City Of Lake Elsinore Says No To Castle & Cooke

Facing risk of litigation, the Lake Elsinore City Council accepted recommendations by staffers to deny an agreement that would pave the way for development on about 400 acres in the city.

The project applicant, Castle & Cooke, has proposed more than 1,000 homes, two commercial centers, two parks, a possible new school and fire station near the intersection of Lake Street and Nichols Road. I

“They’ve just lost about $5 million in improvements,” Castle & Cooke’s Tom Tomlinson said after council members unanimously denied the proposal Tuesday night to restate a developer agreement for the project. “It’s frustrating, but we’ll get it worked out with the city.”

Council members and staffers had discussed the developer agreement in closed session, but there was no public discussion by council members on the issue Tuesday night.

Tomlinson said the denial came as no surprise to his team.

The city has come under pressure from the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) to deny the agreement because, if signed as is, it would exempt the developer from paying about $20 million in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees.

TUMF fees are assessed on developers for the purpose of building and upgrading regional roadways.

Castle & Cooke argues the fees should exempted from the project. In 1990, an original developer agreement was inked for the project but consequently expired in 2005, City Attorney Barbara Leibold explained Tuesday night. There was no development that took place on the land and, at the time of the 1990 developer agreement, TUMF was not in place, she said.

Castle & Cooke believes that if the city were to restate the original agreement, exemption from TUMF would be grandfathered in. WRCOG has disagreed with that position.

Tomlinson said he believes threat of a WRCOG or county lawsuit is preventing the city from moving forward.

Leibold publicly stated Tuesday night that the city has land use regulatory power within its borders, not WRCOG.

Stephen Miles, an attorney for Castle & Cooke, added, “Frankly, WRCOG has a very limited role in this matter. It’s really overstepping its boundaries.”

Tomlinson said Castle & Cooke would indemnify the city against legal challenges from WRCOG, but not the county.

“At this point, it’s up to the city,” Tomlinson said.