Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-20-2000 City Council/Planning Commision Study SessionMINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2000 ~~~~~~~:~~*~~~*~*~:~,~:~*~:~~~:~~~~~~~~:~~~: ~*~~:~*~:~:~~~:~~~~~:~,~:~*~*~~~*~*~:~~ CALL TO ORDER The Joint Study Session was called to order by Mayor Schiffner at 1:03 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Planning Commission Chairman Wilsey. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COMNIISSIONERS: ABSENT: COiTNCILMEIVIBERS: COMMISSIONERS: KELLEY, PAPE, SCHIFFNER BARNES, NASH, POLK, WILSEY BRINLEY, METZE (Councilman Metze arrived at 1:15 p.m.) MATTHIES Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, , Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Engineering Manager O'Donnell, Information/Communications Manager Dennis and City Clerk/Human Resources Director Kasad. 1. LSA Associates Roadwav Fee Studv - Railroad Canvon Road and I-15 ' Freeway Interchange Improvement Alternative. (F:68.1)(X:82.2)(X:162.1) ' Mayor Schiffner thanked the Council for the honor of the Mayorship and ~ noted the team consistency of the City Council and Planning Commission. He highlighted his goals for the coming year and outlined the format for this I meeting. ' City Manager Watenpaugh presented a copy of a newspaper article as i background regarding Railroad Canyon Road; and clarified that this item is not a fee study, but an effort to correct the traffic situation at Railroad Canyon Road. I! City Engineer O'Donnell introduced the Consultants and provided a brief i overview of the concerns. He noted that the Engineering Division had been I concerned with this intersection for quite some time. He advised that some , PAGE TWO - STUDY SESSION MINUTE5 - DECEMBER 20, 2000 federal funding had been received to address the Project Study Report, which will be taken to Caltrans for consideration and review, followed by presentation to the Federal Highway Administration. Councilman Pape questioned the time line for this effort. Mr. O'Donnell indicated that staff will narrow the choices to four alternatives and meet with Caltrans to select one alternative within about six months. He stressed that the numbers presented at this meeting were preliminary and there would be a lot more work on the four alternatives to determine the best and most financially sound alternatives. Sal Chavez, SC Engineering, indicated that they were hired to do a Caltrans Study, feasibility study and programming document. He further indicated that the document will be prepared to present the final recommendations and detailed the approval process. He detailed the existing traffic volumes and noted the traffic congestion during peak periods; and explained that the problem is further compounded by the traffic signals at this intersection. He explained the projected traffic volumes far 2025 and noted that the designs are intended to accommodate a 25 year life span, which is why they would more than double all legs of this intersection. He advised that they had developed nine alternatives with two having sub-alternatives. He detailed Alternative 2 which is a straightforward alternative to widen Railroad Canyon from Casino to Grape to four lanes, and widen the ramps. He indicated that this was the most traditional design with an approximate cost of $6.5 million. He advised that the design costs were based on the RCTC projecton Highway 74. He explained Alternatives 3-A and 3-B which involve hook ramps and noted that the one drawback of 3-A is that Caltrans typically does not support hook ramps or options facing shopping centers. He noted that while 3-B would not be preferred, Caltrans would support it over the 3-A configuration. He detailed the costs associated with these alternatives. City Engineer O'Donnell noted that this alternative eliminates a traffic light, and would widen the section under the freeway to six lanes. Mr. Chavez explained that much of the increased cost of this alternative would be due to the e~ensive widening under the freeway bridge. Mr. Chavez explained Alternative 4, which would be a partial cloverleaf interchange. He stressed the movement advantage of this plan. COUNCILMAN METZE ARRIVED AT 1:15 P.M. Mr. Chavez further explained that this alternative would add a new ramp, off of Casino Drive. He noted the cost for this alternative and the substantial impacts it would have on the surrounding community. NIr. Chavez detailed Alternative 5, which would be an Urban Interchange, with one signal at the bridge, double left turns and a free right turn lane. He indicated that the disadvantage of this alternative would be that for optimum PAGE THREE - STUDY SESSION NIINUTES - DECEMBER 20, 2000 success, all traffic volumes would need to be equal, and stressed that the volumes are unbalanced. He noted that this would require Caltrans review by and Urban Interchange Committee for rating on the ability of the proj ect to move forward. Commissioner Barnes requested clarification of the cost factors on this alternative. Mr. Chavez indicated that Alternative 6 was a brand new interchange at Olive Street, which would be treated by Caltrans as a separate project; and require another study of the interchange. Mr. Chavez detailed Alternative 7-A and its options for new ramps, including hook ramps to Casino Drive and Grape Street. He detailed the costs, noting that the biggest expense would be in the right-of-way acquisitions; and noted the existing businesses which would be impacted. He advised that Alternative 7-B would move the southbound exit ramp to a new location; and there would be increased costs due to a bridge over the San Jacinto River. Councilman Pape questioned how one would obtain access to Tuscany Hills from this ramp. Mr. Chavez clarified the route; and noted another option would be to split Diamond Drive at Franklin Street. He eaplained Alternative 8, which includes hook ramps to Summerhill Drive and detailed the costs. He indicated that this option would provide the overall highest level of service, but carries a high cost for right-of-way acquisition and additional improvements. He highlighted Alternative 9, which includes hook ramps to Casino Drive and Suimnerhill Drive, and detailed the costs. He summarized the construction costs for each alternative and stressed that the biggest variable was right-of-way acquisition costs. He also noted the legal actions which might be necessary to obtain some of the right-of-way. City Engineer O'Donnell noted that staff s selection of Alternative 2, which is least expensive, easiest and quickest to build. He indicated that the level of service from this option might fall short in eight or ten years; and needs to be addressed to be sure it is done right. He further noted that staff would also support options 3-A and 3-B, which would need to be addressed with Caltrans for approvals, but noted the possible problems with these alternatives. He indicated that staff would also support Alternative 7-C, however the loop ramps would need to be discussed with Caltrans. He also indicated that staff would support Alternative 9 because it deals with off- ramps, which are needed. He stressed the potential stacking problems and the anticipated heavy traffic movements. Planning Commission Chairman Wilsey questioned the projections for the traffic on and off the freeway during peak times and if all possible alternatives were being considered. City Engineer O'Donnell clarified and noted that the other advantage of staff s preferred alternatives was that they PAGE FOUR - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 20, 2000 could be built in phases. Councilman Pape questioned Alternative 9 and the businesses that would be displaced, which would include the Gas Station, Tire Stores, etc. He stressed the amount of future traffic at the intersection and the need to pursue the most feasible option. Chairman Wilsey questioned the impact of Suminerhill Drive. Commissionex Barnes questioned if the bridge on Summerhill would be widened. Mr. O'Donnell confirmed and noted the future traffic lights planned for the area. He stressed that there was no perfect plan for this intersection. Commissioner Nash questioned the time frames involved in the phasing and timing. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that once identified and approved the City portion of the funding will become a major issue. Mr. Nash stressed that there was already a problem with the intersection at this time. He indicated that he did not support taking property from existing business owners. He suggested pursuing other alternatives to a~oid impacting e~sting businesses. He indicated that his first choice would be the first plan for the lowest costs, with his ne~ choices being the use of Olive Street and Franklin Street. He stressed that he could not see displacing businesses. Commissioner Polk questioned why Alternative 4 was not selected, since it adds up to the highest overall capacity. He also suggested that Alternative 2 would be the best Alternative as it was the most cost effective approach, but questioned what to do in the interim over the next few years until the proj ect could be completed. Mr. Chavez indicated that Alternative 4 was dropped from the overall plan, as a loop exist ramp would not be warranted in the year 2025. Commissioner Polk questioned the loop on the northbound off-ramp. Mr. Chavez indicated that 329 vehicles per hour would use that ramp. City Engineer O'Donnell addressed Alternative 9 and noted that it would have a ramp coming off on to Summerhill, which would be redirecting the traffic and loosing a signal. Commissioner Polk questioned the differences between Alternatives 9 and 4. Mr. O'Donnell clarified. He also noted Alternative 2 would still have problems with the signals being too close together. Chairman Wilsey questioned Alternative 9, noting that it will appear to have the same stacking problems as Summerhill Drive, and create more signal problems. He indicated that he liked the loop concept in Alternative 9, because it would take a majority of the traffic off the main ramp. City Engineer O'Donnell noted the potential of using Canyon Estates to Franklin and reduce the overall traffic. Councilman Metze questioned the use of Franklin Street for public access; and suggested that it was not a user- friendly road. Chairman Wilsey noted the diagram of Franklin Street as a northbound off-ramp, but indicated that he liked the one with the on-ramp on Grape Street further south. ' PAGE FIVE - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 20, 2000 Commissioner Barnes addressed Alternative 2 and suggested it was the best design of all since it has true cloverleaf design; however it requires the acquisition of a lot of property. He expressed concern that it might take 5, 10 or 15 years to get it done. City Engineer O'Donnell clarified Alternative 2 and indicated basically everything stays the same. Commissioner Barnes suggested that Item 3-B should be of assistance to Caltrans; although it is a full cloverleaf, it is important to get rid of the traffic signal. Chairman Wilsey indicated that he likes the stacking in Alternative 3-A. Councilman Pape questioned the timeline further. Mr. Chavez indicated that ~ much of the work could be concurrent with the Caltrans work, and most of ', the information will be in the Proj ect Study Report. He noted that much of j the timing would be driven by the environmental process, but most of the ~ alternatives could be processed by Caltrans pretty quickly. He stressed that it would probably take at least a year in the environmental process, and if any property challenge the City, it would be the City Council's responsibility to look at the other possible alternatives to avoid impacting a business. Chairman Wilsey questioned relocation costs and the process for determining ~ those costs. Councilman Pape speculated that the overall process could range from six months to two years, depending on the EIR, and questioned the sources of revenue a~ailable to pursue relocation and acquisition. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified the funding process. Councilman Pape inquired if ~ there was a comfort level that a six month proj ect could be addressed by representatives in Sacramento and Washington; and suggested that it might be a good idea to pursue them to get the money set aside. He expressed concern with the potential of having to wait a whole year for funding, particularly in light of the benefit this project would provide. Councilman Pape questioned Alternative 2 and what would be included besides widening the ramps. City Engineer O'Donnell clarified. Commissioner Barnes noted the potential options for widening the ramps. ' Councilman Pape noted that on Saturday, it took six cycles to get through the I traffic signals; and indicated that he was not sure he had a preference among the alternatives, but expressed concern with impacting existing businesses. ' - He inquired why Alternative 6 was not on the proposed final list. Mr. Chavez indicated it was not included because Caltrans would consider it a separate ~ and individual project and require a separate Project Study Report. I Councilman Metze commented that it will all be moot without Caltrans approvaL Mr. Chavez indicated that Caltrans it sensitive to the needs, and ; likes cloverleaf ramps and looped access ramps, but there is some difficulty with the existing frontage roads. Councilman Metze suggested that Alternative 2 would be a good quick fix. PAGE SIX - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 20, 2000 Councilwoman Kelley concurred with Commissioner Nash that she would , not want to impact e~sting businesses with the right-of-way issues. She , indicated that she would be interested in Alternative 2, in conjunction with Alternative 6, as something feasible. She questioned the peak traffic levels that could serve versus the current situation. Mr. Chavez indicated that scenario had not been specifically evaluated, but during the peak periods, the intersections operate at the lowest capacity. He detailed the changes as proposed by each of the alternatives mentioned, and suggested that there i would be an immediate jump in the current level of service and the capacity for traffic volumes. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that it would be the intent to obtain the highest level of service, as soon as possible. Mayor Schiffner addressed the comparisons between the alternatives for the year 2025; and suggested that many show a very poor level of service. He indicated that he would be interested in seeing how much these alternatives would improve the current situation. He indicated that he liked Alternative 5 because he has seen it to be successful, and noted a similar design at Interstate 10 and the airport; and suggested that it would take a minimum amount of right-of-way acquisition. He also noted that it shows the same level of service during afternoon traffic. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that Alternative 5 was not chosen, because there was an attempt to choose options which could be phased; and staff was not sure how 5 could be phased, and there was a question of how to build it without shutting down the ramps and the access road. He also noted the concern about taking existing business properties, and commented that only a few of the options would produce an excellent level of service. City Manager Watenpaugh commented on some new hook ramps which were completed in Oceanside. He suggested that it was important to look at the immediate need as well as the future needs. He reiterated that the on- and off-ramps at Olive have been identified and would be a viable alternative to assist the situation. He noted that eventually Franklin Street will be connected to Pottery Street; and suggested that the individual projects would all contribute to the ultimate solution. Chris Hyland, 15191 Wa~ecrest, indicated that the City never ceases to amaze her, but it would seem that before the shopping center was built, the traffic should have been taken into consideration. She e~ressed concern with fast- tracking projects and noted that she had gone to RCTC to view the maps and expressed concern with the expense of palm trees and paving of Railroad Canyon Road, and noted that it was not half as bad as the other streets in the area. She also questioned why apartments were fast tracked for this meeting; and expressed hopes that things would change soon. Mayor Schiffner clarified that this meeting was called to address the severe congestion from the existing homes and businesses. Commissioner Nash indicated that he would stand by first comments and stressed the need to alleviate the traffic problems as soon as possible. He PAGE SEVEN - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - 20, 2000 suggested that Alternatives 2, 3-A or 3-B would be the best approaches in conjunction with connecting Canyon Estates Drive to Main Street. He indicated that the expansion under the freeway with better lighting and ' signaling will help. He concurred that Olive Street should be considered as ' part of the long term approach. He indicated that he would never consider trying to mitigate right-of-way problems with businesses. Mayor Schiffner requested confirmation that his approach was no right-of-way acquisition. Commissioner Nash confirmed. Commissioner Polk recommended Alternative 2 with the future possibility of Olive Street. He indicated that Alternative 2 was the most affordable and gets the project going. He indicated that he would rely on staff to design and build the necessary arteries. Chairman Wilsey concurred with Commission Polk and City Manager Watenpaugh that it would be most advantageous to look at Olive Street. He suggested looking at short term solutions like striping the off-ramp for double left turns and signalization improvements. Commissioner Barnes questioned the Caltrans ratings on the Altematives recommended by staff. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that Caltrans had , not yet been approached. Commissioner Barnes commented that Alternative ' 2 would be a quick fix, but it would need to be in conjunction with a master plan for traffic signalization. City Manager Watenpaugh advised that the signals are timed the best they can be timed, but the problem is the stacking factor. He stressed that the lights can't be coordinated any better without the elimination of a light. Commissioner Barnes indicated that Alternative 2 would alleviate the back-up on the freeway; and concurred with City Manager Watenpaugh that Alternatives 3-B plus 6 and 7-A would be the best approach. He indicated that the traffic flow is bad and spending money on the off-ramps won't help. Councilman Pape indicated that staff had heard the Council's preferences and the key would be the phasing to get some immediate relief. He noted that a short term approach would allow more time to pursue the long term solutions. He indicated that it was ultimately a matter of a decision by Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration, and the key is that staff knows the Council concerns to be pursued at other levels. i - Councilman Metze concurred with Councilman Pape and Commissioners ~ i, Wilsey, Polk and Nash. Councilwoman Kelley concurred with the other comments, but stressed that the most acceptable plan would be the one with the least taking of right-of- way from businesses and the least amount of displacement. She suggested Alternative 2, in conjunction with Alternative 6. Councilwoman Kelley inquired if landscaping had been included in the costs presented. Mr. Chavez i indicated it was not included. PAGE EIGHT - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 20, 2000 , Mayor Schiffner eapressed understanding of the need to get something done quickly, but indicated that he did not necessarily like the least expensive, most disruptive solutions. He noted the popularity of Alternative 9 in this ' discussion, and noted that it could be done in phases. City Manager Watenpaugh commented that Alternative 9 involves major taking of right-of- way. Mayor Schiffner indicated that he liked Alternative 9, if it could be done in phases over a period of time. He suggested that any part of that alternative would provide immediate benefits, and each ramp built would 'i help more. He indicated that he was not sure that one phase would do as much as the completion of Alternative 2, but indicated that he would be in favor of a more long range approach. City Manager Watenpaugh noted the popularity of each Alternative and noted that the consensus would seem to be Alternatives 2, 3-A or 3-B, 6 and 9. He suggested that these four options should be identified to Caltrans for consideration. He questioned the need to narrow the choices to four decisions, or whether all nine options could be taken forward. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that the consultant agreement was for the development of four options. Mr. Chavez indicated that Caltrans was willing to do the paperwork and look at three or four alternatives. Mayor Schiffner indicated that the four alternatives recommended had been supported by the Council in some format and suggested moving forward with the proposed options. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified that Alternative 6 would require a completely different study. Mr. Chavez suggested looking at Alternative 6 for a long term solution, but choosing four other options to present to Caltrans. He indicated that there was an effort to act as quickly as possible, and suggested starting that plan in next year's budget. There was general discussion of the presentation of options to Caltrans and the final consensus was to look at 2, 3- A or 3-B, 7-C and 9. Chris Hyland questioned the Council's ability to choose options at this meeting. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that the work was already autharized by a contract for the study, but this consensus would be to move forward with four rather than nine, and was only intended to determine if staff was moving in the right direction. THE STUDY SESSION WAS RECESSED AT 2:30 P.M. THE STUDY SESSION RECONVENED AT 2:40 P.M. 2. Elsinore Citv Center Soecific Plan Amendment No. 1- Oak Crrove Eauities. (F:150.2) City Manager Watenpaugh noted that this was an opportunity for the City Council and Planning Commission to have open dialog on an issue that had come up and has never happened before with regard to an item tabled when an application has been filed. He indicated that staff was not certain of how to move forward. He noted that based on the content of the item, it was believed that the timing for discussion was right, since there was discussion of the potential for traffic impacts on Railroad Canyon/I-15. PAGE NINE - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - 20, 2000 Community Development Director Brady advised tliat the Planning Commission had reviewed this project at their last meeting on December 6, with regard to a General Plan Amendment, Site Plan Amendment and Design I Review for an apartment complex. He detailed the location of the 8.2 acre site for a proposed 141 apartment unit complex in nine buildings. He noted that the Planning Commission had concerns with the traffic impacts of the project and they tabled the discussion until more information was available on the alternatives. He noted that this item was presented to the Council in March of 1999, at a Study Session and staff has worked with the applicant to bring an appropriate design. He advised that the matter will be coming back ' to the Council at a future noticed public hearing. City Manager Watenpaugh advised that this meeting was attempt to start an open dialog between the , Council and the Planning Commission and work toward regular meetings on direction, needs and standards. Mayor Schiffner commented that it was appropriate for this discussion to occur today in connection with the traffic discussion and closely following the Planning Commission discussion. Commissioner Nash indicated that his concerns at the Commission Meeting related to the public outcry regarding the Railroad Canyon traffic problems ~ , and he was concerned with adding another 300 plus residents when there was '' not enough information on the traffic plan yet. He suggested it would not be in the community's best interests to approve the proj ect without traffic ' alternatives. He commented that he had not seen any other three-story ~ apartments in the valley and questioned whether the amenities within the project were sufficient. Commissioner Polk indicated that he had been concerned about the impact on traffic, but was reminded by Community Development Director Brady that it was already zoned commercial. He suggested that with commercial development the traffic impact would be at least the same as this proj ect. He noted concerns for lack of commercial space, but indicated that he liked this project and felt it would be a positive project for the area, if the traffic can be addressed. Chairman Wilsey indicated his primary concern was the traffic and today's i meeting showed that efforts were being made to address it. He questioned the possibility of coordinating the timing of a project like this with the Caltrans efforts. He indicated that he had a concern with the specific plan for ~'' commercial development, since there were currently limited commercial applications along the freeway. He stressed the need for every possible square foot of commercial development to keep tax dollar revenues in the ~ community. Commissioner Barnes noted his understanding that commercial development had already been approved far the site; and commented that the proposal would have generated up to 2,400 trips a day versus the 1,000 far this project. ! He indicated that he was concerned with the traffic study and impacts of other PAGE TEN - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 20, 2000 projects. He noted comments regarding improvements on Kalmia Street which is not even in the area. Councilman Metze questioned why Cottonwood Hills was not being held up for the same reasons. Councilman Pape reiterated that this project came to the Council in March, 1999 and he liked the idea and the Council requested that the applicant proceed with the proj ect. He indicated that he had no problem back than and he has no problem now. He noted that the site was originally approved for a theater, but his project looks nice. He suggested that the applicant should be conditioned to assure that the project looks like the conceptual drawings. He stressed that this project would generate less traffic than a shopping center; and if traffic is used as a criteria, all projects including Pardee should be denied. He questioned the proposed amenities. Glen Daigle, Applicant's representative, indicated that there would be a tennis court, pool, tot lot, with a fitness center and computer center in the clubhouse. He indicated that they believed based on studies that the amenities would be sufficient. He also advised that 81 units would ha~e direct access garages with roll up doors and remote controlled openers. Councilman Pape questioned the exercise room and equipment. The Mr. Daigle indicated that it would be the entire second floor of the clubhouse and ga~e an overview of the type of equipment which might be included and noted that the tenants will help them decide on the equipment. Councilman Metze questioned the number of units. Mr. Brady advised that it included 141 units. Councilman Metze indicated that he concurred with the project in 1999 and supports in now, suggesting it was one of the better locations for a multi-family development, as long as the amenities are maintained. He questioned whether one pool would be adequate; but stressed that he would support it as long as the amenities and standards are maintained. Councilwoman Kelley questioned the three story rendering and the views presented in the original project. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the three story buildings would be located toward the back of the parcel. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that at the time the original proj ect was presented the Council felt that due to the topography they wouldn't be out of place. Councilwoman Kelley questioned the time line for development. Mr. Daigle indicated that they were seeking approval, however the time line has not been determined. She expressed concern for the impacts on the intersection and noted that they would still be significant. She indicated that she liked the project. Councilman Metze noted that there would be some positive benefits of housing close to commercial. Mayor Schiffner noted that there had been some discussion of senior housing at that location. Mr. Daigle indicated that they were talking to the PAGE ELEVEN - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 20, 2000 neighboring property owner regarding the potential for a joint development of the project. Mayor Schiffner indicated that he liked this project, as much as he would hate to loose commercial development, the traffic would be worse with commercial development. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that next year there will be an update of the General Plan, and based on economic development potential, staff will recommend some new industrial and commercial zoning. He also noted that this meeting was intended to be information, but the agenda for the Planning Commission would not be set by this group, but rather the Chairman and the Community Development Director. Chris Hyland, 15191 Wa~ecrest, indicated that she didn't believe there should be anything built at this location until the traffic problems were solved. She noted that some people are driving to Target in Murrieta to avoid the traffic at Walmart or Vons. She indicated that no one is against the apartments, but the traffic is currently a pain in the neck. She suggested that the City was starting to loose business due to the traffic problem. Ace Vallejos, 15231 Cubre, indicated that commercial was being downgraded to high density apartments, and suggested that made no sense al all. , , Councilman Metze suggested that he discuss it with the landowner. George Alongi, 649 Mill Street, addressed the traffic and noted that even , though commercial development creates more traffic, it is spread over more hours of the day. He indicated that with apartments there are about one and '~ one half hours in the morning and the same in the evening. He expressed ', concem that these times were during peak traffic times. Mayor Schiffner thanked everyone for attending. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY METZE, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE STUDY SESSION AT 3:36 P.M. ~ /J ' ROBERT L. SCHIFFN , YOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ~ A TEST: ~I HI KASAD, CMC, CITY CLERK CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE