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  I think it's important to understand just why he thinks Measure Z should be repealed, so here's a transcription of his entire explanation.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.

Measure Z And Group Homes Ordinances Top Council Agenda

ANOTHER INTERESTING NIGHT AHEAD TOMORROW
The Costa Mesa City Council meets again tomorrow, Tuesday, May 2, 2017 for what may be an action-packed event.  The regular meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers at City Hall and is preceded by a five (5) item (1 labor negotiation and 4 lawsuits!) Closed Session beginning at 4:30 p.m. and, following Public Comments in Council Chambers, will be held in Conference Room 5A in the Fifth Floor Bunker.  You can read the full agenda HERE.

MEETING BEGINS WITH A SMILE...
Thanks to a very loyal reader for pointing out an ironic twist at the beginning of the meeting.  Apparently the National Anthem will be performed by Mariachi Herencia Michoacana Group, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilman Allan Mansoor, the man whose policies regarding immigration petrified the Lation population of our city during his last tour on the council.  I'm sorry, but I just cannot stop smiling thinking about this interesting juxtapositioning - particularly a couple days before Cinco de Mayo.

CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar - items that in theory can be voted upon without separate discussion - holds nine (9) items, so it's likely that one or two may be pulled for discussion.  Among the items are:

THE WARRANT - MORE LAWYERS AND CONSULTANTS
Item #2, Warrant Resolution #2576, HERE.  This accounts for over $3.6 million of your dollars being spent.  I won't attempt to list the largest expenditures - you can click on that link and scroll down through the roster to see who got paid when and for what.  I will observe, however, that the old meter keeps on spinning for consultants and lawyers - understandable, since we still have over 80 vacancies throughout city government.

AMENDING STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH AGREEMENT
Item #9, HERE, is an amendment to the professional services agreement with Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, PC for $83,500.  It's not the agreement that's so interesting, but the assignment.  This staff report concisely outlines the financing scheme for the Lions Park Project, which makes this report interesting reading.

CDBG AND HOME FUNDS
Public Hearing #1, HERE, addresses the funding priorities for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investiment Partnerships Program (HOME).  For the fiscal year 2017/2018 the City anticipates $1,000,000 in CDBG funds and $340,000 for the HOME program.  Washington has been making noises about defunding those programs downstream, but I'm told the next fiscal year will not be affected.... fingers crossed on this one.

MEASURE Z AND "WHAT COMMITTEE?"
Public Hearing #2, HERE, is going to be very interesting.  This deals with the fallout of the passage of Measure Z relating to open space and public park impact fees PLUS involves creation, composition and name of the Open Space and Recreation Advisory Committee.  You may recall that the Planning Commission rejected the creation of that committee, suggesting, instead, that the duties planned for it could best be performed by the Parks and Recreation Commission.  The discussion of this item should be fun.  The staff report provides the council with three options.

VACATING LAND AT 152 E. 19TH STREET
Public Hearing #3, HERE, is the vacation of a portion of East 19th Street at 152 East 19th Street.  This issue has been batted around for several months.  The Bikeway and Walkability Committee reviewed it in February.  The Planning Commission heard the item in March and the City Council heard it in April.  Staff recommends approval.

 RE-UPPING THE PEG FEES
Old Business #1, HERE, is the second reading of the reauthorization of the collection of a fee to support public, education and governmental (PEG) channel facilities within the City.  This item took about 3 minutes the first time and there's no reason it should take that long this time around.

GROUP HOMES ORDINANCE CHANGES - AGAIN
Old Business #2, HERE, is also going to be fun.  This deals with the Group Homes issue and has been significantly modified since the first reading last month.  There are actually two (2) ordinances involved so you should read the staff report for the details.  Revisions were made in the following areas:

• Special Use Permit Approvals
• Compliance with Vehicle Code
• Required Separation Between Group Homes
• Application Requirements
• Eviction/involuntary Termination of Residency

Each of those issues is thoroughly explained in the staff report.

RE-AUTHORIZING THE BIA AGAIN
New Business #1, HERE is the Business Improvement Area (BIA) reauthorization and resolution of intention, review of annual report and introduction of an ordinance.  This involves eleven (11) hotels in Costa Mesa that collect an additional 3% on top of the normal 8% in Transient Occupancy Tax.  That additional money is used to fund Travel Costa Mesa, formerly the Conference and Visitor's Bureau.  This staff report includes the annual report.

OUTTA THERE BY 10?  MAYBE...
I think there's a very good chance we could be out of this meeting by 10 p.m. - sure hope so!

Tough Meeting Ahead For Planning Commission Monday

AGENDA PACKED WITH TOUGH STUFF
The Costa Mesa Planning Commission meets again on Monday, April 10, 2017 beginning at 6:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers at City Hall.  This brand new commission faces a very challenging agenda, which can be found HERE.

FIVE(5) PUBLIC HEARINGS
There are five (5) Public Hearings on that agenda and none of them appear to be easy.  We'll take them one-by-one.

MEASURE Z COMMITTEE AND FEES
Public Hearing #1, HERE,  looks to be the most complex issue the commission will face Monday night.  The issue is a product of Measure Z, the city-sponsored initiative on the ballot last November which competed in part with Measure Y, which passed soundly.  However, because Measure Z was also passed by the voters, certain portions - those which do not directly conflict with Measure Y - will become law, too.  And, if you're not already confused, when you attempt to read the staff report I guarantee you'll be scratching your collective heads.

YOUR HEAD WILL HURT!
Measure Z requires the establishment of an Open Space and Public Park Impact Fee AND an Open Space & Recreation Advisory Committee.  The configuration of the committee is quite specific as described in the staff report.  However, the City Council tinkered with it and has mandated a change - to fold together the new Youth Sports Advisory Committee AND the Open Space & Recreation Advisory Committee (OSRAC) and form the Youth Sports, Open Space & Recreation Advisory Committee (YSOSRAC).  The configuration of THAT committee is clearly defined in the staff report, too.  However, apparently there will be some issues that ONLY the OSRAC element of the committee can address!  AND, since the Youth Sports Advisory Committee appears to directly conflict with Costa Mesa United's Youth Sports Council, there is grumbling in the youth sports community that implies there will be few volunteers for that assignment, particularly since a major part of the scope of this combined committee deals with issues foreign to the Youth Sports community.  This is a flippin' mess!  Read the staff report and I think you'll agree that this commission is going to need a lot of aspirin Monday night.

SHEDS AND BANNERS
Public Hearing #2, HERE, involves changes to two (2) parts of the municipal code:

• An increase in building height that would allow a decrease in the setbacks for certain accessory structures (sheds); and
• To include a definition and related standards for non-commercial banners in addition to those banners used for advertising purposes.

It's hard to understand why these two issues were lumped together since they seem to have no common linkage.  However, that's what we've got, so that's what the commission will deal with Monday night.

SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT AT 174 COSTA MESA STREET
Public Hearing #3, HERE, may be the quickest issue they deal with Monday night.   This is the latest in a ubiquitous group of Eastside developments that fall under the rules of the Small Lot Ordinance.  This will replace an existing single story home and detached garage with two, two-story single family residences.  The staff is recommending the approval of the Planning Application and Tentative Parcel Map.

BEER & WINE AT 99 CENTS ONLY STORE?
Public Hearing #4, HERE, is a review of the Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) finding for a type 20 (off-sale beer & wine) Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) License for 99 Cents Only Stores at 2180 Harbor Blvd.  The Zoning Administrator previously approved the request, but Mayor Katrina Foley - in the face of significant public outcry - asked for this review by the Planning Commission.  This would be the 4th such permit in an area that is allowed to have 3.

CHICK-FIL-A STORE REPLACING GRANT BOYS?
Public Hearing #5, HERE, is a Planning Application to replace the now-closed Grant Boys at store at 1750 Newport Blvd with a Chick-Fil-A walk-up, drive-through store.  This has received significant opposition by Eastside residents and, despite adjustments in the traffic flow plan on the site,  the Planning Division recommends the rejection of this plan because it's not consistent with the new General Plan and will heavily impact Eastside neighborhoods.