Monday, February 06, 2012

City Council Agenda For Tuesday

Bet you thought I'd be too tuckered-out to post anything else tonight after all that stuff about KOCI, huh? Ha! I'm just getting started!

Tomorrow, Tuesday, February 7th, at 6:00 p.m. in City Council chambers the Costa Mesa City Council will hold its first meeting of February. This regular meeting will be of four meetings held by the council this month - a record for what would normally be a short month.

On the agenda tomorrow are more than a few interesting items, some of which will certainly evoke community response. Let's go over the agenda, shall we?


The Consent Calendar, which include three separate Warrants outlining expenditures last month that wil
l be approved, probably without much controversy. No significant legal fees are shown on these three - they will come later, at the meeting of the 21st. As it is, the three Warrants on this list total over $5 million in spending.


However, one item that might get pulled for conversation is the request to extend the contract with Management Partners for interim management assistance, HERE. This would be Tammy LeTourneau, who seems to have been here forever, but it's really only been since last year. However, with all the recent management additions to CEO Tom Hatch's staff, I find myself wondering why this consultant continues to be needed. Hatch has added Peter Naghavi and Rick Francis to his senior team, plus Bill Lobdell and Dan Joyce in their public affairs roles. Just HOW big is the executive staff going to be and still require the services of a very expensive consultant?

Next comes the only Public Hearing on the agenda, the resolution adoptin
g fee increases for the community gardens, HERE.

New Business #1 is a General Plan Screening Request for a Walgreen's to be located at the current site of the old Tower Records store on Newport Blvd., near 17th Street, HERE. It will be nice to finally get a new, thriving business at that very busy location.

Next comes an interesting item - the resolution to re-affirm the
Costa Mesa City Council's resolve to have the 19th Street Bridge removed from the county Master Plan of Arterial Highways, HERE. I really want to hear the discussion on this one, because, although this has been the official policy of the city for almost two decades - Sandra Genis signed the original resolution as mayor back in 1993 - not all the members of THIS council want the bridge removed from the plans.


Number 3 is the amendment of the contract between CalPERS and the city permitting the implementation of the 2%@60 second tier retirement plan for the Miscellaneous group, HERE. This has been in the works for months and has finally percolated to the top of the pile this month. Although I suspect we'll hear a lot of palaver, I doubt any member will vote No on this one.


Number 4 is the resolution approving the "voluntary" employee CalPERS retirement contributions
for full-time unrepresented Executive city employees, HERE. We saw a press release on this recently. This is a high-visibility, low impact move. I'm not criticizing it, just observing that the fiscal impact is almost insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Of course, if we keep hiring executives at our current rate, this might actually be big bucks.

Number 5 is a request for staff time to study illegal garages used as habitable space or excessive storage, HERE.


Number 6 is guaranteed to generate some rancor on the dais. This is Wendy Leece's request for staff time to evaluate a policy regulating electronic communications during City Council meeting
s, HERE. Watch for Steve Mensinger's head to explode. Seriously, regardless whether Mensinger is a serial texter on the dais or not - he is - because the council is migrating toward using electronic tablets instead of the mountain of paper normally required at each meeting, this issue really needs to be given some careful thought. Because council members will be able to access the internet - council chambers is a WiFi hotspot - that means they will be able to do research, surf the web, send and receive emails, etc., while council is in session. Some kind of policy seems to be needed to define proper and improper behavior using electronic devices during meetings. Still, watch for the exploding cranium...

And, of cours
e, way, way, way down at the end of the agenda we have what is usually a very fun part of the meeting - council member comments, suggestions, etc. This is the time where individual council members spring their surprises on us - you know, things like Charters, Outsourcing - that kind of stuff. You have to stay awake for the goodies.

Labels: , , , , , ,


Blogger Joe said...

Next comes the only Public Hearing on the agenda, the resolution adopting fee increases for the community gardens"


I thought the stipends for "hoes" Bever and Monahan were already set.

2/07/2012 08:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Focus Everybody said...

I think we should be more worried and need to set policy to understand when Wendy Leece is reading a scripted Union statement. Or is a talking head for comments written by Sandy Genis.

Those acts have far more potential to create issues and damage our City.

Soon we will have rules to handle electronic devices.

In the mean time I suggest we applaud Mensinger for eliminating waste.

And encourage others to focus on bigger issues.

2/07/2012 08:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Storage Wars said...

If this City and it's band of merry idiots come around and try telling me that I can't use my garage for anything but parking a vehicle, theey're going to get big F-You right back at them. I understand about illegal garage conversions for living in, but to tell me what I can and can't have in my garage is a little out of line. What's next the amount of furniture I can have in my house.

2/07/2012 09:47:00 AM  
Blogger Flo Martin said...

Do you think Monahan, Mensinger or Righeimer would approve of their kids' teachers allowing students to text, answer email or surf the net while in class?

I'm with Leece all the way on New Business Item #6!

2/07/2012 09:53:00 AM  
Anonymous YUUUUUP! said...

Hey "Storage Wars" how much furniture do you have!


I do have to agree with you.

2/07/2012 11:01:00 AM  
Blogger Angry White Man said...

Storage Wars..... this is the type of "new normal" we can expect from our corrupt council and planning commission. They want our city to be some form of a twisted HOA, telling you how to use your garage, you cant have a pickup or van. Staff has been directed to come up with some type of color charts to see when a lawn is dead so you can be cited for that too.
Only in Kosta Mesa

2/07/2012 12:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Tom Egan said...

Re: Germany’s 1933 Enabling Act and Righeimer’s 2012 Charter:

Some comments on this blog have mentioned Hitler’s 1933 Enabling Act in connection with Righeimer’s Charter. Not knowing the details of the Act, I found them in a Wikipedia article (

Amazing how a small cabal with a forceful leader could so quickly take over a government and then arrange things so they had absolute power! In just three months after being appointed Chancellor of Germany, Hitler maneuvered the legislature -- the Reichstag -- into emasculating itself and granting him every power he wanted that wasn’t already his as Chancellor. And this was all legal under the Constitution!

The article summarizes it as follows:

"The Enabling Act was passed by Germany's Reichstag and signed by President Paul von Hindenburg on 23 March 1933. It was the second major step, after the Reichstag Fire Decree, through which Chancellor Adolf Hitler legally obtained plenary powers and established his dictatorship. It received its name from its legal status as an enabling act granting the Cabinet the authority to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag."

The Enabling Act is very short, just five Articles. A total of eleven sentences. It didn’t take many articles for Hitler to become a dictator, as they were blunt and sweeping in their gifting of power. I’ve highlighted the three parts that are the core of the power grab.

"Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation"

"The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled:

"Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.

"Article 2
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.

"Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.

"Article 4
Treaties of the Reich with foreign states which affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies of the legislature. The government of the Reich shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.

"Article 5
This law takes effect with the day of its proclamation. It loses force on 1 April 1937 or if the present Reich government is replaced by another."
We report, you decide.

2/07/2012 01:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Angry Green Female Biltch said...

@Angry White Man

You should read up on the collection of city ordinances called Title 20. Rules about maintenance of our lawns have been on the books for over a decade. It is only now they are debating if and how they should be enforced. If you like the dead lawn look, this is not the city for you.

2/08/2012 09:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Storage Wars said...

Angry Green--There have a been a ton of rules on the books, but most sensible people choose not to enforce dumb rules, these numb-nuts on the City Council are just the type to enforce things like this. They want to be able to control everything in our lives.

2/08/2012 09:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Change my Mind said...

I take it back. As long as Wendy is going to be on Council, please, can the Unions and Sandy Genis continue to write and script Wendy's comments?

That was as painful as having to sort through How's comments here.

2/08/2012 12:41:00 PM  
Anonymous OCLonghair said...

Before you vote "FOR" the proposed Charter Costa Mesian’s, get the facts; do your homework.

A Chart for our City could be a good thing, but if left up to only the few players drafting this is not such a smart move.

We should take the time to do this well... remember it has taken Newport and Huntington over 90 years to dial-in their Charter.

If we just put the statement, “Any item in this section that is not covered by this Charter will be covered by General Law statute provided by the State of California; until which time the item can be added through the normal processes.”

A vague, ambiguous Charter will give too much power to only 3 people on the Costa Mesa City Council. If you trust this Council… fine. But what happens when the council changes and there are 3 members who don’t have your best interests in mind?

2/08/2012 01:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Charterhawk said...

OC Longhair, The Charter for our entire county has that phrase. The Charter for OC basically does 3 things. It spells out how County elected officials are to be elected, protects ordinances already passed by the voters and then reverts everything else back to the States General Laws Statute.
Charters can be a very good thing but they need to be carefully crafted. This charter as is I will not support.

Measure “V” – 3/5/02 Election
We, the citizens of Orange County, with a desire for self-determination in selecting our county elected officials and to initiate the process to govern our county by charter government, do hereby adopt this charter.
101. Governing Body.
The governing body of the county is a Board of Supervisors of five (5) members elected by and from designated supervisorial districts.
102. Terms of Office.
The term of the office of supervisor is four (4) years.
103. Filling of Vacancies.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of supervisor, the vacancy shall be filled as follows:
. If the vacancy occurs in the first 1095 days of the term of office, the vacancy shall be filled by a vote of the electors of that district at a special election to be called by the Board of Supervisors not less than 56 days nor more than 70 days after the vacancy occurs.  If the vacancy occurs within 180 days of a regularly scheduled election held throughout the supervisorial district, the election to fill the vacancy may be consolidated with that regularly scheduled election.
The person receiving the highest number of votes in that election shall fill the vacancy.
. If the vacancy occurs within the final year of the term, the vacancy shall be filled by the person receiving the highest number of votes for Supervisor in that district in the March primary election that year.  If that person for any reason does not assume the office for the remainder of the term, the Board of Supervisors is hereby authorized to appoint a person to fill the vacancy.  If the Board of Supervisors does not make such an appointment within 30 days following the certification of the March primary election results or following the failure of that person to assume the office, whichever comes later, the Board of Supervisors shall call a special election to be held not less than 56 nor more than 70 days thereafter to fill the vacancy.  
The person receiving the highest number of votes in that special election shall fill the vacancy.

201. Initiative and Referenda.
This charter does not abridge or modify the rights of citizens to propose initiatives and referenda (including amendments to this charter) as provided for in the general laws of the State of California.  
202. General Law Governs.
Except as expressly set forth in this charter, the general law set forth in the Constitution of the State of California and the laws of the State of California shall govern the operations of the County of Orange.
203. County Ordinances Enacted by the Voters Remain in Effect.
Ordinances of the County of Orange adopted by the voters prior to the enactment of this charter shall remain in full force and effect and may only be modified or repealed by a vote of the people.

2/08/2012 08:36:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home