Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-2007 City Council Minutes MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, JULY 24,2007 **************************************************************************************************** CALL TO ORDER - 5:00 P.M. Mayor Magee called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: MAYOR MAGEE MAYOR PRO TEM HICKMAN COUNCILMEMBER BUCKLEY COUNCILMEMBER KELLEY COUNCILMEMBER SCHIFFNER ABSENT: NONE CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Leibold indicated the following items were to be discussed during Closed Session: A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (B) of Gov't Code S 54956.9: (1 potential case) B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (C) of Gov't Code S 54956.9: (1 potential case) City Attorney Leibold indicated any action taken during Closed Session would be reported on during the regular portion of the meeting. It was moved and seconded to recess to Closed Session at 5:00 p.m. RECONVENE IN PUBLIC SESSION (7:00 P.M) Mayor Magee called the meeting back to order at 7:00 p.m. 1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Jose Carvajal, LEUSD Communication Representative. INVOCATION - MOMENT OF SILENT PRAYER Mayor Magee led the meeting in a moment of silent prayer. ROLL CALL PRESENT: MAYOR MAGEE MAYOR PRO TEM HICKMAN COUNCILMEMBER BUCKLEY COUNCILMEMBER KELLEY COUNCILMEMBER SCHIFFNER ABSENT: NONE Also present were: City Manager Brady, City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services Director Pressey, Community Development Director Preisendanz, Lake and Aquatic Resources Director Kilroy, Public Works Director Seumalo, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, Public Works Manager Payne, Building & Safety Manager Chipman, Environmental Planner Worthy, Assistant Planner Carlson, Parks and Recreation Analyst Davis, Planning Intern Bitterolf, Police Chief Fetherolf, Fire Chief Hendershot and Interim City Clerk Soto. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Leibold announced the Closed Session discussion items as listed above. She noted that only item "A" was discussed and there was no reportable action. Item "B" was not discussed. PRESENTATION/CEREMONIALS A. Proclamation - Probation. Parole & Community Supervision Week Mayor Magee invited Mark Hake to join him at the podium. He read and presented the proclamation. Mark Hake noted it was a team effort. He thanked the Council for their support. B. Proclamation - Centennial Celebration of County Probation Department Mayor Magee invited Deputy Probation Officer Linda Fredrickson to join him at the podium. He read and presented the proclamation. 2 Linda Fredrickson noted they have been working in the community for six years. She stated the youth accountability team is a collaboration of departments. C. Certificate of Appreciation - Deputv Probation Officer II Linda Fredrickson D. Certificate of Appreciation - Sheriff Deputv David Flannery E. Certificate of Appreciation - Deputv District Attornev Elizabeth Behke F. Certificate of Appreciation - Youth Outreach Counselor Allison Trefrev Mayor Magee invited Linda Fredrickson, David Flannery, Elizabeth Behke, and Allison Trefrey to join him at the podium. Police Chief Fetherolf noted the hardwork of the VAT Team. He gave an overview of the program. Deputy District Attorney Raquel Marquez noted she has worked within the community for two years. She spoke of the dedication of the Y A T Team. G. Certificate of Appreciation - Valerie Sund Mayor Magee invited Valerie Sund up to join him at the podium. Mayor Magee noted the City's appreciation for her two years of service. Valerie Sund thanked the City Council and the Mayor for the opportunity to serve on the PSAC. She noted it was a pleasure to serve the community. H. Presentation - Chamber of Commerce Update Mayor Magee invited Glen Daigle up to the podium. Glen Daigle gave a Chamber update. He stated that the Chamber continues to grow. He gave some general announcements on upcoming Chamber events. He noted the Chamber website and noted the number of visitors to the site. He thanked the Council for their support. PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS - 1 MINUTE Joyce Hohendadl, Lake Elsinore Citizen's Committee, indicated the committee is working on several community projects. She stated that the County has approved the historical site designation. She stated a Lake Elsinore Princess fund has been formed. 3 Donna Franson, resident, indicated she was happy to report the historical designation for the Lake Elsinore Princess. She noted that the approval has opened the doors for grants for County and State funds, for the preservation of history. She thanked everyone for their hardwork. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS NOS. 1 THROUGH 10, AND 12 THROUGH 19. EXCLUSIVE OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO.11 1. Warrant list - June 28. 2007 Recommendation: Ratify. 2. Claim Aoainst the City - Verizon CMR Claims T.P.A. Recommendation: Reject claim. 3. Sidewalk Construction. Various Locations - Contract Award Recommendation: Authorize the transfer of $95,000 from In-Lieu Fees to the project. Authorize the transfer of $271,100 from Traffic Impact Fees to the project. Authorize the use of $194,000 of CDBG funds to the project. Authorize the use of $169,900 from SB-821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program fund to the project. Award "Sidewalk Construction" project to E.G.N. Construction Inc. for the amount of $627,095. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with E.G.N. Construction Inc. 4. Participation with the pavino of Temescal Canyon Road at Lake Street Recommendation: Approve the use of Fund 605 In-Lieu funds for the construction of street improvements along Temescal Canyon Road at Lake Street. 5. Award Of Contract For Curb. Gutter And Sidewalk Maintenance Work Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute a Maintenance Contract with NPG Corporation for curb, gutter and sidewalk maintenance services.consistent with the terms of the bid documents. 6. Award Of Contract For Street Maintenance Work Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute a Maintenance Agreement with NPG Corporation for street maintenance services consistent with bid documents. 7. Participation With The Pavinq Of Pasadena Street Between Central Avenue And Crane Street 4 Recommendation: Approve the use of Fund 605 In-Lieu Funds for the construction of street improvements along Pasadena Street between Central Avenue and Crane Street. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement with NEAR-CAL Corporation. 8. Final Map No. 30494-6 - B.V. Enaineerina Recommendation: Approve Final Map No. 30494-6 subject to the City Engineer's acceptance as being true and correct. Authorize the City Clerk to accept all dedications, sign the map and arrange for the recordation of Final Map No. 30494-6. 9. Final Map No. 30494-7 - B.V. Enqineerina Recommendation: Approve Final Map No. 30494-7 subject to the City Engineer's acceptance as being true and correct. Authorize the City Clerk to accept all dedications, sign the map and arrange for the recordation of Final Map No. 30494-7. 10. Final Map No. 34231 - Halladav & Mim Mack, Inc. Recommendation: Approve Final Map No. 34231 subject to the City Engineer's acceptance as being true and correct. Authorize the City Clerk to accept all dedications, sign the map and arrange for the recordation of Final Map No. 34231. 11. Final Map No. 32077 - La Strada Partners. LLC. Recommendation: Approve Final Map No. 32077 subject to the City Engineer's acceptance as being true and correct. Authorize the City Clerk to accept all dedications, sign the map and arrange for the recordation of Final Map No. 32077. 12. Traffic Sianal And Intersection Improvements At Grand Avenue And Orteaa Highwav (SR-74) - Chanqe Order NO.1 Recommendation: Approve Change Order NO.1 for $69,964.48 for R.J. Noble Company. Authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order NO.1 with R.J. Noble Company. 13. Resolution To Approve Placina Delinquent Refuse Bills On FY 2007-2008 Tax Roll Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2007-135 for Weed Abatement Cost Recovery and direct staff to place special assessments against the properties listed in the itemized reports in custody of the City Clerk's Office. 5 14. Amendment to the Animal Shelter JPA Aqreement Recommendation: Approve the Amended Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Agreement relating to the Southwest County Animal Shelter. 15. Aqreement And Escrow Instructions For Purchase And Sale Of Real Property Known As Property APN 375-350-016. -031 Recommendation: Approve the Agreement and Escrow Instruction for purchase and sale of real property in substantially the form attached in the staff report and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement subject to minor modifications and in such final form as approved by the City Attorney. 16. Chanqe Proceedinqs For CFD 2006-1 (Summerly) Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2007-136 of intention to annex certain property into Improvement Area No.1 of Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Summerly) and setting a Public Hearing for August 28,2007. 17. Resolution Approvinq A Deposit And Reimbursement Aqreement And A City Fee Deposit And Reimbursement Aqreement Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2007-137 approving a Deposit and Reimbursement Agreement and a City Fee Deposit and Reimbursement Agreement. 18. Resolution To Approve Placement Of Weed Abatement Charqes On Property T ax Roll Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2007-138 for Weed Abatement Cost Recovery and direct staff to place special assessments against the properties listed in the itemized reports in custody of the City Clerk's Office. 19. Memorandum of Understandinq with United Public Employees of California, L1UNA Local 777. for Julv 1. 2007 to June 30. 2011 Recommendation: Approve Memorandum of Understanding. Mayor Magee indicated he received a letter requesting that Consent Calendar Item No. 11 be moved off-calendar. It was moved by Councilmember Kelley, and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hickman to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 10 and 12 through 16, exclusive of Consent Calendar Item No. 11. 6 The following vote resulted: AYES: MAYOR MAGEE MAYOR PRO TEM HICKMAN COUNCILMEMBER BUCKLEY COUNCILMEMBER KELLEY COUNCILMEMBER SCHIFFNER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Magee stated that Public Hearing Item No. 23 will be moved to the end of the calendar, after Item No. 34. 21. COUNCIL APROVES TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 31996 AT 16503 MOUNTAIN STREET Community Development Director Preisendanz noted the location of the item. He stated that the Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval. City Attorney Leibold announced that notice had been published and proof of such publication is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Mayor Magee opened the Public Hearing at 7:21 p.m. Mayor Magee inquired if there was anyone wishing to speak on this item. There being none, Mayor Magee closed the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m. It was moved by Councilmember Schiffner, and seconded by Council member Buckley to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 31996. The following vote resulted: AYES: MAYOR MAGEE MAYOR PRO TEM HICKMAN COUNCILMEMBER BUCKLEY COUNCILMEMBER KELLEY COUNCILMEMBER SCHIFFNER NOES: NONE 7 ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE 22. COUNCIL APPROVES RESOLUTIONS CONFIRMING THE AMENDED ASSESSMENTS AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO NORTHWEST SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-1, SERIES 1999 AND ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 93-1 (CANYON HILLS) Mayor Magee opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. City Attorney Leibold announced that notice had been published and proof of such publication is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Administrative Services Director Pressey presented an overview of the item. He noted that there has been a split among parcels & reassessment of taxes needed to be add ressed. Mayor Magee requested testimony from the public. He inquired if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor or against the item. He also inquired if there was anyone that wished to speak at all. There being none, Mayor Magee closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Hickman, and seconded by Council member Schiffner to adopt Resolution No. 2007-140 to read as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CIYY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PRELIMINARY AMENDED ASSESSMENTS, ORDERING HEARING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO NORTHWEST SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-1, SERIES 1999 The following vote resulted: AYES: MAYOR MAGEE MAYOR PRO TEM HICKMAN COUNCILMEMBER BUCKLEY COUNCILMEMBER KELLEY COUNCILMEMBER SCHIFFNER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE 8 It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Hickman, and seconded by Councilmember Schiffner to adopt Resolution No. 2007-141 to read as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PRELIMINARY AMENDED ASSESSMETNES, ORDERING HEARING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 93-1 (CANYON HILLS) The following vote resulted: AYES: MAYOR MAGEE MAYOR PRO TEM HICKMAN COUNCILMEMBER BUCKLEY COUNCILMEMBER KELLEY COUNCILMEMBER SCHIFFNER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE 23. Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) No. 2005-12 for a 9.09 Acre Commercially Zoned Parcel of Land Within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Area This item was moved to the end of the calendar. BUSINESS ITEMS 31. COUNCIL APPROVES COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006.18 FOR A PROPOSED LONE STAR STEAKHOUSE RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 18601 DEXTER AVENUE Community Development Director Preisendanz noted the location of the item. He stated that the Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval. It was moved by Councilmember Schiffner, and seconded by Councilmember Kelley to adopt Resolution No. 2007-143 to read as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) 9 The following vote resulted: AYES: MAYOR MAGEE MAYOR PRO TEM HICKMAN COUNCILMEMBER BUCKLEY COUNCILMEMBER KELLEY COUNCILMEMBER SCHIFFNER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE It was moved by Councilmember Schiffner, and seconded by Council member Kelley to adopt Resolution No. 2007-144 to read as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-18 The following vote resulted: AYES: MAYOR MAGEE MAYOR PRO TEM HICKMAN COUNCILMEMBER BUCKLEY COUNCILMEMBER KELLEY COUNCILMEMBER SCHIFFNER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Mayor Magee thanked the Staff for raising the bar on design elements. 32. COUNCIL APPROVES REQUEST FOR FUNDING OF SUMMER CONCERT SERIES SPONSORED BY THE ELSINORE VALLEY ARTS NETWORK IN THE AMONT OF $7,500 Barbara Middlebrook, Elsinore Valley Arts Network, thanked the Council for their grand consideration. She noted that currently donations have been low. City Manager Brady stated the City received a request for a donation from the EVAN. He stated the allocated revenue account can be utilized. 10 Council member Buckley inquired if the City provides any services to the Concert in the Park series. He stated that a one time grant may be appropriate. Council member Schiffner moved approval for $10,000. Mayor Magee seconded the motion. Ruth Atkins stated that the total cost of putting on the concert is approximately $17,500. Mayor Pro Tern Hickman inquired how much funding is needed. Ruth Atkins stated how much would be needed. She stated that it is at the City Council's discretion. Council member Schiffner amended his motion to $7,500. Mayor Magee seconded the motion. Councilmember Kelley noted that it has been a successful event in the community for nine years. She stated she will always be an advocate for EVAN (Elsinore Valley Arts Network). She stated any amount the City approves is appreciated. Mayor Pro Tern Hickman stated he is in support of the concert series. He stated next year, they should request funding come to the Council before the budget is prepared. It was moved by Councilmember Schiffner, and seconded by Mayor Magee to authorize the use of unallocated revenues in the amount of $7,500 for sponsorship of the EVAN (Elsinore Valley Arts Network) summer concert series known as "music with a view." The following vote resulted: AYES: MAYOR MAGEE MAYOR PRO TEM HICKMAN COUNCILMEMBER BUCKLEY COUNCILMEMBER KELLEY COUNCILMEMBER SCHIFFNER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE 11 33. COUNCIL RECEIVES AND FILES STATUS OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Community Development Director Preisendanz reported on June 26, 2007, the Council directed Staff to give a General Plan update. He noted the General Plan update screen Check 3 has been received. He stated that they are moving forward on the timeline. Council member Buckley inquired if an update can be made monthly. Mayor Magee stated that this will be placed on the Consent Calendar. 34. COUNCIL RECEIVES AND FILES REPORT ON RAILROAD CANYON ROAD/I- 15 INTERCHANGE Public Works Director Seumalo noted the steps to be taken going forward. He stated they are between Steps 1 and 2. Council member Buckley commented on the length of time the project has taken. Public Works Director Seumalo responded the project design team will meet in August. He stated the ultimate approval is given by Federal Highway Administration. Councilmember Schiffner inquired if the configuration included a connection at Malaga Road. Public Works Director Seumalo responded there is no connection to the freeway, however, there is a proposed over crossing. Mayor Magee requested Mr. Seumalo come back on the first meeting in September with updates. COUNCIL RECESSED AT 7:45 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 8:10 P.M. 23. COUNCIL APPROVES THE LAKE ELSINORE ACQUISITION PROCESS (LEAP) NO. 2005-12 FOR A 9.09 ACRE COMMERCIALLY ZONED PARCEL OF LAND WITHIN THE ALBERHILL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Mayor Magee opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Community Development Director Preisendanz indicated the item was a nine acre LEAP process. He noted the Planning Commission vote unanimously to recommend that the City Council find the project is consistent with the MSHCP. 12 Stephen Miles introduced Scott Thayer, Vice President of Commercial Properties at Castle & Cooke. Scott Thayer, Vice President of Commercial Properties at Castle & Cooke, stated "they had hoped Council would find that their LEAP application is consistent with the MSHCP. We are not here to present the Council with a development plan, however; the property is at the northern gateway to the center and it is included in our master plan for the area. City staff and I originally envisioned we would come together hand-in-hand with the project, however; unfortunately, we have not been able to accomplish that. This is why we are here. City staff supported our LEAP application and argued our case before the RCA in a meet and confer session. Soon after that session, staff had since asked for a larger conservation area than what we were proposing. On August 18, 2006, I received a letter from the City that indicated that the RCA would accept mitigation land that was biologically equivalent to the area in question on the 9.09 acre property. So it would appear that staff and the RCA could find our application consistent with the MSHCP if we agreed to provide equivalent land elsewhere. But why? We took time to have two biologists investigate the property, both in which found no targeted birds or the habitats to support them. On February 15t in a letter to Rolfe Preisendanz, he was told of our biologist's findings and asked that they meet to try to resolve our differences. We had a number of meetings with staff and the City Attorney's office, but were unable to resolve our differences. Again, there were no targeted species, no habitats to support them, our corridor is biologically derived, unlike some method of coming up with 264 down to 250 and ending up a 175 foot corridor suggested by staff. There is also a print transportation overlay. There was a Habitat Acquisition Negotiation System processed on the other side of the freeway. Lands have been acquired and others are in negotiations, which in place, will be within that 75% to 85% targeted range. I also wanted to point out that the premise of the presentation was made with factual data and professional findings." He indicated at a previous meeting held in February, Mayor Magee had mentioned the City's targeted range for the plan was 4,830 acres to 7,870 acres. He noted of that range, the exempted property, whatever conservation range was specified for those properties, the range was in the 4,830 to 7,870. He noted that it would make sense that, because the property is exempted, to take out that amount of acreage and subtract it from the range to come up with a new range. He commented that the staff report indicated 2,518 acres, plus another 893 acres that is on its way. He indicated that he did not believe that it took into consideration some of the other properties that have gone through the HANS process and some others. Steven Miles, Miles Law Group on behalf of Castle & Cooke, stated "he would like to address eight points with respect to the supplemental information that was presented in the staff report, different than what was deliberated on at the Planning Commission. I understand that the resolution is framed and that the recommendation is to approve the resolution that would approve the Castle & 13 Cooke proposal for LEAP 2005-12. Unfortunately, some of the supplemental information in the Staff report, takes a negative view on that ruling and motion by the Planning Commission. He wanted to be sure to address that information, so that the record is reflective of the information that they feel is accurate and will show that the Council can properly exercise their discretion and find the 2005-12 LEAP is consistent with MSHCP. Staring with Cell Group J, I want to address some of the new information in the supplemental Staff report. The Staff report asserts that to date, there are 300 acres that has been conserved in Cell Group J, which is about 15-16% of the cell group. Previously, we had offered that approximately 71 % is in conservation and again it is somewhat of a difficult standard to figure out if acquired. You will see here that it is basically the same thing. When the staff report says 300 acres it isn't taking into consideration the 1,000 acres that will be conserved as a kind of a remainder properties associated with the village entitlement. This Council may recollect that was all in one holding it was bifurcated and the village was entitled. So, with that acreage and the acreage here, that is actually in escrow, some of the details, we have got some mixed signals in the Staff report. Bottom line is that for the analysis of whether this project is consistent with Cell Group J, you need to ask yourself one question, with the entitlement of this nine acre site, would that preclude the City Council from meeting its' conservation goals for Cell Group J and certainly the entitlement of nine acres. Two acres of which will go to conservation would not preclude you from meeting the seventy-five (75%) to eighty-five (85)% percent conservation target in the north and western portion of Cell Group J. That is essentially, the Cell Group J analysis, I would like to submit this. Turning to on- site biological conditions, the Staff report indicated that in criteria based plan such as the MSHCP the on-site biological conditions are not a sole basis for which to make consistency determinations and certainly there is no overriding of cell criteria here with respect to biology. You are going to hear from Jack Turner a little bit later on the biology. Again we are showing that we have consistency and biology is really more of a factor that will go into a determination of what is an appropriate width for a linkage or a constrained linkage. The supplemental Staff report addressed the settlement agreement with Castle & Cooke and specifically the Staff report states that with regard to the Castle & Cooke settlement agreement properties, the City, as a permitee, cannot take actions that further restrict and degrade the function of the Temescal wash based upon the MSHCP inapplicability to certain other off site properties. The question Castle & Cooke would pose is how is the proposed enhancement of approximately two acres along the Temescal wash with an average of one hundred twenty-five (125) feet, how is that enhancement something that would further restrict or degrade the functions of Temescal wash. This is an enhancement project. The Staff report then talks about an assumption that there is an off set or lost acreage associated with the settlement agreement. As Mr. Thayer noted, I don't think there is any lost acreage with respect to the settlement agreement. There are eighteen (18) cells that are affected by the settlement agreement and this is something that needs to eventually be modified to reflect the legal effect of the settlement agreement. We have previously submitted evidence on other projects both HANS projects with respect to wildlife corridors. Specifically, at Park West 14 HANS, illustrates there can be a deviation from the low range of cell criteria. In that instance, the HANS had a criteria analysis required fifty (50) to sixty (60) percent conservation. The ultimate conservation was twenty-eight (28) percent with respect to some of the examples of wildlife corridors, we provided an example, Strawberry Farms. The Staff report questioned whether there was any relevance to that because there was no understanding to whether Strawberry Farms, criteria based plan if it had any application. Strawberry Farms was under the NCCP was one of the premier permits under that program. The NCCP is a HCP of sorts and those conservation guidelines are actually in some areas integrated into the MSHCP. There is some discussion about covered activities and we just want to point out that this project does have an overlay for covered activities for transportation. Almost the entire site is covered. And again, we are not saying that covered activity is the result in any exemption of the MSHCP, but in terms of applying cell criteria if we are going to be debating about whether or not Cell Group I criteria should apply to Cell Group J. This is the reason why that is not accurate. When the cell criteria was established for Cell Group J, clearly this transportation project was known at that time and that is why Cell Group J does not have a focus on establishing a conservation width for a constrained linkage. To point out a response to comments in the EIR to the MSHCP, on the issue of linkages, this is response J4-10, 'the dimensions of linkages as well as other components of the additional reserve lands, provided their interpretation of the criteria as development and reserve assembly preceded, width and length of linkages are specifically not prescribed in the MSHCP to allow flexibility and reserve assembly and to benefit from property specific information anticipated to become available during the long term MSHCP implementation process.' That is what we have right now. We have project specific information and biology that you will hear a little bit more about, and it is on that information that we have established a one-hundred twenty-five foot average width for the linkage. The RCA letter that was submitted to you does go into again it, concludes that the minimum width of the connection that was analyzed within the project area was approximately two-hundred fifty (250) feet. There is really no discussion about how that was derived. I think that we all know in the record that it was derived from an application, a formula from Cell Group I criteria. Again, that analysis was done with the wrong cell group criteria and without property specific information. I would like to finish quickly with the meet and confer process. I know that there has been some discussion about what will occur after this body makes a decision. I would point out that there are two distinct dispute resolution procedures in the MSHCP. One is in Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP, one is in 6.6.2. The latter is the JPR section of the MSHCP. The former is the LEAP or the HANS procedure of the MSHCP. Here you will see that this is coming from the JPR provisions, it states that, 'this process shall not in any way limit the permitee's local land use authority, prevent a permitee from approving a project or change the provisions of the HANS process described in Section 6.1.1'. In Section 6.1.1 which is the LEAP and HANS process, there is a provision related to a discretionary dispute resolution process that the property owner can initiate. I would like to offer to this Council, that the meet and confer process which isereally a timely process, it is supposed to happen early on fourteen (14) days, 15 thirty (30) days, thirty (30) days, fourteen (14) days, that is from application. It is a staff level dispute resolution process it is between RCA Staff and the permitee's designee. So in contrast, the dispute resolution provisions in the HANS or LEAP procedures are for the property owner, if there is a dispute between the property owner and the City. The point for the ADR dispute resolution provisions in the HANS and LEAP procedures is that it is a discretionary process. It states 'that in order to address in a fair and consistent manner disputes which may arise concerning MSHCP conservation criteria', which is what we are talking about today, 'conflict resolution may be initiated by the property owner or the City and allow a neutral third party to assist in resolving the disputes.' I would apply that it is a discretionary action available to the property owner. I would also offer that an ad-hoc committee procedure, where you bifurcate City Council review, go to ad- hoc, then bring back to this body, is a futile effort, it's redundant and it's within your discretion not to partake in that effort. With that I would like to turn this over to Dr. Jack Turner, if you have any questions I am available." Dr. Jack Turner, professor at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas, stated "for the last year, I have been on sabbatical leave here in Southern California working on a number of projects. I teach in the area of wildlife ecology and conservation. I have a number of graduate students who work in that general area as well as other teaching areas. I am also representing Felipe Vern, another biologist who worked with me on this project. I have been associated with this project for last two seasons as the biologist, shortly after it was acquired by Castle & Cooke. You have my declaration, a transcript of my comments, and you also have a resume of my teaching and research activity. I don't really wish to talk at considerable length because I don't have the time, but, by the same token I wish to make a couple of points as summary statements. First of all, the corridor that this promotes is an avian flyaway; it is not for mammals, not for grizzly bears, not for prong horned antelope or deer, it's for birds. The MSHCP biology describes this corridor in error in the sense that it has none of the planning species it alleges to be there. Not only does it not have any of the planning species, it has none of their habitat, as such, there are no birds. The site is a monotypic stand. Monotypic referring to the fact that it is a single type of tree, about ninety-five (95%) percent eucalyptus and it is interesting the MSHCP has the eucalyptus tree on its' hit list, as trees not to invade if you wish or have within conservation areas. The proposed corridor, at least weighs at one end, is even larger than what is suggested by the MSHCP. It is four-hundred (400) feet. It tapers down to seventy-five (75) feet at the far end and it has an average diameter of one-hundred twenty-five (125) feet width. All of this for a stream of six (6) feet or so. The corridor as proposed will work. I have provided at least two examples one of which is in the Temescal wash. You have to understand that regardless of political standing, political documents or political attitude, the birds will still do what they damn well please and if they want to fly in an area that looks happy to them it will work. Indeed it has worked in two other areas that have much smaller corridors. What you are looking at is a vote of one-hundred seventy-five (175) feet of unimproved habitat eucalyptus trees that have not yet produced any birds or the planning species or one-hundred twenty-five (125) feet 16 average of quality habitat with great probability of attracting the planning species. It essentially is a qualitative verses a quantitative decision. From a scientific perspective, the qualitative perspective is always the better choice. I am available for any questions." Mr. Edward Sauls stated "there is a debate about the substance of what's to be conserved and not to be conserved and I am not going to weigh in on that. It's not my job, and I don't care. But I do care about though is integrity of process and here's why. I personally own property that is reliant on this MSHCP for permit. I went through a prescribed process. The rules are kind of spelled out. In addition, I worked with about eight to ten other property owners who have also relied on this process. Some have conserved their properties, some have benefited from about $23 million dollars in funding that I think would not have come to the table otherwise. Some have been able to permit maybe about thirty- five-hundred (3,500) dwelling units being approved. They are dependent upon the permits if they have gone through this process. So, how do you respect the process as I understand it. You would take whatever action you are going to take tonight, decide that it is consistent or not, and go from here to ad-hoc. I have no debate at all with this team over here about what they have shared with you this evening. Mr. Miles might be right in that it may be a futile process to go through to ad-hoc, but it is the process that this plan spells out. You have told your peers in Western Riverside County that you would adhere to. You have told me that I must go through and so I would just simply ask that you take action this evening that whatever you do goes to this ad-hoc committee, futile that it might be, so that we maintain integrity process. I am available for any questions." Mayor Magee inquired if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor or against this item. He invited Mr. Uhlry to the podium. Dan Uhlry, resident, stated "I was born in the area. Went to the grammar school there, right where the bridge goes underneath Temescal Canyon. It's been there forever, flooded. It used to flood all the time on the right hand side, which would be the north side. As far as habitat, if it flooded, we had frogs; if it was a dry year, there was nothing. I can't understand why they are so picky on this and yet across what is now Lake Street, which never used to be there when I lived there, they have Wyrock who is tearing down a whole mountain and they are worried about this little piece. I think the County, with their MSHCP, which we struggled, struggled and struggled with, finally reluctantly accepted and now I think the County has a big whip and they can tell everyone what to do. I think this is totally out of line. They already have 22% in this project that is dedicated in their proposal. I think the County just wants to play big daddy or something. I don't know. I am in favor of their project and I do not understand what WRCOG or whoever it is handling the MSHCP is trying to do here. I think it is a test case to see what they can get away with. I think this City should stand up as they did before and say hey wait a minute, and you should just approve this project as presented." 17 Mayor Magee inquired if there was anyone else wishing to speak. Mayor Magee questioned Community Development Director Preisendanz regarding the PowerPoint presentation made to the Planning Commission. He stated that it shows a 175 foot swath through the property, this is your compromised width. On the east side of Lake Street as it goes to Wyrock, between Wyrock and the County MSHCP land is there one-hundred seventy-five (175) feet of dedicated area? Community Development Director Preisendanz responded that he is not sure if there is one-hundred seventy-five (175) feet there. He noted this will be an assemblage of a linkage that is for a Master Plan for the MSHCP and this area would need to be dedicated with one-hundred seventy-five (175) feet. Mayor Magee inquired from Lake Street upstream, or east until it gets past Wyrock, is one-hundred seventy-five (175) feet presently of habitat. Community Development Director Preisendanz responded there was not 175 feet of habitat. Mayor Magee then stated that Mr. Thayer brought up an interesting point that perhaps the exempt property inside Castle & Cooke would then bring down the City's net acreage requirement. He inquired if the City is at thirty-four hundred (3,400) acres presently, has the City potentially hit its mark. Community Development Director Preisendanz stated they are currently working with the RCA to look at that settlement agreement area in order to reduce that acreage, and are working with them now to find other areas to make up that property. Mayor Magee stated that he has a couple of questions for the RCA Staff. He inquired about the Temescal Canyon Road extension that Supervisor Buster is proposing on the east side of the 15 Freeway. He stated this extension will go through two major floodways, a habitat much richer than what we see here, with oak trees and some real rafters, including the longhorn sheep are in the area. He inquired if Mr. Mullens group was involved in designating an area, are they purchasing property, and is there a linkage corridor there. Tom Mullen indicated that it has not been brought to them and if they don't have it, they cannot comment. Mayor Magee stated that Director of Transportation Mr. Perez has been showing these drawings since February of 2006 and is not sure, at what point, the agency would be involved. He stated that he hoped their agency would be consistent in their action. 18 Mr. Mullen stated that if it is in the General Plan today, than it is a covered activity. If it is not, then it's probably not covered. Mayor Magee inquired which of their staff members spent time walking and observing the biological activities on the site. Joe Monaco commented that it is the RCA's policy not to go out and do site inspections. He stated they typically do not get right of entry to do that. He stated that their review is based on determinations of permittee staff. They use the information that is provided to them. He stated that in this particular case, they have viewed the property from public roads, but have not gone on the site without permission. Mayor Magee inquired if RCA staff has ever asked for permission to physically been on the site. Mr. Monaco responded that they have not requested permission, they rely on information the City Staff provides. Mayor Magee stated that on May 22, 2006, both the Fish and Wildlife Service and Fish and Game wrote a letter indicating that the entire site should be acquired or purchased for conservation. He inquired if Mr. Monaco's agency tendered an offer to purchase the property to the property owner. Mr. Monaco stated that they disagreed with the wildlife agency's determination in that particular case. He stated that the JPR was submitted, the RCA doesn't look at alternative conservation scenarios, they look at consistency based on the information provided. He stated they made a determination of inconsistency, the wildlife agency then has ten (10) days to review the comments and findings, then provide their own comments. He stated that their comment back was that their belief was that the entire site was described for conservation. He stated that it is an important point relative to the comments made about Cell Group J in the amount of acreage being committed to conservation. He stated what is also important for the MSHCP is not to just hit acreage targets, but to also assemble a reserve and a configuration that provides for long term conservation of the species. He stated that they did not necessarily agree that the entire site was needed for conservation. He stated that in the meet and confer, they looked for solutions, that's when they offered if the 1.4 acre portion between the conserved area and the freeway were to be included, then that would significantly reduce fragmentation that would occur from development of that property. He stated it's not arbitrary, it's not about quantification, it's quality and in this particular case the concern was the quality of the habitat degraded over time. Mayor Magee questioned Steve Miles regarding Council finding in his favor and finds that the proposed corridor is consistent with the MSHCP, and asked if he and his client are prepared to indemnify the City against any future legal action. 19 Steve Miles responded the implementing agreement has been researched and the MOU that was executed between the County and the City, He indicated their opinion that proper indemnification is already in place for the City, and therefore, there is no need for another indemnification. Mayor Magee stated that the RCA will weigh in against the City. He inquired again will their client indemnify the City against future action. He stated that it's really a question of putting your money where your mouth is. Steve Miles responded that yes, they are okay with the indemnification. He stated that he didn't know if the RCA will be weighing in on litigating on this matter. He stated that they can talk about the realities of permit relocation. Mr. Tomlinson indicated that Castle & Cooke does not feel that the indemnification is required in this instance. He noted he would entertain having an indemnification and is curious if there has been indemnifications during LEAP processes in the past. City Attorney Leibold stated that in every other LEAP application, the application for MSHCP consistency has been coupled with an entitlement, in every case. A standard condition of approval in a City with respect to the entitlement is indemnity in connection with the approval or the action corresponding to the entitlement. She stated that theirs is the only case where there is a request or application for MSHCP consistency in a vacuum not coupled with an entitlement. There are no conditions of approval attached to an entitlement, so the request is consistent with every other action the City takes. Council member Kelley questioned Mr. Mullen regarding a letter received from him that stated should the City Council find this project inconsistent, that the RCA would look at the meet and confer process as a failure and it would institute the ad-hoc process. She requested that he comment on this. Ward Simmons, Attorney, indicated that the next step of the process, after a meet and confer, would be the ad-hoc committee. He indicated that this is the first application brought to ad-hoc. Council member Kelley inquired, if it is the intention of the RCA at this point, from looking at Mr. Mullen's letter, that is the way you would review. Mr. Simmons confirmed and stated that the chairman would have thirty (30) days in which to call a meeting or to appoint a committee, assuming it would probably take place in the first part of September. Councilmember Kelley inquired what the process was after a disagreement, should there be one. 20 Mr. Simmons stated the Fish & Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish & Game would weigh in. They would have the option of revoking or suspending part of the permit. He indicated that part of the implementing agreement lays out a process. After this process to meet and confer with the Fish & Wildlife Service, that would be the next step after the ad-hoc committee process. Council member Kelley inquired how the circumstances of the width were changed and for what reason. Environmental Planner Worthy responded there has been some misconception that the number was an arbitrary number. She stated that the one-hundred seventy-five (175) foot width was not based on a minimum width or a standard for the width of the linkage, but was based on site specific circumstances. It was based upon the dimensions of the site and included an assumption that development would be right up to the edge of the conserved area. She noted that the one-hundred seventy-five (175) foot approximation was scaled off from applicant submitted mass and is intended to include the strip of land between the wash and the 1-15 right-of-way. She stated that the primary biological factor that was considered in developing the proposed compromise was a reduction of edge effects that are anticipated to result from development being right up to both sides of the wash. She stated that the concept of edge effects is a common factor in configuring conservation areas, elimination of edge effects associated with development of the strip of property between the applicants proposed conservation area and the 1-15 would substantially increase the future viability of that linkage, as supported in reference literature in the MSHCP. She stated that the compromises from 100% down to two-hundred fifty (250) to two-hundred sixty (260) to considering on-site conditions and edge effects, results in conservation of the northern triangle, which just happen to end up being 175 ft. Council member Buckley stated Mr. Thayer indicated that staff originally supported the application. He inquired who on staff supported this and was there a policy decision in writing. Mr. Thayer responded this was at a RCA meeting with Rolfe Preisendanz, Wendy Worthy, Steve Miles, myself and Harvey Stozer attended and indicated that Mr. Preisendanz carried most of the support with some input from Wendy. Councilmember Buckley inquired if the villages have been entitled. Mr. Preisendanz confirmed they have not been entitled. Council member Buckley inquired, on the issue of the ad-hoc, if the applicant believes that time has past and it does not need to occur. Steve Miles responded "basically Section 6.6.2.E of the MSHCP is broken down into four sections. The introductory paragraph confirms that that process will not in any way will bind the local authority or the provisions of Section of 6.6.1. The 21 dispute resolution provision for the LEAP and HANS process which includes a 45 day initial review is in Section 6.1.1. It is really a timely process it is supposed to happen early on, fourteen (14) days, thirty (30) days, thirty (30) days, fourteen (14) days, which begins from submittal of application." Council member Buckley asked for either Mr. Thayer or the applicant's attorney respond to his question. Mr. Thayer responded "in the event staff and permittee representatives fail to resolve any outstanding issues regarding the project's compliance with the MSHCP, the matter shall be submitted to ad-hoc committee made of elected officials representing ReA and permitee." Council member Buckley inquired, on the issue of indemnification, would the RCA Board consider indemnifying the City if it in fact was involved in a legal dispute with the RCA Board. Mr. Mullin responded "if Castle & Cooke is an example, in this instance, were to sue the City for some action relating to the MSHCP that was taken, the RCA is obligated to indemnify you." Councilmember Buckley inquired of Mr. Mullin if he was a developer, how much money would he spend internally, and on external consultants, to attempt to partially to entitle a 1.4 acre piece of property that has to be accessed from some else's property. Mr. Mullin responded he ha no clue. Council member Buckley inquired of the City Attorney, if the Council needed to take an action to trigger Ad-Hoc. City Attorney Liebold responded the MSHCP contemplates Ad-Hoc when the City intends to move forward with a project that the RCA staff disagrees with in terms of consistency, unless there is some sort of negotiated agreement, to pursue an Ad-Hoc like procedure. Councilmember Buckley stated "the whole discussion may be made mute and a waste of time if and when the flood control widens the corridor beyond 75 ft. It is true that anything can be engineered to hold flood water, but is an extra two acres worth all the extra time and money with the channelization process. There is no actual project involved. A highly unusual circumstance, in fact, a unique one. There is also apparently a company proposal to shift the tennis style intersection, with Lake further south, more than making up the loss of 1.4 acres. To me, none of this quite adds up, two years of back and forth in expenses. So why do it? To me the issue here is not 1.2 acres and 17,000 sq.ft. of potential retail space. I believe the issue here is power. The power of Castle & Cooke to, in the future, essentially ignore staff, ignore planning guidelines, and ignore the 22 constraints that are placed on every other developer in the City. It is basic risk and reward. Worst case scenario out of this is that the company has to play by the rules like everyone else does. I implore the Council to see it for what is really is and not let your suspicion of the MSHCP cloud your judgment. It is not about two acres, it is about thousands of acres. This is not about different habitat interpretations, but about the integrity of the entire planning process. If this passes, we might as well let Castle & Cooke continue to keep on writing our City resolutions and staff reports as they submitted with this. The first time it has ever been done. So inappropriately, so brazenly, and to be honest, so insultingly. The issue also is about other developers who have played through the process. There are property rights involved here. We have more than one property owner in the City of Lake Elsinore. I would implore the City Council to be very careful about what this means. This is not about 17,000 sq.ft., not about an 1.2 acres accessible through someone else's' property. It is about power." Council member Schiffner indicated he was not really too concerned about the indemnity because he hoped whatever decision the City Council made, that it would be defensible and will be the correct one. He noted in all of the explanations he has been subject to, he found a great deal of ambiguity, a great deal of choices made that greatly affect the outcome of the final decision. He noted he has yet to find any definite information to show that the particular scenario shown by the developer, that he can find any reason that it was not inconsistent. Mayor Pro Tern Hickman indicated he feels the process is not broken. He stated there is no given project involved in front of the Council and MSHCP should buy the land or Castle & Cooke should bring it in front of us. He indicated he would air on the side of private property and support the Planning Commissions' decision. Mayor Magee stated "it was important to take a look to see how we got here. The MSHCP came before the City Council in January 13, 2004, with an all or nothing ultimatum from the Board of Supervisors, pass it, or we will pass you by, and you will get no Measure A transportation money. He noted rather a heavy handed approach to a City that was being tasked with donating more acreage than any other City in Western Riverside County. He stated on the other side of our County establishment and our neighboring cities urging our approval was one developer - Castle & Cooke who had just spent several months personally attacking a number of City Council candidates without ever verifying their facts, and without ever coming back on their accusations. He noted his very first City Council action was a difficult decision and after being promised all resource agencies would cooperate in the permitting process, and after reviewing over 800 pages of materials, and speaking with people that I have known for a very long time and both trust and respect, I made the decision to vote in favor of the MSHCP, subject to the following stipulations made by County Officials that night: 1) The County and the RCA would assist the City staffing help - no help came for the first two years, and the City was forced to hire its own specialist; 2) The 23 County and the RCA would help the City reach its acreage target number as quickly as possible and it would be at the lower end of the range and not the top - three and 12 years later, the City is not there yet; and 3) and most importantly, the City would maintain its autonomy with respect to land use decisions, and the City's ability to say "no" or to preserve the City economic viability, specifically when it came to commercial or industrial land uses which would generate revenue and create jobs. In September of last year, Tom Mullin spoke to representatives of the Riverside County Transportation Commission about the value and the need for the MSHCP. Mr. Mullin indicated the purpose of the MSHCP is to enable the City to provide infrastructure to the County in an expeditious manner as possible. He stated if the MSHCP does not enable the City to build the roads the City needs, we might as well abandon it. It was imperative that the City places the safety of our citizens ahead of bugs and bunnies. It is wrong and needs to stop. In the 31/2 years since this City passed the MSHCP, the TUMP Funds, those threatened to be withheld from the City if the City did not join the MSHCP, has only partially funded one traffic signal in this valley. He stated and now Castle & Cooke has placed us in this very uncomfortable position of making any decision absent of any development proposal. The RCA has already lined up in a letter stating that they are ready to convene a yet to be appointed ad-hoc committee. If the City finds for the applicant, they will inform the wildlife agencies of the City's action, and they may in turn deem the entire MSHCP out of compliance and suspend or revoke the coveted 10-A permit. This was not the last stand on Fiji. This is 1.4 acres of predominately non-native vegetation, next to a freeway off-ramp in Southern California which does not contain a single endangered or threatened species on it. I would like to recognize City staff and the Planning Commission and thank the applicant for their exhaustive amount of information. I walked the property from end-to-end, side-to side, explored the linkage opportunities to the east and west and even the opposite side of the freeway through a drainage conveyance. This site is clearly the least desirable habitat in the area. The linkage opportunities and their value cannot be denied, however, the widths of the linkage proposed by the RCA on our staff, in my opinion, are too broad. Castle & Cooke are proposing a 75' wide minimum habitat corridor. My observation at this site is that the wildlife, much as described by Dr. Turner, has been able to successfully traverse this tiny corridor for decades. I will not encourage this narrow passage again, and clearly there are areas in the exempt Pacific Clay property that must be maintained with corridors of several hundred feet. I believe in using the reasonable man standard that it is acceptable to grant the applicants request and find that it is in compliance with the MSHCP. I hope my colleagues in Riverside and on the ad-hoc committee will carefully take all of this testimony into consideration before they walk the site and render an opinion." It was moved by Mayor Magee, and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hickman to adopt Resolution No. 2007-142 and moved that Castle & Cooke sign an indemnification agreement to indemnify the City from any and all actions generated in opposition to this finding. Resolution No. 2007-142 reads as follows: 24 A RESOLUTON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT KNOWS AS LEAP 2005-12 FOR A 9.09 ACRE PROPERTY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) The following vote resulted: AYES: MAYOR MAGEE MAYOR PRO TEM HICKMAN COUNCILMEMBER KELLEY COUNCILMEMBER SCHIFFNER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER BUCKLEY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Brady commented on the following: 1) Announced an Affordable Housing Study Session on July 26th at 5:00 p.m. in the Cultural Center. 2) Announced the Elsinore Valley Arts Network Art Walk will be held on July 2ih at from 4-8:00 p.m. downtown Main Street. 3) Announced on July 28th, Cruz Nite 5-9:p.m. downtown Main Street 4) Announced on August 4th the Household Waste Management 9-2 on Langstaff adjacent to the City Yard 5) Announced the State of the City address will be held Thursday, August 23rd at the Diamond Club at 5:00 p.m. Tickets are $25 per person which includes a ticket to the baseball game. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS No comments. CITY TREASURER COMMENTS Not present. 25 CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Kelley commented on the following: 1) Requested the Study Session to discuss the Civic Center be held on August 30th at 5:00 p.m. Council member Schiffner commented on the following: No comments. Mayor Pro Tern Hickman commented on the following: 1) Announced on August 11th a blood drive will be held at the Diamond Stadium at 5:00 p.m. He stated they will also be looking for marrow donors. 2) Congratulated Mr. Ron Edwards who won $10,000 in the reverse raffle for the Chamber of Commerce. Councilmember Buckley commented on the following: 1 ) Suggested the Study Session for the Civic Center be called more appropriately a "community briefing of and by the community finalists." He also suggested having it before August 30th. He suggested having further discussion regarding the meeting. 2) He stated due to his action he calls on Cardinal Roger Mahoney to resign as Arch Bishop of the Los Angeles Dieses. He noted the recent settlement and arrest of Father Miller whom Mahoney went to the Supreme Court to protect his personal records which showed him consistently abusing children. He stated only the release of those records made his arrest possible. Mr. Mahoney is a destructive embarrassment to the Church and society in general. Mayor Magee commented on the following 1) Recognized City staff. He indicated the City Council voted on a four year contract which include a pay increases and increases in medical coverage. It is an example of this Councils' faith and commitment to the efforts of our staff. He stated Council greatly appreciates and values staff and glad staff was accepting of the four year contract. Mayor Magee adjourned the Regular City Council m~:~. ROBERT E. MAGEE, CITY OF LAKE ELSIN 26