EIR

Master Site Plan: "Development Report"

When Everything is for Sale (1)

The Master Site Plan process is a revenue centered process, not a community, education, agriculture, or recreation centered process.  This is the section from the winning proposal for the Master Site Plan process which discusses the plans for development of the Master Site Plan. It should be noted that multiple requests have been made for documents regarding this work and no documents have been produced. [A] This section is from pgs. 24-25 of the C. H. Johnson Consulting, Inc. proposal:

TASK 8 – MASTER SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT

This task will produce a Master Site Plan Report containing summary of key findings and initial recommendations for planning and future use of the Fairgrounds. Our recommendations will stem from a thorough understanding of background data, community input, operational and facilities optimization, market demand, and the OCFEC mission, thereby translating community-based programming and operational strategies into physical place-making that serves the County for generations to come.

The master site planning will include evaluation of local market demand to formulate and evaluate alternative approaches to uses, relationship of uses, phasing, and integration of existing activities.

The cohesive development of a comprehensive, data-driven, visionary MSP will be the culmination of the well- established fluid exchange of information (data) and ideas from the Internal and Community Stakeholders which will empower the 32nd District Agricultural Association’s Board of Directors to make the most informed decisions regarding the future of how OCFEC will fulfill its Mission Statement: “Celebration of Orange County’s Communities, Interests and Heritage.”

TASK 8.1 – MASTER SITE PLAN

Following the Options Workshop/Meetings, and based on additional input from internal and community stakeholders, we will prepare a Master Site Plan with initial recommendations for future use of the OCFEC site and facilities.

Our team’s approach to physical master planning will stem from an understanding of local conditions and an intimate relationship with the site, including topography, drainage, existing uses, relationship to surroundings, and the social context of human activities. It will incorporate sustainable, low impact development techniques that will allow a more intensified program of uses to “sit lightly” on the land. The master plan will be suitable as a basis for detailed site planning and entitlement processing to be conducted as part of a future contract.

The master planning process will translate community-based, evidence-driven programming and operational strategies into physical place-making. This will include alternative land use concepts that describe different approaches to uses, relationship of uses, phasing, and integration of existing activities.

  • Establish zones for County Fair and other major events, active and passive open space, neighborhood and community destinations and recreation, and economic “drivers” including an optimized mix of new infill development.

  • Integrate usable buildings and outdoor spaces that will provide efficiency and serve as high-functioning venues for community activities.

  • Address site drainage through sustainable system integrated into the roadway and open space network.

  • Incorporate sustainable landscape strategies and a multi-purpose open space system.

  • Design for walkability and interconnected urban form and compact relationship of complementary uses.

  • Create possibilities for a hierarchy of circulation, entry, identity, and image for key landmarks, with more private or support uses buffered and served by more minor roadways.

TASK 8.2 – PREPARE REPORT DELIVERABLES

The Consulting Team, in conjunction with the Executive Management Team and Key Management Support, and Master Site Plan Committee, will prepare drafts and a final fully documented 10-Year OCFEC Master Site Plan that addresses the best options for the District and addresses all of the key issues and planning process listed in your RFP. A presentation will be made to the full Board of Directors for review prior to implementation.

 

[A] The documents showing the work performed may have been disposed of or in the custody or control of another unnamed state or local agency or may not be able to be located according to CEO Kathy Kramer. 

Contact CEO Kathy Kramer at kkramer@ocfair.com

Contact VP of Operations Ken Karns who is in charge of the Master Site Plan at kkarns@ocfair.com

Contact Fair Board Directors Ashleigh Aitken, Barbara Bagneris, Nick Berardino, Sandra Cervantes, Doug La Belle, Gerardo Mouet, Newton Pham, Robert Ruiz, Stan Tkaczyk by emailing Summer Angus sangus@ocfair.com

C. H. Johnson Consulting, Inc. from Chicago, IL  is the contractor for the Master Site Plan process. A copy of the entire proposal is available on the "OC Fairgrounds Documents" page listed on the right side of this page. We have no idea why the OC Fairgrounds hired a company from Chicago and could not find a planning firm in the Los Angeles-Orange County area or even in California.   

This is one in a series of posts looking at individual Master Site Plan tasks to gain a greater understanding of how the OC Fair Board Directors (Ashleigh Aitken, Barbara Bagneris, Nick Berardino, Sandra Cervantes, Doug La Belle, Gerardo Mouet, Newton Pham, Robert Ruiz, Stan Tkaczyk) and Executive Management want to push the OC Fairgrounds away from being the fairground we currently enjoy. 

 


More About the Master Site Plan Process: Financial Plans, Projections & Funding Sources

When Everything is for Sale (1)

The Master Site Plan process is a revenue centered process, not a community, education, agriculture, or recreation centered process.  This is the section from the winning proposal for the Master Site Plan process which discusses financial plans and projections. It should be noted that multiple requests have been made for documents regarding this work and no documents have been produced. [A] This section is from pgs. 23-24 of the C. H. Johnson Consulting, Inc. proposal:

TASK 7 – FINANCIAL PLAN & PROJECTIONS [A]

This Task commenced in Task 5 and will be finalized in this Task (Task 7). It will consider the initial work done by all parties and will result in finalized financial projections, considering revenue, expenses and profit from each business element as well capital improvement assumptions prepared by HPI.

Based on the market data and demand projections, working closing with the Executive Management Team and the Audit Consultant, the Consulting Team will prepare a 10-year operating pro forma for the proposed OCFEC initiatives discussed in the previous tasks. The model will list all revenues and fixed and variable expenses in line-item detail throughout the period of the projection, and include data for each individual type of business use initiative.

The analysis will document OCFEC’s approach to delivery of services, such as staffing, food and beverage, parking, and other major line items affecting the operation, thus providing the District with a clear understanding of how the initiative will earn and spend money, fit into the broader operations of the OCFEC, and what the expected financial picture will be at the end of each year. To the extent that public dollars are to be used to support operations, capital improvements, or other items, these sources will also be considered and integrated into the financial analysis.

We will also offer a specific discussion regarding revenue sources that are available to public assembly facilities, including benefactor naming rights and other specialized revenue streams, such as advertising, and based on market conditions.

The Team will outline potential funding sources that could be considered for the proposed OCFEC business initiative, as well as for ongoing operating support, that will consist of a detailed analysis for each option. These approaches may include private investments, incentives, sales, meals and room taxes, Tax Increment Finance Districts, revenue bonds, empowerment/enterprise zones, tax-exempt bonds, and taxable bond revenue streams, among other tools.

[A] The documents regarding the work performed may have been disposed of or in the custody or control of another unnamed state or local agency or may not be able to be located according to CEO Kathy Kramer. 

Contact CEO Kathy Kramer at kkramer@ocfair.com

Contact VP of Operations Ken Karns who is in charge of the Master Site Plan at kkarns@ocfair.com

Contact Fair Board Directors Ashleigh Aitken, Barbara Bagneris, Nick Berardino, Sandra Cervantes, Doug La Belle, Gerardo Mouet, Newton Pham, Robert Ruiz, Stan Tkaczyk by emailing Summer Angus sangus@ocfair.com

C. H. Johnson Consulting, Inc. from Chicago, IL  is the contractor for the Master Site Plan process. A copy of the entire proposal is available on the "OC Fairgrounds Documents" page listed on the right side of this page. We have no idea why the OC Fairgrounds hired a company from Chicago and could not find a planning firm in the Los Angeles-Orange County area or even in California.   

This is one in a series of posts looking at individual Master Site Plan tasks to gain a greater understanding of how the OC Fair Board Directors (Ashleigh Aitken, Barbara Bagneris, Nick Berardino, Sandra Cervantes, Doug La Belle, Gerardo Mouet, Newton Pham, Robert Ruiz, Stan Tkaczyk) and Executive Management want to push the OC Fairgrounds away from being the fairground we currently enjoy. 

 


"Vetting of Business Opportunities" Key Component of Master Site Plan Process

When Everything is for Sale (1)

The Master Site Plan process is a revenue centered process, not a community, education, agriculture, or recreation centered process.  This is the section from the winning proposal for the Master Site Plan process which discusses business opportunities. It should be noted that multiple requests have been made for documents regarding this work and no documents have been produced. [A] This section is from pgs. 20-21 of the C. H. Johnson Consulting, Inc. proposal available the OC Fairgrounds Documents page:

TASK 5 - VETTING BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

This task will produce a report containing a summary of independent business cases for future uses/ initiatives of the OCFEC based upon vetted business ideas, opportunities and findings. The Team’s work will stem from a thorough understanding of background data, community input, operational and facilities optimization, market demand, and the District’s guiding principles; thereby translating community-based programming and operational strategies into physical placemaking that serves the District for generations to come.

The planning process will include evaluation of local market demand to formulate and evaluate business opportunities/ ideas, alternative approaches to existing and/ or proposed uses, relationship of uses, phasing, and integration of existing activities.

TASK 5.1 – MARKET AND DEMAND ANALYSIS [A]

The methodology we propose to assess market demand and estimate overall performance for each business sector is outlined below:

Market Demand and Supply Analysis:  We will analyze pertinent economic, demographic, and market factors that impact land use, business expansion, and space utilization within the area surrounding the site which could contribute to overall planning opportunities. This analysis will focus on key economic and real estate issues such as market demand and supply conditions and includes a trade area analysis of retail/entertainment (not including fairgrounds), office, residential, and others. The goal is to provide a comprehensive understanding of market conditions for the overall site.

Estimated Market Performance: Based upon our analysis of market demand and our recommendations outlined in the preceding work steps, we will address the market performance of the indicated uses. For each specific use, we will also profile operating expense information based upon information gathered and summarized in preceding tasks, as well as general information provided through industry resources and other credible secondary sources of information.

Cash Flow Analysis: From the results of the estimated market performance of potential additional/alternative business uses,which are the supporting mechanisms for pricing, performance, operating, and cost assumptions, we will prepare comprehensive cash flow analysis.

The demand profile, current cost structures, and data from existing operations as well as comparable facilities will be used to model the operating revenues and expenses of the proposed uses. Johnson Consulting has modeled numerous similar fairground facilities and will draw on its experience with these facilities. Projections will extend over a 10-year period.

Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis: Each aspect of the business model will be added to the market. The procedures for the Economic and Fiscal analysis are described in the specific task requested in the RFP in Task 9, below.

TASK 5.2 – JUSTIFICATION/ P&L FOR EACH BUSINESS CASE  [A]

We will work with the MSP Committee to develop a justification analysis for the District on the advantages and/or disadvantages of the OCFEC relative to certain uses. We will develop a P&L and opportunities-and- constraints diagrams based on information obtained and review of the various business case initiatives proposed.

TASK 5.3 – PREPARE REPORT DELIVERABLE  [A]

Based on the Market Demand Analysis, we will research and report on the opportunities/ideas for planning and future business case uses of the OCFEC, as well as constraints. The Business Case Report will include business cases for uses of whatever portion of the venue is not needed for the OC Fair, Centennial Farm, Pacific Amphitheatre, Imaginology, Heroes Hall, and the other anticipated current programmed events and community-based activities, and will include rough schematic drawings of at least three (3) possible alternative facility and/or land use configurations for possible business initiatives, including their relative strengths and weaknesses. It will be both qualitative and quantitative, providing approximate market value estimates for what alternative business use can generate as potential ground rent to the District, for the area considered for new initiatives.

[A] The documents regarding the work performed may have been disposed of or in the custody or control of another unnamed state or local agency or may not be able to be located according to CEO Kathy Kramer. 

Contact CEO Kathy Kramer at kkramer@ocfair.com

Contact VP of Operations Ken Karns who is in charge of the Master Site Plan at kkarns@ocfair.com

Contact Fair Board Directors Ashleigh Aitken, Barbara Bagneris, Nick Berardino, Sandra Cervantes, Doug La Belle, Gerardo Mouet, Newton Pham, Robert Ruiz, Stan Tkaczyk by emailing Summer Angus sangus@ocfair.com

C. H. Johnson Consulting, Inc. from Chicago, IL  is the contractor for the Master Site Plan process. A copy of the entire proposal is available on the "OC Fairgrounds Documents" page listed on the right side of this page. We have no idea why the OC Fairgrounds hired a company from Chicago and could not find a planning firm in the Los Angeles-Orange County area or even in California.   

This is one in a series of posts looking at individual Master Site Plan tasks to gain a greater understanding of how the OC Fair Board Directors (Ashleigh Aitken, Barbara Bagneris, Nick Berardino, Sandra Cervantes, Doug La Belle, Gerardo Mouet, Newton Pham, Robert Ruiz, Stan Tkaczyk) and Executive Management want to push the OC Fairgrounds away from being the fairground we currently enjoy. 

 

 

 


OC Fairgrounds Schedules Meeting to Roll Out Master Site Plan While Denying the Public Their Rights Under CEQA

What They Arent Telling You (1)

On April 23, 2018, at a meeting starting at 9 AM on a Thursday morning, the OC Fair Board will present their concepts to change the OC Fairgrounds into a convention center. The effort is led by CEO Kathy Kramer who worked on the $600 million remodel of the Phoenix Convention Center which placed the property in the top 25 convention centers in North America and caused dramatic changes in the neighborhood with the addition of hotels and restaurants. CEO Kathy Kramer is assisted by VP of Operations Ken Karns who worked to transform Western Fair in London, Ontario, Canada, into the 364 days a year, 24 hour a day Western Fair District. Neither CEO Kramer or VP Karns worked in the public sector in California prior to being hired by the current OC Fair Board Directors (Ashleigh Aitken, Barbara Bagneris, Nick Berardino, Sandra Cervantes, Doug La Belle, Gerardo Mouet, Robert Ruiz, Stan Tkaczyk)

State law known as the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA requires processes and procedures to be followed when development projects are proposed to mitigate potential environmental impacts and to protect the rights of the public.  Agencies such as the OC Fairgrounds (known to the State as the 32nd District Agricultural Association or 32nd DAA) are required to have procedures in place for making decisions under CEQA (see Section 15022. Public Agency Implementing Procedures in Title 14 Natural Resources): 

(a) Each public agency shall adopt objectives, criteria, and specific procedures consistent with CEQA and these Guidelines for administering its responsibilities under CEQA, including the orderly evaluation of projects and preparation of environmental documents. The implementing procedures should contain at least provisions for:
(1) Identifying the activities that are exempt from CEQA. These procedures should contain:
(A) Provisions for evaluating a proposed activity to determine if there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment.
(B) A list of projects or permits over which the public agency has only ministerial authority.
(C) A list of specific activities which the public agency has found to be within the categorical exemptions established by these guidelines.
(2) Conducting initial studies.
(3) Preparing negative declarations.
(4) Preparing draft and final EIRs.
(5) Consulting with and obtaining comments from other public agencies and members of the public with regard to the environmental effects of projects.
(6) Assuring adequate opportunity and time for public review and comment on the Draft EIR or Negative Declaration.
(7) Evaluating and responding to comments received on environmental documents.
(8) Assigning responsibility for determining the adequacy of an EIR or negative declaration.
(9) Reviewing and considering environmental documents by the person or decision making body who will approve or disapprove a project.
(10) Filing documents required or authorized by CEQA and these Guidelines.
(11) Providing adequate comments on environmental documents which are submitted to the public agency for review.
(12) Assigning responsibility for specific functions to particular units of the public agency.
(13) Providing time periods for performing functions under CEQA.
 
In August 2017 (over 180 days ago), a request was made to the OC Fairgrounds for copies of these procedures and no procedures were produced.  Several more attempts to receive copies of the procedures have been made and have been ignored by the OC Fairgrounds. CEO Kathy Kramer and VP Ken Karns, with the apparent support of the OC Fair Board Directors (Ashleigh Aitken, Barbara Bagneris, Nick Berardino, Sandra Cervantes, Doug La Belle, Gerardo Mouet, Newton Pham, Robert Ruiz, Stan Tkaczyk) have refused to produce copies of these procedures which are required under California law.  The OC Fair Board Directors and Executive Management act as if they are above the law. The public has rights which the OC Fair Board and Executive Management are trampling on those rights.
 
Ask the OC Fairgrounds for Copies of CEQA Procedures Required Under Statute
  1. Contact CEO Kathy Kramer at kkramer@ocfair.com 
  2. Contact VP of Operations Ken Karns who is in charge of the Master Site Plan.  kkarns@ocfair.com
  3. Fair Board Directors choose to not have email addresses to be used by the public to contact them and have Summer Angus sangus@ocfair.com forward messages from the public to them. 
  4. You can follow up on your messages by doing a public records request at cpra@ocfair.com

 

Look Up the CEQA Statutes

CEQA is a statute (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) enacted by the California Code of Regulation (Title 14 Natural Resources, Chapter 6 Resources Agency, Chapter 3 Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act).

 
 

Did You Know the Pacific Amphitheatre Changed California CEQA Law?

Cow Sign Question (2)

On December 1, 1986, the California Supreme Court upheld the rights of Costa Mesa neighbors to sue the OC Fairgrounds over problems caused by the construction of the Pacific Amphitheatre. The case Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Association http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/cases/1986/costa_mesa_120186.html granted the neighbors an additional 180 days to bring their case because the OC Fairgrounds (32nd District Agricultural Association) had presented one project to the neighbors and built an entirely different project.

The Pacific Amphitheatre was built facing a into the neighborhoods instead of facing away from the neighborhoods, had the seating capacity doubled,and increased in size from 6 to 10 acres.

This California Supreme Court case Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa v. 32nd Dist. Agric., 727 P.2d 1029, 42 Cal. 3d 929, 231 Cal. Rptr. 748 (1986) is a case which continues to be cited to this day. This case also teaches why it is important to participate in the CEQA process and to do so in writing.


Do the Mitigation Measures Really Have to Be Done? Are Mitigation Measures Legally Enforceable?

Dig Question (2)

Yes, mitigation measures really have to be implemented and are legally enforceable. Following the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is not just the preparation of documents and reports about possible environmental impacts but is the actual reduction or elimination of environmental impacts.

The OC Fairgrounds has tried to get out of mitigation measures required under prior environmental studies, so pay attention to the new mitigation measures required for the implementation of the Master Site Plan. Check back to find out if all of the mitigation measures required were implemented the way they were supposed to be implemented and in a timely manner.


How Can Environmental Impacts be Mitigated or Avoided?

Funnel Cake Question (2)

Environmental impacts can be mitigated or avoided at the source of the problem. Examples are: Reduce event traffic impacts by limiting the size of events and not allowing concurrent events to be scheduled over a set limit. Reduce lighting and noise impacts by enforcing a curfew and enforcing limits on the amount of lighting and noise spilling into neighborhoods. Limit truck traffic entering and exiting the property to the gates and times which impact the neighborhoods the least.

Environmental impacts can be mitigated or avoided by including project features which make implement permanent mitigation measures. Examples are adding traffic stacking lanes using property owned by the agency to avoid traffic stacking on city streets and adding a second main entry gate to avoid traffic stacking on city streets, among other measures.

Mitigation measures are funded in part by the agency causing the environmental impact.

 


What Are Alternatives to the Project?

Goat Question (2)

Alternatives to a project include a smaller project on the same property, remodeling existing facilities instead of building new facilities, dropping or reducing the portions of the projects which cause the most problematic potential environmental impacts, and changing the project to fit in better with the surrounding neighborhoods.

Alternatives to a project also include disapproving the project and going back to the drawing board or not going forward with any project. An agency is not supposed to come forward with only one project which is acceptable. Alternatives must be given serious consideration.