Deciding to Let the People Decide

Now that the Costa Mesa City Council has voted to put a proposition on the June 2010 ballot to establish planning regulations for the Orange County Fairgrounds, the real work begins. We must ensure that any ballot measure is written to provide maximum protection for the fairgrounds and Costa Mesa residents.

“Locking in the zoning” is not enough.

The existing zoning for the fairgrounds is Institutional and Recreational (I&R). That sounds pretty innocuous. But what’s permitted?

According to the Costa Mesa Zoning Code, uses permitted by right in I&R areas include things like parks, libraries, city hall, court houses and fire stations. They also include:

Churches and other places of religious assembly (Hello, TBN!)
Residential care, convalescent hospitals; and nursing homes
Day care
Country clubs and golf courses
Hospitals
Trade Schools

Oddly, a conditional use permit would be required for a nursery school, a primary or secondary school or college, even though trade schools are permitted by right.

A conditional use permit would also be required for a fairgrounds. So if the existing zoning were “locked in”, a fairgrounds would have the same status as any other activity for which a use permit is required, including:

Cemeteries, mortuaries and crematories
Senior congregate care facility (don’t ask me how this differs from a nursing home)
Work furlough facility (aka halfway house for convicted criminals)
Animal shelters, pounds, kennels, training schools
Zoos
Heliports
Medical and dental offices
Rifle, pistol, and firing ranges
Skating rinks
Transfer station for refuse, sewage treatment

I still miss the Ice Capades Chalet so kinda like the idea of a skating rink, but somehow a work furlough facility, heliport, or more offices just doesn’t do it for me.

The General Plan Is Better

The Costa Mesa General Pan requires the fairgrounds to be used as a fairgrounds. Period.

The General Plan also limits development to no more than a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.1, which allows one square foot of building for each ten square feet of land area. That would allow about 650,000 square feet of development on the fairgrounds site. The zoning code does present the limits mandated under the general plan, but then indicates that deviations from those limits may be permitted if allowed under the general plan.

For comparison purposes, Anaheim Convention Center has a total facility area of 1.6 million square feet, including 813,000 square feet of exhibit space plus meeting rooms, grand ballroom, pre-event lobbies and other spaces. The Los Angeles Convention Center contains 720,000 square feet of exhibit hall space, plus meeting rooms, theater, lobbies and food courts.

Both of these facilities are on much smaller sites than the Orange County Fairgrounds. Without the floor area limit imposed by the general plan, who knows what could happen in Costa Mesa? Even if we kept the “Institutional and Recreational” designation. Even if we kept just the “fairgrounds” designation.

The General Plan includes a “trip budget”, too. That means that activities at the fairgrounds won’t be allowed to generate more than a certain amount of traffic. This could limit everything from building size to event scheduling. Shouldn’t we lock that in place, too?

A Specific Plan Could Be Even Better

The City of Costa Mesa is currently preparing a specific plan for the fairgrounds property. The plan is expected to reflect the existing Master Plan for the Orange County Fairgrounds. Thus, the plan would designate areas for equestrian uses, the Centennial Farm, exhibit space, administrative offices, and other uses. This would assure that existing uses could continue at the fairgrounds. A requirement that any changes to the plan be subject to a vote or the people could provide added assurance. Including the trip budget is also a must.

Don’t Bypass the Planning Process

It is imperative that any initiative specify that proposed changes would not go to a public vote until AFTER all normal the planning commission, city council and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) processing has been completed. Through this process, the City has the authority to require specific information about a project and the property from a developer.

If we were asked to vote before the normal planning process, we would only be provided the information a developer wanted us to have. Problems with traffic, drainage, or other issues could be buried. Voters must be able to make an informed choice, based on the full information that would come forth in various hearings, staff reports, and the CEQA process, not just developer propaganda.

Similar to ordinances in Redondo Beach and Malibu, any measure to change the land use shouldn't even be placed on the ballot until and unless it has been approved by the City Council through regular channels. This would provide a double layer of protection.

Don’t Charge the Taxpayers!

The ordinance must stipulate that the developer/sponsor of any amendment to city plans for the fairgrounds would pay for any referendum, just as they are required to pay the costs for any needed environmental studies. It's only fair.

The taxpayers shouldn't be required to foot the bill to tell some developer we like our fairgrounds just the way it is, thank you.

When told that the peasants were revolting, the king sniffed and replied, “They most certainly are!”

Why do so many “public” officials seem so uncomfortable with the public in general? Locally, some council members merely go through the motions during public hearings, alternately acting bored, impatient, and contemptuous. But at least all members of the public have an equal chance to speak—even if council members aren’t all that interested.

That isn’t the case in all “public” hearings these days. For example, at California Coastal Commission hearings, anyone holding an elective office may speak before us mere mortals, giving the term “first among equals” a whole new meaning. But it’s not equal either. Elected officials get extra time.

It doesn’t matter what office you hold. If you manage to get elected to the Happy Camp Community Services District Board in Siskiyou County, your testimony on endangered birds in San Diego is way more important than that of any local resident or even renowned ornithologists. Who cares if you’ve never been south of Los Angeles?

Some Are More Equal Than Others

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has taken this to a whole new level. After receiving masses of requests to hold a public hearing before making a decision on the southern extension of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor/State Route 241, NOAA scheduled a hearing for Monday, September 22, at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. This was over the protests of the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) who wanted to exclude the public.

As stated in NOAA’s published guidelines: "… no testimony or presentation by either TCA or the Commission is anticipated or requested, as the purpose of the hearing is to solicit public comments. If, however, either party chooses to appear, it will be allowed three minutes to give testimony. "

Now that NOAA has issued their speaker schedule, we see find that 134 elected officials and representatives of organizations will be afforded four minutes each to speak with an estimated twenty (20!!!) members of the general public allowed up to three minutes each, though over five hundred members of the general public submitted requests to speak. So much for soliciting public comments.

Who are the priority speakers? Well, there are fourteen members of the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) boards, plus TCA chief executive Tom Margro, for about an hour of TCA testimony, assuming four minutes each.

What organizations are represented? There are many recognized groups, such as environmental groups, Native-American tribes, labor unions, and business associations.

A Parody of Public Participation

In addition, NOAA is also considering private businesses to be “organizations”. Thus CH2M Hill, design manager for the proposed tollroad, gets priority speaking privileges as an organization. Wonder if they’ll be billing for their time at the hearing.

Other “organizations” include Rancho Mission Viejo/Tony Moiso, a cable television company, a magazine publisher, and an attorney whose “organization” consists of his own small firm.

Boy do I feel silly. I could have slapped my speaker request on business letterhead and had a priority speaking spot. But it wouldn’t have been right.

It wouldn’t be been the only thing not right, though. NOAA seems to have sought a way to satisfy both the TCA, who wanted to stop any hearing, and the thousands of California residents who wanted a hearing. NOAA will hold a “public” hearing while denying meaningful participation by the public in general through a system of speaker priorities.

But I’m still going.

Nonpartisan My Aunt Fanny

Nearly one hundred years ago California voters, sick of government corruption and ineptitude at all levels, enacted a series of reforms intended to make government more responsive and less corrupt. These included provisions for intiative, referenda, and recall, as well as nonpartisan election of judicial, school, county, and municipal offices, a provision still in the California Elections Code .

But that doesn’t matter to powers that be in the local GOP. Monday night, August 18, the Orange County Republican Central Committee voted on their first round of endorsements for local races in the county.

They endorsed all Republican incumbents seeking re-election, something they have done pretty routinely in the past. Hey, weren’t the Republicans the ones who were so hot on term limits a few years back?

But that was different. That was to get rid of Democrat Willie Brown. No sauce for the gander here.

“Early endorsements” were also bestowed on a few anointed non-incumbent candidates: Gary Monahan and Jim Righeimer in Costa Mesa, Don Hansen protégée Devin Dwyer in Huntington Beach, and John Campbell staffer Lou Penrose nee Luigi Rossetti, Jr. in Dana Point.

This was outside the normal vetting process, basically rubber stamping the directive of county chair Scott Baugh and the big boys with the big bucks via the endorsing committee. Presumably qualifications include close alliances developed with Mr. Baugh over drinks and cigars at Gulfstream.

Look for the Orange County party and Lincoln Club to pony up for the Chosen Ones. Be aware that funds you may contribute to the GOP at large may or may not go to electing a Republican president, governor, or senator, but may be spent right in your own back yard on a candidate you may or may not support. If you like the candidates that’s fine; if not, give directly to the candidates of your choice.

Just Don't Call Her Sweetie

This week Sandra Hutchens was publicly sworn in as Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. By all accounts, Hutchens is bright, tough, and highly experienced. An added plus, she comes in as an outsider not obviously allied with any political faction in Orange County, but has the political savvy to have risen high in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. She seems a great choice for our troubled Sheriff’s Department.

Still, shouldn’t we have an elected Sheriff? Under Article 11 (Section 3) of the California Constitution, counties are supposed to have an elected sheriff. Even charter counties must have an elected sheriff (Article 11, Section 4).

Why don't we get to vote?

How can we have an appointed sheriff? Under California’s Government Code, all elective county officers, except supervisors on a split cycle, are to be selected at the same election as state governor. Just in case there were any question, the Code specifically says that sheriff is to be elected on the same gubernatorial cycle and that vacancies are to be filled “as provided by law”.

The Supreme Court established the precedent that the above Code means county officers can't be elected at any other time in 1901 in People ex rel. Owen D. Richardson v. Cobb (S. F. No. 2684, Supreme Court of California, Department Two, 133 Cal. 74; 65 P. 325; 1901 Cal. LEXIS 865, 1901), a case about a local justice; and People ex rel. Martin Murphy, Respondent, v. Al. G. Col (S. F. No. 2657, Supreme Court of California, 132 Cal. 334; 64 P. 477; 1901 Cal. LEXIS 1060, 1901), a case about county auditor. This has been cited as a precedent for appointment of sheriff in Orange County and elsewhere.

But what about the California Constitution? It says we’re to have an elected sheriff. The precedent setting cases above don’t address offices that, under the Constitution, must be elected.

Does the California Constitution even allow an unelected sheriff? State law says that if the office of sheriff becomes vacant, the undersheriff is to assume the sheriff’s duties.

Should we have to make do with an undersheriff until 2010? That seems unsatisfactory. Would an undersheriff be able to authoritatively undertake the reforms the Orange County Sheriff’s Department so clearly needs?

We can vote in the future.

Do we really only have three choices? Violate the California Constitution, violate State law and judicial precedent, or muddle through with an undersheriff?

The Orange County Charter requires that vacancies on the Board of Supervisors occurring in the first three years of a term be filled by election. Vacancies in the final year of a supervisor’s term are to be filled by the top vote getter in the March primary.

Why not change the charter to apply this provision to any elected county office, or at least those the State Constitution specifies as elected offices? There’s an election this November. It’s not too late to place a charter amendment on the ballot.

Then again....

On the other hand, maybe the system has worked pretty well as is. A local councilman seems unable to believe that a Y chromosome is not essential equipment for the job. He’s not alone, either. Even the Democrat’s presumptive nominee for president , for cryin’ out loud, puts down a respected female reporter as “sweetie” and blows off her question with barely a ripple in the media. Are the voters of Jurassic Park numerous enough to sway an election to a lesser candidate purely on the basis of sex?

Maybe the OC Supes are doing OK the way it is. After all, the voters picked Carona in the first place.