1 TERAN, STACY
From: GREEN, BRENDA
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 11:50 AM
To: TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: City Council Appointed Advisory Committees and Boards
Brenda Green
City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
714/754-5221
E‐mail correspondence with the City of Costa Mesa (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may, therefore, be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the act.
From: Flo Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 12:18 PM
To: MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]>; HARPER, DON <[email protected]>; [email protected]; STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>; GAMEROS, LOREN <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>
Cc: GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Appointed Advisory Committees and Boards
Dear City Council members,
I just turned 81 years of age and am "suffering" from what my ex-husband used to call "shit for brains."
As such, I am very, very confused about the apparent conflict between the ***Policy ("...bring community attitudes and needs into focus...), ***Practices and Procedures ("...based on the need for citizen input on matters of importance to the community...") and the
***Background ("... decreasing the membership, eliminating the Alternate positions, limiting Ad hoc Committees...")
I am also angry that "Individuals may only be a member of one (1) Committee or Board at a time.
Individuals who are actively engaged and willing to serve the City may be "experts" in a variety of fields. I am specifically thinking of Ralph Taboada 2 and Jenn Tanaka, who serve on multiple committees. Both of them are a positive "force" for improving the lives of Costa Mesans.
Thank you for reading and for considering a NO vote on this item.
Flo Martin
2442 Andover Place, CM 92626
949.933.3699
"It is when we are alone that we are the least alone." St. Augustine 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.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: GREEN, BRENDA
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 11:50 AM
To: TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Committees
Brenda Green
City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
714/754-5221
E‐mail correspondence with the City of Costa Mesa (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may, therefore, be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the act.
From: Ralph Taboada <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 4:51 PM
To: STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>; HARLAN, JEFFREY <[email protected]>; MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>; GAMEROS, LOREN <[email protected]>; HARPER, DON <[email protected]>; REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]>; GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]> Subject: Committees
To: City Council Members
re: Staff recommendations pertaining to Council Committees.
The recommendations in the staff report will negatively impact the effectiveness of your appointed committees. A common thread in the scope of work for the committees is to obtain community input to assist Council members in your deliberations and decision making. You appoint residents as committee members that include subject matter experts and/or with experience working in the applicable field to provide informed perspectives on topics. This is a GOOD thing. The proposed recommendations will throttle back this effort.
I am very disappointed with the process staff has taken. If staff wanted to have a win win outcome they could of met with liaisons and committee chairs and vice chairs and explained their concerns. I am sure solutions and compromises could be worked out. Committee members want to help and work with staff to improve Costa Mesa. Instead, staff took a sledge hammer to the issue.
I also find it notable that staff provides no support or justification to support their individual recommendations. Just the generic 'committees take too much staff time". I know there is concern that staff is not making progress on some topics. But it seems like staff considers the committees liabilities and I thought Council considered them assets. I urge you all to defer action on the recommendations and then go about setting up meetings between applicable staff and Council liaisons, with the Chairs/Vice Chairs to help resolve concerns and issues. One size fits all is not always the best solution.
Committee size:
2 Reducing all committees to seven members could limit the breath of knowledge and/or experience a committee may posses. Council members appoint members based upon an applicant's experience or knowledge in the subject matter. Making sure a committee has breath of expertise in the subject matter is important and may be compromised by limiting all committees to seven members. One size fits all is not a good idea. I think a cap of nine members is reasonable however, depending on circumstances and the subject matter some committees could have less members.
Eliminate Alternate members:
Occasionally a committee meeting may not have a quorum and having an alternate sit in for a regular member allows the meeting to continue with a quorum. Plus an alternate member may have valuable expertise on a topic. This seems to be an arbitrary recommendation without any rational to support it.
Limit of only one Ad Hoc subcommittee:
This will severally limit the effectiveness of committees and I urge you to reject it out of hand. For example, the ATC has multiple subcommittees. They function concurrently which means the committee as a whole is more productive. Three subcommittees can accomplish three times the amount of work one subcommittee working at a time can. And they don't require three times the amount of support from staff. Subcommittees can augment staff's work and this will limit a committees ability to do this. For example, under staff's scenario an ATC Safe Routes to School subcommittee would have to wait for a Capital Projects subcommittee to complete its work or a Pension subcommittee would have to wait for a Budget subcommittee to complete its work. THIS MAKES NO SENSE and may be based on the flawed assumption that the more subcommittees the more staff time required.
Between ATC and FiPAC I have served on several subcommittees. We set our own meetings, we were productive, we didn't require a staff member to be present and we didn't require any or minimal staff support. We did our work and reported findings or recommendations to the full committee.
I urge you to defer action and lets meet with staff, Council liaisons, chairs and vice-chairs to resolve issues and make this a win win.
Appreciate your time and attention to this issue
Ralph Taboada
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, 2023
CostaMesaCityCouncil77Fair DriveCostaMesa, [email protected] Dear Membersof theCityCouncil:
I amwritingtoexpressmydismayat theso-called“Review” of CityCommitteesscheduledfordiscussiononTuesday, April 4. It isnot aharmless“review”; it isaradical transformationof thestructureandpurposeof our resident advisorycommittees. Althoughthecommitteesshouldbereformed, thestaff’sproposal shouldberejected. Thisproposal alsoraisesquestionsabout theCityManager Office’shandlingof committeereformanditscommitment totransparency.
Tobegin, I want toaddressmypotential conflict of interest inregardstotheproposedpolicyrevision. AsyouknowI amamember of boththeFinanceandPensionAdvisoryCommittee(FiPAC) andtheAnimal ServicesCommittee(ASC), andtheproposedpolicyrevisiondirectlyaffectsme. I shouldnotethat mytermfor eachcommitteeendsin2024, but accordingtotheexistingCityCouncil Policy000-2, I servesolelyat thediscretionof theCityCouncil.
Withthat beingsaid, mycommentsarenot intendedtoconflict withtheCouncil'sdirectionforthecommittees. If mycommentsdonot alignwiththeCouncil'sstance, I amwillingtoresignfromeither or bothof mycommitteepositions, effectiveuponrequest.
Committees: aretheytoolsof theCouncil, or toolsof theStaff? Resident committeesarecreatedbytheCityCouncil inorder toaidtheCityCouncil. Theyarenot toolsof theStaff. Yet eachproposedreformappearsaimedtolimit theroleof thecommittees, reducetheir burdenonStaff’stime, or increasetheCityManager’sdirect or indirectcontrol over thecommittees’ agendas.
First, insistenceonbimonthlymeetings, andprohibitingspecial meetingswithout theCityManager’sconsent, placesenormousdiscretioninthehandsof theCityManager. Withnoabilitytodiscussagendaitemsoutsideof thecommitteemeetings(especiallyinlight of theproposedadhoccommitteereformsdiscussedbelow), abimonthlyschedulewill severelylimitthecommittees’ abilitytoproactivelypursuetheir ownprojectsandproposalsexcept totheextent theCityManager approves. Additionally, arulerequiring“prior authorization” fromtheCityManager torunmorethantwohoursmayseemlogical onitsface, but pairedwiththebimonthlymeetingschedule, it representsyet another limit oncommitteeinput anddiscussion.
Thebimonthlymeetingproposal isespeciallyirksomewhenpairedwiththe“reforms”, or rather,full-blowndemolition, of thesubcommittees. Muchof theworkof thecommitteesisdonethroughsubcommitteesor adhoccommitteespreciselybecausetheyoffer amoreflexibleformat for collaboratingwithfellowcommitteemembersoutsideof agendizedmeetings.
Subcommitteesalsomeet morefrequentlythanthelarger committeessothat projectscanbeadvancedandresearchcanbeupdatedinreal time. Withonlyoneadhoccommitteepermittedper committee, andadditional adhoccommitteesrequiringCityManager approval, committeeworkwill behamstrungandreducedtoapassiverole.
Theconsistent themeof thesereformsistoconsolidatetheCityManager’scontrol over thecommittees. WhiletheCityManager andtheStaff cannot control themembershipof thesecommittees, theywill beabletodetermine, directlyor indirectly, what ispermittedtobediscussed(viacontrol of theagenda), whenit shouldbediscussed(if ever –evenbimonthlymeetingsappear tobeat theCityManager’stotal discretion), and, throughcontrol of theadhoccommittees, what linesininquirytheycanpursue.
So, I dowonder: what isthepoint of havingresident committeesoncethesereformsareadopted?Isit toprovideasoundingboardfor theCityCouncil fiveor sixtimesayear?Or isittogivethemereappearanceof publicengagement? Thereformprocesshasbeenhandledverypoorly.
Onlyafewmonthsago, theFiPACdeterminedtoformthreesubcommitteestoreviewmattersrelatingtotheCity’srevenue, budget andpensionobligations. At notimedidtheStaff alert usthat it wasconsideringanoverhaul of thesubcommitteerulesthat wouldentirelymoot theworkweweredoing. If theCouncil endsupadoptingthisproposal, wehavewastedasubstantialamount of theFiPAC’stimeandenergy.
Furthermore, tomyknowledge, nocommunicationregardingtheseproposedchangestothepolicyhasbeenmadetothemembersof FiPAC/ASC, their committeechairs/vice-chairs, or theCouncil liaisons. Thesechangeswill directlyaffect themembership, format andmeetingsof thecommittees. It wouldhavebeenabasiccourtesytobringthemattersof concernaddressedintheagenda(BrownAct compliance, burdenonstaff time, etc.) tothecommitteechairsandCouncil liaisonsfirst beforeputtingthisproposal forwardtotheCityCouncil.
Now, theStaff ispresentingthisoverhaul asamere“review”. TheCouncil isnot beingaskedto“review” thecommittees, but toeliminateandreformthemtofit theStaff’sprioritiesandtoconsolidatecommitteecontrol under theCityManager. AndtheCouncil isbeingaskedtodosoat atimewhereanumber of sittingcommitteemembersareinlimbo, astheir termshaveexpiredbut either they’venot beenreappointedor their seatshaven’t beenfilled. TheStaffshouldhaveemphasized, andtheCityCouncil shouldbemadeaware, that approval ofthisitemcouldleadtotheimmediateremoval of certaincurrent committeemembers, astheir termsarepresentlyexpiredandmaybe“attritioned”tomeet thenewcommitteesizelimits. Thismayalsooccur (thoughtheStaff Report isnot clear) if acurrent committeemember isamember of multiplecommitteesandhisor her termfor oneof thecommitteeshasexpired. Howandtowhomthishappensisn’t adecisiontheCityCouncil got tomake, becausetheywerenever giventheopportunitytoconsider thesereformsbeforetermsexpired.
Finally, youshouldbemadeawarethat thereisanother changetheStaff isproposingtomakethat wasnot includedintheagenda. I haveattachedaredlineof theCityCouncil Policy000-2proposedrevisionsthat I hadtorequest fromtheCityClerk, asit wasnot includedinthepublicmeetingmaterials. InSection2(a), theStaff isproposingtomakethefollowingchange, markedinboldunderline:
a. Appointedcommitteemembersmust beCostaMesaresidents, unlessotherwisespecifiedbytheCityCouncil.
Thisraisesabunchof questions. Whywasn’t thischangeagendized?Whywasn’t aredlineprovidedwiththerevisedproposal (asit alwaysshouldbe)?Whorequestedthischange,andfor what purpose?Ashort explanationintheStaff Report wouldhavegonealongwaytoassureCouncil andtheresidentsthat thechangeisinnocuous. But bynot addressingit clearlyandforthrightly, weareleft wondering. 1 Thehandlingof thisentirematter hasbeendisappointing. Wecandoalot better.
Thecommitteesdoneedreform.
Asacommitteemember I agreethat thecommitteescope, format andprocessshouldbereformed. Herearesomesuggestionsthat I believewouldaddresstheStaff’stimemanagementconcernsandimprovethecommitteeeffectiveness:
1) Definethescopeof workandpurposeof eachcommitteefirst, thendeterminesize, meetingschedule, etc. Thescopeof workof eachcommitteehasn’t beenreviewedbytheCityCouncil for yearsandtheyshouldberevisited. But let’sdecidewhatwewant thesecommitteestodofirst, andthendecidehowtheyshoulddoit. Somecommitteesmayneedmoremembersthanothers. Somemayneedmoreadhoccommitteesandsomemaynot needanyat all. But makingaone-size-fits-alldeterminationfor eachcommitteewithout regardtoscopeor purposedoesn’t servetheCityCouncil or theresidents.2) MaketheCouncil liaisonsvotingmembers. Unfortunately, Staff responsestoresidentcommitteesaredeprioritizedcomparedtoresponsestotheCityCouncil. Now, thiscanbeentirelyappropriategiventheadvisory(andunelected) natureof thecommittees, butit alsomeansthat committeebusinesscanslowtoahalt if Staff cannot provideit withtimelyinformation. Therefore, perhapstheCityCouncil liaisonmembersshouldbecomevotingmembersof thecommittees, takingtheir ownseatsinlieuof nominatingamember of thepublic. Thiswouldimproveliaisonattendanceat thesemeetings, whichhasbeenanongoingissue, andit wouldalsoencouragetheCityCouncil toactivelymonitor committeeproductivity. 1 Asanaside, I amhavingaverydifficult timeseeingtheuseof allowingnon-residentstoserveonresident advisorycommittees. Nor doI understandwhywewouldinsert optional languagewhentheCityCouncil canreviseitsownpoliciesat alater date, intheevent thiscorner-corner-caseever becomesrelevant. 3) Restart remoteattendancebyboththepublicandcommitteemembers, andmakemeetingvideosavailableeither tocommitteemembersor thepublic. Committeesonlyrepresent atinyfractionof theoverall resident population, andnoreformwill changethat. What wecanaddressishowopenwearetoresidentsvoicingtheir concernsatcommitteemeetings, andhowbroadanet wecast for committeemembers. RemoteviewingandparticipationincommitteemeetingswasoneCOVIDpolicythat madeameaningful, positivedifference. It allowsnewpeopletoaccesstheprocesswhohadn’tbefore, andopensupmembershiptodemographicsthat findthein-personmeetingsverydifficult toattend.
Furthermore, weshouldmakemeetingrecordingsavailablefor later viewing, either bythecommitteemembersor bythegeneral public. WehavethetechnologytodothisforCommissionandCityCouncil meetings, andwemanagedtoholdZoomcommitteemeetingswithout issueduringCOVID. Bymakingour recordspublic, wearefulfillingtheCity’sstatedcommitment totransparencyandcreatingauseful recordfor laterreference.
Onceagain, I urgeyoutoreject theStaff’s“review” proposal. Instead, I hopeyouwill takeanindependent lookat thecommitteesandreformthemtofit your needs, andnot Staff’swishes.Someof our committeestrulyhavechangedCostaMesafor thebetter. Theresidentswant tohelpmakethat happen.
Please, takecontrol of thisprocess.
Best,JennTanaka321BroadwayCostaMesa, CA92627
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Jennifer Tanaka <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 6:55 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Cc: CITY CLERK
Subject: PolicyLink Article on Inclusionary Housing
Members of the City Council:
Please find via the link below the article I referenced in my public comments this evening re: inclusionary housing. It is a bit out of date (2007) but it has a great overview of the costs associated with such programs and some ways to mitigate them.
DELIVERINGPROMISEINCLUSIONARYZONING_FINAL
PDF Document ꞏ 1.5 MB
Best,
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.