The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-13-2001 Special Joint City Council/RDS Study SessionMINUTES SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2001 ........................................................................~ CALL TO ORDER Mayor Schiffner called the Special Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE City Attorney Leibold led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BR.TNLEY, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: METZE, PAPE (Councilmembers Metze and Pape arrived at 4:35 p.m.) Also Present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, City Attorney Leibold, Community Development Director Brady, Information/Communications Manager Dennis and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. City Attorney Leibold indicated that this was designated a Special Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting to allow City Council the opportunity make a review of the Closed Session Items, however the Discussion for Agenda Review would be the first item for discussion. JOINT DISCUSSION ITEM Aeenda Review. (F:44.1) Councilwoman Kelley addressed Item No. 22 which addressed the Appeal of a Denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-07. She asked for the City Attorney's input on an article that appeared in the Newspaper this morning. City Attorney Leibold indicated that she had not had an opportunity to read the article, however there was a law signed which is effective at this time. She indicated that she agreed in part and disagreed in part with the letter sent to City Council and the Redevelopment Agency. PAGE TWO - MINUTES -1VIARCH 13, 2001 She further indicated that the City Council had the authority, in keeping with the parameters of the Federal Law that was passed, to reasonably regulate land use. She explained that this included churches being required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit and allowance to evaluate the merits of the uses, given the circumstances and the neighboring uses. She further explained that the City was legally permitted, if the facts were such that Council wished to deny the appeal, Council was not bound to grant the Conditional Use Permit to the Church. Mayor Schiffner requested clarification that if the Council decided to deny the appeal, they would have the right to do so. City AtYorney Leibold confirmed, but she reminded the Council that the Church had threatened litigation. She stated that there was a Constitutional tightrope that must be walked with these issues. She explained that the law that was passed most recently did not eliminate the Constitutional prohibition against entanglement. She further explained thaf it did not require that the City grant a Church the right to locate in a specific location. She noted that the consequence would be that the City would be giving special treatment to a church, that it would not give to any other use. She indicated that the City had local police powers, including land use regulation which was granted to Council by the Constitution and establishment clause considerations that prohibit entanglement or the special treatment of churches. She further explained that the Federal Statute that says that Council could not impose substantial burden on the free exercise of religions is an effort to protect the First Amendment, however the Federal Statute goes on to say that if Council were to impose substantial burdens, the only circumstances could be if there were a compelling interest. Councilwoman Kelley asked if the fees paid by the church would be considered substantial burden if it was the same amount that everyone else was required to pay. City Attorney Leibold confirmed. Councilwoman Kelley questioned the statement "the loss of tax revenue does not raise to the level of compelling government interest" and asked if it was accurate. City Attorney Leibold stated that the statement was correct. She stated that there was a two step process as follows: 1) Has the City acted in such a way that imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religious freedom; 2) If the answer were yes, then the question asked would be if the City had a compelling governmental interest to do so. She explained that if the City were imposing substantial burdens, then the fact that the City might loose taac revenues would not raise to the level of compelling interest, however the Council would not address this issue, since they were not imposing substantial burdens on exercise of religion. Mayor Schiffner noted that in the letter from the attorney representing the church they indicated that this issue would be a question all over the Country and they would be in the forefront. He stated that he had PAGE THREE - MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001 the feeling from that statement that they would file a lawsuit. He asked if they file a lawsuit and loose, would they have to pay attorney fees. City Attorney Leibold stated that would have to be addressed in Closed Session. Councilwoman Kelley questioned the landscaping requirements. Community Development Director Brady stated that when the church submitted their plans it was submitted with 21%, however the requirement for the Downtown Overlay District is 15%. City Attorney Leibold reiterated that the City has police powers that authorize the Council to engage in land use regulation, as it is an essential part of government. Mayor Schiffner stated that there was a reasonable assumption that should the Council deny the appeal they would take steps to litigate, however that was not a•good reason for making a decision. Councilwoman Kelley concurred and stated that it was very disheartening that the threat of litigation would be made before Council even has the opportunity to present their views and opinions, to receive public input or even take a vote. She further stated that she found it very disturbing to open the paper and read that if the Council did not approve the CUP, then the City would be sued. She questioned the tactics. She criticized the letter received suggesting that second-guessed Council's decisions. Mayor Schiffner stated that he had received a call from Pastar Hildabrant requesting that some of his people have more than three minutes to speak. He indicated that he would allow two people from each side to speak more than three minutes, however the rest would be allowed only three minutes. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley commented that she felt that all of the speakers should be allowed no more than three minutes since it would be a very emotional issue and everyone would wish to speak. Councilwoman Kelley noted the amount of potential duplicate comments. Mayor Schiffner stated that he was going to request that the other people get up and state if they were for or against the appeal. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley questioned the sales taac and employment issues. Assistant City Manager Best stated that sales tax is not public information, however she stated that she felt it was not a significant amount. She noted that there were jobs a~ailable in the community for skilled, mid-skilled, and unskilled labor, therefor employment would not be a factor. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley noted that in 1989/1990 the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore spent over two million dollars renovating the Downtown area to make it more appealing for businesses. She felt that to allow other than commercial uses would be counterproductive to the goals and obj ectives that sparked the revitalization and resulted in the Historic PAGE FOUR - MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001 Downtown Overlay District. Mayor Schiffner stated that he felt that it would be best to stay away from the financial aspects of this item. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that staff would like Council to review the findings in the Staff's recommendations. City Attorney Leibold stated that the letter received from Tyler, Dorsa & Eldridge, focused on the compelling governmental interest, which assumed that the City had imposed a substantial burden, however her analysis was in evaluating the appropriateness and the typicaU reasonable land use considerations that go into granting, rejecting or denying a Conditional Use Permit. She explained that the City was not imposing substantial burdens on religion. She further explained that the Council would not get to the compelling governmental interest unless imposing substantial burdens. Councilwoman Kelley stated that she was concerned about legalities and could not reiterate enough how unnerving it was to be threatened with "If you don't approve this item, we will sue you". Mayor Schiffner stated that at this point Council could not say if they were going to approve the item or not, since they had not heard all of the testimony and information. Councilwoman Kelley concurred. City Manager Watenpaugh addressed Item No. 32 regarding the Homeless Shelter and reminded Council that Supervisor Buster would be giving a presentation regarding this issue. I~edevelopment Agency Chairwoman Kelley asked if there were questions on the RDA Agenda. There were no requests to address items on the Agenda. Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest Drive, noted that she had received several phone calls from Senior Citizens who told her that they would have no place to shop if the market were forced out of business. She stated that the seniors that talked to her stressed that they had no form of transportation and that the market was within walking distance of their homes and asked if this would have any bearing on the decision the Council would make. City Attorney Leibold stated that it would have some bearing on the relevance regarding land use. ~ouncilwoman Brinley stated that she had also received calls and noted the service rendered to the City through recycling. C~'I'~' COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Leibold announced the Closed Sessions for the City of Lake Elsinare and the Redevelopment Agency as follows: PAGE FIVE - MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001 A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision ( b)( 3)( C) of government Code Section 54956.9 (1 potential case: Claim #99-24, Liberty Founders, LLC) B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision ( a) of Government Code Section - 54956.9) California Bank & Trust v. City of Lake Elsinore et at (Riverside County Superior Court Case #344190) C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: Assessor's Parcel No. 365-030-001 Negotiating Parties: Denis Trudeau et al and the City of Lake Elsinore Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment D. CONFERENCE WITH-LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision ( b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 ( 1 potential case) REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision ( b)( 3)( C) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (1 potential case: Claim #99-24, Liberty Founders, LLC) B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision ( a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) California Bank & Trust v. City of.Lake Elsinore et at (Riverside County Superior Court Case #344190) C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: Assessor's Parcel No. 373-210-040 & 371-030-021 (Lake Elsinore Diamond Stadium and Parking Lot) Negotiating Parties: AWTC, Inc. and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUN5EL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision ( c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 ( 1 potential case) THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 4:36 P.M. PAGE SIX - MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001 THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RECONVENED A~ 6:35 WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: THE CTTY COUNCIL HAD NO REPORTABLE ACTION THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED LEGAL COUNSEL TO FILE A LAWSUIT IN CONNECTION WITH THE BREECH OF THE STADIUM LEASE AGREEMENT. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL JOIllT~' CI~'I' COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT GENCY MEETING AT 6:37 ,~~ ~~ ~ ROBERT L. SCHIFFNER~IVIAYOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE E KELLEY, CFI2~IRW~ VELOPMENT AGEN Y OF THE OF LAKE ELSINORE Respectfully submitted, ~~~ . Adrfa ~,. Bryning, eputy Ci Clerk ATTEST: ~- ;~./,U~ \~ ~~~ ~ VICI~:I KA AD, C~, CITY CLERK/ HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CTTY OF LAKE ELSINORE