CITY HALL UPDATE FOR SEPTEMBER 2025 - Orange County Power Authority, Placentia Cell Tower, Legal Assistance for Immigrants, At-Fault Eviction Registry, and more!

The City Council had three meetings in September. The Planning Commission met twice. The Active Transportation Committee met, the Finance and Pension Advisory Committee tried to meet, and there was a meeting for the City’s “Neighborhoods Where We All Belong” planning effort.

SEPTEMBER 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. At this meeting, which was nearly six hours long, the items acted on were:

• Ordinance Prohibiting Unlawful Sale or Distribution of Nitrous Oxide.

• Second Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone 3150 Bear Street for 142 Units.

• Award of TeWinkle Park Lakes Repair Project

• Award of Contract for Category 6A Cabling and Camera Installation

• Direction re Orange County Power Authority Feasibility Study-IMPORTANT!

• Award of Fairview Road Transportation Rehab Project

All members were physically present except Council Member Andrea Marr, who attended remotely. The Agenda was too full, so some items were postponed to the following Tuesday, September 9.

City Attorney Closed Session Report. Kimberly Hall Barlow reported that the City Council gave direction, but there was no reportable action.

Public Comment. Public comments included:

• Slowness to proceed on Fairview Park and Fairview Developmental Center.

• Adoption of an ethics policy.

• Importance of preserving Fairview Park.

• Complaint about stop signs at Gisler and Washington.

• Appreciation for commencing repairs of block walls on South Coast Drive.

• Complaints about the behavior of riders of electric bicycles.

• Appreciation for what the City is doing to make Costa Mesa safe for its residents.

• Question about bird study for the new Emergency Operations Center property.

• Failure of Staff to recognize remote speakers at Planning Commission meetings.

• Concern about the number of housing units planned for the Fairview Developmental Center property and the public’s input being ignored by the City.

• Alienation of the public due to misrepresentation of the impacts of Measure K.

• Importance of following laws about open meetings, specifically, proper noticing of items on the Agenda and allowing the public to speak on the contents of motions before they are made.

Council Member Comments. Jeff Pettis (District 6) emphasized the need for more effective outreach regarding the “Neighborhoods Where We All Belong” meetings. He expressed concern that the City may not be maximizing the value of this initiative. Pettis noted that the community engagement efforts require adjustments and refocusing, citing recycled posters and uninspiring presentations. He shared that some attendees he invited left upon realizing there would be no opportunity for public questions or meaningful interaction. These individuals, he said, are discouraged by the limited three-minute speaking time at Council meetings and the lack of direct responses from Council members.

Pettis also read a notice about an upcoming Speak Up Newport event focused on new housing in Newport Beach, which will feature a full hour of Q&A moderated by the Deputy Director of Community Development. He contrasted this with Costa Mesa’s approach, describing it as a “creeping mindset of ‘we know better.’” Additionally, he requested a 3D rendering of the proposed development on the Fairview Developmental Center site to help the public visualize the potential build-out.

Mike Buley (District 1) reported meeting with constituents and City Staff to discuss traffic concerns, including stop signs on Gisler Avenue and congestion near the In-N-Out location on Harbor Boulevard.

Loren Gameros (District 2) said the Senior Center is a cooling station during heat waves.

Andrea Marr (District 3) apologized for not attending in person.

Arlis Reynolds (District 5) advocated for more street-level outreach as part of the rezoning initiative. She acknowledged learning more about the planning team’s intent to expand community engagement and requested that Staff communicate this plan clearly to the public. Reynolds also noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission had requested the Fairview Park Master Plan update be included in their September 11 meeting agenda (which did not occur). She asked Staff to update the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan webpage and called for increased enforcement of motor vehicle infractions by the police.

Manuel Chavez (District 4) praised the recent housing workshop format, stating it was more effective than previous poster-and-sticker exercises and that participants felt heard. He requested the meeting be adjourned in honor of Alison Castillo, a young community member tragically killed by a gang member, who has since been arrested.

John Stephens (Mayor) acknowledged the delay in releasing the Fairview Park Master Plan update, which is now two weeks overdue. He thanked the Interim City Manager for publishing the City Council agenda a day earlier than usual. Stephens expressed support for the rezoning outreach efforts and encouraged the use of popup events to engage the community. Other cities release their Agendas one or two WEEKS before the meeting.

Interim City Manager Comments.  Cecilia Gallardo-Daly congratulated Costa Mesa Police Officers who helped save lives of OC Marathon runners. She announced the next rezoning update meeting on September 10.

City Attorney Comments.  Hall Barlow had no comments.

CONSENT CALENDAR.  Item No. 5 was pulled by Buley. A motion to approve the remaining items was made by Chavez, seconded by Stephens. Gameros and Stephens had to recuse themselves from the warrants because of conflicts of interest. The vote was unanimous.

5.  Agreement for School Resource Officer Program Between City and NMUSD for Fiscal Year 2025-2026. This program is for two full-time police officers to staff Costa Mesa’s two high schools and one intermediate school. Despite the long Agenda, Buley pulled this item to highlight a “good thing” that Staff is doing for the City. He said that this covers the two “law schools,” meaning the high schools, but then asked about coverage at the grade schools. He was told that the elementary schools don’t have the day-to-day criminal problems that the police see at the high schools. The cost is split between the City and the school district; Newport Beach does this as well. Chavez asked about an annual report and statistics, and was told that monthly statistics are kept, including the number of counseling sessions, parent conferences, etc. Earlier that day, the Police Department received additional language from the Newport Beach contract that the Newport Mesa Unified School District wanted to add, but it was too late to get it into the Agenda Report. A discussion followed about assessments and environmental vulnerability appraisals for private schools.

Motion and Vote:  Stephens tried to second a motion that had not been made. Reynolds moved to approve the Staff recommendation, with the amended contract as provided that evening, support for incorporating any additional language in the Newport Beach contract into our contract, and any additional training or reporting activities developed by Newport Beach. That motion was seconded by Stephens and unanimously carried.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were three public hearings, but only one was heard as the other two were postponed, including the final Environmental Impact Report for the Hive Live project at 3333 Susan Street, which was postponed for a second time to October 7. The pot shop appeal was requested to be postponed by the applicant, but Buley tried to throw a screw in the works there; more on that later.

1.     Ordinance Adding Chapter XVI to Title of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to Establish Regulations Prohibiting Unlawful Sale or Distribution of Nitrous Oxide. The State laws aren’t enough to stop vendors from selling N₂O (aka laughing gas or whippets) to folks who inhale it to get high. This ordinance would close loopholes in the State law, but provides exceptions for legitimate commercial and medical uses. Police Captain Jason Chamness gave a presentation. Incidents and calls for service related to recreational use of the drug, including auto accidents, have been steadily increasing over the last five years.

Council Member Questions and Comments. Gameros asked about kratom, which is another substance that is unregulated but is used in recreational drug use. Gameros wanted to add it to this ordinance, but both the City Attorney and Chamness said it would be more appropriate to adopt a stand-alone ordinance for that.

Public Comment. Robbie LaBounty of Supervisor Katrina Foley’s office spoke in support of the item.

Motion. Stephens made a motion to accept the Staff recommendation, which was seconded by Chavez. The motion passed unanimously.

3.     Appeal of a Culture Cannabis Club Store at 2301 Newport Boulevard. This was the first CUP granted to a pot shop in the City, but the store has only been open sporadically. The business didn’t submit its taxes until prompted by the City. It was also evicted by its landlord, although it now claims to have reached an agreement with the landlord to resume the lease. The applicant requested that this item be continued to October 21 City Council meeting.

Motion.  Stephens tried to move this forward quickly by making a motion to continue the item (which was seconded by Chavez) and then take the vote, but at the last minute, Buley asked for the basis of the applicant’s request. Planning and Sustainable Development Manager Martina Caron said it was because the applicant needed more time to work out lease amendments with the landlord. Buley asked the City Manager if that was sufficient, and was told granted the extension is discretionary. Stephens asked if anything had been communicated to the applicant regarding the granting of the extension. Carrie Tai, Economic and Development Services Director, indicated the applicant was on the meeting via Zoom to answer any questions. Stephens pointed out to Buley that it would make more sense to vote on the continuance than to have the applicant take questions and then have the public comment on the project, only to have a motion made to continue it. Buley agreed to take a vote on the continuance. Buley spoke to the motion and, in so many words, called the applicant a flake. Gameros, obviously not having reviewed the Agenda Report, mixed up this applicant with another pot shop and asked if this applicant had already had a hearing where they asked for something. Tai informed him he was wrong. The motion passed 5-2, with Gameros and Buley voting no.

OLD BUSINESS:  There were four old business items:

1.     Second Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone 3150 Bear Street for 142 Units.  A very short presentation was given by Chris Yeager, Senior Planner.

Council Member Questions and Comments. Buley, who was on vacation for the first reading, asked if any of the units were for first-time homebuyers. Yeager explained the size and stacking of the units and that seven were affordable. Buley asked the applicant if there were restrictions on the affordable units against flipping or renting the property. The applicant answered no, but California law prohibits restricting a property owner from renting its property. The deed-restricted property may be restricted to renting to low-income renters, but it can still be rented.

Public Comment. There were three commenters for this item. One spoke about the relief that the pedestrian gate had been removed and her concern that this project will add to the Bear Street traffic, which is awful at rush hour, and will only get worse with the traffic from the two projects across from South Coast Plaza. Another expressed concern about school capacity for the children living in these units. She also spoke about the heavy traffic in this area right now. I spoke about the parking problem. This project uses State law to NOT provide parking, to the point of detrimental impacts on nearby properties that are going to really anger some folks once this is built. I also expressed concern that the annual net revenue to the City, estimated to be $78,058. That is too low for a housing development. Should any of the units be bought to be held for a long time as an investment (such as a rental), the tax base will not increase at the rate that expenses increase, and that $78,058 can disappear and become a negative very quickly. And then there is the taking of public land for exclusive use of the project, but no one wanted to address that.

Note that the City promised that Measure K would not impact existing residential properties, yet here we have a Measure K site that is doing just that.

Motion.  Stephens made a motion to approve “the thing we voted 6-0 to approve before.” Where was his attorney’s silver tongue? That motion was seconded by Chavez. The motion passed 7-0.

2.     Award of TeWinkle Park Lakes Repair Project. There was some confusion on the part of Stephens as to whether this was Item 2 or 3, but Brenda Green, the City Clerk kept him in line. Robert Ryan, Maintenance Services Manager, gave a presentation. This item is for approval of a contract with Houalla Enterprises, Ltd. for $2,459,777 plus an allowance for cost overruns for $245,978, all to stop the leaks in the lakes. This will be partially funded by a grant that State Senator Min got for the City. It had previously gone out to bid with more components, but only one bid was received. The community workforce agreement requirement was removed, the project went out for rebid and came back with a lower bid, but then Staff reduced the scope of work to lower the cost further. The work is expected to take 185 days. The timing of construction may overlap with the nearby skate park improvements.

Council Member Questions and Comments. Reynolds asked about the timing of the grant funding. It is due to expire in 2026, but the State has indicated it will grant an extension. If the money isn’t used within a specified time, it can be lost.

Buley asked about the history of the project and why the City’s estimate was so far off from the bids it received. Staff’s response was that lake projects don’t happen often.

Pettis asked about the annual cost of maintenance (currently $25,000). He also asked if the waterfowl would be removed (no). He asked about removing the lakes and putting in a bicycle pump park instead. The answer was that the City does not have a plan or funding for that.

Gameros tried to get Staff to say most of the water loss is due to evaporation, but Staff said that was wrong. He asked how the project would control the issue of waterfowl pooping on the sidewalks (yeah, it’s a lot of poop sometimes). Ryan responded that there will be an increase in landscaping and taller landscaping around the lakes to deter the ducks and geese from getting to the sidewalks. This is also to deter the public from feeding them. Gameros correctly said the bird poop is causing excessive nitrate issues with the water, but Ryan pointed out that the biofilter is not working and the project will take care of that, in addition to maintaining the lakes better. Gameros then asked about REMOVING the lakes altogether and filling them with dirt and grass. No one on Staff wanted to touch that. He said this project was just “a Band-Aid on an open bleeding sore,” and he thinks we will be back with more repairs later. He said several times it was a “big waste of water,” along with  “There is water everywhere. The birds will find water. They can fly.” He said we are always looking for park space, so here’s the chance. It’s already park space!  Stephens called him a "lake scrooge."

Marr said the contractors had little information to create a bid and so they had to go with a worst-case scenario. She also mentioned that filling the lakes wasn’t on the Agenda and shouldn’t be talked about. That item needed to be noticed to the public, who would likely turn up at City Hall with pitchforks.

Stephens talked about some safety issues around the lake, such as the steep slope in some areas. He wanted to know where the water seeping out of the lake was going. Staff had no answer since it is underground. He spoke about how the grant was being used to leverage the City’s funds to get a large project done.

Public Comments. Daniel Morgan, a member of the Finance and Pension Committee, but speaking for himself, questioned any delay in the project, as it will only cost more as time goes on. He also expressed concern about unknown future maintenance costs. He said he wanted more background on the project and why the Community Workforce Agreement is no longer part of the project. In general, he supports the project, he likes the ducks and geese in the park, and feels it needs to move forward, but is concerned about ongoing costs. Betsy Dinsmore spoke in favor of the project and was upset at the thought of dumping the project after two years of the City working on it. Joanie Hearn (sp?) said the geese run the place, and they need to be contained because the walks and the park are beautiful otherwise. She asked if we needed two lakes. There are already two lakes. I spoke about the tradition of having Costa Mesa High School senior photos taken by the lake at TeWinkle Park, along with the custom of taking your kids or grandkids there to be chased by a duck so they learn to respect them. Jake spoke about frequenting TeWinkle Park growing up and having senior photos taken there. He takes his kids there now and wants the project to continue.

Motion, Substitute Motion, and Vote. Gameros made a motion to continue the item. That motion was seconded by Pettis. Gameros then tried to put words into Public Works Director Raja Sethuramen’s mouth. He said that Sethuramen said the project was putting a Band-Aid on the problem. Sethuramen immediately corrected him. Gameros, realizing that he had stepped in his own crap, tried to back away from his idea to fill the lake. Pettis said the City Council needs more time to study the project since it has a structural budget deficit.

Stephens made a substitute motion to approve the Staff recommendation, which was seconded by Reynolds. He spoke about the project being vetted by the Parks Commission, the Public Works Department going through the hoops to get the City to the financial point where it could do this, plus the grant money makes it the best timing to improve the lakes. He advocated for improving the amphitheater in the future. Reynolds also spoke in support of the item and about how little of the budget goes to improving our parks. Buley spoke in favor of postponing the project. Marr said she was dismayed that there were so many on the dais who wanted to delay the project. She said if you want to have a meeting where 300 people from Mesa del Mar will turn up to save the lakes, then so be it. She said it is a universally loved amenity in the City. She said the Council members should read the consultant’s report about how to mitigate issues with the ducks and geese. There’s the problem; we have so many Council members who don’t read reports. Even the Agenda Reports seem to be unread. Marr went on to say that the reason why we are at the point where correcting the problems has become expensive is that we delayed doing anything for nearly 20 years.

The vote on the substitute motion was 4-3 in favor, with Pettis, Gameros and Buley voting “No.”

Gameros is clearly out of touch with the community. He has no clue what those lakes mean to a lot of Costa Mesa residents. Twice now, he had proposed that the City Council take actions that would punish the community.

3.     Award of Contract for Category 6A Cabling and Camera Installation. A presentation by Steve Ely, Information Technology Director, and Michael Steinke, IT Manager. This contract with BCS Consultants is for upgrades to the City’s our 20-year-old network cable, and camera installation for $740,686 for two years, with a one-year renewal, and a contingency of $37,034 for cost overruns.

Public Comments.  First up was a competitor of the winning bidder who said that the City wasn’t following the rules in selecting a bidder that met all the scoring qualifications. Second was Ralph Taboada, who inquired about the original implementation plan and the cost variances, if any.

Motion and Vote. Chavez made a motion to approve the Staff recommendation, which was seconded by Reynolds. Reynolds asked about the reasons behind the City accepting the lowest bidder for some projects, and other projects there is a rating process to accept a bidder. The City Attorney responded that when a project is simply a construction contract, the City will accept the lowest qualified bidder. In hybrid project where there is construction and services involved, such as IT projects, then it has to go the ranking of the responses to the request for proposal. In this case, the winning offered more detail than the other bidders did, had multiple references from other cities, and did better in the in-person interview.

Stephens took the opportunity to complain again about the lack of detailed information provided in Agenda Reports when it comes to the bidding process and results of projects such as these. The motion passed unanimously.

4.     Request for City Council Direction re Orange County Power Authority (OCPA) Feasibility Study. The City received the feasibility study from OCPA and is requesting direction from the City Council. Joe Mosca, the CEO of OCPA gave a presentation, and then had several others, including a sitting Buena Park City Council member, give comments. The results of feasibility study was presented by Alden Walden of Pacific Energy Advisors. I’m not going into the criteria used, but the bottom line is that OCPA’s existing 200,000 customers would not suffer any cost increases by absorbing Costa Mesa customers into the community clean energy program. Keep in mind that the feasibility study was about whether OCPA would benefit from taking in Costa Mesa customers, not about whether Costa Mesa customers would benefit by joining OCPA. The City Council needs to make a decision by December 2025 in order to go live with the new customers in March 2027.

Council Member Questions and Comments. Marr asked about the history of organizations like this, and then asked about rates. The basic rate under OCPA is 3% lower than that of Southern California Edison. Here are rate comparisons:

OCPA Cost Comparison 2025

There are three different tiers:

OCPA Increased Clean Energy Options

The more renewable energy, the higher the cost. Each tier increases by about 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour. The assumption under the feasibility study is that Costa Mesa would come in under the middle plan. Customers can choose to stay in the Smart Choice Plan, or opt up, opt down, or opt out. The City of Anaheim started at the highest level of renewable energy, but had to drop to the middle level due to fluctuations in the power market. Here are other programs offered through OCPA:

OCPA Reinvesting in the Community

Reynolds asked about the cost and staff resources needed to join OCPA. There is no charge, but Fountain Valley just joined and Mosca said the City should ask its staff about the additional effort required.

Chavez asked about the cost savings over Edison. The Buena Park council member put it bluntly when she said that isn’t what clean energy programs are about. The program is about trying to mitigate the impacts of climate change. It was mentioned that the cost for the 100% renewable energy is about $10 per month more than Edison, but I never saw that in writing.

Public Comment. There were 12 commenters for this item, most of them living outside of Costa Mesa. Many spoke about OCPA being in financial difficulty and having to resort to selling nonrenewable energy to cut costs. They also talked about the federal administration cutting programs for clean energy. There were allegations about misrepresentations made to the City of Irvine by OCPA. Others advocated for joining OCPA, as it has saved them money on their electric bills.

On September 9, the Irvine City Council voted to rescind its withdrawal notice to OCPA. At that meeting there were nearly 65 public commenters, most in favor of rejoining OCPA, and some of whom were the same folks we saw at the Costa Mesa City Council meeting, including Planning Commissioner David Martinez. Rescinding the withdrawal notice was made contingent on (1) discussion with OCPA to immediately commence repayment, with interest, of the $7 million loan (!!!) made by Irvine when it joined OCPA, (2) OCPA would place Irvine subscribers in the lowest (basic) tier by default, (3) Irvine would negotiate to retain two board seats on the OCPA board, and (4) negotiate with OCPA for an additional seat on the board should another city, such as Costa Mesa, join OCPA. The last two additions are very important! Irvine will not allow its vote on the board of directors to be diluted by other cities, like Costa Mesa. If Irvine is successful in getting extra board seats, that could reduce Costa Mesa’s negotiating power with OCPA. If anyone wants to dig into this subject, I suggest watching this part of the Irvine City Council meeting.

Motion. Marr moved to direct Staff to draft an ordinance to join OCPA, which seconded by Reynolds. Reynolds added an amendment to bring the item before the Finance and Pension Advisory Committee on September 10. Chavez spoke to the motion and said his focus is on affordability. He said he didn’t want to get into the situation that Irvine is in, with trying to recoup the debt OCPA owes that city. He wants an opt-out clause in the agreement. Gameros said he supports the motion, but he seemed suspicious of the organization. He said it is only getting 1/10^th of his support, the other 49.9% is a no vote. Say what? What kind of math (and thinking) is that?

Vote: The motion passed on a 5-2 vote, with Pettis and Buley voting “No.”

The FiPAC meeting on September 10 was cancelled due to a lack of quorum, so that Committee has not reviewed this item. That Committee has a Special Meeting on October 1, with this item on the Agenda and I will have more on that in a few days. It will come before the City Council on October 21.

READJORNMENT MOTION. Stephens made a motion to postpone the rest of the Agenda to the following Tuesday, September 9. That was seconded by Chavez, but a friendly amendment was offered by Reynolds to hear New Business Item 1, since it was a time sensitive project. The motion passed unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS:

1.     Award of Fairview Road Transportation Rehab Project. This project is a road diet, Class IV cycle tracks and associated lane markings, new crosswalk on Fairview Road starting at Fair Drive and continuing south to Newport Boulevard. The Public Works Agreement is for $2,860,000, along with a 10% contingency. Funding comes from Gas Tax Funds, Traffic Impact Fees, a Federal grant, and Measure M2 Fairshare Funds. Senior Engineer Ramin Nikoui gave the presentation.

Public Comment. All comments except one were in favor of the project.

Motion and Vote. Marr moved to approve the Staff recommendation to approve the project, which was seconded by Reynolds. The motion passed on a 6-1 vote, with Pettis voting “No.”

SEPTEMBER 3 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MEETING. First, any meeting in Conference Room 1A either needs electronic amplification or the Staff and Committee members need to speak louder. Neither this room nor the Community Room are designed for ease of listening. Things that were discussed at the meeting included:

• Committee awareness – members need to speak to the public about the work of the committee

• School action plan

• Walk audits

• Bike safety education

• Fairview Road bicycle improvement design (between Fair and Adams); outreach meetings are upcoming

• Committee goals and objectives; these are the same as prior years

  • Suggestion: integrate with rezoning update

  • Suggestion: measure effectiveness of outreach

  • Need for Council permission for new projects

  • Advisory function for major projects

• Let’s Go Costa Mesa use is increasing; service may be increased

• Walk to School Day is October 8 and 15

SEPTEMBER 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. All Commissioners were present. Two items required action:

• Review of Zoning Administrator Approval of Minor Conditional Use Permit for New Wireless Communication Facility at 2065 Placentia Avenue

• Study Session Regarding General Plan Safety Element Technical Update

Public Comment.  I spoke about an upcoming rezoning meeting and the need to improve the engagement of the public as trust is eroding. I advocated for town hall meetings and an expanded visioning process.

Commissioner Comments.  David Martinez notified the public of the City Council meeting the following evening. He spoke about Shayanne Wright, currently a parks commissioner, joining the board of the Mesa Water District. Rob Dickson advocated for a town hall meeting for the rezoning effort by the City. He said he liked the meetings throughout the City, but felt that they don’t allow the public to participate like a town hall meeting does. He asked that Planning Staff speak to the City Manager and City Council about increasing engagement of the public on this important issue. Angely Andrade spoke about an art walk in which she participated.

CONSENT CALENDAR: The only item was the minutes from the August 25, 2025 meeting. Dickson moved to approve the minutes, which was seconded by Martinez. The motion passed unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: There was one public hearing, a Review of Zoning Administrator Approval of Minor Conditional Use Permit for New Wireless Communication Facility at 2065 Placentia Avenue. The project adds a third 55 ft tall cell tower disguised as a pine tree in the same storage facility as an existing tower, also disguised as a pine tree. There is another tower disguised as a palm less than a block away. The reason for this coming to the Planning Commission is that in response to the Zoning Administrator’s notice, 14 public comments in opposition of the project were received, including a public comment with 93 signatures against a new cell tower. Associate Planner Justin Arios gave the presentation.

Commissioner Questions. Dickson asked for a definition of “detrimental” when it comes to describing the impacts on surrounding properties. That word is not defined in the code, so the common definition is what would be used. Merriam Webster defines the noun as “an undesirable or harmful person or thing,” and adjectives are “harmful,” “damaging,” “adverse,” “dangerous.” and “bad.”

Zich asked about who determines the gap in coverage. Arios responded that the City relies on the technical expertise of the applicant. He then asked about the height of the other tower. There are actually two existing towers, one faux pine and one faux palm. Zich asked if a resident could have a tower in their backyard and the answer was “Yes.” He seemed shocked. I know I was. Arios later backed away from that statement saying this type of antenna is prohibited on residential property.

Martinez asked for clarification about federal law. From the Agenda Report:

“Jurisdictions may not impose an “effective prohibition” of wireless communication facilities. An effective prohibition is one that prevents a wireless carrier from closing a “significant” gap in service coverage provided by that carrier. As such, wireless carriers must submit gap coverage analyses with their applications, demonstrating that the subject location in their application is needed to close service gaps. This gap coverage analysis must demonstrate the extent to which the gap will be closed.”

In addition, concerning radiofrequency (RF) emissions:

“Setting the safety standards for RF emissions is exclusively the responsibility of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits the City from denying a wireless facility application based on concerns about RF emissions when the applicant has demonstrated that its facilities will comply with FCC standards.”

Martinez asked what the Commissioners could review. Arios said it was setbacks, aesthetics, as it applies to disguising the poles, and the findings in the zoning administrator’s review.

Zich asked about the impact on property values and whether the tower could be considered substantial evidence of a detrimental impact. Planning and Sustainable Development Manager Martina Caron answered that the City doesn’t look at property values when examining impacts of a project.

Applicant Presentation.  The applicant spoke about the gap in coverage, concerns about RF emissions, aesthetics, and property values. He said there is no problem, and even said that the property values could go up. It felt like gaslighting.

Johnny Rojas asked about the statement that AT&T doesn’t put towers on elementary school sites, yet the map of alternative sites shows four elementary schools, and one site in Canyon Park. The reason why the elementary schools were not considered was because they were too close to existing sites. In addition, it typically takes the school district too long to approve towers on its property.

In terms of other sites, the reason cited for using this site is that no other commercial property owners wanted a tower. Having all these towers close together is in compliance with federal standards.

Zich asked about the coverage map showing areas not getting full coverage, even after the installation of the new tower. The applicant indicated that more towers may be necessary in the future. When Zich asked for the data on dropped calls, the applicant wasn’t able to produce it and would have to get an engineer to supply it. Zich asked why the applicant wasn’t making one of the other towers taller and the applicant responded he thought it would go beyond the height limitation. Zich asked about the maintenance of the existing towers, or rather the lack thereof, and was told that AT&T doesn’t own the tower or the property, that maintenance is the responsibility of the property owner.

Public Comment. Twelve people gave comments, all against the project. Many people alluded to the applicant being untruthful on several topics. One speaker played a recording of the buzzing from the cell tower equipment that she has to listen too. Another complained about the workers’ behavior. More than several complained about the poor condition of the existing towers.

Rebuttal. The applicant said equipment would be inside of a storage unit so the residents wouldn’t hear any noise. I’ve been in many storage units, and none of them had sound insulation. He offered to produce a 3-D model of the tower. He reiterated that the gap in coverage must be addressed.

Commissioner Questions. Zich asked if there was a limit on the number of towers or a separation requirement. Arios stated there is no maximum number or separation requirement.

Martinez asked about some of the public comments and whether there are conditions of approval that cover things such as noise (yes), putting it elsewhere on the property, such as the front setback (Staff doesn’t want that), and maintenance of the faux tree (yes). He also asked about whether consideration had been given to the fact that the property is an opportunity site in the Housing Element and how this tower may dissuade the building of housing here or nearby. Amber Gregg, contract planner, said the tower could be incorporated into a new housing site or it could be removed should the property owner desire.

Dickson asked about the process to delay making a decision on the project until the applicant was able to provide more data. Caron said it could be postponed to a date certain (that way re-noticing would not be required).

Motion and Vote. Dickson moved to continue the item until December 8, so the applicant could provide more information, which was seconded by Zich. In speaking to his motion, he said if he was one of the residents living near this, he wouldn’t be calm about this, he’d be sitting in the audience with pitchforks because the noise is unacceptable. He told the audience members to contact code enforcement the next time they hear it. Zich suggested that the applicant set up a neighborhood meeting before it returns to the Planning Commission. He also said that the existing tower is blight and when the applicant comes back in December it has some meaningful ways of remedying that.

The motion was unanimously approved.

NEW BUSINESS: There was one New Business item, a Study Session Regarding General Plan Safety Element Technical Update. Since this was a study session, the Commissioners needed to provide direction to Staff, and then the motion would be to receive and file. Amber Gregg, contract planner, gave a presentation. She started by describing what the Safety Element does, which to provide policy to support disaster preparedness and emergency response, in order to protect the community from natural and human-made hazards. These technical updates are to bring the City up-to-date from the last update in 2015. After considering the comments from the Commissioners this evening, Staff will return early next year with a formal item for the Commission's approval.

Commissioner questions were about whether the CalFire data was up to date. Our Fire Department is currently looking at the data. Dickson asked that Staff return with more information. Martinez asked about how the Climate Action and Adaption Plan (CAAP), which is being worked on, will affect the Safety Element. The Safety Element will be amended first, and if the CAAP changes any policies, those changes will be made at the time of adoption. Harlan asked what would happen if these changes were not made? Gregg answered that this is a program in the Housing Element update, so it needs to be done to achieve certification of the Housing Element. Harlan felt that this deserved to get lower priority than the rezoning effort.

Public Comment. Olga Zapata-Reynolds was the sole speaker and advocated for adding safety measures in connection with pandemics. In addition, she asked about the safety of residents who are being kidnapped.

Motion and Vote:  Zich moved to receive and file, which motion was seconded by Dickson. The motion passed unanimously.

PUBLIC WORKS REPORT: There will be bike safety rodeos, some focusing on e-bike safety, for the next three months, ending in early November.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT:  The Hive Live project will come to the City Council on October 7.

SEPTEMBER 9 ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING. At this meeting the items acted on were:

• Update on Support Services and Assistance for Residents, Tracking of At-Fault Evictions, and Rental Registry

• Update for Legal Assistance for Residents and Potential Participation in Lawsuit Challenging Roaming Immigration Patrols

All members were present. The Agenda was only for the items postponed from the prior meeting on September 2.

City Attorney Closed Session Report. Kimberly Hall Barlow reported that the City Council authorized the City Attorney to initiate litigation on four matters.

Public/City Council/Interim City Manager Comments. There were no public, City Council, or Interim City Manager comments because this meeting was a continuation from a prior meeting.

NEW BUSINESS:

1.    Update on Support Services and Assistance for Residents, Tracking of At-Fault Evictions, and Rental Registry. Mayor John Stephens had to recuse himself because he received campaign donations from the Orange County Apartment Owners Association. Mayor Pro Tem Manuel Chavez (District 4) took over running the meeting. Deputy City Manager Alma Reyes introduced the presentation, along Government Affairs Manager Jay Barkman and Management Analyst Sergio Escobar. They gave an update on the donations directed at the August 5 City Council meeting and a report on Staff’s research on rental registries. $50,000 each was given to the Enough for All Fund and Someone Cares Soup Kitchen. The direction to Staff to make those donations was not agendized or noticed, therefore, the actions were taken in violation of the Brown Act. After the close of the public hearing and public comment, the City Attorney admitted to the violation of the Brown Act, and tried to correct this mistake by ratifying the action. However, since ratification of the actions was not on this Agenda, the City, once again, violated the Brown Act.

With respect to the at-fault evictions, those are evictions for nonpayment, lease violations, nuisance and criminal activity. The court doesn’t maintain data on how many evictions are at-fault or where the property is located. Staff listed the cities that have rental registry programs. They are all cities larger than Costa Mesa. The fees paid by landlords to join can range from $29-$400 per unit. It takes a lot of labor to start a registry, the cost of which falls on the city that maintains it. Start up costs can be up to $300,000. Specific software is required at a cost of around $85,000.

Council Member Questions and Comments. Mike Buley (District 1) asked for information about the Brown Act violation. The City Attorney told him the item was properly noticed. Arlis Reynolds (District 5) asked about compliance with State law on rent increases. Barkman said their research did not find any data on that, and that cities created registries in order to track the data. Reynolds had a number of questions about how the City finds out about illegal evictions and how it tries to remedy those situations. Buley asked about the ownership of rental properties in terms of institutional investments versus mom and pop owners. The answer was that around 15% of the units are owned by institutions (corporations and LLCs). The nationwide ownership percentage is about 18%. Chavez asked about ways to protect and assist tenants.

Public Comment. There were 20 public comments. Most were in support of a rental registry and tracking at-fault evictions, but one did not because he feels renters should be able to do these things themselves. The other dissenting commenter was Planning Commissioner Rob Dickson, who cautioned against overpromising to the constituents who are renters. He pointed out that the City is in a structural deficit and hiring staff to take on this effort isn’t appropriate when the State and County should be addressing this problem. He suggested the City have a liaison or ombudsman to the existing agencies.

Motion and Vote. Reynolds moved to (1) Staff bring back an update to the Tenant Protection Ordinance to require notices of any evictions; (2) have Staff develop a proposal for a rent registry modeled after Santa Ana’s registry, minus the rent cap; and (3) establish a network for renter solutions modeled after the City’s network for homeless solutions. The motion was seconded by Andrea Marr (District 3). Both Reynolds and Marr spoke strongly in support of the motion. Buley spoke against it, citing the fact that it would cost the City in a time when the budget is quite tight, and that other State and County agencies, along with nonprofits, are providing similar services. He doesn’t like the City injecting itself into the marketplace and getting in between landlords and tenants. Pettis spoke against the motion. He also spoke about the violation of the Brown Act by voting to give money to the charities without noticing or allowing public comment on the item. Note: He was not present for the vote on the item because he had to leave the meeting early. Gameros asked whether the motion may lead to the City adopting a rent control ordinance. There was a pause, and then he said “I hear silence. Kind of like jumbo shrimp.” If anyone can tell me what that meant, please do so. Reynolds responded that rent control was not part of the motion. Two staff members confirmed that.

The motion passed on a 4-2 vote, with Buley and Pettis voting “No” and Stephens absent.

BUT WE WEREN’T DONE. Stephens returned and the City Attorney explained she recommended that the City Council ratify the prior action taken on the donations on August 5. To be clear, she asked that the City Council vote on an item that wasn’t on the Agenda for this meeting, and it was an illegal vote to start with that should have been rescinded, noticed, and agendized so that public comment should be heard on the item. I don’t think there would have been objections to that motion, but the City needs to be following the law, so that actions such as these aren’t nullified in the event someone challenges the legality. Stephens made a motion to ratify the action, which was seconded by Chavez. Stephens and Chavez spoke to the motion. Buley, in his comments, said that there may be unintended consequences of the action, such as negative focus on the City Council. Keep that in mind for later in this report.

Vote. The motion passed on a 5-2 vote, with Buley and Pettis voting “No.”

2.     Update for Legal Assistance for Residents and Potential Participation in Lawsuit Challenging Roaming Immigration Patrols. City Attorney Hall Barlow gave a presentation. At the August 5 meeting, the Mayor gave direction to the City Attorney to return with a report on the City providing legal assistance to residents impacted by the enforcement activities of ICE, including any limitations on providing funds. Only the City’s General Funds could be used (no federal funds, grants, or restricted funds). City Staff and the City Attorney are not trained to run such a program, so partnering with an outside provider would make sense. It is important to note that the US government is locking up illegal immigrants, including children, while they contest the government’s attempts to deport them, even if they’ve lived in the US for many years and don’t have a criminal record. Bail is not available for detainees, nor is a public defender available, as immigration matters are civil matters. There have also been arrests of US citizens. Here is a list of legal service providers to be considered:

Legal Service Providers Considered

Some of these providers have limitations on the services they can provide.

Hall Barlow continued her presentation by discussing participation in Perdomo v. Noem, the lawsuit challenging the roaming patrols of ICE. This is an ongoing suit, with a hearing in late September on whether to grant a restraining order prohibiting ICE’s activities that violate the Fourth Amendment. There are two ways to participate, either by becoming an intervenor, which is a more formal way to be a party of the action, or to participate as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, which is a way to support a lawsuit without taking on all the financial burdens.

Council Member Questions and Comments. Mike Buley (District 1) asked if giving money to any of the identified providers would jeopardize any grants the City might receive from the federal government. Hall Barlow said there is no legal basis for that if the City uses its General Funds. Buley also asked if Perdomo might impact on Costa Mesa in a way other cities weren’t impacted. Hall Barlow responded that if there were government actions taking place here that weren’t taking place in other cities, then it could impact us differently. However, since the case covers the entire Central District of California, then any ruling could impact Costa Mesa directly because the City falls under that jurisdiction.

Stephens asked for a budget for an amicus brief. Hall Barlow answered that it would not cost the City anything, the City would just put its name on the briefs and other filings. That’s not true! The City would need to retain legal counsel to submit documents to become an amicus, and that’s not free.

Public Comment. There were 22 public comments, all but one in support of joining the Perdomo suit one way or another, and for giving money to a legal services provider or establishing a legal defense fund. Some spoke about the impact on the economy as a result of ICE’s activities in Costa Mesa. One advocated for an advisory committee on the subject. Many shared first-hand experiences and the fear the community is undergoing as a result of raids. A lawyer spoke about how the US government does NOT provide legal defense in immigration matters because they are civil matters. One resident suggested that the Council members watch footage of a raid at the U-Haul location on Newport Boulevard.

Motion. Stephens moved to (2) start a legal defense fund with $100,000 seed money; (2) have the City enter into a contract with Immigration Defense Law Center, as the primary provider, and Public Law Center, as a secondary provider. The fund will benefit Costa Mesa residents, wherever they are detained, and anyone detained within the boundaries of Costa Mesa, who need access to legal assistance on immigration. The fund would be open to public donations as well. Once the fund balance reaches $50,000, then Staff would return to the City Council for further instruction. The City would also sign onto an amicus brief on the Perdomo case. The motion was seconded by Chavez.

Stephens, in speaking to the motion, reminded the audience that it said, “. . . and justice for all” when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. He went on to explain that the detainees are not getting a legal defense provided by the government, and that his desire is that legal help be provided to them , whether they be guilty or innocent, “and we are all guilty of something.” Chavez said that in five years, it will be proven that the Council was on the right side of history.

Marr requested a friendly amendment to increase the amount to $200,000, and to add City employees and families as being eligible for benefits of the fund. The mover and second of the motion concurred.

Vote:  The motion carried 5-2, with Pettis and Buley voting “No.”

I fully expect Staff to return to the City Council shortly, asking for a replenishment of the funds. $200,000 is peanuts in the legal defense world. I worked on a case where the copying fees were over $1m the first day. There are lawyers donating their time to these efforts, but the cost of filing documents, especially Appeals Court documents, is tremendously expensive. As the Perdomo case proceeds, so will the bills.

SEPTEMBER 10 FINANCE AND PENSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING (OR THE MEETING THAT WASN’T).  This meeting was scheduled for 4:00 p.m., but when we arrived we found that it had been cancelled due to a lack of quorum. Two members of the public, who I recognized as speakers at the City Council meeting who oppose Costa Mesa joining Orange County Power Authority, were just leaving. I spoke to the Chair, Tom Arnold and confirmed that the New Business item on the agenda for “2026 Elections” was raising the Transient Occupancy Tax (aka hotel tax). Will the OCPA item return to this Committee before the City Council needs to make a decision? Yes, there is a Special Meeting of this Committee on October 1. A report on that meeting is forthcoming.

SEPTEMBER 10 “NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE ALL BELONG” REZONING MEETING (NORTH COSTA MESA VERSION). This was another sparsely attended meeting, with approximately 12 members of the public attending. Again, some of them left quickly. I didn’t see any City officials at this meeting, despite it being the only one specifically focused on Districts 1 and 2. City staff and representatives from consultants Dudek and Kearns & West were there. A notable member of the public was George Sakioka.

The room featured the same two large posters from the previous meeting, along with a few smaller ones. On the conference table were two large maps of North Costa Mesa, with the Measure K and Housing Element parcels highlighted. This variation of the sticker exercise involved pushpins that were difficult to shove into the very resistant posterboard. We were supposed to identify parcels/places important to us.

There was one new poster that was used for an exercise where the public participants, about 9 of us by then, talked about our desires and concerns for this area. The illustrations were actual photos of the South Coast area near the Segerstrom Center from the Performing Arts, and included types of density, mixed-use buildings, and sidewalk/street setbacks and landscaping. However, the proposed densities of the Housing Element weren’t talked about by the consultant, it had to be brought up by a member of the public. FYI, they are up to 90 dwelling units per acre.

The moderators had a hard time keeping the conversation focused on the task because many participants had ideas they wanted to express that weren’t completely on topic. But that happens in conversational settings, and it was the responsibility of the moderators to redirect the conversation back, which they did. One young man who spoke at length about his ideas, including the concept that the City should somehow guaranty that developers and builders make a profit off their projects. Others were concerned about how adding massive new apartment buildings is going to impact the infrastructure and the ability to provide services to residents. It was a good conversation, but it was cut short by the consultant’s desire to end the event and pick up. This is the sort of conversation that should have been had at all these meetings, but it should have been longer and allowed for greater expansion of the topic.

There are no further meetings scheduled for now. We continue to lobby for a town hall.

SEPTEMBER 16 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Members physically present were John Stephens (Mayor), Mike Buley (District 1), Loren Gameros (District 2), Manuel Chavez (District 4), and Jeff Pettis (District 6). Andrea Marr (District 3) participated remotely as she was on a business trip, and Arlis Reynolds (District 5) was absent. At this meeting the items acted on were:

• Updates to Procedure for Determining Shared Parking Requirements

• Ordinance Establishing Prohibition of Unlawful Sale or Distribution Of Nitrous Oxide

• Resolution for Exception to 180-Day Wait Period for Rehire of Fire Battalion Chief William Kershaw

• Adoption Of Memoranda of Understanding Between City and (1) Costa Mesa Police Association, (2) Costa Mesa Police Management Association, (3) Costa Mesa Firefighters Association, and (4) Costa Mesa Fire Management Association

• Agreement With Endemic Environmental Services Inc. for Fairview Park Mesa Restoration Project and Addendum To 1997 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Fairview Park

City Attorney Closed Session Report: Kimberly Hall Barlow reported that Items 1 and 2 of the Closed Session that pertained to opioid settlements had action taken. Upon motion by Buley, seconded by Chavez, the City Council voted 6-0 to participate in the settlements of those cases.

Presentation. Recognition of Anna Dolewski for Outstanding Public Service. Anna, a long-time award-winning City employee, performed payroll services for the City. She was one of the most popular employees (especially on pay day!).

Public Comment.  Seven members of the public addressed the City Council on the following topics:

• Early morning loud amplified voices coming from The 12 Gym at 140 E 17^th Street,

• Inquiry into when the Fairview Park updated Master Plan draft document would be released.

• Request for meetings of all the “stakeholders” of the City with respect to the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan; a wish for a town hall meeting was expressed.

• Appreciation for the metal detectors outside the City Council Chamber and how he felt safer.  From what??? Was there a threat to a City official?

• Questions regarding Consent Calendar item about the legislative platform, including why the update is only being done every two years and what would the City do if its position conflicts with a partner, such as the California League of Cities.

• Request to preserve Fairview Park as a nature park and the reasons why using citations from the ecological reports produced by the City in connection with the Fairview Park Master Plan update.

• Request for better services, resources and opportunities for veterans in the community.

• Criticism of the “Neighborhoods Where We All Belong” and the claim that more housing will depress housing costs; the speaker also pointed out that the City claimed Measure K would not impact residential neighborhoods, yet the project at 3150 Bear Street does just that.

• A report on the number of traffic crashes involving pedestrians, cyclists, and motor vehicles for August; of 146 collisions, 3 involved injured pedestrians, 12 involved cyclists (9 injuries), and 131 collisions involved 2 or more cars; most of the crashes were on Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Road; the caller asked for more police presence on our roadways.

Council Member Comments.  Buley started things off speaking about the importance of civil discourse and the importance “to have hard, robust civil conversations about issues that impact all of us.” He spoke about the importance of peaceful transitions of power. He said he appreciates the demeanor of his fellow Council members. He spoke in defense the Stephen’s handling of the raucous July 15 meeting. He also appreciates the civility of the public speakers. He encouraged the civil discourse to continue.

Gameros said we should be thankful for our First Amendment rights. He thanked the Police Department for taking steps to make everyone in the room safe that evening. He said that if it wasn’t for the metal detectors, it was likely the meeting would not have been held.

Marr apologized for attending remotely due to her work schedule. She announced ArtVenture at the Norma Hertzog Community Center. She mentioned the “pop-up” meetings for the Measure K and Housing Element rezoning effort.

Pettis requested that the meeting be adjourned in the honor of Charlie Kirk. He spoke about how the killing hit him hard. He said he wasn’t going to get into national politics, but that this is about dehumanization of people by calling them Nazis, racists and fascists. He switched gears and seconded Jay Humphrey’s request for town hall meetings.

Chavez spoke about the City’s annual art show, ArtVenture, and about attending the fundraising gala for Families Forward. He summarized what Albert O. Hirschman wrote on choices for the public when times are difficult, as they had been that week. He summarized Hirschman’s book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States: You can choose to leave the country; we can choose to use our voice through voting, protest, speaking at council meetings, which is advocating for change to the system; we can declare our loyalty to the systems we have. He asked that the students in the audience use their voices to advocate for change.

Stephens spoke about attending the Mayors’ Prayer Breakfast. He announced a town hall on homeless issues and solutions on Wednesday, October 15, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. at the Norma Hertzog Community Center. He thanked Buley for his kind words. He agreed to close the meeting in honor of Charlie Kirk. He then spoke about the metal detectors and said it was a new procedure that was overdue. He said this was precipitated by the recent events and also “correspondence received over the weekend.” The metal detectors were borrowed from the Segerstrom Center for the Performing Arts. He quoted his mother telling a grandkid, “Honey, you can come in the living room, but your cookie can’t come in the living room.” He paraphrased that with, “You can come in the Chambers, but your weapon can’t come into the Chambers.”

All Politics is national now; it has permeated everything everywhere, and there is almost nothing that is local. What happens when a governmental body ignores the voices of its citizens? Using your voice is only good if the government listens and takes action based on what you ask. If we look at a recent 25-year history of Costa Mesa, much more was accomplished by protest and voting at the ballot box. That ballot box thing (I’m referring to Measure Y) is something our elected officials may not have liked, but it was a lot more effective than hoping our voices would finally make some impact.

In terms of closing in the honor of Charlie Kirk, the Council did not honor Melissa Hortman in this manner. Several members of the public responded by asking that honor be extended to her as well that evening, and the Mayor eventually agreed to do so.

City Manager Comments. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly is National Preparedness Month. The City’s Emergency Preparedness Guide can be found at: https://www.costamesaca.gov/government/departments-and-divisions/the-office-of-emergency-management/emergency-preparedness . Copies were available at the meeting, but you can also get them at any City building, including City Hall.

City Attorney Comments. Hall Barlow asked that Robert Redford, who died that day, be honored by the City Council.

CONSENT CALENDAR: The Consent Calendar is for routine items. Item No. 6 was pulled by Buley. A motion to approve the remaining items was made by Chavez, seconded by Stephens. The approval was unanimous.

6.    Adopt Legislative Platform and Updates to Council Policy 000-8. City Council Policy 000-8 authorizes the Mayor to sign legislative position letters on behalf of the City Council when the City’s legislative partners have acted. Those partners are the National League of Cities, League of California Cities, Association of California Cities - Orange County, and the Orange County Council of Governments. At the May 20 City Council meeting, the City Council gave direction to Staff to make changes and return to the City Council at a later date.

Buley, in addressing why he pulled the item, said that he is the new guy up there on the dais. He’s been there nearly 10 months. He asked why this item was on the Consent Calendar. The City Attorney responded that in this case, the City Council has already considered it, so there is no reason to have a public hearing unless someone wanted it. Stephens added that a Council member can always vote “No” on an item. Buley then asked if this policy is the method by which City Council members get to convey to Staff what the priorities of their constituents are. The answer was that it is like a strategic plan that identifies the Council’s priorities and helps Staff know to be aware it should be looking for grants and funding for those items. Buley said this is one of two areas, the other being the budget, where the Council can identify priorities.

The changes being discussed were from an earlier document introduced on May 20. At that time, the changes that were suggested would require the item to be brought back to City Council for approval, which procedure was unanimously approved at that time by the Council members, including Buley. Buley thought it was a study session, but it was a regular meeting with a direction given to staff, and a vote was taken on the item. Staff had to correct him on that. Buley dismissed his mistake as “being the new guy.” How long is he going to use that excuse? He said if he had been more prepared at the May 20 meeting, he would have had more questions. He turned his focus to the document where it expresses a priority be obtaining funding for homeless services and whether at some point the City would reach the point where it is “there,” meaning we have done all we should do to shoulder the burden for our city and surrounding cities. Staff told him that the document is a living document and that it will need revision as the next legislative session begins. Buley seemed to be under the impression that finding and procuring grants is a long, laborious process. It really isn’t. Deputy City Manager Alma Reyes suggested that Buley meet with Staff to get better educated on the grant procurement process. He asked that each Council member get one-on-one time with Staff on this matter each time it comes to the City Council. It said he was overwhelmed at the May 20 meeting.

Pettis criticized the changes to the document for focusing on environmental issues and safe streets. He said it makes one wonder how this process is being influenced and what voices are being heard. He said he looks forward to being a part of the process going forward.

Stephens objected to the use of the term “at promise.” That term is used to describe programs and activities targeting children who are suffering from gaps in student academic performance in terms of race and income, and how their language may correlate with the causes of a gap. It is a term that has been adopted by the California Educational and Penal Codes. He described it as “politically correct.” Staff agreed to change the term back to “at risk.”

Public Comment.  The sole public comment was about the prior policy of putting second readings on the Consent Calendar, and then about his belief that climate change is fake.

Motion.  Marr made a motion to approve, with Stephens seconding with his request for a wording change. Marr spoke on the matter and said the intent of bringing it back from the May meeting was to give other Council members the opportunity to make changes.  The motion carried on a vote of 4-2, with Pettis and Buley voting “No.”

This is why it is important to elect officials who not only represent you, but who do their homework and follow up on it. In this case, I don’t feel that Buley did the homework assignment. He neither followed up on the May 20 meeting, nor did he come prepared to this meeting to make changes to the policy document. Asking questions is important, but City Council members need to ask them at the right time. Coming in at the last minute to complain about the process that he and Pettis chose to not be a part of, despite having four months to do so, really shows that these two aren’t doing what is required to be effective City Council members.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: There was one public hearing: An Ordinance Amending Title 13 (Planning Zoning And Development) of the Municipal Code to Provide Technical Updates and Clarifications, and a Resolution to Update Procedure for Determining Shared Parking Requirements. A presentation was given by Caitlyn Curley and Froylan Garcia, Assistant Planners, and Dan Inloes, Economic Development Administrator. The old table being used was from 1985. The updates include the source of reference materials and an update for new uses, which provides a more accurate method of predicting parking needs for shared uses. Twelve additional uses are added to the table. The goals were to align parking supply with actual demand, support mixed-use development and adaptive reuse, and reduce infrastructure costs and improve land use efficiency.

Council Member Questions and Comments. Stephens asked why these changes were selected to be made. Curley answered that Staff compiles a list over its work year. Stephens elaborated that the Sadeghi group, who owns the LAB, told him at a luncheon that they would like certain codes to be changed. He advocated for talking to stakeholders about code changes. Inloes told Stephens that Staff already does that.

Here we have the example of a developer influencing a City Council member for changes that benefit it, and only it, without consideration given to the impacts on the City as a whole.

Public Comments.  The only public comment was about how the City uses balconies and rooftop to calculate open space. He also complained that his hand raise during Zoom meetings is sometimes ignored.

Motion. Chavez moved to approve the Staff recommendation, which was seconded by Marr. The motion passed unanimously.

OLD BUSINESS: One Old Business Item was on the Agenda: Ordinance Establishing Prohibition of Unlawful Sale or Distribution Of Nitrous Oxide. This was the second reading of this ordinance. Captain Jason Chamness, now Deputy Chief of Police, gave a short presentation. There were no questions from the Council or public comment. Stephens forgot to take the motion and tried to take the vote. Chavez moved the item, which was seconded by Gameros. The motion passed unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS: There were three items:

1.     Resolution for Exception to 180-Day Wait Period for Rehire of Fire Battalion Chief William Kershaw. Kershaw retired after 37 years of service, and the City is hiring him back for maximum work hours of 960 per year, which translates to maximum wages of $90,031. Councilmembers asked for some clarification on the reason to rehire while recruitment for his position is open. There was no public comment. A motion to approve was made by Gameros. Since he didn’t turn on his mic, it was hard to hear him, but my lip-reading skills tell me he moved the Staff recommendation. That motion was seconded by Pettis. Gameros refused to speak on his motion. It was carried unanimously.

2.     Adoption Of Memoranda of Understanding Between City and (1) Costa Mesa Police Association, (2) Costa Mesa Police Management Association, (3) Costa Mesa Firefighters Association, and (4) Costa Mesa Fire Management Association.  Each of these Memoranda are expiring soon. There is no fiscal impact to adopt these memos. There were no questions from the City Council members and no public comment. Again, Gameros did not turn on his mic before making a motion to approve, which was seconded by Stephens. Again, Gameros refused to speak to the motion. Stephens praised the Police Department and Staff for their efforts. Council member Marr left the meeting, so the vote was 5-0 in favor.

3.     Agreement With Endemic Environmental Services Inc. for Fairview Park Mesa Restoration Project and Addendum To 1997 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Fairview Park. Brian Gruner, Parks and Community Services Director, and Kelly Dalton, Fairview Park Administrator, gave a presentation. The following slide gives a good overview of the scope. The project area is outlined in yellow-orange (the red area is a future project).

Fairview Park Mesa Restoration Project Scope

Council Questions and Comments.  None.

Public Comments. There were 13 public comments, all in favor of the project.

Motion. Stephens moved to approved the Staff recommendation, which was seconded by Chavez. The motion passed unanimously (which at that point was 5-0).

SEPTEMBER 22 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. All Commissioners were present, except for Chair Jeff Harlan. Vice Chair Jon Zich ran the meeting. At this meeting the items acted on were:

• Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage of Tow Trucks And Employee Vehicles at 2648 Newport Blvd

• Appeal of Denial of Request for Reasonable Accommodation for Relief to Operate Sober Living Home by Ohio House at 115 E Wilson St, Units A Through E.

  
  

Public Comment.  One person attempted to speak on an agendized item, but was told to come back when that item is announced.

Commissioner Comments. Angely Andrade spoke about attending the opening ceremony for ArtVenture at Lions Park and the Community Center, and about the upcoming celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month. David Martinez spoke about ArtVenture, Hispanic Heritage Month, an ebike training event, the OC Pride at the Fairgrounds, and the upcoming Scarecrow Festival in October. He also spoke about several surveys. Rob Dickson said there is a Safe Routes to School survey on the City’s website. This is the link: https://engage.publiccoordinate.com/en/project/costa-mesa-srts/embed 

CONSENT CALENDAR: The only item was the minutes from the September 8, 2025 meeting. Martinez moved to approve the minutes, with the exception to correct the spelling of Shayanne Wright’s name, which motion was seconded by Dickson. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).

PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were two public hearings:

1.     Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage of Tow Trucks And Employee Vehicles at 2648 Newport Blvd. Southland Towing is requesting a CUP to store 15 tow trucks and employee vehicles at a currently vacant site between two hotels. The 4,228 sq. ft. building was formerly used for piano repair and will now serve as secure storage for items from impounded vehicles (not the vehicles themselves). Key details are:

• No public access or vehicle repairs on-site

• Site is about 150 feet from the nearest residence

Planned improvements:

• New landscaping, sidewalk, curb, and gutter

• Refreshed asphalt paving

• New block wall with motorized gate

• Noise mitigation measures include restrictions on backup alarms and idling

Justin Arios, Associate Planner gave a presentation.

Commissioner Questions. Dickson asked if there was a condition of approval for the landscape plans being approved by the planning administrator. Staff said they would add that to the conditions of approval. Dickson also asked about the hours of operation, since there was no restriction stated, likely because most towing companies operate 24/7. He also asked about washing of vehicles on this site. He was referred to the applicant for answers to those questions.

Martinez asked what the minimum number of trees for the project would be. One tree is required for every 200 sq. ft. of landscaped area. In parking areas, one canopy tree per six parking places is required. Martinez asked the City Attorney if the City could prohibit the use of backup alarms. The City Attorney answered that they can be prohibited if they are perceived to be a nuisance to the surrounding neighbors. Martinez wanted to drill down on the details of the number of trees, but Arios reminded him that what was presented was only conceptual plans, and the true details are yet to come.

Andrade wanted to make certain the maximum number of trees would be required, and that their height would provide privacy between the business and the nearby residences.

Applicant’s Presentation. The owner of Southside towing explained this is merely a yard where the tow truck drivers will drop off their private vehicles and pick up a tow truck. The other use will be for police storage of items from impounded vehicles. He clarified that the vehicles that will be stored there are on a long-term impound (usually until the police case the vehicle is tied to is decided). Only the police have access to the impound building. The applicant also explained the current landscape plan and addressed the truck washing issue (trucks are washed across town at a facility that reclaims the water). The one backup alarm can be disabled by a switch, which he would install.

Public Comments.  A resident who lives behind the property spoke about the removal of the trees that privacy to the residences, concerns about the 24-hour operation of the business, and the possibility of a new block wall between the subject property and the residences. There were trees that were between the residences and the property that had been removed, and during the removal, the wooden fence was damaged.

The applicant said it wouldn’t build a block wall, but rather replace boards in the wooden fence as needed. He said noise will not be a problem, because the tow trucks will be parked at the front of the property.

Further Commissioner Questions and Comments. Dickson asked how much traffic will be in and out of the facility. The applicant said that most of their work is during the day, and the night shift is only three drivers, and they stage out of the main yard or other places in the city.

Johnny Rojas asked for clarification on the block wall issue. The applicant said the new block wall and automated gate would be at the front of the property on Newport Boulevard.

Motion.  A motion was made by Dickson to approve the project, with the proviso that Staff add the standard Condition of Approval about landscape plans being approved by the Planning Staff and to strike the condition of approval about sales occurring on the property, so there are no sales. That motion was seconded by Martinez. In speaking to the motion, Dickson said that this project will get rid of an eyesore and he is no longer concerned about noise impacting the neighbors. Martinez spoke about the need to have evergreen trees and not palms.

Vote.  The motion passed by a vote of 6-0

2.     Appeal of Denial of Request for Reasonable Accommodation for Relief to Operate Sober Living Home by The Ohio House at 115 E Wilson St, Units A Through E.  The Ohio House is one of the earliest sober living home operators in the City and has been suing the City since it adopted its ordinance regulating these homes. In this case it appealed the City’s denial of a request to waive zoning requirements for a sober living facility it has operated since 2015. More about The Ohio House’s operation:

• Facility houses up to 45 adults in five two-story residences

• Facility is 550 feet from another group home (City requires 650 feet)

• Lot is 21,362 sq. ft. and does not meet the 100-foot width requirement

• Similar request was denied in 2017 due to overconcentration

Appeal seeks:

• Relief from the 650-foot separation rule

• Exemption from the Conditional Use Permit requirement

City’s findings for denial include:

• The accommodation is not necessary for access to housing

• The facility does not operate as a single housekeeping unit

• Granting the request would alter the City’s zoning program

  
  

Victor Mendez, Senior Planner gave a presentation.

Commissioner Questions. Andrade, who had met with the applicant, had questions that seemed very much in favor of the applicant. She seemed to take exception to Mendez referring to The Ohio House as a business operation, as opposed to a treatment facility or a shelter. Mendez explained that the operator isn’t a treatment facility, that the residents are transient and aren’t related to one another. He said the typical time period that a resident stays is about seven months. He also pointed out there are contractual obligations and house rules associated with the business. She asked about the business structure, and Mendez said it is his belief it is privately owned. Andrade wanted to know if the residents came from Costa Mesa, but that question was referred to the applicant.

Applicant’s Presentation. The Ohio House was represented by its attorney, Christopher Brancart, a well-known appeals lawyer, notorious for charging big buck$$$$ for his services. He gave a lengthy presentation, nearly 25 minutes long. Too long! He spoke so long that Zich cut off his client when he tried to follow Brancart. Zich made him get in line with the other public comments and only gave him three minutes.

Public Comments.  There were nine public comments, many of whom were or currently are residents, or an employee, of The Ohio House. Most had stories about their lives being saved by The Ohio House’s programs. I spoke about my appreciation for the testimonials that we had heard, but recalled what it was like before the City passed its ordinance and residents were complaining about the overconcentration of sober living houses.

Brancart gave closing comments that only lasted about a minute, which must be a new record for a lawyer. At that point, Zich closed the public comment.

Commissioners’ Additional Questions and Comments. Dickson asked for clarification that the property, comprised of five homes, is a common interest development. That means the parcel is considered as one by the zoning code and that is how five houses could apply as one project.

Andrade attempted to formulate a question and had to be prompted by Zich twice to ask questions of Staff. I think that Zich is fully aware of the fact that some sober living home operators sued residents for negative remarks made about the homes only a short few years ago, and he was probably trying to keep Andrade from making any remarks on the dais that could land the City in court. Andrade tried to address a question she had about overcrowding and wanted to quiz the owner, but Zich advised her she needed to ask Staff questions, since public comment was closed. She wanted to know the success metrics of sober living homes. She mistakenly thought that these homes must report to the City about the success of their businesses, including post-treatment relapses. Mendez said that the City doesn’t collect that information. Carrie Tai, Director of Economic and Development Services, tried to refocus Andrade by telling her that the profiles of the occupants are not within the purview of the zoning ordinance.

Dickson asked how many licensed sober living homes there are now, and it is 15. That is a big reduction from what it was before the ordinance. See map from early 2015:

2015 Map of Group Homes

Zich asked Tai and the City Attorney if they had heard any new information that evening that would change the denial of the appeal. The City Attorney said that is a factual question and not a legal question. Tai said there was new information presented, but it wasn’t part of the information submitted with the appeal documents. It didn’t sound like it would have swayed her anyway.

Andrade wanted to know if there was a reason for nearby sober living facilities being approved. She tried to make it sound like another facility with few occupants got approved for that reason. Mendez described the one-year time period starting after adoption of the City’s ordinance that allowed existing facilities to submit applications and be approved. The Ohio House did not comply, but the other facility did. Andrade wanted to know what services the City could provide to The Ohio House residents once they are told to leave. Tai said that since The Ohio House was never legally operating in the City, that would be something the operator would be responsible for, and that relocation services would be going beyond the purview of the planning department, but that another department would have more information.

Martinez asked the City Attorney to explain res judicata. In Latin, res judicata means “judged matter” or something that has received a final judgment and can no longer be appealed. Martinez asked for further clarification as it applies to this appeal. The City attorney said that this application, as it was submitted to the director, had all the same facts or information as the two previous applications. There may be new arguments, but the facts are substantially the same, and that was the basis for the denial. One of the applications was eventually denied by the courts, and the other application never made it past a City Council denial. Now we are at the third reasonable accommodation application, which didn’t look like it was going to be approved. Sometimes three times isn’t the charm. And, of course, in baseball, three strikes is out.

Motion.  A motion was made by Martinez to approve the Staff recommendation (deny the appeal), which was seconded by Dickson. Shockingly, Martinez did not speak to his motion. Dickson thanked those who spoke and shared their experiences, but pointed out that the Commission had to deal with a land use decision. Other Commissioners also spoke in support of The Ohio House residents, but reiterated this was a land use decision.

Vote.  The motion passed by a vote of 5-1, with Andrade voting “No.”

OLD BUSINESS: None.

NEW BUSINESS: None.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: Tai reported that there had been an appeal to the City Council of a small lot subdivision project at 2308 Santa Ana Avenue, scheduled to be heard on October 7. That date will also be the City Council hearing on the project description of the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan. The Hive Live Project has been continued to a date uncertain, meaning it will need to be renoticed before coming to the City Council.  WHY??? Tai said there was no indication the project was changing, only that there were “property level discussions.” Hmm . . . does that mean Anduril is exercising its option? It raised over a billion (yep, that “b” is correct) in funding last quarter. We might see that 25-story building there after all.