|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Save Neighborhoods with an Initiative
Letter to the editor
Nearly two years ago, Dale Tyler presented information to the Mission Viejo Planning Commission about his proposed ballot initiative, patterned after the successful Yorba Linda “Right to Vote” and Newport Beach's “Greenlight.” The idea is for voters to take control of major rezoning decisions. By passing the initiative, Mission Viejo residents would get to vote on each major rezoning decision. Without it, we will continue eating the dust of developers and having no voice in what happens.
Consider how rezoning issues are currently decided with developers buying their way in with campaign contributions and in-lieu fees paid to the city. It has been a very unpleasant surprise to realize the residents can't count on even one person on the council to represent us on major rezoning decisions. It seems like every time some developer comes to town with money spilling out of their pockets, our Master Plan is changed, yet again, to satisfy their needs.
Will the residents join in and get signatures on an initiative so we can quickly qualify it for the ballot? Although the council could do this for us by creating such a ballot measure – we wouldn’t need to gather signatures, I doubt the majority of council members would give up their authority (as well as cash for their campaigns from out-of-towners). As another matter, anything the council might concoct could have so many loopholes it wouldn’t change anything.
Please consider that we need to take action to save our neighborhoods. Every time a council rezones property, it seems to have a profound negative impact on our residents. We’ve tried relying on council members to represent us, and it hasn’t worked out.
Connie Lee
Mission Viejo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spinning the Tollroad
by Dale Tyler
The old saw – “How can you tell if a politician is lying? See if his lips are moving.” – is always funny and most often true. Such is the case for Lance MacLean, a Mission Viejo city councilman and chairman of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA). He recently wrote an article in which he claims many great benefits will be obtained by extending the 241 toll road south to I-5. It is too bad most of his so-called facts are, at best, half-truths. Specifically, the claims of traffic relief, creating an alternative to the I-5 in case of emergencies and environmental benefits are quite suspect. He is also ignoring the real need, which is east-west connectors to the I-5 from southeastern Orange County.
The plan proposed by MacLean and the TCA is to extend the 241 from its current ending point near Oso Parkway to intersect the I-5 just north of the San Onfore nuclear power plant. If the proposed route is built, then there will be a connection from northern San Diego County to the CA91 adjacent to Riverside County. One has to ask, how many people want to get from Riverside County to San Diego County or visa-versa at peak rush-hour periods? Not very many, I suspect. The vast majority of traffic demand from south Orange County is to and from places served by the existing I-5 and I-405 freeways. Extending the 241 will do very little to relieve the congestion that already exists on the southern sections of the I-5, primarily because it does not go where most people want to drive.
A large new housing development is being planned on some of the land owned by Rancho Mission Viejo Companies. This area is near the existing CA-74 (Ortega Highway) route and is located 4 to 8 miles east of I-5. The 241 extension would pass near this development, but unless the residents want to drive 15 miles out of their way by going south on the 241 to the I-5 and then north on the I-5, they will have little use for the 241. Going north on the 241 will lead them to far-eastern Orange County destinations and then to CA-91. While there is a small amount of demand for this route from south OC, it is hardly enough to justify the extension of the 241. Thus, the 241 extension offers little or no congestion relief to the I-5.
Let's look at the claim that the extension of the 241 toll road would be an alternative to the I-5 in case of an emergency that caused the closure of I-5. If you have driven south on the I-5 to San Diego, you might have noticed that the I-5 is the only north-south road past San Clemente. This is because the Camp Pendleton Marine Base lies between San Clemente and San Diego. No public-access roads exist through the Marine Base except I-5. Further, if one speculates about large-scale emergencies such as earthquakes and other natural disasters, it is easy to see that if any section of the I-5 was to be closed, it is most likely that near San Onfore or further south where I-5 is very near the ocean (think tsunamis). Since the 241 is proposed to intersect the I-5 north of the critical area, it would be of little use to residents seeking to leave the area going to San Diego. It would be of more use for people fleeing northeast, but there are a multitude of other routes that direction. So, the claim by MacLean and the TCA that the 241 would be critical in an emergency is likely false.
Finally, the TCA and MacLean claim that the 241 would be sensitive to environmental concerns. Unfortunately for them, the locals know better. No matter what claims the TCA or MacLean makes, it is very difficult to believe their premise that the State Park and Trestles would be better off with the tollway extension than without the extension. “Mistakes” would be made, unplanned or unforeseen circumstances would require more grading or cause more runoff, and then profuse “apologies” would be offered by the TCA staff. However, the damage would be done and, once the road construction started, there would be no turning back, even if massive damage was the “unfortunate” result. I believe that the TCA and MacLean know that such damage is likely, and they are simply trying to mislead the public by pretending to be “concerned about the environment.”
In fact, the California Coastal Commission and the State Department of Parks both have gone on record as opposing the specific plan outlined by MacLean and the TCA, citing great damage to one of Southern California's premier parks and Trestles, a place that is known to surfers throughout the world. Also, the State of California has told the TCA that it must follow all of the rules that other private agencies must follow with respect to environmental issues – rules the TCA ignored in planning the 241 extension.
As mentioned above, the real need is to get residents of the new eastern and southern Orange County housing developments to the I-5 quickly and safely and then to expand the I-5, especially in southern Orange County. If the TCA really wanted to do something useful, it could connect the 241 to the I-5 at or near the CA73-I5 interchange. This would involve expanding the east-west capacity that would serve Ladera Ranch and Rancho Mission Viejo and could actually reduce congestion on the I-5 by allowing a direct interchange to the CA73, which parallels the I-5 for those going to LA or coastal Orange County. Even better would be a free extension of the CA73 to Antonio Parkway and Ortega Highway.
So why would the TCA want to extend the 241 if it will not provide any real benefits to Orange County residents? One word. MONEY. If the TCA builds this extension, they are going to try and leverage the agreement that Caltrans foolishly signed in 1993, which forces Caltrans to discourage new freeways and roads or expansion of existing freeways and roads if that would reduce tollway revenues by making it easier for drivers to take free roads. Essentially, this agreement forces taxpayers to pay the TCA if we want to improve any road near the toll road. This is what happened with the CA91 toll lanes. Caltrans and OCTA were prohibited from expanding the free road capacity on CA-91 that ran next to the toll lanes. So, the free lanes became more and more congested until they were at a virtual standstill. Outraged motorists then demanded relief, and OCTA finally had to buy the toll lanes for $200 million. This gave the toll road investors a $100-million profit and is exactly what the TCA wants here. The TCA and MacLean want a similar setup so that the taxpayers will be forced to buy the 241 just to relieve intolerable congestion on the I-5. They will get rich on the backs of the rest of the county, and we will have to suffer congestion on the I-5 because they are simply greedy.
You can make a difference by letting Caltrans, the OCTA and your city council know that you oppose the 241 extension to San Onfore. We will be writing more on this matter in upcoming issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CUSD Audit is Complete
The Mission Viejo council-directed audit of the three tax funds we pay to Capistrano Unified School District is complete. The results confirm Mission Viejo taxpayers are the CASH COW of CUSD. Based on a review of the past four years, Mission Viejo residents paid 30 percent in taxes to CUSD and received only 10 percent back into our schools.
Millions of dollars paid by our taxpayers were diverted to schools in other cities and the administration building in San Juan Capistrano. We need to demand CUSD immediately use the balance to modernize our Mission Viejo CUSD schools, most of which are more than 25 years old.
More information will follow with suggestion of what CUSD constituents can do to resolve ongoing problems.
For now, please save the date: Monday, November 5, 7:00 p.m., to attend the CUSD board meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CUSD update, Oct. 17
The room was packed for the Mon., Oct. 15, CUSD board meeting. Some in the audience anticipated – or hoped – the old-guard board members (Sheila Benecke, Marlene Draper, Mike Darnold and Duane Stiff) were ready to resign. Allegedly, Trustee Stiff made remarks during the special meeting on Sat., Oct. 13, about accepting responsibility for Brown Act violations, which the D.A. said occurred in 2005-2006. The Oct. 13 meeting wasn’t taped, and no one has verified an exact quote.
Benecke and Darnold didn’t attend the meeting on Monday, likely to avoid public reaction over the DA’s recent findings. A longtime activist who attended the meeting said, “Benecke and Darnold looked bad for not attending. Quite a few students were in the audience, and it makes a bad impression when adults don’t show up for work because things aren’t going their way.”
A big difference in meetings lately is that no one is at the public microphone praising the old trustees or defending what they’ve done. As another difference, teachers are speaking up about budget cuts affecting their classrooms.
Following is a sampling of public comments from Oct. 15 – excerpts of speeches from the public microphone. Most of those speaking said the old trustees should resign, given the D.A.’s statement the four holdover trustees could either admit Brown Act violations or face prosecution.
- The speaker was surprised the special meeting on Sat., Oct. 13, wasn’t recorded, particularly after the DA’s findings were announced the previous week. She added that the effort to recall Benecke and Draper would succeed.
- A parent said, “You have taken ‘trust’ out of the word ‘trustee.’”
- The speaker described the training the trustees had previously received – they were informed if not experts on the Brown Act. He said Benecke, Darnold and Draper should resign, adding, “You are no longer fit to serve.” He acknowledged Stiff was above the others by admitting his errors.
- A parent described the new high school and credited the football coach, football team, parents, students and others for getting the school off to a good start. All football games at the new high school are “away games” this season, as work on the field isn’t complete.
- “The trouble at CUSD stems from the abuse of power. The public will work hard to uncover what you worked so hard to cover up.”
- I am trying to right the wrongs at CUSD.” The speaker added if righting the wrongs causes her to be called a critic, she would wear the title with honor.
- Several speakers, including two teachers, described overcrowded classrooms. Their pleas for help moved the audience if not the board members, and one teacher received a standing ovation.
- A speaker said to the old trustees, “Step down. Let us pick up the pieces.”
- A parent with children in elementary school described the rundown condition of the school, and he talked about making the right choices.
- A speaker complimented the new interim superintendent, Woodrow Carter, on creating subcommittees based on participation. He compared Carter’s style with former Supt. James Fleming’s “dictatorship and breaking laws galore.”
- The final speaker commented favorably about Carter’s subcommittees and then turned to Trustee Draper, saying, “I read in the grand jury transcripts that you said your head can only grasp so much. Can your head grasp the Brown Act? Can you grasp what constituents are saying?”
The extravagance, overspending and cover-up of expenses on the $52-million administration center loom large as parents, teachers and students in growing numbers speak out about what’s missing in their schools and classrooms, including the opportunity to learn. While Fleming and his old-guard trustees spent a fortune on an administration building, the impact of the latest budget cuts is hitting hard in classrooms at every level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reader Responses
Let voters decide on a dog park
Can't we put up for city election the idea of a dog park? If voted in, then proceed. I personally would love one so we have a place to take our dogs in a safe environment. After all, aren't they part of our family?
Christi Valley
Dog park formula – keep it simple
I am all for a dog park. It would nice to see my tax money go to something I can use (I don't have any school-age kids). But $1 million for one??? Wow, why so much??? Does the price include the land value? If so, this is going to be one tiny dog park!!! Perhaps the city is bidding it high so they'll have an excuse not to build it. All we need is: 1) A couple acres of grass (redwood bark is terrible on paws). 2) A nice fence (no chain-link) with a separate area for small dogs. 3) A double-gate. 4) A two-level water fountain (for two- and four-legged drinkers). 5) Some trees along the perimeter for shade. 6) Adequate parking. 7. Some benches for people to sit on. That's it. We're not talking Golden Gate Park here
Mitch Kronowit
Don’t sell out on health
It appears to most informed people that Jim Bentley, a Mission Viejo homeowner, is willing to sell his and his neighbors’ health for a few pieces of eight. Cell towers are not only a blight on the neighborhood but a long-team health issue for all exposed.
Jack Still
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Buzz column, Oct. 17
The new Target store at Los Alisos and Jeronimo is open for business. Several residents commented about Steadfast’s not-a-housing-project adjacent to Target. A blog reader said, “The grading equipment parked on Steadfast’s vacant lot reminds me of another interrupted project, the stealth grading operation on Lower Curtis Park in 2003.” Activists succeeded in halting the city’s unauthorized work to keep a city contractor busy while running up bills of more than $200,000. After the project was stopped, the contractor stored his idle equipment in the recreation zone for months. Residents challenged the right of a contractor to set up its own heavy-equipment parking lot in a city recreation zone. The Steadfast lot isn’t a city park, but it’s an eyesore to neighbors above the property or anyone who shops at Target.
A blog reader commented about the city’s disaster plan, which continues to be a well-kept secret: “Here’s the city’s emergency plan. Since the city hasn’t told anyone, I will help you out. Plan A is to hole up in your home – you will need food and water. Plan B is to run for your life – wear sensible shoes.” The blog’s request to the city still stands: residents would like to see the city’s emergency plan published in the City Outlook news letter.
In the event that “leftover” trustees from the Fleming era resign before the next election, who should replace them? The person who started the original recall effort in 2005 is frequently mentioned, Kevin Murphy of San Juan Capistrano. Those closely following developments in the Capo school district aren’t entirely optimistic about the leftovers resigning, particularly Marlene Draper. A district insider predicts Draper will try to hold on until November 2008 so she can qualify for public retirement benefits. Meanwhile, Draper apparently can afford to buy earplugs.
Some parents and others who have criticized CUSD from the public microphone during board meetings complained the sound was turned down when they started making critical remarks. This isn’t paranoia, as members of the audience noticed as well. One of the parents checked with her attorney, who said such shenanigans as turning down the volume of the public microphone interfered with citizens’ right to speak. Blog readers who think these stories sound crazy should attend a CUSD board meeting.
According to the editor of the Capistrano Dispatch, CUSD Trustee Duane Stiff said the DA’s findings are correct – the old-guard trustees violated the Brown Act. Stiff said he didn’t think anyone intentionally broke the law, as they were “relying on the advice of former district staff members.” Would that be former administrators James Fleming and David DO-me (Doomey)? With the number of political officials now distancing themselves from the old-guard trustees, some residents are wondering if Fleming and former administrator Susan McGill have been talking about their former buddies on the school board, who voted against paying their legal bills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
