Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-25-2001 City Council Study SessionMINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, JAN UARY 25, 2001 ........................................................................, CALL TO ORDER Mayor Schiffner called the City Council Study Session to Order at 3:10 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilwoman Kelley led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY, PAPE, SCHIFFNER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY, METZE Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, Deputy City Attorney McClendon, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Services Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, City Engineer O'Donnell, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, Public Works Manager Payne, Planning Manager Villa, Lake Operations Manager Kilroy, City Treasurer Ferro, Planning Commissioner Polk, Planning Commissioner Nash and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. DISCUSSION Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP~. (F:76.3) City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that Council had requested that the County return and present more information on the program. He introduced Mr. Rick Bishop, Executive Director of Western Riverside Council Of Governments. Mr. Bishop indicated that future growth was a huge issue and the County estimated an increase in population of 100,000 per year between now and the year 2030. He noted that the County was taking a very ambitious approach and visionary plan known as the Riverside County Integrated Project. He further noted that there were three parts of the Project. He indicated that the Study Session for the MSHCP was one part of the project; but it also includes a comprehensive General Plan for the unincorporated area, and Transportation needs. He stated that it was important to look at the sub regional and regional approaches. Mr. Bishop stated that it was his understanding that after the Council heard the information in PAGE TWO - STUDY SESSION - JANLTARY 25, 2001 October, additional information was requested and it was his hope that the Co~cil woul~, obtaxn add~,~ional details as they pertain tb the Multi-Species aspect of fhe plan. He indicated that he had been trying to encourage the members of WRCOG to be engaged in the process and not be merely observers. He encouraged Council to be candid in their comments to the County and their consultant team. He stated that he hoped this would not be the last meeting between all of the entities and Council regarding this issue, as well as the other components of the Integrated Project. He introduced Ms. June Collins, representative of Dudek and Associates. Ms. Collins presented a screen presentation of Alternative I, addressing the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan and how it directly affects the City of Lal~e Elsinore. She indicated that Alternative I, represented approximately 12,000 acres of habitat. She noted the concentrations of plant and animal life in the City of Lake Elsinore and emphasized the necessity to preserve open space. She explained that the California Gnat Catcher was a key species with a core area in the City of Lake Elsinore and further emphasized the necessity of keeping a linkage between Lake Matthews and Lake Skinner. She further explained that Lake Elsinore was the only location in Western Riverside County that contained the plant Ambrosia Plumera. She listed the.other animal and plants that were found on the endangered list and commented that the MSHCP ob~ective was to streamline projects for the future, therefore the goal was to conserve up to 164 species. She presented a database for the total species conservation and noted the importance of connecting areas and steep slopes for habitat. She presented an overview of the CTAP Corridors and explained that the main purpose of the MSHCP was to streamline the process. City Manager Watenpaugh asked Community Development Director Brady to address the maps on exhibit. Community Development Director Brady explained that the 1 st exhibit showed the amount of vacant land in the City of Lake Elsinore and noted that some of the areas indicated had entitlements. He noted that Alternative I, presented a range between 8,500 and 10,300 acres of land that would be required within the City. He noted that 10,000 acres is appro~mately'/z of the vacant acreage within the City (not including the Lake). He explained that there was approximately , 16,621 acres of vacant land, and if the higher number were required it , would constitute approacimately 62% of the vacant land within the City for habitat area. He indicated that areas, which were already open space, would count toward a portion of the required acreage. He noted that a lot of vacant land was in the Country Club Heights area, as well as infill lots. PAGE THREE - 5TUDY SESSION - JANUARY 25, 2001 Councilwoman Kelley stated that she could appreciate the desire to be visionary, however the plan had not changed much from the plan that was presented to Council in October. She expressed her opposition to the plan. She noted that the City of Lake Elsinore was being asked to give up 28% of the total acreage, which amounted to appro~mately 50% of the City's total land. She noted that the fiscal impact would amount to a loss of approximately $45 million in revenue to the City. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that it would amount to $45 million at build out on just four Specific Plans and not the balance of the developable land in the City. Councilwoman Kelley commented that she saw no equity in the Plan and compared the amount of acreage that would be required from Lake Elsinore versus the other cities. She indicated that there was a need to do further work on the Plan and asked what consideration had been given to private property rights. She stated that she had heard that the Plan would offer $2,000 an acre, which would be considerably under market value. She asked if that was an accurate amount. Richard Lashbrook, Transportation Land Management Agency, stated that the Plan anticipates paying market value for all the properties acquired. He indicated that they had used, for their preliminary estimates, a fair market value of between $8,000 and $9,000; recognizing that the range was between $1,500 at the low end and $50,000 or more at the high end. Councilwoman Kelley asked what the plan would cost in its entirety. Mr. Lashbrook stated that the current estimate, over a 20-year period, could range as high as $1.5 Billion. Councilwoman Kelley asked where the money would come from. Mr. Lashbrook stated that the proposed strategy breaks implementation into three broad categories; 1) some degree of conservation that would occur through the implementation of existing rules, policies and procedures of State and Federal Law; 2) A proposed package of incentives such as a shift of density would be allowed; and 3) Funding would be split with 1/3rd of the cost borne by new development fees, 1/3rd spread broadly through various funding mechanisms, and 1/3rd from State and Federal Government participation. Councilwoman Kelley clarified that a portion of the funding would come from developers and would be passed on to the homeowner and in turn would impact the City. Mr. Lashbrook stated that under the Federal Endangered Species Act there was an obligation on new development to mitigate its impacts. Councilwoman Kelley commented that it was her opinion that since Lake Elsinore had a large amount of undeveloped that the City was being penalized and was being expected to mitigate for all the other cities that have built out and did not mitigate. She stated that she did not think it was fair and felt that the developers should revolt. Mr. L,ashbrook agreed that it was not fair and noted that Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside and San Diego have had tremendous amounts of development and much of the development was not mitigated. Councilwoman Kelley asked why the City of Lake PAG~ FUUR - STUDY SESSIOIV - JANUARY 25, 2001 Elsinore should mitigate for them. Mr. Lashbrook explained that Western Riverside County was faced with an ever-tightening circle of development and Lake Elsinore, the Unincorporated Area and other jurisdictions are the last remaining areas of habitat in Southern California. Councilwoman Kelley stated that the City of Lake Elsinore was mitigating for everyone else and it would cost the City $42 million annually. Mr. Lashbrook indicated that Western IZiverside County was trying to deal with a problem, and that problem was a result of development practices throughout Southern California. Councilwoman Kelley asked what was proposed to make the City whole again as far as tax revenue and loss of anticipated taY revenue. She noted the problems for the private property owner and asked what the City should do. Mr. Lashbrook addressed the private landowner and noted that acquisitions would take place at fair market value and people would be compensated for their property. He e~lained that from the City perspective, as indicated last time, the MSHCP was being proposed as a solution to a problem that Western Riverside County faces. He indicated that it would be the City's decision to choose the best alYernative and explained that if the Council believed it was in the City's best interests not to participate in the Plan they could seek the City's own habitat plan; or to leave it up to each developer to attempt to get permits. He stated that Council should balance their vision for the City, what the options are, and whether the MSHCP was an alternative that worked for the City, and offers advantages over the status quo today and over what the future holds. He further noted that the County could not mandate the Plan on the City. Councilwoman Kelley stated that what was presented was the same plan that was presented in October and Council was opposed to the Plan then. She indicated that she was vehemently opposed to the Plan and felt that Lake Elsinore would be assuming responsibility for everyone else. She noted that there was no verbiage as to how this was going to be maintained; who would take care of the habitat; and the related costs. She commented on the studies to discover the habitat for the different species that live on the land and noted that a great deal of the information comes from the developer's EIR and she opposes that practice. She asked if an overall study had been done to determine that a species actually inhabits the area, or if it was an area that the species might like. She stated that it was her opinion that what had occurred was that the area looked like the type of area that the species might wish to inhabit; therefore it was called out as a habitat. She stressed that she was not happy with the Plan, and that it had not been changed since October, and she could not support the Plan. COUNCII,MAN METZE ARRIVED AT 4:17 P.M. Councilman Pape concurred with Councilwoman Kelley and stated that the plan for compensation indicated that it would be done over a twenty-year period. He noted that this would place some property PAGE FIVE - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 25, 2001 owners in a position of waiting as long as twenty years and in the meantime they would have to pay taxes without the ability to liquidate or develop their property. Mr. Lashbrook stated that they would be acquiring property as money was a~ailable, as well as establishing priorities based on the desire to develop. Councilman Pape stated that there was one way that he could support the Plan and explained that as the properties were purchased the City would be compensated for estimated loss of one-time fees that the City would have received, which would amount to approximately $45 million on the 10,000 acres and from that point on an annual payment of $14.5 million annually. He indicated that as each property was purchased a check would be cut for the property owner and one for the City; annually the City would receive compensation far lost tax revenue; and then the City could be healthy and the birds would have their land. Mr. Lashbrook stated that the Plan was a"we" and not a"they". He explained that they were proposing the plan, however the County was not attempting to "do" this to the City, but rather seeking support for the Plan to resolve the issues faced by Western Riverside County. He further explained that if the City chooses not to support the Plan, it was the City's alternative. Councilman Pape indicated that if - Beaumont and Murrieta were to align with Lake Elsinore and not participate in the Plan, then that would constitute the loss of approximately 60% of the acreage and asked if there would even be a plan without their participation. Mr. Lashbrook stated that issue had not been examined, since it was their hope that all the entities would participate. He indicated that as more and more land was removed from the Plan, coverage would not be achieved for some species. Councilman Pape asked if anyone from Beaumont or Murrieta was excited about this Plan. Mr. Lashbrook stated that at the last WRCOG Meeting a number of concerns were expressed, however the general sentiment was to continue on with the effort, recognizing the concerns of the jurisdictions. Councilman Metze stated that the question was if Beaumont was behind the Plan. Mr. Lashbrook stated that no City had signed off on the final Plan. He stated that there was no final Plan to sign off on. Councilman Pape asked what the time frame was for the final Plan. Mr. Lashbrook stated that it was hoped that the Plan would be available for public review the middle of this year and by the last of this year or the first of neat year would be in the hearing process, which would include hearings with the City of Lake Elsinore. Councilman Pape asked what would happen between now and a year from now. Mr. Lashbrook stated that development would continue. Councilman Pape asked how much more needed to be done to the Plan. Mr. Lashbrook indicated that there was still a great deal more that needed to be done. He noted that the consultant, Dudek, was just begimling to do a more detailed conservation analysis which was the development of specific criteria, which would tailor what the preserve actually looks like and indicated that the areas outlined are much larger than the ultimate preserve configuration. He further indicated that it was the additional analysis and development of the criteria that PAGE 5IX - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 25, 2001 would allow the City and County to know, in much greater detail, what the actual final preserve configuration would look like. Councilman Pape suggested that it might be beneficial for the committee and consultants to have a Plan "A" and a Plan "B", showing very little participation amongst some areas. He noted that Community Development Director Brady had mentioned that Country Club Heights was not suitable for a habitat area and suggested that no area be written off, because of some of the "Environmental Wackos". He noted the incident at Railroad Canyon and I-15 Freeway and noted that the lots were graded; curb, gutter and sidewalk were installed; and because of the recession weeds grew up and the Wackos tried to declare it a habitat area. He stated that he would not write off any area if those types of people were willing to look at finished lots as habitat area. He commented that if the habitat were not there, then it would not be desirable, and if there was an unfortunate incident where there was a fire and the habitat was gone, then it would be open for development. Ms. Collins stated that all they had were concepts and on December 19, 2000, the County Board of Supervisors directed Dudek to go forward and begin to refine their concept. She noted that their real detailed work was just beginning and as part of that work they would be analyzing the habitats in detail and obtaining "Take Authorization" for all species the stakeholders and the participating jurisdictions wished to see permitted. She stated that they would be coming forward with more detailed information and would begin to demonstrate to the jurisdictions and developers, which were dealing with Endangered Species Act issues, options as to potential solutions. Councilman Pape stated that one of the things mentioned was it would encourage higher density and was just the opposite of what the Council had been trying to promote for development in the community. He noted that habitat could not be utilized for any activity and he felt that it was just wasted space. He further noted that it was also mentioned that some of the money would come from Measure "A" funds and e~lained that as the City's representative to RCTC he would definitely vote against using that money for habitat. He commented that Measure "A" funds should be used for new roadways and improvement of existing ones and not for habitat. He suggested that a Plan "B" should be developed. Mr. Lashbrook stated that one of the reasons that the County Board of Supervisors and RCTC embarked on this effort was a concern that unless Western Riverside County addressed the Endangered Species issue that there would be no further building of transportation infrastructures. Councilman Pape stated that he fully supported the full concept in lying out the arterial roadways, however to ask the City to put up 62% of its vacant land was not reasonable. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that Mr. Lashbrook was present to PAGE SEVEN -;STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 25, 2001 , represent a Plan that the County was attempting to do to meet Federal Guidelines. He noted that it was not Mr. Lashbrook or the County that was saying, "This is the Plan", rather it was the County presenting an opportunity and the City could call its own shots. He explained that it was the Federal standards that the Plan was trying to comply with. Councilman Pape apologized for any sense of personal attack. Councilwoman Kelley stated that she could appreciate Mr. Lashbrook's position, however it was the County's Plan to solve the problems, and Council was telling Mr. Lashbrook that they did not like the County's Plan. She noted the amount of acreage required of Lake Elsinore and Beaumont and compared it to the other communities. She commented on a builder who had satisfied his obligation for wildlife, and now Fish and Wildlife has come back and told him that he have to divvy up another 4.2 acres because of the MSHCP which had not been adopted. She asked what commitment Fish and Wildlife had to this plan. Mr. Lashbrook stated that Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife are partners in the integrated project. He explained that they have the responsibility to enforce the Endangered Species Act. Councilwoman Kelley stated that all the jurisdictions could agree to the Plan and Fish and Wildlife could still come along and say that they needed more. Mr. Lashbrook stated that Fish and Wildlife cannot act on a Plan that was not formally before them, however they have been participants in the Planand should the Plan be achieved, both U.S. Fish and Wildlife and State Fish and Game would permit it. Councilman Metze concurred with Councilwoman Kelley. He commented on the fact that if Beaumont, Lake Elsinore and Murrieta did not participate in the Plan, then there would be no alternate plan to address the issue. He stated that Mr. Lashbrook did not answer whether Beaumont was in favor of the Plan or not. NIr. Lashbrook stated that he could not answer, because he did not know. He stated that they had a number of concerns regarding certain aspects of the Plan and he did not know what they would ultimately do. He indicated that the County could look at an alternative that excluded various jurisdictions and it would not impact the Plan, however it would impact the number of species that would be preserved. - Councilman Metze asked for a direct answer in regard to the reaction of the City of Beaumont to the Plan. He stated that he only requested a direct answer and felt that he did not receive it. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the City of Beaumont's City Council had similar concems to those of the City of Lake Elsinore. He stated that they were still working at trying to decide what direction they would go. Councilman Metze stated that he felt that the County should have an alternate plan. He asked if there was someone from the building industry that could tell him if all they were looking to get fair PAGE EIGHT - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 25, 2001 market value for their property or did they look for more. One of the developers in the audience stated that it was not just a matter of land, but also the cost of engineering and studies that occur prior to approaching the different entities to start a project. He asked if the MSHCP was going to reimburse the property owners for their investment to date, as well as fair market value. Councilman Metze stated that property owners and developers were looking to get more than fair market value for their property, and if the City adopted the Plan, it would create a situation that would stop development. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that since the City did not know how many acres would come out of Ramsgate; until Ramsgate comes forward to develop there would be no way to know how many acres would be required of that property. Councilman Metze stated that it looked as though the whole City had been incorporated into the Plan. Councilman Pape questioned if 62% of the City's vacant land were designated as habitat, how much opportunity was there for the existing businesses to grow. He noted the inability to attract new business if the community could not grow. He commented that the total of approved Specific Plans consisted of 186 acres of commercial land. He noted the amount of land available in the County. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that the 60% figure is for all three cities and not just Lake Elsinore. He explained that the City's conservation would be somewhere between 18% to 24% of the Plan and the County's was somewhere in the range of 76% to 82%. Mr. Lashbrook stated that the majority of the conservation would be done in the unincorporated area. Councilman Pape asked if there was an advisory committee for the Multi Species. Mr. Lashbrook stated that there was an advisory committee for the Integrated Plan and they did provide input. Councilman Pape asked if there had been discussion in regard to compensation to the cities. Mr. Lashbrook stated that the issue had been raised and noted that the unincorporated area would suffer a significant reduction in the amount of developable acres. He explained that it was not equitable in regard to habitat and species, since the species exist where they exist. He explained that the Plan reflected, to their best knowledge, what was found on the ground. He noted that they didn't set out to focus on one area over another and what was presented was due to the analysis of the species. Mayor Schiffner stated that he understood the position of the County and that the County was trying to put together a plan that would satisfy some of the requirements of the Federal Agency. He further , stated that he understands that Mr. Lashbrook was not necessarily trying to sell the Plan and that he was just trying to present it. He explained that he had no animosity towards Mr. Lashbrook, his staff, or the consultants, however he did believe that in their own minds they would consider the City very foolish to buy into a program that had such a drastic effect on the City. He noted the area of the maximum outside perimeter and stated that one of the things that would draw that perimeter in, was when someone tried to develop a PAGE NINE - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 25, 2001 large piece of land, then that property would be part of the final choice. He noted the cost when the developer was required to donate a large piece of land. He commented that all of the land shown in the e~ibit was in jeopardy. He further commented that no one could build in those areas without the chance of running into a problem and having to donate. He noted that small development did not have enough acreage to bother with major fees, however major land developers will be asked to bear the cost. He further stated that the Council did not find the situation acceptable. Mayor Schiffner stated that Council could go on working through the pros and cons of the Plan, however he felt that it was important to make the best choices possible. He asked if Council turned down Plan "A", what would be the alternative. Mr. Lashbrook stated that he could offer opinions, however he felt that those questions should be asked of the City's staf£ City Manager Watenpaugh noted that some of the other options were that the City could work to develop our own MSHCP within City Limits, or the City could join with other cities to develop their own MSHCP. He commented that one of his concerns was that it was his understanding that when development comes forward, urbanization was to happen within city boundaries and counties were to be rural services. He explained that it seemed to him that in Western Riverside County there had been a tremendous amount of urbanization within the County; which should be in the City; the City __ was being asked to provide mitigation for that development with all the revenue going outside the City Limits. He stated that he did not know how the City would get over the revenue change and the e~cisting Plan would create a no growth issue for the City of Lake Elsinore. Mayor Schiffner asked when the program would become a part of the rules. Mr. Lashbrook stated that it would be jurisdiction by jurisdiction buying into the program. He noted that the County was expected to adopt the program late this year or early ne~ year and if the City did not adopt the program it would not become effective. He stated that what would,constrain development was not the Plan; it would be the Endangered Species Act. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that Canyon Lake Hills, which was being developed by Pardee, had met their mitigations and were moving forward. He explained that until such time as the Plan was adopted by the City and taken before Fish and Wildlife, Ramsgate would continue to negotiate on their project alone. Councilwoman Kelley stated that the County had heard the CounciPs dissatisfaction with the proposal in October. She asked if it was the intention of the County to go back to the drawing board and try to iron out the problems and concerns or was the proposed plan just "it". Mr. Lashbrook stated that what they proposed was in the next few months PAGE TEN - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 25, 2001 Dudek would be developing a more detailed criteria. He explained that he felt there was a potential for the City and some of the large property owners, during that time, to look at how a more detailed plan would impact the development potential of the property. He noted that at the end of the study period they could see if it was something that would work. Councilwoman Kelley clarified that they would not consider taking another look at the Plan, but rather that the developers need to reexamine the plan and be more satisfied with it. Mr. Lashbrook stated his dilemma was that the data states the City of Lake Elsinore has significant populations of a variety of species and the County could not seek coverage for those species or the Lake Elsinore area. Councilwoman Kelley stated that she had a problem with the way the data was collected and felt that the builders damaged themselves. Mayor Schiffner asked where the County would be at since it was apparent that the City of Lake Elsinore and other jurisdictions would not become a part of the program. Mr. Lashbrook explained that they would be taking the Plan back to the County Board of Supervisors and noted that they have reached a critical junction and they will either do the analysis, including the cities or excluding them. He indicated that they needed to know if the City was going to participate. Councilman Pape stated that he felt that there was no doubt about the City being out of the Plan. Councilman Metze asked what they would do if 70% of the cities decide to withdraw from the Plan. Mr. Lashbrook stated that if all the cities stayed out, then they would be down 20% of the property since the unincorporated area had the vast majority of the land that was required for the plan. Councilman Schiffner stated that for many of the cities, as well as the County area, it would be their advantage to go ahead with it, because the whole plan was in jeopardy and once it was established it would take some of their property out and would place it on the City of Lake Elsinore's shoulders. He commented that he could understand why they would want the plan, since it would permanently exclude some of their area. He indicated that it was obvious that the City of Lake Elsinore would not enter into the program. He commented that the City would like to remain part of the process for educational purposes, however the City would not be interested in being part of it. Mayor Schiffner called for public comment. Ted Hillock, Temecula, commented that if someone bought into this program and the County paid for the acreage it would require the use PAGE ELEVEN - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 25, 2001 of some State and Local t~es. He noted that with the passage of proposition 218 there was a need for 2/3rds-voter approval. He indicated that as a worse case scenario, if the cities buy into the program; acreage was acquired; a taxpayers group files an objection; ' the project would go in limbo. He stated that even if it were approved - the problems would have only just begun. He noted developer's fees and stated that a tax group could object to that as well. He asked how it would pass muster to be legitimately paid for. Mary Venerable, Lake Elsinore, commented that the State and Federal Government Endangered Species Act had dictated the requirements for the plan and the study. She asked if there were any alternatives to moving the species to another location and asked if there were any provisions in the Act to provide for that. Ms. Collins, representative of Dudek, stated that translocation and transplantation could be an aspect of overall mitigation, however there was a need to meet the scientific standards of the Endangered Species Act. She noted that a finding must be made to establish that the transplantation could be effective to allow habitat to be moved. She noted that transplantation had not been very successfizl to date. Councilman Metze clarified that if an area was identified as a _ potential area for a Gnat Catcher, it didn't mean that there was a Gnat Catcher in that area. Mayor Schiffner concurred. Ms. Collins stated that current status. She noted that the EIR for Alberhill does show there were 20 pairs of Gnat Catchers in that area. Mayor Schiffner commented that in answer to Ms. Venerable's question regarding the transplantation, much of the land was considered habitat, however the land was identified as the kind of area that the species would habitat and not that the species actually inhabited the area. Ms. Collins stated that in some locations they were using landscape or habitat base approach to conservation planning and that was well grounded in the literature. Councilman Pape noted that the Gnat Catcher habitat goes all the way down into Mexico and there was a close relationship to the Gnat Catcher found here to the ones in Mexico. He further noted that the biologists stated there wasn't any scientific difference between the two and they are abundant in Mexico. Ms. Collins concurred and stated the Federal Endangered Species Act cannot rely on conservation across international boundaries. A local property owner addressed Council and questioned the broad stroke that was being used to designate habitat. He stated that he felt it was a form of down zoning and since people could not build on their property they had to pay taxes on, they would sell cheap and then Fish and Wildlife would have the ability to pay less. PAGE TWELVE - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 25, 2001 Bob Paul, property owner, concurred with the previous speaker. He stated that by virtue of releasing a draft of the Plan puts a cloud on all the property mentioned. He noted that any person who owns property has had their investment drop significantly, since nobody would buy the property. Mayor Schiffner stated that Fish and Wildlife had jurisdiction over all the property and it would require dealing with them. He e~lained that the plan was merely a way to narrow down the area that Fish and Wildlife had jurisdiction over. Mayor Schiffner further explained that the City still had it all to fight, however by agreeing with the proposed Plan it would give away that part of the property. He stated that in his opinion he would be opposed to it, because the City might as well hang on to the property and fight when the time came, keeping in mind that it was not free to develop without dealing with Fish and Wildlife. Tammy Walsh, Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce EDC, stated that there were several developers in the area who had invested a great deal of money in going through the permitting process to develop the land that they own. She noted that currently there were several looking into that process as well. She stated that when there was discussion regarding fair market value, and if the MSHCP came in to buy the land, did that mean so much per acre plus what had been invested to date. She asked how it would be determined what the pay'ment would be. She asked how much Federal land was in the plan. Mr. Lashbrook stated that approximately 350,000 acres are in existing conservation, which is made up of State land, Federal land and e~sting conservation areas resulting from the SKR and other conservation. He indicated that in terms of valuation, any acquisition is a negotiation with the property owner. He explained that it was the intent of the plan to work with the property owner, get an appraisal, and negotiate a price. Councilman Metze noted that the property owner could wait forever and pay taxes at the same time. He stated that from the time the map was released, their property lost value. He stated that if the Government takes their time and the property owner can't sell, the property would go into foreclosure or on a delinquent tax roll and the Government could get it cheap. He stated that the City was being asked to place the landowners in a tough position. Mr. Lashbrook stated that the Advisory Committee and the Board of Supervisors had, throughout the plan, stressed that they wanted to do this in a way that was equitable to the property owner and assure them that land would be acquired at a fair market value. He stated that the issue had been raised in the past and the Advisory Committee was determined to craft a plan that was fair and equitable. Councilman Metze stated that it was obvious how ridiculous Fish and Wildlife could be given the example that Councilman Pape gave. PAGE THIltTEEN - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 25, 2001 Mayor Schiffner stated that Fish and Wildlife had the authority whether the City liked it or not. Mr. Lashbrook noted that because he was the head of the Transportation Land Management Agency, whatever problem the City had experienced with Fish and Wildlife had been equal or greater for his agency. He noted that his agency had spent years trying to get approval for River Road Bridge because of environmental issues. He stated that the reason the County got involved was because if local and County Government didn't get control locally, they would continue to be at the will of the State and Federal Regulatory Agencies. Mr. Lashbrook stated that he had been asked if the County could create a plan that did not affect the City of Lake Elsinore, and the answer was the County could work with the City and try different alternatives, however the City of Lake Elsinore had a significant issue to deal vs~ith, whether it was done with the County or on their own. Mayor Schiffner stated to make this plan work would be too costly to the City to be involved with it. Councilman Pape noted that there was already 357,000 acres in existing reserves and the projected addition would be an additional 150,000 acres. He asked when enough was enough. Ms. Collins explained that as part of the alternative development process, they looked at adding to the existing 357,000 acres of reserves with private acreage that ranged from 40 to the 150,000 acres that were presented. She noted that the advisory committee and all the various entities looked at the acreage in detail. She noted that the County Board of Supervisors on December 19, 2000 directed Dudek to move forward on Alternative I. She stated that the consequence of looking at the lesser alternatives was that the number of species that could get covered reduces significantly. She noted that it was the decision of the Board to proceed with as robust a plan as possible, containing as long a species list as possible, to avoid future problems. Mayor Schiffner clarified that the acreage that Dudek identified was driven by locating the species and not by establishing the amount of acreage that was desired. Ms. Collins concurred. She presented an overview of the process of preparing the discovery of species. Mayor Schiffner confirmed that if all the cities went along with the 164 species, there would be nothing that prevented the Federal Agency from identifying - additional species and then all the cities would be back to same old problem. Ms. Collins stated that the Federal and State Agencies would be signatory to the permit and would be signing to the agreement. She e~lained that one of the clauses that they were working on was a"No Surprises" clause, which stated that if new species listing should come up in the future and are located where entities have a permit for habitat conservation plan, the responsibility for seeing to the survival and recovery for new listed species would not fall to the local jurisdiction. Mayor Schiffner asked PAGE FOURTEEN - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 25, 2001 about an agreement in San Diego County where additional species had been identified and they were back to ground zero. Ms. Collins stated that there were problems in San Diego County with the Keno Checker Spot Butterfly, which was also found in Western Riverside County as well. She noted that the Keno Checker Spot Butterfly was not included on their original species list for the Multiple Species Conservation Program and it was her firms' goal to avoid that problem. Planning Commissioner Nash suggested the Riverside County Integrated Project Committee that works with the MSHCP, bring back something that includes the City of Lake Elsinore's 800 acres of water shed which includes some of the listed species. He further suggested that the Committee address the level and quality of water including assistance with funding for the watershed. He commented that if there were no'water or water of poor quality all of the animals would die anyway. He commented that if Fish and Wildlife, and Fish and Game were pushing so hard for the protection of endangered species they should also be concerned with water quality and preservation of the watershed. Jim Miller, Development Services Director for the City of Murrieta, stated that he had worked on two separate Multi Species Plans and represented the City of Murrieta. He noted that what the City of Lake Elsinore was facing was exactly what the City of Murrieta was facing. He indicated that they also faced some serious economic issues and noted that what he felt should be the focus was the fact that it was a Federal Issue. He noted that the Federal Resources Agencies argue about animals and plants on a regional basis, however the Plan had to be drawn on jurisdictional boundaries. He noted that what was not shown on the Map immediately west of the City of Lake Elsinore was the largest Cmat Catcher habitat far Orange County. He stated that he had never been convinced that a Gnat Catcher habitat couldn't be created that started at Diamond Valley Lake; then south through Vail and Skinner; to the Pechanga Reservation; south to San Diego; Back to Camp Pendleton; and back into the Cleveland National Forest. He stated his opposition to creating little fingers of habitat that would stretch across the Valley floor. He presented an overview of the Multi Species Plan in Coachella Valley and noted that 82% of the land east of Banning Pass was held in public hands or by the Indians. He explained that the calculation of the proposed plan shows 73% of the land in Western Riverside County is owned by the public or Indians, therefore what was being discussed was approximately 30% of the land that is left. He stated that he could not figure why the area could not do a regional plan and must focus on jurisdictions. Mr. Miller stated that one of the issues that he felt was very important and had not been discussed was the all the work that the City was doing was to protect the little guy. He noted that a large developer could afford to PAGE FIFTEEN - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 25, 2001 mitigate, however the owner with 20 acres or less cannot afford to do so. He commented that this was the first time that he had seen a Habitat Plan that affected commercial development. He indicated that this affects both Lake Elsinore and Murrieta and none of the property is held by Specific Plans, but rather by small property owners. He stated that he felt that the Plan needed to be addressed on a more regional basis. He stated that the question was did they really need another 153,000 acres of Riverside County for habitat, when they had ample land in surrounding jurisdictions with all the land necessary to mitigate. David Ferris, a small property owner in Lake Elsinore, noted the difficulty for the small developer. He noted that the large developer could mitigate, however the small owner could not. He indicated that BIA was working with Mr. Lashbrook on the Plan and there had been compromises, which would allow the BIA to buy into the Plan. He stated that the small property owner gets lost in the shuffle. He expressed his concern regarding the ability to create a solution to allow the property owner to obtain a value on his property that he felt would be fair and if a resolution could not be reached, the property could be made exempt from the plan and end up surrounded by habitat, which made it nearly impossible to develop. He stated that he does support Multi Species versus Single Species Habitat. He stated that he felt that the plan had merit, however there were a lot of issu~s that needed to be ironed out. He recommended that someone from Lake Elsinore join the Advisory Committee and further recommended the staff and Advisory Committee reconsider and adjust their sites from 10,000 acres to a more equitable amount of acreage for the City to consider. Pete Caricacus, Conservation Chair for the San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club, encouraged the Council to support the Plan. He stated that the Federal and State Endangered Species Act apply regardless of whether an entity is a part of a Multi Species Plan or not. He indicated that it was totally up to the individual and was an option. He noted that if the owner chooses not to opt into the Plan, the owner would still have to deal with the same issues. He noted that the Plan was designed as a Management Program to assist and deal with the issues. He noted that the Federal or State Government did not set the habitat, but rather by the species themselves. He indicated that it was totally necessary to retain connectivity to prevent the isolation of a species. He explained that isolation would cause the species to die of£ He stated that he felt that the City would be better off being a member of the Plan rather than trying to develop one of their own. Mayor Schiffner asked whom the Endangered Species were being saved for. ~Ie asked if it was for the all the citizens of the United States or for the citizens of the State of California. Mr. Caricacus PAGE SIXTEEN - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 25, 2001 stated that it was for all the citizens of the United States and future g~nerations. Mayor Schiffner stated that he felt that there was an inequity since the City of Lake Elsinore was expected to bear the cost and commented that he did not see anyone stepping up to assist the City to pay for this action. He noted that Los Angeles and Orange County have built out and made no provisions for conservation and now the City of Lake Elsinore and some other cities are expected to pay for their folly. Mr. Caricacus stated that he felt that other entities should help to pay for mitigation, however he did not know how that could be done. Councilman Metze suggested that Mr. Caricacus should lead the charge on those types of issues. He stated that not only was the State not going to help with his issue, but neither was the rest of the country. Councilman Pape stated that one way to do something was to change the law. He noted that there was a new EPA head and possibly this would help with reform. Phil Miller, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, stated that the County had planned to pay fair market value for property and asked what their intent was regarding properties that were encumbered for public financing. He noted specifically an existing assessment district. Mr. Lashbrook noted that he could only refer to other kinds of conservation acquisitions and explained that the County or State would have to take the property clear of all easements. He indicated that the County would have to resolve whatever debt existed on the property through the acquisition process. Deputy City Attorney McClendon stated that the City Attorney's Office was not the one to make policy, however they were the ones to look after the City's welfare and keep it out of danger. He indicated that the City is 1/3 rd participant in something that was asking for 60% of what was required. He noted that currently the City entitles land through the development process and the applicant must seek entitlement from the State and Federal Agencies. He e~lained that the City Attorney's Office could not recommend approval of entering into the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan unless the Plan contained e~ress provisions to fully indemnify and hold the City of Lake Elsinore harmless in the event of any litigation challenging the designation of properties with the City of Lake Elsinore in the Plan. City Attorney McClendon stated that it was a money issue and if the County was unwilling, as a threshold issue, the City needed to have an understanding that if they buy into the Plan, the City would not be alone on this issue. He stated that if the City were challenged, there would have to be the provision for indemnity and a hold harmless, since the City would not pay the freight on any litigation. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that he was not sure that the County had PAGE SEVENTEEN - STUDY SESSION - JANUARY 25, 2001 thought of a litigation issue, however the County would be in the same situation. He stated that it was a concern and would be addressed. ADJOURNMENT THE CTTY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 5:10 P.M. 0 ~ ROBERT L. SCHIFFNER, MAYOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE submitted, o~~ , rCa L. Bry ing, D uty Ci Clerk A EST: ~ VICKI KASAD, CMC, CITY CLERK/ HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CTTY OF LAKE ELSINORE