---------------------------------------
1. RESULT: Nov. 21, 26 Casitas Capistrano presentation by JSERRA. These condos are right in the path of JSERRA's plans, but instead of reassuring the owners, JSERRA had no answers to issues raised by opponents except "...we're going to do it anyway" according to reports by some of those present. See the SJC Design Review Committee for some of the quality of life problems with JSERRA.

---------------------------------------
2. RESULT: Nov. 22, 23, 24: Fri.-Sun., 12 Noon to dark, Vigil on site at Putiidhem. There were many ceremonies, blessings, people joining the long vigil and then going home for a break. The fire department was called on the ceremonial fire, which was to burn all night, the Juaneno Chief reminded them it was a ceremonial event and they left. Concluded with a ceremonial rain dance to bring new life to Mother Earth. When Putiidhem is restored to the Juaneno, this could be a regular socially conscious and educational feature on the site. At the Nov. 27 Planning Session, the long "occupation" of the road strip was obviously on the minds of the Committee members, from remarks about how the "sensitive strip" being offered by JSERRA is not
respectful enough.

---------------------------------------
3. RESULT: Nov. 27, Wed, 7:00 P.M. San Juan Capistrano planning session on JSERRA. This Committee was very thoughtful, intelligent, and listened carefully to public comment, JSERRA, and staff. A good exercise in civics, a contrast to many cities that are not so careful in planning. SJC does seem to want to live up to its motto, "Preserving the Past, to Enhance the Future". It was impressive. As JSERRA folks said, they don't have a plan (some say, a clue) yet, but they presented it anyway. The big problems are that the proposed campus is divided by Junipero Serra road, which can't be done away with, in fact would have to be widened -- not good for kids crossing. Yet an undercrossing (subway) is dirty, and intrudes on graves; and an overcrossing would intrude on the valuable viewscape. There is a grading issue. JSERRA is groping toward a "recovering" idea for the road, and flattening Putiidhem by dumping enough dirt to level off its gentle slope. However, this would also impact the viewscape even more, and, would mean the athletic fields would "look down on" nearby residences on the south side of campus. Twist and turn as they might, the bottom line is that you just cannot fit all the things into this site that JSERRA wants to do with it -- a potential access road, along the freeway, or new access from Oso, or widening the intersection...it is just too much. Yet staff, and JSERRA, stated that, if the designers had their way, they would fill 60 acres with facilities. As it is, there are several "dual use" soccer and baseball fields, and it would require time-sharing and some imagination to reduce impacts to bearable. As senior designer Amy Wolfe admitted, if built out, the school would NOT be in compliance with parking space requirements during events, so there would have to be time-stepping of events also. In addition, there is a joint-use agreement that would require access to the playing fields by community groups and maybe even the public. They did not deal with security issues, at all, but just the issue of how would the public get there, and when, was daunting.

The Committee kept returning to the issue of "sensitive" sites, graves, artifacts, and how that would fit in with SJC's agrarian/rural planning theme. It is up to opponents to demonstrate that it's not appropriate, nor in accordance with the cemetery law, to site a school on top of graves.

JSERRA kept returning to the idea that the graves should be covered up ("capped"), and not explored; in fact, they have a "confidentiality agreement", it seems, to keep the gravesites secret even from those deciding on the project.

At the bottom (item 9) is a loose transcript of the session, which you could use when staff comes back on Dec. 11 and tries to answer some of the issues raised.

---------------------------------------
4. Dec. 3, Tue, 7:00 P.M.: San Juan Capistrano City Council meeting
32400 Paseo Adelanto each weekday from 8 am to 5 pm.
City Clerk: 949-443-6310, Asst. City Manager: 949-443-6321.
Attend, speak AGAINST JSERRA development.
This is the forum to present an outline of some of the problems and, if possible, letters of opposition to JSERRA and a petition to leave the site as a cemetery.

---------------------------------------
5. Dec. 11, Wed., Design Review Committee workshop, staff wanted to "come right back" with a revised proposal from JSERRA that attempts to answer some of the problems raised. The Committee likes to distinguish between "policy" and "design" issues. "Policy" has to do with Plato's idea of "politics", whether it is in the best interest to build it at all, and what the tradeoffs are. "Design" has to do with specific details, assuming it has to be built at all. Thus, you could argue design on dead projects. Of course, the latter influences the former, and just how odious
(or desireable) a project is depends on how it is shaped in the design process. But some projects, no matter how "mitigated" or sugar-coated, are just too impossible to swallow -- like a school on top of a cemetary, or a fast-food counter inside a Church sanctuary. It's just a matter of bringing this out.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Dec. 10, all day: Coastal Commission on Hellman graves desecration Graves on the Hellman Mesa in Seal Beach will be discussed at the California Coastal Commission meeting in San Francisco. If you cannot go, at least write a letter asking that the ancestors be left where they are found, reburied there if they have already been disturbed, and the tract map be altered to leave a memorial cemetary alone on the site. This is John Laing Homes, the same developer that is desecrating the "Old Glory" oak in Los Angeles. Their HQ is at Bristol and MacArthur in NB, they should also be picketed. WRITE A LETTER on http://SealBeach.org/jlh.htm This could be a good precedent for ORA-83 (Bolsa Chica Mesa), Putiidhem and others.

SPECIAL PROTEST against John Laing Homes: picket them, on Fri., Nov. 29, 9:30 A.M., to save 400 year old Oak Tree in which John Quigley is sitting in L.A. Info 714-496-1567

-------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Dec. 17 7:00 P.M.: San Juan Capistrano City Council meeting. Attend, speak AGAINST JSERRA development. This is the POLICY forum, where the pros and cons are weighed.
----------------------------------------
8. Directory of some San Juan Capistrano commissions

City of SJC Cultural Heritage Commission meets 4th Tuesday at 5:00 P.M. in Council Chambers Members Tony Forster, David Belardes, Don Tryon, Janet Siegel Mozelle Sukut, Lorie Porter, Jess Anne Andrews William Ramsey, Secretary & Principal Planner City of SJC Planning Commission Meets 2nd and 4th Tuesdays, 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber Members *Jeff Parkhurst, DRC Representative-at-large *George Proctor, Ex-officio DRC Representative-at-large *Timothy Neely, Sheldon Cohen (Chairperson), Billy Sonka Robert Cardoza, Gene Ratcliffe, Tom Tomlinson (Secretary & Planning Director), Omar Sandoval, City Attorney (Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart) City of SJC Design Review Committee (subcommittee of PC) Meets 1st & 3rd Wed, 7:00 pm, *Jeff Parkhurst, DRC Representative-at-large, *George Proctor, Ex-officio DRC Representative-at-large, *Timothy Neely

----------------------------------------
9. LOOSE TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION "DESIGN REVIEW" NOV. 27, 7:00 P.M., TO RETURN DEC. 11 7:00 P.M.

Present: Robert "Bob" Cardoza and Tim Neely, Planning Commissioners, Jeff Parkhurst and George Proctor, Representatives-at-large, Staff Amy Wolfe and JSERRA. These are the items that bothered the Committee, which should be brought up again at the next meeting when staff tries to answer. There were 6 public speakers, 5 were AGAINST JSERRA (dk, Fran, Tammy, Erin, Steve Otto) only one, D. Belardes, stated JSERRA's odious plan was the best compromise possible.
----------------------
STAFF REPORTED on the status of the proposal, there are several renditions of the design as they twist and turn trying to do the impossible. They mentioned limiting fill, terracing, grappling with traffic across Junipero Serra, parking, limiting ped traffic, road design, grading issues and how the south side would be higher if the site is capped. At this time, staff did not answer the cemetery issue, and it dawned on some that unless Public Comment had raised this issue, they might have just avoided it stating that they had concurrence from "the MLD". Staff "does not have a plan to present to you", just "working with Jserra" on "a range of ideas" for siting the performing arts and aquatic centers, aligning OSO intersection, etc., etc.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Committee's practice has been to hear from the general public prior to their deliberations. I spoke first, saying the best result was preserving the 29.2 acres, it's only a tiny fraction of what Putiidhem (and Juaneno lands) were, and the least we could do. Made reference to the Times editorial, that the issue was NOT going away, just starting, and that the Times, looking for a compromise, missed the idea that the 29.2 acres remaining could be a huge tourist draw -- if planted and maintained by the Juaneno, used for ceremonies, could tell the story the Missions do not tell. Fran Yorba spoke for the Juanenos, stating that they want all of what's left of Putiidhem, and detailing their issues. Tammy spoke to the planning issues: Traffic is a huge issue, would be even worse with events, the area already impacted, that JSERRA is a private organization, not the Church. Erin spoke against the project, not an appropriate use.

D. Belardes stated it's contradictory to talk about capping ORA-269 (Petroglyph site) and not allow capping of ORA-855 (Putiidhem) "capping is the best way to preserve" from pot hunters. JSERRA "would protect the most sensitive". "Been a MLD since the 1980's", people can come and see artifacts in the museum. Referred to "Chambers study". "There are no levels of sacredness". Seemed concerned that big problem is keeping sacred sites secret from pot hunters, whereas the big problem seems rather that sacred sites are destroyed in secret, such as ORA-64 by the Irvine Company in back bay Newport Beach, where 650 bodies were carted away in secrecy.

--------------
SCHOLIUM: ORA-269 is a rock shelter, "found" in 1969 by Antos who records a rattler picture and potential ceremonial site, but no study of its significance, a hollow with a carving. "...Turtle Rock area is considered one of the more sacred areas, and I would imagine these sites could be tied to some of our major villages...This is part of our history; it is tied to our culture..." [D. Shilo]. "Relying on secrecy to protect rock-art is like relying on the rhythm method for birth control. It may work for a while, but sooner or later you're going to get burned." (Micael Foti)
--------------

Steve Otto, attorney for Juanenos, stated some themes that the Commissioners did not ignore:
1. It's a for-profit high school.
2. Confidentiality agreement is not in accordance with common sense - or the law. Would require much broader investigation than the existing studies.
3. Plan is inappropriate, failed to comply with CEQA.
4. Don't make it be secret, the public is entitled to know.
5. David no longer speaks for the Juaneno.
6. There have been numerous burials here after 1872, part of the linkage to the past

DELIBERATIONS
If any development is allowed at all, it would have to go through CEQA. There are doubts. This may be an exercise in futility. No buildings in "sensitive areas", and there is the issue of utilities. We're not privy to the sensitive areas, which are to be "used as recreational fields without
construction". There will be additional fill, "stockpile" permit.

"There is not a project yet" so "CEQA does not apply". This may be part of their cock-a-mamie legal theory.

Big question: what is appropriate use of this land. "Seems out of character for SJC".

SENSITIVE AREAS: Don't know the extent of the graves, when they were placed, or other "resources". Digging, undergrounding, and siting would have to take this issue into account. "JSERRA did not at first know about how important this is, but now it does". ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREA: Not just along Camino Capistrano (some commissioners evidently saw the dignified vigil). Also seemed bothered by not knowing how many, or where,
the graves are. This knowledge must be available prior to decision, they seemed to agree (it would be in the CEQA process, which JSERRA ducked so far). The issue raised by Steve Otto seemed to bother some, that secrecy would occlude due deliberations.

BUFFERING: From surrounding areas would be required. JSERRA wants to buffer just a few feet, probably defining it as part of the "sensitive area", but the Commissioners, and the law, requires that there be significant buffers. This would include viewscape and noise, as well as traffic. Would have to be a landscape buffer along the streets, playing fields are not a buffer. Would have to be trees, with pockets of open space. Likes the idea of non- formalized fields, not defined, hardscaped playing fields. SETBACKS would have to be substantial from residential area, "don't see how" proposed road to OSO would be possible, right by the condos. Referred to Tammy's point about daily circulation at schools, and that the bridge is an inescapeable design problem. Maybe take out the gas stations (but they did not talk about the toxic plume).

FIELDS/TRACK: "There are degrees of sensitivity. Open space is better than structures on the sensitive areas. Is formalized use necessary? Could the fields be not unmarked, and fit in with native plant and rustic scenarios?" "When the activities go away, the fields do too?"

UNIFY THE CAMPUS: How to attain a unified look to the thing. How to know where the "sensitive areas" are. JSERRA proposes to use mural-type depictions as part of history program that will show the Juaneno side of the story -- but will this really occur, since it does not fit in with the architecture of the buildings on Sycamore Commons (n. campus).

OVERPASS/UNDERPASS: latter not appropriate. The "ramp" idea floated by JSERRA would solve one problem but create others. Difficult to see how overpass could not obstruct the landscape.
C: Bothered that classrooms on one side, and activities on the other. If it's going to work, will have to be a bridge. Even if "transparent", would impact viewscape.
C: The bridge should be as transparent (to the eye) as possible.

TRAFFIC: this area already seems impacted (some Committe members live nearby) would be worse with events, dropping off, student cars. Sport fields would also be public access, more problems. Public parking too?

LIGHTING: No lighting is appropriate. No night-time use of playing fields would be possible. There is an ominous glow at night, keep globe lighting down. How could football or nighttime activities take place? (this would impact the overlapping-activities theory of how to get around the parking non-compliance).

ARTIFICIAL TURF: This is a suggestion to minimize impact, but the general response was not favorable.

NORTH CAMPUS: The 3rd building, 25,000 s.f., under construction could not be placed elsewhere. No place for extra parking.

PARKING/IMPACT/TRAFFIC/COMPLEXITY
C: Is there demand for that level of activity
S: We could have used 60 acres driven by desires of those who want the school. A parking exception would be necessary, would not meet Title 9, but take into account overlapping hours of operation.

But staff did not answer the big question: is there a pressing need, an "overriding benefit" to have a school at this site? According to some, there is no lack of space in local HS, so why is it imperative to build a private school here, which would draw from other, far away areas, probably by bus traffic on the freeway, offramp and local streets?

C: Facilities: is there a cafeteria, enough places for assembly, eating lunch, lounging between classes?
S: We have not dealt with expansion from this point, only assuming build-out of the current campus.
C: Will we see phases, and what happens if they don't? Portable classrooms?
S: At this point no plans for portable classrooms. There is an issue with undergrounding of utilities under past permits for the rest home.

ISSUES NOT YET RAISED
--Where is Cal-Trans, don't they have to be involved.
--JSERRA pay for freeway and road improvements?
--If the site is capped, then later excavations would possibly intrude, would this require a deed-restriction precluding future expansion?
--Conflict with cemetery law. If known to be more than 6 burials in the last 400 years, the site is officially classified as under the State Cemetery Act, and cannot be developed like virgin land. Where else has this been done on top of cemeteries?
--Possible conflict with PRC, since some of the burials were reburials, the law states they must be reburied in an area that will not be disturbed. Putting a HS on top of it does not seem to leave it alone.
--Driven to put 2000 students in this total of 40 acres by money concerns, not quality of life.
--Too many unmitigateable impacts, not enough over-riding considerations. Mitigation attempts are not convincing.
--Existing archaeological reports show too much value to the site, cannot be brushed off with "confidential agreement".
--Security, and safety of a campus open to the public

-------------JUST MY IMPRESSION, SORRY FOR ANY INACCURACIES
/Doug 714-496-1567

Back to T.O.C. 2