🌿🌇COSTA MESA FIRST’S CITY HALL REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 2025🌇🌿

The City Council and the Planning Commission each had two meetings in February. There were also several committee meetings, including the Fairview Park Steering Committee.

FEBRUARY 4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.  All City Councilmembers were present. The Agenda was light and the meeting was over in less than 1.5 hours. The City Attorney reported she received direction on two items but no reportable action was taken. With such a light Agenda, it would have been nice to give a brief description of the cases, since that is already public information (if you want to go digging).

Public Comment (Non-Agenda Items).  Seven members of the public made comments. The comments covered the topics of how to make our streets safer for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles, including the new “daylighting” law; problems with TESSA; parking permit issues; unauthorized camping in Canyon Park, including an open fire; protests on Victoria Street; concerns about public safety on West 19th Street; and the need for a Spanish language version of the Costa Mesa 311 app.

Councilmember Comments.  Andrea Marr (District 3) asked Staff about issues with permit parking.

Arlis Reynolds (District 5) requested that an informational update on the permit parking program be put on the agenda sometime in March; inquired as to expanding the use of the Costa Mesa 311 app and notifying citizens of its existence; spoke about the new daylighting law and how to notify residents they can be ticketed if they park closer than 20 feet to a corner; remarked about the new Let’s Go Costa Mesa Shuttle program; requested a meeting with the Fire Chief about safety and preventative efforts for Canyon Park and Talbert Parks; asked about posting the City Councils values in a prominent place.

Jeff Pettis (District 6) talked about visiting the Harbor Soaring Society at Fairview Park and observing the vernal pools and about the possibility of co-existence; appreciated the efforts to improve safety on the Eastside; requested advance information on upcoming Agenda items.

Mike Buley (District 1) spoke about the level of preparedness the City has for fire emergencies.

Loren Gameros (District 2) said that if anyone in the community needs his help to call him.

Manuel Chavez (District 4) spoke on AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) night at the local schools; enquired of Staff about a dedicated left turn signal on 19th Street near the Senior Center; commented on problems with the parking permit program; agreed that the Costa Mesa 311 app should have a Spanish language version; acknowledged students who recognized the Day Without Immigrants by staying home from school.

John Stephens (Mayor) spoke about attending the meeting of the City, the Water District, and the Sanitary District; announced that the Fire Department is scheduling town hall meetings; talked about attending the Lunar New Year celebration in Garden Grove; agreed that the 311 app should have Spanish language version; supported noticing of enforcement of the daylighting law; expressed concerns about Canyon Park camping; requested a report from Staff on the progress of TESSA.

City Manager Comments.  Lori Ann Farrell Harrison responded to many of the Councilmembers’ concerns that the City is, or will be, working on them.

CONSENT CALENDAR.  Three items were pulled by two Councilmembers. The remaining items were approved unanimously. Pettis pulled the first item, which was the acceptance of lighting installed at City athletic complexes. He questioned whether LED lights would save the City in costs and maintenance. Raja Sethuramen, Public Works Director, responded that the maintenance (parts and labor) is covered by the equipment supplier for 25 years and the use of the LED lights will save the City over $2 million in electric bills. Gameros asked about the lighting of the Tennis Center parking lot and Sethuramen responded that the City is working with Southern California Edison on reworking a light pole on the street to add a light facing the parking lot. Alternatively, solar lighting could be installed.

The second pulled item (also by Pettis) was the purchase of batting cages for the TeWinkle sports facility. He asked about the cost of installation and whether the batting cages would increase revenue to the City. The City’s Maintenance Manager, Robert Ryan, answered that installation would run about $65,000 and he doesn’t anticipate the cages will bring more revenue since they are used mostly by city youth sports teams. Sethuramen clarified that the City received grant money for this project.

The final item (pulled by Buley) was the contracts with various vendors for on-call staff support for planning services. Buley questioned whether Placeworks, which was removed from the list of vendors in a prior vote, should be on the list. Carrie Tai, the City’s Director of Economic and Development Services, stated she had reviewed the progress that Placeworks did on the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan and that work was satisfactory to City standards. Well, the City’s standards are pretty low. I’m not satisfied with Placeworks work product, and I’m not alone. Think back to that AI-generated vision statement that was one of the poorest pieces of work a consultant ever tried to pass off on the citizens. Tai wasn’t around during the FDCSP meetings so she is talking out of her hat. She explained the difference between an on-call consultant versus a project consultant (one does piece work, and the other is responsible for the entire project).

None of the pulled items was given a presentation by Staff. They all received unanimous consent.

NEW BUSINESS:  There were no Public Hearings or Old Business items, and only one New Business Item:

1.     Greenville-Banning Channel Hydrodynamic Separator Installation Project.  Seung Yang, City Engineer, gave a presentation. This project involves a contract for the purchase and installation of a separator on the western boundary of the City golf course next to Fairview Park. The separator will gather debris and sediment out of storm drain water before it hits the Greenville-Banning Channel that parallels the Santa Ana River. All of this for $811,750 plus a 10% contingency, most of which comes from grants. Pettis asked about the timeline and Yang responded it will take about four to five months with an anticipated start date of April 2025. Reynolds inquired as to why the City was doing this project, as some of the water and debris come from outside Costa Mesa. Both Yang and Sethuramen explained this is a shared responsibility among other cities and OCTA, hence the partial grant funding from OCTA. Gameros questioned whether the Community Workforce Agreement (an agreement between the City and unions to hire local residents and priority groups for capital improvement projects) would apply to this project. Sethuramen responded that it would not. The project received unanimous consent. That wrapped up a relatively quick meeting.

FEBRUARY 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.  All Commissioners were present.

Public Comment. Two members of the public commented. First up was Jim Fitzpatrick, a former Commissioner, who complained about TESSA and that the search engine optimization for the website isn’t set to direct him to it when he does a Google search. He feels planning applications are taking too long for the City to process, which led to him repeating his mantra, “the process of broken.” He complained about Agenda Reports not having enough information (I have to agree with that one).

Next up was Jay Humphrey, who Chair Jeff Harlan referred to as Mr. Humphries. They’ve known each other for eons, so what’s with that? Mr. Humphrey asked why rents are so high in Costa Mesa and surrounding cities. He then stated the fact that members of the City Council and Planning Commission blame Measure Y, yet Measure K, which repealed parts of Measure Y, and whose proponents promised lower rents, has been on the books for over four years now. He went on to explain that the tiny in-lieu fee that developers can pay to avoid building affordable housing means that the likelihood is virtually zero that Costa Mesa gets any affordable housing in the near future from developers.

Planning Commissioner Comments.  Angely Andrade Vallarta commended Staff for delivering the meeting binder earlier to the Commissioners and to the public. She recognized Mr. Humphrey’s comments about affordable housing and then elaborated that private equity firms are gobbling up housing sites and making housing more unaffordable.

Rob Dickson asked Staff for ideas on how to solve issues with TESSA and spoke briefly on affordable housing.

David Martinez pointed out it is Black History Month; announced the move of OCTA to “wave” cards, which are similar to the LADOT’s TAP cards; and spoke on the demise of Professor Donald Shoupe, the guru on parking issues. Shoupe was my son’s advisor at UCLA.

Jon Zich requested that Staff find a way to respond to the comments of the public about problems with TESSA; he addressed the comments by Humphrey and pointed out he was being facetious because there was no way that Measure K was going to lower rents. Of course, those of us who opposed Measure K realized that, but there were many members of the public who bought into the lie.

PUBLIC HEARINGS.  There were three public hearings, however, the last public hearing on the revocation of a cannabis CUP was continued to the next meeting on February 24:

1.     Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Amend Conditions for a Previously Approved CUP for the Hydrant Pet Hotel located at 776 West 17th St.  Hydrant requested an extension of hours of operation from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and to allow more pets to be served. There will be more employees, along with pickup and drop-off services, and the sale of retail products. The business already expanded to an adjacent unit. After a presentation by Jeffrey Rimondo, Assistant Planner, in which he disclosed that Staff didn’t support all the changes requested by the applicant with respect to dog walking, the Commissioners were given the opportunity to ask questions. That was followed by a presentation by the applicant’s representative, which indicated he wanted to speak about the Conditions of Approval (to which the applicant agreed). The applicant fielded questions from the Commission, most of which focused on the staff-to-pet ratio.

Public Comment.  Fitzpatrick made comments that were completely irrelevant to the application at hand. Chair Harlan interrupted him and asked if he had comments about the item under review, and he answered “Yes.” Harlan then said “Okay,” but after that Fitzpatrick responded that his comments had to do with the process. Ugh. Harlan should have cut him off there, but then he ran on and on about the processing of applications. Fitzpatrick is a time vampire!

Vice Chair Zich moved the item with a modification as to the language about the ratio of staff to pets to allow the business to decide the appropriate ratio, but leaving the ability for the City to change the ratio should the need arise (such as complaints). Dickson seconded the motion. The item was unanimously approved.

2.     Master Plan and Tentative Tract Map for 38 Live/Work Residential Units At 960 W. 16th St.  This project came before the City Council last June for its first review. The developer, Intracorp Homes, submitted its application to the Planning Department in April, so it has received expediting at City Hall. Intracorp built “The Place” condos (almost across the street (just a few steps down) from Trader Joe’s on 17th St). This project has the same formulaic facades and rooftop decks seen on developments in Irvine, Anaheim, etc. The property is larger than one acre and is within the Mesa West Urban Plan. That Urban Plan allows for deviations to encourage live/work units. Each of the 38 units will have three bedrooms, two full baths, two half baths, and a two-car garage. The applicant requested a reduction in the required parking for both tenants and guests to 2.66 spots per unit. Another deviation for a six-foot separation between buildings, versus the standard of ten feet, was requested. The reason given for this request is that the Lighthouse project next door (selling for $1.5 to $2 million) was allowed a six-foot deviation. Never mind that a 10-foot separation between buildings is cited as an essential element in the prevention of the spread of urban fires, like those in Alta Dena and Pacific Palisades. By the way, this project is next to natural open space.

Chris Yeager, Senior Planner with the City, gave a presentation. He noted that the applicant had responded to City Council concerns by making the live/work spaces larger, removing the palm trees, adding two private parklets (benches) and other amenities. After his presentation the Commissioners asked questions about the parking; conversion of the workspaces to ADUs (the garages can be converted); landscaping in the setback from the street; notification to buyers of the vapor barrier that is required due to contamination; signage for the live/work units; requirements that the live/work space be used for work; a comment that the units, and other developments in the City of this ilk, all look the same.  That made me hum “Little Boxes.” https://youtu.be/MZ8HEbcQG-U?si=jm9aOIjA5UI65TPH  

Rick Puffer (appropriate last name!) of Intracorp gave a presentation in a monotone voice. Considerable time was spent describing how well the City Council had received the project and about how this project is designed to fit the standards of the buyers and the City. It was also said that people can come by foot and bicycle to “embrace the fabric of the community.” There were so many flowery, sugary descriptions of the project I’m surprised the audience didn’t go into a diabetic coma. The applicant attempted to explain away the parking deficit by noting that the parking study didn’t consider the parking on 16th Street. Well, that is public parking and the applicant isn’t allowed to privatize it, so it can’t use it in a parking study. The applicant gushed over the number of front-facing windows. There really aren’t that many, and with the buildings so close to one another, there can’t be many windows down the side, so where else would the developer put them? I thought the puffery (pun intended) would never end.

More Commissioner Questions. Martinez, who routinely voices his opposition to required parking, wanted to focus on the parking issues and called the methodology for parking studies and parking requirements “pseudoscience. ” I’ll concur with that but will offer that the reason why the developer is providing the number of parking spaces is because it has done its market research and knows what buyers want. Martinez then asked if the developer would be willing to swap parking spots for more open space. That request flopped like a dead fish with Puffer.

Andrade asked about how this project is going to engage the public, something that Puffer mentioned several times. Puffer proceeded to describe a number of businesses that could exist in a live/work situation, but never really answered the question.

What was never mentioned is that fact that these homes will sell for $1.5 or $2 million dollars and there will be no affordable units or in lieu fees paid. The unaffordability was alluded to by Puffer when he mentioned Intracorp will be using an interest rate buydown for the first few years to help buyers qualify for loans.

Public Comment.  An owner of a nearby Lighthouse condo commented that these units are taller than his and asked about the mature trees on 16th Street. Jay Humphrey noted that the project is not subject to Measure Y and, therefore, the developer could build away. He did express concern that the smaller setback between units could lead to bad results in an urban firestorm situation. He also mentioned that these units could become rentals, leading to parking problems. Fitzpatrick’s mic wasn’t working for the first few seconds, so we got spared a little of his harangue. He complained that applications take long to process (yet this one sped through the Planning Department). A call-in commenter talked about issues with parking, the narrowed setback, and the density of the project.

Commissioner Questions Continued. After the public comment period was closed, Andrade asked about the neighbor’s issue with the height and Yeager explained that there isn’t much of a difference, if any, and added there are no view restrictions in Costa Mesa. The existing ficus trees come under the authority of the City of Newport Beach, which is requiring removal and replacement with a more appropriate street tree.

Motion. Dickson made a motion to approve and then elaborated that the Mesa West Urban Plan, when it was adopted, was exactly what the community was asking for. That might appear to be true, but what got built under the new regulations was anything but what the community imagined. When folks saw massive four-story condos or apartments that didn’t fit in with the neighborhood, caused parking issues, and were unaffordable, it caused an uproar, and the City has never done anything to address those problems. Dickson spent too long pontificating about his view the Urban Plans were exactly what the Westside needed.

Zich, who seconded the motion, kept his comments to the project. He commended Puffer for his presentation, which he said was excellent marketing, and he heard angels singing as he listened to it. He said that while this project was designed for families, because it is a homeownership project families will buy it because of the limited availability of that product in Costa Mesa. He also talked about the fact this project isn’t near a park and that families, once they discover that, aren’t going to find the project so endearing. He is hopeful that this developer, along with others, will find a way to build more family-oriented housing. Zich took note that the project wasn’t subject to Measure Y and that despite what others say, Measure Y hasn’t stopped development in Costa Mesa. Finally, he commented that so many of the projects coming before the Planning Commission are live work. He also spoke about the staleness of the design and that he perceives parking to be a problem.

Martinez repeated his thoughts we heard earlier, but stepped on himself with his comments about Measure Y. He needs to read the Measure as many times as it takes to get him to the point where he understands it.

Harlan took his time to pat everyone on the back for making changes that made the project more appealing to the Commissioners and City Councilmembers. According to him, this work made this project better for the community. Enough with the sales pitches already!

At this point, the hearing on this one item was nearly two-hours long. The vote was finally taken and the item passed unanimously.

FEBRUARY 18, 2025, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. All City Councilmembers were present. The City Attorney reported direction was given to Staff in the Closed Session but there was nothing reportable.

Public Comment (Non-Agenda Items).  Comments were made by eight members of the public. The topics were on Black History Month; the district voting system in Costa Mesa, which allows for a candidate to win with less than 50% of the vote (the speaker advocated for a runoff in the situation where there isn’t a candidate elected with 50%); government transparency at City Hall; advocating removal of liquid amber trees; concern about tactics for the City and residents to use in the case of an urban wildfire similar to the LA fires; a request that City expenses be curtailed and payment of the pension debt be increased; traffic issues on the Westside and concerns about the Senior Center affordable housing project; and a request for the Costa Mesa 311 app to have a Spanish language version.

Councilmember Comments.  Arlis Reynolds (District 5) thanked Staff and residents for participating in meetings and her concern that needed sidewalk repairs could be reported through the Costa Mesa 311 app by residents.

Jeff Pettis (District 6) thanked Staff for responding to a Costa Mesa 311 app problem, talked about touring some parks in the city, and requested Staff to address issues at the parks.

Mike Buley (District 1) noted that Staff fixed some of the issues with old permits being closed out in TESSA.

Loren Gameros (District 2) announced the skate park expansion outreach meeting; enumerated the results of a police checkpoint; thanked the Fire Department for assisting other departments during a recent rain; and thanked the volunteers who work on restoration efforts at Fairview Park.

Andrea Marr (District 3) stated the City is holding a series of meetings about fire safety and that there would be a meeting the following Tuesday at the Senior Center [there was no further information provided]; spoke about the Meals on Wheels program which is partially funded by the City, but mostly funded by the federal government.

Manuel Chavez (District 4) reiterated Reynolds’s comments about needed sidewalk repairs; requested that Staff report on a Spanish-language version of the Costa Mesa 311 app; and advocated for better customer service by the City.

John Stephens (Mayor) spoke about attending the once-a-week Meals on Wheels lunch at the Costa Mesa Senior Center and how that program is at risk of being cut; requested that Staff provide an update on funds the City receives from the Federal government and what is at risk; thanked Staff for its assistance during the recent rains and noted that the Lighthouse Church on the Westside provided shelter to the unhoused during those rains.

City Manager Comments.  Lori Ann Farrell Harrison responded to many of the concerns, beginning with the Costa Mesa 311 app, which does not have a Spanish language function at this time and the third-party vendor of that app is working on it, but there is no release date on the horizon. She indicated that the Federal funding issues will be discussed in March with the mid-year finance update.

CONSENT CALENDAR.  Items 5 and 6 were pulled by Councilmembers.

Item 5: Award of Contract for City Hall Basement Training Room Remodel. The contract price is about $540,000, including a 10% contingency. Buley spoke to why he pulled the item and gave a concise history of the project. He then asked whether the Public Works Agreement (a standard contract used for improvements to City-owned property) applied to the project. Raja Sethuramen, the Public Works Director, indicated that since this project exceeds $220,000, it must satisfy the State contracts code, and the bidding process must satisfy the public works process. It is also a prevailing wage project (all contracted projects with the City are prevailing wage projects). Buley asked about what time of training the facility would be used for, and Sethuramen said it was for a variety of education of Staff, but mostly software training on computers. Some of training had been done in the Council Chambers, Community Room, and other locations at City Hall, but this facility would be a better environment as it can be for in-person training, which has better results than remote (i.e., Zoom) training. It can also be used for parallel testing of software programs. It could be used for Fire and Police Department trainings. City Manager Harrison added that the room would be used for code of ethics training. Say what? The City, as far as I know, and a search of its website didn’t provide anything, has never had an ethics policy for employees or City Councilmembers or Commissioners.

James Peters (former candidate for Mayor) commented that the City needs to focus on lowering its debt, noting that if there is a recession, or if the sales tax receipts from businesses like South Coast Plaza drop (something a lot of us have been worried about for years), then this may not look like such a good idea. He suggested renting space from Vanguard University. His final question was about whether nonunion contractors had been offered an opportunity to bid on the contract.

The last speaker, who I believe is a City employee, asked about the training room being used for Spanish lessons.

Gameros, who works for a union, defended the use of a union contractor.

No one responded directly to Peters’ suggestions, but using existing space is always cheaper than leasing another facility, and then stocking it with furniture and computers. In terms of his comment about the sales tax receipts dropping, he must have a crystal ball (more on that in New Business Item 2 below).

Item 6: Two Emergency Generators for City Hall and Communications Center.  This item was pulled by both Buley and Stephens. During the January Santa Ana windstorm the generators did not operate for three hours, so City Hall was without power (the Police Department did have power). Both generators are over 25 years old. The request for funding allocation was $700,000 (includes equipment, design, and installation). Buley commented that it isn’t best practice to wait for a piece of equipment to fail and then scramble to replace it. He asked if there was a fund for items, like these generators, which depreciate and have an expiration date that can be predicted, so that the funds are available when they need to be replaced. Sethuramen reminded him that the City Council recently approved the Facilities Master Plan that would help to do just that. Stephens brought up the fact that former Mayor Sandy Genis raised this issue in 2014, and here we are ten years later finally getting around to replacing them. Gameros pointed out it will take around $100,000 in addition to the cost of the generators to acquire a permit from SCAQMD.

Public Comments:  Peters asked about batteries (such as Tesla) versus the generators. Ralph Taboada pointed out that the budget provides for these two generators and one for the Senior Center and inquired about bond funding. He also asked if there was a plan if City Hall and the Communications Center should lose power between now and the time the new equipment is installed. David Martinez asked about battery storage, given the City’s commitment to sustainability. He reminded the Council that he had previously requested sustainability for the police motorcycles, but that didn’t happen. The next speaker spoke about the short shelf life of lithium batteries. He also spoke against purchasing any products from Elon Musk.

I wondered about using a battery system myself, as it was suggested for the Senior Center by two of the City Councilmembers. It turns out that the battery system takes a while to power up, whereas diesel-powered generators come to life instantly. The communications center, in particular, would need a diesel generator.

All the Consent Calendar items were approved unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS:  Since there were no Public Hearings or Old Business, the meeting proceeded to New Business. There were two items:

1.    Contract with Dudek for Housing Element Rezoning Program and Environmental Impact Report (EIR).  Anna McGill, Planning and Sustainable Development Manager, gave a presentation. This contract is for an initial term of three years, with the possibility of two one-year extensions, so the project could last five years. The cost is $1,850,611, along with a 10% contingency for cost overruns. The most recent Housing Element (HE) was adopted in November 2022, which means it has taken the City two and one-half years to get around to the rezoning program it promised to do. During the presentation, it was stated that the estimated cost for implementing all 47 programs in the HE would be around $3 million. That isn’t much money, given that an EIR starts at around $1.5 million these days. The City is setting aside $2.4 million to do the rezoning, so this initial work must be only part of what is planned. However, this contract isn’t just rezoning for the HE, it is also for the rezoning required by Measure K, which was approved by the electorate by 22 votes. If the City doesn’t do the rezoning, then the HE cannot be certified by the State. Without certification, the City is subject to builder’s remedy projects, loss of funding, fines, and the State taking over the planning process in the City. Keep in mind that the City is already subject to all of the preceding actions because it did not timely file its updated HE with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Dudek would manage the project including planning, urban design, and environmental compliance, but it has subcontracted the community engagement to Kearns and West (the firm that employs former Planning Commissioner Jenna Tourjé-Maldonaldo). It also has subcontracted the market analyses to another firm. So, the City will have a planner oversee all this, but it really won’t be involved in all the work.

There is an initial schedule for the project (see photo).

Schedule for Rezoning Project

Note that this schedule does not follow the schedule in the HE. The HE states the rezoning programs will be completed by Winter 2025, which means we have already passed up that target date.

Councilmember Questions and Comments: First up was Pettis who inquired about an advisory committee. McGill referred the question to the consultant, who she indicated was the party deciding on whether or not to use an advisory committee. McGill also said that the outreach for the HE revisions prescribed the densities already. I would argue that the RHNA number was what prescribed the densities and the outreach had little or nothing to do with it. She went on to say that what they are looking for now is more about architectural design and objective standards. McGill also stated that the outreach would be about informing too and there would be opportunities to provide input. What this tells me is that the residents will be told what we are getting, just like we got during the Righeimer and Mensinger regime, but we will have little to say in what that is. Catherine Tang Saez of Dudek said that it is too late for an advisory committee because the City has already gotten into about Step 2 or 3 of the process. She stated that an advisory committee was more for the beginning of a process. Others and I asked for an advisory committee years ago and this City Council and City Manager chose NOT to engage stakeholders and citizens. Am I angry about that? Of course! Who isn’t angry about having no say in something that will impact their everyday life?

Buley was up next. He asked about funding for the project, given the State has imposed a remarkably high Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number. McGill responded with a list of the grants the City obtained as part of the HE update process. She went on to say the City is looking at other grants, but that many of the grants require a certified housing element, which Costa Mesa does not have. She said maybe the City could get grants later on, or for the next cycle (beginning in 2029). She also stated the City was trying to become a “pro-housing city,” which would possibly allow it to get grants, despite its noncertified status. Buley asked the City Attorney about pushing back on the mandates and she listed ways to do that, but pointed out that some cities, like Huntington Beach, have tried to defy the State, and have ended up in lawsuits.

Reynolds tried to explain she supports this and Measure K because it would benefit Costa Mesa. She asked Staff to clarify which map she was looking at. Despite being a proponent of Measure K, she didn’t recognize the map. She then asked about the Newport Boulevard Specific Plan (NBSP) and McGill responded that the City hasn’t refined all the projects, but it will probably be included because any upzoning would require an environmental report.

Reynolds’s line of questioning continued, but Marr interrupted her because she couldn’t understand what Reynolds was getting at and asked McGill if all of Newport Boulevard would be included. McGill had to clarify that the City would have to work with the consultant to refine what areas of Newport Boulevard would be upzoned. According to McGill, the decision on whether or not to include Newport Boulevard in the EIR will be made before the “Notice of Availability” is released. I believe she meant the Notice of Preparation, which is when the EIR process commences, whereas the Notice of Availability is when the draft EIR is available. The NBSP is an overlay that the City adopted in the late 1990s to encourage the development of housing on the East side of Newport Boulevard. It needs serious updating, so cutting Newport Boulevard out of the scope is a big thing in my book. While it may not be popular with Eastside residents, there are many parcels on the Measure K map on both sides of Newport Boulevard, so those two ordinances need to be brought into alignment.

SIDE QUESTION:  Does any Councilmember know the densities allowed in the NBSP?

Reynolds also asked about when the City Council would be updated on progress and McGill provided a timeline. I’ve included a screenshot of it, but I will caution that the City has rarely adhered to a timeline on planning matters, so don’t ink these dates in on your calendar.

Tentative Timeline for Rezoning Project

No firm dates were provided, but I will keep you apprised of when important dates come up.

Reynolds stated that she was concerned about outreach fatigue. Apparently, she is unaware what happened with the last major update to our zoning where outreach meetings had to be added because the public became more and more engaged at each meeting. Reynolds’s desire is for residents have input on what is most important to them, which she thinks is their neighborhoods. The problem with that is Costa Mesa residents go to places all over town, and isolating opinions to one area won’t provide a good data set to analyze when it comes to a planning effort that impacts the entire city. I look at dividing up the outreach by area as an attempt to prevent any consensus on the planning effort, which is the one thing the City should be attempting to do.

Saez said that the engagement effort would be multimethod, multilingual, multigenerational and multilocational. She added that the effort would be online and offline (tip: online means your input is limited); there will be a website; the consultant will use the City’s social media platforms. There will also be workshops, but she doesn’t know when or how many of those there will be. There would also be outreach to community organizations and businesses.

Reynolds’s next question was about how this project will impact transportation. I’m surprised she doesn’t know that if you upzone the City, it isn’t just the HE that will need to be changed, but many of the other elements of the General Plan, including the Circulation Element, will need to be amend as well as the policies and goals will need to align with the new zoning. McGill did not address this in her answer, but instead talked about changing parking requirements citywide, focusing on what developers need to be told. Saez said Dudek needs to review the other elements to make certain they aren’t impacted. Reynolds indicating that she anticipates a change to existing regulations, such as parking.

Marr, after teasing Reynolds about her long-winded questions, asked about the NBSP and the statement that those sites won’t require rezoning and how is that? The answer provided was that the opportunities in the NBSP are already there, although Staff is interested in reopening that plan to provide more. Here’s a little history: sites were removed from the NBSP during its last revision because then-Councilmember Gary Monahan’s bar and/or residence were nearby and he would have had to recuse himself from the vote on the update, which means it may not have been approved.

Marr then voiced the Council’s dislike of the Residential Ownership Urban Plan (an area on Harbor Boulevard near 19th Street) and asked if the City could get rid of it. McGill indicated that the City would be looking at updating the Urban Plans.

Then it was Chavez’s turn. He asked about getting rid of the Urban Plans. McGill indicated solicitation of the community would be required, but there are options. Chavez asked if we have an updated HE. McGill looked a little confused and reiterated that our HE isn’t certified, and the rezoning process would change the HE, and that other changes would likely be required. He asked McGill about builder’s remedy projects and she responded that yes, they are possible, but most builders don’t want to use them. Chavez used the uncertified HE as a bogey-man argument for speeding up the process now. He failed to show any recognition that the City drug its feet and didn’t file the HE timely or proceed with rezoning until now. Chavez stated he is concerned with “efficiency and speed.” I’m concerned with accuracy and excellence and I’m afraid we won’t get that if we rush this process. Chavez then went into his oft-repeated story about his inability to buy a home in Costa Mesa and that he is the only renter on the dias.

Stephens asked about a citizens committee and the statement that the City waited too late and the fact that Measure K required visioning and . . . it was a long-winded question where he told the consultant what he expected in the answer (aka “leading the witness”). The consultant couldn’t answer it, so she deferred to McGill, who wasn’t on Staff during Measure K or the HE update. McGill started to BSed her way out of answering the question, but Carrie Tai, Economic Development and Services Director, a recent hire, interrupted that BS to have a go at it. I’m not going to honor what she said by repeating it here because it was even more BS. Stephens tried to fashion this into a “question of nomenclature” and said that the consultant needed to conform its wording to conform to the Measure K wording. He then brought up the fact that the Agenda Report did not provide any information about the other bidders for the project and criteria used for selecting Dudek. McGill described the process, with the City Manager weighing in as well. Stephens asked about a grading spreadsheet or rubric and requested it be provided to the Council in the future. A reminder, if it is provided to a majority of the Council, it must also be provided to the public.

Stephens asked about removing the overlays (urban plans) or specific plans. Tai gave a good explanation about it, including the fact that doing so could be considered taking away an existing entitlement of development, or could cause properties to become legal nonconforming which could create financing problems, etc. It was much longer than that and if you want to nerd out on her explanation, go to the 3:15:20 mark of the recording.

Gameros had to remind Stephens he had been waiting to speak. He asked a question that required Tai to educate him on how housing elements work. There are benefits to having some planning commission experience, which he lacks, and it shows.

Public Comment: It was now an hour and twenty minutes into this hearing and finally the public was allowed to make comment. There were eight members of the public who offered their thoughts. There were a range of comments, all but one mentioned support for an advisory committee (including one of the supporters of Measure K). Other concerns were having all meetings open to all members of the public, the cost of the project, and possible gentrification as a result of rezoning. Fitzpatrick had to offer his broken record of “City Hall is broken.”

Marr made the motion to approve and then gave her opinion that there are other ways to do outreach than visioning. I’ll have to give her a little leeway because she wasn’t around for the last General Plan update, so she doesn’t know how bad the City be at outreach. However, if she doesn’t think that some of the recent outreach done by the City and its consultants is poor, then what is she comparing it to? Perhaps she should take a look at what other cities do. She rambled so much Reynolds had to ask her what her request was. She elaborated that she had asked that Staff show up at the Concerts in the Park to ask people what they want. Who thinks you can have a conversation about a complex topic like planning over loud music? Not me!

Stephens seconded the motion and added that outreach should be done in some of the local coffee shops and breweries. Really, is that where we are reaching the public these days? Bars? Good lord!

Reynolds offered that the outreach should be fun. I thought that trigonometry class in high school should be fun, but it turns out I should have been more serious to better understand it. We are talking about something that will impact our lives for years, so best to leave the fun out of it.

Councilmembers offered their comments. I am sensing that because they haven’t taken the time to educate themselves, they are assuming that the residents are also not engaged. I don’t think that is true. After all, you read these missives which offer you information about planning, right? 

Finally, at the four-hour mark (10:00 p.m.), item was unanimously approved. Did I expect it not to be? Absolutely not. If anything, I’d say, “What took you so long?”

2.    Audited Financial Statements, and Housing Successor Annual Report for the Period Ending 6/2024.  This was a presentation of the Audited Financial Statements and a financial review for fiscal year 23-24. The City received a “clean” opinion, which means it is following all the rules about accounting and funds were managed appropriately. From July 1 through June 30 the balance of all funds increased by almost $10 million. Revenues increased in 23-24 and operating expenses decreased. However, the picture isn’t all rosy, as there was a decrease in sales tax collected of $3.5 million (4.3% decrease from the prior fiscal year). Carol Molina, Finance Director said the decrease is due to fewer auto and merchandise sales (South Coast Plaza?). Marr stated to Sethuramen that if CIP projects haven’t been started, the City should reevaluate their priority, particularly in light of the cuts by the Federal government. In terms of this fiscal year, that was initially covered in a March meeting, which I will report on soon, but the sales tax for the holiday period has not arrived, so the City couldn’t offer any projections at this point (spoiler alert: another picture that isn’t rosy).

Public Comment: Fitzpatrick, the lone commenter, gave his broken record of “City Hall is broken.” He said the City needs to be using five-year budget projections. The only way to get any kind of idea of what the City might be facing down the road, which will keep the City financially healthy, is to do some projections. That would also increase transparency to the public.

This was a receive and file matter, which was unanimously approved. That ended the longest City Council meeting in 2025, so far.

FEBRUARY 24 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.  All Commissioners were present, except for Rob Dickson. There were no public comments.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were three public hearings. The first public hearing on accessory dwelling unit regulations was moved to the end of the agenda and the other two were moved up (the Agenda numbering has been retained).

2.    Appeal of Determination that Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Cannabis Storefront located at 1687 Orange Avenue (King’s Crew).  Gabriel Villalobos, Assistant Planner, gave a presentation. The site is currently unoccupied but was a dry cleaner near the Vons on 17th Street. The pot shop applicant claims that the hardships that occurred during the processing of its application, including issues with Southern California Edison, should allow the reinstatement of its CUP. In this case, Staff can only determine whether the CUP approval expired, as per City code. The Commissioners asked a few questions of Staff and then heard testimony from the applicant. The applicant covered issues with the property, problems with SCE, and the fact that the manager of the project died unexpectedly during the process. The applicant claimed that it asked the City when the permit expired, and that the Planning Department never responded. Apparently, the assigned planner had left the City, but the applicant didn’t know it when it emailed her. Why wasn’t his email automatically forwarded to another planner? That is standard operating procedure in the private sector when someone leaves a company! The applicant admitted it should have followed up. Vice Chair Jon Zich had just a few questions for the applicant about the timing of plans. The appeal was rejected by a vote of 6-0 (Dickson absent). It is a final decision unless appealed to the City Council within seven days.

3.    Conditional Use Permit for a Cannabis Storefront and Delivery (“Green Mart”) at 1912 Harbor Boulevard.  Harlan recused himself because of a possible conflict of interest, so Vice Chair Zich was put in charge of running the meeting. Michelle Halligan, Senior Planner, gave a presentation. The presentation has not been uploaded, but it included a map showing all the current pot shop CUPs (see photo), including the one on Orange Avenue that had its CUP revoked that evening (see above). This location is outlined in blue on the map. There will be upgrades to the exterior and interior of the store and to the parking lot.

Map of Current Cannabis CUPs

Commissioner Comments.  David Martinez inquired about the location of the bicycle rack and other parking issues. Angely Andrade Vallarta asked about the background check of the applicant, given the emails the City received about the applicant having code violations in Newport Beach and possible involvement in the adult entertainment industry. She also asked about the oversaturation of cannabis storefronts. Zich asked about parking, the length of time that an application is allowed to stay in processing, and requested that Staff address parking on Harbor Boulevard, given the City is encouraging housing development there. Scott Drapkin, Assistant Director of Economic and Development, fielded most of the questions. Halligan did answer a question about how many applications are left to process. She indicated that some applications have been pulled, which means there will be fewer applications at the preapplication stage, so the City only has 29 applications left to process (see photo). As a reminder, eventually the City wants to get down to only 10 shops.

Chart of Cannabis Storefront Progress

Then the applicant gave a slide deck presentation. He claimed that he had contacted the neighboring businesses, and all was copacetic. He mentioned that keeping homeless persons from squatting in the building was a problem. When Martinez inquired how the employees get from their access area to the sales room (or how would customers get to the restrooms), a member of the applicant’s team asked, “Why would I want to do that?” It wasn’t said in a very respectful tone of voice, but another team member came to the podium to describe a gate that operates with a security card. The plans are reviewed by a consultant, HDL, to ensure compliance with State cannabis retail sales law. That consultant also does background checks. The City is depending on HDL to do the heavy lifting on plan review and background checks.

Public Comment. Jill Welton, the property manager for the adjacent retail center was first up. It isn’t unusual for neighbors to oppose cannabis storefronts, but this was a little different, as the property manager told the story of a tenant who lied to her about its business, which turned out to be an illegal dispensary. That dispensary caused problems with parking, trash, and loitering, along with drawing the homeless to the shopping center. She asked about the overconcentration of cannabis storefronts in this area. She also voiced concerns about the property owner of the subject property, as that owner had failed to maintain the property and deter homeless persons from camping or squatting there. Next up was the property owner of the adjacent property, who wanted to bring to the attention the violation of codes in Newport Beach by one of the principals of the applicant (the same ones in the email sent to the Commissioners). Then the adjacent property owner’s attorney spoke. She requested the City review the application annually (versus every two years), as well as review it should three or more complaints about the storefront be received by the City. She pointed out the inconsistency in the uses of the property, which spoke to the findings. Two call-in commentators work for the applicant and each gave it a shining reference.

At this point, the applicant representative returned to the podium. He tried to deflect the comments of the neighboring property owner by stating that issues with his businesses in Upland were somehow related to illegal activities of the Mayor and police chief of that city. Lots of excuses/reasons/claims followed.

Additional Commissioner Questions and Comments.  Martinez reiterated his concerns with access to the sales floor from the area behind the sales counter. Zich asked about character analysis (versus criminal history) by the City’s consultant. He also asked about how the City can require parking, despite the State prohibiting parking standards. Halligan replied that the CUP is our tool for legally requiring parking.

Martinez moved the item with the proviso that the bike rack is not blocked by vehicles; the motion was seconded by Karen Klepack. In speaking to the motion, Andrade voiced her opposition, citing policies in the General Plan (LU 1.1 and 3.1) which she feels were not satisfied. Zich detailed his frustrations with being handcuffed by City and State regulations that disable the Commission’s ability to disapprove the CUP. The vote was 3 in favor (Zich, Klepack, and Martinez), 2 against (Rojas and Andrade), 1 absent (Dickson), and 1 recused (Harlan).

1.    Amendment to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance To Conform To Recent Revisions To State Law  Chris Yeager, Senior Planner, gave a presentation. This item previously came before the Commission in January. At that time, the Commissioners gave their suggestions for changes. Yeager explained the changes made to conform to the State’s law on ADUs. He also explained that there was a letter received from The California Housing Defense Fund (CHDF) prompting more changes. Those changes eliminated a restriction on Junior ADUs and the imposition of deed restrictions on ADUs.

Basically, all converted ADUS are exempt from our development standards, meaning they are grandfathered in, whether they are conforming or nonconforming. The only restrictions that the City can apply to state-mandated detached ADUs are they can have a maximum 800 square feet, must have four-foot setbacks, and the height must be less than 18 feet. If the ADU meets those requirements, the City has to approve it. For multi-family ADUs, the State has no maximum square footage. If an ADUs isn’t state-mandated, then it must meet the City’s development standards, unless a standard precludes an 800 square foot ADU with four-foot setbacks. There were changes to the development standards that imposed a setback of six feet between buildings and a maximum height of 27 feet.

Separate sale of a JADU is prohibited and JADUs must be owner-occupied. The City is requiring a deed restriction on ADUs prohibiting short-term rentals of them. The State and CHDF disagree with our short-term rental prohibition of JADUs, so the City is responding to the State with the reasons why it feels it should be able to keep that prohibition. Any previously unpermitted ADUs built prior to 2020 should seek legalization.

Commissioner Questions/Comments.  Zich asked several questions, one of which was whether two ADUs could be built on a lot zoned for a single-family home. When Staff answered yes, his disdain was profound. Martinez asked questions about the structure of the ordinance. Andrade asked about the affordability of the units, and Yeager indicated the City is surveying residents with built ADUs as to affordability. New ADUs will be required to disclose that information during the permitting process. More Commissioner comments were about how ADUs are solving the housing crisis here in Costa Mesa. Wait…how do they know that? Well, the State is allowing the City to declare ADUs as affordable, despite not knowing if they are rented, or if they are rented, the income level of the tenants. Zich stated that the entire country has lack of affordable housing and, therefore, describing the issue as a housing crisis is a misnomer. He stated his opinion that ADUs aren’t affordable and that they cause depreciation of neighboring properties.

To send the item to the City Council, the Commission had to adopt a resolution recommending a hearing. The item was approved by a vote of 5-1, with Zich voting “No,” so off to the City Council it goes. There are some bills in progress in Sacramento concerning ADUs, so expect to see more revisions to our ordinance as those get finalized.

Before the meeting adjourned, the Development Services Department gave a report. Scott Drapkin, Assistant Director of Economic and Development Services, stated there are three more cannabis applications teed up for the Commission to review, one is at 141 E. 16th Street, which was reviewed once and then tabled, another at 2648 Newport Boulevard, and another at 779 W 19th Street. Carrie Tai, the City’s Director of Economic and Development Services, gave an update on the rezoning of the updated Housing Element and Measure K parcels. The City and the contractor, Dudek, are due to kick off the process in early March, with a timeline of 18 months.

ONE OTHER MEETING – FEBRUARY 12 FAIRVIEW PARK STEERING COMMITTEE.  All members were present except Daniel Baume. Arlis Reynolds, the City Council liaison, joined the meeting late at around 6:20 p.m. While this was held in the Community Room, the room with possibly the worst acoustics in City Hall, the use of microphones made everything audible. Public comments were fairly short. Kim Hendricks asked about the statues of dogs in the park that are apparently part of UCI study and how long they would be there. Apparently, the birds are very upset by the presence of the statues. No one seemed to know the answer.

Kelly Dalton gave a presentation on the Mesa Restoration Project. There is a schedule change due to the discovery in the park of Bombus Crotchii, aka Crotch’s Bumblebee, a candidate species for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. Because of the existence of the bee, the City is required to get a “take permit,” which will delay several projects, but there are also delays due bird nesting season. Once the project commences it will require closure of some trails, some permanently, because the project will be completed in one fell swoop. See photo for the tentative schedule.

Tentative Schedule for Mesa Restoration Project

And see photo for City’s poster on this project.

Poster for Mesa Restoration Project

Next up was a presentation on the restoration efforts for Vernal Pools 5, 6, and 7.  These are the pools next to Estancia High School and the Waldorf School of Orange County. The restoration has been going on since 2019, and the improvements to these pools have been incredible! There is 61% native plant coverage in these areas, 25% non-native (which will be removed), and 14% bare land. The San Diego Fairy Shrimp have returned and bird sightings have increased, along with toads and tree frogs. The best way to see it is to go visit, but Staff indicated they would put their presentations on the website.

There was a presentation given by Sun Collective, a group that wants to partner with the City on a native plant nursery. Back to Natives, an Orange County nursery that provided native plants is closing its doors in December 2025, so another nursery of this sort will be needed. I’m just not sure there is room in Fairview Park, but maybe the Randall Preserve?

The City continues to apply for grants for the restoration efforts, including a $1.3 million grant from the Transportation Corridor Agencies.

The next meeting for this committee will be April 9 at 6:00 p.m.