Staff editorial comment
Transportation: another rubber stamp commission?

On the agenda for the Jan. 3 council meeting, Councilman Frank Ury is proposing to create a new commission by separating responsibilities of the Planning and Transportation Commission. If the council approves, one commission would pertain to planning issues, and a second commission would address transportation issues.

A major cause of traffic problems is homebuilding to the east of the city with resulting cut-through traffic, and 14,000 new homes have been approved as part of the ranch plan. As another problem, Ury is among council majority members who approved the high-density housing project on the former Kmart site, bringing in more residents with more cars.

To solve problems, Mission Viejo needs real leadership to deal with regional issues regarding homebuilding and cut-through traffic. Does anyone think Trish Kelley is capable of such leadership? Her contribution could be a new word of the month, “carpool.” As for Lance MacLean, no one expects he will do anything but raise cash for his next campaign. MacLean’s word for every month is “fundraising.”

Mission Viejo had the chance to get a real solution regarding the ranch plan. Instead, Kelley appointed Ury and MacLean to yet another of her ad hoc committees, and the two councilmen went off to “negotiate” with the ranch out of public view. The city had sued to get traffic solutions, with costs ranging from $45 million to $75 million for mitigation measures. Ury and MacLean congratulated themselves, with Kelley adding her usual superlatives, for enabling the ranch to proceed for $18 million, which was unacceptable and not even close to funding a solution.

The council caved in again by approving the Land Rover/Jaguar dealership’s location, which prevented the state’s plan to expand the Avery freeway exit. As a result, the ranch traffic will go through Mission Viejo instead of around it. Thus far, the council’s only response to cut-through traffic is to widen roads. The widening projects continue to fall far behind the burgeoning growth to the east.

Finally, the council must stop approving additional housing if it intends to address traffic problems. Kelley, MacLean, Ury and Ledesma approved the housing project on the former Kmart site, with Reavis dissenting. Another developer, Steadfast, is handing out cash to council members. Would anyone like to predict the outcome for Steadfast’s proposed housing next to Unisys?

Many Mission Viejo residents are ignoring the council as the personality conflicts evolve from disgusting to boring. Residents may have decided the city will survive regardless of what the council does – the Christmas decorations were nice, and the medians are attractively manicured.

The problems, however, aren’t going away. Traffic will get worse, and developers will continue to pay off council members for approving miserable ideas. In January 2005, Kelley, MacLean and Ury dismantled a competent planning commission and appointed three rubber-stamp commissioners to approve more high-density housing. What’s Ury’s agenda for transportation? He has clearly failed to lead, except in making matters worse. With the city already locked in with bad council decisions, which lobbyist, consultant or contractor is in line to be paid off by creating a rubber-stamp transportation commission?

Following the announcement last week that the CUSD recall effort failed, many people asked what happened. Something is wrong when 35 percent of signatures are disqualified on any kind of petition.

The total of 177,000 recall signatures was divided among seven trustees, averaging 25,285 signatures per trustee. The number was roughly 24 percent more than needed. The registrar of voters first performed a sampling to determine if enough valid signatures had been gathered. Only one trustee, Crystal Kochendorfer, didn’t have enough recall signatures against her to justify a full count. For the other six trustees, the sampling found the validity rate within the range of 90 percent to 110 percent. Even if the validity fell to 90 percent, the required minimum of 20,400 verified signatures would have been reached (90 percent of 25,285 = 22,756). How, then, did the number of disqualified signatures jump to 35 percent? The discrepancy is considerable, and the registrar of voters needs to explain what took place during the verification process.

As another questionable matter, Marlene Draper was quoted in The Register as saying the cost of verifying all signatures was $521,801 (for the remaining 155,000 or so after taking out Kochendorfer’s petition). How is that possible when the office had only 30 days to do the work? Even if 100 “extra” (temporary) employees worked eight hours a day for 30 days, the cost is unreasonable at approximately $3.36 per signature. Finding a voter’s address in a database isn’t rocket science, and comparing the signature on the petition to the signature on record doesn’t require extraordinary skill.

Those gathering signatures asked each person about voter registration. Some of the recall group volunteers were spot-checking signatures against voter registration records, and the disqualification rate was well within the range found in the initial sampling. At the very least, the registrar of voters needs to shed light on what took place during the verification process.

Letter to the Editor

I have been reading this blog for some time, and it appears to me that most if not all the content is accurate, and the bad news is, unfortunately, true.

I would like to take a moment to discuss the "infamous lunch" involving Council Member Gail Reavis, her husband Rick and me. The lunch was held at the now defunct Elephant Bar restaurant, and it was the topic of many lengthy discussions and unfounded accusations.

Originally, at my invitation, Council Member Trish Kelly was invited to attend, and she refused. At that time, I believed Kelley would honor her campaign promise to me and the entire town to bring harmony to the new council. I did, in fact, help persuade her to run for office – a mistake for which I now apologize to Mission Viejo residents. I knew at the time she was not qualified to serve on the council, but I felt I knew her to be a person of integrity and honesty and without hidden personal agendas. I was wrong about that also.

It is a common practice for a commissioner (I was a Planning Commissioner at the time) to meet with one or two (but not more than two) council members to detail large proposed projects. The expansion of the Mission Hospital was the topic of the lunch, and the expansion was city business.

As I said, Kelley refused to attend, and she made clear to me the reason was because Reavis was attending. That was my first insight that Kelley was a jealous and, later, a very vindictive person – completely contrary to the "ethical PTA mom" image she projected.

At the lunch, all that was discussed was the hospital expansion. At the onset, Rick Reavis declared his intention to pay for the very meager lunch bill. When the waiter brought the bill, Mr. Reavis got cash out of his wallet to pay. Council Member Reavis proclaimed the lunch was city business – and it was – and she wanted to pay with her city expense account that all council members have for this purpose. Rick Reavis begrudgingly withdrew his cash but specifically reminded his wife not to forget to deduct his lunch expense when she submitted the receipt for reimbursement. This is a fact – I know because I was there.

Later, some people made a sleazy attempt to make an issue of the fact that Council Member Reavis did forget to deduct her husband’s lunch from her expense account. I then relayed to Council Member Kelley the exact facts of the luncheon. Kelley's comment to me was, "It doesn't matter.” I believed it meant Kelley didn’t care what the truth was. She then proceeded to engage in and promote a ridiculously slanderous campaign tactic against both Rick Reavis and Council Member Gail Reavis.

There are numerous occasions in which I have observed Council Member Kelley acting in a manner that I cannot conclude to be anything but deceptive, vindictive and intentionally destructive – possibly committing illegal acts, which I may disclose in the future. At this point, I do wish, again, to apologize to my fellow residents for supporting Ms. Kelley personally and asking others to do so. I have made a few mistakes politically in my efforts to serve Mission Viejo, and I will do my best to correct those mistakes. Part of that process is to ask readers not to support Council Member Kelley in her reelection nor to support any of her chosen running mates.

Bo Klein
Mission Viejo
Former Planning Commissioner

The housing project on the property next to Unisys hasn’t been decided. Because of an article appearing in the Saddleback paper, some residents apparently misunderstood that the council had approved Steadfast’s housing plan. The council approved a housing project on Los Alisos, but it was the former Kmart site, which is east of Marguerite Parkway. The council has not yet heard the proposal for the site next to Unisys. The Steadfast project is now before the Planning Commission.

Residents still have a chance to make their voices heard regarding Steadfast. The next opportunity is Jan. 9, when the Planning Commission reconvenes at 7 p.m. in City Hall.

It is important for those living near the site next to Unisys to attend the meeting. When the Planning Commission approved the project at the Kmart site, they noted that neighbors didn’t show up to object. One of the commissioners misrepresented the situation by saying neighbors near the former Kmart site wrote letters of approval. That was untrue, as no residents spoke or wrote in favor of the project.

The Planning Commission and City Council are making decisions that will have lasting impacts. Residents should tune in, as it will affect their quality of life.

Mickey MacDonald
Mission Viejo

The Mission Viejo Buzz, Dec. 27

Months ago, Council Member Trish Kelley asked city staff members about Mission Viejo’s disaster preparedness. Staffers didn’t answer, and the topic hasn’t resurfaced. With the Dec. 26 anniversary of last year’s tsunami in South Asian, the subject is again on people’s minds. City Hall has a full-time employee (annual salary exceeding $100,000) who is responsible for the city’s disaster preparedness plan. The lack of a response isn’t a good sign regardless of the salary. Even on a good day, many people calling City Hall get a recording.

***

Memorial services were held on Dec. 22 for Evelyn Jacobson, who passed away Dec. 19. Milt and Evelyn Jacobson were married for 59 years, and she’ll be missed by many community members who knew her as Milt’s sweet-natured wife. Milt said, “Evelyn taught me what love is all about.” Evelyn supported community causes and attended many meetings and events with Milt during her 27 years in Mission Viejo.

***

Councilmen Frank Ury and Lance MacLean appear to have dueling items on the council’s Jan. 3 agenda. Ury is proposing to divide the Planning and Transportation Commission’s responsibilities by creating a separate commission to deal with transportation issues. MacLean is proposing to disband the Planning and Transportation Commission’s ad hoc committee to deal with the city’s housing element and affordable housing. MacLean instead wants an ad hoc committee of council members to work on the city’s General Plan Housing Element and affordable housing. If the council approves both items, the Planning Commission will have considerably fewer responsibilities. During the Butterfield-Withrow era, planning and transportation commissions were combined to “reduce bureaucracy.”

***

Will the new mayor, Lance MacLean, continue the tradition of Trish Kelley by allowing only three of the five council members to serve on any agency or board? Kelley wouldn’t allow Gail Reavis to serve on any board, and John Paul Ledesma received only crumbs as an alternate representative. When Reavis offered to serve on Vector Control, a position no other council member wanted, Kelley’s answer was consistent – no position, no appointment, no crumbs – not even rat and bug patrol. Reavis and Ledesma had empty plates for an entire year. Former Council Member Sherri Butterfield also invoked the right to exclude others during her queendom as mayor, refusing any appointment to Ledesma or Reavis.

***

The CUSD recall failed, and trustees are now free to continue their spendthrift ways without a threat of being removed from office. Trustee Marlene Draper was quoted in the Register as saying the trustees needed to spend more effort communicating with the public. Perhaps she has a fat contract in mind for the trustees’ public relations man, Roger Faubel.

***

The CUSD Parent to Parent Special Education Support Group met on Dec. 16 in Dana Point. Parents are uniting with the intent to file a class action lawsuit against the district for failing to provide education for children with special needs. Those wanting more information should call (949) 295-5050 or (949) 249-0629.

***