CITY HALL UPDATE FOR JULY 2025 PLUS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY

The City Council had three meetings in June, two of which were Closed Sessions only. The July 15 meeting was the chaotic one we already reported on. The Planning Commission met twice.

JULY 1 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING. There was only one item on this Agenda: the appointment of the City Manager. However, I was told that this meeting was only to develop a framework for selecting a new City Manager. To my knowledge, there was no report out by the City Attorney.

JULY 8 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING. There was only one item on this Agenda: anticipated litigation. This was likely concerning the lawsuit by Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, the former City Manager. She filed her Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate for Violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act the prior evening, so the City could have been served with papers before this meeting. 

JULY 15 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.  Our report can be found here: https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/special-update-re-chaotic-city-council-meeting 

JULY 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.  Commissioners Angely Andrade, Jeff Harlan, Karen Klepack, David Martinez, and Johnny Rojas were present; Rob Dickson and Jon Zich were absent. One item required action:

• Public Hearing for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Design Review, Tentative Tract Map, and Density Bonus For A 142-Unit, Owner-Occupied Residential Project at 3150 Bear Street (the old Trinity Broadcasting site)

Public Comment.  None.

Commissioner Comments.  Angely Andrade spoke about the challenges that residents are experiencing in connection with ICE activities and a fear to go out into the community for things, such as food and dropping kids are school, and the volunteers that are helping provide help. Dialing 211 will connect people with legal services and resources. David Martinez reminded everyone of a City Council meeting the following evening. He announced the ribbon-cutting for the new Balearic Park basketball and pickleball courts. Jeff Harlan reminded everyone about the concerts in the park.

CONSENT CALENDAR: There was one set of minutes from the June 23, 2025 meeting. Harlan tried to take a vote without a motion, but was corrected. Martinez moved to approve the minutes, which motion was seconded by Andrade. That motion passed 5-0.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: There was only one public hearing, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Design Review, Tentative Tract Map, and Density Bonus For A 142-Unit, Owner-Occupied Residential Project at 3150 Bear Street. The project is located on a Measure K site. The site was put on the Measure K Map by Councilmember Loren Gameros because the owner asked that it be included. Chris Yeager, Senior Planner, gave a presentation that lasted nearly 15 minutes.

Because seven of the condos (5%) will be for very low-income households, the applicant is using concessions to obtain a density bonus and a waiver of the City’s development standards, including height limitations, individual lot sizes, side-by-side units, front setbacks, landscaped parkways, and minimum open space requirements. Most of the units (122) are stacked flats that will be in eight four-story buildings, but 20 are two-story detached single-family dwellings to be located on the east and south perimeters of the project. Stacked flats means the upper-level residents must walk up two flights of stairs to reach their units. Stacked flats are seen on the East Coast, where many buildings lack elevators due to age. Since the CC&Rs allow rental of the condos, those units could easily become rentals.

The back side of the stacked flat units is a “private drive,” which is what the rest of us call an alley lined with garages. While the report claims there will be landscaping throughout the site, there is little landscaping on the long alleys of garages. There is one depiction of those alleyways, but it does not depict what it will look like as a pedestrian walking down the “private drive,” so we cannot see the canyon effect.

At the project entrance, a new traffic signal and pedestrian crossing will be added. Across Bear Street is Shiffer Park, which will be used by residents to compensate for the shortage of required open space. The emergency access from Olympic Avenue will be retained. Other than that, no improved bike lanes or pedestrian facilities, despite room on Bear Street to provide them. There is no mention of the traffic coming from the new South Coast Village project (housing replacing commercial) or the ginormous Related Project replacing the Callen’s Commons shopping center. Both of those projects are going to send tons of traffic down Bristol Street, Bear Street, and Fairview Road.

There is an economic analysis that shows that the City will gain about $78,058 a year in net revenue from the project (revenues of $440,593 less $362,535 in services provided). That’s not a lot of net revenue, given the City budget of about $187 million, and that estimate could easily be off.

The project does not provide the required open space. In order to get more open space for recreation, the developer will take a parkway area adjacent to Bear Street that the property owner has been maintaining and convert that into private open space. That open space will not be accessible to the public, as it will be behind the private entry gate. THIS IS THE PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC LAND WITHOUT ANY PAYMENT TO THE CITY BY THE DEVELOPER. Without this land, the developer wouldn’t be able to cram in more units.

The developer will pay for the construction of a pickleball court in Shiffer Park, along with replacing playground equipment and shade structures, all at an estimated cost of $250,000. The developer is paying for the intersection improvements and the $250,000 for Shiffer Park improvements, so the new residents won’t pay Mello-Roos fees, which is sometimes a deterrent for buyers. The usual development fees, including traffic impact and park fees, are also required.

Commissioner Questions. Johnny Rojas asked about changes in the layout of the project, such as the increase in the number of units and the reduction in open space in order to fit in more units, but then he asked why the driveways had been widened. That is due to the need for fire department access. He then asked why the pedestrian gate on Olympic was part of the plan. Yeager answered that it was easier for someone in the Olympic neighborhood to get to Schiffer Park.

Martinez asked about the time the gate would be open and it would be same as the park, dawn to dusk. He asked about the number of General Plan Amendments the City is allowed each year (four) and how many have been applied for. Yeager replied three. Martinez wanted to know the sales prices for affordable units, but Yeager said the applicant would have that information. He also had questions about the mitigated declaration and mitigation measures, but Yeager had to defer to the developer’s CEQA consultant. Martinez asked if there were plans in the Capital Improvement Projects for Shiffer Park. No one on Staff knew for certain. He also asked about the trees that are to be retained, despite being in poor health. He was told to talk to the developer.

Andrade questioned the location of the new crosswalk across Bear Street in terms of safety and also asked about congestion on Bear. Yeager told her that the Transportation Department had approved the location, and he didn’t have any information about the motor vehicle congestion on Bear. The two new projects in Santa Ana near South Coast Plaza will greatly impact traffic in Costa Mesa because they will generate around 11,000 daily trips, with construction traffic for those projects being directed onto Bristol and Bear Streets. Andrade asked whether the Olympic emergency access gate could be opened up for full access between the two tracts. Yeager said the project doesn’t propose it, and that would require additional analysis and studies.

Harlan asked that Yeager explain the difference between concessions and waivers as it applies to the State density bonus law. He answered that the density bonus law gives developers incentives to provide affordable units. Two of these incentives are concessions and waivers. The concession is used when there is something identifiable that would result in a cost reduction for the project. So, in this case, the developer proposes a detached unit (single-family home) with a second-story design deviation. It is a simpler design would be more affordable to construct. Waivers are different in that they are not cost-related, but rather a change that enables the developer to physically fit the allowable units on the site. The developer is requesting a waiver of the maximum building height to allow for additional units to be stacked on top. It is requesting a deviation in the front setback to reduce it so there would be more room on the site to develop units.

The developer then gave a presentation and answered questions posed by the Commissioners, such as the reason for keeping the old trees on site. Those were identified by the developer, health wasn’t a factor in selecting them, and the developer would remove them if the City wanted. The price of the units would be determined later in conjunction with the City, but the affordable units would be equal to the purchase price that results in a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 35% of the area median income. A qualified buyer would be able to earn up to 120% of the area median income. Martinez asked questions about the conditions of approval concerning the environmental report which were answered with technical responses. Andrade asked about the number of affordable units. There are seven, and that is what is required under the density bonus law, which is that 5% of the units will be for very low-income earners. She also questioned the emergency access only restriction on Olympic Avenue, and the developer responded it was the desire of the residents to limit the access. Karen Klepack asked about a footbridge over Bear, and the developer’s response was that it is not feasible.

Public Comment. I counted 18 residents who made public comments. Neighbors from all sides of the project expressed concerns about parking overflow in their neighborhood, which is already impacted by heavy street parking from neighboring apartments and businesses. One comment was that the four-bedroom units would have more than two cars. Another neighbor complained about a plot plan she got in the mail with no information to make sense of it, and she couldn’t comment on it without adequate information. Other comments were about the height of the units, concerns about privacy, traffic on Bear Street being problematic already, Fire Department access, and the safety of the traffic signal. Only one person was in favor of the project.

The developer had the opportunity to rebut the comments. She reminded everyone that these are entry-level for-sale homes. Regarding the pedestrian gate, the developer is happy to get rid of it. It was a recommendation from the City. She said that the CC&Rs would have a covenant for the garages being used for cars, and garage checks. She said the signalized intersection is for safety.

Martinez asked Staff about the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). The only way to deny a project under the HAA is to find that the project was unsafe. Martinez then asked about parking as it relates to the density bonus law, and was told the parking exceeds what is required. Does he ever not ask about parking? He needs to get off that dead horse.

Martinez made a motion to approve Staff’s recommendation, with a request to review two conditions of approval, which motion was seconded by Andrade. In speaking to his motion, Martinez said what he always says, “We are in a housing crisis.” He said the Schiffer Park improvements, the pedestrian gate, and traffic signal were great improvements. He likes that this is a homeownership product that is part of missing middle housing. He called the raised crosswalks within the site “amazing.”

Andrade said this project will help address the renter-to-homeowner imbalance. She talked about how kids growing up here can’t afford to buy in Costa Mesa. She said that this project responds to the community’s desire to buy a home here.

Klepack said she likes that the units are all electric.

Harlan acknowledged the concerns of the surrounding community. He said the taller buildings are in the middle and against Bear Street, so the single-family two-story homes on the perimeter should be a sufficient buffer. He said he likes the affordable ownership housing.

The motion carried by a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Dickson and Zich absent.

This project will get at least two hearings before the City Council as an ordinance change must be approved.

JULY 28 PLANNING COMMISSION.  Items acted on were:

• Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Operate an Animal Kenneling Facility with Ancillary Veterinary Services, Priceless Pets, at 126 E 16th Street

• Resolution Recommending that City Council Give First Reading to an Ordinance Amending Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code Pertaining to Minor Technical Updates

All commissioners were present, except Karen Klepack.

Public Comment.  The sole comment was about the importance of good governance, particularly about our representatives disclosing their thoughts on an item they are voting on. It’s called accountability, and this Commission is often too lax in this respect. Given the contents of the lawsuit by the former City Manager against the City, anyone who sits silently on the dais may be construed as complacent. I delivered those comments.

Commissioner Comments.  David Martinez asked that Staff respond at the end of the meeting as to when the ADU templates will be available. He also spoke about the City Council denying the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the Victoria Place project. The Planning Commission recommended denial, and the City Council approved it instead. He said that section of the Municipal Code 13-29(h)(2) would apply if the City Council made a major amendment to the application, and then the Planning Commission could review the application. Here is that section:

“(2) For planning applications which require the planning commission to make a recommendation to the final review authority, the authority shall not approve any major change or additions in any proposed planning application until the proposed change or addition has been referred to the planning commission for a report, unless the change or addition was previously considered by the planning commission. It shall not be necessary for the planning commission to hold a public hearing to review the referral. Failure of the planning commission to report to the final review authority within 40 days after the referral shall be deemed approval of the proposed change or addition.”

He didn’t say what the major change was, only that he would defer to the City Attorney. See the Development Services Report below for a response. He announced the City’s new initiative, “Neighborhoods Where We All Belong,” with the first meeting on July 30 (see report below). He said that this is two years overdue. He also commented about the July 15 City Council meeting and the support of the community, versus the few outsiders who were there with the intent of starting trouble.

Rob Dickson spoke about TESSA and that Staff has made improvements, and asked if the City could do a survey so the Staff could understand some of the challenges the public is experiencing.

Angely Andrade announced a job fair at the new Goodwill Industries on Harbor Boulevard on July 30, and a backpack drive at IKEA for school kids, but didn’t announce the date, but I think it is Saturday, August 2, from 9-12 and may require registration.

Johnny Rojas had no comments.

Jon Zich spoke about problems with a wall and sidewalk on Andros Street. The wall encroaches onto the sidewalk by an inch, which makes it impossible for two people to pass each other on the narrow 4’ 6” sidewalk without one person having to step out onto the parkway. In addition, the protrusions from the wall are sharp, and if you aren’t careful, either or you or your clothing could be damaged. The wall also seems really tall and seems uninviting to me.

Jeff Harlan had no comments.

CONSENT CALENDAR. There was one item on the Consent Calendar, the Minutes of the July 14, 2025 meeting. On motion by Martinez, seconded by Zich, the item was unanimously approved.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were two Public Hearings:

1.     Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Operate an Animal Kenneling Facility with Ancillary Veterinary Services, Priceless Pets, at 126 E 16th Street.  The contract between Priceless Pets and the City requires that Priceless Pets secure a stand-alone facility in Costa Mesa, establish a lease, and obtain required permits. Priceless Pets had received approval for a CUP on Ponderosa Street, but the landlord decided it did not want to lease to them, so this is a new application at this location. Jeffrey Rimando, Assistant Planner, gave a presentation. There are new restrictions on this location, mostly relating to sound attenuation.

Commissioner Questions.  Dickson's questions related to the prior approval and about how the lack of minimum parking requirements will impact the parking for the neighboring businesses. Andrade asked about the anticipated traffic. Rimando said it is primarily used by the City’s Animal Control officers, but also for veterinary services for animals rescued by those officers. There would also be traffic from people picking up their animals or surrendering animals. Rojas read an email from a neighboring business about its noise concerns, along with the condition of approval that only two animals could be outside at one time. Rimando confirmed the condition. Zich asked about the lack of parking requirements due to State law (AB 2097) that doesn’t allow minimum parking within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and who determined that law applied to the project. The City’s Planning Department, in conjunction with the Public Works Department, determined that. Martinez said that SCAG has provided maps of transit priority areas (see photo).

Transit Priority Areas

Much of the Westside of Costa Mesa is in a priority area. Martinez went on to ask about the hours of operation and the process to change them. That requires an amendment to the CUP, and the Planning Director could decide either to approve it or bring it to the Planning Commission. He questioned the lack of sidewalks, but this project doesn’t involve improvements to more than 50% of the site, so that change is not warranted. He asked about how noise complaints by the residents could be addressed. Rimando said quiet enjoyment rules apply. Martinez pointed out that the City does have a noise ordinance. Dickson asked whether there had been complaints about noise at the applicant’s adoption location. Economic and Development Services Director Carrie Tai said there had not been any complaints that she was aware of. Harlan asked the deadline date for the applicant to obtain a new facility under the contract with the City. Staff did not know.

Lisa Price of Priceless Pets answered questions posed by the Commissioners. She said close attention will be paid to reducing noise from the animals and spoke at length about the efforts that will be taken. She also said the deadline to get a location has lapsed, despite attempts to find a location for three years.

Public Comments.  Cara Stewart, the chair of the Animal Services Committee, spoke in favor of the application. Two neighbors of the property spoke about their concerns about noise and about the lack of noise information in the Agenda Report.

Price further addressed the noise concerns.

Dickson moved to approve the project as recommended by Staff, with a modification to the conditions of approval to add a sound attenuation requirement. The motion was seconded by Andrade. Each spoke to the motion. Zich also spoke about the noise concerns but also pointed out that the applicant has expressed a desire to keep the noise down and explained techniques to do so. The motion was unanimously approved.

2.     Resolution Recommending that City Council Give First Reading to an Ordinance Amending Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code Pertaining to Minor Technical Updates.  These updates to the Zoning Code are necessary to meet the State law, clarify code sections, align the Code to current practices and procedures, and modify procedures to increase efficiency in entitlement and permit reviews. Some of the items covered are walls, fences. and landscaping; group and individual counseling parking requirements; prohibition of exposed pipes and conduits; antenna screening; subdivisions under SB 9; and Accessory Dwelling Units.

Caitlyn Curley and Froylan Garcia, Assistant Planners, gave the presentation. Staff recommended that the shared parking requirements be deferred to the August 25, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.

Commissioner Questions.  Martinez wanted to know what changes had been made since the prior study session. Curley said the changes were to correct a typo, to correct that wall transparency requirements were only applicable to nonresidential zones, and moved an entire section for the purpose of clarity. Harlan had questions about the solid wall requirements. Zich asked about SB 9 projects and their information. Curley indicated that the project is ongoing and she will get the info to him. Martinez also asked about the transparency of residential walls. There was an error in the Agenda Report that was noted.

Public Comments.  None.

Motion.  I thought this item was going to be boring, but that all changed here. Martinez said he wanted to make two motions. He made a motion to approve the item, except for the group counseling parking requirement, which he wanted to change to four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, and to remove everything for fencing as it applies to residential zones. He explained that he feels his time is running out to do some good zoning code updates and reform, as well as policy changes he wants to propose to the City Council. He then started to name what he wanted to do, but he was stopped by Harlan, who cautioned him that it would be a Brown Act violation because those changes had not been noticed to the public. The City Attorney concurred with Harlan’s statement. Martinez then reworded his desires for change as a request that Staff agendize them. He said he wants changes to sections of our Title 13 of the City’s Ordinances covering density bonuses, the number of City Council members, subdivided lots, minor additions of words for clarifications, valet parking, and drive-throughs in pedestrian opportunity zones. He then got up on his soapbox about, you guessed it, parking requirements.

Harlan seconded the motion for discussion. Martinez then spoke to his motion and said that he was surprised he had gotten that far. Harlan requested clarification on the fencing. Zich objected to the motion, saying that it was inappropriate to take a policy wish list for items that are not on the Agenda and tack it onto a motion. The City Attorney then told Harlan it would be best to make a motion to approve the agendized items, and then make another motion or request for the other items to be put on an Agenda. Harlan took that to mean that the next meeting would have to have an agenda item for Martinez’s wish list to be requested of Staff. Martinez then asked Tai if it would be on the next meeting’s Agenda. I heard a little grumble from someone, and then Harlan asked Tai to respond.

Tai said she would answer on a broader level, which was that right now, the City’s priority is the City-wide rezoning effort and the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan, which is part of the effort to get a certified Housing Element. In its spare time, Staff does work on code cleanup, but at this time, there isn’t time for a comprehensive code cleanup. She also said that two meetings ago, Martinez gave Staff a list of 45 items that they are now working on. She said she’ll add the items she heard tonight to the list, and at some point, the Planning Department can bring back a Study Session on technical code cleanups and certain policy discussions, without any policy direction, because that is subject to analysis, public discussion, and public input.

Martinez seemed to stumble on what he could accomplish that evening versus what he wanted to accomplish. He had been told to separate the two items in his motion, but he couldn’t get over that he had received strong pushback from both his fellow Commissioners and Tai. He finally amended his original motion to remove his wish list, with the expectation that eventually, Staff would return with a Study Session on those items.

Zich said that the process that Tai and the City Attorney laid out was acceptable and he would support the motion, pointing out that if he did the same thing Martinez had tried, he would expect the same reaction.

The motion passed unanimously.

Martinez is young, and obviously inexperienced when it comes to workplace protocol. One hard rule to follow: Don’t air your dirty laundry in front of the world. How is one Planning Commissioner allowed to pile on work for Staff? I thought only the City Council could request that the City Manager direct Staff to do special projects, given the four-hour rule. No wonder Tai pushed back on his request, albeit gently. Martinez should have brought this up in a private meeting with Tai, as opposed to a public meeting where everyone was made uncomfortable. He is obviously frustrated by the slowness by which Staff gets to projects, but to make a show of it at a public meeting was inappropriate. And then he topped it off with an attempt to violate the Brown Act. Tsk tsk.

OLD BUSINESS: None.

NEW BUSINESS: None.

PUBLIC WORKS REPORT: Seung Yang, City Engineer, said there will be an ebike safety course at Estancia on Thursday, August 7. OCTA will hold a similar event on August 13.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: Tai responded to earlier questions by Martinez. She said the ADU prototypes are being held up by the architects. The Victoria Place project did not have major changes, and it would not be appropriate to return it to the Planning Commission.

A MISSED OPPORTUNITY: JULY 30 “NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE ALL BELONG” PLANNING MEETING

On July 30, the City of Costa Mesa held a kickoff meeting for its rezoning efforts under Measure K and the Housing Element. Unfortunately, the event fell short in both execution and substance. It felt more like a performative exercise than a genuine effort to engage the community.

The meeting was held at the Norma Hertzog Community Center, which is one of the most acoustically poor buildings in the City to hold a meeting with more than 10 people. There were around 75 people in attendance who arrived and departed at different times, and plenty of Staff and consultants to boot.

Former Planning Commissioner Jenna Tourje Maldonaldo, a consultant for Kearns and West, led the introductions and played a video of Staff and consultants making comments. Carrie Tai, Economic and Development Services Director, also made welcome remarks. Translations were made for Spanish speakers, but the video was only in English. City officials present were Councilmembers Jeff Pettis and Arlis Reynolds, along with Planning Commissioners Angely Andrade, Rob Dickson, Jeff Harlan, and David Martinez.

The stated goal was to gather community input on what makes a good neighborhood. There were posters and stickers with questions about what we find important, like housing options and outdoor spaces, along with demographics, such as what housing we’ve lived in. Why was the last item solicited? It is not clear how our past housing experiences contribute to the current planning goals. The City should clarify the relevance of such questions. What the City should be focusing on is: Who is living where, their living conditions, and what needs to be done to improve that, if improvement is needed. And half of that information is available in the US Census data. This effort was definitely a waste of posterboard and stickers.

The meeting lacked critical information that residents need to understand the rezoning process. For example, the poster about the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) didn’t have the number of units for which the City has to plan (11,760). In addition, the map of the parcels the City has designated for rezoning didn’t show the anticipated densities or give an illustration of what the housing or commercial use on these densities would look like. A visual rendering of 30, 70 and 90 units per acre would help residents understand density. Without this context, meaningful public input is nearly impossible.

There was no explanation of why this effort is taking place now, nearly three years after the passage of Measure K and over three years since the adoption of a noncompliant Housing Element. This rezoning effort is one of more than 40 programs in the Housing Element that must be completed in order to make our Housing Element compliant, so the City doesn’t face the consequences Sacramento can force upon us. That’s something the public needs to understand!

The poster with the instruction “Let’s envision good neighborhoods for all” was probably the biggest waste of time and space. The responses where all over the place because it was unguided, unstructured, and poorly facilitated. This should have been part of a guided roundtable discussion, not a free-for-all with post-its.

Where is the visioning that I’ve been requesting for years? Nowhere to be seen. The term “visioning” is on the meeting handout and one poster, but when I asked what it meant and when it would occur, I couldn’t get an answer out of the consultant.

In speaking with one of the consultants from Dudek (yes, there is more than one company working for the City on this effort), I learned that the upcoming neighborhood events aren’t planned to offer more information either. The so-called “Focused Discussions” are undefined. When I asked what those were, if it would be a round table discussion with questions and comments, the consultant said it hadn’t been decided yet. Well, Jiminy Christmas! It had better decide soon because those meetings are coming up.

Here is the schedule for the next meetings:

• Thursday, August 21, 2025, Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., at City Hall in the Community Room (park in rear), 77 Fair Drive

• Saturday, August 23, 2025, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. This was scheduled to be a walking tour, but a sit-down meeting has been added; meet up at the Senior Center, 695 W. 19th Street

• Wednesday, September 10, 2025, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., FLDWRK, 150 Paularino Avenue, Building B

In judging the meeting, and as residents, it is our duty to judge how well the City performs, we need to look at two things: What was the purpose/goal? And was it achieved? To the first question, I really don’t know what the true purpose was. I don’t know how the information gathered by the City/consultant is relevant to the rezoning that must be done. The answer to the second question is a definite NO. I don’t see how an unfocused and uninformative meeting could achieve any goal.

How could the City do better?

• Hire a more capable consultant. This one seems unprepared and unclear on how to lead a community-driven planning process.

• Form a diverse advisory committee. A well-structured advisory committee should include not just residents, but representatives from senior groups, affordable housing advocates, youth organizations, disability advocates, business owners, developers, and school districts.

• Provide clear, accessible information. The citizens need to understand what is being proposed and why it matters. Visuals, timelines, and plain-language explanations are essential.

• Facilitate real dialogue. Replace passive poster sessions with guided discussions that allow for questions, feedback, and collaborative problem-solving.

The Dudek consultant told me they just didn’t want an advisory committee because it would be too large, somewhere around 15 people, and they didn’t know how to handle that. I told her to look at Santa Ana, which had a great advisory committee for its General Plan update. There are more cities that have used advisory committees, such as Newport (which has two advisory committees for its General Plan).

This is one of the most important initiatives the City has ever had to complete. The potential impacts on housing affordability, neighborhood character, and city services, to name a few, will be felt by all the residents.

Outreach by the City of Costa Mesa has always been poor. I never thought that I would attend a meeting that was worse than the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan meetings, but this one even topped those. If the goal of this meeting was to gather meaningful input to guide the rezoning effort, it failed. Without transparency, structure, or vision, this process risks becoming another example of performative outreach—what many of us know as “Kabuki theatre.”

And while this meeting may have been dismal, I urge you to attend the next meetings. Being involved, and requesting better citizen involvement (such as an advisory committee), is the only way to make a better Costa Mesa.

And Costa Mesa deserves better.