Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Reso No 2004-11A CertifiedRESOLUTION No. 2004 -11A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. TITLE This Resolution shall be known as the "Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Policy." SECTION II. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE A. The City Council finds that the ecosystems of the City of Lake Elsinore ( "City ") and /or western Riverside County and the vegetation communities and sensitive species they support are fragile, irreplaceable resources that are vital to the general welfare of all residents; these vegetation communities and natural areas contain habitat value which contributes to the region's environmental resources; and special protections for these vegetation communities and natural areas must be established to prevent future endangerment of the plant and animal species that are dependent upon them. This Resolution will protect the City's and the region's biological resources, vegetation communities, and natural areas, and prevent their degradation and loss by guiding development outside of biological resource core areas, and by establishing mitigation standards which will be applied to development projects. Adoption and implementation of this Resolution will enable the City to achieve the conservation goals set forth in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ( "MSHCP "), to implement the associated Implementing Agreement executed by the City Council on January 13, 2004, and to preserve the ability of affected property owners to make reasonable use of their land consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act ( "NEPA "), the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), the Federal Endangered Species Act ( "FESA "), the California Endangered Species Act ( "CESA "), the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act ( "NCCP Act "), and other applicable laws. B. The purpose and intent of this Resolution is to maintain and restore biological diversity and the natural ecosystem processes which support this diversity, to protect vegetation communities and natural areas within the City and /or western Riverside County which support species covered under the MSHCP; to maintain a future of economic development within the City by providing a streamlined regulatory process from which development can proceed in an orderly process; and to protect the existing character of the City and the region through the implementation of a system of reserves which will provide for permanent open space, community edges, and habitat conservation for species covered by the MSHCP. C. In light of current habitat acquisition trends and habitat acquisition requirements within the boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore, the MSHCP poses a risk of excessive land removal from the City's tax base. The City therefore finds that suitable controls are necessary to buffer this risk while maintaining an incentive for early habitat acquisition and ensuring that Lake Elsinore doesn't bear a Resolution No. 2004 -11A Page 12 disproportionate burden and become a mitigation bank to support development throughout the region. SECTION III. APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS A. Implementation of the MSHCP and approval of (1) this Resolution, (2) City Council Resolution 2004 -10 making responsible agency findings pursuant to CEQA, (3) the Implementing Agreement for the MSHCP, (4) the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Creating the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, and (5) an Ordinance establishing a Development Impact Fee in connection with the MSHCP (collectively, the " MSCHP Documents ") is expressly conditioned upon approval by the City Council of each of the MSCHP Documents and, where applicable, each and every party to the MSHCP Documents. B. Except as provided in Section IV, this Resolution shall apply to all land within the City shown on the MSHCP Plan Map, attached as Exhibit "1." Upon application to the City for a development project, an applicant shall be required to comply with the procedures set forth in this Resolution. Upon the City's initiation of a project that is subject to CEQA, the City shall be required to comply with the procedures set forth in this Resolution. No project requiring a discretionary, or certain ministerial permits or approvals that could have adverse impacts to species covered under the MSHCP shall be approved by the City, and no City- initiated public project shall be undertaken, unless the project is consistent with the MSHCP and this Resolution. SECTION IV. EXEMPTIONS This Resolution shall not apply to the following: A. The adoption or amendment of the City's General Plan. B. The adoption or amendment of any land use or zoning ordinance. C. Any project for which and to the extent that vested rights to proceed with the project notwithstanding the enactment of this Resolution exist under the common laws of the State of California, a vesting tentative map pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, a development agreement pursuant to Government Code sections 65864 et seq., or other instrument, approved or executed by the City prior to adoption of this Resolution. Projects subject to this exemption must comply with all provisions of any applicable state and federal law. D. Any project for which the City Council determines that application of this Resolution would result in the property owner being deprived of all reasonable economic use of the property in violation of federal or state constitutional prohibitions against the taking of property without just compensation. E. Any action by the City of Lake Elsinore that is ministerial, not a project subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), or otherwise exempt pursuant to the provisions of CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines. Resolution No. 2004 -11A Page 13 SECTION V. PROCEDURES A. The City shall implement the requirements for private and public project contributions to the MSHCP Conservation Area as set forth in MSHCP, by electing to comply with one of the following: The City shall implement the Property Owner Initiated Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Process ( "HANS ") or a functionally similar Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process ( "LEAP"); or 2. Upon receipt of a completed application for a project that is subject to this Resolution, or prior to the City's initiation of a project, the City shall determine whether all or a portion of the real property for the project is located within the boundaries of the Criteria Area. If the City determines that all or a portion of the real property for the project is located within the Criteria Area, then the City shall perform the following: a. Determine the design criteria applicable to the project based on the particular USGS section, quadrant, and /or cell grouping in which the project property is located, as set forth in Section 3.2 of the MSHCP; and b. Impose as a condition to the City's approval of the project such conditions as are necessary to ensure the project complies with and implements the design criteria applicable to the project. 3. Several properties within the City of Lake Elsinore have undergone preliminary findings of consistency with the MSHCP. These properties include proposed development projects that are the current subject of ongoing negotiations with the MSHCP wildlife agencies with a few projects having been memorialized in a memorandum of understanding with the wildlife agencies. These projects include The Village, Alberhill, North Peak, Gritton, Simard, Clurman, Abusamra, Ramsgate, Greenwald, Elsinore Lakeview Villas, Lakeview Estates, Tuscany Oaks, South Shore II, Colorado Pacific, and Donlan. The current status of these projects, concerning the MSHCP and preliminary findings of MSHCP consistency, is set forth in detail in Exhibit "3" to this Implementation Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. B. The City shall implement the requirements for the Protection of Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP in the following manner: 1. As part of the CEQA review of the project, the property owner shall comply, or the City shall comply if the project is City- initiated, with the surveying, mapping, and documentation procedures set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP for Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools on the project property; and 2. Based on the documentation prepared for the project, the City shall impose as a condition to the City's approval of the project such conditions as are necessary to ensure the project complies with and implements the policies Resolution No. 2004 -11A Page 14 for the Protection of Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. C. The City shall implement the requirements for the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP in the following manner: As part of the CEQA review of the project, the property owner shall comply, or the City shall comply if the project is City- initiated, with the site - specific focused survey procedures set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP; and 2. Based on the site - specific focused surveys prepared for the project, the City shall impose as a condition to the City's approval of the project such conditions as are necessary to ensure the project complies with and implements the Narrow Endemic Plant Species policies set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. D. The City shall impose as a condition to the City's approval of a project such conditions as are necessary to ensure the project complies with and implements the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. E. The City shall impose as a condition to the City's approval of a project such conditions as are necessary to ensure surveys are prepared for the project as required by Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. F. Pursuant to Section V of this Resolution and the MSHCP, the City may transfer any property interest acquired or obtained in fee title or as a conservation easement to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority for management. The City may also grant a conservation easement to the California Department of Fish and Game for any property interest obtained pursuant to Section V of this Resolution. A Sample conservation easement is attached as Exhibit "2." SECTION VI. DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Resolution, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth herein: A. "Area Plan" means the sixteen areas designated for purposes of providing an organizational framework for the Criteria Area, and for purposes of developing specific design criteria that will be utilized in assembling land within the Criteria Area that will become a part of the MSHCP Conservation Area. B. "Criteria Area" means the general area designated and denoted on the MSHCP Plan Map as the "Criteria Area," comprised of approximately 310,000 acres from which new habitat conservation within the MSHCP Conservation Area will be assembled. C. "MSHCP" means the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. D. "MSHCP Plan Map" means the map of the area encompassed by the MSHCP as set forth in the attached Exhibit "1." E. "Project" means any action or activity that is subject to the City's ministerial or Resolution No. 2004 -11A Page 15 discretionary approval, or any action or activity undertaken directly by the City, for the purpose of developing or improving real property, including, but not limited to, the following: the sale, purchase, or lease of City -owned property; the approval of a tentative subdivision map; the issuance of a license, permit, certificate, variance, or other entitlement for the development or improvement of real property, including the clearing or grading of real property (except for weed or fire hazard abatement); and the construction or improvement of streets, water, sewer, or other public facilities or public works. SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest thereto, and thereupon and thereafter this Resolution shall take effect and be in force according to law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, this 13TH day of January, 2004. ATTEST: Vicki Kasad Vicki Kasad, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Barbara Leibold BARBARA LEIBOLD, CITY ATTORNEY UPON THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) Tom Buckley Tom Buckley, Mayor HICKMAN, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER, BUCKLEY KELLEY NONE NONE I, Susan M. Domen, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2004 -011 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of January 13, 2004, and subsequently renumbered to 2004 -11A and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: HICKMAN, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER, BUCKLEY NOES: KELLEY ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. 2004 -11A Page 16 I hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2004 -11A as adopted by said Council as shown in the attached minutes and that the same has not been amended or repealed. Date: March 22, 2016 / Susan M. Domen, MMC City Clerk Page Fifty-Six — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 67. In accordance with the City's Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling, the applicant shall be required to contract with CR&R Inc, for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction. THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 9:25 P.M. THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:38 P.M. 36. Conside 'on df The Weste Riv rside Coup Multis ces Habitat Conservation Plan. (F:76.4) City Manager Watenpaugh reminded the community of the first presentation on this topic on June 24, 2000; and stressed that it had been almost three years in the process. Mayor Buckley requested that everyone keep their comments short and indicated that the three minute rule would be strictly enforced. Pete Dawson, 18010 Grand Avenue, indicated that the big problem with this matter was the disproportionate handling, with big brother deciding the City's destiny. He commented that it was clear that cities like Temecula or Canyon Lake could not be made to retract their development, and questioned how to even this out. He suggested that the proposal require that those who gave up less balanced the program by giving money to assist those who gave up more. He indicated that they would not agree, but it could start a more reasonable plan. Dennis O'Neil, 19900 MacArthur Blvd., Irvine, indicated that no one was sure if the Council would adopt the plan, but noted that they were on record and continued to affirm that Canyon Hills had all of their entitlements and environmental permits. He suggested that if the MSHCP was adopted they would submit that appropriate language should be included to exempt projects such as Canyon Hills from the program. Ron LaPere,16867 Wells Street, indicated everyone in the audience saw this as a hard spot for the Council, but if it was possible to condition items from the County the City could follow the progress on the implementation. He suggested that the Council was damned either way right now, but should consider written additions to make their position clear to the County and watch to see that development occurred as intended. Page Fifty -Seven — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 Carmela Loelkes, 25190 Hancock Ave., Murrieta, expressed trust that the Council would consider adopting the MSHCP, as they had received information in support of the plan. She commented that the small landowners were left out of the plan. She indicated that as proposed, the plan was not perfect, but it would allow more developable land to be developed. She encouraged the Council to participate and not be left out, as most of the other cities had adopted the plan. Gail Barton, P. O. Box 1929, Fallbrook, thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak and for its cautious consideration. She noted the growth of the County and indicated that the MSHCP preserved open space, allowed for recreation and preserved the beauty of the County. She indicated that as a property owner in the criteria area, she supported the plan, and noted that the benefits outweighed the burdens. She further indicated that she would not want to be a property owner in a city that did not participate. She noted that he property adjoins the Southwest Multi- species Reserve, and her property was threatened by the recent fires, but because of the fire plan in place and the efficient response by the Reserve Manager, the back fines were set on the reserve and the lands outside were protected. She stressed consideration of the positive contributions the plan would make to the future of Lake Elsinore. Donna Franson, 7 Villa Valtelena, indicated that she was a 12 year resident of the City, and Chair of the Citizens for a Better Lake Elsinore. She advised that she had researched this issue for about six months and suggested that by accepting this plan, the Council would approve establishing another bureaucracy costing about $1 billion over the next ten years. She indicated that the City would be sued by property owners, as the plan would have an impact on their ability to build on their property. She noted that they would receive fair value for their property, but not anything close to the potential value if they were to build on their land. She questioned what would happen if the program ran out of funds; and expressed concern that much of the designated land was the most desirable for commercial and high -tech industrial. She suggested that not adopting the plan would save $1 billion, avoid eight pending lawsuits, and encourage business and land developers to provide more business opportunities. She indicated that she would support a reasonable plan, but was against the City being required to provide 7,800 acres. She asked that the Council plan for the future of Lake Elsinore and not adopt the plan. Ed Sauls, The Sauls Company, indicated that he did not envy the Council on this decision, and noted the amount of property impacted in the City_ He indicated that solutions had been found to address 6,700 dwelling units in the City and other Page Fifty -Eight — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 would be exempted by Development Agreements. He indicated that about 1,200 acres had not been resolved, but there was a willingness to work on solutions. He recommended adoption of the plan, with his study document attached as part of the resolution. He further recommended that the Council decide that the recommendations on the implementation were consistent with the MSHCP, as it would make life easier for the Council and the property owners, and remove uncertainties. He commented that no one was excited about the plan, and everyone would like improvements, but the Board of Supervisors had said that this was the plan. He indicated that the developers were forced to choose the best possible alternative, and after a review of the projects in the City, he would recommend adoption of the plan with specific conditions, such as the inclusion of his report. He commented on a number of general statements regarding the plan and reiterated the concern of Senator Hollingsworth that this was not a voluntary plan, and stressed that it represented about 80% of the undeveloped property in the City. Scott Woodward, resident of Murrieta, indicated that he had built a project here; and suggested that if the council did not approve the plan, it would delay the opportunity to move forward with growth and cause obstacles for building. He commented that it was not the best plan, but it was better than independent action. He indicated that it would protect 148 species for 75 years, and he would hate to see Lake Elsinore left out of the program. Bruce Colbert, representing the Property Owners Association of Riverside County, indicated that he outlined four key concerns on January 9*. He indicated that the first was the potential loss of revenues, which would be far greater than the Measure A funds allocated to the City. He expressed concern that the plan could result in more land being proposed for habitat than the current regulations would require. He expressed further concern that the plan used-an arbitrary approach, which was not based on the presence of species. He indicated that the proposed process was more burdensome that what was currently in place, and the plan was written to make the wildlife agencies the ultimate authority. He suggested that there was no reason to participate without some level of certainty. Jeff Drongesen, representing the California Department of Fish and Game, reiterated their support for the plan and assured the Council that they were dedicated to successful implementation of the plan. He indicated that after final approval, the final biological opinions would be finalized. Page Fifty -Nine — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 Frans Bigelow, representing Castle & Cooke, indicated that they were always in favor of the concept of the MSHCP, but he could not support this plan without changes. He expressed concern with the loss of local control in land use decisions and the seven step process for permits. He indicated that the biological assessments were not accurate, would impact taxes, and the ultimate judge and jury will be the resource agencies. He stressed that the rules would be based on the written word and not the County's interpretations. He suggested changing the words to reflect with the County says they mean. He suggested that the City should negotiate on the verbiage, while there was still some leverage. Darren Stroud, representing Castle & Cooke, indicated that they submitted a letter earlier which detailed their concerns with the MSHCP, from the legal and practical perspectives. He noted the volume of information provided and stressed that there were major problems with the plan as drafted. He specifically stressed the issues of local control, fiscal impacts and administrative burdens. He asked that the Council not rush into approvals tonight, despite the County deadline, and noted that it was arbitrary and self - imposed by the County. He noted ongoing federal litigation on the biological review, and indicated that even if the litigation was circumvented, the City could not be arbitrarily cut out without additional work. He indicated that Lake Elsinore is the key to the plan with 7,000 acres; and noted the linkages and corridors necessary for the plan. He addressed 14. 1 of the implementing agreement and indicated that the service could not issue permits until all parties have signed the implementing agreement. He indicated that Measure A funds could not be lost or become an issue for five years. He stressed the need to work out the issues and develop a better plan before it is adopted. Ed Fitzpatrick, Eastbridge Partners, indicated that this matter had been discussed for a long time; and noted the impacts of mitigation on the Ramsgate project. He commented that with the adoption of the MSHCP he would have the opportunity to sell some conservation land and develop a deal with the regulatory agencies. He noted his past negotiations with the County and assistance from the regulatory agencies to allow him to develop 260 parcels. He noted that he worked with the Sauls Group on their study and indicated that his project would suffer further loss without the MSHCP. He urged the Council to support the MSHCP. Jane Block, representing the Endangered Habitat League, indicated that she was still on the committee mentioned by Senator Hollingsworth and they have achieved many of their goals. She expressed hopes that the elected officials would consider existing agreements and noted that the majority of the reserve would be in place one way or another. She indicated that the MSHCP would Page Sixty — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 provide recreational opportunities, enhance the quality of life for all citizens and attract businesses. She expressed hopes that the City would make the MSHCP a success. Jim Lunger, 15391 Regatta Way, urged a yes vote on the MSHCP. He noted the 1988 approval of Measure A, by a nearly 4 to 1 margin; and the additional funding for transportation improvements, approved in 2002. He indicated that a yes vote on the MSHCP would provide funding of $38 million. He indicated that the failure to approve the program would cause the City to forfeit tax dollars, which would go back to the County. He suggested that the approval, would make projects easier for the developers. He encouraged a yes vote to keep tax money in the City and promote the City as managing resources in a good manner. Jim Lacey, Mayor Pro Tern of Dana Point, and representative of the Save Proposition 13 Committee, indicated that as a founding member of the Howard Jarvis Tax Croup he had long experience with Proposition 13. He advised that his organization was active in the opposition to the MSHCP. He presented a list of 884 homeowners who were opposed to this measure. He indicated that if the proposal was approved, project planning would be delayed and environmental specialist would be hit by the bureaucracy. He noted that the California Coastal Commission had not lived up to their promises; and indicated that as a Councilman in a coastal city, he knows that the Coastal Commission calls the shots. He suggested that adoption of the MSHCP would create another Coastal Commission to call the shots for the City. He addressed Measure A and indicated that they supported the Measure, because it was to help with infrastructure. He suggested that linking transportation to habitat was morally, voter fraud. He stressed that the City's arm was being twisted in an unfair way, as the plan was not well thought out and not properly funded Ed Roohan, President of Castle & Cooke, indicated that he was present to share brief views on the MSHCP. He indicated that the plan was hard work, put forth by good people, with great intentions, and while the concept is perfect, the application is too much and ill funded. He addressed the acreage involved and suggested that it was a massive environmentalist dream. He indicated that the proposed acreage could create an 8 lane highway from Los Angeles to New York, eight times. He commented that the County came up with the plan, but the resource agencies were the drivers, and the land owners did not have a chance to vote. He suggested that the plan would destroy land values, and he indicated that the voters were owed the chance to at least have good science say that it was well Page Sixty -One — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 funded. He urged the Council to oppose the land due to too much money, too much land and too much government. Michelle Staples, representing the Riverside County Farm Bureau, indicated that the Bureau had negotiated a workable framework and would like to support the MSHCP; however in its present form, as submitted, they could not do so. She advised that the MSHCP increases exposure of farmers and ranchers to the illegal take of endangered species, and does not provide a workable framework for agricultural land owners. She stressed the heavy burdens in fees, studies and permitting; and reiterated that they did not support the MSHCP because it would add to the regulatory burden. She indicated that they were working with the County to try to amend the plan for a workable solution and streamline the regulatory process. She requested that the Council not approve the plan. Ron Hewison, 35 Villa Valtelena stated that there was no dog in this fight. He indicated that he chose to move to Lake Elsinore instead of Temecula. He commented that it was interesting that Castle & Cooke would not commit to the Mayor in writing with regard to the corridor, but would ask that the County add words to gain their support. He suggested that generally the comments against the plan were subjective, and noted that Senator Hollingsworth did not say no. He indicated that Lake Elsinore was late in joining the process and should make the move and get in. He concurred that the action was taking a gamble, but suggested there was too much speculation. He agreed that the plan was not perfect, but recommended that the City move forward and try to negotiate. Norm Gritton concurred with Ed Sauls, Ed Fitzpatrick and Scott Woodward on their comments. He concurred that this was not a perfect plan, but at this point it was all that was available, even though the options were not good on either side. He suggested that with the money spent by the County, it would be very expensive for the City to create its own plan; and suggested that any one City could not fund creation of a better plan. He indicated that the problem with the environmental issues was that it was not getting any better and there would probably be more problems at the City level than at the County level. He suggested that joining the program was the best action for the City Council. Kathleen Hamilton, 42626 De Luz, indicated that joining the MSHCP, would give the City a chance to grow and create a lasting legacy for the future. Barry Jones, representing Helix Environmental, indicated that his firm was involved in 50 projects in Riverside County, and would benefit by the plan not Page Sixty -Two — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 being approved. He indicated that it would create more work for him, and while it was not a perfect plan it would be better for conservation. He indicated that as a landowner he sees it as a mechanism that is more user friendly to work with the County. He urged the Council to approve the plan. Eric Lunde noted that the reoccurring theme with this plan, was that there would be more requirements and administration, but the regulations today are already burdensome enough. He indicated that while the plan was far from perfect, it was superior to the current regulations. He noted that he was in escrow on a piece of property at the end of Main Street; and indicated that under the plan he could develop 750 units vs. no units without the plan. He suggested adoption of the plan, with conditions and if the doomsayers were correct, the City could opt out. He commented that it would be easier to opt out in the future than it would be to join in the future. He suggested that the agencies would take revenge and the bureaucracy would kill growth. He indicated that if the plan did not go through, he would probably not close on the property. He suggested that the plan was more of a win -win situation. He expressed hopes that the plan would be adopted. Ruth Atkins, 15237 Lake Trail Circle, commented on the Los Angeles County community of "Dairyland ", which was originally dairy farms, but is now concrete with no greenbelts. She expressed hopes that the Council would support the MSHCP for future generations of the City. Councilman Schiffer indicated that he had been involved in the program for about five years and had listened to hours and days of conversation from many people. He further indicated that he had read reams of documents, but he still did not know the answer to the problem. He commented that he had spoken with people on both sides of the argument, and good arguments had been presented tonight as well. He indicated that he could not disagree with anyone, but it was a very difficult decision and it was not possible to please both sides. He suggested that he would only be able, to the best of his ability, determine what he felt was in the best interest of the City of Lake Elsinore, and assumed that the rest of the Council would do the same. Councilman Hickman addressed Mr. Sauls and Mr. Lashbrook. He asked Mr. Sauls about his study of 15 builders and questioned the number of acres involved. Mr. Sauls indicated that it included 2700 acres to conservation, about 700 acres of voluntary participation. Councilman Hickman questioned the 3,836 acres of open space. Mr. Sauls indicated that included the properties within the sphere of influence, including some at the Lake Street off -ramp. Councilman Hickman Page Sixty -Three — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 asked Mr. Lashbrook how much acreage they wanted. Mr. Lashbrook indicated that was difficult to answer, but they would not need the high end of the possible range. He noted references to 7,800 acres, which it would not be; and suggested it might be possible to meet at 6,000 acres. He indicated that less than that would depend on the issues being discussed, configuration of the properties and the biological arguments. He was confident that 6,000 would meet the obligation, but noted that analysis was underway to look at a little more than 4,000 acres, which might meet it. He said his best estimate at this time was 6,000 acres or less. Councilman Hickman questioned the acreage for open space. Mr. Sauls indicated that it was his understanding that his property would be exempt from the multispecies plan, and they would not pay fees, as they had already been assessed. He noted that in the back basin there had been an agreement to contribute over 700 acres. He noted that the yellow areas in the study were the only ones that were still unresolved. Councilman Hickman addressed Mr. Lashbrook, and indicated that 7,870 acres was 47% of the existing vacant land; and stressed the impact that would have on the City's finances and growth. He suggested that anything over 6,000 was a problem, and stressed the issues it would create for the City. Mr. Lashbrook expressed recognition of the concerns and stressed it would not be the maximum numbers discussed. He indicated that Mr. Saul's numbers seemed to be in the range and he was sure it would be 6,000 acres or less. Councilman Hickman inquired how long it would take to buy the land. Mr. Sauls indicated that the total acquisition was just short of $23 million, and almost all of it was purchased or nearly funded. Councilman Hickman indicated that his only concern was that it was nearly in place. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley indicated that she was glad to have so many people say they felt for the Council on this decision. She stressed the difficulty of the decision, as the most difficult in the last eight years. She indicated that the difficulty was due to the fact that the program was in conflict with her personal beliefs. She suggested that as a society, human beings had gone crazy to save the species, over humans. She noted the impact of mitigation on fires and flooding. She stressed that the land designated would not be a greenbelt, but rather scrub, which can not be maintained. She noted the situation of a school being postponed because of a butterfly, when the schools are already full. She concurred with Senator Hollingsworth, and indicated that this plan was overboard and goes much further than is necessary. She noted the amount of information provided and indicated that it all depends on one's perspective. She indicated that she had heard from landowners who said they would loose their land, while other people Page Sixty- Four — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 have said the opposite. She noted that people at this meeting had said to make it work, and while she wished she could make it work, she had tried for almost four years. She concurred that there was a lot of arm twisting in this process, and expressed concern that it involved too much land, money and government. She stressed that it would create a costly bureaucracy and take 47% of the remaining developable land. She indicated that lots of property owners would be impacted. She stressed that while she would concur that greenbelts were needed, but this would not accomplish that as it would be scrub. She noted that the common thought is that no one likes the plan on either side; and questioned why it had not changed if no one liked it. She expressed disappointment that a better arrangement could not be found. She indicated that the concept was great, but it was creating another layer of government, taking dollars and increasing the price of homes. She stressed that the builder fees would be passed on to the homeowners, and there was already some difficulty affording homes in Lake Elsinore. She indicated that the plan was not being spread equally and Lake Elsinore was being impacted more than anyone. She stressed that there were still unknowns with regard to numbers and future costs. She commented that she had many concerns with the plan including the weighted vote, the costs to administer the plan, the amount of land involved the loss of revenue, the potential for litigation and the burdensome process. She stressed that she could not support the plan. Councilman Magee questioned when "bugs and bunnies" became so important and shared the disappointment and frustration of many people. He concurred that this plan had made the species more important than the school children, noting that kids would be in temporary facilities because of the Endangered Species Act and a butterfly. He indicated that he was asked to state a position on this matter last September at a forum; and commented that it was a good idea, but too costly and requiring too much of the City. He noted that the situation was still the same. He addressed Mr. Lsshbrook regarding his very pointed letter last week, and commended him on answering and addressing his concerns. He indicated that the possibility of an acreage reduction from 7,800 to 6,000 was a step in the right direction, and concurred that there was a need to indemnify the City against litigation. He addressed the acreage under negotiation, and expressed hope for a determination that 6,000 was the mark for the City for the next 75 years. He addressed Mr. Bigelow and noted that it was important to negotiate, while there was still some leverage; and the County would take that away if the plan was not passed tonight. He indicated that he had his arm twisted in his home, office and in the car on the cell phone; and noted that he had never had so many threats of lawsuits. He commented that information received today from Supervisor Page Sixty -Five — City Council Minutes —January 13, 2004 Ashley's representative helped him greatly, and clarified that when the HANS process was complete and an agreement reached on the acreage to be acquired, the permit process could be done by the City and a grading permit issued. He indicated this was the most important information, if it would allow work to move forward. He advised that for him to take the step to approve the plan, he would want the County to continue to work with the Sauls Report, and include other people, such as Castle & Cooke; and maintain the ability for the corridor to Orange County to got through Lake Street or Nichols Road. He further advised that if the County proceeds to acquire property, he would need the assurance that the City is not slitting its own throat and hurting the ability to maintain the corridor. He indicated that he could not agree to adopt the plan to sell that property and have it not be touched. He further indicated that he would want County staff, at no cost to Lake Elsinore, to use the people to draft and fund the conclusion that we have reached the threshold at or before 6,000 acres. He commented that he would also love to hear from Fish and Game that they would be a good partner and act in good faith. He indicated that he would need assurance they would be there to assist. He noted that he was still uncomfortable with where the City would be legally if the plan was adopted. He indicated that he would need the County and RSA to indemnify against all legal actions, if the MSHCP is approved. Supervisor Buster noted that there had been a number of cooperative projects between the City and the County. He indicated that while the plan was complex, the basis was simple, and the cooperative approach had the most strength and flexibility. He stressed the onerous requirements of the regulatory agencies, and reiterated the need for a collaborative approach. He noted the options accomplished to date, and indicated that the school would be able to proceed with approval of the plan. He commented that the City should not join the plan because the other cities have, but because it is right for the City of Lake Elsinore. He stressed the desire to work with the City to address the complexities of the issues. He indicated that the City would be a partner at the table, with extra voting power. Supervisor Ashley concurred with Supervisor Buster, and indicated that the solutions by Mr. Sauls were on the right track. He indicated that the statements and requests were reasonable with the right approach, and it should not allow a future corridor to be locked up. He indicated that he would support the considerations as outlined and he felt Supervisor Tavaglione would support them as well. Page Sixty -Six — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 Jeff Drongesen, representing the California Department of Fish and Game, thanked the Council for their question and indicated that they were here to stay and had support at high levels. He noted that he had been on both sides of the table and had participated in the planning process. He indicated that he was still involved in the plan and was present to show support for successful implementation. Councilman Magee questioned their commitment to the plan. Mr. Drongensen confirmed their commitment and noted that they had obtained a grant for this area specifically to assist with the plan. Councilman Magee inquired if 6,000 acres would satisfy them. Mr. Drongensen indicated that the numbers were flexible. Councilman Magee indicated that he would like to hear about the staffing for continued negotiations and a report making the finding that the requirement has been met. Mr. Lashbrook indicated that was always a discussion by the Supervisors, so he believed there was support on the Board to do so. He indicated that he did not see a problem in working with the projects for a cooperative venture between the City and County staff and the property owner groups. He advised that all of that information would go to the findings; and explained that the goal was to draft the findings, narrow them down and justify the acres that would be required and lay out the lines. Councilman Magee questioned the indemnification on the General Plan. Mr. Lashbrook indicated that they would indemnify all jurisdictions on issues relating to adoption of the MSHCP; however he clarified for full disclosure, that if the General Plan was amended, causing litigation, it would not be addressed He explained that the Board had said they would deal with cities in terns of providing litigation support. Councilman Magee questioned their willingness to work with other members of the development community. Mr. Lashbrook noted the discussion this evening and indicated that there was a desire to work with Castle and Cooke, noting that it would take two to negotiate. He indicated that with regard to the corridor, the held important land for potential roads, and that land would not be included in the reserve system. He assured Council they would work to resolve the issue. Mayor Buckley addressed the indemnification in Section 23 and suggested verbiage to show that RCHCA would indemnify the cities, which was the intent. Mr. Lashbrook indicated that the JPA document was a function of the authority, and while he had no person problem with the change, he would have to pass it on to the lawyers, and it would be a decision by the JPA. Mayor Buckley addressed the issue of weighted voting, and indicated that he would still maintain that it was a positive for the City, but noted an issues which had arisen on the matter. Page Sixty -Seven — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 Rick Bishop, representing WRCOG, addressed the weighted vote, and indicated that it would only be called for by a member of the board, to make sure that the vote is confirmed by both sides. He indicated that with regard to a veto of the weighted vote, both the Board and the cities would have to confirm the simple majority votes, so it would work both ways. Mayor Buckley addressed the map and concurred with Mr. Magee, that if it was just about "bugs and bunnies" he would agree. He indicated that it was more about including roads, such as the Trabuco Canyon alignment, at one of two locations. He commented that it was very possible that if the City did not participate in the MSHCP, that it would not have the possibility of that road. He indicated that he knew a lot of people who would be happy to have a quicker route to Orange County; and business owners who would love the jobs from Orange County to come to Riverside. He indicated that passing the MSHCP would not guarantee the road, but failure to do so would guarantee that it would not happen. He noted that with regard to property values, homes were scarcer, so existing home values would go up; and suggested that the MSHCP would increase the value of existing homes and encourage new homes to be of higher property values. He indicated that he heard a number of concerns about the plan, such as building a pool or deck requiring a new permit process, and a huge billion dollar bureaucracy; and stressed that someone from the Council would be sitting on the Board to decide what, when and where to buy property. He commented that the City did not have that power now with the State and Federal agencies. Mayor Buckley requested consideration of Resolution No. 2004 -10. Mayor Pro Tom Kelley questioned the resolution and if it would include the proposed changes. City Attorney Leibold clarified the required actions, noting that there were five actions, four tonight and the fifth being the hearing on the ordinance. She indicated that the first resolution related to the CEQA findings. Councilman Schiffiner requested that the votes on this matter be done by roll call vote. MOVED BY HICKMAN, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-10: RESOLUTION NO. 2004-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, MAKING RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINDINGS PURSUANT Page Sixty -Eight — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FO THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN/NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN AND APPROVING THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN/NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT OT THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER, BUCKLEY NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE City Attorney Leibold indicated that there was no need for discussion of the modifications to the implementing agreement. MOVED BY HICKMAN, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY TO APPROVE THE IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT FOR THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN/NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN. UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER, BUCKLEY NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Page Sixty -Nine — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 Mayor Buckley noted that there were a number of changes proposed for Resolution No. 2004 -11. Councilman Magee suggested that the City Attorney read the changes into the record. City Attorney Leibold detailed the proposed changes as follow: Section H Findings and Purpose — Addition of a recital C — In light of the current habitat acquisition trends and habitat acquisition requirements within the boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore, the MSHCP poses a risk of excessive land removal from the City's tax base. The City therefore finds that suitable controls are necessary to buffer this risk while maintaining an incentive for early habitat acquisition and ensuring that Lake Elsinore doesn't bear a disproportionate burden and become a mitigation bank to support development throughout the region. Section III — Application of Regulations — Addition of Paragraph A to read: "Implementation of the MSHCP and approval of (1) this Resolution, (2) City Council Resolution 2004 -10 makign responsible agency findings pursuant to CEQA, (3) the Implementing Agreement for the MSHCP, (4) the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement creating the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, and (5) an Ordinance establishing a Development Impact Fee in connection with the MSHCP (collectively, the "MSHCP Documents') is expressly conditioned upon approval by the City Council of each of the MSHCP Documents and where applicable, each and every party to the MSHCP Documents. Section IV — Exemptions, Paragraph C modified to read "Any project for which and to the extent that a vesting rights to proceed with the project notwithstanding the enactment of this Resolution exist under the common laws of the State of California, a vesting tentative map pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, a development agreement pursuant to Government Code section 65W et seq., or other instrument, approved or executed by the City prior to adoption of this Resolution. Projects subject to this exemption must comply with all provisions of any applicable state and federal laws. Section IV — Exemptions — Addition of New Section E to read: Any action by the City of Lake Elsinore that is ministerial, not a project subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA'), or Page Seventy — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 otherwise exempt pursuant to the provisions of CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines. Section V (A.1) Add "or a functionally similar Lake Elsinore Acquisition Negotiation Process ("LEAN"); or Add Section V (A.3) Several properties within the City of Lake Elsinore have undergone preliminary findings of consistency with the MSHCP. These properties include proposed development projects that are the current subject of ongoing negotiations with the MSHCP wildlife agencies with a few projects having been memorialized in a memorandum of understanding with the wildlife agencies. These projects include The Village, Alberhill, North Peak, Gritton, Simard, Clurman, Abusamra, Ramsgate, Greewald, Elsinore Lakeview Villas, Lakeview Estates, Tuscany Oaks, South Shore II, Colorado Pacific and Donlan. The current status of these projects concerning the MSHCP and preliminary findings of MSHCP consistency, is set forth in detail in Exhibit "A" to this Implementation Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. City Manager Watenpaugh questioned the list vs. the report. Mr. Sauls indicated that the sheet complimented the December 10, 2003 spiral bound report. MOVED BY SCRIFFNER, SECONDED BY MAGEE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-11, AS MODIFIED. RESOLUTION NO. 2004-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN. UPON 7 iIE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER, BUCKLEY NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY Page Seventy -One — City Council Minutes —January 13, 2004 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Mayor Buckley indicated that the Joint Powers Agreement was already adopted by the WRCOG Board and a number of other cities with certain changes. He commented that he was the City representative to WRCOG, but when it came to the shift of authority, he would ask Councilman Schiffner to sit on the RCA Board, if he wished. Councilman Schiffner commented that the changes might not be accepted by others on the Board. Mayor Buckley inquired how to proceed. City Attorney Leibold indicated that it would be important to make it clear that the actions were a proviso, that would need to be approved by all members or the City was not willing execute the agreement and the approval would go away. Mayor Buckley moved to approve the Joint Powers Agreement, but questioned the "one city, one supervisor" issue. City Attorney Leibold noted the earlier discussion was a proposal under Section 7.c: for "one member one vote, with each regular member or alternate having one vote at meetings of the Board", and the deletion of other voting provisions. Mayor Buckley indicated that would probably be the only issue. Councilman Schiffner suggested that the City Attorney read all of the changes. City Attorney Leibold concurred that should be part of the record, so the only way to understand the action would be to read it. Mayor Buckley clarified that if it was not approved in its entirety, then the approval would not stick and that might result in future negotiations. He indicated that he would like to allow RCA to meet the first Monday in February and have the changes before the RCA Board. He indicated that it they failed to agree the other three documents would stand, but the agreement would come back. Councilman Schifiner indicated that he would not support the agreement under those conditions. City Attorney Leibold clarified that any rejections of the changes to the JPA would come back to Council for reconsideration, but all items would not need to be reconsidered. Mayor Buckley noted that the fee ordinance would be for the first meeting in February. Councilman Schiffner suggested reading the proposed changes. City Attorney Leibold noted that there was a request for a joint exercise of powers agreement, creating the authority, with changes to the quorum in voting. She indicated that there was a concern that the agreement as proposed would provide Page Seventy -Two — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 the County with veto power, so the Council would recommend a change to that end with the addition of a new paragraph D under Quorum and Voting: D. Once the lower range of estimated conservation of habitat on private lands is fulfilled within the City of Lake Elsinore (i.e., upon MSHCP acquisition of 4,830 acres of private land within the City of Lake Elsinore), habitat 4cquisition funds through the HANS process, imposition of the MSHCP Fee, or funding otherwise provided through the MSHCP or RCA, shall only be permitted for acreage acquisition in the City of Lake Elsinore if both of the following are fulfilled: 1) the proposed acquisition and/or funding is submitted to the Funding Coordination Committee for approval and the City of Lake Elsinore representative (or majority of representatives present) votes affirmatively to authorize RCA approval of the acquisition and/or funding, and; 2) the City of Lake Elsinore representative to the RCA votes afCfirmatively to approve the acquisition and/or funding. City Attorney Leibold further addressed Section 15 of the Agreement and suggested the addition of the following verbiage: And: The Board shall not appoint more than two County representatives and small not appoint committee members in a manner that dilutes any City representation to less than 1117' of the total representation of the committee. Once 75% of the lower range of estimated habitat conservation has been achieved within the City of Lake Elsinore (3,623 acres), acquisition of private lands within the County and other participating jurisdictions shall be prioritized by the Funding Coordination Committee. City Attorney Leibold suggested that Section 19 regarding Contributions and Budget be amended to read: The Parties to this Agreement shall impose a development mitigation fee on all new development to support the acquisition of additional reserve lands pursuant to the MSHCP. All development mitigation fees collected Page Seventy -Three — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 by the Parties shall be forwarded to the RCA within ninety (90) days after receipt by each Party, subject to any specific exception set forth in the ordinances implementing the development mitigation fees for the individual participating cities. The RCA may, in its discretion, conduct an audit of the development mitigation fees collected by any Party to this agreement. Likewise, participating cities may, in their discretion, conduct an audit of the development mitigation fees forwarded to the RCA and expended by the RCA for property acquisition. City Attorney Leibold suggested that Section 23 be amended to read: The RCA shall defend, indemnify and hold such Parry free and harmless from any loss, liability or damage incurred or suffered by such Party by reason of litigation arising from or as a result of any of the following: the Party's development mitigation fee ordinance; the Party's participation in the RCA; actions taken to approve and/or implement the MSHCP; claims of inverse condemnation or unconstitutional takings against a Party; or any other act performed or to be performed by the Party pursuant to this Agreement, the MSHCP, its Implementing Agreement or the Permits; provided however, that such indemnification or agreement to hold harmless pursuant to this Section shall be recoverable only out of RCA assets and not from other Parties. For purposes of this Section 23, the phrase "actions taken to approve and/or implement the MSHCP include, without limitation; (a) a Party's execution of a resolution making responsible agency findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act in reliance on lead agency finding made by the County of Riverside; (b) Party actions or omissions of implementation of the MSHCP that result in litigation against the Party for violations of q California Planning and Zoning Law; and (c) Party withdrawal from implementation of the MSHCP in accordance with the terms of the Implementing Agreement (Section 22.0 et seq). For purposes of this Section 23, the phrase "actions taken to approve and/or implement the MSHCP include, without limitation: (a) a Party's execution of a resolution making responsible agency findings pursuant of the California Environmental Quality Act in reliance on lead agency finding made by the County of Riverside; (b) Party actions or omissions of implementation of the MSHCP that result in litigation against the Party for violations of California Planning and Zoning Law; and (c) Party Page Seventy-Four — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 withdrawal from implementation of the MSHCP in accordance with the terms of the Implementing Agreement. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY MAGEE TO APPROVE THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS DETAILED. UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER, BUCKLEY NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE City Attorney Leibold noted that the Council would need to schedule a noticed hearing on the fee Ordinance. „r MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BUCKLEY TO PROCEED WITH NOTICING THE HEARING FOR THE FEE ORDINANCE. UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HICKMAN, MAGEE, SCHIFFNER, BUCKLEY NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON- AGENDIZED ITEMS 3 MINUTES No Comments. Page Seventy -Five — City Council Minutes — January 13, 2004 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS No Comments. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS No Comments. COMMITTEE REPORTS No Reports. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS No Comments. ADJ,OCRNMENT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11:58 P.M. ,MAYOR CITY OF A TEST: C AD, CMC, CITY CLERK/ HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE