Residents Unanimously Reject Sunrise
Staff editorial

The city contracted with True North Research in 2006 and 2008 to poll residents on “what people think” in Mission Viejo. True North phoned 400 residents and found that a surprisingly high number are practically ecstatic over how well the council is taking care of everything.

Those gathering signatures at storefronts for the Mission Viejo Right-To-Vote Initiative are talking each day with hundreds of residents. Storefront opinions reveal that residents are not ecstatic over the state of the city, and the Casta golf course is just one disturbing issue. Many people don’t like the direction the city is headed, and others merely say there’s room for improvement.

Here’s a rundown of the Top 10 findings at storefronts.

1. The city should drop the idea of putting housing on the Casta golf course.
2. Residents don’t feel that the council is representing their views.
3. The city should stop wasting money on superficial things.
4. Traffic congestion is getting worse.
5. The city is built out and homebuilding should end.
6. People are particularly annoyed by the three-year-long Crown Valley widening, cell towers near homes or in parks, and traffic/parking near schools.
7. Illegals along Los Alisos give an impression the city is declining.
8. The problem formerly was an attack from outsiders (e.g., the El Toro airport), and the enemy is now among us – council members selling out to developers.
9. The city is too focused on money-grabbing instead of preserving quality of life.
10. The city should cut back on spending instead of dipping into reserves.

As one unanimous opinion among residents, no one supports Sunrise or its vision of housing on the golf course. Some people say they live in gated communities because they don’t like the traffic or the unsavory element creeping in. The invasion of Sunrise now threatens gated communities – Casta del Sol, Finisterra on the Green and Cypress Point. Quite a few people say they’re ready to move elsewhere to find the type of serene, family-oriented community Mission Viejo used to be.

The most pleasant surprise to signature-gatherers was discovering how informed and savvy most Mission Viejo residents are. The residents get it. Because they can follow the money, they know why the council would foist such a bad idea as more housing on the community.

How did True North Research find so many ecstatic people in the same city in which petition-gatherers are hearing a different story? Signature gatherers didn’t use a push-poll, and residents talked about anything they wanted. The fact that so many residents want an initiative to change the decision-making process doesn’t bode well for council members trying to get reelected on what a great job they’re doing.

Residents signing the petition frequently ask which council members support housing on the golf course. Clearly, Ury and Lance MacLean do. With Sunrise posturing to bring its housing proposal to the council after the election, it indicates the developer’s belief a third vote is either leaning their way or lined up.

Toll Road Opponents Fight Back
by Robin Everett

The Sierra Club and our allies filed a lawsuit last week that alleges that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) violated the Endangered Species Act when they determined that the Foothill-South Toll Road is not likely to jeopardize any endangered species. The suit claims that the agencies’ decisions are severely flawed and biased and could open the door for an ecological disaster if the toll road were built.

The lawsuit charges that the agencies ignored or downplayed the threats the toll road poses to seven species, rather than relying on the best available science as required by law. The lawsuit also alleges that the FWS, in its Biological Opinion on the Toll Road, unlawfully relied upon the "voluntary, vague and untested mitigation measures" promised by the Transportation Corridor Agencies, and that NMFS failed even to prepare a Biological Opinion on the adverse impacts of the toll road on the endangered southern steelhead trout in San Mateo Creek – despite the substantial threats the toll road poses to that species.

The lawsuit notes that FWS, at TCA’s behest, selectively deleted scientifically damaging passages of the draft Biological Opinion. Furthermore, according to documents obtained by the Sierra Club and its allies through the Freedom of Information Act, the FWS also provided TCA, the project proponent, with an opportunity to review and comment on its draft Biological Opinion. TCA requested a number of specific excerpts be removed from the opinion pertaining to the Pacific pocket mouse and several other species, and FWS significantly revised the final opinion in response to these requests. TCA then used the final FWS Biological Opinion in its public relations materials to misleadingly proclaim that the toll road would not jeopardize any endangered species.

Will ‘Volunteers’ Build Float?
by Lisa De Paul-Snyder

It’s a good thing City Manager Dennis Wilberg and city employee Keith Rattay decided to augment the city staff performance reviews to include "volunteer time." As I recall, it will take hundreds of man-hours to build a float for the Rose Parade. I wonder how much Jamey Clark, Inc., charges for gluing poppy seeds and blue hydrangea petals? I hope the city doesn't get stuck paying Clark "emergency" rates when the city realizes it cannot compel staffers to volunteer to make the parade float. It was bad enough when Clark charged the city $72.50 an hour and took two whole hours to replace six Christmas decor twinkle light bulbs that had the temerity to go out during the week between Christmas and New Year's, last year.

PALs Update
by Julie Collier

Following is a review of the Aug. 11 CUSD board meeting.

Open comments: 1) Supt. Woodrow Carter discussed being a district that stops the slander and focuses on the students. He also explained that Trustee Bryson was stuck in an out-of-town conference and could not join by phone because it would violate the Brown Act (it wasn't planned in time). 2) A parent discussed that the district is keeping a database of parent volunteer fingerprinting based on their Social Security Numbers (SSN). He was concerned that a database at the district is a privacy issue that can lead to credit fraud (he referenced the students at Tesoro who hacked into the system). He asked that the district find another way of keeping track of parent volunteers (using the last four digits of SSN for example). I spoke with Julie Hatchel at the district. She explained that if you have your fingerprinting done at the Sheriff's Dept., they use your SSN. If you go to another Live Scan place, they only need your driver's license. The district will discuss Tuesday what other options they have and will have more information next week. Mrs. Hatchel assured me that they have the most secure computer system. 3) Three or four parents thanked Carter for doing a "wonderful job."

Board Votes:

#5 School start and dismissal times: Approved 6-0

#30 Employee Retirement/Employment: This item was discussed by Trustee Palazzo. She questioned why administrators who retired were hired back as consultants. It was explained by Sherine Smith and Supt. Carter that these people were hired back as consultants for principal coaching, modeled after a teacher training program called BTSA. They coach first- and second-year principals and meet one to two times a month with the new principals. It is paid for by BTSA and teacher block grant funds (categorical/limited funds). The consultants get paid $40 an hour, not to exceed 100 hours. (I am not sure what the difference is between a mentor program for one- and two-year principals and their roles as assistant principals prior to becoming a principal. If a PALs member knows the difference, please let me know and I will be happy to pass it along to the rest of PALs.) This item was approved 6-0.

#31 SJHHS Pipeline Risk Analysis: This was moved to the next Facilities Meeting. to occur before Aug. 25 (they will post when it will take place). The board is still concerned with the risk potential to students.

#32 Busing Negative Declaration: Supt. Carter explained it was the only choice the district was left with and will have to cut something else if busing is brought back. Parents spoke about the hardship they will incur if busing is cut. A mom stated that busing is not a luxury. One dad from San Clemente also wondered where high school students will go after school if not picked up or on a bus. He said it opens students to more danger. He suggested cutting funding elsewhere to pay for buses, raise prices of busing, and/or coordinate with public transportation. City reps from MV and RSM spoke against the negative declaration stating that the traffic study is insufficient and not CEQA compliant.

BOARD RESPONSE: Trustee Darnold suggested that principals at each school have a plan in place for next year to assist parents. Stiff said that there is no law that requires home-to-school transportation.  Christensen stated, "We cut this because we wanted to keep teachers." Bob with Ultra Systems (the consulting company hired by CUSD – check out the agenda to see how much the district has paid them) explained the Ushering Program they came up with. Teachers may get an extra duty with this program to usher students in/out of their cars. Older students at the high schools can volunteer for this program. Palazzo questioned the liability issues with the Ushering Program. She also asked Vicki Soderburg (teacher's union president) if she had heard of this program and if the teachers were aware of it. Soderburg's answer was, "I am not prepared to speak on it tonight." Maddox thinks all options have not been fully exhausted and wants staff to craft a solution by Aug. 25 (next board meeting.). The item was tabled until the next board meeting with a vote of 6-0.

On another note, the board meeting was definitely filled with people in the audience who had strong opinions. Some people felt it was okay to shout their opinions during the board meeting. It was quite disturbing for the rest of the audience who wanted to listen and made them feel very uncomfortable. Believe me, I know the level of frustration that can be felt, but shouting at elected officials during a meeting is inappropriate. I'm sure it wasn't PALs members doing the shouting despite a wide variety of opinions among PALs. Please feel free to spread the news that anybody and everybody is allowed to speak at board meetings. Speaking is not easy, but it is a great way to have the audience and board's full attention when informing them of your opinion. Last month, the board recently changed the rules so that you don't have to say or write down where you live and what school your children attend. People should know they are always allowed to voice their concerns in a respectful way at the board meetings. The only thing to remember is that they might limit the standard speaking time from three minutes, depending on the number of speakers.

I hope you are enjoying the last weeks of summer. The next board meeting in Aug. 25 at 7 p.m.. Following are articles to read. www.parentsadvocateleague.org

Busing Cutbacks Tabled By Capo School Board
Capistrano trustees postpone busing decision
Capo trustees hold unexpected review of superintendent
Santa Ana Unified to rehire 374 laid-off employees
See if Capo toilets are clogged
and more: school district database

The Buzz column

Easelgate update: activists are still waiting to see city documents following Lisa De Paul-Snyder’s Aug. 8 request for additional public records about who built 500 easels and how much they cost. While investigating the city’s easel fiasco, activists came upon information that city employees’ job evaluations now include required volunteer work on city events. Did this new requirement stem from city administrator Keith Rattay’s false claim that 150 “volunteers” donated more than 800 hours toward building easels? The city has 152.3 employees, so Rattay’s claim would be feasible – if only he’d thought of it before lying to a Saddleback Valley News reporter by stating his imaginary volunteers were scouts and church members. Contrary to Rattay’s claim about volunteers, city contractor Jamey Clark pocketed $45 an hour to build the easels.

***

City employees who will now be pressured into participating in city-funded nonsense are not “volunteers,” no matter what Rattay calls them. According to information bloggers learned, hourly employees will be paid overtime for their “volunteer” work, and any employees can be financially rewarded by getting raises via a good review for their forced “volunteer” work. As part of her Aug. 8 request for public records, De Paul-Snyder asked for information about the city’s new performance review requirements.

***

Is the city council paying attention to the city administrators’ attempt to hide expenses by paying overtime to city staffers who are forced to “volunteer”? What a coincidence, city administrators are implementing this practice just in time to build the city’s Rose Parade float. Rattay can now announce that the city’s new money pit, the float, has “volunteers,” and they just can’t wait to start racking up overtime. Is it any wonder community members (the rational ones) don’t want anything to do with Rattay’s dog and PHONY shows?

***

Again, city administrators can’t get their story straight. Activists have watched truckloads of soil, debris, broken concrete and asphalt piling up in Lower Curtis Park. City Manager Dennis Wilberg responded on Aug. 8 to Brad Morton’s question, saying it was coming from the Crown Valley Parkway widening project. When activists immediately challenged Wilberg’s claim, another city employee, Mark Chagnon, was quoted in SVN by reporter Lindsey Baugio on Aug. 15 that the truckloads were coming from other sources, and he mentioned the possibility of illegal dumping by unknown culprits. The access gate to Lower Curtis has a chain and lock, limiting the possibilities to city employees and city contractors with keys. Will any council member respond by reprimanding the city’s highly compensated liars?

***

Blog staffers looking for news about the November election found very little posted for the Saddleback Valley USD school board. It appears that only the three incumbents up for reelection filed to run.

***

Mission Viejo is fortunate to have choices for the two open city council seats this November. Six candidates have filed: Neil Lonsinger, Cathy Schlicht, Michael Williamson, Judy Rackauckas, Rich Atkinson and incumbent Frank Ury. Councilwoman Gail Reavis announced on Aug. 8 that she’s not running. Only Lonsinger, Schlicht, Atkinson and Ury paid the $1,900 fee to have a statement of qualifications published in voters’ education pamphlets – usually an indication that someone is serious about campaigning.

***

When CUSD Supt. Woodrow made a speech at the beginning of the Aug. 11 board meeting, he said he wanted harmony in the district. Several of his supporters made public comments, and 40 to 50 members of the audience were evidently part of the anti-reform group or loyal to former Supt. James Fleming. As described in the PALs Update on this week’s blog, some of those from the phalanx of 40 to 50 people shouted down Trustee Sue Palazzo after one of them asked her to explain why she was in Carter’s office on July 25 while he wasn’t there. Very little happens at board meetings that isn’t orchestrated by one side or the other, and Carter’s idea of harmony seems to be his supporters attacking his enemies. Some parents are predicting he will be fired at the Aug. 25 board meeting, and others say he will last until after Nov. 4 when four trustee seats are up for election. For blog staffers who have watched Carter deceive the public and fail to lead, his departure cannot come soon enough.