NB-2 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS CITY POSITIONS ON STATE LEGISLATION CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 7, 2019
SUBJECT: CITY POSITIONS ON STATE LEGISLATION: SCR 21 (CAPTAIN KREZA MEMORIAL HIGHWAY), SB 450 (MOTEL CONVERSIONS), AND AB 1273 (TOLL ROADS) (NB-2)
DATE: MAY 6, 2019
FROM: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE/ADMINISTRATION
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CONNOR A. LOCK AT (714) 754-5219
The purpose of this supplemental report is to provide a correction to an attachment for New Business Item 2 ‘City Positions on State Legislation: SCR 21 (Captain Kreza Memorial Highway), SB 450 (Motel Conversions), and AB 1273 (Toll Roads)’.
Attachment 1 contains an update to the Table of Bills for Consideration to reflect the appropriate requestor of Assembly Bill 1273.
ALBERTO C. RUIZ Management Aide
ATTACHMENTS: 1- Table of Bills for Consideration Attachment 1 – Table of Bills for Consideration 5/7/2019
Bill # Bill Requestor Requested League ACCOC Brief Summary Notable Notable Fiscal Author Position Position Position Supporters Opposition Impact (s) City Staff Recommendation: Support SCR Senators Fire Chief Support Watch No Senate Concurrent Resolution California None Unknown 21 Bates and Stefano Position 21 would honor Captain Kreza’s Professional Moorlach memory by dedicating a portion Firefighters of Interstate 5, from Avery Costa Mesa Parkway to El Toro, as the Costa Firefighters Mesa Fire Captain Michael Kreza Memorial Highway.
SB Senator Mayor Support Watch No This bill would, until January 1, Mayors of: None Unknown 450 Umberg Foley Position 2025, exempt from CEQA, Anaheim projects related to the Bakersfield conversion of a structure with a Fresno certificate of occupancy as a Long Beach motel, hotel, apartment hotel, Los Angeles transient occupancy residential Oakland structure, or hostel to supportive Riverside housing or transitional housing, Sacramento as defined, that meet certain San Diego requirements. San Jose Santa Ana Stockton City Staff Recommendation: Oppose AB Assembly City Oppose Watch Watch This bill prohibits the formation City of San Costa Mesa Unknown 1273 Member Manager of a JPA after January 1, 2020, Clemente Chamber of Brough Office limits the authority of a JPA to Commerce charge development fees and and others Mayor Pro incur bonded indebtedness, and TCA Tem restricts the use of toll revenue. Newport Stephens Under this bill, when any debt Beach incurred by a JPA for building Irvine these bridge facilities or major Orange thoroughfares is paid off, the Santa Ana bridge facilities and major Anaheim thoroughfares are to be OCBC transferred to the State of California. Attachment 1 – Table of Bills for Consideration 5/7/2019 NB-2 Additional Documents
CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 7, 2019
SUBJECT: CITY POSITIONS ON STATE LEGISLATION: SCR 21 (CAPTAIN KREZA MEMORIAL HIGHWAY), SB 450 (MOTEL CONVERSIONS), AND AB 1273 (TOLL ROADS) (NB-2)
DATE: MAY 2, 2019
FROM: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE/ADMINISTRATION
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CONNOR A. LOCK AT (714) 754-5219
The purpose of this supplemental report is to provide one additional attachment to New Business Item 2 ‘City Positions on State Legislation: SCR 21 (Captain Kreza Memorial Highway), SB 450 (Motel Conversions), and AB 1273 (Toll Roads)’.
Attachment 1 contains an update to the Assembly Bill 1273 Packet to add two additional letters regarding the bill: a letter of opposition of the bill from the City of Newport Beach and a letter of opposition to the TCA’s proposed expansion of SR-241 from the desks of Congressmen Mike Levin and Harley Rouda.
CONNOR A. LOCK Chief of Staff
ATTACHMENTS: 1- Assembly Bill 1273 Packet Attachment 1 AB 1273 -2- formed under that specific authorization before January I, 2020,from designing, planning, developing, or constructing any of those facilities on or after January 1, 2020. The bill would prohibit a joint powers agency formed under that specific authorization from incurring new bonded indebtedness, except for specified purposes. The bill would make other related changes. Existing law authorizes a joint powers agency created for these purposes to make certain toll revenues and fees available as a loan to other specifiedjoint powers agencies to pay for the cost of construction and toll collection of major thoroughfares other than those for which the toll or fee is charged ffspecified requirements are met andfindings are made. This bill would delete that provision. Existing law authorizes an entity constructing bridge facilities or major thoroughfares pursuant to the above-described provisions to transfer all or a portion of those facilities to the state, subject to terms and conditions that are satisfacto,y to the Director of Transportation. This bill would requireany facilityconstructed under these provisions and operated as a toll road to be transferred to the state after any indebtedness has been repaid subject to terms and conditions that are satisfactory to the Director of Transportation. After the facilities have been transferred to the state, the bill would prohibit the imposition of a toll/or the use ofthese facilities. The Subcfrtision Map Act authorizes a local ageHey to adopt aft ordinance that iHeludes a requiremeflt for the payment of fees for purposes of defraying the actual or estimated costs of coHshuctiHg plaftfleddrninage facilities for the removalof surface afldstonn waters from local or neighborhood drainage arnasand of constructingphmncd sanitar1scwc1· focilitiesfor local sanitarysC'wcr areas if, am.oflg other specified conditions, the ordinance has been in effectfor a period of at least 30 days prior to the filingof a tentative mapor parcelmap if no tentative map is required. This bill would extcftd the period of ti:Jttc the ordinaftcc is rnqui:J'cd to be in effectto 60 da:ys pr io1 to the filingef a tcfltativemap or parcel map if flO teflt8tivcmap is required. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: tttryes. State-mandated local program: no.
98 -3- AB 1273 Thepeople of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 66484.3 of the Government Code is 2 amended to read: 3 66484.3. (a) Notwithstanding Section 66007, the Board of 4 Supervisors of the County of Orange and the city council or 5 councils of any city or cities in that county may, by ordinance, 6 require the payment of a feeas a condition of approval of a final 7 map or as a condition of issuing a building pe1mit for purposesof 8 defraying the actual or estimated cost of constmcting orfinancing 9 bridges over waterways, railways, freeways, and canyons, or 10 constmcting major thoroughfares. thoroughfares completed on or 11 beforeJanuary 1, 2020, and in service on January 1, 2020. 12 (b) The local ordinance may require payment of fees pursuant 13 to this section-if.if the ordinanceincludes all of the following: 14 (]) The ordinance provides that the bridges and major 15 thoroughfares are designed and approved as landscaped, grade 16 separated scenic toll highway corridors that include four to six 17 general pwpose travel lanes with medians or other areas wide 18 enough to accommodate any necessmy high-occupancy vehicle 19 or special transit requirements and are not part of an interstate 20 Ji-eeway or local arterial. 21 (2) The ordinance limits the expenditure of the fee to the f 22 maintenance, operation, or financing o a completed facility 23 described in paragraph(]) that is in service on January 1, 2020, 24 and for which indebtedness was incurred pursuant to subdivision 25 (f). 26 fB 27 (3) The ordinance refers to the circulation element of the general 28 plan and, in the case of b1idges, to the transportation provisions 29 or flood control provisions of the general plan-wmehthat identify 30 railways, freeways, streams, or canyons for which bridge crossings 31 are required on the general plan or local roads, and in the case of 32 major thoroughfares, to the provisions of the circulation element 33 whieh that identify those major thoroughfares whose primary 34 purpose is to carry through traffic and provide a network 35 connecting to or whieh that is part of the state highway system, 36 and the circulation element, transpmtation provisions, or flood 37 control provisions have been adopted by the local agency 30 days 38 prior to before the filing of a map or application for a building
98 AB 1273 -4- 1 pennit. Bridges which. that are part of a major thoroughfare need 2 not be separately identifiedin the transportation or flood control 3 provisions of the general plan. 4 � 5 (4) The ordinance provides that there will be a public hearing 6 held by the governing body for each area benefited. Notice shall 7 be given pursuant to Section 65905. In addition to the requirements 8 of Section 65905, the notice shall contain preliminary information 9 related to the boundaries of the area of benefit, estimated cost, and 10 the method offee apportionment. The area of benefit may include 11 land or improvements in addition to the land or improvements 12 whiehthat are the subjectof any map or building permit application 13 considered at the proceedings. 14 f3j 15 (5) The ordinance provides that at the public hearing, the 16 boundaries of the area of benefit, the costs, whether actual or 1 7 estimated, and a fair method of allocation of costs to the area of 18 benefit and feeapportionment are established. The method of fee 19 apportionment, in thecase of major thoroughfares, shall not provide 20 for higher fees on land-whiehthat abuts the proposed improvement 21 except where the abutting property is provided direct usable access 22 to the major thoroughfare. A description of the boundaries of the 23 area of benefit, the costs, whether actual or estimated, and the 24 method of fee apportionment established at the hearing shall be 25 incorporated in a resolution of the governingbody, a certified copy 26 of which shall be recorded by the governing body conducting the 27 hearing with the recorder of the County of Orange. The resolution 28 may subsequently be modified in any respect by the governing 29 body. Modifications shall be adopted in the same manner as the 30 01iginal resolution, except that the resolution of a city or county 31 whieh that has entered into a joint exercise of powers agreement 32 pursuant to subdivision (f), relating to constructing bridges over 33 waterways, railways, freeways, and canyons or constrnctingmajor 34 thoroughfares by the joint powers agency, may be modifiedby the 35 joint powers agency followingpublic notice and a public hearing, 36 if the joint powers agency has complied with all applicable laws, 37 including Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000) of Division 38 1. Any modification shall be subject to the protest procedures 39 prescribed by paragraph-f6}:- (8). The resolution may provide for 40 automatic periodic adjustment of fees based upon the California
98 AB 1273 -5- 1 Construction Cost Index prepared and published by the Department 2 of Transportation, without further action of the governing body, 3 including, but not limited to, public notice or hearing. The 4 apportioned feesshall be applicable to all property within the area 5 of benefitand shall be payable as a condition of approval of a final 6 map or as a condition of issuing a building permit for any of the 7 prope1ty or portions of the prope1ty. Where the area of benefit 8 includes lands not subject to the payment of fees pursuant to this 9 section, the governing body shall make provision provide for 10 payment of the share of improvement costs apportioned to those 11 lands from other sources, but those sources need not be identified 12 at the time of the adoption of the resolution. 13 t47 14 (6) The ordinance provides that payment of fees shall not be 15 required unless the major thoroughfares are in addition to, or a 16 reconstruction or widening of, any existing major thoroughfares 17 serving the area at the time of the adoption of the boundaries of 18 thearea of benefit. on January 1, 2020. 19 t5} 20 (7) The ordinance provides that payment of fees shall not be 21 required unless the planned bridge facility is an original bridge 22 serving the aTea or an addition to any existing bridge facility 23 serving the area at the time of the adoption of the boufldaries of 24 the area of benefit.Fees imposed pursuant to this section shall not 25 be expended to reimburse the eost of existing bridge facility 26 eoflstruetiofl, unless these costs are incurrnd in eomwetioHwith 27 the eofl:struetionofafl add itionto an cxistiflgbridge for·which fees 28 may be required. on Januaryl, 2020. 29 f6t 30 (8) (A) The ordinance provides that if, within the time when 31 protests may be filedunder its provisions, there is a written protest, 32 filed with the clerk of the legislative body, by the owners of more 33 than one-half of the area of the property to be benefited by the 34 improvement, and sufficient protests are not withdrawn so as to 35 reduce the area represented to less than one-half of that to be 36 benefited, then the proposed proceedings shall be abandoned, and 37 the legislative body shall not, for one year from the filing of that 38 written protest, commence or carry on any proceedings for the 39 same improvement or acquisition under this section, unless the
98 AB 1273 -6- 1 protests are overruled by an affirmative vote of four-fifths of the 2 legislative body. 3 Nothing 4 (B) Nothing in this section shall preclude the processing and 5 recordation of maps in accordance with other provisions of this 6 division if proceedings are abandoned. 7 A:ny 8 (C) Any protests may be withdrawn in writing by the owner 9 who filedthe protest, at any time prior to before the conclusion of 10 a public hearing held pursuant to the ordinance. 11 If 12 (D) Ifany majority protest is directed against only a portion of 13 the improvement then all fu11herproceedings under the provisions 14 of this section to construct that portion of the improvement so 15 protested against shall be ban-ed for a period of one year, but the 16 legislative body shall not be ban-ed from commencing new 17 proceedings not including any pai1 of the improvement or 18 acquisition so protested against. Nothingin this This section-shftll 19 does not prohibit the legislative body, within the one-year period, 20 from commencing and canying on new proceedings for the 21 construction of a portion of the improvement so protested against 22 if it finds, by the affirmative vote of four-fifths of its members, 23 that the owners of more than one-half of the area of the property 24 to be benefited are in favor of going forward with that portion of 25 the improvement or acquisition. 26 If 27 (E) If the provisions of this paragraph, or prov1s10ns 28 implementing this paragraph contained in any ordinance adopted 29 pursuant to this section, are held invalid, that invalidity shall not 30 affectother provisions of this section or of the ordinance adopted 31 pursuant thereto, to this section, which can be given effectwithout 32 the invalid provision, and to this end the provisions of this section 33 and of an ordinance adopted pursuant thereto to this section are 34 severable. 35 (c) Fees paid pursuant to an ordinance adopted pmsuant to this 36 section shall be deposited in a planned bridge facility or major 37 thoroughfare fund. A fund shall be established for each planned 38 bridge facility project or each planned major thoroughfareproject. 39 If the benefit area is one in which more than one bridge or major 40 thoroughfare is required to be constructed, a fund may be so
98 -7- AB 1273 1 established covering all of the b1idge or major thoroughfare 2 projects in the benefit area. Except as otherwise provided in 3 subdivision-fgt, (h), moneys in the fund shall be expended solely 4 for the construction or reimbursement for construction of the 5 improvement serving the area to be benefitedand from which the 6 fees comprising the fundwere collected, or to reimburse the county 7 or a city forthe cost of constructing the improvement. 8 ( d) An ordinance adopted pursuant to this section may provide 9 for the acceptance of considerations in lieu of the payment of fees. 10 (e) The county or a city imposing feespursuant to this section 11 may advance money from its general fundor road fundto pay the 12 cost of constructing the improvements and may reimburse the 13 general fundor road fund from planned bridge facilities or major 14 thoroughfares funds establishedto financethe construction of the 15 improvements. 16 ( f) (I) The county or a city imposing fees pursuant to this 17 section may incur an interest-beating indebtedness for the 18 construction of bridge facilities or major thoroughfares. The sole 19 security for repayment of the indebtedness shall be moneys in 20 planned bridge facilities or major thoroughfares funds.A city or 21 county imposing fees pursuant to this section--mey may, before 22 Janua,y 1, 2020, enter into joint exercise of powers agreements 23 with other local agencies imposing fees pursuant to this section, 24 for the purpose of, among others, jointly exercising as a duly 25 authorized original power established by this section, in addition 26 to those through a joint exercise of powers agreement, those powers 27 authori.2'.!ecl described in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28 31100) of Division 17 of the Streets and Highways Code forthe 29 purposeof constructing b1idge facilitiesand major thoroughfares 3 0 in lieu of a tunneland appurtenant facilities, and, notwithstanding 31 Section 31200 of the Streets and Highways Code, may acquire by 32 dedication, gift,purchase, or eminent domain, any franchise,rights, 33 privileges, easements, or other interest in property, either real or 34 personal, necessary therefor on segments of the state highway 35 system, including, but not limited to, those segments of the state 36 highway system eligible forfederal participation pursuant to Title 37 23 of the United States Code. A county or city imposing fees 38 pursuant to this section shall not, on and after January 1, 2020, 39 enter into a joint exercise of powers agreement pursuant to this 40 section or Article I (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter
98 AB 1273 -8-
1 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 to construct bridge facilities or major 2 thoroughfares. A joint powers agency created pursuant to this 3 section b�fore January 1, 2020, may continue to maintain, operate, 4 and pay debt service on any bridges or major thoroughfares 5 authorized pursuant to this section and in sen1ice on January 1, 6 2020, but shall not design, plan, develop, or construct any fiicilities 7 pursuant to this section on or afterJanua,y 1, 2020. 8 Aft 9 (2) An entity constructing bridge facilities and major 10 thoroughfares pursuant to this section shall design and construct 11 the bridge facilitiesand major thoroughfares to the standards and 12 specifications of the Department of Transportation then in effect, 13 and may, at any time, except as providedin paragraph (4), transfer 14 all or a po1tion of the bridge facilities andmajor thoroughfaresto 15 the state subject to the terms and conditions as shall be satisfactory 16 to the Director of the Departmentof Transportation. Any of these 17 bridge facilitiesand major thoroughfares shall be designated as a 18 portion of the state highway system prior to before its transfer. 19 The paiticipants in a joint exercise of powers agreement may also 20 exercise as a duly authorized original power established by this 21 section the power to establish and collect toll charges only for 22 paying for the costs of construction of the major thoroughfare for 23 which the toll is charged and for the costs of collecting the--ttttls, 24 exeept that ajoint powen5 ageney, which is thelending agency, 25 may, notwithstanding subdivision (e), make tollrevenues and fees 26 imposedpursmrnt to this seetiofl: available to afl:othcrjointpowers 27 ageney, whiehis theborrowing ageney, establishedfor the purpose 28 of designing, fit1at1eing, and eot1strnetit1g coordinated aftd 29 ifltcrrelated majorthoroughfares, in the form of a suhordit1ated 30 loan, topay furthe eost ofeonstructionat1d toll eolleetiofl of major 31 thoroughfares other thM: the major thoroughfares for which the 32 tollor feeis charged, if the let1ding agency has complied with all 33 applicable laws, i:neludif1gChapter 5 (emnmetteingwith Seetion 34 66000) of Divisiofl:1, afl:d if the bo,,·o wing agency is required to 35 pay interest Ofl:the loan to the lending ageney at a rateequal to the 36 interest rate eharged on funds loaned from the Pooled Money 37 InvestmentAeeount. Prior to executmg the loan, thelending agency 38 shall make ttll of thefollov,·ing findings: tolls. 39 (1) The mttjor thoroughfarefur which the tollor feeis charged 40 ·will benefit fromthe eoHstruetioM of the major thoroughfareto be
98 -9- AB 1273 1 constructed by the borrnwing agene)· or ·,viii benefit fornneially 2 by a sharing of revenueswith the botTOVv'mg agency. 3 (2) The lettdi:ngagency will possess adequatefit1ancial resources 4 to fundall costs ofconstructiottofexistin:g and futureprojects that 5 it pla� to ttfldertakeprior to the fit1al maturity of the loat1, after 6 funding the loafl, and taking into consideration its then existing 7 funds,its present and futureobligations, and the revenuesand fees 8 it expects to receive. 9 (3) The ftrndi:ng of the loan will not materially impai:t its 10 financialcondition or operations during the tenn oftheloafl. 11 Majffl' 12 (3) Major thoroughfares from for which tolls are charged shall 13 tttilize use the toll collection equipment most capable of moving 14 vehicles expeditiously and efficiently, and-whiehthat is best suited 15 for that purpose, as dctcnnined by the participants in the joint 16 exercise of powers agreement. However, i:n no event shall the 17 powers auth:ori:z':ed described in Chapter 5 ( commencing with 18 Section 31100) of Division 17 of the Streets and Highways Code 19 shall not be exercised exercised, as authorized in paragraph (]), 20 unless a resolution is first adopted by the legislative body of the 21 agency finding that adequate funding for the portion of the cost of 22 constmcting those bridge facilities and major thoroughfares not 23 funded by the development fees collected by the agency is not 24 available from any federal, state, or other source. Any major 25 thoroughfare constmctcd and operated as a toll road pursuant to 26 this section shall only be constrncted parallel to other public 27 thoroughfares and highways. 28 (4) After any indebtedness incurred for the construction of a 29 bridge facility or major thoroughfare that is operated as a toll 30 road has been repaid, the bridge facility or major thoroughfare 31 shall be transferredto the state, subject to the terms and conditions 32 as shall be satisfactmy to the Director of Transportation. Any of 33 these bridge facilities and major thoroughfares shall be designated 34 as a portion of the state highway system before its transfer and, 35 after its transfer to the state, a toll shall not be imposed for the 36 use of these facilities. 3 7 (g) Notwithstanding the powers granted pursuant to subdivision 38 (/), a joint powers agency createdpursuant to subdivision(/)shall 39 not, on or afterJanuary I, 2020, incur bonded indebtedness, except 40 that the joint powers agency shall have the authority, rights, and
98 AB 1273 -10-
1 powers it held before that date only for both ofthe following 2 purposes: 3 (1) To issue bonds or otherwise incur indebtedness to refund 4 the bonds or other indebtedness incurred before Janua,y 1, 2020, 5 or to provide monetary savings to the joint exercise of powers 6 agency if both of the following requirements are met: 7 (A) The total interest cost to maturity on the refimding bonds 8 or other indebtedness plus the principal amount of the r�fimding 9 bonds or other indebtedness does not exceed the total remaining 10 interest cost to maturityon the bonds or other indebtedness to be 11 refunded plus the remaining principal of the bonds or other 12 indebtedness to be refunded. 13 (B) The principal amount of the re.funding bonds or other 14 indebtedness does not exceed the amount required to d�fease the 15 refunded bonds or other indebtedness, to establish customary debt 16 service reserves, and to pay related costs of issuance. Ifthese 17 conditions are satisfied, the initial principal amount of the 18 refunding bonds or other indebtedness may be greater than the 19 outstanding principal amount of the bonds or other indebtedness 20 to be refunded. The joint powers agency may pledge to the 21 refunding bonds or other indebtedness the revenues pledged to 22 the bonds or other indebtedness being refunded, and that pledge, 23 when made in connection with the issuance of such refunding 24 bonds or other indebtedness, shall have the same lien priorityas 25 the pledge ofthe bonds or other obligations to be refunded, and 26 shall be valid, binding, and enforceable in accordance with its 27 terms. 28 (2) To issue bonds or otherwise incur indebtedness to finance 29 debt service spikes, including balloon maturities ifboth of the 30 following requirementsare met: 31 (A) The existing indebtedness is not accelerated, except to the 32 extent necessa,y to achieve substantially level debt service. 33 (B) The principal amount of the bonds or other indebtedness 34 does not exceed the amount required to finance the debt service 35 spikes, including establishing customa,y debt seniice reserves and 36 paying related costs of issuance. 37 � 38 (h) The teon "construction," as used in this section, includes 39 design, acquisition of rights-of-way, and actual construction, 40 including, but not limited to, all direct and indirect environmental,
98 -11- AB 1273
1 engineering, accounting, legal, administration of construction 2 contracts, and other services necessary therefor. The term 3 ''construction" also includes reasonable general agency 4 administrative expenses, not exceeding three hundred thousand 5 dollars ($300,000) in any calendar year after January 1, 1986, as 6 adjusted annually for any increase or decrease in the Consumer 7 Price Index of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States 8 Department of Labor for all Urban Consumers, Los Angeles-Long 9 Beach-Anaheim, California( 1967= 100), as published by the United 10 States Departmentof Commerce, by each agency created pursuant 11 to Article 1 ( commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of 12 Division 7 of Title 1 for the purpose of constructing bridges and 13 major thoroughfares. "General agency administrative expenses" 14 means those office, personnel, and other customary and normal 15 expenses associated with the direct management and administration 16 of the agency, but not including costs of construction. 17 W 18 (i) Fees paid pursuant to an ordinance adopted pursuant to this 19 section may be utilized used to defray all direct and indirect 20 financingcosts related to the construction of the bridges and major 21 thoroughfares by the joint powers agency. Because the financing 22 costs of bridges and major thoroughfares for which a toll charge 23 shall be established or collected represent a necessary element of 24 the total cost of those bridges and major thoroughfares, the joint 25 powers agency constructing those facilitiesmay include a charge 26 for financing costs in the calculation of the feerate. The charge 27 shall be based on the estimated financing cost of any eligible 28 portion of the bridges and majorthoroughfares for which tolls shall 29 be collected. The eligible portion shall be any or all pmtions of 30 the major thoroughfare for which a viable financialplan has been 31 adopted by the joint powers agency on the basis of revenues 32 reasonably expected by the joint powers agency to be available to 33 the thoroughfare, afterconsultation with representatives of the fee 34 payers. For purposes of calculating the charge, financing costs 35 shall include only reasonable allowances for payments and charges 36 for principal, interest,and premium on indebtedness, letter of credit 37 fees and charges, remarketing fees and charges, underwriters' 38 discount, and other costs of issuance, less net earningson bridge 39 and major thoroughfare fundsby the joint powers agency prior to 40 before the opening of the facility to traffic after giving effect to
98 AB 1273 -12-
I any payments from the fund to preserve the federal income tax 2 exemption on the indebtedness. For purposes of calculating the 3 charge for financing costs in the calculation of the fee rate only, 4 financingcosts shall not include any allowance for the cost of any 5 interest paid on indebtedness with regard to each eligible p011ion 6 afterthe estimated opening of the portion to traffic as established 7 by the joint powers agency. Any and all challenges to any financial 8 plan or financing costs adopted or calculated pursuant to this 9 section shall be governed by subdivision-fkt.- (!). IO (i) Nothing in this 11 (J) This section shall not be construed to preclude the County 12 of Orange or any city within that county fromproviding funds for 13 the construction of bridge facilities or major thoroughfares to 14 defray costs not allocated to the area of benefit. 15 ffi 16 (k) Any city within the County of Orange may require the 17 payment of feesin accordance with this section as to any property 18 in an area of benefit within the city's boundaries, for facilities 19 shown on its general plan or the county's general plan, whether 20 the facilities are situated within or outside the boundaries of the 21 city, and the county may expend fees for facilities or portions 22 thereof located within cities in the county. 23 W 24 (l) The validity of any fee required pursuant to this section shall 25 not be contested in any action or proceeding unless commenced 26 within 60 days after recordation of the resolution described in 27 paragraph-f37 (5) of subdivision (b). The prnvisionsof Chapter 9 28 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code 29 of Civil Procedure shall be applieable apply to any such action or 30 proceeding. This subdivision shall also apply to modifications of 31 fee programs. 32 ff} 33 (m) If the County of Orange and any city within that county 34 have entered into a joint powers agreement for the purpose of 35 constmcting the bridges and major thoroughfares referred to in 36 Sections 50029 and 66484, and if a proposed change of 3 7 organization or reorganization includes any territory of an area of 38 benefit established pursuant to Sections 50029 and 66484, within 39 a successor local agency, the local agency shall not take any action 40 that would impair, delay, frustrate, obstruct, or otherwise impede
98 -13- AB 1273
1 the constrnction of the bridges and major thoroughfares referred 2 to in this section. 3 (m) Nothiflg in this 4 (n) This section prohibits does not prohibit the succession of 5 all powers, obligations, liabilities, and duties of any joint powers 6 agency created pursuant to subdivision-f/1 (m) to an entity with 7 comprehensive countywide transp01tation planningand operating 8 authority-wmehthat is statutorily created in the County of Orange 9 and whieh that is statutorily authorized to assume those powers, 10 obligations, liabilities, and duties. 11 SECTION 1. Section 66483 of the Govermnent Code is 12 amended to read: 13 66483. (a) There may be imposed by local ordinance a 14 requirement forth.e payment offees for purposes of defrayingthe 15 actualor estimated costs of eonstmeting platmeddrainage focilitics 16 for the removal of surface and storm waters from local or 17 neighborhood drainageareas and of constructingplaMed sattitar-y 18 sewer facilities for local sanitary sewer areas, subject to the 19 following conditions: 20 (l) The ordinance has bcet1 iH effectfor ft period of at least60 21 days prior to the filiHg of the tenttttive map or parcel map if HO 22 tenttttivemap is required. 23 (2) The ordinance refers to a drainttge or sanitary sewer plan 24 adopted for a particular dramttge or sanitary sewer area which 25 eoHtttins an estimate of the total costs of coHstructiHg the loeal 26 drainage or sanitary sewer facilities required by the plaH, and a 27 map of the area showing its boundaries and the location of sueh 28 facilities. 29 (3) The drainage or sanitary sC'vVer plan, in the ease of a eity 30 situated in a county ha .·ing a couHtywide general drainage or 31 sanita1�y sewer plaH, has been determiHed by res0It1tion of the 32 legislafrvebody of the county to be in conformitywith a county 33 plaH; or itt the cttseof a citysitutttcd i:tt cout1ty a that docs Hot have 34 a plttn but in a district that has a plan, has beendetermined by 35 resolution of the legislative body of the district to be m conformity 36 � ith the district generalplaH; or in the case of a citysituated in a 37 county that has a plan and in a district that has a plan, has been 38 determined by resolution of thelegislafrvc body of the county to 39 be in conformity with the plan and by resolution of the legislative
98 AB 1273 -14-
1 body of the district to be in conformity with the district general 2 pttlfr. 3 (4) The costs, whether actual or estimated, are based upon 4 findings by the legislativebody which has adopted the local plan, 5 that subdivision and de·tclopmcflt of property within the plaltfled 6 local drainage area or local sanitaty sewer area will require 7 CO:flstructiofl of the facilities described in the drainage or sewer 8 plan, and that the fees a1e fairly apportioned withifl sueh areas 9 either on the basis of benefits conferredOH propcrt)"proposed for 10 subdivision or on the need for such facilities created by the 11 proposed subdivision and developmeHt of other property·withifl 12 such areas. 13 (5) The feeas to any propertyproposed forsubdivision within 14 a local area does Hot exceed the pro rnta share of the amount of 15 the total actual or estimated costs of all facilities·.vithi:n the area 16 that would be assessable oft the property if the costs were 17 apportiot1eduniformly on a per acre basis. 18 (6) The draiH:age or saH:itary sewe1 facilities plallfled are in 19 addition to existiflg facilities serving the area at the time of the 20 adoption of a plaflfo1 the area. 21 (b) Fees charged pursuant to this seetiofl shall be paid to the 22 local public agefleies which pro. ide dramage or sanitaty sewer 23 facilities,and shallbe deposited by those agencies into a "planned 24 local drainage facilitiesftmd" anda "planned localsanitary sewer 25 fund," respectively. Separate funds shall be established fOf each 26 local drainage and sanitary sewer area. Moneys in those funds 27 shall be expended solely for the construction or reimbursement 28 foreonstrnetion ofloeal drainage or sanitarysewer facilitieswithifl 29 the area from whichthe fees comprising the fufldwere collected, 30 or to reitnburse the local agency forthe cost of engmeering and 31 administrntiveservices to formthe district and designaftd construct 32 the facilities.The local ordinance may provide forthe acceptance 33 of considerations inlieu ofthe paymen t of fees. 34 (e) A local agency imposing or 1equesting the impositiofl of, 3 5 feespttt·suan.t to this section, ineludiflg the agen.eies providing the 36 facilities, may ad.anee mon.ey from its general fund to pay the 37 costs of constructing facilities withina local drainage or sanitary 3 8 sewerarea and reimburse the genernlfund for those advances from 39 the pla:nnedlocal drainage or sanita1f sew Cl'facilities fund for the
98 -15- AB 1273
1 loeal cl:raiHagc or stmital)' sewer area inwhieh the drainage or 2 sanitary sewerfacilities were eonstruetcd. 3 (d) A local ageHcy reeei-YiHg feespursuaflt to this seetioH may 4 incur aft indebtednessfur theeonstruetiofl of draw.age or sanita1�1 5 sewer facilities within a loeal dramagc or sanitary· sewer iuea, 6 provided that the sole securityfur repaymCfltof that iHdebtedttess 7 shallbe rnoneys iH the phm:ned local drainage or sanitary sewer 8 facilities ftmd.
0
98 AB 1273 Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 24, 2019
ASSEMBLY COMMITIEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Cecilia Aguiar-CtuTy, Chair AB 1273 (Brough) -As Amended March 25, 2019
SUBJECT: County of Orange: joint exercise of powers agreements: toll roads.
U SMMARY: Makes various changes to the powers and duties of the Transp01tation Conidor Agency (TCA). Specifically, this bill:
1) Specifies that the Board of Supervisors of Orange County and city councils of any cities may only require the payment of a fee as a condition of approval of a final map or as a condition of issuing a building pennit for purposes of defraying the actual or estimated cost of const:mcting or financing bridges over wate,ways, railways, freeways, and canyons, or const:mcting major thoroughfar·es completed on or before January 1, 2020, and in service on January 1, 2020.
2) Provides that the local ordinance to require the payment of a fee shall include all of the following information:
a) The ordinance provides that the b1idges and major thoroughfares are designed and approved as landscaped, grade separated scenic toll highway conidors that include four to six general purpose travel lanes with medians or other areas wide enough to acc01mmdate any necessary high-occupancy vehicle or special transit requirements and are not part of an interstate freeway or local mteria�
b) The ordinance limits the expenditure of the fee to maintenance, operation, or financing of a completed facility that is in service on Januaiy 1, 2020, and for which indebtedness was incUITed;
c) The ordinance provides that payment of fees shall not be required, unless the major thoroughfares are in addition to, or reconstrnction or widening o� any existing major thoroughfares serving the area on January 1, 2020; and,
d) The ordinance provides that payment of fees shall not be required, unless the planned b1idge facility is an original bridge serving the area or an addition to any existing bridge facility serving the area on Janua1y 1, 2020.
3) Specifies that a county or a city imposing a fee descnbed in ), 1 above, shall not, on or after Janua1y 1, 2020, enter into a joint exercise of powers agreement to construct b1idge facilities or major thoroughfares.
4) Authorizes specified joint powers authorities (JPAs), created before Janua1y 1, 2020, to continue to maintain, operate, and pay debt service on any b1idges or major thoroughfares in service on January 1, 2020, but prolubits them from designing, planning, developing, or constructing any facilities on or after January 1, 2020. AB 1273 Page 2
5) Deletes provisions that allow specified JP AB to lend or make available toll revenues and development fees to another JP A for pwposes of designing, financing, and constructing major thoroughfares and toll collection facilities.
6) Requires that after any indebtedness incurred for the constmction of specified bridge facilities or major thoroughfares that is operated as a toll road has been repaid, the bridge facility or major thoroughfare shall be transfetTed to the state, subject to teID1S and conditions as shall be satisfacto1y to the Director of Transportation
7) Provides that any of these specified b1idge facilities and major thoroughfares shall be designated as a portion of the state highway system before its transfer and, after its transfer to the state, a toll shall not be imposed for the use of these facilities.
8) Prohibits, after Janua1y 1, 2020, specified JP As from incwTing bonded indebtedness, except that these JPAB shall have the authority, rights, and powers they held before that date for both of the following pwposes:
a) To issue bonds or otherwise incw- indebtedness to refund bonds or other indebtedness incutTed before January 1, 2020, or to provide monetary savings to the JPA, if specified requirements are met; and,
b) To issue bonds or otherwise incut· indebtedness to finance debt service spikes, including balloon maturities, if specified requirements are met.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Establishes the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Act), which generally allows two or more public agencies to jointly use their powers in common tbrough a joint powers agreement. Many times, ajoint powers agreement creates a new, separate governmental agency called a JPA
2) Allows public agencies to use the Act and the related Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act to form bond pools to finance public works, working capital, insw-ance needs, and other public benefit projects.
3) Authorizes the Comty of Orange and the cities within the County of Orange to form a JPA and incw- indebtedness for certain putposes, including the constrnction of bridge facilities or major thoroughfares by which toll roads may be constmcted, as specified.
4) Auth01izes the County of Orange and the cities within the County of Orange to impose developer fees as a condition of approving development plans or building permits for pwposes of defraying the cost of constmcting mfrastructure projects, including, but not limited to, bridges, railways, and freeways.
5) Authmizes a JP A created by the abovementioned authority to make toll revenues and developer fees available to other JP AB to pay for the cost of constmcting and operating separate toll facilities, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal AB 1273 Page 3
COMMENTS:
1) Joint Powers Authorities. JPAs have existed in California for nearly 100 years, and were originally created to allow multiple local governments in regiona to pool resources to meet common needs. The Act authorizes state and local public agencies to create and use ajoint powers agreement, which is a legal document that allows the contracting parties to exercise powers thatare corrn110n to all of the contracting parties. A joint powers agreement can be administered by one of the contracting agencies, or it can be carried out by a new, separate public entity. Joint powers agreements are an attractive tool for local governments because they facilitate more efficient service provision through collaboration.
2) Transportation Conidor Agencies. The TCA consists of two JP As formed under statute enacted by the Legislature in 1986 to plan, finance, construct, and operate toll roads in Orange County:
a) The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency, which oversees the San Joaquin Hills Toll Road State Route 73 (SR-73), stretches 15 miles from Newport Beach to San Juan Capistrano in southwest Orange County.
b) The FoothilVEastern Transportation Corridor Agency, which nms both the Foothill Toll Road and the Eastern Toll Road, includes State Routes 133,241, and 261, linking State Route 91 (SR-91) near the Orange County/Riverside County border to Interstate 5 (1-5) in Irvine and also to cotlllllllllities in South Orange County.
The TCA has constructed and ctnTently operates approximately 51 miles of toll roads primarily in south Orange County and presently employs a staff of 68 agency employees. The Boards of Directors for both the San Joaquin and Foothill/Eastern agencies are comprised of local elected officials in Orange County. Total average weekday ridership is an estimated 320,000 combined for all TCA 's routes and, depending on the distance traveled, toll rates range anywhere from $2 to slightly over $10.
The toll roads maintained by TCA are financed with tax exempt nonrecourse toll revenue bonds on a stand-alone basis; taxpayers are not responsible for repaying TCA debt, rather toll r revenue and developer fees cover debt service obligations. Recent figu es show debt obligations for the Foothill/Eastern system at an estimated $2.4 billion in outstanding principal and totaling an estimated $6.5 billion in principal and interest from 2018-2053. For the San Joaquin Hills system, debt obligations are at an estimated $2.1 billion in outstanding principal and totaling an estimated $5.l billion in principal and interest from 2018-2050.
3) SR-241 Foothill South Extension. Known as the "Foothill-South" extension, this extension was planned as the last segment of the SR-241 tollway connecting South Orange County to north San Diego County at I-5. The extension and connection had been the subject of regional planning efforts for more than 20 years.
The point of controversy with the Foothill-South was the final fow· miles of the proposed tollway extension, which was planned to be located on Camp Pendleton Maiine Base, through a section of the San Onofre State Park, which is leased from the United States Maiine Co1ps. The Maiine Corps reserved the light to grant easements for 1ights of way when the lease with the California Department of Parks and Recreation was signed in 1971. AB 1273 Page 4
The Foothill-South extension was opposed by many conservationists, envirorunental groups, and residents of San Clemente because of threats to water quality and damage to Trestles, a world-famous surfing spot, by the extension Another concern was a non-compete clause which the California Department ofTransportation (Caltrans) signed with TCA. The clause required Caltrans to compensate TCA forlost revenue caused by any highway improvements lUldertaken by Caltrans that reduce toll revenue because of competition with the tollways.
Strong opposition to the proposed extension resuhed in multiple lawsuits and involvement of both tl1e state and federal government. Uhimately, TCA withdrew the proposed Foothill South extension and brokered an agreement with opposition groups. The agreement allows TCA to continue to evaluate transportation ahematives in South Orange County, including connecting SR-241 to 1-5, while protecting sensitive lands and cultural resources. The agreement also required TCA to establish a $28 million conservation fimd to help protect and restore San Mateo Creek and its watersheds.
4) Current Alternatives. TCA is ClllTently in the process of evaluating a number of ahernatives that ain1 to provide traffic congestion relief in South Orange County. The initial process started in 2015 with public outreach efforts, which resulted in approximately 20 potential transp01tation ideas/proposals that were announced in early 2017. From these 20 ideas/proposals, TCA carried out an initial screening based on traffic relief perfo1mance and selected seven that will move f01ward for additional evaluation in a project study report presently being prepared in collaboration with Cahrans. The project study rep011 will provide recommendations on a smaller number of alternatives (including a "no build" ahemative) that will be evaluated in a Project Report/Environmental Document which will ultimately provide a "preferred alternative" for TCA.
The proposed ahematives, however, have not avoided opposition in their own 1ight. In May 2017, the OC Register wrote that developers of Rancho Mission Viejo could not support any of the proposed ahernatives identified by TCA. Developers of Rancho Mission Viejo, which is a development of 14,000 homes on nearly 23,000 acres, including 17,000 acres being preserved as open space east of San Juan Capistrano, stated, "Regrettably, there appears to be no viable option which doesn't impact Rancho Mission Viejo residents or OLU- South CoW1ty neighbors. 111erefore, we are not in support of the ahernatives as currently proposed." Additionally, both residents and City officials from the City of San Clemente have expressed opposition to ahernatives extending SR-241; asserting that many of the ahematives will not provide significant congestion relief as claimed byTCA. Furthenoore, San Clemente officials and residents argue that these costly alternatives will unnecessarily add to TCA's existing bond debt burden, while the regional transportation agency, the Orange County Transportation Autho1ity (OCTA), should be the appropriate entity carrying out congestion relief projects in South Orange County.
5) .Bill Sununary. Existing law allows Orange County and the cities within the County to form a JP A and incur indebtedness for ce11ain purposes, including the constrnction of bridge facilities or major thoroughfares by which toll roads may be constrncted. 111is bill prohibits the formation of a JP A under this authority after January 1, 2020. 111is bill also limits the auth01ity of such a JP A to charge development fees and incur bonded indebtedness and restricts the use of toll revenue. Lastly, this bill requires that when any debt incU1Ted by such a JP A for building these bridge facilities or major thoroughfares is paid oft; the b1idge AB 1273 Page 5
facilities and major thoroughfares are to be transferred to the State of California. The author is the sponsor of this bill
6) Author's Statement. According to the author, "TCA's planning and development authority is duplicative and redundant. OCTA serves as Orange County's transportation commission, which gives it the power to plan, design, construct, and operate highways in partnership with the State, the County of Orange, and cities throughout Orange County. TCA's plans and studies are frequently inconsistent with the p1i01ities and master planning of OCTA, the County of Orange, and Orange Cotu1ty cities. These redundancies and inconsistencies ha1m regional planning, destabilize real estate markets, endanger schools, and threaten open space and other nattu-al resources that have been set aside by developers and local agencies as public amenities
''My bill, AB 1273, establishes regional planning authority and stops additional debt. This bill continues the ongoing funding of the TCA, through tolls, for the repayment of that existing debt. Additionally, it allows for the refunding of existing debt to facilitate the repayment of the debt at commercially better tenns thus protecting bondholders and the creditors. AB 1273 will return the Toll Roads to its core mission as a toll road operator, pay offthe bonds, and tum the roads over to the people as free, which was the origina I intent."
7) Policy Consideration. The author and a number of suppo1ters assert this bill was introduced due to TCA's financial mismanagement, inacctU"ate project costs, inacctU"ate ridership forecasts, and increasing tolls to cover agency expenses and debt payments. Other local stakeholders have indicated that some of TC A's proposed alternatives that are currently being studied have caused confusion as to the approp1iate role TCA plays in Orange County. While ce1tain stakeholders and residents of Orange Cow1ty do not approve of some of TCA' s actions, this bill effectively removes the ability of TCA to finance, plan, and constrnct new or expanded highways in Orange County. According to TCA, it has never defaulted on any of its debt obligations, has never fallen below debt service coverage requirements, and has made all payments of ptincipaI and interest on time.
JP As are often fomied to solve regional challenges. The Legislature did not mandate the formation of TCA. Creating TCA was a decision made by a group of local agencies at the local level Opponents to this bill proclaim that this proposal is a response by a member agency that disagrees with certain decisions that are being made. Would it be approp1iate for a member agency to a JP A to seek legislative help every time it does not agree with the other members of the JP A?
Additionally, TCA's board is made up of city and county elected officials. Residents have the ability to elect different representatives if the elected officials are making unpopular decisions. Due to these factors, the Committee may wish to consider if legislation is needed or if the stakeholders should instead resolve the concerns at the local level with TCA's elected board members.
8) Arguments in Support. The City of San Clemente argues, "When the State Legislature authorized the creation of the TCA in the late 80s, it was an expe1iment to see if the TCA would work. It has not. Its planning and development functions can be ably pe1fonned by other local and regional agencies while TCA remains in existence to retire its significant debt AB 1273 Page 6
load and to place Orange County's existing toll roads into public use decades behind the original schedule."
9) Arguments in Opposition. The TCA argues that, "This bill attacks TCA and the Orange County local governments that are part of the JP As. This bill was introduced as part of broader tactics by the City of San Clemente to discredit and disrupt the environmental review process for the South County Traffic Relief Effort - a collaboration between TCA, Caltrans, and the OCTA. TCA has more than $3 billion in planned projects, including local and regional partnership projects, designed to widen the toll roads, and to improve local streets and highways to create operational efficiencies with the toll road network."
REGISTERED SUPPORT /OPPOSITION:
Support
City of San Clemente 7 Individua Is
Concerns
F1iendly Fix It Mobile Computer Services San Juan Capistrano Chamber of Commerce
Opposition
Aud� Mission Viejo Carlsbad Chamber of Corrnnerce Cities of. Anaheim, Irvine, Laguna Woods, Mission Viejo, Newp011 Beach, Orange, Rancho Santa Margarita, Santa Ana, and Tustin Civil Works Engineers, Inc. Coast Surveying, Inc. Corona Del Mar Chamber of Commerce Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce Earth Mechanics, Inc. Economic Development Coalition Ghirardelli Associates Greater livine Chamber of Commerce Hispanic 100 HNTB Corporation Inland Empire Regional Chamber of Comrnerce Laguna Hills Chamber of Commerce LSA Associates, Inc. Lynn Capouya, Inc. Mark Thomas NDC Realty Resources, Inc. Net Developinent Co. North Orange County Chamber of Commerce NRM Real Estate Advisors AB 1273 Page 7
Opposition ( continued)
Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Corrnnerce Oceanside Chamber of Corrnnerce Orange County Business C0tmcil Orange County Supervisor Lisa Bartlett Orange County Taxpayers Association Principal Technical Services Advance Rancho Margarita Chamber of Connnerce San Diego NorthEconomic Development Council Santa Margarita Auto Group South Orange County Economic Coalition Southwest California Legislative Council Tatsumi and Partners, Inc. Terraken Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. Transportation Corridor Agencies TransSystems Corporation WSO USA, Inc. ZT Consulting Group 3130 Airway, LLC 46 Individuals
Analysis Prepared by: Jimmy MacDonald / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 l\-1 · ! ;_ tt ': f -,' I ··l 1 :Pi'I �'"'
Maya, Apri I I l , 20 19 ,V/avor f'ro rem
11\ 1H l'i'-J�i11 Cov11, •I Memhen The Honorable Cecilia Aguiar-Curry !� 1 .1, I \vp, V Chair, Assembly Committee on Local Government State Capitol, Room 5144
J...-�11 rl1.·! dnld'1 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1273 (Brough) - OPPOSE
Dear Chair Aguiar-Curry:
The City ofNewport Beach opposes AB 1273. Our City sits on the Board of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency, which is separate from the Foothill Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency. Assembly Member Brough 's April 3, 2019 letter appears to focus on accumulated debt and an extension to the 5 and 91 freeways, respectively.
As to the latter issue, it should be addressed only to the .Foothill Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency. A blanket prohibition on planning or expansion would subsume any potential for further planning the 73 freeway, which does not appear to be the intent of Assembly Member Brough's bill. The SR7J Toll Road provides Newport Beach residents and business customers and employees a north-south alternative to the too often congestion L-405 freeway. Even those who choose not to use The Toll Road still see traffic relief benefits because the hundreds of thousands of commuters who do use this alternate route mean fewercars on our freeways and city streets. If this bill is passed, the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency would be lefl: as collateral damage.
As to the ·former point, we share Assembly Member Brough 's t:onccrns about paying down dcht, which is why the San Joaquin I !ills Transportation Corridor Agency's refinancing or dcbl was spearheaded by our City's former Mayor, Rush Hill. Assembly Member Brougb's April 3, 2019 letter does not appear to adcquatdy consider the cost savings from that action. Nor does it mention that the budget for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Ccmidor Agency spends approximately 76.5%) of its expenditures on debt service. This primary focus on debt reduction and toll collection is readily evident from the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency's budget. l.etter Lo the I lonoruhl<' ( :ec1/ia A/!,uiar-Curry April I I. 2019 !'age 2
For these reasons, the City of Newport Beach opposes AJ3 I 273 and encourages you and your colleagues to vote no.
Sincerely, �." kDiane Brooks Oiff Mayor cc: Assembly Committee on Local Government The Honorable Phillip Chen, Assembly Member The Honorable Sharon Quirk-Silva, Assembly Member The Honorable Steven Choi, Assembly Member The Honorable Tom Daly, Assembly Member The Honorable Tyler Diep, Assembly Member The Honorable Bill 13rough, Assembly Member The Honorable Cottie Petrie-Nc.mis, Assembly Member The Honorable Ling Ling Chang, Senator The Honorable Bob Archuleta, Senator The Honorable Tom Umberg, Senator The Honorable Pat Bates, Senator The Honorable John Moorlach, Senator Mr. Darrell Johnson, CEO, Orange County Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors Transportation Corridor Agencies Boards of Directors Ql:ongrtsa of ·Hp.� 11uitci'l .§tnte!i 1Ut11111i1tyhm, DO!Zll515 April 23, 2019 Laul'le B�ttmm Dircc,tor CaJif'ornla Depattme11t ot'Ttansp1)rtillion 1120 N Street Sa,cramcnto, Ct\ 95 814
Dear Ditee:tor lknnan,
We ·wdic to cxp,ressour grave c.o11cems.-bout the TransportationCorridor Agency (TCA) and its pltms lo plm1 new rout.:s thrnughl)utour uistrie(s. TCA is pu:rsujng tlwse plans ln c.oncert Md with the support of cho California1J eprutmen1. of Tmnsrortation(Caltran.$) Olscricl 12. The nsnge ofn>ute�pre'/ientcd by d1cTCA would uegatlvely i.mpuct uttrconsti1uentsv.,hilcd dh·er·Ln.g liule traffic n;;litf, ,md we41sk thnt Cl\lfrmJ:ir�ii.:ct any f11rLIH:r �ludy of th-i:� rrltemativcs in the �tale a:nd fe A,,syou know. the TCA formed in l 986 t1s r1 joint J1(1w-ersauthority (JPA} hy OrangeCoUITTty and �v,enll cWesfolJzywjn g plmming tlwt hi.::gnn in the 1970s kkmLifyi11gthe need fm newhi�hwdy,\L l.lnfortunatclyv the TCA hasacted beyond the scope of ils inl�ndcd pttqxiseand be!!un planning n:ew route$ th1:1t pa!.-!l dll'ou.g.h,St111 Ju::m Copi�LtilllO and Sun Clcm�11tc th�t arc: inconsistcm with the SW!ULOQ' definitionof SR�21l L [I js cot1cer111ng tf1ilt 1hese propo5al5 would toll recently tmnplctcd public i11fru.:;tru1.;t1Jrc m)d tm: b�scdon quesl10m1blctl-ttffo.: Jt,rc.ca:sling tcchniquc-_s. Our.con.cerns nbout TCA rue not only limited to the agcn,;yacting outside of irsjurisdfotmrt 'l11c los Angele.� Time.vrecently that reJ>t.ll'tedTCA spt::nl hundn.'"tisofthomumds of We firm!}· helic,,c the TC.4 has.icte,d bcyLmJ che �cuµe uf its t:11.11horj1y as a toll roadu p,crlltM and 5hould immediately terminate its plan� to act outside jg juriooiction. We further urgeyou to fll)en a comptclc and public review ot'the TCA, it5current operaliorns. 1.1nd atty foturc plans the agency may have, D0il1g so \\'i,uld bring transpateilC} lo l he pn,�ts..'i o F plarming. liuilding.. and operating toll roads. Atfordahility and transportatuJn are1w:1jur issues in Orange County and the TCA hasexaccrbat�d b(lth lssll�.s lo the detriment of our con�tiluerits, T11Jmk you for your attention 10 chis iJ11:pi.,rtmd 111.atter. Sincerely, J!lJie-� ;£(�.. ML_ MIKE LEVIN HARLE\' · UDA Mi,!mbi::rof Congre� Member o c�.mgresi. Subject: RE: Additional Information New Business #3: Pride Flag NB-3 Additional Documents From: LETOURNEAU, TAMARA **PLEASE DO NOT REPLY ALL TO THIS E-MAIL** Mayor & City Council, A council member requested information whether any cities in Orange County have adopted a policy to display the pride flag at a city facility or facilities. Below is the information. • Out of the thirty-four cities within Orange County, three (3) have adopted resolutions to allow for the Pride Flag to be flown at City Hall. Santa Ana On September 15, 2015, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana passed a resolution authorizing staff to "fly the Rainbow Flag under the City Flag at City Hall from May 22 through end of June in commemoration of Harvey Milk and Gary Pride Month and to develop a policy to provide procedural guidance on flying other flags throughout the year." Anaheim On January 15, 2019, the City Council of the City of Anaheim adopted a resolution to display the Pride Flag on the City Hall flagpoles each year on Harvey Milk Day and through Prime month. This was a change from previous years, where the City would hang a banner (rather than a flag) to commemorate Pride month. Fullerton On March 19,2019, the City Council of the City of Fullerton adopted a resolution "authorizing the annual display of the Pride Flag at City Hall to commemorate Harvey Milk Day and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month. The Pride Flag is to be displayed at City Hall annually from May 22 to June 30". Outside of Orange County, several other cities have allowed this type of display at their respective city halls, such as Long Beach and West Hollywood. Please let me know if you need additional information. Kind regards, Tammy TAMARAS.LETOURNEAU Acting City Manager/Assistant City Manager I (714) 754-5122 City Manager's Office 77 Fair Drive I Costa Mesa I CA 92626 1 NB-3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL IN SUPPORT Subject: RE: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL N B-3 Additional Documents From: old vine cafe From: Chef Mark McDonald Executive Chef - Proprietor Old Vine Kitchen & Bar 2937 Bristol St. Suite A-103 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mayor Foley, Mayor Pro Tern Stephens, Councilmember Chavez, Councilmember Genis, Councilmember Mansoor, Councilmember Marr, and Councilmember Reynolds: I am the co-owner of Old Vine Kitchen + Bar, located at the Camp in Costa Mesa. Beforeopening our new location in February,our Old Vine Cafe was located next door, and where we have been serving citizens of Costa Mesa, Orange Countyand visitors since 2007. As a business that has thrived in Costa Mesa, and appreciate its open and inclusive creative culture, we join with the many voices in the community respectfully requesting that the City Council approve the raising of the rainbow Pride flag at CityHall from Harvey Milk Day (May 22) through the end of Pride Month in June. The Pride flagis a symbol that reflects the ongoing work for acceptance and equality for all communities. It helps spread hope that things are getting better and will continue to improve as we continue our work towards equal rights and inclusive communities. By flying the pride flag at City Hall, Costa Mesa will display the spirit of diversity and inclusion that has helped make the citya wonderfulplace forour employees and customers to live, work and play. We are proud to be a Costa Mesa business, and we are confidentthe City Council will give this request due consideration and respect. Sincerely Mark McDonald Old Vine Kitchen + Bar Chef Mark McDonald Executive Chef - Proprietor Old Vine Kitchen & Bar 2937 Bristol St. Suite A-103 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Ph: (714) 545-1411 Fx: (714) 545-1441 http://oldvinekitchenbar.com 1 Subject: Annual display of the pride flag NB-3 Additional Documents From: Joni Nichols May 5, 2019 Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL Dear Mayor Foley and City Council The LGBQT community draws strength, courage, and inspiration from each flag that flies in celebration of them. Such a simple action to demonstrate that Costa Mesa embraces ALL of its citizens!! I volunteer every week in Costa Mesa (Someone Cares) , and attend Women in Leadership luncheons, Costa Mesa Democrat meetings, and a Costa Mesa book discussion group here every month. I support the LGBQT + flag being raised at City Hall for Harvey Milk Day and the entire month of June. What a terrific and tangible way to demonstrate what a caring community can do to make ALL of its members feel welcome. I will happily plan my route to assure that I can acknowledge the pride flag. Thank you. Joni Nichols 1 Subject: RE: Support for LGBTQ flag flying ... NB-3 Additional Documents From: Sean Sloan As a long time resident and business owner in Costa Mesa, I am writing to show my support for the to fly the LGBTQ+ flagat Costa Mesa City Hall for Harvey Milk Day on May 22nd thru June/Pride month. Our city should be a beacon of tolerance and inclusion, an example to our country and the world and not allow loud-mouthed bigots to set city policy or attempt to manipulate public opinion. Bye for now, Sean Sean Sloan Director of Online Marketing (949) 722-6119 ofc (949) 903-1062 cell Open-lnteractive.com 1 Subject: FW: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL NB-3 Additional Documents From: Daiquiri Scherer May 5, 2019 Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa. CA 92626 Re: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL Dear Mayor Foley and City Council Members, As a Costa Mesa resident, It is important to me that our great city participates in honoring LGBTQ+ flag at Costa Mesa City Hall for Harvey Milk Day on May 22nd thru June/Pride month. Our family supports the LGBTQ+ community and wants Costa Mesa to foster love, safety, acceptance and kindness to this community that makes our city great. We have seen first hand what fear and seclusion does to this community. We have seen my brother in the hospital with a broken collar bone, 3 broken ribs and black eyes forbeing attacked because he happened to be gay. I never want anyone to feartheir safety for being themselves. Please support the pride flag forshowing the world that we accept everyone for who they are and what great assets they contribute to our finecity. Sincerely, Daiquiri Scherer Corey Pollock Charlotte Pollock (age 12) Anthony Pollock (age 6) 1 Elizabeth D. Parks 840 Center St. #7 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 949-275-8589 May 5, 2019 Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL Dear Mayor Foley and City Council Members, As a Costa Mesa resident since 1998, I am a retired college professor and currently operate a home business in addition to managing the apartment complex where I live. In addition to its proximity to the ocean and great eating establishments, I have long appreciated and taken pride in the city's diversity. Inclusion of marginalized groups distinguishes our city by the sea rendering it strong, vibrant and successful. I'm pleased to be part of it, and in my capacity as an apartment manager, I have made every effortto rent to a cross section of individuals and families. I am proud of the new city council members I and others worked so hard to introduce to the community. Moreover, the present city council is to be lauded for its support of the flag raising at city hall. I write this letter in support of the raising of the LGBTQ+ flag for Harvey Milk Day in June. Keep Costa Mesa Open, Free, and Kind! Respectfully, Elizabeth D. Parks West Side Resident Subject: RE: Tolerance and inclusivity NB-3 Additional Documents From: Daiquiri Scherer May 5, 2019 Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL Dear Mayor Foley and City Council Members, As a Costa Mesa resident, it is important to me that our great city participates in honoring LGBTQ+ flag at Costa Mesa City Hall for Harvey Milk Day on May 22nd thm June/Pride month. Our family supports the LGBTQ+ community and wants Costa Mesa to foster love, safety, acceptance and kindness to this community that makes our city great. We have seen first hand what fear and seclusion does to this community. As a high school teacher, I see first hand how homophobia and intolerance of "other" can affect not only a child's performancein school, but can leave permanent mental damage to one's sense of belonging. All students and humans deserve to feel like they belong to their community. Please support the pride flag for showing the world that we accept everyone for who they are and what great assets they contribute to our fine city. Sincerely, Darla Scarpella Schwartz James Schwartz Cassius Schwartz (age 4) Levon Schwartz (age 2) 1 Subject: RE: Pride flag at City Hall NB-3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS From: Cynthia Blackwell Cynthia Blackwell 3363 Larkspur St. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 1 Subject: RE: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL N B-3 Additional Documents From: Gwendolyn Gaylord May 6, 2019 Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mayor Foley and City Council Members, I am writing to lend my support to the members of the LGBTQ+ community in Costa Mesa. I very strongly believe that NO party should attempt to prevent this community from expressing its pride and celebrating its culture at City Hall. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] should anyone have questions or concerns, as I would be happy to advocate for this community any time, any day. Thank you very much, Gwen Gaylord English Teach er Newport Harbor High School Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 Subject: RE: Pride Flag NB-3 Additional Documents -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth Cramer Dear Mayor Foley and Members of the City Council, We are emailing today to show our support on a display of the pride flag at city hall. We think this is so very importantfor our community. As members of the LGBTQ community I hope that our voices are heard! Thank you for speaking on behalf of all of us! Sincerely, Elizabeth and Molly Gazin (Lifetime Costa Mesa Residents) 1 Subject: RE: Fly the pride flag NB-3 Additional Documents -----Original Message----- From: Molly Gazin > Dear Mayor Foley and City Council Members, As a Costa Mesa resident and a member of the LGBT community, I am in full support of flying the pride flag and all actions to create a welcoming community of acceptance. Thank you, Molly· 1 Subject: RE: Display of the Pride Flag at City Hall NB-3 Additional Documents From: [email protected] May 6, 2019 Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 Re: Adoption of a City Council Flag Display Policy and a Resolution Authorizing the Annual Display of the Pride Flag at City Hall Dear Mayor Foley and City Council Members, It has been brought to my attention that Council member Allan Mansoor has spoken out against the adoption of an annual display of the Pride Flag at Costa Mesa City Hall. His beliefs do not match my family's beliefs, and we have been Costa Mesa residents for 25 years. We have many friends and family members in the LGBQT community and it is of our opinion that the display of a Pride Flag would show Costa Mesa's inclusive nature and provide strength to those in the LGBQT community. Thank you foryour time and thank you fortaking my opinion into consideration. Catherine Nadeau, CSR No. 11528, RPR 949.351.0476 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidentialand/or legally privileged information. It is solely forthe use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. 1 Subject: RE: Pride Flag at City Hall NB-3 Additional Documents From: Lynn Girvin May 6, 2019 Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 Re: Adoption of a City Council Flag Display Policy and a Resolution Authorizing the Annual Display of the Pride Flag at City Hall Dear Mayor Foley and City Council Members, It has been brought to my attention that Council member Allan Mansoor has spoken out against the adoption of an annual display of the Pride Flag at Costa Mesa City Hall. His beliefs are archaic and not inclusive. We have many friends and family members in the LGBQT community and it is of our opinion that the display of a Pride Flag would show Costa Mesa's inclusive nature and provide strength to those in the LGBQT community. Thank you for your time and thank you for taking my opinion into consideration. Kind Regards, Lynn K. Girvin, Esq. Law Officeof Lynn K. Girvin 3400 S. Susan Street I Santa Ana, CA 92704 T 714.619.4145 [lynngirvinlaw.com] Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email may contain confidential and/or privileged information and is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Flo Martin Please approve/vote yes on the staffrecommendation regarding New Business #3. Flo Martin 2442 Andover Pl CM 92626 949. 933.3699 "It is when we are alone that we are the least alone." St. Augustine 1 Subject: RE: ADOPTIONOF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL NB-3 Additional Documents From: Kat Lee Shull May 5, 2019 Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL Dear Mayor Foley and City Council Members, I am a resident of Costa Mesa and I strongly support the display of the Pride Flag at City Hall. Sincerely, Katherine Shull 1 Subject: RE: LGBT flag and June NB-3 Additional Documents From: Tamara Owney I support the LGBTQ+ flag at City Hall forHarvey Milk Day and the month of June. Kind regards, Tammy Owney 2557 Columbia Dr. College Park Sent frommy iPhone 1 Subject: RE: Pride Month and Pride Flag NB-3 Additional Documents From: Brooklynn Kendall Dear Council Members, I want to thank you forplacing on the city agenda a proposal to raise the LGBT flag during Pride Month. It's an important way of demonstrating inclusion and affirmationthat all citizens of Costa Mesa are welcomed here. This issue is dear to my heart. As a 43 year old child of two Gay dads, I have been fighting for LGBT rights and awareness forover 20 years. My parents were not able to get married before they died and they had to remain in the closet both with their jobs and our town during my childhood. It was not until I was in my late 20's they could be "out" and feel pride with our community. It is a torch I carry in my business as an LMFTwith a private practice in Costa Mesa and as a mom to twin 5 year old boys. My husband and I celebrate Pride month so our boys can be connected to my community. To be able to show my kids and the rest of the community that Costa Mesa is inclusive, diverse and proud would mean so much. I realize some will object using slippery slope arguments falsely based in religion, politics and personal objections. These arguments may be loud, but they lack merit and are based on fear. Raising this flag harms no one. It is a flag built on strength and love. I encourage you to vote to raise it during Pride Month. Thank you, Brooklynn Kendall Costa Mesa Resident 1 Subject: RE: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL NB-3 Additional Documents From: Mike Hardesty May 6, 2019 Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZINGTHE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL Dear Mayor Foley and City Council I'm a business owner here in Costa Mesa, and I support the LGBQT + community. I chose to establish my business here because Costa Mesa is a vibrant and diverse city. I would very much like to see the Pride flag at City Hall during the month of June as a reminder that in these divisive times, at least our local officeholders recognize the importance of supporting under represented persons within our community. The flag is a symbol of goodwill and inclusiveness, and I think we could all use a bit of that right now. I support the LGBQT + flag being raised at City Hall forHarvey Milk Day and the entire month of June. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Mike Hardesty LJ� Mike Hardesty (M) 949.735.0642 Elevated Contractors, Inc. 660 W. 17th. Street, Suite Q-27 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Business license #54054 1 Subject: RE: Support for rainbow flag N B-3 Additional Documents From: Julie Angus Dear Mayor Foley and City Council I am writing to state my support forthe flyingof the pride rainbow flagin Costa Mesa. Life is short and love is love. Anyone opposing this flag forreligious reasons is using the Bible to promote their own bigotry and intolerance. Julie Angus 10192 Cynthia Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Sent from my iPad 1 Subject: RE: Pride Flag NB-3 Additional Documents From: mimirose8 Rose Maryanne Rose and Erin Rose 1991 Newport Blvd space 54 1 Subject: RE: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL NB-3 Additional Documents From: bonnie matthews Dear Mayor Foley, Mayor Pro Tern Stephens, Council member Chavez, Council member Genis, Council member Mansoor, Council member Marr, and Council member Reynolds, I'm Bonnie Matthews, a business owner and resident of Costa Mesa and have lived here 5 years. I am writing to share that I am in strong support of raising the LGBTQ+ rainbow flat at City Hall for the month of June in honor of HarveyMilk Day and showing support for our broad diverse community. I moved here from Baltimore City Maryland and want to continue to feel like I am welcomed in my city as a creative working freelancer and a woman living openly gay. I appreciate that the city council is supporting the flag raising at city hall. Support for our community as a whole and inclusion of marginalized groups is what makes our city strong/vibrant/successful and makes us glad we are a part of it. We support the LGBTQ+ flag at city hall for HarveyMilk Day and the month of June. Keep Costa Mesa Kind! Bonnie Matthews freelance illustrator, author/photographer www.bonniematthewsillustration.com [email protected] 135 Broadway Apt B Costa Mesa CA 92627 PS I also serve as volunteer coordinator for the Laguna Beach 365 Pride Festival and cohost of Rainbow Radio KX 93.5 FM 1 Subject: RE: Pride Flag NB-3 Additional Documents From: Ann Mason I respectfully request that the City Council of Costa Mesa vote yes to fly the Pride Flag at City Hall during the month of June. As a resident of Costa Mesa for the past 33 years it is important to me that our City be welcoming and inclusive of our LGBT friendsand neighbors. Ann Mason Sent frommy iPhone 1 Subject: RE: Harvey Milk Day Flag Ceremony NB-3 Additional Documents From: Misha Nesselrod Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDEFLAG AT CITY HALL Dear Mayor Foley, Mayor Pro TernStephens, Council member Chavez, Council member Genis, Council member Mansoor, Council member Marr, and Council member Reynolds, My name is Michelle Nesselrod and my family and I have lived in/worked in/attended school in Costa Mesa for35 years. I am also the co-owner of Holiday Salon on E. 17th St. I have always loved this city forits sense of community, and I so appreciate that the city council is supporting the flagraising at city hall. Support for our community as a whole and inclusion of marginalized groups is what makes our city strong/vibrant/successful and makes us glad we are a part of it. We support the LGBTQ+ flag at city hall forHarvey Milk Day and the month of June. Keep Costa Mesa Kind! Michelle Nesselrod Sent frommy iPhone 1 Subject: RE: I support the pride flag at City Hall NB-3 Additional Documents From: Sarah Babovic May 6, 2019 Hon. Katrina Foleyand Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDEFLAG AT CITY HALL Dear Mayor Foley and City Council Members, My name is Sarah Millar Babovic, and I grew up in Costa Mesa. My husband and I returned here from overseas to raise our family, and have lived and worked here since 2005. Our kids attend Davis Magnet school and Costa Mesa Middle School. We have always loved that our city is inclusive in it's diversity, and right now we so appreciate that the city council is supporting the raising of the pride flag at city hall. Supportfor our community as a whole and inclusion of marginalized groups is what makes our city strong, and makes us glad we are a partof it. We support the LGBTQ+ flag at city hall for Harvey Milk Day and the month of June. Keep Costa Mesa Kind! Warm regards, Sarah Babovic 223 Wellesley Ln Costa Mesa, CA 92626 1 Subject: RE: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL NB-3 Additional Documents From: Tara Steele Dear Mayor Foley and City Council Members, I work in the beautiful city of Costa Mesa and I fully support flying the LGBQT+ rainbow flag at city hall for Harvey Milk Day and the month of June (Pride month). Costa Mesa is a diverse and inclusive city and the flag embodies inclusion, acceptance and celebration of diversity. Please vote yes to fly the LGBQT+ at Costa Mesa City Hall. Thank you, Tara Steele 1 Subject: RE: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL NB-3 Additional Documents From: Garret Weeks Re: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZINGTHE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL Dear Mayor Foley and City Council Members, I support flying the LGBTQ+ flag at city hall for Harvey Milk Day and the month of June. Garret Weeks Costa Mesa resident l Subject: RE: Tonight's Meeting - Pride Flag NB-3 Additional Documents -----Original Message----- From: Juli Stowers Hello, This is in regards to New Business item #3, the display of the Pride Flag at City Hall. I hope that you will follow other cities such as Santa Ana, Anaheim, and recently, Fullerton, in flying the Pride Flag during the month of June every year. I have a 19- year-old gay son and an 11-year-old transgender daughter. To them, the Pride Flag represents so much, especially in a time when there is still so much hatred being spewed about LGBTQ+ people. Whenever and wherever we see a Pride Flag, my daughter's eyes light up, and she cries out, "Mom, look, a Pride Flag!!!" - because she knows that where it flies, whether it be at City Hall, at someone's house, or a smaller one in someone's hands - she is safe, and there will be supportive people nearby. Please do not allow the anti-LGBTQ+ groups to ruin this opportunity to make the thousands of LGBTQ+ people in Orange County (and their families) feel safer, respected, and honored for their daily bravery to simply be themselves. Please do this for my kids. I can't attend your meeting tonight, as I have another commitment - but please vote for this, so I can let my daughter know before bedtime tonight - please make her day. Thank you. Juli Stowers 25456 Claveles Ct Lake Forest, CA 92630 [email protected] Pronouns are she/her/hers 1 From: HAUSER, JANET Sent: Monday, May 06, 2019 5:58 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA; TRAYLOR, MARIAN; LOCK, CONNOR Subject: Fwd: The Rainbow Pride Flag Sent frommy iPhone Begin forwardedmessage: From: Eric Winter The last year saw an alarming increase in hate crimes. These crimes target perceived minorities. Part of the issue is that not all minorities are readily perceptible to the perpetrators, so attacks do miss the desired targets. Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, Questioning + folksare not always immediately apparent. This accounts for crimes against those who are targeted incorrectly. More importantly, is the damage done to those who struggle with their own identity. Public health studies demonstrate that LGBTQ+ young people are 50% more likely to commit suicide, develope mental health issues, and have employment problems due to lack of protections. This in tum places them at risk for not only development of multiple health issues, but income and health coverage deficits. The challenge to correcting these issues involves promoting positive images. Research shows that providing identifiableemblems and role models not only improves the healthy outcomes for minorities, but allows foroptions in accommodation for all members in the community. I respectfully request that you, the council members, take a heroic role as leaders of the community and support raising the Rainbow Flag in honor of the LGBTQ+ citizens, business owners and students in Costa Mesa during Pride month. Most sincerely, Eric Winter, RN, BA, BSN, MHA 1 Subject: RE: Support: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL NB-3 Additional Documents From: Michelle Murphy Dear City of Costa Mesa City Council: My family and I have lived in and attended schools in Costa Mesa since 2002. We have always loved everything about our city, including how inclusive it is, and right now we so appreciate that the City Council is supporting the pride flagraising at City Hall. Support for our community as a whole and inclusion of marginalized groups is what makes our city so strong and vibrant, ensuring its success. This flag raising will make us all proud to call ourselves Costa Mesans. We support the LGBTQ+ flagat City Hall for Harvey Milk Day and the month of June. Keep Costa Mesa Kind! Best regards, Michelle Murphy 2567 Columbia Dr. College Park 1 Subject: RE: LGBT Pride Flag in Costa Mesa NB-3 Additional Documents From: Wendi Evans My name is Wendi Evans, I have worked in Costa Mesa for 12 years and lived there for6 years. I love Costa Mesa! I appreciate that the city is supporting the LGBT flagraising at city hall. Support and including marginalized groups is what makes California and Costa Mesa so amazing. Anaheim and Fullerton have both voted to raise the flagduring Pride month and I would LOVE to see our awesome city stand in these ranks. I support the LGBTQ+ flag at city hall for Harvey Milk day and the month of June. With Pride, Wendi Evans She, Her, Hers Inclusion Director/ Teacher A Child's Place Learning Center, Inc. 1941 Church St. Costa Mesa, CA. 92627 (949) 646-4318 [email protected] 1 Subject: RE: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL NB-3 Additional Documents From: Karyl E. Ketchum Dear Mayor Foley, Mayor Pro TernStephens, Council member Chavez, Council member Genis, Council member Mansoor, Council member Marr, and Council member Reynolds, As an educator in Orange County forover 15 years, and the Chair of the Gender Studies Department at the biggest regional university in the area, California State University, Fullerton, I want to express my strong support for the annual display of the Pride flag in Costa Mesa. While such gestures may seem only symbolic, they are in fact far more. Research shows that these visible acts actually save lives by signaling communities as welcoming to LGBTQ persons and, by extension, to all formsof difference, thereby discouraging discrimination and violence against all of our minority communities. My understanding is that the Council is also in support of this policy. Thank you foryour leadership and commitment to the principles of a healthy community. I support the LGBTQ+ flag at city hall for Harvey Milk Day and the entire month of June. Dr. Karyl E. Ketchum Karyl E. Ketchum, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Chair Women & Gender Studies Department Queer Studies Minor Program California State University, Fullerton Humanities Hall 2120 (657) 278-2480 [email protected] http://itwebstg.fullerton.edu/wmst v4/Faculty/faculty/k ketchum.aspx 1 Subject: RE: City Council Flag Display NB-3 Additional Documents From: Joanna Ross May 7, 2019 Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL Dear Mayor Foley and City Council Members, I am writing to express support in the resolution to authorize the annual display of the Pride Flag at City Hall. I have lived in Costa Mesa for nearly 2 years now and what I love most about this city is how it defies singular explanation. It is the best of what Orange County offers: diverse, vibrant, inclusive, beautiful and eclectic. Costa Mesa is a progressive city and truly evolving. It is wonderful to live in a city like that. Given an opportunity to express support for a community that has suffered so much and contributes so much, seems like a no-brainer. I support the flag raising at City Hall and hope we honor the courage of a community that still struggles for equal rights. It seems like a small gesture, but it is an expression of acceptance and hope to a long marginalized population. All great things require risk and courage. I hope the city uses its voice to speak loudly and welcome all communities that call Costa Mesa home. Warmest regards, Joanna Ross West side resident www.rosscommtv.com 310.487.4661 1 Subject: RE: Pride flag From: Beth Syverson Hello -- I'm writing in support of Costa Mesa flying the rainbow flagduring the month of June to celebrate Pride Mnnth. I'm gay and I work at a church in Costa Mesa. It would mean so much to me, my family, and my friends, if Costa Mesa would show its support of LGBTQ people in this way. I appreciate you even having it on your agenda fortonight, and giving us the opportunity to comment on it. Thank you! Beth Syverson Beth Syverson 714-376-6666 www.BethSyyerson.com 1 Subject: RE: ADOPTIONOF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDEFLAG AT CITY HALL From: Lisa Purkey May 7, 2019 Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL Dear Mayor Foley, Mayor Pro Tern Stephens, Council member Chavez, Council member Genis, Council member Mansoor, Council member Marr, and Council member Reynolds, My name is Lisa Purkey and I have worked in Costa Mesa over the course of the past 20 years. I am a sales rep for Clean Fun Promotional Marketing, which has been located in Costa Mesa since 2006. At the time of the move all of our team were very happy to be moving to such an exciting neighborhood. I have always spent a considerable amount of time in Costa Mesa outside of work as well, visiting the diverse selection of great restaurants and shops. All of which are very unique and keep bringing me back again and again. From the early days of La Cave and of our dearly missed Tower Records, the next rebirth chapters of the building of The Lab and The Camp to the fabulous growth recently seen on 17th Street! None of these would be the same without the diversity of visitors, Costa Mesa has always drawn a wide variety of people from all walks of life, which has made it great! To NOT support the flag raising at city hall would put a very negative mark on this beautiful & wonderful city. personally believe it would be shameful to say the least! I SUPPORT the LGBTQ+ flag at city hall for Harvey Milk Day and the month of June. I also would surly think that the Costa Mesa city council would also support the flag raising at city hall for the community with inclusion of marginalized groups, as that is what makes our city strong and successful. Please make all of us proud to be part of the community. KEEP COSTA MESA KIND!!! Sincerely, Lisa Purkey Clean Fun *Powered by Halo Branded Solutions 3187 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.263.3396 II c 714.658.3788 1 Subject: RE: I SUPPORT THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL N B-3 Additional Documents From: Jennifer Doane My name is Jennifer Doane and my family and I have lived in, worked in, and attended school in Costa Mesa for 11 years. We have always loved everything about our city, including our inclusiveness, and right now we so appreciate that the city council is supporting the flag raising at city hall. Support for our community as a whole and inclusion of marginalized groups is what makes our city strong/vibrant/successful and makes us glad we are a part of it. We support the LGBTQ+ flag at city hall forHarvey Milk Day and the month of June. Keep Costa Mesa Kind! Jennifer Doane College Park Resident 1 Subject: RE: Pride Flag City Hall NB-3 Additional Documents ---Original Message----- From: Lise Miller Dear Mayor Foley, Mayor Pro Tern Stephens, Council member Chavez, Council member Genis, Council member Mansoor, Council member Marr, and Council member Reynolds, I was a high school teacher in Newport Mesa School District for my entire career. In fact I opened Costa Mesa High School for its first class. My mother worked in the school district before me. While it may seem a trivial issue to you whether a flag is raised or not, I have witnessed hundreds of students struggling with their feelings of belonging and safety while wrestling with their sexual identity. After seeing bullying, suicides and other negative consequences of homophobia like low self-esteem, I have come to firmly believe the subtle messaging of acceptance as can be had by a city flying a gay flag can indeed make a difference in the lives of our youth. The message sent is you are not alone, you are not broken, we love and accept you as you are and we will not allow you to be targeted for hate. Let's supportour kids and keep our city a place where we model the best non-judgmental acceptance and love. Keep Costa Mesa Kind! Thank you! Joan Miller 1 Subject: RE: Please Fly the Pride Flag! NB-3 Additional Documents From: Alex Noyes Dear City Council, As many of you know, the Gay Pride Flag symbolizes that LGBTQ people are welcome and appreciated. Many are currently valuable members of our wonderful city, so it makes sense to fly it. It is not a negative gesture at anyone. Thank you for your support of the flying of the flag. Mr. Mansour, I saw your Facebook post, and I'm so pleased to tell you that this *IS* the flag forpeople who dated members of the same sex and don't anymore. I have several friendslike that, women who have dated women, and now are in monogamous relationships with men with whom they have children. They're bisexual. That's what the B is for. : ) My kids are aware of this and utterly unfazed, just as I was completely unconfused by the fact that I had one uncle who dated men and one who dated women when I was growing up. Best, Alexandra Noyes Your neighbor in Mesa Del Mar 1 NB-3 Additional Documents May 5, 2019 Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL Dear Mayor Foley and City Council Members, My name is Leah Ersoylu and I live here in Costa Mesa with my husband and young daughter. I have also been a business owner here in Costa Mesa since 2008. I have always loved the diverse perspectives and communities that are within this great city. I write to you today to support your decision to raise the Pride flag for the month in support of the LGBTQ2+ community, and to celebrate the life of Harvey Milk, an elected official and leader in the LGBT community whose life was cut short by gun violence. As an elected official, he focused on making the government accountable to individuals and he also recognized that neighborhood culture is critical to building a sense of community-these are values that we all surely agree with here in Costa Mesa. Please raise the flag in celebration for all that has been accomplished, but also in hopes that we will continue to make progress. Support for our community as a whole and inclusion of marginalized groups is what makes our city strong and welcoming. Some in the community will oppose this, as they fear litigation, fear change, or both. However, I know that we did not elect you all to make fear-based decisions; we want you to make bold decisions that move us forward. Fear-based decision-making is what we saw on display last year regarding SB54. Please do not recreate that, as these symbolic decisions do indeed matter to the communities who are watching you closely for guidance. Show the County that Costa Mesa is an open and inviting diverse community. Please fly the Pride Flag for Harvey Milk Day through Pride Month. Sincerely, Leah Ersoylu, Costa Mesa resident NB-3 Additional Documents Lisa Maurel, MFT LGBTQ Affirmative Therapy 2900 Bristol Street Suite C 208 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714-390-8189 May 7, 2019 To City Council of Costa Mesa Re: Flags at City Hall I enthusiastically support the adoption of Resolution to fly the rainbow flag at City Hall during pride month! As a mental health professional dedicated to serving the LGBTQ community here in Orange County for over 20 years, I have situated my private practice in the heart of Costa Mesa for the last six years because of the diversity and spirit of inclusion here. I can tell you that the symbol of the pride flag sends a message of hope to those who are still in the closet, or living in fear because of anti-LGBTQ legislation that is being revived against our community at the state and national level.The Pride flag conveys the spirit of welcome that conveys inclusion that makes a positive impact upon the queer community and conveys a message that our community is committed to inclusion. I would like to address one critique of this Resolution that came from Council member Allan Mansoor who expressed concern that flying the Pride flag would appear to endorse controversial policies "pushed by LGBTQ lobby" and suggesting that flying the Pride flag would appear to endorse these "controversial policies" including expanded sex education that is LGBTQ inclusive. The thing about a flag, is that it is a SYMBOL.Symbols allow for complexity. I don't agree with every policy enacted by Congress, much less, the president.But I can see that the symbol of the American flag, has something in it I can appreciate. The Rainbow flag, like any sub-culture or community, stands for diversity. There are people in the Queer community who are Catholic, Evangelical, Atheist. There are politically conservative people, Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, and Socialists within the Queer community. Costa Mesa, like every city in this nation, is evolving and adapting to the increasing complexity of our common life.We are all woven into the fabric of our shared community with threads of our ethnicities, genders, religions, languages and civic concerns.We must find ways to hold that complexity and still be a community to each other. I would be there tonite if I were not in session! Thank you for adopting this important resolution that will continue to make Costa Mesa a great place to live and work. Sincerely, Lisa Maurel, MFT Lic.No.32416 Subject: RE: In support of Resolution to fly PRIDE Flag during pride month NB-3 Additional Documents From: Lin Kraemer Hello, I'm a Costa Mesa resident and I support the Costa Mesa City Council adopting a resolution to fly a PRIDEFlag during Pride Month. There is still a stigma and harassment every day for members of the LBGTQ+ community. Let's be a like so many other cities that welcomes all people with open doors and respects the contribution made by this community to our businesses, social institutions, and general health of our city. Thank you, Linda Kraemer Costa Mesa Resident 1 NB-3 Additional Documents To: Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 From: Dan Bradley Costa Mesa Resident Co-Founder/CEO The Memphis Group Costa Mesa, CA Dear Mayor Foley, Mayor Pro Tern Stephens, Councilmembers Chavez, Genis, Mansoor, Marr, and Reynolds: In 1995, my partners and I opened Memphis Cafe at the corner of Bristol and Randolph, where the condemned King's Inn had been for years. In 2001, we transformed the Westside's notorious Club Mesa into Detroit Bar that had a notable 13-year run. And in 2005 we acquired and renewed Costa Mesa's venerable Tin Lizzie Saloon, one of Orange County's few remaining gay bars with origins dating back to the 1950's. We chose to transform these former dives located here in Costa Mesa not only because we had an affectionfor the city but shared a vision with like-minded entrepreneurs of what the city could become: a creative, inclusive and innovative center of all things cool in Orange County. And that's what Costa Mesa is today. Of these Costa Mesa businesses, the "Tin" in particular has held a special place in our hearts and we have treated it like a protective parent would their precious child. "It's like the gay 'Cheers,"' describes one social media comment. It has been an important and increasingly rare gathering place for Orange County's LGBTQ+ community; and while significant social wins have been celebrated here, all too often stories of discrimination, harassment and prejudice are still shared here as well. Flying the rainbow flag at City Hall would go a long way to show this local community that you have their cause at heart, and to larger public, that Costa Mesa is a place that celebrates diversity and equal rights. As a Costa Mesa business owner for 24 years and resident for 37, it would make me proud to see my City make this outward expression supporting inclusivity and diversity. It's simply the right thing to do and our City should have no qualms about demonstrating it. On behalf of my business partners, staff and customers, we join with the many voices in the community respectfully requesting that the City Council approve the raising of the rainbow Pride flag at City Hall from Harvey Milk Day (May 22) through the end of Pride Month in June. Sincerely, Dan Bradley Costa Mesa Resident Co-Founder the Memphis Group Costa Mesa, Ca Subject: RE: LGBTQA flag NB-3 Additional Documents From: Carah Reed May 7, 2019 Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL Dear Mayor Foley, Mayor Pro Tern Stephens, Council member Chavez, Council member Genis, Council member Mansoor, Council member Marr, and Council member Reynolds, My name is Carah Reed ..We have always loved about your city. I/ we so appreciate that the city council is supporting the flag raising at city hall. Supportfor our community as a whole and inclusion of marginalized groups is what makes our city strong/vibrant/successful and makes us glad we are a partof it. We supportthe LGBTQ+ flag at city hall for Harvey Milk Day and the month of June. Keep Costa Mesa Kind 1 Subject: RE: ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL FLAG DISPLAY POLICY AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ANNUAL DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL NB-3 Additional Documents From: Amy Streavel May 7, 2019 Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mayor Foley, Mayor Pro Tern Stephens, Council member Chavez, Council member Genis, Council member Mansoor, Council member Marr, and Council member Reynolds: My name is Amy Streavel and I was born and raised and still currently live in Orange County, Costa Mesa will always be my home. I attended Pomona, TeWinkle, and Estancia High School and spent my first two years of college at OCC ...Costa Mesa is my community. When I heard that the City of Costa Mesa was going to be voting on flying the LGBTQ+ flag to support our LGBTQ+ folks, my heartswelled with pride. What a fantastic way to show all of our residents that we welcome everyone, we value every resident, and we support our community as a whole. We should have already been doing this for years:) I understand that some folks are not supportive of this gesture, for reasons I may never understand, but I encourage you to show our LGBTQ+ residents and allies that we see them, we welcome them, and we celebrate them. My mom, also a Costa Mesa resident (for over 50 years!), was also elated to hear that her city council is supporting the flag raising at City Hall, and although we are both bummed we cannot be there tonight to show our support in person, we are confident that your vote will make our community proud. I cannot wait to drive by City Hall on Harvey Milk Day with my two young daughters, and hopefully see that beautiful rainbow flag blowing in the wind! Thank you for your time and commitment to our Costa Mesa community, Amy Streavel [email protected] 1 Subject: RE: Annual display of the Pride flag at City Hall From: Dear Mayor Foley, Mayor Pro Tern Stephens and council members As a 30-year resident of Costa Mesa, I support the annual display of the Pride flag at City Hall. Doing so is a gesture of inclusion for all people in our city and commemorates the ultimate sacrifice made by Harvey Milk in the fight for equal rights. I also soundly reject Councilmember Mansoor's specious and divisive arguments against flying the flag. Being LGBTQ is not a "choice" or a "lifestyle" that people enter or leave on a whim, it's part of their intrinsic biology. And saying that the Pride flag is a sign of exclusion because it runs contrary to some people's religious beliefs is simply a rote attempt by the council member to weaponize religious liberty. Your right to religious freedom does not extend to curtailing the freedom of others, and saying it does is a cynical attempt to re-cast oppressors as victims. I also reject the misguided, "slippery slope" narrative that says flying the Pride flag opens the door to requests to fly the flag of other groups, including Christians, Atheists, and even Nazis. Being members of those groups are matters of choice, being LGBTQ is not. Sincerely Bill McCarty 714 315-5699 1 ttb lJ I'-R A N l) E C A Y May 7, 2019 Hon. Katrina Foley and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: Letter In Support of Raising the Rainbow Flag at City Hall in Support of Harvey Milk Day and Pride Month Dear Mayor Foley, Mayor Pro Tern Stephens, Councilmember Chavez, Councilmember Genis, Councilmember Mansoor, Councilmember Marr, and Councilmember Reynolds, As a business based in the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa area, Urban Decay Cosmetics, LLC., joins with the many voices in the community respectfully requesting that the City Council approve the raising of the rainbow flag at City Hall from Harvey Milk Day (May 22) through the end of Pride Month in June. We believe that flying the rainbow flag is a wonderful and symbolic way to show our city is inclusive while engaging the entire Costa Mesa community and showing support of LGBTQ community. As you know, Harvey Milk was the first openly gay elected official in California, when he won a spot on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977. In 1978, under his urging, the city council passed a gay rights ordinance that protected gay people from being fired from their jobs. Milk opened the door to a generation of LGBT elected officials in California who felt like they could be political players without hiding who they were. In California, May 22 is Harvey Milk Day, recognized by the state's government as a day of special significance and in 2009 Milk was awarded the presidential Medal of Freedom, the country's highest civil honor. He was one of the first 16 recipients of the honor chosen by President Barack Obama. By flying the pride flag at City Hall, Costa Mesa will display the spirit of diversity and inclusion that has helped make Costa Mesa a wonderful place for our employees and customers to live, work and play. s�, Wendy Do PR and Influencer Manager Urban Decay Cosmetics, LLC. NB-3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE FLAG AT CITY HALL IN OPPOSITION From: Rebecca Trahan If the event is only paid for by sponsors then please proceed with the July 3 fireworks event. I think it could be a really great thing--1 was also for it the first time John Stephens proposed it. Also, regarding the rainbow flag being flown to celebrate Harvey Milk, I get the sentiment but think such a display belongs on one's personal house, not city hall. I have homosexuals in my family, and one of my familymembers is part of a firm that fought for gay marriage in the Supreme Court (and won) so I am not saying Harvey did not do great things. Some would say he did and deserves to be celebrated but so did other non-homosexuals. If we are going to wave flags at city hall, in addition to the American flag we already have which celebrates every citizen regardless of age, race, creed, or sexual orientation, we should start with waving flags on Martin Luther King Day or perhaps a flag on Abraham Lincoln's birthday. We could also wave a Christian flag during December and April to celebrate Christmas and Easter, a flag during Hannakuh, and more. If you want to celebrate Harvey Milk that's fine but it does not need to take place at city hall unless you are going to wave flags for every resident who wants to celebrate this or that person, or this or that event. Best regards, Rebecca Trahan 2018 Costa Mesa District 5 City Council Candidate 949-295-5260 www .takebackcostamesa.com Please participatein these polls! http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html ?p=5b4 77cl 8e4b094aa4 l 3037 49 http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5b4771ede4b094aa41 303717 http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5b36720be4b094aa41301654 http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5b366606e4b094aa41301628 http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5b366b63e4b094aa4130162f http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html ?p=5b47 ad93e4b094aa4 l 3037bf http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html ?p=5bd7 43e7e4b056f2fcd3c877#. W9dD5EJ pULY .gmail http://www.easypolls.net/poll .html ?p=5bd7 4727 e4b056f2fcd3c87f#. W9dHziFSzfo. gmail 1 NB-3 Additional Documents tf�e vUollll tfamtfy Greg .:• Elisa •:• Cassandra •:• Isabella 417 16th Place Costa Mesa, CA 92627 [email protected] •!• [email protected] May 6, 2019 Dear Costa Mesa City Council, My familyand I are decades-long residents and active members of Costa Mesa. Both my daughters have represented the City, singing the National Anthem at the Orange County Fair and also at past and future City Council meetings. We are unable to attend the City Council meeting tomorrow evening, but it has come to our attention that one of the items being discussed is a resolution authorizing a display of a "pride flag" at City Hall. Our familyvery much objects to flying a flagover our City Hall that does not represent all citizens of Costa Mesa. Flags flownshould be patriotic and representative, not divisive and exclusionary. Flying a flagto honor or represent a particular group of people who identify themselves by their bedroom activities is not appropriate or pertinent to what the City of Costa Mesa is about. Our pride should be in our city, not in our sexual activity. This action will lead to other political and lifestylegroups which, again, don't represent the entire city, requesting to have their flags flown. Will the City Council accept requests fromall other groups that wish to have their political or social causes honored? Will we be flying a pro-lifeflag one week, a pro choice flagthe next, a Black Lives Matter flagthe week after that, and a White Pride flag the followingweek? What criterion will you use to accept or decline flag-flying requests? There is no reason for the City of Costa Mesa to delve into such matters. We need more unity in our city, not more division. Please accept this letter as an indication of voices that would like to be heard at the May 7 City Council meeting but will not physically be in attendance. Sincerely, Elisa M. Mohr Subject: RE: Rainbow flag? .... NB-3 Additional Documents From: Dan Curran Yeah, if you could reconsider the decision to flying the rainbow flag outside of whatever institution in Costa Mesa that would be great. I don't know a whole lot about it but I caught wind of it and, well, here's my contro to the convo - It's not a hate thing, although pressure fromthe LGTQ ... community will wanna say otherwise. It's a respect thing. And it's also a privacy thing. To all who may not agree with the flag should still be respected and not labeled "hate groups." What are we all in the 5th grade? And whatever their purpose is behind their reasoning to flytheir flag should be a private thing, no? A meat eater wouldn't stake a flag of a cow on a Vegan restaurant would he? Forcing others to respect another group is coersion. Coersion has never been held in a good light in all of history. Like, ever. Why should it start now? Thank you. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 1 From: HAUSER, JANET Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 12:22 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA; TRAYLOR, MARIAN; LOCK, CONNOR Subject: Fwd: Gay Pride Flag Sent frommy iPhone Begin forwardedmessage: From: Lisa Collins Good Morning, I am writing to you in regards to the agenda item that would allow for the gay pride flag to fl over Cit hall and other City facilities. 'nc1..,v1v11v1c,,,uATION:• • 1. City Council adopt Resolution No. 19-xx, which implements City Council Policy 000-15 relating to the display of flags at City facilities; and 2. Consider adoption of Resolution No. 19-xx, which authorizes the annual dis la of the Pride Fla at Cit Hall from Ma 22 to June- 30.. I strongly oppose this and ask you to not adopt this resolution. The only flags that should be flying over any City buildings are the American and California flags. Flags that support any sexual orientation should not be flown. What is next a flag for the White Cis male month? Let's keep City Hall as a government that represents all people and not show favor to one group of people. Best regards, Lisa Lisa Collins Cell (949) 301-6495 Email: [email protected] 1