MEMBERS OF THE CTY COUNCK SANALLETO. 32400 PASEO ADELANTO SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 (949) 493-1171 a a = =o onan oo ae December 18, 2009 William J, Feccia, Sr. Assistant District Attorney Orange County District Attomey 401 Civic Center Dr. West PO Box 808 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: City of San Juan Capistrano Brown Act Violation Complaint—Real Estate Negotiations Dear Mr, Feccia: This correspondence is a follow up to our meeting on November 5, 2009 and your correspondence dated December 8, 2009. Please note that the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano, whom also sit as the Board of Director of the City’s Redevelopment Agency (RDA), have not and do not intend to discuss or consider the development project presented by Continuing Life Communities (CLC) for a continuing care facility on property it is acquiring from the Crystal Cathedral Ministries. The City and its Redevelopment Agency acquired a purchase Option on portions of the subject property. ‘The consideration of the CLC project is and will continue to be processed through the public and open process established by the City's Municipal Code (Title 9-Land Use) for review and approval by the City’s Planning Commission and City Couneil. Furthermore, you have raised a concem with certain provisions in Article IV of the foregoing Option agreement wherein the parties agreed to enter into certain additional agreements prior to the exercise of the Option by the City and its Redevelopment Agency, which include a joint access agreement, joint parking agreement, water agreement and development agreement. Please note that the City Council and its RDA Board do not intend to discuss any of those agreements in closed session. The City has always intended for those agreements to be discussed and considered in open session and in conjunction with the processing of CLC’s development project. Finally, as to our agreement to pursue an Attomey General opinion regarding the terms in a real estate transaction that would properly be covered by the “price and tems of payment" exemption San Juan Capistrano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future riodon 100% yo papeWilliam J. Feccia, Sr. Assistant District Attorney Orange County Distriet Attorney December 18, 2009 Page 2 from the open meeting requirements of the Brown Act, please note that we have engaged our local association of city attorneys and consulted various real estate attorneys with respect to terms that might affect the price of property and which would be prejudicial for a party to discuss and consider in public (and which should be included in closed session discussion pertaining to “price and terms of payment”), Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach a consensus with respect to specific terms because the various permutations in the minds of many could be limitless yet specific fo individual parcels of real estate, We have been reminded that California Law considers cach parcel of real property unique (Civil Code 3387). We are therefore elevating ‘our inquiry to the legal/city attorncys department of the League of California Cities for further input and discussion. In the meantime, we are mindful of your office’s strict interpretation of the Brown Act's open meeting exemption when handling Real Estate transactions. Please accept my apologies for not following up with this letter sooner. Sincerely, City Attomey