Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-29-2002 City Council MinutesMINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TiJESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2002 ........................................................................, CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kelley called the Study Session to order at 3:41 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, BRINLEY HICKMAN, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also Present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, Assistant City Attorney Miles, Administrative Services Directar Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, Public Works Manager Payne and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. DISCUSSION ITEM Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (F:723) City Manager Watenpaugh introduced the subject and explained the importance of the issues to the larger landowners, the habitat conservationists and the City. He introduced Ed Saul, the consultant representing the property owners. Mr. Saul ga~e an overview of the property owners' concerns about the projects. He explained Riverside County's Multi-Species Plan and the area it encompassed to conserve endangered species without interrupting regular business. He stated that as projects were entitled in the City, developers would be required to PAGE TWO - STUDY SESSION - JANiJARY 29, 2002 negotiate with Fish and Wildlife in order to address the endangered species issue. He indicated that if they took both the property owners and the County's requirements into consideration, neither the City or the developers could accomplish their objectives. He presented maps to show the multi species plan criteria. He summarized the eight property owners and the location of their properties. He pointed out the area negotiated with Riverside County, property owners, California Department of Fish and Game and United States Fish and Wildlife for a viable preservation point in order to provide conservation. He concluded with an overview of the resolution proposed, which downsized the acreage of the preserve by a compromise between all parties involved. He explained an agreement between the parties, which contained an understanding of the lines between development and conservation. What had not been negotiated was a compensation package for lands set aside for the multi-species plan. He explained different possible forms of compensation for the landowners and the fact that an agreement had not yet been reached. Councilmember Brinley inquired as to the County's response to the request for compensation. Mr. Saul indicated that the dollar amount was in excess of a million dollars. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner asked about the nature of the land trades. Mr. Saul indicated that the Bureau of Land Management had offered to contribute some of their land for development. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner expressed concern about the area within the City's jurisdiction. Mr. Saul explained that any land outside the City could be annexed into the City. Councilwoman Brinley questioned if the County would be willing to allow the annexation. Mr. Saul referred the question and any considerations to Mr. Lashbrook from the County. He concluded his presentation by acknowledging the cooperative efforts of all parties involved in the multi-species plan in their attempt to reach a workable solution. The areas of negotiation that were not concluded were that of a price component. Mayor Kelley asked if they were satisfied with the progress made thus far and Mr. Saul confirmed. PAGE THREE - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 29, 2002 Councilmember Buckley inquired as to the total acreage in question. Mr. Saul estimated 6,000 acres total and asked that he be allowed to return with a definite number. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stated that he would like the County to consider City annexation of the County land in question. Mr. Saul explained that all parties involved in the negotiations were interested in a positive outcome for everyone, not just themselves. Mayor Kelley reiterated the number of property owners and total acres involved. City Manager Watenpaugh explained the total number of acres involved and how they affect the different property owners. Mr. Saul ga~e an overview of the different property owners and their interest in the acres included in the multi-species plan. Richard Lashbrook, Riverside County, indicated that Council was clear about their participation in the MSHCP and the number of acres involved. He noted the potential to reach the conservation goal while working with the numbers to achieve the infrastructure needs of the City. He confirmed that it was a work in progress with positive support and participation from staff, property owners and resource agencies. On the subject of annexation, Mr. Lashbrook explained the process involved. He expressed the County's potential support for annexation due to the location of the property in question. He gave an overview of the BLM properties and the process of trading, selling or using them for conservation. There was general discussion on the subject of acreage and the possibility of annexation and compensation from Riverside County. City Manager Watenpaugh gave an overview of the open space and dedicated conservation space in the area to Councilman Buckley and general discussion followed. Councilman Hickman inquired as to the amount of land desired from surrounding cities. Mr. Lashbrook explained that the amounts vary due to the ability to develop the land and the location of the endangered species and habitats. City Manager Watenpaugh identified all properties included in the City for habitat conservation. There was general discussion about the concerns of the landowners and property locations, as well as public access issues. Mayor PAGE FOUR - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 29, 2002 Kelley addressed the issue of compensation for the land in question and indicated her desire to see the total designated acreage for the habitat decreased within City limits. Councilmember Brinley requested letters of intent and concern from the Supervisors' office for clarification purposes. Hardy Strozier, Murdock Properties, provided a brief overview of their local projects and the land they encompass. He expressed the concerns of Mr. Murdock and Murdock Properties. He asked Council to direct staff to send a letter to the County requesting their recognition of the City's general plan. He also requested that Council direct staff to work with Murdock Development directly to analyze the information presented to them. He requested a meeting with staff in order to discuss these issues. He suggested data supporting the importance of the habitat be presented to interested parties from the County and suggested that they get more involved in the discussions. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated his disappointment in Murdock Development's absence of participation in the negotiations. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the City was not participating in negotiations with the County, however the City, the County and the property owners shared the same issues. Ed Sauls, Acquard St., indicated that he would verify that it was appropriate to release information on the negotiations. He invited the Murdock group to participate in the negotiations. Mr. Strozier indicated that there were conflicts with some property owners and Murdock Development; and they chose not to participate on the negotiations team, but they wanted to review the findings in a public forum. There was general discussion regarding whether the County was using the City's General Plan as well as those of the surrounding cities. He indicated that some sphere areas of the County and the City might overlap, and the general plans differ PAGE FIVE - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 29, 2002 however the County would like to cooperate with the cities involved. He gave an overview of the alternatives. Mayar Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that the conservation did not coincide with the City's General Plan. Carmella Loelkes, property owner involved in the above- mentioned negotiations, questioned the reason the City of Lake Elsinore had been singled out for the large amount of land requested. She suggested that the project could provide a positive outcome for the City. 2. Park Assessment Bond City Manager Watenpaugh gave an overview of the item. Mayor Kelley recognized Jeff Cooper of Harris and Associates to begin the presentation; he summarized as follows: Park Maintenance Assessment Benefit Anal siy s Report Mr. Cooper and Joan Cox summarized the purpose of the report and the recommendation for spreading the costs. They provided a benefit analysis, which included a map of the benefit area and a list of the parks to be funded. A schedule of the Equivalent Dwelling Units and a Benefit Unit Summary provided specific details of the analysis, as well as a preliminary cost estimates with a schedule of sample calculations. They concluded the presentation by providing a sample Schedule for Formation, which detailed the order of proceedings and the approximate time involved in each procedure. They detailed the public relations factors and invited any questions. PAGE SIX - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 29, 2002 Chris Hyland, 15181 Wavecrest, declared that she would do everything she could to stop the proposed tax assessment. She criticized Council's manner of spending and the use of t~ dollars. Councilwoman Brinley suggested holding Town Hall Meetings in order to ensure that the information was circulated and that people understood the goals and objectives in a simplified format. Councilman Buckley expressed his concern that there was too much power in the vacant land as opposed in the existing households. Mr. Cooper indicated that the vacant land issue was a common problem to be addressed in the next phase of the project. He requested an estimate on the cost of the General Election, which Mr. Cooper provided. He stated that he was leary about voting for a tax increase unless cuts were made elsewhere. Councilman Schiffner questioned the responsibility of the City General Fund to provide the parks for the benefit of the areas outside the City limits. Mr. Cooper stated that the benefit areas were currently outside the area due to the sphere of influence. Councilman Schiffner indicated that some of the fees involved could be offset by charging County residents for the use, and requesting financial participation by the County: Councilwoman Brinley stated that since the closing of Ortega Trails there had not been any negotiations with the County about operation of their parks and recreation facilities. City Manager Watenpaugh confirmed that the County did not consider opening those facilities unless the interested parties were willing to pay the operation with costs. Councilman Hickman had no comments. PAGE SEVEN - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 29, 2002 City Manager Watenpaugh noted that staff had notified surrounding cities in order to establish what fund paid for operation their parks and recreation departments. He stated that they were funded by special assessments on their tax rolls. He indicated that the City of Lake Elsinore funded the Parks and Recreation Department with the General Fund, therefore those programs could be cut by Council vote, but if they were a special assessment on the t~ rolls, cuts would have to be voted on by the residents. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Kelley adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m. ~ ~~ G IE KELLEY, ~ TY OF LAKE ELSINORE Respectfully submitted, ~ Adr L. Bryning, Deputy City Clerk City of Lake Elsinore A EST: ~~~~ VICKI KASAD, CMC, CITY CLERK/ HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE