STIFLING GROWTH IN COSTA MESA

 MY DAILY PILOT COMMENTARY

At 2:50 p.m., Tuesday, 9/20/22, I submitted a commentary to the Daily Pilot.  At 6:32 they published it online and it remained online until Sunday, 9/25/22, when it appeared in print.  The format I submitted didn't work for them, so they changed it, but didn't change a word of the text.  What follows below is the commentary just as I submitted it to them, including the use of bullet points to emphasize those issues.  I present this to you for whatever future reference you may choose to use it for.

AS AN ASIDE...

I'm VERY disappointed in the tack taken by folks who oppose Measure K.  Most of the loudest voices are those who created Measure Y... my commentary addresses my view on that. I sincerely hope they see the light and realize what long-term damage will be done to our city if we don't pass Measure K.  And now my Daily Pilot commentary...

THE IMPACT OF MEASURE Y

In 2016 Measure Y was passed by the voters with more than 68% of the votes cast. The result?  Measure Y requires a “vote of the people” if a property owner wants to update their property and that update changes certain parameters of the property or is located close to any other development that would have even retroatively triggered Measure Y.  After going through the time and expense of hiring architects and engineers and then pushing the project through the approval process, including an affirmative vote by the Planning Commission and City Council, then being faced by an expensive “vote of the people”, property owners and developers simply chose to take their development dollars elsewhere or not bother upgrading their existing properties at all.   Virtually all development in the city has dried-up, including attempts by existing property owners to simply upgrade their existing buildings.  There has not been a single “vote of the people” on developments since Measure Y passed.

MEASURE K TO THE RESCUE!

On August 2, 2022 the Costa Mesa City Council voted, 6-1, to place on the November 8th ballot an item that was eventually identified as Measure K.  This ordinance, crafted by an Ad Hoc Committee of Mayor Pro Tem Andrea Marr, Councilwoman Arlis Reynolds and Councilman Jeffrey Harlan after months of deliberation, is designed to loosen the grip Measure Y imposed on all development in the City of Costa Mesa.  

MISGUIDED OPPOSITION FROM MEASURE Y CREATORS

Most of the recent rhetoric against Measure K has been from the same people who created and marketed Measure Y six years ago.  In 2016 these well-intentioned folks, seeing a developer-friendly, heavy-handed city council approve uncontrolled development and spot zoning,  effectively said to the then-council “No More!”  The exclamation point on that election was the ouster of sitting Mayor Steve Mensinger, who finished 4th in a three-seat race.  

NEW COUNCIL MET THE CHALLENGES AND EARNED RESPECT

The subsequent election in 2018 - the first with district voting -  saw a dramatic change in the mix of council members.  That’s when the core of the current council was elected to guide our city.  They have done an exemplary job, navigating through the pandemic, effectively dealing with our homeless problems and enhancing support for the Public Safety organizations.  They have earned the confidence of the voters in doing so.  It was with that same concern for the future of the city that they approved Measure K being placed on the ballot - so the voters can help decide the future of Costa Mesa.

FAILURE WILL BE CATASTROPHIC

If the voters fail to pass Measure K in November the cost to our city could be catastrophic.  The impact of Measure Y is recognized by State officials as a roadblock to meeting State Housing Element compliance. It prevents well-meaning property owners from upgrading their properties, leading to “tenants of last resort” like massage parlors and illegal dispensaries, and eventually vacancies and blight as we currently see on Harbor Blvd.  It inhibits creation of new, much needed and required, housing.  If the impact of Measure Y is not mitigated the City could be subject to debilitating penalties.  They are:  

• Fines of $100,000 per month. 
• Loss of eligibility for ALL state grant funds. 
• The probability of the State taking control of ALL development in the city - the complete loss of local control.

WHAT MEASURE K WILL DO

• Will allow for much-needed re-investment on Harbor and Newport Blvds.
• Will loosen the stranglehold of Measure Y on development.
• Will permit planning for good development in industrial/commercial corridors.
• Will protect residential neighborhoods from large developments.
• Will allow the City to conform with State requirements
• Will prevent penalties from being imposed.
• Will require developments to conform with all development standards.
• Will permit concerned residents to express their views on developments through the normal vetting process.

WHAT MEASURE K WILL NOT DO

• Will not repeal Measure Y.
• Will not pemit uncontrolled development.
• Will not permit encroachment on residential neighborhoods.
• Will not remove the opportunity for “the people” to express their views on developments.

MEASURE K IS NOT JUST OK, IT IS ESSENTIAL

Please vote YES on Measure K.  The economic viability of our city depends on it.

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. 

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.

Contemplating The Election

CONTEMPLATING
With two hours before the polls close here in Orange County and national media beginning their non-stop avalanche of news about the big election, I find myself with a few things on my mind about our local elections.

DON'T GET EXCITED ABOUT EARLY RETURNS
As you all know, in the last two council elections seats were captured with fewer than 200 votes - 155 votes blocked John Stephens and 47 blocked Jay Humphrey.  For this reason I doubt anyone will be calling the council election tonight.  It will likely take a couple days to get all the votes tallied and the celebrating will begin.

IMPACT OF ANTI-SOCIAL MEDIA?
I find myself wondering what impact, if any, social media - actually, the "anti-social media" - will have had on this election cycle locally.  The evolution of the Costa Mesa Public Square and other sites makes me curious about just what real impact they will have.  The CMPS is a closed site, so proponents of the existing power elite in Costa Mesa - the council majority and their sycophants and other appointees - jabber back and forth with each other on important issues but other residents with opposing viewpoints are blocked from participating.  That fact makes me question the value of the site.  They claim more than 8,000 members, but more than a few of those are outside Costa Mesa - outside the state, for that matter.  And, since some of the primary participants on that site are proven liars, I wonder how much you can trust the stuff being spewed there.

IMPACT OF PRECINCT WALKERS?
I wonder about the impact of the hundreds of volunteers who have walked the precincts for the past couple months in support of the slate of candidates opposing the Mensinger/Mansoor/Ramos slate - John Stephens, Sandy Genis and Jay Humphrey?  I wonder how the firefighters participation in those precinct walks will be interpreted?

IMPACT OF POLITICAL COWARDICE?
I wonder about the impact of the candidate forums this year.  How will the voters interpret the absence of the MMR candidates?  Will they presume they were afraid of being required to answer questions important to specific segments of the electorate?

IMPACT OF LYING?
I wonder about the impact of the decision by Judge Dunning that Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer, candidate Lee Ramos and three other residents who signed it actually produced misrepresentations and flat-out lies on the rebuttal argument to Measure Y, the Smart Growth Initiative?  Will the fact that they have been adjudged as liars impact the election?

IMPACT OF THE BOGUS, CONFUSING INITIATIVES?
I wonder about the impact of the placement of expensive, confusing, competing ballot measures to try to defeat Measure Y, Measure AA - the Preserve Fairview Park Initiative - and the two medical marijuana initiatives.  In theory, Measure X competes with Measures V and W, but it has no retail sales element.  I wonder how the electorate feels about paying $8,500 each for mailers to promote those issues?

I WONDER IF THE ELECTORATE WILL BE FOOLED BY MEASURE EE?
I wonder if the pubic will be snookered by Righeimer's hijacking of the vote-by-districts issue when he demanded, and got, Measure EE - the 6-districts and directly-elected mayor - placed on the ballot instead of the resident-preferred 5-district choice?  Will the the voters see through that scheme and vote Measure EE down and let a judge choose the districting map for us?

I WONDER IF THE ELECTORATE WILL BE FOOLED BY MESA WATER?
Will the voters see through the plan by the Mesa Water District Board to implement a hostile takeover by the financially solid Costa Mesa Sanitary District?  Despite all the money spent by Mesa Water - estimated by election day to be in excess of $400,000, including a couple misleading mailers - will the voters reject Measure TT?

WILL THE ELECTORATE RETURN PROVEN LEADERSHIP TO CMSD?
Will the electorate re-elect proven leadership for the Costa Mesa Sanitary District by returning Jim Ferryman and Art Perry to the board, or will they decide to select addiction providers Gary Monahan and our village idiot, defrocked board member, marijuana advocate and campaign cheater, Jim Fitzpatrick?

WILL THE VOTERS TOSS FISLER FOR REICH?
Will the voters toss out Mesa Water District Director Jim Fisler in favor of a really smart, dedicated breath of fresh air, Alex Reich?

CHECKING BEGINNING AT 8 P.M.
Tonight I will check the Registrar of Voters site, HERE, to see what the early results are and, depending on what happens, report on them.  However, history in Costa Mesa tells us that it may be a couple days before we know who was successful in winning seats on the City Council and which of the eight ballot measures will pass and fail.

COULD HAVE SAVED TIME
If my vote was the only one that was counted tonight Genis, Humphrey and Stephens would win, Measure Y and Measure AA would win and all the rest would fail.  We could have saved Neal Kelley a lot of time and trouble if we'd just go with my vote.

 

NO SINGING YET...
More later...  Since it's unlikely that the critical council races will be finally determined until later this week, those who know her can tell Jami Joanne Russell that she doesn't need to limber up her pipes until later.