Community Common Sense - October 2016 by Community Common Sense

OCTOBER 2016 – VOL 6, 10

YOUR COMMUNITY WATCHDOG

Community Common Sense

In this Issue... San Juan Capistrano Development Proposal Sparks Outcry Page 1 Guest Column CUSD's $1.8 Billion Tax - Just Say NO Page 3 Questions for Candidates Pages 4 & 5 Our Take on the Candidates Page 5 Litigation Fees Trump SJC General Plan Page 6 Announcement of Public Hearing for SDG&E Proposed Doubling of Substation Page 7 City Settles Golf Course Lawsuit Page 8 Letters to the Editor Page 10

Development Proposal Sparks Outcry The controversial proposal to build up to 180 homes and 40,000sf of commercial on the Vermeulen property is raising concerns from residents in surrounding communities.

After the approval was overturned, the developer of the proposed project, Troy Bourne of Spieker Development and the landowner sued the City, claiming they have a right to develop the property*. Troy Bourne of Spieker Development then followed up with a new application for a General Plan amendment and approval of a “SpeVoters successfully overturned the previous council majority's vote to rezone the agricultural cific Plan” to Vermeulen property for residential development. pave the way Now the developer is back with another residen- for residential development proposal. tial and comIn 2014, the previous council mercial development on majority of Sam Allevato, the property (see related Larry Kramer and John Guest Column, page 6). Taylor voted to rezone the former Vermeulen agricultur- Another Referendum al property to accommodate on the Horizon? 409 residential units, plus medical and other buildings. At the September 20 City The council approved it over Council meeting, resithe objection of hundreds dents reminded council of residents who expressed members of their camconcern about impacts such paign promises to protect as increased traffic in the the quality of life of their already-crowded area, lack constituents by refusing to of water and other strain on approve projects that create infrastructure. Residents re“more density and massing sponded by collecting nearly close to homes and schools, double the number of signamore traffic and more drain tures needed in record time, on scarce water resources.” for a referendum to overturn the council vote. One resident who collected signatures for the last referDeveloper and Landowner endum told the council, “We Sue the City voted you in because big

developments like this should not be allowed to be slipped in… We don’t want this and we will fight it.” Another long-time resident stated, “Imagine what 180 homes plus all the commercial business will do to the community. We worked tirelessly to collect signatures because the people wanted their city protected from this… I’m tired of big developers who come into the henhouse and infiltrate the pockets of our community, becoming good buddies with people of influence and trying to make big bucks for their company." Speaking as a former city employee, she

stated that the General Plan was adopted to protect the community, but that “…the developer is using the General Plan as a sneaky way to get [his] project approved.”

development...” Applicant Admits Unknown Developer to Build It Councilman Sam Allevato stated , "my approval of the 409 units made sense at the time," then made a case for approving the revised project based in part on the fact that the landowner is a long-time local farming family. “This is the Vermeulen family we’re talking about, not some unknown developer," said Allevato. But project applicant Troy Bourne admitted under questioning that Spieker Development will probably not actually build the project. “We’re just helping the Vermeulens...” find a

development solution he said, admitting that an unknown developer would likely build the project.

Several residents who spoke in support of the development raised the issue of the city’s need for additional tax Yet another stated, “You [new] council members were revenue. However, another elected in a landslide because resident pointed out that dewe don’t want additional Story continued on page 9...

Community Common Sense

PAGE 2

Guest Column

CUSD’s $1.8 Billion Tax – Just Say NO By Jim Reardon, Capistrano Unified School Board Member When the local and regional chambers of commerce, our Mayor and the City Council CUSD Trustee all agree on one Jim Reardon thing, it must be important! The South Orange County Economic Coalition, San Juan’s own Chamber of Commerce, our Mayor Pam Patterson and the council as a whole, are recommending a “NO” vote on Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD)’s Measure M which appears on the upcoming ballot. I join local leaders, including the mayors of six other cities, Supervisor Bartlett, Senator Pat Bates and Assemblyman Bill Brough in opposing this $1.88 billion tax. CUSD is vigorously promoting this measure, which will unfairly tax seniors and Mello-Roos taxpayers. It will also tax mobile home coaches, boats, business equipment, and all real estate, at a rate of $43 per every $100,000 of assessed value per year, for 35 years or more. The average

homeowner in San Juan will pay hundreds of dollars more per year added to their property tax bill; more than $10,000 per home over the life of the bond. “We’d be more supportive of a smaller, more realistic bond total that allows the District to leverage state matching funds and address the most critical facilities improvements,” concluded Wayne Brown of the South Orange County Economic Coalition. “But $1.8 billion is not an appropriate ask of this community nor do we believe it’s all needed at this time. So we urge voters to reject this measure and have the District

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

About the Community Common Sense come back with a more appropriate proposal.” I agree. I recommend a “NO” vote on Measure M. Jim Reardon is a long-time resident of San Juan Capistrano, and is an elected Trustee of the Capistrano Unified School District who is running for a second term in the upcoming November election.

For advertising rates, please contact Kim McCarthy: Call - (949)275-8800 or Email - eboard@ccsense.com

The CCS is a non-partisan community watchdog publication, distributed to homes and businesses in our local communities. We were established in 2009 by a group of residents who recognize that tax dollars are often spent in ways that enrich a select few, while average residents are left with the resulting increases to cost of living, traffic and debt. We believe knowledge is power, and are committed to reporting facts not offered in other publications. Aided by Public Records Act requests for information and extensive research, we print fact-based information about fiscal and quality of life issues which enables residents to make educated decisions about local leadership.

We do the homework – you decide!

Community Common Sense

PAGE 3

Questions for Candidates - Hea

On November 8, two council seats are up for election. Following a lawsuit filed by SJC residents Tina Auclair and Louie Camacho, the City was forced to div date to fill the seat in their District. The CCS reached out to the candidates with questions about issues of concern to our readers. Their answers are listed belo dropped out of the race just prior to press time. See a map of the five Districts on the City’s website at: www.sanjuancapistrano.org

Mechelle Lawrence-Adams Candidate for District 5 Question #1: What, if anything, do you think should be done with Ortega Highway? “As a former city planner the issues of preservation and safety should be addressed together. I am concerned about San Juan Creek Road or Camino Las Ramblas being extended as an alternative. Incorporating strict design guidelines is recommended so that a project can go forward with the residents’ support.” Question #2: Do you support giving taxpayerfunded subsidies to businesses/charities selected by the city council? “As the City’s former economic development manager, these partnerships work best when they provide services that the City cannot afford. Any entity receiving use of a taxpayer asset should conduct their work transparently, efficiently and with a measureable community benefit. The public must always benefit by the partnership.” Question #3: Do you support overnight parking along primary arterial streets (for example; north end of Camino Capistrano)? If not, what would you do to change it? “As a former SJC city planner it is my experience that parking deficiencies are an indicator of a broader issue (which along Camino Capistrano could be overcrowding). With districting we will have councilmembers who are familiar with the unique issues in various neighborhoods and can hopefully facilitate better solutions.” Question #4: Do you support the City continuing to fine residents for exceeding their water allotment? If not, what would you to do change it? “The fines, adopted after being recommended by the City’s Utility Commission in response to the State’s mandatory reduction, were an effective tool in changing public behavior. The standards have been relaxed and fewer are receiving fines today. The City is now in compliance.”

Brian Maryott Candidate for District 5 Question #1: What, if anything, do you think should be done with Ortega Highway? “The traffic situation at Ortega as it exists now is un-

natural and unsafe. Dropping from four lanes to two with no warning is not a proper way to slow traffic. The widening will be completed by the state at some point in time regardless. I favor normalizing the roadway as a partner to the process. This will give us the most input with regard to structure, aesthetics, and other considerations.”

can make discretionary expenditures. The city should let 501c3 organizations support themselves through community fundraising encouraged by our city leaders. We have a lot of financial challenges facing us and I support all of our wonderful community charities but we need to make sure they are working to secure private funding."

Question #2: Do you support giving taxpayerfunded subsidies to businesses/charities selected by the city council? “I do not. Our financial circumstances are tight, with the city tracking for a fiscal deficit by 2018. When money is tight you spend for necessary, but not for nice. Additionally, I am philosophically opposed to that type of discretionary spending of taxpayer dollars.”

Question #3: Do you support overnight parking along primary arterial streets (for example; north end of Camino Capistrano)? If not, what would you do to change it? “No; it’s unsafe and indicates a possible overcrowding challenge. Overcrowding should be handled with the community by enforcing established laws and ordinances while working with residents to address their needs.”

Question #3: Do you support overnight parking along primary arterial streets (for example; north end of Camino Capistrano)? If not, what would you do to change it? “Overnight parking on arterial streets can be hazardous. It can also be an indication of overcrowding in residences that can endanger occupants. We have ordinances on the books now that should be enforced…” See entire answer at: www. ccsense.com Question #4: Do you support the City continuing to fine residents for exceeding their water allotment? If not, what would you to do change it? “I am not in favor of ‘water allotments' period. The fines are an end-run around the very clear legal rulings on the tiers, and they are offensive. We need to exit the water business as soon as possible, and also lobby state and regional officials ….” See entire answer at: www. ccsense.com

Question #4: Do you support the City continuing to fine residents for exceeding their water allotment? If not, what would you to do change it? "No I do not. SJC residents have been fined and fee’d beyond reason. I will work to provide the true formula for your water allocation and ensure it is fair and predictable. I will also ask for a list of fees, and will work to reduce or eliminate them and simplify the explanation of our monthly drought limit."

Larry Kramer Candidate for District 5 Question #1: What, if anything, do you think should be done with Ortega Highway? “Please see my website for my position on various issues.”

Ronda Mottl Candidate for District 5

Question #2: Do you support giving taxpayer-funded subsidies to businesses/charities selected by the city council? “Please see my website for my position on various issues.”

Question #1: What, if anything, do you think should be done with Ortega Highway? "Safety and efficiency should be addressed with turn lanes to enter/exit neighborhoods where there is currently room. Then the situation can be reassessed."

Question #3: Do you support overnight parking along primary arterial streets (for example; north end of Camino Capistrano)? If not, what would you do to change it? “Please see my website for my position on various issues.”

Question #2: Do you support giving taxpayerfunded subsidies to businesses/charities selected by the city council? “I look at this from a business perspective. We need to take care of the essential needs of the city first before we

Question #4: Do you support the City continuing to fine residents for exceeding their water allotment? “Please see my website for my position on various issues.”

Community Common Sense

PAGE

dates - Headline and Summary

was forced to divide SJC into five voting districts. As a result, only residents in two districts, Districts 1 and 5*, will have the opportunity to vote for a candiers are listed below. Answers which exceed the word count limit are continued on our website at: www.ccsense.com. Note: District 5 candidate Robert Parks

Sergio Farias Candidate for District 1 Question #1: What, if anything, do you think should be done with Ortega Highway? “I believe we need improvements to the Ortega Hwy that prioritize our residents. Development that borders the eastern border of our city is causing significant mobility issues. Alternative routes to those new developments must be emphasized and encouraged to take the burden off of our residents that live near the Ortega highway.” Question #2: Do you support giving taxpayer-funded subsidies to businesses/charities selected by the city council? ? “I do not believe in taxpayer subsidies for businesses. I do support fee waivers for park usage by charities. I believe in being fair and even when and if council decides to waive fees for one charity; other charities should be treated equally.” Question #3: Do you support overnight parking along primary arterial streets (for example; north end of Camino Capistrano)? If not, what would you do to change it? “I would form an ad hoc committee made up of residents from various neighborhoods from District with the purpose of finding solutions to the significant parking issues within our district.” Question #4: Do you support the City continuing to fine residents for exceeding their water allotment? “I strongly oppose water fines for our residents. An example of residents being unfairly punished can be found in The Villas where a building has 1 meter for 4 units. It is therefore impossible to figure out which unit went over their respective allotment.”

Nathan Banda Candidate for District 1 Candidate did not respond

Jim Schneider Candidate for District 5 Candidate did not respond

Editorial

Our Take on the Candidates

Ronda Mottl – Although Ms. Mottl moved here about a year ago, we are impressed with her willingness to jump in and get involved with the community as evidenced by her application to serve on the Utilities Commission. Some see her being a relative newcomer as a detriment but the fact that she has no ties to SJC politics and her potential to bring a fresh perspective to old problems is something we view as a positive. More importantly, her stated position on the issues is most closely aligned with those of the CCS than those of other candidates. We agree with her opposition to tax increases on already over-burdened SJC taxpayers and on working with Congressman Darrell Issa and his staff to promote legislation protecting residential neighborhoods from the proliferation of “Sober Living Homes”. The position we are most impressed with however, is her stance in protecting residents’ quality of life over accommodating “regional growth”. She has refused to jump on the “regional growth at any cost” bandwagon by rejecting the notion that “regional growth is inevitable, therefore not worth fighting”. We believe that she will fight to protect the quality of life of SJC residents. We recommend a “Yes” vote. Sergio Farias - In 2008, we would not have recommended voting for Mr. Farias. His views at that time were admittedly “socialistic”. Since then however, he has become a husband, father and business owner and his views have changed. What we admire about Mr. Farias is his passion for representing the residents. He is adamantly opposed to the doubling of the SDG&E substation in his district and says he will continue to fight to protect the residents from this behemoth. He had the courage to call out the Chamber of Commerce for their support and promotion of the proposed project at a Chamber- sponsored event. That tells us he is not afraid to stand up for his beliefs in the face of adversity. He also states his opposition to taxpayer-funded subsidies for a select few politically allied groups, instead recommend-

Community Common Sense

ing a solution to waive park event fees for all charities, equally. The unequal treatment in SJC of the favored political few versus “the rest of us” is an issue we have reported on – and denounced – over the years in the CCS. It is an on-going problem that serves to divide us rather than bring us together. We believe Mr. Farias will work to represent all residents, not just the politically connected few. We recommend a “Yes” vote. Mechelle Lawrence-Adams is doing a great job at the Mission and with the Heritage Tourism Association, and we believe that is where she should continue to focus her energies. Because she collects a salary as Executive Director of the Mission and with her involvement in the Heritage Tourism Association, her votes on important and timely issues relative to downtown development, parking, events, etc. would be compromised (and perhaps nullified) due to perceived conflicts. We recommend a “No” vote. Brian Maryott – We agree with most of Mr. Maryott’s positions with the exception of one, and it’s a big one; his stated support for accommodating and/or facilitating regional growth through “partnerships” and the widening of Ortega Highway, which is potentially destructive to SJC residents’ quality of life. The closest regional growth that SJC taxpayers would need to accommodate and the one with most impact to SJC is the Rancho Mission Viejo development to the east. The “Ranch” development has had negative consequences for SJC residents, from increased traffic (especially in the future and most especially if the Ortega is widened) to the future diversion of sales tax away from SJC downtown merchants by the planned Ranch retail/ commercial development (up to 5 million sf). As stated in the Capistrano Dispatch, Maryott said he doesn’t support the “current situation with Ortega Highway,” (the council vote not to widen) including “some of the arrogance Story continued on page 7... PAGE

Guest Column

Litigation Fees Trump SJC General Plan By Donna Fleming Why do we have a city council? Why bother with a General Plan or an Environmental Impact Report? If all you need is SJC Resident Donna an aggresFleming sive lawyer, you can push your project through using the court system, and the city’s General Plan is void. Some council members believe that deep legal pockets are a reason to vote to approve a project – regardless of the horrific impacts to our historical town and alarmed community. At the September 20 city council meeting, Derek Reeve, a city councilman we trusted to halt big development in San Juan Capistrano, argued that legal fees are a reason to allow for more development through a General Plan Amendment despite obvious opposition from the community he claims to represent. What Does a City Council Do? City Councilmembers act as the legislative branch of the city government. The council also oversees the city's goals, infrastructure, community growth, land use, finances and strategic planning. The General Plan is the driving document behind what the councilmembers can and cannot approve with respect to development. This document serves as a “roadmap” for the city’s planned growth therefore, amending it should be done only after carefully weighing all of the impacts to the community and historic character of our town, not whether a developer has deep enough pockets to sue to try and get what they want.

Community Common Sense

Troy Bourne of Spieker Development is a developer with deep pockets. Bourne fought SJC residents in 2014 to approve a rezone of the (Vermeulen) agricultural property to high-density residential development. Sam Allevato, Larry Kramer and John Taylor voted to approve it. The residents fought back with a successful referendum which ultimately repealed the vote to approve the development. Developer Troy Bourne is back, and has sued the city along with the landowner. Bourne has convinced the Vermeulen family that they are ENTITLED to put residential development on their property. And, according to Councilmen Reeve, the council now has “no choice” but to consider a General Plan Amendment to allow it, arguing that the legal fees associated with the Vermeulen lawsuit make it prohibitive to do otherwise. Reeve essentially said that legal fees force us to approve the development. I disagree with Councilman Reeve’s rationale. The council should not revisit this decision because they fear huge legal fees – especially when the residents have already spoken through a referendum. Our city should be worried about finances but there are many ways to cut fat from the budget. They can start by selling off cityowned properties that we don’t need (there are many). There are more creative ways to address budget woes besides caving in to developers who don’t care about impacts to our quality of life. As for the Vermeulen family, they have enjoyed a low tax rate on their property for decades because of its agricultural zoning. Besides this should not be about what one family wants. An entire town does not want a development on the AG zoned property. The majority spoke loud and clear in 2014 – NO residential Story continued on page 9... PAGE

Continued from page 5... and assumptions that were made” regarding the widening project. Residents tossed out of office council members who they believed chose to represent outside interests over their own in the last election. In addition, having been vilified, bullied and ultimately banned from City property, the CCS is sensitive to such actions, especially from those in positions of power. Although Mr. Maryott did not list specific "assumptions and arrogance" regarding opposition to the widening, our reporting on the push to widen the Ortega is based on 20 years of facts, including planning documents. It is our experience that this type of namecalling is typically used in an attempt to silence opposition, and undermines the debate process. It is also what was voted out in 2014. When a candidate indicates their willingness to do more of the same, we recommend a “No” vote. Larry Kramer – We covered Mr. Kramer’s previous 4-year term as a councilmember, which ended

in 2014. He was voted out of office by a wide margin, we believe largely due to his putting “regional” interests such as accommodating the Ranch’s development east of town, ahead of those of his constituents. He not only failed to protect SJC residents’ quality of life, but his poor decisions while on council led to taxpayer-funded legal and settlement fees totaling nearly $10 million, which he then attempted to blame on the current council majority. In addition, Mr. Kramer voted to approve more than 400 residential units on the Vermeulen property, which he claimed needed to be “protected from development” in 2008, when as an Open Space Committee member, he persuaded residents to tax themselves to purchase it as “Open Space.” Once the tax measure passed, he changed his tune and supported spending it on property outside of town, then voted to approve massive development on the Vermeulen property as a councilmember. SJC residents had to work hard to collect signatures to overturn his vote with a referendum (which was successful), which then triggered yet another lawsuit. He has already

proven that he cannot be trusted to protect SJC residents’ quality of life. We recommend a “No” vote. Jim Schneider – We wish we knew where Mr. Schneider stands on the issues, but he failed to provide a candidate statement. The only public statement he has made that we are aware of is that he refuses to spend any money on his campaign. We offered him the opportunity to share his positions on several issues with our readers for free, and he failed to respond. We recommend a “No” vote. Nathan Banda – Mr. Banda failed to respond to our questions, so we are basing our evaluation of him on his public statements and material distributed on behalf of his campaign. When asked why he failed to respond to the CCS’ questions, Mr. Banda said he was “too busy”. We question how he will find the time to be on council if he doesn’t have the time to answer four questions in a paper that is distributed to every household in SJC. That issue aside, a big red flag for us is Mr. Banda’s stated position as an “Ambassador” for the Chamber of Commerce. At

Community Common Sense

first glance this may not appear be an issue, unless you consider the Chamber’s long-term, repeated promotion of the doubling of the SDG&E substation in the middle of neighborhoods which make up the heart of Banda’s District. This is not a small issue. The Chamber voted to support the doubling of the Substation in District 1 against the wishes of the residents and the City of SJC, in the middle of Historic San Juan, a stone’s throw from the Mission and surrounded by families, neighborhoods and schools. The substation expansion will no doubt be devastating to the health, welfare and property values of the majority of the people Mr. Banda says he wants to represent. In addition, he proudly proclaims his alliance with the Chamber and yet, the majority of the Chamber Board and many of its members do not even live in SJC, thus cannot be trusted to protect its neighborhoods. We question Mr. Banda’s judgment in aligning himself with the Chamber, rather than with SJC residents. We recommend a “No” vote.

PAGE

City Settles Golf Course Lawsuit The lawsuit brought by San Juan Hills Golf Club against the City in 2014 has been resolved. The Golf Club had been using groundwater which it claimed “riparian rights” to use for irrigating its grounds for 50 years. The problem began when the City drained its water supply to dangerously low levels in order to operate the Ground Water Recovery Plant. As a result the Golf Club maintains, its access to water was greatly curtailed and the grounds damaged from lack of water.

San Juan Hills Golf Club General Manager Mike Abee stated, “This was a lawsuit the golf club did not want to bring and sought to avoid. However, faced with the prospect of being forced out of business we had no choice. The problem seemed to be an unintended yet businesskilling consequence of the groundwater recovery plant.”

Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter Wilson agreed with the San Juan Hills Golf Club’s position early on, and the City ultimately settled, agreeing to continue to supply water to the golf course and to pay for damages to its grounds which resulted from interference with its water supply.

The Golf Club’s managing partner Roberto Brutocao added, “We met with as many City leaders as we could to discuss the problem before bringing the lawsuit in 2014, and on a number of occasions subsequently.

Lic. No. 445702 24331 Muirlands Blvd., #4-432 Lake Forest, CA 92630

(949)493-1565 (949)768-5143 Celebrating 34 years in business on St. Patrick's Day this year! "Kevin responded right away when I needed my cracked commode replaced. He was professional, knowledgeable and the price was right - I highly recommend him” - John L.

"Kevin has fixed numerous plumbing problems at our home, new garbage disposals, leaking toilets, sinks, replaced fixtures, and I can count on a fair price, straightforward advice and prompt service! - Michael M.

Email Us at - richplumb@cox.net Visit Us on the Web - www.richardsonplumbingoc.com

Unfortunately, we weren’t able to resolve key issues. It was frustrating because the Golf Club is an important community resource and we strive to keep a positive relationship with the City and the community.”

City council members elected in 2014 inherited a number of lawsuits created during the previous administration, several of which were related to the City’s controversial groundwater recovery plant. The water plant was never meant to supply drinking water however, previous council majorities’ insistence on continuing to try to get the plant to produce enough drinking water for SJC cost the city millions of dollars, drove up water rates and was the basis of several lawsuits, costing taxpayers additional multi-millions in legal and settlement costs. Brutocao credited Mayor Pam Patterson with driving the settlement process for the Golf Club’s lawsuit, which both sides estimated could have cost the City millions of dollars had it gone to trial. Mayor Patterson who as an attorney is well aware of the high cost of litigation, stated, “Litigation matters not only distract the City from addressing other vital City business; the legal costs and future legal costs are a serious budgetary strain. To the extent we could end this litigation on reasonable terms, it was in the City’s best interest to do so sooner rather than later.”

Community Common Sense

Mayor Pro-Tem Kerry Ferguson explained, "This was a long and complicated negotiation that should have taken place in the prior council's term. Had they been willing to work more amicably and respectfully with the owners of the San Juan Hills Golf Course to assure our mutual rights to water in the San Juan Basin, the tremendous expense of this lawsuit, more than $1 million, would not have been necessary. There would have been expenses involved in creating an agreement to be sure, but it would have been substantially less. Also, council members Larry Kramer and Sam Allevato were a bit too anxious to pump as much water as possible from the basin. Nonetheless, I am glad that all outstanding issues have been resolved, and we can all move forward. This public Golf Course is an important asset to our community." Under the terms of the settlement, the Golf Club is guaranteed an adequate supply of water for its irrigation needs. The settlement also lays the framework needed to use reclaimed water on the golf course in lieu of groundwater. Gerald Klein, attorney for San Juan Hills Golf Club said, “This was a difficult matter, and clearly not of this current City Council’s making. We strongly believed in our case but both parties recognized this litigation was doing more harm than good. The Golf Club and the City benefit one another in many ways and continuing this litigation was hurting both sides. My client gave up millions of dollars in damages to end the bleeding of legal fees and to work cooperatively with the City toward a fair resolution. While the Mayor and the City Manager drove a good bargain, they also recognized the City’s case had problems, and came to a practical solution that is a win-win for the Golf Club and the City’s residents.” PAGE

Continued from page 6... development; NO traffic and NO added strain on infrastructure such as water, sewer, etc. We as residents cannot sit back and ignore the actions of our city council. The public has a right to a voice in any rezone or General Plan Amendment that will impact their quality of life. Once developers break ground we are stuck with development chaos. Inserting a strip mall and 150 homes in the midst of our neighborhoods and schools will change the small town character of our culturally historical town and it can never go back. We must be watchful. Councilman Reeve stated that, "if the court rules in favor of the developer and landowner, the court could force much higher density on us." With that attitude, why have a General Plan? Why have City Ordinances? Why pass any resolutions? For that matter, why have him as a councilmember? We are then ruled by the court, not a city council. Decisions are being made about the Vermeulen property and other properties in our town which will impact our quality of life, forever. Derek Reeve is dead wrong about caving in to the threat of litigation costs. Despite what he thinks, litigation fees do not trump

our city plan and the voice and the will of the people. I ask the city council to stand firm on the referendum that residents worked to achieve in 2014. It is the job of the city council to represent all of the residents, not one developer, one family and their lawyer first. Again, using deep pocket lawyers to force rezoning or a change in the city’s General Plan opens the door to a steady stream of developers who will use the deep pocket litigation threat every time the city says no. Donna Fleming worked as a technical writer before moving to San Juan Capistrano in 1999 with her three children, who graduated from San Juan Capistrano schools. Donna published her first novel in 2013, “Hard Times in Red Grape”, which was selected by a history professor as a class assignment in protest literature. Donna, a longtime community advocate, is currently working on her second novel. How do you feel about the council potentially amending the General Plan to allow for residential and commercial development on the Vermeulen property? The CCS wants to hear from you! Email us at: eboard@ccsense.com

Continued from page 1... spite previous councils approving “every development that was put before them” our city is constantly struggling financially. “It’s a vicious cycle; it’s never enough, and we’re stuck with the impacts,” he said. The Open Space Bond Bait-andSwitch Ironically, one of the issues raised in the developers’ and landowners’ lawsuit is that they were “promised” by a previous city council that the city would buy the Vermeulen property as open space. In fact, Councilmember Kerry Ferguson, who collected signatures for the 2014 referendum prior to being elected to the council, recalled that the Vermeulen property was “marketed” to the residents as one of five properties IN town that could be purchased as open space, and therefore protected from development, if only residents would vote to tax themselves. After the vote passed in 2008 however, a bait-and-switch occurred. Residents learned that while they were tricked into believing that open space would be IN town , perhaps at the Vermeulen property, and would be open to the residents, the thencouncil majority instead negotiated a backroom deal to buy land from the Rancho Mission Viejo Company OUTSIDE of town. They used $27.5 million of the $30 million bond money, which is paid through increased property taxes, but the “open space” is monopolized by a private company that generates revenue on it for their company, not for SJC taxpayers.

Council Majority Votes to Study Project The council voted 4-1 to “study” the possibility of amending the General Plan and adopting a Specific Plan which would allow for development of up to 180 homes and 40,000 sf of commercial. This will temporarily halt the lawsuit during the "study" period. Mayor Patterson, who was the only council member to vote against the study stated, “In 2014 San Juan residents spoke loud and clear through a successful referendum, that they wanted the then-council majority to preserve the unique, historic, village-like community we call home. The people of San Juan are willing to fight to preserve and protect our city; their elected representatives should be willing to do the same.” Councilmember Kerry Ferguson voted with the majority to study the project temporarily placing the project on hold, asked staff to “Bring back options for ways to acquire the property. The highest and best use in my opinion, is for the city to purchase the property for use as open space.” Councilmember Derek Reeve said, "I agree with Councilman Allevato. The city doesn’t have the wherewithal to buy another 34 acres for a park,” but added, “we owe it to the residents to at least look at ways to do that.” He then voted to approve studying the proposed development. * To read the lawsuit, visit: www.ccsense.com and click on “Vermeulen/Spieker lawsuit” under Community Links

For advertising rates, please contact Kim McCarthy: Call - (949) 275-8800 or Email - eboard@ccsense.com Community Common Sense

PAGE

Letters to the Editor Editor’s note: Due to space limitations, we are only able to reprint a few of the letters we received. Unlike other publications, we offer to protect the identity of letter writers. As a watchdog publication that has been targeted and ultimately banned for exposing the truth about local governance, we know better than most about retaliation from community members, including elected officials, who have an opposing point of view. In an effort to shield our readers from such retaliation, we offer to withhold their names from letters and list only the city in which they live unless given permission to reprint their name.

City-owned “Oaks” Acreage Should be for Public Use In answer to your question [about the city-owned property at The Oaks currently being leased to a developer]; the 2.4 acres should be developed for city equestrian use!!!!! The $4,800 for rent [that the developer currently pays per year] must be a typo, when we pay $37,000 in interest only. Who would make such a deal? I smell a kickback. On another topic; how about thinking of a desalination plant at the decommissioned San Onofre [Nuclear Generating Station]? The saltwater pipes already exist. Too bad they did not engineer the original plant to produce fresh water as a byproduct. In closing, keep up the good work. Name withheld SJC Resident

Doubling of Rent-controlled Mobile Home Park Rates on Council Agenda How can it be that the owner of a rent-controlled mobilehome park can arbitrarily attempt to double the space rent in 2015? And he lost!

$327,000 in legal fees in 2015 to lose, while the resident’s paid their attorney $35,000 - to win! Now for the ultimate paradox and mind-bending question: how can it be that the winning residents have to pay for the loser’s legal fees? These are the questions that haunt my nightmares and when I wake up, I find out I am not in a dream, but this is bizarre reality! All it takes is one greedy owner and one morally corrupt, opportunistic attorney to set the stage and collude to take advantage of a seminal court case, Galland vs City of Clovis, which states that legal and administrative fees in pursuit of a rent increase may be properly included as “expenses”. The demands for the exorbitant rent increases were simply red herrings to incur exorbitant expenses - because “expenses” can be passed onto the residents. If you can’t boost income through the front door via a preposterous rent increase, then get it through the back door by padding expenses and then charging the victim.

How can it be that the same park owner is attempting to raise the space rent 60% this year in the same rent-controlled park? And he is losing!

I am one resident in the El Nido Estates Mobilehome Park who is a victim of this nefarious plan – along with 155 other home owners, all of whom are seniors, many of whom are on fixed incomes, some of whom are veterans, and all of whom have united in anger to fight this assault of Shakespearean irony and magnitude.

How can it be that this same park owner claimed he spent over

Tentative date for the City of San Juan Capistrano to decide

if wealthy park owner, Richard Worley, and his attorney, Rob (his name and his game) Coldren can get away with their opportunistic plan is October 17th. Come watch the fireworks. Carol Brinkman Resident, El Nido Mobilehome Estates A Thank You for Informing

the Community

I would like to thank “Community Common Sense” for their informative investigative reporting of our governance. I have been a 43 year resident of San Juan and up until recently been frustrated with the decisions of the previous City Council Members in favor of big real estate developers as well as special agreements with a few

Community Common Sense

regarding “Open Space”, going against the interests of the majority of their constituents. I recall the “Slow Growth” initiative approved by more than 60% of their constituents over 10 years ago which was completely disregarded in their decisions to approve almost all proposed developments, even going against the City's “General Plan” in some instances. Thank you Community Common Sense, the Capistrano Taxpayers Association, and Mayor Pam Patterson, Mayor Pro Tem Kerry Ferguson, Retired Councilman Roy Byrnes and Councilman Derek Reeve for providing fair representation of our city's residents. Roy Ackermann SJC Resident

PAGE

Community Common Sense

PAGE

Community Common Sense

PAGE