CITY HALL UPDATE FOR APRIL 2026—Part One—Tough Decisions Ahead: Budget Examined and Re-Examined; Infrastructure Decisions; Housing Policy; Ethics and Public Trust; and Fairview Park
- Cynthia McDonald
- 3 days ago
- 34 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 7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. The April 3 City Council meeting lasted approximately five and one-half hours. The Council considered and acted on the following items:
Continuation request of the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on a Reasonable Accommodation Request by The Ohio House
First reading of the Trap-Neuter-Return Ordinance and establishment of a Trap-Neuter-Return Program for community cats
Storm Drainage Ordinance and fee update
Active Transportation Committee Annual Report
Professional Services Agreement for the Fairview Park West Bluff Restoration Project
Award of the Costa Mesa Skate Park Expansion and Improvement Project
All Councilmembers were present.
Closed Session Report. City Attorney Kimberly Hall Barlow reported that no reportable action was taken during Closed Session.
Presentation: Costa Mesa Poet Laureate Danielle Hanson delivered a presentation highlighting National Poetry Month activities within the city.
Public Comment. Nine members of the public addressed the Council. Key themes are summarized below:
Traffic Safety and Police Enforcement:
A longtime resident commended the Costa Mesa Police Department for proactive traffic enforcement, particularly along Newport Boulevard. She referenced recent crash data from March, including serious collisions, cyclist and pedestrian injuries, and one fatality, and encouraged continued enforcement efforts to improve roadway safety.
Fairview Park and Model Airplane Fly Field:
A speaker raised concerns regarding the proposed relocation and expansion of the Fairview Park model airplane fly field. Issues included prior spending on studies, anticipated construction and maintenance costs, and equity in city support for hobby groups. Environmental risks were also cited, including potential impacts to sensitive habitats and vernal pools. The speaker recommended that any environmental damage or mitigation costs be borne by the flying group.
Wildlife Safety:
A resident reported increased rattlesnake sightings in Fairview Park, particularly in off-trail areas near berms and bluff paths, and urged the public to remain on designated trails due to limited visibility in habitat areas.
Mosquito and Vector Control:
The City’s representative to the Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control District provided an update on recent efforts, including response to a possible flea-borne typhus case, drone treatment of mosquito larvae in vernal pools, and control measures near the Randall Preserve. These actions reportedly reduced adult mosquito populations by approximately 72%. He also noted the need for the implementation of long-planned wetland circulation equipment at Fairview Park to further reduce mosquito breeding.
Someone Cares Soup Kitchen:
A representative from Someone Cares addressed public discussion surrounding a $50,000 city donation, stating it had been mischaracterized. She highlighted the organization’s 40-year history serving Costa Mesa residents through daily meals and food distribution, including support for families facing immigration-related hardships. She emphasized that the organization’s work is humanitarian in nature.
Graffiti Reporting and City Response:
A resident commended the City’s responsiveness to graffiti reports submitted through the 311 app, noting prompt action by both Police and Public Works. She inquired about improving paint-matching efforts and coordination with private property owners.
Immigration Hardship and Emergency Assistance:
A speaker shared the experience of a local family that endured multiple deaths within a year due to poverty, illness, and immigration-related hardship. She advocated for emergency assistance funding to help families with funeral and living expenses and acknowledged support from local organizations.
Community Safety and Mental Health:
A condominium HOA board member described an ongoing mental health-related safety concern involving a resident exhibiting threatening behavior. She expressed concern about limitations on intervention and requested proactive measures to prevent harm.
Language Access and Sign Regulations:
A speaker raised concerns regarding consecutive (rather than simultaneous) Spanish interpretation, stating it limited the ability to fully convey remarks. She also questioned City Council sign size regulations, citing potential impacts on free expression compared to neighboring jurisdictions, and requested greater transparency and public input.
Councilmember Comments. Loren Gameros (District 2) addressed concerns related to a public safety and mental health issue in the Baker and Randolph area, offering to connect directly with the affected resident. He expressed confidence in the Police Department’s response and commended Police and Fire personnel for their coordinated response to a residential fire on College Avenue.
Andrea Marr (District 3) reported on safety concerns near Wilson Park related to high-speed e-bike activity near a playground. She stated that Staff is addressing the issue and emphasized the importance of responding to neighborhood-level concerns.
Arlis Reynolds (District 5) acknowledged concerns about rattlesnake sightings and suggested enhancing safety signage and public awareness. She also encouraged expansion of the city’s poetry program into additional neighborhoods and highlighted positive community engagement and collaboration across the city.
Jeff Pettis (District 6) apologized for missing the Brentwood development grand opening and shared that he has received positive feedback on the project. He also thanked the Police Department for supporting a local school fundraiser.
Mike Buley (District 1) reported on a Fairview Development Center open house, noting strong attendance and community concerns regarding potential project impacts. He suggested hosting a town hall-style meeting to increase transparency and public engagement. He also highlighted graffiti concerns in Fairview Park and requested prompt remediation.
Manuel Chavez (District 4) provided updates on youth programming, including activities by Bright Youth and a partnership with UC Irvine. He highlighted the completion of Brentwood Park, announced an upcoming electric vehicle charging center, and expressed openness to revisiting city sign policies in response to public feedback.
John Stephens (Mayor) announced the upcoming “Cruise the Loop” event as a pilot initiative to improve bicycle safety. He emphasized the importance of advancing the Fairview Park wetlands pump project to address mosquito concerns and supported improved graffiti abatement practices. He also acknowledged public safety concerns raised during the meeting and highlighted the success of the Brentwood Park ribbon-cutting event.
City Manager Comments. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly announced the City’s combined Earth Day and Arbor Day Festival. She also highlighted the expansion of the City’s “Let’s Go Costa Mesa” on-demand rideshare service, which offers ADA-accessible transportation for residents, including access to medical appointments. Rides can be scheduled via the RideCircuit mobile application or by phone at (949) 828-2065.
City Attorney Comments. None.
CONSENT CALENDAR: No items were pulled, so Reynolds made a motion to approve the items, which was seconded by Stephens. The vote was 6-0, with Chavez absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: There was only one item:
1. Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Relating to Drainage and Adoption Of Development Impact Fees for Storm Drainage; Adoption of Capital Improvement Plan as Part of Study; and Completion of The Storm Drain System Master Plan Update. Public Works Director Raja Sethuraman introduced a presentation by Adam Marston of Harris & Associates on the 2026 Storm Drainage Impact Fee Nexus Study, which represents the final phase of the Master Plan update adopted in October 2024. The study updates project costs and funding needs, establishes legally compliant development impact fees pursuant to AB 1600 and AB 602, and restructures the fee program into two drainage basins—the Santa Ana River and Newport Bay—eliminating prior sub-watershed zones.
The proposed fees are based on increases in impervious surface area, using a systemwide methodology that allocates costs between existing infrastructure and future improvements. At full buildout:
The Santa Ana River watershed system value is approximately $203 million, with projected fee revenue of $12.1 million.
The Newport Bay watershed system value is approximately $222 million, with projected fee revenue of $24.6 million.
Remaining funding would need to come from other City or external sources.
The presentation outlined how fees would apply to new development and redevelopment, including thresholds, exemptions, and scenarios where fees may be reduced or not assessed if impervious area decreases. The methodology is designed to ensure new development pays a proportionate share for both existing system capacity and future improvements required to accommodate growth.
Staff recommended adoption of the Nexus Study and Capital Improvement Plan, approval of updated storm drainage impact fees, introduction of the related Municipal Code amendments, and authorization to implement the fees 60 days following Council adoption.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Buley sought clarification on the definition of “impervious surfaces.” Staff confirmed that these include areas such as concrete and paved surfaces that prevent natural groundwater infiltration. Staff emphasized that fees are based on changes to ground footprint—not building square footage—because vertical development does not necessarily increase stormwater runoff. They also clarified that the fees apply only to stormwater drainage and do not relate to wastewater or other utilities.
Reynolds asked questions regarding the methodology used to calculate impervious acreage and derive the proposed fees. The consultant explained that the analysis compares existing land uses with projected General Plan buildout conditions, applying standardized impervious surface factors. The net increase in impervious area is then used to calculate fee levels for each watershed.
Reynolds also inquired how the proposed fees compare to those in other jurisdictions. Staff indicated that while comparisons are difficult due to varying infrastructure needs, Costa Mesa’s proposed fees are on the higher end within Orange County but comparable to some recently adopted fees in Los Angeles County coastal cities. Staff emphasized that the fees are based on Costa Mesa’s documented infrastructure needs and supported by the Nexus Study.
Additional discussion addressed redevelopment scenarios. Staff clarified that fees are generally based on the net change in impervious area. However, under the proposed ordinance, projects converting from non-residential to residential uses would not be assessed storm drainage impact fees, reflecting a policy goal to incentivize housing development. An appeals and discretionary review process would be available for atypical cases.
Councilmembers also explored whether on-site stormwater mitigation measures—such as permeable surfaces or infiltration systems—could reduce fees. Staff explained that while the Nexus Study does not evaluate site-specific mitigation measures, the ordinance includes provisions for credits or reimbursements when developers construct qualifying drainage infrastructure. Staff further noted that outreach meetings were conducted with affected property owners and that no significant opposition to the methodology emerged once the analysis was explained.
Public Comment. Two members of the public addressed the City Council. One speaker (David Martinez) opposed the proposed storm drainage impact fees, stating that the fees could discourage development while only covering a portion of the estimated infrastructure costs. He noted that the fees would fund only a fraction of the approximately $100 million in needed improvements and suggested the City consider alternative funding models, such as a countywide approach similar to Los Angeles County’s Measure W. He also expressed concern that the complexity of calculating fees based on impervious surface area and geographic location could slow development review timelines. The speaker recommended either pursuing alternative funding strategies or revisiting the program in the future to evaluate its effectiveness.
A second speaker (Andrew Barnes) raised concerns that the proposed fee structure relies too heavily on standardized impervious surface calculations without adequately considering site-specific mitigation efforts. He noted that developers can implement stormwater infiltration techniques—such as capturing and redirecting runoff—to reduce impacts. Requiring developers to pursue variances or appeals to receive fee reductions, he argued, would be costly and burdensome. The speaker encouraged the City to incorporate clearer, more accessible provisions for recognizing on-site mitigation directly within the ordinance.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Stephens asked how the City intends to fully fund the storm drainage improvements, noting that the proposed impact fees would not cover total costs. Staff responded that funding is expected to come from a combination of sources, including impact fees, grants, and potential state or federal funding. Staff acknowledged discussion of a countywide funding model, similar to Los Angeles County’s Measure W, but noted that implementation in Orange County would be challenging and likely produce less revenue.
Marr asked whether the City could better incentivize on-site stormwater mitigation—such as permeable paving, bioswales, and water reclamation systems—by incorporating fee reductions or exemptions directly into the ordinance rather than relying on an appeals process.
The consultant responded that most jurisdictions establish standard fees and allow adjustments through an appeals or administrative review process. If a developer can demonstrate reduced impact through design features, the City may reduce or waive fees accordingly. Staff noted that any credit or waiver framework must be clearly defined, measurable, and legally defensible. They added that similar case-by-case adjustment processes already exist for traffic impact fees.
Reynolds requested clarification on provisions related to credits, reimbursements, and reductions—specifically language stating that no reimbursement would be issued if redevelopment results in a lower impervious coefficient. Staff clarified that this provision only prevents monetary reimbursement when impervious area is reduced and does not limit a developer’s ability to receive fee reductions or credits for eligible mitigation measures. Any reductions would be based on demonstrated decreases in runoff impact, calculated through a standardized methodology.
The City Attorney added that any appeals would follow the formal procedures outlined in the ordinance, including City Council review and applicable timelines.
Motion and Vote. Marr moved to approve the Staff recommendation with a modification to the appeals section of the ordinance. She proposed adding a new option allowing storm drainage fee adjustments to be approved administratively, at the Director level, when supported by substantial evidence that on‑site permeability measures (such as permeable surfaces or bioswales) materially reduce stormwater impacts. That motion was seconded by Buley. That motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS: There were two items here:
1. Ordinance to Rezone Housing Element Sites And Implement Housing Element Programs, and Adoption Of Fees Associated With New Processes. The Council considered an ordinance to implement the City’s Housing Element, including updates to the Housing Element Sites Inventory, conforming amendments to the Municipal Code, and adoption of a resolution establishing fees for new housing development review processes.
On March 17, 2026, the City Council revised the ordinance to remove parking minimums for Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD) projects and added flexibility in open space standards. The MUOD increases allowable residential density in designated areas while eliminating parking minimum requirements.
Melinda Dacey, principal planner, gave a presentation. She noted that the City Council specifically requested removal of minimum parking requirements, including guest parking minimums, which Staff addressed in an April 3 memorandum clarifying that no minimum off‑street residential parking requirements would apply. She also explained a revision to the open space standards, clarifying that modifications may apply to any portion of required open space rather than only to a 50% threshold, consistent with Council direction.
Finally, Ms. Dacey briefly reviewed the proposed housing development review fees. The fees are designed to achieve full cost recovery for Staff time associated with reviewing housing development applications, based on the number of residential units proposed. For projects with 50 or more units, a minimum deposit is required, with additional deposits if Staff time exceeds the initial amount. She stated that the City Council previously recommended approval of the proposed fee structure and concluded Staff's presentation.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Buley requested clarification regarding the previously approved removal of minimum parking requirements. Staff confirmed that prior standards required:
One parking space per studio or one-bedroom unit.
Approximately 1.5 to 2 spaces per unit for units with two or more bedrooms.
A guest parking minimum of 0.25 spaces per unit.
Public Comment. Two members of the public spoke in support of eliminating minimum parking requirements. One speaker also encouraged greater flexibility in open space standards, noting that reducing regulatory constraints can facilitate housing development.
Motion and Vote. Reynolds moved to approve the Staff recommendation, incorporating the revisions from the prior meeting. The motion was seconded by Chavez.
Buley then introduced a substitute motion to adopt the broader Housing Element implementation measures while retaining minimum parking standards permitted under state law. He expressed concern with eliminating parking minimums entirely, noting that the Housing Element already operates within a highly regulated framework shaped by state mandates. He questioned the consistency of applying free-market principles selectively and expressed broader concerns about the effectiveness of state housing policy.
Reynolds and Chavez spoke in support of eliminating parking minimums, citing benefits such as increased project flexibility, reduced development costs, and alignment with changing transportation trends. They emphasized that removing minimum requirements does not prohibit parking, but instead allows developers to determine appropriate levels based on market demand. Both also noted that the rezoning is an important step toward maintaining compliance with state Housing Element requirements.
The substitute motion failed on a 2–5 vote (Buley and Pettis in favor; Reynolds, Marr, Gameros, Chavez, and Stephens opposed).
The original motion then passed on a 5–2 vote, with Councilmembers Buley and Pettis voting “No.”
2. Approval of Code Of Ethics and Conduct. The Council considered adoption of a Code of Ethics and Conduct for elected officials and appointed commissioners, following several years of public interest in establishing formal ethical guidelines.
City Attorney Kimberly Hall Barlow presented the item. She explained that the code is intended to guide officials in performing their duties, prevent conflicts of interest, and promote public confidence through ethical, accountable governance. The Council first discussed the concept on July 8, 2025, and reviewed a draft on February 3, 2026. The current version reflects revisions based on Council feedback and is modeled after codes adopted by the cities of Gardena and Irvine.
The proposed code supplements existing legal requirements by:
Prohibiting representation by councilmembers of third parties before the City.
Restricting financial interests in City contracts.
Requiring disclosure of certain employment relationships.
Establishing expectations for professionalism and workplace conduct.
It also includes procedures for reporting and investigating violations and for seeking guidance on potential conflicts.
The code addresses areas not fully covered by statute, including civility, professional behavior, and enforcement of conduct standards that may not rise to the level of legal violations.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Chavez asked how provisions related to “impermissible personal bias” would affect decision-making. The City Attorney explained that bias may arise from prejudgment, prior advocacy, or personal relationships, and that demonstrating a closed mind could disqualify a member from participating in a decision. While enforcement cannot prevent a member from voting in real time, violations could result in legal challenges and invalidated decisions.
Marr raised concerns about situations in which officials may have personal or professional connections to a matter that do not involve a direct financial interest. She noted that, even in these “gray areas,” additional transparency could help maintain public trust. Through several examples—including employment relationships, work for private entities, and service on nonprofit boards—the City Attorney explained that disclosure requirements are generally governed by state law and typically apply only when a defined financial interest exists. While acknowledging the concern, she emphasized that many of these situations would not legally require disclosure under current Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) regulations.
Public Comment. Public comments were largely supportive of adopting a Code of Ethics and Conduct, with several speakers emphasizing its importance in promoting transparency, accountability, and public trust.
One speaker (David Martinez) requested clarification regarding how the code would apply to ex parte communications, particularly for Planning Commissioners. Questions included whether such communications would effectively be prohibited, whether detailed documentation would be required, and how to reconcile provisions that discourage ex parte contact while also outlining procedures if it occurs.
Another speaker (Jay Humphrey) supported the adoption of the code but expressed concern that it does not address campaign contributions. He suggested incorporating provisions requiring recusal or abstention following significant political contributions and noted that cumulative contributions over time could influence decision-making without clear safeguards.
Additional comments included recommendations to:
Provide clearer definitions and legal references for technical terms
Strengthen enforcement mechanisms
Consider incorporating the code into the Municipal Code for greater authority
Overall, speakers described the proposal as a positive and long-overdue step toward establishing clearer ethical expectations for elected officials.
Further Councilmember Questions and Comments. Gameros questioned whether adopting a Code of Ethics was necessary, given the existence of federal, state, and local laws governing conflicts of interest, disclosures, due process, open meetings, and campaign contributions.
In response, the City Attorney explained that while these legal frameworks are extensive, they are fragmented across statutes, regulations, and case law. The proposed code is intended to consolidate these standards into a single, accessible document and to address areas not fully covered by law—particularly expectations for civility, professionalism, and workplace conduct. She emphasized that the code supplements, rather than replaces, existing laws by providing clearer guidance and formalizing practices that are often handled informally.
Motion and Vote. Stephens called for a motion and moved to approve the Code of Ethics and Conduct as presented. In support of the motion, he acknowledged that while the document may require future refinement, it represents a significant improvement over prior drafts and establishes clear expectations for civility, respect, and transparency. He also noted that the code reflects a broader cultural shift toward more collaborative and respectful interactions among Councilmembers and with Staff and the public.
Marr seconded the motion and proposed two friendly amendments:
Adding clearer definitions of key terms to improve readability and understanding; and
Expanding disclosure provisions to address certain non-financial personal impacts.
Stephens accepted the amendment to add definitions but declined to incorporate the expanded disclosure provisions without further legal review.
Reynolds proposed an additional amendment to replace the term “citizens” with more inclusive language. The motion was amended to use “constituents.”
Pettis expressed opposition, stating that existing legal requirements already provide sufficient oversight and expressing concern that the code could unnecessarily regulate Councilmember speech and behavior. He argued that accountability should remain primarily with voters.
The motion to adopt the Code of Ethics and Conduct, as amended, failed on a 3–4 vote, with Gameros, Chavez, Pettis, and Buley voting “No.”
Well, in some ways, that was a shocker. Chavez, who never misses an opportunity to talk about anything, did not speak about his vote. In my mind, that is a major faux pas because it telegraphs a lack of transparency on his part. I fully expected Gameros and Pettis to vote “No” because they both saw this item as an attempt to attack or confine their free speech. Gameros and Buley are both running for Mayor. Is someone who did not support a Code of Ethics and Conduct fit for that office?
🆕NEW BUSINESS: Five items here:
1. Active Transportation Committee (ATC) Annual Report. The City Council received the Active Transportation Committee’s Annual Report as part of the New Business agenda. This marks the first time a committee's annual report was presented in this format, with a formal agenda report and presentation materials provided in advance.
City Manager Gallardo-Daly explained that the item was placed under New Business to allow Councilmembers to ask questions, provide feedback, and enable public comment. She noted that future presentations from City commissions and committees will also be scheduled under New Business for this purpose. This was a receive-and-file item.
Active Transportation Committee Chair Andrew Barnes delivered the presentation, outlining the Committee’s recent activities and accomplishments, 2026 goals and objectives, and ongoing challenges. These challenges included budget constraints that may affect the pace of progress toward the City’s Active Transportation Plan goals.
Public Comment. None.
Motion. Stephens made the motion to receive and file, which was seconded by Chavez.
Councilmember Comments: Councilmembers expressed strong appreciation for the work of the Active Transportation Committee, Staff, and community partners, highlighting the program’s growth and increasing impact over time. Several members recognized key leadership contributions—including those of Reynolds—in advancing the City’s active transportation efforts.
Councilmembers noted that implementing improvements such as medians, crosswalks, and bicycle infrastructure in an older, car-oriented city has presented challenges. However, they emphasized that these efforts have resulted in meaningful safety improvements, including reduced accidents and increased protection for pedestrians and cyclists.
Some Councilmembers reflected on their own initial skepticism but stated that they have become more supportive after observing tangible benefits within their districts. These benefits include safer routes to schools, expanded mobility options for residents without access to a vehicle, and improved access to employment and community resources.
Overall, Councilmembers characterized the Committee’s work as a successful and collaborative effort that has enhanced safety, accessibility, and quality of life in Costa Mesa, while encouraging continued progress and community engagement.
2. Professional Services Agreement with Psomas for Fairview Park West Bluff Restoration Project. The Council considered approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Psomas for the Fairview Park West Bluff Restoration Project.
Parks and Community Services Director Brian Gruner presented the item. He explained that the project addresses longstanding erosion and slope stability issues along the park’s western bluffs. The primary objectives are to stabilize the bluffs, protect environmental and cultural resources, and ensure public safety.
The proposed scope of work includes:
Engineering design and site investigations;
Environmental review, including CEQA compliance;
Cultural resource planning;
Public outreach; and
Preparation of construction documents and bid support.
Staff noted that temporary stabilization measures (a berm) were completed in 2019. The City secured approximately $2 million in state funding in 2022, and additional soil and geotechnical studies were completed in 2024.
Three firms submitted proposals, with Psomas ranked highest due to its experience with complex, multidisciplinary projects involving engineering, environmental planning, and community engagement.
Cost and timeline:
Contract amount: up to $533,000, plus a 10% contingency.
Cost reflects project complexity and specialized expertise required.
Project timeline: 2026–2028, with optional extensions.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Marr expressed concern that the project’s broad scope—encompassing environmental, biological, and cultural considerations—could result in an overly costly or “overdesigned” solution. She asked how costs would be managed and when clearer budget parameters would emerge. Staff responded that the consultant will design within available funding and prioritize cost-effective, nature-based solutions. They noted that a significant portion of project costs is driven by required environmental review and permitting. More refined cost estimates and project direction are expected at approximately the 30% design stage, which will allow the City to evaluate and adjust scope as needed.
Staff also explained that the project must comply with Measure AA. If proposed solutions involve permanent structural elements, they may require further Council direction or voter approval.
Pettis asked whether the consultant would provide multiple design options rather than a single recommendation. Staff confirmed that Psomas is expected to develop a range of alternatives, from more engineered solutions (such as structural reinforcement) to less intrusive, nature-based approaches (such as vegetation-based stabilization). Pettis also asked about funding flexibility; Staff clarified that grant funds are restricted to a defined group of projects, although savings within that group may be reallocated.
Gameros raised concerns about potential overcomplication, asking whether the project could be addressed through simpler solutions, such as a retaining wall. He emphasized the importance of clearly defining project direction early to avoid unnecessary expansion in scope, cost, or complexity.
Reynolds expressed general support for the project while seeking clarification on urgency, costs, and scope. She confirmed her understanding that erosion presents a risk to trails and public access and noted that the project is being prioritized due to available grant funding rather than reliance on the General Fund. She raised concerns about the cost of the design phase and asked about specific budget components, including optional design elements and construction support costs. Reynolds also asked whether a design-build approach had been considered; Staff responded that it is not feasible at this stage due to uncertainty in design direction and procurement constraints.
Stephens focused on the severity and urgency of the erosion issue, asking whether the City has quantitative data on bluff retreat and the factors driving erosion. Staff indicated that while the bluff has remained relatively stable since earlier emergency work, erosion remains an ongoing concern due to natural forces such as water, wind, and gravity. The Mayor requested clarification on whether the issue represents active deterioration or a long-term risk, emphasizing the need to better assess urgency.
Reynolds also asked whether additional improvements—such as a staircase at the south end of the bluff—could be incorporated to improve access and direct foot traffic away from sensitive areas. She noted that unmanaged foot traffic may contribute to erosion. More broadly, she expressed concern about project funding risks, including the possibility that design costs could outpace available construction funding, potentially requiring General Fund support or delaying project completion if additional approvals are needed.
Public Comment. Two members of the public addressed the Council, both supporting action to address bluff erosion. Speakers emphasized the importance of timely, environmentally sensitive solutions that preserve the park’s natural character. Concerns were raised about impacts to native vegetation, cultural resources (such as historic shell deposits), and sensitive habitats, including vernal pools and wildlife species.
One speaker highlighted the role of human activity in contributing to erosion and stressed the need to protect ecological resources to avoid further environmental degradation. Another speaker supported potential access improvements, such as a staircase, but encouraged the use of simple, natural materials to balance functionality with environmental protection.
Motion and Vote. Marr moved to approve the Staff recommendation, with the request that Staff return to the Council at approximately the 30% design milestone for review and that the consultant prioritize nature-based solutions where feasible. The motion was seconded by Chavez.
Reynolds proposed a friendly amendment directing Staff to evaluate the feasibility of incorporating a staircase at the south end of the bluff to improve access and help stabilize the area. The amendment was accepted by the motion maker and seconder. Staff noted that the staircase is not currently within the project scope but agreed to evaluate it.
The motion, as amended, passed unanimously.
3. Award of Costa Mesa Skate Park Expansion and Improvement Project. The Council considered awarding the contract for the Costa Mesa Skate Park Expansion and Improvement Project.
Public Works Director Raja Sethuraman presented the item, outlining plans to expand and enhance the existing skate park. The project includes construction of new skate features, installation of synthetic turf, fencing, landscaping, lighting, parking lot improvements, and ADA-compliant pathways. The goal is to create a modern, state-of-the-art facility that serves as a regional destination for users of all skill levels, including both beginner and advanced skaters.
Staff noted that this is a specialized project that will be primarily managed in-house rather than by a consultant. Any unused project funds will be returned to the original funding source. Construction is anticipated to begin in May.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Gameros asked about existing restrictions on certain users—such as scooters, rollerbladers, and BMX bikes—and whether those limitations are established by ordinance or policy. He also asked whether the City could consider a model similar to the Vans Skatepark in Huntington Beach, where different activities are permitted at designated times. Parks and Community Services Director Brian Gruner responded that Staff is open to reviewing and potentially updating current rules to accommodate a broader range of users.
Reynolds asked several clarifying questions regarding project features and costs. Staff confirmed that the expansion area will include new Musco lighting, while existing lighting will remain unchanged unless cost savings allow for upgrades. Reynolds also noted that approximately 16 trees will be removed as part of the project and asked about replacement plans. Staff explained that efforts were made to preserve mature trees where possible, and that new trees will be planted on-site to replace those removed.
Reynolds also inquired about a $120,000 line item identified as “allowances.” Staff clarified that allowances are funds set aside for anticipated, scope-related adjustments—such as quantity changes—distinct from the contingency budget, which covers unforeseen conditions. If the allowances are not used, the total project cost would come in approximately $120,000 below the bid amount.
Public Comment. Robbie LaBounty from Katrina Foley’s office was the sole speaker and supported the project.
Motion. Stephens moved to approve the Staff recommendation, with a second by Gameros. That motion passed unanimously.
4. Waste Infrastructure System Enterprise (Wise) Agreement. The Council considered approval of the Waste Infrastructure System Enterprise (WISE) Agreement, which would replace the County of Orange’s long-standing Waste Disposal Agreement (WDA) with participating cities.
Public Works Director Raja Sethuraman presented the item. He explained that since 1997, the County has operated regional landfills and provided participating cities with guaranteed disposal capacity and discounted rates under the WDA. That agreement is set to expire on June 30, 2026, and the WISE Agreement is proposed as its successor.
Under the proposed agreement, landfill disposal rates would increase from $43.76 per ton to $67 per ton in Fiscal Year 2026–27—a 53.1% increase. Despite the increase, the contract rate would remain approximately 38% lower than the estimated non-contract rate.
Staff noted that additional agreements exist between the County and local sanitary districts, and that the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) approved a related agreement in March. Here is the schedule of CMSD proposed rate increases:
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Buley expressed concern about the magnitude of the rate increases, noting that costs could rise significantly over time and may exceed $90 per ton under non-contract conditions. He questioned whether better long-term planning could have mitigated the increase and asked who would ultimately bear the cost. Staff confirmed that disposal costs are generally passed through to customers via waste service rates. They also noted that declining to participate in the WISE Agreement would result in even higher non-contract disposal rates.
Staff explained that the increase is largely driven by structural changes in the County’s landfill system. The planned closure of the Olinda Alpha Landfill will leave only two active landfills in Orange County—Prima Deshecha and Frank R. Bowerman. The County has invested in expanding and upgrading these facilities, including new disposal areas and operational infrastructure, to accommodate increased demand. Because the landfills are owned and operated by the County, cities have limited control over rate-setting, which is determined by the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
Staff further noted that exporting waste to facilities outside the region is technically feasible but generally more expensive due to transportation costs in addition to disposal fees. Negotiations on the agreement have been ongoing for approximately one year through coordination among the Orange County City Managers Association, with the County finalizing terms relatively recently.
Gameros asked which entity or body determines landfill rates—whether it’s the city, a commission, or another authority. He seemed surprised to learn it is the County Board of Supervisors. He questioned how the specific rate increase numbers were developed, and whether there is a transparent breakdown of costs (e.g., infrastructure, operations) that explains the final figure. Gameros asked whether the City’s rates are higher, lower, or comparable to those of other cities, and whether Costa Mesa is at any disadvantage. The rate is the same for all cities. He sought clarification on which groups or organizations negotiated the deal, and what role the County Board of Supervisors and city representatives played. After hearing the term “negotiated,” he questioned what was actually negotiable, noting that the base rate (around $81/ton) seemed predetermined, with discussion focused mainly on phasing in increases over time. He confirmed that the city is effectively being forced into the agreement, and that rejecting it would lead to significantly higher costs and limited alternatives.
Reynolds confirmed that the city’s own waste disposal costs are temporarily protected, with a 2% annual cap under an existing contract. She asked about the length of that contract (3 years with optional extensions) and noted that cost increases are likely once it expires. She worked through how the rate increases will affect different groups:
Single-family residents (via sanitary districts): Likely to see increases through property taxes, with opportunities for public input.
Multi-family residents: Impacts will be indirect, passed through landlords or property managers.
Commercial customers: Will face direct negotiations with waste haulers and likely cost increases.
Reynolds highlighted that most of these impacts are outside the city’s direct control, though the city can help inform and guide residents.
Public Comment. None.
Motion. Chavez moved to adopt the Staff recommendation, which was seconded by Stephens. That motion passed unanimously.
5. Appointments To Various City Committees. These appointments were to several City advisory committees, with most terms expiring in April 2028. Appointments are made by individual Councilmembers.
Public Comment. None.
Appointments:
Active Transportation Committee: Six appointments with terms expiring in April 2028: Flo Martin (Stephens), Andrew Barnes and Michael Moses Nolf (Reynolds), Erik Rundlett (Gameros), Mo “Kevin” El -Ajouz (Buley), and Farhad Edward Khrosravi (Pettis).
Animal Services Committee: Four appointments with terms expiring in April 2028 and one appointment expiring in April 2027 by Marr: Cara Stewart (Marr). Anna Maria Rodriguez (Stephens), Nicole Wiltshire (Gameros), Alyson Rutledge (Buley), and Barbara Bellina (Pettis). Note: Nicole Wiltshire is also on the Board of Directors of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. I wish someone would write about what goes on over there, because it's more than trash and sewage that is causing a stink at the SanDist.
Finance and Pension Advisory Committee: One appointment with a term expiring in April 2028 by Pettis: Jordan Johnson.
Housing and Public Service Grants Committee: Four appointments with terms expiring in April 2028: Michael Tou (Stephens), Maria Castellon (Gameros), Greg Pinney (Buley), and Katherine Stewart (Pettis).
Mobile Home Park Advisory Committee: Two appointments with terms expiring in April 2028. One application received. Staff recommends reducing the committee size from nine to seven members. No appointments were made.
Motion. There was a motion and a vote on each of these Committee appointments, or in the case of tte Mobil Home Park Committee, to reduce the number of members. All were passed unanimously.
APRIL 8 FINANCE AND PENSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING. The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. All Committee members were present except Quinn Callanan.
Also in attendance were City Manager Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, consultant Kingsley Okereke (former Finance Director for the City of Garden Grove), and additional City Staff. Council Liaisons John Stephens and Manuel Chavez were present; Mike Buley was absent.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes from March 11 and March 18, 2026 were approved unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS: Two items of old business were discussed: .
1. Business License Tax (BLT) Ballot Measure: Senior Budget Analyst Paige Appel presented updated information, including additional comparative data from other cities. Consultant Kingsley Okereke explained the rationale for using a gross receipts-based tax structure rather than a per-employee model.
Committee members asked whether a potential increase in the BLT could lead businesses to relocate outside Costa Mesa. Staff indicated this is unlikely, particularly if any increase is implemented incrementally.
A question was raised regarding whether the City would face a structural deficit without a BLT increase. Staff clarified that no structural deficit exists under current projections. Staff also noted that, because the BLT is a tax rather than a fee, it cannot be adjusted automatically based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Public Comment. Public comment generally supported some level of BLT increase. I addressed comments suggesting certain large companies provide significant direct fiscal benefits to the City, noting that some businesses may contribute relatively little in terms of local tax revenue depending on their structure. I recommended a phased increase of approximately 40% over five years.
There was no vote on the matter as the Committee wanted to bring the item back at the May 7 meeting. In fact, they brought the item back the following week on April 16, but we were unable to attend that meeting.
2. Fiscal 2026-2027 Capital Improvement Proposed Budget. Staff gave a presentation. The comments that followed mainly focused around the reconstruction of Fire Station No. 2. That project has not broken ground yet, and Committee members commented about the possible increase in construction costs. The financing for the project would be through a bond, but the bond has not been obtained. It wasn’t clear to me why that hasn’t happened. Discussion moved to the Capital Asset Needs ordinance and the payment schedule for the deferred amounts. Committee member Ralph Taboada had prepared a list of draft recommendations, including:
Support for Staff’s recommendation to initiate replenishment;
Revise the replenishment schedule over 5 years, versus 10 years;
Support funding the CAN at a 5% level; and
Allocate $1m to CAN to get CAN above 5% minimum due to increased infrastructure and facilities needs.
Taboada made a motion, but it died for the lack of a second. I noted to myself that Stephens got a little miffed at Taboada’s suggestions about increasing the CAN. He has been very vocal in the past about his desire to get rid of the ordinance.
There was a motion to support the Staff recommendations , which passed 4-0, with Sean Healy abstaining.
NEW BUSINESS: None.
APRIL 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. All Commissioners were present, except for Karen Klepack (District 1). Commissioner David Martinez (District 3) participated remotely. The meeting was administered by City Clerk Brenda Green, as Anna Partida, who had presided over Planning Commission meetings for over four years, has transitioned to the Police Department. The Commission considered four action items:
2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report
Review of Zoning Administrator’s Approval of New Cell Tower at 2065 Placentia Avenue
Approval of CUP to modify the existing off-sale State Alcoholic Beverage Control license from Type 20 (Beer and Wine) to Type 21 (General) for 7-Eleven convenience store located at 675 Paularino Avenue
Overview of Proposed Amendments to Municipal Code to Update Land Use Classifications for Personal Services, Artisan Studio and Retail Uses, Active Entertainment Uses, Event Centers and Assembly Uses, Specialized Fitness Studios, and Related Commercial Uses
Presentation: 2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report (APR). The APR was presented by Melinda Dacey, Principal Planner, and Anna McGill, Advance Planning Manager. The report is required annually by the State to demonstrate compliance with the City’s General Plan and Housing Element. It was previously reviewed by the City Council in March 2026 and submitted by the April 1 deadline.
Key Accomplishments in 2025:
Affordable Housing: Partnered with developers on projects such as Homekey initiatives on Newport Boulevard and Bristol Street.
Climate & Safety Planning: Continued updates to the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and the Safety Element to align with hazard mitigation efforts.
Community Engagement: Advanced the “Neighborhoods Where We All Belong” initiative through extensive outreach.
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan: Conducted multiple Planning Commission and City Council discussions on land use. City held held 19 public outreach events. It released the draft Specific Plan for public review (comment period closed April 15) and initiated the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process.
Housing Activity: Increased multifamily housing applications relative to single-family. The City continued growth in Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and multifamily construction. 643 housing units were completed toward the City’s RHNA goal of 11,760 units.
Recent Actions: Approved various zoning changes, code amendments, and adjustments to housing element sites.
Commissioner Questions and Comments. Chair Jeff Harlan (At Large) asked if the credit for the housing unit is given when the certificate of occupancy is issued, or is it a building permit state? Staff indicated it is when the building permit is issued.
Public Comment. None.
Commissioner Comments. David Martinez (District 5) praised the “Cruise the Loop” event in Mesa Verde, noting it was well-attended and highly successful. He expressed hope that the event will be held again in the future. He also reminded the public to submit comments on the
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan before the deadline.
Additionally, he requested updates from Staff on:
The status of pre-approved Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) plans, and
The City Council’s final decisions on Housing Element rezoning recommendations.
Chair Jeff Harlan (At-Large) expressed strong appreciation to City Staff for the successful reopening of Brentwood Park on April 3. He highlighted the strong turnout at the grand opening, with more than 100 attendees, including many families and children. He noted that the park has remained active and well-used in the weeks since reopening. Chair Harlan extended special thanks to Public Works Staff and Rob Ryan for their efforts in completing the project.
CONSENT CALENDAR: The sole item on the Consent Calendar was approval of the minutes from the March 9, 2026 meeting. Dickson moved approval, Zich seconded, and the motion carried 6-0 with Klepack absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were two public hearings:
1. Review of Zoning Administrator’s Approval of New Cell Tower at 2065 Placentia Avenue. Staff presented a request to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval of a 60-foot-tall wireless facility disguised as a mono-eucalyptus tree at 2065 Placentia Avenue. This design replaces the previously proposed mono-pine. The facility includes four antenna sectors, 48 remote radio units, and supporting equipment enclosed within an 8-foot CMU structure. The project is intended to improve AT&T wireless coverage in the area. The presentation was delivered by Justin Arios, Associate Planner.
The revised location provides improved placement on the site.
Approximate Distances:
~420 ft from nearby residential property lines.
~470 ft from nearest home.
~400 ft from another similar facility on-site.
Regulatory Context:
Wireless facilities are strongly regulated by federal law:
Cities cannot deny projects if it would effectively prohibit service coverage.
RF (radio frequency) health concerns cannot be used as a basis for denial if FCC standards are met.
The applicant submitted a coverage gap analysis, an alternative sites analysis, and EME (radiofrequency exposure) report confirming FCC compliance.
Evaluation Criteria: The project must:
Be compatible with surrounding uses.
Not harm public health, safety, or welfare.
Be consistent with the General Plan.
Use the minimum height necessary.
Meet city design and performance standards.
Commissioner Questions. Angely Andrade (District 4) asked whether the City has specific aesthetic standards for wireless facilities. Staff explained that the code does not include explicit design standards; instead, projects are evaluated for compatibility with surrounding uses. Staff noted that most facilities are typically undisguised, and camouflage designs—such as the eucalyptus tree—are considered improvements on a case-by-case basis.
Andrade also raised concerns about the poor condition of the existing on-site tower and whether the new tower would reflect the improved design as shown. Staff acknowledged the existing facility’s condition and stated it is being addressed separately, noting that maintenance is the responsibility of the operator. For the proposed tower, conditions of approval require proper installation and ongoing maintenance of the camouflage design.
Rob Dickson (District 5) expressed concern about the poor maintenance and appearance of existing towers, noting the lack of enforceable upkeep requirements in older approvals. He asked whether the City has leverage to improve them. Staff responded that the City is working with providers and intends to use public feedback and community concerns to encourage improvements, though outcomes are not guaranteed. Dickson acknowledged limitations but supported the improved design of the new facility.
David Martinez (District 5) noted that some conditions still referenced the prior mono-pine design; Staff confirmed these would be corrected. He also asked why the site—identified in the Housing Element for potential residential development—is still being used for telecommunications infrastructure. Staff explained that the application was deemed complete under prior zoning, before the site was updated for housing, and therefore is evaluated under those earlier provisions. They added that land use ultimately remains at the property owner’s discretion, subject to applicable zoning at the time of application.
Martinez further asked whether the tower could limit future housing development. Staff responded that the current review does not evaluate alternative uses, and if housing is pursued later, the facility could be removed or relocated, depending on lease terms or redevelopment decisions. He also asked whether the approval is consistent with state housing laws; Staff stated there is no conflict with state law.
Applicant’s Presentation. The applicant’s representative, John McDonald, stated that he had reviewed and agreed to all conditions of approval, and gave a short presentation.
Commissioner Questions to the Applicant. Jon Zich (District 1) asked whether AT&T had communicated concerns to the owner of the existing monopine tower. The applicant responded that he was not aware of any such correspondence.
Public Comments. One speaker, Celine, representing nearby residents and petition signers, stated that while the group would prefer no tower, they support the revised location as a compromise. She thanked Staff for following up on prior complaints, including a noise issue from the existing tower that was eventually resolved after persistent efforts.
She also raised ongoing concerns about the existing facility, including:
Poor maintenance and appearance.
Lack of clear identification signage.
Difficult site access.
Potential emergency response challenges.
Motion and Vote. Zich moved to approve the Staff recommendation with the corrections identified by Martinez. The motion was seconded by Dickson. The motion passed 6-0, with Klepack absent.
2. Approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to modify the existing off-sale State Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license from Type 20 (Beer and Wine) to Type 21 (General) for a 7-Eleven convenience store located at 675 Paularino Avenue. The Commission considered a request to approve a CUP to modify the existing off-sale ABC license for the 7‑Eleven. This change would allow the store to sell distilled spirits, in addition to beer and wine. No changes to the store’s 24-hour operation or physical layout were proposed. The item was presented by Justin Arios, Associate Planner. The Police Department reviewed the application and raised no objections.
Commissioner Questions. Zich asked about a letter included in the agenda report, authored by SSJ Law, stating that the Police Department had no concerns. He inquired whether this information had been independently verified by the City.
Staff clarified that SSJ Law represents the applicant and confirmed that the City had independently verified with the Police Department that there were no concerns.
Applicant’s Presentation. Bruce Evans of SSJ Law, who appeared on behalf of 7-11, stated that he had reviewed and agreed to all conditions of approval. He did not have a presentation.
Public Comment. None.
Motion and Vote. Dickson moved to approve the item. The motion was seconded by Zich and passed 6-0, with Klepack absent.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: There was one item:
1. Overview of Proposed Amendments to Municipal Code to Update Land Use Classifications for Personal Services, Artisan Studio and Retail Uses, Active Entertainment Uses, Event Centers and Assembly Uses, Specialized Fitness Studios, and Related Commercial Uses. This item was presented as a study session, with Staff seeking feedback from the Planning Commission on proposed amendments to the Municipal Code related to non-residential land use classifications.
The amendments are intended to modernize the Zoning Code, reduce ambiguity, improve regulatory clarity, and better support business reinvestment while maintaining consistency with the City’s planning goals. The presentation was given by Amber Gregg, Contract Planner, and Martina Caron, Planning Manager.
The City’s Zoning Code has remained largely unchanged since 1997 and currently includes over 150 narrowly defined land use categories. This has led to:
Uncertainty for applicants and Staff.
Difficulty accommodating new and emerging business types.
Potential barriers to investment and economic development.
The proposed amendments focus on 11 targeted updates (limited to non-residential uses), with key goals to:
Consolidate uses into broader, more flexible categories.
Modernize definitions.
Improve clarity and consistency.
Support economic development.
Clarify development standards, including height and floor area ratio (FAR).
Key Proposed Use Updates:
Personal Services: Consolidate small, one-on-one services (e.g., salons, spas, wellness) into a clearer category with standardized requirements.
Artisan Studio & Retail: Combine production and on-site sales uses (e.g., maker spaces) to avoid unnecessary conditional use permits.
Active Entertainment: Group interactive uses (e.g., escape rooms, esports, simulators) to accommodate evolving entertainment formats.
Event Centers & Assembly Uses: Combine passive, observer-oriented venues (e.g., banquet halls, conference centers).
Specialized Fitness Studios: Distinguish smaller studios (e.g., yoga, Pilates) from larger fitness facilities.
Food Halls & Ghost Kitchens: Define and regulate emerging models with higher operational intensity.
Electric Vehicle Charging: Establish clear standards aligned with state requirements.
Sports Clubs: Clarify classification for activities such as pickleball, basketball, and soccer.
Commercial Kitchens: Define shared-use kitchens and incubator spaces to support food startups.
Development Standards Updates:
Height Limits:
Current limit: 2 stories / 30 feet.
Proposal: Allow up to +12 feet via conditional use permit.
Goal: Provide flexibility for redevelopment while maintaining compatibility.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
Current code lacks clarity on what counts toward FAR.
Proposal: Clarify definitions, and exclude non-usable areas that don’t impact intensity.
Goal: Ensure consistent and transparent calculations.
Key Benefits of Proposed Changes:
Shift from rigid, outdated regulations to a flexible framework.
Reduce reliance on case-by-case approvals.
Improve predictability and efficiency.
Better accommodate new and evolving business models.
Support economic growth and reinvestment.
Commissioner Questions. Zich asked about parking standards and whether distinctions exist between fixed and movable seating. Staff explained that current standards already account for both conditions. He also asked about commercial kitchens, noting they function similarly to industrial uses; Staff confirmed they would primarily be located in industrial zones but still require a defined category for regulatory clarity.
Zich also asked whether industry standards (such as BOMA/IFMA) were considered. Staff confirmed these were reviewed, along with traffic engineering data, and that proposed changes focus on areas contributing to development intensity.
Dickson strongly supported the updates, noting they address long-standing ambiguity in the zoning code. He emphasized:
The importance of balanced flexibility, particularly regarding building height and massing near residential areas;
Concerns about operational impacts of certain uses (e.g., ghost kitchens, fitness studios) such as traffic, congestion, and peak demand; and
The need for realistic planning assumptions, particularly regarding continued high reliance on personal vehicles.
Andrade asked about potential opportunities to support microenterprise home kitchen operations (MEKOs). Staff noted these are typically regulated by the county health department and may require further coordination, but agreed to explore the issue. Because Costa Mesa does not have its own health inspection system, implementation would likely depend on Orange County Health Department adoption or require additional coordination. Larger cities (like Los Angeles) may have more capacity to implement such programs independently.
Martinez supported the overall effort to modernize the code but raised concerns about parking standards and methodology, including:
Whether parking ratios reflect current data or evolving transportation patterns;
The potential impact of parking requirements on land use efficiency and economic activity; and
The balance between accommodating current vehicle use and supporting long-term sustainability goals.
Staff explained that parking standards are generally based on:
Industry trip generation data (e.g., ITE).
Occupancy standards.
Practices used by other cities.
Staff also acknowledged that transportation patterns are evolving and future updates may further adjust parking requirements.
Harlan expressed strong support for the approach, particularly:
Expanding broader land use categories paired with clear definitions.
Including additional uses in the Active Entertainment category (e.g., climbing gyms, trampoline parks).
Planning ahead for emerging trends, such as autonomous vehicle infrastructure.
He also suggested engaging with commercial property owners and industry groups to better anticipate evolving market needs.
Public Comment. None.
Motion and Vote. Dickson moved to receive and file the item. The motion was seconded by Andrade. The motion passed 6-0, with Klepack absent.
AND THAT, FOLKS, WAS ONLY HALF THE MONTH! PART TWO IS COMING UP!
Comments