MOORLACH UPDATE — COIN Expiration Date? — July 14, 2014

COIN receives its second reading at tomorrow’s Board meeting (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Minting New COIN — June 25, 2014 and MOORLACH UPDATE — Maximus COIN — June 17, 2014). The OC Register’s editorial board weighs in, in the first piece below, and recommends that the sunset clause that was requested by one of my colleagues be deleted. If it is, then the Board may have to enjoy another second reading of the amended ordinance in the near future.

The second piece below, from the Voice of OC, provides an update on the streetcar topic as it relates to the city of Santa Ana (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Streetcar Feedback — June 21, 2014). The common thread that seems to be appearing is a lack of direct communication with the parties that will be impacted the most (also see MOORLACH UPDATE — Streetcar Razing? — February 28, 2014). I’ve been doing a significant amount of research on streetcars and their rise in implementation and/or consideration around the nation. There are good people on both sides of the discussion. But keeping the environmental impact reports opaque or not involving property owners and renters that are directly along the proposed routes seems like an odd strategy to pursue.

Editorial: Don’t give openness law an expiration date

The proposal by Orange County Supervisor John Moorlach to institute a “Civic Openness in Negotiations” (COIN) law modeled after one in Costa Mesa has been called by union leadaers “criminal,” “an ambush” and “another knife in the back.”

But when nearly 60 percent of the county’s General Fund revenues are gobbled up by employee salaries and benefits, and negotiations for that compensation remain largely hidden from the public, the real ambush seems to be on the taxpayer’s wallet.

Now, by the time a proposed union contract makes it to an agenda report, the outcome has already been determined, the negotiations have been concluded, the agreements have been nearly formalized and the public’s input is largely a Brown Act formality.

The Costa Mesa plan, according to a Register report from August 2012, looked to change that by requiring the city “to hire an independent negotiator, bring in an independent auditor to publicly report on the fiscal impacts of each contract proposal 30 days before negotiations begin, let residents know which provisions were off the table, and allow the public to discuss the contract at two meetings before the council takes a vote.”

Any proposal that seeks to bring light to what the OC Watchdog once called “cloak-and-dagger contract negotiations” is certainly worthwhile. In addition, the proposed ordinance doesn’t greatly depart from the original, which so far has worked rather smoothly in Costa Mesa.

The Board of Supervisors would be wise to approve it. But one change made during the June 24 first reading warrants a second look.

A sunset clause proposed by Supervisor Janet Nguyen would have the ordinance expire on Jan. 1, 2017, unless board members moved to extend it. The supervisor didn’t respond to a request for comment, but if the ordinance is good enough to pass now, we wonder why it would be necessary to have it expire in less than three years.

Setting a timetable could defang the ordinance. Parties could be amicable in negotiations now, expecting to undo those concessions once negotiations returned to the shadows.

If the ordinance needs modification, or proves unworkable, it would be just as easy for the board to make changes as it is to assign such a seemingly arbitrary cutoff date.

Now, Mr. Moorlach says he is thinking about adding some wording to clarify his colleague’s stipulation. He says he worries it could mean the abrupt end of transparency in the middle of negotiations. That is certainly a worthwhile clarification and would alleviate some of the concern.

But Supervisor Moorlach also noted, “I don’t think a sunset clause is even necessary.” He’s right, and removing it entirely would be a far better solution. Government transparency doesn’t have an expiration date. Pass COIN, but without the timetable.

Santa Ana Streetcar Route Under Fire From Downtown Shopkeepers


It’s a bold idea: build Orange County’s first light rail system in decades, connecting the Santa Ana train station with the city’s downtown and one of the county’s busiest streets, Harbor Blvd.

The streetcar, supporters say, would bring a surge of new customers to downtown and spur investment in the area.

That vision, however, is being met with growing worries from downtown business owners – many of whom now oppose the main proposed route and say the city needs to do more to involve them in the process.

In recent weeks, more than 200 local residents and business owners have signed a petition against the city’s “preferred option” of having the rail line travel on Fourth Street in downtown, according to people involved in the signature gathering.

Among those listed in opposition are more than 70 local businesses, including restaurants, bridal shops, travel agencies, jewelry stores, beauty salons and mobile phone shops along the Fourth Street area.

Concerns include construction impacts on their business, not being contacted as part of outreach efforts, as well as the potential removal of street parking on Fourth Street.

Many of the shop owners say they want the streetcar to run down Fifth Street instead.

“The fact that 200 people got engaged in a letter of opposition means that there’s something wrong with the outreach,” said Madeleine Spencer, president of the Santa Ana Community and Business Alliance, who gathered many of the signatures.

City officials, meanwhile, say they’ve conducted an extensive outreach campaign that went above and beyond the legal requirements.

“The city did do an extensive outreach and definitely cares about the community and residents. And all of the comments that are being made are taken seriously,” said Santa Ana city spokeswoman Tanya Lyon.

Lyon said the city sent about 3,800 postcards to all properties within 500 feet of the proposed project, including property owners and tenants, along with notices on the city website and news releases to neighborhood leaders.

About 100 people came to the three June meetings to give feedback on the project’s environmental impact report, Lyon said.

Interim Public Works Director William Galvez said the city can’t reply to the questions or concerns from the meeting until October or November because of the environmental review process.

“We’re following those processes because in the end when we have our documents certified we’d like for that document to be good enough for a project to actually occur,” said Galvez.

“We have engaged agencies, businesses and property owners” for about a three-year period, he added.

If businesses adjacent to the proposed streetcar line weren’t contacted, “then we need to check our records to see if we in fact left anyone out,” said Galvez.

Mayor Miguel Pulido and the rest of the City Council didn’t return messages through Lyon seeking comment.

Spencer said a majority of shop owners along Fourth Street were not informed by the city about recent outreach meetings for the project.

The city had no problem citing them for code violations during a recent Cinco de Mayo event, Spencer wrote in a cover letter for the petition.

This shows that city officials have “every ability to inform businesses of violations yet seem to have little ability to inform them of processes that may well affect their livelihood for years to come,” she added.

Lyon said over the weekend that she didn’t know if the city had someone walk the route to conduct in-person outreach to shopkeepers and residents next to the proposed route.

City officials say the feedback they’ve received on the streetcar has been mostly positive.

One those supporters is Ryan Chase, a real estate developer who heads up Downtown, Inc.

“I think the project’s a no-brainer,” said Chase, pointing to new investment and customers expected to be brought the downtown area.

The city is competing for federal grants, he said, adding to the urgency of getting the streetcar approved.

“I think we need to find a way to say yes” and move forward, said Chase.

Having the streetcar run down Fourth Street has an advantage because it features better architecture, historic buildings and more street activity than Fifth Street.

"At the end of the day the streetcar will be bringing a lot of people and attention to the area, and [Fourth Street] would be best to showcase the heart of the Downtown rather than a secondary street," said Chase.

Pete Katz, an active Santa Ana resident who serves on the Com-Link board, disagreed with opponents regarding the outreach.

“I think there was plenty of public outreach and there [were] more opportunities in every part of [the day] for people to get out there and voice their opinion every step of the way over the last three years,” said Katz.

“People had the opportunity to show up, they just didn’t bother.”

Galvez, meanwhile, said construction would not be very disruptive, with a two or three block section being worked on at a time for two or three weeks each.

For those who feel they’ve been left out of the process, he encouraged them to call the city and ask to be included in the mailing list.

“We’d be more than happy to add them and keep them engaged,” said Galvez.

Santa Ana council members plan to discuss the project at their Aug. 5 meeting, where they’re slated to decide on whether to approve the preferred route.

The streetcar project is slated to ultimately be overseen by the Orange County Transportation Authority, where a board member said he was surprised to learn of the opposition.

OCTA Director John Moorlach, who is also a county supervisor, said Mayor Pulido has been telling board members that “everyone’s supportive of the streetcar.”

“Then I get this email from [Spencer] saying ‘we’re opposed and I’ve got 500 people who are opposed,” said Moorlach, who opposes the streetcar.

One aspect of the project that activists want more clarity about is the future development plans for Willowick Golf Course.

Both proposed streetcar routes would travel directly between the golf course and the city’s Santa Anita neighborhood, likely causing a significant boost to the value of the land if developed.

The course has been the subject of development discussions for years.

At one point, Mayor Pulido was arranging negotiations with the Chivas USA soccer team to build a stadium on the land.

And last year, the city of Garden Grove, which owns Willowick, considered selling the course to McWhinney Enterprises, the developers of an upcoming water park hotel in the city.

“The value of the Willowick Golf Course…for a medium density mixed-use development is estimated to be $50 million,” Garden Grove City Manager Matt Fertal wrote in an email to a different developer.

Santa Ana’s current website for the streetcar also marks the land as “Future Development Willowick Golf Course.”

Regarding Willowick, Moorlach said it “is likely the case” that “there something going on behind the scenes that we’re not aware of.”

“It would not be a shock if there was something going on and this were a motivating factor” behind the proposed route, he added.

Galvez said he was unaware of any specific development discussions surrounding the property.

Ultimately, Spencer said, the community wants to be part of an inclusive engagement around Santa Ana’s transit and development vision.

“I cannot figure out why they don’t shift over to this more modern way of working. Because people are doing it all over successfully,” said Spencer, pointing to engagement efforts in cities like San Antonio, Texas.

City leaders can take a big step forward, she added, by organizing a town hall meeting about the project.

“Together, we actually come up with the best idea for everyone.”

You can reach Nick Gerda at ngerda, and follow him on Twitter: @nicholasgerda.

Disclaimer: You have been added to my MOORLACH UPDATE communication e-mail tree. In lieu of a weekly newsletter, you will receive occasional media updates, some with commentary to explain the situation, whenever I appear in the media (unless it is a duplication of a previous story).

I have two thoughts for you to consider: (1) my office does not usually issue press releases to get into the newspapers (only in rare cases); and (2) I do not write the articles, opinions or letters to the editor.

This message should appear at the bottom of every e-mail you receive. If these e-mails should stop arriving in your mail box, it will be because your address has changed and you did not provide a new one. If you do not wish to receive these e-mails, then please e-mail back and request to unsubscribe.