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  I think it's important to understand just why he thinks Measure Z should be repealed, so here's a transcription of his entire explanation.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

SPOILER ALERT! Lions Park Project Moves Forward

SORRY ABOUT THAT...
Yeah, I know... you were waiting for the big build-up.  You wanted the drama, to see if the combined deliberative body - the City Council, Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission - would, at this late date, fail to move the Lions Park Project forward.  Ha!  Not a chance!  After years and years of meetings and presentations, this baby was a done deal last night.... but getting there wasn't a quick decision.

A VERY UNUSUAL, SPECIAL MEETING
As mentioned, the Costa Mesa City Council, Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and most of the senior city staff met in a Special Joint meeting at the Costa Mesa Country Club - ironically, the current Neighborhood Community Center is now closed pending demolition - to discuss this monumental project.  Nearly 150 of your friends and neighbors attended this meeting.  Some questioned whether they could actually meet and do what was planned on the agenda, but City Attorney Tom Duarte assured us that it was all legal.  You can read the full staff report HERE.

FIVE HOURS!
This meeting, which took five (5) hours almost to the second and played to a full house of around 150 people, actually seemed to move very quickly.  City Manager Tom Hatch kicked things off, gave us some history of the project and, with the exception of a few brief comments scattered throughout the meeting, allowed his staff and the architect to carry the ball.  Assistant City Manager Tammy Letourneau shepherded the initial staff presentations by Senior Planner Mel Lee and Interim Finance Director Steve Dunivent.  Sherry Toth, representing the Orange County Libraries who actually will run this new facility, also spoke briefly.

JOHNSON'S EXCELLENT PRESENTATION
About thirty minutes into the evening Steve Johnson, of the architectural firm of Johnson Favaro, made the main presentation which took just over two (2) hours, including questions from the assembled officials.  His presentation was outstanding, although he provided a little too much architectural history from my perspective.  Still, it was interesting.  The new library will be created using contemporary technologies and concepts - apparently libraries are no longer about books, but about meeting, creating using the technology available - and there are books, too.  I'm not going to try to provide you with every word that was uttered.   Suffice it to say that the new two-story building will meet the contemporary demands of all age groups, from toddlers to us geezers and every part of the age spectrum between.

CMTV COVERED IT
Dane Bora, Brad Long and the CMTV team were on hand to record the event and will present it for delayed viewing sometime within the next day or so.. lots of editing to be done.

Some of Johnson's highlights:

SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE, STACKED
The old single story, 22,000 square foot Neighborhood Community Center will be razed and a new two-story, 22,000 library will be erected within part of that footprint.

A NEW ACRE OF PARKLAND
The result of that vertical construction will provide a new acre of parkland on the site.

OLD LIBRARY OPEN DURING NEW LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION
The existing Donald Dungan Branch Library will remain open while construction takes place on the new building - the 2017-2019 time frame.

CAFE' MESA
A restaurant - dubbed Cafe'Mesa - will be constructed in that first phase and will be located between the new structures.

TRIMMED MEETING ROOM INVENTORY IS SUFFICIENT 
Once the new library building is complete the library operations will be transferred to it and the existing circular structure will be renovated and become the NCC, with a meeting room large enough to accommodate 300 people, plus another smaller one.  Analysis by staff and the architects determined that the current NCC was very underutilized - it was only being used 30% of the available time.  So, the more compact - fewer rooms - combination of the new NCC and the New library should suffice.  There are two meeting rooms in the new library building with outside access.

FINANCING
Financing was a big question.  Interim Finance Director Steve Dunivent did a great job of explaining it in laymans terms.  The shortest version possible to explain it is - it will cost $36,000 for this project and the city will finance $18.5 of that amount with a Certificate of Participation (COP).  Because so much of the cost is being paid in cash, and because existing COPs will be either retired or re-financed at current lower rates, our monthly payments on this project will remain about the same as we are currently paying on the other ones - about $1.2 million a year.  Read Attachment 5, HERE, for the full details of the financing.  This image is a snapshot of one segment that might help you.

 NEAR UNIVERSAL EUPHORIA AMONG OFFICIALS
It's safe to say that there was nearly universal euphoria among the council, commissioners and staff about this project.  Some of the comments made were almost orgasmic, but that may have been due in part to the lateness of the hour.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Twenty-two (22) people spoke during Public Comments.  Opinions were fairly even.  Slightly more than half loved the idea.  The others didn't like it, or had major concerns about it.  Sorry about the camera angle.  Among those who addressed the officials were:

Art and Mary Ellen Goddard, who have been involved in seeking a new library for the city for twenty years.  To say they were happy with the result last night would be the understatement of the decade.

Robin Leffler was among those not sold on the extravagance of this project, suggesting that we may be squandering money that might be used to purchase the Fairview Developmental Center when it actually comes available sometime down the road.

Terry Koken bemoaned the current dearth of open bathrooms at the park and suggested that, in the case of the homeless folks who currently infest this and other city parks, they're gonna do what they're gonna do, bathroom or not.

Alex Reich decried no 2017 public outreach and actually plugged this blog... thanks for that, Alex.  He suggested that THIS project was not the right project.

Cindy Black, a 36-year resident of the near Westside, described the site as "my 'hood", said this was not the project she saw in the early meetings.  She observed that libraries are a dying breed.

Greg Ridge was among those who complained about the locked fences around elements of the park, making them unusable to most park visitors.  He complained that he had to climb the fence at Davis Field to play football on Thanksgiving Day.  He suggested the park should be more open - tear down those fences.

Senior Commission Vice Chair Darrell Neft was one of the many enthusiastic supporters of this project, observing that no project is perfect.  He observed that libraries are NOT dead, that millennials are using them a lot.  He encouraged the officials to get going with it.

Mark Korando and his wife, Cherie (who passed on celebrating her birthday last night to attend the meeting) - nearby residents - complained about the inability to take their grandkids to the park and fly a kite and just run and play, citing the fences and homeless folks.

MANSOOR ASKS TO SHOVE IT OUT
Public Comments ended at 9:40 and then the fun began.  After nearly 30 minutes of discussion retread Council member Allan Mansoor asked for the decisions by each body present be split into separate meetings.  The Parks and Recreation Commission would hear their issue at a normal meeting, as would the Planning Commission and the City Council.  After all this hoopla last night, and with the assurance by the City Attorney that this process was appropriate, he wanted to drag this out for another month.  Councilman Jim Righeimer blew his top, saying "This is offensive to me!", and call it "obstructionist".  Mansoor made the motion and it failed on a split vote, 3-2.

DE ARAKAL NAILS IT!
During the deliberations Planning Commission Vice Chair Byron de Arakal addressed some of the earlier concerns - like why the new library couldn't have been placed at the Civic Center Park near City Hall, indicating it wasn't a large enough site.  He said the Fairview Developmental Center - another site suggested by several speakers - was no slam dunk and was still off in the future.  He observed that this project would be creating a defacto new Civic Center, where arts, culture and commerce would converge.  He described this project as a "Legacy" - something this council and others who got the ball rolling could look back on as a major positive accomplishment in their tenure.  He also observed that it was the Genesis of the revitalization of that part of town.

PARKS COMMISSION PASSES THEIR MOTION
Just before 10:30 the voting process began.  Parks and Recreation Chairman Kim Pederson moved to approve the Lions Park Projects Master Plan as proposed.  Commissioner Arlis Reynolds, after a long explanation, attempted to make a substitute motion, but it failed for lack of a second.  The original motion then passed, 5-0, and the ball was tossed to the Planning Commission.

THE FIRST ITEM PASSES
Chairman Stephan Andranian moved to Adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.  Commissioner Carla Navarro Woods suggested that the plant palette be softened to include some more drought tolerant, yet colorful species.  The issue passed, 5-0.

SECOND ITEM PASSES, TOO
Vice Chair de Arakal then moved the second issue before them - the adoption of a resolution to approve Planning Application PA-16-71 for the Lions park Projects Master Plan, subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures.  Commissioner Jeffrey Harlan observed that this project was creative, imaginative and shared de Arakal's enthusiasm for it.  He observed that usually cities rely on developers for this kind of project and he was pleased that the City had chosen to move forward with this excellent project.  Commissioner Isabell Kerins agreed.  Andranian also agreed but expressed concern about the displacement of the homeless during the project and the additional debt.  The motion passed 5-0.  It was now 10:45.

STEPHENS MOVE THE ISSUES
The City Council then took their turn at motions.  Councilman John Stephens moved to adopt the plans in the first of two motions, which ended up being considered in one vote.  The motion was to adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the Lions Park Projects Master Plan, City Project No. 17-03 and to authorize staff to advertise the Lions Park Projects for construction.  Now, you'd have thought this would be a simple vote, but it took fifteen minutes of yammering before they finally passed it unanimously.  Even at that late hour, so deep into the proceedings, Mayor Pro Tem Sandra Genis again expressed concern about the location of the buildings, which Johnson again patiently explained. 

RIGHEIMER RAMBLED
Councilman Jim Righeimer told us he'd "looked at this like 50 times."  He said, "We need this library!" and told us a personal anecdote about hauling his fifteen-year old daughter from library to library, from town-to-town because of the lack of a library in our city.  Personally, I thought that was a bunch of manure, but it may be true.  Regardless, it gave him a chance to exercise his jaws before the meeting ended.  He told us this is the best site, that we can't wait for the Fairview Developmental Center and he explained how this is just trading existing debt for new debt.  He said, "If we don't do this the money will be spent."  He stopped short of saying that the current council would just give it to the employees, but I could see those wheels spinnin'.

GENIS CONTINUED...
Genis again went on and on, saying we should build two of them.  She recited history - the purchase of the Farm site, where Jack Hammett Sports Complex now sits, and told Righeimer, "You got me."

FOLEY JUST BUBBLED
Mayor Katrina Foley expressed her great enthusiasm for this project, that it was the right time for it and she was proud of all involved.  She had Letourneau re-state the number of meetings - at least 50 - with stakeholders, trying to flesh out their interests and needs.  She recalled the 9 public meetings and hearings over the past couple years.  Her point - not stated - was that if folks didn't have a chance to provide their input it was certainly not for lack of opportunities.  She just bubbled with enthusiasm as she described this new venue as a place for the people.  She also acknowledged that we still have many other issues that need to be addressed, but we should move forward with this project as scheduled.  The vote was taken and passed, 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 11:03 p.m.  Ugh!

THIS IS A REALLY GOOD PROJECT
OK, this is a really cool project.  Get past the money part - that's been resolved and we're paying a big chunk of cash from anticipated revenue sources based on development projects already in the pipeline.  Measure Y seems to have no impact on this project.  You can argue the architecture all day - it's all a matter of taste.  Johnson's presentation won me over.  This is going to put most of Lions Park out of commission for nearly two years.  That's a tough consequence, but in the grand scheme of things it's a short-term problem and it seems worth it in the long haul.  I'm looking forward to watching this unfold.  I encourage you to watch the CMTV coverage of this meeting, if only to see Johnson's presentation... you can watch politicians anytime.  Read Luke Money's Daily Pilot report HERE.

HOMELESSNESS MUST BE ADDRESSED - NOW!
For me, of much greater concern is the homelessness issue which, hard as we try, seems only to be getting worse.  I fear that if we don't get a handle on it, once this new magnificent project is completed - as several speakers observed - we may end up having to regularly treat the chairs for lice infestation and hose out the bathrooms daily.  This is a SERIOUS problem that needs a resolution.  We NEED transitional housing ASAP.  It's unacceptable that we allow a couple hundred homeless people to destroy the ability of residents - taxpayers - to enjoy our parks.  We need to do MORE to fix this problem... NOW!

Planning Commission Interviews PLUS The Selections

HERE WE GO AGAIN...
I hope y'all had a great weekend - what a glorious place we live in, right?  OK, back to business.

SPECIAL MEETINGS
Tuesday evening, January 31, 2017, the Costa Mesa City Council will continue with the process of interviewing candidates for the three commissions that are presently completely vacant.  This time it is the Planning Commission candidates that get the attention.  More on that in a minute.

CLOSED SESSION FOR LABOR NEGOTIATIONS AT 4:00 P.M.
Prior to the interviews the City Council will hold a closed session beginning at 4:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers for Public Comments on these items, then moving to Conference Room 5A to discuss labor negotiations with City Manager Tom Hatch.  There are four items on the agenda, HERE, that involve the Costa Mesa City Employee Association (CMDEA); the Costa Mesa Firefighters Association (CMFA); the Costa Mesa Division Managers Association (CMDMA) and the Unrepresented Executive employees.

PLANNING COMMISSION CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS AT 5:30
Following that Closed Session the City Council will move to Conference Room 1A, on the First Floor, to begin the Planning Commission candidates interviews.  This is scheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m., and Public Comments are permitted in this meeting ONLY on the issue at hand - the interview/process of selecting commissioners.  The agenda for that segment of the meeting may be found HERE, including the schedule of interviews.

CANDIDATE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
Each candidate will be interviewed for eleven (11) minutes, just as the candidates for the Senior and Parks and Recreation Commissions were last Tuesday.  If they follow the same format as last week, Mayor Katrina Foley will greet each candidate - all the others will be asked to remain out of the room for fairness - then will ask a couple of pre-determined questions.  Following those questions the interrogation will rotate among the council members, one question at a time.  This takes a great deal of time discipline on the part of the council members.  The only exception to time provided that has been made in the past is that candidates being interviewed for two commissions is provided a couple more minutes.  Jeff Mathews gets 15 minutes. That interview schedule is presently as follows: (I noticed an aberration on the schedule - Susan Gonzales is provided with 15 minutes - so this schedule may be adjusted.

5:40 p.m.     Stephan H. Andranian
5:51 p.m.     Byron de Arakal
6:02 p.m.     Sarah Bortz
6:13 p.m.     Robert L. Dickson, Jr.
6:24 p.m.     Teresa Callo Drain
6:35 p.m.     Susan Gonzales
6:50 p.m.     Jeffrey Harlan
7:01 p.m.     Danial Hoffmann
7:12 p.m.     Jay Humphrey
7:23 p.m.     Isabell Mayer Kerins
7:34 p.m.     Jeff R. Mathews (interviewing for Parks and Recreation also)
7:49 p.m.     Jenna Tourje
8:00 p.m.     Dan Worthington
8:11 p.m.     Jonathan Zich
8:22 p.m.     Mark Buchanan (I'm not sure what will happen here, since he was already interviewed.)

OFF TO COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR APPOINTMENTS
Upon completion of the interview process the City Council will reconvene in the City Council Chambers at approximately 8:30 for the Appointment Process.  As you can see by the agenda notes, this will include an opportunity for Public Comments, too.

READ THE PROCESS FOR YOURSELVES
Then the fun begins.  I'm not going to attempt to explain the process to you.  The agenda item goes on at great length - ten (10) steps for this process - in what certainly appears to be a process that reduces the politics of the appointment process.  I guess we'll see.  I suggest that you go through the exercise yourselves for each commission - try to guess who will nominate whom and run the tallies.  I have... Oh Boy!

RECORDING/TAPING
It is my understanding that the interview segment, as was the case last Tuesday, will be taped for later viewing - so those of you who did not attend can see how the candidates responded to the interrogations.  The Appointment Process is being held in Council Chambers and will be televised and streamed live so those of you only interested in the results can follow the process at home.

SHOULD BE AN ACTION-PACKED EVENING
I suspect that somewhere around 10:00 p.m. we will have three (3) fully staffed and sworn-in commissions and they will be ready to get down to work.  The Planning Commission will likely have a couple meetings in February.  The Parks and Recreation Commission should be able to meet in February, too.  The Senior Commission only meets every other month and their next scheduled meeting will be in March.

ABOUT THAT SENIOR COMMISSION...
As a side note, I suggested that we don't really need a Senior Commission - the City staff does a great job of running that operation.  We certainly don't need seven (7) commissioners.  The previous iteration of the commission had seen very significant turnover and only two of them - Gary Parkin and Lee Ramos (both short term commissioners) - applied this time around.  If the City Council decides to contemplate disbanding that commission they could delay the appointments for that commission and schedule a discussion at their next meeting in February.  If they decide to reduce the number from seven (7) to five (5) they could do the same thing - delay appointments, agendize the issue and still have time to appoint commissioners for their March meeting.  There is NO RUSH.

WILL RIGHEIMER SHOW UP AND WILL MANSOOR STICK AROUND?
I wonder if Jim Righeimer will boycott this meeting as he did the one last Tuesday?  If he does show up, he will certainly test the schedule, since he seems unable to not say every word in his head. I also wonder if Allan Mansoor will bail out early as he did last Tuesday.  Both of those situations were very disrespectful to the process, and to those of you who voted for them.  They may not like this process, but it's part of the job they were elected to do.  If they don't like it they should resign... sounds good to me.

JOIN ME FOR AN EVENING OF FUN...
So, join me in the cheap seats in Conference Room 1A for the interrogations of these highly qualified individuals - the Planning Commission applicants are excellent.  And/or, watch the results beginning around 8:30 Tuesday night.  It should be VERY interesting...