With a Mission Viejo resident within earshot,a trio of UDR/Pacific representatives stood outside city hall last week, grousing about doing business with the city. (The developer on Sept. 19 received the council’s go-ahead for a high-density housing project on the former Kmart site, ending any need to be careful who hears.) Among the comments, one developer lamented about the effort of getting the project pushed through. A second one said, “It’s a lot easier doing business with Ladera Ranch.” The third said, “If the dam breaks back east [in Tauton, Mass., after heavy rain, including an Oct. 18 downpour], we’ll have a whole new set of issues to contend with.” Perhaps Mission Viejo residents would make the connection that UDR/Pacific’s plan to build housing below a dam isn’t a good idea.

The developers’ lament continued: the $3 million park donation the city wants is too high. Putting in low-cost housing isn’t profitable. Senior citizens try to qualify for affordable units but they make too much money. The three developers didn’t complain about the high cost of donating to campaigns to buy council votes. Apparently, it’s a good investment in “developer world” when a few thousand dollars comes out of petty cash and creates a windfall for the project’s investors.

***

A civil engineer – a real one who isn’t on the UDR/Pacific payroll – looked at the site after the council’s Sept. 19 vote. He said the earthen dam above the property would take several days or more to drain via the pipe beneath the dam. He added that water would rush out quickly in the event of an earthquake or other event causing the dam to fail. Contrary to UDR/Pacific’s claims, he expressed great concern the drainpipe beneath the dam and the pipes to divert water away from homes wouldn’t prevent a deluge from damaging housing below the dam.

***

Dan Joseph has a job, although a temporary one. He’s serving as interim city manager for Aliso Viejo until the new city boss starts on Nov. 28. Dan likely won’t receive a whopping check for leaving or such parting gifts as taxpayer-owned computer equipment, as was his largesse here. Speaking of former employees, where is former Deputy City Manager Rick Howard now? It’s interesting that someone making more than $100,000 left and no replacement was needed.

***

Residents are frequently seeing former City Councilman Bill Craycraft around town. Bill says he’s been asked to run again by residents and someone on the dais as well. Is a Craycraft-MacLean ticket in the offing?

***

Who should run for City Council in 2006? Dr. Michael Kennedy, Bo Klein, Don Wilder, Alan Gallup and Brad Morton get frequent mentions for leadership and making a difference in the community. Watch political newcomers Jim Woodin, Kathy Miramontes and Dr. Michael Ferrell.

***

The Capo USD recall is moving forward. Recall leader Kevin Murphy of San Juan Capistrano reported several weeks ago that 24,000 signatures had been gathered to recall each of seven trustees with a month remaining to circulate the petition. Only 20,000 valid signatures per trustee are needed to qualify the recall for the ballot, which would trigger a special election in February or March.

Rumors have circulated about CUSD Supt. Jim Fleming, whose salary is $274,000 a year: Was the $35-million administration center in SJC going to be named the Fleming Center before the recall hit the fan? Does Fleming have a $400,000 taxpayer-funded computer system in his house? Does Fleming have a driver to haul him around in his Mercedes, for which taxpayers kick in an $8,400 yearly car allowance?

With the administration center’s flap, a far worse construction project is getting no coverage. Estimates for the new high school in San Juan Capistrano are topping $120 million. Consider the cost of the land. In 1999, Dennis Gage purchased 256 acres from the UC Regents for around $3 million. In 2003, CUSD purchased 52 acres of the graded land from Gage for $52 million for the high school site. That’s not all. It’s under power lines and next to a landfill, which is allegedly belching methane. Even if it’s an exaggeration, one should not buy property in a neighborhood where rocks glow and the trees are humming.

***

A letter writer in last week’s blog commented that all council members except Ury had already decided before the meeting how to vote on the proposed joint-use gymnasium. A question for the writer: if Ury hadn’t already decided, why would he ask “tough questions” that only impugned the deal and the school district? Whether by asking questions or supplying his own evidence against CUSD, Ury revealed approximately 20 arguments against the joint-use gymnasium. Ury’s discussion against the project was, however, more subtle than the approach of another council member who appeared to read prepared remarks in favor of the gym.

***

Frequently asked question: what’s a blog? It’s a shortened word for Weblog, describing a personal Internet journal. Anyone can create a blog on the Internet and write about any subject.

An anonymous city staff member on Wednesday said Roger Faubel might decline the public outreach contract he was awarded by a 4-1 council vote (Councilman John Paul Ledesma dissenting) on Oct. 17.

Mission Viejo NewsBlog on Oct. 22 reported in the council meeting summary that Roger Faubel Public Affairs, Inc. was awarded a contract of up to $100,000 for educating the public about the Crown Valley Parkway road-widening project. The blog also reported Faubel’s political involvement in the recall of Capistrano Unified School District’s seven trustees, citing an Aug. 22 letter from attorney Jim Lacy to a school board trustee.

On Oct. 22, Mission Viejo resident Larry Gilbert wrote a letter asking council members to review their decision during the next council meeting in light of Lacy’s Aug. 22 letter. Lacy’s letter issued a cease and desist order and alleged that Faubel participated in illegal activities to interfere with the recall of CUSD trustees. Gilbert’s letter to the council is included in this issue of the blog.

Faubel stated to the council during the Oct. 17 meeting that he hadn’t participated in city politics in the past five years. Councilman Ledesma reminded him of his participation as a political consultant in the 2002 city council race. Lacy’s letter referred to Faubel’s participation in the CUSD recall as well as his current service on the Santa Margarita Water District Board of Directors, an elected position.

The city staff member anticipates that Faubel will present a letter to the city declining the contract.

By Dale Tyler

On Friday, Oct. 21, the Saddleback Valley News / Orange County Register held an open community forum at a coffee shop located at Oso and Marguerite. The announced topic was “Affordable Housing in Mission Viejo.” Approximately 20 people attended, including Councilmembers J.P. Ledesma and Lance MacLean and Chuck Wilson, who is in charge of Community Development for the City of Mission Viejo. Five people represented the newspapers sponsoring the forum, including two editors and three reporters. Two people represented the low-income housing lobby, and a couple of local Realtors attended. Others were mostly Mission Viejo residents, past or current.

The forum started with self-introductions. The forum moderator asked each person in attendance to define what affordable means and what the role of government should be in providing affordable housing in Mission Viejo. Councilman Ledesma gave a summary of affordable housing in Mission Viejo and talked briefly about the free market being the best way to manage housing prices. He also discussed current projects (Steadfast and UDR/Pacific), which may provide affordable housing. Councilman MacLean said he feels the city needs to change zoning and work with developers to build more housing in the city. Others volunteered their views on how the city should provide affordable housing to the poor.

When it was my turn to speak, I suggested that affordability is truly driven by the free market, and that the government should not interfere in setting housing prices. Further, no one has a right to live in any particular place. People should buy where they can afford, and the city shouldn’t change our Master Plan to fit the financial needs of the developers and poor people in our city. Finally, the Regional Needs Assessment low-income housing numbers are just advisory, with no significant penalty for failing to accept the numbers, which are unrealistic for a built-out community. I reiterated the idea of taking an innovative approach to providing housing to low-income people: use the redevelopment funds set aside for low-income housing to assist in the purchase of existing condos and single-family residences. I also expressed concern about the lack of balanced coverage in the Saddleback Valley News on the UDR/Pacific and Steadfast projects and the removal of such terms as “high-density housing” from letters to the editor. Note: after the meeting, I spoke at length with SVN reporter Maria Hsin about balanced reporting, and while she did not accept my claim of imbalance, she is planning more in-depth articles in the Saddleback Valley News.

A number of residents had ideas about the city’s role in housing affordability, and the discussion continued for some time. The relative values of residential and commercial development were discussed, including the claim that residential development costs the city actual cash over the long term, compared to commercial development.

About 10 minutes before the hour allotted to the discussion was up, the moderator asked us to change our focus to what “affordability” in housing means to us. We were asked if we considered housing in Mission Viejo to be affordable, and if would we buy here at today’s prices. Almost everyone said they either could not afford to buy or would not buy their current residence because the value was not there. The gap between wages and housing costs has been increasing and is at historically high levels.

Overall, I think the participants liked the forum and look forward to others in the future. I would like to thank the local newspapers for their work in putting citizens together to share ideas and solve problems, because that is the only way problems really get solved.

Response to Councilman John Paul Ledesma’s article about the council’s decision to approve UDR/Pacific’s housing proposal (former Kmart site)

Dear Councilman Ledesma,

I read your response regarding the Kmart property. As a resident of Palmia, I would like to give my view of our "approval" of the project.

1. To my knowledge, there were no formal notices regarding the project given. Reading the local newspapers was the only information that residents received. It was each individual's choice to be informed and/or involved.
2. There were no notices of meetings, or any mention of the hearings as in the case with the gas station project. The gas station project generated several meetings, and notices of hearing dates were posted and residents urged to attend the hearings and council meetings. This kind of activity was absent in the case of the Kmart property.
3. The action by the Association Board was taken without any discussion by or with the residents. As I was told by a board member, the action taken was "No objection," NOT approval.
4. The board did not speak for the residents. In fact, no one knows how the residents would have voted if it were presented to them, but I do know that the two situations were handled quite differently.

Additionally, I would like to comment regarding the affordable housing units. As I understand it, the units that are marked “affordable” are all single-bedroom units. I believe statistics show that most people who qualify for affordable housing have families. It is inconceivable how the City of Mission Viejo can approve of a plan that ignores those who are in greatest need.

Eva Schmidler,
Palmia resident

Oct. 22, 2005

Honorable Members of the Mission Viejo City Council and staff

Re: Contract for "public outreach, "Consent Calendar Item No. 21 relating to the expansion of Crown Valley Parkway.

OK. You have spoken. We can accept the decision to retain the services of a professional consultant to take responsibility for this outreach. And we are glad that more than one was found to be qualified to perform said task. However.

Let me request that the prevailing council members check out the following information and then place this approval back on the next council meeting with your reconsideration powers.

Background for this request. Aug. 22 seven-page Priority Mail Letter from the Law Office of Wewer and Lacy to the honorable Crystal Kochendorfer, Trustee, Capistrano Unified School District. The purpose of Jim's letter is a Cease and Desist dealing with "A notice of intention to Recall." Note: I only came into possession of this letter this morning. If I had it prior to the last council meeting I would surely have submitted it with my testimony on Oct. 17.

The allegation in the letter deals with the current recall of the school board and the activities of Roger Faubel's firm. If said practice is correct, this may entail a violation of the California Elections Code. In fact, a statement in the Lacy letter on page 1 indicates that if said allegations continue, said evidence of illegal actions will be referred to the office of our District Attorney for prosecution.

Under the heading of Recent Illegal Activities on page 3, it reads: "Individuals who were in attendance at these meetings have contacted us. These individuals have reported that you (together with the assistance and support of Roger Faubel and John Stratham, your paid political consultants from Faubel Public Affairs) led the meetings.  (We note that Roger Faubel is also currently a member of the elected Santa Margarita Water District Board of Directors)"... . Note: These private training meetings were held on or about Aug. 1 and Aug. 2 at the private home of a trustee.

I won't retype the entire letter. Let me simply state we take pride in calling ourselves a Community of Character. The mayor mentions the character word of the month on a regular basis. There is a NEW cloud hanging over Roger Faubel. Not only did he mislead us in his comments about not being involved in politics for five years until being corrected by Member Ledesma, he also failed to acknowledge his service on the local water district board. Those are not major concerns for me. My concern is the charges that he was actively involved in the current recall and that his firm made recommendations on how to disrupt the legal gathering of signatures for the recall.  If these allegations are true, then we should not reward him with a Mission Viejo contract, be it $1,000 or
 $100,000 dollars.

I am certain that a copy of the letter, which is in my possession, can be obtained directly for the Law Offices of Wewer and Lacy. My intent in sending this email is to protect our city from any connection to anyone engaged in illegal activities that can impact our city. CUSD is within our borders. 

Respectfully submitted.
Larry Gilbert
Mission Viejo 

Open Letter to Carl Carl Schulthess

I just got in from coaching Little League and have now read your messages.

Yes, I am the one who wrote the earlier letter. Yes, I am the one who spoke at the council meeting on Monday in favor of our city's children. Yes, I have read through the document that you attached, and, yes, I do understand and agree with the need for fiscal prudence and responsibility in our community. We're together so far.

I fully expected that the $33 million in the general reserve account was at least partially spoken for, and while I've now read your list, I'm curious as to how many of these 'buckets” are cast in concrete. In my humble opinion, most of these seem to be worthwhile projects, and I'm glad that funding has been set aside for them. However, I strongly beg to differ with Mr. Holtzman's statement that a gym at Newhart is “an edifice to an ego.”

I'm certainly confused about the priorities of a man who claims that replacing the current healthy green landscaping along the many streets listed is worthy of four times the city budget reserves and of greater importance than providing athletic facilities for our children.

Plants versus children?  At four times the price?  Do any of you have children? 

Plants come and go while our children are our legacy. I can proudly state that I've participated in every Tierra Nativa since we moved to this city years ago. I love plants. I also love how beautiful our city appears as you drive through these streets.  But are plants more important than our children? Come, now.  Further, it's not as if our slopes are bare. All of these streets have mature plants already thriving. Horrendous and very aging? Mature plants have mature root systems that prevent landslides. Are we also against mature humans who might appear to some as horrendous and very aging? What logic can you (or Mr. Holtzman) defend?

I would very much like to have my written opinions shared on your blog, but please do not oblige me to agree with Mr. Holtzman's statements, which are completely biased and detrimental to our future generations. I appreciate that you were kind enough to include his letter attached to your earlier email, but I'm unclear if you are in lockstep with his stated opinions. 

I'll reiterate that I remain completely in favor of governmental fiscal prudence, and, in that sense, we continue to agree. The question, it seems, is your willingness to tolerate opinions that may differ somewhat from your own.

Terry Hanrahan
Mission Viejo

Mission Viejo did not receive its grant for the gymnasium at Newhart Middle School from the State of California. As a result, our council showed fiscal responsibility to the citizens of Mission Viejo. By a three-to-two vote, Council Members Reavis, Ury and Ledesma came through for the citizens of Mission Viejo.

While many people spoke in support of the project, our council realized that the lack of funding in the capital expenditure budget prevented another construction project at the present time. With unfunded pension liabilities and ongoing projects at Sierra Recreation Center and the Norman P. Murray Community Center expansion, our council reflected prudent residents.

The Capistrano Unified School District was putting no funds into the project except their grant from the state and the sharing of maintenance expenses. The city of Mission Viejo would have been required to fund half the construction expenses as an out-of-pocket expense to the general fund.

Why is the Capistrano district building an administration center costing at least $30 million when Newhart needs a gymnasium? The proper procedure to build school facilities is by presenting a bond issue to the voters, as Saddleback Valley Unified School District has done. The city now provides security guards, crossing guards and police protection for our schools. The city is not responsible for providing gymnasiums or other physical plants and facilities to school districts.

James Edward Woodin
Mission Viejo