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