Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-17-2000 City Council Study SessionMINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN 5TREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 2000 ........................................................................, CALL TO ORDER Mayor Brinley called the City Council Study Session to order at 2:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Brinley led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY, PAPE, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: METZE DISCUSSION 1. Riverside Count~Integrated Plan - Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. (F:140.1) Councilwoman Brinley called upon the person who requested to speak. Mary Venerable, 29400 3rd Street, noted she was present to hear more about the plan; and explained she had heard Councilman Pape identify problems with ideas of information as conveyed at the presentation at a Council Meeting. She expressed her concerns regarding the Riverside County Integrated General Plan, which she felt did not give clear direction for preservation and development. She stated that she had a number of questions, however she would wait until the end of the presentation to ask her questions. Community Development Director Brady stated that at the July 24, 2000, City Council Meeting there was a brief presentation regarding Yhe I~iverside County Integrated Plan. He indicated that it addressed tllree issues being the update of the General Plan; Transportation; and the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. He noted that at the July 24th Meeting the City Council expressed interest in having a Study Session to review the Plan, particularly the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. He explained that the consultants preparing the Plan were present to provide the information. He PAGE TWO - STUDY SESSION - AUGUST 17, 2000 introduced A1 Bell from The Planning Center. He further explained that Mr. Bell's company was handling the portion of the General Plan Update which addresses Land Use. He indicated that Mr. Bell would present his portion of the Plan and then introduce the other consultants to address the other topics. Mr. Bell, The Planning Center, indicated that his company is responsible for the General Plan, and introduced Jim Henderson, Spear Group Civil, Inc., Managing Consultant over the entire Integrated Plan; Steve Smith, Transcorp, consultant for the Transportation portion of the plan; June Collins, Dudek, consultant for the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan; and Melody Smith, Planning Center, consultant far Land Planning. Mr. Bell stated that the project has been in progress for over a year and was led by an extensive program of public surveys and outreach meetings throughout the County. He explained that it led to the creation of an extensive vision statement that provided detail for the General Plan advisory committee that provided guidelines the consultants were working from. He noted that a set of principles was provided to the consultants for guidelines for the Land Use portion of the plan. He explained that in the presentation of July 24th, three alternatives were presented to Council and stressed that the Integrated Plan was work in progress and would continue to change. He presented Alternative three, which the consultant team and County staff felt was most responsive to the vision guidance that was established earlier in the program. He presented an overview of the Land Use far the unincorporated area of the County that would result in the delineation of the policy regarding the potential Land Uses in all the unincorporated areas of the County. Mayor Pro Tem Pape asked if the Land Uses presented on the map would be compatible with the zoning, which is already in place. Mr. Bell clarified that did not occur in all cases, and explained that in some situations there might be some Land Use designations with which the existing zoning would not be consistent; and in due course the existing zoning would have to be changed to comply with the General Plan. He explained that it was the intent to avoid those situations as much as possible. Mayor Pro Tem Pape asked if there were any inconsistencies in the City of Lake Elsinore. Mr. Bell indicated that this was for the unincorporated area only and explained that the County Board of Supervisors has no authority regarding Land Use within City Limit boundaries. He gave an overview of the process, which was used to compare the County and various cities' General Plans to ascertain the compatibility of Land Use. He addressed the Sphere of Influence of the various cities and then attempted to reflect a similar Land Use. He explained that if cities have proposed Land Uses for their Sphere of Influences in their General Plans, which the City of Lake Elsinore has done, then they PAGE THREE - STUDY SESSION - AUGUST 17, 2000 have tried to reflect that in the County's Land Use Plan. He noted that in some situations there could be a difference and it would have to be worked out with the jurisdictions. Mayor Pro Tem Pape stated that at the 7uly 24th presentation a different designation was shown on the City's open space; Specific Plans; and four major development projects and asked if that was not the case now. Mr. Bell stated they would present how the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan affects the County and the cities. He explained what they were working with proposed uses and if adopted they would apply to the land; and the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) delineation was an overlay to the Land Use. He noted that Ms. Collins would explain how the overlay works and explained that it does not change the Land Use designation. Mayor Brinley asked if before the County were to adopt the presented plan, would they make sure that the City's Land Uses were compatible through a review process. Mr. Bell stated that the consultants are working with the City's staff to resolve the Land Use incompatibility issues if there were any. He explained that the whole process would provide ample opportunity for the staff, consultants, and County Planning Commission Board to address the issues if the City feels that the County has not adjusted the Land Use to be compatible. He further explained that there would be hearings prior to adoption of the Plan, which would take place throughout the next year. He noted that prior to the hearing stage, they hoped to have all the inconsistencies worked out, or if they are not then have them clearly identified so the affected city or property owner would know that they exist. He noted the purpose of the presentation was to inform Council what was occurring and give Council the opportunity to influence the Plan. He clarified that what the e~ibit presents is the unincorporated area only for intended uses and appropriate zoning. Mr. Bell addressed the circulation system and noted that there were two levels of Transportation, Major Transportation corridors; and the Circulation Element of the County's General Plan. He noted that this includes integration with adjacent cities' circulation plans for continuity in the system. He stated that adjustments could be made in two ways, modification of the circulation system; or modification of the Land Uses. He noted that this would vary tku~oughout the County. Mr. Smith of Transcorp, clarified the e~ibit of the Circulation Element. Mr. Bell summarized that the General Plan encompasses the entire Riverside County unincorporated area and does not involve any of the existing cities, however does involve the Communities of Interest. He explained that the Transportation Corridor and the Habitat Conservation portions of the project were limited to Western Riverside County and did not include the rest of the County. He explained that one of the purposes of the Study Session was to promote understanding regarding the MSHCP and what impact it has PAGE FOUR - STUDY SESSION - AUGUST 17, 2000 on the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the City of Lake Elsinore. Ms. Collins representing Dudek, consultant for the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), explained that the MSHCP was an integral component of the County's RCIP process. She noted the 14 cities that were involved in a Planning Agreement for Habitat Conservation between the local entities and the Wildlife Agencies to cooperatively work together to prepare a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. She explained that it would list the requirements of both the Federal Endangered Species Act and the State of California Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act, as well as the State Endangered Species Act. Ms. Collins noted that the Agreement would provide a more streamlined way to deal with the regulatory constraints associated with the 301isted species and proposed species in Western Riverside County and in the complete County Plan they are trying to address up to 164 species which includes the 301isted and proposed species, as well as other sensitive species that might have the potential to be listed in the future. She explained the idea behind the plan was to streamline both public and private projects that might be faced with regulatory constraints associated with the 164 species. She indicated that what her team from Dudek started with a year ago, was the Go/No Go proposal which was reviewed by the MSHCP committee. She explained that the proposal described in narrative terms how many acres and where in Western Riverside County it might be necessary to develop, preserve, or conserve up to 164 species and possibly get regulatory coverage. She stated that there was a web site that presented the maps of species and vegetation of Western Riverside County and gave an overview of the process to provide conservation areas. Mayor Pro Tem Pape asked if a property owner had their land burned, if they would be allowed to keep the area clear since it is no longer a habitat. Ms. Collins stated that it would be up to the local jurisdiction to determine whether the owner would be allowed to brush and clear. Mayor Pro Tem Pape asked if the City was the local jurisdiction. Ms. Collins stated that it would be the local jurisdiction if it was the agency that regulated the brushing and clearing on specific property; and if that particular action was consistent with the local jurisdiction's regulations, then the property owner could do that. She indicated that it would depend on the level of burning and whether the property was occupied or not. She further indicated that if the property was occupied by a listed species, the Federal Endangered Species Act would permit enforcement of that take through brushing and clearing or through destruction of that habitat, however there are provisions that do permit brushing and clearing. Mayor Pro Tem Pape asked if there was a fire and the habitat no longer existed, it the property owner could then maintain the land as non-habitat area. Ms. Collins stated that it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. PAGE FIVE - STUDY SESSION - AUGUST 17, 2000 Councilman Schiffner asked for clarification of "local jurisdiction". Ms. Collins stated that it was the City. She clarified that the Fish and Wildlife does not regulate brushing and clearing. Ms. Collins noted the areas in Western Riverside County, which were desirable for conservation. She noted that in September 1999, the MSHCP Committee approved the Go/No Go proposal for the consultant to continue the study. Councilwoman Kelley asked how many acres were included in the study. Ms. Collins stated it consisted of from 380,000 to 510,000 acres within the 1.2 Million-acre MSHCP Study area. She noted that of the 380,000 to 510,000 acres, 340,000 acres were already in existing publicly owned land. She indicated that included National and State Forest lands. She noted the proposal also described that there might be a range of between 40,000 and 120,000 acres within the 1.2 Million-acre study area of e~sting private land that might be considered for additional conservation in order to cover up to 164 species. Councilwoman Kelley asked how much of that land area was in the City of Lake Elsinore. Ms. Collins stated that she did not haee that information available, however she did have it in her office and would be glad to provide it to Councilwoman Kelley. Councilman Schiffner stated that there were several areas in Lake Elsinore that were in conflict and he suspected that those would be the ultimate areas that would be involved. He asked for those specific areas, what the species were that caused those areas to be considered and what particular criteria caused those areas to be considered habitat. He noted that information would give the Council the opportunity to object or concur with the proposal. Ms. Collins stated she could provide information in the context of how far they have gone to date and the future steps that will be taken as more refinements are made. She stated that the four specific areas of concern in the City of Lake Elsinore, were Ramsgate Specific Plan area; North Peak Specific Plan area; Alberhill Specific Plan area; and the Liberty Specific Plan area. She indicated they had been identified as being lands desirable for conservation areas. She indicated that in the early stages of the MSHCP it was recognized that there were conflicts between approved developmentplans and areas that were identified as desirable for conservation. She noted that those conflicts would need to be worked out or considered through the course of the MSHCP planning process. Councilwoman Kelley asked what plan they had to address the conflicts. Ms. Collins noted a map that lists the species, which are desirable for conservation. She provided a map providing conservation analysis units. Councilwoman Kelley noted the Alberhill and Northpeak areas and asked if they were a result of the studies done by Dudek or the results of the studies done by the developer when they filed the plans to develop. Ms. Collins stated that the database was assembled by UCR, and for each dot on the map there was a data source. Councilwoman Kelley asked if this was done PAGE SIX - STUDY SESSION - AUGUST 17, 2000 by UCR or if it was information provided by the developer. Ms. Collins stated that it was a wide mix and gave an overview of the information and how it was gathered. Councilwoman Kelley stated that the information could then be taken back to the developer that submitted plans and could affect the development. Ms. Collins stated that the study also included information regarding vegetation, slopes, geological, and wetland information. Councilwoman Kelley stressed that a lot of the information was generated by the developers and not by independent studies. Ms. Collins concurred. Mayor Pro Tem Pape stated that different areas were identified, however looking at the fine print it needed back-up data to be understandable. Ms. Collins stated that all of the information was on the web site and was available to the public. She explained that the web site included a description of the different areas of concern and what would be desirable for conservation for the 164 species. Mayor Pro Tem Pape stated the necessity of having the information available if the exhibits that were presented were to be understood. He noted that it appeared that a majority of the land within the City boundaries was in some kind of area. She gave an overview of the e~ibit maps and explained the purpose of the different boundaries. Mayor Pro Tem Pape stated that this was certainly a red flag and those persons that own property in the areas indicated, have seen a substantial devaluation of their property if the plan becomes final. He noted that with so much of the area within the City noted as desirable for conservation, it would be impossible to develop within the City. Ms. Collins stated that the exhibits were just like any other planning map, and offer alternatives, which are necessary to try and come up with solutions for a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Mayor Brinley asked about the S3K designation. Ms. Collins stated that it was primarily the Alberhill, Sedco to Wildomar Hills, and South Lake Elsinore area, which were the primary three areas of conservation. Councilman Schiffner asked if Ms. Collins would be preparing a similar map, which would be for the protection of half or two thirds of the areas proposed. Ms. Collins indicated that would be forthcoming. Mayor Pro Tem Pape asked if Ms. Collins would provide the entire Council maps with the underlying documentation. Ms. Collins stated that all the information was on the web site, and that all the information had been provided to the City in the past through WRCOG. Councilwoman Kelley asked if Ms. Collins had the same map available that was presented at the July 24th City Council Meeting. Ms. Collins stated that the same map was on the wall without the zone colors. PAGE SEVEN - STUDY SESSION - AUGUST 17, 2000 Mayor Pro Tem Pape noted the high concentration of listed animals along Alberhill and Sedco Hills next to the freeway, and questioned the high emphasis next to a freeway. Ms. Collins stated that it was a combination of species, occurrence, habitat and geographic location. She explained that all of the factors came together in the Sedco/Wildomar and Alberhill areas and indicated that the location adjacent to the freeway, while it somewhat reduces the desirability for conservation, had enough other positive attributes to outweigh the negatives. Mayor Pro Tem Pape clarified that it was important to preserve the land in its natural habitat right ne~ to a freeway. Ms. Collins stated that in some configurations, it is. She gave an overview of the decision making process, and indicated that this program was an information exchange process to help the stakeholders decide what was in the best interests of their particular constituency with respect to getting regulatary coverage for the 164 species or not. Councilmember Schiffner suggested if the 164 species were numbered in their order of preference and the top third of them were eliminated, there could be a great deal of area cleared of conservation. He explained that there was every possibility that all of the 164 species would not be protected; and suggested that was why it was important to know exactly what species were causing a conflict and how they should be addressed. Ms. Collins concurred. Mayor Brinley stated that there were several members of the audience that wished to ask questions; and asked if Ms. Collins wished to finish her presentation, if she wished to answer questions at this time. A member of the audience asked how long Ms. Collins and the other members of the team have had to prepare for this meeting and asked why they did not have the information available for review. Ms. Collins stated that she was told only 10 minutes earlier that the MSHCP was the focus of this meeting. Councilwoman Kelley stated that the focus of this meeting was discussed on July 24th. Mayor Brinley stated that the team was directed at the Council Meeting to prepare for this Study Session. There was general discussion regarding the information provided and the people presenting the program not being prepared. Community Development Director Brady noted that the information being presented by Ms. Collins was not final information, but rather the process that they have utilized to get to the current information level. He noted that the purpose of the Study Session was to allow the public to know what was happening with the plan, specifically the MSHCP. PAGE EIGHT - STUDY SESSION - AUGUST 27, 2000 Mayor Pro Tem Pape stated that it was Council's intention to express their concerns. Councilwoman Kelley stated she would like to see the map that was presented at the July 24th City Council Meeting from the overhead projector, that gave the Land Use designations with an overlay of the proposed habitat over the top of the Land Use Map. She suggested that this would give Council the opportunity to see the true status. She stated that the maps presented to Council appear to show that the City is giving up the bulk of its acreage, and she wanted to know what the acreage was within the City Limits, versus the acreage in the unincorporated area. Mayor Pro Tem Pape stated that it appeared that the City was putting up more than its fair share. He stated that it was a calculation that was fairly simple; and noted that it was a total of how much acreage was in the Specific Plans and how much acreage that was to be set aside, as well as how much acreage was in the unincorporated area. He indicated that through that method the Council could get a clear picture of what percentage of the City would be taken up by conservation. Mayor Brinley noted that Councilman Schiffner explained that the plan being presented was just a rough draft that would be changed as the study progresses. Mr. Fahmy questioned the plan and questioned the time line. Mayor Brinley stated that the study will be progressing and it should still be quite some time before the final plan is fully developed. She noted that the process would take another eighteen months to two years. Mary Venerable expressed her concern with a study that goes on for eighteen months without public input because it becomes locked in concrete. She further stated a concern regarding the changes, which involve the unincorporated area and not the City. She asked why the City was involved if this plan was primarily for the unincorporated area. She asked why the meetings were not in Riverside and questioned who the stakeholders were. Mayor Brinley stated that the stakeholders are the City of Lake Elsinore, City of Canyon Lake, City of Murrieta, and City of Temecula. She noted that the County was trying to put their plan together and attempting to make it coincide with the City's General Plan. She further explained this would also give the City the opportunity to remove some of the desired habitat to allow for development. Councilman Schiffner stated that what was for the unincorporated area was the General Plan and didn't have anything to do with the City, however the habitat plan does impact the City and that was why PAGE 1vINE - STUDY SESSION - AUGUST 17, 2000 the Council was holding the Study Session. He stated that the City had no problem with the County's Integrated Plan Land Use and Traffic Circulation, however where the City did have a problem was with the habitat, and that issue covers the entire Western Riverside County area. Ms. Venerable stated that she felt this was placing a great burden on the City by having no clarification. Mayor Brinley stated that the Council would have liked better information. Richard Lashbrook , County of Riverside Integrated Plan Project Manager, gave an overview of the underlying basis for doing a Multi- Species Plan. He stated that the decision to be answered was if the County of Riverside and all the stakeholders should continue to fight the Endangered Species Act on a one by one basis, or develop a plan that would address a broad range of species and give a long term stability and protection from the Endangered Species Act. He further stated that was the impetus that drove the County to start the presented project and to propose doing a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. He noted that in the end, each City and the County of Riverside would have to make a decision whether to participate in the plan. He stated that the City of Lake Elsinore could make the decision not to participate. He asked that the City consider the impacts of not having a long-term plan and noted that large areas in Lake Elsinore are occupied by listed endangered species. He indicated there was nothing anyone could do about that, and it means that the property owner will have to deal with the Endangered Species Act. He stated that they are a long way from the fmal answer, however he felt that it was important to keep in mind that it is a decision that the City will have to make and it is a trade off. He noted that there are some negatives in doing a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan and he hopes and believes that in the long run there will be significant advantages that outweigh those negatives. A member of the audience noted the Ramsgate site and stated that it was overrun with motorcyclists and the whole area was affected. She stated that now the citizens are told that there is an endangered species in the area and she asked how that could be possible. Buddy Cox commented on Mr. Lashbrook's statements. He noted that in San Diego the power company had a cooling tower and the environmentalists suggested that there was an endangered species in the lagoon next to the plant. The power company then hired their own specialists and found that there was no endangered species. He stated that he would want proof before he would believe there were really any endangered species in a designated area. PAGE TEN - STUDY SESSION - AUGUST 17, 2000 Mayor Brinley stated that in response to Mr. Cox's concern, what Mr.Lashbook explained was that it was a Federal Mandate that the City must comply with. She e~lained that the City had a choice and that was the City could be a part of the plan or do something on its own. She agreed with Mr. Cox that she wished that the Council had more data. She noted that what Council was trying to do was gain more information or what the timelines were; and the goals of the City. Councilwoman Kelley stated that there was a third choice and that was the City could go with the plan, but not protect all 164 species. Dan Voit, D.R. Horton Company, stated that his company was looking to invest in several parcels in the City of Lake Elsinore. He noted that although there was considerable debate regarding the plan, there were still some question as to if California Department of Fish and game or the Wildlife Services would ultimately agree to whatever plan was being proposed. He stated that he supports the concept, however questioned if for the developers in the community, it was fair to assume that it is status quo until the plan is in place. He noted that the developers would have to deal with Fish and Game and Wildlife Services on their own, but are still able to continue forward with their developments. Mayor Brinley stated that they were and encouraged them to do so. Ed Fitzpatrick, Eastbridge Partners, stated that they own Ramsgate and have done e~ensive biological surveys on Ramsgate for a number of years. He noted that the eastern portion of the proj ect currently has 50 to 70 nesting pairs of Gnatcatchers. He noted the high concentration of Gnatcatchers and questioned their endangerment. He stated that the project also has Least Bells Vireos as well as a pair of Cooper's Hawks. He further stated that they have four Vesting Tentative Maps on the property and noted that when they request recordation of Final Maps; the City approves; they pull grading permits; and start to grade, then get stopped cold by the Feds. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that it was not because of the City, but rather the Federal regulatory agencies. He noted that they have other issues that they were dealing with as well, including the Regional Water Quality Control Board. He stated that the City could agree that they have a great plan, however the Federal Agencies will stop them cold. He indicated that he was looking at the Integrated Plan as a means that all the developers could jump on the bandwagon and solve the issues. He noYed that it was his understanding that the action proposed was to set up a situation whereby the regulatory agencies buy-off on a plan and the negotiations are done and the developer knows where they are going. He explained that the developer has to deal with the Plan, even through the property is within the City; and stated that his company was veay interested in the MSHCP because he sees it as a way to deal with the issues. PAGE ELEVEN - STUDY SESSION - AUGUST 17, 2000 Mr. Fahmy,, stated that since his company owns Alberhill he wishes to know exactly what the plan will be. He indicated that they have four years into trying to develop the property and it has been earmarked as a conservation area. Mayor Brinley stated that the plan was information and it was the City's option as to what would be done. Ms. Venerable asked if it was a requirement by law that the studies be conducted. Mr. Lashbrook stated it was not. Ms. Venerable asked if it was not a requirement this was being presented. She asked if the City decides to accept or reject the plan what the long-term impacts would be. She asked what the City will suffer if it does not approve the proposed General Plan. Ms. Collins concurred that it was the City's option whether they wished to participate or not. She explained that the long term impacts are dealing with the constraints of the Endangered Species Act on a project by project basis or in an integrated manner. She stated that as the process moves forward, each city would be able to decide what is in their best interests. Donald Nordine stated that it was his understanding there would be purchases of land and then it would be banked and traded. He further stated it was his understanding that if he wished to develop his forty acres of land, he could buy a different forty acres of land to trade off for his rights to develop. He asked if that was correct. Ms. Collins stated that what Mr. Nordine addressed was one of the potential implementation techniques being considered which was the Habitat Transaction Method. She noted that was just one of a wide variety of implementation tecluiiques being considered which merits a lot more study. She stated they were in an information exchange process that would determine all the alternatives and options. Mayor Pro Tem Pape stated there seemed to be a high concentration of animals at Lake Street and the I-15 Freeway, as well as a high concentration at Railroad Canyon Road and the I-15 Freeway. He noted there was a very low concentration of animals in the Santa Rosa Plateau, which has been set aside for Habitat. He asked if it was possible to trap the endangered species and relocate them to the established habitat. Ms. Collins stated that was a consideration. She noted that part of the study was considering an Adaptive Management Program, however the program would not work for all species. Mayor Pro Tem Pape noted that if the land was purchased for habitat he hoped it was suitable. Councilwoman Kelley stated she was dismayed that there was not more information and at least the same information presented at July 24th Council Meeting. She stated she thought it was perfectly clear that the Study Session was going to PAGE TWELVE - STUDY SESSION - AUGUST I7, 2000 address the Multi-Species Habitat and the Council would need a lot of information. She noted that at the Council Meeting it was obvious that the Council was very upset about the Habitat Map and a Study Session was needed on that issue. She expressed her dismay at the lack of private property owners' rights. She indicated she could not understand that with the stroke of a pen, the entire City can be sucked up and declared a Habitat, when some people have spent millions of dollars getting to where they are in their process of development; and by being in the process of development have triggered themselves being on the Map and the whole process comes back to bite. She stated it seemed to be condemnation of private property since they are told that they can't develop. She asked what financial remedies would be given to the property owners. Mayor Brinley stated that there was no fairness or equity and this issue should be taken up at the Federal level. She noted in her opinion the Federal Government should have to address the issue in dollars and cents. Councilwoman Kelley noted that there was a little leeway from the 30 species to 164 species, however she felt pinched because there was not much room to work. She noted the lack of equity in the way the maps and charts are done. She stated that it was a process that must be followed closely and she would like to hear more about what the City can do to be included in the process. Councilman Schiffner stated that in defense of the County and the Project, it was a Federally Mandated issue and had established species that they require be protected. He e~lained that what the County was trying to do was put together a package that the Federal Agency would buy. He further explained that the 164 species were projected to be all the species that the Federal Agency would ever want to protect, however it does not mean that all of the 164 species would be included. He noted that the County was trying to develop a package that the Federal Agency would accept so that the cities could go forward with the development of the property under specific guidelines. Councilman Schiffner stated without the Plan, the developer would have to deal directly with the Federal Agency and fight every inch of the way. He noted that under the plan there was no piece of property that was not developable, however it does mean that ~f it were a higher habitat area it would take more mitigation. He stated that all the issues are still under consideration. He stated that he was not in favor of the Endangered Species Act and felt that it was a rape of the people by the Federal Government, however what was trying to be accomplished was to live with what the Government has mandated and still develop the property. Mayor Brinley commented that once the County and cities get through this process, one of the things that needs to be stressed is equity. She stated that there must be fair equity and the Federal Government needs to understand that they are dealing with private property PAGE THIltTEEN - STUDY SESSION - AUGUST 17, 2000 owners. She noted that she understands that the County is just trying to bring all the cities into one unit that would allow future development. She concurred with Councilwoman Kelley regarding the amount of available information to promote better understanding of the Plan. She suggested that staff and the County coordinate another meeting to present a more comprehensive presentation of the Multi-Species Habitat. She stressed that the Plan was the product of a Federal Mandate to assist the developers in the future development or sale of their property. She noted that the key to this problem was money and being sure that the Federal Government was fair to the private property owner. Community Development Director Brady stated that staff has met with the consultants and it was the goal of staff to be sure that impact to the City was not greater than to other cities and id not create an unfair burden. He explained that staff had provided information to the consultants in terms of existing openspace the City currently has and this could possibly change some of the configurations, however it was still the private property owners who were impacted. Mayor Brinley suggested a Study Session with the County and current developers to better address the concerns. She stated that Council needs to better understand the impact ar the City. ADJOURNMENT The City Council Study Session was adjou~d at 3:35 p.m. CIT'Y OF ATTEST: VIC~'~i[ KASA , CIT CLERK, CMC CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE