Loading...
00-0801_CRA_Minutes_Regular Meeting141 August 1, 2000 REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS CLOSED SESSION (610.85) - None RECESS UNTIL 7:00 P.M. BUSINESS SESSION The Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the City of San Juan Capistrano Community Redevelopment Agency was called to order by Chairman Swerdlin at 7:25 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: David M. Swerdlin, Chairman John Greiner, Vice Chairman Diane Bathgate, Director Collene Campbell, Director Wyatt Hart, Director ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: George Scarborough, Executive Director; Thomas Tomlinson, Deputy Director; John Shaw, City Attorney; Cynthia L. Russell, Finance Officer; Cheryl Johnson, Agency Secretary; Jennifer Murray, Assistant City Manager; William Huber, Director of Engineering and Building Services; Amy Amirani, Public Works Director; AI King, Director of Community Services; Lt. Rick Stahr, Orange County Sheriffs Department; Karen Vavan, Recording Secretary. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Director Greiner, seconded by Director Bathgate, that the staff recommendations be accepted for the following items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Directors Bathgate, Greiner, Hart, Campbell, and Chairman Swerdlin NOES: None ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 5, 2000 — The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 5, 2000, were approved as submitted. CRA Minutes -1- 08/1/00 142 2. RECEIVE AND FILE WARRANTS JULY 13, 2000 (300.30) The List of Demands dated July 13, 2000, in the total amount of $30,132.10, was ordered received and filed. 3. RECEIVE AND FILE INVESTMENTS — MONTH ENDING JUNE 30,2000 35( 0.30) The Report of Investments dated June 30, 2000, was ordered received and filed. 4. ANNUAL REVIEW OF INVESTMENT POLICY (350.30) As set forth in the Report dated August 1, 2000, from the Finance Officer, the Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 was adopted. The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar to allow for public input. APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND HOME DEPOT USA, INC. (600.40) Written Communications: Report dated August 1, 2000, from the Principal Management Analyst, recommending approval of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Agency and Home Depot, USA., Inc., providing for Home Depot to fund the cost of the California Environmental Quality Act analysis and to serve as an applicant for California Environmental Quality Act purposes. The Memorandum of Understanding provides that the Agency will not negotiate or enter into discussions with any other party for development of the property during the course of the Environmental Impact Report/planning entitlement process; that the Agency will retain an independent consultant to prepare the Environmental Impact Report; and, that upon certification of the Environmental Impact Report, the Agencywill determine whether or not to convey the property to a home improvement retailer. If the Agency determines to convey the property to a home improvement retailer, negotiations will be carried out exclusively with the Home Depot. If the Agency determines not to convey the property to a home improvement retailer, or if the Agency and Home Depot cannot agree on terms for a definitive purchase agreement, then the Agency will not convey property to any other entity for development as a home improvement center for a period of four years. The Executive Director made an oral presentation, describing the terms of the proposed Memorandum of Understanding. Public Input: (1) Michael Thorpe, 26000 Ave. Aeropuerto, #42, stated that if the City enters into this MOU, it would was committing to this project by tying up the land for up to five years; further, that it was common practice to submit applications and fund the EIR without reciprocal commitments of this type. He stated that the property analysis and the EIR should include alternative designs of a home improvement CRA Minutes -2- 0811/00 143 project and not just the plans of Home Depot. A substantial reduction of square footage should be examined for in- and off-site impacts, and traffic should be examined in- and off-site. He felt the EIR should also analyze alternative uses of the property, stating that he did not feel it necessary to develop the entire site. (2) Jack Heath, 26000 Ave. Aeropuerto, stated that a four- to five-year tie-up of the property was improper abandonment of Agency authority and put the City in the position of making a deal with Home Depot or risking having the property sit unproductive for up to five years. The action would put undue and illegal pressure on the Agency, binding the hands of future decision -makers. The restriction of future use of the property indicated a pre -commitment to building only this project. Under these circumstances the indemnification provisions were inappropriate because they encouraged the Agency and City to bend or skirt the law with no consequence. The abandonment of responsibility for directing defense of a lawsuit was not appropriate for a public entity and was bad public policy. Mr. Scarborough emphasized that the provisions of the MOU specified that if the Agency determined not to sell the property to Home Depot, the property would not be sold to any other home improvement center for a period of four years. The MOU did not tie up the land for four years; the land could be sold for another type of development. (3) Erma Thomas, 26000 Ave. Aeropuerto, stated concerns that by signing the MOU, the City could be giving up some basic responsibilities under State and local law. She also stated concerns that the five-year time issue could discourage other businesses who may have been interested in the site and also tie the hands of future City Councils who may feel differently. Mr. Scarborough clarified that if the Agency subsequently determined that a home improvement center was not an appropriate use, then the property could not be sold to Lowe's Home Improvement Center. (4) Virgene Heath, 26000 Ave. Aeropuerto, #225, asked what would happen in a lawsuit if the challenging parties are legally meritorious and Home Depot seeks to prevail simply by overwhelming economic resolve. Mr. Shaw, Legal Counsel, felt there was no basis for a lawsuit. (5) Bobbie Decker, 26000 Ave. Aeropuerto, #49, referred to the Fish and Game Permit and noted that on January 15, 2000, the application to divert a stream had expired. She stated that on June 1, 2000, trees had been bulldozed down and the City had defined the action as weed abatement. On June 2 a homeless man's shack had been bulldozed. She stated that vegetation could not be touched between March and July and that there were many infringements. She felt the City should find out who had done the weed abatement. She indicated she had contacted other agencies who would now be involved; i.e., the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Game and the Corps of Engineers. She CRA Minutes -3- 08/1/00 144 referenced Section 1.2 of the MOU, which she felt indicated irregularities. She further stated she had been fighting the destruction of the wetland since 1992. The City Manager gave a brief history of the Lower Rosan Ranch area, discussing agriculture and annual weed abatement in that area. He indicated that the Agency had been notified by the Department of Fish and Game that the Streambed Alteration Agreement had expired. The Agency had submitted renewal information and expected the permit would be renewed based on representations by the Department of Fish and Game. He further indicated that the Agency had a valid Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit, relating to the stockpile. (6) Lucienne Austin, 26000 Ave. Aeropuerto, brought photographs of the weed abatement in progress, and requested the Directors review them. Ms. Austin stated her concerns about the clothing and belongings of homeless individuals and that trees were cut down with nesting birds in them. She stated that the stockpile contained debris and also expressed her concerns about the environment, questioning how an EIR could be prepared when the area had been destroyed and how the area would be returned to its natural state. Ms. Austin subsequently retrieved her pictures. (7) Ken Steelman, 7 Hidalgo, Irvine, representing Home Depot and stated that these issues would be addressed during the process and urged approval of the MOU. Board Comments: Director Bathgate felt many good issues had been raised and the MOU was a mechanism to provide for the EIR, where the issues would be explained. She felt the MOU would not restrict development of the site to any other use except another home improvement center. Director Hart stated that an EIR would be essential for whatever use was established on the site; further, it would address all the issues that had been raised. Approval of Memorandum of Understanding: It was moved by Council Member Hart, seconded by Council Member Bathgate, that the Memorandum of Understanding between The Community Redevelopment Agency of San Juan Capistrano and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., be approved, providing for preparation of an EIR for a home improvement warehouse on the Lower Rosan Ranch property. BOARD ACTIONS - None CRA Minutes -4- 08/1/00 145 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. to the next regular meeting date of Tuesday, August 15, 2000, at 5:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, /t_I4���l�Ji ✓�I CHERYL JOWS06r, AGENCY SECRETARY ! ATTEST: DAVID M. SWERDLIN, CHAIRmAN CRA Minutes -5- 08/1/00