Sunrise Introduces Plans
Staff editorial

Mission Viejo residents received a letter and color brochure from Sunrise Senior Living regarding two open-house events on Oct. 2 and Oct. 4 at the Lake Mission Viejo Clubhouse. Those who attended the Oct. 2 event saw drawings of what “could be” an assisted-living facility and a community park. If plans move forward, Sunrise says it will build a 300-unit center on what is currently Casta del Sol Golf Course. The facility would be located off Casta del Sol Drive, to the northwest of Casta’s Gate No. 1.

Those who tried to attend the Oct. 4 open house said it was called off. One resident who arrived at the clubhouse said an employee was in the parking lot, telling people it was canceled. The resident reported to the blog, “The employee stated the room wasn’t available, which I don’t believe. There are other meeting rooms at the lake. I think Sunrise and the consultants got tired of everyone telling them off, so they pulled the plug on the second meeting.”

Many residents asked why Sunrise would even consider building in such an inappropriate spot as the golf course. The plans made no sense to residents who attended on Oct. 2. Sunrise allegedly would purchase the 64-acre parcel and then – being able to use only 10 acres – donate the remainder to the city. About the only time a developer gives anything away is when he’s either been told he has only a few months to live or the property is under water.

One thing is obvious: the project wouldn't benefit Mission Viejo residents unless a fortune in tax dollars propped it up. Additionally, the modest facility as presented would negatively impact Casta del Sol residents, and traffic from “only” 300 units would clog Casta Drive. No consultant during the open house answered questions about what type of development might result along the entire property line Casta shares with the golf course. Homeowners who reside outside Casta also said they want no residential development on the golf course.

The following comments were made during the open house on Oct 2. No positive remarks were heard from any resident who attended the event.

“The consultants were standing around and asking if people had any questions, but the consultants didn’t have answers. Either they didn’t know much about the project or they weren’t supposed to give information for fear of upsetting everyone.”

“I asked the architect, and he said the property is in escrow. Then I asked another of the consultants who said Sunrise only made an offer to buy. The second consultant said the golf course owner received three offers, and Sunrise was the only viable one.”

A resident who talked to a councilwoman who attended heard the councilwoman say the project would need three votes from the council to get approval. The resident asked her, “Is your vote for sale?”

“Why can’t the city either buy the property or partner with the golf course owner to make it a municipal course? With such a large piece of real estate and only 10 buildable acres, most of it is supposedly going to become a city-owned park. Mission Viejo already has more than 40 parks, and I’ve heard the city doesn’t want it.”

“This is already tainted. Look at the people involved. Roger Faubel is the P.R. consultant, and he’s already donated to council members’ campaign treasuries. The only council member I know of who hasn’t accepted Faubel's money is John Paul Ledesma.”

“Mission Viejo has enough nursing homes and senior living facilities. With all the large ones around town, plus homeowners turning their homes into care centers, Mission Viejo is becoming a city of old folks.”

“If Sunrise wants to expand, why doesn’t it build near its existing complex on Oso? The current council has already rezoned six properties – in the face of overwhelming objections from residents. Why doesn’t Sunrise build on the rezoned parcel on Oso?”

“The presentation during the open house didn’t add up. What they were saying doesn’t make sense as a design, as a financial plan or anything else.”

Summary of Oct. 1 Council Meeting
Staff editorial

Public comments by residents had more impact than city business conducted by five council members at the Oct. 1 council meeting. Residents’ issues included cell towers, power lines and wasteful spending. Council members conducted business as usual, including a 3-2 vote to approve consulting services between the city and ATS Communications despite overwhelming public opinion against it. In the face of nearly unanimous objections from residents who have spoken out against cell towers for years, two council members voting for the plan said the public made them do it.

Speaking first was a homeowner who objected to a planning commission’s recent recommendation to allow a cell tower on Moulton Niguel Water District’s Lope de Vega site. The homeowner said he was representing his neighbors who object to the cell tower, adding most of them weren’t notified and didn’t know about Team Mobile’s request for a cell tower near their homes. His own property was misrepresented in the consultant’s data that stated its distance from the cell tower. The resident said Team Mobile claimed the lack of attendance at the commission meeting should be interpreted as overwhelming support for the cell tower. The resident further commented about the “bias of Planning Commission Chairman Richard Schweinberg, who talked down” opposition to the cell tower. When another commissioner asked whether the commission’s purpose was to represent Team Mobile, Moulton Niguel or the residents, Schweinberg said the commission represented “the city.” The resident suggested the residents are the city.

A second speaker said she’s been a Mission Viejo homeowner for eight years, and her home is off La Barca. Her summary: “I want to start something to get these power lines buried. Please look into this.” For the benefit of anyone else who hasn’t noticed, the issue gets “looked into” every two years during city elections when various candidates promise to get the lines buried as soon as they’re elected. Otherwise, no one on the council or city staff brings it up.

A third speaker talked about six deputies standing at the back of the room during the Sept. 17 council meeting and made reference to the city’s crime stats. She said Mission Viejo’s crime rate increased 7.4 percent while other communities contracting with the Sheriff’s Dept. saw an average decrease of 7.2 percent. She also mentioned the council’s wastefulness, including $500,000 for a bathroom in a park, $750,000 for an electronic sign, $300,000 for a Rose Parade float, proposed spending of $1 million for a dog park, $750,000 for “aesthetics” on Crown Valley Parkway and costs for expanding the community center jumping from $3.3 million to more than $13 million.

The check register total of $1,850,019.54 was approved without discussion as part of the consent calendar.

As old business, refinements of the city’s cell tower contract with ATS were approved 3-2 with Council Members Gail Reavis and John Paul Ledesma dissenting. The city attorney apparently felt compelled to explain the cell tower consultant wouldn’t be paid by the city to place cell towers on private property. Adding further to ridiculous remarks was Councilwoman Kelley, who said, “We must remind ourselves we are responding to members of the public to ask ATS to look at private property for cell tower placement.”

As a reminder to Ms. Kelley, who apparently hasn’t understood a word anyone said, residents demanded that the council not allow cell towers in public parks, and no resident asked that a consultant with an exclusive contract to market cell towers on city property be further allowed to place cell towers all over town on private property. Residents must remind themselves not to reelect council members who refuse to listen or consistently fail to comprehend the will of residents. Councilman Frank Ury chimed in with Kelley, saying she hit the nail on the head.

Reavis stated she had hoped someone on the council would make a motion at the Sept. 17 meeting to cancel the cell tower contract altogether. When her fellow council members didn’t make such a motion, she also didn’t make the motion. The reason no one did is the fact it wasn’t on the agenda, and such a motion would have been disallowed. As another matter, Reavis consistently was among the 5-0 votes when ATS first came to the city and the council chose to pay the contractor $200,000 to develop a master plan. She could have put an item on the agenda at any time to end ATS’ exclusive contract to market city property for cell tower placement.

With a 5-0 vote, the council approved management and budget policies regarding discretionary reserve amounts, and in the very next item of discussion, they demonstrated with a 5-0 vote they can’t begin to manage money. The second item – yet another change order for the community center expansion – was pulled by Kelley, who stated: “We need to refocus our attention on what we’re doing for our community.” The focus has been directed by residents to the cost overruns and wastefulness of this project. Kelley mentioned costs she apparently considers essential, such as replacing the entire roof on the existing center to make it match the new roof instead of choosing a color for the new addition that would match the old. The council approved the item with a 5-0 vote, adding to the already bloated costs: $355,286 for construction, $27,364 for construction management and $38,150 for the architect.

Open Letter to Council Members
Compensate homeowners for loss

It has come to my attention that the council would like to erect a cell tower next door to my house on Valpariso Street. This project will affect the property values and aesthetic value of my house and the area in general in a negative way. It will affect you as council members in a positive way because it will bring additional income to the city of Mission Viejo.

Our neighborhood will lose this fight. Therefore, I propose that in the interest of fairness that the revenues from this project be divided equally between the impacted parties and the city. Over time, this would compensate our neighborhood for the loss in value. This could be very simply achieved by determining who is impacted and to what degree and distribute the neighborhood’s portion accordingly on a biannual basis.

I believe that this is a fair and practical solution to this impasse, and I am sure that the fair-minded city council will want to do the right thing. To do otherwise would be considered a taking, and it would leave itself open to lawsuits – a position that nobody wants.

Jim Bentley
Mission Viejo homeowner

CUSD Update, Oct. 5

The city council in Rancho Santa Margarita paid for an audit of Mello-Roos funds to find out how Capistrano Unified School District spent the money. Some RSM residents suspected the funds had been diverted from use in their city to pay for the $52-million CUSD administration building in San Juan Capistrano. The audit revealed $1.5 million from RSM and surrounding cities (Mission Viejo, Aliso Viejo, San Juan Capistrano and Talega) was spent on the Taj Mahal-type building.

CUSD administrator Eric Hall said it wasn’t an illegal use of Mello-Roos money, as it was spent within the Mello-Roos district where it originated. Hall also used the specious argument that the district built the administration center to save money on rent. Mathematically challenged administrators continue to promote the myth the district is saving money by spending $1.5 million on interest instead of paying $500,000 on leases. Trustees Marlene Draper and Sheila Benecke also use this claim to defend themselves against being recalled. As an additional issue, some CUSD residents say the district continues to pay rent on at least some of its former facilities when the new administration building is partially empty.

CUSD residents have offered numerous solutions to the cash-poor district, which can’t make ends meet with an annual budget of half a billion dollars. Selling the new administration building is tops among suggestions. Administrators can perform their high-paying jobs in a less glamorous environment, and “portable” offices often get a mention. Constituents also recommend culling the administrative herd and dismissing extraneous and nonperforming workers. A CUSD constituent said, “The grand jury transcripts revealed people on the payroll who had no idea what they were doing, including supervisors who had no idea what anyone was doing. Use the transcripts as a guide for dismissals.”

The district is inviting parents and other community members to participate by joining various subcommittees to study and discuss CUSD issues. The subcommittees and meeting dates are 1) facilities, beginning at 6 p.m. on Tues., Oct. 9, 2) finance, Oct. 16, 3) curricula, Oct. 23, 4) communications, Oct. 30. Meetings will be held at the district office, 33122 Valle Road, San Juan Capistrano. In addition to residents participating to ask questions, it is clear this district can benefit from input from community members who have an appropriate background in problem areas, including facilities and finance.

The Buzz column, Oct. 5

Steadfast should have heeded residents’ advice four years ago and dropped its housing plans. According to information provided by blog readers, Steadfast is still obligated to pay the city the $2-million in-lieu fee for not providing recreation space in its plans to build condos at Jeronimo and Los Alisos. The fact it hasn’t built any condos won’t make the fee go away, and the due date is imminent. The question remains if the city can put pressure on Target as Steadfast’s business partner if Steadfast doesn’t pay up.

***

An article in the Oct. 5 Saddleback Valley News quoted Steadfast spokesman Ralph Deppisch about the housing market’s decline. He first said Steadfast has “no plans to develop,” and he later said Steadfast’s property will be assessed on a quarterly basis for developing. A blog reader responded, “They can check for a pulse as often as they want, but their condo project is dead.”

***

The city planning department says it’s getting many calls from residents about Sunrise Senior Living trying to buy the Casta del Sol golf course. The proposal has not been presented to the city, although Sunrise has lobbied individual council members. The pictures of a senior living facility in a park-like setting are reminiscent of the Great Park campaign, in which a predominant use of the former El Toro air station became housing. Casta del Sol residents question if “park use” includes a skateboard park, hills and ramps for bicycle acrobatics, day-and-night sports fields or a sports complex – hardly comparable with the quiet of a golf course. Also worth noting, every photo in the Sunrise brochure showing public use of the proposed park involves taxpayer funding.

***

A Casta resident said, “I won’t vote for any council member who supports housing on the golf course.” Such support probably won’t be known until after the 2008 election. By that time, council members will receive checks for their campaign treasuries, and voters will have to wait two more years to throw incumbents out of office. Why speculate on which council members will sell their constituents down the river? Check their voting records on such as issues as “affordable” welfare housing, rezoning commercial properties, redevelopment, supporting a tax increase, marketing cell towers on public property, etc. Records are known, and they’re dismal.

***

Those with dedication, as well as patience and time, can participate in another discussion about a dog park. A public workshop will be held on Tues., Oct. 16, at 7:00 p.m., during the Community Services Commission meeting at city hall. The announcement reads: “The City is seeking input from the community about the possible construction of a dog park in Mission Viejo. Dog park elements have been preliminary identified. Alicia Park and Oso Viejo Park remain under consideration after extensive site selection research. Additional sites may be considered in the future. For more information call 470-3061.” Blog staffers believe the city staff doesn’t want a dog park in Mission Viejo, and the process of “finding one” will continue until all interested parties walk away, move to another city or die of old age.

***

Only one of the current Capo school district trustees, Ellen Addonizio of Mission Viejo, has credentials, experience and a professional background in finance. Addonizio continues to be the true reform leader on the dais, and Mission Viejo residents can be proud of her commitment to getting money back into the classrooms.

***

Bill Hunt’s lawsuit against Sheriff Mike Carona moved forward toward a trial with the recent federal court decision to deny Carona’s motion to dismiss. In the 2006 election, Hunt, a San Clemente resident and lieutenant in the Sheriff’s Dept., ran against Carona. Hunt’s claim includes Carona’s abuse of office and interference with Hunt’s constitutionally protected free speech. After Carona won in the Primary Election with 50.6 percent, Hunt was demoted and lost his assignment as Police Services Chief in San Clemente. Hunt is seeking compensatory damages and restoration of his assignment as San Clemente police chief.