1 GONZALEZ, GLADYS
From: Andy Campbell <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2022 9:56 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL; CITY CLERK
Cc: MINTER, JASON; DALTON, KELLY M.
Subject: Objection to Appointment of HSS President to FVP Steering Committee Public Comment on City Council Agenda April 5, 2022
New Business Item 1: Appointments to Various Committees Objection to Mr. Mathew Garcia Appointment to Fairview Park Steering Committee I am objecting to the appointment of Mathew Garcia to the Fairview Park Steering Committee due to the conflict of interest of Mr. Garcia being president of the Harbor Soaring Society (HSS). In review of Mr. Garcia’s application, he made no mention that he is the HSS president despite being listed as such on the HSS website. The omission speaks to the conflict of interest in Mr. Garcia’s appointment.
A precedence exists to prevent conflicts of interest by excluding voting membership appointments for the Steering Committee for leadership in organized groups wanting control of areas within Fairview Park. This precedence was established by disallowing the Orange County Model Engineers (OCME) a voting membership and instead creating a liaison position for OCME, currently held by Mr. Hank Castignetti.
Instead of Mr. Garcia’s appointment, I suggest the City Council select a qualified non-conflicted candidate from received applications, or leave the appointment vacant until additional applications can be received and reviewed. Should HSS activities return to the park in a meaningful way, perhaps an HSS liaison can then be created to which HSS may then appoint its president.
Thank you for this consideration.
Andy Campbell
Fairview Park Steering Committee Chair
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
April 4, 2022
Greetings Mayor and City Council Members,
I object to Mr. Matthew Garcia’s appointment to the Fairview Steering Committee because I think he has a conflict of interest. Mr. Garcia failed to include on his application that he was the President of the Harbor Soaring Society (HSS). He does include on his application that he voted for Measure AA. Measure AA’s primary purpose was to protect and restore Fairview Park as stated in Measure AA. Measure AA relied on the Fairview Park Master Plan which is all about restoration, preservation, educational opportunities; small group activities that help the resources not hurt them, and other passive uses.
Flying motorized planes was never part of the Fairview Park Master Plan, or Measure AA.
Measure AA’s victory still speaks loud and clear for the community of wanting to protect Fairview Park and have events that help not hurt the resources in Fairview Park.
Mr. Garcia’s interests as president of HSS are in definite conflict with the protection of Fairview Park and Measure AA. I object to him being appointed to the Fairview Park Steering Committee.
I propose that City Council postpone the appointment to the Fairview Park Steering Committee in order to have time to look at more applications or advertise for more.
Thank you,
Kim Hendricks
1 GONZALEZ, GLADYS
Subject: RE: CMABS Letter Re: BWC Presentation for April 5 City Council Meeting From: Jenn Tanaka <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 11:35 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>; CityManager <[email protected]>; SETHURAMAN, RAJA <[email protected]>
Cc: Russell Toler <[email protected]>; Ralph Taboada <[email protected]>; Flo Martin <[email protected]>; David Martinez <[email protected]>; Mike Lingle <[email protected]>; Marc Vukcevich <[email protected]>; GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>; THOMAS, BRETT ATENCIO <[email protected]>; ROSALES, JENNIFER <[email protected]>
Subject: CMABS Letter Re: BWC Presentation for April 5 City Council Meeting Dear Members of the City Council, City Manager Farrell Harrison and Public Services Director Sethuraman:
We note that the Bikeway & Walkability Committee is expected to make a presentation at today's City Council meeting, and we expect the BWC to address the letter it sent to your attention on March 10, 2022. In connection with that presentation, please find attached a letter from the Board of the Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets writing in support of the BWC's funding request.
As you know, we are strong supporters of expanding active transportation infrastructure in Costa Mesa. However, we want to specifically highlight that the benefits of such infrastructure are more than the sum of its parts. Therefore, speed counts when it comes to completing the full network. We urge you to adopt the BWC's funding recommendations and complete the ATP as quickly as possible.
Best,
The Board of the Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets Russell Toler
Mike Lingle
Flo Martin
Ralph Taboada
David Martinez
Marc Vukcevich
Jenn Tanaka
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
April 5, 2022
Via Email
Costa Mesa City CouncilLori Ann Farrell Harrison, City ManagerRaja Sethuraman, Public Services Director77 Fair DriveCosta Mesa, CA [email protected]@[email protected] Dear Members of the City Council, City Manager Farrell Harrison and Public Services DirectorSethuraman:
The undersigned, on behalf of the Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets (CMABS), are writing to expressour support for the letter sent by the Bikeway and Walkability Committee (BWC) to the City Council onMarch 10, 2022. Specifically, we urge the City Council to allocate sufficient funding to implement theActive Transportation Plan within the next seven years.
When it comes to bicycle infrastructure, significant investment innetworksworks, while slow andsteady investment inpiecemeal amenitiesdoes not.To illustrate this, compare the approaches takenby Portland and Seville: each city improved its bicycle mode share from 1% to 7% and 6%, but Portlandtook 20 years to achieve what Seville achieved in four. The difference, of course, was funding levels.While Portland only allocated approximately 1% of its budget to active transportation over two decades,Seville committed €32 million to build a comprehensive network as quickly as possible. 1 Seville’sapproach is clearly the better path, for two reasons:
1. Seville didn’t have to wait 20 years to start reaping the benefits of increased bicycle mode share,such as improvements in resident health, reduced traffic, a cleaner environment and saferstreets, while spending a comparable amount. 2 In 2008,Portland estimated the replacementvalue of its bike infrastructure to be about $57 million, which is comparable to the €32 millioninvested by Seville.But Seville built its networkfive times faster.Brent Toderian, formerVancouver chief planner, warns that, like Portland, Vancouver went through “almost 10 years ofunnecessary pain” because it invested in active transportation too slowly to reap either political ortangible gains. 3 For the same investment, think ofthe additional lives saved, improved,lengthened and enriched in the 16 years that separate the two approaches. 3 David Sachs. “Brent Toderian: Don’t “Balance” Modes- Prioritize Walking, Biking and Transit.”StreetsblogDenver(Feb. 9, 2017). 2 See, Peter Lyndon Jacobsen, David R Ragland and Charles Komanoff. “Safety in Numbers for Walkers andBicyclists: Exploring the Mechanisms.”Injury Prevention(2016). For a summary of the research on these topics,see:Jan Garrard, Chris Rissell, Adrian Bauman, and Billie Giles-Corti. “Chapter 3: Cycling and Health”,CyclingforSustainable Cities. 1 Roger Geller and Ricardo Marques. “Chapter 19: Implementation of Pro-Bike Policies in Portland and Seville.”Cycling for Sustainable Cities,edited by Ralph Buehlerand John Pucher (2021). We highly recommendCyclingforSustainable Citiesas a resource for the latest researchand best practices regarding city planning and bicyclinginfrastructure.
2. Portland’s approach didn’t result in a superior bicycling network. As Geller and Ricardo note,“Portland’s bicycle network comprises a variety of bikeway designs, which reflect more than twodecades of shifting guidance and standards. At least half the city’s network falls short of currentinfrastructure design standards for safety and comfort. By comparison, Seville built its bicyclenetwork rapidly and in an era with widespread expertise in modern bikeway design.” 4 It’s littlewonder, then, that People for Bikes’s annual city rankings ranks Seville as one of the top tenbicycling cities in the world, while Portland lags far behind at 59th overall.
The bottom line is that we are throwing good money after bad by slow-walking active transportation. TheBWC’s estimate of the total cost of implementing the Active Transportation Plan ($27.3 million) is apittance compared to the amount we spend on car infrastructure every year. It is close to the estimatedcost of just two street widening projects in the current 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan. Just saying no toprojects like these, which will likely induce additional demand for car travel and deepen our cardependency, could easily fund the implementation of the ATP at the BWC’s requested level.
This is the least we could do: stop funding projects that make things worse, and use the money tomake things better.
We know that real commitment to active transportation works, while half-measures don’t: half-measureswaste time, money, and political good will. So we join the BWC and challenge you to commit tocompleting the ATP in seven years, and allocate funds accordingly. Eighty years of car infrastructuredominating our budgets is enough.
Sincerely,
The Board of the Costa Mesa Alliance for Better StreetsRussell TolerMike LingleFlo MartinRalph TaboadaDavid MartinezMarc VukcevichJenn Tanaka CC:Jennifer Rosales ([email protected])Brett Atencio Thomas ([email protected])Brenda Green ([email protected]) 4 Geller and Marques, p. 371.