Committee wants to keep developing

Lolita Harper

Membership has splintered considerably in the past year, but the

challenges of consensus building have not fractured the enterprising

spirit of the devoted members of a city redevelopment committee.

The Costa Mesa City Council, acting as the Redevelopment Agency on

Monday, received a status report on the Community Redevelopment

Action Committee and voted to invite all members back for an ongoing

study of the city’s redevelopment, after the initial 18-month study

is complete.

The committee, which was created to forge the future of the

Westside, is just halfway through its vision statement, officials

said. A comprehensive report is due to the council this summer.

Members must decide how they wish to present the final material.

John Douglas, a representative of facilitator Civic Solutions, said

many members want to be actively involved in the drafting and

presentation of the report -- which is usually handled by the

facilitators.

The report will end the city’s contract with Civic Solutions and

the initial study period. The contract officially ends June 30, but

city officials will consider an extension, without further

compensation, to allow the committee to prepare the report.

Bill Turpit, a Westside resident and committee member, warned the

council the report may be “rather superficial.” The committee merely

scratched the surface of the various redevelopment issues and could

only reach consensus on general themes, such as safety and

cleanliness, speakers said.

That is why the members want to continue the process.

“We want to sink our teeth into what these issues really mean and

gain a greater understanding,” Turpit said.

The committee began amid criticism that it was too large, the

consultants too controlling and that “stakeholders” -- which include

nonresidents and business owners -- were not being heard, or should

not be heard. Despite the rocky start, those who stuck with it over

the past year, about 39 of the original 75, overwhelmingly asked for

it to be continued.

Member Terry Breer said the task was a challenge and admitted

there were hardships.

“We got bogged down in arguing and blaming,” Breer said. “We did

waste some valuable time but we have come through it and are more

effective.”

Breer was one of the few who defended the group’s facilitators,

Civic Solutions, who were hired by the city to mediate the

“consensus-building process.” Unlike more traditional committees, the

CRAC committee did not have a chair or vice chair and did not follow

traditional committee rules. Facilitators from Civic Solutions led

the group to seek consensus instead of the majority rule.

Breer said Civic Solutions faced a “tall order.”

“[The process] focused on interests, rather than demands and

positions,” Breer said. “Instead of discussing the different

positions, people explain why they take the position they do and you

move toward consensus.”

Others were not so generous with the compliments and largely

blamed the process for squandering valuable action time. Although the

committee learned to work together, its time and “consensus building”

is pointless if the final recommendations carry no weight with the

council.

Resident Don Elmore said if the committee were to continue, he

would want increased communication and involvement with the City

Council and Planning Commission.

Member Mike Berry agreed and admonished the City Council for

asking the committee to weigh in on discussions but never taking to

heart what the committee has to say.

“If you can’t make a tough decision ... you say, ‘Let’s ask CRAC,’

and then never listen to what we have to say,” Berry said.