community common sense

Community Common Sense

JANUARY 2014 – VOL 4, 1

Community Common SenseSan Juan Capistrano - Mission Viejo

YOUR COMMUNITY WATCHDOG

In this Issue...

Judge Restores Newspapers to City Property

City Hall’s Water Workshop “whitewash”; a costly PR event without answersPage 3

Recall Rumors: Setting the Record Straight Page 4

CR&R Contract Amendment: an Attempt to Avoid Proposition 218?Page 5

The High Cost of Bad DecisionsPage 5

JUDGE RESTORES NEWSPAPERS TO CITY PROPERTY

“ART PROGRAM” DESERVES CLOSER SCRUTINY

Story continued on page 10...

Story continued on page 6 ...

By Don Wilder

By Kim LefnerDespite three council members’ attempt to ban the Community Common Sense from city-owned property, an OC Superior Court Judge recently ordered that newspapers be temporarily restored pending a full hearing on the matter.

“The people have the right to read and access newspapers on public property,” stated OC Superior Court Judge James Di Cesare in response to an application for a Temporary Retraining Order filed by attorney

About the Community Common SenseThe CCS is a non-partisan community watchdog publication, distributed monthly to 35,000 homes and businesses in our local communities.

We were established in 2009 by a group of residents who recognize that tax dollars are often spent in

for information and extensive research, we print fact-based information about fiscal and quality of life issues which enables residents to make educated decisions about local leadership. We do the homework – you decide!

ways that enrich a select few, while average residents are left with the resulting increases to cost of living, traffic and debt.

We believe knowledge is power, and are committed to reporting facts not offered in other publications. Aided by Public Records Act requests

Wayne Tate who is representing the Community Common Sense (“CCS”). The judge directed the attorney representing the city, Philip Kohn of Rutan & Tucker, to work out a mutually agreed upon location with CCS for placement of its news racks or, said Judge Di Cesare, “I’ll do it for you.”

The judge also ordered the City to allow CCS to place its publication in the Seniors Reading Room at the Community Center, where several

I have been a resident of Mission Viejo since 1970 and have lived in the same house since then except for a several year hiatus that ended when I returned last February.

Among some of the changes I have seen on my return are kiosks, sculp-

tures and public “art” at several places around town. While apprecia-tion of “art” is very subjective, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, this beholder sees little beauty and has little appreciation for much of what has been installed in our city and passed off as “art.”

I recently learned that some appli-cants for city approval of major new

Art "kiosks" on Crown Valley.

San Juan Capistrano

"Art Program" Deserves Closer ScrutinyPage 1

The Voting Record of Frank UryPage 7

Resident Activists Serve A Vital PurposePage 8

Not-So-Free Freeways- Part 2Page 9

Mission Viejo

Community Common Sense PAGE 2


Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved Commonsense.com LLC

Letters and Submissions for consideration must meet submission guide-lines, are subject to editorial adjustment and may be sent to:

§

Mission Viejo Contributing Editor:Steve Magdziak

Find out more on our website www.ccsense.comShow your support for the CCS by supporting our

advertisers!

Like Us on Facebook!Please Visit Us at:www.facebook.com/CommunityCommonSense

Find Us on Twitter! @ SJCommonSense

City Hall’s Water Workshop “whitewash”; a costly PR event without

answersBy Melissa Kaffen

After attending the “Water Workshop” orchestrated by the city to allegedly answer questions about water produced by the Ground Water Recovery Plant, I came away with

more questions than answers.

The event was coordinated in an “exhibit” style format, where you had to go from table to table to ask questions of employees at each “exhibit station”. Unfortunately, this format shielded questions and answers from the public rather than informing everyone at once. The answers I did get were lacking, which left me with the following unanswered questions:

• I understand that although we paid to build our Ground Water Recovery Plant (GWRP), we are only leasing it. Why?

• Who actually OWNS the GWRP? (I think you already know the answer to this; although we paid to build it, it’s owned by the San Juan Basin Authority from whom we lease it).

• Is it true that the “Emergency water” from the plant will also serve three surrounding towns that pay none of the construction & maintenance costs?

• Isn't the GWRP defined as a “Regional Water Facility? If so, why are SJC residents shouldering the entire cost of a “regional” plant?

• Wouldn't it be considered financial misconduct for any former or current member of our city council to obligate us to pay the entire cost of a Regional Emergency Water Facility? And if so, who made that decision?

• Why is the City adding chloramine to the GWRP water?

• Isn't chloramine known to cause pinhole leaks & corrode residential water pipes? Is there no concern about the increase in pinhole and slab leaks in SJC as a result?

• Doesn’t that expose the taxpayers to yet another class action lawsuit?

• How many times has the plant had to be re-piped? Why & how much does that cost?

• Will the plant need to be re-piped again?

• What are the environmental hazards of depleting the ground water table; isn't it reckless to deplete ground water tables?

• What happens when the San Juan basin is pumped to such a low level that barriers must be constructed to protect from salt water contamination? Who will pay to construct the massively expensive (up to $100 million) barriers?

• Wasn't the plant supposed to be only an EMERGENCY SOURCE of water; not a primary source of drinking water?

• Who made the decision to attempt to make the plant produce drinking water?

• Are we in a water emergency? If not, why routinely use expensive corrosive ground water to try and produce drinking water?

• What was the total amount borrowed against our water bills to build & maintain the GWRP bonds? Haven't we already exceeded the allotted funding?

• How much of a budget deficit are we running now based on cost overruns and revenue shortfalls?

• How much did the Water Workshop PR event cost taxpayers in city employee pay and overtime? Fortunately, the public will have an opportunity to ask these ques-tions of staff and City Council on January 16th at 5:30pm, during a scheduled meet-ing to set new water rates.

SJC Resident Melissa Kaffen

Melissa Kaffen has lived in San Juan Capistrano for 19 years with her husband and three children. Melissa is a former candidate for City Council who remains active in the community.

[email protected]: Kim Lefner

Add your email address to our list at:

[email protected] or

on our website at: www.ccsense.com

Want important updates?

No spam; we promise!


For advertising rates, please contact Kim McCarthy:

Call - (949)489-2800 or Email - [email protected]

The City wants your input on the setting of water and sewer rates.

Make your voice heard!

Let the City Council know how you feel about:• High water rates.

• Refusal to follow a lawful court order about water rates.

• Continuing to operate the expensive Ground Water Recovery Plant which keeps water rates high at your expense.

• Inaccuracies on your water bill (wrong lot size, wrong amount, off schedule, etc.)

Where: City Hall (in City Council Chambers) 25925 Camino Del Avion, SJCWhen: January 16, 2014 5:30 pm

ANNOUNCEMENTLetter to the EditorRecall Rumors: Setting the Record Straight

I am one of many volunteers collecting signatures to recall Councilman Sam Allevato. I am encouraged to report that about 8 out of every 10 residents I talk to have signed the recall petition. I have also heard several false rumors circulating about the recall, and I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.

Rumor #1: Everyone will be able to see my signature on the petition and know that I signed it.

FALSE. OC Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley has confirmed that signatures on recall petitions are confidential and that the signer has a constitutionally protected right to privacy. If anyone tells you that the public will be able to see your signature, they are not telling you the truth; please notify the OC Registrar of Voters at: 714-567-7600.

Rumor #2: The recall will cost $100,000 and is too expensive.

REALITY: The recall will cost approximately $93,000 which amounts to about $5 per resident. This is peanuts compared to the MILLIONS of dollars that Sam Allevato has cost us in irresponsible votes resulting in overcharges on our water bills, his insistence on continuing to run the Ground Water Recovery

Plant which we cannot afford and in unnecessary legal fees.

Rumor #3: The recall will be held too close to the regular election; we should just wait.

REALITY: Sam Allevato is not up for re-election in November 2014. We residents deserve to be represented however, the current council majority is comprised of three council members who repeatedly vote to benefit special interests such as big developers who increase our cost of living and decrease our quality of life through more traffic and strain on infrastructure.

Unlike Sam Allevato and his supporters who are spending tens of thousands of dollars to insure that he holds on to his $360/month council position (ask yourself why), the recall group is comprised of residents who are all unpaid volunteers. We don’t have the deep pockets of developers and special interests; we are just average residents who love our town enough to try and preserve it. As a result, we need your help! If you agree that our town is worth saving, please join us by collecting signatures from your neighbors, friends and family. Contact us at: www.RecallSam.com .

Christie SmeadSan Juan Capistrano



By Clint Worthingtoncontract seems to me either silly, or worse; perhaps designed to make sure that no one will meet the vague definition of “fair market value”.

Even more questionable though, is whether this move by CR&R

was done to get out from under the provisions

of Proposition 218. The Municipal Code requires every real property owner to pay for trash services whether you

receive them or not. Because of this requirement, it falls under

Proposition 218. Prop 218 states that providers of

certain mandatory municipal utilities can only

charge customers for the actual cost of the service they are receiving. A number of residents have expressed concern at City council meetings that residential customers in SJC are unfairly charged to haul (or at least to subsidize the hauling of) stable waste to a processing facility out in the Inland Empire.

We cannot be forced to pay for a service that we do not receive. The City was recently reminded of this when the OC Superior Court ruled that our water rates were illegal; one reason was that each resident was being charged for recycled water it did not receive. In the case of CR&R, it's my understanding that part of the cost of the trash service to each resident is the transportation of horse manure to a processing facility in Rancho Cucamonga. The

tract says that customers can now choose to “self haul” their trash to the landfill. Sounds good - until you read that you must do so in a vehicle approved by the City Manager. Section e). states: "Self haulers must obtain all equipment, including containers and collection and transportation equipment, at a fair market value that does not include any hauling services, ‘free’ or otherwise."

So, let me make sure I understand this correctly. Any trash container for a self hauler must be paid for at “fair market value”? Who determines what fair market value is? Who enforces it? This verbiage in the

CR&R was back in front of the City Council at the December Council meeting. This time City staff stated the main reason was to eliminate the “evergreen” clause which allows the continual renewal of the CR&R contract without the contract ever going out to bid. This clause has allowed CR&R to serve as the City’s trash hauler since 1997 without ever having to bid for the multi-million-dollar-per-year contract.

It is worth noting that CR&R paid the City Attorneys to rewrite the amendment to the contract. Now, if CR&R is paying our City Attorneys to do the work, whose best interests do you think will be represented - CR&R’s or the residents’? A review of the amendment might help to answer that question.

The new amendment to the Con-

CR&R Contract Amendment: An Attempt to Avoid Prop 218?

I have watched with dismay too many council decisions that have cost us millions in legal fees over the years. The latest is the council majority’s approval of the Mercado Market when they knew it did not have enough parking. The council majority has proven that they will not stop one minute to consider the potential cost of a lawsuit. Take note of the Mercado fiasco which is the latest among many, several of which are listed below: 1. Mercado Market approval which violated city zoning - LOST. Decision upheld on appeal. Legal fees to be determined but backs up the basics of poor decision-making by the council majority. 2. CCS Newspaper Ban / violation of First Amendment rights to free speech - LOST.

OC Superior Court judge restored newspapers to public property pending further judgment(s) with potential to lose many more taxpayer dollars. There are legal fees to be determined but estimated at more than $10,000 so far. 3. CTA lawsuit against city for illegal water rate structure - LOST. An OC Superior Court judgment also awarded $200,000 in legal fees to CTA attorney thru 9/30/13, not counting the fees paid to the attorneys representing the city, estimated to be hundreds of thousands of taxpayer’s dollars. 4. Appeal of CTA lawsuit judgment. Council majority voted 3-0 to file an appeal of this court decision in the very same appellate court that upheld a similar judgment in favor of the City of Palmdale. There will be significant legal fees yet to be determined.

5. Class Action lawsuit filed on behalf of all ratepayers by an SJC resident, to recover illegally billed water rates. Case was filed recently in response to CTA lawsuit victory. Meanwhile, the city continues to bill the illegal rates. If they lose the appeal they will potentially be liable for up to $30 million in refunds to us residents who have been overcharged on our water bills for the past three years. They continue to illegally bill residents despite repeated warnings of the dire financial consequences. 6. Scalzo lawsuit, filed by an SJC resident - LOST. Cost $9 million plus many thousands in legal fees. 7. San Juan Creek Rd injury accident, filed by an SJC resident due to city’s negligence in failing to maintain landscaping on a center median - LOST. Jury awarded plaintiff $8.3 million, plus legal fees.

Every one of these cases happened on Sam Allevato's watch, and

Numbers 1, 2, 3, & 4 with the votes of Councilmen Larry Kramer and John Taylor in addition to Allevato.

How can these councilmen complain about the cost of a recall when Sam Allevato’s poor decisions have cost we residents too many millions? The cost of a recall is a drop in the ocean compared to the many millions wasted on poor decisions by Sam Allevato and the council majority.

It surely would be far less expensive and beneficial to elect a council majority that is more responsible about how our tax dollars are spent and who will make decisions that represent only the best interests of our residents. These three have clearly demonstrated an abandonment of sound judgment.

Ian SmithSan Juan Capistrano

Letter to the EditorThe High Cost of Bad Decisions


Story continued from page 1...

members Sam Allevato, Larry Kramer and John Taylor voted behind closed doors to ban news racks on city property. The public was initially unaware of the ban as the vote was not reported out in open session as required by law. City Attorney Hans Van Ligten later claimed that was because “there was no reportable action” taken during the closed door meeting. However, just two weeks after the meeting, the CCS received a letter from Van

any of these issues during the many years that other publications stood in news racks at those locations? It wasn’t until the CCS placed its news racks next to two others that they raised any of these alleged concerns.”

In fact, according to Council member Roy Byrnes (who voted against the ban), within four days of CCS placing its news racks alongside two others, Council

members of city staff had been observed throwing it in the trash while leaving copies of other publications on tables and in display racks.

“Our constitutional rights of free speech, free press and the right to distribute the press were upheld, and [the CCS’] actions were vindicated,“ said attorney Wayne Tate after the hearing.

The city made a number of claims about why news racks would no longer be allowed in front of City Hall and the Community Center where they had stood for many years. Councilman (now Mayor) Sam Allevato commented that if everyone is allowed to place their news racks there, “pornography” might proliferate in those locations. “Public safety” and “littering” were also offered as reasons for banning news racks.

But according to attorney Tate, “Their reasons defy logic. Where was their supposed concern about

CCS News racks at the Community Center before the ban (left) and after the judge ordered the news rack restored (right). The city's insistence on fighting the issue in court will cost the taxpayers more than $10,000 in attorney's fees to move the news rack approximately four feet to the right of its original location.

Story continued from page 5...problem is that each resident is being charged for that service even though you do not receive it.

I asked a local attorney whether a trash hauler can charge residential customers to haul stable waste if they do not own horses, or whether residential customers can be charged to subsidize the hauling of commercial waste. In his opinion, residential customers cannot legally be charged for services they are not receiving.

CR&R is the same trash hauler that was required to refund money to all SJC customers after resident Ian Smith pointed out that our trash rate was being calculated incorrectly. Only after the miscalculation was brought to staff's attention did residents who had been overcharged receive a refund. When some of the residents demanded an audit of the

Ligten ordering the removal of its news racks, so clearly action was taken.

Van Ligten went a step further in a follow up letter to CCS in which he stated the CCS was prohibited from placing its publication “on any city property” under threat of criminal prosecution. Van Ligten ended the letter with; “There is no misunderstanding on the part of Sheriff personnel and City employees. The understanding is that such conduct is illegal and will subject CCS and its members to legal repercussions.”

“This court action was totally avoidable,” said Tate. “The city council members who voted for the ban were given plenty of time to work out a solution. We offered three reasonable proposals to settle the issue outside of court, but the city rejected all of them, so they left us no choice but to ask the court to intervene."

Judge Di Cesare’s order is temporary until a more permanent solution can be determined. The CCS’ next court date is scheduled for February 27th.

contract, it was found that CR&R owed the City thousands of dollars in late payments to the City for a 5% “Franchise Fee” due to the City. The 5% franchise fee is a tax the City charges CR&R to do business in our City. CR&R simply passes that tax on to the residents. Dean Ruffridge of CR&R stated at a recent City Council meeting that the residents’ trash bill could be lower if the City eliminated the Franchise Fee.

CR&R’s proposed amendment will come back to the City Council for approval. Let's hope this time, there is something in there for the residents, like removing the 5% Franchise tax, oops, I mean fee.


The Voting Record of Frank Ury

The CCS occasionally prints the voting record of candidates for elected office in order to help our readers understand the candidates’ background and voting history. Listed below is the voting record of Mission Viejo Council member Frank Ury, who has served on the City Council for three terms, for a total of nine years so far. Ury has stated his intention to run for the Orange County Board of Supervisors in 2014.

MV Councilman Frank Ury

Candidate for Orange County Board of Supervisors

Proposed Item Frank Ury Vote Result of VoteJan. 3, 2006 - Dismantling of City’s Affordable Hous-ing plan by turning it over to an ad hoc committee.

Yes Triggered decertification of City’s housing element, resulting in lawsuit against the City at a cost of approx. $1 million.

Feb. 20, 2006. "Steadfast" high-density development with 144 units, 22 affordable units,

Yes Increase in traffic, strain on infrastructure. Ury received $1,500 in campaign donations from developer.

May 7, 2007 - Public’s right to pull agenda items from the consent calendar.

No Limits public's ability to question the council members' actions, by forcing the public to address items during "Public Comments" which has a three-minute time limit, and to which council members are not required to respond.

April 7, 2008 - Fund Rose Parade float at a time when City had to liquidate two bonds to meet payroll.

Yes (Oct. 20, 2008) Cost of float: in excess of $300,000

July 7, 2008 - Adoption of “Social Host Ordinance”, which holds adults responsible with fines and penalties for underage drinkers on their property.

Yes Infringes on constitutional rights of due process and probable cause.

Nov. 17, 2008 - Bestow lifetime medical benefits on part-time council members who serve three four-year terms.

Yes - Ury cast the sole vote which would have retained

lifetime healthcare for himself.

Cost would have been $250,000 per each council mem-ber who served three terms.

June 22, 2009 - Spend $4 million from City Reserve Fund to upgrade a tennis club, following three years of deficit spending.

Yes Depletion of emergency reserve fund by $4 million.

Feb. 1, 2010 - Removal of “Misconduct Clause” in City Manager’s contract.

Yes City Manager cannot be fired, even if convicted of certain felonies.

Jan. 3, 2011 - Stop audio recordings of closed door council sessions.

Yes Lack of transparency; shields discussions about public business from the public.

May 17, 2011 - “Pension reform” while simultaneously providing pay raises.

Yes Salary increases offset "decrease" in pension funding

Sept. 9, 2011 - "Watermark" high-density development of 256 apartment units and 38 low income units.

Yes Increase in traffic, strain on infrastructure.

March 19, 2012 - City to give county 7.18 acres, for 4 acres of county land for the $1 million Dog Park.

Yes Value of 7.18 acres of City property "swapped" with county was $1.7 million per acre, for a total of $12. 2 million. In return, City got 4 acres of unknown value.

May 7, 2012 - "UDR" high-density development in-crease of size to 320 apartment units, 24 affordable.

Yes Ury received $5,000 in campaign donations from developer in 2012. Development increased traffic, strain on infrastructure.

June 17, 2012 - Rezone of approximately two-thirds of all Mission Viejo homes into “special” fire zones.

Yes Increased property and liability insurance rates.

Oct. 21, 2013 - “Party Ordinance” to bill residents for police calls.

Yes Additional tax on homeowners.

Nov. 18, 2013 - Funding of counseling for teens, including the “option” of abortion.

Yes Voted to support teen abortion option.


Resident Activists Serve A Vital PurposeBy Larry Gilbert

Larry Gilbert

Paul’s Pantry - 27409 Bellogente, next to Chili’s on Crown Valley

It’s a Grind Coffee Shop - 25522 Marguerite Parkway at Oso

Mission Viejo Auto Spa - 23156 Los Alisos Blvd - East of Jeronimo

Tony and Rami Liquor and Deli - 24011-A Marguerite Pkwy

Bagels & Brew - 23052 Alicia Pkwy at Olympiad

Surfin’ Donuts - Alicia & Trabuco

Sabatino’s - 23052 Alicia Pkwy at Olympiad

Looking for the Community Common Sense?

More locations coming soon!

Pick up a copy of the Community Common Sense in the following locations in Mission Viejo:

In my opin-ion, voters in every city can and should hold local gov-ernments accountable. The follow-ing illus-trates why this is so important.

During the 2002 council election in Mission Viejo, city watchdogs suc-ceeded in removing the mayor and mayor-pro-tem. As this shock and awe was occurring and, with no dis-cussion or approval by the Planning Commission or City Council, mem-bers of city staff authorized Granich Construction to perform what they called clean-up of "illegal dumping" below the Curtis Park ball fields.

I discovered this when reviewing city Check Registers shortly after the election. I spotted three ques-tionable invoices that were ready for council approval during the transition of power. These three in-

voices totaled $120,946. At that time Granich had an Annual Maintenance Contract limited to "Emergency re-sponse for the repair and reconstruc-tion of streets, drainage channels, storm drains and slopes."

After questioning these charges at a Jan. 2003 council meeting, the Planning Commission met with and quizzed then-Assistant City Man-ager Dennis Wilberg, who admitted that the city had granted permission for some of the “illegal dumping”.

A number of us found it suspect that while staff alleged that the illegal dumping was going on for many years, they chose to perform the clean-up as newly elected council members were seated.

Council member Gail Reavis and newly-elected member Trish Kel-ley witnessed the “clean up” which consisted of the sifting, grading and compacting of 8,000 cubic yards of dirt spread along a two hundred yard stretch below Curtis Park. Less than 30 days later this “stealth project” was halted by the city manager who instructed Wilberg to have Granich

cease the clean up effort. "We will be able to restart the work and finish the clean up at some future date if council determines that funds should be expended on this activity."

The concerns I expressed during a Jan. 2003 council meeting were:

1. Bogus charges of "illegal dump-ing" when it was sanctioned by staff.

2. Allowing another agency and contractors to dump debris that MV taxpayers had to pay to remove. This essentially amounted to a "stealth project" that Assistant City Manager Dennis Wilberg denied existed.

3. Approval of close to $200,000 to Granich Construction that was not discussed before the fact, and which exceeded the city manager's stand-alone expense cap.

Following my public comments, Saddleback Valley News reporter Magda Liszewska reported my concern that more was going on at the site than just a clean-up and that residents and council members were not being properly notified of the scope of the work. She quoted me as stating, "If this is the beginning of a capital improvement project [CIP] it needs to be discussed." This

was followed by Dennis Wilberg’s cleverly worded response: "There is at this point no CIP and no plan for one. That would be something that City Council would have to approve."

Despite Wilberg’s denial of any "stealth" activity in this area, I had a copy of a General Fund list of non-funded Capital Improvement Projects dated Jan.

15, 2001 that proved otherwise. The list included costs of $1 million each for developments at Lower Curtis Park and Gilleran Park, with a start date in 2007-08.

By Jan. 2007, the project costs, not including annual maintenance, for these as-yet unfunded CIPs for lower Curtis and lower Gilleran parks escalated to $7 million each. "Trust, but verify" is one of my favorite Reagan quotes. If you see something that doesn't look right question those in charge. Larry Gilbert, a retired electronics industry executive, has lived in Mis-sion Viejo since 1977. He is an elect-ed board member of the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights. Larry is also a former Board Member of South Coast Christian Assembly church and leader of their Senior Ministry.

Questions? Comments? The CCS wants to hear from you! Contact Mission Viejo Contributing Editor Steve Magdziak at: (949) 441-0499.



Ed Sachs

The Not-So-Free Freeways - Part 2By Ed Sachs

Compli-ments are in order for the eleven members of the Orange County Transporta-tion Author-ity (OCTA) who listened to both the corridor

cities and voters of Orange County, and elected not to bring toll lanes to the 405 freeway, but rather to add one “free” lane in both directions to the 405 between Costa Mesa and Seal Beach. Votes against adding the free lanes were Spitzer, Harper, County Supervisor John Moorlach and Seal Beach Mayor Gary Miller. Construction begins in 2015 and could be completed by 2020.

The vote taken December 9, 2013 affirmed “Alternate 1” which ex-pands the freeway by one lane, ful-filling the promise made to Orange County voters when they approved the Measure M half cent per gallon gasoline sales tax increase.

Federal pressure remains on Califor-nia to improve traffic flow and usage of single HOV lanes. But many OTCA council members heard your voice and understand the commit-ment that was made when Orange County voted twice to tax them-selves for road improvements, first through Measure M and the second time through Measure M2.

“This is part of the promise that was made to the voters,” said OCTA Board member and Irvine council-man Jeff Lalloway. “Let’s follow through on the promises.”

Unfortunately, this isn’t necessarily the final word. The toll lane proposal is still supported by the Orange County Business Council, which has long promoted tolls as a way to manage traffic and raise revenue for road repairs. However, in addi-

tion to resistance to double-taxation (since commuters are already being taxed to pay for traffic management and road repairs), local residents could find it difficult to enter and/or exit the toll lane, as entry/exit areas could be limited like the toll lanes on the 91 freeway. Local businesses might suffer, as toll lanes could skip exits to their communities.

Some of the eleven votes against toll-lanes might raise a “political” question. During discussion on the day of the vote for example, Mis-sion Viejo Councilman Frank Ury said that taking the money for toll lanes on the 405 “would be a kick in the head” to South Orange County. There are a number of south county freeway projects that are in need of funding. But remember Mr. Ury declared during a November Mis-sion Viejo council meeting, that Caltrans would force the toll lanes on Orange County. So why would Councilman Ury originally favor the toll lane plan which he knew at that time would strip monies from south county road projects? Thus he was


Scan this code with your smartphone to visit our website for advertisers' coupons

and specials.

Story continued from page 1...projects or improve-ments are required to make a contribution for art installations around the city in order to obtain approval of their projects. On the project I am aware of, the de-mand was for $10,000, either art of that value to be selected by the ap-plicant and installed on the project site (subject to city approval) or a payment to the city for “art” to be installed at some other location in the city. It is unclear whether the applicant writing the check would have any say as to the selection of the art to be selected and installed by the city.

It seems to me that the city might do a good thing if it would initi-ate opening the books on the whole public art program in all its detail, e.g.; what companies and projects have contributed? How many times and how much money? What is the accounting for contributions received and art purchased? What is the cost of each item of public art in our city? Who are the artists for each of the “art” items and what are their credentials? What is the process for selecting each artist and item of art?

Who in the city has the final say?

Maybe the city could publish an article with all the above-described

details in the Mission Viejo City Outlook Newsletter so that its citi-zens can understand how the city works to make our town a better place to live for our residents and businesses.

Don Wilder is a native southern Californian and resident of Mis-sion Viejo since 1970. He bought his home after returning from Viet Nam while serving with the U.S. Navy. His two children attended local schools before attending and graduating from Cal State Universi-ties. Don is now retired from the law department of a major computer manufacturer and services company.


Sculpture at the corner of Crown Valley and Medical Center Drive.


in favor of the toll lanes until he was against them.

The proposed south county road-work Councilman Ury is referring to will be on the I-5 south of El Toro to the 73 Toll Road. One lane will be added in each direction from Avery to Alicia. An extension of the HOV lane from El Toro to Alicia is part of the proposal, as well as adding and extending auxiliary lanes while widening Avery and La Paz inter-changes in Mission Viejo. To learn more about these plans here is a link that provides detailed information: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/parkway-529498-project-viejo.html

Supervisor Todd Spitzer led a few members to look at preserving space for the two-lane plan, while As-semblyman Alan Mansoor wants legislation to keep toll-lanes off our freeways.

The vote to add a single lane to each side of the 405 still needs support

Story continued from page 9...from Caltrans. District Director Ryan Chamberlin is hopeful to have a decision early 2014 and said that Caltrans would want to move for-ward in a collaborative manner.

Ed Sachs and his family have lived in Mission Viejo since 1991. Ed spent 30 years in the consumer elec-tronics industry and was inducted in the Hall of Fame. He retired as President Emeritus at Pioneer Elec-tronics in 2009. Since retirement, Ed has opened his own leadership-consulting agency while becom-ing active in the community. In 2012, Ed ran for Mission Viejo City Council. Ed and his wife Leagh, an accomplished and award winning photographer, have two sons, David and Daniel.


Are You the Next Top Shot?

A Full Service FFL(949)348-0348

27692 Camino CapistranoLaguna Niguel, CA 92677

www.OnTargetrange.comFirearm Sales Ammo Sales Cleaning Supplies We Buy Guns!

- Private & Corporate Events

- Firearm Classes

- Youth Programs

- Women’s Programs


*****************ECRWSS****

LocalPostal Customer

PRSRT STDECRWSS

U.S. POSTAGEPAID

EDDM Retail

Attainable for YOU! Fast, Fun & Fabulous 2 hr. Design Solutions $150 I will walk through your Entire home and give you Countless Creative valuable & cost Saving Ideas & & Design SOLUTIONS!!! (BEST BANG FOR YOUR $) --------------------------------------- VALUE Remix & Repurpose Design FULL DAY (7HOUR)…$350 (using your stuff) New Furniture & Accessory Shopping and Placement FULL DAY (7HOUR)….$350 --------------------------------------- Hourly Rate of $ 75 For Other Design Services All styles/All budgets Let’s get this Design Party STARTED in your Home !!

Headaches • Shoulders • Neck Lower Back • Sciatica • Stress

•FibromyalgiaTHREE

$79THREEone hourMassages

For Only$79

Mission Chiropractic Group

In the Marbella Plaza949.240.6196

Chiropractic Nutrition

Massage TherapyGift Certificates

Not valid with any other offer. New clients only. Expires 11/30/13

All three massages must be used within 60 days of purchase date

31105 Rancho Viejo Road • San Juan Capistrano

community common sense - january 2014

Documents

community common sensejanuary

community common sensethe

community center

city propertypage

cityowned property

city propertyart program

judge di cesare