Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-2002 City Council MinutesMINUTES' REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF, LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002 ~~*:~~~~~~~~*:~~~**~~*:~~*~~:~~~~~:~~*:~~*~*~~:~~*~~*~~*~~*~~~*:~~~~~*~~~:~ CALL TO ORDER The Regular City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Kelley at 532 p.m. . ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBER5: BUCKLEY, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY, HICKMAN 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, Recreation & Tourism Manager Edelbrock, Information/Communications Manager Dennis and Deputy City Clerk Paredes. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED ,, LITIGATION (Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9) 1 Case. (F:40.1)(X:521) City Attorney Leibold announced the Closed Session item as listed on the agenda. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:34 P.M. FOR DISCUSSION OF THE ABOVE LISTED PAGE TWO - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 ITEM. The Closed Session discussion was completed at 635 p.m. Kr:C;U1V V1:iVr: YUt3Ll(; J1~5~1U1V (7:UU p.m.,~ Mayor Kelley called the City Council Meeting to order in public session at 7:05 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance wasled by City Clerk/HumanResources Director Kasad. INVOCATION The Invocation was provided by Pastor Chuck Aden, representing Shepherd of Life Lutheran. ROLL CALL Pit~SENT': COUNCiL1VIEMBERSc BRINLEY, BUCKLEY; SCHIFFNER, KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community IDeveloprr-ent Director Brady, Coit-munity Services Director Sapp, Fire Chief Gallegos, Polece Cltaef Walsh, Informatson/Communications Manager Dennis and C-tg~ C'-erW~Iuman Btesources Director Kasad. PAGE THREE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 PRESENTATIONS A. Proclamation - Lake Elsinore Woman's Club - 100 Years of Service. (F:122.1) Mayor Kelley called the Woman's Club representatives forward for presentation. She read and presented the Proclamation recognizing the 100~' anniversary of the Woman's Club. She congratulated them on this , anniversary and wished Lori LaChance a Happy Birthday. Barbara Anderson thanked the Council for this recognition and noted their clubhouse and the upcoming Annual Flower Show. B. Proclamation - Matthew Empson - Ea~le Scout: (F:122.1) Mayor Kelley called Matthew Empson and his family farward for presentation. She noted Mr. Empson's parents pride in his efforts and stressed the hard work required to achieve the Eagle Scout designation. She read and presented a Proclamation detailing Matthew's accomplishments. She noted that she knew Mr. Empson and his family personally and commended his efforts. Matthew thanked the leaders of his troop for their assistance and thanked his parents for their influence on his scouting and upbringing. C. Proclamation - Motorcycle Awareness Month. (F:122.1) Mayor Kelley called ABATE representatives forward for presentation. She read and presented the Proclamation designating May, 2002 as Motorcycle Awareness Month. ABATE representatives thanked the Council for this recognition and noted that this year would be their seventh majar rally in Lake Elsinore. She thanked the Council for the opportunity to come to the community and for their assistance. They also thanked Rocky Mountain Resorts and Chet Roberts far their assistance. They further noted that they would be holding a Mother's Day Weekend Rally at the Lake Community Center with the speakers to include Ray Haynes and Dennis Hollingsworth. PAGE FOUR - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 D. Presentation - Sheriffs Department Honorees. (F:127.2) Mayor Kelley called Sheriffs Department Honorees Doug Monte, Donna Chavez and Rex Day forward for presentation. She explained that these individuals had recently been recognized by the Sheriffs Departmentfor their contributions to the community, and the City Council wanted to further this recognition of their efforts. She introduced and recognized Rex Day as Volunteer of the Year. Mr. Day thanked the Council for this recognition and noted that he appreciated the opportunity to serve the community. Mayor Kelley then introduced and recognized Donna Chavez as Classified Employee of the Year. Ms. Chavez thanked the Council for this recognition and indicated that it was a pleasure to serve the community. Mayor Kelley then introduced and recognized Doug Monte as Officer of the Year and noted his participation in the Elsinore Valley Arfs Network, indicating that he was always eager to work with any youth program or solving a problem. She congratulated him on this recognition: Officer Monte expressed appreciation to his department, co-workers, office staff, sergeants, lieutenants and Captain, noting that Lake Elsinore has a good station and a great community. He noted-that he enjoys interacting with the businesses and property owners. Mayor Kelley noted that Lake Elsinore was great due to the efforts of individuals such as these. E. Presentation - Ticket to Ride Event. (F:62.1) Mayor Kelley introduced Mike Lewis for this presentation. Mr. Lewis noted that he would make the presentation with Doug Monte regarding this event. Mr. Lewis explained this program and encouraged attendance by the Council, City staff and Community, and stressed that the goal of the program was to save'lives in the City of LakeBlsinore. Officer Monte noted that last year was the first year for the event, and that event allowed them to buy 85 helmets. He explained that they chose to repeat the event and started planning in 7anuary, establishing a program to'offer businesses for sponsorships. He noted that the program had evolved into the event PAGE FIVE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 planned for May 4`" at the Diamond 5tadium and an invitation to the entire community to participate and promote safety. Mr. Lewis commented that helmets were a big safety issue, but it was also important to teach the kids to ride properly and use safety equipment. He noted the companies and talent scheduled to participate in the event, and advised that they had about 500 helmets to give away, as well as 150 child booster seats. He advised that they would have a road course for safety, and successful participants would be issued a"riders" license upon completion of the program. He noted that the City had rallyed together with tremendous sponsors and support, and freebies, free admittance and free parking. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Leibold advised that the City Council met in Closed Session and discussed the item as listed on the agenda, with no reportable action. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS Requests were received to, address the following item and deferred to this discussion: Item Nos. 31 and 33. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS The following item was pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion and consideration: Item No. 5. MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. ; PAGE SIX - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 L The following Minutes were approved:, a. City Council Study Session - April 2, 2002. (F:44.4) b. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session- April 9, 2002. c. Regular City Council Meeting - Apri19, 2002. The following Minutes were received and ordered filed: d. Planning Commission Meeting - March 20,' 2002. (F:603) 2. Ratified Warrant List for April 15, 2002. (F:123) 3. Received and ordered filed the Investment Report for March, 2002. (F:12.5) 4. Rejected and referred to Claims Administrator the Claim Against the City submitted by Carol J. Gates (CL #2002-10). (F:52.2) 6. Approved Final Parcel Map 30254, for Five Industrial Parcels in the Lake Elsinore Business Park District at the corner of Collier Avenue and Crane Street. (F:1102) 7. Approved Change Order Number 1 for Lincoln Street, Collier and Grand Avenues Pavement Rehabilitation in the amount of $29,000 for Infinity Construction. (F:156.2) PUBLIC HEARING 21. Public Hearing for Consideration of Objections to the City's Weed Abatement Program. Continued from April 9. 2002. (Fa166.1) City Manager Watenpaugh explained that this item was continued from Apri19, 2002, and noted the topia He explained that the property was required to be cleared by May 15` or it was subject to abatement and a lien PAGE SEVEN - CITY COiTNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 ;: : against the property. Mayor Kelley noted that tfiis was a continued public hearing and was still open for input. She asked those persons interested in this item to speak. Hearing no one, thepublic hearing was closed at 7:28 p.m. Councilman Buckley noted that he had questions about the program at the last meeting, but most of his questions had been answered. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that this hearing was the time for property owners to voice objections and none were received. Councilwoman Brinley indicated that this was a housekeeping item and she had no problems. City Attorney Leibold noted that no action was necessary, but the requirements had been met. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TOACCEPT THE REQUIREMENTS AS COMPLETE. BUSINESS ITEMS 3 L Extension of Time for Tentative Tract MapNo. 27851 "Lusk Elsinore". (F:160.2) City Manager Watenpaugh noted that this item came before the City Council in February and the Council had requested an additional meeting with the developer and property owners to discuss the elevations and retaining wall, which was held on April 10`". He noted the packet presented to Council by Lusk Homes, and noted that the neighborhood representatives had been in attendance at the meeting. PAGE EIGHT - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 Jim Johnson, Lusk Homes, offered to answer questions. Ron Hewison, 35 Villa Valtelena, noted that he was somewhat amused and confused that the document presented by Lusk Homes had been condensed into a two page report. He noted that when he speaks he makes several points, but he generally doesn't have a chance to respond to comments by Lusk. He suggested that he would like to see Mr. Johnson respond to the comments in the report before his comments. Councilwoman Brinley asked Mr. Johnson to highlight the main points discussed. Mr. Johnson noted that Condition 26 agreed to stay the roof line at a minimum of four feet below the pad of the existing houses. He further noted that the chimney would e~end two feet into that area; but the houses would be below them and they would still have an unobstructed view. He stressed that this was based on receiving easements from all of the homeowners, which they had not; for the houses to be four feet lower. He clarified that the wall would be an alternate design, short the easements, to allow for back-filling; and noted that the easement was intended to be temparary to allow for grading and filling. Councilwoman Brinley clarified that the only point of contention was the viewshed, but theywere to lower the rooftops four feet to allow for view, and the need to back fill the property to the block wall.. Mr. Johnson confirmed. Councilwoman Brinley noted that there was natural land on one side and a tot lot on the opposite end. Mr. Johnson confirmed that they provided a tot lot, due to the issue of view, although they could have built a house on that lot, but gave it up at the request of the homeowners. He clarified that the other end of the property was a wetland required by Fish and Wildlife. Councilwoman Brinley noted the impact of the wall on the individual properties. Mr. Johnsom explained the diagram and dimensions provided, and stressed that the four-foot elevatiom issue was a condition of approval:: Councilwoman Brinley questioned the easements. Mr. Johnson indicated that they would be removed once the houses were built. Councilwoman Brinley inquired if this was noted in the Planning Commission conditions. Community PAGE NINE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2008 Development Directar Brady indicated that it was not noted, but they were not identified as temporary easements, but were noted as being for grading purposes and would have to be removed. Councilwoman Brinley inquired if this should be a condition of approval. CommunityDevelopment Director Brady indicated that it could be. Mr. Johnson indicated that there was not a problem with such a condition, as that would be their intent after the homes were built. CouncilwomanBrinley questioned the meetings with the homeowners. Mr. Johnson detailed the meetings thus far. Community Development Director Brady confirmed the meetings with the homeowners. Mr. Johnson noted that they had spent $10,000 on a model to clarify the design for the homeowners and even placed the display in City Hall. Councilwoman Brinley noted a past meeting with Board of Supervisors representatives. Mr. Johnson indicated that they believed things were worked out, with the four foot condition. Councilman Buckley noted the engineering drawings of existing and new houses, and explained that the drawing showed some significant impacts on the view. He noted comments by Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner, who noticed that the lots of concern as too high are raised from the new street at that location, with driveways going up 15 feet. He questioned why they were so high. Mr. Johnson explained that it was a combination of issues, and they could not just arbitrarily lower a lot, as it could cause a snowball effect. He stressed that it would require a complete study, but noted that it was currently an obstructed view, so after the hill was removed the view would be better. He noted the need to balance the site with imports and exports from the site, while being careful to meet the Flood Control, Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife requirements. Councilman Buckley inquired if it would be possible to build single story homes on the most impacted lots. Mr. Johnson indicated that they would be building some single stary homes, but the final configuration would be based on market analysis, so he could not commit to this approach. Councilman Buckley inquired if they were willing to guarantee single story homes on seven or eighti lots. Mr. Johnson indicated that he could not guarantee that, as he needed to be able to provide PAGE TEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 a mix; and if the market says there'is no need for single story homes, he did not want to be committed to them. He stressed the need for further information before deciding that, since they would still be obligated to make sure the roof was four feet below the existing pads. He commented that they had a four foot leave way, and if they couldn't build a house, they wouldn't. Councilman Buckley questioned the possibility of removing the easement portion from Condition 26 and just requiring that they build four feet lower. Mr. Johnson explained that they could not grade the properties without the easements, for'engineering reasons. Councilman Buckley inquired if it was an access issue. Mr. Johnson clarified thaYit was a grading issue; and indicated that he would be happy to lower the lots with the easements and the existing condition would prevail. He indicated that he was having a problem understanding the homeowner problems, when they were making sure that they left the four feet. He clarified that with the easement, which would be returned to the property owners, they would provide the four-foot variable. Councilwoman Brinley inquired how they would build, if they did not receive the easements. Mr. Johnson indicated that they would have to build the project with retaining walls and leave a void. Councilwoman Brinley inquired what happened with the view. 1VIr. Johnson indicated that the four-foot variable would go away. Councilman Buckley indicated that he was worried that the process gave no incentive to give the easement. Mr. Johnson indicated that they were required to request the easement. Councilman Buckleq suggested that it would be completiely unacceptable to resell someone else's view. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that the plan was previously approved, but when he saw a presentation with the cross-sections; the elevation variance became more evident for the lots and the street. He noted that the houses were abouf 20 feet above the roadway, and inquired if there was a good reason not to lower the houses five feet. Mr. Johnson indicated that they PAGE ELEVEN- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 would first need a complete study to do so. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that he had seen manyplans and houses, and the houses across the street were already 20 feet lower. He suggested that the only change was the need to move some more dirt. Mr. Johnson indicated that it would be a lot of dirt to move and he was not sure where they would put it. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that if they were told by the regulatory agencies that they were required to place it on site he could understand, but if not, he did not see why the dirt could not be removed. He suggested that there were lots of locations in need of dirt, if they needed to dispose of it. He indicated that based on his knowledge of plans, he had no understanding of why they could not change the elevations. He asked for convincing information, as to why it couldn't be done; and stressed that manylocations were in need of dirt. Mr. Johnson indicated that this would involve between 25,000 and 35,000 yards; and suggested if they had to go down the hill, it could generate as much as 100,000 yards. Wes Lind indicated that if one viewed the extreme left side of the slope, there was a wetland they created which was about ten feet deep, with about a two foot space from the storm drains, which mitigated the drainage and went into Canyon Lake. He suggested if there was no longer five feet, they would not have their five foot differential, so the wetland would need to be changed. He stressed the large amount of dirt being discussed. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that the lots did not appear to be a problem, and some would not even have to be changed. Mr. Lind clarified their limitations. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that the first three or four houses would not have to be lowered as they were far enough away and below the other houses. There was general discussion of the lots which could be left as they were proposed. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner suggested adding five feet to the problem lots, and noted that it should not impact the other homes. He suggested that the developer consider moving dirt from the site. Mr. Johnson suggested a compromise with a guarantee of an additional2-1/2 feet. Councilwoman Brinley clarified that the variable would be 6-1 /2 feet instead of four feet, Councilman Buckley questioned the additional2-1/2 feet. Mr. Johnson PAGE TWELVE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES = APRIL 23, 2002 explained that they would take the pad down a minimum of an addition 2- 1/2 feet, in addition to the already agreed to four feet. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that he appreciated this offer. Mayor Kelley clarified for Councilman Buckley, that many meetings had been held with the property owners and there' had been a lot of discussion and argument. She further clarified that a majority of the property owners had said they would give the easement, to conserve the four foot grade variation. She indicated'thaY as it stood, the developer had' every authority to move forward with their retaining walls. She commented that the Council tried to please everyone and that was how theproject ended up at this standstilL Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that he was not in favor of backing out on the deal if it could be done, and concurred that they could build walls; but noted that he had hoped for another solution. 1Vlayor Kelley reminded the Council thatthis was a request for e~ension of time on the tract map, and there was still some time to do further work. Councilwoman Brinleynoted that she had been involved in this project from the beginning with the Board of Supervisors; and commented that while the discussions were expanding, the developer could be proceeding to build. She stressed that there was nothing contractual to protect the viewshed. She indicated that she was angry that people with model homes charge more money for views, even if they cannot be protected. She stressed the importance of making them accountable for theirpromises, and indicated that she thought Mr. Johnson had come to another fair compromise. Mr. Johnson stressed that this compromise was also contingent on receiving all of the necessary easements: Councilwoman Brinley indicated that this was a very`fair offer to try to protect things the existing residents were charged extra dollars for, and stressed that Mr. Johnson would incur more costs to do so. Mr. Johnson indicated that he was sorry the owners had paid e~ra money, but his company bought the land before the other houses were even built. PAGE THIRTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 Councilwoman Brinley inquired if the motion would include working with the extra 2-1/2 feet. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that there had already been an offer to the property owners that the xoof lines would be four feet below, but that was not adequate and the owners failed to sign, so now there was the offer of another two feetto 2-1/2 feet.' Mr. Johnson clarified that the additional2- 1/2 foot minimums would involve seven or eight specific lots. Councilwoman Brinley inquired how many easements they held. Mr. Johnson indicated that they held ten or eleven of the twenty-one. He suggested that the lots of concern were lots nine through four. There was general discussion of the proposed accommodations. Ron Hewison, 35 Villa Valtelena, indicated that a meeting was held on April 10`", but this proposal was not made. He further indicated that it was probably correct that they had ten or eleven easements, but the first four homes had no houses proposed behind them. He suggested that they were really discussing six of the• seventeen lots. He indicated that the tot lot was rubbish, since the homeowners already built one. He commented on the import/export of dirt and suggested that the custom lots were calling for fill dirt, and builders were trucking it in every day, to a site 1/2 mile from the Lusk proj ect. He indicated that with regard to comments that there was no incentive, the plan was dated January, 2000, and noted the number of meetings held on the project with no resolution. He commented with regard to the changed elevations on the plan and his home, it appeared to be a moving target and he was hesitant because it appeared do-able. He indicated that there had been meetings with the homeowners, but he association was not involved since the original plan. He suggested that clause three said the project would be dead in two years, and indicated it should be dead. Councilwoman Brinley indicated that if Mr. Johnson was willing to take an additiona12-1/2 feet off lots four through nine or ten for e~ra viewsheds she saw no issue. PAGE FOURTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 Councilman Buckley commented that while the lower elevation was a nice start, the City needed a viewshed ordinance and needed to set policy to protect views. He noted that in this case it was not about a guaranteed view, but rather about being fair. He indicated that houses in someone else's view were not appropriate; but if they were lowered 2-1/2 feet and the developer got the easements it would work. Mr. Johnson clarified thaY the elevations on lots four through nine would be 6-1/2 feet lower. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffiier suggested the inclusion of lot ten. Mr. Lind indicated that it would be difficult on lots ten and eleven due to the driveway. Councilman Buckley questioned what was behind lot ten. Mr. Lind indicated that it was the same elevation. Councilman Buckley clarified that lots four through nine would be lowered, not counting the chimney, and suggested a one-year extension instead of two years. Councilwoman Brinley questioned the reason for a one year limitation. Councilman Buckley indicated that the project had been kicked around for two years already. Councilwoman Brinley noted the LAFCO proceedings which were not under Mr. Johnson's control. Mr. Johnson noted that he could' not touch the property until the end of August, because of birds nesting in the area. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner commented that the property owners were noY hurt by the time factors, and the neighbors were no worse offduring the last two years, but noted that he would like to see it finished. He indicated that that he was in favor of this approach and expressed hopes that the property owners would support it, otherwise Mr. Johnson could proceed. Mr. Johnson clarified that he still would be allowed to have the chimney's exceed the'roof restriction. Cauncilwoman Brinley indicated'that if he got the easements for lots four through nine, then she would have no problem with moving forward. She also indicated that she had no problem with a two year e~ension. Mayor Kelley expressed appreciation for Mr. Johnson's willingness to participate in various meetings and recognize the home owners concerns. She noted that it was not possible to make everyone happy. She indicated that she did not have a problem with the twenty-four month extension, PAGE FIFTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 because she was aware of the difficulties going through the LAFCO process; although she liked Councilman Buckley's suggestion up to that point. Councilwoman Brinley suggested a motion with the two year extension. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner commented to the property owners that while he realized it was not what they wanted, he hoped they would accept that the developer was trying to solve a problem. City Attorney Leibold clarified the staff report regarding the proposed addition of Condition 81 and clarified thaY the now 6-1/2 foot variable would be excluding the chimney, and noted that she would believe it to be the top of the pad of the upper home. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 T01 WITH BUCKLEY CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE TO GRANT A 24 MONTH EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28751, WHICH SHALL EXFIRE ON MAY 22, 2004, WITH LUSK HOMES TO LOWER HOMES ON LOTS FOUR THROUGH NINE AN ADDITIONAL 2-1/2 FEET MINIMUM WITH THE EXCEPTIONOFTHE CHIMNEYS, PROVIDING THEY RECEIVE THE EASEMENTS, BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS OF APPROYAL AND THE ADDITION OF CONDITION: 8L FindinEs L Substantial progress toward the development of this Tract Map has taken place. 2. Conditions have been added by the Engineering Division to insure the development will not impact public health, safety and welfare. PAGE SIXTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 The project as proposed and conditioned is consistent with the Goals, Policies and Objectives of the General Plan. Added Condition 81. Applicant shall obtain approval from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board for their storm water pollution prevention plan including approval qf 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. 32. Memorandum of Understanding between the Countv of Riverside and the Citv of Lake Elsinore re a~ rdin~? the Riverside County Inte~?rated Project. (F:140:1) _ City Manager Watenpaugh explained that this item was in follow-up to the County, Moreno Valley, Corona and Riverside taking action on a Memorandum of Understanding. He noted that in the agreement it stipulated to things the Council had already authorized and required compliance with other issues on service and development fees. He explained that under this agreement they would move forward to establish and charge fees and accommodate City standards. - He further explained that it would require that the cities move forward on the resolution of intent on the TUNIF and the MSHCP, and noted concerns with the verbiage on the obligation to the County. Mayor Kelley noted that this was discussed during the prior study session. Councilman Buckley indicated that he liked the MOU, as it would not only move forward the RCIP and MSHCP, but it would give the cities a level of protection and assure cooperation which it has not been receiving. He expressed support for the item. PAGE SEVENTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that during an earlier discussion, the City Attorney had suggested some verbiage for one of the paragraphs that addressed his concerns with regard to the wildlife plan. City Attorney Leibold indicated that her proposed verbiage would apply to paragraphs two and three under "City Actions" where it reads °The City would support and work in good faith with the County and the Western Riyerside Council of Governments to develop and implement....."; with the reference in paragraph two being to the MSHCP and in paragraph three to the TUMF. She indicated that her suggestion was consistent with the intent of the document and recommended the insertion of the words "mutually acceptable°;prior to MSHGP and TUMF. Councilwoman Brinley indicated that she had a problem with any kind of fees, when the City TUMF Fee had not yet been discussed. She noted the impact of the habitat issues and expressed concern that the County would use the approvals against the City in the future. She stressed her concerns based on the fact that the City issues were not yet resolved. Mayor Kelley noted the earlier discussion and noted that everyone was feeling like they were at the end of a pitch form being wielded by the County. She commented that the City had inched forward cooperatively, but there were problems with the TUMF and MSHCP. She expressed concern that the specifics were not yet known and the City was being pushed down the road. She indicated that she wanted to assure that there was verbiage to protect the City, and expressed hopes for final answers from the County soon. She indicated that she did not have too much of a problem with the proposed added verbiage. MOVED BY SGHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 1 WITH BRINLEY CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE TO APPROVE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE COUNTY, INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL VERBIAGE IN PAGE EIGHTEEN - CITY EOUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 PARAGRAPHS TWO AND THREE ON BOTH THE TUMF AND MSHCP ISSUES, AND AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE MOU. 33 Councilman Buckley noted that he did not vote on the Lusk eatension, but intended to vote no; and requested correction of vote on Item #31. (Vote was changed in these minutes to reflect that correction.) Park & Recreation Maintenance District - Resolution Nos. 2002-19 and aoo2-ZO. ~:ii4.i~~x:~a.2~~x:aa.3~ City Manager Watenpaugh explained this item was for consideration of a mailed-out ballot for the property owners. He;noted'thatconcerns had been expressed regarding the size of acreage for a cap. He advised that staff thought that concern was expressed on behalf of at least one Councilmember, and noted that without a cap, a large property owner or two could sway the vote regardless of the majority vote. He explained that in discussion with the assessment engineer, they had set the cap at five acres in other areas, so a property owner with more than five acres would only be assessed for five acres until a property was later developed and assessed on an individual property rate. Chris Hyland,15181 Wavecrest, commented that the residents already pay taxes for parks. She indicated that she was not against children or parks, but she was against the Council squandering money. She suggested that;the April 16"' budget projections would imply that thistax would not be necessary, and commented that she believed it was only a faqade to move money around. She indicated that while the City could say it would only use the money for parks, but noted the previous "loan° of library funds. She commented that pay raises were coming for the hourly, however no raise was projected in the budget, and no planahad been made forwater in the Lake. She suggested that the City Attorney's budget would be increased and noted NTayor Kelley's comments regarding the skateboard park that the funds were only for new proj ects: She indicated that she contacted the State PAGE 1vINETEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 Department of Parks and found out it could have been used to rehabilitate existing facilities. George Alongi, 649 Mill Street, commented that he didn't disagree with the need for parks, but suggested that this approach was bribing large land owners. He indicated that it was unfair to give large property owners the advantage; and suggested that there was no difference between a condo, a house, or a mobile home, since they all share the same benefits from the parks. He stressed that they all should be assessed equally across the board if it moved forward. David Butler, representing Lake Elsinore Little League, noted that their program supported about 700 kids every year, and noted that in the next three years they would need to split in two divisions. He indicated that the Lake Elsinore Little League Board would support the assessment because they need to make sure they keep the parks functioning for the kids. Councilman Buckley commented that, as noted previously, he could not support a new tax at this point. He noted that the City was going through the budget now, which was in deficit; but expressed concern that the budget presented did not include a single cut. He concurred that theproperty owners should be able to vote, but commented that taxes were being passed on to renters who had no say in the matter. He further concurred that the proposed tax was minimal, but since renters did not own property they were paying money onproperty with no say for its use. He expressed complete support for the Little League, even if the t~ did not pass, and indicated that he didn't see it as a situation where the parks would be fenced. He indicated that personally he would not be in favor of eliminating a fee for the lights, and expressed hopes that the user groups did not see this taac as a free ride, with the generation of more money. He indicated that he was opposed to the tax, but on the other side, it might as well be done right. He noted the five acre cap, and clarified that the person with five acres would have the same vote as someone with 500 acres. He noted that he expressed concern PAGE TWENTY - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 in January that the owners of vacantland had too much power. He indicated that he did not mean that they should pay less per acre. He noted that at some point, if the matter was passed by popular vote, with a citizens committee to administer issues including leagues, lake users, etc. he might be supportive, but he could not support it at this time. Councilwoman Brinley questioned the five acres and how that number was determined. Jeff Cooper, representing Harris & Associates noted that the feasibility study was done to look at the issues and make determinations on this issue, and the matter of vacant property was discussed at that time. He indicated that he told the Council that he would like to take another look at `it and he did. He noted that the otherpark districts he had done also used a five acre cap, with the largest district in Los Angeles County, where the property owners approved a district in 1994 which raised over $500 million. He noted that district was formed in spite of much scrutiny in the election process. He explained that within districts the larger parcels start to act like open space, and it would not be fair to assess open space parcels for park assessments. Councilwoman Brinley requested a definition for "open space". Mr. Cooper clarified'that it simply meant "not developed". He noted the issue was'not a question of who voted, but of what was right and fair, so when he looked again, in the original study if they had left it as it was, 45% of the assessment revenue would have been assessed on vacant property, so they reworked it to make it fair. He advised that as now proposed, about 16-1/2% of the revenue would come-from vacant property. He further advised that in the future as the larger properties develop, they would be paying on an individual basis at the developed rate. He noted that it was like a standby charge until the property was developed. He recommended the five acre cap; and suggested that some parcels would still have larger assessments based on aggregate ownership. Councilwoman Brinley questioned the transitions in other cities due to Proposition 218 and asked how many cities in California were taking such action. Mr. Cooper indicated he was not sure, but many were looking at this action, and noted that when it was passed in 1996, many cities removed parks from the PAGE TWENTY-ONE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL23, 2002 Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Districts; so many cities were reviewing a special assessment as a funding mechanism. He addressed the Engineer's Report and indicated that as submitted the report had a typographical error on page 13. He advised that it had been revised and submitted to the City Clerk, but clarified that the,1.75 du's should be changed to 1.5 du's. He noted that in addition to the report, staff had included the ballot information and ballot procedure and stressed the importance of that information. Councilwoman Brinley noted that the Council did not rush into this issue, as it had held a study session with the user groups. She commented that they were willing to work with the City to make sure it could provide better parks and playing facilities. She expressed appreciation to the Little League, who came out and worked with the City when it could not support the parks; and thaf is why they were consulted before proceeding with this action. She stressed their knowledge of the parks and facilities and indicated that she did not remember any Councilmember promising lights or anything else. Councilman Buckley questioned the correction in the report and Mr. Cooper clarified the change. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted a comment that this tax should be handled by a citizens committee, butindicated that he felt strongly that the Council was a citizen's committee and he did not intend to pass off those responsibilities to other citizens until they took hisplace. He indicated that with regard to the user groups reason for supporting this issue from the beginning, he indicated that he did not want anyone to view it as anything other than more for the general fund. He stressed that if the taa~ passed, it would free up $600,000 for the general fund to be used for other things. He further stressed that it was not for something new, but would continue support for the parks, with the possibility of some minor improvements. He noted that this had been offered as a dedicated fund which could not be used PAGE T'WENTY-'~'WO - CdTY COUNCIL MINUTES - AFRIL 23, 2002 for anything else; and expressed belief that was'the reason for their support. He took exception to comments about the City not adhering to regulations for dedicated funds, and stressed that no funds were handled improperly. He indicated that money had been bonowed from the library fund and when that fund had a reason to use the money it would be paid back. He commented that many of the City funds were'dedicated funds andused in a similar manner, however audits are done annually to guarantee compliance. He indicated that he resented the implication thaf the funds were handled wrong. He noted that he was in favor of the issue partially because it took away the large block votes from some property owners and it would be a more equitable vote. He indicated that this manner of assessment was an accepted standard in the industry.' He noted the criticism that the Mayor did not pay taxes in the City, but clarified that the renters paid the same taxes through their rent payments, and indicated that it was included in the cost of the rent. Mayor Kelley inquired when community workshops would be held. Mr. Cooper proposed a meeting on May 22°d at the Cultural Center. Mayor Kelley inquired if there would be one meeting or more. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that there would be one formal public meeting and other neighborhood meetings. Mayor Kelley addressed the five acre cap, which caught her off-guard, but indicatedthat she felt it was more fair and equitable. She noted the annual assessments and noted that Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner hit on a major point that the user groups that used the parks were very supportive of this assessmenf because they know the value for quality of life from the parks. She noted that it was important to keep the parks in tip-top shape, but Proposition 218 changed the City's ability to do sa She stressed that this was intended to protect the funding, maintain the parks and always have a resource to do so. Mr. Cooper noted two other important dates including the public hearing on June 25'i' and May 10`~' as the target date for mailing of the ballots. He stressed that voters shouldreceive the ballot information a few days after May 10'~'. Mayor Kelley inquired how many ballots would be sent out. N1r. Cooper indicated that he would have PAGE TWENTY-THREE - CI2'Y COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 to check on the count. City Manager Watenpaugh requested a change in the report on Page 10 regarding the proceedings and inquiries, which currently listed Mark Dennis as the contact, but suggested adding "or his designee" so one individual did not have the'full responsibility and other offices could assist with responses. He clarified that this method of voting was as imposed by Proposition 218, which was passed by the voters, and commented that it was unfortunate that when the City began to do well Lhey were criticized because the economy was doing better. He noted that in other area cities imposed such an assessment in spite of healthy reserves. He indicated that if the voters wanted this, they would have it, and stressed that there was no mention of closing parks if it does not pass; and reiterated that this was a quality of life issue. Mr. Cooper indicated that they would be sending out a little over 18,000 ballots, based on the parcels in the City. Mayor Kelley inquired if 51% of those had to be returned. Mr. Cooper explained that the votes were: weighted. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified that it was based on the County assessor valuations for the properties: Mr. Cooper clarified that it was based on the assessments in the Engineer's Report. Mr. Cooper suggested that the ballot front page cover, include the verbiage "Ballots due not later than Tuesday, June 25, 2002, until the close of the public hearing° to prevent confusion; and explained the process for the public hearing and the last opportunity to turn in a ballot. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner questioned the outcome of the publia hearing. Mr. Cooper indicated that Proposition 218 hearings were different, but it :triggered the ability to start tabulating the ballots, and stressed that they could not pre-tally the ballots. He clarified that the results would most likely not be known that evening; and the Council would probably close the publiahearing, with the results to come back at a later meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner further questioned what would be gained from the public hearing. Mr. Cooper indicated that the Council would receive comments PAGE TWENB'Y-FOUR - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRI~, 23, 2002 pro and con, which won't change the ballot, as people will turn in ballots and be allowed to speak. He indicated that the meetings were shorter because the people had generally already voted. . He clarified that when the vote was counted, if it was favorable it would not be automatic, as the Council still has to approve the formation of the district after a majority vote, which might show logic for the public hearing. Councilman Buckley requested clarification on the front cover of the ballot, and suggested that in addition to the "close of the public hearing" to explain where the public hearing will be held. Mr. Cooper questioned how much information should be included on the front cover. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 1 WITH BUCKLEY CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION N0. 2002-19, I1vITIATINGTHE FORMATION OF A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-20, OF INTENT TO FORM A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIE5 ADOPTING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT, SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING, AS WELL AS APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT BALLOT AND ITS PROCEDURES, THE BALLOT INFORMATION AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO MAIL THE ASSESSMENT BALLOT MATERIALS. ITENYS PiJY.Y.ED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 5. Application Period for Plannin~ Commission. (F:60.3) Mayor Kelley announced that two Planning Commissioner terms, of four years each were expiring on June 30`", being those of Commissioner Polk and late Commissioner Wilsey. She noted a ietter received this date from Commission Polk resigning effective immediately. She indicated that applications would be aut for five weeks, during which time they would be posted on the bulletin board, and advertised in'the newspaper. She further PAGE TWENTY-FIVE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 indicated that applications would be available from the City Clerk's Office, and suggested that it was a grsat opportunity to step forward and serve the community. MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BYBRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR APPLICATIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECES5ED AT 9:13 P.M. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:16 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Steve Naples, 2 Bella Minozza, indicated that he was looking for answers, and expressed concern that the budget contained no allocation to correcttraffic problems on Railroad Canyon Road. He suggested that synchronizing;the signal would help the situation: He indicated that he had tried the Franldin Bridge, but it took him too far out of the way. He addressed the landscaping between Grape Street and Canyon Lake, and noted that the palm trees were not pruned and the finished areas were covered with weeds. He suggested that if businesses were desired in the City, it was important to address those issues. Lorraine Watts, 210 N. Scrivener, representing the NAACP, thanked the Council and City Manager for their phase I ride, and indicated that since then they had seen an improvement and expressed hopes that it would continue. Bill Tucker, 740 Acacia, addressed the Lake and indicated that it was doing great, with a good crappie bite. He noted that there was a lot of interest by people from out of town. He indicated that he did not know when there would be water, but it was badly needed. He suggested an audit on the $15 million and how it was being spent. PAGE TWENTY-SIX - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 Donna Morin, representing Lake Elsinore Historical Society, invited everyone to attend the Mother's Day Garden Tour on May 11~' from 11a.m. to 3 p.m. She noted that tickets were $5, and included refreshments at the Museum; and expressed hopes that people would arrive early to tour the museum. She also noted that one of the first gardens on the tour would be the First Christian Church; and indicated that the church had arranged to have someone there to open the Church to the public far tours. She advised that on Apri124~' the Historical Society would have an open house from 1 to 4 p.m. to start selling the pews in the basement of the Cultural Center; and indicated that additional information could be obtained by calling her at 245-9230. She noted that the Empson's were present with their son at this meeting, and`commented that their daughter Lindsay-had developed a walking tour for the Society and it was being printed by Mayhall Printing, and would be shared with:the community. Dan iJhlry, 150 E. Lakeshore Dr. #80, advised thafthe Circus Chimera had been very successful with almost double the attendance from last year's event. He noted that they would like to return again ne~ year. He also advised that the PRCA Rodeo would again be held August 30"` through September 15`, with the Cops for Kids Organization sponsoring a Challenged Children's Rodea He indicated that they were still looking for sponsors, and referred interested parties to lakeelsinorerodeo.com Jim Morris, 15220 Golden Sands, announced a new fellowship of inen, would be meeting on Tuesday mornings at 7 a.m. at Coco's Restaurant. He encouraged participation and noted that their outreachprogram would get involved with families with special needs. He stressed there'desire to be involved in the community and encouraged business people and residents to participate. Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest, thanked Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner for alerting rental property owners that they can raise their rents. She addrassed the upcoming park tax ballots and expressed concern with the procedures as stated in the newspaper. She suggested that it was confusing if people felt they had to hand deliver the ballots. She questioned who would be the custodian of the ballots, and PAGE TWENTY-SEVEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 noted that there would be an army of people present when the ballots were opened and counted. She stressed that the residents had a right to be present and observe the county. She indicated that she would work very hard to be sure the assessment was defeated. She also noted that another initiative would be coming forward soon. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Watenpaugh commented on the following; 1) Addressed the Skatepark and indicated that a complete breakdown of the possible uses for the dollars was provided to CounciL 2) Addressed Mr. Naples and indicated that the City Council had authorized staff to work with Caltrans to try to get approval of a solution for Railroad Canyon/Diamond Drive. He stressed that it was a long process through Caltrans and staff was trying to find out what would be allowed to address the problems. He noted that the signals were synchronized, but there was not adequate stacking. He indicated that if there were specific concerns, staff would be happy to reevaluate them. 3) Congratulated the Sheriff s Posse on the Circus and the Rodeo and noted that they were very popular events. 4) Advised that the City, Clerk would be the custodian of ballots for the Park Assessment election. He further advised that the City Clerk was checking on a locked ballot box. He also noted that the ballots would be tabulated during working hours, following the public hearing; and reiterated that the ballot count would be open to the public at City Hall. PAGE TWENTY=EIGHT - CITY COUNCIL 1VIINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 5) Congratulated Eag1e Scout Matthew Empson on his accomplishments. 6) Commended the Women's Club on their 100`~' Anniversary. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS No Comments. COMMITTEE REPORTS No Reports. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS CouncilmanBuckley commented on the following: 1) Commended the Sheriff s DepartmenY Honorees on their awards. 2) Indicated that Ticket to Ride was a good program and expressed hopes that they had lots of attendance. , 3) Concurred with Mr. Naples that Railroad Canyon and Corydon were the two most pressing needs in the City. He suggested that if it could not be addressed right away, there was the potential of restriping for another lane, with additional signage; and suggested it would not be very expensive. He noted that there was not much money for capital projects, but indicated that Railroad Canyon was atrocious. 4) Addressed the trees on Main Street, and indicated that staff should make sure that the lights all work. PAGE TWENTY-NINE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 5) Expressed hopes that Tuscany Hills residents get what they were promised. 6) Noted the budget presented last week and indicated that he was disappointed that it came forward with no cuts. He further indicated that he hoped to meet with staff to gain more information, and commented that he needed a more complete breakdown.- He noted that there was no money for water in the Lake, although the exact number was not known. 7) Indicated that he was encouraged that building permits and sales tax went up last year, but he still thought he was looking at a deficit of $850,000 ne~ year. He noted that did not include increases in the Ca1PERS Health Benefits or cuts im State money. He suggested that it could bump the budget to a$1.6 million deficit. He expressed hopes that the final budget would have at least some outline of an emergencyplan by staf£ Mayar Pro Tem Schiffner commented on the following: 1) Addressed Railroad Canyon Road, indicating that it was obviously a problem caused by Caltrans when the freeway was built, as they did not anticipate any building in this area, and not right-of-way was provided for cloverleafs or other solutions. He noted thatlast year the Council engaged a firm for design solutions, and they brought about nine different designs costing from $6 million to $16 million; none of which were acceptable to Caltrans. He indicated that they were still looking for better ideas, but no money was budgeted for that at this time. He noted that the cost to solve the problems would be in excess of two years of the entire City budget. He indicated that he was hoping something would happen, allowing the City to get aide from a highway program. He commented that it was sad to say, but striping wouldn't help, as there was no room for additional lanes PAGE THIRTY - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 without widening the road. He concurred it was a bad situation, and the process to solve it was lengthy, with the only possibility in the short term being a motorcycle officer to keep the traffic moving correctly. 2) Addressed the $15 million allocated for work on the Lake, and noted that the Authority met on the 2"d Thursday of every month, and received a Treasurer's report of what had been spent on what and what was left. He indicated that there was a$165 million wish list to correct the problems, but to date not even $1 million had been spent, although much of it had been allocated. He stressed their efforts to avoid spending money on unnecessary items. - 3) Noted theproperty values in town and indicated thaf he had heard that property values would be up $100,000 if the City did not have such a bad image. He indicated that Lake Elsinore was a beautiful town, however a group of residents continued to run down its image. 4) Commented on the Lusk Homes project, noting that 2-1/2 feet on the levels of the houses in Tuscany was probably not preferred, but if the residents were satisfied with the plan, they would see that variable. He expressed hopes that it would be satisfactory so the project could proceed. CouncilwomanBrinley commented on the following: 1) Wished Lori LaChance a Happy$irthday and noted her active participation in the community and the Women's Club. 2) Announced that Katrina Christine, granddaughter of Chamber Executive Director Chris McColley and Chamber`President Jack McColley was born omApril 17t''. PAGE THIRTY-ONE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23,2002 3) Commended Deputy Monte, Deputy Chavez and Mr. Day on their recognition and volunteer efforts 4) Noted that she heard from her neighbor that the Circus was "awesome" and expressed hopes that it would return next year. 5) Commented that everyone noticed the concerns on Railroad Canyon and the problems with traffic, and stressed the need for the City's TUMF Fees to address circulation issues in the City: She noted that other area cities started on correction of circulation problems ten years ago. Mayor Kelley commented on the following: 1) Indicated that the Ticket to Ride Event at the Diamond would be a very worthwhile event with lots of information on safety. 2) Commended the Sheriff s Department Honorees on their awards and Matthew Empson on his Eagle Scout; and stressed the quality pEn~le and contributions they provided to the community. 3) Congratulated the Women's Club on their Anniversary cf service to the community. 4) Invited everyone to attend the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast at 8 a.m. on May 2"d at the Diamond Club. She noted that the cost was $15 and they were expecting quite a crowd. 5) Complimented staff on the new budget format, noting that it was different and tied more directly to Council goals. She commented that several study session were held to determine what the Council desired. She explained that staff took the Council's ideas and incorporated them into a budget that was easy to read and tied to goals and expenditures. She thanked City Manager Watenpaugh for PAGE THIRTY-TWO - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002 this effort. She commented that there was still work to be done, and there would be additional meetings for that; however the new format was appreciated. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY AND CARRIED BY UNAIVIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 9:42 P.M. ~ ~~ ENIE KELLEY, MAYOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AT EST:' i~ ~ ~., ~ , ~ ~CK~ ~KASAID; CM , CITY CLERK/ ' _ ~fT~;VIAN ~RESC~URCES DIRECTOR CI1"Y aF LAKE ELSINORE