May 7 Council Meeting Summary
Editorial staff

All those who attended or watched the May 7 council meeting should have reached the same conclusion: Mission Viejo residents have no representation in city government. Almost without exception, the council voted against residents who made public comments or sent in written remarks. All five council members supported the views of anyone living in another city who stated an opinion opposite the residents.

During public comments at the beginning of the meeting, one speaker presented an ongoing argument (continued from the last meeting) against the council’s shutting out the public when making decisions. She also complained about the city contract with ATS Communications to develop a Wireless Master Plan. The blog revealed last week that Councilman Frank Ury not only brought ATS Communications to the city trough, he was the one pushing the plan. The speaker, a self-proclaimed Ury shill, apparently can’t figure out Ury isn’t on her side. Ury didn’t act alone regarding ATS, as Bill Barker (a failed council candidate in the 2006 city election) introduced ATS to Ury. The public speaker complaining about ATS was also a key worker in Bill Barker’s campaign, going door to door with literature promoting him.

Speaking of those on the losing side, the Palmia residential community also took it in the shorts on Monday night. Attempting to protect their neighborhood from a proposed slum across the street, many residents spoke or handed in written comments in opposition to rezoning commercial property near their homes. Councilwoman Gail Reavis recused herself because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property, and the other four council members voted for the zone change. Councilman Lance MacLean described Palmia’s concerns as hysteria, and Ury said, essentially, “trust me” as he voted against residents’ wishes. Palmia residents should keep in mind Ury is the same person they trusted to bury the power lines after they carried him around on their shoulders during his campaign. Ury didn’t deliberately ruin their neighborhood with power lines because he couldn’t have stopped the lines even if he gave a rip. He did, however, throw Palmia residents under the bus Monday night regarding the zone change.

Palmia residents received no special treatment or mistreatment, as the council voted to approve all four zone changes before them. Readers should wonder about the intent, as the city goal outlined by the state is for 94 affordable units. With all four properties being rezoned to R-30 (a total of 26.84 acres times 30 units per acre), that’s a potential of approximately 800 new units. With the council voting to allow 800 units when the goal is only 94, one should conclude Mission Viejo’s council is not too swift at doing the math. With two council members up for reelection and in need of campaign cash, having four properties in play should attract developer donations, and perhaps that’s the intent. Candidates can’t expect trash haulers and other city contractors to pay all the campaign bills, and developers have no shortage of pay-to-play money.

The potential of 800 new housing units could result in several thousand new residents for Mission Viejo. Council remarks toward the end of the very long meeting (5 hours, 44 minutes) were particularly telling with regard to the highly confused thinking of Councilwoman Trish Kelley. She voted for all four zone changes, and three the properties are in Capistrano Unified School District. She made remarks during a subsequent item, expressing her “concerns” about things that are happening in CUSD. Parents who are complaining about overcrowding at Newhart Middle School should take note that Kelley is a major contributor to the problem. As an additional example of Kelley’s confusion, she gleefully said, “Newhart is getting newer older portables, which is good.”

If Newhart were a trailer park instead of a school, additional trailers of any age might be good. Additional trailers on a school campus – “newer older” or even older newer – would not be good. Adding busloads of new students from apartment projects would also not be good.