Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC-06/08/2000MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/ PLANNING CONIMISSION STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORIVIA THURSDAY, .TUNE 8, 2000 :~~~:~~:~~~~~~~~~~:~,~:~*~~*~~*~~~*~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~*~:~~:~~~*~*~:~~~:~ CALL TO ORDER The Joint City CounciUPlanning Commission Study Session was called to order at 2:44 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Community Development Director Brady. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY, PAPE, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMIVIISSIONERS: METZE BARNE5, SANDS, WILSEY MATTHIES, POLK (Commissioner Matthies arrived at 2:49 p.m.) Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, City Attorney Leibold, Community Development Director Brady, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, Planning Manager Villa, Associate Planner Miller, City Treasurer Ferro and City Clerk Kasad. a. Cell & Satellite Antenna Sites (Wireless Telecommunication Facilities~. (F:60.1) City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that staff has been approving sites of this type for quite some time with very few design standards or criteria. He explained that staff had prepared some recommendations based on what was currently existing in the community. Community Development Director Brady commented that staff had received a number of requests far placement of antennas within the City and to date there were no specific regulations; however staff has been using the design review process in coordination with the existing antenna regulations. He advised that it was staff s intent to bring an Ordinance to the Council which specifically addresses wireless communication antennas or cell towers. He noted that the increased use of cell phones and pagers has drastically increased the demand for this type of facility. He further noted that some of the providers were also providing Internet service via the antennas. PAGE TWO - JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES -.TUNE 8, 2000 COMMISSIONER MATTHIES ARRIVED AT 2:49 P.M. Community Development Director Brady noted the impacts of local topography on the capabilities of the antennas and explained that it requires towers ranging from 25 feet to 125 feet. He indicated that those were issues to be addressed by the future Ordinance. He noted the difficulty in people enj oying the use of their cell phones, but being concerned with the aesthetics of the equipment. He presented a packet of material on how a cell system works and noted the types of antennas. He explained that presently requests for antennas are taken through the Design Review process for Planning Commission review; and require a Conditional Use permit and Variance. He noted specific concerns for support structures, fencing, wiring, etc.; and for ways to address the appearance of the antennas. He commented that the poles are becoming know as "monopalms" or "monopines"', and noted one recently approved for a site at Machado/Lakeshore, which should blend with the existing trees in the area. He explained that the technology used to conceal the structures is referred to as "stealth technology"; and noted that in some communities they have been built as a part of church steeples or other taller buildings. He stressed that there are methods available to camouflage the structures to reduce the aesthetic impact and requested City Council and Planning Commission input on any other concerns to assist in preparation of the future Ordinance. Mayor Brinley inquired of Chairman Wilsey with regard to the Planning Commission's consideration of these structures. Chairman Wilsey stressed the Commission's concern for the aesthetics of the poles. He noted one such structure on Baker Street and noted their extensive discussion of how to camouflage it. He further noted that the Commission had also considered concealing them in flagpoles, but indicated they had no decisive approaches. He indicated that the facility at Machado Storage would be very interesting, but stressed the site selective nature of these structures. Commissioner Barnes noted that the builders of the Machado pole were asked to come back to the Commission with more foliage on the pole and had brought back a new design that was more tree shaped. He commented on the use of water tanks for placement of antennas and indicated that EVMWD does not want them on the tanks. He further indicated that EVMWD has leased space on their water tank sites for the antennas; and the providers pay about $1,000 a month for each leased site. Commissioner Sands noted that they had been advised of problems with multiple users on a single pole. He eapressed uncertainty as to whether the problem ~vould exist if the current uses were allowed to coexist with other companies on multipYe towers in the same location. Chairman Wilsey indicated thai the Commission had tried to encourage the providers to wark out the use of a single pole, but to date they had not been receptive. Commissioner Matthies noted that the Commission had a standard condition of approval requiring that they look at co-existence and updating their PAGE THR~E - JOINT STUDY SESSION MINLTTES - JUNE S, 2000 facilities when possible via new technology. Community Development Director Brady clarified that the condition "Encouraged co-location of facilities where possible". He further clarified that the intent was to encourage the use of one pole with separate support facilities. He commented that because of technology changes, the Commission had adopted a regulation that within five years the facilities are to be reviewed for technology changes and upgraded to the current technology. Mayor Pro Tem Pape questioned the City's ability to require multiple users to co-exist on one tower. Community Development Director Brady indicated that some other communities encourage this situation, but expressed uncertainty as to whether it could be a requirement. Mr. Pape suggested that this was one way to cut down on the number of poles, and questioned whether the existing poles could be required to be camouflaged as trees. Mr. Brady indicated that might be difficult since several were already approved, but noted that with any significant upgrades this modification could be required. Mayor Brinley questioned the preference between a pine and a palm. Community Development Director Brady indicated that it would depend on the situation. He indicated that it is important to develop new overall standards, but a11ow for the facilities to be addressed on a site by site basis. Mrs. Brinley questioned the cost factor for this form of stealth technology and inquired if it was causing the providers a problem. Mr. Brady indicated that the developers have generally been willing to work with the City on these issues, because the sites are very valuable to them. Mayor Pro Tem Pape indicated that in the future all poles should include stealth technology to conceal them and make them less noticeable. Commissioner Barnes commented that the antenna on Baker Street was discussed for an hour and a half due to the visibility of the location; and suggested that it would have appeared as a tree in the middle of nowhere. He indicated that in that instance it was less noticeable as a standard pole. Councilman Schiffner noted that there are many individual palms around the City and suggested that it would be more pleasing if there were two or three trees sitting together as trees it might look more natural. Councilwoman Kelley inquired how many antennas were presently in the City. Planning Manager Villa indicated that there were currently six or seven. Mrs. Kelley inquired how many companies were represented by those antennas. Mr. Villa indicated it was three or four companies. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that those were in addition to the public utility and City poles. Community Development Director Brady added that there were also paging antennas in the City. Mayor Brinley questioned the Water District's stance on the placement on water tanks and whether it was a firm negative. There was general discussion on the use of water tanks and water tank sites for antennas. PAGE FOUR - JOINT STUDY SESSION MIN UTES - JUNE 8, 2000 Councilman Schiffner questioned the technical problems with coverage and whether each companies situation was different. Planning Manager Villa indicated that most transmit on the same frequency, so their problems were similar. Mr. Schiffner suggested that key areas could be designated, which would work for all of the providers. Chairman Wilsey noted that they had discussed that possibility, but generally it doesn't work due to their individual cell pattems. Mayor Pro Tem Pape questioned the area each antenna could cover. Community Development Director Brady indicated that it varies by the area, topography and surrounding buildings. Mr. Pape indicated that none of them cover Main Street or behind City Hall. Councilwoman Kelley questioned the Planning Commission action on these structures and whether there was a time limitation included in the approval. Chairman indicated that they included a five year limitation and the requirement that they upgrade if the technology at that time so warrants. Mrs. Kelley requested further clarification. Planning Manager Villa noted that the applications started about five years ago, and no one was sure of the technology; so the condition was developed to require review every five years. Chairman Wilsey clarified that the approvals were not; as such, Conditional Use Permits. City Attorney Leibold questioned the current form of approval.' Mr. Villa explained the past considerations and indicated that there are some Conditional Use Permits with Variances. Mayor Brinley inquired if the antennas should just be addressed as Conditional Use Permits in the new Ordinance. Chairman Wilsey indicated that he was going to suggest the same thing. Mrs. Brinley indicated that there was more control with a C.U.P. Mr. Wilsey noted that C.U.P.'s were generally used at this point to address the height factors. City Attorney Leibold indicated that a C.U.P. would allow the Council to address antennas in specific areas. Mayor Brinley indicated that she would really like to see a C.U.P. process and increased control. Chairman Wilsey concurred and noted that even those that come back for review don't come back to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Brinley commented that the C.U.P. would require that each review come back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Pape inquired if there were any request pending. Staff indicated that there were none pending at the present time. Mayor Brinley inquired how long it would take to change the process. Community Development Director Brady indicated that staff would need to see what other cities are having success with; and noted that it was not possible to prohibit antennas, but they could be regulated. He suggested that it would probably take two to four months to bring something back. Mayor Brinley stressed that she would want to make sure there is not a garden of antennas or signs along the roads; and encouraged more control and stronger design requirements. Mr. Brady stressed the impacts of service areas and clarified that the needs would vary by the technology and type of system being placed. ~Ie indicated that this would also influence the ability to co-locate facilities. PAGE FIVE - JOINT STUDY SESSION MINiJTES - JUNE 8, 2000 Mayor Brinley suggested that the cost factors might behoove the providers to double up and co-locate with someone else. Councilman Schiffner noted that he was not sure cost was a real issue for these providers; but supported the stealth technology and indicated that he would not mind seeing multiple trees. He stressed the need to be concerned with the durability of the tree camouflage and noted that they would need to be installed and maintained properly. Chairman Wilsey suggested that this could be addressed by the conditions of approval. Commissioner Matthies concurred with the concems for proper maintenance and the requirement for stealth designs. She commented that the format would need to be left open for site-specific design factors. Mayor Brinley suggested that staff develop and come back with new verbiage to require a Conditional use Permit, and address maintenance, materials and site specific adaptations. Mayor Pro Tem Pape suggested that this could be applied to the existing facilities as they come back for review. City Attorney Leibold indicated that she would wark with the Planning staff on the C.U.P. issues and investigate how broadly they can be applied. City Manager Watenpaugh inquired if Council was comfortable enough with the direction to allow staff to draft the new Ordinance and bring it back through the Planning Commission and City Council. There was concurrence that this was acceptable and would save time. Commissioner Barnes inquired if staff had polled other cities that had more deeply investigated this issue. Community Development Director Brady indicated that they had looked at some other cities, but could do more extensive research to on recent Ordinances which address the current technology. The City Council and Planning Commissioners concurred this would be helpful. City Treasurer Ferro noted the presence of "Foamworks" in the City and suggested it would behoove staff to discuss the issue with their company for suggestions; as they are already involved with this type of project. Mr. Brady indicated that staff would be happy to talk with them. Associate Planner Miller indicated that she had spoken with Foamworks about the pending "monopine" and asked for a photo of their work; however they never got back to her. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that staff would pursue that resource. Mayor Brinley thanked the Planning Commission for their time and participation in this session. PAGE SIX - JOINT STUDY 5ESSION 1VIINLJTES - JCJNE 8, 2000 ADJOURNMENT THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 3:20 P.M. PAMELA B1~INL~Y, MA CITY OF LAKE ELSINO: ATTEST: ca-c~"~.~. i~~o d t VICHI KASAD, CMC, CITY CLERK CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA THUR5DAY, JUNE 8, 2000 ~~~~:~~:~~:~~x*:~~:~~:~x~:~:~~:~:~~~:~:~*~*:~:~~~:~:~~~:~:~*~~:~*~:~*~:~:~~:~*~:~~:~~:~x~:~~:~x CALL TO ORDER The City Council Study Session was called to order by Mayor Brinley at 3:37 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY, PAPE, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: COiTNCILMEMBERS: METZE (Councilman Metze arrived at 3:39 p.m.) Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, Planning Manager Villa, City Treasurer Ferro and City Clerk Kasad. DISCUSSION ITEM a. Citv Council Agenda Review Process. (F:44.1) City Manager Watenpaugh noted that discussion of this matter was requested by Councilman Schiffner in December and was originally set for a Study Session on January 5`", however that meeting was cancelled due to medical needs of a Councilmember. He advised that in talking with the City Attorney, the Tuesday meetings were not set up as Agenda Review meetings. He clarified that the meetings were originally set up as a time when the City Manager would keep his schedule clear to address questions on the agenda or other matters of concern; and over a period of time it had become a standard operating procedure. He stressed that those meetings deal with a lot of issues, ha~ing nothing to do with the Agenda; but rather how the City is operating and the needs of the constituents. He suggested that there were options for agenda review which would allow for more efficient use of staff time. He noted the options proposed in the staff report which would allow for agenda review in the public view. He explained how such a public meeting would work and the potential for allowing public input. He noted that at times the Council meetings are quite long and there has been a number of comments on the difficulty of being attentive late at night. He detailed the options as listed in the staff report and explained the intent of each option. Councilman Metze suggested that these formats would defeat the purpose. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified that there was nothing in the Brown Act to preclude answering questions; but noted the perceptions in the community and the potential that these formats would change that perception. He noted that staff has discussed the need far weekly or bi-weekly meetings to update PAGE TWO - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - JUNE 8, 2000 the Council on what is going on, but those would not have to be regular formatted meetings. He indicated that it would be helpful to regularly program meetings to keep the Council informed of what was happening in the community. Mayor Brinley noted that the format would depend on personal schedules, and expressed interest in the option of having a 4 p.m. question and answer period, followed by closed session prior to the Council meeting. She indicated that she would prefer to do the Closed Session earlier and allow for any announcements during the regular meeting. She noted the potential problem of Closed Sessions running longer than the time allowed. City Attorney Leibold noted the other jurisdictions she serves and the meeting formats utilized in those jurisdictions. She clarified that if the Closed Session ran too long, it would have to be reconvened after the rest of the Council meeting. Councilman Metze noted this was a much different issue if they were discussing Closed Sessions. Mayor Pro Tem Pape suggested that this approach would not be very efficient. Councilwoman Kelley indicated that this format would force the Council to be precise in their discussions. City Attorney Leibold stressed that there was currently no formal agenda review process, but a routine previously established to answer questions from Councilmembers; and noted that it was currently an informal system with some Councilmembers participating and some not participating. Councilmari Metze indicated that all Councilmembers participate in different ways. City Attorney Leibold clarified that all Councilmembers take seriously the opportunity to be well informed for the Council meetings; however there is no action or deliberation taken outside the view of the public. She eaplained that the whole purpose of an agenda review process would be to give staff an opportunity to obtain additional facts to make a heavy agenda run more smoothly. Councilman Metze suggested that this would not be possible under the options presented. Councilman Schiffner noted that there was presently an opportunity to gain these answers over several hours. Councilman Metze commented that not everyone sticks to the agenda issues, and most go in different directions based on their specific concerns. He noted that he understood the concern to be that the staff was meeting with more than one person at a time. City Attorney Leibold clarified that the issue was with the Brown Act provisions and highlighted those provisions requiring that deliberations and actions be taken in an open and public setting. She stressed that it would be a violation to meet in serial meetings to develop a collective concurrence. Councilman Metze inquired who was doing that. Mrs. Leibold clarified that no one was doing that, but noted that the perceptions would suggest it was happening. Councilman Schiffner stressed that no one was doing anything wrong, but the public perception would suggested they were. Councilman Metze suggested that the public was not really concerned, based on the fact that there was only one member of the public present for this meeting; and at the Budget Study Session there were only three members of the public for half the day. Councilman Schiffner commented that the Press was present to hear the discussions. PAGE THREE - STUDY SES5ION MINUTES - JUNE 8, 2000 Mayor Pro Tem Pape indicated that the current format was a matter of convenience and courtesy for the Council, that staff schedules a time for responding to questions. He stressed that it was helpful to be able to plan on one's calendar for a standing appointment to sit down and get answers to questions. He further stressed that much of the discussion does not relate to the agenda. He noted the number of times that staff has had to research issues further before a Council meeting and suggested that it would be inefficient to have every Department Head stuck in a meeting for a couple of hours on a Council meeting day. He suggested that it would not make any sense at all, and late afternoon would not work for his calendar. He suggested that with regard to the issue of perception vs. fact, it was important to work on changing the perception and deal with the people who were perpetuating the lie. He fitrther suggested that most people could care less. Councilman Metze expressed concern with the perception that once you are elected, you are guilty for some reason. Councilwoman Kelley indicated that she hold her questions to ask all at one time and suggested that this approach was considering staff s time. She indicated that if there was a 4 p.m. meeting it would have to be understood that the questions should be on the agenda, Councilmembers would need to be precise and ask their questions. She suggested that whether the public was present ar not was their choice, but the opportunity should be there. Councilman Metze expressed concern that people would still view the Council meetings in the context that there was not much discussion and the same issue of how the decision was reached would arise. He noted that the Council holds workshops on a several issues that will come to the Council in :,. the future and there is very little discussion at the Council meetings. Mayor Brinley suggested that it would be difficult for staff on Agenda day, when the Council was asking questions on a variety of issues, as they are dealing with a lot of things on those days. She indicated that she was very concerned with Closed Sessions and the late night discussions that get very long and drawn out. She suggested it would be nice to have an earlier Closed Session, followed by the Council meeting and be done far the evening. She questioned how the Closed Session could be made simple, without having to break in the middle of an in-depth discussion. City Attorney Leibold indicated that with respect to Closed Session, staff can generally estimate how long an issue will take and it would be rare to go over an hour. She further indicated that in the event of a longer discussion issue, they just wouldn't start the discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Pape suggested that if the Closed Session were set up before the meetings, then they should be more flexible and scheduled as needed; if an hour was needed they could start at 6 p.m. or start at 6:45 p.m. for a quick issue. He stressed that they should be scheduled on an as needed basis. Councilman Metze indicated that he likes preparing for Council meetings, he knows the issues and wants to be as prepared as he can be before a meeting. He stressed that his constituents want him to be informed and prepared and PAGE FOUR - STUDY SESSION MINIJTES - JUNE 8, 2000 spends several days preparing and is prepared to deal with the issues, followed by Closed Session. He reiterated that he understood the concern to be meeting with two people at one time. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified that the perception in the community was that on Council day, staff inet with pairs of Councilmembers to build concensus in preparation for the meeting. He stressed that there was no issue with the Council coming in, but if everyone comes in on the day of the meeting in pairs, there is a misperception. Councilman Metze suggested that some people will always think something is being done wrong. Mr. Watenpaugh indicated that it was not possible to change some peoples' perceptions, but suggested it would be better to not give them an opportunity to make that assumption. He concurred that some people would never be pleased. Councilman Kelley indicated that it would behoove the Council to tackle the perception, but they could still call staff to ask a question. She stressed the benefit of having the discussions in public and allowing the public to know how they arrived at the vote. She suggested that this could only assist in getting rid of the perception and emphasized the point that it was being made available if people wanted to attend. Councilman Metze indicated that there had never been a time when Mr. Watenpaugh did not provide information to the public as needed. Councilwoman Kelley stressed that the open format would help the public to better understand the decision-making process. Mayor Pro Tem Pape suggested that there was the potential for an undesired side effect, as with the Budget Study Session, when it comes to the Council for final approval there probably won't be twenty minutes of discussion and the public won't lrnow what occurred prior to that consideration. He stressed that this would be like a Study Session, it would not be televised and it would appear that the Council has discussed the issue beforehand. He suggested that watching the meetings on TV, the issues are explained enough and the public knows why they vote the way they do. He stressed that the discussion is meaningful and leads to understanding. He disagreed with regard to the use of staff time, and noted that when they meet, staff already has the answers or can get them quickly, but if every Department Head is sitting in a meeting, they can't accomplish anything else. Councilman Schiffner noted the staff time issue and it would not be his understanding that they would all have to be present. He suggested that it would be the same type of ineeting they already hold on Tuesday afternoon with the City Attorney, City Manager and maybe the Assistant City Manager; and when information is needed they would call other staff inembers for backup. He suggested rather than tying up the City Manager and City Attomey all day long, they would only be tied up for an hour or so. He noted with regard to staff time, he agreed with all the arguments that nothing had been done, but stressed the perception of the public. He suggested that the Press will transmit the information to everyone and stressed that this was a ... , ', u ,.,. ,:,. PAGE FIVE - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - JUNE 8, 2000 concern with perception, not the facts. He expressed hopes with discontinuing the current format of ineetings for a more open format. He indicated that Closed Sessions can be worked out, but stressed the need to take Council discussions before the public, no matter what the topic is. He indicated that he had nothing to say that he was not willing for everyone to know about. Councilman Metze noted that people were coming to him about a concern on Dale Court, and questioned the need to ha~e a publicly noticed meeting to meet with the City Manager. Councilman Schiffner clarified that the misperceived issue was that the Council was meeting in pairs. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that he did not disagree with the comments, but part of the problem was that there really wasn't a need for an agenda review meeting; but that did not mean there couldn't be other meetings. He stressed that the perception was that there were reviews of the agenda and decisions before the public discussions. He indicated that he would set up individual meeting with the Councilmembers for answering questions outside the Agenda review. City Attorney Leibold commented that there were a variety of alternatives for times and dates; but generally speaking there could be no established agenda review. She clarified that would not mean that there was no obligation to be informed about items of City business to be transacted at a public meeting; and stressed that Councilmembers have the right and obligation to get their questions answered before making a decision. She indicated that this could or could not be in the form of an Agenda Review; but the question if there was no agenda review was whether they would still want standing meetings with the City Manager and staff, and what was the most convenient day. She suggested that the Council could choose to have a voluntary question/answer period that is publicly noticed and voluntary. She suggested that if an agenda review is desired it could be held earlier to allow mare time for questions and researching answers. Councilman Metze stressed that this was only an issue of perception. City Attorney Leibold responded that if the Council elects to hold Closed Session discussions prior to the regular meeting, under the Brown Act, the regular meeting time has to be formally established; so earlier Closed Session would ha~e to be specifically noticed as to time and place. She suggested that the Council could have a regularly scheduled question and answer time, recess to Closed Session and announce the amount of time required based on how much there is to consider. She stressed that there was a variety of options. Mayor Brinley indicated that she understands the concerns of Councilman Schiffner and agreed that the perception and lack of understanding was being misconstrued. She indicated that she liked the idea of having Closed Sessions before the regular meeting, holding the meeting and being done. She also indicated that she liked the question and answer period at a stated time, which would be optional for the Council, but still available to the public. She suggested that if a Councilmember had their questions answered in advance, they would have the option of not attending the question and answer period. PAGE SIX - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - JU1VE S, 2000 Councilman Metze expressed concern that the public, in general, was not concerned with City actions. Mayor Brinley stressed the importance of finding a way that works for everyone and staff was providing all the possible options. She indicated that the time didn't matter, but it was important to find something to move forward with and alleviate the perception that things were being done behind closed doors. She stressed the need to find common/neutral ground. City Managex Watenpaugh noted that whether there was an agenda review or not, the Councilmembers still had every right to have meetings with staff. Councilman Metze indicated that no one has said anything about the perception to him. Mr. Watenpaugh stressed that the perception was out in the public. Councilman Schiffner indicated that he would like to have an established meeting because he likes to ha~e the City Attorney and City Manager present, and while most of the questions are not specifically on the agenda, many are on legal issues for the City Attorney. He suggested that for other meetings, the City Attorney was not always available, and it was nice to ha~e her present for clarification. Councilman Metze suggested if this was a public discussion with the City Attorney and City Manager, then there was no need for a meeting prior to the agenda. There was general Council discussion of the options. Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest, indicated that the perception was that things are not done in open and they should be. She questioned the discussion of having Closed Session priar to the regular meeting. City Attorney Leibold clarified that the meeting would have to be called to order and the topics announced; so the meeting would be called to order, the announcements would be made and the meeting would be recessed to Closed Session. Mrs. Hyland questioned the agenda format and whether it would list the 6 p.m. start time. City Manager Watenpaugh highlighted possible formats for the agenda listing. Nlrs. Hyland indicated that she wanted to clarify for the public to be sure people understood the meeting time. Information/Communications Manager Dennis noted his past experience of 16 years in three different agencies with three different practices. He stressed that appearances should be a motivating factar and noted the question of public trust. He suggested that there were a variety of possible actions to make the appearance more open. He indicated that gaining the public trust was a good starting point. He also indicated that participation in a study session as a staff inember is never time wasted, as it offers a better opportunity to know the needs of the public and public officials he serves. He suggested that this decision-making process set a good example for staff, the public and outside agencies.' City Treasurer Ferro indicated that the whole perception stemmed from there being a lot of 5-0 votes. He suggested that this could be viewed as an efficient Council with good continuity; but indicated that the public PAGE SEVEN - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - JUNE 8, 2000 perception was that things happened behind closed doors. He stressed that was the source of the perception problem and suggested a changed format would relieve that perception. Councilman Metze indicated that the 5-0 votes stems from efficiency, continuity and people who have been on the Council/Commission for a while. He suggested that if the staff wasn't bringing them the information to accomplish things quickly, it was time to get rid of staff. City Manager Watenpaugh concurred with Mr. Ferro and Mr. Metze, noting that the current staff and Council had been together for a number of years. He also pointed out that this Council had their hands tied, because there were not a lot of options available. He noted that there had been a lot of votes that were not 5-0, but the Council was not beating each other up all the time. Councilman Metze noted that people hated the Council when there was bickering all the time, and indicated that the only person doing something illegal was no longer on the Council. Mayor Brinley commented that the meetings were so rough for so long, it now looks like nothing is going on; and noted that while the Council does not always agree, they do try to do what is best for the Community. City Attorney Leibold summarized that as it stands now, there is no formal review process, Council policy dictates the order of the meeting and the meeting times are established by Ordinance. She indicated at this point staff needed some sort of direction as to whether they should bring back a policy on the order of the meeting, or a change in the time and location of ineetings or establishment of a formal review process. Councilman Metze questioned Closed Sessions and inquired whether the other Councilmembers found them frustrating and fatiguing; and further questioned why they would want to go through that and then go into a public Council Meeting. Mayar Brinley and Councilwoman Kelley suggested that they are more tired after the regular meeting. Mayar Pro Tem Pape and Councilman Metze suggested leaving the format as it was. Mayor Brinley reiterated that she would like to see the Closed Session prior to the regular meeting. She indicated that if what she was hearing was that Mr. Schiffner would like to see a question and answer period for one hour, on a voluntary basis, followed by the regular meeting and Closed Session. She questioned Councilman Schiffner's preference. Councilman Schiffner indicated that he liked the idea of the question/answer periods, but questioned if it would officially be part of the Council meeting. Mayor Brinley stressed that this would require that the Councilmembers keep on track with questions and answers, go to Closed Session or Council Meetings from there. Councilman Schiffner noted that the open question and answer period would allow the public to speak twice and give another opportunity for public input. City Attorney Leibold clarified that if this meeting was added to the PAGE EIGHT - STUDY 5ESSION MINUTES - JUNE 8, 2000 beginning of the Council agenda and there was no decision making, there was no requirement that the public be allowed to speak at that portion of the meeting. She indicated that the Brown Act only requires an opportunity to address the Council prior to a decision being made. Mayor Pro Tem Pape inquired how this session would work, if there was no quorum. City Attorney Leibold indicated that the session could still proceed, since no decisions would be made. Councilman Metze questioned how this would change the perception. Mayor Brinley suggested that the thought process would be more visible. Mayor Pro Tem Pape questioned the increased visibility of the meeting if it was not on TV. Mayor Brinley stressed that the opportunity to hear the process would still be there. She suggested that staff come back with consideration of a question and answer period at 4 p.m. for one hour, open to the public and staff in attendance as deemed necessary. Councilman Schiffner suggested putting the matter on an agenda and making a decision at that time. There was fiirther general discussion of the options. Mayor Brinley commented that the e~sting perception has been exaggerated, but stressed that it was still a matter of public trust. Councilman Metze suggested that the Council would not have been elected if they were not trusted. Mayor Brinley stressed that he public trust needs to be maintained and directed staff to come back with the 4 p.m. question/answer period, no decisions and staff present, with the Closed Session staying as it is. Councilwoman Kelley clarified the current proposal and stressed no policy on agenda review. There was general discussion to clarify the direction. AD30ilRNMENT THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:45 P.M. ATTESTo \ i,~cYe~. ~~i4~~ VICKI KASAD, CMC, CITY CLERK CI'I`Y OF LAKE ELSINORE