Kindly? Or "Good Enough"?

A depositary of living animals shall provide the animals

with necessary and prompt veterinary care, nutrition, and shelter,

and treat them kindly.               California Civil Code Section 1834

The “depository of living animals” for Costa Mesa is the Orange County Humane Society located in Huntington Beach.  The  City of Costa Mesa currently contracts with OCHS for animal shelter services.  OCHS used to provide shelter services to the City of Newport Beach. Too, until Newport abruptly cancelled the contract late last year (DP articles here and here).      

In a December 22, 2015 report, Newport Beach staff noted unsanitary conditions.  The report also stated that “Animal Control Officers frequently found animals soaked“ due to the practice of hosing out kennels with the dogs remaining in the kennels.  The Newport Beach report also cited poor record keeping and failure to implement State of California requirements for spay/neuter. 

After  touring the OCHS shelter a number of times, I also had concerns.  The level of cleanliness left a lot to be desired.  One of the buildings was dark and had minimal ventilation.  Dogs and cats were housed in close proximity, increasing stress for all the animals.  Overall, the situation did not look very “kindly”.

Muzzled!

After speaking with current and former volunteers at OCHS my concerns increased.  Unfortunately, volunteers are fearful of talking on the record, as they will then be “fired” as volunteers.  In fact, the rules for volunteers impose a gag order.

Some shelters celebrate each adoption.  Some shelters post a list of animals slated for euthanization, upon which people spring into action, posting pleas on facebook,  calling friends, trying to find a home for the unfortunate animal.  At OCHS volunteers arrive to find animals gone.  OCHS  rules state “I will not [sic] question their whereabouts nor speak amongst others regarding their status.”  Wow!

Yelp!

No such limitation on Yelp.  OCHS received only two stars, the lowest rated animal shelter in Orange County.  Eighteen of the thirty-two reviews gave the facility only one star, the lowest rating possible.  Reviewers cited rude staff, lack of cleanliness, provision of inadequate/inaccurate medical records, and adoption of animals subsequently found to be unhealthy.  One reviewer said they saw an OCHS  staff member kick a small dog.

Where’d they go?

Each year,  our animal shelter data  is required to be submitted to the California Department of Public Health.   Costa Mesa’s annual reports show total animals coming in from various sources each year significantly higher than animals going out each year except 2010, when things about balanced.  In fact, from 2009 through 2014, records show about two thousand (2,000) more animals coming in than are accounted for going out via adoption, owner redemption, euthanasia, etc. 

This may simply be poor record keeping.  On the other hand, maybe animals are escaping to wander the streets.  What if the euthanasia rate is being masked?  Other worse, scenarios come to mind.  In that case, I’m hoping it’s just poor record keeping.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Because of the large number of animals entering the system from  Costa Mesa, our options are limited to larger facilities.  At one time Costa Mesa contracted with the City of Irvine, but that was discontinued a few years ago.  Orange County is preparing to build a new shelter, but it could be costly to participate in that, and the Orange County Grand Jury indicates that they have problems of their own, from the existing rundown facility to inadequate staffing.  We might be able to join with a few other cities to build a local shelter, if a site could be found.

Or should we continue at OCHS? 

Months ago, in response to my concerns, a staff member indicated that people in Irvine and Newport Beach were more “picky”.  I was told that OCHS was “good enough for Costa Mesa”.  Do you agree?

The City Council will be discussing the issue this evening, March 15.

In Memoriam Jan Vandersloot MD

And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. Galatians 6:9

No one exemplified these words better than Jan Vandersloot, medical doctor, environmentalist, and family man. He was generous with his time and his money, and we are thankful to him as well as to Cheryl, Jon and Tiffany.

I first met Jan about twenty years ago, though I’d seen his numerous and eloquent letters to the editor before that. I was a city planner at Newport Beach and he called about illegal fill of a wetland. Someone in the office said “that Dr. Vandersloot” always had some complaint. Still, I arranged to meet Jan at the site along with a biologist and, lo and behold, a wetland was being illegally filled.

After that, I got many calls from Jan. Sometimes he’d be reporting habitat damage, or illegal dumping. I learned that when “that Dr. Vandersloot” called, it was something I really needed to check out. If he had a complaint it was well-founded and well-researched. Unlike some residents who called regularly, Jan was concerned about all areas of the city and beyond, not just matters within a block or two of his house.

Sometimes he was just looking for information. For Jan, there was no such thing as too much information.

Years later, after I’d left the City and was involved in various causes, many at the prodding of Jan, my house was overrun with environmental impact reports (EIRs) and other studies. Jan stopped by about some project. I was mortified at the boxes of documents spilling into the living room. Jan was delighted.

Jan had a way of pulling people into his causes. Bolsa Chica, Ocean Outfall Group, San Diego Creek, trees on the Peninsula. He put so much into so many causes, how could you not help at least a little? Almost daily there’d be e-mail from Jan with calls to action, research requests, or outlines of potential strategies for ongoing projects.

As he toiled to end the Orange Count Sanitation District’s waiver from federal clean water law, he’d ask not IF you’d attend any meetings to speak against the waiver, but WHICH meetings in which cities you’d attend. Eventually Jan, or in rare cases a surrogate, spoke before every city council and sanitary district in Orange County, usually with a few others in tow, but alone if need be.

Jan didn’t care if he was the only one to stand up and fight for something. If it was the right thing to do, he was there.

It wasn’t all just hearings and meetings. I especially appreciate the work he did at Fairview Park. Jan advocated for the park at hearings and also weeded and planted plants, sometimes with a group, sometimes with just one other person, like Gil Collins, sometimes alone.

Though I’d been involved in Fairview earlier on, soon Jan surpassed me in his knowledge and dedication to improving habitat at the park. I’d be out for a hike and there was Jan, clearing away the anise choking out native species. Seeing his hard work, I’d go back to my car for an extra bag to pick up trash along the way. How could I not?

We distributed flyers at election time. Of course, if you and Jan covered opposite sides of a street, you really had to hustle. With his long legs he’d finish the distance long before you.

Jan really loved to celebrate the big wins. And he hated to lose. After a setback, he’d be seeking other strategies. Was there a way to appeal? Another agency involved? Should we litigate? Any other options?

Jan just did not give up. If we’d finally run out of options, he’d be planning how we could handle a similar situation “next time”. Unfortunately, now there is no “next time” with Jan.

Today, we are able to reap what Jan so diligently sowed and tended: Open space at Bolsa Chica, cleaner beaches, wetlands, trees, and habitat in various areas. What a tremendous legacy!

Perhaps an even greater legacy is the army of activist that Jan has encouraged and mentored over the years. Now we must continue in well-doing, that we and others may reap in the years to come. How could we not?

Halloween Massacre at China Cove

Bet you thought that title was some kind of joke. Unfortunately not:



Akin to what occurred in West Newport when some reprobates decided to bulldoze the dunes, someone has hacked away a fair amount of vegetation by the beach at China Cove, including native plants.

Word has it the Newport Beach Police have apprehended the miscreant. Could it be the same guy that’s been chopping down trees elsewhere, including Costa Mesa parks? Is he just a spoiled brat who feels he has the right to alter public property to suit his convenience and/or enhance his own property value? News flash chainsaw man: You are not the center of the universe.

It’s hard to understand what this jerk was thinking. Were the plants blocking his view? One would think that any views blocked by the massacred plants would also be blocked by Kerckhoff Marine Lab.

What was next on his agenda? Was he going to dismantle Kerckhoff and burn it piece by piece in the fire rings? Oh. Wait. Council Member Gardner’s getting rid of those.

Never mind. If some predictions as to climate change are to be believed, it will all be under water in a few years.

And they said midnight basketball was dead.

Up for a game of midnight baseball?

What about a picnic in the park? How’s 4 am grab you?

Our parks in Costa Mesa are under ever more pressure for ever more activities by our growing population. People who prefer a quiet afternoon enjoying open space are at odds with those who prefer active sports. Those in organized leagues compete with others interested in pick-up games. Softball players compete with soccer players for space. And residents living adjacent to parks are tired of what seems like 24/7 activity.

We simply need more park land. As our population expands, we’ll need still more.

How has our city council responded? By blowing opportunity after opportunity.

Town Center--Blowing an Opportunity

In January 2007, the council approved a general plan amendment allowing 1,269 new, high- rise dwelling units in Town Center. The project’s environmental impact report (EIR) says this will bring 3,173 new residents to Costa Mesa. Based on the city standard of 4.26 acres of park land for each 1,000 residents (CM Municipal Code Sec. 13-255), the project will generate a need for 13.5 more acres of city park land.

Under State and local law, the City Council could have required the developers to dedicate 13.5 acres of land for parks.

They could have required land to be dedicated within the Town Center area, near where the new demand would be generated, an area where night time lighting and high activity levels in the late evening are the norm. This would have also provided open space relief amidst the concrete and glass.

Or, they could have accepted land elsewhere in the city already owned by the project applicants or purchased by the applicants for that purpose. This could have been a real win for residents, since one of the applicants owns the now-vacant Kona Lanes site at Harbor and Mesa Verde East. Lots of people have suggested it as a site for ball fields.

So, what did the Costa Mesa City Council do with this golden opportunity? They decided to accept “in-lieu” fees, fees that they know full well will be less than the cost of providing the much-needed parkland.

The fees would be used, they said, to “to improve the versatility of the existing parks in order to serve the community”. Huh??? Is that another way of saying “put in more lights”?

Well, okay, the sports capacity of some parks could be increased by reconfiguring fields, but that only goes so far. Besides, do we need every last square inch or our parks to be programmed?

Harbor & Fair--Blowing Another Opportunity

Remember the formerly vacant land at Fair Drive and Harbor Boulevard?

Starting in the 1990s, Costa Mesa officials had talked with the state on and off about acquiring the 5.5 acre parcel. At one point it looked like we might even get it deeded over without cost to the city, but state budget woes intervened. In August 2004, the City Council unanimously started a process to rezone the property from residential to “institutional and recreational” use--a prelude to acquisition for park purposes.

Around the same time the City of Newport Beach was trying to acquire land at the corner of Superior and West Coast Highway, land also zoned for residential use, which included some pretty great views.

As time went on, each potential transfer was on again, off again. In January 2005, the Costa Mesa City Council chose to drop further efforts toward local acquisition (voting 3-1, Dixon no, Foley absent), because in the words of Mayor Mansoor, attempting to justify his flip-flop, the land was “extremely [emphasis NOT added] expensive property, sigh, I don’t think we would have been able to go there,” implying the land would be unusually expensive.

An odd assertion. Can’t say I know anyone willing to pay a premium to live next to a highway. Maybe Mr. Mansoor does.

Later, at the height of the real estate boom, the property was sold to a developer for $11.1 million, or about $2,000,000 an acre. That is pretty expensive.

On the other hand, the State sometimes sells land for less than market price if some other public good will result, like more parks or housing for poor families. That’s what happened in Newport Beach. Usually they also require some type of deed restriction or profit sharing agreement, so local agencies don’t simply get cheap land from the State, then turn around and sell it at a profit

In late 2005, Newport Beach bought a 1.88 acre portion of what’s now Sunset Ridge Park for just $175,000. Last summer the Newport Beach City Council eliminated the residential designation for the 15.05 acre Caltrans West/Sunset Ridge parcel and redesignated it for park use, similar to the process commenced, but later abandoned, by the Costa Mesa City Council. The upper portion of the site was designated a public view point under Newport’s general plan.

So how much did Newport Beach pay the state? In late 2006, Newport Beach bought the remaining15.05 acre parcel to complete the park for $5 million, a little over three hundred thousand dollars an acre. Applying that land value, the Harbor and Fair site would have cost the City of Costa Mesa about $1.83 million.

The state also required that an open space deed restriction be placed over a portion of the Sunset Ridge land. No problem if you want a park. And the state financed the sale at 4.75 % interest.

Blowing Through the Cash

Isn’t Costa Mesa doing anything? Oh yes, as we know, they're putting in more lights at the old Mesa High farm site, increasing its "versatility". Hey, maybe they can double deck it. How’s that for "versatility"?

They also voted to buy a 1.19 acre site next to Brentwood Park on the east side for $3,542,000, or almost $3 million an acre. Of course that land on Harbor, at $2 million an acre was “extremely expensive. sigh…”. We just couldn’t “go there.”

And what else are they doing? Well, they budgeted $1,000,000 plus in state bond funds to redo fields at Tewinkle Park, $650,000 in general funds to renovate the Tewinkle Park lake, and $75,000 in park dedication funds to redo irrigation at Tewinkle. Wow! Tewinkle Park must be really versatile now.

Let’s focus on those in-lieu/park dedication funds: They budgeted $75,000 for a park study, $45,000 for signs at FOUR parks and another $25,000 for signs at four more parks. Bet those signs really increased versatility.

What else did they budget with the in-lieu money? $127,000 for two picnic shelters and $150,000 for a “shade structure” at the “Volcom Skate Park” and another $100,000 for parking lot lighting outside the skate park. (And what’s Volcom paying for anyway?) $60,000 to repair a slope at one park and $35,000 to re-landscape a slope at another.

And don’t forget $85,000 to lease land. For one year. Heaven forfend we should have anything permanent to show for our money at the end of a few years.

Some of this sounds like good stuff, but how’s it going to stretch park capacity to accommodate thousands more people? And as for some of the rest, I don’t know how one could blow through as much money as quickly if one were actually trying.

Consider:

Small parcel at Sunset Ridge purchased by Newport Beach:
$93,085 per acre

Large parcel at Sunset Ridge purchased by Newport Beach:
$332,226 per acre

Parcel at Harbor and Fair purchased by private developer:
$2,029,250 per acre

Brentwood park parcel purchased by Costa Mesa:
$2,976,471 per acre

City council truly dedicated to providing adequate recreation facilities:
We can’t go there.