MASSAGING MEASURE Y - SAVING OUR CITY

THE BIRTH OF MEASURE Y

Six years ago some well-intentioned residents of Costa Mesa crafted a ballot measure that eventually became known as Measure Y.  They did their very best to gather enough signatures to place it on the General Election Ballot, then spread their word around the city with such vigor that Measure Y passed with slightly over 68% of the ballots cast in November 2016. 

INTENDED TO STOP RAMPANT DEVELOPMENT

Measure Y was apparently intended to rein-in what those residents perceived as an attempt by the then-city council to unleash out-of-control development.  Measure Y requires a vote of the populace if certain triggers are met.  

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED…. BUT…

It accomplished the goal - Costa Mesa city staff members  have advised us over and over that developers withdraw projects, or don’t even submit them, when they are made aware of the voter-support necessary to proceed.  Significant development has dried-up. 

THE HOUSING ELEMENT STRANGLED BY MEASURE Y

Enter the State of California, which imposed unrealistic requirements for housing in Costa Mesa - 11,760 dwelling units must be planned for over the next 8 year cycle.  In the previous cycle the requirement was 2!  If Costa Mesa does not fulfill the obligation to meet this planning requirement - re-zoning, etc. - and produce an acceptable Housing Element the penalties are severe.  We are told they involve a $100,000 per month penalty, prohibition of The City to receive ANY grant funding - parks, streets, etc. - AND the State would take over control of ALL development in the city. 

THE AD HOC COMMITTEE DOES THE JOB

As the city wrestled with the requirement to produce an acceptable Housing Element - the guiding document required by the State - it became very clear that Measure Y was a barrier to compliance and that something just had to be done to fix the problem.  In an attempt to find a solution to this problem, earlier this year The City formed an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of Mayor Pro Tem Andrea Marr, Councilmember Arlis Reynolds and Councilmember Jeffrey Harlan.  Over several months they met and worked on this issue.  Two weeks ago this committee published a commentary in the Daily Pilot explaining their work product and the City Council held a Study Session - all members of the council except Don Harper attended - in which all the elements of this issue were thoroughly discussed and public comments were taken. 

LOTS OF DISCUSSION, BUT NO DECISION

Then the City Council included this issue on their regular council meeting agenda two weeks ago.  In that meeting they presented a probable new city ordinance to be placed on the November 8th ballot.  This ordinance would modify the most onerous and problematic elements of Measure Y and, if passed by the voters, permit the city to move forward and produce a proper Housing Element. This new ordinance would NOT repeal Measure Y, only make mandatory adjustments to comply with state law. There was a couple hours of discussion, including many public comments.  The decision was made to consider all that discussion and continue the item to the council meeting of Tuesday, August 2nd.

SMALL, BUT VOCAL OPPOSITION

A few residents have taken exception to this proposal - many of them were creators and supporters of Measure Y - and have spread misinformation about exactly what this new ordinance would actually do.  First, it WOULD NOT repeal Measure Y!  

WHAT IT WILL DO

It would help the city to  meet the housing requirement planning and avoid those costly penalties mentioned above.  It would permit significant development along several commercial or industrial corridors in the city that would NOT require a vote of the people as long as all other development requirements are met.  Despite what opponents of this new ordinance proclaim, these corridors are NOT in, nor do they abut, residential areas.  The ordinance was specifically crafted to protect residential neighborhoods. 

TUESDAY IS THE DAY - FISH OR CUT BAIT

Tuesday, August 2nd, the City Council will, once again, hear this issue. They MUST make a decision on that date because the cut off date for placement on the November ballot is August 12th.   If they decide to present the issue to the voters in November, and it passes, it will permit the City to meet the obligations imposed by The State and avoid the penalties mentioned above.   If the council decides to NOT place this issue before the voters (unlikely), or if it fails to pass, the future of housing, and all development in Costa Mesa is quite unclear. 

LET YOUR VOICES BE HEARD

If you have an opinion, or questions, please participate in the Council meeting, either in person or via Zoom.  You can also submit your viewpoints via email.  The City Council wants to hear your opinions. 

New Council Seated - Foley Elected Mayor, Genis Mayor Pro Tem

PACKED HOUSE SEES THE CHANGE IN COMMAND
Well, it was a glorious evening in the Costa Mesa City Council Chambers Tuesday evening and a packed house enjoyed the proceedings.  I missed the event, dealing with my Christmas cold.  Darn!  So, my sweet and also sniffling wife and I watched the event on good old CMTV.

ADIOS, STEVE AND GARY
Mayor Steve Mensinger and Councilman Gary Monahan were given an appropriate sendoff in their last official acts in those roles.  Monahan is termed out - again - after serving sixteen years on the council.  Mensinger was defeated in his run for re-election after serving six years - two as an appointee and four when he was elected in 2012.

PRESENTATIONS
Among the nineteen speakers was Tim Whitaker, representing Vice Chair Michele Steel of the Board of Supervisors.  He made presentations to both Mensinger and Monahan.

POLITICIANS
Assemblyman Matt Harper also stepped up to the speakers podium to praise both men for their service, and to acknowledge the winners in the election - particularly Allan Mansoor, who preceded him in Sacramento.

NINETEEN SPEAKERS
During Public Comments most of the speakers thanked Mensinger and Monahan for their service to the community and also congratulated the winners - Sandra Genis, John Stephens and Mansoor.  Some of the speakers tip-toed right up to the edge of being disrespectful to Mensinger, who must still be smarting at his defeat, where he didn't even come close to retaining his seat on the council.

There were a couple obvious partisan Mensinger fans who spoke, and more than a few who are not his fans.  That's OK.

BETH COLLINS
Beth Collins is a Mensinger fan, and didn't much like it when some in the crowd reacted to her praise of him.

 JAY HUMPHREY
Jay Humphrey, who ran strong race for City Council and has been a tireless volunteer, thanked all those who supported him and congratulated the winners.  He also thanked all those who worked so hard for Measures Y and AA.

CINDY B.
Cindy Brenneman was nearly giddy with the results of the election.  She thanked Monahan, citing their long relationship, and also thanked Mensinger, but was less cordial.  There was clearly a "don't let the door hit you in the butt" vibe then.  Can't blame her.

WENDY
Former councilwoman Wendy Leece referred to the "In God We Trust" motto hanging on the wall behind the council members, acknowledged all the hard work it takes to be a council member and thanked Mensinger and Monahan for their dedication to the city.  She quoted from Shakespeare, Henry V.

TERRY CROONED
Terry Koken crooned a tune.

TAMAR AND DAN
Tamar Goldmann congratulated Genis for being the top vote-getter, again.  She hoped for a more cooperative relationship with law enforcement personnel. She praised Jay Humphrey for his good run and his tireless dedication to the city.  She also praised Leece for her continuing work on behalf of the residents.

Dan Goldmann thanked Mensinger and Monahan and observed that we all need to participate going forward.

BANNING RANCH
Steve Ray, Executive Director of the Banning Ranch Conservancy, offered congratulations to the winners and hoped his organization might be of help to the council in the future.

CM4RG
Robin Leffler stepped up as the President of Costa Mesans For Responsible Government to thank all the volunteers who worked on the many campaigns.  She observed that it took the efforts of hundreds of volunteers to push to victory, not only for the candidates, but for Measures Y and AA.  Clearly, she was happy.

COSTA MESA FIRST
Cynthia McDonald thanked all who supported Measure Y and mentioned Eleanor Egan specifically for her defeat in court of specious lies on the ballot measure argument.

FAIRVIEW PARK PRESERVATION ALLIANCE
Kim Hendricks, speaking as a member of the Fairview Park Preservation Alliance, thanked the voters and the volunteers who supported Measure AA - an overwhelming 70.9% of the votes cast were in favor of that measure.

STEVE, THE HUSTLER...
Richard Russell, a Mensinger fan, stepped up last and praised him for his efforts.  At one point he observed to him that , "you have been a hustler" - meaning he was always on the go, getting things done.  I smiled when I heard that, because that phrase isn't always a positive description.  Russell and I might agree that it fits Mensinger, but probably don't agree that it's a favorable term.

ELECTION CERTIFIED
City Clerk Brenda Green asked the outgoing council to certify the election, which they did, 5-0.

STEVE SAYS GOOD-BYE
Mensinger and Monahan were given a chance to address the audience.  Mensinger thanked the City Ctaff for their efficiency.  He praised CEO Tom Hatch and his strong right arm, Kelly Shelton, for their support.  He thanked both Police Chief Rob Sharpnack and Fire Chief Dan Stefano... and he thanked the citizens of Costa Mesa.  Then, kind of out of context, he said, "Governing is one thing, criticizism is another."  I don't know exactly what he meant, but he probably didn't like the ongoing criticizm he'd received during his terms.

SO DID GARY, KINDA
Monahan already said his good-byes at the last meeting, so his comments were very brief.

GOOD-BYE GIFTS
Both Mensinger and Monahan then received proclamations and memory books from the City and they were done by 6:45 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON ADMINSTERED THE OATHS
Then the administration of the Oath of Office was administered by former Mayor and current Judge Karen Robinson.  That was a VERY special moment for all.  Mansoor lugged his youngest child with him.

FOLEY BECOMES THE MAYOR, GENIS MAYOR PRO TEM
Then came an interesting moment.  It was time to elect a mayor, so Righeimer nominated Genis.  She, in turn offered an alternate nomination - Katrina Foley - which was seconded by Stephens.  Genis then asked that her nomination be withdrawn.  When the vote was taken to elect the mayor the result was 4-1 - Allan Mansoor voted NO!  So, it didn't take long to see how this is going to go with him.  When Genis was elected Mayor Pro Tem the vote was 5-0.

THANKING GRANDMA
Each of the new members made short speeches.  Foley thanked her family and, in particular, her 90 year-old grandmother, who was sitting down front.

LOOKING FOR VOLUNTEERS
Genis was grateful for the large turnout and hoped many would continue to be involved in city issues.

STEPHENS' STAND-UP ROUTINE
Stephens took his time and polished up his stand-up comic routine as he thanked his family, business associates, all the volunteers who supported him.  One thing is very clear - this is a VERY different council than the previous one.

MANSOOR
Mansoor thanked his family, specifically his wife, Jannifer and his mother-in-law who cared for their children during the campaign events.  He thanked the city staff for being so professional and supportive.  He thanked Chief Sharpnack for his help and observed that it may be time for another sweep of vagrants in Talbert Park.

FOLEY SETS NEW RULES AND AN AGENDA
Foley observed that the next meeting will be January 3, 2017.  She asked Hatch to amend the agenda so all speakers during Public Comments are permitted to speak early in the meeting - no more trailing them to the end.  She also observed that she wanted to do away with speaker cards.  She also wants to trail Council member comments to the end of the meeting.  That's a GREAT idea, since Righeimer used to speak for 15 or 20 minutes, spewing his mantra and sucking up valuable time.  She also told Hatch that he would be City Manager henceforth, not CEO.  She also asked for a presentation on how to get Fire Station #6 open and fully staffed without overtime.  That's going to mean more firefighters.  She also asked that Chief Stefano bring back early in the year a plan for implementation of the new staffing model that integrates the rescue ambulances for transportation of victims.

IT'S GOING TO BE INTERESTING
It's going to be a VERY interesting first few months.  Righeimer seemed collegial enough.  Mansoor is clearly not in step with the majority, so his presence and his inability to clearly articulate his position on issues will complicate the business of the city getting done.  We'll see.

CONGRATS...  NOW LET'S GET MOVING!
Congratulations to Katrina Foley and Sandra Genis on their new leadership roles.  Congratulations to John Stephens on his election and to Allan Mansoor to his election.  Time to move forward...  I thought it was time to present this for your listening pleasure... it seems very appropriate.

Egan Challenges A Bully And A Liar

ELEANOR EGAN SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Today, in the Daily Pilot, HERE, long time resident, Westside activist, former Assistant City Attorney and former member of the Planning Commission, Eleanor Egan takes exception to Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer's recent mischaracterization from the dais of the legal action she took to challenge the veracity of a rebuttal argument that, if not corrected, will deceive the voters in November.

INACCURATE REBUTTAL
The rebuttal in question, signed by Righeimer and four other residents, reads like a Facebook comment thread.  In fact, many of the phrases contained therein seem very, very familiar - as though  I've read them on that site before.

MISUSE OF HIS POSITION
The issue at hand in Egan's letter in the Daily Pilot is Righeimer's now-trademark misuse of the bully pulpit he occupies on the dais to misrepresent issues and, in fact, in many cases just flat-out lies.  This was the case when he misrepresented Egan's lawsuit recently.

THE TRUTH
As she explained in her letter, Egan is NOT suing Righeimer and the other four "authors" of the bogus rebuttal - Chuck Perry, Chris Bunyan, Julie Fowler and Lee Ramos.  Her suit is directed at City Clerk Brenda Green and Orange County Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley to have them remove - in part or in its entirety - the bogus rebuttal because it contains information that is simply not true and/or misleading.

HE'S A LIAR AND CAN'T HELP HIMSELF
As anyone paying attention for the past half-dozen years knows, this is Righeimer's style.  He launches off on stream-of-consciousness rants at the drop of a hat, apparently saying whatever crosses his mind, whether accurate or not.  He's the worst kind of a lame duck - with two years left before he is termed-out - so he has nothing really to lose by continuing his pontification and prevarication from the dais.  He bullies people, interrupts them to break their train of thought, then uses "his time" to chide, vilify and put inaccurate spin on the issues.  He's very much like Donald Trump - he apparently just cannot stop himself.  He loves to hear the sound of his own voice, even when he's lying.  Maybe especially when he's lying.

WE GET A BREAK UNTIL SEPTEMBER
On the positive side, there are no more council meetings scheduled for this month.  They chose to cancel the August meeting, apparently in deference to vacation schedules.  The next meeting is scheduled for September 6th, so we may have a month of reprise from Righeimer's obsfucation from the dais.

IT'S CAMPAIGN SEASON - EXPECT LIES
Keep in mind that this is a campaign season.  Expect greater than average number of lies and other misrepresentations coming from Righeimer, Mensinger - who actually IS running for re-election - and their buddies.  We have seen their tactics in play for the past several months.

• They didn't like the Costa Mesa First citizen-generated so-called Smart Growth Initiative, so caused the City to create an opposing ballot measure to confuse the voters. 
• They didn't like the citizen-generated initiative by the Fairview Park Preservation Alliance, designed to protect Fairview Park, so they had the city create an opposing measure for the ballot to confuse the voters. 
• They didn't like the two medical marijuana initiatives that qualified for the ballot, so cobbled together their own measure that is supposed to "compete" with them on the ballot.  Only problem there is that it really DOES NOT compete with them because it has no retail distribution element.  The City measure is designed to control upstream issues - manufacturing, transportation, testing and wholesale distribution and it's restricted to a very small section of the City.  There is NO retail sales element.

WATCH IT GROW!
Pay attention at future meetings and you may actually see Righeimer's nose grow.  The residents of this city deserve much, much better than this.

More Controversy About Smart Growth Initiative Rebuttal

YET ANOTHER WEIRD TWIST
And yet another curious situation has arisen in the case of Eleanor Egan's lawsuit against Costa Mesa City Clerk Brenda Green and Orange County Registrar of Voters, Neal Kelley, to have segments of the rebuttal to Arguments For the Smart Growth Initiative removed because the document "is not really a rebuttal, since it does not address anything in the Argument For the initiative measure."  She goes on to say, "most of the statements contained in the Rebuttal are demonstrably false, and the rest are not capable of being proven either true or false but are misleading and inconsistent with the requirement of the Elections Code."

CO-CONSPIRATORS
The signatories on this so-called "Rebuttal" are Julie Fowler, Chuck Perry, Lee Ramos, Christopher Bunyan and Jim Righeimer.

BACKGROUND
I wrote about this issue earlier, HERE, and Luke Money wrote about it in the Daily Pilot, HERE.

WE'RE PAYING RIGHEIMER'S LEGAL FEES?!
Now comes the new twist.  Informed sources tell me that the City of Costa Mesa will be covering all legal costs incurred by Jim Righeimer in this matter!  And, further, the attorney that will represent him is Patrick Munoz, the high-priced lawyer from Rutan and Tucker - the firm that was retained to cobble together an initiative to compete with the Costa Mesa First's Smart Growth Initiative.  That certainly has the aroma of conflict of interest.

GREEN, YES... RIGHEIMER, NO!
Now, I can see where the City will represent City Clerk Brenda Green - she is simply doing her job, and Egan's beef isn't with her, nor Neal Kelley.  Her complaint is that the rebuttal is false and misleading, as stated above, and she doesn't want it to appear on the ballot.  I have no problem with Green receiving city-paid-for legal help.

NOT APPROPRIATE, AND MAYBE ILLEGAL!
I DO, however, have a problem with my tax dollars being spent to cover whatever legal costs Righeimer incurs in this venture.  He signed the rebuttal as a private citizen, not as the Mayor Pro Tem of the City.  This issue was NOT addressed by the City Council, nor were they asked to waive conflict of interest - a very likely situation.  Instead, someone high up in City government simply decided to make a gift of taxpayer dollars to Righeimer to cover his legal costs in this misguided, malicous and falacious effort.

WHO AND WHY?!
So, I want to know who made that decision and why?  What authority has been given to whom to make such a decision without council approval or even consideration?  Who decided that it's OK to spend our money to facilitate misleading the voters by placing lies on a ballot measure?  Was it CEO Tom Hatch?  Was it contract City Attorney Tom Duarte?  Just who made that decision?  And, if it's OK to cover Righeimer's legal costs, what about the other four signatories?  If they incur costs will we be paying those, too?  Quite frankly, this stinks!

Packed Council Agenda Tuesday

A JOYOUS INDEPENDENCE DAY
I hope you all had a wonderful Independence Day holiday weekend, and you made it through the fireworks unscathed.  We certainly had a perfect weekend for it.  As I type this M-80s are going off all around us... welcome to downtown Falloujah!  Now back to business...

PACKED AGENDA TOMORROW!
The Costa Mesa City Council meets for the first time in this fiscal year tomorrow, Tuesday, July 5, 2016 beginning at 5:45 in City Council Chambers at City Hall.  They have a full agenda to consider, with more meat on it than most.  Read it HERE.

DON'T FORGET THE VOTING DISTRICTS OPEN HOUSE FIRST
Before we get into the agenda a little reminder.  From 4:30-5:30 in Conference Room 1A there will be an Open House at which the Voting Districts created by consultant David Ely as a result of consultation with council members and several workshops with residents will be on display for your consideration.  Ely is an easy man to understand and has all the answers, so please make it a point to attend this Open House so you can understand the issues and how he arrived at the various map choices he will present to the council later that evening.

MORE LAW SUITS
The regular meeting will be preceded by a Closed Session at 5:00.  The public is NOT invited to these meetings.  There are three items on the agenda for our litigious council majority to consider - The Kennedy Commission case involving the Costa Mesa Motor Inn; existing litigation with Solid Landings and others and anticipated litigation - nothing new there, it seems like we always have "anticipated litigation".

CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar has eleven (11) items listed.  As you know, in theory these all can be considered as a group and voted upon without discussion.  That seldom happens anymore.  If anyone - a council member, staff member or member of the public - pulls one for discussion it will be trailed to the end of the meeting.  History shows us that about half the time the council manages to out-wait residents, who just get too tired to wait until midnight to discuss some of these items.

NEED FOR PLANNING CONSULTANTS
The only one that caught my eye this time is #11, HERE.  This is a professional services contract for planning consultants, not to exceed $199,000.  If you read that staff report you'll find the need is due to a high-level vacancy - an Assistant Director (Claire Flynn?) - at a time when the city sees before it a stampede of sober living-related issues.  It's going to be a long summer!

CAMPAIGN SIGNAGE
Public Hearing #1, HERE, is a change to segments of the municipal codes regarding portable signs, and is primarily aimed at campaign signs.  It re-defines them as "non-commercial portable signs", and changes the restrictions on their display.  If the council approves the staff recommendation such signs may be displayed for six weeks prior to an election.  Read the staff report.

VOTING BY DISTRICT MAPS
Public Hearing #2, HERE, is the aforementioned District Elections Mapping Process.  Consultant David Ely will present to the council a report on the methodology of his creation of the four (4) individual maps for the council's consideration.  His efforts are a result of many meetings with very small groups of individuals plus a series of four (4) community workshops attended by just over 100 individuals in total.  He will present two (2) five district maps; one (1) six district map (which also requires a directly-elected mayor) and one (1) seven district map.  The council MUST select one map to be presented to the voters in November based on a settlement agreement of a lawsuit.  Read the staff report.  Each of the maps is part of one of the attachments, HERE, and includes all the numbers of how the map was formed.

CITY MEDICAL MARIJUANA INITIATIVE
Old Business #1, HERE, is the consideration of the City Initiative Ordinance Regarding Medical Marijuana Businesses.  This is intended to be an alternative to the other two Medical Marijuana initiatives that will appear on the ballot in November.  It defines the kinds of Medical Marijuana businesses that may operate in the city, and where, specifically.

PROTECT FAIRVIEW PARK INITIATIVE...
Old Business #2, HERE, is an interesting issue.  This one asks the council to authorize the placement on the November ballot the initiative generated by the Fairview Park Preservation Alliance - they MUST do this.  There are several resolutions for them to consider.  However, item number 3 under Recommendations says: "Provide special council with direction on an alternative measure to be placed on the November 8, 2016, ballot."

...AND AN ALTERNATE
In the staff report there is an analysis that implies that the existing initiative would basically prohibit many of the elements in the current Fairview Park Master Plan from being implemented without a vote of the people.  So, the staff recommends an alternative measure - for the sake of simplicity I'll call it the "Anti-Protect Fairview Park" initiative" - which re-defines the issues that would require a vote of the people.  I have no idea what the reaction will be from the sponsors of the original initiative, but I suspect we'll be hearing from them Tuesday.  Read the staff report.

THE "ANTI" SMART GROWTH INITIATIVE
Old Business #3, HERE, is another doozy!  This is a "Proposed City Council Sponsored Measure Addressing Future Development And Development-Funded Open Space And Recreation", and is designed to directly compete with Costa Mesa First's Smart Growth Ordinance, which will appear on the November 8th, 2016 ballot.  They're calling this one the "Measure for Sensible Community Development and Development-Funded Open Space and Recreation."

WILL KEEP IN PLACE PRO-DEVELOPER RULES
If adopted this measure would protect most of the pro-development plans already in place, including the recently-approved General Plan.  See the staff report for specifics.

A NEW FEE
If adopted it will impose a fee - the Open Space and Public Park Impact Fee, which would be applicable to all new development north of the 405 Freeway and West of Fairview Drive.  Coincidentally, this is precisely where the proposed Medical Marijuana businesses would be located.  Imagine that!

ANOTHER STACKED COMMITTEE
And, if adopted it would create an Open Space & Recreation Advisory Committee (yet ANOTHER committee!) to advise the council on expenditures of the new Open Space and Public Park Impact Fee.  Here's how that committee would be constructed:
1 - the mayor
2 - one councilmember chosen by the city council
3 - one representative from youth football chosen by the city council
4 - one representtive from youth baseball chosen by the city council
5 - one representative from youth soccer chosen by the city council
6 - one representative chosen by the NMUSD trustees and
7 - one member from an environmental group chosen by the council

The term "stacked deck" should immediately leap into your head.

The staff wants authorization to proceed with the proposed initiative, put it on the ballot and direction on how many mailers at $8,400 per shot to authorize to publicize this effort.

RE-ZONING EMULEX
Finally, New Business #1, HERE, is a General Plan Screening request for the Emulex Property at 3333 Susan Street.  Gee, by golly...  Guess where's that's located?

STEP UP AND SPEAK UP!
Oh, yes... I will not be attending this meeting... still sorting out this darn health thing.  I'll watch and report, one way or the other.  In the meantime, you SHOULD attend and ASK QUESTIONS!  Don't let them intimidate you!