Eastside Neighbors Forum Rocks!

FORUM A GREAT SUCCESS
The Eastside Costa Mesa Neighbors Group City Council candidate forum Thursday night was a huge success despite, or maybe because of, the absence of four of the seven candidates.

THREE OUTSTANDING CANDIDATES SHOWED UP
Sandra Genis, Jay Humphrey and John Stephens showed up as planned, while the other four failed to make it.  Rumor had it that at least some of them may have been raising cash at a gin mill not too far away.  No, not Gary's.  It's really too bad the rest chose to boycott this event because, as usual, it was the best of the bunch.  The questions were well-thought-out and evoked good answers from each candidate.  Each one was given the same amount of time to answer and there was no sparring amongst the candidates.  I venture to say that if the remainder showed up that probably would not be the case.

MC CONVILLE TO WEITZBERG
The evening began as Eastside Neighbors Group President Jeff McConville promptly  kicked things off at 7:00 p.m., then tossed the moderator ball to Harold Weitzberg, who did a fine job of presenting the issues to the candidates.  The questions were crisp, as were most of the answers, and the program stayed right on schedule.  I'm going to try to give you a flavor of the evening, and may even manage a few direct quotes, but much of what I present to you here will be paraphrasing the questions and answers.  Terry Wall was on site recording this event again.  His finished work product will be available for viewing sometime next week.  I'll provide you a link when it's up.

FIRST, THE BALLOT MEASURES
After personal introductions by the candidates, Weitzberg  announced that the next segment would involve a discussion of the many ballot measures facing Costa Mesa voters in November.

MEDICAL MARIJUANA ISSUES
He launched into the first question, which dealt with the three local issues on the Costa Mesa ballot regarding Medical Marijuana - Measures V, W and X.  Measures V and W were placed on the ballot by gathering of enough signatures of voters last year.  Measure X was generated by the city council majority. He asked each candidate for their views on the issues and whether they will vote for them.  I'll provide answers in the order asked, which changed throughout the evening.

Humphrey
Jay Humphrey was the first to answer this one.  He said he understood the need for some ill people to get relief from Medical Marijuana and didn't want to do anything to hamper that relief.  He didn't like the idea of the product being sold in our city, so said he will vote NO on V and W, and may vote yes on X, the city-created measure that has no retail sales element in it, just manufacturing, testing, distribution kind of functions restricted to a specific section in the north part of town.

Stephens
John Stephens mentioned the fact that Recreational Marijuana - on the November ballot - will likely pass, but he didn't think dispensaries in Costa Mesa was a good idea.  He mentioned the need for a state agency like the ABC to manage the product.  He said he will vote NO on V and W and yes on X.

Genis
Sandra Genis acknowledged that some folks really need medical cannabis.  She cited the need for more state controls.  She will vote NO on V and W and, probably, Yes on X.

DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH
Next up was the issues of Development and Growth.  There are two issues on the ballot - Measures Y and Z.

Stephens
Stephens said he'd be voting NO on Z.  However, he was having a tough time with Measure Y.  He acknowledged why more than 7,000 people in Costa Mesa signed the petition to get it on the ballot - rampant growth throughout the city - but suggested a better way to change the way development is handled in Costa Mesa would be to change the demographics on the council dais.

Genis
Genis also praised the folks who got Measure Y on the ballot.  She said it's not perfect, but it reins-in the wholesale changes approved by the current council.  She said Measure Z is a "wolf in sheep's clothing" placed on the ballot by the council majority, and that the voters are being lied to on this issue.

Humphrey
Humphrey, a main proponent of Measure Y, said he would vote NO on Z.  He briefly expressed the mood of those who signed the petition to place Measure Y on the ballot as frustrated, with a feeling of powerlessness, at the rampant growth in the city.

FAIRVIEW PARK ISSUES
Next came a question about the measures on the ballot involving Fairview Park, Measures AA and BB.

Genis
Genis said she will vote Yes on AA and No on BB, another measure placed on the ballot to confuse the voters.

Humphrey
Humphrey said he will vote NO on BB, also emphasizing the attempt to fool the voters.  He will vote Yes on AA.

Stephens
Stephens agreed with them, and used his time to explain his view of the lies being perpetrated on the voters by the council majority by the placement of these measures on the ballot.  He express outrage that not only did they place BB and Z on the ballot, but are spending our tax dollars to promote them.

DISTRICT VOTING ISSUE
The next issue was Measure EE, the district voting issue on the ballot.

Humphrey
Humphrey said he's against EE, but agreed that it is important for the city to go to selecting council members by district and also to retain the existing term limits.

Stephens
Stephens said this measure is another example of the perversion of the process.  He briefly explained that we should have districts because of our large Latino population.  He explained how this measure really doesn't accomplish the intent - to give a greater voice to the Latino population in our city.  He said he will vote No on EE, but will do everything he can to get district voting approved with a Latino majority district.

Genis
Genis told the audience that she had offered a substitute motion - a 5-district option that had been preferred by the participants at the many workshops on this issue.  Not a single person supported the 6-district with directly-elected mayor choice that was placed on the ballot.  She cited this as another example of abuse of power at City Hall.  She will vote No on EE.

MESA WATER HOSTILE TAKEOVER MEASURE
Next came Measure TT, the advisory issue placed on the ballot by the Mesa Water District to test the sentiment of the voters on whether Mesa Water and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) should be combined.

Stephens
Stephens said he will vote NO because he didn't like the way it went down.  He suggested the proper forum for this discussion was the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

Humphrey
Humphrey agreed and will also be voting NO.  He said this is simply a power grab and also agreed with Stephens that LAFCO is the place for this discussion.

Genis
Genis agreed - she, too, will vote NO.  She said there is no clear reason for this to even be on the ballot.  She cited the one-sided financial study by Mesa Water, which was completed without the cooperation of the CMSD.  She suggested that maybe the Costa Mesa Sanitary District should investigate taking over the Water District.

QUESTIONS FROM THE HOSTS
Next they tackled questions posed by the host organization based on input from their membership.  Each candidate was asked to respond to each issue again.

HIGH DENSITY HOUSING/GENERAL PLAN/OVERLAYS
First up in this segment was High Density Housing, the General Plan Update and the Overlay Zones along Harbor and Newport Boulevard.  The candidates were asked if they agree with them and, if not, what they will do about it.

Genis
Genis said she did not agree with them and voted against them several times. She said they produce areas that are too dense, with too much traffic - much of which will end up being cut-through traffic on the Eastside.  And, she said it will result in no affordable housing in Costa Mesa.

Humphrey
Humphrey said he disagrees with the General Plan changes, citing the density and traffic, too.  He said it's just a land grab for developers.  He said those changes MUST not be codified.

Stephens
Stephens said he is against the Overlay Zones because they will change the character of our city.  He referred the audience to the development at 125 Baker Street, where a huge apartment complex with multi-story parking structure is being built.  He said there's a lot of lying being done by the council majority regarding the so-called "problem motels".  He said it's a myth being used to oust those properties, and cited an apartment complex in town as having the highest calls for service.

SOBER LIVING HOMES
Next came a question about Unlicensed Sober Living Homes, which Weitzberg said the city - 4% of the county population - has 29% of such homes.  He asked if they felt the laws were adequate to enforce?

Humphrey
Humphrey said they are not being enforced.  He cited the two laws on the books are not adequate, but acknowledged the need for sober living homes.  He cited the over-abundance of them in some neighborhoods and that we need to do a better job of forcing them to be better neighbors.

Genis
Genis acknowledged the need for sober living homes, but said our ordinances need more teeth and that we need to work with other agencies to help solve the problems - lobbying in Sacramento and Washington to get better laws.

Stephens
Stephens said he could talk a half hour on the issue, and would stick around after the meeting if anyone was interested.  He affirmed that the addicts are protected by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).  He suggested a Nuisance Abatement Fund be created to help deal with the problems.  He said many residents with sober living homes in their neighborhoods feel "hopeless and helpless".

PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE STAFFING
Next came a question about Public Safety, specifically about Police Staffing, and asked what we should do to attract more experienced officers.

Stephens
Stephens said "Elect Me!"  He said the city is a service business but that we currently have a "siege mentality" at City Hall against the police and that it's out of control on the dais and is constantly discussed on social media - he specifically didn't mention any site in particular.  Citing the obvious acrimony that is well-publicized, he said, "I wouldn't want to hire an officer who didn't know how police officers are treated in Costa Mesa."

Genis
Genis said we need to establish an atmosphere of respect.  She said the relationship with the police department has reached a critical point, and that the fact that we have no specialty units makes it hard to find experienced officers for lateral transfers, which is already a slow process.  She praised Police Chief Rob Sharpnack for his diligence in trying to manage this problem.

Humphrey
Humphrey told us the reality is the toxic atmosphere that has existed for more than 5 years.  Many senior officers took early retirement or looked for other jobs where their skills were appreciated.  And, the council majority imposed a hiring freeze, which put recruitment behind for nearly a year.  He looked forward to helping the CMPD become a premiere department again, and that it will take a change of attitude to attract laterals to the force.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Next came a question about Emergency Preparedness.  The candidates were asked if they feel we are adequately prepared to handle a major emergency - a terrorist act or a natural disaster.

Humphrey
Humphrey said that concern is very real and cited the recent Trump Rally, which ended up being a riot and caused  more than $290,000 in damage.  He said there was not enough notification to and by the Fairgrounds and there was no plan to which they could refer.

Genis
Genis mentioned the emergency generator which she, and Wendy Leece before her, had tried to get purchased for years without success.  She mentioned one member of the council majority who asked, apparently seriously, "Why should we have something that we will never have to use?"  She mentioned that our Emergency Operations Plan had not been updated for years, when Chief  Tom Gazsi finally got it done.  She said we have NO Hazard Management plan.  She also referred to the current practice of having public safety personnel work so many hours of overtime - thousands in many cases - that they might not be physically ready for a major disaster/emergency.

Stephens
Stephens said it kind of depends on the kind of emergency.  He mentioned a recent conversation with an official in north county that said something like, "Why worry about a fire.  Other departments will come to your aid."  He said we need to get our staffing levels in both the Police and Fire Departments up to the required level soon.

RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA
Next up was a question about Marijuana, specifically the possibility of Recreational Marijuana being approved by the voters in November.  The candidates were asked, "If it passes, how will it affect Costa Mesa?" and "What steps do we need to take to prepare?"

Stephens
Stephens began by saying he had no problem with adults using marijuana and suggested that anyone in Costa Mesa that wanted marijuana were probably getting all they want already.  He emphasized he didn't believe we needed dispensaries, then mentioned the fact that there are more than 300 places in Costa Mesa where a person can get alcohol, and that 80% of the police calls receive involve drinking.

Humphrey
Humphrey was concerned about it being a cash business, subject to armed robbery.  He expressed the need to take care of the "bad actors" in that business if it evolves.

Genis
Genis said she hopes the State creates an agency like the ABC to manage the product, and emphasized again that some people do receive relief from pain from the product. Weitzberg interjected that there is already an agency being formed.

COSTA MESA HOMELESSNESS
Next they discussed Homelessness in Costa Mesa, defining the problem and looking for solutions.

Genis
Genis said homelessness in Orange County is up, that there are currently and estimated 15 thousand homeless people in the county.  Many are in Costa Mesa.  She mentioned even Avalon, on Catalina Island, has a homelessness problem because the boat gives free passage to the island on your birthday.  She also mentioned we, the City, have been sending HOME funds that could be used for transitional housing for homeless back to Washington.  She said there will be "cap and trade" funds available soon, and that we need permanent supportive housing.

Stephens
Stephens mentioned that he'd recently spent a lot of time with Assistant CEO Rick Francis, the point man on Costa Mesa's battle with the homeless issue.  He has a small team and they're trying to get proper data so they can actually create a plan to deal with it.  He cited faith-based organizations, like Trellis.

Humphrey
Humphrey observed we have more young women homeless in Costa Mesa and blamed it on sober living homes that dump their failures out onto out streets.  He suggested the city become a credit guarantor to assist the homeless get re-established.

BANNING RANCH
Next was Banning Ranch.  It was presumed that the developers would appeal the recent Coastal Commission ruling and be back at it, trying to develop that property.  The candidates were asked to address the impact on Costa Mesa in terms of traffic, noise, clean up of the site, etc.

Humphrey
Humphrey said he would be attending any meeting on the issue.  He said we don't have any control, but that we need to negotiate a better deal to mitigate some of the impacts than the last one - one he said would barely cover half the anticipated impacts.  He suggested we keep an eye on the Coastal Commission to make sure they follow the law.

Stephens
Stephens said he was proud of Genis because she was the only elected official to step up and speak at the recent hearing that quashed the last attempt.  He said that if the three of them were elected, there would be three at those future meetings.  He thanked the opponents of the development, mentioning Terry Welsch in particular.

Genis
Genis said it is going forward and it would generate a lot of traffic in Costa Mesa.  If the Bluff Road is included it will mean even MORE traffic, and that we need to keep fighting it.

CLOSING STATEMENTS
Finally came their closing statements.  They were asked what makes them the best choice for City Council.

Genis
Genis said she was one of three good choices for City Council.  She said she's in it for the long haul, that she has great institutional knowledge about the City and is a professional land planner.  She said she wanted to see the government returned to the people, not continue abridging the rights of the residents.

Humphrey
Humphrey said he's a long-time resident of the city and that when on the council before he worked with Genis when she helped get the City out of the county investment pool before the bankruptcy, saving approximately 40% of our money in the process.  He cited the need to treat people with respect.  He mentioned that every small business, every resident are a major part of our community and that the council needs to hear from the people and respect their opinions.  He said he wants to bring balance back to the City for a sustainable future.

Stephens
Stephens thanked the hosts and Weitzberg.  He said he's a practicing attorney and that he thinks we should stop squandering our tax dollars  on frivolous lawsuits, and that his background could help with that.  He said he would be the residents eyes and ears at City Hall.  He said we could trust him to manage our tax dollars.  He said he knows how to negotiate in good faith.  He said he loves the city, and that he's a nice guy.  He said even Mensinger and Righeimer would agree that he's a nice guy.  He said he wants to listen to the people with Respect, Joy, Dignity and Love.

The meeting ended precisely at 8:30 with closing comments by McConville.  Luke Money from the Daily Pilot, shown below chatting with resident Greg Ridge, was at the meeting, so look for his coverage of the event.

MY THOUGHTS
I came away from this forum with strong positive feelings about all three of these candidates.  It was clear that they agree on most issues, but don't necessarily agree on solutions, but are willing to discuss them.  This is a refreshing change from what we've seen the past five years from the current council majority.  Two of the three, Genis and Humphrey, have significant experience on the City Council and know how good government looks and works.  Stephens is a skilled lawyer and negotiator.  All would be excellent council members and, as a team, they would be terrific.  My sense of the crowd tonight is that most in attendance were very impressed.  I know where my three votes are going later this month when my absentee ballot arrives.

THANKS TO ALL INVOLVED
My Eastside Neighbors did a fantastic job with this forum.  Congratulations to McConville, Weitzberg and to all involved, and to the candidates who took the time to speak to more than 100 of their neighbors on issues that are important to us all.

TO THE NO-SHOWS...
To the other candidates that chose NOT to attend... I have nothing good to say to or about any of you.  By avoiding this opportunity to express your views on these important issues you've demonstrated your arrogant disdain for the voters - something everyone in attendance last night will certainly remember and pass on to their friends.

Costa Mesa Democrats Tackle Medical Marijuana

HEARING THE LIBERAL VIEW ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA
I had the opportunity to attend the early part of a meeting of the Costa Mesa Democratic Club at the Neighborhood Community Center last night during which the two dozen people in attendance had a chance to hear views presented by "experts" on the current situation regarding Medical Marijuana dispensaries in our City.  I wore all blue, to remain invisible.  A joke, OK?

PERSONALLY, I'M NOT IN FAVOR
I must state right up front here that I have a very conservative view of this issue.  I am not in favor of the sale of marijuana in Costa Mesa - medical or otherwise.  I also realize that this snowball is rolling downhill so we'd better find a way to direct its path or we'll be run over by it.

MARR SETS THE TONE
Club President, Annapolis graduate Andrea Marr,  kicked the meeting off by introducing the issue, stating that the Democratic Party supports the sale of medical marijuana and by providing a brief comparison of the three competing potential ballot measures.  She then invited Joyce Weitzberg - Costa Mesa resident, wife of community activist Harold Weitzberg, former operator of a Medical Marijuana dispensary, nurse and a person who gets relief from severe physical ailments from the use of the product - to present a short summary of medical marijuana and her views on the issue.

JOYCE GIVES SOME PERSPECTIVE
Joyce Weitzberg took time to explain the difference between Medical marijuana and Recreational marijuana, and how the former is required to undergo testing to determine the content of certain elements within the plant so those who later dispense it - sell it to patients - can make a proper diagnosis and dosage recommendation.  She talked about the various different types of medical marijuana products and how they are presently used.  She stressed the need for testing and also stated that those in the medical marijuana business should be compassionate because they are dealing with individuals looking for pain relief from their product.

PANEL DISCUSSION COVERS OLD GROUND
Then a panel was convened consisting of Harold Weitzberg, activist and former dispensary owner Sue Lester and a lawyer named Jessie Bablove, who represents many dispensary clients throughout California and who is knowledgeable about the current Santa Ana situation where that city's Measure BB will require the existing 160 current dispensaries to be reduced to a maximum of 20, all of which will be located in industrial areas.  The panel expressed concern about that happening in Costa Mesa from a safety and accessibility standpoint.  Lester suggested a "medical marijuana zone" of some sort.  Nobody had an answer to the question of how many there should be in Costa Mesa.  Mention was made that there was, at one time, 44 such dispensaries and "they all were busy".  It was also reiterated that there are presently no state-wide standards for quality or strength as there is, for example, for alcohol.

NOTHING NEW
I, personally, learned nothing new from this event.  There were many more questions than answers.  I've attended every public meeting on the issue over the past couple years.  Weitzberg stressed that the City needs to get out in front of the issue, to have an ordinance in place BEFORE either of the two initiatives which qualified for a ballot are placed before the voters.  There is still large questions about which law takes precedence.  Because the initiatives have tax elements it has been suggested that they may only be placed before the voters during a General Election, not a special election.

COUNCIL NEEDS TO GET GOING
In the past the City Council majority has seemed not inclined to do much about this issue.  It is likely that litigation will take place because proponents of the two initiatives want their issues on a Special Election ballot.  However, those folks shot themselves in the foot by including tax elements which require them to be on a General Election ballot - the next one is 2016.

STATE MAY HAVE ITS OWN BALLOT MEASURE
And, political rumblings indicate there is a good chance the State of California may have its own marijuana issue on that ballot.  All the more reason for our elected leaders to get off their collective duffs and get an ordinance that addresses the community concerns in place post haste!

HERE ARE THE CITY INFO SOURCES
I suggest you click HERE to read the City's press release from last month on the subject.  The City held a Special City Council meeting on December 16, 2014 on this issue.  You can read the staff report on that subject HERE.  That staff report has links to thirty-six (36) attachments, including the text of the three competing ordinances and maps to help us understand the issue.  You may also click HERE to view the video of that three hour meeting to hear the discussion.

READ ZINT AND ME
You can also read Bradley Zint's Daily Pilot articles as a result of that council meeting HERE and HERE.  And, you can read my account of that meeting HERE.

I LEFT AFTER THEIR DISCUSSION

I have no idea if there was further discussion of the issue after I left.  They took a short break and planned to go forward with the other items on their agenda.  I was, however, grateful for the chance to hear their discussion.  I didn't see nor hear from any representatives of the two initiatives.  I didn't see anyone from the "industry" except those mentioned above.  And, there was no representative of City Government present, either, to answer questions.

Raucous Medical Marijuana Meeting

LEARNING NEW THINGS

Beyond the actual result of the Costa Mesa City council meeting Tuesday afternoon - begun at an extremely rare 2:00 p.m. start time and stretching until just after 5:00 p.m. - we learned a few interesting things.  We learned that the guys moved the girls to the outside on the dais.  I found myself thinking that will put pressure on the inside and, who knows, maybe that pressure will produce some diamonds...

WHO'S IN CHARGE?
We learned, for example, just who was in charge at that meeting - and it wasn't who you'd guess.  It wasn't rookie Mayor Steve Mensinger, nor pushy, pontificating Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer.  Nope, the person in charge was new council member Katrina Foley.  It was great theater...

MONAHAN WILL LISTEN
We also learned that Gary Monahan - who has begun his final two years on the council - can probably be a force to be reckoned with on this council given the right topic and the right circumstances.   This afternoon meeting was one of those times.

GENIS' STEADY HAND
And, we learned that Sandra Genis continues to do her homework and ask tough questions and will not easily be dissuaded from getting answers.

SHAKEY START... ALMOST NO QUORUM
As the meeting began it looked like we might have trouble meeting a quorum.  Both Righeimer and Monahan were tardy - Righeimer by a few minutes and Monahan was 40 minutes late.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were only four people who signed up to speak during Public Comments.  Flo Martin asked for better fencing around the vernal pools at Fairview Park and spoke of clear footprints through them yesterday.  Riganista sycophant Jim Fitzpatrick used his three minutes to plant a big smooch on the fannies of Righeimer and Mensinger as he spoke of the arrest of Private Investigators Chris Lanzillo and Scott Impola, and quoted from the transcript of the investigation.  Beth Refakes wished all a happy holiday and reminded us of the Snoopy House event ongoing at City Hall from now until December 23rd each evening.  Jeff Arthur, Chairman of the Pension Oversight Committee and a self-proclaimed PERS retiree, made a brief presentation using slides to demonstrate that our unfunded liability is getting worse, not better.

NO COUNCIL COMMENTS
For the first time in my memory none of the council members had comments to make.

HATCH ON HAMMETT AND SR. CENTER

CEO Tom Hatch was also brief, announcing that services for former Mayor Jack Hammett were pending and that the Senior Center would have its grand re-opening this Friday, the 19th, at 10:00.  As it turns out, that event will directly conflict with the services for Hammett, which begin at St. Joaquim Catholic Church on that date at 11:00 a.m.  You can read about the all-day event HERE.

SHORT MEETING... NOPE
We hoped the brevity was a sign of a short meeting.  Nah, it was not to be.  So, the five dozen people in the chambers settled in as the only item on the agenda - the future of Medical Marijuana in our community - was addressed.

LAWYER LED THE WAY
Deputy City Attorney Chris Neumeyer was the lead presenter and he went through the staff report, capsulizing each segment in a brief, efficient manner.  The staff report can be read HERE to understand the issues involved.  You'll note there are 33 attachments.  Item 33 is a map of potential sites for Medical Marijuana facilities using a 500 foot radius.  Foley had asked the staff earlier for the same map with 1,000 foot radii, which was presented later in the meeting.  That's important, because it became foundational to her discussion later.

TASK AT HAND - THE TWO INITIATIVES

Neumeyer explained that the task before the council today was to determine how to handle the two competing initiatives that have qualified to be placed on a ballot for a vote of the people.  He also explained the conflicting laws in play because the two initiatives have a taxation element in them, which requires them to be placed on a ballot at which council members will be chosen.  That means November, 2016.  There is also a statute that requires initiatives to be placed before the voters promptly - in this case within a few months.  And, adding to the joy of the afternoon was Gary Monahan's ordinance - rejected by the council earlier this year.  They had some difficulty looking for a name for it and eventually called it the "city ordinance".

DAILY PILOT COVERAGE
Bradley Zint did a good job, HERE, in describing the meeting in the Daily Pilot. He gave you most of the facts, but not the fun.

LIVELY DISCUSSION
After the staff presentation a spirited half-hour discussion took place between the council members, sorting out definitions and staking out philosophical territory.

70% FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA
At 3:20 the Public Comments began.  Sixteen (16) people turned in cards.  Seventeen actually spoke - a dozen in favor of Medical Marijuana and the remainder against.  I won't try to give you every word of every speaker, but will capture some of the comments.

Flo Martin described herself as a 40-year marijuana user and, as a senior citizen, she uses it for pain now.

Harold Weitzberg, whose wife operated a dispensary in Costa

Mesa, spoke with great articulation, suggesting a study group be formed to create a proper ordinance.

Paul Lucas suggested contact with the Orange County Health Department, and said patients shouldn't be forced to go to industrial areas to get their medicine.

Virginia Vargas, a young mother, spoke about the availability of drugs to kids and was concerned about dispensaries being sources for those drugs.

Ann Parker suggested that kids will get the drugs regardless, and described anecdotal information about Newport Harbor High School students and drugs.

Randall Longwith, an author of one of the initiatives, expressed concern that it has gotten this far.  He told the council he would have preferred for the city to create an ordinance, but when it didn't he moved forward with his.

Gay Royer referred to the old movie, "Reefer Madness", was in support of Medical Marijuana and suggested that the dispensaries should be in safe places.

Gary Parkin told us his father used Medical Marijuana and suggested we "go small" to start.

Sue Lester, a former dispensary owner, stressed the importance of a proper ordinance, and indicated zone the hell out of it".  She indicated that, since recreational Marijuana use is still against state law, any operator who is NOT licensed should be closed.  She said, "You guys have to do something because it's being rammed down your throat."
that Monahan's ordinance was a good start, but needed some fine-tuning - safeguards.  She suggested a strong permitting process and "

Michael Alexander said his father was a police officer for 26 years and that we shouldn't worry about the money.

Jay Humphrey agreed with Lester "110%".  He stressed that the creation of a "testing lab" - which

has been part of the earlier discussion - was a horrendous undertaking.  He wondered about California standards for cannabis.  He suggested we "do the things we can actually do."

A Newport Beach lawyer named Lance Rogers presented his personal history in Medical Marijuana in the state and suggested he might be helpful to the City.  He said we have a "fantastic opportunity".

Resident David Kincaid, a supporter of Medical Marijuana, wondered about nearby cities, and whether we would be "going it alone."

Robert Taft, Jr is a "main proponent" of one of the initiatives and referred to the Santa Ana ordinance, which had been presented for terms of comparison in the staff report.  He expressed concern that, as a result of its new ordinance, Santa Ana's dispensaries will be moving into Costa Mesa without any controls.  He said we don't want to see 100 rogue stores in Costa Mesa.

Undertaker Bruce Lamb described attending to those who died of overdoses and referred to marijuana as a threshold drug that could lead to harder drugs and overdoses.

Former council member Wendy Leece referred to a recent New York law as something that should be part of any discussion of the issue in Costa Mesa.

Travis Acevedo suggested that we get ahead of this issue, and also referred to the Santa Ana ordinance and the fact that rogue dispensaries will be coming to Costa Mesa.  He said, "It's coming and you need to be ahead or behind it."

RIGHEIMER PUSHES TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE

Just after 4:00 the comments ended and Righeimer just shoved his way right into the discussion.  He went off on a tirade, speaking of the fact that "anybody in this room could go get medical marijuana" without a prescription.  He referred the anticipated influx of dispensaries to the Sooners of Oklahoma, waiting for the land rush.  He suggested that, with the "Santa Ana experiment" going on next door we should give it a couple years to figure it out, and talked about the costs of litigation.  Well, he should know -  he's the reason for our litigation season.  He suggested a study group of all stakeholders and mentioned being in Colorado recently and it's a mess.  He then, without practically taking a breath or giving any other council a chance to even speak, made a motion to move the initiatives to the 2016 election and to form a task force to study it.  He said he's not in favor of ANY of the initiatives.  Genis seconded it for discussion.

FOLEY'S PROPOSAL

Then Foley took over.  With Genis' permission, since she had the floor to discuss her second of the Righeimer motion, she launched into a carefully-crafted monologue about an alternative to that motion.  She spoke of her concern about the children of the community and safety of customers.  She shared about her family members who have used marijuana and how it was a gateway drug.  She worried about the ancillary effect on neighborhoods, referring to liquor stores as an example.  She mentioned Department of Justice guidelines for such establishments.  She suggested we move forward slowly, then suggested adopting Monahan's ordinance, HERE, with some changes. 

MONAHAN'S, PLUS...

At this point we all had the new attachments, which are not part of the online staff report.  The one in question would be #33, but with 1,000 foot radius from protected sites.  That ended up showing seventeen (17) possible locations within the city for dispensaries.  So, she offered a substitute motion to use Monahan's ordinance as the foundation and her changes involved:
1 - Using the 1,000 foot buffer from all residential areas , R-1, R-2 and R-3, leaving it to industrial/manufacturing zones.
2 - Operators must obtain a permit.
3 - Minimum age of purchasers would be 21.
4 - Council could amend or repeal the ordinance.
5 - No felons with such records the past 10 years could operate or work in a dispensary.
6 - A Conditional Use Permit would be required.
7 - No product delivery within the first two years.
8 - An annual review and report required by code enforcement.

SPECIAL TAX
Additionally, there would be placed on a special election ballot in March, 2015 a Special Tax proposal that, if approved by 2/3 of the voters, would assess a 10% tax on the gross receipts for such businesses, which would be earmarked for the following uses, in order.  Foley stressed that if money ran out as it was distributed down the list, then those uses further down would receive no funds.
1 - reimbursement for the cost of the special election.
2 - code enforcement costs to manage dispensaries, ensuring compliance.
3- paying down the unfunded pension liability and any subsequent pension contributions
4 - drug abuse education
5 - homelessness prevention.

YAPPING AT EACH OTHER

Righeimer reacted by saying something like, "Oh, great, now the whole city will have to get stoned to pay pension liabilities!"  Foley's retort was, "Well, at least I'm trying to do something about it.  You're doing nothing!"  As I said earlier, it was great theater.

MONAHAN ON BOARD!

Amazingly, Monahan seconded the motion and suggested some modifications.  He expressed concern about the 21 age limit, suggesting that younger users with prescriptions could be accommodated if accompanied by a parent.  He also suggested a minor Conditional Use Permit, citing that these were just like any other business.

GENIS, TOO
Genis seemed supportive.  Monahan expressed concern for the probability of yet another petition being circulated and being forced to place it on another ballot.  Foley invited the two petition authors up to speak... Righeimer balked, but was out-voted, 3-2, to let them speak again.  I smiled.

PETITION AUTHORS ALSO ON BOARD
During that conversation they confirmed Monahan's concerns.  Longwith said he was 100% behind what the city was trying to do.  It was observed that the petition cannot be withdrawn now, but Foley indicated that the supporters could actively NOT support it at the 2016 election.

FOLEY SUCCESSFUL - INITIATIVES ON 2016 BALLOT

In the end here's what happened.  The council voted, 3-2 (Righeimer and Mensinger voting NO) to support Foley's idea to bring forward Monahan's ordinance with the modifications cited to a January Study Session, where the issues would be hammered out and finalized and presented to the council in a regular meeting in January - probably on the 20th.  The council also voted, 4-1 (Righeimer voted NO) to place the two initiatives on the 2016 ballot.

MENSINGER DOES A "MANZIEL"

A couple observations...  First, Steve Mensinger had a rough outing as the first-time operator of that meeting.  It was much like Johnny Manziel last week when he started for the Browns for the first time and they were blown out by the Bengals.  Sorry, but Steve is a football guy, right?  He completely lost control of the meeting several times.  He even broke out the gavel Righeimer gave him when he was anointed as Mayor to try to restore order.  You can blame part of that on Righeimer's difficulty of letting go of the reins and also on Foley's strong position on the issue at hand.  She was clearly the best prepared of the group... the word "leadership" comes to mind.

A TREMOR IN THE FORCE DETECTED

Second, it's going to be a long, long couple years for Mensinger and Righeimer if this meeting was any indication.  I smiled a lot.  I don't know how successful Genis and Foley will be in trying to change the course in our city, but we know now that Monahan can, and sometimes will, listen to an argument, so there's hope.  That's enough for now.

TIME TO THROTTLE BACK...
No more meetings until next year.... I think we all need a little respite... So, to give you a little taste of how if felt at times in this meeting I leave you with an appropriate YouTube video clip.  Enjoy...