CITY HALL UPDATE FOR APRIL 2026—Part Two—Tough Decisions Ahead: Budget Examined and Re-Examined; Infrastructure Decisions; Housing Policy; Ethics and Public Trust; and Fairview Park
- Cynthia McDonald
- 2 days ago
- 36 min read
In some respects, April was a calmer month at City Hall, but that didn’t mean there wasn’t controversy. The meeting schedule was lighter, but there were a few long meetings, with some of the items being controversial. At the end of the month, the City released the draft environmental report on the Fairview Park Master Plan Update, which disclosed the City’s site choice for the relocated fly field.
Below is a summary of City Hall activity for April 2026.
Council, Commission, and Committee Meetings:
City Council: three meetings held;
Planning Commission: two meetings held;
Fairview Park Steering Committee: one meeting.
Finance and Pension Advisory Committee: met twice, but we only attended one meeting
Active Transportation Committee met once, but we did not attend that meeting due to prior commitments.
APRIL 21 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. At this meeting, the items acted on were:
Continuation Request—Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Uphold Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Request for Sober Living Home Operated by Ohio House
First Reading of Trap-Neuter-Return Ordinance and Establishment of Trap-Neuter-Return Program for Community Cats
Adoption Of Storm Drainage Ordinance and Fee Update
Third Amendment to Agreement with Falck Mobile Health Corporation for Emergency Ambulance Services
Award Of The 2025-2026 Citywide Alley Rehabilitation Project
All Councilmembers were present.
City Attorney Closed Session Report. Kimberly Hall Barlow reported that with respect to the first item on the closed session agenda, “Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation,” the City Council considered six settlements in the National Opioid Litigation with Associated Pharmacies, Inc., J.M. Smith Corporation, Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., Dixon Company, North Carolina Mutual Wholesale Drug Company, and United Natural Foods, Inc. Upon a motion made by Manuel Chavez (District 4), and seconded by John Stephens (Mayor), the City Council approved the City's participation in those settlements on a 6-0 vote with Arlis Reynolds (District 5) absent, and in addition, the City Council authorized the City Manager to approve further settlements with additional defendants as they may come.
Public Comment. Eleven members of the public addressed the City Council. Key themes were public safety (parks, e-bikes, fire risk); privacy/surveillance concerns; ethical governance; community-focused decision-making; and better use of city resources. Here is more detail on the comments.
Fairview Park Safety and Management Concerns: A resident expressed strong attachment to Fairview Park and concern about proposals like installing fire hydrants. He raised issues like Overgrown vegetation creating fire risk, with fears of a major wildfire, Public safety concerns, such as hidden areas enabling crime, homelessness, and unsafe behavior, a reported incident involving a distressed individual starting fires, with concerns about emergency response, and E-bike misuse on trails, including reckless riding and lack of enforcement; suggested stricter penalties (e.g., impoundment).
Opposition to Flock Surveillance System: Several speakers strongly criticized the city’s contract with Flock (license plate reader surveillance) and requested cancellation or amendment of the contract, and a deeper audit (review of actual database queries), along with greater transparency and oversight. Core concerns were:
Privacy and data control: Data is stored on private servers outside city control.
Potential misuse and abuse: Example cited was a former Costa Mesa police officer used the system to stalk individuals, including after being placed on leave.
Gaps in the city’s audit: Speakers argued the audit only covered local access—not how Flock handles or shares data.
Evidence of broader misuse: Reports of unauthorized searches by other agencies and vague justifications (e.g., “investigation” without case numbers).
Backdoor access concerns: Claims that federal agencies may access data indirectly, even if local settings restrict it.
Corporate trust issues: Allegations of misleading practices and political concerns about Flock’s leadership and partnerships.
Call for Ethical Governance: I criticized the council’s decision not to adopt a local ethics code and requested that the City Council reconsider adopting one. I stated that the lack of a code increases legal risks, financial exposure, and governance issues, and weakens the city’s ability to handle disputes and lawsuits. Other cities have stronger standards in place.
Community Leadership and Legacy: A resident encouraged councilmembers—especially those nearing term limits—to focus on serving residents over political interests, and to consider their long-term legacy and the impact of their decisions. He also indicated so included appreciation for city services (e.g., tree issue response), but gave mixed feedback on committee nominations.
Arts Funding and Community Beautification: An Arts Commissioner highlighted the $60,000 annually budgeted for public art that has gone unused and returned to the general fund. He requested that the City use funds for murals and community art projects, possibly in partnership with a local nonprofit (Bright Youth). A community member (from Bright Youth) expressed willingness to collaborate on youth-driven art and murals.
Park & Development: Questions raised about: Shalimar Park expansion, particularly potential removal of mature trees.
Continued concern about community safety impacts on women tied to surveillance misuse and immigration enforcement.
Councilmember Comments. Andrea Marr (District 3) opened by commending a recent police employee recognition event and promotion ceremony, expressing appreciation for public safety personnel and noting that she has witnessed officers advance through the ranks during her tenure on the City Council.
She acknowledged community concerns regarding the Flock surveillance system, particularly in light of reported misuse. While emphasizing its effectiveness in helping law enforcement solve crimes more quickly—including in real time—she expressed openness to exploring alternatives. Marr noted that newer technologies may offer different privacy protections and data practices, and she requested that Staff research and compare these systems, including their data-sharing protocols and IT implications.
Regarding arts funding, Marr stated that she was unclear about the $60,000 allocation referenced by public speakers. She requested further discussion—potentially during the midyear budget review—to clarify the structure of the arts budget and the status of additional funding linked to cannabis revenue. She cautioned against making premature assumptions about how those funds may be spent.
Finally, Marr expressed surprise at the Council’s earlier decision not to adopt an ethics code and indicated her interest in revisiting or re-agendizing the issue. She noted a willingness to consider alternative approaches if there is support from her colleagues.
Arlis Reynolds (District 5) expressed agreement with Councilmember Marr on the need to adopt an ethics policy, stating that she believes the proposed policy contained valuable guidelines that would benefit Costa Mesa.
She voiced serious concern upon learning about the misuse of the Flock surveillance system, noting that it raised questions about prior assurances regarding access controls and data security. Reynolds supported conducting a network audit to review actual system usage and searches, and she advocated for exploring alternative technologies that maintain public safety while providing stronger protections for sensitive data.
Responding to public concerns about vegetation overgrowth in Fairview Park, Reynolds shared that the interim Fire Chief recently conducted an inspection. She noted that Staff are evaluating mowing and vegetation management strategies, and that updated fire hazard severity maps are influencing inspection schedules.
Reynolds welcomed community input on public art and emphasized the importance of allowing the Arts Commission to review and prioritize proposals collectively, rather than acting on individual suggestions. She added that she is looking forward to an upcoming presentation from the Arts Commission.
She announced a trip to Sacramento to work with Caltrans on improving safety on Newport Boulevard and advancing “complete streets” recommendations. She recognized Staff presentations on housing and homelessness, organizing community events (e.g., Cruise Loop Festival, Earth Day Festival), and communicating with residents on local projects.
Jeff Pettis (District 6) highlighted public participation as a top priority. He stated that he personally responds to emails, texts, and calls, but wants more accessible engagement. He started what he called the “Eastside Exchange” — a monthly, informal, in-person meetup in District 6 where he focuses on listening directly to residents’ concerns. Early feedback he received included issues like parking and potholes. He will announce events via his social media and encourage residents to attend.
Pettis expressed support for public art and Costa Mesa’s identity as the “City of the Arts.” He acknowledged progress by the Arts Commission, but said funding and spending processes need improvement. He encouraged enabling the commission to actually execute projects, such as murals on the Westside and a potential public art piece for the U.S. 250th anniversary. He clarified that voting against the ethics policy does not mean councilmembers oppose ethics. He said his concern was with specific elements of the proposal, not the concept. He supports revisiting the issue and simplifying and refining the policy before adopting it.
Well, why didn't he speak to the specific elements he wanted changed at the hearing? Will he bring the item forward for revision? Don't hold your breath!
Mike Buley (District 1) praised Councilmember Pettis’s direct outreach efforts to residents. He noted, however, that if interactions at such events become overly negative or heated, there may be a need to ensure an appropriate law enforcement presence to maintain safety.
Buley expressed general support for the Flock surveillance program, stating that he believes its crime-solving benefits likely outweigh the risks, even while acknowledging concerns about potential misuse. At the same time, he indicated openness to exploring alternative vendors or technologies that may offer stronger privacy protections or address data access concerns, and requested that Staff research comparable options in the market.
He also highlighted his participation in the “Cruise the Loop” event, emphasizing that community events provide valuable opportunities to gather direct public input. He noted that feedback on issues such as bike lanes (including the use of “green paint”) versus vehicle access is critical to understanding the real-world impacts and trade-offs of transportation changes.
Buley joined other councilmembers in requesting clarification regarding the $60,000 arts allocation, including whether unspent funds carry over and how the funding relates to cannabis revenue. He encouraged the Arts Commission to present specific project recommendations and identify potential recipients when bringing items forward for Council consideration.
Loren Gameros (District 2) expressed strong support for revisiting and adopting an ethics code, emphasizing that such a policy would provide clear guidance and standards for Council conduct and benefit the City.
It's easy to say you support something after you voted against it. Let's see if he puts his money where his mouth is and brings it back to the City Council. Again, don't hold your breath!
He voiced serious concern regarding the reported misuse of the Flock surveillance system, questioning whether prior assurances about data access and controls were accurate. Gameros supported conducting a network audit to better understand actual system usage and advocated for exploring alternative technologies that preserve crime‑fighting benefits while strengthening data protection and privacy.
Responding to public concerns about vegetation overgrowth and fire hazards, Gameros noted that the Fire Department has recently conducted inspections. He indicated that the City is reviewing vegetation management schedules, particularly in light of updated fire hazard severity zones.
Gameros expressed general support for public art initiatives and encouraged a structured, commission-led approach. He emphasized the importance of having the Arts Commission evaluate proposals collectively and bring forward prioritized recommendations, rather than acting on individual proposals on an ad hoc basis.
Finally, he highlighted ongoing City efforts, including work to improve transportation safety, such as coordination with state agencies on Newport Boulevard improvements.
Manuel Chavez (District 4) thanked attendees and students observing the meeting. He shared that he and the Mayor received federal funding through Representative Dave Min for the Police Department community programs (including holiday outreach) and for Parks and Recreation, including improvements for senior facilities
He discussed his attendance at a Finance and Pension Advisory Committee meeting about a potential business license tax update. He noted that the tax has not been updated in decades. He expressed frustration with the committee process, which he felt was slow and unfocused. He asked that Staff prepare rate scenarios in advance to aid decision-making.
Chavez acknowledged public concerns and recent media coverage about the Flock cameras. He does not want a rushed (“knee-jerk”) decision to remove a system that has helped solve crimes. He supports a formal police department presentation explaining how Flock is used, its benefits, and existing safeguards. He wants to make a data-driven decision after reviewing facts.
Concerning Shalimar Park, he confirmed that some trees will be removed, but they will be replaced with new plantings (no net loss of trees). He said the project reflects community input, including new recreational features (e.g., sports courts, updated equipment).
Chavez said he appreciates community interest in arts projects. He criticized the specific proposal discussed as too ad hoc and informal. He emphasized the need for a structured, fair, committee-driven process rather than individual or politically driven proposals.
John Stephens (Mayor) said he appreciated the public input about overgrown vegetation and fire risk at Fairview Park. He also noted that the interim fire chief is already assessing the issue. He emphasized urgency, as conditions will become drier heading into summer.
He highlighted two recent events, the Cruise the Loop, which helped spur a new weekly farmers market at Mesa Verde Center, and the Earth Day Festival, which he credited City departments for organizing. He shared plans to plant 250 trees to commemorate the U.S. 250th anniversary.
He praised Councilmember Pettis’s community outreach initiative and expressed general support for the Flock cameras because he believes it help solve and deter crimes, but that the system comes with trade-offs. Stephens recognizes the broader role of surveillance tools (e.g., cameras) in reducing crime. He is open to exploring improvements, specifically in alternative technologies with fewer privacy concerns. He prefers to wait for more information and formal presentations before making changes.
He noted the funding support for a real-time crime center. He expressed optimism that Costa Mesa will develop a high-quality, technology-driven policing capability comparable to top agencies.
City Manager Comments. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly provided an update on City financial support for nonprofits and legal services assisting residents impacted by federal immigration enforcement. Key contributions were $100,000 total to two nonprofits, Redemption Church through its “Enough for All” fund, and Someone Cares Soup Kitchen. The funds helped dozens of local families affected by detention, deportation, or loss of work. The nonprofits also provided food assistance, resource connections, and community support services. These ongoing programs continue serving families monthly with food distributions and meals.
Additional funding included $200,000 for legal defense services through the Immigrant Defenders Law Center and Public Law Center. These groups are helping residents navigate immigration legal challenges.
Gallardo Daly also reported on a new practice of sharing the City Manager’s Leadership Award recipients publicly. April’s award winner was Recreation Coordinator Victoria Castillo. She praised Castillo for excellent customer service and leadership, for managing facility operations and rentals, and helping launch the Norma Herzog Community Center leading teen programs and Staff training. She said she is a model employee who embodies the City’s values.
City Attorney Comments. Hall Barlow notified the Council that she will be on vacation for a couple of weeks, but will return in time for the next council meeting. She addressed the ongoing discussion about the ethics policy and confirmed that the Council can re-agendize the policy if there is interest. She noted that any councilmember (e.g., Councilmember Pettis or others) can request revisions to bring it back. She emphasized that she would need clear direction from the City Council on what specific changes are desired before proceeding.
CONSENT CALENDAR. No items were pulled. Stephens moved approval of the Consent Calendar items, which was seconded by Marr. That motion passed unanimously, 7–0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were two public hearing items:
1. Continuation Request—Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Uphold Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Request for Sober Living Home Operated by Ohio House. Brenda Green, City Clerk, read the title and indicated that the new hearing date would be June 16, 2026. Stephens moved to continue the item, and Chavez seconded the motion, and it passed 7–0.
2. First Reading of Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) Ordinance and Establishment of Trap-Neuter-Return Program for Community Cats. Police Lieutenant Stephanie Selinske presented the proposed Trap‑Neuter‑Return (TNR) ordinance. TNR is a widely used animal management strategy for addressing feral (free‑roaming) cat populations. The process involves humane trapping, spaying or neutering, vaccination, ear‑tipping to identify treated cats, and returning them to their original location.
The program’s primary goals are to reduce and stabilize feral cat populations over time through sterilization, decrease euthanasia rates and relieve pressure on animal shelters, prevent the spread of disease through vaccination, and improve overall animal management within the community.
Under current City law, the release of animals is prohibited, effectively preventing formal TNR activities. However, such efforts are already occurring informally. The proposed ordinance would legalize and regulate TNR within Costa Mesa. The program was developed collaboratively by the Police Department, the Animal Services Committee, and local animal advocates.
Key program requirements and safeguards include annual registration and permitting for all participants. The program applies only to free‑roaming, unowned, unsocialized cats; owned or socialized cats must be redirected to adoption. Cats must be scanned for microchips and must be spayed or neutered, vaccinated, and ear‑tipped before release.
Participants are required to maintain detailed records of TNR activities, allowing the City to monitor population trends and program effectiveness. Violations of program requirements may result in citations or revocation of permits. The program is designed to operate at no cost to the City, as services would be provided by volunteers and partner organizations
Councilmember Questions and Comments. None.
Public Comment. Nine members of the public addressed the Council, all in support of the ordinance and program.
Motions and Vote. Stephens moved to approve the item, which was seconded by Chavez. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS: There was only one item here, Adoption Of Storm Drainage Ordinance and Fee Update. This was the second reading for this item. A presentation was given by Seung Yang, City Engineer.
The purpose of the ordinance is to incorporate updated drainage impact fees into the Municipal Code; revise procedures for how fees are applied and collected; and ensure the code is consistent with State law and the newly adopted Nexus Study.
At the prior meeting, the City Council adopted the 2026 Storm Drainage Impact Fee Nexus Study and Capital Improvement Plan, approved updated storm drainage development impact fees, and directed Staff to implement the new fees within 60 days. Based on City Council direction, Staff incorporated additional changes:
New Fee Adjustment Option (Option C), which allows reduced fees if developers demonstrate increased site permeability and stormwater mitigation features. Adjustments will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director.
Updated Appeals Process, which clarifies timelines and responsibilities, such as that some appeals will be heard by the City Council within a set timeframe. Appeals related to the new adjustment option will be reviewed administratively by the Public Works Director and completed within 60 days of submission.
Drainage fees to be reviewed again in three years.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Buley asked where in the process a decision is made when a developer requests a reduction in storm drainage fees based on design features (like permeability improvements). He sought clarification on whether these determinations happen at the initial permitting stage or later through a formal appeal to the City Council. He emphasized the importance of making it easy for developers to present their case early (during permitting).
Staff and the consultant struggled to answer the question. At this point, the City Attorney said that she was unable to turn her microphone on, but that she would like a five-minute break to review the ordinance. When the City Council returned from the break, the City Attorney announced that there was an error in the ordinance. She requested the item be continued to the May 5, 2026 meeting in order to allow for time to review and edit the ordinance.
Motion and Vote. Stephens moved to continue the item until May 5, which was seconded by Chavez. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS: There were two new business items.
1. Third Amendment to Agreement with Falck Mobile Health Corporation for Emergency Ambulance Services. Interim Fire Chief Jason Pyle gave the presentation. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure continuity of emergency ambulance services and staffing.
The city has contracted ambulance services since 1980. In 2018, the Council approved a 5-year contract with Care Ambulance (now operating as Falck). The amendment extends the agreement by two additional years, through July 31, 2028. There are no changes to the service scope or terms. The extension maintains the City’s ability to control and manage its EMS system locally.
Falck has met all contractual requirements, exceeded expectations in service delivery, and served as a strong partner in maintaining high-quality EMS under an “alliance model”, reflecting close coordination with the City.
Annual Costs:
~$2.42 million for standard ambulance services.
~$91,500 for additional “surge” ambulances (used during high demand).
Total: ~$2.51 million per year.
Includes a 10% contingency (~$251,000) available at the City Manager’s discretion, if needed.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. None.
Public Comment. None.
Motion and Vote. Stephens moved to approve the staff recommendation, which was seconded by Pettis.
Marr asked why the two-year extension, rather than one year. Pyle explained the City chose a two-year extension because it would be at the same cost, avoiding potential price increases. This locks in current pricing through 2028. Marr showed support for the extension but asked for a comprehensive review (“30,000-foot view”) of the ambulance service model. Particularly in the areas of overall costs vs. revenue, administrative burden not shown in the current item, and operational improvements, such as staffing levels and fleet capacity.
Reynolds asked about anticipated cost increases in future renegotiations (post-2028). Pyle explained that previous contract adjustments increased costs (e.g., due to labor/union changes). The current extension shields the City from any cost increases during the two-year term, and future costs will depend on conditions at the next full RFP process in 2028. He welcomed the request for a deeper evaluation and said Staff can provide analysis at the Council’s direction.
The motion passed 7-0.
2. Award Of The 2025-26 Citywide Alley Rehabilitation Project. Derek Wieske, Assistant City Engineer, gave the presentation.
The city maintains more than 130 alleys. Over the past approximately 20 years, more than 100 alleys have been improved based on a prioritized plan. This project will reconstruct 11 remaining asphalt alleys across Costa Mesa. The work includes replacing deteriorated asphalt with concrete and improving connections where alleys meet streets. After completion, only 14 alleys will remain on the original improvement list.
A total of 15 bids were received. Staff determined that the lowest bidder (Diamond Construction) was non-responsive and recommended awarding to Calbon, the next lowest qualified bidder. Calbon has a strong track record, including past work in Costa Mesa.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Reynolds raised concerns regarding the heavy use of concrete in the alley rehabilitation project. She linked it to broader City goals related to stormwater management and drainage. She asked whether the project could incorporate more permeable surfaces or “green alley” features, such as permeable materials and landscaping strips, to reduce concrete width to allow water infiltration and cooling benefits. Staff responded that the project’s primary goal is durability and rehabilitation. Replacing deteriorating asphalt with long-lasting concrete follows an existing citywide plan and standardized design. There are no built-in permeability features included in this project. The design mainly channels water into the storm drain system, rather than infiltrating it. Noted limitations include that changing to permeable materials or narrower designs would require different materials and design standards, and potentially revising the project scope.
Reynolds inquired whether there is any flexibility to modify designs before construction or if opportunities exist to reduce the concrete area or add landscaping. Staff confirmed that current plans largely replicate existing alley geometry (replace asphalt with concrete in the same footprint). Significant changes would require reworking the project design, not just minor adjustments.
Reynolds emphasized a concern that the City may be missing opportunities to address stormwater issues while investing heavily in hard surfaces. Staff acknowledged that the current project reflects past design decisions and priorities, not newer sustainability goals.
Marr expressed interest in exploring permeable materials and updated design standards for future projects, suggesting that areas such as parking lots may offer near-term opportunities for implementation.
Public Comment. One member of the public, Ralph Taboada, addressed the Council in support of the alley rehabilitation program. He described the program as a successful long-term initiative, noting that the City’s comprehensive assessment and prioritization of alley improvements is nearing completion. He encouraged the City to apply a similar long-term, data-driven approach to other infrastructure and capital projects, including evaluating total lifecycle costs and developing corresponding financial and operational strategies.
Motion and Vote. Gameros expressed support for the current project while encouraging the City to incorporate water recapture and sustainability features into future infrastructure efforts.
Stephens emphasized the importance of discipline, continuity, and long-term planning in delivering successful infrastructure projects, while recognizing the challenges of applying this approach more broadly.
Reynolds announced she would vote no, not because she opposes the project overall, but as a protest to highlight broader concerns. She supports the concept and past work on the alley program, but is frustrated over the lack of “green alley” features. She argued the City can no longer pursue single-purpose projects. Her vote was meant to push for a shift in how the city approaches capital projects. She wants More integrated, forward-looking, and sustainable design, with a greater emphasis on maximizing benefits across multiple systems, not just solving one problem at a time.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-1, with Reynolds voting “No.”
APRIL 27 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. All Commissioners were present, except for Jon Zich (District 1). The Commission considered two action items:
Conditional Use Permit – Event Venue – 932 West 17th Street
General Plan Conformity Resolution – Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – One‑Year (FY 2026–27) and Five‑Year (FY 2026–27 through FY 2030–31)
Presentation: Active Development Map. Economic Development Administrator Daniel Inloes presented a new Active Development Map, currently in beta. The interactive online tool is designed to allow residents, businesses, and property owners to view and track development activity throughout Costa Mesa.
The map provides information on active projects, including building permits, planning applications, public works projects, business licenses, and code enforcement cases. Users can search by address, view parcel-level details such as zoning and General Plan designations, and apply filters to better understand development activity in specific areas. The tool is intended to enhance transparency and public awareness of local development trends. Staff noted that the platform is still being refined—particularly for mobile use—and will continue to be improved based on user feedback.
Commissioner Questions and Comments. Rob Dickson (District 5) asked whether separate mobile and desktop versions would be developed, noting that mobile platforms sometimes offer reduced functionality. He emphasized the importance of maintaining full usability across devices. Staff acknowledged the concern and agreed with the importance of consistency.
Public Comment. None.
Commissioner Comments. David Martinez (District 5) promoted upcoming events at City Hall, encouraging public participation and input.
Dickson asked how the public can submit comments on the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Specific Plan, noting difficulty finding a clear submission option online. Staff clarified that the formal comment period for the draft Specific Plan has already closed, and comments submitted during that period were incorporated into the draft. However, they said that the public can still submit comments by emailing the project team (via the contact listed on the FDC website), and there will be additional opportunities for public input as the plan moves through Planning Commission and City Council review.
In addition, Staff noted that a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) will be released in mid-May, followed by a 45-day public review period, providing another formal opportunity for public comment.
The DEIR can be found here: https://www.costamesaca.gov/government/departments-and-divisions/economic-and-development-services/planning/environmental-notices-and-reports
Written comments must be submitted to the City by no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 1, 2026. Send them to:
City of Costa Mesa
Attn: Melinda Dacey, Principal Planner
Economic and Development Services Department
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Johnny Rojas (District 2) reminded everyone that the Orange County Marathon would be held the following weekend.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: There was one public hearing, Conditional Use Permit for an Event Venue (the Nest) at 932 West 17th Street. Victor Mendez, Senior Planner, gave the presentation. The event venue includes live entertainment, dancing, valet parking, and outdoor activities. The site is surrounded by industrial uses on three sides and a senior mobile home park across the street.
Project Background and Operations:
In April 2025, code enforcement identified the site operating without the required permits. The applicant subsequently worked with staff over several months to address operational issues and complete required technical studies, including a noise analysis. By March 2026, the project had achieved compliance, and no further violations were reported.
The venue includes a 4,200-square-foot indoor event space and an approximately 6,000-square-foot outdoor patio area used for seating, circulation, and limited activities such as photography. Amplified music and entertainment would be confined to the indoor space, while only background-level music would be permitted outdoors. Typical events include weddings, private parties, and corporate gatherings. Events are primarily proposed for Friday through Sunday afternoons and evenings, with limited weekday daytime operations.
A professional noise study conducted in March 2026 concluded that projected noise levels would comply with City standards, would not result in significant impacts to nearby residences, and would not require additional soundproofing measures.
Multiple CUP approvals are required because the use is not explicitly defined in the zoning code, includes valet parking, involves outdoor activities, and is located within 200 feet of a residential use.
Parking and Circulation:
The site provides 47 on-site parking spaces, with valet service required for all events. Due to proximity to transit, parking requirements are subject to State law (AB 2097), which limits minimum parking standards. Staff analysis indicated that the project would not generate significant traffic impacts and that parking demand can generally be accommodated on-site, with overflow addressed through nearby street parking.
Commissioner Questions. Rojas asked about prior violations and revisions to the application. Staff explained that delays were primarily due to coordination among multiple technical submittals (e.g., plans, noise study, traffic memo), rather than significant site deficiencies. Rojas also inquired about ventilation and compliance with a condition requiring doors to remain closed during events. Staff noted that windows are fixed and confirmed that compliance with door closures would be monitored.
Dickson asked about the length of the review process and comparability to similar venues. Staff noted that extended timelines were due to evolving submittals and required studies, and that this project is not directly comparable to others. Dickson also emphasized the importance of security measures and preventing disorderly activity, particularly in parking areas.
Angely Andrade (District 4) raised questions regarding parking logistics, event circulation, and crowd management, emphasizing the need to minimize spillover impacts on nearby residents. She suggested that the applicant further clarify operational strategies for arrivals and departures.
Martinez focused on the duration of the review process and opportunities for improving efficiency in future applications, including clearer zoning definitions for event venues. He also asked about operational regulations such as alcohol service, parking requirements, and permitted activities. Staff noted that policy updates are under consideration and clarified applicable regulatory limits.
Jeff Harlan (At-Large) asked about how proximity to residential uses is measured. Staff clarified that the project qualifies as being near residential uses based on multiple criteria and that the measurement standard is from the overall property boundary, not the tenant space.
Applicant’s Presentation. The applicant’s representatives, Michael and McKenzie, confirmed their agreement with all proposed conditions of approval and described the project as a small-scale, community-oriented event space. They stated that they are committed to operating responsibly, maintaining compliance, and being good neighbors, while formalizing an existing use with a positive track record.
Commissioner Questions to the Applicant. Rojas asked about noise mitigation and site modifications. The applicant responded that operational measures—such as keeping doors closed during events—are feasible, and noted that planned improvements are primarily interior.
Martinez asked about future community-focused events. The applicant stated that such events may continue, but would likely require separate permits rather than being included under the current entitlements.
Dickson’s questions were about communication and accountability, with the Applicants committing to being reachable and responsive to neighbors, maintaining a proactive approach to resolving issues, and following city rules, especially regarding noise and disturbances. He expressed concern that the Conditions of Approval were too limiting, but the Applicants explained how they had dealt with the limitations.
Public Comments. Public testimony reflected both support and opposition.
Concerns (Primarily Nearby Residents) were about:
Noise Impacts: Residents emphasized that the area is very quiet at night, especially after 7 PM. There were concerns that music and events will be audible, even if indoors, that sound may carry or “bounce” in the area, and that doors might be opened due to heat, allowing noise to escape. Suggestions included requiring consistent air conditioning and restricting amplified music when doors are open. One resident questioned whether the noise study was conducted at night (when impacts matter most).
Parking & Traffic: Multiple speakers worried that on-site parking will be insufficient for large events (up to 150 people) and guests may park on 17th Street, displacing residents. There were also concerns that guests walking to/from the site or cutting through nearby neighborhoods, and congestion and activity during arrival/departure periods. Some speakers expressed uncertainty about whether valet stacking and circulation would function effectively.
Post-Event Activity (Lingering): Concerns about guests talking or gathering outside after events, especially if alcohol is served, and creating noise late at night. There was skepticism that all guests will leave immediately and quietly.
Scale & Neighborhood Compatibility: Residents highlighted the presence of 100+ homes in each nearby mobile home park, and their expectation of a quiet residential environment, despite industrial zoning. A petition with 67 residents opposing the project was noted.
Supportive Comments (Business Partners and Some Community Members):
Positive Track Record and Professionalism: Speakers (landlord, vendors, staff, partners) described the applicants as highly professional, responsive, and responsible, quick to address issues, and good tenants and collaborators.
Community Value: Supporters emphasized that The Nest fosters community, creativity, and small businesses, has hosted charity events and outreach efforts, and helps local entrepreneurs grow.
Operational Practices: Supporters cited strong attention to cleanliness and post-event cleanup, well-managed events with staff oversight, and responsible alcohol service practices (trained, measured pouring, no over-serving).
Limited Noise Impact (Support Perspective): Some supporters claimed that noise from inside the venue does not travel far, and that existing traffic noise on 17th Street may buffer sound (though this was disputed by residents).
Further Commissioner Questions and Comments. Andrade suggested adding a six-month review period following project implementation to evaluate real-world impacts and allow for adjustments if necessary. This could lead to adjustments or additional conditions if issues arise.
Dickson confirmed that the noise study measurements were conducted during midday hours rather than evening conditions.
Martinez clarified that the outdoor patio is open-air and confirmed fencing conditions. Staff also noted that special events could still be permitted separately, subject to applicable approvals.
Motion and Vote. Martinez moved to approve the Staff recommendation with the addition that Condition of Approval 12 be amended to allow for the north door to be open during events, and that if noise issues arise, the operator shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem, including, but not limited to, closing the north door. The motion was seconded by Dickson. The motion passed 6-0, with Klepack absent.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: There was one item:
1. General Plan Conformity Resolution – Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – One‑Year (FY 2026–27) and Five‑Year (FY 2026–27 through FY 2030–31). Seung Yang, City Engineer, presented the annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Costa Mesa, which covers a one-year (FY 2026–27) and five-year plan (through 2030–31). The Planning Commission’s role is limited to determining whether the CIP is consistent with the General Plan, and not reviewing project budgets, priorities, or design (those are City Council responsibilities).
The CIP is a multi-year plan for public infrastructure and facility projects, such as streets, transportation, parks, and city facilities. Projects are funded through a mix of federal, state, county, and local sources. Projects typically cost at least $30,000 and take multiple years, and go through phases (planning, design, bidding, construction, maintenance).
Program Highlights:
41 projects are proposed.
Total funding: ~$34 million.
An additional $12 million identified for future bond financing.
Funding Breakdown (Major Categories):
Facilities: ~$16 million.
Streets: ~$8.8 million.
Transportation: ~$7+ million.
Parks: ~$1.8 million.
Key Example Projects
Citywide Alley Improvement Program: Ongoing effort (since 2007) to convert alleys from asphalt to concrete, and near completion, with ~14 alleys remaining.
Police Department Upgrades: Replace outdated 50-year-old chillers (energy efficiency) and renovate emergency communications/dispatch center.
Transportation Projects: Adams Avenue Multi-Use Trail (bike/pedestrian safety improvements), and Mesa del Mar Multimodal Project (bike lanes, sidewalks, accessibility upgrades).
Parks: Harper Park redesign (new playground equipment, furniture, and safety surfacing).
The Five-Year Plan extends through 2030–31 and includes future and deferred projects, annual updates based on priorities and funding, and serves as a flexible planning document that may change over time.
Commissioner Questions. Martinez noted that for three consecutive years, the CIP has lacked clearly identified energy or sustainability projects and previously pushed such projects further into future years. He questioned why this continues despite General Plan goals emphasizing sustainability. Staff explained several factors:
The City is currently developing a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that will guide future sustainability projects.
There is currently no dedicated sustainability manager, though recruitment is underway.
Many existing CIP projects already include embedded sustainability elements, such as energy-efficient HVAC systems, LED lighting and other efficiency upgrades.
Staff indicated that more defined sustainability projects will likely emerge after the CAP is completed.
Martinez acknowledged the explanation and agreed that sustainability can and should be integrated across all projects, not limited to a single category. He raised a broader question of whether the CIP could go further in meeting General Plan goals, beyond minimum compliance.
Staff indicated that there is no single “magic project” that fulfills all General Plan goals. Instead, the CIP is designed as a comprehensive mix of projects, each addressing different aspects of the plan. Collectively, these projects achieve overall General Plan conformance
Andrade sought clarity on how the CIP evolves. She used the discussion to advocate for community priorities, especially in the areas of Westside parks and traffic calming. Staff emphasized that the CIP is flexible and multi-factor driven, and the Commission’s input is valuable but advisory, focused on overall plan consistency.
Public Comment. None.
Motion and Vote. Dickson moved to approve the recommendation by Staff, which was seconded by Martinez. The motion passed 6-0, with Klepack absent.
APRIL 28 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION. All Councilmembers were present. City Attorney Kimberly Hall Barlow was on vacation and was represented by Baron Bettenhausen of the Jones Mayer law firm.
The Study Session focused on a single item: the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025–26 Mid-Year Budget Update, which included revised projections for General Fund revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026. City Manager Cecelia Gallardo-Daly opened the session with introductory remarks before turning the presentation over to staff.
Presentation. Kingsley Okereke, former Finance Director for the City of Garden Grove and currently serving as a consultant in that role, led the presentation. He was joined by Mark Khou (Budget Manager), Anna Acosta-Reyes (Finance Manager), Paige Appel (Senior Budget Analyst), and Allison Tong (Senior Budget Analyst).
Staff reviewed the originally adopted budget, evaluated current economic conditions and revenue trends, compared actual and projected revenues and expenditures, and introduced early considerations for the next fiscal year.
Adopted Budget Overview (FY 2025–26):
Total City budget: $224.9 million.
General Fund: $186.9 million.
Budget was structurally balanced (no reliance on reserves or federal ARPA funds).
Key allocations: 54% for public safety (police and fire), which included deferred capital and IT needs (~$2.4M combined), plus a $31M CalPERS prepayment, saving about $1M in interest.
Economic Conditions: The local economy is experiencing moderate but uneven growth, with stable employment and consumer spending. However, several factors contribute to ongoing uncertainty, including global events (such as conflict in Iran) leading to higher fuel prices, potential federal policy changes (tariffs, shutdowns), and declining consumer confidence.
Costa Mesa remains particularly sensitive to economic shifts due to its heavy reliance on sales tax rather than property tax.
Key Revenue Sources:
Sales tax: 40% of revenue.
Property tax: 34%.
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT): ~5%.
Cannabis tax: ~2%.
Projected Revenue:
Total revenues expected: ~$194M or about $7M higher than originally projected.
Sales tax exceeded expectations (strong holiday season).
Property tax slightly lower due to fewer home sales.
TOT modestly increased.
Cannabis tax remained flat.
Expenditure Trends - Increased costs due to:
Full staffing of public safety positions.
Fewer vacancies (reduced from ~55 to ~35).
Rising CalPERS pension obligations ($31M → $33M next year).
Higher insurance premiums (+$2M).
Projected Expenditures:
Total projected expenditures: ~$193.8M.
Major categories are salaries/benefits: ~$146M (increase due to filled positions) and operations running slightly below budget (~$45M).
Contributions to Capital Asset Needs (CAN) and IT Replacement funds.
Financial Outcome: The City is projected to end the year with a modest surplus of ~$100K, maintain a balanced budget, and generate sufficient revenue to fully cover expenditures.
Reserves & Financial Health: The estimated reserves are around $61M, which is above the policy minimum of $55M and equals about 31% of revenues; well above best practice minimum (16–17%). The City retains a strong financial standing: AA+ bond rating and multiple awards for budget quality
Key Achievements:
Achieved full staffing in police department.
Secured multiple grants (transportation, enforcement, federal).
Maintained strong financial reserves and stability.
Looking Ahead (Next Fiscal Year) Key Concerns:
Continued economic uncertainty.
Ongoing reliance on sales tax performance.
Rising fixed costs, particularly pensions and insurance.
Staff will return with detailed projections and recommendations for next year’s budget.
Staff paused the presentation to take Councilmember questions.
Councilmember Questions. Mike Buley (District 1) noted that revenues came in approximately $6 million higher than projected, while expenditures increased by a similar amount. He asked whether the higher spending was a direct response to increased revenues or simply coincidental.
Staff explained that the two were not causally linked. Revenue gains—particularly in sales tax—were driven by external economic factors and consultant forecasts. Expenditure increases, by contrast, resulted from staffing decisions and underlying budget assumptions, not from a deliberate choice to spend additional revenue.
A key factor was that the adopted budget assumed significant vacancy savings. As the City successfully filled many positions—especially in public safety—those assumed savings did not materialize, leading to higher personnel costs. Staff emphasized that this was not “new spending,” but the full funding of already authorized positions.
Additional cost pressures included rising insurance premiums and ongoing obligations such as CalPERS pension contributions. However, the increase in CalPERS costs (from $31 million to $33 million) applies to the next fiscal year, not the current one.
Staff described the adopted budget as effectively a “net” budget, which assumed savings from vacancies that ultimately did not occur. Buley summarized that the additional revenue was effectively absorbed by staffing success and lower-than-expected attrition.
He also asked how the City determines appropriate staffing levels. Staff responded that vacancies are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account operational needs across departments. Based on current service demands, the City does not consider itself overstaffed.
Andrea Marr (District 3) asked why salary expenditures exceeded the adopted budget by approximately $8.4 million, despite the assumption that vacancy savings were already built into the budget.
Staff explained that the City has historically relied on vacancies to generate salary savings, but vacancy levels have decreased significantly:
~73 vacancies (July 2024).
~52 vacancies (July 2025).
~34 vacancies (March 2026).
While this improved service levels, it reduced anticipated savings.
Staff acknowledged that a core budget assumption proved inaccurate: the adopted $137 million salary budget did not fully reflect planned hiring. Prior assumptions about continued high vacancy rates were carried forward even as hiring accelerated.
Primary contributors to the $8.4 million variance included:
Filling vacant positions, particularly in public safety.
Step increases (annual employee raises).
MOU/union-negotiated increases (typically 3–6%).
Increased benefit and retirement costs.
Approximately $2 million in CalPERS-related costs, reducing the effective gap to about $6 million.
Staff cautioned that the variance cannot be tied to a specific number of positions, as costs vary by role and seniority.
Bottom line: The overage reflects a combination of increased staffing and compensation costs that were not fully incorporated into the original budget.
Arlis Reynolds (District 5) sought clarification on whether the unfunded pension liability (UAL) contributed to the $8.4 million variance.
Staff stated clearly that it did not. The City budgeted $31 million for UAL and continues to project that same amount. Therefore, UAL is not a driver of the overage.
Instead, Staff reiterated that the variance stems from flawed budget assumptions—particularly around vacancy savings—rather than unexpected new costs.
Reynolds noted that filling all vacancies would account for only part of the gap (approximately $4.4 million at most), leaving several million dollars unexplained by staffing changes alone. Staff identified the two primary drivers as:
Reduced vacancy savings (more hiring than assumed)
Overtime significantly exceeding budget:
Budgeted: ~$4.8 million.
Projected: ~$9 million+.
Variance: roughly $4 million.
Staff emphasized that overtime spending itself is not unusually high compared to historical levels. The issue is that the budget underestimated overtime needs.
Reynolds expressed concern about the reliability and transparency of the budgeting process, concluding that clearer and more detailed breakdowns are necessary to maintain Council confidence.
John Stephens (Mayor) highlighted a key inconsistency: the City anticipated rising costs due to vacancy reductions, step increases, and negotiated raises, yet adopted a salary budget lower than the prior year ($138.4 million), which he described as unrealistic.
Staff acknowledged this inconsistency, explaining that the lower budget was a conservative approach taken amid economic uncertainty and concerns about potential revenue declines. However, this approach did not fully reflect known cost drivers.
Staff confirmed that salary and benefit costs naturally increase each year due to built-in factors such as step increases, union agreements, and rising pension and benefit obligations—resulting in baseline annual growth of approximately $6–7 million.
Follow-Up Discussion. Buley asked whether increased staffing should reduce overtime and whether the expected annual cost growth had been incorporated into the FY 2025–26 budget.
Staff responded that, in general, higher staffing should reduce overtime, but actual overtime levels depend on operational demands, particularly in public safety. They indicated that overtime assumptions will be reassessed in the next budget cycle.
Reynolds further probed how the salary budget was constructed, asking whether the $137.4 million figure represented full staffing costs minus assumed vacancy savings. Staff confirmed this was generally correct, noting that the budget reflects a “net” figure.
However, Staff clarified that vacancy assumptions were not applied uniformly across departments and were concentrated more heavily in public safety. These assumptions were not fully adjusted as hiring increased.
Reynolds pointed out that, because vacancies still remain, the current spending levels do not fully align with a “fully staffed” scenario. She concluded that the numbers do not reconcile cleanly and requested additional clarity, including:
1. The total cost of fully staffing all approved positions.
2. A comparison to the $137.4 million adopted budget.
3. A breakdown of actual staffing increases since adoption.
Staff agreed to provide this information.
Additional Discussion Topics: Councilmembers also discussed broader financial issues:
Financial Position.
The City ended FY 2024–25 with approximately $61 million in reserves.
The current fiscal year is projected to end with a small surplus (~$100,000).
Reserves remain above the $55 million policy minimum and are not being used to balance the budget.
The City’s financial position and credit rating remain strong.
Reserve Policy.
Questions were raised about whether the $55 million reserve target is outdated, as earlier policy tied it to CPI adjustments (which could suggest a higher target today).
Staff noted that updating the policy may be appropriate but must be weighed against rising ongoing costs.
Best practice benchmarks (16–17% of revenues) were cited as a useful guideline.
Budget Outlook and Strategy. Staff outlined key priorities for the FY 2026–27 budget:
Cost containment efforts (targeting approximately 5% reductions).
Focus on core services.
Deferral of non-essential spending.
Pursuit of alternative funding (grants, partnerships).
More realistic vacancy/attrition assumptions.
Better incorporation of rising costs (pensions, insurance, labor, elections).
Key Takeaways:
Council focus:
Reevaluating reserve policy.
Improving clarity around budget assumptions and variances.
Ensuring transparency and long-term sustainability.
Staff emphasis:
Modernizing budgeting assumptions.
Implementing a multi-pronged strategy (cost control, revenue diversification, improved forecasting).
Maintaining financial stability despite increasing constraints and uncertainty.
Public Comment. Ralph Taboada expressed support for improving transparency and realism in the City’s budgeting approach. He agreed with Staff that the budget should begin with the full cost of all approved positions and then apply a clearly defined vacancy factor.
He noted that the current vacancy assumption (approximately $4.4 million) has been used for several years but is not tied to a specific number of positions, which has contributed to confusion. He urged the City to translate the vacancy factor into an actual number of unfilled positions and then calculate the associated savings, rather than relying on a fixed estimate.
Taboada also highlighted a persistent issue in which actual overtime costs (approximately $8–10 million) consistently exceed the budgeted amount (approximately $4–5 million), effectively creating a built-in annual variance.
He distinguished between the unfunded pension liability (which is planned and budgeted) and ongoing pension contributions for current employees, suggesting that the latter contributes to a portion of the salary and benefits overrun (approximately $2 million).
Regarding Fire Station No. 2, Taboada asked whether transferring $1 million to the capital fund would reduce the size of the planned bond issuance—for example, lowering it from $12 million to $11 million.
Councilmember Comments. Following additional discussion, Councilmembers provided extensive direction to Staff. Their feedback centered on several key themes:
1. Budget Accuracy and Oversight:
Multiple Councilmembers expressed concern about a $7 million+ increase in spending without clear Council visibility, midyear correction, or formal approval.
There was a strong emphasis on improving controls, transparency, and earlier reporting of emerging variances.
Councilmembers stressed that future budget deviations should be communicated proactively.
Overall, the Council emphasized the need for greater confidence in both budget projections and implementation.
2. Structural Budget Pressures:
Council acknowledged that approximately 75% of the General Fund is dedicated to salaries and benefits, limiting financial flexibility.
Members recognized that these costs naturally increase by roughly $6–7 million annually.
This creates an ongoing structural challenge, requiring either new revenue sources or adjustments to staffing levels and service delivery.
3. Revenue and Economic Risks:
The City’s heavy reliance on sales tax remains a concern, particularly in light of economic uncertainty and the potential effects of a “K-shaped” economy (uneven recovery across income groups).
Councilmembers expressed interest in better understanding growth potential in property tax (e.g., through turnover and reassessment).
Cannabis tax revenues were noted as flat or underperforming relative to expectations.
4. Future Funding and Policy Choices:
Council indicated a desire to explore potential new revenue options (such as transient occupancy tax or business taxes) in future discussions.
At the same time, some members emphasized prioritizing cost reductions before considering tax increases.
There was general recognition that avoiding new revenue may require difficult decisions regarding staffing levels or service reductions.
5. Budget Clarity and Definitions:
Councilmembers raised concerns about unclear terminology, particularly phrases like “non-essential spending,” and asked for more precise definitions.
There was a strong interest in improved visibility into:
Department-level budget changes.
Shifts in non-departmental spending.
Long-term obligations such as facility maintenance and Capital Asset Needs.
6. Strategic and Operational Improvements:
Council expressed interest in enhanced budgeting tools and systems to improve tracking and forecasting.
Members highlighted opportunities to leverage technology, including AI, to improve long-term efficiency.
There was also an emphasis on more strategic planning for capital assets and infrastructure maintenance.
Forward-Looking Direction: The Council broadly supports:
More realistic (“right-sized”) budgets.
Improved forecasting and transparency.
A balanced approach combining cost control, operational efficiency, and potential revenue strategies.
Bottom Line: Councilmembers expressed confidence in the City’s current financial stability but emphasized the need for:
Greater budget accuracy and oversight.
Clearer assumptions and reporting.
Stronger long-term financial planning.
They also signaled that difficult policy decisions—related to spending, staffing, and potentially new revenues—will likely be necessary to maintain the City’s fiscal health in the years ahead.
Here is the schedule for meetings about the budget:
APRIL 29 FAIRVIEW PARK STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING. All Committee members were present, except Kohl Crecelius (Chair) and Daniel Baume. Notably, Jose Toscano attended for the first time in ages, although he did not speak until the end of the meeting (see below).
Also in attendance were:
Kelly Dalton, Fairview Park Administrator
Brian Gruener, Parks and Community Services Director
Seung Yang, City Engineer
Jason Komala, Parks and Community Services Commission Liaison, was absent, as was Orange County Model Engineers Liaison Hank Castignetti. Council Liaison Arlis Reynolds arrived late.
PUBLIC COMMENT. I referenced the March 31 City Council Study Session, noting that Shayanne Wright of the Parks and Community Services Commission had urged Council not to allocate additional funding toward implementation of the Fairview Park Master Plan. Given the significant amount of time residents have waited for progress, I expressed concern about any effort that could delay implementation.
Other speakers addressed a range of issues:
Kim Hendricks discussed the historical locations of the park’s fly field and noted that it was not originally intended to be in its current location.
Bill Turpit, the City’s representative to the County vector agency, raised concerns about mosquito activity in the park.
A nearby resident described an incident in which his wife was verbally harassed by individuals riding e-bicycles in the park.
A Swan Drive resident also raised concerns about mosquitoes and reported fires occurring in or near the park.
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS. Jay Humphrey commented on the need for projects to comply with Measure AA and expressed interest in Staff’s explanation of how relocating the fly field to the east side of the park would meet those requirements. He also emphasized the need for increased enforcement and looked ahead to the next phase of the Master Plan update.
Terri Fuqua raised concerns about the presence of electric motorcycles in the park and the need for stronger enforcement of existing prohibitions. She also noted the need to address standing water.
Jennifer Thomas stated that the dinosaur mounds appear to attract riders of electric motorcycles, some coming from outside the city. She recommended assigning a full-time park ranger to Fairview Park and suggested stronger enforcement measures, including confiscation of prohibited vehicles. She also emphasized the importance of protecting culturally sensitive areas within the park.
Bo Glover noted that issues related to e-bikes extend beyond Costa Mesa and are occurring statewide. He expressed concern about a lack of enforcement and the behavior of some riders.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A motion to approve the minutes from the February 11 meeting was made by Humphrey and seconded by Thomas. With a minor typographical correction requested by Thomas, the motion passed unanimously (5–0), with two members absent.
NEW BUSINESS: The agenda suggested a report on a Park Ambassador Program; however, no formal presentation was provided. Staff indicated only that the City had submitted a letter of support for the Coastal Corridor Alliance to seek funding to develop and operate such a program. The letter was not included in the agenda materials or distributed to the Committee or the public.
ADMINISTRATOR’S UPDATE: Dalton provided an update on the Fairview Park Master Plan. The draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared in accordance with CEQA, was released that day, and can be found here: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63110/639129927111900000 .
Comments are due by 5:00 p.m. on May 29. You may submit comments to:
City of Costa Mesa
Attn: Kelly Dalton, Fairview Park Administrator
Parks and Community Services Department
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Email: FVPMP@Costamesaca.gov
In addition, the biologist’s report on the proposed fly field location on the east side was released. Here is the proposed location:
That location is in the middle of the wintering Burrowing Owl habitat. So, how is that a suitable location? Hint: It's not.
Additional updates included:
Mesa Restoration Project – ongoing.
West Bluff Restoration Project – expected to begin soon.
Wetlands Project – a previously missing water pump (likely contributing to mosquito issues) is being addressed.
Community engagement – school visits and restoration days continue.
Mothing Night event – a well-received nighttime program highlighting local insect life (see photo below of the critters that came out that night).
Native seed program – ongoing efforts to support habitat restoration (see photo below).
The end of the meeting was near, and the Committee members made their final comments. Committee members expressed some concern about how new plantings will withstand summer heat, but were generally supportive of the native seed program. Both Committee members and members of the public expressed appreciation for Staff efforts, and recognition was given to the Coastal Corridor Alliance and its volunteers.
Jose Toscano picked this time to speak. He said that “Measure Y and Measure AA were the worst things to ever happen to Costa Mesa” and that he “stands with HSS.”
It’s campaign season folks, and some candidates for City Council (he has discarded his run for Mayor) are better at campaigning than others. However, Mr. Toscano’s statement begs the question: Why is he on the Fairview Park Steering Committee if he doesn’t support Measure AA?
With that, the meeting adjourned. The next meeting is scheduled for June 10.
Whew!
Comments