Loading...
18-0611_VERMEULEN RANCH CENTER, LLC_E7_Correspondence6/11/2018 June 11, 2018 Hi folks--there's a City Council meeting scheduled tomorrow. ~~~elen property is once again on the agenda. /ul& JUN 11 Pf'J 3 OS A bit of past history: CITY Cl E!~K SAU Jl.JA.'i CM', ""Ht ~ n.Q In 2014 when the issue of the Vermuelen family's desire to have 500 units built on · their land, beside Armstrong Nusery by the Speiker development a~d their ~ representative Troy Bourne, the townspeople objected. On October 21, 2014, . the City Council majority that voted to approve the amending of the General Plan to rezone 35 acres for agricultural land (rated having the richest soil in California) to make room for t~e project, consisted of Mayor Sam Allevato, Larry Kramer and John Taylor. There was so much objection that the venue had to be moved to a conference room at our school district office for that meeting. The meeting time was set, but Mayor Sam Allevato and Troy Bourne changed the time to a half or hour earlier for people Bourne had invited from out of town Speiker Senior developments. Bourne provided box lunches for his guests and they took all the seating in this very large room. When the San Juan residents arrived on the scheduled time announced, there was no seating available and they had to stand behind Bourne's seated out of -· town guests. Mayor Sam Allevato extended that meeting until3 o'clock the next morning. The townspeople then rallied and collected almost double the signature.s necessary to pass a ·referendum that would give the council the power to either accept the outcome of the referendum or put it out for a special election to the voters. The referendum was accepted by the newly elected council and the proposed 500 units were blocked at that tim~. Troy Bourne, Speike.r, and the Vermuelen family are back again. This time proposing 180 homes and almost 2,000 car trips a day. E7 The commis~ion passed it on for approval to the City Council anyway. The same vague plan was presented to the council and moved on to tomorrows meeting. The problem of being able to provide water for the 180 homes did come up, water that is becoming scarce that the residents already living here may have to share. One last remark,.·-The Planning Commissioners at the time the 500 units were being considered, the Commissioners voted not to pass the project because they found Troy Bourne's EIR-Environmentallmpact Report to be flawed. Regards, Barbara For checking the meeting agend~ go to: sanjuancapistrano.org October 2015-VOL ·s, 10 ~ COMMUNITY WATCHDOG --··-a:~:&~role'ft'lildc------·111MIID!II-B!Iil*'l.~7!1!.-n-l:o;.~..sa~•J~~~~~'Ut··~~ullitM!r.nt~,JI':f~f21'1ZAi'fro.~Wt~·~ ~ommunity Common Sense ---~~ ne• Jill Ia -~,.!'lli!A<A~~:!tJI~I'1i\O\I'III'AI'!'>~~"fA.W.•~EJ,¥J!i>ft!ifd'JJ~~~!W··il·~11tfi<'.;:,ti!v'$1x.t r-.~"~{l(la:W<t•JJl11QUi:'JWl'f;Jft<ltl.~"diif1i.'W.;;.~t.•~-~!illCP" ~ San Juan Capistrano · . . The Facts Regarding t~e Vermeulen Lawsuit You may hav e heard rum- b lin gs about the C ity bei ng SJC Co uncilmember s ued K en y Ferguson by the Ver- meulen family an d Troy Bourne of Spieker Develop- By Kerry Ferguson, San Juan City Council member ment ("Pl aintiffs,), over the uns uccessful development of the Vermeu le n prop erty. Some supporters of th e de- velopment have gone so far as to predict that the lawsu it will bankrupt the City. A llo w me to set th e record straight. Here's w h at o ur c ri tics haven't told you: The City strongly di sagrees with the c laims alleged in the lawsuit a n d on Friday, Septem ber 18, 2015, the City . fil ed a moti on ch a ll enging the lawsuit on m any grounds. It is the City's position that the lawsuit impro p erly seeks to u s urp the C ity's broad poli ce powers and to dictate how a C ity Counci l shou ld exercise its d iscretion ary legislati ve and zoning author- ity by effective ly forc ing th e City to "up-zone" the proper- ty from Agricul tu ra l-Business uses to dense residential uses. This is contrary to Ca li - fornia Law. T he P la in - tiffs' po s it io n is also not s up- ported by the facts. Although the Verm e ul en property has been used for farming and other agricultural uses s in ce 1938, Pl a inti ffs' claim that it can n o lo nger be v iably used Story continued on page 4 ... ~. ~ San Juan Capistrano Swn rontitmed.fivm page J .•. for agricultural and other uses al- lowed by the Agri-Business General Plan designation of the property is . patently false. The property has been leased to Arm.<;trong nurseries since 1998, a T-Mobile facility provides extra beneficial use, and the Retail Center, which is. part {$f the Vermeu- len Ranelt, continues in business to this day. The Agri-Busmess.zoniog allews many dilkrent types of uses, :but the Plaintiffs never applied· for any of those uses·. A mere desire to up-zone and build a more Jucrative project th'an historically e~-isted or .cWTent{y ' exists does not p~vide any basis, constitutional or otherwise, for forc- ing the City to change the a·eneral Plan designation. It is also the City's position that the lawsuit improperly seeks to .under- mine the will of the voters. Last November, well more than the re- quired number of voters in the City exercised their inherent referendum powers by challenging the resolution that had approved a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for Spieker Development's Project. . Once the voters have spaken -by .referendum petition, the California Elections Code requires the City .to repeal the resolution or bold a special eJection. The City Council v.oted to repeaJ it since the very recent election had yielded 60% of the votes cast rejecting candidates wlto favored the project, including two incumbents who bad voted for 1it in .a very Unfairly conduct.ed City Council Meeting that sought to Rlll1 it through -no matter what. It should be noted that Spieker did not challenge the repeal of the Proj- ect approval and cannot do so now because the 90 days for filing a legal challenge has expired. . . ing the City should have bought the Vermeulen Ranch with those funds. Electing to acquire one property over another using Measure D or Measure Y funds that are designated .for specific uses, such as open space and preserving the rural character of the City, does not violate Plaintiffs' equal protection rights nor provide any b~tsis for trying to dictate how It is also important to keep in mind the City should use those funds. that the California Election Code Again, this is an untimely attempt to prohibits the. City from taking an challenge decades-old discretionary action within 12 months contrary to legislative actions by the City, in- the issue presented by a referendum.· eluding the City's decisions between The City has also challenged the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims for regulatory taking, due process and equa-l protectim on procedut•al and legal grounds . A substantial part of the lawsuit is based on complaints that the-City treated the Plaintiffs unfairly by using Measure o· and Measure Y..: funds to buy other properties, claim- 1990 and 2009 on how to spend · · bond funds that were approved by over two-thirds of the voters. · For all these reasons, the City looks forward to having the City's defense to this lawsuit heard by the court in November. We will keep you posted. T.o subscribe to Councilmember Ferguson~ free monthly . e-newsletter, email your request to: kerrykfergusonsjL@gllllliLcom Coun cilm an Sam A ll eva~o bas repeatedly claimed publicly that the current City Coun cil majority is "res ponsible for eleven lawsuits" totaling "millions of dollars". We decided to d o some fact checking to see when laws uits against the C ity were filed amounting to more than $10,000, and bow much t he C ity taxpayers paid to defend and/or settle each case*. We s ubmitted a P ublic Records request for informa ti on dated back to 2013 , the year prior to the election of the present council majority. The results are li sted below. · ·· LEGAL FEES PAID BY SJC TAXPAYERS 2013-PRESENT LA WSlfiT NAME & BASED ON ACTIONS STATl 'S ~ LEGAL I BRIF.F I>F.SCI~IPTION OF PRF.VIOl iS AND/OR Capistrano Taxpayers Association (CTA) v. SJC After approving a 40% increase in water rates, Council majority members Allevato, Kramer and Taylor ignored warnings by CTA that the new "tiered" water rates were illegal. CTAfiled a lawsuit that claimed the rates violated Proposition 218, which protects taxpayers from being charged more for an essential service !han what it actually costs to deliver it. Commonsen se.com, LLC v . SJC and Councilmembers Sam All evato, Larry Kramer and John Taylor Councilmembers Allevato, Kramer and Taylor voted in closed session to ban newsracks from city property. Ou r publication was also prohibited from distributing our paper on City property. We filed a legal action, asserting our First Amendment right to free speech. The judge agreed with CCS and restored ou! E!!Per to C Vermeulen Ranch Center a nd Spieker Senior Development Partners, LLC v. SJC After a successful referendum· to overturn approval by Council members Allevato, Kramer and Taylor of high-intensity residential development on former agricultural property, the developer and landowner sued the City, claiming entitlement to re-zone the property to allow for residential development "Vermeulen Lawsuit " at: www.ccsense. OR PRESENT SETTLEMENT CITY COli NCIL FEES PAID Previous Co un cil Majority Previous Coun cil Majority OC Superior Court Judge ruled in favor of the CTA. Council majority members Allevato, Kramer and Taylor voted to appeal verdict . - City settled, paying attorney fees and court costs totaling . . approximately $60,000 ..... ~ On -going. Legal fees to date: $195,000 The court U:wtilidatedthe previou.s. COII11Cl1 's projeCil!JlpTQval ,:r1A~~~~~il.~ ......... ~, law ~~. elow, ani/ article on~e J3)4 41 Save our Historic Town Center Mark Nielsen, Kenneth E. Friess, Robert J. Williams v. SJ C Councilmembers Ailevato, Kramer and Taylor voted to approve the "Urban Village "'downtown development plan despite warnings from the C ity Attorney that the plan was not in conformance with the Historic Town Center Master Plan. A group of residents filed a lawsuit challenging the approval which look place at 3 AM Joan ~€lob, 'Q. ~~~t.~l'ilr.s~~'tbe city l"l01 7..,.,.,rJ,D'n' ri#.H-.TltJIR tJg~rELQ:. Previous Council Majority ~ "'"""' . :";2~'A~Mril . ...:Jtlll Hootan Danes hmand, Lauri Mcintosh and Brian Water rate lawsuit Montgomery v. SJC resulted from actions R esidents filed a class action lawsuit against the City for full of previous Council refund of water charges. An Appellate Court ruled they were· majority; current illegally overcharged for a period of 4 years but the City only Council members refunded 1 year of overcharges (see ''Class Action Lawsuit-SJC Water Ferguson, Perry and Rates" at: www.ccsense.com under "Community Links"). Reeve approved 1 r of refunds r~~r71rfiW.~...4 So'uthwest Voter Education Project, Tina Auclair and Louie Camacho v. SJC SJC r esidents Tina Auclair and Louie C amacho filed a laws uit against the C ity claiming election process is "racist". Lawsuit demanded that the City be diVided into districts to represent Hispanic minorities. (see "Auclair/Camacho SW Voter £d Lawsuit" at www.ccsense.com under "Community Links ·~. Total *Source: City of San Juan Capistrano, OC Superior Court On-going. Legal fees to date: approximately $15,000 On-going. Th e City reported approximately $9000 in legal fees paid to C ity 's attorneys to date however, court records reflect add itional fees of approximately $50;ooo to date s ubmitted to the · co urt by Auclair & Camacho's attorneys $9,225,000.0 0 (approximate)