Community Common Sense - April 2018 by Community Common Sense

APRIL 2018 – VOL 9, 5

YOUR COMMUNITY WATCHDOG

Community Common Sense Riding a Mountain of Debt

In this Issue...

By Jim Reardon

San Juan Capistrano Riding a Mountain of Debt Page 1 Guest Column: Holding City Administration Accountable Page 3 Eastern Open Space Pages 4 & 5 Council Approves $1.25 Million Contract for Blenheim Page 6 City (Taxpayers) Lose AGAIN - Legal Losses Mount Page 7 Editorial: Failure of Leadership Pages 8 & 9 Questions About Los Rios Project Remain Unanswered Pages 10 & 11 Letters to the Editor Page 12 Misinformation Results in Sale of Muchneeded Public Parking Lot Page 13 New Flight Path Puts Low-flying Planes Over SJC Page 14

The city of San Juan Capistrano has borrowed $58.5 million related to the Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park, almost double the amount authorized by voters in the 2009 Open Space ballot measure. The excess cost of this borrowing is a $1.86 million annual interest charge that is quietly being paid from the city’s general fund, apparently with the consent of the council majority, who are publicly silent on the matter. In 2009, voters authorized the city to issue $30 million in tax exempt bonds for the purchase of “Open Space” within the city, guaranteeing repayment of this debt with their homes and property within San Juan Capistrano. An ad valorum tax appears on annual property tax bills to cover the cost of the original borrowing. The city then secretly used $27.5 million from the bond proceeds to purchase the Riding Park, a parcel that was actually outside of the city at the time the purchase was negotiated and announced to the public. Purchase of the Riding Park brought with it a relationship with Blenheim, the private promotor of the equestrian events that occur at the loca-

tion. Blenheim exclusively tax-exempt bonds, but in the provides management and low interest rate environment maintenance of the facility in of the time, the new taxable a business arrangement that bonds were less expensive has been called into question than the original tax-exempt by city staff. bonds. "All of this is an The tax-exNevertheelaborate scheme to empt bonds less, the used to finance a for-profit new bonds purchase the enterprise at taxpayer exceed the land provide $30 milexpense." benefit to a lion amount private for-profit business, an authorized by the voters in arrangement that is contrary 2009, and specifically do not to IRS regulations and threat- comply with the voter-apens the tax-exempt status of proved ballot measure which the original bonds. requires the city to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance After eight years of behindOpen Space.

the-scenes disagreement as to the legality of the Blenheim relationship, the city council quietly authorized the issuance of taxable bonds to replace the original tax-exempt debt. Taxable bonds are costlier to repay compared to

In April 2017, the city issued $28.5 million in “advanced refunding” taxable bonds pledged directly against the original 2009 voter authorization, and deposited the proceeds into a special account. However, the original tax-

Community Common Sense

exempt bonds remain outstanding, and will remain so until August 2019, when the original bonds are eligible to be repaid. In the meantime, interest costs of $150,000 per month for the new bonds is being paid from city coffers, further aggravating the city’s oft-mentioned structural deficit. All of this is an elaborate scheme to finance a for-profit enterprise at taxpayer expense. No matter how much prestige or benefit the equestrian events bring to the area, the blatant disregard of voter-approved ballot language and abuse of debt guaranteed by taxpayers is unconscionable. The silence of Councilmembers Reeve, Ferguson, Maryott and Farias (Patterson consistently voted “no”) signals their complicity in this scheme. Among them sits a candidate for U.S. Congress, and three members who will stand for reelection this November, or stand down. Long-time resident Jim Reardon is a business owner and a twice-elected Trustee of the Capistrano Unified School District.

STOP SUICIDES IN ORANGE COUNTY.

AND JOIN THE CLUB.

Who We Are Green Ribbon Club™ is a 501(c)(3) student-run non-profit that is committed to ending the social stigma surrounding mental illness in order to encourage communities to utilize local public health resources, with the ultimate goal of mitigating the rising number of suicides in the United States.

Get Involved We’re looking for high school and college advocates to improve overall mental health in their communities. If you’re interested, or know someone who might be, send us a message.

Connect with Us www.greenribbonclub.org Facebook: @thegreenribbonclub Instagram: @greenribbonclub Twitter: @GRCtalkaboutit

Community Common Sense

PAGE

Guest Column

Holding City Administration Accountable By Councilmember Pam Patterson The importance of residents giving input to their elected representatives cannot be emphasized enough. It takes only three SJC Councilmember council Pam Patterson members to change the town forever. Council members tend to think twice when they know their constituents are paying attention. This is why city advisory committees are so vital to good city governance. City Commissioners are the residents’ voice. That is why I am now voicing my own concern about a recent council action that I believe silences, or at least severely diminishes, the voice of the people. On February 6th, Mayor Sergio Farias put a council action item on the Agenda to restrict City Commissioners from placing items on their own Agendas for discussion. Councilmembers Farias, Reeve, Maryott and Ferguson all approved it. The result is that now commission agenda items will no longer be controlled by the commissioners, but by the City Manager. The excuse given by my colleagues was that they want to manage and/ or restrict the workflow coming from the city commissions because Staff is overworked. According to Mayor Farias (who never served on a commission), commissioners are increasing staff’s workload. If it is too much work, why even have commissions? The reality is that this type of control continues via staff reports written under city administration’s oversight. Commissioner’s agenda items were being removed by the city manager. In cases where the city

manager disagreed with recommendations that commissions voted to send to the council for approval, the city manager controlled the outcome by refusing to forward them to the city council. The council has now completely removed the ability for our resident commissioners to have a discussion about topics they feel are important to the community. This enables city administration to control the city with minimal input from residents. I opposed this action strongly because I firmly believe that “He who controls the agenda controls the meetings and thus controls the City". In my opinion, this is exactly what was intended by this agenda item. I believe that what my colleagues and the city manager do not want is an open flow of information between, and discussion by, city residents. So, who is actually in control of your tax dollars now that your resident commissioners do not have the ability to even put something on their own agendas? It is not We, the People. It is highly paid city administrators; people who do not even live here who are making decisions for you and spending your money with the help of three council members -- and remember that several of these council members got themselves elected by making promises they never intended to keep or have not kept. It is frustrating that no one is being held accountable -- at least, not yet. That is why I urge you to get ready to vote in November. The majority of the council seats are up, but voting is not enough. As inconvenient as it may be, I urge each of your districts and HOAs to organize and watch these meetings (you can do so from video at home if you are unable to attend), and report back to your neighbors. Please pay atten-

tion to what is going on during these meetings. Personally, I have witnessed some of the worst business decisions I have ever seen - at the expense of the residents and our historic city. We are at a crossroads; irreparable harm is occurring or has the ability to occur at every council meeting.

will now incur instead of requiring Blenheim to pay for its own water use at the current monthly flat fee of $3,000. ♦ Yet another developer-councilstaff collusion with respect to the proposed Los Rios project known as “River Street Market Place”. During that meeting, not a syllable was uttered during the staff presentation that the proposed project violated the Los Rios Specific Plan. That fact did not come to light until Los Rios residents addressed it during public comment. And people wonder why the city gets itself into so many lawsuits.

There is one common thread in all of these decisions; a developer or other big business, and a broken campaign promise. Here are just a few examples (that I voted against): ♦ Blenheim being awarded a $1.25 million annual management contract after pollution at the Riding Park occurred under their management, triggering a federal lawsuit.

In conclusion, as inconvenient as it might be, I encourage you to organize every two weeks and watch the meetings. Pay attention to what’s going on at City Hall to protect your money, and to protect this beautiful historic, still-small town we call home.

♦ Approximate $1.1 million plumbing and water installation at the Riding Park which benefits Blenheim’s private business. The result is an annual estimated $600,000 recycled water bill that the city taxpayers

Letters and Articles for consideration must meet submission guidelines, are subject to editorial adjustment and may be sent to: eboard@ccsense.com

Editor: Kim Lefner Advertising/Sales: Kim McCarthy Phone: (949)275-8800

Operations/Distribution: Alvin Ehrig Email - eboard@ccsense.com

30240 Rancho Viejo Rd., Suite A, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

Find out more on our website: www.ccsense.com

Show your support for the CCS by supporting our advertisers! Like Us on Facebook! Please Visit Us at: www.facebook.com/CommunityCommonSense Find Us on Twitter! @SJCommonSense

Community Common Sense

PAGE

Eastern O

The map below illustrates the result when cronies In 2008 Council members Mark Nielsen, Sam Allevato, Lon Uso, Tom Hribar and Laura Freese convinced taxpayers to vote to tax themselves $30 million to protect open space. The result was what former two-time Mayor Dr. Roy Byrnes called “the worst real estate deal in San Juan history”.

HALF of this property was already protected open space. A private business, Blenheim, monopolizes the most usable acreage at taxpayer expense. A recent study reported only 8% of SJC residents visit this park.

Next they allowed private citizens Brad Gates, Dick Paulsen and Tom Lunnen to negotiate purchase of property outside city boundaries, exempting them from filing the required conflict of interest disclosure forms - despite Gate's longtime business dealings and personal relationship with the seller, Rancho Mission Viejo Company ("RMV") CEO Tony Moiso.

Due to the City's lack of due diligence in acquiring and maintaining this property, the San Diego Water Board notified the city about their lack of compliance in protecting San Juan Creek from continued pollution. City administration’s repeated failure to comply over a 1 ½ year period prompted non-profit environmental protection organization OC Coastkeeper, to file a lawsuit. City is now at risk of being fined up to $55,000 per day dating back to 2006, for polluting Federal Waters.

Behind closed doors the council then approved the negotiated property restrictions and dictated uses specified by the seller.

Taxpayer-funded costs continue to add up on the “open space”, a few of which are noted on the map on the right.

14,000 residential units being built across the street from the "open space" on the other side of Ortega Highway (in "Sendero", as indicated), and across Antonio Parkway and La Pata.

"Reata Park" is the only other usable parcel in the open space. Although it is rarely used, taxpayers were charged $575,000 on a road and signal leading from Reata to the Ranch's development across Ortega.

2.4 acres adjoining Reata Park was previously leased to a developer who built 35 homes on the former Oaks site. City leased it to developer for $4,800 per year while taxpayers paid approx. $35,000 in interest on the property. Developer reportedly leased approx. 9 horse turn-outs for $1,000/month. City administration still refusing to open up the property to the public for equestrian use.

Community Common Sense

PAGE

Open Space

s are given carte blanche to spend taxpayer dollars Development has begun on 5 million sf of retail/commercial approved on the Ranch property across the street from the "open space". Gelsons Supermarket and other stores are already impacting merchants in SJC.

The "Riding Park" is the most usable parcel in the "Eastern Open Space". At 70 acres, it comprises approx. half of the 132-acres of open space, but has been leased to a private commercial equestrian business. SJC taxpayers are severely restricted from using it.

Blenheim has been allowed to operate without the required "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" permit. Runoff from the Riding Park including from horse wash stations on San Juan Creek, triggered a lawsuit for polluting the federally protected creek. Cost to restore damage to the creek is unknown.

Councilmembers Reeve, Maryott and Farias voted to spend more than $800,000 installing unnecessary water/sewer line at Riding Park. Although Blenheim's contract required them to provide their own utilities (including water), sewer line is being installed to remove Blenheim's waste water.

Per the purchase agreement and county maps, San Juan Creek is to be put through to connect to La Pata.

Community Common Sense

PAGE

Council Approves $1.25 Million Contract for Blenheim By John Perry

When I was on the City Council, with taxable bonds. My concern is I brought up the issue that the that Blenheim will still operate the current agreement with Blenheim horse events and will also act as Facility Management to “manage” the Facility Management Company the Riding Park places the City in regardless of how the agreement is a precarious position because the written. lease probably violated the IRS regulations pertaining to Private We all know that the City of Norco use of property financed by tax ex- was fined $500,000 by the IRS for empt bonds. At that time the City misuse of tax exempt bonds in a was assured by our legal counsel, deal with R.J. Brandes, the owner Rutan and Tucker, that the IRS of Blenheim. Before this agreeregulations provided a “Safe Harment is ratified by the City Counbor” that allowed the city to lease cil, I requested that the council the riding park to Blenheim. seek IRS approval of the proposed When Best Riding "... I was under the Best & Park ManKrieger was impression that Blenheim agement awarded the Agreement could not be both the City’s legal in order to facility manager and the contract, their protect the exclusive operator of the review of the city from City-owned Riding Park." a possible lease did not support the violation use of tax exempt bonds to grant and fine. I do not know whether exclusive use of public property to the council or city administration Blenheim. Instead, it recommend- did so. ed that the lease be changed to a My other concern is the ongoing Facility Management Agreement lawsuit by Orange County Coastwhere Blenheim would become a keeper over the alleged pollution tenant that uses the facilities under of the San Juan Creek by runoff the control of an independent man- from the Riding Park under the Naagement company. At that time, tional Pollutant Discharge EliminaI was under the impression that tion System (NPDES) regulations. Blenheim could not be both the If the city is found to be guilty facility manager and the exclusive of violation of NPDES by the operator of court, the the Citycity could owned Ridface coning Park. siderable It appears to fines (up me that the to $55,000 new Interim per day) Agreement that would will still opexceed erate under the city’s the IRS tax financial exempt bond reserves and regulations could cause for the rea bankmaining roughly 18-month period ruptcy to occur. Under this new when the existing tax-exempt agreement, the city seems to accept bonds will be paid off and replaced all NPDES liabilities for the Rid-

How Much is Blenheim Costing Taxpayers? The costs to continue to allow privately-owned Blenheim nearly exclusive use of the 70-acre Riding Park are adding up. Listed below are the known and/or estimated costs thus far, for “improvements” that facilitate Blenheim’s use of the Riding Park, which was purchased with a SJC taxpayer-funded “Open Space” bond. Interim Management Contract - $1.25 million per year. Contract increased previous payment of $220,000 per year to Blenheim to “manage” the Riding Park, to $1.25 million. City refuses to answer why Blenheim is being paid by SJC taxpayers to essentially manage their private, for-profit business on public property that was purchased as “open space” for SJC residents. Refinance of Bond to purchase Open Space (including the Riding Park property): $6 million in interest for payment on two bonds, from August 2017 to August 2019, when first bond can be retired. City administration claims that the original bond needed to be refinanced from tax-exempt to a taxable bond which will allow Blenheim to continue to generate revenue on the publicly-financed “open space” without violating IRS rules (see article this page). Installation of Water/Sewer Line at Riding Park - $800,000+ and estimated increase of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for water (currently purchased for $3,600 per month). Per city staff, sewer line was installed to remove Blenheim’s horse waste which was polluting the creek. Blenheim was previously responsible for providing their own water and utilities. Council has now made taxpayers pay for the improvements and has made them responsible for providing utilities to Blenheim at a far greater cost than what it is currently. Legal fees to defend federal environmental damage lawsuit – Unknown. Lawsuit filed by OC Coastkeeper against the City and Blenheim after city ignored repeated warnings about Blenheim’s suspected pollution of San Juan Creek at the Riding Park. Costs are unknown at this point, but between fees and fines, could run in the multiple millions of dollars.

ing Park site operations and also the need to monitor any pollutant violations because the Facility Manager reports to the city that has final approval over all operations.

It would seem to me that the City Council’s job is to protect the City’s financial structure and to protect the people who pay the taxes that keep the city going.

A final concern is that the neither the City nor Blenheim possess the necessary Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) permits. Federal regulations require CAFO permits when stabling between 150 and 400 horses for 45 non-consecutive days over a 12-month period. This fact alone places the city in the precarious position of operating the Riding Park without a permit which can also carry significant fines.

John Perry served on the city council after being appointed to a two-year term in 2015. He earned a Master of Science in Education Administration from USC and ultimately retired from Boeing Aircraft and from Public Education, having served as an Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services. He is a founding member of the Capistrano Taxpayers Association (CTA).

Community Common Sense

PAGE

City (Taxpayers) Lose AGAIN - Legal Losses Mount Many residents wonder why the City is continually sued. Listed below is just one example of a legal loss for the City. This example is actually a two-time legal loss, on the same property and over essentially the same issue.

elected council rescinded the hotel approval.

lawsuit, an action deemed by some residents to be “an illogical, irresponsible, poor business decision” which cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands.

During this time period, a group of residents, Save Our Historic Town Center (SOHTC), also sued for a writ of mandate, claiming that Urban This settlement with Urban Village Village was a violation of the Genallowed the Kimpton Hotel CapistOn March 12th, 2018, OC Superior eral Plan. rano proj… the City of San Juan Court Judge Kim Dunning ruled that SOHTC ect (due the City of San Juan Capistrano’s won the Capistrano paid Urban Village to the Sept. 6th, 2016 approval of the Hotel lawsuit, and $750,000 of taxpayer money, projects Capistrano by Kimpton violated the: the case was being tied appealed by even though Urban Village lost together the lawsuit… with their ♦ California Environmental the Urban Village CEQA Quality Act (CEQA) group shortly after. document) to finally have their day ♦ City’s General Plan in court. And once again, as pre♦ Form-Based Code Meanwhile, O Properties submitdicted by those who voiced concerns ♦ Historic Town Center Master ted plans for a new hotel to be about the legality of the project, Plan called Hotel Capistrano by KimpJudge Dunning deemed the project ♦ Municipal Code ton. Although less impactful than illegal on March 12th, 2018. She Urban Village, the hotel still had found it to be a violation of the GenHowever, this is not the first hotel major impacts on neighboring eral Plan, Municipal Code, Formproject that was improperly aphistoric properties, specifically the based Code, HTC Master Plan, and proved on the site. O Properties, Judge Egan House, which is listed CEQA. In other words, the project owned by local resident Steve on the National Register of Historic violates all of the City’s planning Oedekerk, has been trying to get a Places. In addition, it violated the documents, as well as California hotel project approved on the site City codes, and since it used essenenvironmental law, yet again. since 2014. It is unknown why the tially the same environmental CEQA developer attempted to use the same review of Urban Village, it was also Listed below are the court’s three CEQA environmental review that a violation of CEQA. Not only was primary findings: was done for a completely different Urban Village completely different hotel development. Had they perthan the new Hotel Capistrano, but it 1. CEQA Violations: First, the formed a CEQA review as required was already deemed to be illegal in judge agreed that Hotel Capistrano for the new project, it might have court. needs its own environmental studies been approved. and cannot rely on the earlier Urban Village Mitigated Negative DeclaraOn November 18th, 2014, as one of Concerned residents and nearby tion (MND), which had been voided their last actions, the outgoing coun- property owners voiced their concerns, but O Properties once again by the City Council. Judge Dunning cil majority approved the Urban Vilrefused to negotiate on any of the stated, “To permit the Urban Village lage Hotel & Villas project using a MND to be deemed conclusive for resolution written by the developer’s concerns. Thus, in October 2016 a lawsuit was filed by William Hotel Capistrano would be akin to attorney. This approval was pushed Griffith’s SPM-Fairfield LLC, the permitting a straw man to run for through at 3:00 AM against the owner of the historic Judge Egan public office. It violates the spirit warnings of the City Attorney and House. and letter of CEQA to conclude a City Manager. Many local resident CEQA document that was prepared and business owners also voiced At a May 22nd, 2017 hearing for for a project that, legally speaking, their concerns, but the developers the Hotel Capistrano project, Judge was never approved, is now immune were unwilling to concede on any Dunning stated that she could not from challenge,” said Dunning. of the points, and the council and decide on this case until the Urban City administration went along with “Hotel Capistrano is a project that the developers. The approval of the Village appeal was resolved. In order to allow for the Kimpton must stand on its own. It requires its first hotel project was the subject of own environmental assessment to a resident-led referendum as it was a project to be heard, the City of San determine whether an MND is apclear violation of the City’s General Juan Capistrano paid Urban Village $750,000 of taxpayer money, Plan. The referendum was successpropriate. The failure to do this is a even though Urban Village lost the ful and in January 2015, the newly violation of CEQA.”

Community Common Sense

2. Inconsistent with San Juan Capistrano General Plan: Second, ruling on the Hotel Capistrano’s proposal to build over the right-of-way necessary for the approved extension of Forster Street envisioned in the General Plan Circulation Element and Historic Town Center Master Plan, the judge concluded, “…the elimination of the Forster Street Extension is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan.” Ironically, the Urban Village project acknowledged the importance of the Forster Street extension, but then the Hotel Capistrano project decided to build over the right of way, no longer deeming it important. In fact, it is included in the SJC General Plan in order to enhance circulation and emergency access in the Historic Downtown. 3. San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code: Third, the judge agreed with the special protections afforded to the historic Judge Egan House in the City’s Form-Based Code, ruling, “Because the Hotel Capistrano project is adjacent to the Judge Egan House, the overall height of the hotel cannot be greater than that of the Judge Egan House and the setbacks from the property line must be equal to the building’s height.” Judge Dunning found that the hotel’s 69 foot dome exceeded the City’s 35 foot height limitation and was a violation of the Form-Based Code. The decisions made by O Properties, their development team, and the City have resulted in a total of six law suits, a referendum, and have cost the City taxpayers over $1 million. These suits and tax payer losses could have been avoided if the Developer and City leadership properly followed the existing planning and environmental requirements. Meanwhile, the O Properties hotel site remains an overgrown, inactive lot with a pile of demolished bricks, homeless encampments, and an unsightly construction fence in the heart of historic downtown. PAGE

Editorial

A Failure of Leadership

Failure of Leadership

Continued Examples of a Culture of Abuse...

Examples of a Culture of Abuse

Listed below is an illustration of a troubling trend that has taken root in SJC’s city governance. We have watched this behavior unfold for some time and have reported on some of it in the past. We bring this to you now as we realize that most residents have no idea of how or why their town is changing - until it is too late. That is why city leadership is so important. Example One: of city governance gone awry in our opinion, is the City Council majority’s pick to fill a recently vacated Planning Commission position. The appointment prompted letters of concern from residents about the council’s choice (see Letters to the Editor). The letters stated that three councilmen picked a candidate who has a history of domestic violence and insurance fraud, over two other candidates who they believed were more qualified. One applicant was a former planner and the other practiced as an attorney before becoming a judge. The Planning Commission is an integral advisory committee to the council as SJC is besieged with large development proposals. These developments require zone changes and amendments to the General Plan (the Governing Document for SJC) which can result in the dismantling, piece by piece, of San Juan’s unique historic character and small-town charm. The Planning Commission makes recommendations to the city council on development that impacts residents’ quality of life. You would expect everyone on this commission to be honorable, objective, and as non-political as possible.

According to letters and documentation we received however, selected applicant Matt Gaffney has none of those qualities. The letter-writers stated that Gaffney’s reputation for an explosive temperament is well known from the years he served on the Transportation Commission, and court documents back up this assertion. Gaffney’s commission application states the following; The application asks: “Name two things you believe are important to protecting and enhancing the character of San Juan Capistrano.” Gaffney’s answer: “Knock off all these idiotic lawsuits we keep getting involved in. Let’s get back to having citizen’s input in running our town & eliminate having a few vocal rabble rousers dictating policy to the council. Kim McCarthy & her group have turned my town into a countywide laughing stock. Hopefully the new council will be able to take back control of Capo from Common Sense. It won’t be an easy job, but it can be done. Build Both hotels. The community needs them forthwith.” We defend Gaffney’s right to state his opinion, but we find his answer unprofessional at best and combative at worst. In addition, he clearly lacks objectivity, indicating that he has already made a decision about two large projects in town that the Planning Commission is in the process of reviewing. His comment about lawsuits is ironic, considering that the Story continued on page 9...

In keeping with our philosophy of “you can’t fix it if you don’t know it’s broken,”, we are listing excerpts of emails below between City Manager Ben Siegel and then-Mayor Kerry Ferguson which were obtained through a CA Public Records Act request. In an email written to Mayor Kerry Ferguson on Feb. 6, 2017, Siegel denies threatening the mayor prior to the City’s 2017 Priorities Workshop, despite having done so in front of witnesses: “I now understand that you [Mayor Ferguson] are alleging that I threatened you the day of the Council Retreat (January 27). This accusation is completely false, and the fact that you continue to pursue it when there were five separate witnesses in the room that morning leads me to question whether your true motivation is to tarnish my professional reputation.” CCS: There were four individuals including staff members, who witnessed the threat Siegel issued to Mayor Ferguson. The one staff member who does not report to Siegel wrote a signed statement confirming the threat. Both the mayor and the witnesses were upset and shaken by the city manager’s anger and behavior, according to residents who attended the meeting. In another email to a resident dated shortly after the workshop threat incident, Mayor Ferguson stated, “… when an attempt was made to throw me out of his office for questioning his veracity [Siegel] said ‘I can make you look good or I can make you look bad’.” In the Feb. 6, 2017 email to Mayor Ferguson, Siegel comments on the Kimpton Hotel [aka Hotel Capistrano] project, which the court recently found was in fact never properly approved: “… you have chastised me for not finding a way to force the developer of the approved Kimpton hotel to make changes to his project. These demands contradict the approvals granted to the Kimpton by the Cultural Heritage Commission, Planning Commission and the Council and, as I have advised you on numerous occasions, would violate the codes and zoning standards on which those approvals were based and expose the City to additional litigation.” CCS: Ironically, a lawsuit was filed against the city claiming that the Kimpton/Hotel Capistrano project was (among other things) never properly approved. The court agreed with the plaintiff and ruled against the city. As a result, the city spent countless thousands defending a lawsuit that they ultimately lost, and about which they were repeatedly warned was not properly approved (see article page 13). In the Feb. 6, 2017 email, Siegel also chastises Mayor Ferguson about city commissioners’ repeated complaints about on-going code violations at the city-owned Riding Park, which is managed by Blenheim: “… you have disregarded the findings of staff experts and partner agencies … regarding code issues at the Riding Park, instead listening to a handful of your supporters who are intent on ending the City’s relationship with Blenheim regardless of the consequences for the community.“ Story continued on page 9...

Community Common Sense

PAGE

Story continued from page 8... city management’s improper actions have led to several lawsuits that otherwise could have been avoided. In each case, city management was repeatedly warned but failed to correct the actions.

missioners, Siegel took no action against either of the two men and the behavior continued.

In fact, Siegel conducted an investigation of two of the female commissioners after they submitted complaints to city code enforcement about potential violations at the RidGaffney’s background is also trouing Park. The commissioners stated bling. Public records reveal a past their belief that the investigations riddled with reports of insurance were a “sham” designed by Siegel fraud and domestic violence. He was to intimidate them into silence. Both also a leader of “San Juan Cares”, a submitted complaints to the Labor group of people who attacked resiBoard about Siegel, but because dents opposed to large development. commissioners are city volunteers Councilman Derek Reeve is well rather than employees, the board inaware of the group’s tactics, as San vestigator said they “lacked jurisdicJuan Cares sent out a mailer with tion” to take their cases. The Labor offensive caricatures of community Board investigator did however, tell members they didn’t like. Reeve was one of the commissioners that she targeted too (back when he opposed believed she had a good case and large developments), depicted as encouraged her to contact the Desitting backwards on the rear of a partment of Fair Employment and donkey. Housing.

Culture of Abuse continued from page 8...

CCS: The city manager’s attitude reflects why the city is being sued for environmental damage to San Juan Creek done by Blenheim, for which the city as property owner is ultimately responsible. Had the city manager done his job and taken care of the code and pollution issues at the Riding Park that were rightfully pointed out by city commissioners instead of attacking them, the lawsuit could have been avoided. Instead, the fines and restoration work alone could potentially amount to millions of dollars, the cost of which will be paid by city taxpayers should the city lose yet another lawsuit. There are other examples of unprofessional (at best) and legally costly behavior. To date, Siegel has not been held accountable for these and other actions.

That Reeve chose to vote for Gaffney is troubling, regardless of his politics. Reeve was aware of Gaffney’s controversial background, having been given documentation including police reports and court records. He evidently ignored the negative documentation and dismissed the applications of the other two applicants, neither of whom appear to have controversial backgrounds.

The female commissioners were not the only ones subjected to retaliatory behavior. Witnesses claim that Siegel also threatened then-Mayor Kerry Ferguson on Jan. 27, 2017 just prior to the City Priorities Workshop, held at a local restaurant. According to witnesses, Siegel told the mayor just prior to the meeting that he would dictate the format, not her. The witnesses said that when Ferguson objected and insisted on sticking with her preferred format, Siegel We sent the documentation and the blew up, told her, “we will take you applications of all three applicants down” (paraphrased based on witto Reeve, Mayor Sergio Farias and ness statements) and threatened to Councilman Brian Maryott. We have the Sheriff remove her from the asked them to please explain why building. It is deeply troubling that they voted for Gaffney over the the city manager apparently felt free other two qualified applicants. None to threaten the mayor, especially in of them responded. front of three city employees and a restaurant employee (see emails A Culture of Abuse - Example Two about the incident in the box adjacent to this article). In 2015, five female city commissioners submitted written complaints A letter documenting Siegel’s threat to City Manager Ben Siegel about that was also sent to Councilmen the abusive, threatening and/or retalDerek Reeve, Sergio Farias, and iatory behavior of a former councilBrian Maryott requesting their intermember and a former commissioner, vention was never answered. both males. The allegations are well documented and were witnessed by others, yet according to the comStory continued on page 15...

Community Common Sense

PAGE

Questions About Los Rios Project Remain Unanswered Los Rios resident Michael Laux forwarded to us the following communication with City planning staff, about the proposed “River Street” mall project at Los Rios. We agree that these are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. However, his concerns remain unaddressed; see staff’s response printed at the bottom, below the list of concerns.

Concerns about the River Street Project:

● We don’t know what the businesses are going to be here, so it’s hard to assess the damage by an unknown impact, from an unknown business. ● Since the zoning is supposed to be changed, we don’t know what requirements the developer is designing to.

Environmental Setting:

● This property built out to the proposed height will block ridgeline views which are to be protected according to the General Plan. ● The current site usage is quiet at night, as it should be in a Residential neighborhood. This is the oldest continually occupied neighborhood in California. ● The current site use preserves open space as a buffer to the neighborhood, as is stated in the Specific Plan.

vehicles, grading equipment, cement trucks, pumping equipment and their trucks, street sweepers, inspectors vehicles, architects, project managers trucks, laborers trucks, 1800 fill dirt trucks, hot tar kettles, cultural heritage monitors, fertilizer, pesticides, construction VOC’s, dust from compaction of dirt, sanding dust, paint fumes and dust, delivery vehicles, landscape machinery, freon gas from ac units, cooking odors, trash odors, CO2 from cooking, CO2 from heating units, welding fumes, chlorine odors from water feature treated water.

Parking:

● The original parking standard for this property was replaced and amended to include a “Park Once” standard. This standard was put in place to parking-challenged businesses with small lot sizes in the Historic Town Center to get Conditional Use Permits. ● The developer aided by Councilman Derek Reeve, is trying to bend the rules to include this project in the Park Once parking scheme. Even though the property is 5.86 acres. The current city-wide standard says that a development of this size generates a demand for 608 parking spaces. “Park Once” says that this development needs only 292 parking spaces. Derek Reeve has said on a local blog, that “theoretically” the developer needs zero parking spaces to build this project.

Air Quality:

● The current use as zoned (nursery) improves the local air quality. Eating, drinking, commercial and retail use will negatively impact the air quality.

Rendering of proposed mall in the historic Los Rios neighborhood located on the Nursery property. Mall would add 60,000 sf of retail, buildings up to 45’ high and nearly 300 parking spaces. Del Obispo is at lower left of photo; train is at bottom right of photo and creek channel is at upper left.

● Dumpsters and the trash trucks that service them at 5:30 am will have a deleterious effect on neighborhood.

● Outdoor smoking and vaping is not healthy for the local kids who live next door.

● 292 parking spaces and the traffic and pollution associated with the cars, trash trucks, delivery trucks, construction trucks, employee

● Putting a commercial development behind the residential neighborhood Story continued on page 11...

Community Common Sense

PAGE

will create a tunnel effect, trapping train exhaust between commercial development on both sides of the tracks, with residences in between. Exhaust will linger much longer in the neighborhood.

enough to monitor and assess the situation and project area. Digging in this area will likely turn up human remains as other excavations in the area have.

Noise:

Land Use and Planning:

● Shopping center noise including…. restaurants with an outdoor seating courtyard area next to a residential area, outdoor recreation area next to a residential area, live entertainment, drinking establishments, outdoor smoking areas next to residential, parking lot traffic noise, trash trucks starting at 5:30am like the rest of SJC, police vehicles, emergency vehicles, landscape workers lawnmowers and leaf blowers, tree trimmers.

Noise:

● Construction noise for 18 months….

● Changing the zoning on this property will start a domino effect of zone changes to the Los Rios area by giving neighbors standing to get their zoning changed to higher density commercialization. This will set a precedent and residents will be forced from the neighborhood. Another shopping center in SJC will create more commercial vacancies in the existing centers. Our town center is becoming a sprawling shopping center.

● This project will adversely affect the tranquility of the oldest neigh● Current zoning generates no nighttime noise. Local businesses close at borhood in California. Currently businesses close at 5pm, which this 5pm so the neighborhood is very quiet at night. Will this shopping center project will violate. Trash trucks currently show up at 5:30 am to start have the same restrictions? emptying dumpsters. Delivery trucks start then as well. Street sweepers, gardeners, leaf blowers, etc. Outdoor eating and seating areas, as well as Hazardous Waste: outdoor recreation areas will negatively impact the ability of adults and ● Landscape fertilizers and pesticides, commercial cleaning products, children to sleep. dumpster juice, rodent waste, leaking vehicle fluids.

Population and Housing:

Traffic:

● 292 parking places and the traffic demand for 64,900sqft of commercial space will generate a huge number of vehicle trips on Paseo Adelanto, which is the only street that allows the residents to exit their neighborhood onto Del Obispo. ● The residents will be trapped by traffic. This parking lot will not have any extra spaces for other uses in the downtown area. This is the absolute minimum number of spaces for this size development. Adding more traffic to the area will make it impossible for emergency vehicles to respond in a timely fashion to the residents and their children. The vehicle miles traveled to and from the project will add to an overburdened street system.

Geology and Soils:

● This project will require 18,000 CY of fill, when the Specific Plan says that you are not allowed to alter the topography, this will raise the level 4 feet. This project will alter the FEMA Flood plain, and needs Federal Review as the local Planning Department is biased towards the developer. The raising of the building pads will push water into the backyards of homes on Los Rios St.

Water Quality:

● The area is already in a recurring drought cycle, residents are already subject to tiered water rate system because of water shortages. Adding more development will burden an already stressed system. What are the infrastructure implications on our firefighting water demands, and our overburdened sewer system. The runoff from the commercial development will further pollute Trabuco Creek, San Juan Creek, and the Pacific Ocean.

Cultural Resources:

● This project needs to be monitored and study by a Federally Recognized group of Native Americans. Local “tribes” are not sophisticated

● This project does nothing to address the housing shortage in Orange County.

Light:

● This project will add light pollution to the area and to the residential area.

Biological Resources:

● This parcel attracts a wide variety of animals including transient bats, birds, butterflies, and nocturnal animals. A full assessment should be done. The damage will be irreversible.

Aesthetics:

● This is one of the most offensive aspects of this project. It violates the General Plan, the Los Rios Specific Plan, and any sense of compatibility with the National Register of Historic Places, which this parcel is supposed to support. The residents of SJC have supported the documents for decades and they never asked for a zoning change…the developer did. This is supposed to be a protected area of SJC, not an area where a developer can cash in on its charm. Residences belong in a residential area, not commercial buildings. ● This project does not belong in a residential neighborhood, it belongs in our commercial center.

City Planning staff response to list of concerns: “The [Environmental Impact Report] EIR is in the process of being prepared by the City’s CEQA consultant. Once the Draft EIR is prepared and released to the public for review (tentatively in May), you’ll have the information you are seeking with regards to the parking and traffic analysis and we’ll be in a better position to answer any other questions that you may have.”

Community Common Sense

PAGE

Letters to the Editor Double-Dipping Costly for Taxpayers

Siegel said there were no permanent department heads in San Juan when he arrived there, mostly due A CCS reader sent the following to promotions elsewhere. He repost to us from “The Indy” pub- cruited May to join him. May, who lication in Laguna Beach, and had retired from Laguna Beach, asked if we would re-print the was rehired as acting interim pubpost. It sheds light on city emlic works director until a replaceployee double-dipping (retiring ment was found. As San Juan’s from one city and collecting a new director of public works and pension while going to work for utilities, May is now eligible for another). The practice of double- a second pension in San Juan dipping is not just limited to city Capistrano. He earned $317,000 employees; it happens in school in salary and benefits annually in districts, counties… nearly evLaguna Beach, commensurate to ery form of government. We are the city manager." re-printing an excerpt from the post as it applies to San Juan. To District Rep or ‘Do-Nothing’ read the entire post and (angry) comments from readers, visit: Politician? www.lagunabeachindy.com/ Hello, Community Common turn-city-hall/ Sense, "Turn Over at City Hall Posted on May 10th, 2016 By: Rita Robinson A noticeable rate of employee turn-over has occurred at Laguna Beach City Hall in recent years… Since 2012, 16 seniorlevel employees have either resigned or retired. One of the most noticeable was Ben Siegel, who left Laguna as deputy city manager in January to become city manager for San Juan Capistrano. “Did I cause all this?” Siegel quipped this week. Siegel had been tagged by Laguna Beach City Manager John Pietig to fill retiring Steve May’s position as director of public works. “To become city manager was a professional goal of mine,” said Siegel. “It was a chance I really couldn’t pass up. It’s certainly not a reflection on Laguna. I loved working there.” Siegel, who still resides in town, was hired by San Juan Capistrano last November. He started his new job in February.

Now I am absolutely certain that there is something very, very "off" about Maryott [letter writer included a link to Councilman Maryott’s announcement that he is running for Congress]. He spared no expense to become a do-nothing city councilman who refuses to even respond to messages from constituents, yet now wants a new position of increased responsibility and authority. I guess we now know why he "retired" from Wells Fargo -- a thoroughly rotten, scandal-ridden organization in and of itself. Very sincerely, Name withheld on request San Juan Capistrano

Thumbs Down on Commission Appointment To the CCS Editor: Can someone please explain to me how City Council members, Farias, Maryott and Reeve were able to vote Mr. Gaffney a seat on our City Planning Commission? Was

the City aware of this individuals background history?? Did they turn a "blind eye" regarding his past??? Our U.S. government is "cleaning house" and maybe our local city government should be doing the same!! I refer you to the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Orange court documents. CASE NUMBERS #03CC08257 and CASE NUMBER #27-22-07. Is anyone else concerned? You decide?? Name withheld on request San Juan Capistrano

More on Commission Appointment Hi - Please print the following anonymously: It is STUNNING to me that certain members of San Juan Capistrano's city council could very recently appoint a man to sit on the Planning Commission when there are court documents proving he has assaulted a woman. More shocking is, a least one of the council members knew of this man's past record prior to nominating him... This man is NOT worthy to represent the town in any way shape or form. His appointment should be rescinded immediately. Signed, Name withheld on request San Juan Capistrano

More Concerns About Proposed Los Rios Project Let’s talk about the plan to put a commercial development in the oldest residential neighborhood in California, and how it affects life in San Juan, and more specifically, the Los Rios District…

General Plan, and the Los Rios Specific Plan. The developer needs to rewrite both to get approval for his project. So why is this wrong? Our Open Space, our ridgelines, and care for our historic treasures all still exist because of these two documents. If the council changes these standards it will destroy our historic district. The mall on River Street is 64,900sq. ft. of high intensity commercial use with less than half the require parking places per the municipal code. Los Rios Historic District is the “oldest residential neighborhood in California.” The LRSP states that within the District the “City will create land use and development standards which protect residential districts from commercial development through restrictions on the type of use, the scale of use, and the proximity of commercial use to residential districts, and operating hours.” The mall on Los Rios will generate thousands of vehicle trips on Del Obispo everyday. Can we really afford any more traffic on Del Obispo? We can’t stop the train and currently it backs up traffic on Del Obispo 65 times a day, plus a few more times for the ghost train which the council promised they would fix. Get ready for more lawsuits as the stream of bad decisions will eventually bankrupt our town. At that point the cost of a recall election will seem pretty trivial. Jeff Vasquez San Juan Capistrano

There are two governing documents for the Los Rios area, the

Community Common Sense

PAGE 12

Misinformation Results in Sale of Much-needed Public Parking Lot When the City was directed by the State to sell its redevelopment properties, the City appealed to the State to allow it to keep a desperately needed public parking lot, north of the Camino Real Playhouse. In fact, the City went to great lengths to amend their “Long Range Property Management Plan” so that they could continue to use the parking

ager requesting that he be allowed to negotiate an exclusive agreement to sell the parking lot to a private developer? In October, 2017, the City council was presented with an Agenda item from City Manager Ben Siegel requesting that he be allowed to “… execute an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement ("ENA") with Frontier Real Estate Investments for development of the Downtown/ Playhouse property.”

What came next on the Staff Report was misleading at best. Siegel’s staff report stated, “…the State directed that properties owned by the City's former Redevelopment Agency be sold… One of these properties in San Juan Capistrano is the Downtown/ Letter from State Dept of Finance exempts parking lot from Playhouse sale of redevelopment properties. property that lot for public purposes and in a is currently developed with the El letter from the State Department of Camino Real Playhouse and public Finance, the state agreed (see letter parking lot.” inset). The City must sell the smaller lot under the playhouse, but not the Why the letter from the State was parking lot to the north. The City is not in the staff report is unknown. also free to buy the land under the However, the email exchange listed playhouse if they choose to do so. below which was obtained through public records act requests, may ofWhy did the City manager misrepre- fer some insight. sent to the council the State’s agreement to allow the City to keep the In June, 2017 City Manager Siegel parking lot? Why is the City Mangave developer Dan Almquist of

Frontier Properties a heads-up about the parking lot parcel, expressing his desire that Almquist get the parcel rather than another business which was a potential bidder for the property: Siegel: "Hope all is well, and I look forward to our 'kick-off' meeting next week on the Playhouse site. The staff team is excited to start working with you on this project. I wanted to pass along information that [City staffer Joel Rojas] shared with me this morning. As you know, Chick Fil-A is moving forward with plans to occupy the Taco Bell building. Apparently, a representative of Chick Fil-A informed Joel that they are actively seeking to acquire the adjacent Caltrans parcel, ostensibly for additional parking and landscape area.

developable, but it’s probably worth a follow-up to Caltrans to check status. I wouldn’t want us to 'miss the boat' on this one. We can talk more next week." Thanks, Ben While Siegel conversationally mentioned to the council once that they did not have to sell the property, every staff report says the State is directing the City to sell the parking lot. Not true, according to Successor Agency and Council Oversight Committee agendas. City Council members Reeve, Maryott and Farias voted to sell the Camino Real Playhouse property to Almquist for a retail development; Patterson and Ferguson voted no.

Of course, we would much prefer that the Caltrans parcel be incorporated into your proposed project as it presents an ideal location for a monument entry. I know you’ve been in touch with Caltrans, as have

Why was the council misled into believing that the parking lot had to be sold? Why was the February 16, 2016 letter from the State Dept of Finance exempting the parking lot from the sale of redevelopment properties not included in the staff report? This is troubling. Council

we albeit several months ago, but I want you to be aware that there is likely at least one other potential purchaser. My understanding is that Caltrans would need to go to bid for the property sale since it was determined to be independently

members rely on complete and accurate staff reports in order to make sound decisions for the taxpayers. This is yet another example of the type of business being conducted with your tax dollars which can ultimately lead to the City being sued.

Community Common Sense

PAGE 13

New Flight Path Puts Low-flying Planes Over SJC SJC resident Donna Fleming wondered why airplanes were suddenly flying so low over SJC. Besides the deafening noise, Fleming was concerned that the planes might interfere with the annual migration of the swallows for which San Juan is famous. Fleming researched the issue and found that surrounding cities that had complained to the FAA about the new flight path were subsequently eliminated from the revised

other bird parts are gathered fastidiously from the runways and even the jets, to evaluate daily strikes,” said Fleming.

San Juan, the doormat of south county, was once again stuck with negative impacts to accommodate “regional growth”.

“One expert offered to speak to this issue at our city council. All of this was ignored… It is a fact that the jets and noise are detrimental to

Councilmember Kerry Ferguson forwarded to Fleming a letter to the FAA expressing concerns about the flight path. She told Fleming that staff was supposed to send the complaint to the FAA however, a Public Records Act request revealed no letter having been sent to the FAA by the city.

Fleming had also posted her concerns about the noise and the swallows on a local blog in order to further alert the community. Councilmember Derek Reeve responded to her post, stating that he would “take responsibility for murdering the swallows.” This dismissal of her concern was frustrating for Fleming. “I just canFAA map shows modified flight path allowing low-flying planes over San Juan. Path has since been not compremodified to redirect low-flying planes away from neighboring cities that complained to the FAA about aircraft noise and pollution. Because SJC took no action, it remains in the flight path. hend Derek's judgement to Map credit: Todd Spitzer, OC Supervisor, Third District consider the approach to John Wayne Airport. So swallows who fly at 10K feet, and to swallows a non- issue,” said Flemshe reached out to the City Council ing. Why was the city not concerned all of us living in noise. These ex– twice – and expressed her conperts are the same people that study about such an impact to San Juan? cerns, hoping for the same result. and write environmental impact reports for the airlines. They should Meanwhile, the noise from the low“I had given [city staff and counflying jets continued. in fact have been queried prior to cil] two references from experts pushing the new flight path through. who work for John Wayne and LAX Seeing no action from the city, So for us to write a letter [to the whose job it is to evaluate bird FAA] and include the swallows was Fleming sent a letter of her own strikes to jets. Bird feathers and to President Trump. She received important...”

Community Common Sense

a response from the White House shortly after, advising her that they had forwarded her complaint to the FAA and to expect a response from that agency. The FAA did respond to Fleming, but only to dismiss her concerns. The FAA claimed that they had followed proper procedures with respect to environmental studies and that the matter was closed. However, they offered no proof of what, if anything, they allegedly studied. The bottom line is that the FAA and the cities of Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest and Newport Beach all scored a victory. The cities that complained were removed from the flight path, and the FAA secured its low altitude approach over historic San Juan. San Juan, the doormat of south county, was once again stuck with negative impacts to accommodate “regional growth”. In her CCS column, Fleming reminded residents of some of the consequences of the failure to protect historic San Juan; “Keep in mind that the swallows are important to people all over the world. This is not just a local save the birds issue. Millions of people have come to the Mission to see the return of the swallows for over 200 years. A sixteen-hundred mile flight twice a year is incredible. And, they come here to our town. It is immortalized in songs. It was mentioned by Henry Dana in his novel. The miracle of the swallows brings visitors here from all over the world. It has been mentioned to me every time I travel to Europe; ‘Oh the town where the little birds return every year; N'est pas?’… I just do not understand why a letter of formal complaint about noise and danger to our swallows was not written and though placed on an agenda, never called for discussion…”

PAGE

Story continued from page 9...

Failure of Leadership

Continued Examples of a Culture of Abuse... After being directed by council members not to conduct an investigation of a commissioner who filed code complaints at the Riding Park, City Manager Ben Siegel proceeded to conduct an investigation of the commissioner anyway, claiming that he was acting on a “complaint” about the commissioner’s behavior. This later proved to be false. Siegel then conducted a second investigation of another commissioner (who had also filed code complaints at the Riding Park) and released the details of a “complaint” allegedly received from “someone at Blenheim” about the commissioner’s supposed conduct (the commissioner disputes the allegation). Listed below is an email exchange on Jan. 10, 2017 between Siegel and Councilmember Pam Patterson about this issue. Councilmember Patterson to Siegel: “… it would have been nice and appropriate for you to have gathered this information [spoken to the commissioner to determine whether the allegation was legitimate the legitimacy of the complaint] first before smearing the Commissioner's name -- especially in light of the discussion which took place with you…” [referring to the councilmembers’ warning to Siegel to not investigate city commissioners]. CCS: Siegel failed to get the first commissioner’s side of the story and wasted staff time and money conducting an unfounded “investigation” which the commissioners believed was designed to silence them after they repeatedly questioned why nothing was being done about ongoing code complaints. Siegel’s response to Patterson: “I do not take lightly your accusation that I ‘smeared’ a Commissioner’s name. When the complaint was received, I sent an email to the City Council [about the issue] … If this information was made public, it is because it was forwarded or shared by a City Councilmember. [CCS: The councilmember Siegel refers to is likely the one that Commissioners had complained to Siegel about. Commissioners claimed he had defamed them in emails widely distributed throughout the community when they complained about code violations and other questionable city actions].

What does this say to the women on staff at the city; to all women in this town? We do not expect that Reeve in particular would object to this behavior, based on his own attacks on fellow council and community members. He continues to call councilmember Pam Patterson names during council meetings, including “ignorant”, “an embarrassment” and “idiotic”, to name a few. Reeve has also copied the CCS on emails in which he calls community members “racist” and “anti-Christian”, and other derogatory names. In one recent email response to a constituent on which the CCS was copied, Reeve said, “It’s certainly not surprising that you as a member of CCS, a hate organization professing civil rights, would cite CAIR [the Council on American Islamic Relations], a hate organization professing civil rights.” We are unsure to what he was referring as Reeve knows that the CCS is not a membership organization, nor is it a “hate organization”, and he offers no reasoning or facts to support such slurs. This is just one of a number of emails of this type. Residents should be aware that these three councilmen have indicated their aspirations to higher

political office. Derek Reeve has formed two Political Action Committees for the 2018 election; one to run for judge in Orange County and one to run for re-election to the SJC City Council. Brian Maryott is currently running for Congress, and Sergio Farias has stated his desire to climb the ladder in the Democratic Party. They want your votes, but not one of them bothered to answer why they voted for Gaffney to serve on the Planning Commission. Not one of these councilmen came to the aid of - or even said a word about - their fellow councilmember Kerry Ferguson when they were notified that the city manager threatened her. Ben Siegel, who previously served in an assistant city manager role prior to coming to San Juan, currently makes more than $300,000 a year at your expense and at the pleasure of these three. People have asked us why we research, write, print and distribute the CCS when we receive no pay and lots of grief from some members of the community for doing so. The simple answer is that we are not the kind of people who see wrong-doing and can just ‘walk on by’. Come November, you have an opportunity to right some of that wrong-doing.

There was nothing inappropriate about the way I handled this complaint. Since that time, the Council has provided direction to handle complaints against Commissioners differently, i.e. first hold a meeting with the Mayor, Commission Chair and Commissioner. As I indicated in the closed session, I am happy to proceed with this new approach going forward.”

check your calendar, as that discussion took place on Dec. 19th, fully two weeks before you sent out your email to the entire council alleging ‘Threat of Litigation by Commissioner’… [The] Commissioner… did not make a threat of litigation, [but rather] told you [they were] considering litigation, and the manner in which you mishandled your ‘investigation’ would certainly warrant someone having such thoughts.

Councilmember Patterson responds to Siegel’s denial that his actions were inappropriate, reminding him that he was warned not to do it prior to conducting his investigation: “It is not an accusation, it is a fact. You smeared [the commissioner’s] name with the council members, and way after the fact with respect to the discussion the council had with you regarding your treatment and behavior of the City's Commissioners. You are way off on your dates, and need to

I understand that you do not have a lot of experience as a city manager, but you need to understand that when anyone on staff receives a complaint about someone and decides to investigate, the FIRST thing that should take place is to contact the person against whom the complaint is filed and get their side of the story before wasting residents' money and council's time on baseless allegations.”

Community Common Sense

PAGE

Community Common Sense

PAGE