Hank Panian, Fees, Development And More

FULL AGENDA...
The Costa Mesa City Council meets for their first, of many, meetings in September on Tuesday, September 1, 2015 for another very interesting gathering.  There's plenty on the agenda to draw a crowd.  Read the full agenda HERE.

HANK IS THE MAN!
Right off the top there will be the presentation of the Mayor's Award to Costa Mesa icon, Hank Panian - a man who has dedicated much of his adult life trying to make Costa Mesa better.  I'm really looking forward to this one.

CONSENT CALENDAR
There are a few interesting items on the Consent Calendar - those items that are considered "routine" and can be voted upon with one vote and no discussion.  That's not likely to happen this time.

SPENDING YOUR MONEY
Item #3 is Warrant #2541, HERE, which shows disbursements we've made for the past several weeks.  As always, I'll give you just a little taste of some of the money we laid out recently.  These are in order as they appear, so you can read along if you wish.

• Bingo West $4 - $15,306.78 - apparently for a Bingo Console (for where?  The Senior Center?)
• Clean Street - $57,799.98 - Street Sweeping Svcs, June. 15
• Jones & Mayer - $143,811.48 - Legal Svcs, various (two full pages listed!)
• Kabbara Engineering - $22,614.50 - Engineering Svcs.
• Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. - $7,125.00 - Consulting
• Liebert Cassidy Whitmore - $8,802.34 - Legal, Personnel Matter
• City of Huntington Beach - $22,540.00 - Helicopter, Jun.2015
• Civil Source - $17,658.00 - Temp. Staffing
• Moore Iacofano Goftsman Inc - $20,426.75 - Gen'l Plan Update and Env. Rprt
• FTOG Inc - $2,775.00 - Special Project Consulting, 7/20-7/31/15
• Government Staffing Services Inc - $7,665.00 - Temp Svcs.
• Interwest Consulting Group Inc - $12,045.00 - Sr. Bldg Inspct. Svcs Jun 15
• Samys Camera - $1,419.12 - GoPro Camera and gear
• Scientia Consulting Group Inc - $5,590.00 - On-site Tech Support 6/28-7/11
• Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau - $187,048.05 - BIA Receipts, Jun 15
• Safe Moves - $40,154.18 - Bicycle Education Svds Jun 15
• Liebert Cassidy Whitmore - $10,714.50 - Legal, General
• Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth - $13,548.00 - Legal, Various
• Easton & Easton LLP - $150,000 - Settlement Bailey v City
• Mary Goggin - $30,000 - Settlement M Goggins v City
• Government Staffing Services Inc - $11,712.50 - Temp Svcs
• White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP - $7,950.00 - Audit Svcs FY 2014/2015

So, once again legal costs and settlements cost us over $250,000 this time around.

COLLECTING PARKING TICKET BUCKS
Item #7, HERE, is a contract through the City of Sausalito, for parking ticket citation processing with Data Ticket, Inc.  Our contract has expired and, according to the staff report, this is the most cost effective way to perpetuate the agreement with Data Ticket.  Last year it cost us just over $60,000, but the revenue resulting from the citations was a net $700,495.

SEVENTEEN (17) NEW POLICE VEHICLES
Item #8, HERE, is VERY interesting.  It's the request by the Police Department for an increase in the FY 15/16 budget of $372,705 for a total this year of $654,985 for the following:

• Purchase of 8 vehicles replacing 10 that were leased
• Six front line patrol vehicles will be replaced by six purchased vehicles
• Two new pick-up trucks will be purchased for Park Ranger use
• One new vehicle has been purchased for the Chief of Police

VAPING RULES AND SMOKING LOUNGES
There are four (4) Public Hearings on the agenda Tuesday night.  #1, HERE, is the delayed hearing on amendments to Title 8 and Title 13 of the Municipal Code related to vaping in public facilities and regulation of smoking lounges.  If approved as recommended this will:

1 - Add a definition and create zoning regulations specifically pertaining to smoking lounges.
2 - Add a definition f or "smoking/vaping retailers" to preclude the establishment of lounge uses as part of a retail store.
3 - Prohibit vaping in specified public places by modifying the current prohibition of smoking in public facilities.
4 - Consider the existing two, legally-established smoking lounges as legal nonconforming uses, which may be subject to discontinuation or closure in the future under specific circumstances.
5 - Create standards to allow several zoning districts where new smoking lounges may be permitted by right or conditionally permitted.
6 - Create operational and development standards to address various potential issues.
7 - Planning Commission recommended changes to distinguish between tobacco and electronic cigarette/vaping products.

The council can either (1) continue the meeting to address additional changes to the draft ordinance.  If they do that it must be considered by September 15, 2015 because the current moratorium will expire November 5, 2015; OR (2) Direct staff to modify the ordinance and forward to City Council for consideration.  This would require the moratorium to be extended.

CODIFYING CAPITAL NEEDS ALLOCATIONS
Public Hearing #2, HERE, is the first reading of the Capital Asset Needs Ordinance, which codifies the policies established last March.  If approved this will allocate a minimum of five percent (5%) of the General Fund Budget to capital expenditures and plan a goal of an additional one and one-half percent (1.5%) dedicated to a Capital Facilities Account.  If this were in place for the current budget it would have resulted in just over $5.5 million and $1.6 million, respectively.

VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
Public Hearing #3, HERE, is the vacation of right-of-way at 970 West 16th Street, where a new development is planned.

RIGHT-OF-WAY, PART 2
Public Hearing #4, HERE, is a vacation of a flowage easement at the same address for the same project.

PARK FEES FOR APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT, PLUS...
Old Business #1, HERE, is the second reading of an update to the Park in-lieu fees and Impact Fees (Park Fees), which includes application of those fees to apartment projects for the first time.

MORE DEVELOPMENT!
New Business #1, HERE, may draw a crowd.  This is the General Plan Screening request for a proposed 28-unit residential project at 440 Fair Drive, near the corner of Fair and Harbor Blvd.  I suspect more than one or two of the College Park neighbors will show up to talk about this item.

ALLOCATING LEINART FEES
New Business #2, HERE, is the delayed discussion of how to allocate the nearly $25,000 in fees paid by Matt Leinart Flag Football for inaccurately portraying their organization last year.  Normally, such funds go into the General Fund, but there are those - Councilwoman Katrina Foley - who suggested they should be split and allocated to Costa Mesa and Estancia High Schools for athletic equipment.

VOTING DELEGATES
New Business #3, HERE, is the designation of the voting delegate and voting delegate alternate for the 2015 League of California Cities Annual Conference.  Presently Mayor Steve Mensinger is designated as the voting delegate and Councilwoman Sandra Genis is the alternate.

REFUND OF APPEAL FEES
New Business #4, HERE, is the request for refund of appeal fees for two items - ZA-15-01 involving the Solid Landings facility on West 19th Street and PA-14-41, involving the proposed Farmer's Market at the corner of Orange Avenue and Bay Street.  The appellants, Ann Parker and Carrie Renfro respectively, have requested the refund of the fees they paid for their successful appeals.  Parker's is $690.00 and Renfro paid $1,220.00.

The Winds Of Change...

DO YOU FEEL IT?

Have you noticed it?  Recently there seems to be a gentle breeze of change in the air in Costa Mesa.  It began ever so slightly as folks seemed to have growing concerns about things like rehab homes and public safety.  Lately, though, that breeze seems to be strengthening.

ILLEGAL NIGHT CLUB
It may have begun earlier this year when Westside resident Steven Chan had finally had enough of what appeared to be illegal activities at a nightclub under renovation on West 19th Street, near his home.  I wrote about it  HERE.  He reported it and the result was a full-blown investigation by the city which resulted in the establishment - what would soon be called Maison and operated by Roland Barrera of 60th Anniversary celebration notoriety - to be red-tagged for a list of violations of codes much too long to list here.  A win for residents.

RULES VIOLATED AT REHAB FACILITY

Then there was the Solid Landings issue.  I wrote about it HERE.  That Westside site is just down the street from Maison and very close to the Costa Mesa Senior Center.  It seems this facility was also operating beyond the scope of what is permitted and without building permits for improvements.  The Zoning Administrator approved their operations, but a resident - Ann Parker - put up the money and appealed that issue to the Planning Commission, which reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision.  That decision was later upheld by the City Council.  Another win for residents.

FARMER'S MARKET
Then, most recently, there was the proposed Farmer's Market at St. John the Divine Episcopal Church at the corner of Bay Street and Orange Avenue.  I wrote about it HERE. This issue was approved by the Planning Commission, but was appealed by resident Carrie Renfro, who paid more than $1200 in fees and spent hours and hours preparing her case.  It actually took her an hour to deliver it last Tuesday night.  After 30 people spoke on the issue and the council discussed it, the Planning Commission decision was reversed.  Yet another win for the residents.

"SMART GROWTH" INITIATIVE
And, now percolating in the background, is the move by a new citizen's organization, Costa Mesa First, to gather signatures to place an initiative on the November 2016 ballot that would rein in the nearly out-of-control development that has been happening in our city for the past few years.  You can read about it at their web site, HERE.  You can see a graphic summary of the initiative's goals  HERE.  You can read the summary description of the initiative provided by The City and titled, An Initiative To Require Voter Approval On Certain Development Projects, HERE.  And, if you wish to read the entire initiative, you can do so HERE.

KNEE JERK REACTION

The reaction to this effort has been swift.  Within hours of the announcement Mayor Pro Tem Jim

Righeimer - a developer-friendly politician - pronounced that if approved by the voters it would mean the end of Costa Mesa.  He subsequently remarked that one of the sponsors of this initiative, former councilman Jay Humphrey, whom Righeimer beat by a mere 47 votes last November, that he should, "just win an election and do what you want to do."  That is apparently how he feels about elective office - get elected and you can do anything you want.  His actions since being elected certainly demonstrate that view.  If this is placed on the ballot and passes it could be a HUGE win for residents.

"ANGRY AS HELL, AND..."

The common thread through all of this is major discontent by residents of this city.  They are tired of the heavy-handed mismanagement of our municipal government.  They are tired of no longer feeling safe in our city because the police department has been gutted.  They are just plain tired of being ignored by those elected to serve them.  Many of them have had enough and have taken it upon themselves - sometimes at great personal expense and expenditure of valuable time - to investigate issues and present their views to the folks in charge.  In the case of the initiative, they're taking it to their friends and neighbors - the voters and taxpayers of this city - to get sufficient signatures to place the issue before all the voters.  Indeed, the winds of change seem to be freshening in Costa Mesa and those elected and appointed officials who have been ignoring the views of the residents of the city need to take note of it.  This little breeze may just turn into a hurricane by this time next year - when we will have launched ourselves into the election season.

BATTEN DOWN THE HATCHES...

The next few months are going to be very interesting in our fair city.  Residents have demonstrated that they can be a force to be reckoned with if they do their homework and present a good case.  This is how the system is supposed to work.  Our form of government is not supposed to be a dictatorship, which is what the current power elite in this town has been emulating.  If they don't wise-up, the next election could be VERY interesting.

Liar, Liar...

"JIM RIGHEIMER IS A BIG FAT LIAR"

That phrase was spoken to the mayor during the bifurcated public comments section late in the evening Tuesday, October 21st.  You can watch Anna Vrska express her opinion near the end of this video clip, HERE.  Here's yet another example...

RENFRO SIGNS IN ON GROUP HOME ORDINANCE
Earlier that day, at 2:52 p.m.,  after reviewing the text of the proposed Group Home Ordinance that was to receive a second reading at the council meeting that night, resident Carrie Renfro, who lives on Buoy Street, in the heart of a part of town significantly impacted by the Group Home problem, wrote to four council members - Mayor Jim Righiemer, Mayor Pro Tem Steve Mensinger and Councilwomen Sandra Genis and Wendy Leece with the following note:

"I applaud the city for finally taking some action regarding the out of control proliferation of group homes in our city; however, I am writing to ask that you reconsider the currently proposed ordinance.  The ordinance is not well written and only covers a portion of the residential areas. Further, it does not address the parolee situation.  I think it would be wise to wait a few weeks to see if the SCOTUS takes up the Newport Beach case which could have a huge bearing on how CM should proceed.  The current ordinance in its format will most certainly open us up for a lawsuit, which would further hold up any future ordinance. I figure if we are going to be tied up with lawsuit, let’s at least start with a city wide ordinance that is well crafted in the first place.  Thanks.

Carrie Renfro"

You may recall that Righeimer held one of his little mini-town halls on Renfro's side yard to discuss the infestation of Group Homes not too long ago.

RIGHEIMER RESPONDS...
At 3:26 p.m. that afternoon Righeimer responded to Renfro with the following note:

"Ms. Renfro,

Thanks for your email. The ordinance at this point applies only to R-1.
Our attorneys will start drafting R-2, R-3 etc. once and if the ordinance
is approved. Because the character of R-1 neighborhoods is different than
r-2 or r-3 neighborhoods, the ordinance will also be different.

Our ordinance is also very different from Newport Beach¹s. Newport already
lost in court and is asking for the U.S. Supreme court to take the case.
There is 20% chance they may take it. Meanwhile we have written an
ordinance we think can get though the courts once it is challenged.

Lastly, the ordinance was recommended by the task force that I put
together. Lisa Morlan, who is a founder of TBON, is OK with this ordinance.

Thanks again for your email.
Respectfully,
Jim

James Righeimer
Mayor, City of Costa Mesa"

MORLAN SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Following the council meeting at which the ordinance received approval several of the members of the grass-roots organization Take Back Our Neighborhoods (TBON) expressed concern about it, and the statement made by Righeimer above in which he stated categorically that TBON member Lisa Morlan "is OK with this ordinance."  He also identified her as a founder of TBON.  She's a member, not a founder.  The letter below, written to Renfro by Morlan at 2:04 p.m. on 10/22/14, explains in no uncertain terms Morlan's viewpoint on the ordinance and Righeimer's falsehoods in his letter.

Hi Carrie...Thank you for forwarding the email Mayor Righeimer is sending out...

First of all, I never received a copy of the group home ordinance to review prior to it being shared at the 1st planning commission.  I missed the last week of the Task Force meeting when the ordinance was voted on and finalized by the Task Force (I was in Washington).  I'm not even sure if a final draft was given to Task Force members to review.  How could I possibly endorse the City's propose group home ordinance without having access to it?  I would have wanted to thoroughly go through it with a fine tooth comb before giving it a thumbs up or down.  I did request a copy of the ordinance draft before I left for vacation; however, Rick Francis from the City told me I couldn't have one because of confidential and legal concerns.

For the record...this is my where I stand on the issue:

1.  The mayor should not be putting my name, or TBON's name on any email.  He did not ask me if I endorsed the current group   home ordinance.

2.  I will call/email Mayor and ask him to remove my name from any email, letter, or publication he hands out to the public.

3.  I believe Costa Mesa needs an ordinance to better regulate the over proliferation of group homes in Costa Mesa., but the current one did not have my stamp of approval.  I never had access to view the final proposed ordinance.

4.  I do believe the City attorney's did work very hard to research information to compose the ordinance.  I do know they spoke with the former mayor of Orange and the attorney who crafted their group home ordinance, Newport Beach council, League of Cities, experts in the field including Hoag Hospital.  Data of negative impacts (past and current) have been collected and reviewed, including emails/letters of complaints from Costa Mesa residents.  I do not have any reason to believe the City attorneys who worked on the ordinance were swayed to do anything illegal, unethical, or half-assed.  It is my belief the composing of the ordinance was done professionally, responsively, and with good intent (Yes...I know...many will probably shake their heads over my comment).  I understand why people are doubtful...there have been too many lies, and who can Costa Mesa citizens trust on council.

5.  I believe the group ordinance is a good start; however, it does need refining...which I hope and pray the City will do.  Would I like to see the current ordinance cover all of Costa Mesa...absolutely yes.  However, from a legal standpoint, I do understand the City attorney's recommendation to start of with R1 first.  Do I like that...no.  But I'm not an attorney who has expertise in how to battle the many law suits that are going to undoubtedly happen.  Court battles are a whole different ballgame.

6. My greatest concern is that the City will not have the manpower, such as code enforcement, and the means withal to implement/enforce the group home ordinance.  Even if the group home ordinance is crafted to cover all R1 and R2 neighborhoods, and written in a manner that earns everyone's approval, who is going to enforce it?  How is it going to be enforced?  How many City employees are going to be needed to effectively and consistently handle this?

7.  Lastly, I am NOT the founder of TBON!

Please feel free to share my email with others.  If there are further questions, please feel free to call or email.

Best regards,
Lisa Morlan

THANKS, LISA...
Morlan certainly grasps the issue and has an excellent perspective on the problem and the barely marginal solution provided by the Group Home Ordinance.  A couple speakers Tuesday night opined that the City was in for some serious legal problems with this ordinance.  One even told us that our "pockets are not deep enough."  He's probably right.
 
A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH THE TRUTH
I don't know exactly what Righeimer's problem is with the truth, but he certainly has one.  This is only a recent example of him misstating the truth - the list is too long and painful to recount here.  He just seems to make things up as he goes along, apparently expecting that nobody will notice.

JAY HUMPHREY IS CORRECT...
This is just one more reason he must not be returned to the City Council.  As Jay Humphrey said in a recent Daily Pilot commentary, HERE,  "This council election is, more than anything, about trust.  Whom do you trust?"