Date: September 19, 2017

From: Dawn Urbanek, Taxpayer/Student Advocate Capistrano Unified School District

To: The San Juan City Council

Re: The San Juan City Council meeting tonight, Tuesday September 19, 2017, Agenda: Administrative Item F2 Development Services: 

Consideration of Initiation of an Amendment to the Forster Canyon Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan 81-01, adding an overlay of "RM" (Residential Multiple-Family) to allow a 7.29-acre potential school site to be developed with up to 131 multi-family unites (CA 17-006) (Applicant: Capistrano Unified School District) (Property Owner: Pacific Point Development Partners, LLC) (420.40) 

I urge the entire City Council to deny Clark Hampton's request to change the zoning on this parcel.


Dear Council Members-

Tonight Clark Hampton, Deputy Superintendent CUSD is going to ask the City of San Juan to re-zone a parcel of land in the Pacifica San Juan development that has been set aside for a future school site. The District is seeking to have the site designated as "Residential Multi-family", so that CUSD can partner with a developer to put a mixed use development similar to a San Diego Unified School District project "Scripps Mesa Joint Occupancy Project"

First be aware, Clark Hampton is not a licensed real estate broker or an attorney.

Second, this type of development does NOT FIT the quality and character of existing development in the Pacifica San Juan Area.

CUSD wants to use the site to generate long term income streams for the District, and to provide low-income housing for district employees.

The district intends to put extremely high-density housing on this parcel, 131 units on 7 acres (18 homes per acre).

I am adamantly opposed to such an abuse of taxpayer assets.

The last land deal that CUSD did was the purchase of the Esencia K-8 school site which resulted in CUSD gifting the Ranch $13 million in our taxpayer dollars. CUSD agreed (behind closed doors via the Consent Calendar) to value that land as if it had 100 homes on it. That land purchase is now the subject of a DA investigation.

I wanted to share the following information with the San Juan City Council so that your decision tonight will be based on facts, rather than possible mis-representations by CUSD Staff.

I have been following this land issue since January 2017, and I have sent this matter to the District Attorney for review as well.

I hope this information will lead the City of San Juan to deny Clark Hampton's request tonight; so that the City can work with the District to ensure that the interest of students and taxpayers are fairly represented, and that District assets are maximized, not to enrich developers, but ensure the educational needs of students are the priority.

Denial should be based on the following: 

1) The timeline shows that Staff started down this road prior to getting Board Approval.

2) Clark Hampton's July 20, 2017 Application and letter to the Council states:

"The reason for this proposed amendment is that, based upon calculations of student generation rates, the additional homes in the Pacifica San Juan area will not generate a sufficient number of students to warrant the construction of a new school. Students from this development can be accommodated on existing District Campuses."

That is a false statement. Mr. Hampton knows that CUSD is 8,555 students over capacity with 5,555 of those being high school students. Resolution No. 1516-44 Increase in Statutory School Facilities Imposed on New Residential and Comercial/Industrial Construction. March 23, 2016 at page 6 

"Our children are stacked up in CUSD facilities like chords of wood." a quote from Trustee Reardon.

CUSD facilities that have not been fixed or maintained for 15 years, with staff to student ratios that are not safe. It is unconscionable that CUSD wants to put high density housing on this parcel. The numbers reflected in this chart were as of 2016 and do not include any development of Rancho Mission Viejo, these proposed 131 High Density units or any of the other new construction that is currently going on.

3) It should be noted that CUSD staff misrepresented the funding to pay Government Financial Strategies for their work on this land deal and change in zoning. At the September 13, 2017 BOT meeting Agenda Item #4 Staff told Trustees that the contract with Government Financial Strategies was to:

"Provide financial advisory services and analysis review and evaluation of a District Wide Solar Project

This statement is not entirely accurate. The contract contains $133,000.00 in payments to Government FInancial Strategies for their work on Pacifica San Juan.

On September 11, 2017, I wrote CUSD Trustees a letter asking them to pull this contract from the agenda. This contract stated that it was to be funded from Prop 39 Energy Grant funds and the General Fund. 

Board Audio: 2:54 

Trustees pulled this contract to make the following changes:

The funding source is: Bond Proceeds/CFD's/ and General Fund

The amount should be $250,000.00 not $325,000.00

Trustees then approved the entire Consent Calendar without any discussion allowing the error to stand that these funds were being paid to Government Financial Strategies for the "District Wide Solar Project" and not land deals. 

I have filed a Complaint with the District Attorney regarding CUSD's conduct in the Pacifica San Juan land deal, and as such wanted the City of San Juan to have this information when making its decision tonight.

4) In the audio tape Trustee Reardon makes the suggestion that CUSD work with the City to exchange land that would be suited for future schools.

In closing, this item will not serve the taxpayers within CUSD boundaries, and until CUSD increases capacity at existing schools or builds new schools allowing more high density housing would be detrimental to the quality of life we all share in south Orange County. 

I urge the entire City Council to deny Clark Hampton's request to change the zoning on this parcel.


Dawn Urbanek, Student and Taxpayer Advocate Capistrano Unified School District

cc:   Ray Armstrong, Special Prosecutor, Orange County District Attorney

The San Clemente City Council

The Laguna Niguel City Council

The Aliso Viejo City Council

The Mission Viejo City Council

The Dana Point City Council

The Ladera Ranch Civic Counsel

The Orange County Board of Supervisors

The Capistrano Unified School District Board of Trustees


January 18, 2017 CUSD Asset Management Plan 

Discussion of Pacifica San Juan

The City of San Juan should listen to this audio- it shows the real intent of CUSD in the discussions of this property. CUSD DOES NOT RECORD ITS WORKSHOPS. I attended this meeting and made a recording.


CFD 98-1A and !B 750 acres. Mitigation from developer was an option to purchase this land at a price of $6 million dollars. This agreement expires June 30, 2019.

Options are to:

1) Build a school

Staff recommends that CUSD does not build a school because there are not enough kids or enough money. Pacifica San Juan children will attend:

Elementary- Ambuehl and Palisades

Middle School - Marco Forster and Shorecliffs

High School - San Juan Hills

2) Assign Rights under PSA - Not taking title - selling the right to buy the parcel to a 3rd party.

Two Options: Sell the property as is or Re-zone the property from school site to residential


Costs money up-front and take 2 years. We could bring in a Developer who would reimburse us for the re-zoning costs. Rezoning to Residential will increase the value of the property.


Lots of Legal Requirements



Example: San Diego project "Scripps Mesa Joint Occupancy Project"

Discussion re: City of San Juan has designated this land use for low income housing

San Diego's Scripts Mesa Joint Occupancy Project i

Benefits are an on-going revenue stream. 

Affordable Housing for District Staff.

Recommendation: To assign the rights to a 3rd party developer.

Trustee Reardon suggests working with the City of San Juan to exchange this property for a more suitable property in San Juan.

We have $13 million. The cost to buy the land is $6 million. 





Staff Did Not Get Trustee Approval For Financing this Option - They Put It On The Consent Calendar and Hid it In A Contract for a District Wide Solar Project

September 13, 2017 CUSD BOT Meeting Agenda Item #4

Contract #1718118 Government Financial Strategies Incorporated to provide financial advisory services and analysis review and evaluation for a District Wide solar project.

However, the Contract covers much more than a CREB bond application which staff stated would NOT have any financial impact:

The following is the proposed contract with Government Financial Strategies for $325,000. Oddly it contains financial compensation for several other projects that have nothing to do with the Solar Project that were not indicated in the Board Report:

Pacifica San Juan- $133,000.00 in expenses hidden in a Solar Project Item.

September 13, 2017 BOT Meeting at page 139


 Planning and consulting projects

• Standard hourly rate of $225 plus expenses, invoiced monthly, unless specified.

• Estimated total budget: $30,000

Asset management planning

Pacifica San Juan: $25,000 total, based on hourly rate, invoiced monthly.

• Laguna Niguel: $10,000 total, based on hourly rate, invoiced monthly.

• Dana Point: $15,000 total, based on hourly rate, invoiced monthly.

Continuing disclosure

• $2,500 per year for the first four debt issuances, and $500 for each additional debt issuance, totaling $6,500 based on outstanding debt, payable at beginning of year

CFO 98-1A bonds

• $54,050 for professional fees plus $1,000 for expenses, payable at completion

CFO 98-1 B bonds

• $54,050 for professional fees plus $1,000 for expenses, payable at completion

Solar Project Financing

• $54,050 for professional fees plus $1,000 for expenses, payable at completion"

This is very confusing to the PUBLIC; but, it appears that Staff was trying to implement $375,000.00 in Contracts without full disclosure to the Board of Trustees.