to weighing the cost vs. the potential delays. She concurred that there was no choice at this point, but it would set a precedent for future projects. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner concurred with the other Councilmembers, but reiterated that this had gone on for two years; as RCTC authorized it over two years ago. He indicated that the precedent had already been set, but the project was important and would take long enough. PAGE THIRTY-ONE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 Mayor Kelley noted that it was necessary to either condemn the property or move forward; and indicated that she did not want to get into condemnation. NdOVEID BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY A~OTE OF 4 TO 1 WITH BUCKLEY CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE TO APPROVE THE TRANSFER OF $7,900 FROM THE TRAFFIC SAF~TY FUND TO THIS PROJECT; TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTIES, AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE DEEDS AT THE CLOSE OF ESCROW. 36. LSA Associates Traffic Impact/Roadway Fee Pro~ram. (F:162.3) City Manager Watenpaugh noted this request for funds to assist with the study. Community Development Director Brady explained that this item was part of the traffic impact fee analysis for the City, and would be associated with all new development. He noted that the study had taken longer than anticipated, but part of the reason was the need for acquisition of additional information. He explained that the traffic model did not match the circulation element, so they had been authorized to run a model for the year 2025. He further explained that part of the information needed was not available from SCAG or the City, so LSA had to do additional work to complete the study. He advised that the study had been reviewed and a study session was being planned with the Council and developers to look at the fee proposal in mid-March. He further advised that the original contract with LSA was for $210,000, however an additional $40,000 was needed to complete the study. Councilman Hickman commented that this was another project started in July, 2000 and stressed the need to find the money and move forward. Councilwoman Brinley noted that it was sad to see a project take so long, but the project was underway and needed to be brought to a conclusion. PAGE THIRTY-TWO-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 Councilman Buckley inquired if there was a draft of the work so far in house. Community Development Director Brady confirmed noting that staff had reviewed it and provided comments. Councilman Buckley questioned the need for new software. Community Development Directar Brady indicated that it would only be needed if there were additional projects. Councilman Buckley inquired if the City would own the work product at this point. City Attorney Leibold confirmed. Councilman Buckley asked if the study was good enough. Community Development Director Brady indicated that staff had requested revisions and suggested that it was not good enough. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that there was information that the public did not understand. He explained that it was a fee for developers, based on each house built, for the improvement of highways. He inquired if there was a similar fee in the County and adjacent cities at the present time. Community Development Director Brady indicated that he did not have the information with him, but the County's fees ranged from $2,500 to $6,000 or $7,000. He commented that he would bring a comparison to the Study Session for review. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that the fee in Lake Elsinore would be used in Lake Elsinore and be similar to that charged by other cities and the County. Community Development Director Brady noted that the City currently had a small capital improvement fee, but this study would provide the nexus and background required to establish the fee. Mayor Kelley commented that the current fee was ridiculous at about three cents a square foot of land area. She reiterated that this study would help to establish the proper fees. MOVEID BY SC~IIk'FNER, SECONDEID BY HICKMAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO TRANSFER $40,000 FROM GAS TAX AND MEASURE "A" FUNDS FOR THE CONTRACT WITH LSA ASSOCIATES. PAGE THIRTY-THREE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 37. Consideration of Additional Funding far H.O.P.E. (Helping Our People of Elsinorel.(F:108.18) City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that this was in response to a request by several Councilmembers at a previous Study Session; and requested Council direction. John Purpura, Laguna Avenue, noted that this topic had been discussed at the last few City Council meetings; and commented on the support received from the community. He indicated that it had really helped the program and allowed them to purchase clothing for younger children and backpacks for older children. He prayed for the support of this funding to provide clothing for high school students. Councilman Bucicley noted that this made three meetings in a row with $2,500 for HOPE. He encouraged them to keep up the good work. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that he was in support of this action. Councilman Hickman indicated that he was thankful the City could assist them. Councilwoman Brinley indicated that HOPE did a lot of good work for the valley and she had not problem supporting this assistance. Mayor Kelley indicated that she had no problem with this action and was happy to do this. She explained that this item was back again because it was brought up at budget review and needed to come back for a decision. She commented that the Council couldn't just spend money on request of this type without looking at the bigger picture. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY HICKMAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROPRIATE $2,500 OUT OF THE CITY'S PAGE THIRTY-FOUR-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 __ GENERAL FUND RESERVE TO H.O.P.E. (HELPING OUR PEOPLE OF ELSINORE). 38. Ordinance No. 1079 - Revision to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Related to Skateboarding and In-Line Skating. (F:114.14) City Manager Watenpaugh highlighted this Ordinance. Community Services Director Sapp explained that this Ordinance was being proposed at the request of the Joint Powers Insurance Authority for the operation of skate parks. He further explained that the Ordinance would require all participants at the park to wear safety equipment and make it an enforceable offense for failure to do so. He indicated that most cities including Vista, Temecula, etc., only have a policy, however the JPIA was requiring this Ordinance. Chris Hyland, 15181 Wavecrest Drive, indicated that she had a copy of AB1296, which provided cities with conditional immunity from liability for skateboarding facilities. She inquired if to acquire immunity it was in the City's interest to set an age limit of 14 years. Mayor Kelley indicated that there would be no age limit for the park; but while the requirement was written for age 14, another law was proposed to lower the age in the law. City Attorney Leibold noted that it was her understanding that immunity was not available to protect children under age 14; but offered to check and noted the large amount of discussion of this issue throughout the State. She indicated that it was most common among cities with parks to not limit the age of the participants. Mayar Kelley noted the JPIA requirement. Community Services Director Sapp noted that there was legislation moving forward to change the age limit to seven, but he was not certain where it was in the process. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner questioned the fourteen year limitation on page 1 of 4, and requested clarification of all ages. Mayor Kelley clarified that it PAGE THIRTY-FIVE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 was a limit of liability issue. City Attorney Leibold indicated that the State adopted statutory immunity for governments operating parks with protective gear. She stressed that it only protected against accidents for kids ages 14 or older; and there was no general immunity for younger children. She noted that she had heard discussion of the pending legislation to reduce the age. Community Services Director Sapp noted that the course had been designed and would be under construction by the end of next week. He commented on the varying levels of equipment and scheduled sessions to limit interaction between ability levels. Mayar Kelley noted that the Committee looked closely at the skateboard park to be sure that there were areas for beginners and progressive levels. She stressed that the Ordinance required protective gear; and stressed that the activities within the park, with protective gear were safer than being on the streets or school property where there is a lot more exposure to danger. City Attorney Leibold noted the incidence of injury in outside areas. Councilman Hickman inquired if allowing kids between 7 and 14 would make the City liable. City Attorney Leibold clarified the immunity issue for kids over 14, but general immunities would apply. Councilman Hickman requested verification of this immunity, based on the City's luck. City Manager Watenpaugh commented that the Committee would require sign ups and registration, parent signature requirements and waivers that acknowledge the potential risk. City Attorney Leibold noted the statutory provisions that, like many other activities, assumed a certain level of risk. Councilwoman Brinley addressed enforcement of the requirements. Mayor Kelley indicated that would be up to the concessionaire, but they could not enter the facility without proper gear. Councilwoman Brinley asked if the rules and regulations required the equipment. Mayor Kelley indicated that they would rent the equipment from the concessionaire, although most will have the equipment, and could not skate without equipment. Mayor Pro PAGE THIRTY-SIX-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 ' Tem Schiffner indicated that it would not be hard to enforce the requirements, due to the limitations. Mayor Kelley stressed that she worked on the project with the kids, and the kids were excited and could hardly wait for the opening on March 30`t' at 2 p.m. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1079 UPON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY: ORDINANCE N0.1079 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECITON 10.56.070 TO TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.56 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE, PERTAINING TO THE USE OF SAFETY ' EQUIPMENT BY PERSONS PARTICIPATING IN SKATEBOARDING, IN-LINE AND ROLLER SKATING IN DESIGNATED PUBLIC AREA5. UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY, BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE 39. Pro-Rata Contribution and TUMF Consultant Activities. (F:140.1)(X;108.13) City Manager Watenpaugh highlighted this request and explained that it PAGE THIRTY-SEVEN-CITY COiTNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 was intended to address regional issues, but would not duplicate TUMF fees in the local area. He noted that the TUMF issue was tabled at the last meeting, however Lake Elsinore was one of five cities that had not funded its share. Councilman Buckley indicated that the City should go ahead and pay its fair share, since most other cities have already done so. He indicated that it was a small amount, and it was going toward a regional TUMF fee as part of the Riverside County Integrated Plan. He suggested that no matter the outcome, the City would want to have as much input as possible. Mayar Pro Tem Schiffner and Councilmembers Hickman and Brinley indicated that they were in favor of this action. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY HICKMAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE EXPENDITURE OF $2,424 FOR THE CITY'S PRO-RATA SHARE OF CON5ULTING SERVICES RELATED TO THE REGIONALTUMF AND AUTHORIZED STAFF TO APPROPRIATE THE FUNDS. 40. Park Maintenance Assessment District - Proposal from Harris & Associates - $50,000. (F:22.1) City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that City staff and Council and discussed the potential for a park benefit assessment to dedicate funds to parks and recreation services. He highlighted the history of this discussion including the original approval and the recent study session. He advised that the charge for a single family residence would be $39.34; and requested Council determination as to whether to move forward with a vote of the property owners. He indicated that this action would not implement the fee, but autharize staff to move forward with a mail-out ballot. PAGE THIRTY-EIGHT-CITY COUNCIL MINUTE5-FEBRUARY 1Z, 20U2 Chris Hyland, 15181 Wavecrest, indicated that she had nothing against children, but she was against the City spending t~ dollars. She suggested that every major project had turned to sawdust; and commented that the skate park would be ne~. She indicated that she was rarely wrong, but if the money had been used wisely, this assessment would not be required. She expressed concern with staff salaries and benefits. She addressed the skateboard park and suggested that the money could have been used to rehabilitate the area where the drownings had occurred. She indicated that the skateboard park was not for the poor kids downtown; and noted that Murrieta was building a park for $198,000, where kids could go free of charge. She suggested that the City should have let a private enterprise build a facility. She addressed a comment by Pete Dawson regarding the burden of hiring a lifeguard, and indicated that Mayor Kelley did not pay property taxes. Dale Hite, 115 N: Kellogg Street, commented that he would like to support this issue because the City is financially responsible, but questioned if added parks and recreation programs would reduce risk for gang activity. He also questioned if this assessment would just water the grass and do general repairs. He commented on the previous Proposition BB, and questioned if $50,000 was appropriate for the second phase of this process. He noted a strong hatred in the City and strong opposition to new assessments, but indicated that this item might not be such a bad idea. He stressed the need to maintain aesthetic values. He commented on the lawsuits regarding the drownings and comments by Councilman Buckley that the City was negligent. He further commented that it was the Council's job to protect the City against outlandish claims; and expressed hopes that no one read the Californian. He expressed concern that there was an individual who told him that he had contacted each family of the drowning victims to encourage them to file suit against the City. He indicated that actions such as this caused him to support this assessment issue. PAGE THIRTY-NINE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 George Alongi, 649 Mill Street, noted that a few years ago the City was embarrassed when it had to close its parks, at a cost of $130,000 to fence them. He indicated that as elected officials the first obligation is public safety including police, fire and parks. He indicated that the proposed tax was not necessary, particularly since the City seemed to support things like the Lake, Theatre, Walmart, K-mart, etc. He noted the ballpark was the only thing not costing the taxpayers. He expressed concern that this process would only give the right to property owners, not registered voters. He suggested that the City review budgets, make cuts and find a way to provide the services, as he was not willing to pay more taxes on any of his properties. He stressed that those who ended up paying were less able to pay; and suggested that they were already paying taxes for parks. He asked that the Council put this matter aside and review its budgets. Edith Stafford, 29700 Hursh Street, indicated that she would like to support the proposed assessment, but could not because she felt that the present tax dollars were not being used in the best manner for the public interest, the priorities were upside down, it appeared that the City was into projects for self-gratification, and there was no sure way of knowing that this assessment would not be used for some other project and never returned back to the ariginal purpose. She indicated that the City might say the money would be used only for the purpose sought, but there was nothing to protect the residents from being bombarded with that money being used for some other project. She suggested that it would be cheaper to have a vote at the polls instead of mail-out ballots, and it would provide better control. Ace Vallejos, 15231 Cobre Street, indicated that he would be impacted by this tax if it passed. He addressed the fiscal responsibility of the City and suggested that the assessment would not pass. He suggested that the parks were already being funded from the general fund and these would only be additional funds. He suggested getting rid of payroll leaks; and indicated that he would vote as a property owner. PAGE FORTI'-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 Keith Cook, 16496 Nectarine, addressed the skatepark and the funds available, and expressed concern that the City was asking for a tax increase. He indicated that it would be a user fee and a new tax to replace the user fee. He addressed the outlet channel project and its future maintenance. He questioned how transportation dollars could be used to fund parks, when streets were in need of paving. He questioned the funds allocated for ADA Restrooms and suggested that the cost seemed excessive. He questioned the Council's plans if this assessment did not pass, and whether they would consider closing the parks. Mayor Kelley requested response from staf£ City Manager Watenpaugh noted that the user groups did not arrive early enough to fill out a form to speak. He addressed the staff report for use of grant funds for the skatepark and clarified that it showed what funds could be used for new, used or renovated facilities: He indicated that with regard to private enterprise building the facility, staff inet with Mr. Giardinelli from Canyon Lake for someone who wanted to build, but no proposals or funding came forward. He clarified that he did not believe parks and recreation were public safety issues, and were generally the first thing to get cut, as they were considered a luxury item. He stressed that recreation was a non-mandated service. He addressed comments that the City was paying a lot of money to business enterprises and not using it wisely; but noted that neighboring cities were using money to draw a business that would generate revenues. He explained that Proposition 218 was voted on by the people, and removed the ability to fizndpark services through~the Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District. He further explained that it allowed a variety of methods to assess fees, including the mail-out ballot. He advised that park services were currently funded at just under $600,000; and the proposed ballot measure would draw funds up to $900,000, allowing for more services and a guaranteed source of funds. He explained that with regard to the skatepark, the initial meetings involved participation by Canyon Lake and the County; and the City Council chose to use the grant funds in response to requests from the youth of the community. He indicated that PAGE FORTY-ONE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- FEBRUARY 12, 2002 the transportation funds being used for the outflow channel were from a grant specifically for trails. Councilman Buckley addressed the cost far vacant property, noting that it was $39 per year, per house; $94 for subdivided parcels and $29/acre for vacant agricultural land. He inquired if representatives of Harris and Associates were present at the meeting, Mayor Kelley introduced Jeff Cooper, representing Harris & Associates. Councilman Buckley noted the verbiage "public relations" and suggested that it was different from "public information"; and requested the use of "public information". He questioned the $49,000 cost in relationship to the phases, and how much each phase would cost. Mr. Cooper addressed Page 3 of the report and detailed the phases. Councilman Buckley questioned the postage costs. Mr. Cooper detailed the processing and associated costs.; and indicated that with the mailing expenses, the total cost was closer to $57,000 or $58,000. He noted that the postage would be paid directly by the City when it got closer to the election. He explained that one of the costs was to prepare the rolls, but that could only occur after approval of the measure. Councilman Buckley indicated that he was not in favor of the assessment, as he was not comfortable asking people for more money until the City got a better handle on its money. He indicated that after revising the budget and making cuts at City Hall, separating the parks would not be a bad idea, if it was possible to come up with corresponding savings. He noted that Mr. Cook questioned the threat of closing the parks, and indicated that personally he would not allow the City to consider that action. He further noted that he had heard nothing from the Council on either side of the issue that would threaten closing the parks. Councilman Hickman indicated that he loved and supported the kids, but he could not rationalize coming back to the taxpayers to ask for money. He expressed concern with the lack of a business plan for the skatepark; while Murrieta was providing one free to the publia He noted that 39% of the Seniors that use the Senior Center were from outside the City and suggested PAGE FORTY-TWO-CITY COUNGIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002 that 40% of the kids in the park didn't live in the City either. He indicated that he would like to go through the budget first before asking for an assessment of more money, especially since he had been briefed on the Campground, parks, etc. He indicated that he was against the assessment. Councilwoman Brinley concurred that no one intended to hold the kids hostage, however at times it came down to the point of funding. She stressed the approximate annual cost of $600,000 and noted that most of the cities in the State had found ways to subsidize their parks. She noted that there were plans to hold public meetings to discuss the issues with the residents prior to the election. She stressed that the Council wanted public input to staff, and noted that user groups were supportive of this item. She noted the participation by the youth groups to help maintain the parks since 1996-97; and explained that they were aware of the costs to maintain them. She advised that they were supportive of the issue to insure that the parks were maintained in top condition. She commented that Wildomar no longer had any parks, as they had one which was closed because there was no money to run it, the County wouldn't fund it, and the County residents chose not to provide funding. She noted that many Wildomar residents now use City of Lake Elsinore parks, and most playoffs and championships are played in Lake Elsinore. She stressed that the City parks were well run and maintained, but the time had come when additional funding was needed. She indicated that there would be town hall meetings to address the issues and find out where the community stood. She stressed that the Council would not be passing a tax without vote or input, and it would be the community's decision. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that he would agree with many of Councilwoman Brinley's comments, and reiterated that the Council would not impose a tax, but rather put forth a ballot for the opportunity to oppose such a tax. He noted the comments suggesting such a measure wouldn't pass, and indicated that the Council believed it would. He further noted that the last proposal of this type drew 60% support, however 66% was PAGE FORTY-THREE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 required; and under this method, as prescribed by the Legislature, it would require only 50% plus 1 vote. He expressed belief that it would pass, but noted that it might not generate additional funds, but it would guarantee the necessary funds. He reiterated that parks were discretionary and not public safety issues; and usually the first to be taken away when there were financial shortfalls. He stressed that this approval would allow the funds to be dedicated to the parks and only used for approved programs. He indicated that he was in favor of this item, although he knew it wouldn't be popular, as he felt it was in the best interest of the community. He commented that the City needed to increase fiznds and this was one of the few means of doing so. He further commented that the only other option was to try to improve the retail business and increase sales taxes. He stressed that the Council would only be giving the residents a chance to make a choice. Mayor Kelley concurred that this would allow the people to decide to take funds out of the General Fund and set them aside to guarantee park maintenance. She noted the State's continuing efforts to take funds away from cities, such as the recent discussion of Vehicle License Fees. She agreed that the Council would never threaten to close the parks, but this is a request, and the public would be provided with information and town hall meetings. She noted that fees were already charged in Temecula and other cities. City Manager Watenpaugh confirmed and detailed the similar taxes paid in Murrieta and Temecula. Mayor Kelley stressed the Council would not make the decision, but rather the voters would. She indicated that this consideration had been prompted by the User Groups, as they would like the parks maintained in optimum condition. She expressed belief that this process should move forward. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 2 WITH BUCKLEY AND HICKMAN CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL BY HARRIS & PAGE FORTY-FOUR-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 ASSOCIATES, NOT TO EXCEED $50,000 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARK MAINTENANCE DISTRICT. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Notice of Completion for Citv Entrance Landscape Project - Marina Landscane. (F:95.2) Chris Hyland, 15181 Wavecrest, indicated that she was amazed when she read this notice, and noted discussion that talked about two lots at the location. She noted that there were questions regarding the property ownership on the site which arose during the Election. She indicated that the City did not own one of the lots, as it had only done eminent domain for a trade of property. She expressed concern with unethical people and people who didn't tell the truth, and indicated that there had been no attempts to acquire the property: She stressed that untrue information should not be put out and reiterated that the City did not own and had never owned the lot. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that was true on a portion of the property, and when that was discovered it was turned over to the attorney to resolve the issue. He advised that the right-of-way and the road belonged to the City, however he was not sure about the balance. City Attorney Leibold indicated that they liad just received the title information and were trying to clarify the property ownership. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner questioned the relevance of those issues to this agenda item. MOVED BY KELLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ACCEPT THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION FROM MARINA LANDSCAPE, INC., AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE AND RECORDATION OF THE NOTICE. PAGE FORTY-FIVE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 7. Resolution Nos. 2002-06 thru 2002-08 for Grant Submittal and Agreement Extension - Wildlife Conservation Board. (F:84.1~ Councilman Buckley read this item as presented and explained that it was , for the submittal of three grant proposals, totaling approximately $7 million for the City to buy land along the Lakeshore and in the Four Corners area along the lake to be preserved for habitat, parks and roadways. City Manager Watenpaugh confirmed. Councilman Buckley indicated that an agreement extension was also included in this item with Molendyk & Associates, who was the previous City Manager. He expressed concern with working with Mr. Molendyk, suggesting that the City needed to move beyond its past. He noted Mr. Harrison's success in getting grants and a grant Molendyk & Associates was unable to obtain for the City for the parks. He expressed concern about the manner in which the contract was brought forth and the fact that the contract was due to end in January. He expressed his discontent with the e~ension of the contract due to the fact that there were other potentiaLgrant writers the City could utilize. He reviewed Mr. Molendyk's billing practices and the fact that he attained the cap of $2000.00 every month. Councilman Hickman acknowledged Councilman Buckley's concern; and indicated that he met Mr. Molendyk at a conference in Sacramento. He commended him for reducing the fee from $4000 to $2000 per month. He indicated that he was impressed with Mr. Molendyk's partners. He stated that he was aware of Mr. Molendyk's reputation in the City, however the possibility of $7 million in grant funds was well worth the fee Molendyk & Associates requested. He indicated that the staff impressed him and the "good ole' boy" system had to stop so the City could go on and move through the past. Councilwoman Brinley noted that she was with Councilman Hickman in Sacramento and met Mr. Harrison. She asked City Manager Watenpaugh to provide an overview of Molendyk & Associates. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that Molendyk & Associates included Jack Harrison, PAGE FORTY-SIX-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 the ex-Deputy Director of State Parks for the State of California and Henry Agonia, the ex-State Parks Director who was associated with Jack Harrison in terms of the grant facilitating. He explained that a letter from the Director of the Department of Fish and Game to the Director of the Wildlife Conservation Board was necessary in the application process for grant funds through the Wildlife Conservation Board. He indicated that the City had a verbal confirmation thatthey would support the project and that was favorable. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the City had a great team with the staff and Molendyk & Associates, with potential for funding, althougkthere were no guarantees due to the competition. He indicated that the team had a good shot at getting funding for preservation of the four- corners area, the eucalyptus trees and nesting herons, the habitat area and public access. He noted that the focus was habitat enhancement, public access and acquisition, and the proposal and grant were in order to extend the contract witk Molendyk & Associates for four months at $2,000 per month through May. He indicated that it was staff's recommendation to Council to approve this item and move forward with the agreement. Councilwoman Brinley advised how impressive Mr. Harrison and Mr. Agonia were in their familiarity with the State Departments and their contacts. She indicated that the City needed them and their people in order to obtain the grants. She stated that she was in favor of hiring Molendyk & Associates for the potential to obtain $7 million for enhancement of the four-corners area. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stated that most public and private agencies hire lobbyists to lobby companies to further applications for grants or loans, etc. and the people to hire are the ones who have the contacts that disburse the funds. He indicated that Mr. Harrison and Mr. Agonia had the best contacts and connections and were an asset to have working for the City. He cautioned his fellow Councilmembers to be careful in their personal feelings about Mr. Molendyk in order to a~oid personal liabilities. He stated that he PAGE FORTY-SEVEN-CIT.Y COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 had nothing against Mr. Molendyk and although there may have been some decisions made during his tenure as City Manager that he did not approve of, he did not hold them against Mr. Molendyk because the City Manager takes direction from the City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that if there were things that happened while he was City Manager, anyone who was critical needed to look to someone else to blame. He stated that it was obvious how he felt on the matter. Mayor Kelley stated that it was important to go to the source that would provide the best resources in order to obtain grant approval because it was very competitive. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 0 WITH BUCKLEY NOTING HIS PRESENCE TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION NOS. 2002-06 THRU 2002-08 FOR GRANT SUBMITTAL AND EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT WITH MOLENDYK & ASSOCIATES FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS AT A RATE OF $2,000/MONTH. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAMS, PUBLIC ACCESS PROGRAMS, AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AND RESTORATION PROGRAMS THROUGH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD FOR THE ACQUISTTION OF LAKEFRONT PROPERTY. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ~LSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR PAGE FORTY-EIGHT-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- FEBRUARY 12, 2002 GRANT FUNDS FOR LAND ACQUISTTION PROGRAMS, PUBLIC ACCESS PROGRAMS, AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AND RESTORATION PROGRAMS THROUGH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF HABITAT AND HABITAT RESTORATION. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-OS ' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OFTHE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAMS, PUBLIC ACCE55 PROGRAMS, AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AND RESTORATION PROGRAMS THROUGH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WILDLIFE ORIENTED PUBLIC ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES. TFIE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 9:36 P.M. THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:43 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Tammy Alfieri, 29524 Westwind Drive, addressed the high rate of speed of drivers in the Mariner's Ridge area. She noted a recent incident in the area and requested that the City Council consider placing stop signs on Lincoln Street at Westwind and Shorecliff to help slow the traffic in the area. She fiirther requested the placement of Bot Dots in front of Rice Canyon Elementary, noting the serious issue of parents dropping off students. She indicated that she would even support making it a one-way street. She further requested a review of the problem with street racing, as it involves dangerous driving with no thought for PAGE FORTY-NINE-CITY;COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 the impact of their actions. She detailed the travel patterns used for racing and the potential dangers of people driving on the wrong side of the road. She noted an incident in which a neighbor was hit by a speeding vehicle, which was witnessed by several neighbors; and offered prayers for the injured neighbor. Mayor Kelley questioned the request for the Lincoln/Westwind intersection, and clarified that they would want a stop sign on Lincoln. Mrs. Alfieri concurred noting that the problem goes beyond the school, because the vehicles going down hill are going very fast. She stressed the seriousness of the problems with racing vehicles, and the tragedy experienced by her neighborhood. Michael Crichton, 10053 Glenbrook, Riverside, thanked the Council for the opportunity to address the community, and announced his candidacy for Riverside County Sheriff. He eapressed concern with response times, graffiti and gang violence, and vowed to put more officers into the neighborhoods. He indicated that he would involve a citizen's panel for solutions and suggestions. He noted that the City's efforts to improve its image were a step in the right direction. Jim Morris, 15220 Golden Sands, shared his observations regarding the January 22na City Council meeting. He advised Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner that observing his comments, he was elected to solve problems and not degrade other elected officials. He commended Councilman Hickman for his fresh ideas and requested that he remember his pledges and not be intimidated by others. He addressed Councilwoman Brinley and commended her effort to work with the new Councilmembers. . He indicated that Mayor Kelley's experience, knowledge and tenure were good for the Council, but noted that not all citizens were privy to the same information. He expressed concern with the approval of work on Greenwald, while other streets were in need of repair or pa~ing. He noted that this item was approved at the last meeting and would not benefit the City in any way. He indicated that Councilman Buckley was the only hold out from the disgrace and commended him on his preparation and research. Pete Dawson, 18010 Grand Avenue, provided the LEMSAR report for 2001, noting that the members hadlogged 7,500 hours of volunteer service to the PAGE FIFTY-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 community. He advised that in January, 2002 there were two rescues on the Lake, and they participated with recovery vessels for a parachute exercise. He further advised that on February 16~' they would be providing perimeter patrol for jet ski races on the Lake. He addressed the comment made earlier this evening about his statement on lifeguards, and indicated that it had beentaken out of conte~. He noted that while lifeguards were appropriate in a swimming area, they were not appropriate where swimming was prohibited. Chris Hyland, 15181 Wavecrest, addressed on Mr. Dawson's comments regarding an unfair burden on the budget, questioning if five drownings were o.k. She indicated that Mayor Kelley pays no property taxes, but spends City dollars for a cause like the skateboard park. She indicated that she would be fighting the proposed park assessment. She commented that the City continues to give big raises, but she continuously receives complaints from taxpayers regarding their dissatisfaction with how the City is run. She indicated that she would do everything in her power to stop the proposed assessment. George Alongi, 649 Mill Street, expressed concern with people taking problems too lightly, and addressed the loss of children and the inability to say goodbye. He addressed the comments made by Mr. Dawson and suggested that the term "lifeguard" did not only apply to water. He commented that Mr. Dawson didn't contribute taxes to the City or support the Lake, and suggested that he was inconsiderate and arrogant. He suggested that anyone could have been present to prevent people from entering the water. He further suggested that the City had given Mr. Dawson something to make his statements. Edith Stafford, 29700 Hursh, noted the discussion onthe cost of voting on the assessment, but indicated that she did nof hear if it was cheaper or more money to have a mail-out ballot vs. the usual method of voting. She addressed a comment by Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner about the City Manager doing what the majority of the Council told him to do. She stressed that it was what the majority said to do. She commented that public safety was a factor for parks, suggesting negligence on City properties. She addressed negligent liability vs. the elimination of liability, PAGE FIFTY-ONE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 and indicated that a concessionaire would not eliminate liability. She indicated that it would be up to the judge to decide. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Watenpaugh commented on the following: 1) Advised that Franklin Street would be closed for improvements, and concurred with the concerns on unpaved streets. 2) Advised that BP Racing would be holding jet ski races at City Beach. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS No Comments. COMMITTEE REPORTS None. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Buckley commented on the following: 1) Noted that the television coverage was working tonight. 2) Addressed comments by Mr. Hite, and indicated he didn't say negligent or reveal privileged information. He indicated that he prefaced his words by saying he was not commenting on legal validity. 3) Indicated that he didn't claim to always be right, but felt it necessary to be human and say what he felt was true and proper. PAGE FIFTY-TWO-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 4) Thanked Mr. Morris for his comments. 5) Thanked Mrs. Alfieri for bringing her concerns to the Council and suggested that staff would work with the School District and noted the need for adequate warrants. He suggested that Bot Dots don't require the same warrants. 6) Indicated that he had received a call about Strickland Street, and cars going too fast around the corner. He suggested that Bot Dots might be of assistance there too. 7) Expressed appreciation to County Sheriff Candidate Crighton for his willingness to form citizen committees. 8) Suggested with regard to~ Tuscany Hills and Lusk Homes, it might be time to consider a view-shed ordinance to guarantee that nothing could be built in a spot that blocked someone else's view. He noted that it might be good for both Tuscany Hills and Country Club Heights. 9) Inquired if it was possible with the traffic signals at OrtegalGrand to work in some landscaping for the City entrance. He suggested that it might be possible to use grant money and address the gas station on the corner. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that it involved private property, but staff could look at the entry concept. Councilman Buckley asked if the gas tanks were still in place and noted that if they were gone it wouldn't be a big cost. He suggested doing all of the work at once. Councilman Hickxnan commented on the following: 1) Noted that he attended Marilyn DeJong's Funeral and indicated that she was a classy lady and the City lost a big supporter. He expressed condolences to her family. PAGE FIFTY-THREE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 2) Expressed condolences to Don and Pam Johnson for their family tragedy. 3) Noted that his youngest son left for the Army today. Councilwoman Brinley commented on the following: 1) Noted that she attended Marilyn DeJong's funeral too and had known her for many years as someone very special. 2) Noted the passing of Mayor Cora Sue Barrett of Canyon Lake and commented on her service to the community. She expressed condolences and indicated that Cora would be missed. 3) Indicated that this meeting had been very productive and it was nice to see different issues and different views, which could each be judged on their own merits. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner commented on the following: 1) Noted that Planning Commission Chairman Wilsey was in critical condition in the hospital from a heart attack and requested the Community's prayers for him. 2) Addressed traffic problems mentioned by Mrs. Alfieri and indicated that he was sorry that it had not been addressed before; but expressed certainty that staff would make every effort to correct it. He noted that the City would be obtaining a motorcycle officer in the future who could address this type of problems. He indicated that the Traffic Engineer would look at options for the area based on warrants. 3) Commented on the personal comments between he and Councilman Hickman and suggested that maybe they were mixed-up. PAGE FIFTY-FOUR-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 4) Concurred with Mrs. Stafford that the way the City Manager received direction was from a majority of the City Council. Mayor Kelley commented on the following: 1) Announced the upcoming Baseball Camp at Swick/Matich Field on February 16`~ and 17~'. 2) Announced Cruise Night on February 23, 2002. 3) Advised Mrs. Alfieri that staff would address her concerns. 4) Commented that Planning Commission Chairman Wilsey was in a coma and needed the thoughts and prayers of the community. She advised that the family had requested no phone calls while they dealt with the situation. She noted that he was a very active member of the community. 5) Noted the loss of Canyon Lake Mayor Cora Sue Barrett, and indicated that she was a wonderful lady, who fought valiantly in her battle against cancer. She detailed Mrs. Banett's contributions to the community. City Manager Watenpaugh announced the upcoming EDC Lunch scheduled for February 21 S~ at the Diamond Club, which was sponsored by EVMWD. He noted that there would be limited seating and encouraged interested parties to RSVP. ADJOiIRNMENT MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL PAGE FIFTY-FIVE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MEETING AT 10:15 P.M. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ G IE KELLEY, MAY R TY OF LAKE ELSINORE AT~EST: I ~~~~~ 4I:iCKI ]KASAD, CMC, CITY CLERK/ jE31~'MAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR Cli~i r' ~~' I.AKE ELSINORE