Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-2000 City Council Study SessionMINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2000 ......................................................................... CALL TO ORDER Mayor Brinley called the Special City Council Meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Brinley led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY, METZE, PAPE, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ' Also Present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager ' Best, Assistant City Attorney McClendon, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Directar Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, City Engineer O'Donnell, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, City Treasurer Ferro and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. DISCUSSION ITEM 1. Alberhill/I,ake Elsinore S.ports and Entertainment Center - Amendment to Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. (F:131.11 City Manager Watenpaugh noted that the subject being discussed was an Amendment to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. He indicated that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was in review and invited the public to submit their comments to the Community Development Department at City Hall. He explained that the letters would be responded to as part of the EIR Mitigation Program. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that staff would be presenting a history of the project; where it is now; and where it would be going. He noted that after staff's presentation there would be comments from the dais and following that the public would be invited to speak. He requested the public to address the Specific Plan and comment on the EIR through written comment. Mayor Brinley indicated that the Study Session will be limited to two hours and will adjourn at 12:00 p.m. PAGE TWO - STUDY SESSION - DEC. 7, 2000 Community Development Director Brady noted that the purpose of the Study Session was to present an overview of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and to receive comments and input from the City Council. He noted that the EIR was presently out for comments and the closing date for comments was December 27, 2000, and reminded the public to submit their comments by then. Community Development Director Brady noted that the Specific Plan Amendment addresses 795-acre area and is part of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. The original Specific Plan was adopted in 1989, containing 1,853 acres. He presented an exhibit of the entire Specific Plan area and indicated that the proposed project comprises a majority portion of what was previously known as the Brighton Homes Specific Plan area. He explained that the Brighton Homes Specific Plan included about 995 acres, while the proposed project includes about 795 acres of the Brighton Homes Specific Plan with the remaining 200 acres staying open space. He detailed the location of the Specific Plan Amendment. Community Development Director Brady indicated that in 1991, the City approved a Specific Plan Amendment, which revised land uses and densities for Alberhill Ranch property owned by Brighton Homes, which included a total of 3,000 dwelling units and a golf course. He noted that Murdock Development did the ne~ two Specific Plan Amendments, and the proposal now before Council was Amendment Number 4. He detailed the proposed land uses and gave an overview of the locations that each use. He fut•ther indicated that the Specific Plan Amendment document introduces the project and is a type of master plan of future proposed land uses. He further noted that a Specific Plan is a replacement for conventional zoning and becomes a zoning plan for a particular area. He explained that it allows the City and/or applicant to develop standards that may be unique for the particular area which conventional zoning would not be able to address. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the Specific Plan Amendment document was in draft form and the intention of staff was to answer any questions the Council might have. Mayor Brinley recognized the persons who had requested to speak and reminded the audience that the topic to address would be the Specific Plan Amendment. Dave Stahovich, representative of Supervisor Buster's Office, stated that Supervisor Buster's Office had received numerous calls from the unincorparated area and asked that Council consider e~ending the ' comment period on the draft document which was very voluminous with a deadline of the day after Christmas. He stated that due to the holidays and the deadline of the day after Christmas, he felt that Council should allow the affected residents adequate time to address j all the issues. John Ulrich, 29015 Avocado Way, stated that he hoped that when Council considered the project, the debate would be on a factual PAGE THREE - STUDY SESSION - DEC. 7, 2000 level. He noted that this type of project has been fought over in various other locations all over the United States, which is public record. He asked if the economic factor enter into the decision the Council will make. Mayor Brinley indicated that to some degree it does. Mr. Ulrich stated that the information provided states that there would be 12 race dates, which would draw sixty-five thousand people per event. He noted that there was not a racetrack in the country that did that type of business. He commented that on both sides of the issue there were claims being made that are not even close to factual. Marsha Swanson, 32869 Central Avenue, Wildomar, stated that the raceway was a part of the project, however it was just a small part of the project. She commented that she had lived and worked in the Lake Elsinore Valley for 27 years and noted that she has heard and agrees that Lake Elsinore is the "Best Kept Secret". She further stated that she felt that the project would provide the opportunity for people to recognize and appreciate Lake Elsinare and put the City on the Map. She explained that she wanted to remind the people in attendance that racing was not the only thing the project offered. Woody Woodward, 29108 Sunswept, commented that he had attended a meeting that was held to oppose the racetrack and indicated that there was no information, and for every question asked there was not a clear answer, however the organizers of the meeting wanted the people in attendance to sign a petition in opposition to the raceway. He stated that after he left the meeting he approached his friends and neighbors to obtain their opinions and they were very much in favor ' of the project. He explained that he had developed a web page named CFAR (Citizens for Alberhill Recreation), and had been accepting comments both positive and negative. A1 Lyons, 15023 Valencia Way, indicated that he had set up a web site and presented a printout of the comments that he had received, both positive and negative. He stated that he has had interest shown by the local community and national race associations. Mr. Lyons stated that he had been told that no one would want to use the proposed facility, however he had found just the opposite. He noted ' that there would always be opposition with any type of major project. He noted that he had recently been at a race and noted that the noise was not a major factor, and with the proposed project he felt that the noise factor would be negligible. Leroy Tucker, 3532 Cherry Blossom Lane, stated that he lived approximately 1'/z miles from the proposed project and explained that when he retired he had looked for a quiet place to settle. He stated that he felt that the raceway would create a major noise problem. He indicated that he had no problem with the rest of the proposed project ' and added that a rodeo area would be an asset since Lake Elsinore is still country and could be utilized for other types of uses as well. He PAGE FOUR - STUDY SESSYON - DEC. T, 2000 requested that if Council decided to approve the project, that they condition the developer to build the entire project and not just the raceway. He further stated that he understood phases, but he was afraid that the developer would build the raceway and not the rest of the project. He asked that Council take steps to prevent that from happening. Martin Kreisler, 13160 Bay Meadows Court, Horse Thief Canyon, representing the Coalition Against the Raceway, concurred with Mr. Stahovich regarding the e~ension of time. He commented on the hour of the Study Session and stated that 10:00 a.m. made it very hard for people to attend due to their work schedules. He noted that the map presented was an old and out of date map and did not show the development that has occurred, which would be affected by the raceway, He detailed the FHA Guidelines and presented a copy of the Guidelines to Council. He stated that all the properties in the area of the raceway would decline in value if the project moved forward and suggested that if the developer cannot meet the goals of the project, the City could have a financial disaster. Hardy Strozier, representing Murdock Development, stated that the map presented to Council is very much out of date and missing several hundred homes. He detailed the proposed land use of the unincorporated area and suggested that a map addressing the current land use as well as future land use be brought before Council: He stated that the General Plan of the City of Lake Elsinore does not permit the proposed land use and noted that the proposed project would not be able to comply with the Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance. He indicated that there were other venues proposed beside the raceway and suggested that the EIR should address the worst case scenario. Mr. Strozier stated that the Specific Plan was deficient regarding the total plan for land use. He further stated that there was no valid=market study of the project and suggested that before Council decides on the project, they should have a valid market study to better judge the economics of the project. He indicated that he had talked to several economists and was told that there was no valid market site for this type ofproject. Ace Vallejos, 15231 Cobre Street, compared the project to the Diamond Stadium and Wal-Mart. He stated that the project would have a negative impact on property values, both in the City and County. He criticized the hour of the Study Session and stated that people could not attend because they had to work. He stated that he concurred with the ea~tension of time for comments on the EIR. He indicated that compatibility had not been properly addressed. Amanda Susskind, Attorney far the Murdock Development Company, commented on the substance of the Specific Plan and stated that it was deficient and inconsistent with the General Plan. She noted the PAGE FIVE - STUDY SESSION - DEC. 7, 2000 significant impacts of the project and cited noise, air, traffic, and infrastructure. She questioned the availability of emergency services. She urged Council to look very carefully at the economic analysis of the project. She indicated that she had made a review of the Specific Plan and the EIR and could find no valid economic analysis to justify the project. She stated her concern regarding the incompatibility with surrounding land uses and more specifically the approved area of the Murdock Specific Plan. She asked that Council extend the period for comment since the holidays ha~e limited the time for study and response. She stated that she had a letter of request for a 30-day extension of time to January 26, 2001. Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest Drive, concurred with the request for e~ension of time for comments on the EIR for the project. She indicated that CLEAN had formulated a strategy against the project and that she was circulating a petition in opposition to the project. She asked why the Moreno and Ontario Raceways went out of business if this type of project was so profitable. She noted that the City had a failed and debt ridden Stadium, which was nothing but sawdust and lawsuits, and questioned how Council could promise the residents that the proposed proj ect would be profitable and the City would not bear the burden of the project. Mrs. Hyland asked who would fill the hotels when there were no races and questioned who would come to Lake Elsinore to fill out the hotels. She commented that she could understand having houses, golf courses and possibly a village of shops. She stated that she used to live in Garden Grove, not too far from the Long Beach drag strip and commented on the amount of noise. She further stated that Lake Elsinore did not need the noise and she was going to do everything in her power to fight the project. Jeff Canada, 29001 Whitesails Court, stated that there were no facilities in Lake Elsinore that his family enjoyed. He stated that the raceway and golf course would provide the activities that his family enjoyed most. Stewart Fahmy, TT Group, stated that in order to reach out to the community, he would not be opposed to a short extension of time on the EIR. He stated that his company would like to reach out to the community and if there was anything that his company could do to make the project a reality, then they would be happy to comply. He stated that in the very near future they would be submitting an economic report to the City Manager. He thanked Council for their consideration and wished them Happy Holidays. Mayor Brinley presented an overview of the concerns expressed by the persons who commented to Council. She stated that staff and Council had made note of the concerns expressed by the various speakers and they would be addressed in the process. She assured the PAGE SIX - STUDY SE5SION - DEC. 7, 2000 audience that Council was looking for a factual study to be done on all of the elements and all of the areas would be addressed. Councilman Schiffner stated that the considerations he intends to use when making a final decision on this project will be based on fact and not on peoples' opinions. He indicated that he would like staff to increase the amount of time for comment on the EIR. Councilman Metze stated that he likes to keep things at a factual level. He commented that he does get fiustrated when he hears this project compared to Fontana. He noted that this is not a NASCAR track and would not compete with Fontana. He further noted that it is proposed to be a european style Grand Prix track which is much different than NASCAR. He stated that he was under the impression that Council was present to give staff direction regarding the Specific Plan and that any action that Council would take would be at a City Council Meeting. He noted that they are held on Tuesday nights at 7:00 p.m. He asked if those same people complained because their County Supervisors met Tuesdays at 9:00 a.m. to do all of the County business, when no one can find time to go. He stressed that this Meeting was an infarmal workshop to talk with staff. He further stated that he did not want people to have the perception that Council was trying to set meetings that they could not attend. Councilman Metze stated that he had made a review of the Specific Plan and it was inadequate. He stated that he needed something specific and it did not address any of the items in depth. He indicated that he would need a new Specific Plan if TT Group was looking for approval of the project. He noted that he was a fan of racing, however he needed to do what was best for the City and he needed a document that he could approve, addressing what was best for his City and not for himself. He stressed that the presented Specific Plan was woefully inadequate and there was a need for a new Specific Plan. He was looking for a detailed~Amendment showing how this project would work with the overall Specific Plan. He asked for a new Specific Plan with detail that supercedes everything else. Councilman Metze stated that there was a need to address a new Development Agreement; and noted that phasing was necessary. He stressed that this proj ect was a private project and was not being done by the City and there is no relationship between this project and the Stadium. He indicated that there was a need for another workshop that would provide more information regarding the major issues. Community Development Director Brady stated that if Councilman Metze would allow staff to review his concerns, then they could better address those concerns to the developer. Councilwoman Kelley concurred with Councilman Metze. She addressed staff and stated that she also found the Specific Plan woefully inadequate. She suggested that staff work with the developer and address and get answers to the following items: Fire; PAGE SEVEN - STUDY SESSION - DEC. 7, 2000 Police; a specific marketing plan; fiscal impacts; comparisons between fiscal impacts of what is on the property already vs. what is on the proposed plan; the events at the amphitheater; a worse case scenario; the phasing over a 17 year period, which she felt was excessive; topography; traffic; landscaping and design guidelines; racing events; and sewer services. She stated that based on the current information, she could not make a determination. She stated that she would also like to see the EIR review time extended. She indicated that staff should get with the developer and address these issues and present a document addressing the stated concerns. Mayor Pro Tem Pape concurred that there was a need for more detailed information and asked that the industrial portion be addressed; and added that he would like to know the square feet for industrial as well as a time line for building. He asked that the developer address the commercial portion; as well as the information regarding hotels, how they would be utilized and what phase of the project they would be built. He suggested that one of the meetings be set on a Saturday to allow further input. He stressed that the proposed project was private and not done by the City; and the City will have no financial obligation to the project. He addressed the comment regarding Wal-Mart and stated that it was a success. He commented that the General Plan was not consistent and changes 3 to 4 times a year. He further stated his concern regarding noise and questioned an area on the e~ibit. Community Development Director Brady indicated that it was a berm. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that access to the raceway would be off Nichols Road. Mayor Pro Tem Pape questioned the traffic circulation for the site and stated that he wished to have a better understanding of noise impact. He noted that in the Staff Report under Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment - Brighton Homes, increased the number of dwelling unts by 765 for a total of 3,000 dwelling units, increased commercial land uses by 42 acres and proposed a new golf course. He asked if by increasing the commercial and adding a golf course the City would be looking at a higher density on a small area. He commented that he did not like that idea because it created some of its own issues. Mayor Pro Tem Pape stated that he needed more detail on the proposed project. He suggested that the Planning Commission attend future meetings. He stated that he felt that the document presented was a first step and anticipated quite a few more meetings to address all the issues. He further stated that he had no problem with staff extending the review time. Mayor Brinley commented that there would be many more study session prior to the project being taken to the decision making level. PAGE EIGHT - STUDY SESSION - DEC. 7, 2000 She indicated that there would be two public hearings, one at Planning Commission level, and the other at City Council level. She detailed her concerns as follows: 1) The open space was not properly addressed and would the project be in the trail system; 2) the need for economic analysis of the project; 3) the Circulation Element; 4) Police & Fire; 5) compatibility; 6) phasing and the time for phasing; 7) What possible industrial uses; 8) What type of commercial uses; 9) Loss of DAG fees and asked what the City would get in return; and 10) How the project would be marketed. She assured the audience that the public input was important and valued. She indicated that it was the consensus of Council that they had no problems with staff setting an e~ension for review of the EIR. She stressed that the project would be a private project done with private money. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PAPE, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AT 11:37 P,~-~ CITY OF Respectfully submitted, ~ - ~~~ < G~%GCGti A~ria L. Bryning, De ty City lerk City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: ~~~ ; VICKI KASAD, CMC, CITY CLERK/ HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ~EY~IVIAYOR ELSINORE _ ___ r ~: ~ :.~ MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2000 ........................................................................, CALL TO ORDER Mayor Brinley called the Special City Council Meeting to order at Y35 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY, METZE, PAPE,BRINLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: SCHIFFNER Also Present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, Recreation and Tourism Manager Edelbrock and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. ~ ' BUSINESS YTEMS 1. 27TH Year Communitv Development Block Grant Allocation. (F:84.2) City Manager Watenpaugh presented an overview of the program and noted that only 15°/o of the funds can be used for Public (Social) Service Programs, while the remaining 85% must be used for Public Works Projects. He clarified that the entire amount could be used for Public Warks Projects, but not more than 15% for Public Service Programs. Community Services Director Sapp detailed the proposed project applications for Public Works Projects and the requests for funding for Public Service Programs. He clarified the Graffiti Removal program application and explained that normally the Graffiti Removal would be done as a Community Service Program, which would affect the Senior Center Services, H.O.P.E. and Operation School Bell programs, however he proposed that the City do an Interim Assistance Program for Graffiti which qualifies as a Public Works Project. He i further explained that an Interim Assistance Program would consist of ~ a City-wide graffiti removal program two times a year and would include a trash removal program as well. Mayor Pro Tem Pape questioned the possibility of splitting the $50,000 for Graffiti and allocating $25,000 for an Interim Assistance Program and $25,000 from the Public Service portion to allow for PAGE TWO - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DEC. 7, 2000 more than twice a year removal. Community Services Director Sapp noted that the City could apply in that manner, however the funds for the Senior Center Services would have to be eliminated. Mayor Brinley requested clarification that if $25,000 were set aside from Public Services Programs for Graffiti, then the Senior Center Services would have to be eliminated. Community Services Director Sapp confirmed. Mayor Pro Tem Pape stated that it would not be acceptable to eliminate the funds for Senior Services. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified the proposed program that would address Graffiti, and explained the City's current Graffiti program. Councilwoman Kelley asked if the Graffiti program could be part of Code Enforcement. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that it could not. There was general discussion regarding the programs funded through CDBG. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that General Fund money, as ;; well as CDBG funds, were used to support the Senior Center Services. He asked if $50,000 could be allocated to Code Enforcement and General Funds used for the Graffiti program. Community Services Directar Sapp stated that the funds could be allocated to Code Enforcement. Councilman Metze asked if the dollar allocation could be changed at a later time. Community Services Directar Sapp stated that he would check with the County. There was general discussion regarding the various programs available to the City. Mayor Brinley asked if the amount from CDGB funds had been reduced. Community Services Directar Sapp stated that it had been reduced by $5,000. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified that staff would review the options available and; ascertain if there was a way to shift the : requested $50,000 into a program that is currently done by the General Fund and use General Fund dollars for Graffiti Removal. He stated that if that was not an option, the funds would be allocated to the Curb and Gutter Program or the Structure Abatement Program. It was the consensus of Council to place the $50,000 in Structure Abatement. PAGE THREE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DEC. 7, 2000 Mayor Pro Tem Pape questioned the structure of the Interim - Assistance Program for Crraffiti. Community Services Director Sapp noted that the program would be for one week, twice a year. Councilwoman Kelley stated that if stxuctures were abated it would remove some of the vacant buildings which have been subj ect to major graffiti problems. She stated that in a way it would promote the lack of graffiti if the structures were abated. Mayor Brinley stated that it would help to eliminate other Health and Safety problems as well. MOVED BY METZE, SECONDED BY BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE 27TH YEAR CDBG PROGRAM AS OUTLINED AND DIRECTED STAFF TO FORWARD THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION TO THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY WITH THE PROPOSED $50,000 FOR GRAFFITI MOVED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR ABATEMENT OF BUILDINGS; AND APPROVED THE SUBMITTAL OF THE SENIOR CENTER APPLICATION TO THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO REQUEST A PORTION OF THEIR PUBLIC SERVICE DOLLARS FOR SUPERVISOR BUSTER'S CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THE PROGRAM. 2. Consideration of Lake Fee Adjustment - Resolution No. 2000-52. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that Resolution No. 2000-52 addressed an increase in fees for Lake Use. He noted that there had not been increase since 1980; and there was a need to increase the fees to offset the increase in maintenance costs. Community Services Director Sapp noted that since 1980 there had been no increase in fees for Lake Use, however Lake Use had increased. He noted that although the use had increased 27% over the last four years, the cost of Maintenance and Operation had increased 39% over the same period, which created a deficit of approximately $411,000 a year. He indicated that staff inet with the local operators around the Lake and found that they were not opposed to an increase in fees and did not feel that the increase would impact Lake usage. Staff and the operators felt that the $2.00 fee increase was justified. Councilman Metze questioned the difference in totals on Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report. Community Services Director Sapp explained that the total for F/Y 99/2000 was for a total year amount and the total far F/Y 2000/2001 was year to date. He noted that there was approximately six mare months left in this Fiscal Year. Councilman PAGE FOUR - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DEC. 7, 2000 Metze noted that each year the City had experienced an increase in use. Community Services Directar Sapp confirmed. Mayor Pro Tem Pape stated that he was uncomfortable with increasing fees, however since it had not been done in the last 20 years he could find no objections. He suggested that fliers should be distributed to the independent operatars and signs be posted at the City Campground and the Boat Launch informing the public of the ongoing projects on the Lake, which would inform the public of where their money would be or had been spent. Councilman Metze stated that he would like to see signs similar to the signs used for public information on City roadwork. City Manager Watenpaugh concurred with Councilman Metze and advised that staff was trying to get the JPA to fund the signage regarding Measure 13 funds. Mayor Pro Tem Pape stated that he had a problem with the Residents Pass and felt that $80.00 was too large a hit. Councilwoman Kelley concurred. Mayor Pro Tem Pape suggested a$60.00 fee. Councilwoman Kelley questioned the possibility of charging a Lake Use fee for Special Events. Mayor Pro Tem Pape questioned how many events are held on the Lake each year. Community Services Director Sapp noted that there are 12 to 15 events, not including the events in the inflow channel. There was general discussion regarding Special Events on the Lake. Councilwoman Kelley questioned how much the City received from the Wake-board championships. Community Services Director Sapp stated that the City receives 25% of the passes, plus the fee far Lake Use. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified that Council would like to see a rental fee over and above the Lake Use pass. Council concurred. Mayor Brinley stated that the local residents were the ones who supported the Lake through their taa~es and should not pay as much. City Manager Watenpaugh ga~e a breakdown of the fee for local residents and noted that $80.00 was still a bargain. Community Services Directar Sapp stated that the new fees would become effective on January 1, 2001. He noted that Lake'Perris will only holds 400 boats and when they have reached capacity, they send the remainder of the people to Lake Elsinore. PAGE FIVE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DEC. 7, 2000 Mayor Brinley noted the high cost of launching a boat on Lake Shasta and stated that $65.00 a year would be a bargain for local residents. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified the fees. Council concurred that local residents should be charged $65.00 per year per vessel and the rest of the fees should remain as presented. Councilwoman Kelley questioned the Special Event Fees. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that Special Event Fees would have to be brought back to Council. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY PAPE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2000-52, WITH THE FEE FOR RESIDENT ANNUAL PASSES TO BE $65.00 PER YEAR, PER VESSEL WTTH SPECIAL EVENT FEES TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR FURTHER ~ONSIDERATION. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-52 A RESOLUTION OF THE CTTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING AND REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 97-6. ADJOURNIVIENT MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEE~I~TG~T 2:10 P.M. CITY OF Respectfully submitted, . C'CG~~~ , .~ Adria L. Bryning, Depu City Cl ATTEST: VICHI SAD, MC, CITY CLERK/ HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE