SPOILER ALERT! Lions Park Project Moves Forward

SORRY ABOUT THAT...
Yeah, I know... you were waiting for the big build-up.  You wanted the drama, to see if the combined deliberative body - the City Council, Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission - would, at this late date, fail to move the Lions Park Project forward.  Ha!  Not a chance!  After years and years of meetings and presentations, this baby was a done deal last night.... but getting there wasn't a quick decision.

A VERY UNUSUAL, SPECIAL MEETING
As mentioned, the Costa Mesa City Council, Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and most of the senior city staff met in a Special Joint meeting at the Costa Mesa Country Club - ironically, the current Neighborhood Community Center is now closed pending demolition - to discuss this monumental project.  Nearly 150 of your friends and neighbors attended this meeting.  Some questioned whether they could actually meet and do what was planned on the agenda, but City Attorney Tom Duarte assured us that it was all legal.  You can read the full staff report HERE.

FIVE HOURS!
This meeting, which took five (5) hours almost to the second and played to a full house of around 150 people, actually seemed to move very quickly.  City Manager Tom Hatch kicked things off, gave us some history of the project and, with the exception of a few brief comments scattered throughout the meeting, allowed his staff and the architect to carry the ball.  Assistant City Manager Tammy Letourneau shepherded the initial staff presentations by Senior Planner Mel Lee and Interim Finance Director Steve Dunivent.  Sherry Toth, representing the Orange County Libraries who actually will run this new facility, also spoke briefly.

JOHNSON'S EXCELLENT PRESENTATION
About thirty minutes into the evening Steve Johnson, of the architectural firm of Johnson Favaro, made the main presentation which took just over two (2) hours, including questions from the assembled officials.  His presentation was outstanding, although he provided a little too much architectural history from my perspective.  Still, it was interesting.  The new library will be created using contemporary technologies and concepts - apparently libraries are no longer about books, but about meeting, creating using the technology available - and there are books, too.  I'm not going to try to provide you with every word that was uttered.   Suffice it to say that the new two-story building will meet the contemporary demands of all age groups, from toddlers to us geezers and every part of the age spectrum between.

CMTV COVERED IT
Dane Bora, Brad Long and the CMTV team were on hand to record the event and will present it for delayed viewing sometime within the next day or so.. lots of editing to be done.

Some of Johnson's highlights:

SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE, STACKED
The old single story, 22,000 square foot Neighborhood Community Center will be razed and a new two-story, 22,000 library will be erected within part of that footprint.

A NEW ACRE OF PARKLAND
The result of that vertical construction will provide a new acre of parkland on the site.

OLD LIBRARY OPEN DURING NEW LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION
The existing Donald Dungan Branch Library will remain open while construction takes place on the new building - the 2017-2019 time frame.

CAFE' MESA
A restaurant - dubbed Cafe'Mesa - will be constructed in that first phase and will be located between the new structures.

TRIMMED MEETING ROOM INVENTORY IS SUFFICIENT 
Once the new library building is complete the library operations will be transferred to it and the existing circular structure will be renovated and become the NCC, with a meeting room large enough to accommodate 300 people, plus another smaller one.  Analysis by staff and the architects determined that the current NCC was very underutilized - it was only being used 30% of the available time.  So, the more compact - fewer rooms - combination of the new NCC and the New library should suffice.  There are two meeting rooms in the new library building with outside access.

FINANCING
Financing was a big question.  Interim Finance Director Steve Dunivent did a great job of explaining it in laymans terms.  The shortest version possible to explain it is - it will cost $36,000 for this project and the city will finance $18.5 of that amount with a Certificate of Participation (COP).  Because so much of the cost is being paid in cash, and because existing COPs will be either retired or re-financed at current lower rates, our monthly payments on this project will remain about the same as we are currently paying on the other ones - about $1.2 million a year.  Read Attachment 5, HERE, for the full details of the financing.  This image is a snapshot of one segment that might help you.

 NEAR UNIVERSAL EUPHORIA AMONG OFFICIALS
It's safe to say that there was nearly universal euphoria among the council, commissioners and staff about this project.  Some of the comments made were almost orgasmic, but that may have been due in part to the lateness of the hour.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Twenty-two (22) people spoke during Public Comments.  Opinions were fairly even.  Slightly more than half loved the idea.  The others didn't like it, or had major concerns about it.  Sorry about the camera angle.  Among those who addressed the officials were:

Art and Mary Ellen Goddard, who have been involved in seeking a new library for the city for twenty years.  To say they were happy with the result last night would be the understatement of the decade.

Robin Leffler was among those not sold on the extravagance of this project, suggesting that we may be squandering money that might be used to purchase the Fairview Developmental Center when it actually comes available sometime down the road.

Terry Koken bemoaned the current dearth of open bathrooms at the park and suggested that, in the case of the homeless folks who currently infest this and other city parks, they're gonna do what they're gonna do, bathroom or not.

Alex Reich decried no 2017 public outreach and actually plugged this blog... thanks for that, Alex.  He suggested that THIS project was not the right project.

Cindy Black, a 36-year resident of the near Westside, described the site as "my 'hood", said this was not the project she saw in the early meetings.  She observed that libraries are a dying breed.

Greg Ridge was among those who complained about the locked fences around elements of the park, making them unusable to most park visitors.  He complained that he had to climb the fence at Davis Field to play football on Thanksgiving Day.  He suggested the park should be more open - tear down those fences.

Senior Commission Vice Chair Darrell Neft was one of the many enthusiastic supporters of this project, observing that no project is perfect.  He observed that libraries are NOT dead, that millennials are using them a lot.  He encouraged the officials to get going with it.

Mark Korando and his wife, Cherie (who passed on celebrating her birthday last night to attend the meeting) - nearby residents - complained about the inability to take their grandkids to the park and fly a kite and just run and play, citing the fences and homeless folks.

MANSOOR ASKS TO SHOVE IT OUT
Public Comments ended at 9:40 and then the fun began.  After nearly 30 minutes of discussion retread Council member Allan Mansoor asked for the decisions by each body present be split into separate meetings.  The Parks and Recreation Commission would hear their issue at a normal meeting, as would the Planning Commission and the City Council.  After all this hoopla last night, and with the assurance by the City Attorney that this process was appropriate, he wanted to drag this out for another month.  Councilman Jim Righeimer blew his top, saying "This is offensive to me!", and call it "obstructionist".  Mansoor made the motion and it failed on a split vote, 3-2.

DE ARAKAL NAILS IT!
During the deliberations Planning Commission Vice Chair Byron de Arakal addressed some of the earlier concerns - like why the new library couldn't have been placed at the Civic Center Park near City Hall, indicating it wasn't a large enough site.  He said the Fairview Developmental Center - another site suggested by several speakers - was no slam dunk and was still off in the future.  He observed that this project would be creating a defacto new Civic Center, where arts, culture and commerce would converge.  He described this project as a "Legacy" - something this council and others who got the ball rolling could look back on as a major positive accomplishment in their tenure.  He also observed that it was the Genesis of the revitalization of that part of town.

PARKS COMMISSION PASSES THEIR MOTION
Just before 10:30 the voting process began.  Parks and Recreation Chairman Kim Pederson moved to approve the Lions Park Projects Master Plan as proposed.  Commissioner Arlis Reynolds, after a long explanation, attempted to make a substitute motion, but it failed for lack of a second.  The original motion then passed, 5-0, and the ball was tossed to the Planning Commission.

THE FIRST ITEM PASSES
Chairman Stephan Andranian moved to Adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.  Commissioner Carla Navarro Woods suggested that the plant palette be softened to include some more drought tolerant, yet colorful species.  The issue passed, 5-0.

SECOND ITEM PASSES, TOO
Vice Chair de Arakal then moved the second issue before them - the adoption of a resolution to approve Planning Application PA-16-71 for the Lions park Projects Master Plan, subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures.  Commissioner Jeffrey Harlan observed that this project was creative, imaginative and shared de Arakal's enthusiasm for it.  He observed that usually cities rely on developers for this kind of project and he was pleased that the City had chosen to move forward with this excellent project.  Commissioner Isabell Kerins agreed.  Andranian also agreed but expressed concern about the displacement of the homeless during the project and the additional debt.  The motion passed 5-0.  It was now 10:45.

STEPHENS MOVE THE ISSUES
The City Council then took their turn at motions.  Councilman John Stephens moved to adopt the plans in the first of two motions, which ended up being considered in one vote.  The motion was to adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the Lions Park Projects Master Plan, City Project No. 17-03 and to authorize staff to advertise the Lions Park Projects for construction.  Now, you'd have thought this would be a simple vote, but it took fifteen minutes of yammering before they finally passed it unanimously.  Even at that late hour, so deep into the proceedings, Mayor Pro Tem Sandra Genis again expressed concern about the location of the buildings, which Johnson again patiently explained. 

RIGHEIMER RAMBLED
Councilman Jim Righeimer told us he'd "looked at this like 50 times."  He said, "We need this library!" and told us a personal anecdote about hauling his fifteen-year old daughter from library to library, from town-to-town because of the lack of a library in our city.  Personally, I thought that was a bunch of manure, but it may be true.  Regardless, it gave him a chance to exercise his jaws before the meeting ended.  He told us this is the best site, that we can't wait for the Fairview Developmental Center and he explained how this is just trading existing debt for new debt.  He said, "If we don't do this the money will be spent."  He stopped short of saying that the current council would just give it to the employees, but I could see those wheels spinnin'.

GENIS CONTINUED...
Genis again went on and on, saying we should build two of them.  She recited history - the purchase of the Farm site, where Jack Hammett Sports Complex now sits, and told Righeimer, "You got me."

FOLEY JUST BUBBLED
Mayor Katrina Foley expressed her great enthusiasm for this project, that it was the right time for it and she was proud of all involved.  She had Letourneau re-state the number of meetings - at least 50 - with stakeholders, trying to flesh out their interests and needs.  She recalled the 9 public meetings and hearings over the past couple years.  Her point - not stated - was that if folks didn't have a chance to provide their input it was certainly not for lack of opportunities.  She just bubbled with enthusiasm as she described this new venue as a place for the people.  She also acknowledged that we still have many other issues that need to be addressed, but we should move forward with this project as scheduled.  The vote was taken and passed, 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 11:03 p.m.  Ugh!

THIS IS A REALLY GOOD PROJECT
OK, this is a really cool project.  Get past the money part - that's been resolved and we're paying a big chunk of cash from anticipated revenue sources based on development projects already in the pipeline.  Measure Y seems to have no impact on this project.  You can argue the architecture all day - it's all a matter of taste.  Johnson's presentation won me over.  This is going to put most of Lions Park out of commission for nearly two years.  That's a tough consequence, but in the grand scheme of things it's a short-term problem and it seems worth it in the long haul.  I'm looking forward to watching this unfold.  I encourage you to watch the CMTV coverage of this meeting, if only to see Johnson's presentation... you can watch politicians anytime.  Read Luke Money's Daily Pilot report HERE.

HOMELESSNESS MUST BE ADDRESSED - NOW!
For me, of much greater concern is the homelessness issue which, hard as we try, seems only to be getting worse.  I fear that if we don't get a handle on it, once this new magnificent project is completed - as several speakers observed - we may end up having to regularly treat the chairs for lice infestation and hose out the bathrooms daily.  This is a SERIOUS problem that needs a resolution.  We NEED transitional housing ASAP.  It's unacceptable that we allow a couple hundred homeless people to destroy the ability of residents - taxpayers - to enjoy our parks.  We need to do MORE to fix this problem... NOW!

City Council Team Building Retreat A Success

GETTING TO KNOW YOU, GETTING TO KNOW ALL ABOUT YOU...
The Costa Mesa City Council had an unusual event yesterday afternoon/evening.  They met for a "retreat" at the Hilton Hotel - a team building exercise facilitated by a consultant.  It was interesting, to say the very least.

THESE SESSIONS USUALLY WORK
Let me say up front that I've attended many such events - actually conducted a couple - in my private sector career assignments.  They were usually held at offsite locations - a resort, hotel, etc. - and  always proved to be a worthwhile exercise because the atmosphere was casual and loosely structured to encourage positive interaction - and nobody from the outside was looking over your shoulder.

BROWN ACT CONSTRICTION
This event, which is necessarily constricted by the Brown Act, still provided many of the positive elements even though there were a half-dozen residents and a Daily Pilot reporter on the scene.  You can read Luke Money's report in the Daily Pilot HERE.

WARM AND COZY
Beginning at 4:00, the small, warm room - had to keep those yummy appetizers warm, for goodness sake -  was configured so the council members and staff - City Manager Tom Hatch, City Attorney Tom Duarte and Assistant City Manager Tammy Letourneau - were seated in a "U" formation, so each could have easy eye contact with the others.  The consultant, Jan Perkins of Management Partners (the same firm that did the Police Department study a few years ago and at which Letourneau has worked) was at the open end of that "U", guiding the discussions, listing observations and suggestions.  All five members of the City Council were present for the entire evening, which ended up lasting a little over four hours, including a short dinner break at 6:00.  I left as they broke for dinner for Police Chief Rob Sharpnack's Town Hall at Vanguard University - more on that in another post.

Perkins began by showing the agenda for the meeting (above), and laid out some of the ground rules:

THE QUESTION...
She then handed out a sheet for the participants - council and staffers - to use.  They were asked to complete the following statement: "Costa Mesa would be an even better place if....."

BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY AND ANSWERS
Before answering that question each participant was asked to share some personal information about themselves - things the others may not know.  Each gave a brief bit if information on themselves - I won't begin to address that here except to observe that there's a whole lot of San Gabriel Valley influence in the room - and included their response to the question.

John Stephens hoped that they could work on the challenges ahead without the divisiveness that has marked the recent past.

Tom Duarte hoped for a successful meeting that could develop teamwork.

Jim Righeimer's response almost made me choke.  He said, "Costa Mesa would be better if it was not so political.", and compounded that by observing that we had handed over the treasury of the city to public employees.  I simply must observe here that HE has politicized every action he's taken in this city since he arrived a decade ago.  His view, apparently, is that if you disagree with him it MUST be political - not that his ideas are BAD ideas, or that his method of achieving his goals are BAD... nope, must be political.

Allan Mansoor spoke about a lack of responsiveness to his concerns.  He looked for more fiscal responsibility, more paved streets and less crime.  He looks for an improvement of the Quality of Life in the City.

Sandy Genis looked for a more responsive city government.  She hoped to see the city upgraded without destroying the character of the city.  She longed for the same old friendly Costa Mesa.

Katrina Foley spoke about the working families in the city, hoping to improve the communities without losing identities.  She spoke of maintaining the quaintness of the city.

Tom Hatch hoped that we can continue to improve and change the community while respecting the history.

Tammy Letourneau hoped the council and staff will be able to work together toward common goals.

Following those presentations a few of the council members observed that any of those ideals could be adopted.

THREE QUESTIONS
Perkins then led a discussion revolving around three statements:

1 - What I need from fellow council members is...

2 - What I need from staff is... 

3 - What staff needs from council members is...

Each participant was asked to address those issues briefly.  They responded with the following observations for Question #1:

• Genis - Establish norms - follow policies.  Mutual respect and we're all afraid of humor.
• Foley - Not have intentions presumed.  Have a sense of humor - which she observed, can be risky.
• Righeimer - The Brown Act is not human.
• Stephens - The council needs forgiveness going forward.
• Duarte - Mutual respect and communication collaboration.
• Mansoor - Politics is not funny.

In response to Question #2, above:

• Righeimer, smiling, said he needs the staff available 24/7.
• Genis said the staff should REALLY listen to requests from the council, and to appreciate the city's uniqueness.
• Foley she looked for the staff's willingness to make recommendations based on their best professional opinion and to anticipate the expected consequences.  She asked them to consider issues as though they lived in the city.  "What would they want as residents?"
• Stephens said, "Don't let me screw up!"
• Mansoor agreed with Foley - that the staff should give an opinion even if the council doesn't want to hear it - and said they should "read our minds" - with a smile on his face.

In response to Question 3, above: (this discussion went on for quite awhile, back and forth)

• Mansoor said the council should "own our decisions - don't put everything off on staff".  He also said they should be respectful of the staff's time and not monopolize it.
• Foley said the council should provide a "clarity of communications".
• Stephens said "Patience".  He also said the expression of sincere appreciation for the work done. 
• Hatch observed that serving five council members was like ordering one pizza and trying to find something that each one will like.  It's their goal to equally support every council member.
• Stephens replied to that statement that it's virtually impossible to support equally simultaneously.
• Genis said sometimes you feel you have to push harder - kick and scream - to get some staff time.
• Foley observed that it goes back to political divisiveness, and spoke about a new process using Google Docs to help each council member be aware of the things the staff is working on for them.
• Righeimer observed that "we killed the 4 hour rule" - which surprised others, since that rule is still in effect.  What he may have meant was that he and his majority just ignored it in the recent past.
• Foley observed that we need more part time staffers to help with the workload.
• Stephens suggested more communication among council members to help prioritize their staff time needs.
• Foley spoke of the "enormous" volume of community requests, stating it was just a matter of trust between the community and council.
• Righeimer acknowledged that sometimes he doesn't really need all the information that he requests if it's going to put a burden on the staff.  Good grief!
• Hatch observed about the large number of community requests.
• Righeimer said Costa Mesa is unusual - that other cities don't have that number of community requests.  His tone was consistent with his views that community activists are a nuisance - his actions trying to quash their participation demonstrated that very clearly.
• Hatch affirmed that if a council member asks for a follow-up to a community member's request, they - the staff - WILL followup.
• Mansoor said he wants to be as responsive to the public as possible.  He also said he'd like to think we're better than other cities.
• Hatch said we have lots of new ideas and that they're trying to run a lean organization.

The discussions went on and on...

• Righeimer observed that Costa Mesa is NOT quaint - it's Newport Beach's backyard.
• Foley said we ARE unique in Orange County.
• Stephens observed that we have a unique mix of Residential, Heavy commercial and Industrial - a diversity that we should embrace, not vilify.  He said he freaks out when he's in South County, where every community looks exactly the same.
• Hatch observed that the volume of work they do is much greater than in most cities.
• Righeimer cited the Brown Act as an impediment.  (Big surprise there!  He tries to work around it every chance he gets!)
• Foley observed televising Study Sessions would be a problem.
• Righeimer blamed the media and blogs (Uh, that would be little old me, thank you very much) for reporting what goes on.  Good grief!
• Perkins observed that folks should have some humanity.  "It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable."
• Perkins observed about the value of a professional, highly trained staff.
• Foley observed that we have to train them!
• Hatch said the employment environment is tough.
• Stephens suggested they all read the staff reports and give a heads-up to staffers if they expect to ask for clarification or more information - not to surprise them during meetings.
• Perkins spoke of introverts/extroverts and the need to develop staffers based on their individual strengths and weaknesses.
• Foley observed about the "no surprises rule". 

LOOKING FOR NORMS
Perkins had met with each of the participants earlier and prepared the following summation of information from those meetings, to compare to the comments and suggestions coming out of this group gathering.  They were remarkably similar.

FOOD!
About this time - 6:00 p.m. -  they broke for a lovely buffet meal and I headed for Vanguard University.  I must observe, though, that - at least for the time I was present - I could see a change in tenor between the council members and staff.  I saw the seeds of improvement.  They apparently enjoyed the food and continued the discussions until after 8 p.m.

PRIORITIES
I subsequently spoke with community members who remained, and with Mayor Katrina Foley and others about the meeting.  Foley told me they ended up with five priorities:
1 - The new Library/Lions Park project, which is underway.
2 - Creating a safe community, and just beyond more police officers, firefighters and code enforcement officers.  They meant that EVERY city department has ways to contribute to making the city safer and those opportunities will be examined.
3 - Dealing with the problem of Homelessness in our city.
4 - Dealing with Sober Living Homes - some of which is related to the Homelessness issue.  New revisions to the ordinances are pending and will be presented to the Planning Commission for review soon.
5 - Maintain Fiscal Responsibility, addressing all the elements that are involved.

WILL IT PAY OFF?  WE'LL KNOW SOON...
So, we shall see if this exercise pays off.  Will the apparent rancor between council members subside?  Will future study sessions yield better decisions?  Some have griped about the cost of the offsite venue.  We're talking peanuts here - and being physically away from City Hall was essential for this process to have a chance to work.  We'll know soon enough.