Group Homes, Senior Commission And Fireworks Tuesday

LAST MEETING BEFORE THE ELECTION
The Costa Mesa City Council will meet, in it's last regularly-scheduled meeting before the election, on Tuesday, October 21, 2014.  This one has some items on the agenda, HERE, that promise to generate some spirited discussion.

FREE PUBLICITY ON DEVELOPER'S PROJECT
I note with GREAT interest that there is an item early in the agenda in which developer Taylor-Morrison will present a status report on the Level 1 project - the three-story plus roof-top patio development on Industrial Way at Newport Boulevard - that so many officials claim represents the future of the Westside of town.  I don't recall a developer being given the opportunity to get free city-wide publicity for a project after it was under construction.  Then, again, we've never had a council majority that has sold it's soul to the development community before.  It's curiously ironic that Jim Righeimer, our dictatorial mayor, thinks it's important to waste valuable time on something like this - or giving his personal trainer a commendation - but refuses to let all the speakers during Public Comment speak early in the meeting.  In the wonderful world of Transparency, his self-serving bias is, indeed, transparent.

CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar, as usual, has some interesting items that probably won't be pulled for separate discussion.  So, we'll talk about a couple of them here, just so you know what's going on.

SPENDING YOUR MONEY
Item#3 is Warrant 2524, HERE.  As is usually the case, there are some very interesting items on this list of payments made to vendors and others.  Here are a few to make you curious:

#0183449 - Lilley Planning Group - $21,755.00 for Planning Consultant, Aug. 2014.  Really?  Annualized that's over $260,000!

#0183476 - Civil Source - $9,000.00 for Park Staff Support Svcs - Aug. 14
#0183613 - Civil Source - $10,350.00 for St. and Pkwy Inspect -  Aug. 14

#0183494 - Enterprise Counsel Group - $14,362.75 for Successor Agency Legal Services

#0183505 - Government Staffing Services, Inc - $10,702.50 for Temp Svcs in August

#0183564 - Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth - $5,085.90 for Legal Services

#0183580 - White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP - $7,750.00 for Financial Audit Svcs
#0183592 - White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP - $21,975.00 for Financial Audit Svcs

#0183584 - Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau - $234,603.57, BIA Receipts for August

#0183617 - Dougherty + Dougherty Architects LLP - $14,571.80 for Council Chambers Design

#0183637 - Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. - $10,804.00 for Sr. Bldg Insp. Svcs, Aug

ANNEXATION VEXATION

 Item#8 is the General Plan amendment for the annexation of the Colleen/Santa Ana Avenue Annexation, HERE.

GROUP HOME ORDINANCE SECOND READING
There are no Public Hearings Tuesday, but there is one Old Business item, HERE.  This is the second reading of the Group Home Ordinance.  It's unclear whether there will be much of a public turnout for this one.  When it was first presented there was plenty of public comment.  We'll see.

 
FIREWORKS FIREWORKS

New Business #1, HERE, is the request by councilwoman Wendy Leece for modifications to the city's Fireworks policies.  This was originally scheduled for the last meeting, but that agenda was packed so it was pulled and re-scheduled for this one.  Basically, Leece wants to restrict the sale of Fireworks to July 3rd and 4th and the discharge to the 4th only.  Seems reasonable to me, but I expect the youth sports folks will be out in force to protest.

A "SENIOR COMMISSION"?  WHY?
The final item on the agenda is New Business #2, HERE, which asks the council to establish a Senior Commission.  While, as a "senior" myself, I appreciate the interest in having a formal form of community input to the City Council on senior issues, I don't think this rises to the level of the Planning or Parks and Recreation Commissions.  I don't think we should be paying five people $100 per meeting to contemplate senior issues.  I think this is more appropriately a "committee" type of activity, and probably should be made up of more than just five (5) members.  It should be made up of thirteen (13) members selected from a pool of interested Costa Mesa residents.  Each council member would appoint two without challenge.  The remaining three (3) would be selected by nomination of the council members and voted on by the council.  Terms would be two (2) or four (4) years - each council member would have one of each - and the other three would serve two (2) years.  It should be interesting to see how this plays out Tuesday.

DON'T FORGET TO VOTE...