Activist’s Flip Surprises Reader
Staff editorial

No doubt about it, activists take city politics very seriously. When council members switch sides and flip on issues, it can cause an activist to flip out.

Years of disappointment and loss have caused many activists to fall into one of three categories: 1) disengaging from politics altogether, 2) becoming cynical and grousing about almost everything, or 3) going completely nuts.

A blog reader responded this week, “A letter to Saddleback Valley News on Sept. 14 made me wonder if I was seeing things. The writer of the letter has been an activist and one of the biggest critics of the library since before it was built. It was a surprise to see his letter inviting people to visit the library.”

Activists in Category 2 are frequently criticized for becoming cynical and grousing about almost everything. Their family members might say to them, “Can’t you say something positive for a change?” It can cause an activist to slip into Category 3 and make a statement like, “Go check out a book at the library.”

Activists who want to write something positive should either find something that’s truly positive or write about the weather.

The library was built more than 10 years following a measure on the ballot in which Mission Viejo residents rejected breaking away from the county system to build a city library. It made plenty of people mad to see the library being built so soon after voters said no. Activists loudly objected when the vote was ignored by council members who forged ahead without community support.

Activists lamented for years about the new library (lack of books, shortage of quality titles, escalating expense, a design-build contract that was awarded without competitive bids, etc.). Currently, the library acknowledges only 51 percent of its cardholders are even Mission Viejo residents. Alongside the library’s confusing Website claim of “738,447 circulation,” it states the library has only 155,707 items in its collection.

When the library was finished more than 10 years ago, it apparently took all the earmarked city tax dollars, grant money and donations just to open the doors. Savvy library visitors noticed something was missing: books. The items sitting on shelves looked like books, but they tended to be castoff donations from patrons’ personal collections or something one might find at the dollar table in a bookstore. It was strange to walk into a library and find so little to read.

Cities of comparable size – particularly places with high literacy rates – boast collections of 1 million books (with popular titles, not discards from patrons). Criticism of the library hasn’t led to dramatic improvement, and most critics stopped wasting their breath.

Sept. 17 Council Meeting Summary
Editorial staff

Approximately 50 people attended the Sept. 17 council meeting to protest the city’s Wireless Master Plan, telling the council to end a cell-tower consultant’s contract to place cell towers on city property. Those making public comments brought signed petitions and other documents representing hundreds of residents who object to such use of city property, particularly cell towers in neighborhood parks.

Six residents made public comments at the beginning of the meeting. One talked about the city’s practice of low-balling prices to initiate a contract, then dramatically raising the price with change orders. The community center expansion has increased in cost from $5.5 million to $13.5 million. The speaker indicated it’s a sign of incompetence.

The second speaker, a resident of Lake Forest, commented on the problem of day laborers congregating on Los Alisos Blvd. The third speaker stated the need for replacing playground equipment in his neighborhood park.

The fourth speaker commented about a power outage in his neighborhood two weeks ago. He called city hall to ask the reason for it, but his calls weren’t returned.

The next speaker said there was no public discussion on Feb. 12, 2006, regarding the proposed Wireless Master Plan, which she stated was misleading. The final speaker commented about parking problems in neighborhoods surrounding Mission Viejo High School, adding that two council members didn’t appear familiar with the issue’s history.

With a 5-0 vote and no discussion, the council passed the entire consent calendar, including the check register total of $2,242,735.83 and a $21,207 change order for the community center expansion.

The public hearing on the Wireless Master Plan began with a city staff presentation, followed by a presentation by the cell-tower contractor, Tony Ingegneri of ATS, who will implement the plan. Ingegneri gave four purposes of the plan: 1) to reduce the number of cell-tower sites, 2) to reduce blight, 3) to create better cell phone coverage, and 4) to generate revenue for the city. The contractor has already received $200,000 to develop the plan, and he has exclusive rights to market cell-tower placement on city property, plus a bonus for every cell tower he places on city property. He identified 18 city sites and noted that eight of them are “most sensitive,” apparently measured by the number of residents who complained.

The discussion next turned to council members’ comments, with Councilman Frank Ury engaging in what appeared to be an orchestrated effort with Ingegneri, whom he brought to the city and pushed as the contractor. Ury asked, “Can you comment on the demand for cell phones?”

Ingegneri said he expected demand to increase six-fold.

Next, residents responded to the plan by speaking at the public microphone, presenting signatures on petitions – some speakers representing neighborhoods or school PTA boards – and having their children make comments. Approximately 35 others turned in written comments, which were read into the record. Eleven people emailed their comments. With the above comments and petitions comprising hundreds of residents, only one person supported the plan, and he doesn’t live in Mission Viejo. San Clemente resident Joe Thompson spoke on behalf of Team Mobile, his employer.

Most residents based their objections on visual blight, reduced property values, health and safety concerns, unknown health risks and inappropriate use of parks. One resident pointed to six police officers at the meeting, asking council members if they expected a riot. She added, “It is not the job of government to create a business plan for a company. The council gave Tony Ingegneri a goldmine.” Another speaker reminded council members they’re supposed to represent residents who put them into office. Another said, “Vote no or you will go,” adding the plan is sleazy and underhanded. Others questioned if the cell towers were “today’s asbestos” or how soon advancing technology would make such towers obsolete. The city’s $14,000 P.R. contract with Paul Glaab was panned as a taxpayer-funded outreach effort to promote the plan.

Confusing commentary came from a speaker who said she moved from Mission Viejo because a cell tower was placed near her home, passed with a vote that included the support of Councilman Ury. The speaker thanked Ury for his proposed ordinance of two weeks ago, banning cell towers from parks – a sham political move by a councilman who clearly is promoting cell towers in parks, neighborhoods and anywhere else a vendor wishes to place them.

The council discussion began with Councilwoman Trish Kelley thanking residents for their input, which – by evidence of her later votes – she either didn’t agree with or comprehend. She insisted the Wireless Master Plan is just “a study” that asks the city staff and consultant to maximize collocation. According to Kelley, hundreds of concerned residents are apparently misinformed.

Ury said Tony Ingegneri’s marketing effort should be expanded to include private property as well as the monopoly he already has to market city property. Ury added that the intent of the plan is not to market parks, despite Ingegneri’s claim he is doing exactly that at the direction of the city. Ury reported talking with a resident about her concerns regarding cell towers on public property and, as a result, he decided not to prohibit use as she asked but to expand the contract to include private property.

Councilman Lance MacLean indicated residents are “victims of terminology,” spinning the Wireless Master Plan as a study to minimize the number of towers. He stated, “It’s doing exactly what you [concerned residents] are asking it to do.”

Councilman John Paul Ledesma seconded a motion by Kelley to eliminate city parks from the marketing plan and to remove the clause that a purpose of the plan is to generate revenue. He then asked the city attorney if such a motion would require amending the vendor’s contract. The city attorney said it would require an amendment.

The ensuing council discussion became so inconsistent and hostile, it’s worth viewing the videotape (borrowing it from the city library). To view the discussion online, go to [Clip removed from City website]

No council member consistently objected to the Wireless Master Plan, Ingegneri’s contract to place cell towers in parks or removing all city parks from consideration. Although Kelley’s motion (to eliminate parks and recreation centers) was seconded by Ledesma, neither pursued eliminating all parks.

Ury pushed for dividing the question. Kelley’s motion became: Receive and file the master plan and make modifications as follows: 1) emphasize goal No. 1 of the Wireless Master Plan, to reduce the number of potential sites through a coordinated collocation process and emphasize this by asking staff and the consultant to maximize collocation in areas wherever possible; and 2) eliminate goal No. 4, to generate additional revenues for the city of Mission Viejo.

Beyond receiving and filing the Wireless Master Plan, the above restrictions are meaningless. For example, the intention is still to generate money for the city and Ingegneri – they’re just not going to talk about it. Emphasizing or deemphasizing of anything is of no consequence to the contract or the contractor. The motion passed 4-1 with Reavis dissenting.

The second vote was to remove the following sites from possible consideration for future cell sites: Coronado Park, Minaya Park, Napoli Park, Crucero Park, Seville Park and Vista del Lago open space, and 2) direct staff to return with an amendment to the ATS contract to remove the restrictions regarding the marketing of private sites that currently exist in the contract with ATS.

Ledesma objected to the motion, saying it is outrageous to give ATS a contract containing exclusive rights to market city property, plus allowing ATS to compete against the city by marketing all private property sites as well. Ledesma said he only supported a portion of the clause to eliminate the named parks from consideration. The motion passed 3-2, with Ledesma and MacLean dissenting.

In the face of hundreds of residents, 100 percent of them against the cell-tower contract and use of city property as cell tower sites, the correct answer in representing the residents was for all five council members to vote no on both parts of the divided question. No one on the council got it right on both counts.

SJC Council Revisits School District Issue
Letter to the editor

This coming Tues., Oct. 1, the San Juan City Council will consider a resolution to retract the council's previous unanimous opposition to the 2005 CUSD recall (see recall document in this week’s edition). The council's 2005 resolution to oppose the recall was unprecedented at the time. In fact, SJC was the only council out of seven city councils in the district that took a position on the recall. SJC council members voted to oppose it despite tremendous outcry against their taking a stance, which was expressed by speakers at the council meeting in 2005.

Given what's happened in the district, with the ongoing District Attorney's investigation, the Grand Jury probe resulting in the indictments of former Superintendent James Fleming and former Assistant Superintendent Susan McGill for misappropriation of public education funds, etc., the DA's stated intention to file charges against the Fleming-era trustees for Brown Act violations and resulting lawsuits against CUSD for the trustees' actions, I hope everyone will join me in expressing support for this resolution. While largely symbolic, the resolution will help to heal some of the damage created by the then-council's decision to oppose the recall. It was a real slap in the face to those of us who were disturbed by the actions of the school district against parents and children in CUSD. 

SJC council members should not have opposed the recall, but they did. They now have an opportunity to undo the previous action. If you agree, please pass this message on and urge the SJC council members to join their fellow council members from the cities of Aliso Viejo, Mission Viejo, Ranch Santa Margarita and San Clemente in denouncing the actions of district officials, by voting in favor of this resolution.

Thank you for your continued support! 

Kim Lefner
CUSD parent

Misplaced Priorities
Letter to the Editor

I am a longtime parent volunteer and active supporter of Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD) schools. I, like many others, have dedicated time to serve the students and staff of CUSD. As a resident of Mission Viejo I can say I have never believed Trustee Draper had any interest in the condition of the schools or the children of my community. I have heard her talk a lot about the schools and children in San Juan, but in the past three or four years I have not heard any level of interest about other communities in CUSD, and I attend every board meeting.

Trustee Draper does not seem to understand the impact she has on the schools outside her own city. I recently wrote to her about two comments I continually hear her make that led me to my conclusion, but she did not respond.

Capistrano Valley High School (CVHS) is the only high school in the district without a performing-arts facility. Trustee Draper constantly states that the reason CVHS does not have a theater is because funds have not been available. This statement is false. CVHS, a 30-yearold school, has no proper facility because she and her fellow board members made a choice to not build one many times over the years.

In 1993 CUSD opened Aliso Niguel High School (ANHS). Much of the student population was moved through boundary changes to ANHS from CVHS. The school was partially funded with $34.7 million from 87-1, a Mission Viejo/Aliso Viejo Mello-Roos fund. That money could have built a theater at CVHS but instead was put into a pool and performing arts facility for ANHS students.

In 2001, CUSD opened Tesoro High School (THS). Much of the student population was moved through boundary changes to THS from CVHS. Though I don’t have all the numbers on how this school was funded, Trustee Draper and her fellow board members chose to build a pool and performing arts facility for Tesoro students.

Between 2004 and 2007, CUSD installed five synthetic fields and all-weather tracks on its existing five high school campuses, at a cost in excess of $6 million. Many of these tracks and fields were funded from Mello-Roos 87-1 or Measure A, both funds that could have been used to build a theater at CVHS. Are they nice? Yes. But it was still a choice.

In 2006, CUSD opened a district office partially funded with more than $13 million from 87-1. That was money that could have built a theater at CVHS but instead was used to build a palatial office complex for district administrators. Additional millions will eventually be paid out on that building, all money that could have been spent on schools.

In 2007, CUSD opened San Juan Hills High School (SJHHS). Much of the student population was moved through boundary changes to SJHHS from CVHS. The school was partially funded with $24 million from Measure A funds. That was money that could have built a theater at CVHS but instead was put into a luxurious performing arts facility for SJHHS students.

Trustee Draper has been on the board since 1988, and Trustee Benecke has been on the board since 1992; therefore, all of the above-mentioned choices were theirs to make, so the trustees need to stop saying there was no money and acknowledge they chose to not place a performing-arts facility at CVHS for the thousands of students who have attended the school.

During multiple board meetings, Trustee Draper has stated that the budget cuts were kept as far as possible from the classrooms. She apparently has no idea what impact her vote is having on the classrooms. She supported the current budget cuts, as well as prior cuts, that have had a devastating impact on our students’ schools and classrooms. Under the current budget, staffing at secondary schools was changed to provide staffing of teachers based on ADA as opposed to actual enrollment. This has resulted in an increase in class size for the third time since 2001. She also supported a reduction in custodial staff multiple times in recent years, making it impossible for our kids to learn in clean classrooms and schools. Additionally, she supported a reduction of campus supervisors and assistant principals, both of which create safety issues on the school campuses.

Finally, she has cut so deep into the support staff at the schools parents are now helping in the attendance office, the activities office and are copying and funding much of the classroom materials for teachers. These are just a few examples of the draconian cuts she supported that directly impact our children’s classrooms; yet, in the district office there are three employees working at the reception desk, and many of the senior administrators have personal assistants and secretaries. Cuts have not been kept away from the classroom. Perhaps some of the district office personnel can be moved to the schools sites to directly serve the students and their families.

Trustee Draper needs to take responsibility for what she has done. I have read every word of the Orange County grand jury testimony. In that testimony she blamed the staff, she blamed Fleming, and she blamed the attorneys. When she couldn’t blame someone else, she just couldn’t remember. Her own words indicate she violated her duty to the taxpayers, the students and the constituency. She should be ashamed, but clearly she is not. It is time for her to step down so we can have trustees that will put the dollars back into the children’s classrooms.

In June 2008, the trustees will again vote on a budget. CUSD has already acknowledged that an additional $9 million in cuts will have to be made. We must have trustees who will truly keep those cuts away from the classrooms and schools and provide equitable facilities for all students, and Trustees Draper and Benecke have shown us it is not them.

Sharon Campbell
Mission Viejo

The Buzz column, Sept. 28

Sunrise’s mailer about an assisted living project on what is currently the Casta del Sol Golf Course is getting quite a bad reaction. A housing project below an earthen dam is one matter, but even more comments are being generated by concern the plan has already been approved by the city. It hasn’t. The cover letter from Sunrise invites interested parties to attend two open-house events: Tues., Oct. 2, and Thurs., Oct. 4. Both will be held from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Lake Mission Viejo Clubhouse, 22555 Olympiad Road. Is this the newest bait-and-switch scheme by a housing developer? Wait until residents find out which P.R. consultant is in back of this one.

***

The Target store at Los Alisos and Jeronimo will hold its grand opening Oct. 14. When Target appeared before the city council in May 2006, its spokesman said the store was on a fast track, set to open in October 2006. Residents correctly said no way. Target has instead been on a slow track, and Steadfast’s housing project adjacent to the store is on no track. Residents with a view of the property say it’s just dirt – a parking lot for long-idle, monstrous grading equipment and Target’s construction trailers. Steadfast now has two categories of housing: non-profit and unprofitable.

***

Slums delayed are slums denied. Along with Steadfast’s pile of dirt at Los Alisos and Jeronimo, another high-density housing project, on the former Kmart property on east Los Alisos, is also going nowhere. A consultant for UDR/Pacific, the property’s developer, apparently thought he had such influence with the city council that the city’s requirement for an affordable component would be dropped. When the developer and his investors found out they’d be required to include the affordable units, they walked away, saying “it didn’t pencil out.” Current score on high-density slum housing: residents 2, developers 0.

***

An item in the Sept. 28 issue of Saddleback Valley News described the shopping carts to be used at the new Target store. They’ll have a feature that locks up the wheels if the cart is moved beyond the store’s parking lot. This is likely out of economic necessity rather than concern for the surrounding neighbors. With the steep grade of the access drive, the demand for downhill kamikaze racing units would have exceeded the store’s ability to keep any carts at the store.

***

Unrelated to city business but interesting to some residents: the largest homeowner association in Mission Viejo mailed a message to its members regarding CC&Rs limiting tree height. A resident informed The Buzz: “Of all the things the HOA could do to help the homeowners, ours has decided to take on trees taller than 25 feet. Someone must be losing a lot of sleep over trees. If a specific tree is a problem, that would be reasonable, but they’re talking about all trees. I can’t remember any HOA board member running on a tree platform. Palm trees add considerably to the area, and they easily exceed 25 feet. They can’t be “trimmed” as the HOA message suggests for tall trees. Tree removal could take some properties back to the 1970s or 1980s with little boxes on the hillsides and the starkness of a new development. Or we could cut the tops off for the utility-pole look.”

***

Buzz readers have asked how many residents are participating in Councilwoman Trish Kelley’s “senior transportation program.” When city programs are resounding failures, the numbers don’t appear anywhere. Despite endless advertising, announcements and yet another three-page spread in the most recent City Outlook newsletter, the so-called pilot program is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. With most of the money being used for administrative costs rather than providing real benefits, the results are as expected.

***

Buzz reader email: “Keep the pressure on the council to publish information about the city’s disaster preparedness program. The only thing I’ve heard was from council members who said emergency information would be posted on the new electronic sign across from city hall. In the event of an emergency, everyone can drive down to Marguerite and La Paz to read the character word of the month. What is the city’s plan for evacuating 100,000 residents? I’d like to hear it.”