When egos collide, Part 2

(Continued from Oct. 15)

Despite the council’s problems, Mission Viejo’s city government had at least one redeeming feature. The 2003-2004 Planning Commission had leadership, wisdom, tenacity and a collective will to do the right thing.

Jack Anderson, Bo Klein, Dr. Michael Kennedy and the city’s first mayor, Norman P. Murray, were exemplary planning commissioners. Mary Binning was also on the commission. Each gentleman brought value to the commission and, together, they were everything the council was not. The commissioners provided each decision with balanced debate and consideration. Residents could feel secure that the commission was the first line of defense against overdevelopment and dismantling of the city’s Master Plan.

Dr. Kennedy heard many versions of Steadfast’s housing proposals as a member of the Design Review Committee. Starting with 800 high-density affordable apartments in 2002, the plan was significantly scaled back before the first public airing. Steadfast proposed numerous housing plans, and the commissioners rejected each one. The commissioners listened to the developer and the residents before making decisions based on benefits to the city. Even when Dr. Kennedy resigned from the commission, his replacement, Dorothy Wedel, immediately provided value as a former planning commissioner, councilwoman and mayor with her experience in another city.

Meanwhile, an election was on the horizon for November 2004 with Council Members Bill Craycraft and Gail Reavis up for reelection. Craycraft had formed a triumvirate with Butterfield and Withrow, which he probably hoped voters would forget. He had been humiliated when a new council majority in 2003 removed his name from a city park (jokingly referred to as Craycraft Regional Athletic Park – C.R.A.P.).

Reavis was popular with most residents not connected with Butterfield, Withrow or former City Manager Dan Joseph. Her greatest challenge would not come from a candidate but from a rival on the council who wasn’t up for reelection: Trish Kelley. Just as Kelley had in 2003 announced that Reavis wouldn’t be allowed to serve as mayor, she announced in 2004 that Reavis wouldn’t be reelected to the council.

By May, activists had pressed Brad Morton into running for Craycraft’s seat. While Frank Ury was indicating he would run, many who knew him well weren’t supporting him. Ury had earlier served one term on the Saddleback Valley school board before being removed by voters. Reavis and Morton were friendly toward each other and discussed cooperative campaigning.

Morton sought endorsements and support from everyone, including both Reavis and Kelley, who had their own political camps. By August 2004, Morton was walking on eggshells to avoid offending either side. Kelley made him an offer: she would endorse him on the condition he would stay away from Reavis. He was to have no joint events or be seen with Reavis. As a surprise to many people, Morton agreed.

As a point of comparison, Kelley had entered the 2002 council race when activist Bo Klein persuaded her to run. Kelley wanted no negative campaigning and insisted she would serve only one term if elected. By 2004 when Kelley wasn’t a candidate, she appeared to orchestrate the most negative campaign anyone had ever seen. Poorly written flyers maligning Reavis were stealthily distributed. Churchgoers found the flyers on windshields upon leaving Sunday services, and shoppers discovered them at the bottom of their shopping bags from Ralph’s. Kelley additionally went door-to-door, asking people to remove Reavis campaign signs from their yards. Kelley’s efforts were for naught, and Reavis was reelected on November 2.

Among those who’d had the nerve to defy the neighborhood political bully, Planning Commissioner Bo Klein had posted a Reavis sign in his yard. Kelley threatened him with removal from the planning commission if he supported Reavis. The sign stayed up. Two months after the election, Kelley didn’t reappoint Klein to the commission. When Councilman Ledesma nominated Klein to the commission, three council members voted him down: Kelley, MacLean and Ury. Those who watched the meeting believed Kelley, MacLean and Ury committed a Brown Act violation with Kelley secretly lining up votes to remove Klein. As another appearance of spite, Kelley, MacLean and Ury also voted down Reavis’ commission nominee, Dorothy Wedel.

With all the council shenanigans and enormous energy spent on personal attack, the city survived. Without leadership, however, decline was inevitable. The new majority had jettisoned what was likely the best planning commission in the city’s history. High-density housing had already sprung up in the south part of town, courtesy of a previous irresponsible council majority. Academic scores declined in schools closest to the projects, and some parents yanked their children from public schools. Development to the east of the city created gridlock on Oso and Crown Valley Parkway and caused homeowners along the routes to plead for noise mitigation measures. Rancho Mission Viejo’s massive housing development was coming online while the council majority fiddled. Developers of affordable apartments and other high-density housing continued to donate to the campaign coffers of council members. As an additional scourge to the city, Southern California Edison gave residents of north Mission Viejo a new view with oversized utility poles. Stuff happens when no one is watching the store. Lobbyists and political higher-ups said the battle was over by the time a group of residents got organized against SCE.

Instead of leadership, the city has a “character” program. Residents have a word of the month – what more could they want? With slopes barren and failing, the council focuses on new pet projects – a gymnasium or an electronic sign – instead of infrastructure. While lacking economic development strategy, some council members are working on personal strategies to stay in office by playing to small segments of the community.

Mission Viejo’s Master Plan is gradually being dismantled as developers propose high-density housing projects. A conga line is forming, led by UDR/Pacific and Steadfast, with others eyeing open space in south Mission Viejo and proposing third-story affordable apartments on top of retail buildings. While some council members tout the projects as fulfilling imaginary needs, they mention developer fees “that can be used to fund some other projects around town.” The real problem is that the council has already spent the money. Now they need to backfill with developer fees allegedly going for parks that won’t be built. The decisions by the council majority have been made, and residents’ input is not needed or wanted.

No one at council meetings is still standing at the public microphone touting the brilliance, integrity or business acumen of the council majority. As an encouraging sign, the electorate may be waking up.

Council Meeting Summary, October 17, 2005

About 120 people attended the Oct. 17 city council meeting, primarily to support or oppose an 11,000 sq. ft. joint-use gymnasium. The project was voted down 3-2 (Reavis, Ury and Ledesma voting against, MacLean and Kelly for). A city gymnasium has been a priority of Councilman Lance MacLean since 2003. The project that was defeated on Monday would have been a joint effort between the city of Mission Viejo and Capistrano Unified School District.

The city and school district had each applied for state funding to build the gymnasium on the Newhart Middle School campus, agreeing to share costs and use. The school district recently received a $1.5-million grant to pay its half of the estimated $3-million construction costs. The city received word in September that its request for a $1-million grant had been denied. The state hasn’t yet responded regarding an additional city-requested grant for $200,000. The item on Monday’s council agenda would have required amending the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 budget to move the project forward. Any unfunded portion of the city’s $1.5-million share of costs would have come from city funds designated for capital improvements.

More than 30 speakers made public comments, with about two-thirds favoring the project. Many of those in favor were Capistrano U.S.D. parents and students who said Newhart needs a gymnasium for a variety of sports activities, including basketball.

During council comments, the crux of the discussion was not the need for a facility but who should pay for it. Council Member Trish Kelley said the gymnasium was part of her vision for the city. MacLean argued the city could afford to fund its half of the project without the grant.

Councilman John Paul Ledesma said, "I said I would only be supportive of this if the grants were to come through." He mentioned the Sierra Rec Center being $1 million over budget and said he was "extremely skeptical" the cost of the gym would be only $3 million. He said he favored completing the community center expansion before starting a new project.

Councilwoman Gail Reavis suggested the city pursue the YMCA’s offer for joint-use, including use of its basketball court. She added that existing city facilities are underutilized, poorly utilized or not utilized, giving the Saddleback Room in city hall as an example.

Councilman Frank Ury asked why a gym hasn’t already been built at Newhart and said it was a matter for the school district to address. He added that a city gymnasium might be something the city should consider doing on its own.

CUSD Asst. Supt. David Doomey spoke during public comments and later responded to council questions about possible cost overruns. He indicated he didn’t think the cost would exceed the funds available. No one asked him about CUSD’s administration center, now under construction, which has jumped from $25 million to $35 million during the past six months. CUSD’s planned high school in San Juan Capistrano is now estimated to cost up to $150 million, making it the most expensive high school in the state. High schools on average cost around $40 million to construct.

Despite MacLean and Kelley’s comments that they had received "overwhelming" support from the community, the project was voted down.

Another item on the agenda drawing comments from audience members was the proposed contact to Roger Faubel Public Affairs, Inc. for public outreach services regarding the Crown Valley Parkway widening project. The contract for consultant services was "not to exceed $100,000," although Faubel in public comments indicated more money might be needed.

Five speakers and two written comments were in opposition to awarding the contract to Faubel. The council voted 4-1 to approve (Reavis, Ury, Kelley and MacLean voted for, Ledesma against). The contract includes education, brochures, a Web site, telephone "hot line" and signage.

Reavis said she hadn’t seen the Request for Proposal, and the council had not directed the staff to act. She said, "This came as a surprise to me.” She added that the council’s discussion of the widening project at the May 16 meeting didn’t include a contract for public relations. Reavis noted the amount being discussed for outreach jumped from $15,000 to $100,000.

Some council members supporting the contract referenced the El Toro Road project’s impact on Lake Forest, saying a PR campaign was needed. By contrast, the El Toro Road project involved demolition and rebuilding of shopping centers and a long-term loss of business. By comparison, the Crown Valley Parkway project involves widening of a road.

Residents who spoke were in unanimous agreement that the amount of the contract was excessive and wasteful. The city already has MVTV, the City Outlook newsletter, a Web site and the ability to mail flyers with Waste Management’s bills to residents. Several speakers recalled Faubel’s $51,000 contract in 2002 for Get Out The Vote, in which he failed to fulfill obligations to the city. Ledesma questioned awarding a contract to a former city councilman who had been involved in city politics as recently as 2002. Residents’ additionally questioned Faubel’s ethics.

Faubel also provides public relations for Capo school district trustees. He was a subject in an August 22, 2005, letter from attorney Jim Lacy to CUSD Trustee Marlene Draper. Faubel was cited by Lacy for assisting in training sessions for trustees to fight and disrupt the recall effort led by CUSD parents. According to Lacy, the training sessions held on Aug. 1-2 provided strategy and techniques in violation of Elections Code Section 18630 to protect signature gathering. The Section is cross-referenced to Penal Code Section 240, defining such acts as criminal.

The contract amount was not based on needs analysis. The justification given by city staff for the amount of the contract was the average for outreach efforts. Such public relations expenses are typically 1 percent to 1.5 percent of total construction cost. The estimate of the Crown Valley widening project is approximately $10 million.

Some politicians just don’t get it.

During the city council discussion on Oct. 17, I noted during the discussion of the “Public Outreach for Crown Valley Corridor” item that Mayor Trish Kelley gave a reason for awarding the contract: it wasn’t coming out of the city’s pocket, so why not spend the money?

This contact for $100,000 or more will be used by Roger Faubel, a political wheeler-dealer in Orange County, to tell us all about the construction on Crown Valley Pkwy. Yes, you read that correctly – he will send us nice notes to remind us that construction is going on, and we might be delayed in our travels. I don’t know about you, but I think it will be abundantly apparent to everyone that the road is clogged, and we need to find other routes to shopping, the freeway and home.

Comparisons were made with the El Toro Road construction in Lake Forest, but Crown Valley isn’t even similar to El Toro Road. In Lake Forest, a high number of businesses were only accessible from El Toro Road. This is not true on Crown Valley. Only a few businesses will see their access made a lot more difficult -- those on the north side of the road. I would expect that a single mailing, costing less than $3,000, and updates on the city website would be all that’s needed. If the city can’t manage the updates, the Mission Viejo Watchdog’s site will have detailed information on the construction as it progresses.

So, we have a contact for $100,000 -- which is not really needed -- being awarded, in part, because certain members of the council saw no problems in wasting other people’s money. Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised because at least a couple of the council members never shy away from spending other people’s money – YOURS!

Mayor Pro Tem Lance Maclean was quoted as having said, “We have a $32 million reserve. The Chicken Little cry ‘We don’t have the money’ is unfounded.” This illustrates a problem with those who don’t understand how savings work. Most of us have retirement accounts that are intended to provide money for later in life. While these are “reserves,” few people would pull the money out to buy a shiny new car. Financial planners tell us we should have savings to cover six months’ or more expenses, should something go wrong, such as illness. Cities have the same need for savings. If you look carefully at the reserves the city has, less than $10 million, it is less than 3 months’ expenditures for everyday items, not including capital projects. This $10 million is actually more like $7 million because almost every capital project the city undertakes costs us, the taxpayers, about double the original estimate. For example, the Sierra Rec Center was supposed to cost about $1 million but, in fact, cost nearly $2 million. Why? Because the city is spending someone else’s money: YOURS!

Dale Tyler

Last night, many of us who attended the council meeting were primarily concerned about approving a multiuse gymnasium to be located on the grounds of Newhart Middle School.

It became apparent to me from the very outset that this issue had been decided. Prior to our elected officials’ hearing from the voters who elected them, two members (Kelly and MacLean) were in favor of this gym regardless of what information was learned at the meeting. Likewise, it was equally clear that two members (Reavis and Ledesma) were opposed and showed complete disregard for the opinions of the voters. Mr. Ury, as the lone council member still asking tough questions, appeared to be the only one willing to consider any information presented at the meeting.

This measure was rejected for many reasons, some budgetary, some logistical, some due to previous hard feelings about working with Capo USD. Clearly, some were due to this being painted as a "seniors vs. families" issue.

As I spoke in favor of building this gym, I am certainly disappointed in the outcome. In my humble opinion, we as citizens have several things to watch quite closely.

1) If city policy mandates that we retain a reserve budget of 15 percent ($7.5 million) and our reserves are currently 60 percent ($30 million-plus), then we should learn precisely for what purpose we are hoarding this money. I could understand our council voting against spending $1.5 million if the $30 million in reserves is already 100 percent spoken for, but no information was presented to support that conclusion. Our city manager did little to explain this. As voting citizens, we have the right to know this information.

2) Fiscal prudence is to be admired, both in the family and in our city coffers. At the same time, we as citizens have a right to the very monies collected from our taxes. I respect our council for being prudent with what is spent, but they are also elected to weigh what expenditures are in the best interest of our community. Clearly, the landslide majority of our citizens supported this gym being built. If we truly did not have the funds available and if building the gym would cause us to go into debt, then the council made the correct decision. Likewise, if we have a 300 percent reserve, then it was fiscally irresponsible to turn away the state tax dollars offered to us.

3) The childish hostility displayed by Gail Reavis had a large number of the audience dismayed at her petty and immature outbursts in front of our children. Hers is the exact behavior that earns our children reprimands and timeouts. We should consider this behavior when we select our future elected officials.

4) Since Council Member Ury was the sole member who appeared to be weighing facts and testimony last night, perhaps we should each contact him about his solo reasons for voting as he did on this measure.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Terry Hanrahan
hanrahan@cox.net

The Orange County Register recently published an editorial, "It's the principle of the thing, principal" (Commentary, October 9) about Dana Hills High School Principal Carolyn Williams' phone call to residents within Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD) urging them to vote against the recall of the CUSD Board of Trustees.

As a recipient of the phone call from Principal Williams, I, too, questioned the ethics of her call. Whether or not her call was legal, to have first identified herself as the principal at Dana Hills High School (DHHS) followed by her "personal opinion" about the recall did nothing to dispel the impression that she was acting on behalf of Superintendent Fleming and the CUSD trustees. Regardless of her personal views, to use her position to try to influence the recall election was at best unprofessional.

From a parental and taxpayer's viewpoint, having seen the poorly maintained facilities at DHHS, I cannot understand Principal Williams' desire to defend this current administration. The superintendent and board of trustees chose four years ago to build themselves a new 128,000-sq.-ft. administration building with money that could have been used to "modernize" school facilities in San Juan, which in turn would have freed up money to replace some of the more than 40 portable trailer classrooms on her campus with bricks and mortar buildings. 

Parents in CUSD are fed up with the status quo that puts administrators first and kids somewhere after that. I hope that Ms. Williams hears the message loud and clear.

K. Lefner
Capistrano Unified School District resident and parent

It's not a Fish Story – it’s plain fishy!

What were they thinking, four of our council members? My confidence is lost on this one! [The council voted on Oct. 17 to award Roger Faubel a contract of up to $100,000 for public relations regarding the Crown Valley Parkway widening project.]

The El Toro Road project in Lake Forest involved total destruction of long-term businesses, major off-El Toro Road demolition, removal of blocks of existing establishments, taking property through eminent domain, causing many major disruptions, serious displacements, some total loss of businesses, as well as the widening of El Toro Road -- a huge redevelopment project. Mission Viejo is only widening a parkway.

[Faubel was mentioned as having received an award for public relations.] Winning the types of contests such as the League of California Cities Helen Putnum Award is really very dependent on how the proposal is written up (another excuse for Roger's riches).

Someone at the Oct. 17 meeting credited Roger for saving you and me from the El Toro Airport. What a laugh! Faubel's mailings were grotesque during the airport fight. I remember noticing how classy Irvine's mailings were and how much more professional and so much more convincing.

Faubel's were an embarrassment. I doubt his junk mail helped at all. The “little people” and such officials as Supervisor Todd Spitzer, Supervisor Tom Wilson and, finally, Supervisor Chris Norby did it with all of our hard work and support.

Watch for the next report of Campaign Contributions. By the way, what are the Staff, Council, Commissions, Chamber of Commerce, etc., here for?

Dorothy Wedel
Mission Viejo

Dear Honorable Mayor Kelley and Members of the City Council,

Item No. 21 on the Consent Calendar [$100,000 public outreach contract for Crown Valley Parkway widening] is a tragic proposal. Mission Viejo staff, city council and commissioners are perfectly capable (I would hope) to keep the press, the citizens and businesses aware of the widening of Crown Valley Parkway.

I haven’t seen such an extravagant, unnecessary waste of the taxpayers’ money in a long time. There are widenings going on everywhere. It appears to be a gigantic payoff in the incestuous power click attempting to downgrade The California Promise for their own self-promotion. Is Faubel going to run your next campaigns?

Dorothy Wedel
Mission Viejo

Is Mission Viejo really a city of asleep or ill-informed citizens? Should we ask four members of our city council this question following their 4-1 vote for a public relations program? Does it seem sensible to pay Faubel Public Affairs $100,000 to "educate" the residents of Mission Viejo regarding the widening of Crown Valley Parkway? At least Councilman John Paul Ledesma, with his vote against the contract, credits us with intelligence and awareness of this issue.

Discussions were previously held at several public council meetings regarding the necessity of the road-widening project. These meetings were aired live on TV and covered in The Register and Saddleback Valley News.

During the 2002 Primary Election, Faubel’s firm was awarded a contract for $51,000 by a previous council to encourage voting. Did any residents ever receive information about the importance of the election? No one I know or talked to at the time ever received a thing. I heard about a calendar this firm used, but to whom was it given?

Don’t we have better use for $100,000 than this? Although the nature of the available funds had limited uses, can’t anyone think of a more responsible application? Our residents have many needs that the city council chooses to forget.

Have contributions by Roger Faubel to the city council members resulted in this generous payment to him for the supposedly needed "education" for us, the citizens of Mission Viejo?

Beverly Cruse
Mission Viejo