HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-13-2001 City Council MinutesMINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
183 NORTH MAIN STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2001
~~:~~~~~***:~~~~~:~~~*~~*:~~:~~~~~*~*:~~:~~~~~~~:~~~~~*:~~~~~~**~~~*~~~~:*~~
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayar Schiffner at 7:03
p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Police Chief Walsh.
INVOCATION
The Invocation was provided by Pastar J~v's: WaYford, representing First Southern
Baptist Church
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
BRINLEY, KELLEY,
METZE, PAPE,
SCHIFFNER
NONE
Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best,
City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community
Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Acting
Fire Chief Barron, Police Chief Walsh, Information/Communications
Manager Dennis and City Clerk/Human Resources Director Kasad.
PRESENTATIONS
a. Presentation - 66~' Assembly District - Woman of the Year. (F:56.1)(X:36.1)
Mayor Schiffner called Teri Ferro forward for recognition; and noted that
Ms. Ferro had been recognized in Sacramento on Monday and suggested
she explain this award. Ms. Ferro explained the honor bestowed upon her
by Assemblyman Hollingsworth, noting that each year Assemblymembers
can pick a Woman of the Year from their District, who best represents the
interests of their community. She expressed pride in Lake Elsinore and the
valley and thanked the Council for this recognition.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS
Requests were received to address Items 22 and 32, and deferred to those
discussions.
PAGE TWO - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY ~
UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS '
PRESENTED.
The following Minutes were approved:
a. City Council Study Session - February 9, 2001.
b. City Council/Redevelopinent Agency Study Session - February 27,
200 L
c. Regular City Council Meeting - February 27, 2001. (F:44.4)
The following Minutes were received and ordered filed:
d. Planning Corrimission Meeting - February 21, 2001. (F:603)
e. Design Review Committee Meeting - February 21, 2001. (F:60.4)
2. Ratified Warrant List for February 28, 2001. (F:12.3)
3. Received and ordered filed the Investment Report for February, 2001.
(F:12.5)
4. Approved the Professional Services Agreement with Executive Staff
Productions for security services at the Lake Elsinore Diamond Stadium.
(F:68.1)
5. Accepted Offer of Dedication for the Mission Trail Improvement Project,
from the Redevelopment Agency and authorized recordation.
(F:132.1)(X:156.2) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
6. Approved Public Hearing Date of March 27; 2001, for the following:
a. Notice of Intention to Amend Development Agreement between the
City of Lake Elsinore and La Laguna Estates (its Successors in
Interest per Section 5.1 of the Development Agreement) - For
Property located immediately north of McVicker Canyon and
McVicker Park in the La Laguna Specific Plan Area.
(F:68.1)(X:150.2)
7. Approved Special Counsel with Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, regarding
Camelot and California Bank & Trust Litigation Matter, in substantially the
form of the proposed Interim Agreement, subject to final approval by the
City Attorney and authorized the City Manager/Executive Director to
execute the agreement. (F:68.1)(X:52.2)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
21. Proposed Street Vacation of a portion of Hunco Wav - Resolittion No.
2001-07. (F:10.1)
Mayor Schiffner opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m.
PAGE THREE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
City Manager Watenpaugh noted that this was part of a project in the
Central Business District.
Community Development Director Brady explained this street vacation; and
noted that it was previously dedicated as part of a new parcel map, but had
decided to develop an adjacent property. He detailed the location being
Hunco Way from Collier to Pasadena. He noted that the applicant was
present to respond to any questions.
Mayor Schiffner asked those persons interested in this item to speak. There
were no requests to speak.
Councilman Metze commented that this hearing was just a formality to
assist the industrial businesses.
Mayor Pro Tem Brinley indicated that this was merely a housekeeping item.
Councilman Pape commented that this action was necessary for continued
industrial development and expressed support.
Councilwoman Kelley had no comments or questions.
Mayor Schiffner had no comments or questions.
Mayor Schiffner closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m.
MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY METZE AND CARRIED BY
UNAlVIMOUS VOTE TO ~OPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-07 ORDERING
THE VACATIQN OF A POR'Y'I~ilT OF HUl'~C~ WAY AND DIRECTED
THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD SAID STREET VACATION WITH THE
COUNTY RECORDER.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-07
A RESOY,U'Y'ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION
OF I~UNCO WAY.
APPEAL
22. A~neal of a Denial of Conditional Use Perrnit No. 2001-07, to allow a
Church facility for ~lsinore Christian Center located at 217 North Main
Street. APN 374-164-005. (F:21.1)(X:67.1)
City Manager Watenpaugh presented an overview of the item and asked
Community Development Director Brady to report the Planning
Commission Actions to Council.
PAGE FOUR = CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
Community Development Director Brady indicated that on February 21,
2001, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to consider a request
to establish a church to be located at 217 N. Main Street in Historic
Downtown Elsinore Overlay District. He noted that it would be on a parcel
of land zoned C-1, which is the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. He
further indicated that the request for the Conditional Use Permit was
submitted by the Elsinore Christian Center, currently located at 119 E.
Graham Avenue. He noted that the request was to convert an existing
15,000 sq. ft. retail commercial building, which was currently occupied by a
grocery facility and convert it for use as a church facility. He explained that
the land use regulations for a C-1 zone required approval for a Conditional
Use Permit prior to the establishment of a church in that zone. He noted
that the Planning Commission reviewed the request and received
considerable input from the public and interested parties on this particular
item. He indicated that at the conclusion of the Public Hearing the Planning
Commission voted to deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit at that
location. He explained that the decision of the Planning Commission was
final unless it was appealed to the City Council. He indicated that on
February 22, 2001, the applicant did file an appeal with the City Clerk in
accordance with the requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
Community Development Director Brady explained that what Council had
before them was the Appeal and what the City Council needed to do was to
make a determination if the proposed use was consistent with the land uses
the City would like to have now and in the future for the Downtown area.
He indicated that there were two possible decisions that Council could make
as follows: 1) To overturn the Planning Commission's decision and
approve the Conditional Use Permit; or 2) To uphold the Planning
Commission's decision as follows:
Findin~s Rec~uired To overtuni the Plannin~ Commissions decision.
1. That this proposed use, on its own merits and within the context of
its setting, was in accordance with the objectives of the General
Plan and the purpose of the planning district in which the site was
located.
2. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general health,
safety, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working
within the neighborhood of the proposed use or the City, or
injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood of the
City.
3. That the site for the intended use was adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the use, and for all the yards, setbacks, walls or
fences, landscaping, buffers and other features required by Title
170
4. That the traffic generated from the proposed use would be
adequately carried on existing public roadways.
PAGE FIVE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 200L
5. That in approving the subject use at the specific location, there
would be no adverse effects on abutting property.
6. That adequate conditions and safeguards pursuant to Section
17.74.050 have been incorporated into the approval of the
Conditional Use Permit to insure that the use continued in a
manner envisioned by these findings for the term of the use.
Community Development Director Brady stated that if Council chose to
overturn the Planning Commission's decision; there were conditions of
approval that would accompany the Findings.
Findin~s Required To uphold the Plannin~ Commission decision:
1. The intent of the C-1 District is to provide locations for general
retail and office uses which offer the sale of goods and services to
the general public and which, through characteristics of their
operation, serve primarily the day-to-day shopping needs of local
residents. The replacement of the present retail use with the
Elsinore Christian Center would result in the loss of a needed
service and recycling center serving the general public.
2. The approval of the CUP would result in the conversion of a
structure built for a retail commercial use that may result in the
immediate loss of property and sales tax revenue and limit future
tax revenue that could be generated by a retail commercial use.
The subject location does not have adequate on-site parking for
the proposed church use to meet the parking regulations contained
in Chapter 17.66 of the LEMC. The lack of adequate on-site
parking could adversely impact the parking needs of adjacent uses.
4. Denial of the CUP does not impose a substantial burden on the
Elsinore Christian Center given that the church is presently
located within the City's jurisdiction on Graham Avenue and other
potential sites for relocation exist within the City's jurisdiction.
Community Development Director Brady stated that staff would
recommend that Council take action on one of the two recommendations.
He indicated that he would be available to answer any questions.
Mayor Schiffner indicated that he was contacted by a member of the church
and asked if two representatives of the church could be allowed to speak in
excess of three minutes. He indicated that he would allow two members of
the church five minutes and the same was offered to the opposition. He
further indicated that everyone else would be limited to the three minute
rule, however he explained that he would appreciate it if the rest of the
audience that requested to speak would identify themselves, and unless they
had something new to contribute, identify which side they.are for.
PAGE SIX - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
Mayor Schiffner then called upon the persons that requested to speak.
Michael Shama, representing Elsinore Naval and Military School, 27349 -
Jefferson Avenue #213, Temecula, indicated that he had a brief to be
distributed to City Council. He stated that he has represented the Elsinore
Naval and Military School for several years. He indicated that he had made
a review of the Planning Commission Minutes and commented that the
concerns Community Development Directar Brady identified, broke down
to the following:
1. Parking
2. Tax Base
3. Whether the Church would be a non-confarming use.
Mr. Shaima stated that the opposition voiced by Ms. Proctor, the owner of
Food Smarts, the existing business, also addressed the benefit of Food
Smarts to the neighborhood. He stated that what was being addressed was a
property that has gone down hill over the years and according to the lease
Ms. Proctor is required to make certain maintenance efforts to the property
to keep it up, which had not been done. He commented that what was
before Council was a run down piece of property. He stated that Lake
Elsinore Naval and Military School sold the property to Mr. Peterson in the
early 1990's; he did not make payments on the promissory note; Lake
Elsinore Naval and Military School got the property back through
fareclosure sale in July, 1997; at that time Ms. Proctor owed the Military
School approximately $10,500; and they had to file suit against Food
Smarts. He made note of his e~ibit seven showing that there were
numerous actions filed; she took every measure she could, whether
legitimate or not to prolong the litigation; eventually they received a
judgment for possession; they stil~ have a judgment for possession; this
wouldn't guarantee that she could be evicted; they have collected
subsequent rent; however he did not feel that it would be a problem to get
another judgment immediately. Mr. Shaima stated that Ms. Proctor was on
a month to month tenancy; Ms. Proctor does not have an unlimited time to
be in the building as she would have one believe; Council could not
consider that she would be there permanently; as she would be there two
more weeks or two more months. Mr. Shaima stated that as far as the tax
base goes, and as far as the use goes there are two other churches in the
immediate vicinity; currently the applicant is using the facility at 119 East
Graham Avenue which has no off-street parking except for across the street;
the on-site parking proposed is deficient by approximately 12 spaces; the
plan could be reconfigured to allow 12 more spaces and was not a major
concern. He commented that the Christian Center had saved funds over the
years in order to be able to buy this piece of property; they had gone ahead
and entered into a contract; and God willing they would go through with it.
He indicated that Ms. Proctor immediately after the Lake Elsinore Na~al
and Military School acquired the property in 1997, started placing offers to
purchase the subjecfproperty; they entered into numerous negotiations; a
price was agreed upon; and they went so far as to draft all the contracts,
PAGE SEVEN - CITY COiTNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
based upon prior negotiations. Mr. Shaima made note of letters received
after the contracts were drafted, from Food Smart, listing approximately 20
- different items they were concerned about and would not agree to. He
indicated that the letters were received after they had reached an agreement.
He noted his letter of reply and noted that there were three things that the
School did not agree to as follows: 1) that Ms. Proctor would be personally
responsible to pay the rent during the escrow period, since she did not want
to be personally responsible, however currently she is under the old lease;
2) Ms. Proctor wished to impose a burden on the Lake Elsinore Naval and
Military School to keep her in the building; 3) Ms. Proctor did not wish to
put up a$2,500 cleaning and security deposit to maintain the property.
Mr. Shaima stated that Council had the opportunity to get a congregation of
seemingly nice people, who would keep the property up and help the
vitality of the Downtown area continue. He commented that they would
continue the good work the City had started.
Jim Hilbrant, Pastor of Elsinore Christian Center, stated that they had been
in the City for 15 years and Downtown for the last nine years. He further
stated that his congregation felt strongly that this was their area of service
and influence; and that they had done a lot of things, he believed, for the
good of the people Downtown, even on a daily basis. He indicated that they
had people come to their existing facility to ask for food and clothing. He
further indicated that on Halloween night they had 500 people go through
their facility. He stated they gave food and assistance to the community
over the last 9 years. Pastor Hilbrant stated that he wanted to talk to
Council about a substantial hardship for their church. He indicated that they
had no parking and every Sunday it was a challenge for his congregation to
get to the building; it was too small; and they needed to grow. He indicated
that in his congregation there were people on walkers and old people, and
on the Sunday when the Street Faire was in progress there was no parking at
all. He noted that when the Moto-Cross Races were in town it affected two
Sundays in a row and made it very difficult for the congregation. He stated
that it was very hard far him to be able to continue to operate as a church in
the two buildings that they were in with no parking at all. He stated that
they needed the building in question to grow; they needed to be able to
move into the building; and the church has had to wark hard. He indicated
that in the last 10 months since they had been in escrow they had spent
$27,000 on all kinds of things to satisfy what the City had asked for on the
Environmental Study Report and fee for the Conditional Use Permit. He
stated that they had warked hard over the years. He stated that his people
had sacrificed greatly to save money to be able to buy a building. He noted
that they had done everything from yard sales, to bake sales, to people
giving and giving sacrificially so that they would have a"piece of the pie"
as a church to own their own place. He indicated that last year when he
met with Council, Bob Brady, Linda Miller and Armando Villa, they sat
down with him and explained the conditions that would be required if they
were to give him a CUP. He noted that one of the conditions was to move
the Food Smarts sign, since it was not in conformance with the Lake
PAGE EIGHT - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
Elsinore Historic Downtown theme. He told staff that they would remove
the sign. He indicated that he met with Linda Miller regarding the parking
scheme and agreed with the landscaping that was required. He noted that
15% was required and they were willing to do 21%. He stated that they
would have to paint the building and that would be done. He stressed that
they would do everything they were asked to do. He stated that they had
been faithful to everything the City had asked. He assured Council that he
and his congregation made a promise, and they would keep it regarding the
improvements to the building. Pastor Hilbrant stated that as the shepherd of
his flock, he took it as a personal responsibility to know how hard it was for
people to get to his church; to see the difficulty in parking; and to see how
squeezed they were. He indicated that the Downtown area was his area and
that was where he felt that they had been called. He asked Council to give
him a yes vote for the CUP. He stated that he wished to continue to serve
the City of Lake Elsinore and he believed that he could do it in a better way.
Pastor Hilbrant stated that he would be available for any questions the
Council might have.
David Cunningham, President and founder of Rancho Christian Center,
Rancho Cucamonga, stated that they were the parent corporation for
Elsinore Christian Center, which they established in 1986. He indicated
that at that time they sent Jim and Carol Hilbrant to be the pastors. He
stated that the church was a Federal and State recognized non-profit
corporatiom established in 1977. He further stated that it was not the
churches purpose to displace Food Smarts; it was nothing personal; and
they did not wish to create an adversarial climate. He noted that the fact
was they had a pleasant problem, as they had outgrown the facilities they
were in and needed larger facilities. He stated that it was the Church's
understanding that the building was for sale and the foundation of our
nation was buying and selling. He commented that the owner had
something to sell; they needed something that would meet the needs of their
growing congregation. He stated that they believe that the church was also
a business, however a"not for profit business". He stated that he had read
all the recommendations from City staff and there were disagreements that
he would have had with that and would be open to answer any questions the
Council might raise as a result of those disagreements. He explained that it
was a substantial burden on Elsinore Christian Center to not allow the CUP
to go through. He stated that he was in favor of the CUP. He explained that
11 years ago they applied for a CUP at a cost of about $4,500; the CUP was
denied; and every time they apply for a CUP it costs appro~mately $5,000.
He indicated that in 1977 at the Planning Commission Meeting of May 7,
the Commission unanimously approved CUP 97-4 to a church that presently
occupies the building directly in front of the site in question. He stated that
they were asking for was the same consideration.
Robert Tyler, Attorney for the Elsinore Christian Center, 40877 Enterprise
Cir. N. #210, Temecula, indicated that he was before Council to address
RLLTIPA (Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act), which was signed
by President Clinton on September 22, 2000. He commented that he
PAGE NINE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13; 2001
believed that there were a lot of cities that were not aware of the law, and it
was an incredible tool to protect the free exercise of religion. He further
commented that he presumed that Council had received his letter dated
March 9, 2001 and asked that Council read the letter prior to making a
decision. He explained that the purpose of RLLTIPA was to prohibit
governmental action that discriminates against churches through land use
regulation. He stated that RLLTIPA was specifically applicable to the case
that was being addressed at that time and subject to Section Two of
RLiTIPA as follows:
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF LAND USE AS RELIGIOUS EXERCISE.
(a) SUBSTANTIAL BURDENS
(1) General Rule -No government shall impose or implement a
land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial
burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a
religious assembly or institution, unless the government
demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person,
assembly, or institution..
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental
interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that
compelling governmental interest.
Mr. Tyler stated that to understand the statute, Council must understand a
few phrases that are defined in RLUPIA and read the section as follows:
SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.
(5) LAND USE REGIJLATION - The term `land use regulation'
means a zoning or landmarking law, or the application of such a law,
that limits or restricts a claimant's use or development of land
(including a structure affixed to land), if the claimant has an
ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude, or other property interests
in the regulated land or a contract or option to acquire such an
interest.
Mr. Tyler stated that the Land Use Regulation did apply to the church and the
Regulation was the Ordinance and CUP and Conditions that were on the
Agenda that day. He read the section regarding Religious Exercise as
follows:
(7) RELIGIOUS EXERCISE -
IN GENERAL - The term `religious exercise' includes any
exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to,
a system of religious belie£
(B) RULE - The use, building or conversion of real property
for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered to be
religious exercise of the person or entity that uses or intends to
PAGE TEN = CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
use the property for that purpose.
He noted that this Section applied to the Elsinore Christian Center Church. -
He stated that the aforementioned statute was enacted to review and apply
the law. He noted that before this item went before the Planning
Commission the recommendation of staff was to approve the project. He
noted the Conditions of Approval, which the Church was willing to comply
with. He read Section 2( c) as follows:
(2) ( c) The substantial burden is imposed in the implement of a land
use regulation or system of land use regulation, under which a
government makes, ar has in place formal or informal procedures or
practices that permit the government to make, individualized
assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved.
Mr. Tyler stated that this was a subjective decision making process to which
the statute applied. He commented that this was a fairly new law, and there
would be some cases coming out in the future. He further commented that
there were not a lot of cases at the Federal level interpreting this statute,
therefore what the courts would do, would look toward the legislative intent
behind the statute. He noted that the RLUIPA was a bipartisan bill and was
passed easily and signed by President Clinton. He further noted that one of
the problems recognized by Congress, the State Senate and President
Clinton was the fact that there was a subjective decision making process
that was applied to churches and ultimately discriminatory action. He read
a joint statement by Senator Orin Hatch and Senator Edward Kennedy, that
was in the legislative record as follows:
"frequently discriminated against on the face of zoning codes and
also in the highly individualized and discretionary processes of land
use regulation. Zoning codes frequently exclude churches in places
where they permit theaters, meeting halls, and other places where
large groups or people assemble for secular purposes. Or the codes
permit churches only with individualized permission from the zoning
board, and zoning boards use that authority in discriminatory
ways...More often, discrimination lurks behind such vague and
universally applicable reasons as traffic, aesthetics, or `not consistent
with the city's land use plan.' Churches have been excluded from
residential zones because they generate too much traffic, and from
commercial zones because they don't generate enough traffic.
Churches have been denied the right to meet in rented storefronts - in
all sorts of buildings that were permitted when they generated traffic
for some secular purpose."
Mr. Tyler stated that the above statement was very important to understand
that the record behind this was to prohibit the discrimination against the free
exercise. He further noted in the statute this act could be construed in favar
of a broad protection of religious exercise to the ma~mum extent permitted
by the terms of this act.
PAGE ELEVEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
Mayor Schiffner asked that Mr. Tyler bring his comments to a close.
Mr. Tyler addressed the recommendations for denial and responded to item
( a) and stated that the C-1 zone specifically allows churches pursuant to a
CUP and the ownerindicated that the current tenant may not be on the
property 30 days from now; ( b) he suggested that if Council bases their
decision on the tax revenue they would be flying in the face of the
constitution and this statute, because under 2( b)(1) prohibits making a
decision that Council would rather have a commercial enterprise rather than
a non commercial enterprise because they get t~ revenue; ( c) the location
is better than the other location because there would be more parking and
the City would be better off because there would be fewer cars on the streets
on Sundays with the seats reduced as well as the landscaping reduced to
accommodate more parking; ( d) he stated that there were no other sites
available that suit the needs of the church; the property is unique and was in
escrow; and stated that the church serves the needs of Downtown Lake
Elsinore. He indicated that this was where the church needed to be, it was a
geographic requirement and to require otherwise would be a substantial
burden. He commented that in closing he would answer any questions, but
he did want to relate that it was his firmly held position that this Council
cannot establish a compelling State interest on which to deny this CUP and
if it does deny this CUP without a compelling State interest, your decision
would be in violation of RLLTIPA.
Kathleen Maxwell, 33575 Valencia, Wildomar, stated that she felt very
strongly that the Downtown area of Lake Elsinore needed to remain just as
it was; and that the City of Lake Elsinore needed Food Smarts and the
Recycling Center. She indicated that she had lived in Lake Elsinare since
1974 and watched it grow from a sleepy little run down town with one stop
sign, three elementary schools and no fast food restaurant; to a town of
30,370 people, four supermarkets, 46 churches and 1 discount food store.
She commented that it was no longer the run down town it once was years
ago. She indicated that anytime they had visitors from out of town it was
the Downtown section that they showed them. She commented that each of
the storefronts was well maintained and the lights on the 2'/z blocks were
beautiful. She further commented that if the low interest loan money had
been available to the remaining blocks on Main Street in the City of Lake
Elsinore, Food Smarts would look exactly like the rest of the merchants on
Main Street. She indicated that she had first met Charlene Proctor in 1977
' when she registered her children at Machado Elementary School and she
had been her best friend for the last 24 years. She stated that during her 24
year friendship she had seen her continually give to the community, and
even though the last few years had drastically changed her life, she still tried
to do everything possible for the elderly, those less fortunate than herself,
and the school children of Lake Elsinore. Ms. MaYwell stated that Ms.
Proctor operates the Food Smarts Discount Grocery Store solely on her own
with the support of her 10 employees. She stated that 6 of the employee's
incomes were the only means of support for their families; one of her clerks
PAGE TWELVE -" CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13; 2001
supported herself and her 6 small children; one employee that she took off
the streets of Downtown Lake Elsinore, was now married and owned his
own home; one employee, who when she heard, was not going to be able to
continue her college education, gave"her a job, and when she heard that an
additional day was necessary to make ends meet, she gave her that day. She
noted that this person would be a teacher in the Elsinore School District in
three years and without the help of Foods Smart and Ms. Proctor it would
not have happened. Ms. Proctor sponsored the Student of the Month
program and the Lake Elsinore Football Team; Ms. Proctor was a member
of the Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce and was in charge of the
monthly mixers, which are intended to introduce businesses to the residents,
for over two years; and contributed canned goods far the Christmas Baskets
and food for the pantry for the Lake Elsinore Christian Center. Ms.
Maxwell stated that Food Smarts had between 250 and 400 customers daily;
was a profitable business; and attracted customers from all over. She
commented that the people who came to shop in Food Smarts also shopped
in the downtown area. She noted that Ms. Proctor drove the bobtail truck
that brought groceries to the store and also drove the recycling truck that
took the recycling to the main center. She noted the difficulty of running a
store without heating and air-conditioning and did so with a smile in order
to keep the store open and offer groceries at a very large discounted price,
which kept her employees on the payroll. She stated that Ms. Proctor
worked very hard. She noted an uncalled for comment made on the steps of
the Cultural Center last month prior to the Planning Commission Meeting.
She noted that the comment was "It was going to be very interesting to see
what the Downtown Business owners think of the Jewish people of our
community". She noted that the zoning of the Downtown area had nothing
to do with religion, nationalities, beliefs or disbeliefs, and it was not even
about having another church. She stated that it was about keeping
Downtown in its current state and not changing the variances each time
someone wanted to do something different with the Downtown area. She
commented that two weeks ago she had gone to see Ms. Proctor on a
Saturday morning at her store and she had two of her granddaughters with
her; as they were leaving about two blocks away, they saw three young
mothers with five little children and each of the mothers had two grocery
bags in each hand and had just left Food Smarts; her nine year old
granddaughter then asked "Grandma if Ms. Proctor looses her store, where
will these people get their food? It doesn't look like they have a car." Ms.
Maxwell stated that at her work, Ms. Proctor had called and the receptionist
had told her that she knew it was Ms. Proctor, however she didn't sound the
same. She indicated that when she started talking to her it was obvious
something was wrong. She further indicated that Ms. Proctor told her that if
the Elsinore Christian Center was not allowed to relocate their church where
her store was, they were going to seek legal action against the City of Lake
Elsinore. She noted that only Ms. Proctor would say, as she did "if this was
the case, I can't let that happen, I will not be a part of causing anymore
problems for the City of Lake Elsinore. I want my store to stay where it is,
but I just can't let that happen. I love this City too much." Ms. Maxwell
stated that there were two differences: on the one had they had a church, if
PAGE THIRTEEN - CITY CO.UNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 20U1
if they were not approved tonight they were going to seek legal action; and
on the other hand they had a lady who was willing to lose for the City of
Lake Elsinore. She stated that a person could not live in Lake Elsinore for
long without knowing Ms. Proctor personally or knowing about her and
what she did for them.
Mayor Schiffner indicated that concluded the speakers that had asked for
more than three minutes and he asked that further comments be confined to
the three-minute time limit. He requested that if they had nothing new to
add, that the speakers identify themselves and clarify if they were in
opposition or in support of the Appeal.
Donna Lucas, Collector's Corral Antiques, 133 N. Main Street, stated that
she knew that the City of Lake Elsinore had worked very hard to improve
the conditions and they appreciated the City Council for their renovations;
thanked the Police Department for getting rid of the problems they had
experienced with vagrants, drug abuse and prostitution; and stated their
pride in the City of Lake Elsinore. She stated that they were also proud of
all the hard work the merchants had done Downtown. She noted that they
had promoted Cruise Night, The Street Faire, and Winterfest. She indicated
that everyone had worked hard to make Downtown a city of commerce.
She stated that the merchants were very concerned that if another church
were to come into that area it would stop foot traffic for each of the
businesses. She indicated that there was a church named Living Waters; a
church across the street; and a church around the corner. She stated that
there were lots of churches downtown. She commented that she hoped and
prayed that there was no one in attendance that opposed the church because
they were an atheist or an agnostic, because most of the people were
Christians and knew there was a need for a Christian base in the
community, however not in the Downtown three blocks. Ms. Lucas thought
the Planning Commission did a pretty thorough job on the reasons why the
City should decline it. She suggested that the community help them find a
location where they could be happy. She indicated that the merchants didn't
like the church there, because on Sundays it took up all of their parking
places, however no one complained. She thanked Council for the
opportunity to speak.
Frank Sandoval, Pastor of Vineyard Church, 603 W. Graham, asked Council
to vote in favor of a Conditional Use Permit for Pastor Jim Hilbrant and his
congregation. He indicated that he had known Pastor Hilbrant since he
came to Lake Elsinore to start his work and he was very zealous for God.
He stated that Pastor Hilbrant loved the City of Lake Elsinore and had
taught his congregation well and had taught them to love, and they loved
this City. He noted that many of the congregation came to Pastor Hilbrant
because of the love of God that was there, and they expressed their love in
many ways to the City. He indicated that he moved to the City in 1977 and
had raised two sons that had done very well and had grown to be very moral
men who did well in this City. He noted that there were many people in the
church that wished to raise their children in the City. He stated that there
PAGE FOURTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
was a congregation that wanted to buy a building that was up for sale. He
stated that one of the factors here, was that unless a church moved into an
existing church building, they did not have to get a Conditional Use Permit,
however if a church wished to build or to move into any property they must
have a Conditional Use Permit. He noted that Elsinore Ck~ristian Center was
going through that process. He stated that he was also a general contractor
and had some understanding of buildings. He stated that the church met all
the requirements of a Conditional Use Permit since they had sufficient
square footage and were willing to do everything the Planning Department
had asked. He commented that it was a practical move for them, since they
were already located in the City and it was only a few blocks to where they
were moving. He stated that they wished to remain in the City. He asked
that Council vote in favor of the CUP. He stated that many of the Council
knew Pastor Hilbrant and knew he was an honorable man and his
congregation was made up of loving people and he loved them. He stated
that it was a matter of growing pains, since the City was growing and the
Church needed to make room and expand its borders. He stated that he
brought this up at the Planning Commission Meeting that Pastor Hilbrant
represented a congregation, however there were several business people in
his church that attend church in the City and also had businesses in the City.
He explained that they would like to move into that building to have a
place to meet. Pastor Sandoval stated that a church was a spiritual
happening and was a living organism since it was the body of Christ and
there was a need for a place to meet and expand and express their work. He
stated that Pastor Hilbrant and his congregation were blessed of God, and
expressed hopes far blessings on the church and a blessed City.
Wanda Moore, Representative of Downtown Merchants Association, stated
that it was their opinion that they did not want to have the church CUP
approved. She further stated that Food Smarts was important to the
downtown and serviced people that lived in close proximity to Downtown.
She indicated that she was honorable, as were all the merchants that worked
in the Downtown Area. She stated that they had worked very hard to
comply with the things that the City required for a business and had spent a
lot of money on advertisement. She stated that they wished it to remain a
commerce city.
Minnie Brown, 312 N. Langstaff, stated that she was in support of the usage
of the building that now housed Food Smarts with no change. She indicated
that she was a religious person and was a Christian. She further indicated
that she lived Downtown and did not have a car. She stated that it was a
convenient place for her to walk to get her groceries. She stated that the
store was a lifesaver for those that lived in the area and didn't drive. She
indicated that the nearest store was 2'h miles away, and the public
transportation was not convenient for quick trips to the store. She
commented that the Food Smarts Discount Store served a number of people
on a fixed income. She indicated that she was on a fixed income and made
her money stretch and asked that the City not take this market away from
her. She stated that there were many people that went to the store because
PAGE FIFTEEN - CTTY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
they were thrift minded. She indicated the need for the Alamo Recycling
Service and the ability to recycle for cash, which helped to support the
average person that lived Downtown. She stated that she did believe in God
and she was sure that He would help the Council make the right decision.
Dale Hite, 115 N. Kellogg Street, stated that after reading the Planning
Commission Minutes he decided there was no easy answer. He further
stated that there had been many businesses that had come and gone, but
only a few endured, and one of them was Food Smarts. He stated that the
building might need a coat of paint, but the trash was kept off the ground.
He posed the question "What is Food Smarts and Alamo Recycling?" and
answered that to him it was convenience, low prices, a place where 10
people worked, created tax revenue for the City and a place to recycle and
keep the neighborhood clean from debris. He stated that many people
depended on the market. He stated that on the other hand churches helped
the community as well. He noted that there were currently 13 churches
close to the proposed location and he would hate to stop the word of God
but asked what was more vital to the City and the answer was both. He
commented that the church already existed in the community and would not
go away if the CUP was not granted, but the market would cease to exist.
He noted that Mr. Tyler was trying to scare Council with the RUILPA,
however he did not think it would infringe on their religious freedoms since
they already have church in the Community. He asked that Council uphold
the decision of the Planning Commission.
Jim Barrett, President of the Lake Elsinare Valley Chamber of Commerce,
stated that he was not in attendance for religious reasons or political
matters. He indicated that he was present on behalf of the members of the
Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce, because of the possible
rezoning of the commercial building currently occupied by Food Smarts and
Alamo Recycling. He noted that it had been brought to the Chamber's
attention that a current zoning had been challenged and a request for a new
zone had been made, which would permit a non-commercial entity to
occupy the facility currently housing Food Smarts. He stated that the Lake
Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors had great
concerns over the matter of going forward and increasing
business/commercial properties in our area. He indicated that the EDC was
working diligently to bring new businesses into the area and right now, the
issue before Council was the possibility of losing one of the City's
commercial areas as well as loosing two businesses that currently occupied
that building. He commented that some might say that this was just a
_ property and in the overall scheme it wouldn't make a difference, but he
disagreed. He stated that having a variety of businesses and a larger
selection was what attracted people to a community. He cited as evidence
the Outlet Center and Walmart Center where business was thriving. He
stated that by changing the zoning Council would slowly kill the overall
economy of the City and for each retail business lost, tax dollars were lost
as well as parks and other much needed services. He noted that there were
other issues with the possibility of loosing the two businesses. He
PAGE SIXTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
commented that the type of business that occupied the building was a
unique business that catered primarily to the Downtown residents providing
a much needed service. He stated that to replace this business would be a -
great hardship for the nearby residents. He urged Council to render a
prudent decision that would be in the best interests of the community and
not just one group.
Robert Ponce, the realtor representing the Church and the Military School,
31297 Machado Street, stated that he was told that the Military School was
interested in selling and the Church was looking for a building and he put
the two entities together and he never expected to see this controversy.
Bertha Feeley, 15017 Franquette, indicated the she had worked part time at
Food Smarts for the last 20 years. She stated that Food Smarts did a great
service for the City of Lake Elsinore by helping people who were very
diverse economically, and racially and it would be devastating to lose the
store. She asked Council to leave the property as commercial property to
serve the people who could not drive and could not afford to shop
otherwise. She asked Council to consider the citizens of the City of Lake
Elsinore in the Downtown area when they made their decision.
Robin Whitmarsh, 15261 Washington, stated that she had worked for Food
Smarts for over a year. She stated that she had a husband and two girls, and
every family needed to save money whereever it was possible; and she
saved money shopping at Food Smarts. She stated that she had known Ms.
Proctor for over 24 years and she considered her family. She stated that she
felt proud to call her a friend and her boss. She commented that she felt that
if the City chose to take the store away from her, Council would be doing a
terrible injustice to the community and noted that it was a community that
she struggled so hard to support. She asked that Council not approve the
variance since the Downtown section of Lake Elsinore had been and should
continue to be small profitable businesses that brought revenue to the town.
She stated that at this point she was not a member of a church, however she
had strong beliefs and she was raised by the Golden Rule.
Sandra Cruz, 305 Line Street, stated that she was an employee at Food
Smarts for over two years. She further stated that she was a single mom of
two boys and this was her means of support. She commented that she felt
that the store was an asset to the community. She stated that she was a
cashier and saw people every day who utilized the services of recycling and
took the money to buy something to eat every day. She stated that their
customers came from all over and she believed in God since He got her a
job to be able to take care of her kids and feed them. She further
commented that it was not about tax dollars, but about people. She stated
that they serve so many people in the community, and they came in and
asked her what they would do without the store. She stated that the store
provided a community service and Ms. Proctor was a great lady. She
fi~rther stated that the City really needed the store.
PAGE SEYENTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -°MARCH;13, 2001
Rose Moore, Secretary and Treasurer of the Elsinore Naval and Military
School, 15903 Grand Avenue, stated that they had wanted to sell this
property for a number of years. She stated that they had sold the property in
1995 and in 1997 they had to foreclose on it. She explained that during
1997 and 1998 they had e~ensive negotiations to sell the property to Food
Smarts; after the terms for the lease and sale were reached Food Smarts
declined to purchase the property. She further explained that they had an
unlawful detainer against Food Smarts, but they did not evict them since
they did not want the premises vacant while they had it for sale. She
indicated that under the circumstances they felt it would be more beneficial
not to have a long-term agreement with the tenant that would impede the
potential buyers of the property. Ms. Moore stated that they had done
improvements, such as a new roof on the building, removed the air-
conditioning units and the necessary repairs to properly seal the roo£ She
stated that they ha~e been in the process of selling the building to the
Church since May, 2000. She commented that she hoped that the City
would do what was best for the community.
Bill Lowder, Christian Commercial Services for Lake Elsinore Christian
Center, asked if he could defer his time to Mr. Tyler. Mayor Schiffner
declined. Mr. Lowder stated that he and his wife owned a company that
acted as church consultants throughout the State of California. He indicated
that this issue was not about whether Food Smarts stayed in that location or
the church replaced them, since Food Smart would not be there in a matter
of time. Secondly there had been a number of people pointing out the
number of churches in this area and he would point out that there was over
50,000 sq. ft. of vacant retail space in the City and it would not be
conducive to allow the building to sit vacant until another buyer came
along.
Nancy Shafer, 15670 Laguna Ave., stated that she and her husband were
currently the landlords of the Elsinore Christian Center and they had been
there for 9 years. She stated that they were dreading the day that they
would leave since they had been great tenants. She explained that they had
taken care of the property as if it were their own and had improved the
property and kept their word in doing everything they said they would do.
She further stated that Elsinare Christian Center had been a wonderful
asset to the community. She commented that she and her husband had lived
in Lake Elsinore since 1952 and had observed the ups and downs of Main
Street. She further commented that with all due respect to the Police
Department, she felt that it was the churches downtown that made a
difference in removing the bad people from Main Street, and maded it safe
again to be on Main Street and Graham. She stated that it was her opinion
that Elsinore Christian Church had a big impact simply because of the good
things that they had done and the good people that they brought to the
community. She commented that she hoped that the City would keep them
Downtown because as a commercial property owner downtown, she felt
they would be a big benefit to the Downtown area. She stated that the
church would be an asset and the City would be really proud for them to be
PAGE EIGHTEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
here. She thanked Council for their consideration and hoped that the
Council allowed them to complete their dream that they had and the hard
work that they had done to get as far as they had.
Carl Shafer, 15670 Laguna, stated that he and his wife have had a
relationship with the Elsinore Christian Center for nine years and they had
been wonderful. He stated that his concern was the right of the property
owners to buy and sell their property unrestricted. He commented that he
believed that the foundation of our country's wealth and standard of living
was based on the right of real property ownership and the free flow of
capital; and if that were restricted, then the standard of living would go
down. He noted that Food Smarts was a grocery store that was supplying a
lot of people, but it was not utilizing the available square footage. He
suggested that they could reduce the square footage demand by stacking
three or four different levels, which would allow them to relocate into a
smaller facility and would be more cost effective. He stated that there was a
real opportunity for the enterprise to stay in the Downtown area on a much-
reduced basis. He stated that if the City would approve the CUP, the City
would see in the years to come a shining bright light for the City of Lake
Elsinore in that location. He commented that if the City wanted to keep
things like they were in the City of Lake Elsinore then they should deny the
CiTP. He reminded Council that here had been no aesthetic improvements
for years and noted that Food Smarts had not been painted since it was the
Alamo Market.
Judy Guglielmana, 33367 Blanche Dr., asked that Council deny the Appeal.
She stated that this was not an issue of Food Smarts versus the Elsinore
Christian Center, but rather maintaining the G 1 zoning for the Downtown.
She explained that she felt it was very important to keep the retail area a
retail area. She noted that the tax revenue the retail stores provide the City
was are an important point. She noted that the business had been in
existence for 37 years as a market and a lot of people in the City depended
upon that market. She noted that a lot of people had moved into the City
area because they did have a store they could walk to. She asked that
Council deny the appeal.
Pastor Fred Rodriguez, Elsinore First Assembly of God, spoke on behalf of
Elsinore Christian Center and their desire for the City Council to issue a
CUP. He stated that God had blessed this congregation because they kept
first things first; they preached the gospel; brought good news into the
community; they clothed and fed the disenfranchised, the hurting and
homeless; as they had been faithful to the call, God had added to their
numbers and their ministry. He indicated that Elsinore Christian Center had
outgrown their facilities and now needed something larger and something
they could call their own. He noted that they went out; found some
property; did their due diligence; the property was for sale; they came
before Council to ask to be allowed to be all that God had called them to be.
He stated that he for one knew that the City wanted them to be all that they
could be, just as Council did for Ms. Proctor; however Elsinore Christian
PAGE NINETEEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
Center was ready to go in and possess the land; they had plans, vision and
fiscal soundness. He asked that Council not be a physical obstacle and
stand in the way of their dream, vision and desire to be an even greater
blessing to this community. He commented that Lake Elsinore was
beginning to turn its reputation from one that had been "Who wants to live
in Lake Elsinore?" to "Why don't we relocate to Lake Elsinore." He further
commented that much of this was due to the hard work and good planning
by the City Officials and the Planning Department, however good Christians
believe it has more to do with churches praying for the leadership of the
City; churches who are fasting and asking on the City's behalf for God to
give Council His wisdom to make the hard decisions like the one before
Council tonight. He stated that there was not one person in this building
that envied Council's position. He commented that he believed that the
church, the body of Christ, had more to do with the advancement and
progress of the City than any one business venture or conglomeration of
businesses could ever begin to make in the City of Lake Elsinore. He
further commented that Council well knew a strong church could be a very
positive influence and force in its neighborhood and community and as a
matter of fact it could make the difference between a thriving community
and one that was struggling and slowly deteriorating into a hopeless future.
He stated that Rosa Parks said, "The church was and is the foundation of
any community". He indicated that he was not suggesting in any way that
anyone on Council was against the ministry of the church, however he did
suggest that the church did not need to be relegated to some back street
solely on some dark corner to shine brightly. He stated that a church could
shine just as brightl.y at the portal of a city on the last e~t road before you
leave town. Pastor Rodriguez indicated that he would paraphrase and
adapted text by Alfred Lord Tennyson by saying, "If we seek for the genius
and greatness of Lake Elsinore, we will not find it at our commodious Lake;
nor will we find it at her airport or her beautiful Baseball Diamond; nor at
her Wal-Mart Shopping complex; if we look at the Outlet Center with its
full parking lots and vast commerce, we will not find it there. Pastor
Rodriguez beseeched Council to choose the continuing blessing of God. He
stated that the Christian community prayed for Council and thanked them
for their service to the City. He noted that being on Council was a hard
place to be.
THE CITY COUNCIL RECESSED AT 8:25 P.M.
THE CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 8:32 P.M.
Mayor Schiffner reminded the audience that there was a three-minute limit.
He noted that there are approximately 10 more requests to speak.
Carol Pollock, 613 Parkview Dr., spoke in favor of denying the Conditional
Use Permit and keeping the property a commercial project. She commented
that she felt the City needed more commercial projects instead of less,
especially in the Downtown area. She addressed the need for the recycling
center and noted that it helped the City meet their requirement that had been
PAGE '~'WENT4' - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
mandated for recycling.
Charlene Cleary, 15990 Annette Dr., spoke in favor of the denial of the
Conditional Use Permit and asked that Council support the Planning
Commission°s decision. She stated that she felt that the City needed more
commerce on Main Street.
John Empson, President of Saint Vincent De Paul Society of Lake Elsinore,
32825 Macy Street, stated that the Food Smarts Market should remain in its
present location. He noted that Ms. Proctor had accepted their food voucher
program since 1994. He explained that the food voucher that his
organization provides food and miscellaneous items to the needy. He stated
that the Food Smarts market, to date, had accepted an estimated 1,690
vouchers, totaling $16,000. He noted that no other market in the valley
would participate in the program. He commented that in the last six years
Saint Vincent De Paul Society had a sum of $82,000, providing food and
donations to various organizations. He stated that their office was located at
31715 Riverside Drive, and indicated that his organization felt that there
was a need for this market to remain in its present location.
Ron Satter, 22700 Running Rabbit, Canyon Lake, explained that on the day
that Charlene Proctor found out that she needed signatures to appear before
the Planning Commission, she obtained over 400 signatures, and presently
she had upwards of 2000 signatures asking for denial of the CUP. He stated
that the issue of the Market being down had not been addressed to Ms.
Proctor and had this been brought to her attention, she would have done her
utmost to correct any situation to the best of her ability. He noted that
zoning was the issue and not the condition of the building at this time. He
commented that they heard that the church wanted to move into the facility
and they also heard that they were 12% below the amount of parking needed
and they said they could adjust the plans and landscaping. He stated that if
they were going to meet the criteria now, where did the growth factor come
in as they were moving to the new facility to allow growth and asked where
the cars would go when they increased the size of their congregation and
indicated this was a subject that needed to be looked at. He addressed Mr.
Tyler's comments regarding Mr. Clinton's opinion of RIJLIPA and felt the
statement was interpreted in favor of the church. He indicated that he had
consulted with his attorney and Ms. Proctor had consulted with hers and
there was a possible strong difference in interpretation of that Act. He
noted that the Act has not been used since September. He further indicated
that Lambs Fellowship moved to Railroad Canyon Road in order to have
room, and noted that there were outlying areas to build and the flock would
follow the pastor. He noted that with the funds at their disposal they could
easily build a nice facility for themselves. He concluded that the Members
of the City Council needed to consider that the church feeds its people with
the word of God one day a week and Ms. Proctor's business feeds the
people six days a week to provide nourishment so they could go to the
church. _
PAGE TWENTY-ONE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
Bill Tucker, 740 Acacia, stated that he was not against a church, however he
did not feel that there was a need for another church in the Downtown area.
He noted that there were plenty of open spaces and suggested the old K-
Mart site or Movie Theater. He commented that a lot of people shop
Downtown at Food Smarts, including him.
Charlene Proctor 39727 Corte Santa Barbara, Murrieta, commented that she
did not feel that she had much to add since everyone else said it for her.
She stated that she did not know that she needed legal counsel and indicated
that there had been some very untrue and unfair statements. She
commented that the most important point was that she does a service for the
community; with 24 years in the grocery business and 15 in the recycling
business. She further commented that she puts back into the community
$500,000 to $1,000,000 a year in recycling, paid back to the customer. She
stated that she felt that she was a very important vital business in the
Downtown. She further stated that the Elsinore Naval Military School, had
indicated when this first happened, "Of course if this didn't work out, we do
want you to stay".
Mayor Schiffner asked the City Attorney to make a few comments.
City Attorney Leibold stated that she would be available to answer any
questions as Council deliberates. She explained that there was a new
Federal Law that related to the prohibition against local government
imposing substantial burdens on churches in connection with their right to
exercise religious freedoms. She further explained that there were several
established laws and constitutional provisions competing with the RLUIPA,
including the establishment clause, which prohibited government and
churches from becoming too entangled. She clarified that a city could not
give special treatment or consideration to a church without being in
violation of the establishment clause. She indicated that the Federal Statute,
which was recently enacted, prohibited the imposition of substantial
burdens. She clarified that it didn't take away local government's
constitutionally granted police powers, which include land use regulation.
She stated that there were comments made about property rights and
clarified that private property rights were subject to the police powers
inherent in local government to govern land use; and that was what zoning
was. She noted that it had been upheld for many years. She explained that
the Conditional Use Process fit within the zoning laws in California and the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Lake Elsinore. City Attorney Leibold
stated that the Federal Statute recently enacted didn't exempt churches from
reasonable land use regulation; and it did not exempt them from the analysis
inherent in a Conditional Use Permit process, it simply prohibited the
imposition of substantial burdens. She noted that one of the last speakers
made a comment that the law was subject to interpretation and she felt that
was an accurate statement. She indicated that there was no reported case law
on this; as it was new statute. She stated that her belief was, that given the
facts before Council; given the facts and circumstances in the Downtown
area with respect to the existing zoning pattern; with respect to existing land
PAGE TWENTY-TWO - CITY COUNCIL MINiJTES - MARCH 13, 2001
uses; the fact that the church had an existing Downtown location; the fact
that the City hosted at least 12 other churches in the community; 5 or 6 in
the Downtown area; and the City did not embrace any sort of rejection to
churches or religious institutions and their use. She explained that it did not
mean that this church had a vested right to the Downtown; did not mean that
this church had a vested right and was exempt from analysis with respect to
the land use appropriateness for this location. She indicated that the Federal
Statute talked about substantial burdens in the jurisdiction and clarified that
a Council could not zone out churches from the City of Lake Elsinore. City
Attorney Leibold stated that facts and circumstances in this case were not
even close to zoning out churches. She further stated that there was no
discussion in the statute about the ability to pick and choose, and it was
appropriate for the City Council to evaluate the appropriateness of the
proposed use of this property as a church, just like the Council would
evaluate any other proposed use; compatibility with neighboring uses;
concentration vs. diversity of uses; what the intention was in the proposed
land use and vision for the Downtown area; did the use promote pedestrian
traffic; did it promote vehicular traffic; and what times of day did it attract
people to the Downtovtm area. She indicated that these kinds of
considerations were appropriate land use considerations that were taken into
account in consideration of a Conditional Use Permit. She explained that
was why there were uses that were allowed only by Conditional Use. She
noted that in the Zoning Ordinance there were different zones; Commercial
Zones, Residential Zones, Industrial Zones, and different levels that allowed
for more intense vs. less intense uses. City Attorney Leibold stated that the
right of zoning permitted certain uses; and other uses were permitted only
with a Conditional Use Permit because there was recognition that there
could be special circumstances and other considerations. She further stated
that it was an overall evaluation as to the appropriateness of the proposed
use and was not a use that was permitted as a right. She indicated that was
the circumstance before Council tonight. She explained that the applicant
had requested a Conditional Use Permit to locate to this property; the
Council had all of its constitutionally granted police powers before them to
evaluate whether they should grant or deny the application for a CUP. She
stated that in her opinion the Federal Law did not exempt the church from
that kind of consideration. She further stated that the letter, which was
submitted, suggested that denial of the CUP necessarily constituted a
substantial burden in violation of the Law and she disagreed. She stated
that she was available to answer any questions.
Mayar Schiffner then called for the Council to comment.
Councilman Pape stated that he did not know what he did to Mayor
Schiffner, but he was sorry. He commented that sitting there, he felt like the
kid in class, the teacher asks the question, and the kid did not know the
answer; and he did not want to be the one called on and suddenly you heard
your name. He indicated that he would start with some of the comments
that were expressed tonight. He commented that he thought that no matter
PAGE TWENTY-THREE - GITY COiTNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
which direction Council went, there were going to be people that were
going to be disappointed and you hated to be in a position where you knew
some people were going to be disappointed and disagreed with the decision.
He stated that Pastor Rodriguez spoke very eloquently and he would hate to
be on the opposite side of the argument. He commented that Pastor
Hilbrant spoke very passionately for his congregation and church and their
attorney. He stated his appreciation that Ms. Rose Moore from the Naval
and Military School said that they were in the process of fi~ng the roof and
that was good news. He explained that he went down to the store for the
very first time on Saturday because he felt that he should take a look around
and see exactly what was going to be discussed. He indicated that he saw
an area that was an older building that could use some work, but the parking
lot was free of litter and when he went inside he saw that it was an older
structure, but it was clean inside. He stated that his wife had told him that
the prices were very good and since she handled the grocery shopping, and
he took her word on the pricing. He explained that it came down to a land
use issue. He noted the people that spoke in favor of the market; the
Downtown Business Association; the Chamber of Commerce; an employee
that was a single Mom supporting her boys and another employee helping to
support her family; folks that lived in the Downtown area that did not have
transportation to get to some of the other markets around town. He noted
that some of the speakers mentioned that the market provided a vital service
in the Downtown area. He stated that one of the things that he knew was
that the recycling center located at the market was very helpful and useful
for the City. He stated his surprise at how much actually went through the
recycling center with over'h million dollars turned in at that location and
then spent in the community, which was certainly a benefit. Councilman
Pape stated that he wanted to bring up a couple of things that were in the
letter from Robert Tyler, the attorney representing the church. He noted a
couple of errors that should be mentioned so people were aware. He noted
the statement "no other facility presently available for the church in the
Downtown area", and stated that he had given it some thought and
mentioned the Catholic Church, in the Downtown area was vacant and had
been for some time. He noted that they had moved a couple of years ago to
a larger facility and he felt that the old Catholic Church site would be a
suitable location and he would support that 100%. He noted the comments
in the letter stated "The church was requested by City staff to plan 21 % of
their project site for landscaping", and it was his understanding through
talking with staff that their request was at 15%, however the church
brought in their plans at 21% voluntarily and created a small discrepancy.
Councilman Pape stated that one other thing that should be noted was that
he resided in the community for about 18 years and that was not that long,
and in talking with some of the other old timers who have lived here 45 to
50 years, they told him that the building had been used as a grocery store for
35 years and before Food Smarts it was the Alamo. He noted that it had
been under that use for a long, long time. He noted another comment in the
PAGE TWENTY-FOUR - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
letter "It was highly unreasonable to make a judgment that Food Smart
would provide a better service than the church". He stated that he did not
know if it was better, however it was just different and both served a very
important role in the community. He would not say that Council would
want to see Food Smarts evicted for any particular reason and he would not
want to see the church evicted for any particular reason out of their current
facility, since they both were important to the community. He indicated that
Council had gotten conflicting information since one attorney said one thing
and the other attorney said another. He commented that was how attorneys
did well; one attorney in town was very poor, but if there were two
attorneys in town, then they both did we1L He stated that there were
differing opinions and he would have to lean to the attorney that represented
the City and had done a good job for the City for several years. He made
note of the comments from the attorney of the Military School, which
seemed to be veiled threats that they were going to evict them anyway and
he hoped that was not the case, since he did not want to see a vacant
building in that location, with potential vandalism and no rent. He stated
that he did not see any reason to go that way, and if they want to sell it fine.
He indicated that what he was looking for and listening for tonight, since he
had read the Planning Commission Minutes and looked at their decision
which was to support leaving in its current state, was there additional
information or something new that wasn't dealt with at the Planning
Commission level and would say to him "yes that's important information
that was not considered" and would warrant the Council overturning the
Planning Commission decision. Councilman Pape stated that he did not
hear that tonight and there was no new information that would cause him to
decide that the Planning Commission's decision was in error and Council
should grant the appeal, which would grant the CUP. He commented that it
was a Downtown Business District and he felt that Planning Commission
took everything into consideration and gave the church a fair hearing. He
further commented that hopefully the City could work with the church and
find a suitable site in the Downtown area. He indicated that he felt that the
perfect area would be the Catholic Church, which was set up and obviously
ready to use. He stated that he did not know what type of price they were
asking, but the City could help facilitate that action. He stated that this was
a success story, because when you looked at it, they moved into their
current facilities approximately nine years ago and a few years later they
came to the City wanting to add another building because they were
expanding and growing. He noted that now they were back again since they
had more members in their congregation and needed more space, which was
good news for the City. He stated that he felt the City should do everything
to encourage them to continue to grow and prosper and do well in the area
that they want to stay in Downtown.
Councilman Metze stated that the two attorneys were seriously getting
under his skin and he felt that Mr. Shaima owed Ms. Proctor an apology.
He stated that Mr. Shaima stood at the podium and used five minutes to
baszcally defame Ms. Proctor on behalf of selling the property; he did not
speak on the issues; he did speak on anything that was relevant to this
PAGE TWENTY-FIVE - CITY C.OUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
Matter; but rather he spoke on what a bad person she was. He indicated that
he felt bad and felt that Mr. Shaima owed Ms. Proctor an apology.
Councilman Metze apologized to Ms. Proctor that she had to deal with that.
He further stated that Mr. Shaima did not speak of anything that had to do
with the claim tonight. He commented on the statement that there were no
sites in the City and asked if people thought that Council never drove
around town; did not know what was available in town; did not go to
Chamber Mixers with real estate agents and the Board of Realtors; did not
approve building plans; did not read the recommended approval to the
Planning Commission; and did not read the report, which included the
Planning Commission minutes. He indicated that staff did not recommend
approval to the Planning Commission, and read the recommendation as
follows: "Staff recommends Planning Commission and Design Review
Committee consider adoption of Resolution No. 6." Councilman Metze
stated that people were being misled when the attorneys made misleading
statements. He further stated that Council had the information before them
and read the information. He indicated that the decision did not boil down
to dollars, since it was not a big enough store that it would be something
that Council would get excited about like a Wal Mart or a car dealership.
He recognized the comments made by Ms. Brown and the others that the
market provided an important service to the local community, which was
consistent with the zoning. He concurred with Councilman Pape and stated
that he saw no reason to overturn the Planning Commission decision at this
time.
Councilwoman Kelley stated that this was an evening where any one of
them would trade spots with anyone in the audience tonight. She stated that
it was a tough spot to be in, with a tough decision to be made. She further
stated that she had to applaud the church for their success, since they had
outgrown their current building and were looking for another location,
which was a sign of a successful congregation and ministry. She noted that
the Council welcomed churches in the community and there were a couple
under construction now, on Railroad Canyon Road and on Machado Street.
She stated that the community did rely on their spiritual leadership;
however she had some concerns and questions for Community
Development Director Brady. She asked if, at their very first meeting, the
church leaders were made aware of the zoning Downtown and the Overlay
District and the vision that the City had for the area. Community
Development Director Brady stated that the Planning Department had met
with Pastor Hilbrant and discussed the requirements for that particular
location in terms of the CUP and the requirements that they would have to
go before the Planning Commission. He noted that there was also Design
Review that went with that, so those items were discussed. Councilwoman
Kelley requested confirmation that the church leaders were fully aware that
this could go either way, before they started to put deposits down.
Community Development Director Brady stated that was discussed; he did
not know what they were thinking in their mind, but the decision that would
have to have been made by the Planning Commission was discussed.
Councilwoman Kelley asked if it was discussed and if they knew of the
PAGE TWENTY-SIX - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
possibility that it would be denied. Community Development Director
Brady stated that was part of the discussions. She directed a question to Mr.
Tyler and noted an article in the newspaper that stated that if the Council
did not agree to the CUP the City would be sued. She commented that it did
not sit well with her breakfast, however when she came to City Hall, picked
up the information, went through the packet, and noted that there were
several inaccuracies that had already been pointed out by the other
Councilmembers. She stated that the substantial burden clause was very
broad to her; this was not a governmental action that had caused the church
to look for another location; and they had heard the City Attorney say that
the Council reserved policing powers as far as the City's Zoning, which was
very important to the City. She indicated that the bottom line was if the
Council was going to validate and support the Planning Commission
decision or if Council going to overturn it. She stated that it did not really
matter that it was a Food Smarts, or Ms. Proctor, or the church since it really
had nothing to do with it. She indicated that the bottom line was that
Council was looking at an appeal of a recent decision, therefore Council
needed to get down to the recent decisions to deny the CUP and decide if
the Council agreed with that or not. She stated that it was as simple as that.
She stressed that it had nothing to do with Food Smarts and it could
become a very political and emotional issue, but it must be taken out of that
realm because it comes down to the decision. She noted that the question
was if the decision by the Planning Commission was valid or not. She
indicated that when she looked at the report it made note of the four
decisions made by Planning Commission. Councilwoman Kelley stated that
this Council and previous Councils had a vision far the Downtown area.
She fiirther stated that they also had a constitutional right to uphold the
City's Zoning Regulations. She noted that it was a question of whether the
Planning Commission followed Council's vision and would Council uphold
their decision or overturn it. She indicated that it came down to the one
issue of whether Council wished to hold on to their right of the planning in
Downtown or if they wanted to release it at tkiat time; did Council want
diversity of use; or did Council wish to remain with the original plan. She
stated that she agreed, looking at the Planning Commission's decisions, to
uphold their first decision. She indicated that to her it was very important.
She commented that it was a Downtown area that Council had envisioned
foot traffic and lots of businesses that create other businesses. She stated
that she would have to uphold the Planning Commission decision at this
time.
1Vlayor Pro Tem Brinley stated that she wished to say something on a
personal note and then she would address the issue. She commented that
she had the deepest respect for Pastor Jim Hilbrant and his congregation.
She felt that Pastor Hilbrant was a wonderful man and did the community a
great service, which was obvious by how large his congregation was
growing, which was by leaps and bounds. She further commented that three
years ago she and Pastor Hilbrant had a discussion in the back parking lot of
City Hall regarding his outreach program and noted the building that Pastor
Hilbrant wanted to open up and have special services so he could reach
PAGE TWENTY-SEVEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
those that were homeless and needy as well as those who were looking for
spiritual leadership. She indicated that she supported him in that effort and
she still thought he was doing a wonderful job. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley
addressed Ms. Proctor and told her that she had been doing a wonderful job
for a long time. She stated that Ms. Proctor had been a friend and
community supporter, giving to the needy and supporting the Student of the
Month program. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley commented that Ms. Proctor
should be commended for her service to the community. She stated that she
cared about and respected Ms. Proctor. She indicated that the decision
before Council was not an easy one. She commented that someone told her
that the Council played the role of Solomon and it was an easy role to play.
She stated that Council had to go back to the basics and the basics were land
use issues, which were what was being discussed tonight. She stated that as
one of the oldest members, having served on the Planning Commission and
Council; and served on the Planning Commission as Chairman when the
City did the Historic Overlay for the Downtown area. She noted that she sat
on the Downtown Overlay Committee, which was made up of two
Councilmembers, Chairman of the Planning Commission and four
representatives from the business community. She explained that when
they were laying down the conditions of the approval the Redevelopment
Agency went in and spent $6.5 million to revitalize and redevelop
Downtown, which meant they gave out low interest loans to do their store
fronts, so they all came into compliance with the revitalization of
Downtown Main Street. She further explained that the loan was for the
purpose of the businessmen Downtown who so badly needed a facelift,
because they wanted to be able to compete with the new businesses that
were coming into town such as Wal-Mart, K-Mart and all the other new
businesses that were being located throughout the town. She noted that
Council tried to make the Downtown a special district and purposefizlly
zoned it commercial. She addressed the Alamo Market and stated that she
and her husband moved to Lake Elsinore in 1977 and Mr. Brinley was the
meat manager for the "old Alamo Market". She stated that she knew the old
owner personally who was Mr. Larry Barker. She addressed the
Redevelopment Agency side and stated that when Council and Planning
Commission were looking at the project Downtown the surrounding
residential area was taken into consideration and a part of that consideration
was the senior village and the seniors that were located behind City Hall.
She noted that what they had hoped to address was the need to not have an
automobile to serve their grocery needs. She stated that the main issue had
nothing to do with tax increment; and had nothing to do with Ms. Proctor's
actions. She stated that it was very sad when Council received a letter from
an attorney and read in the paper that the City would be sued if the Council
did not make the right decision, without taking into account the land use
issue and the District that it is in. She stated that was the issue tonight and it
was a hard decision to make. She commended the church on their growth,
however some of the comments she had made to Pastor Hilbrant during the
development of the outreach program was to hold it in the current building
until he could build a new church to meet his growing needs. She indicated
PAGE TWENTY-EIGHT - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
that she was torn because of her respect, however she also saw where the
City is trying to go. She indicated that when John Husing presented a study
of the future growth on I-15 and the growth that would occur in Lake
Elsinore in the ne~ 5 years. She stated that the City needed to have
commercial space available and needed to maintain the integrity of the land
use issue that was before Council. She stated that the City was facing many
changes. She noted the habitat issues that Council faced and explained that
it was up to the Council to protect and preserve their economic survival.
She explained that it was strictly a land use issue; dealing with current
zoning; to properly address the businesses that were on Main Street
maintaining their vitality; and maintain the fact that Council wished to see
more businesses come to the Downtown area. She stated that Council had a
hopeful outlook that someone would consider development along Spring
Street and behind City Hall, which was part of the Redevelopment Agency
plan. She indicated that these are the issues that concerned Council. She
stated that she was sorry that there were attorneys present. She commented
that she was very impressed with the Planning Commission Meeting being
so professional and felt that they did an excellent job. She noted Planning
Commissioner Barnes' comments which mentioned that the store
Downtown offered so many great services; it offered service to those that
had no car and could not get to a store except on foot; it offered pay phones
for those who could not afford a monthly service, but had the ability to walk
to use the service; how the store served the Seniors. She noted that he did
not address the tax dollar, but rather the need. She noted the need for
recycling need and the requirements the City had for recycling, which was a
State mandate. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley stated that she was not addressing
Pastor Hilbrant, nor Charlene Proctor, but rather a land use issue within a
Downtown Business Area. She again stated that it was not easy to make a
decision since it would not a win/win for anyone. She stated that she
wanted the community to know her feelings and how she made her decision
and she did have great respect for the members present and all of their
efforts in taking part in a Council Meeting and going through the process.
Mayor Schiffner stated that one of the benefits of being in the center chair
was that there was not too much left to say by the time it got to him. He
stated that it was a very difficult decision and noted that he was an active
member of the church up the street; had the utmost respect for the persons
that have addressed Council; was acquainted with Pastor Rodriguez and had
great respect for him as well as the other people here tonight. He indicated
that he felt sympathy for the people in the community who had the desire
for this business to stay there. He noted that there had been many eloquent
arguments both ways and there had been some simple, but sincere
arguments. He indicated that fortunately the Council did not have to base
their decision on how well they like either side of this picture. He reiterated
that it did come down to a land use decision. He commented that he would
hate to make a decision based upon which group he favored, as it would be
really difficult. He indicated that it boiled down to a land use issue. He
further indicated that previous Officials of this City had established the land
use designation after much study. He noted that the issue in question had
PAGE TWENTY-NINE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
gone through the Planning Commission and they made a ruling on the issue.
He stated he felt that the land use as it presently existed, based upon the
reasons why it was zoned that way in the first place, needed to be upheld.
Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed at 9:22 p.m.
MOVED BY METZE, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY
UNANIMOUS VOTE TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AS FOLLOWS:
a. The intent of the C-1 District is to provide locations for general retail
and office uses, which offer the sale of goods and services to the
general public and which, through characteristics of their operation,
serve primarily the day-to-day shopping needs of local residents. The
replacement of the present retail use with the Elsinore Christian
Center would result in the loss of a needed service and recycling
center serving the general public.
b. The approval of the CUP will result in the conversion of a structure
built for a retail commercial use that may result in the immediate loss
of property and sales tax revenue and limit future tax revenue that
could be generated by a retail commercial use.
a The subject location does not have adequate on-site parking for the
proposed church use to meet the parking regulations contained in
Chapter 17.66 of the LEMC. The lack of adequate on-site parking
could adversely impact the parking needs of adjacent uses.
d. Denial of the CUP does not impose a substantial burden on the
Elsinore Christian Center given the church is presently located within
the City's jurisdiction on Graham Avenue and other potential sites for
relocation exist within the City's jurisdiction.
Mayor Schiffner thanked the members of the audience who had attended
regarding this subject and stated that he was only sorry that he could not
please all of the interested parties.
THE CITY COUNCIL RECESSED AT 9:23 P.M.
THE CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9:31 P.M.
BUSINES5 ITEMS
31. Second Reading - Ordinance No. 1073 - Amendment No. 1 to the Elsinore
Cit~Center Specific Plan. (F:150.1)
City Attorney Leibold recommended continuance of this item to the next
Regular City Council Meeting on March 27, 2001,
PAGE THIRTY - CITY COUNCIL'MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
MOVED BY METZE, SECONDED BY BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY
UNA1vIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE SECOND READING OF
ORDINANCE NO. 1073, TO MARCH 27, 200L
32. Report on Homeless Shelters. (F:87.3)
City Manager Watenpaugh noted that there was a representative of the
community that had spoken before Council regarding a Homeless Shelter.
He indicated that at the request of Supervisor Buster, staff attended a
meeting regarding Homeless Shelters on February 27, 2001. He stated that
he had received a report, on which the Supervisors Office had not spent a lot
of time, however in the report it stated that the Supervisor and his staff
would be out in the community, meeting with different groups to talk about
facilitating partnerships. He stated that staff had placed the item on the
Agenda to allow Supervisor Buster and his staff the opportunity to give a
brief presentation as to what was proposed, and the research, so that Council
would be fully aware of what was proposed by the public at the two
previous Council Meetings.
Supervisor Buster stated that he was bringing an item before Council to
request the City's partnership and participation in a Homeless Shelter. He
noted that for many years, in the City of Riverside, there was a homeless
shelter formales, however it had been brought to the Supervisors attention
that there were no facilities for women and children. He explained that the
County had one of the primary roles from a service standpoint, to help the
cities, the faith community and community based service organizations to
begin to provide a more comprehensive service for the homeless. He noted
that a portion of March Air Force Base was used for the homeless. He
explained that it was a Federal Law that one of the first calls for facilities
for the homeless was at excess military bases. He stated that there were
plans for March. He indicated that the questions were posed "Where are the
gaps and where is the overlapping service? Where are the needs in this
rapidly growing County?" He indicated that another concern stated by the
City of Hemet was that they were becoming a magnet for the homeless.
Supervisor Buster stated that because of Hemet's concerns, County staff
along with a number of church people and community organizations was
asked to examine where the resources were and where there was a need. He
explained that the meetings were to help develop a plan that could then be
brought forward that could help to prevent and reduce homelessness and
maximize the resources and get a handle on the issue. He indicated that
they had done a number of reports, which were submitted to the City for
review. Supervisor Buster introduced Susan Lowe, Deputy Director of the
Department of Public Social Services, Kathy Welborne, homeless
coordinator for the Department of Public Social Services, Francis Charles,
who spent many years meeting with homeless people and helped administer
a program funded by the Department of Mental Health, that identifies the
homeless and services their needs, and Wendy Colke from Supervisor
PAGE THIRTY-ONE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13,2001
Buster's office who had done some of the research for the presentation.
Supervisor Buster stated that the first question to pose, about the homeless,
was who they were. He indicated that the Urban Institute discovered that
25% of the homeless were employed; 22% were single mothers with
children; 35% were mentally ill; 30°/a were veterans; and 40% had some
form of addiction. He noted that in the Lake Elsinore area approximately
30 people came to the Cal-Works program for Grant Funds because they
were about to be evicted and would become homeless. He explained that
they identified approximately 150 homeless in the Lake Elsinore area. He
explained that currently there were a lot more questions than answers and
noted that if the economy declined and the utility costs increased, the issue
would be even greater. He noted that more than 85% of the people in
Riverside that came in for services were from Riverside. He stated that
there was no legal mandate regarding the homeless, however there were
many incentives and encouragements in the City's housing element to
provide for the homeless. He noted that the cities and County should be
providing services, but he felt that it was up to the County to act as a
conduit to seek and distribute funds to the cities in order to address the
homeless. He stated that it was each city's role to help seek a location and
possibly operators for the programs, such as a community based service
organization or church organizations. He explained that the object was to
help people to get out of homelessness, hopefully forever. He commented
on the different programs available for funding and assistance. He indicated
that the other three elements other than funding were emergency,
transitional, and permanent shelters and noted in the I-15 corridor from
Lake Elsinore through Temecula, there was no facility and encouraged
cooperation between the County and City.
Mayor Pro Tem Brinley asked if the County was looking to locate shelters
in each community. Supervisor Buster stated that they would be addressing
that in the near future.
Supervisor Buster stated that there were 16 emergency shelters in the
County and 900 beds, however 300 of those beds were at the Amory and
were used for cold weather beds. He explained that for general
homelessness there were 416 beds in the entire County.
Mayor Pro Tem Brinley asked if the County placed battered women and
children in with the general homeless. Supervisor Buster indicated that
there were separate facilities for special needs. He noted that the
specialized facilities were much more evident in the County of Riverside
than General homelessness. He stated that there was a need for emergency
shelter beds, which were needed for up to two months to get them on their
feet. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley asked about the chart, which showed Lake
Elsinore as a stand-alone, and then Temecula/Murrieta lumped together.
She asked why Lake Elsinore was alone and Temecula/Murrieta were not.
Supervisor Buster stated that the location would be up to each City. She
PAGE THIRTY-TWO - CITY COUNCIL 1VIINTUES - MARCH 13, 2001
asked if Temecula and Murrieta were going to be teamed up, why not team
up Lakeland Village, Lake Elsinore and Wildomar. Supervisor Buster
stated that when they spotted Lake Elsinore they meant the Lake Elsinore
area. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley stated that the area should be called out as a
specific, since it gave a false perception it would be a viable area to place a
homeless shelter.
Supervisor Buster stated that there were specific criteria for a successful
homeless shelter that would not create problems. He indicated that
homeless people needed to be close to services such as busses, training
facilities and other facilities they would need. He stated that the
opportunity they had was the fact that there was lots of land in Riverside
County, even in the older areas. He explained that it would be best to
determine where the facilities should be placed early on, to facilitate costs;
and even if the shelter were not built for five more years, the land would be
available and would not have an increase in cost. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley
stated that it was her understanding that the main reason City locations were
considered was for the infrastructure and public transportation. She stated
the reason she suggested the alternate areas was because those areas had
infrastructure and transportation. Supervisor Buster stated that Emergency
Shelters were where homeless people tended to be, however they would be
transitional shelters. He noted a chart in the report that showed the
Transitional Shelters and noted that there were more beds for specialized
than for general homelessness. Transitional Shelters house for a period of
up to two years and were usually larger facilities. He noted that the March
facility would be used for that purpose. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley clarified
that it would be used for Perris, Moreno Valley and Riverside. He indicated
that there was no way of adding up the avoided costs of the great human
toll, from people getting into the habit of falling into homelessness. He
noted that the cost is generally borne by the Federal and State. He noted
Yhat there was money available that the County and cities were not
effectively going after and part of the reason for getting funding was
because Riverside County did not have a plan. He explained that with a
comprehensive plan, it would be possible to go after the money. Mayor Pro
Tem Brinley questioned where the funding would come from. Supervisor
Buster stated that the major amount of funding would be from the Federal
level with the State contributing as well. He compared the major difference
in the amount of funding received by San Francisco and Los Angeles to the
amount received by Riverside County for the homeless. He stated that with
a comprehensive plan Western Riverside County could pursue the funding
through H[JD and it had been his experience that they were more than fair.
He noted that there were no permanent facilities available with the
exception of facilities for the severely disabled, the chronically mentally ill,
Aids patients and seniors. He stated that the primary focus would be for
emergency and prevention. He indicated that the County was getting over
$5,000,000 a year and could get much more, particularly for building. He
noted that the City of Riverside was building a facility for homeless women
and children: He invited Council to tour a facility in Indio called Martha's
Village, to see how that type of homeless facility could work. He stated that
PAGE THIRTY-THREE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
the facility was located just east of the Date Festival Fairgrounds.
- Supervisor Buster stated that there were no statistics on whether there was
more crime in the area of a shelter, but what he understood was that it was
the homeless that were victimized. He noted that when the homeless live in
a shelter, there is more security. He noted that Orange County had been
using Proposition 10 funding for children under 5 and their families, to fund
the building of homeless shelters and the non-profit arm of the BIA would
be building the shelters. He stated his appreciation to Council for the
opportunity to speak and hoped that he had the City's partnership. He
concluded that wherever the criteria showed the optimal area for a facility
should be proposed, however if the criteria indicates that the facility should
be located within the City then the City would work with him, just as hard
as he would work with the City should it be located in the County.
Councilman Metze asked who would decide on the criteria. Supervisor
Buster stated that it would be a joint process between the County and the
City.
Councilman Pape commented that it had been explained to him that
homeless are broken down into four categories: 1) the criminal element; 2)
drug and alcohol dependent group; 3) the mentally ill; 4) the people who
find themselves temporarily without housing due to loss of job or eviction.
He noted that each class would be treated differently. He asked if all four
would be placed in one building or there would there be different facilities.
Kathy Welborne, Homeless Coordinator, explained that what they were
seeking was a general homeless population shelter, since there are specific
shelters targeted to specific populations and in actuality a general homeless
shelter can often serve those specific populations by bringing forward the
necessary supportive services to best assist those individuals. She indicated
that the categories mentioned were a number of different combinations. She
noted that there was often a cross-over within individuals as to whether they
have a mental illness and a drug and alcohol problem that might be
contributing to criminal behavior, therefore they could make a full array of
supportive services available. Supervisor Buster noted that there was a new
procedure of fingerprinting with the program to track the services that were
provided and prevent duplication. He noted that if there were prior
problems, then they could be identified at the time a person enters a shelter.
Councilman Pape clarified that what was proposed was a shelter that could
handle anything as it came in the door. Supervisor Buster confirmed.
Councilman Pape stated that from what he was presented with in the packet,
there were not enough dollars to accomplish what was proposed. He asked
what efforts had been made to incorporate faith-based institutions to help
with the operation aspects of the facility. Supervisor Buster stated that
Pastor Butenshon had beat him to the punch and hoped that the Council and
church leaders in the community could help. Councilman Pape stated that
he would encourage that action, however he was not necessarily sold on the
idea that there was a problem within the City boundaries. He noted that
within the City there were not a large number of homeless and even if a
PAGE THIRTY-FOUR - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
facility was set up that was not within the City Limits the Council would
want to look at utilizing some of the CDBG funds to assist with a shelter.
He stated that he did not know what kind of response they would have with
Murrieta or Temecula, however the County did not need the City's support
to provide a shelter since the necessary services were found in the County
and would facilitate the needs of the homeless. He asked why there were 48
beds for AIDS patients and asked if there were any beds for cancer patients
or heart disease patients. Ms. Welborne stated that it was a specific
population that HUD had designated funding for through the Super NOVA
program. She noted that those were the organizations that had historically
applied for HUD funding and been successful. She noted that they had not
had an organization that was looking for housing for cancer or heart
patients. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley stated that she thought Diabetes would
have been one organization that would have approached H[JD. Supervisor
Buster stated that he did not know how many homeless there were in each
community, however both the Supervisors and Council of Western
Riverside County should be sensitive to the situation.
Mayor Schiffner asked about the comment by Supervisor Buster regarding
funding. He stated that there had been mention of available funds and
existing organizations were mentioned as under-funded. Ms. Welborne
stated that there was a great need in the County of Riverside and noted the
difficulty in getting funds from HUD through their application process. She
stated that she felt that through a stronger commitment level and
collaboration from all governmental agencies, there would be a better
chance of ineasurably increased funding. City Manager Watenpaugh
explained that it was thought that if there was a unified plan far the area it
would be easier to obtain funding. Supervisor Buster stated that if the
County and cities had a plan in place, then facilities could be built, however
the operational funds would have to come from private sources or from the
cities or the County. He thanked Council far their time and stated that he
would get back with them to set a day to visit Martha's Village. He asked
that Council review the reports, since it would give them a better idea of
what was involved.
Mayor Schiffner stated that until this evening he had a completely different
concept of which type of person the homeless were. He stated that he
would not be not be opposed to a home for domestic violence homeless as
he would a home for the general male population. He stated that perhaps if
Supervisor Buster stressed that there were people that had specialized
problems who were homeless, and would not present a problem to the
community instead of the perception in the community of the type of person
that would typically be thought of as "homeless".
Mayor Schiffner then called upon those persons who had requested to
speak.
Heidi Melzer, Lake Elsinore, stated homelessness was a real situation. She
noted that everyone knew Carol Johnson who was homeless and would fall
PAGE THIRTY-FIVE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
into the mentally ill category. She noted that 9 years ago she was a battered
and abused mother of four and was thrown into the street and became
homeless. She stated that the homeless were people and not statistics; they
were in Lake Elsinore; and they did matter. She stated that the homeless
needed government help.
Max Aragon, 8 Corte Cervati, spoke in favar of a homeless shelter in the
City of Lake Elsinore. He stated that he had spoken to Council in the past
regarding the homeless. He stated that a shelter would not necessarily
attract homeless people to the City, since they were already here. He noted
that HOPE served 70,000 packaged meals last year and there were at least
nine other groups serving the community. He noted that by not having a
shelter in Lake Elsinore the community was denying a voice to people who
live within the community. He explained that without a legal address a
person could not registrar to vote and a shelter would provide deserving
people with an address so they could register to vote. He noted that a
shelter would also provide a person with dignity and allow their voice to be
heard and they did count. He stated that people should not confuse the
homeless shelters with hospitals. He noted that there were people who
desperately needed help.
Pastor pon Butenshon, 15085 Robin Court, indicated a young man named
I Jeff and his family were present tonight and noted that they were homeless
and stated that they had been homeless for approximately 3 months, living
in their car. He explained how he had met the family and noted that he had
told them that they would have a bed to sleep in if there was a shelter. He
stated that there was a need for a homeless shelter and further explained that
in the last month there had been a great number of people that came to
HOPE who were homeless. He commented on the responsibility of Council
and reminded them that they were vested with the authority to set policy
that would affect all the citizens of the City. He stated that it was his
opinion that a good politician should take hold of real opportunity for social
service and act upon that need. He asked that Council publicly announced
to the community that they were willing to work with Supervisor Buster and
the other officials to bring a homeless shelter to the community. He
commented that if Council committed this evening, then they would be
much happier doing the Lord's work.
Mayor Pro Tem Brinley clarified that when the Council was discussing
diseases, Council was not talking specifically about homeless shelters, but
rather funding sources. She stated that if there were funding sources
__ available, then what Council needed to do was take a look at the sources and
capitalize on them.
Councilman Metze stated that this was a preliminary report to better
understand the issue.
Supervisor Buster stated that what Pastor Butenshon spoke of was the same
throughout the County of Riverside and he only asked that Council review
PAGE THIRTY-SIX - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
the information and meet with him.
Councilman Metze stated that Council had concerns, the Supervisors had
concerns and the homeless had concerns. He suggested that there was a
need for all affected entities to sit down and discuss the options. He stated
that there were other facilities that had to be considered and what position it
would put the City in.
Supervisor Buster stated that it was not the facility itself, but rather how
well it is run. He stated that when Council had an opportunity to review the
facilities then they could better make a judgment.
Councilwoman Kelley thanked Supervisor Buster for his presentation to
Council and for allowing the Council time to deliberate on the information
presented. She stated that Council would definitely get back to him and she
was interested in touring the facilities mentioned.
Mayor Pro Tem Brinley questioned what communities Martha's Village
served. Ms. Welborne stated that the facility served Indio and a large area
of the Coachella Valley. She indicated that other shelters would have to be
addressed in the area. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley asked what area March Air
Force Base served. Ms. Welborne stated that it would serve Perris, Moreno
Valley and parts of Riverside. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley stated that Council
was looking for was a unified plan through the County, and would have to
consider a joint partnership.
Mayor Schiffner stated that he would like to visit some of the shelters. He
addressed Pastor Buntenshon and stated that he had asked for a firm
commitment and stated that he would make a commitment to work with
Supervisor Buster. He stated that he did not know what that would mean.
He stated that he did not know if there would be a shelter placed in the City
or in another location and that would have to be determined after a full
review. He indicated that the Council did have concerns regarding the
homeless, however they also had a concern for the community.
MOVED BY METZE, SECONDED BY BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY
UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE REPORT ON
HOMELESS SHELTERS.
TFIE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 10:37
P.M.
THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 10:39
P.M.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
Peter Dawson, 18010 Grand Avenue, provided his monthly report on LEMSAR
activities for February, 2001. He advised that LEMSAR provided 565 hours of
PAGE THIRTY-SEVEN - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
service to the community, assisting distressed boaters, maintaining the perimeter
for boat races, and towing wayward boats, docks and debris. He noted the
increased amount of floating debris with the rising water level and advisedthat
they will do further clean up in March. He fizrther advised that they conducted a
"night familiarization cruise" to allow the membership to be prepared to address
distress calls safely. He noted Mayor Schiffner's attendance at their February
meeting and thanked him for providing an update on the City and the Lake. He
expressed concern with the firing of a flare over the Lake and noted that this was
the second such occurrence, and noted that it was later determined that someone
decided since the launch ramp was closed they would convince someone to open
it. He stressed the severity of this action and noted that it was a serious violation
of the laws.
Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest Drive, indicated that if the Lake was the
economic engine of the community, then the large number of lawsuits are the
leaking fuel tank. She suggested that time had turned Lake Elsinore into a rich
playground for lawyers. She indicated that the current Council had covered far
prior Councils and denied the problems for years. She noted the long closed
session prior to this meeting to discuss lawsuits and suggested that the money
being spent on various lawsuits could be better utilized for City services. She
noted comments made by Councilmembers Metze and Pape and suggested that
they were solely for political reasons. She also suggested that they would take
credit for Mission Trail being widened and paved as well. She further suggested
that there would probably be a second anniversary celebration of the
groundbreaking for the fire station. She indicated that if she is elected there will
be no more covering for past officials and the silence will end.
Barbara Cady, 32524 Wildomar Road, announced the following upcoming events:
1) March 15~' Friends of the Library Meeting, with speaker Imogene Llewellyn, on
Geneology; 2) EVAN starting the third annual poetry contest, with applications
going out now and awards to be presented on May 24'i'; 3~ Elsinore Women's Club
Bar-be-que on March 24~' from 5 to 730 p.m.
Cathy Beck, 381 Avenue 12,expressed further concern with the cars being parked
on the Casino Drive dirt lot across from the auto dealerships. She questioned
permits on file, and whether anyone had surveyed the situation. She indicated that
cars were still being off-loaded on Casino Drive and noted that a Sheriff s Officer
saw it occurring and drove right past. She suggested that the dealerships should
follow the laws of the City and stressed the dangerous situation being created.
She stressed that the dealerships should meet any requirements that apply to their
situation.
Dan iJhlry, 150 E. Lakeshore, announced that the Riverside County Sheriffs
Posse would be presenting a Circus, on April 11`~' and 12~' at 430 and 730 p.m., at
the lot at the corner of Collier/Central. He also noted that their Rodeo was a work
in progress and now had a website at lakeelsinorerodeo.com.
Bill Tucker, 740 Acacia, noted that he attended the Sportsman's Show in Long
Beach the past weekend, noted the turnout and expressed concern that Lake
PAGE THIRTY-EIGHT - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
Elsinore was not represented.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
City Manager Watenpaugh commented on the following:
1) Clarified that with regard to the Mission Trail funding, the County
withheld funds because the City is not an independently entitled City,
due to population, so CDBG funding is provided through the County.
He noted that the City will pay the balance over the ne~ct six years,
aside from the cash payment of $150,000 for right-of-way
acquisition.
2) Addressed the parking issue on Casino Drive, indicating that staff
spoke with the general managers and met on site on Monday. He
advised that staff would be brining options, such as a parking lot or
on-site parking, for resolution forward to Council, hopefully at the
next meeting.
3) Thanked Supervisor Buster and his staff for their attendance.
4) Congratulated Teri Ferro on her recognition as Woman of the Year.
Community Services Director Sapp noted that the City will have a booth at the
Fred Hall Sports Show in San Diego.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
City Attorney Leibold commented on the following:
1) Noted that the City Council met on four items of Closed Session prior
to this meeting and as noticed, with no reportable action.
2) Indicated that no one takes joy in the circumstances of litigation and
stressed that staff strives to expeditiously and efficiently as possible.
3) Thanked everyone who was present at this meeting for showing an
interest in City Council business and attending the meeting. She also
commended the Council on their deliberations at this meeting.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tem Brinley commented on the following:
1) Thanked Pastor Hilbrant, his congregation, and Charlene Proctor and
her supporters for taking an interest in the City and coming out to this
meeting.
2) Clarified that the expensive lake treatments discussed by Ms. Hyland,
PAGE THIRTY-1~TINE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001
were part of the $15 million State Bond Money designated for Lake
Elsinore, and stressed the efforts underway to correct the Lake's
problems.
3) Noted the EDC Lunches held on the second Thursday of each month
at the Diamond Club. She encouraged participation and provided the
phone number for further information and reservations.
4) Noted the difficulty of the decisions made at this meeting,
particularly when the parties on both sides are people you know and
respect.
Councilwoman Kelley had no comments.
Councilman Metze had no comments.
Councilman Pape had no comments.
Mayor Schiffner commented on the following:
1) Noted the upcoming special events including the Classic Car Show,
Basketball Tournament and Neighborhood Pride Program.
CLOSED SESSION
Due to the Volume of Closed Session Discussion items, a Special Closed Session
City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting was convened at 4 p.m. on this
date. See separate Minutes for details.
ADJOURNMENT
MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY KELLEY AND CARRIED BY
UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL
MEETING AT 11:02 P.M.
ROBERT L.
~ c~
SCHIFF ER, MAYOR
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
AT EST:
i ~ ~ ~
VICHI KASAD, CMC, CITY CLERK/
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR
CITY OF LAK~ ELSINORE