CITY HALL UPDATE FOR OCTOBER 2025 - FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN,⚡ORANGE COUNTY POWER AUTHORITY⚡, GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE, AND MORE!
- Cynthia McDonald
- Nov 18
- 41 min read
October was a busy month for Costa Mesa governance. Here’s what happened:
Council and Committee Meetings
City Council held three meetings. One was a homelessness town hall, which we did not attend because it conflicted with the Fairview Park Steering Committee meeting.
Planning Commission met twice.
Active Transportation Committee met, but we were unable to attend due to an extended Special Meeting of the Finance and Pension Advisory Committee (FiPAC).
The City also hosted a stakeholder meeting for its “Neighborhoods Where We All Belong” planning effort.
Two other Special Meetings concerning the Fairview Park Master Plan Update have already been reported separately here and here.
OCTOBER 1 SPECIAL MEETING OF FiPAC. The meeting was called to order at 4:04 p.m. and concluded at about 7:00 p.m. All Committee members were present, except for Quinn Callanan. Also in attendance were Finance Director Carol Molina and several other members of the City’s Finance Department. Council Liaison John Stephens was present, but Council Liaisons Manuel Chavez and Mike Buley were absent. The Committee currently has a vacancy, making quorum difficult—September’s meeting was canceled for this reason.
Public Comment. Four members of the public addressed the Committee regarding the Orange County Power Authority (OCPA) proposal—expressing mixed views. I shared my concern about the potential implications for Costa Mesa should we join OCPA and not receive the preferential terms that Irvine is now requiring as a condition for its reentry.
It was noted that a substantial number of written public comments had been submitted; however, none of these were made available to the public at the meeting. I later obtained the correspondence, all of which was against joining OCPA or waiting to join until more information could be obtained.
There were no public comments on the “Ballot Measures” item that was also on the Agenda. That is because there was no description of that item. That is a violation of Section 54954.2(a) of the Brown Act, which says that Agendas contain a “brief general description of each item to be discussed or transacted at the meeting,” which description does not need to exceed 20 words. From the California Attorney General’s Guide on the Brown Act:
“The purpose of the brief general description is to inform interested members of the public about the subject matter under consideration so that they can determine whether to monitor or participate in the meeting of the body.”
The AG’s Guide goes on to describe a court case on the matter (Carlson v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196, 199.), where a school board’s agenda “contained as one item the language ‘Continuation school site change.’ This was entirely inadequate notice to a citizenry which may have been concerned over a school closure.”
In this case, FiPAC’s Agenda did NOT describe the Ballot Measures item in a manner that would have noticed the citizenry, so that Agenda failed to meet the requirements of the Brown Act. The item should not have been acted upon.
Approval of Minutes. Minutes from April 9, May 14, and May 29 were approved with amendments by Ralph Taboada.
New Business. Items were heard in reverse order to accommodate consultant Terry Madsen (Clear Choice Consultants).
Ballot Measures.
Presentation Summary – Ballot Considerations
Madsen delivered a brief presentation outlining two potential measures being considered for the upcoming ballot:
1. Increasing the Business License Tax
2. Raising the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Both proposals would require voter approval.
Business License Tax: Costa Mesa currently calculates its business license tax based on gross receipts, a method that emphasizes retail sales—even as retail activity has declined in recent years. While this approach is common, some neighboring cities, such as Newport Beach, use an employee-based model instead.
Costa Mesa also imposes a $200 cap on the tax. A business earning $250,000 in gross receipts pays $100, while a business earning $250 million pays only $200. This structure places Costa Mesa among the cities with the lowest business license tax rates in Orange County.
Should Costa Mesa continue using the gross receipts model or transition to an employee-based model? Revenue from this tax goes directly into the General Fund, to be allocated at the discretion of the City Council.
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT): The TOT is paid by visitors staying in hotels and motels. Unlike many other cities, Costa Mesa does not collect TOT from short-term rentals such as Airbnb and VRBO.
Costa Mesa’s current TOT rate is 8%, which is significantly lower than nearby cities—Anaheim charges 15%, Long Beach 13%, and others follow suit. Costa Mesa’s rate is the lowest in Orange County.
The consultant did not recommend a specific increase in the TOT rate.
Public Comment. One member of the public, Rick Huffman (who is also an officer of Costa Mesa First), protested the fact that the public did not have adequate information about the ballot measures until the presentation was given and then was not allowed to make public comment He said it was odd that a company with a modest amount of gross receipts was paying the same business license tax as a Fortune 500 company.
Motion: Taboada moved to form two ad hoc committees, one studying the Business License Tax, and the other the TOT. Morgan seconded the motion, which, after discussion, passed unanimously. Those ad hoc committees, once approved by the City Manager, will give a recommendation to the entire Committee, which can then pass it on to the City Council in time for the 2026 election.
Review of OCPA Feasibility Study. At its September 2, 2025 meeting, the City Council directed Staff to begin drafting an ordinance to join the Orange County Power Authority (OCPA), contingent on a review of OCPA’s proposal by FiPAC.
Five representatives from OCPA attended the meeting and presented their proposal to the Committee. Here are the key takeaways:
About OCPA:
OCPA, in existence for three years, is one of 25 Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs) in California, serving 14 million people across 200 communities.
It currently serves 198,000 customers in Buena Park, Fullerton, and Irvine. Notably:
Irvine recently rescinded its opt-out notice issued in December 2024.
Fountain Valley has recently joined.
Huntington Beach has exited.
Laguna Beach deferred its decision last year.
CCAs do not generate electricity; they procure it from sources like Edison and use existing transmission infrastructure (e.g., Edison, SDG&E, PG&E), for which ratepayers are charged.
The average customer uses 525 kWh/month.
OCPA’s rates are approximately $0.05 higher per kWh than Edison’s.
Edison offers clean energy programs, but they are closed with long waitlists.
Edison also provides similar benefits to OCPA (rebates, free items) to its customers.
Other CCAs offer community programs (e.g., electric panel upgrades, solar loans), but OCPA does not currently offer these.
OCPA has provided grants and plans to spend $462,000 this year on giveaways and grants.
Feasibility Study Observations:
The study assessed whether existing OCPA customers would face increased rates if Costa Mesa joined—not whether Costa Mesa customers would benefit.
Assumes high enrollment: 90% of residents, 95% of businesses.
Costa Mesa customers would be automatically enrolled in the middle-tier Smart Choice Plan (55% renewable, 40% carbon-free). Automatic enrollment of all Costa Mesa ratepayers in the Basic Choice Plan is not permitted.
Opting out or switching plans requires written notice, per state regulations.
Street lighting is excluded from the plan, despite being a major municipal energy use.
No explanation was provided for Irvine’s $7.5 million loan to OCPA, other than a vague assurance that “Irvine can have it back.”
Committee Discussion Highlights:
The presentation was lengthy and at times felt evasive. Committee members Daniel Morgan, Sean Healey, and Ralph Taboada pressed for clarity, especially regarding:
Why Costa Mesa must enter at a higher tier than Irvine.
Discrepancies between presentation assumptions and actual financial statements.
Concerns were raised about the fiscal impact if Irvine demands repayment of its loan (plus ~$500,000 interest as of June 30, 2024). This would shift the loan from a future liability to a current liability, potentially destabilizing OCPA’s finances.
Council Liaison Stephens incorrectly referred to the loan as startup funds, despite Irvine’s expectation of repayment with interest.
When asked about Irvine’s request for a third board seat (it currently has two), OCPA dismissed the idea. However, Irvine’s financial leverage ($7.5 million) makes this a serious governance issue, and if any of the other three board members decide to go with Irvine, the power balance will shift.
A comment was made that if Irvine withdraws, it may still be responsible for electricity purchased on behalf of its ratepayers, raising further financial concerns.
Vice Chair Lisa Buchanan asked why cities were withdrawing; the answer blamed changing political views in Huntington Beach, but OCPA never addressed why Irvine had withdrawn.
Committee Motion. After several motions and countermotions, Daniel Morgan and Sean Healey proposed a recommendation that the City Council not proceed with adopting the ordinance to join OCPA, citing infeasibility if Costa Mesa cannot enter under the Basic Plan. The motion passed 3-2:
Yes: Morgan, Healey, Chair Tom Arnold
No: Taboada, Buchanan
Personal Commentary. I support the idea of sourcing electricity outside of traditional utilities. However, had I seen the presentation before making my public comment, I would have asked many more questions. The Committee should consider allowing public comment during item discussions, as other City Committees do.
While utility operations and financials aren’t my specialty, my quick review of the presentation and financial statements raised serious concerns:
OCPA reported $158 million in assets in 2024, including $27 million in accounts receivable and $4 million in deposits—questionable figures for an entity reselling $382 million in electricity.
A mysterious loan with a $41 million principal balance is noted without explanation.
Operating expenses are projected to quintuple in FY 27/28 compared to FY 26/27, and a $50 million surplus is forecasted for FY 25/26.
Bottom Line. Costa Mesa cannot enroll residents in the Basic Plan because Irvine is using it for its ratepayers. As Committee member Daniel Morgan aptly noted, this would result in Costa Mesa subsidizing Irvine, a point OCPA acknowledged would hurt its profitability. This should be a deal-breaker. What if Costa Mesa joins OCPA and then Irvine and Fullerton decide to pull the plug? Pun intended, but a serious possibility.
This item was scheduled to return to the Council on October 21, but did not. Will it ever?
OCTOBER 3 NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE ALL BELONG STAKEHOLDER MEETING. This was not a public meeting; you had to receive an invitation. The group I was in was comprised of affordable housing advocates and representatives of nonprofits that focus on providing services to the homeless or youth, and one builder’s representative. The meeting was too short. It ran over the allotted time of 1.5 hours by about 15 mins (but started 5 minutes late). Too much time was spent where the consultants or Staff were talking. It wasn’t the greatest exchange of ideas because we were told to keep it short. We were also admonished not to attack one another. That didn’t need to be said, and it felt a little insulting. Some speakers (like the one who arrived late and didn’t get the admonitions we got in the beginning) got too much time; others didn’t get a chance to speak enough. The questions were vague. The moderator didn’t make people focus on housing, so the participants often wandered off to other subjects, such as parkland. We never really got to talk about what our vision of housing is for the future. This felt like another box that was checked.
OCTOBER 7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. At this meeting, the items acted on were:
Hive Live Project
Appeal of a Planning Application and Tentative Parcel Map for a Residential Small Lot Subdivision at 2308 Santa Ana Avenue
Amendment to Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot Program for Community-Based Transit
Ordinance Amending Title 13 (Planning, Zoning, and Development) of the Municipal Code to Provide Technical Updates and Clarifications
All members were present except Councilmember Andrea Marr, who was ill.
CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT. Kimberly Hall Barlow reported that the City Council gave direction on three items, but that there were items not heard, and that the Councilmembers would need to return to Closed Session after the Regular Session concluded.
PUBLIC COMMENT. There were nineteen public comments, which included:
Complaint about excessively loud noises in the earlier mornings coming from the gym at 140 East 17th Street.
Fourteen comments about the City adopting a trap, neuter, and release (TNR) policy and program after a promise to bring them forward many months ago,
Several comments about not joining the Orange County Power Authority, or at least until more information could be provided to the public; one speaker also presented this slide:
Jim Fitzpatrick complained about the time it takes to get various permits through the City’s Planning Department; he said that the City should defend the “frivolous” lawsuit by the former “absentee” City Manager; he complained further that the City hasn’t provided him “facts and data” he requested; he spoke about the letter the City received from the State of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development requesting information on the City’s rezoning efforts which he implied made the City’s Housing Element noncompliant; complained further about the calls for service at various motels, such as the Vagabond Inn. He produced a chart showing the number of calls for service for four motels for a period of a year. Which year? He didn’t say.
Fitzpatrick has a bad habit of assuming things when he doesn’t have the facts, and his comment on the noncompliant status of our Housing Element shows it. Our Housing Element has been noncompliant for more than three years. While the HCD’s letter may have been alarming, reading it and the prior letter explains the reasons behind the State’s dissatisfaction with Costa Mesa. And as far as the Vagabond Inn goes, it’s been a problem for over ten years. That slide could have been from 2016. His buddies, Righeimer and Mensinger, didn’t fix that one when they had the chance and he’s complaining now?
Complaint about the law firm of Everett Dorey, LLP (see Consent Calendar Item 5 below), specifically that the tactics of the law firm extends the litigation and drives up costs for the City; the speaker is the CEO of Insight Psychology and Addiction, a company that provides sober living counseling, and which is suing the City (Everett Dorey, LLP is representing the City in that lawsuit); the speaker began to allege something about the fees that Everett Dorey, LLP is charging the City are more than what is in the Agenda Report on the Item, but her time ran out.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS. John Stephens (Mayor) addressed numerous comments about the TNR program. He provided background, noting that he originally introduced the concept to the City Council and requested four hours of staff time for the project. Because neutering requires a veterinary facility, the City’s shelter services vendor, Priceless Pets, needed to secure an additional location. That process faced delays, but the new facility is expected to open in November and be fully operational by January 2026.
Stephens explained that the Police Department is drafting an ordinance, which was to go before the Animal Services Committee on October 22. The ordinance will then require City Council approval—likely in January 2026. He apologized for not communicating this timeline earlier.
Loren Gameros (District 2) thanked residents who spoke on TNR. He disclosed that, because his wife works for Priceless Pets, he will recuse himself from voting on the ordinance. Gameros also encouraged youth sports participation and recognized first responders for their dedication.
Arlis Reynolds (District 5) spoke about Councilmember Marr’s illness. She requested that Stephens give further updates on the TNR ordinance should there be any more delays. She announced that the Costa Mesa Historical Society, which turns 60 next year, is having a membership drive —$20, but $15 for seniors.
Jeff Pettis (District 6) raised concerns about missing plaques at Fairview Park and criticized the City’s “Neighborhoods Where We All Belong” survey. He described it as “a foregone conclusion in search of validation,” noting that participants were forced to select options they might not agree with. You also couldn’t add an answer that was longer than about 50 characters. Pettis said he was told a town hall would not be an option and committed to proposing ideas for better community engagement. He also referenced the HCD letter outlining penalties for noncompliance with housing mandates, questioning whether this explains the City’s reluctance to involve residents in planning discussions.
Mike Buley (District 1) reported on recent events, revisited his advocacy for “free play” for children, and discussed zoning issues and Measure K. He responded to Fitzpatrick’s comments, emphasizing the City’s commitment to community responsiveness and its leadership in homelessness solutions.
Manuel Chavez (District 4) stressed the need to streamline the City’s permit process, arguing that delays contribute to high housing costs. He urged Staff to prioritize improvements to make housing more attainable.
John Stephens (Mayor) closed by thanking residents for their comments and acknowledged widespread frustration. He described the City’s relationship with HCD as “a pickle,” citing a recent call where HCD criticized Costa Mesa for being years behind schedule on housing compliance. Stephens admitted there was “no good reason” for the delay. Hmm…you don’t think that your insistence that Staff be pulled off planning to work on cannabis applications had anything to do with it? The new City Manager has been tasked with accelerating progress. Stephens listed several customer service improvements the Council aimed to implement in 2024 but offered no specifics on next steps. He announced the upcoming Homeless Town Hall and repeatedly assured residents that the City will improve—without detailing how.
INTERIM CITY MANAGER COMMENTS. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly congratulated the Public Works Department Transportation team on an award for the Outstanding Bikeways and Trails Award for the Adams Avenue/Pinecreek Drive project near OCC. She acknowledged the Costa Mesa TV team for winning two first-place awards at an awards luncheon. She spoke about the homelessness town hall on October 15. The City’s emergency preparedness guide is available at City Hall and online. It is long, so pick one up in the lobby at City Hall, as it has lots of useful information and planning tactics in it.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS. Kimberly Hall Barlow reported that the personal injury lawsuit filed against the City by Ida Pepper was dismissed.
CONSENT CALENDAR. A member of the public pulled Item No. 5. A motion to approve the remaining items was made by Chavez, seconded by Buley. The vote was 6-0, with Marr absent.
5. Proposed Amendment to Agreement with Everett Dorey, LLP. This is the law firm that provides services to the City in connection with lawsuits against sober living and group homes. It is modestly increasing its fees, with a retroactive effective date in September.
Public Comment. Fitzpatrick pulled this. He commented that the City’s legal fees are out of control. He said that Everett Dorey won the contract by making a low-ball offer, but then they piled up hours and kept the meter running by not settling. His slide show made the statement that settlement offers aren’t being taken to the City Council. By law, if a settlement offer is received, the attorney must take it to the client, no matter how ridiculous it may be. He said that the Agenda Report was incomplete. It was prepared by City Attorney Barlow, whose firm, along with several others, were paid $344,936.53 in September. He requested that the City settle the Ohio House and Insight sober living lawsuits and terminate the relationship with Everette Dorey. He didn’t say how the City should do that. Pay the Plaintiffs a generous sum? We are already dipping into reserves.
Motion and Vote. Stephens moved to approve the item, including the retroactivity, which was seconded by Chavez. He tried to call for the vote, but Buley wanted to speak. He said that while he had acknowledged Fitzpatrick’s efforts in his prior comments, he had to question the criticism. He defended Seymour Everett and the City’s selection of his law firm. He said that the settlement funds come out of the General Fund, and the payouts mean a capital improvement project gets deferred. The motion passed on a 6-0 vote, with Marr absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public hearings are supposed to start at 7:00 p.m., and it was now 8:30 p.m. There were two public hearings, but only one was heard, as the other, the final Environmental Impact Report for the Hive Live project at 3333 Susan Street. That project was announced as a dead deal. The property owner, Invesco Real Estate, sold the property to Drawbridge Realty for less than what it paid for it. Drawbridge entered into a lease of the space to Anduril, who is currently located next door at The Press. The Press was owned by an Invesco entity, and it is not known if that property sold as well. Anduril is also leasing space in the industrial buildings a few blocks up Susan Street that are currently being built by Segerstrom. It received more than $1 billion in financing last quarter. Despite all that, there was a motion made by Stephens, seconded by Reynolds, to continue the item to date uncertain, meaning the project could be brought back at a later date. That motion passed 6-0.
2. Appeal of a Planning Application and Tentative Parcel Map for a Residential Small Lot Subdivision at 2308 Santa Ana Avenue. A presentation was given by Caitlyn Curley, Assistant Planner. Neighbors of this project, which was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission in August, appealed this project for the following reasons:
Not enough time for notice of the proposed project.
The Planning Commission’s decision lacks sufficient evidence or relied on incorrect assumptions.
Incomplete study of the project’s adverse effects on the neighbor’s property.
Vague conditions of approval.
Since receiving approval from the Planning Commission, the applicant submitted an updated landscaping plan to address Conditions Nos. 3 and 14. While no changes to the proposed windows were made, the revised plan includes additional and different trees intended to provide screening for both the windows and the structure.
The property owner introduced himself and his attorney. The owner spoke about the design of and the entitlement process for the project, along with the revisions to the landscaping plans.
The appellant spoke about the brief period of time (one business day) in which to review the project. He spoke about the project parcel being filled with soil to raise the level of that property above the adjacent properties. His slide show explained how the sightlines and drainage on the subject property would change, which the Planning Commission did not address. According to the appellant, the engineer who certified the plans wasn’t properly licensed in California. He requested that the project be returned to the Planning Department for better plan check and to address the window sightlines and drainage issues.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Gameros asked when the Planning Commission packet was available. Carrie Tai, Director of Economic and Development Services, answered that it was available on Thursday, August 7, 2025. He then asked about roof drains. Curley said the plans presented at the Planning Commission were conceptual, and design details, such as roof drains, would come later when final plans were approved. Gameros then asked about the grade of the property being raised. Tai explained that the site is currently below the level of the sidewalk at the street and needs to be raised to drain the property to the street.
Stephens asked the applicant how long it took to get through the planning department and Planning Commission. It was about two years, but that includes the appeal time. Stephens then asked the lawyer about his experience and if this is normal. The lawyer answered that it isn’t and that it should have taken 6 months. At the Planning Commission hearing on August 11, the applicant said that the process time was a combination of the time he needed and the time the City needed to complete the process, so putting all the blame on Staff now seems misleading.
Reynolds had questions about the property line (that will be defined once the entitlements are approved) and the existing trees (the entitlements only apply to the trees on the subject site).
Public Comments. None.
Motion and Vote. Stephens moved to affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of the project, which was seconded by Chavez. Before the vote, Stephens asked why this had to come to the Planning Commission for approval. Tai answered it is because the property is zoned R2 and the parcel is being divided into two parcels. She said that Staff is looking into changing that, as properties zoned R1 are not required to obtain approvals like this. Chavez said that anything that Staff could do to streamline housing would be appreciated. The applicant asked if the additional condition of approval imposed by the Planning Commission was part of the motion, and it was to remove a majority of the proposed palm trees from the project and install trees along the southern property line of Parcel 2 to screen the project from neighboring properties for the purpose of privacy. Staff clarified that the additional landscaping plan would enable Staff to eliminate the view study required by the Planning Commission. Stephens amended his motion to get rid of the view study, which was supported by Chavez. The appellant requested to make additional comments, but Stephens denied his request.
Gameros complained that the adjacent neighbors were not given enough time to review the project. The motion passed on a 5-1 vote, with Gameros voting “No” and Marr absent.
OLD BUSINESS: There were two old business items:
1. Amendment to Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot Program for Community-Based Transit. This Amendment will (1) continue the Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot Program with Circuit Transit, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $650,000 annually, and for a term of two years, and (2) authorize an increase of appropriation of the Clean Mobility- On Demand Transit Services from $500,000 to $650,000 for Fiscal Year 2025-26. Funding comes from grants, with no required match by the City. It will also include adding a vehicle and expanding the service area to include the east side of Newport Boulevard and Hoag Hospital. This program is a Statewide initiative and has been popular, as it provides free clean energy mobility options to the low-income community. Raja Sethuramen, Public Works Director, introduced Brett Atencio Thomas, Active Transportation Coordinator, and Paul Martin, Transportation Services Manager, who gave a presentation.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Buley asked what will happen when the grant runs out? Martin answered that Staff is working on getting new funding sources.
Public Comment. There were two commenters for this item. One asked questions about why the City is providing the program and if other cities are participating in it. Others spoke in support of the program and the collection of data regarding its use.
Motion. Stephens moved to approve the item, which was seconded by Reynolds. Stephens asked about whether the City is collecting data on ridership. Martin said there is some data, but he needs to obtain more information from the operator. Reynolds spoke about the origins of the program and about the desire to expand it in the future, including the possibility of adding a fixed route. The motion passed 6-0, with Marr absent.
2. Ordinance Amending Title 13 (Planning, Zoning, and Development) of the Municipal Code to Provide Technical Updates and Clarifications. This was the second and final reading of this item. Curley was due to give a presentation, but Stephens cut her off and requested she keep it short. Tai said Staff would take questions. There were no questions.
Public Comment. There were three public comments. Two wanted to get rid of minimum parking requirements; the third supported minimum parking requirements.
Motion and Vote. Stephens made a motion to approve the item, which was seconded by Chavez. Stephens requested that the City Council have a study session on the minimum parking requirements next year. Buley voiced his opinion that each project should require the applicant to justify its proposal for parking. He said that removing parking minimums was absurd. Tai clarified for Buley that removing minimums was not part of the item. The only parking-related item was calculation of shared parking usage, where the parking usage changes hourly. The motion was passed on a vote of 6-0, with Marr absent.
There was a lot of discussion about parking issues and references to a book, “The High Cost of Free Parking,” by Donald Shoup. [Disclosure: Donald Shoup was my child’s mentor while attending UCLA for a degree in Urban Planning.] It’s a thick book that has a lot of valuable information. If you only read the first few chapters, it will change the way you think about parking.
NEW BUSINESS: None.
OCTOBER 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. All Commissioners were present. Two items required action:
Request for Conditional Use Permit to Modify Existing Off-Sale Alcohol License (ABC Type 20 to Type 21) – 7-Eleven at 2244 Fairview Road
Amendment to the Land Use Element for Consistency with the Sixth Cycle (2021–2029) Housing Element
PUBLIC COMMENT. A resident complained about excessive noise coming from “The 12” gym at 140 East 17th Street. The resident has repeatedly complained about loud noise in the early morning hours when the gym opens the doors and plays amplified music and cheerleading sounds.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. Karen Klepack (District 1) spoke about Barktober Fest at the Costa Mesa Dog Park. Angely Andrade (District 4) reminded people to follow the City’s Calendar for fall events put on by the City. Rob Dickson (District 5) requested that Carrie Tai, Director of Economic and Development Services, give him the Conditions of Approval for “The 12” Gym. He also urged the public to watch the City Council meetings because of the information brought to light in those meetings about planning matters. David Martinez (District 5) spoke about attending CicLAvia, an open streets event in Los Angeles. He then went through a list of housing bills that Governor Newsom had recently signed, including AB 253 regarding building fees; AB 507 re adaptive reuse projects; AB 893 that expands AB 2011 standards (ministerial, by-right approval for affordable housing on commercially-zoned lands); AB 1021 expands how school districts can develop housing; AB 1154 re owner occupancy requirements of JADUs; and SB 358 lowers the amount of require traffic impact fees that can be required to be paid developers. Jon Zich (District 1) spoke about the Middle East peace treaty.
CONSENT CALENDAR: The only item was the minutes from the September 22, 2025 meeting. Dickson moved to approve the minutes, which was seconded by Martinez. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were two public hearings:
1. Request for Conditional Use Permit to Modify Existing Off-Sale Alcohol License (ABC Type 20 to Type 21) – 7-Eleven at 2244 Fairview Road. This was a request for a Conditional Use Permit to upgrade the existing State ABC Type 20 license (beer and wine) to a Type 21 license (general alcohol sales) for the 7-Eleven store located at 2244 Fairview Road. This change would allow the store to sell distilled spirits in addition to beer and wine. All hard liquor would be securely stored behind the checkout counter. Assistant Planner Christopher Aldana gave the presentation.
The Costa Mesa Police Department reviewed the request and did not object, noting that the majority of calls for service in the area are related to homelessness rather than alcohol-related incidents.
Commissioner Questions. Dickson asked about the placement of beer and wine in the store. Andrade asked about the distancing requirements for liquor stores (there are none). She asked about alcohol-related accidents in this area, but Staff only had information about arrests.
Applicant Presentation. The applicant spoke briefly about the license change and answered questions from the Commissioners about the location of the red wine, how long it took to get the application through the City, and how the applicant deals with the homeless.
Public Comment. None.
Motion and Vote. Martinez moved to approve the project, which was seconded by Dickson. There was a clarifying amendment made as to where wine would be available in the store. The motion was unanimously approved.
2. Amendment to the Land Use Element for Consistency with the Sixth Cycle (2021–2029) Housing Element. Amendments to the Land Use Element are needed to align it with the Sixth Cycle Housing Element. Melinda Dacey, Principal Planner, gave the presentation. The amendments are intended to enable residential development on designated Housing Element opportunity sites. The City is currently rezoning areas identified in both the Housing Element and Measure K maps to accommodate the RHNA target.
Key Proposed Amendments:
Land Use Designation Changes: Updates to allow high-density residential development as outlined in the Housing Element.
South of the 405 Freeway: Sites may exceed four stories in height.
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Area: Trip generation caps will not apply; height and density will follow Housing Element standards. This includes major parcels like Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka 2.
Westside Overlays & Urban Plans (e.g., SoBECA): Height and density limits will be removed, allowing up to 50 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) or more. Floor Area Ratios (FARs) for mixed-use may also increase. SoBECA sites will no longer be capped at 40 du/ac or 450 total units. Does this change trigger a vote of the citizens under Measure Y?
Fairview Developmental Center: Although governed by a separate Specific Plan, it will have a minimum density of 60 du/ac.
Removal of Conflicting Regulations: Site-specific restrictions that prohibit residential uses—such as those at Segerstrom Home Ranch—will be eliminated.
Environmental Review: The City claims no additional environmental analysis is required, asserting that the amendments are for internal consistency only. However, the full impacts remain unknown, as the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Housing Element has not yet been initiated.
Commissioner Questions. Andrade questioned the public comment I submitted regarding the City’s failure to follow its own laws on public noticing for rezoning parcels citywide. Chair Jeff Harlan (At Large) asked the City Attorney to respond. The City Attorney claimed my comment “did not accurately describe the realities of Section 13-29,” arguing that an exception for buildings over 150 feet explained why notice wasn’t required. However, this ignored the fact that the City is rezoning all parcels listed in the Housing Element update—precisely why notice should have been given. Either the City Attorney misunderstood the requirement or was attempting to mislead the Commission.
Martinez asked about removing the restriction on housing at the Home Ranch property, which restriction was requested by the Segerstrom Company during the 2016 Land Use Element update. The City had to lift that restriction to include the parcel in the revised Housing Element, which now allows up to 90 dwelling units per acre—even though Segerstrom does not intend to build housing there. Martinez also questioned why rezoning wasn’t completed when the Housing Element was adopted. Tai explained that Measure Y limited action at that time, and Measure K had to pass before rezoning could proceed. This confirms that rezoning was always intended for a later date and that property owners and residents should have been notified.
Martinez inquired about next steps and timing. Anna McGill, Planning and Sustainable Development Manager, said rezoning will return in 2026 under the “Neighborhoods Where We All Belong” (NWWAB) effort, with more details at the November 4 City Council meeting.
Martinez also raised the State Notice of Violation issued August 22 for failing to complete required rezonings. The City had until September 21 to respond with a plan. Tai admitted the City didn’t realize a report was required and is now working toward compliance by September 2026. I obtained State notices through a public records request—these were sent to former employees, including the former City Manager. Why they weren’t forwarded is a significant issue in City Hall operations.
Zich questioned discrepancies between the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDCSP) and the Land Use Element. Since FDCSP planning is ongoing, another amendment will be needed. He also asked how the City can satisfy its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). McGill said completing Housing Element programs—planning and rezoning for 11,000+ units—will lead to State certification. If sites remain undeveloped for two cycles, they could become “by-right” sites, making development easier. If housing isn’t built, the State will push for loosening restrictions but won’t penalize the City. However, any shortfall in this cycle will roll into the next.
Zich then highlighted a major inconsistency: building all Housing Element units would add over 30,000 residents (26% growth), yet the Agenda Report projects only 2% growth. McGill admitted the numbers don’t align, noting they come from the Southern California Association of Governments. She said financial and demand analyses will be part of NWWAB.
Dickson asked about removing height limits in overlay and Specific Plan areas, noting these plans involved extensive public input. He questioned using a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to claim no impacts from increased density. McGill said environmental review will occur at the project level. Dickson argued that eliminating height limits south of the 405 without public engagement or analysis is problematic. Tai said NWWAB will address height and design standards. Martinez joked, “You won’t be able to build an Eiffel Tower,” but while height limits are gone, developers could use Builder’s Remedy or Density Bonus Law to exceed unit caps—potentially creating something akin to Paris’s Tour Montparnasse, a notorious planning failure.
Public Comment. Ralph Taboada praised the Commissioners' questions. I objected to the City Attorney’s interpretation, emphasizing this is about rezoning, not constructing a 150-foot building. I also noted:
The Measure K map ignored properties with residential entitlements but no current housing, leaving them subject to Measure Y votes.
Lack of coordination with the Circulation Element, meaning traffic impacts from added density remain unmitigated.
Additional Commissioner Questions. Andrade asked about affordability for first-time buyers, not realizing the Land Use Element doesn’t address this—the inclusionary housing ordinance does. McGill said NWWAB will address it, raising the question: Will inclusionary housing changes be part of NWWAB? Andrade then veered into drought-tolerant landscaping and branding for the “City of the Arts.”
Motion and Vote. Martinez moved to approve Staff’s recommendation with minor wording changes (“reductions” → “modifications”), seconded by Andrade. Andrade tried to include future NWWAB changes in the motion, but Harlan and Martinez rejected that. Martinez clarified that this update simply aligns the Land Use Element with the Housing Element.
Zich opposed, citing:
Removal of height limits and trip budgets without public input.
Elimination of entitlements for Segerstrom’s Home Ranch without outreach.
RHNA challenges and failed appeal.
Shifted priorities in the General Plan without public engagement.
Lack of new open space despite adding 30,000 residents.
Risk of incompatible adjacent uses.
Unrealistic promises about Measure K.
Andrade spoke about housing equity, though these changes don’t address it.
Dickson called the General Plan the City’s “development constitution” and warned that vague language and eliminated protections could erode Costa Mesa’s character. He opposed the motion.
Harlan said a few years back, the Housing Element went through an exhaustive process, and this was just a cleanup with no policy changes or additional analysis needed. “We can talk all we want about whether or not this meets the needs of Costa Mesa or people’s individual feelings or ideological perspectives, but the bottom line is that we have to have an internally consistent Constitution.” He later added that the rezoning of individual parcels will be more important. “That’s where everybody has an opportunity to talk about implementation of regulations, so I encourage folks to participate in that process to get involved. If you want to encourage other people, please do. This should be a community-wide process.”
The motion was approved on a vote of 5-2, with Johnny Rojas (District 2), Klepack, Andrade, Harlan, and Martinez voting Yes, and Dickson and Zich voting No.
NEW BUSINESS: None.
PUBLIC WORKS REPORT: Bike to School Day, held every October, occurred. There were several bike safety events held as well.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The City Council upheld the approval of a small lot subdivision on Santa Ana Avenue.
It took 22 days for the City to post the video of the meeting and my written public comment. There is a big problem with transparency at City Hall.
OCTOBER 21 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. All members were present. At this meeting, the items acted on were:
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Preferred Land Use Plan
Award of the Ketchum-Libolt Park Expansion
NOTE: Before the Roll Call, Mayor John Stephens announced that the Appeal by Culture Cannabis, located at 2301 Newport Boulevard, had been withdrawn by the applicant.
CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT: Tarquin Preziosi reported that no action was taken on the 10 items on the Closed Session Agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT. Ten members of the public addressed the City Council on the following topics:
Several comments in support of the Fairview Park Master Plan Update
Increasing bicycle safety around Early College High School, improving the safe routes nearby, and increasing street sweeping
Request to get more parking permits for a large household, and complaint about bike lanes on Pomona
Request for preservation of indigenous artifacts in Fairview Park
New bike bus starting at College Park Elementary School
Several requests for help with parking problems in the Manistee Drive area
Complaint about police department harassment
Complaint that City wasn’t notifying residents and property owners about the upzoning of properties
Complaint that City was not properly agendizing items on meeting Agendas per the California Brown Act
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS. Andrea Marr (District 3) requested confirmation that the recording of the City’s Town Hall on homeless issues would be available on the City’s website. The recording can be accessed here: .
Arlis Reynolds (District 5) shared that she attended the 70th anniversary celebration at St. John’s Episcopal Church. She asked the City Manager to bring forward a code of conduct and ethics policy before year-end. Reynolds highlighted the success of recent safety improvements for cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists, and listed upcoming bike safety training events. She also noted that on November 16, there will be a bike ride to honor victims of road traffic violence.
Jeff Pettis (District 6) explained that he missed the Town Hall on homelessness due to a prior commitment. He emphasized that sobriety should be a prerequisite for housing assistance and stated that the root causes of homelessness must be addressed rather than simply allocating funds for housing.
Mike Buley (District 1) acknowledged Fire Chief Dan Stefano’s retirement. He mentioned attending the District Liaisons meeting (City Council, Water District, Sanitary District, School District, and OCTA) but did not provide details. Buley also attended the Town Hall on homelessness.
Loren Gameros (District 2) praised the Town Hall, noting that the Bridge Shelter has 100 beds and that since 2019, nearly 500 individuals have transitioned to permanent housing through City programs. Gameros stressed that homelessness cannot be solved through arrests. There are 100 beds at the Bridge Shelter, but since they are bunk beds, many of them go unused because many seniors can’t use a top bunk.
Manuel Chavez (District 4) recognized several public speakers and commended Staff—particularly Nate Robbins—for their work on the Town Hall. Chavez emphasized the importance of listening and responding to residents’ concerns and acknowledged Fire Chief Stefano for his years of service.
John Stephens (Mayor) thanked speakers who raised bicycle safety concerns near Early College High School and residents from Manistee Drive. He also commented on the Town Hall event.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly announced that the Costa Mesa Historical Society is looking for new members. She spoke about Chief Stefano leaving the Fire Department at the end of December. She announced that Ryan Bohr had been promoted to Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Marshal.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS. No report.
CONSENT CALENDAR: The Consent Calendar is for routine items. No items were pulled. A motion to approve the items as one item was made by Chavez, seconded by Stephens. The approval was unanimous.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: There was one public hearing: Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Preferred Land Use Plan. The presentation was delivered by Anna McGill, Planning and Sustainable Development Manager; Melinda Dacey, Principal Planner; and consultants from PlaceWorks.
McGill began by outlining the community outreach process and the concepts considered. She then introduced the PlaceWorks team, who presented the Preferred Plan, shared the economic analysis, and discussed next steps. The presentation lasted approximately 30 minutes.
Defining a “Preferred Plan” is necessary for the City to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which will identify potential impacts on the community. While the EIR is being developed, the consultant will draft the Specific Plan document.
Key facts:
Site Overview:
115 acres total
20 acres for an Emergency Operations Center
15 acres for affordable housing
80 acres available for housing development
Planning Timeline:
Specific Plan must be completed by December 2026 (City recently received a one-year extension)
City received $3.5 million in State funding to develop the Specific Plan and conduct studies, including the development of a “Preferred Land Use Plan” that will serve as the basis for the Specific Plan document and the Environmental Impact Report
Financial Feasibility Study Results: Evaluation of three land use concepts for the FDC site to determine their viability:
Concept 1: 2,300 units, IRR -20%, shortfall of $233 million.
Concept 2: 3,450 units, IRR 14.6%, shortfall of $5.02 million.
Concept 3: 4,000 units, IRR 16.7%, surplus of $26.7 million.
Note: The “Preferred Land Use Plan” was introduced after this study and was not financially analyzed. The State had already rejected those three options before they were ever shown to the public. Instead, a fourth plan developed behind closed doors by State and City Staff was introduced in May 2025 and labeled the “preferred” plan. Additionally, a land swap between the City and State that would have moved the golf course behind the FDC site was shot down by the State.
Staff recommends a residential unit mix of 3,600 to 3,800 units based on feasibility.
Planning Commission Recommendation (5-1 vote):
Up to 4,000 residential units
12 acres of open space
35,000 sq. ft. of commercial space
Two access points from Harbor Blvd, with a third from Shelley Circle under study
The increase from the Staff's 3,800 units to 4,000 units was so the Environmental Impact Report could align with the financial feasibility and the realities of State density bonus law.
Open Space Concerns:
General Plan calls for 22 acres (25%) for this site
General Plan requirement (not for this site) is 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents
State baseline: 3 acres per 1,000 residents
With 4,000 units (~10,500 residents), 31.5 acres are needed to meet State baseline
Current plan provides only 12 acres, far below requirements
Staff/State’s Recommended Preferred Land Use Plan Details:
2,300–4,000 residential units (including 575 very low-income units).
10,000–35,000 sq. ft. of commercial space.
Minimum 12 acres of open space.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Pettis questioned how the number of units evolved:
1,500 units in 2020
2,500 in 2021
2,300 in the 2022 Housing Element
Up to 4,000 units now, based on a worst-case scenario adopted by the Planning Commission to account for potential density bonus requests.
When asked about affordable housing, Staff noted developers are not required to include affordable units, meaning the City may need to rezone other areas to meet requirements.
Buley stated that during the three prior Planning Commission meetings, it was never mentioned that adopting a “Preferred Plan” was necessary to begin drafting the Specific Plan. According to McGill, the Commission was uncomfortable committing to a unit count for that purpose.
Buley asked whether the Specific Plan could reduce the two proposed access roads to one. Staff said the City is studying alternatives, but decisions depend on the Master Developer (the main developer who buys the property, then sells off parcels to other developers).
Buley questioned why public input at Planning Commission meetings did not align with the Preferred Plan and raised concerns about open space requirements. The Preferred Plan uses the General Plan standard of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents, but none of the presented options met that threshold. The consultant explained that CEQA will study a maximum scenario and that open space numbers were maximized to offset impacts from 4,000 units. That’s cheating. CEQA is supposed to be a worst-case scenario that allows the public can see all the impacts expected by a project. If the City offsets impacts with a lot of open space that will never actually be provided, then the increase in impacts by the decrease in actual open space is not disclosed.
Marr asked why open space acreage was flexible. Staff explained this originated with the Parks and Community Services Commission, which prioritized usability—such as sports fields—over total acreage. Marr expressed concern about the lack of firm numbers at this stage.
Marr questioned the limits on density bonus waivers; McGill said waivers can only be denied for health and safety reasons. She then asked if the City was using the money given to it by the State to study reconfiguring the golf course. The answer is no. The former City Manager hired a golf course consultant in late 2024 to do the study for $100,000, so this was funded by your taxpayer dollars. It should have been paid for by the master developer.
Chavez asked if the maximum unit count could be raised to offset the loss of the Hive Live project, potentially increasing the total to 5,500 units for EIR purposes. This would likely reduce open space further and require a third access road due to height restrictions near the Emergency Operations Center radio tower. Chavez also asked about adding a school or community center; Staff said a community center and daycare are under consideration, but the school district does not see a need for another school. Chavez advocated for mixed-use development to create a self-sustaining community.
Gameros preceded his questions with the statement that he hoped they don’t raise the hair on the back of anyone’s neck. He wanted to know if all the projects would be high-density. Staff displayed this depiction of various housing types:
Gameros assumed the multi-story flats were luxury homes. McGill corrected that they are apartments. He asked if the homes facing the golf course could be luxury homes, specifically single-family homes. McGill responded that the Master Developer can decide to do that. But how will the City meet its RHNA if much of the housing is luxury market-rate homes? Gameros questioned whether developers would be required to provide affordable homes or pay an in-lieu fee. Staff explained that homeownership opportunities would be incentivized in the Specific Plan, but minimum density requirements would likely favor higher-density products. He said it was like “jumbo shrimp” to say there will be an “affordable luxury home.” Of course not. Why waste everyone’s time with questions like this? He pursued this with Staff, asking them if a developer could build 10 spec homes fronting the golf course and sell them for $10m each. Of course, they can, but golf course frontage properties in Costa Mesa aren’t selling for $10m, so it isn’t likely that a developer would be interested in that idea.
Reynolds asked when construction might begin. McGill estimated that the first building could start 5–10 years after 2026, with phased development extending full buildout to 12–18 years, depending on unit counts.
Reynolds asked about affordable housing provisions. McGill stated that the Master Developer would likely partner with organizations such as Habitat for Humanity or Jamboree Housing Corporation. Reynolds asked about requiring some homes to be for-sale units. Staff expressed reservations, noting that prescribing homeownership could lead developers to request amendments to the Specific Plan. I have news for Staff: the developer is going to do that anyway because they almost always do.
Reynolds asked about the components of the project. The consultant produced this slide:
Note the estimated population counts on this slide do not comport with the 2.64 persons per household. Staff indicated to me that there was a complicated method of determining the population because some units, such as supportive housing, require fewer people per household.
Reynolds raised numerous questions regarding park requirements. The Specific Plan will need to incorporate these concerns as enforceable conditions for the Master Developer. She also inquired about road structure and design; Staff explained that the backbone road network will be finalized after completion of the EIR process.
Stephens asked what Staff and the consultant needed from the City Council that evening. Similar to the Planning Commission, they requested maximum thresholds for dwelling units, commercial space, and open space to begin preparing the EIR.
Marr asked about the Harbor Boulevard frontage area, which involves a proposed land swap between portions of Fairview Developmental Center and the golf course. Staff noted that the State has not agreed to this, and it would require separate study.
Stephens asked if a summary of public feedback was available. McGill stated that feedback had been presented to the Planning Commission during earlier meetings. Stephens acknowledged he had not reviewed those meetings (links were provided in the agenda report) and requested a summary, which Staff did not have. Stephens commented that he avoids outreach events because he finds them “chilling.” He should come to these events. His presence isn’t going to stop someone from commenting or asking a question. The failure of Staff and the consultants to elicit meaningful opinions from the participants is what is chilling. Stephens compared open space allocations in the three concepts studied during the economic feasibility analysis, noting inconsistencies with the General Plan standard of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents. See Land Use Concepts table.
Public Comments. Public comments focused on:
Concerns about the reconfiguration of the golf course and loss of holes or a course
The Harbor Frontage scenario was never revealed to the public until the deal had been rejected by the State, but that scenario is the most promising
The affordability percentage of 40% on this site is not feasible for developers; spreading affordability throughout the city would be more viable
Adding 10% to the population on one site on Harbor Boulevard, which is already heavily travelled by pass-through traffic to Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, is not good planning
Park space should be maximized because the developer will provide the lowest possible number of acres
Concerns that the units won’t be for sale, but rather just more rentals
Multiple requests to increase the number of affordable units
Concern that the project description for the purposes of CEQA is inadequate
The current plan does not reflect what the residents want; residents did not approve what the Planning Commission sent to the City Council, and most residents wanted the lowest number of units
Request to reduce the number of units and increase the amount of parkland
Complaints about the impacts of the construction by the State of the Emergency Operations Center
Concern the land cost had not been revealed in the economic analysis; were different costs used?
Motion. Stephens moved to direct Staff to proceed with the CEQA process, seconded by Council Member Chavez. No specific numbers were provided for Staff and the consultant to use; Stephens noted that those details would be determined through further Council discussion.
Councilmembers then shared guidance and priorities:
Marr:
Minimum of 14 acres of open space; maximum based on 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents
No fixed commercial square footage
Community benefits such as a library and police substation
Emphasized concentrating affordability in this project due to a deficiency in the inclusionary housing ordinance.
Buley:
2,300–4,000 units
35,000 sq. ft. of commercial space
20 acres of open space
Gameros:
Spoke about challenges facing the middle class and expressed support for luxury housing and park space
Did not provide specific numbers for Staff to use.
Reynolds:
Minimum of 14 acres of open space
Supported Planning Commission’s recommended range for units and commercial space.
Pettis:
2,300–4,000 units
Flexible on commercial space
14 acres of open space
Chavez:
5,000 units
Increased commercial space, including mixed-use
14 acres of open space
Stephens:
Discussed developer return on investment and noted limited data due to missing assumptions
Highlighted that an additional access road across the golf course could increase profitability and unit count
Suggested the developer fund golf course enhancements and provide affordable housing
Supported inclusion of luxury housing
Both Stephens and Gameros’ vision for luxury housing rests on a flawed assumption: that the same developer who builds affordable housing will also construct luxury homes. In reality, developers typically specialize in one market segment because financing models, risk profiles, and business strategies differ significantly between government-subsidized affordable housing and high-end luxury projects.
Why are we expected to accept these numbers at face value when we don’t have the assumptions? Staff should have done a better job of explaining a lot of things, and this was certainly one of them.
Amended Motion. Stephens amended the motion to direct Staff to conduct the CEQA analysis based on the following parameters:
2,300 to 4,000 units, including a secondary access road
35,000 square feet of commercial development
14 acres of open space
Additionally, Stephens requested—outside of the motion—that Staff study potential golf course enhancements related to the second access road. Council Member Chavez seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Following the vote, the Council discussed the golf course reconfiguration and noted that the City had previously contracted a golf course consultant/designer for up to $100,000—a fact not widely communicated to the Council, though mentioned at a Planning Commission meeting months earlier. Stephens also emphasized that the developer should fund any redesign, not the City.
Marr then moved to have Staff study the Harbor Frontage concept and return with findings at a later date. Reynolds seconded the motion. During discussion, Staff confirmed that the Harbor Frontage area is deed-restricted as open space. Changing its use would require a General Plan Amendment and a Measure Y vote, as the parcel is not included in the Measure K map. The motion failed 2–5, with Marr and Reynolds voting Yes and Pettis, Chavez, Stephens, Gameros, and Buley voting No.
OLD BUSINESS: One Old Business Item was on the Agenda: Award of the Ketchum-Libolt Park Expansion. This items is to award a $2,527,737 contract to Elegant Construction, Inc.
Funding sources:
$1,254,421 grant from Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris
$6,192 from Park Development Fees
$904,975 from Capital Improvement Fund
Remaining $614,923 from savings or future budget allocation
Seung Yang, the City Engineer, stated to make the presentation, but stopped when everyone suddenly left the Council Chambers. They all came back after about 10 minutes, except for Pettis and Reynolds. It would have been nice if they had announced a break.
Council Questions and Comments. The only question was from Buley about the City having projects that come in under budget. Yes, it happens now and then.
Public Comments. None.
Motion. Chavez moved to approve the Staff recommendation, which was seconded by Marr. The motion passed unanimously (which at that point was 5-0).
OCTOBER 27 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. All Commissioners were present. The items acted on were:
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Dog Daycare at 1619 Superior Avenue and Modification of CUP for Existing Dog Daycare at 1629 Superior Avenue
Arena OC – 12 Month Review of Minor Conditional Use Permit Condition.
PUBLIC COMMENT. There was one public comment about parking issues at the 17 West condo/live-work project due to the City allowing the builder to construct small garages. He asked to meet with someone because, despite reaching out to the Planning Department and City Attorney, he had not heard back from anyone.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. David Martinez (District 5) spoke about Parks Commission meeting the following evening. Rob Dickson (District 5) followed up on a complaint about The 12 gym at an earlier meeting. There were no conditions of approval for the project, so the only recourse the resident has is to call the Code Enforcement Department about the continual loud noise coming from the gym. He asked Carrie Tai, Director of Economic and Development Services, if the person who commented about the parking issue at 17 West condos should come to the City for an amendment to the CC&Rs. Tai gave the contact information (planninginfo@costamesaca.gov or call 714-754-5245) for help. Jon Zich (District 1) requested a call from the public commenter who spoke about 17 West condo/live-work parking.
CONSENT CALENDAR: The only item was the minutes from the October 13, 2025 meeting. Martinez moved to approve the minutes, which was seconded by Dickson. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
PUBLIC HEARINGS: There was one public hearings: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Dog Daycare at 1619 Superior Avenue and Modification of CUP for Existing Dog Daycare at 1629 Superior Avenue. A presentation was given by Froylan Garcia, Assistant Planner.
A new facility, "The Bone Home", is proposed at 1619 Superior Ave with a 5,090 sq. ft. outdoor play area. Next door, "The Bone Adventure" at 1629 Superior Ave seeks to expand its outdoor play area from 1,225 sq. ft. to 2,300 sq. ft.
Key Details:
Both sites will operate jointly with shared outdoor areas
Hours: 6:30 am–8:00 pm; outdoor play limited to 8:00 am–7:00 pm
Max capacity: 97 dogs divided between the two facilities (46 dogs at Bone Adventure and 51 dogs at Bone Home).
A noise study confirms compliance with residential noise limits
Conditions include restricted outdoor play hours, prompt waste disposal, and frequent trash collection to manage odor
Commissioner Questions. Dickson asked for clarification of the number of dogs allowed at each facility (see above). Martinez asked Staff to clarify the meaning of “double door” and “double gates” in the Conditions of Approval. The intent is to describe a mudroom or vestibule entry. He asked why there were two separate conditional use permits. It is because different owners own the properties. Zich had more questions about the Conditions of Approval allowing the businesses to operate independently, which is the intent of Staff. He also asked why the specified number of dogs, when there can only be so many dogs per handler. That is because City regulations prescribe the number of dogs per square foot of property.
Applicant’s Presentation. The applicant, who has been operating since 2003, gave a presentation. Currently, the two facilities have different amenities; one includes a pool for “dock diving.” The Commissioners had questions about the operations in terms of staffing, all of which were answered satisfactorily. Martinez had a question about how patrons would enter both properties, but the site plan clearly states that the fence between the two properties will be removed. Dickson had questions about controlling barking, but the applicant said they have ways of handling dogs that bark persistently.
Public Comments. Jim Fitzpatrick spoke in favor of the project and the efforts made by the applicant. He noted that no information about the project was available on TESSA.
Further Commissioner Questions and Comments. Martinez wanted to know if the business name on the CUP needed to be changed to align with the current name of the business. As a Commissioner, he should know that all CUPs run with the land. That means another business with a different name could come into the location and run under the same restrictions of the Conditions of Approval, and it wouldn’t matter. Andrade started to make comments about the applicant’s efforts, but Chair Jeff Harlan (At Large) cut her off and told her to hold them for the motion.
Motion. Martinez moved to approve the project, with the proviso that the double door specification in the conditions of approval be clarified to add the words “and vestibule system,” which was seconded by Andrade. Martinez and Andrade spoke in favor of the project. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS: There was one public hearing: Arena OC – 12 Month Review of Minor Conditional Use Permit Condition. Arena OC, a nightclub on Randolph Street, closed in May 2025 and is now listed for sale. Gabriel Villalobos, Assistant Planner, gave a presentation.
Review Summary:
20 calls for service between Aug 2024–Aug 2025; only 2 on under-21 nights.
No incident reports, code violations, or noise complaints.
CUP conditions remain in effect and transfer with the property unless revoked or amended.
Commissioner Questions. None.
Public Comments. None.
Commissioners’ Additional Questions and Comments. Harlan asked if, given that the Condition of Approval was that the project get a one-year review, since that time has lapsed, is that Condition terminated? The answer was yes. Harlan wanted to know if the Condition could be restarted if the business was purchased and the new owner wished to continue to operate the business. The answer is no (because CUPs run with the land, and the Conditions go with it).
Motion. Dickson made a motion to accept the one-year review and determine that no change in approved operating conditions is needed. Martinez seconded that motion. Zich commented that the lack of support by the Costa Mesa Police Department for the CUP, which included a new liquor license allowing underage patrons in the nightclub while alcohol was being served, is why this project had the six-month and one-year reviews. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Zich voting “No.”
PUBLIC WORKS REPORT: There will be a workshop on November 6 for the Fairview Road bicycle facility/road diet project and the Safe Routes to School project. We attended that meeting and will report on it next month.