Reader Comments, March 16, 2008

Colin Brake: Must admit, I was opposed to the new sign at La Paz crossroads based on the distraction factor and its need to be replaced. However, I was wrong. It has improved the crossroads considerably, and the announcements are easier to read. Plus, it comes on all at once, not rolling titles as expected. The brickwork around the sign is far superior, too, and adds a much better appearance to the area, including the gardenlike appearance. Perhaps making the wording a little larger might be in order (or maybe I need stronger eyeglasses!). It was the right move as far as I am concerned.

Publisher’s response: Thanks for following up on this item, which was much debated. Unfortunately, I don't share your opinion of the new sign. When I went out to observe the operation of the sign, I noticed people looking at the sign instead of paying attention to their driving. A few people even slowed down to read it. Some drivers applied their brakes briefly when the sign changed, perhaps indicating that they needed time to read the new message or that they detected movement in their peripheral vision. Finally, the sign was a waste of taxpayer dollars and not supported by a majority of the community. It was always very far down the list of so-called survey results of community needs. I see this as a new toy for staff that made that intersection uglier and more garish. As they say, "your mileage may vary."

***

Carl Schulthess: [Re: the new high school in San Juan Capistrano] Capistrano Unified School District should move the few students to existing high schools and turn the campus into an Incubator for High Tech business start-ups. The Rents High Tech should help with their budget problems, and the jobs created will help the local economy, not to mention a place for the graduates to work.

***

Henry Robert Wolfe: Very much interested in matters of health, I would appreciate evidence of EMF harm. What levels? Specifically, what bad effects? How to deal with them?

***

Joyce Saltzgiver: Regarding the Casta del Sol golf course and Sunrise, what I said was we are willing to listen to Sunrise. It's better to keep an open mind and open communication, that way we know what is being done and not done. I'm sorry you don't understand business dealing. Remember the old saying, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”  I'm not saying Sunrise is our enemy, but it is better to keep an open communication with everyone involved. You are also wrong about what happened at the City Council meeting on Monday evening [March 3]. Mayor Kelley did say without a quorum the meeting could not go on. When the meeting was called back to order, she didn't know if Councilwoman Gail Reavis was coming back. The city clerk had to go out to look for her and came back and said she was gone.

Publisher’s response: It is good to hear other views on the Casta del Sol golf course issue. I think that my objection to listening to Sunrise is based on what has happened at other sites throughout the city. Developers attempt to play on the natural tendency of people to "get along" to attain a compromise. The trick is that by first offering a very large project, then pretending to listen to neighbors, then proposing a smaller or less objectionable project (which is probably what the developer wanted to build anyway), the project is approved. However, the final project would never been accepted if it was proposed initially. That is what is happening here. What I think the people want is the status quo, keeping the existing 18-hole golf course in its current form. All of the "goodies" offered by Sunrise are designed to divide the opposition and allow Sunrise to build its project. Keeping open communication is often a good idea, but it gives the impression that one is in partial agreement with the developer. To guard against this impression, one must constantly and forcefully assert that none of the developer's proposals are acceptable. I don't see that happening here, and we are being divided by Sunrise, to our great disadvantage.

I viewed the video of the March 3, 2008, City Council meeting. I think the point being made was that there were only two council members seated at the dais after the recess. Thus, a quorum did not exist, and nothing should have happened that was part of the official record until a quorum existed. Ms. Kelly gave a Fire Authority report in violation of the rules. The City Attorney pointed out that no business could be conducted without a quorum. Kelley told Ury to proceed with his reports, even after the City Attorney told her otherwise. Only after the City Attorney told her "we are done" did she relent and reluctantly adjourn the meeting. I suggest that you look at the last five minutes of the video and see what actually transpired.

Ms. Kelly failed in her duty as chairperson of the meeting when she failed to make sure a legal quorum existed before resuming the meeting, by actually seeing that three people were seated at the dais. A mere impression that "someone is coming back" is not enough. The concept of a quorum is an important check on the operation of the City Council. Without at least three elected representatives present, there can be no approval, implied (as in reports) or explicit (as in votes) of any item being discussed. This approval is what makes the meeting official, as opposed to an informal gathering. It is also why the California Open Meeting law (Brown Act) prohibits a majority (quorum) of any elected body from gathering and discussing items outside a public meeting. A quorum is a very important concept indeed, something Ms. Kelly needs to become more aware of for future meetings.