MY TAKE ON THE 11/8/22 MUNICIPAL ELECTION

HERE WE GO AGAIN - ANOTHER ELECTION!

My city, Costa Mesa, California, like many others in our state, is in the midst of campaign season for city, county, state and national elections.  On November 8th we will choose three city council members and a mayor, chime in on a very important municipal ordinance, plus vote for members of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, Mesa Water District and the Orange County Board of Supervisors.  This is about the city races…

THREE SEATS PLUS MAYOR UP THIS TIME AROUND

There are three council seats available this time around.  The City began electing city council members by district PLUS a directly-elected mayor in 2018, having been extorted by a Malibu law firm into converting from at-large voting to “give our Latino population a greater voice in government”.  Costa Mesa is 37% Latino, most of whom reside in what is known as the West Side - those areas represented by Districts 4 and 5 - two of the seats up for election this time.  The remaining seat is District 3, an area roughly surrounding the Orange County Fairgrounds near the center of the city.

SOME NOT-SO-GREAT MEMORIES

Let's review some history so you can understand why I think this election is so darn important.

THE SCHEME TO HOLD CONTROL

When the city was forced to go to district voting the then-Republican majority, led by Jim Righeimer and Steve Mensinger, tried to quick pitch the process when putting the District voting on the 2016 ballot.  Instead of using the 5-District configuration preferred by 100% of the residents who attended all the meetings held by the demographer, they had him conjure up a 6-District and Directly Elected Mayor choice, figuring they could field a group of like-minded individuals to control the city council.  That was the only choice on the ballot for the voters to consider and it passed with 64.8% of the ballots cast.  In an interesting sidebar, the existing mayor, Steve Mensinger, was ousted, finishing 4th the race for 3 open council seats.  And, further demonstrating the ire of the electorate, controversial Measure Y was passed by an even greater margin - just over 68%.  That citizen-generated measure was designed to slow, or stop, development in the city by requiring a “vote of the people” if certain triggers were met.  Since that measure passed not a single project has moved forward - no “vote of the people” has been taken.

DISTRICT VOTING QUICK-PITCH BACKFIRED

In the next election - November 2018 - council members were elected by district for the first time.  Districts 3,4 and 5 - the same ones up for election this time around - chose new council members.  Interestingly, all three of them chose persons with a Latino heritage.  In District 3 United States Naval Academy graduate and former Navy officer Andrea Marr defeated a Republican-supported candidate soundly.  In District 4 Manuel Chavez - who grew up in that district and was the youngest council member ever elected - was chosen over a hand-picked contender favored by the council majority by a wide margin.  In District 5 local woman and MIT-graduate Arlis Reynolds defeated seated councilman Allan Mansoor - a former mayor and state Assemblyman - by more than 20 points!.  And, in the biggest news in that election, Katrina Foley - who had been ousted as mayor by the majority in a bit of pure partisan politics just a few months earlier - soundly defeated the woman who replaced her, long-time councilwoman Sandy Genis.  That was a stunner and certainly made the point that the voters had had enough.  

TRYING TO RUN THE CITY LIKE A BUSINESS FAILED - HUY PHAM DIED

One must think back on what it was like back then.  Republican activists - Jim Righeimer, Steve Mensinger, Gary Monahan and Allan Mansoor - controlled the city and made some very controversial moves.  For example, on March 17, 2011 - St. Patrick’s Day - their council decided to issue layoff notices to 213 “regular employees” - non-public safety staffers.  This was their idea of how to control large unfunded pension liabilities.  In a tragic result of their actions young maintenance worker Huy Pham, upon receiving his layoff notice, leaped to his death from the roof of city hall.  This was the darkest day in our city in my memory - 48 years and counting.  There was a huge public outcry and outpouring of sympathy for Pham’s family and his entire city family, too.  Monahan, who was mayor at that time, didn’t bother to come to City Hall to console grieving employees - he was too busy pouring green beer at his bar, muttering something like, “What am I supposed to do?  This is the biggest day of the year for me.”  That was a quote from a news reporter who sought comment from him as he pranced around his bar in his kilt.  Disgusting!  Even worse, courts later determined that the layoff notices were illegal!

POLICE/COUNCIL FRICTION

About that same time friction ensued between certain members of the City Council and the Costa Mesa Police Department.  The council members sued the Police Association’s law firm and the association.  That went on for several years, but was finally settled.  In the meantime, the toxic atmosphere created by that council provoked several members of the Costa Mesa Police Department to abandon their jobs, choosing to either retire early or bail out to another police jurisdiction.  For more than 8 months the Righeimer/Mensinger council refused to permit recruitment efforts to fill more than 50 vacancies.  It’s been more than a decade since all that was going on and we still have not achieved proper police staffing levels.  That same council decided that the A.B.L.E. helicopter program - a joint venture between Costa Mesa and Newport Beach that provided police helicopter support for both cities and was a model for all municipal helicopter programs nationwide  - should be disbanded.  They proceeded to do just that, selling off the assets - 3 multi-million dollar helicopters - and reassigning the pilots back into patrol duties.  That was another low-morale moment in the CMPD.  This group also decided to privatize both the police jail and street sweeping services - causing more layoffs.  It was rumored that the successful contractor for the jail services was operated by family members of Jim Righeimer.  That unfortunate experiment has failed and the jail is, once again, under control of members of the CMPD.

MANSOOR’S “ICE” PLAN

Another bellwether of discord was Allan Mansoor’s scheme to deputize every single Costa Mesa Police Officer as an ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officer so they could randomly snatch up members of our Latino community and process them for deportation. For his efforts Mansoor was anointed as an honorary “Minuteman”.  That scheme failed, fortunately, but it terrorized the entire Latino community to the point where they seldom expressed concerns about city issues.  That has changed under the current council.  Recently we’ve seen Latino’s bravely step to the speaker’s podium and air grievances.  They know they will be given a fair hearing on issues important to them and no longer worry about being hunted down like stray dogs in the street and deported.

A TOXIC, ANTI-RESIDENT ATMOSPHERE

The atmosphere in our city during those years was very tense.  That council decided that they were tired of hearing residents stand before them during the Public Comments segment of their regular meetings and gripe about issues - things that were important to the residents - so they bifurcated the public comments.  Only the first 10 people in the queue could speak early in the meeting.  Any remaining speakers had to wait until the very end of the meeting - sometimes midnight or later.  Few speakers stayed around that late.  At that time we saw several highly skilled senior staffers choose to retire early instead of dealing with the atmosphere created by that council.

WHAT’S MY POINT?

Well, in the four years since the core of the current council was elected - those choices clearly sent a message to the Republican establishment with the ouster of Mansoor and Mensinger and the rebuffing of Genis , who was soundly thumped as a directly-elected mayor by Katrina Foley not just once, but twice - a lot of important things have happened in our city and it’s appropriate to talk about how they were handled.

HOMELESSNESS

The city, for years, has had a growing homeless population.  The current council found a way to manage that issue by first contracting with a local church to provide temporary housing until a new facility could be created.  They then found and purchased an industrial building not far from John Wayne Airport and created a 70-bed shelter and worked out a deal with the City of Newport Beach to use 20 of those beds for a fee.  That system is working.

COVID-19

More than 2 years ago the hellish Covid-19 pandemic hit us, just as it did in every other city in America.  Our council, led by the tireless Mayor Katrina Foley (who has earned your vote for her seat on the Orange County Board of Supervisors, by the way) and John Stephens as Mayor Pro Tem, helped provide the leadership to get out ahead of this issue before any other Orange County city.  Right off the bat they rejected the Governor’s scheme to house 60 infected people from an airliner in northern California at the under-used Fairview Developmental Center - right in the heart of our city.  They crafted emergency ordinances to govern mask-wearing, short-term rental assistance, rules to keep covid-affected renters from being evicted, and much, much more.  And, they made the tough decisions and managed to keep a balanced budget without tapping municipal reserves.

LACK OF HOUSING

Recently the State slammed our city with the demand for us to plan for 11,760 new dwelling units during the next 8 years (now 7 years), then told us our “Measure Y”, constraints passed by the voters in 2016, effectively created a roadblock to preclude the city from completing a required satisfactory Housing Element.  The failure to do so would cause the city to be penalized $100,000 per month, become ineligible for ALL State grant funds and - the worst part - lose all local control over development in our city - the State would take over.  So, with that gun to our head, in January the council appointed an Ad Hoc Committee of Mayor Pro Tem Marr, Councilwoman Reynolds and Councilman Jeffrey Harlan - a land planner and lawyer - to assess this problem and come up with a solution.  That effort resulted in what is now known as Measure K.  This ordinance, which is on the November 8th ballot, will basically de-fang Measure Y and thereby permit development of the much-needed (and State-demanded) new housing units, some of which will be affordable housing units.  To facilitate that action an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is being crafted and will be presented to the council for consideration by December.

COMMITTEE ROUNDLY CRITICIZED

The Ad Hoc Committee has been roundly criticized by the people who conceived and marketed Measure Y, stating it would gut their product and “take away the vote of the people” on development decisions.  This, of course, is a flat-out lie!  Should Measure K pass next month ANY project submitted to the city for consideration will have to run the gauntlet of bureaucratic hurdles - including approvals from the Planning Commission and City Council.  At every step of the way residents or other interested parties have the opportunity to express themselves before those official bodies and/or write to them in detail with their concerns.  Measure Y was passed 6 years ago and, as I mentioned above, not a single project has been placed before the voters.  Any developer - every developer - will simply take their development dollars and expertise elsewhere when faced with spending tons of money and time, only to be informed that they now must go before the vote of the people.  Our city will shrivel under these constraints.  Our major commercial and industrial corridors will atrophy and our economic vitality will wither.

CITY COUNCIL CHOICES

I wrote all the above to make a point. This time around Mayor John Stephens, a former council member who was appointed mayor when then-mayor Katrina Foley was elected to the Board of Supervisors, is being challenged by Republican John Moorlach - a partisan who has held positions on the Board of Supervisors and in the State Senate.  Moorlach’s record in those roles is undistinguished, although some tout him as being a financial expert because he predicted the Orange County bankruptcy two decades ago.  Stephens, on the other hand, has been an instrumental part in leading Costa Mesa through a series of crises including the homelessness issue and the covid pandemic.  In both those cases Costa Mesa has led the way among all Orange County cities in dealing with those issues effectively, in great part due to the wisdom, energy and leadership of John Stephens.

OTHER SEATS

In this election only the seat occupied by Manuel Chavez is safe - he has no opposition.   Andrea Marr is being challenged by a Republican-supported newcomer, John Thomas Patton, who brings absolutely no governance experience to the party.  And Arlis Reynolds is being challenged by Rob Dickson, a former Righeimer/Mensinger sycophant who was part of “the problem” back in those days as he rubber stamped the council majority wishes while on the Planning Commission.  They have joined the creators of Measure Y to oppose Measure K - something our city MUST HAVE - and spread the lies provided to them.  This is not only disappointing, but very dangerous for our city.  Should all three of these men be successful that would change the balance of power on the City Council and combine them with lazy, hapless, hopeless, partisan hack Republican councilman Don Harper - the worst councilman in my memory - and we could be right back where we were nearly a decade ago.  This is NOT GOOD for our city..

ABOUT THAT “UNFUNDED PENSION LIABILITY”

Candidates Moorlach, Dickson and Patton constantly harp about the “unfunded pension liability” facing Costa Mesa, as though this is something this council created and fails to “fix”.  Well, this is not a new issue - every city council in the state that subscribes to the CalPERS retirement system is facing the same thing and THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT at the local level.  The problem is the way the system was conceived.  It is managed by a board that understands little about municipal finance.  Their plan is to receive a 7.5% annual return on their investments to keep their ship afloat.  However, if the markets in which they play fail to generate that kind of return they simply bill their subscribers - hence the “unfunded liability”.  The only way this actually becomes a problem for our city, or any city, is if every single employee decides to retire simultaneously.  Then there wouldn’t be enough cash in the till to fund the retirements.  Of course, that’s not going to happen.  Predecessor  councils - the Righeimer/Mensinger group, for example - decided to “solve it’ by putting a paltry million dollars each year towards the debt, knowing full-well that would do nothing at all to solve the problem.  Their other solution, mentioned above, was to lay off over 200 employees, and we all know how that turned out.  This “issue” is really a “non-issue”.  It’s a straw man to attempt to burnish the candidacy of Moorlach, a theoretical finance expert, and the others are just piggybacking the issue.  If Moorlach has a solution let him speak out for the public good.  Otherwise, he should quit barfing up that politically-charge rhetoric.

ABOUT THOSE DARN DEVELOPERS

Some non-incumbent candidates are making a big deal about campaign funding by “out of town developers”.  Well, yeah!  The city is in desperate need of housing - affordable housing, for the most part - and the people that build that stuff are…. DEVELOPERS!  Of course they want to see a council in place that will give them a fair hearing, and that will help with the negative quagmire Measure Y has created.  All that jabbering about “out of town developer money” is a smoke screen, designed to inflame the voters into voting against Measure K.  The smartest guy I know on land use and planning issues, current Costa Mesa Planning Commission Chairman Byron de Arakal, has expounded frequently, loud and clear, why Measure K is critical to the future of our city, and has given us example after example of what happens if we don’t comply with the State rules.  That’s good enough for me.

THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT, NEIGHBORS

Yeah, I know… you’re saying to yourself, “But Geoff, you’re a lifelong Republican and you’re asking us to support Democrats!”  That’s true.  I’m asking you to support proven, rational, clear-headed, non-partisan leadership who have effectively guided our city through multiple crises simultaneously instead of a trio of partisan hacks who march to the tune that caused chaos in our city in the recent past.  Because the future of our city is at stake, I implore you to not be bamboozled by those who lie about the issues.  Please re-elect Mayor John Stephens, Mayor Pro Tem Andrea Marr, Councilwoman Arlis Reynolds and Councilman Manuel Chavez.  And, if you hope your children and their children will be able to afford to live in Costa Mesa, please vote YES ON MEASURE K. 

Byron de Arakal - "We Should Repeal Measure Z"

CONSIDERING MEASURE Z
At their meeting on Monday, February 24, 2020, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission considered, under Public Hearing #3, the discussion of creation of a new development fee and a committee to administer it per the only conditions of the onerous Measure Z that survived the vote.  You can read the staff report on that issue HERE.

THE VOTERS CHOICES IN 2016
In case you've forgotten, the voters voted heavily in favor of Measure Y, the slow growth measure.  It also passed Measure Z by a smaller margin.  As a result, only the elements of Measure Z that applied were those NOT included in Measure Y.  Here's what the votes looked like back in 2016.

THE CHAIRMAN SAYS "IT'S DISINGENUOUS - REPEAL IT"
Following the lengthy discussion, just prior to the vote being called, Chairman Byron de Arakal took a few minutes to explain why he was going to vote no on this issue.  I think it's important to understand just why he thinks Measure Z should be repealed, so here's a transcription of his entire explanation.

“I will not be supporting the motion and I’ll kinda give some reasons why. 

Principally, I think this fee and the ordinance that created it and the committee structure that it also created are wholey duplicative of fees we already have in place, and processes we have in place to administer park fees.  

As I mentioned in the meeting two years ago about this ordinance that a seven member, or seventeen member, committee to recommend to the council how these fee revenues should be spent should be a job that, if they are going to do it, should be recommended to the Parks and Recreation Commission and not the City Council.  We have a Parks and Recreation Commission for a reason.  

And, so this ordinance creates this big committee, and then it creates a new park fee - we already have essentially two or almost two, and now were gonna have three.  

Measure Z was created to chase voters away from Measure Y, and the only thing that could be placed in that measure to make it amenable to the voters to give them the notion to chase them off Measure Y,  is to say, “You know what, we’ll raise a bunch of money for your parks and your open space.”  - didn’t tell anybody that there are already thousands of dollars  per door for parks fees that get applied to these residential developments.  And so, it was really kind of a ruse, it was, you know, a magic show and I hated Measure Y, and still hate Measure Y, and I hated Measure Z, as well, because it was disingenuous.  It’s motive was disingenuous and how it was constructed was disingenuous, in my opinion.  

Now, having said that, we’re about to foist another fee on the development community, at a time when we’re about to have to figure out where we’re going to place 12,000 more housing units, principally, I think, in the area that just so happens to be in this area where this fee’s gonna be charged.  

Now, don’t think for a minute there wasn’t a motive for placing that fee just on this area, because there were people in this community that wanted no residential development north of the 405, west of Harbor and Fairview.  They didn’t want it, so they put a fee in place to chase the development community away because you’re just adding another fee on top of a park fee we already have.  

And so, ideally for me, I would love to see this commission recommend to the City Council that they place Measure Z on the ballot for a straight up or down vote on whether or not to repeal it - but that’s not gonna happen tonight.  

So, I’m gonna vote no on this motion because I think Measure Z was disingenuous from the beginning, I think it adds another fee to the development community, a development community we’re gonna need to meet our RHNA obligation in our new Housing Element.  And, ah, I just think it’s a big mistake.  And then we create this seventeen-member committee, that, who knows how political that could get?  And it cuts out the Parks Commission’s ability to make recommendations in it’s Capital Improvement Budget review because they’ve got this seventeen member committee who’s deciding now what happens to whatever pot of money comes out of this.  So, I’m going to be voting no." 

WHO?

When the Chairman said "...there are people in this community that wanted no residential development north of the 405...", we know who he meant - the sperm donors of Measure Z.

THEY VOTED HOW?!

And, this issue got curiouser and curiouser as the commission voted.  Commissioner Tourje was absent, but, as you can see from the image below, only three (3) commissioners voted "Yes" - Perkens, Russell and Zich.  Chariman de Arakal voted "No" and Commissioner Colbert and Vice Chairman Harlan abstained after consultation with City Attorney Tarquin Preziozi.  Fun fact - Harlan actually seconded the motion.

TO THE COUNCIL ON THE THINEST OF VOTES

So, now this issue will go before the City Council for consideration after the thinnest of votes to move it forward.  This should be interesting.

COMMENTS?
If you wish to comment on this entry you must go to my Facebook entry, which can be found on my page HERE.

Planning Commission Takes Flight

TOUGH TASKS ACCOMPLISHED
Monday night's Costa Mesa Planning Commission meeting was an interesting one, indeed.  You will recall that I suggested it might be a tough agenda for this new group... well, it was, but the commission proved worthy to the task.

 LIKE WATCHING FLEDGLINGS TAKE FLIGHT
In recent meetings it has been a little like watching a group of fledglings shedding their shells, squirm around the nest for positions and try to find space to spread their wings.  Last night we saw them make their way to the edge of the nest, flap those wings a little, then just drop off the edge and hope they could fly... and they did!  But, let's take the meeting in order and we'll get to that "flying" part shortly.

 PUBLIC COMMENTS
Only one person rose to speak during Public Comments.  An unidentified woman stepped up and addressed the commission on the recent Measure Z Stakeholders Meeting at City Hall last week.  She opined that, based on what she saw and heard, the City has no clue about what it's up against with the Marijuana crowd in attendance.  They have no idea about the probable collateral damage in the way of crime that may accompany the creation of our own "drug zone" in the north part of town.

 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioners Woods, Harlan and Kerins had nothing to say.

Vice Chair Byron De Arakal said he wants to open a dialogue with staff regarding the boundaries of the Mesa West Urban Homeownership plan and will likely have to get permission from the City Council for the staff time.

 Chairman Stephan Andranian congratulated Commissioner Isabell Kerins for being appointed liaison to the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee.

CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar - which contained only minutes from their last meeting - was passed without comment on a 5-0 vote.

MEASURE Z FEES AND COMMITTEE
Right off the bat the commissioners had a BIG issue to discuss in Public Hearing #1, which was the proposed ordinance following the adoption of Section 5 of Measure Z - the bogus issue placed on the ballot by the last council majority to try to counter Measure Y.  Certain portions of Z will become law, including establishment of an open space and public park impact fee and the creation of an advisory committee.

 ALREADY TINKERED-WITH BY CITY COUNCIL
The City Council has already tinkered with this and combined two committees - the Youth Sports Committee and the Open Space and Recreation Advisory Committee - expanding the latter from a seven (7) member committee into a seventeen (17) member committee with a revised scope of operation.

TOO MUCH YOUTH SPORTS ORIENTATION
Four members of the public spoke on this, none of whom were in favor of it.  Cynthia McDonald described Measure Z as deceptive and misleading and described the Youth Sports Committee as a "stacked" group that would place emphasis on youth activities and ignore the growing active aging population.  Rick Huffman agreed with her - they are husband and wife, after all - and described the heavily-youth sports oriented committee as being front-loaded and would form a voting block.

LEAVE THE COMMITTEE OUT!
Vice Chair de Arakal expressed concern about the expanded committee and suggested they leave the committee out of the ordinance.

COMMISSIONERS AGREED
Commissioner Jeffrey Harlan agreed, and said it hurt his head contemplating this issue.  He observed the conflicts between Measures Y and Z demonstrate the unintended consequences of the initiative process.  Commissioners Kerins and Carla Navarro Woods concurred.

Chairman Andranian asked if they have the option to leave the committee aside.  The answer was yes.

WHAT ABOUT THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION?
de Arakal expressed much concern that nowhere in the ordinance does it even mention the Parks and Recreation Commission, which he described as a very smart group of people who already perform some of the responsibilities of the proposed committee.  He served eight years on that commission and understands the scope of it's operations and authority.

PASSED - WITHOUT THE COMMITTEE!
The discussion went on and on and, eventually, after nearly an hour, de Arakal moved that the commission approve the ordinance as staff proposed WITHOUT any mention of the committee at all.  Rejecting the City Council plan, that motion passed, 5-0.  It was at this point the fledglings had launched themselves off into the unknown and took wing.  I smiled...

 SHEDS AND BANNERS MASSAGED AND PASSED
Public Hearing #2, a combined motion that attempted to clean up two issues - sheds and banners - was presented by Zoning Administrator Willa Bowens-Killeen, who explained the reasons for these suggested changes.  After a short discussion in which de Arakal asked Deputy City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill if the restrictions on size and duration of display of banners as recommended was a free-speech issue, (the answer was no), the commission approved the staff report, 5-0,  but changed the maximum size of the sheds to 8 feet tall and 120 square feet max.  That means that now you can place a shed in your yard without worrying about a 5 foot side setback and a 10 foot rear setback.  The fledglings were circling, gaining skills...

CLASSIC SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT
Next up was Public Hearing #3, a small lot development at 174 Costa Mesa Street that replaced a single family residence and detached garage with two single-family residences that conformed to the Small Lot Ordinance without variance requests.  This project was praised as one that was exactly what was in mind when the Small Lot Ordinance was created.  An added benefit - apparently this project displaces what was a sober living home and all the attendant problems that were associated with it.  It passed, 5-0.

 99 CENT ONLY STORE BEER AND WINE LICENSE
Public Hearing #4, the review of the 99 Cents Only Store request for a finding of Public Convenience and Necessity for a permit to sell beer and wine, which had been called up for review by Mayor Katrina Foley, generated some interesting discussion.  For example, during the conversations it turned out that this permit would make #5 in an area only approved for 3.  Only one member of the public, Barrie Fisher, spoke in favor of the request, who based her support on the fact that the property owner, not the lessee - the 99 Cent Only Store - should be held accountable for unsavory activities on and near the property.  In the end the commission voted, 4-1, (Andranian voted no) to reject the application based on a few factors - over saturation and the failure of the operator of the store to even show up.

CHICK-FIL-A REPLACING GRANT BOYS
After a short break the final item on the agenda - Public Hearing #5, the replacement of the old, closed Grant Boys store on the corner of Rochester Street and Newport Boulevard with a Chick-Fil-A drive-through, walk-up restaurant - was launched.  The staff recommendation was to reject this plan due to serious traffic considerations.

CHICK-FIL-A TEAM IN THE HOUSE
We knew right off the bat that this one would be interesting.  Chick-Fil-A showed up with a crew of experts and smooth-talkers.  Randy and Alexa Garell of Grant Boys were present, as were a cadre of Grant Boys fans ready to heap praise on their community contributions of 66 years, and to express the opinion that they deserved to be cut some slack on this project, even though some elements made it unworkable in the view of the staff.

HALE RAN POINT
After the brief staff report Chick-Fil-A main man Ed Hale made their pitch.  Keep in mind that his company has a reputation for being good citizens - their presence in Costa Mesa with their other store has been only positive - and Hale tried to explain how this project would really work on this site.  He said this is the 26th or 27th iteration of their plan, trying to fine-tune it.  He praised the Planning staff for their professionalism and cooperation.  This diagram shows their latest cut at how to make this work.  Traffic into the site could ONLY enter off Rochester Street and ONLY exit on Newport Boulevard.

PROTOTYPE STORE, MOVING THE PROCESS FASTER
Hale explained that this was a prototype store, with a new kitchen arrangement that permitted rapid through-put of cars in the line.  I don't think anyone in the room thought that their process wouldn't work... that was not the problem.

GARELLS SPOKE WITH PASSION
Twenty-one (21) people rose to speak on this issue, twenty-two if you count Randy Garell who spoke as part of the team presentation.  He and his wife, Alexa, spoke with great passion about the Grant family contributions to the community - nobody questions that, for sure - and, unfortunately, Randy closed his comments with a critical comment about this hearing being held the first day of Passover.  It was an unnecessary dig that seemed to bother some folks in the audience and on the dais.

POWERFUL ALLIES SPOKE IN FAVOR
Of those other twenty-one speakers, all but five spoke in favor of the project and almost all because of the Grant family contributions and Chick-Fil-A's reputation as a good neighbor/citizen.  Included in those were Chamber of Commerce President Tom Johnson - a fixture in this community since his days as the publisher of the Daily Pilot - and iconic former Costa Mesa Police Chief Dave Snowden, who did nearly 18 years in that role and was broadly active in the community for more years than that.  His sons and their families live in the city.

LOTS OF LOYAL FRIENDS SPOKE IN SUPPPORT
Friends and business associates of Garell and the Grant family, like Alan Greeley, 37-year owner of the Golden Truffle across the street from the Grant Boys store, spoke in glowing terms.  They went on and on.

 TRAFFIC IS THE ISSUE
Those who spoke against this project, like activist Beth Refakes and businessman Iggy Israel, did so based on the fact that it would create a traffic nightmare on Rochester Street, and that it likely would be impossible to exit onto Newport Boulevard - the real crux of the issue.

REBUTTAL FALLS SHORT
Following Public Comments Hale attempted to address some of the issues raised.  He, for example, said that left turns into the property from Rochester would be forbidden.  Well, I wonder how that's going to happen?  Same with prohibiting right turns into the exit to Newport Boulevard.  Public Services Director Raja Sethuraman explained the process of traffic analysis, and why this project doesn't work.

APPLES AND TANGERINES
de Arakal interrogated the Traffic Consultant from Chick-Fil-A, observing that the Escondido store that was used for many of the comparisons REALLY isn't a valid comparison because, unlike the proposed Costa Mesa store, it doesn't front on two public streets - it's  part of a mall parking lot, where overflow traffic isn't much of an issue.

IT JUST WON'T WORK!
Finally, as the clock crept past 10 p.m., Vice Chair de Arakal opined that this really was not an issue about the Grant family, nor was it about Chick-Fil-A, both of whom have multitudes of supporters and a history of community support that is undeniable.  This is an issue about a project that simply doesn't work at that particular location, regardless of the emotion involved.  There is NO question that Chick-Fil-A has refined their processes to improve through-put of cars and walk-up customers.  In fact, those improvements may only exacerbate this issue by actually moving cars through the property faster than the Newport Boulevard traffic can handle.

 REJECTED UNANIMOUSLY
Each of the commissioners joined his concerns and, at 10:10 p.m., they voted unanimously - 5-0 -  to deny the project as proposed.  I could see those fledglings now soaring like eagles with this difficult decision behind them.  I smiled again...

 HOVERING AND CONTEMPLATING
Chick-Fil-A proponents and members of the Grant contingent hovered around on the Council Chambers porch for a long time, clustered in little groups discussing this rejection.  I presume they were trying to decide whether to appeal it to the City Council.

NEXT MEETING ON MAY 8TH
As Andranian was about to adjourn the meeting Acting Development Services Director Jay Trevino told the commission that their next meeting - normally scheduled for April 24th - was being cancelled because there are no Public Hearings nor New Business items scheduled for that night.  The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be on May 8th.  Trevino encouraged the commissioners to get some rest...

AND NOW, FOR THE COMMISSIONERS...