Summary of April 16 Council Meeting
Editorial staff

The April 16 council meeting included a moral victory for one neighborhood, but the overall meeting was a setback for residents.

The first resident making public comments objected to Oso Viejo Park being on the short list for a dog park. He said the site, which is near his house, doesn’t meet the stated criteria because it is too close to a neighborhood. After mentioning nuisances of noise, lights and traffic the neighborhood endures from the nearby school, sports fields and community center events, he said the dog park committee was concerned that the noise might disturb the dogs.

Another public speaker asked how the proposal to prevent the public from pulling items for discussion was put on the agenda, implying a Brown Act violation had occurred. When the agenda item was later discussed, the speaker’s concerns appeared to be justified.

The meeting included a public hearing, with seven residents joining together to appeal a Feb. 26 Planning Commission decision (4-1 vote, Commissioner Rich Atkison dissenting) to approve an addition to a home at 23732 Calle Hogar. Information presented by those filing the appeal said the staff report was misleading. Neighbors opposing the project spoke articulately and passionately in defense their property values and quality of life. They indicated the proposed home addition (including four bedrooms, one full bath, an office, four half-baths and an expanded living room) would more than double the size of the home. The project would also consume the usable yard and likely cut into the slope, endangering the stability of homes above the site. Most noteworthy was a discussion about the initial plan having an outside entrance for each of the five or six bedrooms. Those opposing the project appeared to believe it was a commercial venture – assisted living, boardinghouse or another type of business – in the neighborhood zoned for residential use, RPD-6.5.

Surprisingly, even Councilwoman Kelley didn’t support the staff recommendation and said it would change the character of an established neighborhood. The council voted 3-2 (Kelley, Ledesma, Reavis for; MacLean and Ury against) to overturn the Planning Commission’s Feb. 26 approval. Councilmen MacLean and Ury argued in favor of the addition on the basis of property rights after searching for reasons to discount the neighbors’ objections. MacLean said the council couldn’t speculate about the future use, but he immediately speculated that a family might buy such a million-dollar home with no yard and a separate entrance for each family member. Ury indicated non-owners can’t tell property owners what to do with their property.

Residents who don’t want their neighborhoods overrun with nursing homes, boardinghouses, affordable apartments or in-home businesses should note Ury is up for reelection in 2008.

The item preventing members of the public from pulling agenda items was presented by the city attorney, Bill Curley. When Ledesma asked the intent for bringing it to the council, Curley stated it was the “fruits of the council’s evaluation process,” which emerged during the leadership workshop. The “fruits” in this instance were MacLean, Ury and Kelley, who voted to approve while Ledesma and Reavis opposed the item.

No one was in the audience during the council’s workshop last month when an alleged discussion took place about stopping the public from pulling items. The problem is, Ledesma attended the workshop and didn’t appear to know the council had concurred that only council members should pull items. The discussion at the April 16 meeting revealed Kelley, MacLean and Ury supported the proposal – not so much as the city attorney claimed for efficiency but because specific members of the public were “hijacking the agenda.” As the public speaker asked, when did the public discussion among these three council members take place?

As a stunning remark, Kelley stated, “This is how business was done before I was elected.” Kelley has forgotten, or perhaps she never realized, that the sole reason she was recruited to run in 2002 was to dump two council queens who had become bullies, preventing public debate and illegally conducting city business behind closed doors.

The Bad Old Days May be Back
by Dale Tyler

At the April 16 council meeting, three members conspired with the City Attorney to prevent the citizens from exercising their rights to speak on certain issues that come before the city council. These three members, Kelley, MacLean and Ury, approved Item No. 26, the proposal put forward by Bill Curley that would prevent citizens from “pulling” any item on the Council's Consent Calendar to permit open discussion of the issue.

The significance of this anti-democratic action is probably best understood by looking back in city history. From 1994 through the election in 2002, a group of four council members in Mission Viejo showed the public how little they cared about public input. Sherri Butterfield, Susan Withrow, Bill Craycraf and another council member, now deceased, were responsible for keeping the public in the dark as much as possible. From 1 a.m. discussions on minor-league baseball parks to ignoring more than 7,000 Mission Viejo residents' signatures on a referendum to stop rezoning business property for apartments, to browbeating a fellow council member in closed session, which earned them all convictions for violating the Public Records Act, these council members worked hard to prevent the public from participating in city government. Various members of the Committee for Integrity in Government worked diligently to expose waste and secret cost overruns despite the efforts of city workers.

In 2002, Kelly and MacLean were elected on promises to clean up the secrecy and backroom dealing that was prevalent in Mission Viejo city government. Existing council members Ledesma and Reavis, who worked for reform against Butterfield and Withrow for many years, were finally able to start the process of opening city government. Ledesma, Reavis, Kelly and MacLean, the new council majority, put into place several reforms intended to open city government to the citizens. One of these reforms was more openness at city council meetings, including the right to publicly question any item on the council agenda, including the consent calendar. All this sounded good, and it looked for a short time like the new council members would be able to work with Reavis and Ledesma to truly reform our city government.

Unfortunately, the reforms stalled and, despite promises by Kelley and MacLean, the ouster of Dan Joseph, the City Manager who was responsible for many of the problems and secrecy in the city government, was delayed over and over by Kelley and MacLean. Mostly meaningless platitudes sponsored by Kelley and MacLean, including “character words of the month” and workshops, replaced real action.

Astute observers of city government began to see the true colors of the two new council members as, once again, citizen concerns were ignored and the council became more and more isolated from the people of Mission Viejo. With the election of Ury in 2004, the council majority shifted more firmly against open and honest government and toward a “We know best – just stay home and be quiet” attitude. Just last year, in 2006, Kelley and MacLean won reelection, along with Ledesma, in a race that featured seven challengers and a very low voter turnout. It was if the people of Mission Viejo had lost interest in their city government.

Now we see the true faces of Kelley, MacLean and Ury. They have decided, over the objections of the public and council members Ledesma and Reavis, that the opinions and concerns of the citizens of Mission Viejo are less important than the opinions of Kelley, MacLean and Ury. During the discussion of Item 26 at the April 16 meeting, it was revealed that less than 40 minutes were spent on six items pulled from the consent calendar, compared to more than 21 hours of council meetings and more than 162 minutes of council comments since January 20, 2006. It was also pointed out that speaking directly to an item of concern causes the staff to report directly on the issue and that citizen comments are thus more focused and germane than if they were made in the overall public comment section of the meeting, which is to be used primarily for non-agendized items.

During the discussion that followed, MacLean claimed that the consent calendar items are strictly routine, and he objected to the public taking “valuable city council time” by speaking on these items. One wonders why he objects to the public raising their concerns at city council meetings.

Kelley claimed that preventing the public from speaking somehow improved public access to council members. She also claimed that having the public speaking on consent calendar items at council meetings was somehow abusive, perhaps of her very valuable time.

Ury echoed the idea that the public abused the council by the public commenting on these items. He was apparently upset by a speaker who questioned an expenditure for a large amount of software that Ury supported and that indirectly benefited the company he worked for at the time. In that particular case, there was no other opportunity to address that specific issue, and the speaker offered an alternative to spending the funds that was not considered by staff. Ledesma and Reavis spoke up strongly for the public's right to speak, but they were ultimately defeated in a 3-2 vote.

In my view, we have gone back to 2000, where three council members, Ury, Kelley and MacLean, are actively working against the public interest. We will see how they vote in upcoming months, but it will be no surprise if they roll over for the “Poverty Pimps” and pass new zoning rules that will devalue Mission Viejo by building many hundreds of new low-income housing units.

Capistrano Unified School District Update
Chapter 2, old regime flunks Funding 101

Mission Viejo has long been ignored by CUSD, and it is time for our residents to fight for our kids, our schools and our community. Below is Chapter Two in the continuing saga to provide information so residents have grounds to demand that CUSD provide equitable facilities for our Mission Viejo students.

CVHS, a 30-year-old school, is the ONLY high school in South Orange County without a theatre/performing arts center. How can this be? Former trustees and four current ones have not made the students at CVHS their priority. There has been enough Mission Viejo money available to fund this greatly needed educational facility, but board members chose to use much of our tax dollars on schools in other cities.

At the last board meeting, Benecke told Addonizio she needed a lesson in funding. Below is a funding lesson for the four trustees who have allowed this inequity to continue for 30 years: Sheila Benecke (elected 1992), Marlene Draper (elected 1988), Mike Darnold (appointed 2000) and Duane Stiff (appointed 2000).

Following is an unofficial audit of Measure A and 87-1 Mission Viejo/ Aliso Viejo Mello-Roos funds. It would be an official audit, but CUSD has not been cooperative with Mission Viejo’s hired auditors, so readers will have to rely on these numbers, which were complied using documents provided over many years from CUSD. The auditor status report can be read by pasting the following link in one’s browser:

http://www.cusdrecall.com/page68/page47/page188/page188.html

Measure A
Measure A is a $65-million bond passed in 1999. As of November 2006, the fund had generated $4.2 million in interest for total funds of $69.2 million. CUSD has accounted for $63,184,553 expensed to projects, leaving a balance of $6,015,447. In the facility meeting on Nov. 28, 2006, Deputy Supt. David Doomey stated there is a contingency amount of $4,700,000. It is therefore assumed CUSD has incurred expenses for managing and issuing bonds in the amount of $1,315,447.

Mello-Roos
Homeowners who pay into Mello-Roos do not pay into Measure A (for example, Rancho Santa Margarita is 100 percent Mello-Roos, and therefore RSM residents do not pay into Measure A). Allocated to date: Laguna Niguel $3,862,000 or 7 percent; Mission Viejo $4,972,000 or 7 percent; San Clemente $6,895,000 or 10 percent; Dana Point $5,740,000 or 8 percent; District $808,000 or 8 percent; RSM $8,500,000 or 12 percent; San Juan Capistrano $32,407,553 or 47 percent.

87-1 Mission Viejo/Aliso Viejo Mello-Roos
87-1 has generated $134,110,000 ($34,000,000 in an improvement area and $100,110,000 in pay-as-you-go Mello-Roos). Mission Viejo residents have contributed approximately $33,536,850 or 33.5 percent. Aliso Viejo residents have contributed approximately $66,573,150 or 66.5 percent. Developers have contributed $34,000,000 (which has been fully collected).

Projects funded from 87-1
Mission Viejo: $17,400,712 or 13 percent (Bathgate $4.5 million, CVHS parking lot $1.488 million, future projects CVHS $3.2, Newhart $5.8, Hankey $2.0).

Aliso Viejo: $99,505,967 or 74 percent (ANHS $34.7, AVMS $17.3, Wood Canyon $6.7, Oakgrove $6.3, DJAM $16.2, Canyon Vista $9.7, site in AV $2.11, future project ANHS $6.5 [total project including state money $11.5 to improve parking]).

District Office $12,054,469 or 9 percent.

Unaccounted for by district: $5,148,852 or 4 percent. (Based on a review of the Mello-Roos purchase orders, it appears this amount may be consulting fees and fees associated with the issuance of the bonds).

In additional to the above, Mission Viejo’s Redevelopment Agency has funded the two-story portable at Newhart and a pool (after 25 years) at CVHS via a Certificate of Participation.

Mission Viejo is the donor city for CUSD. To add insult to injury, Newhart, the CUSD trailer park and the largest middle school in the district, is now getting 15- to 20-year-old portables from Las Flores to make room for two new music portables at that school. Check the following links:

http://www.applications.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/eTrackerWeb/application.asp?originid=04&appid=108654

http://www.applications.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/eTrackerWeb/application.asp?originid=04&appid=108645

Funding isn’t the problem; priority is the problem. More than $12 million of 87-1 spent on the district office could have built a theatre at CVHS. Twenty-four million of Measure A went to SJHHS, while SJC Mello-Roos was saved to put in the extras that CVHS doesn’t have. This amount could have built a theatre at CVHS. Twelve million of Measure A was spent on Arroyo Vista for 300 students in a city that didn’t pay into Measure A. This money could have built a theatre at CVHS.

Eleven million of 87-1 allocated to Aliso Niguel HS to gain parking could have built a theatre at CVHS.

This is only a partial list of projects that CUSD chose over a theatre at CVHS. There are many more examples, but this should do for now. CVHS has NEVER been a priority for the leadership of CUSD, and that’s the problem.

If residents have time, they really should attend board meetings and listen to Sheila Benecke bully the three newly elected trustees. It is unbelievable that she would publicly show such contempt for officials who were overwhelmingly elected by the people.

Several times during past meetings, when one of the three newly elected trustees asked a question, Benecke rudely responded, “Did you call that question in to the staff?” At the last meeting when Trustee Bryson responded she had not, Benecke went on about how they were to call the questions in on Monday and then said, “I guess we are going to play stump the staff. Staff, are you ready to be stumped?” After 15 years as a board member, one would think Benecke would know that the public’s business is to be conducted in public, and the staff should be prepared for any questions related to the posted agenda items. Trustees are not required to call their questions in first, and board presidents should behave professionally and politely.

If the board meeting were televised, residents could see for themselves without sitting through the meetings, but the old guard doesn’t really want residents to know what they are doing or how they are behaving.

What can residents do? Attend the board meetings: May 7, June 4, June 25, July 16, Aug. 13, Sept. 10, Oct. 15, Nov. 5 and Dec. 10. Stay for the entire meeting, and maybe the presence of residents will force Benecke to behave properly.

If residents wish to address the board on items not on the agenda, public comments are usually presented around 8:30 p.m. Those wanting to make comments need to have a blue speaker card filled out to speak prior to that time.  To comment on agenda items, speakers will have to have a speaker card turned in before the item comes up for discussion. Residents have three minutes to speak.

Write to the trustees and superintendent and let them know you are paying attention. Email them at superintendent@capousd.org, and ask that a copy of your email to be sent to each board member.

Vote Draper, Stiff, Benecke and Darnold out of office. Their terms are up in 2008.

Capistrano Valley Foundation – ‘Bye Bye Birdie’
by Dale Tyler

The Capo Valley Foundation is presenting its 3rd Annual Red Carpet Extravaganza on April 28 from 6:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. It will be held at the Capo High School Mall, 26301 Via Escolar.

A reception will begin at 6:30 p.m., featuring appetizers, desserts, a silent auction and a CVHS student art exhibition. International recording star Renee Bondi will perform.

The show, “Bye Bye Birdie,” directed by Ms. Emily Holke, will begin at 7:30 p.m. The plot revolves around rock and roll superstar Conrad Birdie. Complications arise when his agent stages a publicity stunt on “The Ed Sullivan Show” in which he will kiss one lucky girl from Sweet Apple, Ohio, before being drafted into the army.

Proceeds from this event will go to benefit the Capistrano Valley High School Foundation. More information on the foundation can be found at
http://www.cvffoundation.org.

The Buzz column, April 20

Mission Viejo residents have remarked over the years about the wisdom and foresight of the Mission Viejo Company in developing the city's master plan. Resulting problems have grown primarily from deviations pushed by shortsighted council members and city staffers who either lack an understanding of the plan or the will to preserve it. Deviations result in declining neighborhoods, slow-moving traffic, slope failures, increased crime rates near apartment projects and a dwindling sales tax base when business parks are rezoned to future high-density slums.

***

Short version of a wake-up call forwarded by blog manager Kathy Miramontes: “Dear God, Why didn’t you save the schoolchildren at Virginia Tech (VA 04/16/07), Columbine High School (CO 4/20/99), Amish Country (PA 10/2/06), Moses Lake (WA 2/2/96), Bethel (AK 2/19/97), Pearl (MS 10/1/97), West Paducah (KY 12/1/97), Stamp (AR 12/15/97), Santee (CA 3/22/01), El Cajon (CA 3/22/01) and so on? Sincerely, Concerned Student.” Reply: “Dear Concerned Student, I am not allowed in schools. Sincerely, God.”

***

An email exchange receiving wide distribution began when a resident responded favorably to City Hall following the April 16 3-2 council decision disallowing a home addition that could have turned a small, two-bedroom home into a six-bedroom boardinghouse. Councilman Frank Ury, who supported the potential business venture in a quiet neighborhood, fired back a condescending email at both the email originator and another resident (a Ury fan club member) who had chimed in. Ury defended his own views, using an unrelated anecdote of how a family might need more space. The overruled house addition would have created motel-like units and an office for conducting business, no yard and potential landslide liabilities from destabilizing a slope.

***

Have Ury’s groupies finally awakened? The Buzz asked a City Hall insider how Ury will fare if he runs for reelection in 2008 after spitting in the face of those who carried him around during his 2004 campaign. The insider said, “Ury no longer needs the little people. He has the power of incumbency, name recognition, big money from special interest and county G.O.P. gasbags backing him. He doesn’t need lowly volunteers holding his signs or a misled group of residents carrying him around.” Ury left the building before the April 16 council meeting ended, saying something about catching a plane. Ury parted with his former employer months ago, and some residents hope he finds a nice job far, far away.

***

A parking problem in Laguna Hills might be worth following to see how its city council addresses an overflow of parked cars from a condo association onto adjacent streets. A council member first responded that the condo association should work harder to enforce its own CC&R’s. The condo association members disagreed and asked for a permit parking zone on a nearby street. The city staff proposed the permit parking as requested, with restrictions limiting parking to residents (and not endless numbers of people who might be there illegally), and to add no-parking zones to prevent safety issues where needed. The council approved the permit parking and no-parking zones, and it is investigating boardinghouse restrictions as well in response to the complaint of numerous families living under one roof.

***

When some Mission Viejo council members disagree with public speakers, they frequently reinforce their argument by citing examples of how other cities conduct business. Here’s the rub. Councils in some other cities are responsible to residents and let voters decide on major issues. Some other cities have intelligent elected officials who have integrity and want to solve problems. Some council members in other cities aren’t constantly shaking down city vendors for campaign cash, making backroom deals and insulting residents who take time to participate in meetings.

***

Great idea forwarded by a Buzz reader: residents of the United States shouldn’t have to press “1” for English.