Citizen’s Voter Initiative is Alive and Well
Editorial staff

Front-page headlines of the March 7 Saddleback Valley News read, “Right-To-Vote Initiative Dies.” Such an initiative would have called for a vote of the people to make decisions on zone changes. The article was about a proposed council-created initiative.

Until recently, only one initiative was being discussed – the one written by community activist Dale Tyler. And then (for a short time) there were two. Councilwoman Gail Reavis put a voter initiative on the March 3 council agenda, but hers included only recreational and open space, and even those categories had exclusions. The initiative Reavis proposed died for lack of a second at the March 3 council meeting. Meanwhile, Tyler’s initiative is alive and well.

Residents who watched the March 3 council meeting should have noticed that at least three council members are now working with the developer. Councilmen Lance MacLean and Frank Ury appeared to be pro-developer all along, and both have accepted donations from Sunrise’s PR agent, Roger Faubel. During the March 3 council meeting, Ury announced from the dais that a majority on the council is now “working with Sunrise.” Alarms should be going off for anyone who cares about saving the golf course. Ury summarized his comments: “You either trust us or you don’t.”

Good thing residents still have a choice on that one.

Council members are apparently continuing to meet separately with Sunrise, as Ury alluded to his recent meeting with the developer. Kelley is still insisting “there’s no proposal in front of the council.” However, when all five council members have met individually with the developer, it’s a matter of terminology.

After Reavis’ motion failed to get a second, she challenged Ury’s remark that things are going well for those who want to keep the golf course. She said Sunrise stated in its early plans that it would move the current clubhouse over to Marguerite Parkway. Also in the plans are 300 residential units in a three-story complex. When Reavis saw that something was missing from the developer’s resulting layout, she quoted Sunrise as saying that the 18-hole golf course “wasn’t financially viable.” She said of Sunrise’s new claim that an 18-hole golf course is back in the plans, “They’ll say anything.”

One of the problems Ury has when he’s saying “trust us” is that two entirely different stories are coming from the council about the golf course. The only consistent message is the developer’s plan to build a 300-unit assisted-living complex at the south end of the property.

For anyone who thinks the golf course will be preserved, here’s information that might shed light. Definition of a developer according to Webster’s: a person who invests in and develops the urban or suburban potentialities of real estate, especially by subdividing the land into home sites and then building houses and selling them.

Does anyone believe Sunrise is not a developer but, instead, a benevolent protector of recreational opportunities for the public? A developer who buys 60-plus acres of prime real estate in the heart of Mission Viejo is either going to build housing on it or carve it up and resell it to other developers who will build housing on it. Residents living in adjacent HOAs have stated they expect the developer to divide up the golf course after getting the entire parcel rezoned for high-density residential. The speed at which the golf course shrinks from 18 holes to zero is anyone’s guess.

Residents should not be duped into believing the developer or trusting the council. The only way to stop housing from replacing the golf course is for residents to take away the council’s power to rezone the property. Dale Tyler’s voter initiative is currently undergoing legal review, and he will next deliver it to city hall. Watch for updates on this blog about the signature-gathering phase.

Two School Trustees Should Step Down

A group of parents gathered enough valid signatures to trigger a recall election in Capistrano Unified School District. The parents are to be commended for their effort, as the district is nearly bankrupt after years of poor management and deficit spending.

At the March 10 CUSD board meeting, President Mike Darnold argued against the recall, stating CUSD facilities are “second to none.” Parents of students in overcrowded, deteriorating classrooms are right to disagree. The recall election will be held in June or July, and it can’t come soon enough when the board majority throws away millions of dollars every month but fails to address basic needs.

Only two trustees, Marlene Draper and Sheila Benecke, are targets of the recall. Removing them from office will put an end to the Fleming-era majority. They should be recalled before they have a chance to do more damage or approve another budget.

Connie Lee
Mission Viejo

CUSD Update, March 15
Editorial staff

On March 10, the Registrar of Voters announced results of an effort to qualify the recall election of two CUSD trustees, Sheila Benecke and Marlene Draper. A special recall election will be held this summer, sometime between June 20 and July 22. Only two of the four old-guard trustees are targeted, but their removal would end the Fleming-era majority on the school board.

After CUSD board President Mike Darnold went on a six-minute rant during the March 10 board meeting, some parents said he should have been recalled along with Benecke and Draper. Darnold seemed to be responding to news about the recall when he read a prepared statement.

Darnold’s tirade can be found on the Capistrano Dispatch Website. Go to http://thecapistranodispatch.com and access an article under Latest Headlines: “Trustees Battle During Meeting.” Darnold read his statement after several parents from the recall group spoke at the public microphone. One speaker announced the successful signature count, and another reported that the District Attorney had found another Brown Act violation when four old-guard trustees approved certain expenses at the new high school in San Juan Capistrano. The board took corrective steps after the initial accusation of the violation.

Darnold began by stating he would rather “pray for his detractors than confront them.” But he next blamed everyone else (particularly the three new trustees) for CUSD’s many woes. Some people said the attack sounded like words Benecke or Draper would write. Darnold said those people wanting reform are destroying the school district, and newspaper reporters have piled on.

It seems all those news articles – the Grand Jury indictment of two former administrators, the old guard’s Brown Act violations, revelations of Enemies Lists and landslide defeats of Fleming-era trustees in November 2006 – are pretty bothersome in a district that only likes to publish happy press releases and good news.

Darnold mentioned the good old days when former Supt. James Fleming was still around, leading the trustees in harmonious 7-0 votes. If those pesky new reform trustees and a “handful” of parents hadn’t spoiled everything, Camelot could have continued.

The board room was packed for the meeting. The recall results may have attracted a few of them, but most came to learn how CUSD would proceed with deep cuts to the budget. In keeping with CUSD tradition, a lengthy awards ceremony was staged at the beginning of a long night of controversial agenda items. Two musical performances by students were added to the mix, further delaying the beginning of the business meeting.

With regard to CUSD’s financial problems, some Mission Viejo residents have commented that the old-guard majority approved cuts causing the most pain. The effects go well beyond a highly negative impact on children, as many teachers will lose their jobs. With the reduction of bus routes, more parents will face driving their children to school, and more teenagers will be driving. Streets will be more crowded, and the traffic around schools will spill over into neighborhoods. The decline of public education affects everyone eventually, but the immediately impact of the budget cuts will also be widespread.

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.

The Buzz

The newest story from Sunrise, the developer with an interest in building an assisted-living complex on the Casta del Sol golf course: “We’ll preserve the 18-hole golf course, but we’ll need to short it a bit.” Considering that the Casta course is an executive golf course (already shortened), how does one measure “a bit”? Will Sunrise next tout the benefits of miniature golf?

***

While homebuilding has tanked, apartments are very much in demand. Watch for activity regarding parcels the council has already rezoned for high-density residential use. Steadfast settled for a condo complex at Jeronimo and Los Alisos, but its background is in apartments, not homeownership. Steadfast’s original plan was an 800-unit apartment project with 100 percent of the units designated as affordable housing. Among Steadfast’s biggest advocates in Mission Viejo are all five members of the city council.

***

Mission Viejo residents who are concerned about saving the Casta del Sol golf course should note parallels between Sunrise and Steadfast. Prior to Steadfast’s official presentation of its housing project next to the Unisys property, council members made such statements as “There’s no proposal on the table,” and “We have no official proposal to consider.” When Steadfast finally made its official pitch at a council meeting, the council’s approval was swift and unanimous. A petition signed by approximately 3,000 people who objected to rezoning was completely ignored – no council member even looked at it.

***

A blog reader mused, “With all those condos and affordable units on hold in Mission Viejo, where has everyone gone to find a home? Somehow, everyone seems to find a place to live without the help of the council rezoning more commercial property or open space for housing.”

***

A Capo High School student’s lawsuit is moving forward against a history teacher who made derogatory remarks about religion. A blog reader reacted: “As a college student, I heard many teachers slam Christianity. They went out of their way and subject matter of the class to criticize religious beliefs, and the practice is trickling down to K-12 schools. Teachers should keep their religious slams and their personal politics out of the classroom.”