Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-2003 City Council Study SessionMINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2003 kx*r', kkkkx' ekkeFx' x' k***kkx'xkkkxk~F~Fk~FekkaPkxkx~Yk~k*k~t*drx' x' dek*kxkkkaFa'ekkeF CALL TO ORDER Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner called the Joint Study Session to order at 3:31 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, SCHIFFNER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY, KELLEY (Councilwoman Kelley arrived at 3:35 p.m.) Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, City Attorney Leibold, Community Development Directar Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, and Deputy City Clerk Ray. DISCUSSION ITEMS Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (F:1081) (X:763) City Manager Watenpaugh gave an overview of this Study Session. He acknowledged that Director Richard Lashbrook from the County of Riverside was there to explain the MSHCP. Councilwoman Kelley arrived at 3:35 p.m. PAGE TWO - STUDY SESSION - JITNE 18, 2003 Mr. Lashbrook gave insight on the MSHCP and provided documentation for Council and Staff. Mr. Lashbrook explained that the County hal a draft NEXUS Study that was available. He introduced Mrs. Cheryl Lagono and indicated she would briefly explain the findings of the NEXLJS Study which would be the basis of local developer mitigation fees. Mrs. Lagono explained the NEXLJS Study provided the justification for the collection of an impact fee on new development pursuant to Code 6600. It also presented the methodology and the assumption used in determining that fee. The actual name is the Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF). The LDMF is one part of the overall funding plan, andGovernment Code 6600 governs this fee. The monies can be used to purchase habitats and program administration, butnot for biological monitoring management or adaptive management. She stated the acquired land which was about overall 500,000 acres reserve area, was about 11% or about 1/3 of the new mitigation land. She stated they were not asking for new development to pay for all of the assembly of the reserve. She stated the acquisition cost was estimated at about approximately $870,000,000 and the local obligation for this plan was 56,000 acres to be acquired. There has been some acreage that had already been acquired which could be applied towards this plan. The program administration cost was $30,000,000 for the 25 year period the NEXLJS Study addressed. So it would be about $907,000,000 to be financed through impact fees. NEXIJS report presents four methods for looking at the fees. She decided to focus on the last column, the equivalent benefit unit analysis, David Taussig & Associates was recommending the County and the participating cities adopt. They felt that it received the strongest NEXLJS and most accurately reflected the possible costs, keeping in mind the MSHCP was providing mitigation for direct/indirect and cumulative impacts. She indicated that if the LDMF was adopted to generate $907,000,000 there would be fees of approximately $2500 for a single family detached unit and about $8,000 per acre for commercial, business and industrial development. She also mentioned other sources of funds and some of the other cosfi of the MSHCP. She reiterated that the fee could not be used for biological monitoring, reserve management, and adaptive management; the cost of those activities must come from the other fund that cost for a 25 year period in 2003 dollars is approximately $190,000,000. The revenue would be about PAGE THREE - STUDY SESSION - JUNE 18, 2003 $461,000,000 in revenue. She indicated there would be $271,000,000 in revenues that were not needed for the monitoring and adaptive managing and that revenue could be used for habitatacquisition and program administration. She stated those funds may not be available throughout the hearing process, if LDMF is set to fund $636,000,OOOwhich is $907,000,000 minus $271,000,000, there would be fees reduced. The fourth column reflected fees of about $1700 per dwelling unit for single family detached and $5600 for non-residential development. Mr. Lashbrook provided Council and Staff a summary of the habitat acquisition to date. City Manager Watenpaugh asked Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner if he'dlike to address some of the questions for whichthe County submitted answers or if he like for the public to ask questionsso he could review the packet he was provided. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner decided to let the public speak at that time. Ed Sauls, 742 Summit Dr, Laguna Beach, CA 92651. Mr. Sauls addressed the Council and stated he would like to help the Council with making an informed decision. Mr. Sauls indicated he had a team of speakers that would present to Council a report from Helix Environmental Biology, and his report does a comparison of some landowner recommended conservation that could be done in the City that accomplish the objectives of the MSHCP and was done in a more efficient manner than the MSHCP proposes. He stated this information was given to Council to compare and make a decision. Mr. Sauls indicated he would like to share two specific recommendations. 1. A greater clarity for what it was the City would be signing up for. 2. A property owner that was part of a coalition to share the specifics of there particular project that is in the back basin area. Mr. Sauls also indicated the time and effort he had put into trying to reach a resolution for the landowner issues of Lake Elsinore, to work out agreements with the MSHCP program. He stated there were seven landowner that had PAGE TWO - STUDY SESSION - JUNE 18, 2003 reached a level of agreement, and if the City bought into this program there was a high degree of certainty about what they would gain. He further indicated that the overall County perspective of this program dd permit some regional infrastructure that was very difficult for individual cities to permit. Barry Jones, 8100 La Mesa Blvd, La Mesa CA 91947 of Helix Environmental. Mr. Sauls stated Mr. Jones completed an analysis on behalf of eleven property owners. Mr. Jones submitted a letter to the Counci~ and stated the letter identified the landowners that participated in the analysis. Mr. Jones stated page two of the letter reflected what Helix felt were the biological objectives of the MSHCP for the City of Lake Elsinore. Mr. Jones recited the objectives to Council and indicated that he projects they had worked with included: Alberhill, Tuscany, Greenwald, Clarmon, Albersoma, Stonebridge, and North Peak. He further indicated their agency had worked with the projects and feh they had come to some level of agreement. Those properties combined with the eleven properties thatthey were currently seeking to obtain further agreement would conserve approximately 2,650 acres a total of 4,955 acres. The objective of core area one was to conserve about 7,000 to 7,775 acres accomplishing about 50% to 55% of the City conservation goal with just these property owners. He further indicated that the acres by development contrast would provide for about 4,900 acres if you included; the additional property owners. Comparing that to the MSHCP this was Heli~s interpretation using the sell criteria, this was not based on maps, but the sell criteria, approximately 2,500 to 2,600 acres of development and about 7500 acres of conservation. He further noted that Helix believed they were achieving the majarity of the objectives of conserving well over 50% of core area one. Mr. Jones stated the second issue would be to conserve the gnatcatcher population west of the 15 freeway, and Helix felt as though that was accomplished by the Alberhill project with the design as proposed. The third issue preservation adequate Traver soil, Helix felt that the approximate 750 acres of conservation being proposed by the East Shore Specific Plan provided for the preservation of the narrow endemic plant species associated with Traver soils. The East Shore proposal also provided far the preservation of the shorebirds. The provision of connectivity along the lower San Jacinto River was based on a PAGE FIVE - STUDY SESSION - JUNE 18, 2003 previous 404 permit that had been approved by the courtswhich identified a 200 ft corridor along the San Jacinto River. Mr. Sauls stated that there were conservation requirements in the City whether the Council signed up with the MSHCP or not. The review given by Helix suggested it could be done a lot more efficiently than what might otherwise be proposed by the MSHCP. Councilman Hickman requested clarification that with Helix plan it could be done with 2,650 acres compared the MSHCP plan of about $4,900 acres. Mr. Sauls confirmed. Councilman Hickman further stated that the MSHCP implied that they did not want a big "hunk", they wanted criteria sells. Mr. Sauls stated the approach was to try and apply that criteria, but dd not give specifics. He went on to say that if you ~re to get specific you could be far more clear about what was efficiently achieving the conservation objective. Councilwoman Kelley clarified that Helix had been negotiating with the County and asked if they had come to an agreement or come close to an agreement with the County. Mr. Sauls deferred the question to City Manager Watenpaugh. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the County had provided some informationto Council and Staff spreadsheets of the property in which they had negotiated agreements and already acquired property and some parcel's were property that Mr. Sauls had worked on. Mr. Sauls indicated one of the specifics Helix was recommending was that the City had the same opportunity as the County to list the project where there were agreements. Mr. Sauls stated that there were certain projects exempt from the MSHCP ar the rules of the MSHCP did not apply. Mr. Lashbrook requestedthe opportunityto make a clarifying comment stating that the County and the team had been warking with the property owners to try to reach an agreement more on a hard line scenario, but those were individual property agreements. He also stated that to date those discussions had been with the County and if the City adopted the plan at that time the City would become the local implementing entity and the City would negotiate the agreements. Councilwoman Kelley requested clarification that the County was telling the City they needed"x" amount of acres. Mr. Lashbrook reiterated that the Plan not the County called for certain conservation objectives. City Manager Watenpaugh requested clarification of the Regional Authority that they had tke ability to comment and if they did not agree with the program and the City could not come to an PAGE SIX - STUDY SESSION - JUNE 18, 2003 agreement as a local entity with the Regional Authority, what happened. Mr. Lashbrook stated that there was a dispute resolution process. City Manager Watenpaugh asked if he negotiated an agreement with the RCHCA to set aside and hard-line 800 acres of his project, and they accept the offer, would he be free and clear or could he be brought back for more. Mr. Lashbrook stated they could not. Councilman Schiffner addressed the issue that there had been considerable criticism,that the scientific data background for this is flawed; in the event a property owner should wish to conduct scientific research to verify or find different conditions exist, if that allow him to say he had met the criteria without complying with what had previously been accepted. Mr. Lashbrookconfirmed that depending on the conservation objective for that area. Mr. Lashbrook also stated that the determination that a property did not have occupied habitat dd not automatically remove its conservation value. Adam Relin, 18101 Von Karman Ste 1800, Irvine CA 92612, for the law firm of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox, Elliott representing the North Peak project, suggested that if the City participated in the MSHCP, the City hal the opportunity to improve those model ordinances as proposed by the County, that it clarified the projectsthat had already completed the entitlement process should not have additional burden imposed on them by virtue of the City participating in the MSHCP. Steve Semingson, 3961 MacArthur Blvd, Newport Beach CA for Civic Partners, stated that the MSHCP significantly impactedthis project and their public partner City of Lake Elsinore. Loss No. 1- A loss of over $225 million of bondable property tax revenue to the City. Loss No. 2- A loss of potential over $300 millionin sales tax revenue. Loss No. 3- Increased exposure to non-performance and or default over $8 million in debt to their housing set-aside obligation. PAGE SEVEN - STUDY SESSION - JUNE 18, 2003 Councilman Hickman asked for clarification from Mr. Semingson the acreage amount the MSHCP was going to take from their particular project. Mr. Semingson explained that since the plan was not hard-lined they could not determine the acreage amount. Councilman Buckley stated that Mr. Semingson defined the back basin as infill and not rural. Mr. Semingson explained that itwas infill by the definition of redevElopment, in the fact that it was by all sides surrounded by developed urban areas. Councilman Buckley then stated that in regards to the levee itself, obviously there was some development contemplated, he asked if the leveecalled for the back basin to be more focused on recreation and tourism and open space and the agreement with the federal government concerning the loan. Mr. Semingson stated that it was the view of the community and City Council/RDA that felt the recreation objective, as well as the number of units developed over the specific plan, could have met both objectives. Councilman Buckley asked Mr. Lashbrook how viable the back basinwas under the MSHCP. Mr. Lashbrook explained that there was flexibility in the program. Councilman Buckley asked Mr. Lashbrook if he had received a copy of the letter provided by Helix Mr. Lashbrook responded he had not received a copy of the letter. Councilman Buckley asked if knocking off 2,500 acres in Lake Elsinore wouldmake the MSHCP untamable. Mr. Jones interrupted and explained that the letter provided by Helix was not intended to be a completed plan, it was simply to say with those property owners approximately 5,000 acres could be set aside without any additional financial commitment it was not intendedto state they had met all the obligations of the plan in this area. Mr. Lashbrook explained that the ability, within the plan, to move acreage around existed. Coucilwoman Kelley questioned if there was a possibility the City would be sued for the taking of private property. Mr. Lashbrook confirmed, the joint powers for agreement that the agency drafted and proposed had the indemnity provision. He used the RCHCA, the Stevens Kangaroo Rat Agency as an example where the members were indemnified and through the litigation that had occurred under that plan. The Agency had defended all of the lawsuits and each of its individual members. Councilwoman Kelley stated that this would result in a loss of developable land for Lake Elsinore which translated 'nto revenues. She asked how the City would re-coop that revenue. PAGE EIGHT - STUDY SESSION - JUNE 18, 2003 Mr. Lashbrook stated that the MSHCP was never envisioned tooreimburse local agencies, but all jurisdictions did have an impact as a result of the plan. Councilwoman Kelley asked for clarification that the city would have to absorb the loss of tax revenues because the land could not be developed and general sale tax dollars. Mr. Lashbrook explained the Council and Staff would need to consider what would have happen under another scenario. He also indicated that Council needed to consider if there was other benefits to the City in terms of regional infrastructure and how it would facilitate growth. He indicated he could not state what the City bottom-line would be. Councilwoman Kelley stated the figures shows 60% of the current developable prime residential, commercial and industrial land and she further indicated that would translate into a lot of revenue. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that Staff wanted to bring this back to Council, so Council would have an idea of what would be gained and what would be lost, so when Council made the decision they would have some valid comparisons. James Stroffe of the Eastshore Project, stated that in Section 3 of the plan the County identified specific projects that had gone through a County review process not necessarily a vested rights project but it could very well be a tentative tract, parcel map, or some other level of County review and specifically called out those projects the County believed by going through that process had taken into consideration the underline premises for the MSHCP and addressed the objective that was inherent in the MSHCP and they called those out as projects which were consistent with the MSHCP, so that when they go forward with their future development they would be compliant with the plan. Mr. Stroffe stated that following section 3 of the implementing ordinance there should be a listing just like what is contained on page 3-118 of the MSHCP giving the City the same opportunity. Franze Bigelow of Murdock Development stated that most developers in the City did not have preexisting agreements with the County. Some that may have agreement with the County that are not signed by Fish and Wildlife/Fish and Game, so it was questionable whether it would be honored. He indicated those issues would keep coming up before the City, PAGE NINE - STUDY SESSION - JUNE 18, 2003 and they are in total disagreement that the City is in control of its own destiny. He stated the implementing agreement the Council would sign gave The Wildlife Agency the authority to revoke the l0A Incidental Take Permit. So if a project the City brought forth was not acceptable The Wildlife Agency had the ultimate power to say that project w~ not acceptable for what ever reason. Mr. Bigelow stated according to the implementation agreement the revocation or suspension may be triggered by and he quoted a statement from the agreement stating that the approval of the proposed development or public project that significantly compromises the viability of the MSHCP conservation area. Darren Stroud spoke on behalf of Murdock Development. He gave his overview of what the City could expect to encounter with he "Bureaucracy" of the MSHCP. Kank-Shen Chen, 620 W. Graham Avenue, stated he was one of the major landowners in Lake Elsinore. He stated that havingpreservation was always a good thing, but noted that within the past year there has been a major impact on the economy of Lake Elsinore. He pointed out that it was not possible to continue to improve the local economy without the land to develop. He noted that the County had the whole natural forest around the area and questioned; why they had to take land from Lake Elsinore. He stated he had land in the criteria and he did not receive a notice. He stated the Council was his representative and they were here to protect the economy of Lake Elsinore. Ed Fitzpatrick of Eastbridge Partners-Ramsgate, stated thatthe Council was doing an excellent job of protecting the City. He gave an overview of his experience with conservation and Fish and Game. Colbert for Property Owners Association of Riverside County, stated that the State and Federal permits for these plans could be revoked by the Wildlife Agencies. PAGE TEN - STUDY SESSION - JUNE 18, 2003 Bill Johnson, landowner, 29410 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA, stated that he would like to thank the Council for standing up for their City and their property owners. He stated that the 11 property owners had no idea of what was happening. He stated he had owned 2,000 acres in the Santa Rosa Plateau a few years ago, and the property was publicly targeted and devalued. He further noted that the property w~ now owned by the County of Riverside, Metropolitan Water District and State of California. He stated after recently reading in the paper that the Nature Conservancy was the recipient of all this, andhaving to managing the property for twenty years, was now going to sell it to the federal govemment for $ 8 million. He indicated that the City of Lake Elsinore was "Freedom City" and thanked the Council. Tim Fleming, 174970 Lakeshore Drive, declined to speak at that time. Ron Lapere, 16867 Wells Street, stated that this particular plan has a lot of holes. He stated in his view the County should had looked at the plan on a regional basis, to objectively and constructively work together as a team. He stated this did not appear to be a team effort. Craig Collins, Attorney on behalf of the Property Owner's Association of Riverside County, he stated according to Mr. Lashbrook they had to conserve 150,000 acres and a pool of $270 million for those acres if all the assumptions were correct. He noted accarding to the figures he generated that came to $1,800 per acre that they had to acquire this 150,000 acres of land. He stated that the County ~wuld not spend that amount. He indicated in his business there was a saying "The County will not buy tt~ land if they could conserve it for free". He stated the way they conservai it was by down zoning the land and stripping it of all development rights until it has no value and then they did not need to conserve because no one could build on the land. He stated the City would see that when the County start amending its general plan. He commented that the majority of the landowners did not know their property had been targeted. He indicated the deadline was very short for legal challenges and the deadlines favored the PAGE ELEVEN - STUDY SESSION - JUNE 18, 2003 County. He indicated the land the County had acquired to date did not say anything about what they were going to do with the land in the future. He stated the County had targeted a few pieces of land that it was going to acquire at a high value either because ofpolitical connections of the owners or to eliminate the most vociferous opposition; but that saidnothing at all about how the County was going to acquire this next 150,000 acres. Dennis O'Neil of Pardee Homes, stated that he would very much challenge the accusation that the County General Plan was using zoning to achieve conservation. Councilman Buckley stated that setting aside land to make up for Orange and Los Angeles Countys' failure to set aside landwas not something he enjoyed doing, but we live in a different reality than we did 35 years ago. He stated that the MSHCP would not add a layer of governmen~ it would replace a hopelessly environmental process. He stated the new process gave the City local control. Councilwoman Kelley stated she would reserve comments for the next study session, but she did indicate that on the surface it looked like an authorization for government to take private property. Councilman Hickman stated that he was for the landowners, and if the government wanted the landthey should buy it and ifthey can not buy it, then the landowners should be able to develop the land. ADJOURNMENT THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 5:10 P.M. PAGE TWELVE - STUDY SESSION - JUNE 18, 2003 ~~,~ ROBERT L. SCI MAYOR PRO T CITY OF LAKE Respectfully submitted, 9 ~,~ ~'<~~~~ Frederick Ray, eputy City Clerk A VICKI CITY CLERK/ HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE