HOUSING OPPORTUNITY WORKSHOP - 7/30/25

 WHAT AND WHERE?

Wednesday evening around 60 of your friends and neighbors attended the first of what is supposed to be 10 opportunities for us to express our preferences on the types of new housing being planned for Costa Mesa.  It began at 6:00 p.m. and was scheduled to run a couple hours. Seating was available for 70 and, when counting city staff and consultants, there may have been 90 souls in the Norma Hertzog Community Center.  I left shortly after 7:00.

GRUB AND KID-FRIENDLY

Refreshments were provided and there was a little table with coloring supplies for children attending.  I did see a couple children last night.

PHOTOS MAY HELP

I’ve included several photos of the evening, which might help give you a sense of the event.

THE THEME

The evening was themed “Neighborhoods where we all belong.”  

CARRIE KICKS IT OFF

Carrie Tai, our new Director of Economic and Development Services, kicked the evening off, then handed the proceedings off to representatives of the Dudek organizations - consultants for this process.  In addition to their team there were many members of the Development Services staff on hand to answer questions.  And, for the most part, there was good outreach to non-English speakers via translators - a very welcome change from years past.

THE USUAL SUSPECTS, PLUS

As anticipated, many of the usual resident activists attended this meeting to learn and opine.  I will list a few I recognized.  I saw council members Arlis Reynolds and Jeff Pettis, Planning Commission Chairman Jeffrey Harlan and current commissioners David Martinez and Angely Andrade Vallarta. Arts Commissioner Charlene Ashendorf and her hubby, Dennis were there.  Former councilman Jay Humphrey and his wife Sally were in the crowd, as was former councilwoman Wendy Leece and former Planning Commissioner Diane Russell.  Major property owner George Sakioka and current FIPAC committee member Ralph Taboada attended. Uber activists Cynthia McDonald and her hubby, Rick Huffman attended, as did my pal and super-blogger Jenn Tanaka of Goat Hill Rodeo fame.  I also saw Daily Pilot ace reporter Sara Cardine chatting with attendees and taking notes.  There were also a couple photographers scampering around, but I didn’t recognize them.

MANY NEW FACES

I was encouraged by the number of new, young faces in the small crowd last night.  After all, this will be their city and they need to express their wishes in this kind of setting.

SHORT VIDEO

Following the presentation of a short video which explained why we were there - too many people, not enough housing, and expensive housing when it is available.  We learned that Costa Mesa has 100,000 jobs, and that 7,000 were added in the last 10 years.  We were told the average home price exceeds $1,000,000 and that the average monthly rent is over $2,400.

BREAKOUT!

Following the video we were permitted to scatter around the room, view the various display boards and either affix “dots” where we could indicate choices or scribble post-it notes with suggestions/preferences.

WHAT DID THEY WANT?

Many attendees carefully crafted Post-it notes asking for things like "Affordability", 

"Safety", "Schools", "Affordable Senior Housing", "Pathway to Home Ownership", "More Light At Night For Residential", "Trees For Shade", "Mixed Use", and more.

WHAT THEN?

I was told that the information provided will be homogenized and blended with information for the remaining 9 similar opportunities for community members to gather and opine scheduled for the rest of this year.  Those meetings will take place throughout the city at different venues.  The data will then be compiled and presented to the Planning Commission and City Council sometime next year.

OBSERVATIONS

I noted with great interest that there was no mention of the Fairview Developmental Center property as an “Opportunity Site”, even though that more than 100 acre site could resolve many of our housing needs.  I also noted that only slight mention was made of the State-mandated RHNA numbers - 11,760 housing units demanded by the state for our city.  That, of course, is the prime motivator for this entire exercise.

BEEN THERE - DONE THAT

I came away with the feeling of deja vu - like we’ve been here before.  Yes, the folks from Dudek are bright and professional and have a proven system for gathering public opinion on these kind of issues.  Yes, the City Staff was helpful answering questions.  I’m concerned that this has been a long time coming and that it could get mired in the “process”, as has been the case many times in the past.  Several of us have gone through these kinds of exercises before, only to find the “progress” seemed to be slogging through quicksand.  We shall see.

AWAITING THE GOAT WRANGLER’S TAKE

I expect my pal, the Goat Wrangler, will provide us with a much better, more thorough account of this meeting.  When she does I will share the link to it on my Facebook page. 

MY OPINION?

Well, because we’re a 99% built-out city, Measure K authorizes us to re-zone certain commercial and industrial areas to accommodate housing and the ONLY way to make that work is to go UP!  (The image shown here shows those areas, although they should have used darker colors.)  Yeah, I know -  “Up” is a nasty word, but it’s a fact of life. We’re just going to have to figure out how to carefully plan for nearly 12,000 new dwelling units and the nearly 30,000 new residents they will accommodate.  Our neighbors in the City of Irvine have figured it out, which you can see in the Jamboree corridor north of the 405 freeway.  And, they’ve managed to soften the impact of big complexes by using lots of large trees! Traffic and parking will be HUGE considerations, too, as will the need for more schools, shopping areas, fire stations and police officers to keep us all safe.

FINGERS CROSSED FOR PROGRESS

In the meantime, I will keep my fingers tightly crossed that this process will move forward with quickness and, by this time next year, we will have some sense of what our city leaders plan to do on our behalf.  Of course, that will be in the middle of the runup to the 2026 municipal elections, when the balance of power on our city council could change dramatically.  As I said… we shall see.  

WATCH FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

Be alert for future similar meetings, where details can be fleshed out with consultants and staff.  It’s a chance for you to voice your opinion on what our city will look like downstream.

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. 

FILING CLOSES - LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

CANDIDATE FILING CLOSED FRIDAY, AUGUST 7TH
I know... I'm supposed to be retired, but this issue is just too darn important to remain mute.  This local election - November 3, 2020 - will be the second time Costa Mesa elects a mayor by direct election AND it will be the first time that council members will be selected directly by the voters in voting districts 1, 2 and 6.

AN ELECTION SEASON UNLIKE ANY OTHER
So, I thought it might be appropriate to give you my take as we begin this campaign season - one that will be unlike any other in City history.  Because of the COVID-19 pandemic it is highly unlikely that any kind of face-to-face candidate forums will be conducted.  I wonder if there will be creativity shown and Zoom-style forums be attempted?  Right now, my opinion is that the City should sponsor forums of some type.  Perhaps they could be conducted the same way council and commission meetings are done using CMTV as the platform and retained on the CMTV YouTube site.

MY OPINION, BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE AND OBSERVATIONS
So, with only the information I have available to me via the completion of ballot statements and the ballot designations for each of those candidates who have qualified for the ballot - plus my own personal knowledge from observations of incumbent and former council members - I'm going to give you my take.  You can agree, disagree, or none of the above, but it's a place to start.  Incidentally, you can view each of the aforementioned official forms by going to the city page, HERE.

ONE RACE AT A TIME, IN ORDER
So, let's take each of the four races to be contested in order and I'll give you my opinion of each candidate.  I'll go in the order they appear on that page I linked to above to make it easier for you to bounce back and forth if you choose to do so.

MAYOR
KATRINA FOLEY
Disclosure:  Katrina Foley is a personal friend.  I've known her for two decades and have had a chance to watch her in many roles in which she served our community.  I have not always agreed with her, but I have always admired her intelligence, energy, organizational and oratorical skills and her unceasing willingness to serve our community.
She is the incumbent and the first directly-elected mayor in Costa Mesa history.  In her race two years ago she brought a wealth of experience as a council member (including a tour as mayor a year earlier), Planning Commissioner and Trustee on the Newport-Mesa Unified School District.  She has often been at odds with the OC GOP power brokers that have run the city in the recent past.  She had been chosen mayor by her peers on the council, then de-frocked a year before the last election and replaced by multi-term council member, former mayor (and current candidate) Sandra Genis, the woman who was a co-conspirator in Foley's ouster.  In the last election Foley crushed Genis, setting the tone for a sea change mandated by the voters in the way Costa Mesa is governed.  Awkwardly, Genis remained on the council and her term expires with this election.  Foley's performance and leadership during the triple-crises of the COVID-19 pandemic, economic collapse and the nation-wide plague of civil unrest, has been outstanding.  She and Mayor Pro Tem John Stephens set the pace for the council and staff, all of whom have done an exemplary job of managing these issues, even though often facing painful choices.  It will come as no surprise to learn that I will enthusiastically support Katrina Foley for mayor in this election.

AL MELONE
Melone, whom I refer to as "Dog Park Al Melone", is a perennial also-ran and brings nothing to the race except for a love of dogs.  He will suck up a few votes, but really shouldn't get any.

QUENTIN "Q" PULLEN
Pullen is a new guy on the political scene.  I had never heard of him until he pulled his papers.  Since then he has become a Facebook friend and I've learned a little bit about him.  He's a fitness trainer and former Marine.  If being on the City Council included feats of strength - tug-of-war, for example - he might be my guy.  But it does not, and he is not.  I've asked him just why he is running and he told me he wants "change", but was unable to come up with a single thing he wanted to change.  He seems like a well-intentioned good guy and, based on the huge banner he has in his garage gym, a supporter of Black Lives Matter.

SANDRA L. "SANDY" GENIS
Genis, as mentioned above, is a multi-term council member who's service to our city stretches back three decades.  She's a land planner by profession and has a long history of being on the right side of issues - until recently.  When she participated in the ouster of Foley as mayor - the first time in our history that a sitting mayor was voted out by her peers - it was a purely partisan move.  This makes her claim on her ballot statement of being a "non-partisan" candidate ring hollow.  I thought it was interesting that, even though she's been a fixture on the Costa Mesa political scene for 3 decades, she apparently felt it was necessary to tell us on her disclosure form that she was a "female".  Curious.  During her recent tour on the council, when she and Allan Mansoor have often represented a minority view, she has been an obstructionist on many important issues.  Her disjointed, long-winded near-filibuster rants during discussions of important issues have contributed to many meetings running very long.  She now seems unable, or unwilling, to concisely craft her opinion.  Although she still has a cadre of supporters in the city, she will not get any support from me.

WENDY BROOKS LEECE
Wendy Leece has also served our community on the City Council and as a Trustee on the NMUSD Board.  I was not a Wendy Leece fan many years ago, when she ran as a Republican ticket with Allan Mansoor.  A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then and she was misused, ignored and abused by the OC GOP over those years.  As far as I know she's still a Republican, but probably painfully so.  When I heard she was running I contacted her to find out why, since she has been a supporter of Foley in the past.  She told me she wanted to give the voters a choice.  When I pressed her about what kind a choice she meant, she implied a choice other than Foley and Genis.  Well, she gave me no clue about what she would change - except maybe she is unhappy with the current mask rules because it hampers her exercise of her religious services.  Anyhow, much as I like and admire Wendy for her service to our community, she will NOT get any support from me.

DISTRICT 1
JOHN B. STEPHENS
Another disclosure.  John Stephens is a friend.
Stephens is the current Mayor Pro Tem on our City Council.  He and Katrina Foley make a strong team and have provided leadership for the newer council members over the past couple years.  His district is a hotbed of supporters for the previous regime, so this race could be interesting.  He has demonstrated a steady hand during his tour on the council.  He, like Foley, is a lawyer by profession and those skills are demonstrated frequently as he helps navigate complex issues from the dais.  He is a smart guy with skill in building consensus - something essential during these very troubled times. If I could vote in District 1 John Stephens would certainly be my choice.  His skills and experience are far and away superior to his two challengers.

DON HARPER
Harper is a familiar name to some.  He has served the city as a Parks and Recreation Commissioner with no distinction and has also served on the Finance Committee and on youth sports groups.  He is tightly aligned with the former GOP regime and will certainly get support from those folks.  I watched him while he was on the Parks and Recreation Commission and seldom did he contribute anything to discussions on those issues.  Even if Stephens was not in this race he would not be my recommendation.

JASON KOMALA
He is also a new name - I'd never heard of him before he filed for this position.  He identifies himself as an ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE CONSULTANT - whatever that is.  He apparently works for Target Corporation.  We have little information about him.  We are unaware if he has had any kind of involvement in civic activities in our city in the past.

DISTRICT 2
BEN CHAPMAN
Chapman describes himself as a PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT with 11 years experience.  We do know he's the darling of the OC GOP.  I know very little about him, although I did see him and his husband, a former Episcopal Pastor, speak before the city council back when we actually had meetings at the Senior Center.  I expect he will get lots of support from the OC GOP in this race.  He would not be my choice if I could vote in this district.

LOREN GAMEROS
He, also, is a new guy on the political scene.  In contrast to Chapman, he describes himself as a "boots-on-the-ground" kind of guy with strong family values.  He's a 40 year resident of Costa Mesa with a very strong, lengthy background in labor organizations.  He also is now a Facebook friend, so I've learned a little bit about him - we apparently share a love for off-road activities. If I could vote in District 2 he would likely get my vote, but I'd like to see how he handles interaction in the form of forums, etc.  I have no way of measuring his knowledge of civic affairs yet.

GARY PARKIN
He's a retired engineer, active in the Costa Mesa Historical Preservation Committee and also served on the Senior Commission.  He occasionally speaks before the City Council on issues related to those activities.  He seems like a good guy, but, in my opinion, does not bring the strength, energy nor awareness of important issues to be taken seriously as a candidate.

DISTRICT 6
This race will have four candidates - two potential contenders failed to qualify today.
HENGAMEH ABRAHAM
This woman is also a brand new face in local politics.  She says she's a wife, mother of two children and a wellness coach.  I see nothing in her background to tell us that she has a clue about important municipal issues.  She may be a very nice woman, but she is the weakest candidate, by far, in this race.

JEFFREY HARLAN
Another disclosure: Jeff Harlan is my friend.
Harlan is currently the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission, a lawyer with a strong background in land use issues.  His experience on the City Council will be invaluable at a time when the State expects us to create housing opportunities out of whole cloth.  Over the years I've had a chance to watch him in action.  He's a very smart, very steady guy who makes good, thoughtful, well-reasoned comments every time he speaks.  He is far and away the best candidate in this race.  No other candidate comes close to bringing the skills he has to the council seat for District 6.  He will get my vote.

JEFF PETTIS
He is another person about whom not much is known.  He describes himself as a NURSE MANAGER and a Mental Health Board-Certified RN.  I would probably like him, but I can see nothing in his background that prepares him for a seat on the council, even though it appears he has a job for which we critically need good management.  He will not get my vote.

LEE RAMOS
Last, and in my opinion least, is this man.  He's a multi-time candidate who, in years past, apparently had trouble with his identity.  At one time his signs said "Vote for Lee", apparently going after our small Asian community vote.  He also attempted to use his Latino heritage to appeal to our burgeoning Latino population - and failed miserably.  In his ballot statement he fails to mention Sober Living issues as problems with which we should deal - perhaps because he has been snuggled up to those folks for years.  I've had a chance to watch him on the various commission and committee assignments he's held and came away completely unimpressed.  He seemed to be having difficulty crafting a cogent thought.  He has never been a good candidate for a City Council seat and, now that his neighbors - those who know him best - will have a chance to address him specifically as a representative for our neighborhood, I expect him to finish well down the ballot again.

THERE YOU GO... 
So, there you have it... The opinion, at the very beginning of this race, of an old guy with too much time on his hands, but who actually does still pay attention.  You can weigh these opinions for whatever you feel they are worth.  I do encourage you to click on that link above to read the statements by each candidate - the Ballot Statement and Disclosure Statement.  If you choose to comment, one way or the other, you will have to migrate back to my Facebook page to do so.  I no longer accept comments on this blog.  I get two votes this time around - for Mayor and for District 6. Fortunately for me, those races are easy calls.  I will vote for KATRINA FOLEY and JEFFREY HARLAN.

Byron de Arakal - "We Should Repeal Measure Z"

CONSIDERING MEASURE Z
At their meeting on Monday, February 24, 2020, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission considered, under Public Hearing #3, the discussion of creation of a new development fee and a committee to administer it per the only conditions of the onerous Measure Z that survived the vote.  You can read the staff report on that issue HERE.

THE VOTERS CHOICES IN 2016
In case you've forgotten, the voters voted heavily in favor of Measure Y, the slow growth measure.  It also passed Measure Z by a smaller margin.  As a result, only the elements of Measure Z that applied were those NOT included in Measure Y.  Here's what the votes looked like back in 2016.

THE CHAIRMAN SAYS "IT'S DISINGENUOUS - REPEAL IT"
Following the lengthy discussion, just prior to the vote being called, Chairman Byron de Arakal took a few minutes to explain why he was going to vote no on this issue.  I think it's important to understand just why he thinks Measure Z should be repealed, so here's a transcription of his entire explanation.

“I will not be supporting the motion and I’ll kinda give some reasons why. 

Principally, I think this fee and the ordinance that created it and the committee structure that it also created are wholey duplicative of fees we already have in place, and processes we have in place to administer park fees.  

As I mentioned in the meeting two years ago about this ordinance that a seven member, or seventeen member, committee to recommend to the council how these fee revenues should be spent should be a job that, if they are going to do it, should be recommended to the Parks and Recreation Commission and not the City Council.  We have a Parks and Recreation Commission for a reason.  

And, so this ordinance creates this big committee, and then it creates a new park fee - we already have essentially two or almost two, and now were gonna have three.  

Measure Z was created to chase voters away from Measure Y, and the only thing that could be placed in that measure to make it amenable to the voters to give them the notion to chase them off Measure Y,  is to say, “You know what, we’ll raise a bunch of money for your parks and your open space.”  - didn’t tell anybody that there are already thousands of dollars  per door for parks fees that get applied to these residential developments.  And so, it was really kind of a ruse, it was, you know, a magic show and I hated Measure Y, and still hate Measure Y, and I hated Measure Z, as well, because it was disingenuous.  It’s motive was disingenuous and how it was constructed was disingenuous, in my opinion.  

Now, having said that, we’re about to foist another fee on the development community, at a time when we’re about to have to figure out where we’re going to place 12,000 more housing units, principally, I think, in the area that just so happens to be in this area where this fee’s gonna be charged.  

Now, don’t think for a minute there wasn’t a motive for placing that fee just on this area, because there were people in this community that wanted no residential development north of the 405, west of Harbor and Fairview.  They didn’t want it, so they put a fee in place to chase the development community away because you’re just adding another fee on top of a park fee we already have.  

And so, ideally for me, I would love to see this commission recommend to the City Council that they place Measure Z on the ballot for a straight up or down vote on whether or not to repeal it - but that’s not gonna happen tonight.  

So, I’m gonna vote no on this motion because I think Measure Z was disingenuous from the beginning, I think it adds another fee to the development community, a development community we’re gonna need to meet our RHNA obligation in our new Housing Element.  And, ah, I just think it’s a big mistake.  And then we create this seventeen-member committee, that, who knows how political that could get?  And it cuts out the Parks Commission’s ability to make recommendations in it’s Capital Improvement Budget review because they’ve got this seventeen member committee who’s deciding now what happens to whatever pot of money comes out of this.  So, I’m going to be voting no." 

WHO?

When the Chairman said "...there are people in this community that wanted no residential development north of the 405...", we know who he meant - the sperm donors of Measure Z.

THEY VOTED HOW?!

And, this issue got curiouser and curiouser as the commission voted.  Commissioner Tourje was absent, but, as you can see from the image below, only three (3) commissioners voted "Yes" - Perkens, Russell and Zich.  Chariman de Arakal voted "No" and Commissioner Colbert and Vice Chairman Harlan abstained after consultation with City Attorney Tarquin Preziozi.  Fun fact - Harlan actually seconded the motion.

TO THE COUNCIL ON THE THINEST OF VOTES

So, now this issue will go before the City Council for consideration after the thinnest of votes to move it forward.  This should be interesting.

COMMENTS?
If you wish to comment on this entry you must go to my Facebook entry, which can be found on my page HERE.

Planning Commission Takes Flight

TOUGH TASKS ACCOMPLISHED
Monday night's Costa Mesa Planning Commission meeting was an interesting one, indeed.  You will recall that I suggested it might be a tough agenda for this new group... well, it was, but the commission proved worthy to the task.

 LIKE WATCHING FLEDGLINGS TAKE FLIGHT
In recent meetings it has been a little like watching a group of fledglings shedding their shells, squirm around the nest for positions and try to find space to spread their wings.  Last night we saw them make their way to the edge of the nest, flap those wings a little, then just drop off the edge and hope they could fly... and they did!  But, let's take the meeting in order and we'll get to that "flying" part shortly.

 PUBLIC COMMENTS
Only one person rose to speak during Public Comments.  An unidentified woman stepped up and addressed the commission on the recent Measure Z Stakeholders Meeting at City Hall last week.  She opined that, based on what she saw and heard, the City has no clue about what it's up against with the Marijuana crowd in attendance.  They have no idea about the probable collateral damage in the way of crime that may accompany the creation of our own "drug zone" in the north part of town.

 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioners Woods, Harlan and Kerins had nothing to say.

Vice Chair Byron De Arakal said he wants to open a dialogue with staff regarding the boundaries of the Mesa West Urban Homeownership plan and will likely have to get permission from the City Council for the staff time.

 Chairman Stephan Andranian congratulated Commissioner Isabell Kerins for being appointed liaison to the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee.

CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar - which contained only minutes from their last meeting - was passed without comment on a 5-0 vote.

MEASURE Z FEES AND COMMITTEE
Right off the bat the commissioners had a BIG issue to discuss in Public Hearing #1, which was the proposed ordinance following the adoption of Section 5 of Measure Z - the bogus issue placed on the ballot by the last council majority to try to counter Measure Y.  Certain portions of Z will become law, including establishment of an open space and public park impact fee and the creation of an advisory committee.

 ALREADY TINKERED-WITH BY CITY COUNCIL
The City Council has already tinkered with this and combined two committees - the Youth Sports Committee and the Open Space and Recreation Advisory Committee - expanding the latter from a seven (7) member committee into a seventeen (17) member committee with a revised scope of operation.

TOO MUCH YOUTH SPORTS ORIENTATION
Four members of the public spoke on this, none of whom were in favor of it.  Cynthia McDonald described Measure Z as deceptive and misleading and described the Youth Sports Committee as a "stacked" group that would place emphasis on youth activities and ignore the growing active aging population.  Rick Huffman agreed with her - they are husband and wife, after all - and described the heavily-youth sports oriented committee as being front-loaded and would form a voting block.

LEAVE THE COMMITTEE OUT!
Vice Chair de Arakal expressed concern about the expanded committee and suggested they leave the committee out of the ordinance.

COMMISSIONERS AGREED
Commissioner Jeffrey Harlan agreed, and said it hurt his head contemplating this issue.  He observed the conflicts between Measures Y and Z demonstrate the unintended consequences of the initiative process.  Commissioners Kerins and Carla Navarro Woods concurred.

Chairman Andranian asked if they have the option to leave the committee aside.  The answer was yes.

WHAT ABOUT THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION?
de Arakal expressed much concern that nowhere in the ordinance does it even mention the Parks and Recreation Commission, which he described as a very smart group of people who already perform some of the responsibilities of the proposed committee.  He served eight years on that commission and understands the scope of it's operations and authority.

PASSED - WITHOUT THE COMMITTEE!
The discussion went on and on and, eventually, after nearly an hour, de Arakal moved that the commission approve the ordinance as staff proposed WITHOUT any mention of the committee at all.  Rejecting the City Council plan, that motion passed, 5-0.  It was at this point the fledglings had launched themselves off into the unknown and took wing.  I smiled...

 SHEDS AND BANNERS MASSAGED AND PASSED
Public Hearing #2, a combined motion that attempted to clean up two issues - sheds and banners - was presented by Zoning Administrator Willa Bowens-Killeen, who explained the reasons for these suggested changes.  After a short discussion in which de Arakal asked Deputy City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill if the restrictions on size and duration of display of banners as recommended was a free-speech issue, (the answer was no), the commission approved the staff report, 5-0,  but changed the maximum size of the sheds to 8 feet tall and 120 square feet max.  That means that now you can place a shed in your yard without worrying about a 5 foot side setback and a 10 foot rear setback.  The fledglings were circling, gaining skills...

CLASSIC SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT
Next up was Public Hearing #3, a small lot development at 174 Costa Mesa Street that replaced a single family residence and detached garage with two single-family residences that conformed to the Small Lot Ordinance without variance requests.  This project was praised as one that was exactly what was in mind when the Small Lot Ordinance was created.  An added benefit - apparently this project displaces what was a sober living home and all the attendant problems that were associated with it.  It passed, 5-0.

 99 CENT ONLY STORE BEER AND WINE LICENSE
Public Hearing #4, the review of the 99 Cents Only Store request for a finding of Public Convenience and Necessity for a permit to sell beer and wine, which had been called up for review by Mayor Katrina Foley, generated some interesting discussion.  For example, during the conversations it turned out that this permit would make #5 in an area only approved for 3.  Only one member of the public, Barrie Fisher, spoke in favor of the request, who based her support on the fact that the property owner, not the lessee - the 99 Cent Only Store - should be held accountable for unsavory activities on and near the property.  In the end the commission voted, 4-1, (Andranian voted no) to reject the application based on a few factors - over saturation and the failure of the operator of the store to even show up.

CHICK-FIL-A REPLACING GRANT BOYS
After a short break the final item on the agenda - Public Hearing #5, the replacement of the old, closed Grant Boys store on the corner of Rochester Street and Newport Boulevard with a Chick-Fil-A drive-through, walk-up restaurant - was launched.  The staff recommendation was to reject this plan due to serious traffic considerations.

CHICK-FIL-A TEAM IN THE HOUSE
We knew right off the bat that this one would be interesting.  Chick-Fil-A showed up with a crew of experts and smooth-talkers.  Randy and Alexa Garell of Grant Boys were present, as were a cadre of Grant Boys fans ready to heap praise on their community contributions of 66 years, and to express the opinion that they deserved to be cut some slack on this project, even though some elements made it unworkable in the view of the staff.

HALE RAN POINT
After the brief staff report Chick-Fil-A main man Ed Hale made their pitch.  Keep in mind that his company has a reputation for being good citizens - their presence in Costa Mesa with their other store has been only positive - and Hale tried to explain how this project would really work on this site.  He said this is the 26th or 27th iteration of their plan, trying to fine-tune it.  He praised the Planning staff for their professionalism and cooperation.  This diagram shows their latest cut at how to make this work.  Traffic into the site could ONLY enter off Rochester Street and ONLY exit on Newport Boulevard.

PROTOTYPE STORE, MOVING THE PROCESS FASTER
Hale explained that this was a prototype store, with a new kitchen arrangement that permitted rapid through-put of cars in the line.  I don't think anyone in the room thought that their process wouldn't work... that was not the problem.

GARELLS SPOKE WITH PASSION
Twenty-one (21) people rose to speak on this issue, twenty-two if you count Randy Garell who spoke as part of the team presentation.  He and his wife, Alexa, spoke with great passion about the Grant family contributions to the community - nobody questions that, for sure - and, unfortunately, Randy closed his comments with a critical comment about this hearing being held the first day of Passover.  It was an unnecessary dig that seemed to bother some folks in the audience and on the dais.

POWERFUL ALLIES SPOKE IN FAVOR
Of those other twenty-one speakers, all but five spoke in favor of the project and almost all because of the Grant family contributions and Chick-Fil-A's reputation as a good neighbor/citizen.  Included in those were Chamber of Commerce President Tom Johnson - a fixture in this community since his days as the publisher of the Daily Pilot - and iconic former Costa Mesa Police Chief Dave Snowden, who did nearly 18 years in that role and was broadly active in the community for more years than that.  His sons and their families live in the city.

LOTS OF LOYAL FRIENDS SPOKE IN SUPPPORT
Friends and business associates of Garell and the Grant family, like Alan Greeley, 37-year owner of the Golden Truffle across the street from the Grant Boys store, spoke in glowing terms.  They went on and on.

 TRAFFIC IS THE ISSUE
Those who spoke against this project, like activist Beth Refakes and businessman Iggy Israel, did so based on the fact that it would create a traffic nightmare on Rochester Street, and that it likely would be impossible to exit onto Newport Boulevard - the real crux of the issue.

REBUTTAL FALLS SHORT
Following Public Comments Hale attempted to address some of the issues raised.  He, for example, said that left turns into the property from Rochester would be forbidden.  Well, I wonder how that's going to happen?  Same with prohibiting right turns into the exit to Newport Boulevard.  Public Services Director Raja Sethuraman explained the process of traffic analysis, and why this project doesn't work.

APPLES AND TANGERINES
de Arakal interrogated the Traffic Consultant from Chick-Fil-A, observing that the Escondido store that was used for many of the comparisons REALLY isn't a valid comparison because, unlike the proposed Costa Mesa store, it doesn't front on two public streets - it's  part of a mall parking lot, where overflow traffic isn't much of an issue.

IT JUST WON'T WORK!
Finally, as the clock crept past 10 p.m., Vice Chair de Arakal opined that this really was not an issue about the Grant family, nor was it about Chick-Fil-A, both of whom have multitudes of supporters and a history of community support that is undeniable.  This is an issue about a project that simply doesn't work at that particular location, regardless of the emotion involved.  There is NO question that Chick-Fil-A has refined their processes to improve through-put of cars and walk-up customers.  In fact, those improvements may only exacerbate this issue by actually moving cars through the property faster than the Newport Boulevard traffic can handle.

 REJECTED UNANIMOUSLY
Each of the commissioners joined his concerns and, at 10:10 p.m., they voted unanimously - 5-0 -  to deny the project as proposed.  I could see those fledglings now soaring like eagles with this difficult decision behind them.  I smiled again...

 HOVERING AND CONTEMPLATING
Chick-Fil-A proponents and members of the Grant contingent hovered around on the Council Chambers porch for a long time, clustered in little groups discussing this rejection.  I presume they were trying to decide whether to appeal it to the City Council.

NEXT MEETING ON MAY 8TH
As Andranian was about to adjourn the meeting Acting Development Services Director Jay Trevino told the commission that their next meeting - normally scheduled for April 24th - was being cancelled because there are no Public Hearings nor New Business items scheduled for that night.  The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be on May 8th.  Trevino encouraged the commissioners to get some rest...

AND NOW, FOR THE COMMISSIONERS...