ANOTHER MARATHON COUNCIL MEETING AHEAD

LOTS OF CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
The Costa Mesa City Council meets again on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 for what appears, based on the agenda report, HERE, to be another barn-burner of a meeting.  The public meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. and is preceded by a Closed Session at 4:00.  The Closed Session contains four (4) items - two labor negotiations with Fire staff and two items of existing litigation.  Those wishing to address the council on closed session items can present themselves before the council at 4:00 and have three minutes to speak on those issues.  Warning:  It's going to be a long night.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Following the Public Comments and Council Member Comments segments the council will consider the Consent Calendar - ten (10) items that might be considered on a single vote without separate discussion.  It's unlikely that will happen this time due to the nature of some of the items.

MORE BIG BUCKS SPENT
Item #2, HERE, is the Warrant Resolution #2575.  This one lists more than $3.6 million in expenditures.  As is usually the case, Legal Costs leads the way, accounting for more than $200,000.  Jones & Mayer accounts for $168,951.82; Liebert Cassidy Whitmore for $32,685.38 and Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth $11,311.00.

SELLING BOOZE AT THE SENIOR CENTER
Item #5, HERE,  is a request for Sale, Service and Consumption of Beer, Wine and Liquor beverages at the Senior Center. I know, images of tipsy seniors just flashed before your eyes, too.  I suspect there may be a few comments on this one.  Theoretically, this is just a temporary measure, while the Lions Park Project is being completed.  Again, I suspect we'll hear from some folks interested in this issue.

CANCEL JULY 4TH COUNCIL MEETING
Although it may not get pulled for discussion, Item #8, HERE, is a request from the City Manager's Office to cancel the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of July 4th.

YES... DO IT!
Item #9, HERE, is a request to replace an antiquated, non-functioning Fire Department Alerting System to the tune of $369,497.78.  I doubt anyone will pull this for discussion, but it's good to know that we may finally get a system that actually works.

APPROVING MANAGERS SALARIES AND BENEFITS
The first public hearing is the COIN ordinance second hearing for the new salary and benefit resolution between The City and the Costa Mesa Division Managers Association (CMDMA), unrepresented executives and confidential employees.  This won't take long.

CHANGING SOBER LIVING ORDINANCES
Public Hearing #2 is actually two hearings combined for discussion, HERE.  This is going to take some time because the Planning Commission massaged it with a virtual meat-axe during their hearing, so it will be interesting to see how the City Council responds to those recommendations.  The first amends the municipal code relating to group homes, residential care facilities and reasonable accommodation, and the second amends the code regarding operator's permits for group homes of seven and more located in the City's multi-family zones.  I expect this one to take a couple hours of discussion, comments and negotiation.  In a related matter, see New Business #4, below.

MEASURE X MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROCESSING FEES
Public Hearing #3, HERE, addresses the Fees to Process Applications for Medical Marijuana Businesses Allowed via Measure X.  You may recall my entry about the Stakeholder's Meeting recently on this subject.  Here's an exhibit that shows the proposed fee Schedules.  This one may generate some serious discussion by many of the proponents of the businesses proposed for that little section of town north of the 405 Freeway where such businesses are permitted.

URGENCY ORDINANCE FOR PEG FEES
New Business #1, HERE, is an Urgency Ordinance necessary for The City to be able to continue to collect a public, educational and government access fee (PEG Fee) from ATT.  It is possible that because the authorization for the collection of this fee expired 3/31/17, the city will be prohibited from continued collections unless and until it is re-authorized.

 NEW AMBULANCE MODEL PROPOSED - AGAIN
New Business #2, HERE, is the most recent iteration of Fire Chief Dan Stefano's plan for Ambulance Transportation in The City.  This issue has been batted around for several years, beginning with then Interim Chief Tom Arnold's first proposal.  This proposal asks the council to review and approve the updated option of the public/private partnership ambulance transportation model.  It also asks the council to authorize the City Manager to allocate an amount not to exceed $100,000 for the comprehensive administration and facilitation of the Request for Proposals (FRP) process for both the ambulance and billing services.  It also asks for the approval to annually utilize the billing rate structure that is consistent with those identified through the Orange County Health Care Agency EMS Policy and Procedures.

WHAT ABOUT DEPLOYMENT?
Here's my problem with this report... not enough specific data about how this new - and it appears to be new - proposal will impact staff deployment.  In the previous, two-year-old, report there were charts and graphs showing deployment models.  And, this model slices more than a half-million dollars of cost recovery money from the previous "Model #3".  While these questions and many more may be answered during Chief Stefano's presentation on Tuesday, it would be helpful if that information also appeared in the staff report.  And, the new Finance and Pension Advisory Committee DID NOT hear this report last week, even though it was on the agenda.  It seems to me that this subject required a Study Session environment during which council concerns could be fleshed out in a less formal setting before being brought to the council for a final approval.  We'll see how this plays out late in the agenda on Tuesday.

REINING IN ILLEGAL FIREWORKS - WITH MORE FIREWORKS
New Business #3, HERE, is rookie Councilman John Stephens' multi-pronged plan to mitigate the impact of illegal fireworks throughout the city over the Independence Day holiday.  It involves:

• A centrally-located July 4th Celebration at the Orange County Fair and Event Center.
• Allocation of $50,000 in new revenue and expenditures for FY 16/17 to cover event costs.
• A proactive campaign announcing the city will vigorously enforce the prohibition against illegal fireworks and seek a maximum penalty for such violations.
• No changes in current sale or discharge ordinances regarding safe and sane fireworks.

SAFER, LEGAL, FUN
I guess you could say the objective is to have a safer, legal holiday marking Independence Day while generating a more community-oriented major event at the Fairgrounds.  Stephens held a community forum on this issue recently, and the staff report includes a summary of comments from that event.

A LOT OF FLASH, NOT MUCH BANG
The staff report provides great detail of the event as Stephens perceives it, including the kind of entertainment and the kind of pyrotechnic - not concussive - display planned.  We're told there will be no "bombs bursting in air" - unlike what typically happens over several days in most of our neighborhoods in recent years.

IMPOSES MAXIMUM PENALTIES
And, the plan includes the imposition of a maximum penalty of $1,000 and/or six months in jail for the discharge of illegal fireworks - not the $150 fine that's been imposed in the past.

AVALANCHE OF WORK AWAITING PLANNING COMMISSION
New Business #4, HERE, presumes that the modifications to the municipal code regarding group homes mentioned in Public Hearing #2, above, will be approved.  This item remands back to the Planning Commission previous decisions for reconsideration.  It involves decisions involving:
2 Conditional Use Permits
4 Special Use Permits
1 Denial of a Conditional Use Permit
21 Applications for Reasonable Accommodation for CUPs
1 Special Use Permit back to the Director for Further Consideration

It's unclear what happens if the City Council does not follow through with the recommendations in Public Hearing #2.  The discussion will be lively on this issue.

TREVINO WAS RIGHT - PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NEED SOME REST
One thing is clear, though - we now know why Interim Development Services Director Jay Trevino admonished the Planning Commission at their last meeting to get some rest even though their next meeting will be canceled.

LETTER OPPOSING SENATE BILL 54 - LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA SHARING
New Business #5, HERE, is the final item on the agenda, which may actually be heard Wednesday morning.  This is a request by Councilman Allan Mansoor for the City of Costa Mesa to send a Letter of Opposition to SB 54, which involves repealing a segment of existing law involving sharing of data on certain offenders who may be subject to immigration enforcement action.  This bill is opposed by most major law enforcement organizations.  I'm not going to address whether I think this is a good bill or not - the text of the bill and an analysis is available as attachments to the staff report.  I do find it ironic that Mansoor, whose previous tour on the City Council was marked by controversy involving the Latino community in our City and who became the face of intolerance during that time, is the one putting this forward.  We'll see how this one goes.  

Change! Planning Commission Candidates Moved Out A Week

NEVER MIND!
Remember that last entry about the scheduled interviews for the three Costa Mesa Commissions?  It was supposed to begin tomorrow, Tuesday, January 24th at 4:15.  Well, somebody changed their mind!

PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEWS RE-SCHEDULED
Today the City announced a change in the schedule, HERE.  The meeting is still scheduled to commence at 4:15 tomorrow, but no Planning Commissioner candidates will be screened on the 24th.  Those will be done a week later, on Tuesday January 31st.  Senior Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission candidates will be interviewed on the 24th, and more time has been provided for each interview.  Click on that link, which will take you to the announcement of the change and a link to the revised agenda for the meeting on the 24th.

MORE TIME
When you click on that link you will find that eleven (11) minutes has been provided for each candidate, instead of the earlier five (5) minutes.  That's probably more realistic.

MEETING MIGHT FINISH EARLIER... OR NOT
So, it looks like the interrogations scheduled for tomorrow may finish earlier than anticipated.  I presume a new agenda will be issued for the meeting on January 31st, when the Planning Commission candidates will be similarly vetted.  There is still no word about when the successful candidates will be chosen, nor is there any indication of what the process of selection will be.  Stay tuned.

***NOTE: COMMISSIONERS TO BE SELECTED 1/31/17
According to a subsequent announcement, the commissioners for each commission will be selected at the Special meeting on January 31st. 

Commission Candidate Interviewees Announced

NEARLY SIX DOZEN VOLUNTEERS APPLIED FOR COMMISSION SEATS
The Costa Mesa City Council has made the first round of cuts in the quest to re-populate the three commissions they vacated recently.  Sixty-eight (68) individuals applied for one or more positions on the commissions.  Those applications were reviewed by the council members who winnowed them down to thirty-four (34) who will be invited for interviews at the special meeting on Tuesday, January 24, 2017 beginning at 4:15 p.m. in Conference Room 1A at City Hall.  You may recall that each council member was to select up to three (3) candidates for each commission.

NEW PROCESS SEEMS OPTIMISTIC
This is a new process so it's going to be very interesting to see how it plays out.  You can read the agenda for this meeting HERE.  That agenda includes a staff report plus attachments which includes submissions by those chosen for interviews and a complete list of all applicants by commission.  Take a few minutes to review Attachment #4, HERE, to see who applied.  Each applicant has been assigned a time to be present for the interview.  The process apparently allows only five (5) minutes for each applicant, regardless of how many positions he or she has applied for.  I will be astounded if they are able to hold to that timetable.

SENIOR COMMISSION CANDIDATES UP FIRST
The council will begin at 4:30 by interviewing ten (10) candidates of the fifteen (15) submitted for the seven (7) seats available on the Senior Commission.  Only two of the existing commissioners have re-applied, Gary Parkin and Lee Ramos, and both were selected for interviews.

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION CANDIDATES NEXT
Following the completion of those interviews they will continue to the applicants for the Parks and Recreation Commission, where twelve (12) of the twenty-eight (28) applicants for the five (5) seats available will be screened, again, at five minute intervals.  Only Kim Pederson of the recent commission has re-applied and he was chosen for interviews, although Jeff Mathews had previously served on this commission and has applied and was also chosen for an interview.  He was most recently Vice Chair of the Planning Commission.

PLANNING COMMISSION BATS CLEAN UP
At approximately 6:45 the fifteen (15) candidates of the thirty-six (36) submitted for the five (5) Planning Commission seats will be interviewed. Three of the recent commissioners re-applied - Chair Rob Dickson, Vice Chair Jeff Mathews and Commissioner Stephan Andranian.

SELECTION DATE NOT CLEAR
When this format was originally proposed time was set aside for the following Tuesday, January 31st, for completion of interviews or followup.  It's not clear when these seventeen commissioners will be appointed, but the regular meeting of the City Council on February 7, 2017 would be the logical time.  I suppose they could appoint them on the 31st, providing time for the Planning Commission to meet on their normal schedule.  Perhaps we'll get more guidance on this next Tuesday.

AN OUTSTANDING POOL OF CANDIDATES
I must say, as a guy who made a good living screening applications and interviewing folks, this pool of candidates is outstanding!  If you're interested, take a few minutes to read their applications.  I think you'll be impressed, too. 

HOPING PARTISANSHIP CAN BE SHOVED ASIDE
I hope it will be possible for the City Council to shove partisanship aside for this process and select those who have the best mix of education and experience for each commission.  I say that knowing full well that it's probably not possible to remove that element from the process, but one can hope, right?  If I was part of this process my preference would be to NOT perpetuate a majority on any of the commissions that had been beholden to the last council majority - but that's just me.  There is much work to be done, particularly by the Planning Commission, so there is great value in selecting some candidates with recent experience on that body - particularly since the Development Services Department leadership is made up by consultants, not city employees.  We'll see how that goes.

THIS PROCESS CRIES OUT FOR MORE TRANSPARENCY!
Sadly, because this meeting will be held in the very small venue of Conference Room 1A, audience accommodations are quite limited.  And, I'm told, there will be no live television or streaming video of this process and, further limiting transparency of this process, it will NOT be recorded for subsequent viewing.  I hope, between now and next Tuesday, wiser heads will prevail and they will move this process to the City Council Chambers, where interested members of the community can gather to watch and also provide live streaming/television of this process.  Since they are going to interview candidates one at a time there seems to be no good reason to NOT hold it in council chambers.

Short-handed Senior Commission Meets Tomorrow Morning

SHORT AGENDA FOR THE MEETING TOMORROW
The Costa Mesa Senior Commission, short one member since the resignation of Chair Ernie Feeney, meets Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at the Costa Mesa Senior Center, 695 W. 19th Street beginning at 9:00 a.m.  You can read the full agenda HERE.

ELECTION OF NEW CHAIRPERSON
Right off the bat they must elect a new Chairperson and, if necessary, a new Vice Chairperson.  We presume Vice Chair Ann Perry will officiate that process. According to city sources there were plenty of applicants to fill Feeney's vacancy on the commission, but that spot won't be filled until the next regular City Council meeting and won't actually be seated until the commission's November meeting.

ALL ABOUT GOOGLE
Also on the short agenda is a proposal for a Senior Instructional Class - All About Google - HERE.

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
The final item is Yvette Aguilar's Senior Center Program Administrator Report, HERE, which is full of very interesting statistics.  For example, active membership in the Senior Center is up more than 25% from the two previous months and, of the 1,089 members, 814 (75%) are Costa Mesa residents.

YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN
I will not be attending this meeting - choosing not to infect the entire Senior Center with my lingering cold - so if you want to know what happened you're going to have to attend yourselves.  Usually there are plenty of seats.

CHANGING THE NEXT DATE?
There will apparently also be a discussion about possibly changing the date of the next scheduled meeting, which falls on November 8th - Election Day.

Final Open Space Master Plan Workshop

OPEN SPACE WORKSHOP WEDNESDAY
The City of Costa Mesa will hold the final Community Workshop for the Open Space Master Plan on Wednesday, August 10, 2016 from 6:30 - 9:00 at the Costa Mesa Community Center, 695 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa.

LAST CHANCE TO PARTICIPATE
This is your last chance to actively participate in the creation of the Open Space and Recreation Master Plan.

(Click on the images below to enlarge for easier reading)

Senior Commission Tackles Goals In Special Meeting

ONLY FIVE COMMISSIONERS AVAILABLE
A short-handed Costa Mesa Senior Commission (no replacement has been named for departed Stella Adkins and Sue Healey was absent) met before a very small crowd - 8 people eventually showed up to observe and/or speak -  in a special meeting this morning with a single item on the agenda - the establishment of goals and objectives, something Commissioner John McGlinn has been pushing for since the very first meeting of this group a year ago.

OVERLY-OPTIMISTIC AGENDA
Interim Recreation Manager Justin Martin and Senior Center Program Administrator Yvette Aguilar guided the discussion by providing some history and some statistics, but it was clear early-on that some of the commissioners felt the proposal to craft and adopt the goals and objectives at this meeting was overly-optimistic. 

(CLICK ON THE IMAGES TO ENLARGE)

GOOD FLOW OF INFORMATION
Each commissioner had been asked to come prepared to offer suggestions for goals and objectives for their peers to consider, and each of them did.  The discussion was more free-form than past meetings - more like a study session - so the conversations many times overlapped, but in a good, constructive way.  Sometimes it was difficult to tell whether a commissioner was describing a goal or just providing background.  In my opinion, this was - by far - the most productive meeting of this group so far.

KROCHMAN GOT TO THE CORE... WHO DO THEY SERVE?
While each of the commissioners offered good suggestions, the core of the issue this morning revolved around Commissioner Janet Krochman's suggestion that they didn't have enough data to actually accomplish this task - yet.  For example, she suggested that they didn't really know who the Senior Center was supposed to be serving.  She cited the fact that, based on the numbers currently available, they are trying to design programs and services for a very broad age demographic - ages 50 through 100.  The membership at the Senior Center has dropped by 50% since the initial push last year for free membership.  Of those 832 remaining, we don't even know the ages of of 53 (6%) of them.   In fact, the Senior Center is currently providing services and programming for only 2.8% of the Costa Mesa seniors - if you begin to count those ages 50 and older.

COSTLY ACTIVITY
McGlinn at one point observed that it was costing somewhere in the area of $900 per member to provide services - a questionable return on the investment.

WHAT ABOUT THE 50-59 GROUP?
It was generally agreed that it was important to attract more seniors to the center, but some wondered whether there would ever be programming and scheduled hours to attract the largest segment - the 50-59 age group, most of whom are still working and raising families.  At one point it was suggested that the definition of "senior" may need to be amended to exclude that particular group.  This suggestion was serious, since grant funding depends on providing services to a specific percentage of the group to be served.

MCGLINN'S THOUGHTS
McGlinn led off with a series of questions/observations, some of which appeared to morph into "goals".  He suggested, for example, that many times seniors go through a traumatic loss of identity, so some kind of "job training" could be valuable.  He further suggested the following:
1 - Increase the participation of the 55-65 age group.
2 - Expand the hours of operation to accommodate a broader age group.
3 - Explore a different method of access control and use the data collected to further define those being served, and how.
There were other suggestions buried in the discussions.

KIRK'S LIST
Commissioner Kirk Bauermeister provided a clear, concise list of goals:
1 - Increase 2-way communication with Seniors
2 - Increase Senior Center membership by 10%
3 - Expand health and wellness programming by 10%
4 - Increase volunteer opportunities by 10%
5 - Each Costa Mesa high school sponsor an event at the Senior Center next year.

ANN PERRY'S IDEAS
Vice Chair Ann Perry opined that "we're here to serve the seniors, but if some don't need us, that's OK."  She observed that those in their 50's don't see themselves as "seniors".  She suggested that membership sign up sheets should be included inside every issue of The Chronicle.  She suggested greater outreach at venues like the Fish Fry, Concerts in the Park and the Car Show.  She thought there could be transportation to City Council meetings and that City Staffers could make presentations to the seniors on operations within City government.  She also suggested high school groups could do dress rehearsals or abbreviated versions of upcoming productions at the Senior Center. She also suggested more weekend and evening programming be created to serve the younger demographic.

FEENEY - ANOTHER BUS, AND MORE
Chair Ernie Feeney suggested that it would do little good to attract more seniors to the center if we were unable to provide transportation, so she suggested a goal of adding another bus and driver to facilitate better transport.  She further suggested expanding special programming from Friday nights to other evenings of the week.  She suggested mailing The Chronicle to the mailing list of the city Recreation Guide twice a year, to expand the readership and potential membership.  She also mentioned a "volunteer greeter", but it was unclear if that was to be considered a goal or not.  She also suggested an annual survey of all attendees to the Senior Center, using simple "yes or no" questions.

PROGRAM OVERLAP?
Krochman wondered if the programming outlined in the Recreation Guide may overlap some of the Senior programming.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
During Public Comments two people rose to address this issue.

ASHENDORF
Long time activist and volunteer Charlene Ashendorf suggested, using her own, personal experience, that we shouldn't leave the 50-59 group behind - that they can be valuable assets to the center and learn from the more senior members.  She opined that we need to remain relevant in this digital age and the Senior Center should be a one-stop destination for many services.  She suggested that we need to "cultivate the Senior Center" and adhere to the core values.  She also indicated that The Friends Of The Center could be a valuable resource.

HUMPHREY
Former councilman and current candidate Jay Humphrey thanked the commissioners for serving, then observed that the two minutes alloted per person for speaking with such a small group was "preposterous".  He observed that the commission didn't seem to have enough information to make proper decisions yet.  He also suggested folks who declined to return be polled to find out why.  He also suggested a series of "invite a friend" events, where members would be asked to bring a non-member as a method to expand membership.

STAFF WILL COMPILE DATA
The information discussed will be compiled by the staff and presented to the commission, along with answers to their many questions, at their July 12 meeting where this process will continue and - with luck - goals and objectives will be established.