The public review period for Steadfast’s Draft Environmental Impact Report has been delayed until Nov. 21, but what really happened? It was not the reason published in the Saddleback Valley News on Fri., Nov. 5. According to SVN reporter Maria Hsin, residents asked for a delay so they’d have time to read a really big report. That’s untrue – when has City Hall ever changed a deadline at the request of residents? Contrary to Hsin’s explanation, the city’s planning department was negligent in notifying residents in a timely manner. The city was required to notify everyone who attended the public scoping meeting, which they didn’t do prior to setting the original deadline. One of the activists noticed the error and informed the planning department in order that the city could get it right.

***

After years of inadequately reporting Mission Viejo news, Saddleback Valley News has lately has tried to create news, with Maria Hsin (and possibly others on the news staff) advocating affordable housing. The MV blog reported on Nov. 5 that the paper sponsored a forum on affordable housing at a coffee shop, which was attended by 20 people. Not counting city employees, council members and newspaper staff members, fewer than 10 people attended, with the majority of time given to residents’ panning the idea of more housing of any kind in Mission Viejo. No story in SVN followed, as the outcome apparently didn’t please those paying for the coffee.

***

Someone associated with the Hankey PTA may have been the author of an email campaign to rally a crowd for the Nov. 7 meeting with regard to the council’s prior decision not to fund a joint-use gym at Newhart. This week’s blog includes the email. Click for the complete email

The writer of the unsigned message asked people to attend the meeting and/or respond by calling or emailing the council. The truth is: 1) the council was not reconsidering a joint-use gym, 2) such a consideration wasn’t an option because none of the three council members voting against the joint-use gym wanted to reconsider it, and 3) Newhart was out of the picture as a site for Lance MacLean’s proposed city-funded gym. With two council members – MacLean and Trish Kelley – pushing the gym, why didn’t they inform their acquaintances that a gym at Newhart had already been turned down? What was Kelley’s and/or MacLean’s involvement in promoting misinformation that the council was reconsidering Newhart or a joint-use facility with CUSD?

***

Regarding the folderol of the voted-down, joint-use gym appearing on the agenda, what’s the assessment of City Manager Dennis Wilberg’s performance? Why did he not follow up by closing out the joint-use agreement between the city and CUSD during the Oct. 17 meeting? Following that misstep, why didn’t he or the city attorney speak up during public comments when schoolchildren and parents mistakenly thought Newhart was being reconsidered as a site for a gymnasium?

***

An email was allegedly circulated by Trish Kelley among her PTA acquaintances. While the blog doesn’t have a copy, a resident’s report includes Kelley’s political threats against John Paul Ledesma because he didn’t cave in to her demands to vote for a gym. Kelley apparently leaned on Ledesma, but he didn’t put the item back on the agenda for reconsideration after the Oct. 17 vote defeating the gym. According to the recipient of the email, Kelley claims she will solicit a candidate to run against Ledesma. Would the candidate be a Kelley clone? Ms. Kelley often seems confused about whether she was elected to serve the city or CUSD.

***

Signup sheets lined the front desk at city hall on Nov. 7, where children attending the council meeting signed their names. A child with political instincts might have asked classmates to sign a petition as a show of support for a gymnasium at Newhart, but that wasn’t the case. A story is circulating that a teacher offered extra credit to students to get signatures on petitions. Using children for political purposes is fundamentally wrong, but this example gets worse. False information was given to schools, PTA groups, teachers, administrators and students, and free pizza was offered as an incentive to show up. As mentioned above, the issue of a gym at Newhart was over. What’s next – having children hold signs on street corners? Oh, wait -- they already did that on Nov. 7.

***

The city could be upside-down in its continued attempt to collect from Commonwealth Insurance following the fire approximately four years ago at the Marguerite Recreation Center. Two councilmen – Frank Ury and Lance MacLean – allegedly want to take the insurance company “to the mat” to collect the city’s claim for damages. With legal fees mounting for the city, the cost of pursuing the insurance company (up to $400,000 to date) has exceeded the amount of the claim. Ury and MacLean can’t seem to figure out the insurance company won. Residents watching the city’s check register have noticed bills from the city’s legal advisor, Richards Watson & Gershon, which are staggering. Does anyone still think the council majority is fiscally conservative?

***

With the contract for the city attorney now expired and a new contract up for bids, Richards, Watson & Gershon continues to have its hat in the ring. Following the buffoonery of Peter Thorson and the missteps of his successor, William Curley, what’s their advice worth? Information has emerged about another contender for the job, John Cavanaugh of Rancho Santa Margarita. As part of Cavanaugh’s proposal, he would put Mary Binning (currently MacLean’s appointee to the planning commission) into the position of Mission Viejo’s assistant city attorney. If Cavenaugh is chosen as city attorney, Binning would resign as a planning commissioner prior to becoming assistant city attorney, according to the story. Binning as a planning commissioner would be out of a job anyway if MacLean is dumped by voters in November 2006. Binning has consistently favored additional high-density housing development in Mission Viejo. Meanwhile, Richards, Watson & Gershon could attempt to hang on indefinitely if permitted to “take care of unfinished business.” Some residents who watch council meetings have commented that interim City Attorney Curley (an employee of Richards, Watson & Gershon) apparently thinks he’s paid by the word, and they find his lengthy legal exegesis unbearable and inaccurate.

***

Residents should be aware of an item that was on the council’s Nov. 7 closed-session agenda. The subject is property, approximately 2.8-acres at 28802 Marguerite Parkway, owned by Norm Reeves Acura of Mission Viejo. Negotiators are listed as Dennis Wilberg, Charles Wilson, economic advisor James Williams, and Celeste Brady of the Community Development Agency. What does Norm Reeves Acura want from the city -- cash or eminent domain?

***

In 2002, council candidate Trish Kelley told her would-be supporters that she wouldn’t run for reelection and would serve only one term. A month ago, she told a resident she’s “deciding” whether or not to run again. For someone who has forgotten or abandoned her campaign platform, her other promises or statements will likely fall by the wayside. The campaign platform appearing alongside Kelley’s name in 2002 was not written by Kelley. An assortment of residents comprising her campaign committee wrote the material, created the platform, got endorsements and raised cash. It became increasingly clear after her election that she didn’t agree with “her” promises.