Of Cronyism, Bad Judgment And The Demise Of A Recycling Center

BRISK MEETING STILL RAN LONG
The Costa Mesa City Council meeting that began on Tuesday, January 20, 2015 and, despite beginning early with the new start time of 5:45 and despite Public Commenters doing their best to trim their comments to fit into Mayor Steve Mensinger's new scheme, the meeting ran into Wednesday morning.

PLACATING MONAHAN
The agenda was juggled to shove Public Hearing #2, the appeal of the revocation of the conditional use permit for the recycling facility in the Stater Bros. parking lot on Newport Boulevard, to the end of the agenda.  This was done to permit councilman Gary Monahan - who arrived late -  to leave early and not have to sit around as he was conflicted out participating in the discussion.  More on that in a minute.

THROWING A WAKE FOR A CROOK
The BIG story of the evening - the one that caused the most audible reaction from the audience and the one that apparently has social media going white-hot - was an issue that commenter Sue Lester brought up during Public Comments.  About twenty minutes into the allotted time for comments she began telling the council about a fundraiser councilman Monahan was having at his pub for the surviving "family" of a man killed by members of the Costa Mesa Police Department after he pulled a gun on them while they were trying to serve a warrant on him on out-of-state issues.  You can read Jeremiah Dobruck's article - published, ironically, at precisely the time Lester was addressing the council on the issue - HERE.  Adding to the irony of the moment, Monahan came strolling in to the meeting as Lester spoke.  Fifteen minutes later, during Council Member Comments, Monahan admitted that he was having a "wake" at his pub to help out the dead guy's girlfriend and her son.  Apparently, this fellow - identified by Dobruck as Julius "Jay" Pinson -  had operated an antique business near Monahan's place and was a frequent customer.  Monahan did not know he was a fugitive, on the run from criminal acts in New Mexico and Texas - including one of "sexual penetration of a minor" - according to Dobruck's article.

DISRESPECTING THE COPS
There were several times the audience was restless last evening, but this one item seemed to cause the most concern.  Monahan's reasoning for holding a fundraiser, on one hand seemed like a civil thing to do for the survivors of a friend - that's what Monahan considered this guy - and on the other seems to basically give the finger to the men and women of the Costa Mesa Police Department,  two of whom were fired upon by this guy.  This is just one more example of the truly terrible relationship that exists between the council majority and the men and women of the CMPD.

WONDER WHAT THE NEW COPS THOUGHT?
Another interesting sidebar on this issue was that last night several new officers were in the auditorium, learning the ropes of being a "Sergeant-at-arms" during meetings.  Besides Acting Chief Rob Sharpnack, there were at least three other officers in the auditorium at the time.  They showed no reaction to this event, but I found myself wondering what they thought.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF BAD JUDGMENT
What Monahan wants to do with his business is, well, his business.  He cannot, however, expect this act to be viewed positively by the community.  I was very disappointed in him last night.  I remembered St. Patrick's Day - March 17, 2011 - when poor Huy Pham leaped to his death from the roof of City Hall and Monahan - the mayor at the time -  chose to stay at his pub in his kilt to pull beer taps instead of presenting himself at City Hall to see to the well-being of the employees on that tragic day.  Last night was another epic failure of judgment on Monahan's part.

AUSSIES WERE BACK

The meeting began positively enough, with presentations to two student groups from Australia.  Mensinger may get this part down one of these days, but he was awkward again last night.

BAKER'S DOZEN SPEAKERS
Thirteen individuals spoke during Public Comments, which began at 6:00, as scheduled, and ended at 6:33 - a few minutes ahead of schedule.  Here's a taste of what some of them spoke about:

• Richard Russell complimented the council on their recent fiscal prudence.
• Mary Spadoni scolded the City for NOT participating in the recent National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day.
• Karl Ahlf decried the shortage of police officers, and mentioned a fight at Monahan's pub.
• Cindy Black again chided Mensinger for his role in the DG path in Fairview Park.
• Laurene Keane expressed concern about the apparent conflicting activities regarding Fairview Park - the Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee and the pending update of the Master Plan of Parks and Open spaces.
• Robin Leffler said we should find a way to pay down some of the Unfunded Pension Liability and also opined that private meetings with the Mayor is not the appropriate way to present issues of concern.
• Planning Commissioner Jeff Mathews used his three minutes to rail about the lawsuit filed by Mensinger and Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer, and how it was totally appropriate.  I thought this was curious, since Mathews seldom speaks on anything - especially on the commission.  I thought at the time that perhaps he was reminding the council majority that he was a supporter of theirs - he is a BIG financial supporter - because his request for re-appointment was up for consideration later.  Turned out he was right...
• Travis Azevedo, a Medical Marijuana supporter, expressed concern about the lack of action on their petition for an election on the subject.
• Chuck Perry spoke of a recent "walk with the mayor" and regaled us with a story of what a wonderful guy Mensinger is - he said, "I love the guy".  
• Gay Royer complained again about the traffic on Victoria Street.
• James Bridges made a rambling comment on a variety of subjects, saying that we "should give these guys a chance", referring to the council.  Bridges relies on public transportation, so Righeimer offered him a ride home if he would stick around until the end.  Bridges declined, to his credit.
• Beth Refakes wrapped it up by addressing the need for "signal preemption" for emergency vehicles trying to get across Newport Boulevard, the homeless in Lions Park and concern about the displacement of users of the Neighborhood Community Center when the conversion begins to make it a library.

COUNCIL COMMENTS
During his time Righeimer praised development in the city - no surprise there.  Mensinger praised the Mesa Verde Classic Golf Tournament, and told it generated $200,000 gross.  If found myself wondering what the net will be.  Katrina Foley also spoke of the golf tournament and asked CEO Tom Hatch to address the Medical Marijuana issue and the potential shortage of meeting rooms.  Sandra Genis reminded the council of Foley's request for a "retreat" for the council, to discuss big issues in general terms, stating that she thought a half-day would be plenty.

TWO BUDGET STUDY SESSIONS COMING UP NEXT MONTH
Hatch told us that there will be two budget study sessions, on February 10th and 24th, to discuss where we are mid-year.  He also spoke of the recent graduation of three new police officers from the Academy, and mentioned that for the second time in two classes a Costa Mesa officer was class President and top officer.  Sadly, he didn't mention the officer's name, nor the fact that he comes from a law enforcement family.  I guess that's not important.  That seems like a pretty positive story to me.  Regarding the Medical Marijuana issue, he had no information, but said he would get it together and inform the speaker and post it on the City web site Wednesday - today.

JUGGLING THE AGENDA FOR MONAHAN
The council agreed to shove Public Hearing #2 to the end of the meeting so Monahan could leave.  This, of course, significantly inconvenienced the appellant's team and our staff, but the appellant had a lot on the line, so they were NOT going to complain.  They just stuck around and waited, and waited. 

 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS HANDLED
Two items were pulled from the Consent Calendar but, because the meeting had moved briskly to this point, they were handled immediately instead of being trailed to the end of the meeting.  Public Comments begin at 7:00 by city rule, so the seven minutes that remained until that hour proved to be just right for dispensing with them.

MORE BED TAX DOLLARS
Public Hearing #1, the addition of the BLVD HOTEL to the BIA, took one minute flat and passed on a 5-0 vote.

PLANNING THE LIBRARY
At 7:05 the council began discussing New Business #1, the authorization for $125,125.00 to an architect to begin preliminary plans for the new library at Lions Park.  The Public Comments on this issue were very interesting.  Fifteen (15) people spoke on the issue - 6 for it and 9 against.  That ratio surprised me.  Most who spoke against the library were actually concerned about the loss of meeting space when the Neighborhood Community Center was shut down for the construction.  None seemed quite convinced by the assurances of council members and staff plans to find sufficient space around the city. 

RIGHEIMER, THE "UBER" OF MEETING SPACE
During the discussion Righeimer, responding to the concerns about adequate meeting space by residents, said, "Call me directly and I'll do what I can to find space."  Once again, he seems to not worry about cutting the staff out of the picture - and it's beginning to show in staff performance.  Finally, at 8:00, the council voted, 5-0, to move forward with contract.

PICKING THE NEW TEAMS
Next came the second-most controversial issue of the evening - the selection of eleven (11) individuals to fill slots on three commissions.  As I said in an earlier post, 47 individual applied for positions, including a few incumbents.  Seven members of the public, including some applicants, stepped up to address their qualifications or to express a view on others.  This is the largest applicant pool I can recall.

THE PROCESS
The process began with the council members drawing numbered balls for the order of nomination.  Each one, in order, could nominate a person.  If that nomination received a second a vote would be taken.  Then the next council member would nominate, and so on.  The process would continue until all slots on each commission were filled.  Numbers were drawn for each commission selection and, subsequently, re-drawn for the 2-year appointments to the Senior Commission.

PLANNING COMMISSION
First came the Planning Commission.  Sandra Genis had the first choice and selected veteran and engineer Andrea Marr.  Foley seconded, but she was not chosen on a 2-3 vote along gender lines.

Monahan nominated Vice Chair Rob Dickson, who was chosen on a 4-1 vote.  Foley voted NO.

Foley then nominated Parks and Recreation Chairman Byron de Arakal, but he received no second.

Righeimer nominated incumbent (and major campaign contributor) Jeff R. Mathews, who was chosen on a 3-2 vote - along gender lines.

Mensinger nominated recent acolyte Stephan Andranian, who was chosen on a 3-2 vote, also along gender lines.

SWAPPED FITZY FOR ANDRANIAN
So, we swapped out Chairman Jim Fitzpatrick - a known council majority sycophant - for someone who is a complete unknown, but has recently shown signs of being another one.

SNOWBALLS CHANCE OF CHANGE
Foley inquired of City Attorney Tom Duarte about the possibility of changing the process of selection, since was clear how the evening was going to go.  He told her it would have to be agendized and any change would be subject to a council majority vote.  Basically, that means there is NO chance for change as long as this council majority exists.

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Next came the selection of new Parks and Recreation Commissioners.  New balls were drawn, and Foley had the first choice.  She nominated Jose de la Jara, but received no second.

Monahan nominated Brett Eckles and Mensinger seconded.  Foley inquired whether his selection might create complications because he's a contractor that does business on field issues in the city.  Duarte opined that that would be taken on a case-by-case basis.  Eckles was chosen on a 3-2 vote, again along gender lines.  He is also a member of the Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee, so that seems to be a conflict.  I suspect he may be shifted from a voting member into an advisory role, replacing Dean Abernathy on the committee.  Abernathy chose not to re-apply.  This does potentially make for some further complications for that committee, since Chairman Dr. Richard Mehren resigned at the last meeting.

Genis nominated Lynn Redman for his unique interests - he's a long-time member of one of the community gardens and his son, Eagle Scout Christian Redman, has been doing rehabilitation work in Fairview Park.  Foley seconded, but he was rejected on a 2-3 vote along gender lines.

Righeimer nominated incumbent commissioner Bob Graham, who was chosen on a 5-0 vote.

Mensinger nominated incumbent Chairman Byron de Arakal, who was also chosen on a 5-0 vote.

NEW BALL GAME, SO TO SPEAK
So, the configuration on the Parks and Recreation Commission changed dramatically with the selection of Eckles - a major proponent of more playing fields.  He's an energetic guy with some good ideas, but activists will probably be paying more attention to the work of this commission now.

MORE MEMBERS - MAYBE
Then came the selection of members for the new Senior Commission.  Righeimer opined that there should be more than 5 members - maybe 7.  Mensinger agreed, and said 7-9.  They were pleased with the large number of applicants.  I smiled and thought they were looking for more largess to hand out to supporters.  In the end, it was decided to fill the five slots - three 4-year terms and two 2-year terms, then return with a change to the ordinance to expand the commission later.

4-YEAR TERMS
Balls were drawn for the four year term slots and Genis again was #1.  She chose Charlene Ashendorf, in my view one of the most highly qualified candidates for this commission, and Foley seconded.  However, she was rejected on a 2-3 vote - along gender lines.

Righeimer nominated Stella Adkins, Mensinger seconded and she was chosen on a 4-1 vote.  Foley voted NO.

Monahan nominated Janet Krochman, Mensinger seconded and she was chosen on a 3-2 vote, along gender lines.

Foley nominated Martha Hernandez, Genis seconded and she was rejected on a 2-3 vote along gender lines.

Mensinger nominated Estancia High School Principal Kirk Bauermeister, who was chosen on a 5-0 vote.

2-YEAR TERMS
Balls were drawn again for the 2-year term assignments.
Genis nominated former council member Wendy Leece, who was rejected 2-3, along gender lines.

Righeimer nominated Ernie Feeney, Monahan seconded and she was chosen on a 5-0 vote.

The final person selected was John McGlinn who was selected on a 4-1 vote. Monahan voted No.

CRONYISM PREVAILS
Foley immediately observed that at least half of the appointees chosen are campaign contributors to Righeimer and Mensinger. 

MAYOR'S CHOICES APPROVED
New Business #3 was the approval of the Mayor's choice for appointments to various boards.  After a short discussion it passed, 5-0.

BIKES AND WALKWAYS
Foley suggested the council create a Bike and Walkway Committee, which was approved for staff work on a 5-0 vote.  It was decided to leave the Military Affairs Team intact without formal committee designation.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Genis suggested something more be done about Affordable Housing and, during the discussion, Righeimer announced that he's resigning from the Board of Mercy House so he can more fully participate in the discussion of this issue in the City.

ALL NEW...
Monahan left and, following a short break, the council re-convened at 9:07 to discuss Public Hearing #2, the possible revocation of the conditional use permit for the Replanet operation in the Stater Brothers Market parking lot on Newport Boulevard.  According to City Attorney Greg Palmer, this was a "de novo" proceedings - it meant starting all over.

I BAILED OUT, BUT..
An hour into the discussion, which included taking court-like testimony from residents just as was the case when the Planning Commission heard this item and revoked the permit, I decided to head home.  I listened to the proceedings on my cell phone driving home, then watched the rest on television.

DESPITE THE PAIN, CUP REVOKED
Despite the fact that the revocation will remove the last commercial recycling entity from our city and create significant discomfort for residents and local market owners alike, after more than three hours of testimony from residents - including several who live nearby the site - and representatives of the appellant and the Grocery Store operators, the council voted, 4-0, to revoke the permit. 

FOLEY -  LOOK FOR ANOTHER PLACE
Foley asked for a second vote to direct staff to work with the operator and other interested parties to try to find a proper place, or places, in the city for a recycling site.  The demand is clearly there - that site was the largest, by far, of any the vendor operates in nearby cities.  In the meantime, you'll just have to haul your cans to the markets, who are required to pay you for them or incur a $100 per day fine.  Or, you can visit the recycling center at Orange Coast College, on Adams Avenue.

It was a long night.  The next council meeting is on February 3rd... see you there.

Planning Commission Meeting Monday Night

A LIGHT SCHEDULE
The Costa Mesa Planning Commission led by Chairman Jim Fitzpatrick will meet for the first time in March with what appears to be a fairly light agenda, HERE.  The meeting begins in City Council Chambers at City Hall at 6:00 p.m.

CODE ENFORCEMENT UPDATE
The Consent Calendar contains the Code Enforcement Update, HERE, but it's not likely that it will be pulled for discussion.

ANOTHER INFILL HOUSING PROJECT
The first Public Hearing is for a tentative tract map for a 6-unit, two-story detached residential development at 2183, 2187 and 2191 Miner Street called The Oxford Cottages, HERE.  As has been the case in most recent requests for similar developments, this one has a load of requests for deviations/modifications to the current codes, including reduced front and rear yard setbacks, reduction is space between buildings and a small reduction in the front yard setback.  The staff is recommending approval.

RECYCLING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Public Hearing #2 is the six-month review of the conditional use permit for a neighborhood recycling permit in the State Bros. Market parking lot at 2180 Newport Boulevard, HERE.  This permit has thirty (30) conditions which, based on a review of the staff report, several of which are out of compliance.  The commission will provide direction regarding the continuance or revocation of the conditional use permit.

EXPAND RESTAURANT BY 240%
Public Hearing #3, HERE, is a request for the expansion of an existing restaurant (the Wild Goose) from 1,517 square feet to 5,185 square feet as part of a new two-story, 8,720 square foot multi-tenant retail/office building.  The staff has requested this item be continued - again - to the meeting of March 24th.  This project also has many deviations, including conditional use permits for 15 valet parking spaces for weekend use; expansion of outdoor seating; a shared driveway.  They also want to deviate from the shared parking requirements down to 50 from the 72 spaces required and to deviate from the maximum number of compact parking spaces, up to 10 from the current maximum of 7.  This was a hot-button project for the surrounding neighbors the first time around and I expect it will also be when the commission finally hears it later this month.

DESIGN AWARD TO AN EMPLOYEE?
The final item on the agenda, New Business #1, is the nomination of city Code Enforcement Officer Mike Brumbaugh for the "Planning Commission Design Award", HERE.  This is strange. In the past such awards are presented to projects, not people, and particularly not employees.  I know Brumbaugh a little bit - he's a swell guy who appears to be doing a terrific job.  But a "Design Award"?  Really?

Big Turnout At Sanitary District Town Hall

BIGGER CROWD THAN EXPECTED

Tuesday night more than five dozen of your friends and neighbors, including 80% of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District Board members, turned out to hear the presentation on the proposed changes the board will consider sometime early next year.  There were several familiar faces, but most of the attendees were not regulars at other city meetings.  I'm not going to attempt a verbatim dissection of the presentations, but will give you some highlights.

DEFINING "ZERO WASTE"
District General Manager Scott Carroll led off with a presentation about why we were there.  In fact, several slides in his presentation were titled "Why are we here?"  Several of those slides gave different quotes about "Zero Waste" - theoretically the goal of managing trash.  Perhaps the most relevant was the first one, from the Institute for Local Self Reliance, which stated, "Zero waste efforts, just like recycling efforts before, will change the face of solid waste management in the future.  Instead of managing wastes, we will manage resources and strive to eliminate waste."  Then, later on, he had another slide that said, "Zero waste is NOT about getting to zero.  It is about being on the path to zero."  Got that?  Further we saw one that said, "Zero Waste means designing and managing products and processes to systematically avoid and eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover all resources, and not burn or bury them."

 THE GOAL
We learned that the State has mandated that 75% of all waste be diverted from landfills by 2020.  The Sanitary District Board, at a meeting in April, established a goal of achieving 75% diversion by 2015 and 90% by 2020.

THE QUICK VERSION
In a nutshell, the Sanitary District will provide us with new "carts" - those cans on wheels that we presently load all our trash into for weekly pickup - for the "organics" and will hope we do some self-sorting those new cans to separate "Organics" from the rest of our trash.  We will have two types of cans - Organics and Other Trash, including recyclables.

ORGANICS

Green Waste
Grass clippings,tree branches, twigs, stumps, leaves, weeds, bushes and shrubs

Food Waste
Fruits, vegetables, meat, poultry, seafood, eggshells, rice, beans, cheese, bones, frozen/refrigerated food, tea bags, coffee grounds, pasta, FOG (fats, oil, grease)

HOW IT WILL WORK
Some of the details about precisely how this system will work still need to be ironed out, but here are  the basics as it stands today.
Households will receive one 64 or 32 gallon organic cart.

Standard service: 2-64 gallon mixed waste carts and 1-64 gallon organic cart. 
  
Households can request one additional organic cart with no additional monthly fee.  

Households may have 2 mixed waste arts and 2 organic carts with no additional monthly fee.  

A 3rd mixed waste and/or 3rd organic cart will cost $8.00 a month per additional container.

Households that generate no green waste
   A. Replace organic cart with 32 gallon food waste cart or
   B. Opt out of Organics Recycling Program and keep both existing mixed waste carts.  

Household that generates neither food scraps OR green waste.
  A. Opt out of Organics Recycling Program and keep both existing mixed waste carts.  

Households with limited storage space can also opt out.

NO PENALTIES FOR NON-PARTICIPATION, BUT...
Keep in mind that the goal here is to have EVERYONE participate in this program to maximize its effectiveness.  However, it was clear that if you choose to opt out, whether you meet any of those criteria above or not, there would be no "trash police" in your neighborhoods nor would there be fines imposed.

KITCHEN PAILS
There will be small kitchen pails made available in which participants can collect food waste, which would be dumped into the Organics cart.  Several members of the audience expressed concern about odors, both in the house and outside, as the food waste is mixed - unbagged - with the green waste.  Carroll and the other speakers expressed the opinion that it should not be a problem.  Many observers were skeptical.

WILL COST MORE THAN $500,000 PER YEAR
Carroll also talked about the costs of this program.  He told us that it currently costs $2,297,593 @ $8.9054 per property owner.  By adding the organic carts those numbers change to $2,527.213 @$9.7954 per property owner for an increase of $229,620.

Under the CRT Recycling/Disposal Plan:
Currently we spend $2,137,266 @ $51.97 per ton for 41,125 tons.  Approximately 33% of that trash would be "organic" under the new program, so the numbers would work out as follows:
$1,431,981 @ $51.97 per ton for 27,554 tons (67%)
$   970,344 @ $71.50 per ton for 13,571 organic tons (33%)
$2,402,325
-2,137,266 Current Cost
$  265,059

Thus, 
Hauler Rate                               $229,620
CRT Recycling/Disposal Rate: $265,059
                                                  $494,679
Kitchen pails                                   8,000
Community Outreach                     2,000
                                   TOTAL: $504,679

PAYMENT METHODS STILL PENDING

Carroll went into lengthy explanation of possible payment methods, including using reserves to pay the difference or spreading the increase cost over several years.  The Board will address those choices following more community input.

DIGESTING YOUR ORGANICS
Then representatives from CR&R Environmental Services, our trash hauler, told us about the technology that will be used for this Anaerobic Digestion Project, using German technology at a facility they are building in Perris, California.  Basically, solid and liquid organic waste is placed in something called a Main Digester, which separates solids and gas.  Through proven, patented processes the gas is turned into the cleanest CNG fuel available and the other materials become liquid and solid fertilizer.  You can learn more about how this process works HERE and HERE.

READY IN A YEAR
According to Mike Silva, CR&R Project Manager for this new facility, the site will be ready to accept delivery of waste for processing in roughly a year.  And, we were told, that CR&R chose the Costa Mesa Sanitary District to team-up with on this project because of their great history with us - we were the first to go with the all-in-one-cart program many years ago.  And, they guarantee us low rates because we will be in this game early.

DOUBLE THE IMPACTS

Although the hauler says it will only have to add one truck to it's Costa Mesa fleet, if this program is implemented our neighborhoods will have two trucks driving our streets each week instead of one, as is the case now.  Some residents expressed concern about doubling the negative impact of those huge trash trucks on our streets, both from a traffic and damage standpoint.  We understand the City may have misgivings about those impacts, too.

FEELS A LITTLE RUSHED, BUT...
I came away from the meeting feeling a little more comfortable with this process, although there seems to be a little bit of a rush right now.  According to CMSD Board members and staff, this evaluation process has been ongoing for many years, but this is really the first public outreach, but will not be the last.  The second of these meetings will be held at the same venue, the Downtown Neighborhood Community Center at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, January 11, 2014.  I encourage you to attend that meeting if at all possible and to hear the details of the presentation for yourselves.

TAKING THE PUBLIC'S PULSE
Board members Arlene Schafer, Jim Ferryman, Art Perry and Mike Scheafer sat quietly near the back of the room, hearing the presentation and measuring the community responses.  Only member Bob Ooten was absent.

 (Ferryman, Scheafer and Schafer)

ALL ABOARD!
After all is said and done, based on what we're told about the State mandates, this train is coming down the track with no way to stop it.  It seems prudent for us to carefully consider this proposal and, perhaps, jump aboard early in the process, before it gains much more momentum.  The Board will make a decision sometime in January, so express your opinion soon.  You can send an email to General Manager Scott Carroll HERE.

Cans, Banners, Walls And Scary Budget Ideas

NOT SHORT, BUT WORTH WATCHING
OK, I was wrong. The Costa Mesa City Council meeting Tuesday wasn't particularly short, but it did have it's painful moments, and provided some uncomfortable clues to the future of the city.

SCHEDULE JUGGLING, AS PREDICTED
I was correct about the scheduling - after announcements, presentations, the consent calendar and public comments they were still a long, long way from 7:00 o'clock, so they slid New Business #2, Masonry walls, ahead of the Public Hearing item.

MASONRY WALLS, WITH PERMITS
Several residents spoke against this plan - to require a building permit for any Masonry wall over 3 feet in height, which will require a fee based on value, but likely $350 or more. Most residents who spoke felt it was over-regulation, one referring to it as a "nanny city" approach. The main proponent, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer, said he worried about improperly installed walls by unlicensed contractors that wouldn't be around to face the music if problems occurred. Wendy Leece felt such issues were best left to the neighbors to sort out for themselves. In the end, though, the council voted in favor of requiring permits, 4-1, with Leece voting NO.

GARCIA EXTENSION REJECTED
By this time it was 7:15 and back they went to Public Hearing #1, the request for an extension on the order to vacate it's current premises by Garcia Recycling. You could see the result on this one coming a mile away. Despite the fact that Garcia has been working diligently to locate new quarters close to it's current location on East 19th Street, has identified a space, has tentative plans made by a local architect and filed for a conditional use permit for that space that very evening the council was unsympathetic. Garcia, who has run a wildly successful recycling business on his current site for more than two decades and clearly meets a need in the community, was given a stiff arm by the council. They voted 4-1, with Leece voting no, to uphold the eviction notice. Garcia must vacate his premises by February 14th.

THE NEW "HEAVY HAND"
This is apparently how this council is going to treat applicants. They are using the "no mercy" rule - do it, or else! We assume Mr. Garcia - who sat quietly during this brief, unsatisfactory, hearing without changing his expression - will continue to try to open a new state of the art facility at the new site only a couple blocks away, despite his shabby treatment by the council.

NEEDED OR NOT, HERE COME BANNERS
Then came the third item on the agenda - street-wide banners. A few people spoke, wondering why these were necessary - the very question I asked in my earlier post. Among those were Councilman Eric Bever. Neither he nor Leece saw the burning need, especially since every location would require at least $20,000 in infrastructure (poles, wires, etc.) at a time when we can ill-afford any new expenditures. Steve Mensinger moved to approve it, but with an open page where the sites are to be located. Staff was directed to look for alternate sites around town. Leece made a substitute motion to receive and file the report. No second was heard. Bever then made a substitute motion, also to receive and file, but instructed the staff to investigate using existing poles. (that was shot down by staff because existing poles belong to someone else - utilities - and wouldn't handle the stress of signage, too.) Leece seconded it. They were voted down, 2-3. The original motion was then passed 3-2, Leece and Bever voting NO. So, whether we need them or not, we're going to have street-wide banners somewhere in our city in the near future.

GLAD I WAS WATCHING
Then came the council member comments. You will recall that I observed earlier that we must pay close attention to them in this segment, which now comes at the end of the meeting.



NOTE TO BEVER: ENGAGE BRAIN BEFORE OPENING MOUTH
Bever suggested we investigate reducing fees for developers in the overlay zones. This is typical of him - we can barely balance our budget and he wants to reduce income! Yes, he is that stupid!

Leece and Mensinger had nothing to say.

MONAHAN'S PILE OF STUFF
Mayor Gary Monahan had a bundle of stuff: 1) he wanted to investigate increasing the foul ball netting at Lions Park ballfield; 2) he thanked Allan Roeder for the organization charts (more on that later); 3) he wanted an update on Chief Chris Shawkey and Captain Ron Smith. Roeder told him Smith is retiring this month and then said something only an insider would understand about Shawkey giving permission about something soon. In any event, Shawkey remains on paid leave of absence; 4) he then mentioned the upcoming (on February 8th) study session that will include a budget discussion. He said he wanted to finish the current budget year without any further use of Fund Balance, and that he wants to look into reorganizing the city to make it stronger and more efficient. (remember those org. charts?).

GUTTING PUBLIC SAFETY?
Monahan then went on to throw out some issues being discussed as a result of the budget sub-committee work in recent weeks - consolidation of police functions; possible elimination of the ABLE helicopter program; the Orange County Fire Authority Proposal; joint regional arrangement with Newport Beach Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley and changing the daily shifts to five 8-hour days.

OUTSOURCING
Righeimer went on with his contribution to the results of the sub-committee discussions: Outsourcing, both of work and staff; communication systems outsourcing; use of the jail; Maintenance services outsourcing; Information Technology outsourcing; Planning outsourcing. In fact, one had the clear indication that he was looking to investigate outsourcing every function in city government possible.

HATCH HAS A BLANK CHECK FOR CONSULTANTS
The council affirmed the authorization given to Tom Hatch, as City Manager-in-waiting, to hire whatever expert consultants he feels necessary to assess the entire organization and make recommendations for improved efficiencies, including staff reductions and outsourcing.

A MAJOR OVERHAUL COMING?
It was crystal clear from the comments Monahan and Righeimer made that the structure of the entire organization is on the table, and that this council will be impatient when it comes to delays in finding solutions to the budget crisis. This got even more clear when reference was made to Laguna Niguel, which has a population of 65,000 people and a city staff of only 50. We're talking about turning over practically every municipal function to someone else - Sheriff's Department, Orange County Fire Authority, contract maintenance and street repair - the works.

STORM CLOUDS AHEAD
As each meeting passes I see growing signs of impatience in this new council, led by Righeimer and Mensinger. Those two have been the top dogs in their own businesses and could simply call the shots as they chose. They'd tell folks to jump and expect them to be levitating as they spoke the words. Things don't - and can't - work that way in municipal government. There are too many rules in place to safeguard individual rights. This is obviously an alien concept to Righeimer and Mensinger. I see lawsuits ahead caused by their impatience and disregard for the rules of conduct designed to guide their actions as city officials. As I've said many times in the past and will continue to do so in the future - you can't take your eyes off these guys for a minute!