COSTA MESA CITY HALL RECAP FOR MAY 2025 - Budget, City Manager Firing, Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan, Hive Live and more!

The City Council had three meetings in May. The Planning Commission met twice. We also attended a meeting of the Finance and Pension Advisory Committee.

MAY 6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. At this meeting, the only item acted on was:

• Capital Asset Needs (CAN) Ordinance Emergency Exception And Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project Deferrals - Fiscal Year 2024-25
  

However, most of the meeting was consumed by City Council Comments. All City Councilmembers were present, with Councilmember Andrea Marr (District 3) attending remotely. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Assistant City Manager, was sitting in the City Manager’s chair, a tip that something was up. There was a presentation for 2025 Bike Month. A representative from the Lillördag, a cycling group that meets every Wednesday at 6:15 p.m. at Lions Park for a community bike ride, accepted the proclamation.

City Attorney Closed Session Report. The City Attorney rarely gives a report on the Closed Session, and it was a doozy! On the Closed Session Agenda was the Public Employee Performance Evaluation of the City Manager. Kim Hall Barlow said, “There was reportable action taken during Closed Session this evening. By motion of Councilmember Gameros, seconded by Councilmember Buley, the City Council acted to terminate the employment agreement of the City Manager. Councilmembers Reynolds and Marr voted No. Mayor Stephens abstained.” She didn’t elaborate further. Later in the meeting, she clarified that Lori Ann Farrell Harrison was terminated without cause. Nothing else was said about this until the Councilmember comments, but a lot was said then. No reason for Mayor John Stephens’s abstention was given.

Stephens announced that Public Hearing Item No. 1, Appeal of a Cannabis Storefront Conditional Use Permit at 1687 Orange Avenue was being postponed. It would be called, but not heard. That allowed anyone there to speak on this item to leave.

Public Comment. There were six public comments. The topics were about needed upgrades to Brentwood Park; the Eighth Love Costa Mesa Day on Saturday, May 17, starting at 7:30 a.m. at City Hall; upcoming outreach meetings about the Randall Preserve hosted by the Coastal Corridor Alliance; the loss of Costa Mesa Community Playhouse’s stage; complaint that the projectors at the Norma Herzog Community Center are not working correctly. A call-in speaker apologized for his rough language towards a City Councilmember at the last meeting, complained about the new pedestrian and cyclist improvements at Adams and Pinecreek, and voice his opinion that climate change doesn’t exist.

Councilmember Comments. Arlis Reynolds (District 5) seemed to be struggling to gather her thoughts to speak, but recognized Staff members for their work on things such as the Emergency Preparedness meeting the prior week. She then switched to the firing of the City Manager. She was visibly disturbed and was holding back tears. She said that she has sat through some Council meetings where she has gone home with a lot of questions about the decisions of other Councilmembers. “But certainly tonight, this is the most questionable decision . . . and it gives me a lot of concern.” She then talked about her reverence for Farrell Harrison and the team she assembled. She said she would have more to say after she had time to react to the decision and she hoped that the City will honor her accomplishments and her contributions. Reynolds said, “I certainly have a crisis of confidence in the City Council. I have full confidence in the Staff here.” She then asked the acting City Manager and City attorney to bring a code of conduct and code of ethics to a future City Council meeting. I take that to mean she wasn’t comfortable with what transpired with her fellow Councilmembers in Closed Session.

Jeff Pettis (District 6) spoke of attending the opening of the new Share Our Selves facility in Mesa Verde. He reported he had a meeting about permanent field lighting at Kaiser School. He recognized a speaker who advocated for Brentwood Park and then said that the Costa Mesa Playhouse is a school board issue, but they would be working with them. I don’t know who “they” are. Yes, it is an issue between the NMUSD and the Playhouse, but if past experience on schoolyard issues tells us anything, the City is not going to be able to do much to convince NMUSD to play nice with the Playhouse.

Pettis then read what he described as a summary of a long report prepared by Jason Komala, a Parks and Community Services Commissioner. He tried to tie in Brentwood Park to that, but his statement was disjointed (he constantly interrupts himself and changes gears mid-sentence, so I don’t feel comfortable offering an interpretation). He then turned to the Arts Commission and his appointee, Fisher Derderian, who Pettis assigned the task of reporting on how the Costa Mesa Municipal Code relates to the Arts Commission. Pettis thinks that the Arts Commission has been prevented from making recommendations to the City Council, despite provisions of the Municipal Code. He said he is going to watch the Arts Commission meetings to ensure that the Commissioners can function to the highest level of their authority. According to Pettis, the Commissioners were told they could benefit from some training and that any subcommittees or study sessions would be at the discretion of the City Manager. I have seen Brown Act violations by the Arts Commission, so that training suggestion isn’t unwarranted.

The Municipal Code establishes the Commissions and gives a broad list of duties and responsibilities for each one. However, more rules and procedures governing Commissions and Committees are found in the City Council Policy. See https://www.costamesaca.gov/government/mayor-city-council/council-policies . Further, there is a Commission and Committee Member Handbook (revised late 2024) (Handbook) that is part of the City Council Policy. See https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/57051/638616550138970000 That Handbook only provides for the formation of Ad Hoc Committees, not subcommittees, and those Ad Hoc Committees are formed after approval by the City Council Liaison and the City Attorney, and have to follow rules, such as duration of existence and number of members. Did his misunderstanding of Ad Hoc Committees have any connection to his decision to fire the City Manager? He made no direct comment on her termination. In the Handbook, it states on page 16 that the Departmental Staff Liaisons are responsible for “[p]resenting commission/committee recommendations to the City Council.” Is Pettis inferring that a Staff Liaison isn’t doing that? I watched the May 1 Arts Commission meeting and only saw Staff cooperating with the Commission, except for establishing a subcommittee. When Derderian asked for the formation of a subcommittee, he asked for something that was not on the Agenda and needed prior approval from the City Manager/City Attorney. Had the Commissioners voted on that, it would be a violation of the Brown Act. Did Derderian not receive a copy of the Handbook, or maybe he didn’t read it, so he misinterpreted the Municipal Code? Or has he been egged on by gadfly Jim Fitzpatrick, who doesn’t always do the best research and has a way of twisting things into what they aren’t? Fitzpatrick’s recent comments at the May 1 Arts Commission meeting makes me think he is the source of this nothingburger becoming an issue. Should the Arts Commission go to bat for funding? Absolutely! But it needs to do so within the framework that other Commissions and Committees are using to do that.

Mike Buley (District 1) got a tour of Share Our Selves. He got a tour of the Project HomeKey project on Newport Boulevard. He visited the Bridge Shelter. Buley met with management of the Chamber of Commerce. He got a tour of Anduril from one of its founders, who commented about the lack of affordable housing in Costa Mesa. He attended the Interfaith Prayer Breakfast. He got to start the OC Marathon with the Mayor.

Buley then switched to the subject of the Commissions and Committees. He said he got some information from Jenn Tenaka, a local activist/blogger. He then went on to explain his concern that the Commission and Committee members are smart and knowledgeable residents who volunteer their time, and that their voices should be heard. He asked that a Study Session be scheduled to dive into “the role, authority, and extent of our Committees, and what they can and cannot do, and what approval they do and do not need. I think we need to clear that up so that as a City Council, we know what to expect from our Committees and the Committees know the extent of their role in the City and in City governance.”

Buley should have taken the time to research the ordinances and policies, and how ordinances work with policy, and how that policy works with the Handbook. I agree that the residents need a voice and that those who serve on Committees provide free time and work. However, there are ways for Commissions and Committees to work within the rules and guidelines the City Council has laid out. Reading that Handbook is a good starting point. Again, I am wondering if the lack of knowledge of the Handbook contributed to his decision to terminate the City Manager. Maybe not, but the Commission/Committee topic certainly has its hooks into the new Councilmembers. In terms of the City Manager impeding Commissions and Committees, I believe that the City Manager was behind the dissolution of the subcommittees of the Active Transportation Committee (ATC), which put the brakes on projects being steered by a subcommittee, along with decreasing the size of the ATC so that it lost its effectiveness. But that decision wasn’t unilateral, as it was supported by the City Council.

Buley then spoke about the Budget Study Session on April 22. He voiced concern about the Staff’s perception that the City Council needs to waive 100% of the Capital Asset Needs ordinance for fiscal year 2025-2026. He requested that Staff bring back an option where the 2025-2026 Budget retains CAN.

Loren Gameros (District 2) thanked the Public Works Department and the Police Department for their services in connection with the OC Marathon.

Andrea Marr (District 3) was next. Here are some of her comments. “Look, what happened tonight, it was just incredibly frustrating and deeply disappointing, and frankly, it’s a reminder of the fragility of our system of government.” “But we should all know that, where the rubber meets the road, where things actually get done, from the paving, to the meals at the senior center, to Fairview Developmental Center negotiations in Sacramento, that all happens at the Staff level.” “[Farrell Harrison] knew how to motivate and recruit and train Staff. Frankly, I think we all agree that that was one of the key areas of focus for the City. She kept us financially stable through COVID when other cities were turning to sales tax increases just to balance their budgets.” “I am exceedingly proud of the work that we accomplished under her leadership, and frankly, I am embarrassed that this is how we have chosen to treat the woman who so capably led our City for so long. I would remind the public that we have seen this movie before, and it did not end well. I am extremely concerned that instead of getting some of our priorities across the finish line, we are now going to spend the next 18 months mired and self-imposed chaos. I will do what I can on that front, but as has become abundantly clear in recent weeks and tonight, in particular, my particular brand of reasonableness is now very clearly in the minority. So, I urge you, the public, to speak out and keep paying attention.” “Frankly, you paying attention is the only way anything ever changes, and I'll be the first to admit that right now, I need your help.”

You could hear the frustration in her voice. And she is absolutely correct that the only way things change is by the public becoming engaged. Will we be mired in “self-imposed chaos”? There are others who work at the City, and we will just have to see if Gallardo-Daly can pick up the pieces and go on as Interim Manager. My guess, and it is absolutely a guess, is that her comment about having “seen this movie before” refers to putting Jim Fitzpatrick on the Ad Hoc Traffic Impact Fee Committee. She may feel that is a sign that the men on the City Council are buddying up to Jim Righeimer and Steve Mensinger, who are waiting in the wings in Mesa Verde to return to the City Council. Those two wrote a letter to the City Council opposing the waiver of the CAN (see New Business below) that was posted in the public comments. Do they still have an interest in a seat or two up on the dais? Maybe.

Manuel Chavez (District 4) immediately addressed the termination of the City Manager. He said, “Today's decision was not a light one for me. And I do want to do more praise at this moment in time. Thanks to her work, we have a really healthy budget surplus of 60 million dollars. We've seen more community outreach to marginalized communities. Staff morale has been on a real high. And I want to acknowledge a few of the highlights of her tenure before I move on to my regular comments. So, for that, I'll say, thank you for your service. There's more to say, but for now, that's what I will share with the public.”

Well, that wasn’t much. And as far as that surplus goes, that’s been used up.

Chavez acknowledged the residents who raised concerns about Brentwood Park and the Costa Mesa Community Playhouse. He also attended the Share Our Selves opening. He said he supports Councilmember Reynolds and Marr in their effort to pass a code of conduct. Does he?

But then he dropped another bombshell when he turned to the issue of the powers of Commissions and Committees.

He said he supports Pettis and Buley’s request for a Study Session on Commissions and Committees. “We’ve struggled since I’ve been on this Council, since my tenure, to really have a set definition for Committees. We removed the Committees’ ability to do Ad Hocs because they themselves are doing them without Council approval, leading to more Staff time being diverted from Council priorities, and now we're kind of seeing the other end where the Commissioners and Committee members, some of whom want to have more of a say. I think it's very important for this Council to define each Committee and give it a concrete goal to work for. I don't think Committees should be standing things. Committees should have a purpose, and they should conclude and that purpose ends. Commissions are standing. Um, and one thing I'll say is, I do not see, and I could be wrong, I don't really see a concrete purpose for the Arts Commission yet, ‘cuz Planning Commission approves or denies projects based on general code. Parks Commissioners approve and deny tree removals, which is still a vote basically that we can call up if we want to, but that's their decision. And I don't see that for Arts Commission, so I think it's time for us to define the Commissions and Committees and see if they should still exist, if they do what their purpose is going to be.”

Just a reminder, Costa Mesa’s motto is “City of the Arts.” It is home to an internationally recognized performing arts center and the Orange County Museum of Art. What does it say about Chavez if he wants to dissolve the Arts Commission?

He then recognized Jean Forbath, a founder of Share Our Selves and Save Our Youth, who passed away on Easter morning, and set an example of what humanitarianism should be.

Stephens devoted all his comments to the legacy of Jean Forbath. He also attended the opening of the new Share Our Selves facility on Adams Avenue. This facility provides medical, dental, and mental health services. He gave Jean’s biography and the history of Share Our Selves. Share Our Selves has nine facilities in Orange County. He shared a nice video in which Jean described her work.

City Manager Comments.  None.

City Attorney Comments.  Hall Barlow clarified that Farrell Harrison was terminated without cause. Of course, there was a cause, but because this is an HR matter, we may never know what that was. Because it was without cause, Farrell Harrison is entitled, per her contract, to a severance package of six months’ salary plus any unused vacation pay.

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

It was at this point that Reynolds packed up and left. I can’t say I blame her. I believe Marr probably disconnected from the meeting at this time. That left the dais with the men on the Council in charge. Was that by design? I’ve seen a few instances of misogyny from some of them over the past couple of years, so it wouldn’t surprise me if they were relishing the moment. I also recall the power struggle that went on between Stephens and Farrell Harrison when she wouldn’t give him sensitive information about City employees. She recognized that was information that only she and the HR Department should be entitled to, but it clearly left a sour taste in Stephens’s mouth.

Public Hearings: The title for the Appeal of a Cannabis Storefront Conditional Use Permit at 1687 Orange Avenue was read, but since the applicant requested a postponement to June 3, it would not be heard. There was one public comment about the dangerous driveway onto Orange Avenue. Upon motion by Stephens to postpone to June 3, seconded by Chavez, the motion passed 5-0, with Reynolds and Marr absent.

Old Business:  None.

New Business: There was only one New Business item, the Capital Asset Needs (CAN) Ordinance Emergency Exception and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project Deferrals - Fiscal Year 2024-25. Finance Director Carol Molina gave a presentation. This hearing was about the $2.9 million worth of CIP projects that would be deferred to help reduce the imbalance caused by the revenue shortfall. There were several projects that the Finance and Pension Advisory Committee (FiPAC) recommended be removed from Staff’s proposed list of deferred projects and recommended that others be placed on that list instead. The only way for the City to defer the projects would be if the City Council recognized the shortfall as an emergency. It could then waive the CAN ordinance and defer the CIP projects on Staff’s list. Staff offered a plan to reinstate the funding for the deferred projects over a 10-year period.

Councilmember Questions: None. Chavez tried to make a motion, but Stephens reminded him that Public Comment was required.

Public Comment: Ralph Taboada said he supports approving the waiver and asked that the Council defer action on the replenishment of funding for the $2.9 million worth of projects because not enough is known at this time. The Council hasn’t been presented with the fiscal year 2025-2026 budget, and at the last FiPAC meeting, the preliminary waiver amount presented by Staff was $6.6 million for next fiscal year. He mentioned Stephens’s request for information from Staff about consultant costs. He also requested that the language in the resolution that the CAN would only be repaid in the years where revenues exceed expenditures be deleted, so that the CAN would be repaid regardless of the revenue-to-expenditure ratio.

Several speakers asked that the City retain funding for projects at the City golf course, as it is a benefit to the City. One suggested raising fees.

A call-in commenter reminded the Council of the raise it gave itself last year, and said it isn’t aging well. He requested that any rent subsidy programs be cut. He requested that any infrastructure projects be retained because the costs will only increase over time. He suggested the City not hire any new employees in development services because the city is built out. He returned to cutting the Council’s pay and benefits. He ended with “the spending is out of control.”

Josh (no last name) spoke in support of the termination of the City Manager and that he hopes the next City Manager will bring stronger leadership. He also said he hopes the decision empowers the City Council. He opposes moving forward with the CAN emergency declaration. He said before the City Council waives the CAN, he wants to know if any contracts have been cancelled outside of the deferred capital projects, have any departments been restricted or are there plans to restructure, which programs will be cut in the future, and how does the City plan to avoid this situation next year. Josh said that unless the City makes changes now, it will face a worse situation than it did in 2011.

Rick Huffman suggested deferring a $600,000 traffic signal on Belfast and McCormick, only 200 feet from another signal. I also spoke in support of getting rid of that signal from the project list. I stated I don’t want the tennis center improvements to be cut, and why not use the signal funds for another project.

Motion. A motion was made by Stephens to (1) authorize the emergency exception clause of the Capital Asset Needs ordinance under the economic downturn section for this fiscal year (2024-2025); (2) to defer the projects shown in the left column of page 9 of Staff’s PowerPoint presentation (see photo),

Deferral Alternatives Summary

(3) approve Staff’s recommended financial plan to reinstate the 2.9 million under the CAN, except remove Item Number A which says that the City will only restore it if revenues exceed expectations, so it reads: reinstate the funding over a five-year (not a 10-year) period to ensure fiscal a fiscally sustainable general fund budget; (4) Staff to bring creative options for the 2025-2026 budget that include the following, just as options: (i) repealing or amending the CAN ordinance, (ii) using our reserves, (iii) terminating contracts, including consultant contracts, (iv) eliminating vacant positions and (v) bringing forth additional Capital Improvement Projects for us to consider deferring. Finally, (5) restore the 2.5% of the Golf Course Improvement Fund that was cut in 2009.

That motion was seconded by Gameros. Chavez requested an amendment to review the fees for the Costa Mesa Tennis Center, which was accepted by Stephens and Gameros. Stephens spoke to his motion, citing the recommendation from Taboada and the fact that the golf course makes money.

Buley then proposed a substitute motion, which was to use Alternative 2 of Staff’s PowerPoint slide and then make the same changes as Stephens’s motion. That motion was seconded by Pettis. Buley spoke to the motion by acknowledging that FiPac had put work into its suggestions and he felt that its suggestions should be used.

Stephens agreed to Buley’s motion, as well as Gameros. The motion carried 5-0, with Reynolds and Marr absent.

Chavez made a request of Staff to bring back a permit streamlining ordinance for a three-day turnaround by Staff. There are some permits that can be obtained through TESSA (see https://www.costamesaca.gov/trending/tessa-faq-s/tessa-applications ), but they rely on Staff’s review. Given that the Development Services department has seen so many employees come and go, that three-day turnaround is very ambitious.

So why was the City Manager fired? We can only speculate. We may never know because HR matters are kept private, mainly to prevent any lawsuits against the City for anything that might be said that is incorrect. However, I believe that terminating the City Manager during budget season was short-sighted. It is obvious that some City Councilmen have been itching to do it, and others are just being guided by Menshiemer’s wise guy, Fitzpatrick. He has been whining for months that “the City is broken.” Well, somehow the City continues to operate, so that can’t be true. He has complained about TESSA, about putting a limit on pot shops, and now he has been riling up Commissioners with his overcalculation of cannabis tax collections and what share the arts programs will get. The City’s proposed budget only predicts a small increase in cannabis revenue, despite more shops opening. That’s because the supply is exceeding the demand.

I do wish Cecilia Gallardo-Daly the best of luck, but she needs a City Council that is behind her and can give her good direction. Do we have that? Uhh . . . Reynolds and Marr are obviously having doubts, and they have more inside information than we do.

The meeting was adjourned in memory of Jean Forbath. May she rest in peace.

MAY 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.  All Commissioners were present, except Johnny Rojas. Two items required action:

• Conditional Use Permit for a New Private School (K-12) Within the Mesa Verde United Methodist Church at 1701 Baker Street

• General Plan Conformity Resolution for One-Year (FY 2025-26) and Five-Year (FY 2025-26 To FY 2029-30) Capital Improvement Programs

Public Hearing Item 1, the Design Review, Tentative Tract Map, and Density Bonus Agreement For A 6 Unit Small Lot Ordinance Development at 215 and 223 Mesa Drive had been taken off the Agenda at the request of the applicant. The item was read and a motion was made by David Martinez to continue it to a date uncertain, seconded by Rob Dickson. That motion passed unanimously (Rojas absent).

Public Comment.  There were no public comments.

Commissioner Comments.  Karen Klepack noted that May 17 is Love Costa Mesa Day. Angely Andrade reported that May is Mental Health Awareness Month. On May 31 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., there will be a festival at IKEA called “Art Therapy,” a program sponsored by Hoag Mental Health Services, Orange County United Way, and Artists Safe Spaces. Dickson announced Victoria Elementary’s Spring Fling on Friday, May 16. Martinez commented that the pre-approved ADU program needs to begin; and he announced that OCTA removed the proposed Gisler Bridge from its Master Plan of Highways. Jon Zich welcomed members of the audience; he requested that Staff included in the Consent Calendar a simple report of all open planning applications in process. Jeff Harlan had no comments.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were two Public Hearing items:

1.     Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a New Private School (K-12) Within the Mesa Verde United Methodist Church at 1701 Baker Street. Justin Arios, Associate Planner, gave a presentation. The CUP would allow the establishment of a new private K-12 school, with a maximum enrollment of 120 students, and up to 40 staff members. The 3.1-acre site is zoned Institutional and Recreational and currently has an active church and preschool operations, which will remain. There will be no exterior expansions. To manage traffic and parking impacts, the applicant has proposed a detailed circulation plan, including staggered student drop-off and pick-up times, mandatory parking lot parent training, and dedicated staff supervision. Adequate onsite parking is provided to support all concurrent uses, with 37 surplus spaces available beyond projected peak weekday demand. Currently, the applicant does not have an operator for the school but is in the process of finding one.

Commissioner Questions.  The Commissioners asked questions of Staff that were focused on the parking and vehicle circulation plan, start times, drop off and pickup times, the proposed grade ranges of the students, and the opportunity for scholarship. The applicant also took questions from the Commissioners on the same issues.

Public Comments.  None.

Motion.  Martinez moved to approve the project but asked that “a.m.” be added to the start time, the prohibition on right turn only will only be for weekdays, no nighttime use of play yards unless approved by the City, and any additional off-site uses will require approval by the City. That motion was seconded by Zich. Chair Harlan interrupted because he forgot to close the public hearing. Martinez spoke to his motion and said that it is a good site for the use, and he hopes to see it get more use. Dickson requested a friendly amendment to limit the required start time to only the school staff who are responsible for the implementation of the circulation agreement. The project was approved on a 6-0 vote (Rojas absent).

2.     General Plan Conformity Resolution for One-Year (FY 2025-26) and Five-Year (FY 2025-26 To FY 2029-30) Capital Improvement Programs. From the Agenda Report: “Government Code Section 65103(c) requires Planning Commission review of the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) portion of the City’s annual budget for conformity with the General Plan. The proposed CIP includes projects to implement various policies, objectives, and programs in the 2015-2035 General Plan. The CIP includes projects related to facilities, parks, parkways and medians, streets, and transportation projects. The Planning Commission’s scope of review consists of determination of General Plan Conformance for the projects within the CIP. Considerations such as selection of projects, budget allocations, prioritization and phasing, and project details fall within the City Council’s scope of review and decision.” There was a presentation by Raja Sethuramen, Public Works Director.

Quick Facts About the CIP

Commissioner Questions.  Zich asked about the $10 million in impact fees that the developer of the One Metro West project would be paying and if those funds would be used for any project. Sethuramen said that once the fees are paid (not likely in the next fiscal year), then the City will put them into various accounts, such as parks and roads. Martinez asked many questions related to policies in the General Plan, including why no climate projects were in the list of projects. Sethuramen responded that the City needs to complete the Climate Action Plan, which is in progress, before any projects can be started. He asked about the parks on the West Side and the Open Space Master Plan, which has yet to be completed. Sethuramen did not give an estimated date of completion, but acknowledged it is needed to develop open space.

Dickson asked about the list of scheduled city-wide street and alley improvements, along with sidewalk issues. Sethuramen said yes, there is a program for streets and alleys, but also each year 20% of the sidewalks are checked and repaired, if needed. Dickson asked about the Joanne Street bike trail lights that have been out for some time. Sethuramen explained that the loss was significant, and it will take about $800,000 to repair/replace. Edison providing some additional lighting, but the Harbor Boulevard extension of the trail will cost $400,000 to replace and there is no funding for this current year for that project. Andrade supported Martinez’s comments about parks on the West Side.

Public Comments.  Ralph Taboada said he supports the efforts to find space for a park on the West Side, but that the funding had been shoved out for many years in this year’s budget, despite the Parks and Community Services Commission recommendation that $250,000 be set aside each year. He suggested the Commission support that recommendation. Larry Courter, a long-time supporter of keeping Fairview Park as natural open space, spoke about the need to fund projects in Fairview Park, such as better trail markings and maintenance of the stairs.

Harlan responded to the last comment that tonight’s Agenda item was narrow in scope in that it was about compliance of the CIP projects with the General Plan, and that funding of specific projects lies with the City Council. And yet the Planning Commissioners were advocating for money for projects, so I don’t know why Harlan would make that comment.

Motion.  Dickson moved to approve the Resolution, seconded by Harlan. Dickson spoke about his motion, mostly acknowledging that citizens need to be involved in these projects and let their City Councilmember know their priorities. Zich pointed out that the projects could have been coded with the General Plan goal or policy number to evidence compliance with the General Plan. The City used to have that in its budget, and it was very helpful. I don’t know why it went away. Martinez put in another pitch for West Side park development. The motion carried by a vote of 6-0 (Rojas absent).

Staff Reports. Ordinarily, there isn’t much to report here, unless there is an upcoming meeting. Tonight, we were shocked to learn that Scott Drapkin, Assistant Director of Development Services, was leaving the City to work for the City of Encinitas as its Director of Development Services. Scott will be sorely missed, both by the City and the community as he was always professional, friendly, and helpful.  

MAY 13 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION. All Councilmembers were present. Since this was a Study Session, there was only one item on the Agenda - Fiscal Year 2025-26 Proposed Budget. This was the first look at the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Funds Budget, which is for $224.4 million, with the General Fund composing $186.9 million. That is a 6% reduction over last fiscal year. 54% of the Budget goes towards public safety (fire and police).

Instead of taking public comments at the beginning of the meeting, Staff gave its presentation. Carol Molina, Finance Director, started it off. The proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Funds Budget is for $224.4 million, with a General Fund component of $186.9 million. That is a 6% reduction over last fiscal year. 54% of the Budget goes towards public safety (fire and police).

Molina handed it off to Peter Diminich, Finance Officer, to talk about the state of the economy. He only needed one word: uncertainty. He continued to describe what is causing the uncertainty (tariffs, low consumer confidence, stock market fluctuations, etc.). Molina went over a breakdown of how the funds are allocated and went over some specific funds.

Fiscal Year 2025-26 All Funds

Molina got into the specifics of the Arts and Culture Master Plan Fund. Funding is supposed to come from retail cannabis taxes, but there is a shortfall of $175,000. Despite that shortfall, the Arts Commission voted to reallocate some funds, but also rollover some funds and increase grants, which would increase the shortfall in the Arts Master Plan Fund by nearly $151,000 more. In prior years, the City Council voted to use money from the General Fund to balance the Arts and Culture Master Plan Fund. Those extra funds came from either from a surplus, or reserves.

Four positions in the City Manager’s office would be eliminated, but one in the Police Department would be added. There were also some frozen positions (no funding is allocated, but those positions are kept on the books because they are needed). Molina did not mention the savings from those positions.

Raja Sethuramen, Public Services Director, presented the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) budget, which totals $28.7 million and assumes a waiver of the 5% Capital Asset Needs (CAN)  allocation. If the CAN is waived, then the City will need to plan for repayment of those funds. Of the CIP funds, many are restricted and must be used on transportation projects. It also includes the $12 million bond that will be used to rebuild Fire Station No. 2. He gave a breakdown of the CIP funds as shown on the FY 2025-26 CIP Improvement Areas by Category slide.

FY 2025-26 CIP Improvement Areas by Category

Molina then went over the revenues, which have decreased by about $3 million, but are expected to be $186.9 million. Sales taxes, hotel taxes, City fees and charges are all projected to decrease; property taxes and cannabis taxes are anticipated to increase. However, the City proposes to raise or institute new fees as shown on the General Fund Revenue Highlights slide:

General Fund Revenue Highlights

Sethuramen went over the list of deferred projects, which he had discussed in prior meetings. Molina presented a list of the contracts for outsourced work that the City Council had requested, but Molina made it clear that she didn’t feel any of the contracts could be terminated. She’s right. Things like landscape maintenance, ambulance transport and street sweeping can’t be cut. One thing I noted was that the list showed only $200,000 in legal fees, which is only a part of the legal fees. To be clear, this list wasn’t every single consultant or contractor for the City, such as contractors for projects that have start and end dates.

Ironically, the next part of the presentation covered the City Manager’s accomplishments. Each Department Director, or in the case of the Police and Fire Department, their respective Chiefs, presented those departments accomplishments.

Public Comment. It was nearly an hour and 25 minutes into the meeting when the public was allowed to comment. There were five speakers. The topics were about Brentwood Park improvements, the work of Costa Mesa Unidos in helping the Latino community, the need for translation services at City meetings, making Agendas available sooner, a request to allocate more money for finding park space, a request for an Arts Commission led Master Arts Plan and looking at more funding sources for arts programs.

Councilmember Questions and Comments. Loren Gameros (District 2) asked about the negotiations for the use of Jack Hammett sports complex by an outside sports team. Reyes responded that the City has been negotiating with and will bring to the next City Council meeting an agreement with the UCLA Bruins football team. He requested an update on the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan and about getting meeting Agendas out earlier. Gallardo-Daly answered that the City Manager and Clerk try to get the Agendas to the City Council the evening before they are released to the public, with a target of Wednesday night/Thursday morning. He also asked about the organized retail theft report that the police department produces each month. Apparently, the City Manager has been receiving those reports, but this was the first time it was released to the public.

Jeff Pettis (District 3) spoke about the need for a public art fund and allocating more money for the arts. He requested a regular report on crime statistics. The most recent crime statistics report on the Police Department Website is from 2023. See https://www.costamesaca.gov/government/departments-and-divisions/police/police-information/crime-statistics Pettis said he didn’t see the list of contracts for work by consultants. It seems he expected to see each and every contract for projects, as well as ongoing services.

John Stephens (Mayor) joined in on that last request and tried to clarify what he wanted. The City Attorney attempted to ask further what he wanted, but he was eating something (audible to the listeners) and told the City Attorney that they could talk about it on the phone.

Andrea Marr (District 3) asked about whether the positions that were being cut involving terminating Staff. They do not. She asked about the frozen positions and the response is they are open and that one is open due to a promotion of that employee. She asked about code enforcement officers and if any of them are specifically assigned to cannabis. Molina said they do more than enforce the cannabis regulations. Molina said there are other vacant positions that are in the process of being filled, but the HR department must notice and hold a hearing in June where it would deliver a report on vacancies.

Mike Buley (District 1) jumped in and reiterated Marr’s question about vacancies. Molina repeated her answer to him.

Marr inquired about cannabis taxes. Since the funds are allocated to different expenditures, they get put in separate accounts. In order to total up all the expenditures and revenues, you have to look at the different funds. Marr asked why there is only a 2% increase in anticipated revenues, despite so many retail businesses coming on line. Molina answered that the City has figured out that cannabis isn’t going to bring in the revenue that it thought it would, despite the increasing number of storefronts opening. Uh-huh. Told you so! Marr then asked about the legal fees. She said that the City is currently paying $2.88 million in legal fees, with $1.12 million going to Jones Mayer, the City Attorneys. Molina said there is also $1.75 million set aside for sober living cases, and the self-insurance fund also has some legal fees. Marr asked Molina whether the increase of $1 million or so from last fiscal year was due to the sober living cases, and she responded that it was not, that it related to all litigation. She asked that Molina look into whether Jones Mayers’ fees were competitive. Marr finished up by voicing concern about eliminating code enforcement positions with all the pot shops opening up, because they need to be monitored.

Buley asked what “transfers out” means. Molina explained that those are transfers out of the General Fund into specialized accounts, such as the IT replacement fund, to fund special projects. He returned to the vacancies and asked for confirmation that there is a spectrum of vacancies and we’ll have to wait until HR makes its presentation in June to learn more about them.

Arlis Reynolds (District 5) spoke about the amount of work Staff does on a daily basis, as shown in the earlier presentations, and gave credit to Staff for implementing the City Council’s goals. She appreciates the cautious approach to the budget and requested a mid-year check-in. She asked about the projected revenues and how Staff arrived at their estimates. Molina said they looked at prior downturns and recovery times, and made their estimates off that prior performance.

Reynolds asked about the contracts for ongoing services, mentioning the street sweeping contract and the fact that streets don’t get swept where cars are parked. She also asked about the Arts and Culture Master Plan Fund. Molina explained again that the Arts Commission is asking for about $150,000 over what the City is planning for the fund, which is comprised of about $230,000 from Measure Q cannabis taxes and the remainder coming from the General Fund. She requested more information about what caused the increase in legal fees. I doubt we will ever learn about the fees. Residents have been asking for years for information about the legal fees, and the City refuses to provide copies of invoices.

She asked Tai to come to the microphone and explain the vacancies in the Economic and Development Services department. There are quite a few vacancies, including two key positions that recently became vacant. This is right in the middle of two major planning efforts. The job market is tight, and the City is competing with many other public agencies that are hiring. Therefore, this department is using a lot of consultants. Reynolds mentioned she would be comfortable going into reserves to keep the work in this department going.

Manuel Chavez (District 4) started by acknowledging his Catholic faith in light of the new Pope. He read a quote from Corinthians. He said, “We are here today as a testament to all the employees of Costa Mesa.” He invoked the names of several City employees. He pointed out that the budget doesn’t involve any layoffs.

Chavez then turned to the Art Commission. He said that it is very emblematic of the struggle the City has had with the Committees. He said there is a desire among the residents to use their voices to advance and promote good policy for all of Costa Mesa. He says the buck has to start with the City Council, and this is the first time the City Council has received direction from a Commission to look at a certain projects, and that he thinks that the Committee may be looking for a way to be useful. Chavez said it is the responsibility of the City Council to direct the Committees. He said that the Arts Commission vote was done in an effort for the Commissioners to find a role to play. Chavez said that the Commission needs to be guided, and not spend Staff resources or a limited budget on things that the City Council doesn’t want them to focus on. City Council policy states: “Each February, all committees shall prepare and submit a Work Program for City Council review.” It sounds as if some of the Commissions and Committees aren’t doing that. That should be a responsibility of the City Manager and the City Council liaison to make certain that happens.”

He also said the Public Works department has a lot of projects and deferring some of those will enable it to catch up. He said that Brentwood Park should receive the long-overdue attention it deserves. With respect to street sweeping, he said don’t blame the contractor when the residents' cars are blocking the street, and to look at options, including ticketing, to change that. He said the City needs to look at reallocating the cannabis taxes, with more going to arts programs and the first-time homebuyer program.

Chavez advocated for raising the rates at the Costa Mesa Tennis Center to match Fountain Valley. If he wants to do that, then he should make the restrooms match Fountain Valley, as the ones at our Tennis Center are disgusting.

Stephens praised Staff. He asked for clarification of what the Council is being asked to do with waiving the CAN ordinance. He asked about the current funding of the CAN. Molina said that $2.2 million came from the General Fund, and the balance came from special revenue funds. If the City Council were to fund the CAN for the next fiscal year, it would be about $7 million. He went over the vote to waive the current fiscal year’s CAN that also provided for a future repayment plan over a number of years. If the City Council waived the current $7 million CAN, then a similar repayment plan would be recommended by Staff. Stephens said that we need to come up with a plan, but it didn’t have to be then. He then said something I find extremely troubling. “We can meet. We can talk. We don’t need to talk in public all the time.” That sounds like he thinks it’s okay to violate the Brown Act and make decisions in private. NO! IT’S NOT OKAY! THERE WAS A REASON WHY THE BROWN ACT WAS MADE INTO LAW, AND HERE IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE.

Stephens then touched on using reserves to pay off the CAN debt. He also mentioned the consultant contracts and repealing or revising the CAN. He asked the City Attorney how one could amend or repeal the CAN before the passage of the budget. She said it would have to be an emergency ordinance. His concern is that we will not continue to invest in infrastructure if we are bound by the CAN ordinance. Stephens also wants to investigate raising the TOT tax because Costa Mesa’s is much lower than other cities in Orange County. That would require a vote by the residents.

He said that the $630,000 in the first-time homebuyers program should go forward because “you can help a lot of people buy a house in Costa Mesa for $630,000 dollars.” No, you can’t. Obviously, he is out of touch with what it costs to buy a home here. And we have a worthless Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that doesn’t help either.

Stephens asked about the number of full-time employees that have been added and “how are we doing” as a result of that. He said that this didn’t have to be done in connection with the budget.

He then asked if any other Councilmembers had anything further. Gameros asked for a closed session to find out if we are being competitive with our salaries for the open positions that the City is trying to fill. He wonders if there is an insignificant amount of money that is causing the City to lose its employees. Ha! It’s not that. It’s something much deeper.

With that, the open meeting ended, and the City Council went back into Closed Session.

MAY 14 FINANCE AND PENSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING. Five of the seven members were present, with Lisa Buchanan, Quinn Callanan, and James Andrews absent. Also in attendance was Council Liaison John Stephens, who stayed for about half the meeting (Mike Buley and Manuel Chavez absent). At the end of the meeting, it was announced that James Andrews had resigned because he could not meet the Committee’s schedule. Chair Tom Arnold called the meeting to order and then informed the attendees that the audio of the meeting is recorded. There were no public comments.

Finance Director Carol Molina gave a presentation. It was identical to the one given to the City Council the night before. She was assisted by Raja Sethuramen, Director of Public Works.

There was quite a range of questions and comments from the Committee members:

• City should have higher reserves because there should have been a CPI adjustment

• Raise fees, such as business license fees

• Raise the transient occupancy tax (hotel/motel/house sharing tax)

• Plans and permits need to be processed faster

• Is Staff time included in the cost of CIP projects

• Can the reserves be used to subsidize pensions

  
  

Molina responded to the fees suggestion by saying the City can’t make a profit, so any increase in fees would require a study by a consultant to make certain it wasn’t raising them too much. She also reminded the Commissioners that any tax increase must go to a vote of the residents. In terms of processing times, the City hired contractors to help, and it is catching up. The accounting of most CIP project costs doesn’t include Staff time, but there are some projects that do include it, but you have to be very careful because of the OCTA audit. I find that answer interesting because the City of Huntington Beach failed its audit and now has lost its Measure M funding. The suggestion of subsidizing the pensions went over like a dead fish with Molina.

There was discussion amongst the Committee members, but mostly more questions were asked of Staff. Towards the end of the meeting, it became clear that no one was going to be able to craft a motion of recommendation for the City Council. The Committee members requested more information and a second meeting sometime between May 19 and 23 to fashion a motion. That meeting occurred in early June.

MAY 20 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.  At this meeting, the items acted on were:

• An Ordinance Designating Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Costa Mesa, as Identified by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

• 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan, including the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan and the amended Citizen Participation Plan, and the 2025-2029 Orange County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing

• Legislative Update and Approval of a Legislative Platform and Legislative Matrix

All City Councilmembers were present. Arlis Reynolds attended remotely. This was a heavy agenda, including 15 items that were on the Closed Session. There was a proclamation given for Jewish American Heritage Month and recognition of several local high school sports teams.

City Attorney Report.  There was nothing currently reportable BUT City Attorney Kim Hall Barlow reported that the City Council would be returning to Closed Session after the regular meeting and there would possibly something to report on one of the items.

Public Comment.  Nearly forty minutes into the meeting and the public was finally given the opportunity to speak. Flo Martin thanked the public works department for cleaning up the Joanne bike trail; Ian Stephenson thanked the City for its help on Love Costa Mesa Day and voice his support of the mural project that the Arts Commission is putting forward; “Cory Banyon spoke in support of the historical mural project; and Russell Toler also spoke in support of the mural project.

Councilmember Comments.  Jeff Pettis (District 6) voiced his support of the public art initiative; he then complimented the public works department for a missing stop sign warning on the street on the Eastside and announced a Costa Mesa 311 app walk the upcoming weekend (no date, time, or location announced).

Mike Buley (District 1) spoke about a friend who had passed, Pat Chamberlain, and asked that the meeting be adjourned in his memory.

Loren Gameros (District 2) requested recognition of Memorial Day and those who gave their lives in the service of our country, and asked that the meeting be adjourned in their memory as well.

Andrea Marr (District 3) thanked everyone who worked on Love Costa Mesa Day; she spoke about attending a benefit event for Project Hope Alliance; she asked the Police Chief about number of contacts that police officers in Costa Mesa have had with immigration officials and what the characterization of those interactions have been, if any.

Arlis Reynolds (District 5) spoke of her appreciated the Staff and residents who worked on Love Costa Mesa Day; she announced the outreach effort on the planning documents for the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve/Genga and the opportunities to give input on those plans; she also spoke her concern about a fire that had broken out on the Preserve and the protection of assets of business and public property from fire.

Manuel Chavez (District 4) spoke about attending the Chamber of Commerce awards event at Vanguard University for local high school students; also about attending the Save Our Youth scholarship award event; he attended a celebration for OC Fair CEO Michele Richards, who is departing at the end of May; he attended an event at Families Forward Food Bank in Irvine; he also appreciated the work associated with Love Costa Mesa Day. He supports the mural project but said that the Arts Commission is creating their own vision, and that the City Council needs to give it direction; he supported getting a report on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities in Costa Mesa; he also spoke about the outreach being done by the Randall Preserve.

John Stephens (Mayor) thanked everyone who participated in Love Costa Mesa Day; he announced the official removal of the Gisler/Garfield bridge from the OCTA Master Plan of Arterial Highways; he spoke about going to International Council of Shopping Centers, which is an event where cities can solicit businesses to open in their town; he spoke about the passing of Pat Chamberlain as well.

City Manager Comments.  Acting City Manager Cecilia Gallardo-Daly gave a status update on the trap, neuter, and release ordinance project (TNR). The Police Department is researching best practices and will be getting input from the Animal Services Committee, and a proposed ordinance is planned to come to the City Council before the end of 2025. Priceless Pets has found a new location and is leasing space for its shelter at 126 East 16th Street until it moves to that location. Since the TNR operation requires a permanent shelter and licensed vet on site, neither of which is something Priceless Pets has at the moment, the City will keep us apprised of any change. She announced that May is National Wildfire Awareness and Community Preparedness month. Gallardo-Daly also recognized the volunteers who helped for Love Costa Mesa Day.

City Attorney Comments.  Hall Barlow said that a report on ongoing litigation will be coming to the City Council.

CONSENT CALENDAR.  No items were pulled. Gameros and Stephens had to recuse themselves from the warrants because of conflicts. On a motion to approve from Stephens and seconded by Chavez, all the items on the Consent Calendar were approved unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARINGS. There were two public hearings:

1.     An Ordinance Designating Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Costa Mesa, as Identified by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. This was the first reading of this new ordinance. This is a State requirement that the City adopt this ordinance. On March 24, 2025, the CAL FIRE Land Use Planning Division published an updated map of fire hazard severity zones (FHSZs) as required by Government Code 51178. The map included new areas of Costa Mesa identified as Moderate and High Hazard Severity Zones. (See Map)

Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones

Assistant Fire Chief Jason Pyle and Fire Marshall Jon Neal gave a presentation.

The City is looking for comments on the map, which you can do via online survey here: https://apps.costamesaca.gov/gismaps1/apps/storymaps/stories/552b995816f5483dad0825e1954eb874 

There are no changes to the building and fire codes right now, however, later in the year, there will be code changes required by the State. In addition, starting on July 1, any seller of real estate in a high fire hazard severity zone will have to provide a disclosure to the buyer of any fire hardening retrofitting that has been done. This is only a disclosure form and no additional inspections are required.

Councilmember Questions/Comments. Marr asked about when and where brush clearing can be done in Fairview Park. Raja Sethuramen, Public Works Director, said the target date is before July 4, but not during nesting season. It is only done once a year unless more times are needed. She also asked about how this will impact insurance on properties nearby, but the fire department felt it couldn’t report on what insurance companies are actually doing, but had heard that some were telling residents near these areas to take steps to fire-harden their homes.

Public Comment. One caller pointed out that the Westside is where the two severity zones are, yet we continue to allow fireworks in an area near Fairview Park. The second caller was Jim Erickson, who pointed out that there is a part of Fairview Park that is not in the severity zone, which is the area that routinely gets mowed, and perhaps there is a way to make it so that the folks that live near Fairview Park won’t have to be impacted.

A motion was made by Reynolds to approve, with the additional direction that letters be sent to residents near the zones about the new severity zones. That motion was seconded by Chavez. The motion passed unanimously.

2.     Public Hearing for 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan, including 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan and Amended Citizen Participation Plan, and 2025-2029 Orange County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing. Staff recommended that the City Council approve the Annual Action Plan and Citizen Participation Plan, along with an allocation of $907,261 for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and $378,720 for HOME Investment Partnerships Grants. A presentation was given by Mikelle Daily, Grant Administrator. These programs are targeted at low-income wage earners. This is how the CDBG funds will be spent:

FY 2025-2026 CDBG Funds ($1.04M)

And this is how the HOME funds will be spent:

FY 2025-2026 HOME Funds ($2.11M)

Councilmember Questions/Comments. Buley asked questions about the prior year’s funds that have not been used. That is because the City has many years to use the funds, and any loan payments have to be used for programs before the new funds can be used. Reynolds asked about whether the City can depend on getting these funds in the future. Daily said she cannot predict the future, but HOME has been proposed for elimination several times, so we shouldn’t rely on the funding continuing. CDBG has strong support in Congress, so it is likely that will continue, but it’s possible it will be cut.

Public Comment. Andrea Schmidt spoke on behalf of the Housing and Public Service Grants Committee and spoke about the scoring and recommendations. Roberto with Resilience Orange County advocated for funding legal services for those with low-income who are facing eviction.

A motion to approve the Staff recommendation was made by Chavez and seconded by Marr. Reynolds requested the motion be amended to provide direction to Staff to look into expanding legal services for evictions to all residents of Costa Mesa. That amended motion passed unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS. There was only one item, Legislative Update and Approval of a Legislative Platform and Legislative Matrix. A presentation was made by Jay Barkman, Government Affairs Manager and consultants from Townsend Public Affairs about State and Federal budget and legislative updates. Here are projects the City is requesting help from Congressman Dave Min to acquire funds to complete:

FY 2026 Community Project Funding Requests

Barkman then gave his part of the presentation which included recommendations on bills in the State Legislature that would likely have some impact on Costa Mesa, most of which a support recommendation was given. However, when it came to SB 79, a contentious housing bill that barely passed the Senate and is being held at desk (meaning the entire Legislature could immediately act on it), the recommendation was to remain neutral. The League of California Cities opposes the bill.

That brought up a question from Reynolds, who had many questions and comments (she said about 100) about these recommendations and how they work with Council policy. She asked about how to go about dealing with the issues she would raise, as it would cause the Council meeting to go long. Stephens never indicated how he wanted to handle the item. Reynolds pressed him several times on whether he, as the leader of the body and the committee that reviews legislative items, wanted to split up the components of the platform from the bill recommendations. He decided to take public comment instead.

Public Comment. The first speaker didn’t indicate his opinion on the item, but chose to comment on Sacramento being run by Democrats and the City Council following whatever Sacramento wants. Second was Marc Vukcevich, who spoke in favor of SB 79. Next up was Roberto from Resilience OC, who said he was fine with this item being brought back after more input by the City Council. He also said that the areas of strengthening public safety and opposing the release of violent and repeat offenders could be seen as a double punishment for offenders. He also spoke on the diversification of housing and that it doesn’t relate to tenant protections. Jenn Tenaka spoke in favor of supporting SB 79 and also looking at looking into legislation to get more sales tax on sales occurring in Costa Mesa.

Marr made a motion to accept the Legislative Platform; to revise Council Policy No. 000-8 to (1) make reference to the Legislative Platform, (2) to update it, as it still refers to a Chief of Staff, [motioning to Barkman and saying that he should be in there] to refer to the process the City is following; and to return to the next Council meeting with the Legislative Matrix after the collection and incorporation of additional feedback from the City Council and the community. That motion was seconded by Pettis. The motion passed unanimously.

MAY 27 PLANNING COMMISSION.  Items acted on were:

• Hive Live Project, including Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Specific Plan Amendment, Master Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Etc.

• Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Land Use Plan

Please keep in mind that these items will return to the Planning Commission for a vote on Monday, June 9. SEE THE LIST OF TALKING POINTS FOLLOWING EACH ITEM.

All commissioners were present.

Public Comment. NONE.

Commissioner Comments.  David Martinez announced an outreach meeting by the Coastal Corridor Alliance for documents related to the future use of the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve/Genga. Angely Andrade announced that there would be an art therapy mental health art event at IKEA on May 31. Karen Klepack said there is a compost giveaway at Orange Coast College.

CONSENT CALENDAR.  Items 1 and 4 were pulled. Both of these items are minutes. Jon Zich pulled the minutes from the meeting two weeks before to ask about a report he had requested listing all open planning applications. He requests that Staff follow up on his request. Zich also asked about the minutes from January 23, 2023, the fact that the minutes are coming to the Commission at a late date, and how many old minutes are outstanding. Carrie Tai, Director of Economic and Development Services, responded to Zich that a temporary staffer is working on assembling a list of the current planning applications. She said she is aware of the outstanding minutes and they are trying to catch up. She will create a list. David Martinez said the January 23, 2023, minutes needed to reflect the nomination of Russell Toler as Vice Chair. The Consent Calendar items were unanimously approved.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.

OLD BUSINESS: None.

NEW BUSINESS: There were two items of New Business. Please note that both items were Study Session items and only required a “receive and file” motion from the Commissioners.

1.    Hive Live Project located at 3333 Susan Street, including Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Specific Plan Amendment, Master Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Etc. Chris Yeager, Senior Planner, gave a presentation, but there was none by the Applicant, which is unusual. Ordinarily, the developer wants an opportunity to sell its project. After describing the location, Yeager made certain that the Commissioners knew the location is within a Measure K zone and that residents will not be voting on it. The project is 1,050 apartment units, with a mix of studio, one, two, and three bedrooms, with 105 affordable (low-income) units. There will be 3,692 sq. ft. of retail space, and 335,958 sq. ft. of open space including balconies, on 14.25 acres. The residential component would be 62.3 average dwelling units per acre (du/ac) (note that some phases could be as much as 85 du/ac). Because of the affordable units, the developer, Legacy Partners, is asking for a density bonus, which increases the base number of allowable units (875) by 20%, or another 175 units. While the maximum building height will be seven stories to accommodate the parking structures, the apartment buildings will be five stories and wrap around the parking structures. The project will be built in three phases. Each project phase would be a stand-alone apartment building with its own amenities, parking, and leasing office.

The studio apartments are not required to have private open space, so those units will not have a balcony like the other units. The balconies are used in the calculation of the open space provided, as is the rail trail next door. There is a “public plaza” in Phase I, but no public park. The developer will pay park fees of $5,000 per unit and Measure Z open space fees. Deviations are required for increased floor area ratio (FAR), reduced common use open space, landscape parkways, reduced setbacks, and reduced parking. The reduced parking results from density bonus parking ratios, which are lower than parking development standards.

According to a fiscal analysis prepared for the developer, the City will end up with $347,140.00 in new annual net revenue once the project is fully built in 2033-2034.

The developer had a traffic study done. The existing use of the property generates 1,866 average daily trips (ADT), but there would be a net increase of 3,082 ADT for a total of 4,948 ADT generated by the site. Eight key intersections were studied for impacts and showed that they all are forecast to continue operating at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours under Year 2028 and 2050 buildout traffic conditions with the addition of the project traffic. Therefore, improvements at the studied intersections will not be required. In addition, Caltrans offramps are considered adequate to accommodate the anticipated traffic under year 2028 and 2050 build out. Pedestrians would have access to interior pathways and the “rail trail” that runs between the subject property and the Anduril property. I have a hard time believing that Harbor Boulevard, Sunflower Avenue, and Fairview Road will not be impacted by this new traffic, along with the additional traffic from the One Metro West project.

The development would provide more rental housing, which would widen the gap between ownership and rental housing in the City. It does provide some of the much-needed affordable housing, but none of it will be for-sale housing. Since the project doesn’t provide all the very low- and low-income units as identified in the Housing Element, the City must make a “no net loss” finding to the State of California. That finding can be made because the City has adequate buffers in other housing opportunity zones, such as Fairview Developmental Center.

The Development Agreement that is under negotiation will include “community benefits.” Those benefits aren’t really “community benefits.” The developer characterized amenities as community benefits, and there is a difference. More on that below.

It was revealed that Anduril has a right-of-first-offer (ROFO) on the southern portion (football field) of the property. That means that once the entitlement is received for that portion of the property, Anduril could exercise its option to develop (not purchase) that portion of the property and the entitlements associated with it, but Anduril would need to get a new Master Plan approved by the City if it changes the project. The change in zoning given to the applicant will allow for five-story apartment buildings. However, if Anduril wanted to go through the planning process again, an office building that is up to 25 stories could be built on the parcel.

Commissioner Questions. Rob Dickson asked about the status of the Development Agreement (DA), as it is material to the review of the project. Yeager said the negotiations of the DA are still under negotiation. Tai stepped in and elaborated that at the next Planning Commission meeting, we would see bullet points of the DA. We won’t see the entire DA until the project goes to the City Council. He also asked about the compact parking structure. Instead of one foot, there will only be six inches to the lines but posts will be moved to accommodate door openings.

Martinez asked about an applicant presentation and was told there would be one (but there was not). He asked the purpose of a study session versus a regular hearing, i.e., was this to avoid a second public hearing if the project required changes. Yeager indicated that this was considered to be the final project, but the future might bring unforeseen changes. He asked about the zoning change the applicant had requested on one parcel being different from the others. Yeager said it was due to the ROFO held by Anduril. Martinez asked about the density being 62.3 du/ac versus 73 du/ac. Yeager indicated that the project was reversed-engineered to include the density bonus. The developer likely realized that if it included the extra density bonus units, it would have to use a more expensive type of construction to get an engineer to certify the buildings.

Martinez asked about parking, but Yeager indicated that the Conditions of Approval had not been finalized, and the deviations from the parking standards weren’t available yet. Martinez cited Councilmember Arlis Reynolds’s comment at the screening meeting that she would be willing to accept less parking, yet the applicant was proposing more. Yeager’s response was that the number of spaces is what the applicant wanted. He asked about how the trips are calculated for the parking study. Tai advised Martinez that traffic engineers base their trip counts on the types of land use and the project size. Martinez reiterated his belief that the amount of traffic to and from the project is determined by the amount of parking available. He then quoted Councilmember Manuel Chavez’s theory that trip budgets are a way to hinder development. Yeager seemed quite amused by that statement and did not concur with what he called a “theoretical” assumption. I could almost hear the traffic engineers giggling in the background. He asked about the fiscal analysis that the applicant prepared at the City’s request. Martinez was concerned that added more to the process the applicant had to go through. That report allows the City to know what to anticipate in revenue, so it can determine whether the project is going to cost more to the City than what it gets.

Zich asked about the citations in the Staff report about the project’s compliance with the General Plan, specifically, the project contributing to the balance of homeownership to rental housing, and that the City should strongly encourage homeownership projects. Yeager said that there were discussions with the applicant, but those discussions led nowhere> Nonetheless, any housing would be acceptable to the City. Zich also asked about the height limitation and Yeager said that the five stories is in the Master Plan, but an amendment to that and other documents would be required to go to 25 stories. He also asked about the City’s consideration of balconies for open space. Yeager indicated the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan allows that. Zich requested to see calculations of the open space with and without the balconies. He then asked about the publicly accessible open space in the project. Yeager explained that the paseos in the project that are next to businesses are open to the public during business hours. Public parking is only in Phase I.

Zich asked about the economic report and if there was a requirement that the project be cost-positive to the City and Yeager replied there is no requirement that any project be cost-positive for the City. Well, there should be.

Andrade asked about how the City decides on the buffers for the affordable housing units included in our RHNA and how it is that the City can make a “no net loss” to the State if the project doesn’t provide the number of affordable units that the City said it would in the Housing Element. The answer was that the City would have to make it up elsewhere throughout Costa Mesa, and it is in the process of rezoning to expand high-density as an allowable land use throughout Costa Mesa. Andrade noted that the City can’t control what other projects might provide in terms of affordability, and she is concerned that the affordable units will end up in only one part of town. She also asked about access to the rail trail, as the Staff report indicated it is 9 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The signs on the gate are 8 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Those hours restrict the usage for people using the trail to go to and from work, which was never intended when it was put on the map of active transportation facilities by members of the Active Transportation Committee.

Zich then asked about the intersection analysis that was done as part of the traffic study. He asked about the Level of Service being “D” and whether those intersections are currently at level “D.” Yeager requested additional time to find that information.

Public Comments. A comment by Ralph Taboada, a frequent cyclist and former member of the Active Transportation Committee, was the observation that the rail trail is the only one in the City with hours and the only one with gates.

Jay Humphrey started his comments by saying he was waiting for the applicant’s presentation. WE ALL WERE!  The question was raised about how much of the open space is private, and how much is public, given that the rail trail is a little of both. He also asked about the location of the affordable units in the project, as he is concerned they will only be in one of the three buildings. Humphrey also spoke about the parking, since people are sharing apartments, the number of occupants may be more than what the developer thinks, and they have more cars that will be parked in the adjacent neighborhoods.

I spoke about all the things the developer gets, like the ability to bring that 25-story building at a later date, reduced parking standards, but that the residents get more traffic, very little help satisfying RHNA, no community benefits, and we don’t get to vote on the impacts we will suffer. We also don’t get any homeownership units here, which just keeps the renters in the position of poverty building.

Marc Vukcevich supports the project but says he doesn’t think it needs more parking. He hopes the rents will be cheaper.

Applicant. Timothy O’Brien of Legacy Partners spoke on the project. He didn’t give a presentation. He said the project started in 2020, when Legacy Partners started participating in the Housing Element Update process. He said the higher-density projects couldn’t be homeownership projects, and their investor is an insurance company (Invesco, which also owns the property) that wants to fund its annuities through rental properties. He said he built 580 Anton. That project is luxury apartments that broke ground in 2016 and was sold by Legacy Partners to Rockwood Capital in 2022. He continued with a sales pitch that doesn’t bear repeating. Note that Legacy Partners provided funding to the Measure K campaign.

Commissioner Questions and Further Comments. Dickson asked the applicant about the community benefits. O’Brien said that the affordable housing is one, others are the public plaza and bodega. He said that the rail trail hours wouldn’t be limited. O’Brien said the dawn-to-dusk hours were dictated by the police department. He said public access to the paseos would be limited to operating hours.

Community benefits are supposed to serve the majority of residents of the city. Some examples of community benefits include new fire stations, police substations, libraries, parks, flood control basins, bikeways, etc. No one in their right mind would call the existing rail trail (a one-block trail between Sunflower and South Coast Drive), a convenience store with limited hours, or an interior sidewalk with part-time access, a community benefit. The rail trail hours were NOT dictated by the police department. The property owner (by the way, Invesco owns both the Anduril property and the Hive property) dictated the hours when it gave the right of access to the general public and City employees through an Open Space Deed and Agreement around December 2023. Martinez asked questions about the base density, why the change to the North Costa Mesa Specific plan regarding parking, and if the art display area would be accessible to the public. O’Brien couldn’t answer those questions. He told O’Brien that the rail trail was locked when he visited it the prior day, inferring that the access wasn’t what O’Brien thought it was.

Dickson requested more information on the traffic study be brought to the Commissioners at the next hearing. Tai said that it is on the City’s website, but she would send a link to the Commissioners. Andrade asked about the bike lanes in the applicant’s depictions. Yeager said that the existing bike lanes would be brought into line with the City’s new standards.

Martinez moved to receive and file, which was seconded by Dickson. That motion passed unanimously.

This item will return to the Planning Commission on June 9 for approval of its General Plan, Rezone, North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Amendment, Master Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Agreement.

TALKING POINTS AND THINGS TO KNOW:

• Invesco, a worldwide investment management company with $185 trillion in assets, owns the property along with the property next door leased by Anduril. They are based in Atlanta and have no connection to Costa Mesa, other than owning large developments here.

  
  

• Upon receiving the entitlements, the property value will approximately double. Once the property is built, Invesco will receive rent money from Legacy Partners. This project gives the owner certainty of future income.

  
  

• Legacy Partners will build the project, lease the land from Invesco, and collect the rents. That is, if it doesn’t sell the project, like it did with the 250-unit luxury building at 580 Anton.

  
  

• The project does not provide ANY new community benefits. Its residents will use our parks, our libraries, our roadways and our police and fire will serve them. The City gets traffic and park impact fees, but there is no parkland targeted for purchase by the City, and widening roadways to accommodate the additional traffic is out of the question. The “rail trail” is an existing community benefit and cannot be claimed by this project. A new convenience store is no more a community benefit than the restaurant at IKEA is.

  
  

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

  
  

• The community gets the uncertainty as to what will be built. Due to the extended term of the development agreement (could be up to 30 years), and that fact that Anduril has a ROFO on one parcel that could, should Anduril desire, be developed with a 25-story office building, we don’t know if this will just start looking like Anton Boulevard, bringing with it traffic and other impacts similar to that area. The difference is that area of South Coast Metro was planned with Class IV bike lanes, a fire station, and private parks.

  
  

2.    Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Land Use Plan.  We had not heard anything about this project for some time. One reason is the preparation of a financial feasibility analysis, which is a lengthy document, required analysis of three Concepts by the City. This project has taken 20 months to get here, yet the City continually said there was not enough time for an advisory committee.

Tai briefly gave background on the prior outreach efforts. She said that Staff had been interacting with two state agencies in its efforts to plan that were unique, and that is why we haven’t heard about this project in some time. That is putting a favorable spin on what happened. Tai turned it over to Staff to go over “the complexities of the project.”

Anna McGill, Planning and Sustainable Development Manager, gave the presentation. McGill announced that Phayvahn Nanthavongdouangsy, the Planner who had headed up this project since the beginning, was leaving the City. Wow! The Planning Department is bleeding out! McGill introduced Suzanne Schwab, who had the attire and body language of someone attending a funeral, and Steve Gunnells, both from Placeworks. She gave a brief overview of the process to date.

Here is a timeline that I created from my notes on the project:

• October 25, 2023 – Stakeholders Meeting with City Staff at City Hall

  
  

• December 12, 2023 – City Council Study Session

  
  

• November 2, 2023 – Workshop #1 at Senior Center – What makes a great neighborhood? Written input by residents/attendees.

  
  

• January 23, 2024 – Workshop #2 at Senior Center– Vision and Guiding Principles drafted by Consultant

  
  

• February 29, 2024 –Workshop #3 at Golf Course – Poster Boards/Sticker Exercise

  
  

• March 25, 2024 – Planning Commission Meeting

  
  

• June 28, 2024 – Date of letter to City from Department of Developmental Services regarding April 25, 2024, communications from City NOTE We did not learn about this until the May 27, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda was released

  
  

• July 24, 2024 – Workshop #4 at Norma Herzog Community Center – Open House/Workshop -Introduction to 3 Concepts

  
  

McGill said that Staff would be giving its recommendations on a land use plan. She should have said, “We are going to give you the State’s demand for a land use plan.” The Planning Commission would not be making a recommendation on land use, but would be giving Staff a list of preferred components for the land use plan during the meeting. Specifically, what Staff wanted to know is:

• How many units and affordability components

• Circulation network

• Minimum amount of open space and its distribution throughout the area

• Other Specific Plan requirements

  
  

Staff would come back on June 9, 2025, with refinements, and then the Planning Commission would make a recommendation on the land use plan to the City Council. After the land use plan is approved by the City Council, the work on the environmental documents can begin. Following the preparation of those documents, there will be another community outreach meeting.

McGill said that there is a website to keep the community informed. She didn’t give the web address, so please go here: https://fdcplan.com/participate/ I don’t know if the information on the website is useful, as it is incomplete. The comment cards reflect the discontent the community has with the process. My comment cards are not included on the website, nor is the letter that Costa Mesa First submitted after Workshop #4.

Staff has had bi-weekly meetings with the State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) and the Department General Services (DGS). While the DGS is in control of the disposition of the site, the City is in control of the planning process and developing the Specific Plan, except for the portion of the property retained by the State for DDS housing. The State also controls the use of Merrimac Way within the property and has declared that street cannot be used for getting in and out of the Specific Plan area. The DDS reserved about 15 acres for its use (green and red areas on the map), and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) will get 15 acres for its use (blue area on map). The housing provided by the State will be 20% supportive housing and 80% housing for moderate incomes. The acreage for our Specific Plan was lowered to about 80 acres. See Map 1.

Map 1 - State Factors: DDS Housing Needs

Schwab (Placeworks) took over the presentation. A survey of the residents was done by the City, requesting opinions on three Concepts presented at the July 24, 2024, outreach meeting. Here is the land use concept that appealed to most of those responding to the City’s survey on the three options. See Map 2.

Map 2 - Concept 1 - Fairview Promenade

However, this Concept is different from the new concept presented to the Commissioners at this meeting. This is likely due to the City now knowing where the State wants to locate its housing, plus the new Concept includes an access road that goes across the golf course (that was borrowed from Concept 2). The new access road would be required if the number of units exceeds 2,300; it is also something desired by the police and fire departments. A golf course consultant was hired to review how the new access road would impact the playability of the holes in that area.

The new Concept keeps the same number of dwelling units and the same affordability as the Housing Element. The community survey shows we want open space. Some expressed the desire for a sports complex. We are worried about traffic. The amount of open space in Concept 2 was the largest, but that did not get transferred to the new Concept presented at this meeting.

Schwab spoke about the Concepts that were seen at the July 24, 2024, outreach meeting. You may want to look at my recap of that meeting, found here: https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/report-on-fairview-developmental-center-specific-plan-workshops-no-4-warning-take-your-time-read 

But to help you understand this meeting, you’ll need to know what Concept 3 involves. In our letter to the City about the three options, we said Concept 3 “. . . incorporates all the worst things about Concepts 1 and 2, and then adds some of its own blemishes, making it the most terrible of the three.” The survey results showed it was the Concept least supported by the community. See Concept 3 map (Map 3).

Map 3 - Concept 3 - Fairview Commons

 The DDS expressed opposition to the inclusion of large open space areas that could support a regional sports and recreation complex. In its letter dated June 28, 2024, which was submitted in response to the proposed land use concepts, the DDS stated that the primary focus of the plan should be to maximize the provision of affordable housing, and that large open space areas are incompatible with this objective.

See New Concept on Map 4. Note that this Concept had not been shown until this Study Session.

Map 4 - New Concept

Note that Shelley Circle no longer cuts across the southeast parcel next to the EOC and there is proposed access from the Specific Plan area to Tanager Drive or the Tanager bike trail.

Gunnells (Placeworks) then presented the financial feasibility analysis. He prefaced his remarks with the comment that the master developer will have its own business model and do its own financial study. The consultant presented the financial feasibility analysis. It isn’t unusual for a developer to request changes to a Specific Plan in order to get more profit out of the project. All of the utilities and infrastructure associated with the project would have to be redone, and there is remediation on the site that will be required as well. The new access road across the golf course would further increase the cost of the project. Here is a chart of the projected costs for each of the three Concepts that we have previously seen (See Chart of Projected Costs and note that this analysis does not cover the new concept presented at this meeting):

Chart of Projected Costs

Concept 3 is the only one that “pencils out” for the developer. What isn’t factored in is that the project would be built in phases, and that might impact some of the costs. The estimated time to build is between 10 and 20 years, depending on which Concept the master developer uses. Higher density also drives up costs because parking structures would be required. Obviously, the master developer is going to want to make the most profit off the project, so it will likely select something more like that ugly Concept 3.  The Preferred Land Use Recommendation Chart what the City/State decided would be the land use (See Preferred Land Use Chart).

Preferred Land Use Chart

McGill presented the land use recommendations in detail. These are some assumptions that they will use to prepare the environmental impact report. The City is going into dangerous territory here. See my comments in the public comment section below. Keep in mind that the master developer could change all of this.

McGill finished up by giving a timeline of next steps:

• June 9, 2025 – Planning Commission to give its recommendation on preferred land use plan

  
  

• July 15, 2025 – City Council meeting

  
  

• August 2025 – release of Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report (this is an opportunity to tell the City what you want in the EIR)

  
  

Commissioner Questions and Comments. Harlan asked to see the draft vision and guiding principles. Staff showed a slide of the draft vision statement, the same poor vision statement we saw 18 months ago.

Zich asked why the City wasn’t allowed access to Merrimac and was told it is because the State wants to limit access to the special needs patients that will live in the new housing. He also asked about the golf course consultant and was told that the consultant has been working on the project since November 2024. The consultant will recommend two concepts for a secondary access through the golf course. McGill said, “There are definitely going to be some changes,” but the goal is to improve the experience for the golfers. Those changes won’t come to the Planning Commission but will come to the City Council in mid-July. He asked why the amount of proposed park space in the land use recommendation doesn’t come close to the 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents in the General Plan. McGill said, in so many words, the developer wouldn’t go for that much open space.

Zich went over the survey results, which show that the community overwhelmingly wants Concept 1. He also pointed out that the recommended land use concept disregarded the survey results. He characterized it as a disconnect. He’s right. It isn’t what we want. And it certainly isn’t what we were talking about at the first public outreach meeting. And it isn’t what we would expect the City to be doing on our behalf.

Dickson asked about the expectations of the City, given that the community survey results are the opposite of what Staff was presenting. He was a little softer than Zich, but he said the same thing. He asked what options the Commissioners have, given the disparity between the New Concept and the survey results. He asked what the State would do if we told it we aren’t going with its selection. He said, “The City of Costa Mesa exists to serve the people of Costa Mesa, and we have an unambiguous indication from our residents, based on the survey responses, of what their desire is. I’m not in the business of ignoring that.”

McGill’s answer was that if the City doesn’t propose 4,000 or so units, a developer will come in with its own proposal, and then raise the builder’s remedy, which is what the developer in Sonoma did. It will likely do that anyway, but if the City has a Specific Plan in place, then we have more leverage than what we have without it. The Sonoma developer failed on its builder’s remedy effort. McGill also said that the State picks the master developer. That has always been the case and whether or not the master developer likes the Specific Plan we adopt doesn’t change anything. Dickson is concerned about the consequences of not kowtowing to the State.

Dickson asked for more detail on the financial feasibility analysis because of the wide differences between the two options. McGill said she would provide more information.

Martinez asked for more information on the people who were surveyed. He was dismayed that only 27% of the respondents were renters, despite comprising 57% of the population. He asked about the intersections that would have to be improved to maintain Level D of service. However, some of the intersections can’t be improved, so they will just fail. Martinez thought that if the City didn’t improve the intersections, then Concept 2 would be feasible. He asked if the City’s Environmental Impact Report would cover the developers. McGill said our EIR would cover the master developer, but their project would have to go through a consistency check. Martinez said he doesn’t want the developer to have to prepare an EIR, so bump up the density to more units to save the developer another expense.

Martinez then held up a page from his binder of a Concept 3, Harbor Frontage (See Harbor Frontage Map). This concept was presented to the State, but not to the residents. It would involve a land swap between the State and the City. The State had no interest, so the idea was dropped.

Alternative 3 - Harbor Frontage

Martinez said he wants to move the commercial development out to Harbor Boulevard, which clearly would involve a reconfiguration of the golf course. He asked about a community benefit, such as a library or museum, on the site. Nothing has been considered. He asked whether the City had consulted with other governmental agencies, such as the school district or county transportation. Schwab answered that they had contacted many of the local agencies, such as the school district, sewer, and water, but not OCTA.

Andrade voiced her support for a land swap that would liven up Harbor Boulevard by putting housing there, even if there was a swap between the Specific Plan area and the golf course property.

Zich thanked Martinez for highlighting the upside-down renter-to-homeowner ratio. He asked the financial analyst if this was all market-rate housing, would it pencil better. Yes, was the answer.

Harlan put on his developer hat and asked about the land uses around the golf course, which are the most valuable plots. Schwab explained there aren’t any specific densities applied to the areas labeled for housing. Harlan commented that he thinks commercial should be distributed throughout the site.

Martinez stated he wants some mixed-use development on the site. He then advocated for turning the golf course into a public park.

Clearly, the inmates are running the asylum.

Public Comment. Flo Martin said that Zich nailed the survey results. She also read my comment about Concept 3 being the worst. She said we need to go back to the drawing board and come up with Concept 1.5.

Jay Humphrey said that the survey results reflect what the public wants, except that most people thought the secondary road would go to Mesa Verde Drive, not Harbor. He also cited that the increase in density causes an increase in emergency services. Does the financial analysis cover that? He also noted that the already upside-down homeownership-to-rental housing will just become more disparate, as will the open space provided to the residents.

Jenn Tenaka asked about whether the California Department of Housing and Community Development has indicated if it would adjust our Housing Element numbers, given the reduction in developable acreage on the site. She thought the City should have contacted OCTA. She wanted specifics on NMUSD’s response and didn’t feel that Staff’s response that it is excited was adequate. She asked about traffic on Harbor Boulevard. She asked why the public outreach on Concept 2, when DDS stated in its letter said it wasn’t acceptable. She said we shouldn’t be taking the word of one bureaucrat at DDS on this site, when this is the most important site in Costa Mesa. She wanted to know how you could do an EIR without a plan. Tenaka said, “This is a bad plan. It’s a bad plan because it isn’t a city. It isn’t a neighborhood.” She thinks the City should fight this. “This isn’t a plan. This is a screw job.”

Marc Vukcevich says he wants to echo the general sentiments of Jenn Tenaka. He says that this just looks like a show. He suggested getting Cottie Petrie-Norris to get the land given to Costa Mesa so we can control it. We are being held hostage and being dictated what to do on height, density, open space, etc. He doesn’t see this as a thoughtful planning process. He also supports Martinez suggestion that the golf course become a park.

I was next. I objected to creating a specific plan while objecting to allowing the State to control the planning. I spoke about the lawsuits revolving around the State’s failure to adhere to Sonoma County’s Specific Plan for its developmental center, and against the County itself for producing an EIR that is what a judge called “vague, open-ended, and devoid of any clear mandatory requirements or performance standards.” That is precisely what we will get if the City creates an EIR now. We don’t even have a draft Specific Plan to base it on, and then the City will end up in court, just like Sonoma County and the State did. I asked for more transparency on this item. State law enables us the do the planning of this land. If the State doesn’t like that, then they can go pound sand.

Dianne Russell said the public outreach has been less than spectacular and we’ve been guided through it with no purpose. She said we need to keep our eye on the RHNA target for this property. She also agreed with looking at alternative uses for the golf course. She said we need to look at the long-term goals, what are the future needs of the community, and how do we achieve them.

Wendy Leece spoke about going to outreach meetings, starting with the one at the auditorium for the EOC, and then others for this project, but that none of the input by the community seems to be making any impact. She said it is a great disappointment and that we need to fight the State on it. “I don’t think we should just roll over and let the State dictate to us their plans and, with their developer, the future of our city.”

More Commissioner Comments. Dickson stated that it is clear that the site is going to be redeveloped. He said the community is making it clear what it wants. He said to use the lowest number of units possible and the highest amount of open space. He thinks there are problems with the financial feasibility analysis and that the consultant should see what could be done with Concept 2. He pointed out that the land swap concept that was presented to the State also included a transit hub. That is something that is missing from Costa Mesa, but is desperately needed! He said there needs to be adequate parking, but also adequate public transportation.

Dickson also brought up the public engagement process and described the process used for the Westside Overlays, which he described as exhaustive (and it was). There were 40 members of an advisory committee. He said we don’t have time for that, but that the City needs to go back to the public with what it presented at the meeting this evening.

Martinez said the residential development range should be more units, and the impacts of density bonus law should be presented. The grand promenade concept is fine, and it seems like we need secondary access. He wants building frontages to be towards trails and parks. He reiterated his desire to turn the golf course into a park. He thinks the City can ignore the DDS letter. The contract between the City and the State for the $3.5 million to do the planning and environmental reports is with the DDS. I don’t suggest ignoring that agency, but the contract specifies that the City will do the planning, so the City should point that out to them. And not to gently. He wants mixed-use development. He wants the development standards to be as flexible as possible, such as no minimum parking requirement. He thinks once there is a master developer, that the City will be able to negotiate something better. As if that is going to happen! We don’t seem to have a good team of negotiators with this City. Martinez hopes that our Assembly member Petrie-Norris and State Senator Choi can help us out.

Harlan said he wants commercial and retail to be disbursed throughout the project. He doesn’t want the open space next to the golf course, but wants it in the interior. He doesn’t understand what the “grand promenade” is, needs more information, but thinks there needs to be destinations on it. He thinks there should be more vignettes (charrettes) for the public to see. We saw plenty of them at the outreach meetings. No! We don’t need more. He thinks that the public doesn’t have the expertise to determine how quickly or slowly they develop. Oh, I think we are smarter than you think. He wanted to know why only one residential tower for seniors and why not more. He said that one of the vision statements was something to the effect that this should be a unique living environment. To Harlan, it does not feel unique. It doesn’t to the rest of us either, but it is nice of him to observe. He thinks there is a better way to approach this, that the opportunity is great, but we are still far away from the model of a good neighborhood. He is in favor of the secondary access road.

Dickson enquired if there could be no fence between the open space areas and the golf course. He also advocated for mixing densities throughout the project. He would like to see all the commercial in the middle of the Specific Plan area.

Motion. Martinez to receive and file, seconded by Dickson, the motion carried unanimously.

TALKING POINTS AND THINGS TO KNOW:

• The State has slowly chipped away at the number of acres the City has to plan with. We started at 115, but then the State took 15 acres for the EOC. Then it took 20 more for its own housing development, leaving the City with 80 acres, but we are supposed to put the same number of units that was in our Housing Element (2,300) on less land. That’s not right!

  
  

• The California Constitution says that a county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. That includes planning, as specified in subsection (6) of Government Code Section 14670.3, which is part of the bill that gives the City the money to do the planning of FDCSP. The operative sentence in that subsection states, “During this process, the City of Costa Mesa will manage the planning process.”

  
  

• The Scope of Work attached to Agreement between the City and the Department of Developmental Services states “The City retains full discretion as the planning agency and lead agency to (i) develop, revise, and determine the contents of the specific plan considering community input and the environmental review process; (ii) select and consider a reasonable range of alternatives in compliance with CEQA; (iii) consider the benefits of adopting a specific plan against any unavoidable significant environmental impacts, if any, prior to taking final action; and/or (iv) adopt an alternative or revised specific plan or determine not to proceed with adoption of a specific plan. This shows the original intent was to have the City do the planning, not the State!

  
  

• The City has made a show of its attempts to engage the public, but the results of the survey, the comments on the cards, and the original vision created by the public during the first several meetings are not reflected in what is proposed. What a disconnect!

  
  

• There are or have been so many unknowns to this project. How much land does the State really want? What streets can the City use? What land is contaminated? What is the financial analysis for the New Concept?

  
  

• All we have is a site plan with very little information. There is no specific plan document that explains that site plan. Despite what the Commissioners said, there is nothing to tell us what the precise densities will be, the precise number of units of each density, the floor area ratios of the commercial/office buildings, what uses and amenities beyond residential are planned, what the precise income levels of the units will be. There is no clearly defined circulation plan or estimated traffic counts. The City can't prepare an Environmental Impact Report based on that site plan that won’t land the City in court.

  
  

• The consultant is still using the same draft vision statement and draft guiding principles that the community did not feel reflected its desires as expressed at the first two outreach meetings. We are the ones who have to live with this project, but the City and/or consultant have chosen to IGNORE US and are doing what the STATE wants.

  
  

• WHAT ELSE ISN’T THE CITY TELLING US? Releasing a letter from the State dated LAST JUNE right before this meeting was not transparent. Why didn’t we know about the land swap the State killed earlier? Why didn’t we know the road across the golf course would be required and that a golf course consultant had been retained last Fall until it was announced in this meeting?