.

Lake Elsinore Shoreline Development Standards Subject Of Town Hall Meeting

A Town Hall meeting to discuss boat dock standards on the lake is scheduled July 18.

Do you have input on boat docks around Lake Elsinore? and now Riverside County Supervisor Bob Buster and Lake Elsinore Mayor Brian Tisdale have confirmed they will be holding a Town Hall meeting July 18 to discuss boat dock standards for the lake.

The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. at the Everyone is invited to attend.

A subcommittee of Lake Elsinore and Lakeland Village residents has been working to develop boat dock standards. On May 1, a subcommittee proposal was for consideration. But after hearing more than an hour of public comment on the proposal, the commissioners decided to continue the hearing to June 5. On that date, they voted to recommend that city council approve the standards. The issue, however, has drawn sharp criticism from some in Lakeland Village, so the city opted to place the standards on hold.

For more information about the upcoming meeting, contact Lake Elsinore City Clerk Virginia Bloom at 951-674-3124, ext. 269 or 262.

NOTE: Attached is documentation from the city on the proposed boat dock standards. It was provided on July 10.

Diana July 10, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Lake Elsinore Shoreline Development? The City has no say so over Lakeland Village and who live there. If you want to develop the shoreline then do so in Lake Elsinore, there is vacant land surrounding the Lake on Riverside Dr and Lakeshore why doesn't the City concentrate on developing this land, bringing in restaurants, hotels or shopping that would bring tax revenue to the town. I see that there is a new dollar store going up on Riverside Drive, that makes #3 for our town, is that the best we can come up with?
Cat July 11, 2012 at 02:27 AM
I agree Diana. When I looked at a map of the lake, it seems that corner triangle would make a great little park or picnic area but I don't know all the politics of doing that.
BLUESGUITAR777 July 11, 2012 at 02:44 AM
Not sure how true this is as I heard it second-hand, but LE is desperate to earn back all the money they spent on the La Laguna resort. Rumor has it they're using politics to close down all the private beaches around the lake so we're forced to use one of their (pay per use) facilities. Again that's second hand and I don't know how true it is but that would be absolutely proposterous. My private beach is a huge reason for moving here. They lock us out and me and hundreds of others with private beaches/lake access would likely leave.
Tonto July 11, 2012 at 02:49 AM
There we go. At least half of the land Elsinore has annexed in the last 30 years or so still sits vacant and undeveloped. This is against the law :)
UcantBserious July 11, 2012 at 04:15 AM
The city could have saved a lot of money if they never wasted it on that princess boat they brought to Elsinore.. I was disgusted at the sight of the half sunk, rotting boat dead on our lake. Tucked back and hidden as to not be seen by most people on the lake. It looks like some abandon ship wreck from a movie. Yea might be home to some fish but it can't be good for the lake. Looking to recover money are they? Some how seems there is bigger fish to fry here. Clean the lake up and draw more people out here they say. Well closing private beaches isn't the way. Yes some of the eye sores need cleaned up I do agree but Elsinore also should not be able to tell me what I can and can't have on my lake frount property!!
Steve July 11, 2012 at 04:41 AM
I have a simple solution to dock standards, get your water off my land. You should only have to drop the lake by about 10 feet to do so. Also, before you go speaking dock standards to me, take a look at your own docks. There is not a night that I look out and see all the lights working on fan stations in the middle of the lake. Do the floating restrooms even have lights? . Then not to mention, is there not currently a fan station that has broken loose? Has that been fixed yet? Like Diana said, stop looking at my dock, and start looking at the shoreline in your city. Last, do these so called officials think it would be fair for me to drive by their house and start dictating what they can have on their property? I dont think so.
Ken Mayes July 11, 2012 at 06:06 AM
STOLEN in 1850. Please read the "Public Trust Doctrine" concerning navigable waterways and the "Equal Footing Doctrine" regarding the time at which size of Lake Elsinore was to be determined. Currently only the former state park and land below 1236 ft elevation is public trust land where it properly should have been all land below 1265 ft. elevation. If the people want to see the lake become a premier sporting destination the "City of Lake Elsinore" and the "County of Riverside" must be removed from the equation before they sell off what should belong to the citizens of California.
Diana July 11, 2012 at 04:43 PM
When thye spent all the money that they did on the new La Laguna they should of installed RV hook ups throughout the resort, I believe that this was part of the original plan. Usually boaters that come to camp, come with a RV or trailer of some sort, hook ups would of been a draw to this resort. If you look at any of the other privately owned resorts they have RV hookups, another huge mistake in planning on the Cities part.
andy July 11, 2012 at 06:41 PM
Ken, can you unpack your statement a bit? Are you for a Public Easement on the Shoreline? Or public ownership of the shoreline?
Cat July 11, 2012 at 06:52 PM
I was under the impression (by Steves comment above) that most of the lakes shoreline was already privately owned??
Lubster July 11, 2012 at 08:16 PM
I have attended the 3 previous meetings put on by the city because I am a lakefront land owner (since 1984, most everyone at the meeting has owned lakefront property longer than I, some for 100 years). As an owner in the county, not the city, we are asking our current supervisor to be involved in this because we do not live in the city, but the city is making standards we will have to adhere to. For me, part of the question is whether the City of Lake Elsinore has the right to adopt standards for my property. I know they do maintain many aspects of the lake as does the EVMWD, but the city does not own the lake, the people do, and I would be remiss if our elected supervisor did not have any input on this subject. After attending all 3 meetings, I am also very fearful of what the city plans next for us. They have already stated that next they are coming after our fences! This may not seem significant to some, but if you were required to take down 50% of your fencing right now and then 50% of your land was open to whomever or whatever, yet you are legally responsible for your land, it might put fear into you too. I have not heard it personally, but the word annexation has apparently been brought up too. The City of Lake Elsinore scares me, not because I live in it, but because I read the paper. I hope many individuals will attend the upcoming meeting to voice their own opinions or ask their own questions.
Cat July 11, 2012 at 08:55 PM
Thank you for taking the time to write out all the above info Lubster. I hope that lots of people show up for the meeting as well.
Diana July 11, 2012 at 08:59 PM
Perhaps you all should get Kevin Jefferies involved in this matter he owns two lake front properties on Grand Avenue in Lake Land Village, one he resides in and the other another family member lives in.
Ken Mayes July 12, 2012 at 04:28 AM
Andy To answer your question, the "Public Trust Doctrine" states that the land beneath the waterway to the highwater mark will become vested in the State to be held in trust for the public in perpetuity. State legislatures will be precluded from passing any laws overriding that public trust and any attempt to do so will be invalid. Federal power will be paramount. At one time every inch of the lake property was owned by individuals, it was not until around 1952 that the State of California purchased the state park land and through a lawsuit condemned another portion forming the current public trust lands below 1236 ft. elevation. Rather than forming the public trust land title to the lake at the time of statehood in 1850 when there was a single owner, which was required by the "Equal Footing Doctrine" it was forgotten until the 1950's. Another words it was stolen from the public. As long as the city falsely claims ownership of the lake it will never amount to ----, you fill in the blanks. Sorry but there should be no private ownership below 1265 ft. elevation, anyone who does claim to have ownership is in error.
TRUTHBTOLD July 12, 2012 at 04:42 PM
Ken, you're turning this into a "who owns the moon" argument. The Public Trust Doctrine is an issue for another day. Today, most of the lake shore frontage is privately owned and that ownership extends a considerable distance into the lake when the water level is 1240 and above. Just check the assessor's maps for your particular parcel. And Lubster, at every public dock standard meeting, it was pointed out that the City of Lake Elsinore has the jurisdictional responsibility of the "surface waters" of the lake as recorded in the quitclaim deed July 1, 1993 as document No. 254573. Paragraph 2 states in part "Specifically including an exclusive easement to utilize the surface of the water and withdraw water....." I can tell you for sure, that many many attempts were made to get the County involved in the dock standards but they refused. Their argument was that there are so few dock applications, it's not worth getting involved in. Did you see any representative from the County, either staff or elected official, at any of the public dock meetings? Nope! If I lived in the County, my beef would be with them, not the City of Lake Elsinore.
Ken Mayes July 12, 2012 at 05:54 PM
TRUTHBTOLD another day was almost 162 years ago when California agreed to become a state and was accepted into the union. As time goes on more errors are going to need correcting, such as the City of Lake Elsinore's claim of ownership of the lake.
Lubster July 12, 2012 at 10:24 PM
Truthbtold: Right, "surface waters", my dock does not float on the surface of the water, it sits on my land that is in the county and projects into the water, hence my comment : "For me, part of the question is whether the City of Lake Elsinore has the right to adopt standards for my property." These standards include the requirement for me to maintain a $300,000 insurance policy for my dock, and as I stated above, we were told at one of the meetings they were coming after our fences next, so I am concerned that if the standards are adopted, that leaves my dock open to the public and once again, I am liable. I don't have a "beef" with the city, I am scared of what the city adopts; it makes me nervous, and I appreciate our supervisor taking his time to come down here.
Lubster July 13, 2012 at 01:29 AM
Cat Ford: Thank you for the nice comment. When we bought our land and built our home, the state had jurisdiction over the lake. Now the city does, and those of us in the county cannot vote for or against anyone in the city, the people who make the decisions for us over here on our side of the lake:(
TRUTHBTOLD July 14, 2012 at 12:36 AM
Lubster, too bad Mr. Buster didn't take the time early in this process to iron out these problems rather than wait for a year to pass. The proposed standards are not much different here than any other lake, so this is not cutting edge work. Who pays the bill when a dock from the county breaks loose, gets hit by another boat and results in bodily injury? Lake Elsinore, that's who. And yes, fences may be in their sights in the near future due to the hazards and liabilities they impose. The City of Lake Elsinore has no jurisdiction over land issues within the county nor do the dock standards impose any. The solution is for the county and city to work together to adopt a uniform set of standards that apply to both jurisdictions. Unfortunately, the county has not been responsive until now. Please be clear, I am in no way promoting annexation.... others are, but not me.
Ken Mayes July 14, 2012 at 06:30 AM
Lake Elsinore should be public trust land under the control of the Department of Boating and Waterways but it was stolen from the citizens of the State of California on September 9,1850. This lake is not like most lakes in California, which are man-made, it is a natural body of water. The people should reject the cities claim to control it.
Lubster July 15, 2012 at 07:17 AM
Hopefully the county will participate in the dock standards process and work with the people who live in the county and I will be subject to the county's dock standards, and those that live in the city will subject to the city's dock standards. When anything floats into the waterway that causes a hazard, the person who's property floated into the waterway should be held responsible and at a minimum be issued a warning and possible fines for any future hazards they have created. The police and sheriff's dept. should have jurisdiction over any hazard whether floating on a waterway or on a roadway and make the offenders accountable. Fences do not create hazards, people who do not respect the posted 5 mph rules do; people who may have been injured on a fence need to sober up before using the lake. I have never heard of anyone complaining they have been injured on someone else's fence in the water; maybe they are to embarrassed to admit they were at fault. Anything submerged under water should be clearly marked, again, there should be warnings and fines imposed.
Tonto July 15, 2012 at 02:05 PM
The day is fast approaching when they know they shouldn't own the lake. Previous councils screwed the pooch.
TRUTHBTOLD July 16, 2012 at 04:21 PM
The main problem with any policing of the lake is jurisdiction. No matter what the county does, the City of Lake Elsinore will still issue the permits and perform inspections of the docks since they affect the surface waters. The county folks will then have to get an additional inspection by the county for anchorage, gangways etc. since they affect land use which sucks for those folks. Can anyone tell me the history of any attempts to annex the county land into Lake Elsinore and why the resistance?
Linda Ridenour July 16, 2012 at 11:28 PM
Could you produce the letter to Mr. Buster which invited him or his Representative to these meetings. Let me ask you or anyone this: If it O.K. to swim in the Lake on the Lake Elsinore side then Why did the city post a no swimming sign in our park? I hope everyone comes to this meeting to hear what both sides have to say.
TRUTHBTOLD July 17, 2012 at 04:42 AM
Linda, the attempts to get the county involved were disclosed by Pat Kilroy at the public meetings. I'm certain he or Warren Morelion have copies of emails they sent. Swimming is not allowed in the lake anywhere.... only wading. Yea, I know... sounds kinda silly. You can wade, water ski, jet ski etc. but you can't swim. Go figure. I agree on the meeting and hope Tisdale and Buster have some solutions that make sense... but I have my doubts.
Gordan July 20, 2012 at 06:20 AM
I've checked around... No one wants Lakeland Village to be a part of Lake Elsinore....If you wonder why Pete Dawson is freaking out about this just go to google earth and zoom in on his property in Lakeland, It's the one with the big boat (Princess) parked (sinking) at his dock.... and just look at all the trash on his 2 acre lot. Ever seen the show "Horders"?
Cat July 20, 2012 at 06:25 AM
@Gordan, that's not the Princess Louise is it? I heard that boat was moved to Lake Elsinore. The reason I ask is that my sister was married on that ship in the 70's. Just wondering....:~)
Gordan July 21, 2012 at 05:21 AM
Cat: As far as I know, it was simply named the "Princess". There were 4 other side paddle boats built by the Wrigleys...The Empress, Emperor, Phoenix and the Blanch W. However, there was a sidewheeler called the Princess Louise but it was reported to have sunk in 1919 off northern Vancouver Island, Canada. Go to www.lakeelsinoreprincess foundation.org for the history of our Princess.... it probably was the ship your sister was married on. It would sure be neat if it got restored... but will require lots of $$$$$$.
Cat July 21, 2012 at 07:16 AM
Thank you Gordan! I appreciate you getting back to me. Unfortunately it's not the Princess (Louise) boat that I had hoped to find. It was however fascinating to read about that boats history & the move over there. It is one more thing that I would like to see next time I am on the lake. Thanks again!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »