Community Common Sense - June 2017 by Community Common Sense

JUNE 2017 – VOL 7, 6

YOUR COMMUNITY WATCHDOG

Community Common Sense

In this Issue...

City Sued over Riding Park/San Juan Creek Violations

Whistleblowers Allege Retaliation for Filing Code Complaints Page 1 Editorial - Selling Out San Juan Page 3 Map of San Juan Capistrano Downtown Area - New Planned, Approved, or Under Construction Pages 4 & 5 City Raids Street Repair Fund to Close Budget Gap Amid Spiraling Costs Page 6 City Council Incumbents How Are They Doing Page 7 Guest Column - San Juan Capistrano Equestrian Coalition "Economic Study" Questionable at Best Letter to the Editor Page 8 SJC Residents Deserve to Know About Real Impacts from Development Pages 9 Abolish the TCA, a Threat to Our Quality of Life Page 11 Letters to the Editor Page 12 Grand Jury Report on Ortega Widening Sorely Lacking in Facts Who is Behind the Effort to Widen Ortega? Page 13

City Sued over Riding Park / San Juan Creek Violations For many months, Parks and Recreation Commissioners and the San Diego Water Board had made the city aware of environmental damage to San Juan Creek at the Riding Park. The City obfuscated remediation of the damage until ultimately, a non-profit environmental protection organization took legal action in an effort to compel the city to resolve the many violations.

mitted fill dirt into the creek, unpermitted drainage of contaminated water into the protected creek and unpermitted structures such as horse wash racks on the creek bank which allow contaminated water to flow into and pollute the creek.

City given 60 days notice On March 31st, the Coastkeepers sent a “Notice of Violations and Intent to File Suit Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act” to the City and Blenheim Facilities Management. The warning notice states in part, “… Coastkeeper's investigations indicate an ongoing failure by the Notice Recipients to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act at the Riding Park, Reata Several PVC pipes such as this one appeared to drain contaminated Park, and Ariwater from the Riding Park into San Juan Creek. Although the pipes zona Crossing have since been removed, the amount of contaminated waste water properties. Indrained into the creek is unknown. dividual examples of failure to comply with the requireOn June 2nd a lawsuit was filed in OC ments of the Clean Water Act [are listed Superior Court against the City and within the notice]… including creek conBlenheim Facilities Management by tamination and volumes of soil allegedly the Orange County Coastkeepers. The pushed into the creek with heavy equipment lawsuit alleges 1,825 violations accumulated over a number of years, related …” (see a copy of the Coastkeeper’s letter on our website at: www.ccsense.com). to contamination of and damage to San Juan Creek at the city-owned RidAfter giving the City and Blenheim 60 days ing Park, Reata Park and the Arizona to negotiate remediation of the violations, Crossing in San Juan Creek. they met with City Manager Ben Siegel, Allegations include deposit of unperStory continued on page 14...

Community Common Sense

Whistleblowers Allege Retaliation for Filing Code Complaints In July 2016, commissioners from the City’s Parks, Recreation, Senior and Youth Services Commission were invited to tour the publicly-owned Riding Park at the Eastern open space. The property is managed for the city by Blenheim Facilities Management, which also uses the Riding Park for their other business, Blenheim Equisports, a private equestrian show business. Concerned by the condition of the property, one of the commissioners submitted a complaint to City Code Enforcement about what she believed were health and safety issues. Photos (later printed in the CCS) show electrical wiring and extension cords strung through dry trees and brush, extension cords buried underground to serve as electrical conduits to multiple RVs, waste water draining to the creek from RVs and from horse wash racks, extension cords affixed to the sides of plywood panels and strung overhead in makeshift hay storage units, trailers which appeared were being used as Story continued on page 15...

Community Common Sense

PAGE 2

Editorial

Selling Out San Juan San Juan’s General Plan is being threatened. The very roots of the rurally founded San Juan community are being snipped off one at a time. The State of California requires all cities to have and follow a General Plan. The town’s General Plan is literally defined by the California Supreme Court as the “constitution for future development.” The General Plan is there for all citizens to understand, work with, and rely upon - it is the guiding light. The preamble to San Juan’s General Plan says: The underlying philosophy of the General Plan should be to preserve the present character of a small village-like community with abundant open space. A community that recognizes the contributions of its historic and cultural foundations, is in harmony with its natural valley-like setting, as defined by its creeks and ridgelines, and strives to embrace unique solutions to issues that may arise in the future, to ensure that this vison continues to be carried forth for future generations. (Introduction, Page 1 of the 2002 General Plan) San Juan has a long history of cherishing it values and incorporating them into the General Plan. In 1965 the city adopted its first General Plan with a goal to become a large urban community of 84,000 ( the population is 37,000 today.) In 1974 a group of concerned citizens did not believe a large urban community

was the best for San Juan. These people advocated and pushed for the adoption of a new General Plan “emphasizing our small village-like character, preservation of major ridgelines, setting aside of 30% of the city as open space, maintaining a rural equestrian lifestyle and establishment of goals and policies for the future management of growth in the community.” * Because of the activism of this special group of citizens in the early 1970’s we now have something special in our town. We are special because we stand out as a historic, low density, rural, and equestrian community in a sea of urban and suburban sprawl.

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

Our community has worked very hard for the last 40+ years to create, maintain, and protect our rural character and open spaces. We have gone so far as to vote upon ourselves two separate open space bond measures so we could publicly acquire permanent open spaces. In 1990 the city passed the first of the open space bond initiatives with an overwhelming approval by 74% of the voters. The result of these open space bond initiatives are the Sports Park, the Northwest Open Space, and the recently added Reata Park and Riding Center.

The CCS is a non-partisan community watchdog publication, distributed to homes and businesses in our local communities.

The City has clear rules, policies, and plans to guide development. We elect councilmembers and appoint commissioners who cherish these values and to who promise to protect our long standing rural, low density, and equestrian character. These

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

We were established in 2009 by a group of residents who recognized 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! things are important to us as a community. Given the fact that we have a clear General Plan and a commitment to ourselves to protect our rural charm, why is it that the city continually, and sometimes forcefully, changes the General Plan?

and intensity on a property. For example, if you buy a piece of land zoned for a 10,000 square foot building, get the city to change the rules, build a 20,000 square foot building, and immediately you just created a windfall profit. This is a simple business model. The problem with this The first question to ask is, why model is that it creates significant would a property owner want to impacts due to the density. Effectivechange the General Plan? The ly the impacts are being externalized simple answer is; money. The money from the property onto the rest of comes from increasing the density Story continued on page 10...

Community Common Sense

PAGE 3

San Juan Capistran New Planned, Approved, or Under Construction Devel New commercial project planned for Mission Grill site, gateway into Downtown by Frontier Real Estate. Project specifics and traffic impacts are unknown. Kimpton Capistrano Hotel approved – 102 room hotel and restaurant with outdoor banquet facilities by Stratus Development. Traffic impact: 1,269 net daily trips (TIA)* Ito Nursery site. Specific Plan Amendment initiated for River Street proposed 60,000 SF of commercial space by Frontier Real Estate. Estimated daily trips (ITE): 2,600 Vermuelen Site – General Plan Amendment Initiated for proposed 180 homes and 40,000 SF of commercial space Estimated daily trips (ITE): 3,522 Distrito La Novia and San Juan Meadows – approved 150 acre project with 130 homes, apartments, 68,000 SF of commercial space and 14,000 SF of office. Developer is Advanced Real Estate Services. Estimated daily trips (TIA): 2,982 Lower Rosan site being sold by the City. Planned 13 acres of new commercial use for relocating Ganahl Lumber. Estimated daily trips (ITE): 1,400

*ITE = traffic estimates from the Institute of Traffic Engineers planning guide. TIA = Traffic Impact Ana

Total estimated additional traffic trips per day: 21,430 Community Common Sense

PAGE

no Downtown Area lopment with Estimated Daily Traffic Trips Per Project 1.2 acres of planned commercial space at downtown entry. Property is for sale. Unknown project description and traffic impact New commercial project for sale on old Shell site. Unknown project description, traffic impact for six bay gas station estimated at 1,008 daily trips (ITE) Plaza Banderas Hotel and Mixed Use Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 124 room hotel and 22,000 SF of commercial space by South Coast Investors II, LLC. Estimated daily trips (TIA): 1,473 1.2 acres of commercial land for sale by the City of San Juan Capistrano. Requires General Plan Amendment for planned use for 56,000 SF retail and arts center by Frontier Real Estate. Estimated daily trips (ITE): 2,350

Proposed new 38,000 SF 24-Hour Fitness and 10 acres of commercial or apartment development by JH Real Estate Partners. Estimated daily trips (ITE): 1,955 Via California residential developments â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 300+ new homes under construction. Multiple home builders.

alysis data prepared for the approved projects in their environmental impact review.

Community Common Sense

Estimated daily trips (ITE): 2,871 PAGE

City Raids Street Repair Fund to Close Budget Gap Amid Spiraling Costs At the June 6, 2017 City Council meeting, City Manager Ben Siegel disclosed a projected $1.2 million budget deficit in the ending balance for Fiscal Year 2017. City employee costs account for approximately $12 million of the $27 million annual budget. The city manager’s compensation package with benefits totals $312,000 per year. Siegel also created a new position for an “Assistant City Manager” which costs taxpayers more than $256,000 per year with benefits. In addition, the city manager added another Administrative Specialist/Assistant position with a compensation package of approximately $100,000, with benefits. The total compensation for just the city manager’s office alone totals approximately $668,000, not including monies spent on new furniture, including flat screen TVs. Siegel however, blames a majority of the problem on rising compensation costs for the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) contract, which increased approximately 10% over the prior year. It increased by $476,000 in 2017 for a total cost of approximately $10 million. According to the city manager’s budget agenda item, in addition to the Sheriffs’ contract increase, sales tax is forecast at $362,000 less than anticipated, and development fees/ charges are projected to be $251,000 less due to the delay of projects that were expected to move forward in 2016-17. The City also experienced an increase in animal control costs of $130,000, and $50,000 in storm drain costs. To solve this shortfall, the City Manager proposes to move $600,000 to the General fund from

the “Landfill Mitigation Fund” the City Council negotiated with the County to remediate impacts to Ortega Highway from trash trucks.

increasing faster than revenues. His memo indicates that this makes it increasingly difficult to balance the budget without annual cuts in programs and serThe City continues to fund and increase employee salary and benefits while claiming vices.

Suggestions for meaningful budget reductions that will allow the City to function while protecting the residents with safe streets include;

The City Council had directed that the fund proceeds be earmarked for maintenance of City roads and streets.

1. Eliminating the City’s funding for the OCSD Resource Officer at San Juan Hills High School, saving SJC taxpayers $300,000 per year. This expense should be borne by the school district, not SJC taxpayers especially since students from neighboring cities also attend the school, but do not pay for the officer.

there is not enough money to provide adequate street maintenance

To date, the City budgeting process has been staffdriven, with little actual The probtransparlem with ency as the plan to who to redisets the rect the priorproceeds $600,000 earmarked for pothole and other street ity for repairs was instead deposited into the general fund to into the funding. plug a $1.2 million deficit. genAdding eral fund say critics, is that many to the problem is the City Council’s of the City’s roads and streets are apparent inability or unwillingness experiencing structural failure due to attack the budget issues or to say to the lack of timely maintenance. no to the city manager, in order to Potholes remain unfilled throughout bring about long-range solutions. the City because of lack of funding. During a recent council meeting, The City continues to fund and inCouncil member Pam Patterson crease employee salary and benefits moved to require a monthly report while claiming there is not enough to the council with more details money to provide adequate street on expenditures however, it failed maintenance. Most experts agree for lack of support from her fellow the prompt filling of potholes and council members. a well-funded preventative mainteFew can argue that when faced with nance program of sealing streets not a looming deficit, the City should only extends the life of asphalt, but impose salary and benefit freezes actually saves money in the long run for all employees. Since personnel and increases driving safety. Resicosts, including contracted services, dents in various neighborhoods have amount to an estimated 80% of expressed frustration over poorly the budget, a sizeable reduction in maintained streets. budget expenses should include an overall reduction of staff instead Earlier this year, the City Manager of relying on one-time projects, or informed the City Council that the raiding street maintenance funds. City has a growing structural budInstead, the city manager recomget problem where expenditures are mended raiding the street maintenance funds.

Community Common Sense

2. Reduce City Staff by 3 Full Time employees, at a savings of approximately $250,000 per year. 3. Delay non-transportation “Capital Improvement Projects” (CIP), for a savings of $650,000 per year. These budget reductions alone total $1,200,000. The money saved from these reductions could then be applied to their originally intended uses, such as using the $600,000 Landfill Mitigation Fund for street maintenance as directed by the previous council majority. If currently budgeted funds from the Arterial Streets Major Rehabilitation Program (CIP #18109) are added, this would provide an additional $421,000 for a total of $1,021,000 for badly needed street maintenance. Should the city cut back on employee or other expenses in order to provide promised street maintenance? The CCS wants to hear from you! Email us at: eboard@ccsense.com. Names will not be printed without permission.

PAGE

City Council Members – How Are They Doing? Periodically the CCS prints the voting record of city council members relative to issues that impact the majority of residents such as development, traffic and debt. In the last edition of the CCS, we printed the voting record of the three incumbent council members Ferguson, Patterson and Reeve. In this edition, we are printing the voting record of the two newly elected council members, Mayor Pro Tem Sergio Farias (District 1) and Council member Brian Maryott (District 5). In addition to their votes on the issues listed below, both candidates pledged to listen, respond to and protect constituents from issues that are of concern to them. Residents in District 1 are reportedly initiating a recall effort against Mayor Pro Tem Sergio Farias for betraying his campaign promises (see related article). A number of residents in District 5 reported to the CCS that to date, they had received no response from Council member Brian Maryott to their emails regarding the potential extension of San Juan Creek Road to La Pata. Residents had asked Maryott about negative impacts to their communities through greatly increased traffic, noise and from a safety perspective, should the road be extended.

Voting Record of SJC Councilmembers Sergio Farias & Brian Maryott AGENDA ITEM

FARIAS

MARYOTT

RESULTS OF VOTE

3/21/17: Installation of $500,000 Recycled Water Line at the Riding Park

Supported

Supported Waste of taxpayer funds. Indebts city taxpayers to installing and purchasing recycled water at a cost more than 5 times that of available well water

3/21/17: Add sewer line installation to the Riding Park recycled water project at a cost of approximately $500,000

Yes

Installation of taxpayer-funded sewer line proposed to enable a private business to capture waste water from their horse washing stations at the Riding Park (see article, page 1), in answer to state water quality violations

3/21/17: Widen Del Obispo

Yes

Invites more traffic; accommodates developers and “pass-through” traffic to neighboring cities

4/21/17: Selection of largest development plan of four submitted *, for sale and subsequent development of cityowned Camino Real Playhouse property. Selected plan has approximately 3 times more square footage than is allowed by the General Plan

Yes

Only three of the four development plans submitted for the cityowned Camino Real Playhouse property conformed to the General Plan regarding density. The council majority of Sergio Farias, Brian Maryott and Derek Reeve selected the non-conforming, highest density plan, with Kerry Ferguson and Pam Patterson opposed. At 54,000 sf, the proposed development is more than twice the size of the other three, which were 19,000 sf, 14,000 sf and 11,000 sf, respectively. Concerns include high-density over-development and traffic in an already crowded downtown area

6/6/17: Approve extending the term of the development agreement for the Distrito La Novia development for another four years. 154-acre development project approved by previous council would expire without a renewal / extension of the development agreement by the current council majority

Yes

Development puts an estimated 8,000 more vehicle trips on SJC roads daily. Project includes ten three story buildings, parking structure up to 45 feet high, 500 horses with stables, exercise yards, equestrian show stadiums, trailer parking, horse waste collection and storage facilities. Council members Reeve and Farias insisted on voting to approve the item despite staff's failure to include a copy of the development agreement with the agenda item for review as requested by Council member Patterson. Council members Reeve, Maryott and Farias voted to approve the extension of the development agreement before staff produced a copy of it for review

*See Playhouse Comparison Proposals on our website at: www.ccsense.com under “Community Links” Source: SJC City Council Meeting Agendas and Minutes; www.cityofsanjuancapistrano.org

Community Common Sense

PAGE

Guest Column

San Juan Capistrano Equestrian Coalition "Economic Study" Questionable at Best Failure to Provide Backup Data Undermines Validity of Study By Ted Shown

The San Juan Capistrano Equestrian Coalition presented an economic impact study to the City Council on June 21, 2016 asserting that the Equestrian community brings in more than $50 million to the San Juan Capistrano community each year. Equestrian economic studies are not uncommon; a Google search will find many such reports for communities across the country. Having written many economic reports in my career, primarily in the aviation and logistics field, I was interested to know the methodology by which the $50,000,000 figure was arrived at. I discovered that although the results had been presented to the City Council and other groups, the actual report has not been made available despite being requested. According to the press release, the study was conducted by Dr. Raymond Sfeir, Associate Dean of Economics and Management Science at Chapman University. I reached out to Dr. Sfeir requesting a copy of his report. His response was that the The [River Street development project’s] site plan density, building mass and height, setbacks, parking density, and over-commercialization of the area are so outrageously inappropriate for the Los Rios area that I am having difficulty believing that the Council entertained the idea of an amendment to the zoning, let alone initiated an amendment on this property. I’d like to tell you about how the Los Rios Specific Plan came into being and why so many people in this City who have worked so many years to protect the history and character of the area are now concerned with the changes the Council is considering.

report belonged to the Equestrian Coalition and I should request a copy from them. I contacted the Equestrian Coalition and learned that they had decided not to release the report. I was told by an Equestrian Coalition board member that Dr. Sfeir attended the meetings where the results were presented and answered questions, but that they would not release the study itself. Having written many studies over the years for airline route cases which included testimony before the California Public Utilities Commission and the Civil Aeronautics Board, I have never encountered a serious study which the authors would not release. How else can a reader determine if the conclusions are correct or understand the context of the results? When I asked the Equestrian Coalition why they would not release the study, I was told that they were concerned that it would be criticized.

Well, welcome to the real world. Pretty much all reports come under some criticism. Studies in medicine, economics, demographics and pretty much every other field are conducted, released and subjected to the review of qualified people. To do any less is to take the unreasonable position that we should all just accept the assertions without any substantial knowledge of how the data was gathered or analyzed. There may be some need to provide context to the study, but if it was done well, there should be no fear that releasing it will somehow collapse the conclusions. I mentioned earlier that there are many similar reports written for communities across the country. Many of these studies are available online and some are available for a small fee. I could find none which refused to make their methodology available. It is certainly the right of the Equestrian Coalition to publish their

Letter to the Editor

Proposed Development Over-Commercializes Historic Los Rios In l972, when the City was adopting a new General Plan, the Los Rios area was specifically set aside to be studied as a special area of major historic value. Most citizens felt that the entire Los Rios area was too important to be included with the major planning changes being considered for the rest of the City. Significant planning and study were required to develop a plan that preserved the area and addressed all aspects of development for the future.

mittee members, other committees, and hundreds of citizens held meetings and public hearings, and spent thousands of hours over several years just developing the Los Rios Specific Plan.

After the General Plan was adopted, many Council members, Planning Commissioners, Los Rios Com-

Too many of San Juan’s residents, including me, have worked too many years on preserving this area

The 1997 plan update furthered the preservation goals. Subsequent actions over the years by Council and Commission members have continued to maintain the integrity of Los Rios and the rural atmosphere that attracts so many visitors.

Community Common Sense

assertions with no backup. It’s their report. They paid for it and they are responsible for what they claim it says. However, for the rest of us, we must relegate their report to mere assertion. I don’t know if it is a good study or not. The only way to evaluate the study is to read it and learn how the data was collected and analyzed. I also don’t understand why they refuse to release the study. I would recommend that the report be understood as no more than what it is, an assertion with no backup provided. If the Equestrian Commission ever decides to release the basis for their assertions, a real conversation can be had. Ted Shown moved to SJC in 1999 and served on the SJC Planning Commission. He and his wife have three children and seven grandchildren. A former aviator for the US Navy, Ted served in executive management in the airline and logistics industries after obtaining a BSEE from Rice University and an MS degree from USC, and founded his own logistics company in 1983.

to stand by and watch a high-intensity shopping center plopped in the center of Los Rios. There is only one area in San Juan that is zoned Low Density Commercial (LDC). It was created specifically for this section of Los Rios, [to] allow low intensity uses that are compatible with the rural character of Los Rios, and prevent the type of blatant over-development that is being proposed with the River Street project. Carolyn Nash Former Mayor and Council Member San Juan Capistrano PAGE

Guest Column

SJC Residents Deserve to Know About Real Impacts from Development By Michael Laux

There is a lot of talk about the size and impact of various development proposals in the downtown area. The plans are available on the City website, and the residents are encouraged to study them to understand what these projects will look like. There is a problem with this. For most people, including those in the building trade, it’s challenging to determine what the size and mass will be in relation to the surrounding

and imagine what it will look like in three dimensions on the building site. The cost of this service is miniscule in relation to the developers’ planning costs, and it should be part of our planning process. SPS also provides another valuable function by giving notice to residents that a project is being proposed for the community, and here is what it’s going to look like.

Story poles such as these offer a realistic view of impacts from proposed development.

structures, and the neighborhood in general. Currently the City of San Juan Capistrano does not require that development plans include “shadow elevations” (where surrounding buildings are drawn to scale in the background), or “story pole staking”. Story pole staking (SPS) is probably the best way for a community to see exactly the mass and scale of the building(s) being proposed. You’ve probably seen a certified SPS array with strings and streamers that show how big a building will be in its actual setting. All of our neighboring cities require it for commercial buildings (some for residential). It takes all of the guesswork out of trying to take two-dimensional plans

Developers usually want to minimize what the actual impact of their project will have on the community. One way they try to do this is to build a model of the project. If you’ve ever been to a time-share presentation, you’ve seen an architectural model in the sales office. They look great, but they offer no context to the surrounding neighborhood. It’s just a sales tool. Another aspect that cities depend on is the builder’s traffic study which always, unsurprisingly, supports the project. Have you ever seen a traffic study by a developer conclude that the giant parking lot is going to ruin the neighborhood with gridlock? Here is where a peer reviewed, citywide traffic study would show what

the existing systems can handle. If we are going to be so naïve as to allow developers to rewrite our Specific and General Plans, we need to see what we are signing up for. Once it’s built, we don’t get a second chance. Giving our planners, commissioners, and residents the tools to make

Community Common Sense

an accurate and informed decision is the hallmark of fairness and transparency. Residents are entitled to this. Michael Laux lives with his wife Holly on Los Rios Street. He is a builder in Laguna Beach, and proud to be a Rotarian. PAGE

Abolish the TCA, a Threat to Our Quality of Life By Pete Van Nuys Editor’s note: As the author of the article below has stated, “Engineers know that Induced Demand - increasing traffic through the illusion of more road space - is the reason ‘you can't build your way out of congestion’...” As a community watchdog, we believe the developer, not the taxpayers, should pay to build the infrastructure, including roads, to support their development. As a result, we are re-printing the announcement below from Pete Van Nuys, which is a petition to abolish the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA). Read on for more information. If you agree, a link to the petition is provided at the end of the article, or on our website at: www.ccsense.com. has long since expired. Equitable TCA's agenda and failed financial patrol, and fix TCA's tollways with in San Juan Capistrano, on and off transportation management for policies threatens to sever comour tax dollars. ramps, and a major interchange in all the citizens of Orange County munities and diminish our quality The agency's #1 priority now is self- the center of San Clemente's most can be carried out by OCTA and of life. preservation, promoting projects congested arterial intersection. Caltrans. TCA's power of eminent fraught with environmental damage Orange County's Transportation which cannot be mitigated. Their It's clear TCA is wantonly tone deaf. domain is clearly in the wrong Corridors Agency has failed in its dogged promotion of the San Mateo Whatever actual transportation value hands; their joint powers authority must be rescinded. The agency stated mission "enhancing mobil- alignment ended with multiple TCA may have provided in the past must be abolished. ity in Orange County and Southdefeats by every agency they faced. ern California." The agency's Their pursuit of that alignment This petition will be roads are among the least used in combined with damages now owed delivered to: CA AsOrange County, providing benefit to NGOs adds to their already sembly Transportato a tiny minority of the millions unmanageable debt. tion Commission, CA mired in daily commutes. Because Senate Transportation of their failed financial model Their claim that a "parallel route Commission, Senator TCA's original tenet-- that tolls to the I-5 is needed" has not been Pat Bates and Governor would retire the bonds and their validated by other transportaJerry Brown. roads would become freeways-tion authorities. Still they attempt will never be realized. As a result, to push it through cities in South To sign the petition, TCA's roads are little more than Orange County already paying the enter the following empty promises for home buyers price for facilitating transportation address into your web lured by the illusion of ready acon the I-5: noise, air pollution, and browser: https://ticess; OC residents resolve instead arterial congestion. TCA seeks to nyurl.com/y83aj7d3, to join the congestion on freeways decimate zoned open space with a The proposed extension of the toll road has or click on the link on they can financially afford. Mean- six lane alignment which includes raised opposition from several cities including our website at: www. San Clemente. while we all pay to maintain, surface and elevated right of way ccsense.com Story continued from page 3... the community that is abiding by the long-standing low density rules. The second question to ask is, why would the city government want to change the General Plan? The answer is the same – money. San Juan’s city government, like most, never has enough money to fully fund its staffing levels, service obligations, and other ambitions. Changing the General Plan to allow more density results in increased fees collected from developers by the city, an increase in property taxes, and in some cases an increase in sales taxes. The problem with this premise is that when the city gets more money, it just grows its expenses (see budget article in this edition).

When this happens, the government is not any better off in the long run, but it has cut away at the community’s culture. Effectively, the council majority is selling off San Juan’s identity little by little, until it is indistinguishable from the rest of the sprawl that has already sold out. In the last two years, the following amendments to San Juan’s long standing density rules have been processed by the city government: • Vermuelen housing tract – General Plan Amendment Initiated • River Street commercial development – Specific Plan Amendment Initiated

• City-owned Camino Playhouse parcel – selected project requires a General Plan Amendment These projects come on the heels of the first Vermuelen (Spieker) and the Urban Village Townhomes and Hotel projects. Both of those projects were rescinded by the council in 2015 after referendum petitions were processed on each project. In those cases, the City Council voted to increase the density and the citizens said NO. The council majority is at it again, and the three projects listed above are working their way through the process. Elected leaders and hired staff have an obligation to adhere to the General Plan. It is not appropriate to continue changing the General Plan

Community Common Sense

to fit each individual project. The plan exists for a reason and it should be respected. City staff and the council majority have it backwards; projects need to be designed to fit the General Plan, not vice versa. If the council majority and staff want to achieve a different vision, they should identify this vision and allow it to be properly studied and voted upon. This alternative vision needs to be clear to the citizens of San Juan, not snuck through project by project. *Source: City of San Juan Capistrano: www.sanjuancapistrano.org – City Timeline

PAGE

City’s, Farias’ Actions Called into Question in Recall Attempt One of the proponents of a recall movement against Mayor Pro Tem Sergio Farias called into question the timing of Farias’ apparent about-face on the SDG&E expansion project. The proponent also questions the appropriateness of the city manager’s actions relative to the release to the public of an unverified petition. After pledging during his campaign to fight the SDG&E expansion project “with whatever it takes”, proponents say Farias changed his tune once elected. They pointed to a number of statements Farias made publicly after the election, such as that residents would “… have to accept the reality” that the expansion project in their neighborhood could not be fought. Farias made additional statements indicating his position had changed say proponents, including; “… campaign promises can’t always be kept”, and telling his constituents, “… you guys need to go to San Francisco and complain to the CPUC [California Public Utilities Commission].”

dents urged the council to protect them by hiring attorney Michael Aguirre, who has had success in fighting the CPUC. Councilmember Pam Patterson made a motion to report out in open session who voted which way [about hiring Aguirre]. The motion was seconded by Mayor Kerry Ferguson. But Farias joined Council members Derek Reeve and Brian

Maryott in voting to shield from the public the result of the vote, and the motion failed.

“His own statements prompted the recall,” proponent Dawn Fusco stated. “After promising the voters that he would do ‘whatever it takes to fight the expansion’, he almost immediately threw in the towel, telling us that we need to just accept that it was going to happen,” Fusco said. “He did not vote with the council majority to retain an outside attorney to fight the expansion until after proponent signatures were being collected for the recall,” she added.

The council did not report out in open session a vote on hiring attorney Aguirre at that time, which indicates that they did not vote on the item. Had they done so, the law requires them to report in open session the result of any votes taken in closed door sessions (if not who voted for what). “Why would [councilmember Farias] want his vote kept from the public, unless he did not support hiring the outside attorney at that time?” asked Fusco. Farias also stated publicly at another council meeting that hiring the outside attorney “… wouldn’t likely change the outcome” of the CPUC decision, which recall proponents say runs counter to his pledge to vigorously defend their neighborhoods from the negative impacts of the expansion project.

In fact, prior to a March 7th special closed session council meeting at which hiring an outside attorney to fight the project was to be discussed, a number of residents addressed the council. The resi-

It was not until nearly two months later - after a petition began circulating to collect recall proponent signatures - that the council reported out in open session a unanimous vote to hire attorney Aguirre, say

proponents. Fusco also questions the city manager’s actions which led to the media being informed about the rejection of the initial recall petition - before she was even made aware of it. “I dropped off the petition in a sealed envelope addressed to the city clerk on a Friday afternoon, and learned that [City Clerk Maria Morris] was gone for the day. By Monday, I was being contacted by the media about the city clerk’s rejection of the petition – before I even knew about it. How did the media know about this before I did? Someone obviously leaked it to the media.”

City Manager Ben Siegel sent an email to Fusco, explaining that he was the one who opened the envelope addressed to City Clerk Morris. The city manager admitted that after opening the envelope, he called Farias, who immediately went to City Hall and took a picture of the unverified recall petition. By Monday morning, the picture of the unverified petition with all of the proponents’ signatures was posted on Councilmember Derek Reeve’s Facebook page, on another publication’s website, and Fusco was contacted by two reporters. Recall proponents maintain that it is a matter of trust and values – or lack of them. “This is about Sergio Farias’ betrayal of his campaign promises. It didn’t take him long, once elected, to renege [on them],” Fusco said.

Have a question about city governance? Have information you would like to share? Email us at: eboard@ccsense.com We will do our best to answer your questions and/or help to get the word out about local issues that impact the community.

Community Common Sense

PAGE

Letter to the Editor

Winners and losers of the Distrito La Novia/Meadows Project At the May 16th San Juan Capistrano City Council public hearing on a 4 year extension of the Distro La Novia/ Meadows project Development Agreement, it occurred to me that a number of competing interests were in play. I will attempt to categorize the groups that will benefit or lose from the proposed project. WINNERS: The City of San Juan Capistrano becomes the biggest winner because: • The City gets millions of dollars in developer fees for a variety of purposes Advanced Real Estate Services (ARES), becomes a big winner: • Inexpensive property gets rezoned to a more desirable entitlement from old restricted zoning. The zoning alone could add millions to the potential worth of property owned by ARES. They could choose to sell off the rezoned property without building anything. The equestrian community is a big winner: • The project includes the proposal to build facilities to house 500 horses, together with stables, exercise yards, show stadiums, trails, trailer parking, manure collection and storage facilities. LOSERS: The downtown merchants and nearby property owners will become big losers when the Distrito/Meadows development is completed: • The downtown business owners and merchants who will see much of their current business move to the new and trendy shops and restaurants in the Distrito development. The clientele who now frequent shops and restaurants in the old section of San Juan Capistrano will be attracted by the new and modern facilities constructed by the eventual builder. The residents of the entire City of San Juan Capistrano especially those who live along San Juan Creek Road will experience increased traffic as a result of the construction of the Distrito and Meadows projects: • San Juan Creek Road will bear the brunt of the increase in traffic of 8,000 trips per day when the grading for Distrito and Forster Canyon landfill excavation begins and buildings are completed. • The noise, dust, and reductions in air quality will last for several years • Ten three-story buildings and a parking structure with elements towering nearly 45 feet in the air will dominate the view toward the South from San Juan West and East residential with night lighting from the project obliterating the sunsets and stars. I have covered just some of the elements of who wins and who loses. It seems to me that after the project is built and the developer has sold off all the buildings and homes and has filled the stables with horses, the residents of San Juan Capistrano especially residents of San Juan Hills East and West will have to live with the consequences of extremely poor planning and judgment on the part of our current and past City Councils. John Perry San Juan Capistrano

Los Rios Development There has been a lot of talk lately about our decision to sell our land, the Ito Nursery, and the development that is being proposed by the buyer. Doug and I are feeling like we are being attacked for our decision to sell. We feel a little background might be helpful for you in understanding our family’s history and where we are coming from. Jimmy and Hiroko Ito purchased the land in 1959. Thus, the Ito family has owned the nursery property for 58 years, longer than San Juan Capistrano has been a city, and well before the Los Rios Specific Plan was originally put in 1978. Jimmy and Hiroko Ito chose San Juan as a haven to grow their family business and to own land they hoped to leave as a legacy for future generations. This was especially important to them since despite being U.S citizens, during World War II, they along with other family members were sent to the internment camp of Manzanar. At this time all of the Ito family businesses and property were confiscated, never to be returned. After the war, when they were finally released from Manzanar, times were very hard with the lingering antagonism towards people of Japanese heritage. Jimmy took on jobs no one else wanted, to earn money to try and restore his family’s economic stability, with the eventual goal of owning a piece of property that he could pass down to his children. Because of his time incarcerated in Manzanar, and the loss of all he previously owned, Jimmy was determined to be seen as a good citizen and neighbor, so that he and his family would never have to experience the devastation of losing their material possessions and livelihood again. When the Los Rios Precise Plan was being constructed in 1978 and then updated in 1997, Jimmy went along with the designations to

Community Common Sense

his property, first because he knew his sons were going to continue working at the nursery, and he didn’t envision potential change until long after he was gone. Secondly, he did not want to go against what was being suggested and be perceived as a troublemaker. He’d had too much of that during the war. Lastly, he was assured that this specific plan was put in place to protect the historic structures that already existed and that it would not affect the future value of his land. For decades, we’ve had many offers from people and developers to buy our land. After years of contemplation, we decided it was time to sell, and spent more than a year researching and interviewing potential buyers. We looked for someone that would bring a wonderful vision to our property and town; a project that would open up our property for the enjoyment of locals and visitors alike. The final decision was not solely about money. Our hope was, after 58 years of ownership, we could leave a positive legacy for the Ito family. Truth, honesty, transparency, and a willingness to work with and listen to the residents are the qualities we looked for in a buyer. Dan Almquist and his company, Frontier Real Estate, have exhibited these qualities and behaved with the utmost integrity in all their actions. We hope that our esteemed city council will remember, when making decisions about our land that the Ito Family has rights too. We hope that in the coming months when the “River Street” project comes before the various committees and eventually to the city council, you will make the best decisions for the entire community. Sincerely, Sheree & Doug Ito San Juan Capistrano

PAGE

Grand Jury Report on Ortega Widening Sorely Lacking in Facts A recent Grand Jury report concluded that the City of San Juan Capistrano’s removal of itself from being the Lead Agency on the widening of Ortega Highway resulted in costing taxpayers millions of dollars in delays. This and other conclusions, and how they were arrived at, raises seriuos questions. First, it is important to remember that the Grand Jury only serves in an advisory capacity. They cannot render legally binding judgments; only recommendations to various government entities.

The first and most obvious question is; why are the taxpayers paying to widen a road for a private developer? Widen-

Any Grand Jury implication that increased costs were due to delays from the City, would more appropriately be attributed to past delays while Caltrans was the Lead Agency. Project costs are merely projections, so maybe taxpayers should

really ask why they should have to pay $53 million of our tax dollars in order to provide “capacity” for the development of 14,000 homes on our border.

Scenic Ortega Highway as it appears

Fact: The City Council is in no way today responsible for millions of dollars in increased costs, as it was Caltrans who was the Lead Agency during the entire EIR process, beginning with the Project Study Report (PSR) in 1997 through 2013.

Caltrans controls Ortega Highway (as it is a State Highway) and their authority as the Lead Agency was appropriate. After Caltrans was sued by both the City of SJC and the Hunt Club which resulted in a 2011 settlement, Caltrans reportedly had zero interest in pursuing the widening, nor was there funding available. Caltrans may have realized (from a report they commissioned) that widening roads due to induced demand doesn’t help with congestion relief, so this might account for their no longer pursuing the widening.

The claim that Ortega is less safe was proven completely false, and in fact the area to be widened is currently actually safer than comparable roads. The real question is; who is behind the mailers and why would they want to substantially increase traffic? For those answers, see excerpt in the box to the right from the April 2017 CCS about this issue.

ing Ortega will only serve to facilitate traffic generated by the large development to the east of SJC. And yet, the developer is only paying for a fraction of the proposed widening; only $450,000 of the estimated $53 million cost. Setting that issue aside for a moment, let’s focus on the facts versus the erroneous assumptions in the Grand Jury report.

that became part of a drive to get the widening completed. We know that many of the respondents did not live in SJC, but rather in the new development(s) to the east. It’s not surprising that they would want the road widened as it benefits them, not SJC.

The widening will not help, it will increase traffic, noise, pollution, speed, and the intersections will still remain failing, at Level of Service F. The "failing" level of service was not addressed in the Grand Jury report. The Grand Jury also stated that the delay “jeopardizes the safety of those who routinely travel Ortega Highway” and “these concerns were brought to the 2016-2017 O.C G.J. in the form of a petition advocating the completion of the Lower Ortega Project.”

Fact:As you may recall, Commu-

nity Common Sense addressed the faulty information that was distributed in a flier to over 4,000 people

What is terribly concerning is that through a Public Records Act request, it was discovered that the group behind the fliers was also given a private meeting with the major players from the Orange County Transportation Agency. It is unknown whether the Grand Jury was made aware of this “back room” meeting, or that accident data was omitted which made it falsely appear that the road was unsafe, or any other misleading information, such as the false assertion that the public is clamoring for the widening. The Grand Jury is to be commended for their hard work, but sometimes they get it wrong when they don’t have all of the correct, unbiased information. It is unfortunately too late for the retired Grand Jury to change their written opinion, but the public has a right to know that the report was based on faulty assumptions.

Community Common Sense

Who is Behind the Effort to Widen Ortega? A mass mailing with a letter and a petition card urging residents to support the widening of Ortega was sent to residents in SJC and to communities east of town. By our estimates, the mass mailing with the letter and petition cards was an expensive undertaking. The letter and card claim “safety” as their primary concern. The claim makes no sense however, when widening Ortega would only add more traffic and increase the speed limit. So who is behind this effort and why are they going to such lengths to pressure the country to widen the road? We did a little digging, and the results are listed below: Brad Gates – Close friend and former business partner of Ranch CEO and developer Tony Moiso. Gates was the lead negotiator for the purchase of 132 acres of “open space” from Moiso at the corner of Ortega & La Pata, with $27.5 million in public bond money. Gates negotiated the deal entirely behind closed doors. The deal is so one-sided in favor of Moiso that it reads like a lease. Eric Sellas – Ranch executive who is married to Ranch CEO Tony Moiso’s daughter. Buck Bean – Long time Ranch employee, retired from the Ranch after approximately 40 years. Wyatt Hart – Ranch-friendly former SJC Mayor. Owns one of ten properties that could split $4.3 million in eminent domain taxpayer funding for a portion of relatively useless property along Ortega should it be widened. Marlene Draper – Former Capistrano Unified Trustee who was targeted for recall by residents angry at mismanagement of school district finances. As a trustee, Draper voted to construct the 126,000 sf “Taj Mahal” headquarters building while children were crowded into moldy, 25-year-old portables. Draper served as a Director on Gates’ Open Space Foundation, and on the Open Space Committee that advocated for purchase of the “open space” property with public bond monies. PAGE

“If the City Manager had just done his job and taken care of the violations rather than attempting to sweep them under the rug, this [lawsuit] could have been avoided…”

“waste water” generated by Blenheim’s private business an attorney hired by the city activities. (See CCS May isto protect its interests, several sue for a complete article on – former City Commissioner Kim McCarthy the high cost to taxpayers for city employees and Melissa Brandes of Blenheim, in an a sewer system that is only the proper permits for grading that for horses, as the riding park cannot effort to resolve the violations. the city claims was necessary due “If the City Manager had just have a permanent structure (such to the alleged storm activity. The done his job and taken care of the as a restroom) Furthermore, CoastThe Coastkeepers however, were city manager's denials ring hollow violations rather than attempting keepers claims that the sewer system disappointed in the city’s apparent in light of heavy equipment at the to sweep them under the rug, this would not fix the problem. Although lack of understanding of just how Riding Park/San Juan Creek which [lawsuit] could have been avoided, serious the damage is, or their role in has been observed and photographed said former City Commissioner Kim Council members Ferguson, Farias, Maryott and Reeve all voted to supit. They failed to reach an agreement in recent months, after the storm McCarthy port spending taxpayer monies on and according to the Coastkeepers, In a previous article, the CCS season activity had ended. Heavy the half million dollar sewer system the City and Blenheim continue to printed photographs of PVC pipes equipment tire tracks leading to the (Councilmember Patterson voted violate the Clean Water Act. On creek bank into which large volumes sticking out of the creek banks no), it is unknown whether the city June 2nd, a lawsuit was filed in OC which appeared to drain from the of soil and debris had been deposSuperior Court against the City and Riding Park into will try to move forward with its construction in light of the lawsuit. Blenheim Facilities Management. the creek. Also observed and City Investigates Commissioners Lawsuit Validates Commissioners’ photographed after Code Complaints Filed Concerns was a “shower Also troubling are the bureaucratic The allegations by the Coastkeepers trailer” with responses to the complaints and convindicate city commissioners who three stalls and cerns about damage to the Riding filed complaints with the city about a PVC drainage on-going code violations at the Ridpipe running into Park and creek. The two city commissioners who initially pointed out ing Park and damage to San Juan the ground. It is Creek. The two Parks, Recreation, unknown wheth- the damage and potential violations on the property were both “investier the trailer’s Senior and Youth Services Commisgated” by the City Manager and City pipe was one of sioners initially expressed concern Attorney (see related article "Whisthe three pipes about the numerous violations at the draining into the tleblower Retaliation Alleged" on Riding Park and the creek in July of page 1). City Manager Siegel justicreek. The city 2016. In the following months, the fied the investigations by stating that manager denies city manager’s written reports and it is his responsibility to investigate that the shower claims that all violations had been complaints about employees and/or trailer drained resolved were not supported by the commissioners. However, the CCS to the creek, alevidence. Commissioners continued though there was is aware of complaints submitted to to document on-going problems inthe city manager about the actions of no containment cluding contaminated water and fill another commissioner and a council tank to catch the waste Heavy equipment tire tracks lead to creek bank dirt being deposited into the creek. member which were ignored or diswater. The shower trailer into which fill dirt and debris were deposited. When the commissioners attempted has since been moved fur- missed, even though the allegations Man-made deposits are unpermitted in the to follow up on the violations by ther away from the creek, were serious in nature. protected federally and state- creek. asking for a status report from staff “… in the interest of to the Parks and Recreation comited were also observed and photoprotecting the watershed,” according The allegations of whistleblower remission however, their agenda items graphed on numerous occasions by taliation against the commissioner(s) to City Manager Siegel. And,while were repeatedly removed and/or were serious enough to warrant an residents and commissioners, inSiegel stated in a city memo, “… If blocked. investigation by the California Labor cluding during dry summer months. the showers are put back in service, Board which is on-going, and are In some cases, mature trees appear waste water from the showers is City Manager’s Continued Denials to have been plowed under and/or required to be captured in a contain- grounds for a potential lawsuit. The multiple violations listed in buried under soil and debris includ- ment tank,” we could find no permit the lawsuit contradict City ManA copy of the Coastkeepers lawsuit ing trash, concrete, and sod. for such a shower facility on any ager Siegel’s repeated denials about and related documents can be found of the city’s open space properties. on-going violations. In several city on our website at: www.ccsense. The fines and penalties for the alThe city manager did however, put memos, reports and in a city Press com, under “Community Links”. leged violations are potentially enor- an item on a recent council agenda Release dated April 11, 2017, Siegel mous; as much as $50,000 per day advising the council to approve claims that soil and debris deposited for violations dating back to 2009. installation of a taxpayer-funded into the creek is a result of “storm This could have been avoided had half million dollar sewer system at activity”. The Coastkeepers say that the city manager enforced the law, the Riding Park in order to catch the city/Blenheim failed to secure say the commissioners. Story continued from page 1...

Community Common Sense

PAGE

Story continued from page 1... permanent residences, and soil, concrete, trash and sod that had been deposited into the creek. City code enforcement eventually cited Blenheim for most of the conditions, but advised the commissioner to file a complaint with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) about the fire safety concerns. Following is an account of what occurred next, based on documentation obtained by the CCS. The OCFA Complaint Commissioner Kim McCarthy submitted two complaints within a week through the OCFA’s online system, both of which the OCFA denied having received. The commissioner then drove to the local OCFA station to file the complaint in person. According to the commissioner, when shown photos of extension cords in trees, on dry brush, affixed to makeshift plywood hay storage units, buried underground, exposed electrical junction boxes next to a dry brush-covered hillside, etc., Senior OCFA Fire Inspector Darren Johnson reportedly responded, “what’s wrong with these [conditions]?” The commissioner stated that Johnson then said he has a contact at “the Ranch” (which sold the Riding Park to the city in 2009), and that he inspects the Riding Park property before and/or during the Ranch’s annual rodeo held at the Riding Park. He reportedly also offered his opinion that Blenheim does a great job managing the property. The problem with OCFA Sr. Inspector Johnson’s denial of violations at the Riding Park property is that the California Fire Code lists as violations conditions depicted

in the photographs shown to Johnson. SJC City Manager Ben Siegel claimed that he received a complaint from Johnson about the commissioner’s behavior. According to Siegel, Johnson claimed that the commissioner “misrepresented” herself as a city employee. The commissioner denies this, stating that she explained to him that although the City Parks and Recreation commissioners had been invited to tour the park, she was filing the complaint as a private citizen. This is supported by the fact that she listed her home address and home phone number on the complaint form. The commissioner stated that she checked an “employee” box listed on the form as there was no check box available for a city commissioner. The commissioner’s claim is further supported by an email to OCFA Division Chief John Abel, in which she reiterated that although she had been invited to tour the park as a commissioner, she was “filing the complaint as a private resident.” Chief Abel did not respond to her request for a conversation. However, Chief Abel stated that the OCFA did not file a complaint with the City. In fact, Chief Abel said that the City Manager's office contacted him (not the other way around), soliciting information about Kim McCarthy's conduct during her interaction with Johnson. Chief Abel said he told them that no complaint had been filed, and that he would follow up with Sr. Inspector Johnson about his interaction with the commissioner. The OCFA’s credibility has been

called into question a number of times in recent years. According to news reports in the OC Register and the Voice of OC, the OCFA has replaced two chiefs in the past five years, for reasons ranging from “an atmosphere of bullying and intimidation” to a scandal involving cities being billed for hazmat inspections that were never performed. In fact, the city council in Irvine considered non-renewal of their contract with the OCFA, and other cities may be following suit. OCFA Complaint Used As Justification for Investigation The city manager used the OCFA’s “complaint” as justification to conduct an investigation of the commissioner. Documents reveal that the commissioner learned about the city manager’s investigation not from the city manager, but from someone who attended an early morning community “coffee chat”, during which the details were revealed. While the general public had details of the investigation in the morning, the city manager did not notify the city council about it until later that afternoon. In addition, according to the commissioner, the city manager never interviewed her during his investigation. Second Investigation Conducted The city manager also conducted an investigation of the second Parks and Recreation commissioner, Eva Crabbs, who had expressed concerns about a report from City Manager Siegel in which he indicated that there was no residential RV use at the Riding Park. Personal review of the Riding Park by the commissioner revealed that there was in fact residential use in the Riding Park. The commissioner photographed an employee of Blenheim’s Las Vegas

Community Common Sense

business venture exiting an RV after he had spent the night there. As a result, a libelous statement from Melissa Brandes to the City (which she ultimately retracted) led to a two-month long investigation. The conclusion was that no wrong doing by the commissioner had taken place. The commissioner demanded an apology from the city manager for disseminating “false and defamatory information” about her in a widely distributed email prior to the investigation, which led to articles in local newspapers and online which the commissioner believed were defamatory. The city manager did not apologize. The justification provided by the city manager for spending money and staff time (including his own), on these investigations is that it is his responsibility to investigate complaints. However, the CCS uncovered documented complaints filed against another commissioner and a council member which were never investigated by the city manager. In those cases, the allegations included threats, harassment and defamation. The city manager’s actions have led to an investigation by the California Labor Board, a lawsuit filed by the OC Coastkeepers alleging on-going violations at the Riding Park/San Juan Creek, and a potential civil lawsuit for whistleblower retaliation and abridgement of First Amendment rights to free speech. The commissioners state that all of this could have been avoided if the city manager had simply ensured that the Riding Park was in compliance with all city and state codes, rather than denying the problems existed and targeting the ones who reported it.

PAGE

Community Common Sense

PAGE 16