91-0321_CC_Minutes_Adjourned Regular Meeting111
MARCH 21, 1991
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA
The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano,
California, was called to order by Mayor Friess at 7:10 p.m., in the City Council
Chamber for the purpose of hearing presentations by environmental law firms relative to
the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Environmental Impact Report Legal Issues.
ROLL CALL PRESENT: Kenneth E. Friess, Mayor
Gil Jones, Councilman
Jeff Vasquez, Councilman
ABSENT: Lawrence F. Buchheim, Mayor pro tem
Gary L. Hausdorfer, Councilman
STAFF PRESENT: Stephen B. Julian, City Manager; George Scarborough, Assistant City
Manager; John Shaw, City Attorney: Cheryl Johnson, City Clerk; David Bentz, Director
of Administrative Services; Tom Tomlinson, Acting Planning Director; William Huber,
Director of Engineering and Building.
COUNCILMANIC ITEMS
Written Communications:
1 Letter dated March 18, 1991, to members of the City Council from R. Bruce
Tepper, Jr., Attorney at Law with the firm of Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, 354
South Spring Street, Suite 420, Los Angeles 90013, forwarding a resume listing
the firm's experience in California Environmental Quality Act actions.
(2) Letter dated March 21, 1991, from Mark 1. Weinberger, Attorney at Law, with
the firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, 396 Hayes Street, -San Francisco
94102, advising of their involvement in opposition to the Corridor and
forwarding a resume. The letter also requested the opportunity to make a
presentation to Council at its April 2, 1991.
Presentation by Law Firm of Kane, Ballmer & Berkman:
Bruce Tepper, a partner in the firm, advised that the firm specialized in land use and
environmental matters. He stated that there was a period of 30 days from filing of
the Notice of Determination to challenge the adequacy of the EIR; the Notice was
filed on March 14th. He stated the belief that there were difficulties in terms of
project description and its failure to address significant impacts on San Juan
Capistrano and other cities lying in path of corridor such as impacts on city streets,
noise, air quality and visual impacts. Therefore mitigation measures were also
lacking in the document. He felt that the alternative section was, on its face,
defective per laws of the State of California and stated the belief that there were
deficiencies that would cause a court to disavow the project and force the
Transportation Corridor Agency back to drawing boards. He felt that what would be
accomplished would be either stopping the project, or stopping the project
3/21/91
temporarily while the court required the Transportation Corridor to redraft
document. He stated that the deficiencies in the alternative section would provide
the City with leverage and suggested that while this project would probably not be
stopped forever the City could have a strong affect on how project was shaped if
litigation was successful. Mr. Tepper stated that, as his firm observed the situation,
the decision of the Agency was not sustainable due to the lack of knowledge as the _
basis for the decision; that more information would have to be developed before the
document could be considered adequate.
He estimated that it would cost $20,000 to $25,000 to file a good complaint in a
timely manner. The issue would be tried on the administrative record and until the
firm could review the administrative record produced by the Transportation Corridor
Agency a complete cost estimate could not be determined. Mr. Tepper felt there
are other environmental groups that may bring a lawsuit and suggested the
opportunity to act in concert with others and to combine resources.
At the request of Mayor Friess Mr. Tepper addressed the Federal Environmental
Impact Statement process of environmental review. He stated his belief that under
Federal law the process was defective since to honor Federal law in this case the
Agency should not have adopted the project in its final form prior to adopting or
certification as adequate under Federal environmental law.
Presentation by Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger:
Mayor Friess noted that the presentation by Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger would be
scheduled for City Council meeting of April 2, pursuant to their request.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10
p.m., to the next meeting date of Tuesday, April 2, 1991, at 7:00 p.m., in the City
Council Chamber.
ATTEST:
K—ENNETN E. FRIESS, MAYOR
Respectfully submitted,
' f '/N
-2-
3/21/91