Preserve Our Family-Friendly City
Letter to the Editor

As someone who has lived in beautiful Mission Viejo and worked here as a Realtor for 32 years, I disagree with recent information in the OC Register and Saddleback Valley News advocating that we should allow the city council to change whatever they want in the original Master Plan without the approval of Mission Viejo voters.

What led me and my family to Mission Viejo, as well as the many people I helped find homes, was the superb planning the Mission Viejo Company undertook to design this incredible, family-friendly city. We have local parks in every neighborhood, golf courses, lots of green space, small shopping centers close enough to walk to but not so large that the sound and traffic would take away the small-town feeling. The most important aspect of that plan, as I remember, was that the projected resident population was not to exceed 95,000.

What I have noticed in the last few years is that the city has not adhered to that original plan as completely as perhaps it should have, and as a result, our city is starting to look like too many overbuilt cities. Our streets are in poorest condition I have ever seen here. The traffic light synchronization is 50 years behind, along with many other problems, which have not been addressed, that have resulted from rapid growth.

We need to slow down and solve these problems before we continue on the path that will lead Mission Viejo to look like every other overbuilt city. As a Realtor and resident, I urge residents of Mission Viejo to vote YES on The Mission Viejo Right To Vote Initiative, Measure D, in the June 8 Primary Election. This Measure gives residents the right to vote and approve or disapprove “major” zone changes to the original Mission Viejo Master Plan.

Lamar Kelsoe
Mission Viejo

Ury Lied About the Golf Course
Letter to the Editor

Homeowners near the Casta del Sol Golf Course should know that their safety and security are at risk with the golf course for sale. We’ll be able to stop this threat by voting for the Mission Viejo Right To Vote (Measure D) in the June 8 election.

The Right To Vote gives us the power to make final decisions on all major zone changes. By approving Measure D, we’ll be able to overturn any council decision to rezone the golf course (e.g., for apartments, a park, etc.). We need the Right To Vote as a safeguard to protect our home values and security.

Council majority members have flat-out lied about preserving the golf course. Sunrise developers had financial problems and dropped their housing plan, but the golf course is still for sale. For awhile, the council majority even lied about that.

Five Mission Viejo residents wrote the ballot argument in favor of Measure D, and I am proud to be one of them. Councilman Frank Ury wrote the ballot argument against Measure D. He was sued for lying in his ballot argument, and a Superior Court Judge struck down his most outrageous lies.

Ury lied by saying housing could never be built on the golf course because it’s in a flood plain. However, residents received a mailer from Sunrise two years ago with pictures of housing on the golf course. Not all of the golf course is in the flood plain, and the entire golf course would have been gone if the council had approved the plan. Others opposing Measure D are a group of Realtors, developers and consultants who will profit from more housing.

It takes only three council votes to rezone property. Two years ago, three council members (Frank Ury, Lance MacLean and Trish Kelley) took “campaign donations” from Sunrise’s public relations consultant. It should be illegal.

Please vote for the Right To Vote on June 8 and take away the council’s power to rezone. Protect our city, our Master Plan and the Casta del Sol Golf Course by voting for Measure D.

Elizabeth Mimm
Mission Viejo

Observations on Trash Contract Candidates
by Joe Holtzman

Following is a summary of the process involving Mission Viejo’s waste collection candidates (proposers).

The proposer evaluation process has been done without transparency to the Mission Viejo public. Thanks to Frank Ury.

• The foundation of the evaluation done for the city is based upon a proprietary and secret financial pro forma tool that is being withheld from the public’s view.
• Only one of four proposers has requested corporate relief via exceptions and deletions to the Mission Viejo Waste Collection Franchise Agreement. I have more information on this issue.
• Only one firm was unequivocally qualified by the city’s consultant and is the lowest cost.
• Only one firm was unequivocally qualified by the city’s consultant and is the highest cost.
• The lowest-cost firm removes the rubbish from most of Mission Viejo’s neighboring cities.
• The highest-cost firm removes rubbish from two of Mission Viejo’s neighboring cities.
• The lowest-cost firm has transitioned two large Orange County sister cities in the last few years.
• The highest-cost firm has lost Orange County franchises in recent years.
• The lowest-cost firm has developed a service plan with the smallest carbon footprint.
• The lowest-cost firm has a plan for service that removes trucks from our interchanges.
• The lowest-cost firm proposes to supply the city with free mulch.
• The lowest-cost firm is headquartered in Orange County.
• The highest-cost firm is headquartered outside of California.

And, ladies and gentlemen….(drum roll please)....the firm recommended [by the consultant] to the Council for selection is: The most costly to the residents, based out-of-state corporation, requesting the most corporate relief, which also affects the larger carbon footprint on Mission Viejo. Ta-da!

What part of this am I missing, Members of the Council?

Select the lowest-cost, qualified bidder for the benefit of the residents, and lock in the savings with contractual safeguards that set a new standard for municipal procurement.

Kathy Dittner’s Picks
June 8, 2010, California Primary Election Recommendations

I am a Christian conservative who has spent hours researching candidates and issues. My "Pics" reflect a viewpoint that is pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-choice in education, as well as decentralized and limited government in both size and spending. I generally do not recommend anyone from the Democrat Party, as it does not reflect the values and issues I support. The American Independent Party is generally pro-life and pro-family and, occasionally, I must choose principle over party and register a protest vote. Third party candidates typically do not get enough votes to influence an election

View the full text of Kathy’s Pics at: http://www.robynnordell.com/county_orange.aspx

* denotes a California Republican Assembly Endorsed, Pro-Life, Pro-Family candidate

State Offices
Governor: Steve Poizner*
Lieutenant Governor: Sam Aanestad*. Endorsed by Tom McClintock
Secretary of State: Damon Dunn*
Controller: Tony Strickland*
Treasurer: Mimi Walters*
Attorney General: John Eastman*
Insurance Commissioner: Mike Villines, endorsed by California Pro-Life Council
State Board of Equalization, District 3: Michelle Steel*
U.S. Senate: Chuck DeVore*

U.S. Congressional Representatives
I do not adhere to the “throw all Congressman out.” Each should be evaluated for their record and votes on our values. All of these candidates uphold our values

42nd District: Gary Miller*

State Assembly
District 71: Jeff Miller* (unopposed)

Orange County Central Committee
71st Assembly District
Mark Bucher*
John Williams
Jack Anderson
Mark Dobrilovic*
Tony Beall*
Todd Spitzer*

Non- Partisan Offices

Judicial: All California Superior Court Judges are elected to 6 year terms. Of those, 50 are up for re-election in June, but you will only find 5 on the June 8 ballot. This is because the remaining 45 judges filed papers to run again for their jobs, but nobody filed to run against them. Therefore, these judges will not even appear on the ballot. It is interesting that this does not apply to all unopposed offices. The office numbers do not mean anything; they are only for record keeping. All of these judges serve the County at large and thus, office numbers do not refer to a specific district within the County.

Superior Court Judge Office No. 2: unopposed
Superior Court Judge Office No. 13 unopposed
Superior Court Judge Office No. 16: Andy Manssourian*
Superior Court Judge Office No. 39: unopposed
Superior Court Judge Office No. 50: Julian Bailey*

Schools
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Diane Lenning*
County Superintendent of Schools: William Habermehl
County Board of Education Area 2: Alexandria Coronado*
County Board of Education Area 5: No recommendation
Recall of Capistrano Unified School District Trustees: NO! They don’t deserve to be recalled.

County Offices
Supervisor, 5th District: Pat Bates*
Assessor: Claude Parrish
Auditor-Controller: David Sundstrom
County Clerk-Recorder: Hugh Nguyen* is a Republican and Tom Daly is a Democrat
District Attorney: Tony Rackauckas*
Public Administrator: John Williams*
Sheriff-Coroner: Bill Hunt* (He seems like a principled sheriff and will certainly shake up the Dept. )
Treasurer-Tax Collector: Shari Freidenrich. Current treasurer of Huntington Beach and endorsed by John Moorlach, she is the only treasurer running in the race.

Propositions
Proposition 13: Yes*
This constitutional amendment provides equal protection to all homeowners and builders who decide to improve their property for earthquake (seismic) retrofitting. In the spirit of Prop 13 of “78,” it will not result in higher property taxes until the building or home is sold.

Proposition 14: Elections. Increases Right to Participate in Primary Elections. NO*
This Proposition will eliminate the purpose for the Primary Election, which is to have each party choose a candidate from their party to run against each other in the general election. Candidates would also no longer have to list their party affiliation on the ballot. Both Republicans and Democrats oppose this change. Vote No

Proposition 15: California Fair elections Acts: NO*

Do you want public funds (your tax dollars) to go towards political campaigns? If not, then vote No! Politicians, specifically candidates for Secretary of State, could choose to receive public funds for 2014 and 2018, if you do not vote NO. 

Proosition 16: Two-Thirds Voter Approval for Local Public Electricity Providers. NO
This will enable taxpayers to vote, by a 2/3 margin, before local governments can spend or borrow tax payer money to enter the retail electricity business. That sounds good! Upon further research, I found out PG&E is the sponsor of this initiative and has spent $28.5 million to see it passed. They seemingly want to eliminate competition by having the new electric company fund a very expensive special election requiring 2/3 vote, thus guaranteeing their monopoly of the market.

Proposition 17: Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base their Prices, in part, on a Driver’s History of Insurance coverage. YES*/NO

Mercury Insurance Company has funded this ballot initiative. Prop 17 amends the current law to allow current drivers who have maintained auto insurance with the same company and are eligible for a continuous coverage discount, to take that with them if they change insurance companies to get lower rates. This seems reasonable, but I find many contradictions between No and Yes. For instance, No on Prop 17 states the Dept. of Insurance reports “it will result in a surcharge” whereas a Yes on Prop 17 states it will eliminate an existing surcharge for changing Insurance Companies. The No side says rates will rise on the Military if they stop their coverage for 91 days. Yes, says it adds protection for soldiers to maintain their continuous coverage. Yes on 17 is right according to the legislative analysis and will protect the Military exemptions. YOU DECIDE! If you think the continuous coverage discount is enough, then vote Yes. If you see some contradiction and feel conflicted, vote No.

MEASURE D: Mission Viejo Right–To-Vote Initiative. YES!

This measure was initially put on the ballot in response to the Casta Del Sol golf course being considered for sale with a senior care facility being built on a small portion of the land that would not be in a flood channel. The developer wanted the rest of the golf course to be sold to the city for a park or open space that the city/tax payers would need to maintain. The developer backed out when the building market collapsed and residents came to meetings in M.V to oppose the sale.

The Right to Vote Measure will:

• REQUIRE voter approval of major zoning changes.
• PROTECT present standards for single family home permits, reconstruction and additions not involving major changes to zoning. Businesses would also maintain present standards for changes in their buildings.
• PRESERVE our original Master Plan of the Mission Viejo Company. It provided a balance between housing, business, and recreation areas.
• PREVENT election costs by having the companies that are proposing the major zoning changes to pay for the regular or special elections, NOT THE TAXPAYERS! The City Council will approve or reject regular land use changes or affordable housing required by state law.
• KEEP recreation and open spaces by VOTERS approving changes or development of open spaces, and rezoning recreation property, unless being changed to open space. This would prevent the City Council from taking a park and selling it to a developer to build houses or apartment. The City Council would still approve sports parks or dog parks.

This measure is a win-win for the citizens of Mission Viejo.

The Buzz

On May 15, Mission Viejo resident Mark Dobrilovic organized a group of 25 volunteers to walk precincts for candidates in the Primary Election. Stopping by was OC Weekly reporter Scott Moxley when the group met at Dobrilovic’s house prior to their walk. Moxley was especially interested in the race for OC Sheriff. Volunteers told him that South Orange County belongs to Bill Hunt. Those who have been campaigning for Hunt in Mission Viejo say they’re finding no support for incumbent Sandra Hutchens, and Craig Hunter has no name recognition despite posting campaign signs on thoroughfares.

***

Scott Moxley’s articles can be found at http://www.ocweekly.com . His investigative work is legendary, and information he dug up led to former sheriff Mike Carona’s resignation. Moxley described an offer he received after writing a few hard-hitting articles about Carona, who was still in office. Carona’s buddies offered him a ride in an OCSD helicopter. Moxley didn’t take that ride, and his articles became the undoing of a charismatic but corrupt sheriff. Moxley said on Saturday that he’s investigating another well-known Orange County political figure. His column can be found at http://www.ocweekly.com/columns/moxley-confidential-194799/

***

Ex-councilman Lance MacLean is still losing it in public. In an online story about a political watchdog group, Committee for Integrity in Government (CIG), MacLean blew a gasket at the mention of the group. CIG disbanded more than five years ago, but MacLean lashed out at community watchdogs who were CIG members. When Adam Elmahrek of Voice of OC asked MacLean a question, he called CIG members “terrorists.” On another blog, MacLean adopted a pen name, “Fonzie.” Readers quickly recognized it was MacLean who was posting angry remarks and personal attacks despite his attempts to cover his identity. MacLean has a long history of violence, including domestic abuse, attempted strangling of a UCI employee resulting in assault and battery charges and abusive outbursts on the Mission Viejo City Council.

***

City Manager Dennis Wilberg’s insider newsletter (The Week That Was, May 14), describes street repairs in a neighborhood near Avery Parkway. He says the project was funded with Community Development Block Grant money. Resurfaced streets include Plata Place, Jacinto Drive, Poco Place, Oliva Place, De La Luna Drive, La Quilla Lane, Consuelo Place, Oso Rojo Lane and Boleada Drive. All of these are on the on the list compiled by residents of more than 200 streets in need of immediate repair. In some cases, the entire length of a street is in poor condition, and in other cases the damage is limited to a pothole or area of pavement failure. A city hall official estimated the cost of $85 million to bring all Mission Viejo streets up to standards. The list of 200 includes relative few streets that are scheduled for repair this fiscal year. All the years of neglect and deferred maintenance have caught up with the city mismanager. As an aside, the city is also carrying a debt of approximately $60 million, which never gets a mention in the happy talk newsletters.

***

Residents are reporting an extraordinarily high percentage of Mission Viejo homes for sale. While May is traditionally a big month for listing homes, that alone doesn’t account for all the properties for sale. The May 14 edition of Saddleback Valley news contained 11 pages of foreclosure notices.

***

A parent with children in the Saddleback Valley Unified School District reported that SVUSD trustees last week took a position against Measure D, Mission Viejo’s Right To Vote Initiative. The parent said Superintendent Fish was the one pushing the board to come out against the ballot measure. Fish evidently said the measure could impact the district’s ability to get school property rezoned without approval of voters. Residents living near O’Neill and La Tierra schools should go on high alert. Why would a district be concerned about the ballot measure unless it wants to sell a closed school to a housing developer? Parents, neighbors and other constituents should now be able to put the puzzle together regarding SVUSD’s refusal to listen to anyone about keeping O’Neill open as a neighborhood school or converting it to a charter school.

***

Summary of the status quo: the city council majority can rezone property with three votes. The SVUSD school board can close neighborhood schools with three votes. Six people – three council members and three school board trustees – can transform a school campus into high-density housing. With Measure D on the ballot, these politicians are now saying “trust us.” Why on earth would anyone trust either the council majority or SVUSD majority? Those with strong reasons for voting YES on Measure D include residents living near a school, park, golf course, open space, commercial property or a shopping center. Obvious targets for apartments include closed schools, Casta del Sol Golf Course, the Unisys site on Jeronimo, vacant land near the former Kmart building on east Los Alisos and the retail stores at La Paz and Marguerite.