Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-26-2000 City Council Minutes~ The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chris Hyland. INVOCATION The Invocation was provided by City Treasurer Ferro. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COiTNCILMEMBER5: BRINLEY, KELLEY, METZE, PAPE, SCHIFFNER 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, Police Chief Walsh, Information/Communications Manager Dennis and City Clerk/Human ~ Resources Director Kasad. ' PRESENTATION a. Presentation - Reco~nition of Out~g Mayor. (F:44.2) Mayor Schiffner called Outgoing Mayor Brinley to the podium for I presentation. Mayor Schiffner indicated that he wanted to make a few ~~ footsteps of his own, but was honared to walk in Mayor Brinley's footsteps. i _. ~' Mayor Brinley thanked the community for the opportunity to serve the I community and grow with it; and thanked the Council for their support, noting that they stuvived the hard times together. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS Requests were received to address Item No. 4 and deferred to that discussion. , , i PAGE TWO - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 26, 2000 CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTEA ' 1. Approved Final Tract Map 23848-5, subject to City Engineer Acceptance, and Authorized the City Clerk to sign and record the map, and Authorized the Mayor to sign the Agreement for Construction of Public Improvements. (F:160.2) 2. Authorized Execution of a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Granite Homes, Inc., and the Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM) conveying Lots D& E consisting of appro~mately 4.2 Acres of City-Owned Land within Tract 20705 in the City of Lake Elsinore, to CNLM upon payment of a negotiated sale price, in proper legal form, subject to approval by the City Attorney. Additionally approved a Statement of Disclosure suitable to CNLM in proper legal form and subject to approval by the City Attorney. (F:68.1)(X:160.2) BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Acquisition and Development Agreement - North Elsinore Hills CommunitX Facilities District - Forecast Homes. (F:68.1)(X:223) City Manager Watenpaugh highlighted this item, and noted the efforts to resolve CFD concerns with Forecast Homes. He explained that the intent would be to move forward with CFD 88-3 development; after nearly four years of financial work-outs. He indicated that Brian Spillman was present on behalf of Forecast Homes; and advised that the agreement requests an eatension of the existing Development Agreement. He fixrther advised that the Development Agreement calls far a$1,000 per unit DAG fee, and $5,000 per lot to the Community Facilities District. He explained that this action would make the Community Facilities District whole and bring the annual property taxes current; and noted that the property taxes and penalties were growing annually, and an agreement has been reached subject to payment on the 28~'. Councilman.Metze indicated that there was very little to discuss, in that it was just another step in the process with Gunn & Associates, and it would be foolish not to proceed. Councilman Pape commented that this was an opportunity for the City to move forward and have the area developed, which would generate income for the City and the CFD. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley noted that this was part of the Financial Plan with ', Rod Gunn and supported the action. Councilwoman Kelley concurred with support for this action. ~I PAGE THREE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 26, 2000 I ~ MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY PAPE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE LAND ACQUISITION AND , DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH FORECAST HOMES. ' , ' - 4. Report regardin~ Initiative Petition. (F:72.2) ' City Manager Watenpaugh highlighted this item, noting that it was requested ~ by Council on November 28"'. He introduced Doug Holland, representing Woodlin, Spradlin and Smart. ; Doug Holland, wished everyone happy holidays and a wonderful new year. He thanked Council for the opportunity to provide this report and advised that it was available for public review. He highlighted the issues of concern, ' while recognizing that the Courts of the State of California strongly support the right of the Initiative and Referendum process. He stressed that these , were very important rights retained by the residents of California, allowing i them to propose or oppose legislation. He explained the intent of the legislative process and stressed the respect for that power in California; but ' clarified that there were restraints and restrictions on that power. , Mr. Holland advised that his efforts were directed at determining the meaning and intent of the measure, and whether it was something the voters could approve. He indicated that this measure had a number of problems, starting ' with the fact that it was one paragraph, with no severance clause to save any ' portion of it. He advised that there were a number of areas in which the proposed Initiative was insufficient, including insufficient code sections, no way to process tie votes, limitation of City Council terms to two years, and no ~~ e~lanation of the meaning of °full-time residents". He questioned the meaning of "full-time residents" and whether it was changing the requirements for the Council; and stressed the problems these insufficiencies ' cause. He clarified that a General Law City could only do those things the ' State statutes empower the Council to do, and could only approve legislation ~ which the Council could adopt. Mr. Holland noted that the proposed Initiative attempts to create Council Districts and a directly elected Mayor position, but does not go the full distance in doing what the statute requires. He indicated that three j requirements were missing, making it substantially insufficient, being no ' definition of the boundaries, no number of the districts and no indication as to i - whether representatives would be elected "by" districts or "from" districts. He explained that this was of concern because it dealt with a limitation on the ~ power of the franchise and the power to vote within the community, by I limiting who could run for Council and possibly on who could vote for the ~ City Council. He further explained that under the current system, 100% of ; , the population could run for 100% of the Council seats, and if it were ' changed to a"from" district jurisdiction, people could only run for one i ~ Council seat within the district in which they reside or run for Mayor. He ', ~ indicated that if the intent was "by" district, it was also contemplating a ~ ', significant change in who could vote for the City Council; and stressed that , ~ , , PAGE FOUR - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 26, 2000 100% of the voters could now vote, but with the "by" district arrangement they could only vote for 40% of the Council seats, and would be disenfranchised from 60% of the seats. He advised that this was a significant infringement, which was so significant that the Council could not unilaterally adopt the measure; and if the Council came up with a District configuration, it would be required to submit it to the voters for approval. He e~cpressed his belief that the deficiencies within this measure were significant, and noted that although it would be an unusual step to not place the matter on the ballot, in this case, due to the inability of the measure to speak to three substantial components, and his belief that it was materially and substantially flawed, he would recommend that it be referred back to the sponsors with a statement as to the insufficiencies. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley inquired if the matter should be referred back to the proponents with the recommendation that they seek legal assistance on the measure. Mr. Holland indicated that the people should always take advantage of legal advice. He further indicated that under the circumstances, with this kind of legislation, they would need to come up with boundaries which were appropriately representative of the residents of the community. He suggested that they would need a great deal of eapert help and assistance to develop and ordinance for this measure; and stressed the need for professional help. He indicated that at this point in time, it was important to identify the deficiencies based on the statutory requirements. Councilman Metze requested that the public comments be heard at this time. Mayor Schiffner stressed that the protocol would not allow for dialog with the speakers. Ace Vallejos, 15231 Cobre, noted that an example of not being given the right to vote was the sphere of influence issue. He commented that if someone paid him $10,000 he would render any decision they wanted; and suggested that had occurred. He suggested that maybe the only people to write Initiatives should be lawyers. He expressed concern that instead of working with the people, an adversarial role had been assumed, which served no one. Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest, indicated that she was sorry David Walsh could not be present at this meeting, since he spearheaded the effort. She commented that after reading Mr. Holland's report, she felt like she was living in Florida instead of California. She further commented that if someone were given $10,000 or $15,000 for a decision, the decision would be in favor of those requesting it. She noted that she had received many calls from people who had dealings with this law firm in Orange County and did not ha~e faeorable reports or comments about this Firm commenting in favor of the people. She indicated that the firm is ruthless in dealing with those involved in a lawsuit against an agency or city. She commented that the monopoly on the Water Board had been changed, and suggested that she was sure this Council wouldn't have to worry about the districts: She indicated that it was PAGE FIVE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 26, 2000 necessary to go to the national demographics or Registrar to determine the district boundaries. She noted that the City Attorney had not told them what they could do, and indicated that she would fight whatever the Council does, as half of them would not be on the Council next time. She indicated that after the first of the year there would be a big surprise. Robert Polk, 29417 Sunharbor Court, indicated that he had a couple of suggestions about this issue, noting the need to recognize that an Initiative was an attempt to change the law and not intended to be illegal. He commented thaC he was interested in the observations and suggested that this was not a matter the proponents could not work out with representatives of the City, even if the Initiative had to be recirculated. He suggested that it was an important issue, when more than 10% of the people bring forward a measure. He commented that the proponents acted appropriately, but the information was not a~ailable, and suggested that the Initiative could be reconstructed. He suggested that whether the proposal was right or wrong was not the issue, but being wrong according to Mr. Holland, would suggest that it could be corrected. He further suggested a compromise with the Council who represent everyone, to bring forward a measure to represent everyone. He recommended that the Council give the proponents and staff direction to look at the Initiative together to see how it could be reconstructed. Councilman Metze indicated that this issue could be debated back and forth, but one way to proceed would be to challenge it. He commented that what Mr. Polk had suggested was possible, but the Council had not previously supported districts, particularly in a community of this size. She suggested that districts would be appropriate in larger cities. He indicated that Mr. Holland explained it well and stressed that voting for one Councilmember and a Mayor would be limiting the peoples' ability to vote. He expressed concern that districts would prime the pump for council members fighting over money for their districts and back room deals. He commented that each Councilmember now had to be concerned for everyone in the City and districts would allow for easier campaigning than the city-wide arrangement. He suggested that would not be in the best interest of the community, and therefore indicated he would not be willing for the Council to pursue the proposed changes. He stressed that the Council had previously indicated that they were not in favor of those changes. He suggested that this proposal would j eopardize the entire election process; and he felt the Council would be remiss in sending something like this forward. He indicated that it violated the one subject requirement, violated the autharity of the Mayor, violated the requirement on terms of office; and stressed the magnitude of problems with the proposal. He noted that he was glad to see that the City Attorney's office spoke with the attorney quoted in the paper, who retracted his statements. He expressed his belief that the Council should follow the recommendations of Legal Counsel. Councilman Pape addressed Mr. Holland and requested his input regarding the public comments. Mr. Holland noted the accusations that the Court or his PAGE SIX - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 26, 2000 office were biased. He indicated that when the matter was referred to his office, they were not told what decisions they should come to. He clarified that he insisted on reviewing the materials and making recommendations to the Council which were not filtered through anyone. He stressed that he reviewed the material independently with no interaction or direction from City Council of City staff. Councilman Pape requested input on the suggestion of working out a compromise, and the impact on the signatures already gathered. Mr. Holland indicated that it was not possible to undo, what had already been done; it was possible to start fresh, but this particular measure could not be revived. He stressed that it was not known what the residents had intended by their signature, or which concepts they were supporting. He reiterated that the proponents would have to start fresh and keep the materials consistent with the provisions of the Government Code. Councilman Pape indicated that he was not surprised, but e~ressed disappointment that the people would still encourage the Council to ignore the law and implement this plan. He stressed that it was clearly not legal and had many problems, which were not minor technicalities, but rather huge problems making it impossible to implement. He indicated that he was hoping that the proponents would see the deficiencies and withdraw the Initiative to consider their options. He further indicated that he was sorry that it was necessary to spend $10,000 on this process, and noted that some of the proponents didn't show up for this meeting, suggesting that this was a merely a political process, instead of something to benefit the community. He suggested that the newer residents should be advised that the Council has been dealing with these issues for many years, noting past recall attempts. He indicated that this effort was a new twist, but the proponents should have done their homework to get it right. He noted quotes by Mr. Wa1sh in the newspaper and commented that the longest serving Councilmember had been there for 6-1/2 years, which would not suggest longevity like some communities in Los Angeles. He inquired if it would be appropriate to make it easier to get elected to a Council seat, noting that at the last election only 2,700 people voted. He suggested this would make campaigning a whole lot easier. He noted Mrs. Hyland's comments about the monopoly being in place too long, and indicated that there was not monopoly, only a political situation. He advised that the proponents were told of the problems with this Initiative, via a letter from the City Attorney on March 2°d. He quoted the letter indicating that it was "not in form to be adopted and violates the state law" and suggests that the proponents "consult an attorney or consultant" on the issues. He questioned why they had not made corrections or sought assistance at that time. He suggested that all actions have consequences, which in this case forced the City to spend $10,000 for no really good reason. He commented that the real issue was whether it was legally sufficient to be enacted, and it clearly was not. He questioned who actually wrote the proposed measure and stressed that it was insufficient in substantial and material ways. He suggested that it mislead and misinformed the public, and carried eight maj or problems. He commented that the voters were entitled to know the boundaries of the proposed districts, and stressed that it was important to know where the lines would be, who would draw them, and PAGE SEVEN - CITY COUNCIL MINLJTES - DECEMBER 26, 2000 , when they should be redrawn. He addressed the issue of "from" districts versus "by" districts; and suggested that there would be a huge difference in ', ' giving up voting for five people to vote for two people. He reiterated that the ' proposal violated the one subject requirement, imposed improper limitations on the activities of the Mayor, imposed improper regulation on the terms of office, a modification of the requirements or office with regard to who could ~' run, and incorrect citations of law. He e~ressed concern that the intent of the i residents was not properly represented. Councilwoman Kelley commented that it was unfortunate that it was necessary to spend the money, but indicated that it was for a reasonable cause, because the Council wanted to be sure that what went to the ballot was legal. She stressed the need to be sure that what was adopted was sound, ~ reasonable and in conformance with State law. She reiterated that many areas did not conform to the law and commented that the biggest concern to her, was that it did not provide the electorate with enough information to intelligently exercise their rights under the Initiative process, and did not ' contain even the minimum required information. She stressed that on that ' basis the Council could not put this measure on the ballot, as there was not ' enough information far the voters to make an intelligent decision. ~! ~! Mayor Pro Tem Brinley concurred with the other Councilmembers, that she hated to spend the $10,000, but it was important to see the insufficiencies. She stressed the problems with laws that don't exist and reiterated the need to , be sure the community is fully informed. She noted the problems which ~ would be caused since the City is not economically diversified yet, and ~~ stressed the need for each district to have some means of self support. She concurred that districts in a small city would lead to back room deals. She noted that the City of Riverside was economically diversified before it was ! broken into district. She addressed the suggestion that Councilmembers serve for only two years, which would change the entire Council every two years, leaving the Council with a lack of experience and knowledge. She addressed population and noted that some districts would be less populated than others, ' which would cause unequal representation. She commented that the Council was responsible for addressing these concerns before the matter goes to the ~ ballot. She clarified that the Council had the right to hire a private attorney ', to review the measure for sufficiency. She suggested that districts might be ' more appropriate as the population grows and the economy diversifies. She ~I supported the recommendations of Legal Counsel. , Mayor Schiffner indicated that it was irrelevant how he felt about districts, , but the question before the Council was whether the petition which was circulated adequately, informed the people of what they were signing; and the ; report indicated that it did not. He stressed that there were several legal ' reasons the proposal could not be implemented. He addressed the $10,000 and indicated that the Council hired an outside attorney to a~oid any suggestion of bias on the part of the City Attorney. He indicated that he was confident, that with the report on the Initiative, the proponents did not listen PAGE EIGHT - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -'DECEMBER 26, 2000 to past advice. MOVED BY METZE, SECONDED BY BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIlVIOUS VOTE TO REFER THE INITIATIVE PETITION BACK TO THE CITY CLERK WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REJECT IT FOR FAILiTR~ TO COMPLY IN SUBSTANTIAL AND MATERIAL WAYS WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 7:55 P.M. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 7:57 P.M. PUBLIC CONIMENTS Woody Woodward, 29108 Sunswept, wished everyone happy holidays, and advised that he was a member of Citizens for Alberhill Recreation, which is a private organization, not funded by anyone. He indicated that they have been a grassroots organization since day one, and ha~e gone door-to-door and phone-to-phone; and started soliciting signatures last Saturday, receiving over a signature a minute. He noted that they were commended by the manager of the facility where they were. He noted that he would present facts with regard to the negativism about the type of people who go to racetracks. He addressed a study by the University of Indiana and suggested that he would welcome that type of people to the community. He presented a summary of the benefits to the community and hundreds of signatures in support of the complex; and requested that the Council review the information. Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest, indicated that they have hundreds of signatures against the racetrack; and advised that they would be going out this week with petitions under the auspices of CLEAN and asking the people of Lake Elsinore to take a petition and cover their neighborhoods. She indicated that they have been at the grocery stores with strong support, and will fight to the last vote. Ed Sirotnak, 15032 Navel Way, advised that he was a five year resident and really thinks the proposed raceway project will benefit a lot of people with schools and roadways. He suggested that the project would give families somewhere to go to do something meaningful. He e~ressed hopes for approval of the proposed project. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS No comments. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS City Attorney Leibold commented on the following: 1) ~nnounced one Closed Session item as listed on the agenda. 2) Advised the public that in the Cleveland Ridge litigation, the City had PAGE 1~iINE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 26, 2000 ; been awarded full reimbursement of all attorney fees, in the amount of $86,713. I ~ , ' CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Pape commented on the following: , 1) Announced that RCTC had started to acquire property along Highway ' 74, so by the middle of March, they can have the area cleared, and keep i the project on schedule for widening to five lanes. Councilman Metze commented on the following: i 1) Thanked Mr. Holland for his efforts, for his report and for coming to ' the meeting, noting that he flew in from Flarida today. He indicated that he would like the citizens to keep in mind that the Council was present on December 26'~', because the people don't trust the Council ' and the Council decided not to cancel the meeting. He stressed the ' Council's efforts to keep everyone happy and keep the issue before the ! public. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley commented on the following: 1) Noted that the City Attorney is an excellent attorney and represents the , City very well; and indicated that through her legal guardianship the City has come out on top of issues such as the COI. She noted that the ' Attorney works closely with the City Clerk and has been very informative in working with the proponents. She suggested that it would be a conflict of interest for her to represent both sides; and ' recommended that they seek legal advice on the material. She stressed that there is a time when legal assistance is needed to get through the i: election laws. She further stressed that it takes time to write an adequate initiative. She noted that the City Attorney took the time to talk to the proponents over the phone and provide them with advice. i 2) Thanked the community far their participation in the RTA handprint bus and noted that they gave out over 350 goodie bags and had to make ' up more for the over 400 children who came out to participate. She I noted that the residents should look for it in the community. ~ 3) Wished everyone a Happy and Prosperous new year. ' Councilwoman Kelley commented on the following: ' 1) Wished everyone a Happy New Year. Mayor Schiffner commented on the following: 'I: PAGE TEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 26, 2000 ~ 1) Joined Mayor Pro Tem Brinley in her appreciation for the wark of the City Attorney. ,i ' 2) Wished everyone a Happy first New Year in the 215` Century. ~ I' THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 8:06 P.M. ' i THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECOIW~NED AT 8:17 P.M. WITH ~'HE ' FOLLOWING REPORTABLE ACTION: THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO INITIATE LITIGATION. THE ACTION, THE DEFENDANTS, AND THE OTHER PARTICULARS SHALL, ONCE FORMALLY ' COMMENCED, BE DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON UPON INQUIRY. ~ ADJOiTRNMENT MOVED BY PAPE, SECONDED BY BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY ' I UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOLIRN THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL ' MEETING AT 8:17 P.M. '' ~ ~ ROB L. SCHIF NER, MAYOR , - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ~ A TEST: ! ~' i VICKI KASAD, CMC, CITY CLERK/ H[JMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE I