Letters to the Editor Lawsuit Settlement 5 Times More Than Legal Maximum With the city's recent budget review fresh in my mind, I was surprised to read a recent LA Times lead article in the California section "Latinos still struggling to win city hall seats" (4/9/17 - B1). While the article documented a lot of what I already knew, there was a particular paragraph that I had to re-read several times to confirm what was written; "But state lawmakers last year (2016) moved to protect cities from massive legal bills and give them time to take steps to avoid lawsuits. The new law allows cities 135 days to switch to district election through the ordinance process after it's been warned it could be in violation of the Voting Rights Act. It also puts a $30,000 limit on the amount cities must reimburse attorney or other groups that challenge their election system so long as no lawsuit is filed against the city." I vividly remember the nearly $400,000+ price tag attached to the redistricting settlement, yet I believe our city followed all the proscribed requirements;
1. We responded proactively when we were warned. 2. We moved swiftly to enact the requirement. How is it that our total costs are so much more than the legal maximum? I do understand that there are internal costs, including our own attorney's fees, to be added to the total cost... but this seems to be far outside the norm. At a time when the city teeters on financial crisis, this seems like a double gut-punch to every resident; not only did we not get any forewarning by legal counsel about a precedent that had been established over two (2) years ago, we paid an exorbitant amount of money to be compliant ~ at a time when we had none to spare. If there's any chance this [decision] could be appealed, I'm sure there are a thousand other ways that money could be spent if "clawed back."
Blenheim’s property management agreement with the city states that they are responsible for complying with all laws, codes, etc. In addition, they are responsible for repairing any damage to the property arising from their management and use of it.
The City Staff and Council Majority are improperly using commissions and staff to write the changes to the Los Rios Specific plan which protects the historic integrity of Los Rios Street. This is not good planning to allow any developer the inside track to change our laws. What good is any planning at all if you allow spot zoning to change a zone to accommodate specific property interests? This process is deeply flawed. San Juan Capistrano is a special place to live because we have adhered to a planning process that protects our town from over development. Just imagine a wealthy businessman in your neighborhood buying up a dozen houses to build a...shopping mall. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what is happening in San Juan Capistrano right now. The traffic gridlock that we all experience on a daily basis is the result of a series of bad decisions.
Thank you Pam Patterson and Brian Maryott, the only two council members at the moment who recognize the folly of this process. The severe impacts it will have to the residents whose backyards are adjacent to this project, the degradation of the historic residential district, which is on the national registry of historic places, the additional gridlock generated by a project that requires 300 parking spaces should not be ignored. Please go to San Los Rios Historic District on Facebook to get involved, or contact me at: 949-493-6155 or by email at: vasquezstudios@ gmail.com We need your help. Jeff Vasquez, Former City Council member, 1990-1994, 40 year business owner in San Juan Capistrano, 30 year resident of Los Rios Street
Rules Should Be Applied Equally
Sincerely, Mark Speros Mission Springs
Story continued from page 1... struction of the sewer expansion will occur in late 2017.” During a recent council meeting, City Manager Siegel also reiterated the city’s plan to install a sewer line to capture the contaminated water from the horse wash racks.
Los Rios Plan Changes Raise Serious Questions About Developer Influence
Why now are the taxpayers being tapped to pay $500,000 to install a sewer line to remediate a problem caused by a private business? It remains to be seen whether the city will hold Blenheim responsible for fixing and restoring any damage to the public property. Should taxpayers pay to remediate the problems caused by Blenheim? The CCS wants to hear from you! Email us at: eboard@ccsense.com. Your name will not be printed without your permission.
I just learned that South Coast Farms, who leases city-owned open space at the corner of Alipaz and Camino Del Avion, has unpaid water bills totaling $224,000. Who at the city allowed the water bills to fall that far behind, and why? The explanation was that their water rates increased to the point where it became unaffordable. Join the club; when the city jacked up the water rates and I was struggling to pay my water bills, I didn’t get a break; I got fined by the city and a notice on my front door threatening to shut off my water!
Community Common Sense
Now I find out that the city has worked out a “payment arrangement” for this business, something that the city council voted to support. While I like South Coast Farms and hope they can continue their business, I have to ask; where is the same concern, compassion and/or support for residents who struggle to pay their water bills and could use a payment arrangement? Council; keep it equitable. Either waive fines and offer re-payment arrangements for all, or waive fines and offer re-payment arrangements for none. Name withheld by request San Juan Capistrano
PAGE
5