More Spin on the 241 Extension
by Dale Tyler

The flaks for the proposed 241 toll-road extension are getting into “fast spin” mode with the Coastal Commission decision on the future of the 241 coming soon. When we see quotes from the likes of Lance MacLean and Donna Varner praising the great works of the TCA and their wonderful humanitarian record, I expect the next paragraph to claim driving the toll road will cure cancer or feed the homeless. The problem is that all of the so-called “facts” presented by MacLean and Varner are biased to support the TCA's plans and contain very little real information

First, some real facts. The TCA is proposing to extend the 241 toll road from its current termination at Oso Parkway east of Mission Viejo to meet the I-5 at the far north end of Camp Pendleton, near San Onofre State Park. The TCA has an non-compete agreement with the Orange County Transportation Agency (OCTA) that will either prevent development of roads that would take traffic away from the toll road or force OCTA to pay TCA money to cover TCA “losses.” This agreement likely would affect increasing the number of lanes of the I-5.

It would be reasonable to ask if this is the best way to solve the transportation problems in south Orange County. I maintain that it is not, at least as currently planned. For the sake of discussion, let's divide the 241 extension into two parts, the first (north) part being the section from Oso to near Ortega (CA-74), and the second (south) part running south from Ortega to the I-5 near San Onofre State Beach. In order to serve the transportation needs of the new communities in southeastern Orange County like Lardra, Rancho Mission Viejo and the eastern parts of San Clemente, we need to consider where these people are likely to want to go when they leave their houses.

Let's consider a hypothetical resident of the yet-to-be-built Rancho Mission Viejo. Are they more likely to work in: a) Irvine and north, b) Riverside, or c) San Diego County? If you think that the answer is a, you would be right. These people will mostly want to get on I-5 going north. A few will want to go to Lake Forest or on to the CA-55. A much smaller number will want to go south to San Diego, because of the much greater distance required to get past Camp Pendleton. Yet, the TCA wants to build the south part of the 241 to the I-5, ignoring the fact that most drivers will want to go north, either on the I-5 or the 241.

The north section from CA-74 to Oso has a clear right-of-way and would be a useful addition to Orange County's transportation needs, along with the proposed Cow Camp Road extension that would intersect CA-74 and the 241 and carry traffic west to meet the I-5 at the I-5/CA73 junction south of Avery Parkway. The Cow Camp extension is what will really make the difference, as at present Ladera and Rancho Mission Viejo traffic will have to flow up Antonio to Crown Valley and then on to I-5, which is clearly unworkable. Or the traffic will flow on CA-74 to I-5, requiring massive widening, from four to six extra lanes and complete reconstruction of the interchange at CA-74/Ortega. One problem with the Cow Camp plan is the route it would take through south Ladera, but we will see if residents there are willing to take their fair share of the traffic, like they have forced residents of Mission Viejo to do for so long.

The traffic problems in eastern San Clemente are the same as for Rancho Mission Viejo. Most of these people want to go north, not south, and they need to get to the I-5. Widening of the east-west connector roads and improving interchanges will be the key in that area. Also, La Pata is planned to be extended to CA-74 north and could intersect with the Cow Camp Road and then route traffic to I-5 or 241 as an alternate route.

The south section of the 241 is the controversial part and will carry very little traffic. How many people will want to use the 241 to get from San Diego County to Riverside? If the real traffic need is for flow north, then why is the TCA proposing building the southern section of the 241 extension? The answer is simple: money and power. If the 241 does not connect to I-5, the TCA apparently believes that traffic and tolls will be much lower, despite common sense evidence to the contrary. The TCA staff members probably also think they gain more prestige by having a road that connects two other major highways, I-5 and CA-55. In fact, considering the extra costs of building the southern section that will get little use, they are probably endangering their bond holders by adding the southern section. One possible answer to this is the ability to force the I-5 to remain congested by invoking the non-compete agreement with OCTA. In this way, traffic on I-5 will be so bad that the TCA hopes people will bypass the I-5 and take their toll road instead. Once again, this shows the TCA staff and shills do not care about transportation, but merely about the profits from their toll road.

We don't need the 241 to be extended past CA-74. You can call the Coastal Commission at 562/590-5071 to express your concerns before the February 6 meetings. Tell them you support more highways, if they will really solve transportation problems, but that this one is not needed. You can also email the Mission Viejo City Council at cityadmin@cityofmissionviejo.org to tell them that Lance MacLean is not representing your views on this matter and for him to be removed as TCA representative for Mission Viejo.

Commission Reviews Dog Park Issue
by Mitch Kronowit

I went to the Mission Viejo Community Services Commission meeting on January 15, where the "Dog Park" was discussed again. Approximately 15 residents stood at the podium and spoke to the Commission.

ALL were in favor of a dog park, and many points were raised:

1. 1.A dog park is also a place for residents to socialize.
2. The noise from most existing dog parks is far less than most sporting events (softball, soccer, etc.).
3. Most dog parks close after dark, so nobody's sleep is going to be disturbed.
4. A dog's good health and social behavior are dependent on proper exercise -exercise that can often only be achieved by letting the dog run free since a short walk around the block at a human pace is hardly adequate for most active dogs.
5. A dog park would positively impact all property values, as the facility would be considered a featured amenity to living in Mission Viejo.
6. Numerous calls to Animal Control reporting unleashed dogs in local parks
   indicate the demand for a dog park exists.
7. Ladera Ranch's Dog Park is a model to emulate and rarely has any of the
   problems highlighted by dog park opponents in Mission Viejo.
8. Not all homeowners have children, yet they all pay taxes for local schools and would like a dog park to serve their needs.
9. Building a dog park was No. 3 (after traffic and congestion) in the city's 2006 survey of community opinion.

There was also a small group of 10 or so who were specifically against the Animal Shelter location. Reasons for this were mainly lack of parking, too small an area, and its negative impact on shelter operations. Although not directly addressed, the Animal Shelter is also located too far south in the city to satisfy the "centrally located" criteria. The Commission voted unanimously (7 to 0) to remove the Animal Shelter as a proposed location.

Another vote was taken on the motion to reconvene the ad hoc Dog Park Committee and investigate the possibility of creating multiple "mini" dog parks throughout the city (thereby wasting more time). These would be smaller parks and serve the nearby neighborhoods. But Chairperson Ronald Ruef and Recreation and Community Services Director Kelly Doyle discussed the elevated cost of multiple parks, creating parking problems where none exist now, and the fact that all other cities have built one central dog park. The motion was defeated 4 to 3.

Finally, and most importantly, the Commission voted 4 to 3 to recommend the construction of a dog park at Oso Viejo to the City Council. Only one speaker opposed the Oso Viejo location, but he at least proposed another area, the city maintenance lot behind Curtis Park on La Paz. However, Mr. Doyle rejected the proposal saying the area is neither graded nor safe for public use and developing the site would cost millions (plural).

Reader Response: Crown Valley Parkway Widening Project

A blog reader responded about the Crown Valley Parkway widening project by sending the link and comment below. Check out the renderings: “existing” and “proposed.” Residents who are familiar with the usual traffic jam on Crown Valley should be amused with the city’s portrayal of this street.

http://www.crownvalleyparkway.com/

Reader comment: “When is there ever that little traffic on Crown Valley? Maybe early Sunday morning when the mall isn't open? It's not a very realistic view. But, then, reality has never been the city council's strong suit. Do they really believe that adding one lane is going to make a significant impact? Adding extra turn lanes into the mall is nice, but it's not going to help the through-traffic, which will be an ongoing and growing problem.”

CUSD Update – Reform is an Uphill Battle
Editorial staff

A poem surfaced last week, written by the husband of an old-guard CUSD trustee about parents wanting reform. A Capo parent commented, “I saw the original of this poem, which according to the notation (and the fax ID), was written by former CUSD Trustee Shelia Henness' husband when she was still on the Board. If this poem is any indication of the contempt with which we parents are regarded by the old-guard trustees, is it any wonder that reform is such an uphill battle? 

“The handwritten note on the bottom by Henness to then-superintendent James Fleming says:  ‘Jim, I just had to share the poetry that Bruce wrote following last night's meeting." Fleming's handwritten response followed: "Sheila, Phenomenal! What a talent. JF’" 

Rubber stamp they all whisper
Under their breath
What they want to see
Is a fight to the death

They scream and they yell
Their teeth they do bare
“It’s all for the kids”
But they don’t care

The Board Room is full
No room in the back
The Boundaries are drawn
The NIMBY’s attack!

(Alternate)
They scream and they yell
The fires get fanned
“It’s all for the kids”
They just don’t understand

They froth at the mouth
“You must do our bidding!”
Plays well with others?
You must be kidding?

They hoot and holler
And pitch a fit
The children are frightened
They don’t give a sh**

They raise a ruckus
Deliver their zinger
These people should be
On Jerry Springer

An FBI hint
Ment to cast a pall
Lackey is skinned
And hung on the wall

But wait, he’s back!
What an absolute flake
Have we ever considered
A wooden stake?

What these people want
Is as clear as glass
They just want to be
A pain in the ass!

“We’re here for the students”
They spout with great glee
But we know what they’re saying
“IT’S ALL ABOUT ME!!!!”

Hard to believe, but the report about Henness’s poem and Fleming’s comment is authentic.

Challenger Ellen Addonizio of Mission Viejo defeated incumbent Trustee Henness by a wide margin in November 2006. Addonizio received 59 percent (46,180 votes) while Henness received 41 percent (32,129 votes).

CUSD Update
Editorial staff

Have Capo school board majority members violated the Brown Act so often it’s become a habit? A news story in the Jan. 19 OC Register [“CUSD will ask board to rescind project vote,” Local, page 9] confirms that district officials are recommending the school board meet this week to undo a controversial vote. The board is facing claims that it took action on items in a way that avoided official public notice.

The first public statement after the controversial vote came from the Recall Committee, which currently is leading an effort to recall two CUSD Trustees, Sheila Benecke and Marlene Draper.

Last October, the Orange County District Attorney found that the Fleming-era Trustees (Sheila Benecke, Marlene Draper, Mike Darnold and Duane Stiff) had repeatedly and systematically violated the state’s open meetings law (the Brown Act) by illegally conducting the public’s business behind closed doors. To avoid civil prosecution, all four admitted they had violated the law and promised not to do so again.

Astonishingly, less than two months later, the Fleming-era Trustees broke their promise and violated the Brown Act again by providing improper notice of important agenda items involving proposed expenditures of millions of taxpayer dollars on highly controversial projects. In this way, they excluded the public from the democratic process, again.

In response to this continuing disregard of the law, the Recall Committee has filed a formal complaint with the school district, demanding, among other things, the immediate resignations of Trustees Sheila Benecke and Marlene Draper, who are currently under petition for recall.

The three reform-minded trustees who won seats in the November 2006 election issued a response, which was included in the Recall Committee’s press release:

In an unprecedented development, Trustees Ellen Addonizio, Anna Bryson and Larry Christensen (the “ABC Reform Trustees”) issued a joint statement that reads, in part, "By the issuance of this public statement, we add our names to the long list of elected officials who have called for the immediate resignations of Trustees Sheila Benecke and Marlene Draper."

The board will meet Jan. 23 to rescind the vote on construction projects for the new high school, San Juan Hills High School, in San Juan Capistrano.

The Recall Committee also issued a reminder that is the last week to sign petitions to recall Benecke and Draper. Those circulating petitions have been working at storefronts throughout the district.

The Buzz column

Who will become the next Sheriff of Orange County? Mission Viejo resident Jack Anderson became Interim Sheriff on Jan. 14 – the day Mike Carona resigned. Anderson will serve until county supervisors select a permanent sheriff. A Mission Viejo activist commented, “I think Jack’s chances of getting the permanent job will improve if he’s in the interim position long enough.” As another scenario, the battle to find a replacement could be so contentious and drawn out, Anderson essentially is the replacement.

***

Bloggers and others around the county credit (or blame) watchdog Shirley Grindle for speeding up Carona’s resignation. She pressed the issue of whether he could receive free legal help while in office or if it constituted a gift (that legally cannot exceed $396). The topic motivated a reader of this blog to comment: “Why not question the pro bono media consulting and PR advice Carona received after he was indicted? I don’t see a difference between lawyers’ fees and other professional consultants’ fees.”

***

An OC Register columnist observed: “Sheriff Mike Carona didn’t just resign a few months too late … he resigned one election too late.”

***

Councilman John Paul Ledesma on Jan. 17 announced he’s closing his campaign as a candidate for the 71st Assembly seat of Todd Spitzer, who is terming out this year. Ledesma was elected to the Mission Viejo City Council in 1998, and he won additional four-year terms in 2002 and 2006. John Paul and his wife Sarah are expecting their first child in May.

***

A group of Capistrano school district constituents received word last week of an appellate court decision. The group had filed suit following the failed 2005 effort to recall all seven CUSD trustees. As part of their complaint, they said Registrar of Voters employees instructed petition circulators that they could fill in some of the addresses of those signing seven petitions. The ROV reversed its position by disqualifying such signatures in the official count. The appellate court cited state law stating those who sign a recall petition must also fill in their address. Constituents who initiated the appeal could take it to a higher court, but the outcome wouldn’t be timely regarding CUSD holdover trustees. All four remaining Fleming-era trustees will likely be gone after the November 2008 election – probably long before the court case would play out. Dealing with questionable acts of Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley is a whole other story.

***

City activist Brad Morton’s blog, http://missionviejodispatch.com, identified Mission Viejo council members who have been attending lobbyists’ parties. Councilmembers Frank Ury, Lance MacLean and Gail Reavis attended Roger Faubel’s holiday party. Faubel is handling the PR effort for Sunrise, the developer proposing a high-density housing development on the Casta del Sol golf course. Campaign finance records reveal Councilmembers Ury, MacLean, Reavis and Trish Kelley have accepted campaign donations from Faubel. Ury also attended a party hosted by Curt Pringle, a politician/lobbyist who pushed the high-density housing project on east Los Alisos in Mission Viejo. A Mission Viejo resident reacted: “I can’t remember a time when council members accepted campaign donations from developers without voting for their projects. Council members are selling their votes”

***