CITY HALL UPDATE FOR JUNE 2025

The City Council had three meetings in June, although the last one should hardly count as a meeting, as it was the State of the City event hosted by the Chamber of Commerce. The Planning Commission met twice. We also attended a meeting of the Fairview Park Steering Committee. JUNE 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. At this meeting, the items acted on were:

• Business Improvement Area (BIA) Reauthorization to Levy Annual Assessment

• Appeal of Planning Commission’s Decision to Uphold Director of Development Services’ Determination that Conditional Use Permit for a Cannabis Storefront at 1687 Orange Avenue had Expired

• Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees

• Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Proposed Operating and Capital Improvement Program and Housing Authority Budget, including Annual Reporting For Equipment Use Policy, Vacancy Status, and Recruitment Strategies

• One-Year Use Agreement For Jack Hammett Sports Complex With UCLA Football for 2025 Pre-Season Training Camp

• Resolution for Exception to 180-Day Wait Period for Rehire of Finance Officer Anna Dolewski
  

All City Councilmembers were present. There was a presentation honoring Newport Mesa Unified School District graduates who had committed to military service, and a proclamation for Pride Month.

City Attorney Closed Session Report. The City Attorney, Kimberly Hall Barlow, gave one of her rare reports, which was that upon motion of Council member Manuel Chavez, seconded by Loren Gameros, the City Council unanimously voted to appoint Assistant Manager Cecilia Gallardo-Daly as the Interim City Manager.

Public Comment. There were four public comments. The topics were about a neighbor who persisted in working on noisy vehicles in an alley; parking problems in District 2 near Fillmore Way; demonstrations in support of the immigrant community; and a request for support from the City for the immigrant community.

Council Member Comments. Mike Buley (District 1) spoke about an upcoming Study Session on June 11 (he should have said the 10^th) about the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan. That Study Session was cancelled as the item returned to the Planning Commission after more work. Buley said there has been a lot of visioning and public outreach. NO, THERE HASN’T! He obviously doesn’t know what visioning and good public outreach look like. He went on to give his take on the Planning Commission meeting in late May, where the residents almost unanimously told the Commission the plan being offered was unacceptable. He seems to be soft pedaling the fact that many residents are angry (and rightfully so).

Loren Gameros (District 2) talked about incidents that occurred that required first responders. He then requested that Staff agendized the elimination of both Zoom and telephonic comments. He said if someone wants to talk to the City Council, they can come in person.

Andrea Marr (District 3) immediately responded to Gameros’s request with the comment that she appreciates constituents being able to use Zoom. She then congratulated Gallardo-Daly.

Arlis Reynolds (District 5) also congratulated Gallardo-Daly. She also responded to Gameros’s request by stating she did not support removing ways the public can participate in meetings. She recognized City employees who had reached milestones with the City. She spoke in support of the Costa Mesa Historical Society. She talked about an event recognizing Trellis. Reynolds recognized the problems facing the immigrant community and the history of fighting discrimination in Orange County. She asked that we all be kinder and consider smiling at people more. That comment made Gameros lean over to Buley for a short conversation.

Jeff Pettis (District 6) spoke about two Memorial Day services he attended. 

Manuel Chavez (District 4) spoke about attending the city youth soccer tournament and several other events. He announced the free lunch program for kids at the Donald Dungan library that continues until July 18. He requested that Staff look into the uptick in homeless activity on 19^th Street. He also asked that the City look at raising the TOT (temporary occupancy tax collected by the hotels) by putting a measure on the ballot for the 2026 election.

John Stephens (Mayor) welcomed Gallardo-Daly; spoke about attending events; he announced the State of the City event. He spoke about a video on TikTok of a volunteer at Priceless Pets dragging a dog along the sidewalk. Stephens said that Priceless Pets handled it well. He spoke about attending events. He announced that he would adjourn the meeting in honor of Shannon Santos of Someone Cares Soup Kitchen.

Interim City Manager Comments.  Gallardo-Daly recognized Raja Sethuramen, Public Works Director, and the Transportation Department for receiving the 2025 Outstanding Bikeways and Trail Award from the Orange County Chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers. The City received the award for the Adams/Pinecreek project. She spoke about the kickoff of the Information Technology update plan. She also announced the posting of new planning department statistics on the City’s website.

City Attorney Comments.  Hall Barlow spoke about the torch run for the Special Olympics on June 7-8 at Long Beach State.

CONSENT CALENDAR.  No items were pulled from the Consent Calendar. A motion to approve all the items in one vote was made by Stephens, seconded by Chavez. Gameros and Stephens had to recuse themselves from the warrants because of conflicts of interest, but the vote was unanimous.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were three public hearings:

1.     Business Improvement Area (BIA) Reauthorization to Levy Annual Assessment. There is a 3% assessment collected from hotel and motel owners for improvements to the BIA, along with the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). The City gets 1% of the collections, Travel Costa Mesa gets the other 99%. The City will no longer receive the $164,000 Community Events Planning Fund. The City Council had to approve the Travel Costa Mesa Annual Report, which showed an estimated 3% drop in TOT collections for 2024-2025 (its fiscal year has not ended yet). A motion to approve was made by Reynolds, seconded by Marr, and it passed unanimously.

2.     Appeal Of Planning Commission’s Decision to Uphold Director of Development Services’ Determination that Conditional Use Permit for a Cannabis Storefront at 1687 Orange Avenue had Expired. This was a de novo hearing, meaning that the City Council heard new evidence as to why the CUP should not have been deemed expired. The City was represented by attorney Veronica Donovan. Gabriel Villalobos from the Planning Department presented some information as well. The last time the applicant tried to explain some extenuating circumstances (their project manager died), but didn’t offer any good reason as to why it did not respond to the notice of expiration and request an extension of time. The Agenda report states, “Commissioner Martinez expressed that while unfortunate, the Planning Commission was not a policy-setting body and must adhere to the City’s Municipal Code.” At this hearing, the applicant/appellant denied ever receiving notification from the City that the CUP had expired and asked that either a new CUP be issued or that the old CUP be extended. The applicant later on in the hearing indicated that it did get notification, so which was it?

Stephens threw out a bunch of softball questions to the applicant/appellant, which seemed like an attempt to invoke sympathy. Gameros asked City Attorney Barlow Hall what the City Council could do concerning an extension of the CUP, and she said that after the public comment and any other questions by the City Council, the City Council could decide to grant an extension, or the applicant could submit a new application. Gameros, while asking questions of the applicant, seemed a little angry and injected comments when the applicant tried to speak. Reynolds asked questions about the sequence of demolition events and the permits required.

Stephens made a motion to overrule the Planning Commission’s decision and give the applicant an additional 180 days to get its CUP. That motion was seconded by Gameros. Stephens, speaking to his support of the motion, seemed to describe all the reasons why the applicant could sue the City. Gameros tried to defend the ordinance in his comments.

Marr made a substitute motion to deny the appeal, which was seconded by Buley. After comments by Chavez, Marr withdrew her motion. The Council then voted on the original motion. That motion passed 4-3, with Pettis, Marr, and Buley voting “No.”

3.     Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees.  Staff proposed a 3.3% increase, which is in line with the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles-Long Beach area. It is also proposed three new fees: (1) Credit Card Transaction Fee to recover what Visa/Mastercard are charging (currently 2.7%); (2) a General Plan Update Fee of 5% charge to offset a portion of the periodic costs associated with General Plan and supporting document updates and (3) a Technology Enhancement Fee of 5% fee to capture costs associated with the implementation, enhancement, management, and maintenance of the City’s software platform and technology.

The General Plan Update fee would be paid only by construction projects that use the City’s General Plan and related documents to determine whether the project can be constructed (e.g., new construction). That means it won’t apply to things like re-roofs and nonstructural changes. It is a less-than-full cost recovery.

The Technology Enhancement Fee would be applied to development-related fees. Since builders and developers have expressed a need to decrease the processing time for permits, this fee will assist in the recovery of costs associated with upgrading technology to do that. It is also less than full cost recovery.

After questions from the City Council members about the credit card fees and hearing one public comment (me), Chavez moved to approve Staff’s recommendation. That motion was seconded by Marr. Reynolds requested an addition for Staff to bring back adding American Express as an additional payment option and potentially increasing the fee to 3%, and for Staff to seek input from the Parks and Community Services Commission about the fees for using City facilities and programs.

Buley made a substitute motion to only adopt the credit fees and the CPI adjustment, which was seconded by Stephens. Buley and Stephens agreed to add the two requests made by Reynolds, but also wanted the Finance and Pension Advisory Committee to review any changes proposed by the Parks and Community Services Commission. Buley’s reasoning for not adding the other two fees was that it might appear to the public that the City is nickel-and-diming developers. That is how cost recovery works. The City is having budget issues, so why not recover its costs? In my mind, this was just poor management. The substitute motion passed on a 5-2 vote, with Marr and Gameros voting No.

4.     Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Proposed Operating and Capital Improvement Program and Housing Authority Budget, including Annual Reporting for Equipment Use Policy, Vacancy Status, and Recruitment Strategies. What the City Council adopts in its budget reflects what its priorities are, and what it thinks the values of the community are. A day before this meeting, the Finance and Pension Advisory Committee recommended that the City Council look at its priorities.

Presentations were made by Carol Molina, Finance Director, Miranda Garcia, Human Resources Administrator, and Raja Sethuramen, Public Works Director, along with others in the Engineering and Transportation Departments. The Council members asked questions of Staff. What was unusual about this meeting was at the last minute Molina suggested a change to funding the budget that the Council members liked, which was to (1) waive the Capital Assets Needs ordinance (CAN), (2) fund the Capital Improvement Projects on Slide 62 by realigning the IT improvement project funding of $1.2 million that won’t be used until 2026 by putting that money into the CAN, and (3) add $600,000 from the capital fund balance to get to the $1.8 million needed to reach the funding needed for the Slide 62 CIP projects.

Proposed Facility Projects Considered for Funding

The budget would NOT use reserves. It does leave the CAN short by $1.8 million, but that is because of the funding of the Slide 62 CIP projects. It would require a supermajority vote.

There were three public comments. Stephens said he wasn’t going to vote in favor of the proposed budget and asked about continuing the matter until the City Attorney could perform an IRAC (issue, rule, application, and conclusion) analysis, which is an analysis for the framework of a legal argument and is used in litigation practice. How that relates to the City’s budget is a mystery to me. To me, it sounded like a stall tactic. He also wanted time to look at the consultant contracts himself. My first thought on postponing was if the budget was stalled long enough, Council members Marr and Pettis would be on vacation and Stephens would be able to manipulate the remaining Council members into abiding by his wishes, whatever those may be. It sounded to me like he didn’t have the votes for whatever he was going to propose, and he knew he had to winnow out at least one of the members of the resistance. Of course, that’s my analysis.

Stephens made a motion to approve items 6-9, which was seconded by Chavez. This would have delayed accepting the budget in its entirety and would still leave items open until another meeting. Chavez started speaking to his motion, but went off topic. Marr interrupted and reminded him to speak to items on the Agenda. At that point, Reynolds made a substitute motion to accept Staff’s recommendation, which was seconded by Marr.

The motion passed on a 6-1 vote, with Stephens voting No.

NEW BUSINESS: There were two items of New Business:

1.     One-Year Use Agreement For Jack Hammett Sports Complex With UCLA Football for 2025 Pre-Season Training Camp. The Bruins will get to use the field for a little more than three weeks from approximately July 30, 2025 through August 18, 2025. Note that this is also during the Fair. UCLA will pay the City $160,056 and will hold two youth camps for local children (ages 6-14), exclusively for residents of Costa Mesa, and provide 500 tickets (250 per game) to the City of Costa Mesa for two UCLA home games in the 2025 season. Stephens made a motion to approve Staff’s recommendation, which was seconded by Chavez. That motion passed unanimously.

2.     Resolution for Exception to 180-Day Wait Period for Rehire of Finance Officer Anna Dolewski. She retired, but the City wanted to hire her back on a part-time basis. Her hourly rate will be $73.77 for a maximum of 960 hours. Stephens made a motion to approve Staff’s recommendation, which was seconded by Gameros. That motion passed unanimously.

JUNE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.  All Commissioners were present. Two items required action:

• Development of 40 Residential Condominium Units Located at 220, 222, 234, and 236 Victoria Street

• Hive Live Project 1,050 Apartments and 3,692 Sq Ft of Commercial, located at 3333 Susan Street, including Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Specific Plan Amendment, Master Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Etc.

Public Comment.  Jay Humphrey spoke on the disconnect expressed by the Commission in a prior meeting about the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan, and about the need for public participation in the decision-making process for the Randall Preserve.

Commissioner Comments.  Rob Dickson spoke about his happiness with Staff’s assistance with an issue with TESSA. Angely Andrade acknowledged incidents going on in Los Angeles County with ICE. Residents of Orange County facing issues around immigration can receive help from Orange County Rapid Response. She also announced an event that United Way was having about homelessness and what the City of Irvine is doing to help solve that problem.

CONSENT CALENDAR: There are three sets of minutes. One was a recent meeting (May 27, 2025), but the others were from 2021. All of the minutes were pulled by Jay Humphrey. He asked for a correction to the May minutes and then remarked on the tardiness of the other two sets of minutes. David Martinez moved to change the wording of the May minutes to reflect that Humphrey did not support the parking ratio and to approve the other minutes, which was seconded by Jeff Harlan. That motion was unanimously approved.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were two public hearings:

1. Development of 40 Residential Condominium Units Located at 220, 222, 234, and 236 Victoria Street. Staff requested that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project to the City Council, including the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Master Plan, and Tentative Tract Map, subject to conditions of approval. Staff did NOT get what it wanted.

This 40-unit for-sale project would be located on 1.77 acres near the corner of Victoria Street and Newport Boulevard. The density will be 22.6 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The developer asked for a ton of deviations and wanted to include the property in the Newport Boulevard Residential Incentive Overlay District in order to squeeze in more units and make them taller.

Victor Mendez, Senior Planner, gave a lengthy presentation. The Commissioners asked questions about traffic impacts, landscaping, pavers used for open space on the property, why the desire to join the overlay district, CalTrans’s request for additional pedestrian facilities, public safety concerns, and the Chinese menu of building standards the applicant was trying to make. The applicant seemed hesitant to come to the podium. He gave a short talk and then he and his architect fielded questions from the Commissioners.

Public Comment. Jay Humphrey spoke about parking issues, specifically about the street being used for overflow parking, and about the fact that the roof deck makes the structure four stories. I spoke about the location being inappropriate for housing and about the fact that spot zoning results when the City hasn’t done its work on rezoning. Rick Huffman spoke about the Harmony Way homes that are on a comparable-sized plot of land, but there are only 30 units, which makes it much more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

The Commissioners then asked more questions of Staff. Chair Harlan then closed the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to make a motion. There was a pause, and then Dickson moved to accept the Staff recommendation, with an additional Condition of Approval, which was that the downstairs workspace bathroom not be a full bath. That motion was NOT seconded and failed. There was a second motion by Jon Zich to recommend to the City Council that it DENY THE PROJECT, with Harlan seconding the motion. Zich cited all the deviations and oddball manipulation of the planning regulations. Harlan cited the entitlement request to join the overlay for his hesitancy to approve the project. He talked about the history of the overlay and that sites have been removed from the overlay by the City Council. He said the City needs some integrity with its planning. Dickson said it isn’t fair to hold an applicant hostage when the City can’t figure out what it is doing. He did call the deviations a “spectacular collection of deviations” that he’d never seen before. Karen Klepack spoke about the fact that these condos, which are traditionally an entry product to homeownership, are also designed for a multimember single-family household (i.e., a couple and a couple of kids), which doesn’t usually go along with the condo lifestyle. Martinez spoke about the strange components of the project, the odd location, and the fact that the zoning was irregular. He finally said that the process is unfortunate. I will add that the project took on a Frankenstein quality because the City does not have a vision that is clearly defined to developers.

The motion carried by a vote of 5-2, with Commissioners Dickson and Andrade voting No.

2. Hive Live Project 1,050 Apartments and 3,692 Sq Ft of Commercial, located at 3333 Susan Street, including Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Specific Plan Amendment, Master Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Etc.  The project is 1,050 apartment units, with a mix of studio, one, two, and three bedrooms, with 105 affordable (low-income) units. There will be 3,692 sq. ft. of retail space, and 335,958 sq. ft. of open space, including balconies, on 14.25 acres. The residential component would be 62.3 average du/ac (note that some phases could be as much as 85 du/ac). Because of the affordable units, the developer, Legacy Partners, is asking for a density bonus, which increases the base number of allowable units (875) by 20%, or another 175 units.

The studio apartments are not required to have private open space, so those units will not have a balcony like the other units. The balconies are used in the calculation of the open space provided, as is the rail trail next door. There is a “public plaza” in Phase I, but no public park. The developer will pay park fees of $5,000 per unit and Measure Z open space fees.

There are many deviations requested by the developer, such as decreased FAR, reduced common use open space, reduced setbacks in some areas, and reduced parking. The community benefits include $1,000,000 for new bicycle and pedestrian improvements, $500,000 for Citywide draining improvements, $1,500,000 for Police and Animal Services, and $1,500,000 for Fire and Rescue. There are also the usual development fees for parks and traffic impact, along with Measure Z open space fees.

The community will get more traffic to deal with on Harbor, Fairview, Sunflower, and South Coast. There are some bikeways near the project, but the condition of some of those bikeways is either poor, or if the conditions are good, they aren’t safe for the average cyclist. We will use up that $1 million very quickly. Harbor Boulevard does not have bike lanes.

The community getsuncertainty as to what will be built. Due to the extended term of the development agreement (could be up to 30 years), and that fact that Anduril has a right-of-first-offer to develop one parcel that could, should Anduril desire, be developed with a 25-story office building, we don’t know if this will just start looking like Anton Boulevard around South Coast Plaza, bringing with it traffic and other impacts similar to that area. Anduril just secured $2.5 billion in funding, so they are likely looking to expand.

A short presentation was given by Chris Yeager, Senior Planner.

Commissioner Comments and Questions. The Commissioners asked questions about the low-income units, the potential for a 25-story building on Phase I of the project, the ability to raise the density to 90 dwelling units per acre according to the Housing Element update, the public courtyards, and proposed active transportation improvements to Susan Street.

Tim O’Brien of Legacy Partners spoke about the project. Commissioners asked him about parking, the reason why only apartments are being built versus a homeownership project (the answer being that the owner of the property, Invesco, wants the income from the rents on the property), and the percentage of one-bedroom units (67%).

Public Comment. I was the lone public commenter. I spoke about the project being spot-zoned, in a location with no services within walking or biking (other than IKEA), the lack of vision by the City for the rest of the area, the failure of the developer to provide community benefits, such as a fire station, library, etc., and the fact that the Development Agreement is very one-sided towards the developer’s benefit.

A motion was made by Martinez to approve Staff’s recommendation, and seconded by Dickson. However, Dickson asked for an amendment that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the community benefits would be tied to the project, and couldn’t be used for things other than what is listed in the Development Agreement.

The motion carried 6-1, with Zich voting No.

JUNE 11 FAIRVIEW PARK STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING. All members were present except Kohl Crecelius, the Chair. Bo Glover, Vice Chair, ran the meeting. Also absent was Parks and Community Services Commission Liaison, Jason Komala. Public comments were about the new State-designated Fire Hazard Severity Zone and fireworks in the park, an email from a former member of the Committee setting the record straight with respect to the flying field activities, damage done by the Flying Club, and the need to preserve the park as passive open space. Many of the Committee member comments were about the upcoming public meeting for Frank and Joan Randall Preserve/Tonga and its Resource Management Plan.

After the approval of the minutes, the Fairview Park Administrator, Kelly Dalton, gave a report on the City’s ongoing efforts to restore areas of the park, about land management, and collaboration opportunities. Here is a photo of one of the slides:

Fairview Park Mesa Restoration Project

Commissioners asked questions about the berm removal and about how the park fees are allocated. City Council member and liaison Arlis Reynolds spoke about the budget and how there are multiple studies that will impact the park. The Fairview Park Master Plan, Parks Needs Assessment, and Facilities Assessment will all be needed to decide what needs/should be done to the park. There was a quick discussion on signage, and a desire for consistency between Fairview Park, Talbert Park, and the Randall Preserve was expressed.

A tentative date of July 15 was announced for another City Council Study Session, but it became clear in the days after this meeting that it was more likely to happen in August or September. At the meeting, we should see (1) Findings, (2) Recommendations from the Committee, (3) Technical Reports. Some of those are available now at: https://www.costamesaca.gov/community/fairview-park/fairview-park-master-plan 

Kelly Dalton commented on the prospects of the ongoing operations of the Harbor Soaring Society in Fairview Park. He said it would involve getting a permit, and getting it would require convincing the State and Federal governments that the current location would be okay. Next steps would involve mitigation and monitoring. There would be a cost for all of that. Who would pay for that? Not the City, I hope!

Final comments from the Committee members were for the public to go to the City Council meetings and talk about the importance of preserving, protecting, and restoring the park. Or write the City Council. Either way, they need to hear from you.

JUNE 17 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. At this meeting, the items acted on were:

• Enhanced Mobility For Seniors And Individuals With Disabilities Grant Funding – OCTA

• Agreement with Hoag Executive Health for a Wellness Program

• Adoption of Agreements between City and the Costa Mesa Police Association, the Police Management Association, the City Employees Association, and Confidential Unit and Accompanying Salary Resolutions

Not acted on was New Business Item 4, Loren Gamero’s (District 2) requested discussion of the possibility of eliminating public comments via Zoom for City meetings, which was removed from the Agenda. The removal was requested by Council member Arlis Reynolds (District 5). The public was still able to speak about it during the general public comment time, and those who spoke opposed it.

Most of the City Council members were present, except for Jeff Pettis and Andrea Marr. There were presentations honoring the Estancia and Costa Mesa High School baseball teams..

City Attorney Closed Session Report. The City Attorney, Kimberly Hall Barlow, said there was no reportable action.

Public Comment. There were five public comments. The topics were included the prompt response time of the Fire Department; the removal of an item for the Agenda (comments by four members of the public were in opposition); the importance of public participation; acknowledging academic achievements in addition to sports achievements; bringing more council member requests to the agendas; a request for trash cans on the Joanne bike trail; disagreement with the actions, as a whole, of the City Council, but in particular Gameros; speeding on Towne Street.

Council Member Comments. Gameros apologized to the constituents if they took what he said as an attempt to stifle their freedom of speech. He said he wanted to have a conversation about doing that and that he hopes to bring the item back to the City Council. He also talked about road improvements in District 1 and the Balearic Park pickleball courts (also in District 1). He talked about the upcoming retirement of Police Chief Ron Lawrence.

Reynolds spoke about the treatment of immigrants living in Costa Mesa that has caused them to be afraid to leave their homes. She said immigration attorney friends related stories about detention with no due process and detention with cruel and inhumane treatment of individuals. She said to contact her if you would like to get involved in helping the community. She also talked about the ongoing efforts to address safety concerns on the Randall Preserve. She asked the Interim City Manager to provide an update on brush-clearing activities at Fairview and Talbert Parks. She remarked about CalTrans having projects along Newport Boulevard and that Staff has been requesting that CalTrans add more safety elements be added to Newport Boulevard over the years. She requested that a resolution be brought to the City Council about the issues and needs in the subject area.

Mike Buley (District 1) spoke about improvements to Balearic Park. He talked about the benefits of free play time for kids and whether the City can allocate time on fields for free play activities.

Manuel Chavez (District 4) thanked the Police Department for increasing patrols on 19^th Street and the Fire Department for handling numerous fires in the prior week; thanked the people who peacefully protested in the two preceding weeks. He spoke about attending a CalOptima event at Lions Park and then invited everyone to the July 3^rd event at the Fairgrounds.

John Stephens (Mayor) said he would work with Buley on his desire for free play time on the City fields; he spoke about an award given to the Public Works Department for the Adams/Pinecreek pedestrian and cyclist improvements. He also spoke about the improvements to Balearic Park. He announced the State of the City event sponsored by the Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce. He spoke about the statement that he and Chavez had released about the City’s values of inclusiveness and compassion, and the rights of immigrants. He touched on the pulling of Gamero’s item and stated that after 10 p.m. there are few people in the Council Chamber, and if decisions are made after 10:30 it erodes transparency. He said that he is working with the Interim City Manager on “scrunching” down the meetings.

He didn’t say what the public’s role is in the “scrunching” down. Since he, Buley, and Reynolds can be a bit long-winded, perhaps they need to look in the mirror on that effort.

Interim City Manager Report.  Cecilia Gallardo Daly spoke about the career of Police Chief Lawrence, his accomplishments in Costa Mesa, and his retirement. She announced a new free event, “Make Music Costa Mesa” which is part of a worldwide event on the summer solstice hosted by the Orange County Museum of Art. She announced the concerts in Fairview Park and then asked Assistant Fire Chief Pyle to speak about brush-clearing efforts in Fairview Park. He reported that mowing would begin after a biological survey determines that no habitat would be impacted. He said that Canyon Park does not get mowed as it is a natural park, and that activities to evict unhoused persons from Randall Preserve have increased.

City Attorney Report: She said that the City Attorneys would be working with the City to develop instructions for Staff should any immigration authorities attempt to enter City facilities.

CONSENT CALENDAR.  Items 5 and 6 were pulled. Gameros and Stephens had to recuse themselves from the warrants because of conflicts. On a motion to approve the balance from Chavez and seconded by Reynolds, the remaining items on the Consent Calendar were approved unanimously.

Item 5: Towing Services Contract. This item was pulled by Reynolds, who has witnessed speeding and other reckless driving by tow truck operators. She also stated that if your car is towed, it can be retrieved 24 hours/7 days per week. She requested that language be added to the contract to cover the importance of safety and that vehicles be easy to retrieve.

Gameros wanted to know if the towing operators are required to own the property where cars are impounded. He was concerned that the landlord needs to know what the tenant of the property is using it for. The two police officers didn’t know about that and seemed confused by his line of questioning. They said that as long as the contractor can perform the scope of work, that is the only thing the Police Department is concerned about. He asked about getting all three towing companies, not just Southside, as a provider of vehicles or services in the motorhome demolition derby at the Fair each year. The owner of Southside came to the podium and explained that the vehicles are donated and that other towing companies do participate, and it is a fundraising event for CHOC.

The public comments were (1) a request that prior to towing that a warning be issued, (2) Marice Depasquale (of Mesa Water District) lobbying in behalf of G&W Towing, (3) a speaker lobbying on behalf of Hadley Tow, and (4) a resident praising G&W Towing, but requesting the drivers not use Towne Street.

A motion made by Stephens to accept Staff’s recommendation of Southside, G&W, and Hadley, that was seconded by Chavez. Reynolds requested amendments to the motion to add to the contract language covering safety, updating the City’s webpage with information about how to retrieve a towed vehicle, the right to request a tow hearing, and how to file a complaint. Stephens complained that the Staff report didn’t give enough information about the applicants and the scoring. The motion carried unanimously.

FYI, most landlords use a standard lease that has a section regarding the use of the facilities. No landlord wants to be surprised by someone using hazardous materials on the property, etc. Gameros never said why he was concerned about this.

Item 6: Agreement for Solid Waste Collection Services at City Facilities. Stephens recused himself due to a campaign contribution from Ware Disposal, the vendor. Chavez ran the meeting for this item. Reynolds pulled the item because she was concerned the contract didn’t cover trash that would be recycled. Staff explained that the reason for that is that the City hasn’t rolled out a split bin system yet, and when that happens, a contract will be written for locations that use a split bin system. There will need to be a price adjustment once the determination of what is needed is made. Gameros asked where Table 3 could be found in his council binder. Someone had to show him because he admitted he hadn’t read it.

Gameros made a motion to approve Staff’s recommendation, which was seconded by Reynolds. Gameros refused to speak to his motion. That motion was approved by all present (Stephens absent).

PUBLIC HEARINGS. None.

OLD BUSINESS: None.

NEW BUSINESS: There were three items of New Business:

1.     Enhanced Mobility For Seniors And Individuals With Disabilities Grant Funding - OCTA. This item is to accept the grant funding in the amount of $237,600 from OCTA for enhanced mobility for seniors and disabled persons, and to increase the budget by the same amount with $200,000 going to OC Yellow Cab for an annual amount of $500,000 plus a 10% contingency. Monique Villasenor, Recreation Manager, gave a presentation. Reynolds asked about the availability of a Spanish-language signup form and commented about the increased demand for this service.

There were no public comments. Upon motion made by Chavez, which was seconded by Buley. The motion was unanimously passed.

2.     Agreement with Hoag Executive Health for a Wellness Program. This item is for a mental health and physical wellness program for the Police Department. The cost is $150,000, which was in the adopted budget for fiscal year 2025-2026. Lieutenant Michelle Bradbury of the Police Department gave a presentation. Buley asked about the history of the program and about why these services aren’t covered by insurance. It took several rounds of explanation for some council members to understand that this is a counseling program and not a doctor-style treatment program.

There were no public comments. Upon motion made by Reynolds, which was seconded by Gameros. The motion was unanimously passed.

3.     Adoption of Agreements between City and the Costa Mesa Police Association, the Police Management Association, the City Employees Association, and Confidential Unit and Accompanying Salary Resolutions.  A presentation was made by Kasama Lee, Human Resources Manager. These are only one-year agreements. Some higher-ranking police officers will not receive a raise.

The lone public comment was about the fact that these are one-year agreements, which makes these salaries the new baseline. That takes away the negotiating power of the multiple-year agreement that keeps costs down. Upon motion made by Chavez, which was seconded by Stephens. Chavez said that the one-year contract was because of the economy is unstable. The motion was unanimously passed.

If the economy is unstable, you should lock in salary costs, as they only go up. I am worried this isn’t the best for the City. Police and Fire personnel are our biggest costs, so we need to find a way to keep those costs down.

JUNE 23 PLANNING COMMISSION.  Items acted on were:

• Design Review and Tentative Parcel Map for a Residential Small Lot Subdivision Creating Two Parcels Containing New Two-Story Detached Single-Family Residences with Attached Two-Car Garages at 2280 Elden Avenue

• Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Land Use Plan – Review and Recommendation (receive and file)

·        2025 Zoning Code Amendment For Minor Technical Updates (receive and file)

All Commissioners were present.

Public Comment.  The sole comment was about the Agenda report documents being loaded to the City’s website in letter size for ease of printing.

Commissioner Comments.  Angely Andrade spoke about incidents that are putting residents in the way of harm. She appreciated the City’s statement on this and suggested that the community help each other in this challenging time. Rob Dickson reminded everyone about the Fish Fry. David Martinez announced that the Hive Live and Victoria Place projects were approved by the Airport Land Use Commission. Jon Zich thanked members of the public for showing up in person in the Council Chamber. He encouraged the audience to sign up for email notifications. Jeff Harlan announced the Concerts in the Park series. The other Commissioners did not have any comments.

CONSENT CALENDAR. There was one item on the Consent Calendar, the June 9, 2025, minutes, with one correction (spelling of Dickson’s name), on motion by Dickson, second by Martinez, the item was unanimously approved.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: There was only one item, the Design Review and Tentative Parcel Map for A Residential Small Lot Subdivision Creating Two Parcels Containing New Two-Story Detached Single-Family Residences with Attached Two-Car Garages at 2280 Elden Avenue.  This project is a small two-lot residential subdivision project for two new parcels, each with a two-story, detached single-family residence and attached two-car garage. The homes would be for individual ownership. It would replace the two small houses that are on one lot. The second floors slightly exceed the allowable FAR of 100% (101% on one, 107% on the other), which is why a design review is required. The product is similar to other homes in the area. Jeffrey Rimando, Assistant Planner, gave a presentation.

Commissioner Questions.  Commissioner Martinez had some questions about the Conditions of Approval and about painting the curb in front of the property red. Staff did not feel it was necessary. The applicant’s representative, Coralee Newman (who also represented the Triangle Square owner when it wanted to put up video signage) gave brief remarks. Andrade asked her about the six-foot vinyl fence on the back of the property. That is what the neighbors wanted.

There were no public comments. Dickson moved to approve the project as recommended by Staff, and was seconded by Zich. Each spoke to the motion. Zich pointed out that the architect designed for the buyer and not to try to squeeze into code requirements, that there is extra open space and other amenities not found in most of the projects that come before the Commission. The motion was unanimously approved.

OLD BUSINESS: Once again, there was only one item, the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Land Use Plan – Review and Recommendation. Anna McGill, Planning and Sustainability Development Manager, along with Karen Gulley of Placeworks, gave an exceptionally long presentation. It contained the following (see Overview slide):

Overview of Specific Plan Presentation

This charette shows the housing types expected to be built:

Housing Types Charette

Much of the presentation was something that should have been presented to the public at the first outreach meeting, as it explained the Specific Plan process.

There was a new concept presented:

Drafting of the Specific Plan document has begun. This project is supposed to return to the Planning Commission in July. Until the land use plan is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, the preparation of environmental documents cannot begin.

Commissioner Questions: Dickson asked about how Staff arrived at 4,000 dwelling units, given that statutory regulations are much lower. McGill answered with a non-answer. What I think she said was that it was to please a master developer, who is likely to use a density bonus. Zich asked how many units would cause the need for a second access road. The answer was anything over 2,300. Zich pointed out that the Housing Element requires considerably less housing than what is being proposed. McGill argued that the Housing Element is a best guess by the City, and a financial feasibility study wasn’t done. Zich also asked about concentrating the affordable housing in one building. McGill answered that a lot of that has to do with the financing of affordable housing.

Public Comments. There were 17 public comments, many coming from recognizable members of the public who advocate for youth sports, mental health treatment, and affordable housing. Consensus: the plan needs more work, and, as currently designed, doesn’t meet the needs of the public.

Commissioner Comments. Harlan reminded the Commissioners that their task was to provide input so that Staff could come up with a preferred plan to bring back to the Commission and ultimately to the City Council. He then stated that it is going to take a lot of work to get there, and there may not be a collective recommendation made at this meeting.

Zich’s assessment of comments made by the public is that we don’t like the current plan. He said the assumptions in the financial feasibility study are what killed the plan the citizens preferred. However, he doubted that the City Council understood that the numbers in the Housing Element were never going to be financially feasible. He said changing the vision statements and guiding principles, which seemed more like marketing language, will not result in a project configuration that satisfies the desires of the residents. Zich doesn’t want promises; he wants specifics.

The path across the golf course would be as wide as four holes, and that’s why Zich is against it. He pointed out that the City’s goal of 4.26 acres of parkland per resident isn’t being met here. The current concept provides 1.32 acres per resident; that takes us in the wrong direction. He criticized the transparency of the design process and, although it likely was not intentional, the public was not kept apprised of what was being planned. He pointed out that the Planning Commission does not do planning, and that even if the Planning Commission recommends denial of a project, it can always be appealed to the City Council, which can overrule the Commission’s recommendation. He pointed out that the plan presented by Staff is responsive to the State; it is not responsive to the community.

Zich spoke about developers having a problem making a profit off of a project where 40% of the units are affordable. He spoke about the desire of residents for an advisory committee made up of representatives from the community. In the end, he asked that the residents who turned out for this meeting come to the City Council meetings and request that the City do better. He told Staff to tell the City Council that what the residents requested in the surveys and the outreach meetings isn’t what is in the current concept, and the residents are not supportive of that concept.

Martinez had a series of questions for Staff. He asked why Harla Circle was considered for secondary access. It is because the State owns Merrimac Way where it is on the FDC property, and the State doesn’t want to allow heavy traffic through the State housing area. This is due to concerns for the residents who have disabilities who inhabit the housing. He also asked about what type of affordable housing would be in the project. The consultant said it would likely be traditional affordable housing built by developers that would be subsidized by government funding. Martinez then asked about how we could get more open space. The consultant said to build the housing in towers. I note that the State has placed restrictions on that because it would block the Emergency Operations Center communication tower. He asked about whether the developer can change the Specific Plan. The answer is yes, but the developer would have to meet the targets of the Specific Plan, and they could increase density. Martinez asked about access to Fairview Park. The consultant answered that the “Shelley Circle Trail” would access Fairview Park and that any access through the golf course would alter the golf course too much. The Shelley Circle Trail does not get you into Fairview Park. It gets you to Tanager Drive. You still have to go along Tanager Drive to the Canary Street stairs to get into Fairview Park. He asked if the City could put a minimum open space requirement in the Specific Plan, and the answer was yes.

Commissioner Martinez then asked about the State’s housing site and its intention to build 20% affordable housing for individuals with developmental disabilities, and the remaining 80% would be market rate. He also asked about the configuration of the Shelley Circle roadway. The width and square footage of the roadway are to accommodate the turning radius of the large semi-trucks going in and out of the Emergency Operations Center. He also asked about the commercial portion of the plan. McGill said the plan could support from 25,000 to 50,000 square feet of commercial space, so Staff recommended 35,000 square feet. He then asked about coordination with other agencies, such as water, school, and transportation agencies/districts. McGill said that the school district doesn’t anticipate needing an additional school. Other agencies don’t want to comment at this point because there isn’t enough concrete data to which to react, including the Orange County Transportation Authority.

Martinez then gave his thoughts about the project. He said he doesn’t want it to be an island; that it should be connected to the rest of the City. He still wants a land swap with the State or the City to get the Specific Plan area to connect with Harbor Boulevard. He wants it to be easy to access and to be inclusive of all ages, abilities, etc. He wants the streets to be active, not dead, which means having amenities, not necessarily commercial, on the ground floor of the buildings facing the streets. He asked that the Planning Department work with the Active Transportation Manager to improve the proposed pedestrian and cycling facilities.

Andrade asked about whether there could be another ingress/egress point, and suggested going around the property and connecting to Tanager Drive or going through the City Yard on Placentia. The consultant gave an answer about access being in their EIR. I don’t think the consultant knows the city well enough to understand what Andrade was asking about, and she was alluding to the fact that the Emergency Operations Center EIR intended all the semi-truck traffic to go on Fair Drive and Shelley Circle. Andrade then asked about other features that could be included, such as an art center. She also spoke about how the plan appears to be secluded, which is not desired. She also wants a required affordability level of 40% included in the Specific Plan document. She said we need to focus on what is the public good for the community.

Dickson asked that all the public comments be made a part of the public record. He wants the design of the Specific Plan area to reflect the latest demographics on how people use transportation options. He also spoke about the various partners in this project and advised that the City take the role of an aggressive participant, so that the City can maximize its role in planning the property. He cited that the legislation covering the planning and development of the property cites 2,500 units, and that the City needs to figure out a way to use that to create a better plan for the residents of Costa Mesa. He suggested looking at live/work units. He also said that when it comes to transit, OCTA needs to provide better service because it is abysmal in Costa Mesa. To summarize, lower number of units, more open space, and community areas. He asked about demographics, and there was no answer, so he asked that Staff bring more information so the Commissioners could be better informed for decision-making.

Commissioner Johnny Rojas asked for confirmation on the styles of housing, that every plan would contain a mix. There was no verbal answer from Staff. His feedback was that he doesn’t like the isolation of the Specific Plan area, and if the golf course loses land, then the City needs to give it back somewhere. He agrees that the units need to be decreased and the open space needs to be larger. He feels the secondary access road is a band-aid and not a good solution.

Karen Klepack wants as much open space as possible; that might mean higher density; mixed use would be good; better connection to Harbor; she said that a flat 40% affordable is probably not going to happen; she likes the idea of a promenade and paseos and prioritizing pedestrians.

Harlan expressed frustration with the planning process in that there are very few specifics. He said that he has sat in the consultant’s chair, in fact, he has sat next to the very consultant before him, Karen Gulley. That’s interesting. He said to get what the community wants, that to get more sports fields, that means the housing will be denser, that retail will have to be next to residential to reduce car usage. He said that the secondary access has to be vetted by the community. The easement should not be given away as it has value. He also thought putting commercial near the Emergency Operations Center would be a good idea.

Staff indicated that the City is working on getting an extension of time on the contract the City has with the State, which expires in late December.

Zich tried to tease out of McGill an answer as to whether or not the State intended to use the secondary access road. Zich said if the Specific Plan is for fewer units than what would require the secondary access road, would the State care. McGill hemmed and hawed, but finally said that the State wants the secondary access road, something she denied earlier.

Andrade asked for the demographics of pedestrians and cyclists, specifically school-age children who are being underserved.

A motion was made by Zich to receive and file, which was seconded by Dickson. That motion was unanimously passed.

NEW BUSINESS: There was only one item of New Business, 2025 Zoning Code Amendment Pcty-25-0001 For Minor Technical Updates. This item was a study session about updates to the Zoning Code that are necessary to meet State law, clarify code sections, align the Code to current practices and procedures, and modify procedures to increase efficiency in entitlement and permit reviews. Items such as fences and walls, group and individual counseling parking requirements, prohibition of exposed pipes and conduits, antenna screening, subdivisions under SB 9, and Accessory Dwelling Units were covered. A presentation was given by Caitlyn Curley and Froylan Garcia, both Assistant Planners. There will be another Planning Commission hearing in July before these changes go to the City Council.

Commissioner Comments and Questions. Zich asked about former Planning Commissioner Russell Toler’s comment about not wanting tall walls and fences at the front of properties. There was an exchange between Staff and the Commissioners about the issue and Staff will bring back some clarifying language. There were also questions about exposed pipes and conduit, and the group counseling parking. When asked the number of SB 9 applications the City has received, Curley answered that there are about 10.

A motion was made to receive and file by Martinez and seconded by Dickson. It was unanimously approved.

JUNE 25 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. This really wasn’t a meeting, as it was the State of the City hosted by the Chamber of Commerce. All the City Council members were in attendance. There was an opportunity for public comment at the end, and one member of the community took the opportunity to speak about the ICE raids.

You can watch an edited recording of the meeting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBFjBl4zFJU 

UPCOMING EVENTS!

The City is kicking off the rezoning under Measure K and the Housing Element update. Here are upcoming meetings:

• Wednesday, July 30, 2025, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Norma Hertzog Community Center, 1845 Park Avenue

• 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 is a walking tour starting 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