💸COSTA MESA FIRST'S CITY HALL UPDATE FOR APRIL 2025 - TIME TO FOLLOW THE MONEY💸

The City Council had three meetings in April. The Planning Commission met twice. We also attended meetings of the Finance and Pension Advisory Committee and the Fairview Park Steering Committee.

APRIL 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.  At this meeting, the items acted on include:

• Designation of City Negotiators for the Costa Mesa Police Management Association, the Costa Mesa Police Association, and the Costa Mesa City Employees’ Association Labor Negotiations

• Contract Amendment to Increase Funding for the Families Forward Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program By $50,000 for the Current Fiscal Year and up to Three Additional Yearly Renewals for up to $200,000 Each Year, if Funding is Available

• Second Reading and Adoption of Amendment to Ordinance Pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units

• Professional Construction Management Services for Reconstruction Of Fire Station No. 2

• Appointments to Various Committees (this was the most interesting part of the meeting!)

  
  

All City Councilmembers were present. There was a presentation and introduction of the new City Poet Laureate, Danielle Hanson. As part of the Arts and Culture Master Plan adopted in 2021, there was a goal to “[a]ppoint an Artist Laureate on an annual basis with an honorarium and public engagement responsibilities.” Hanson is an instructor at UCI and has won  the Codhill Press and Elixir Press Prizes in poetry.

Public Comment. There were eight public comments. The topics were about thanking our first responders for their hard work; requests for a trap, neuter and release program for feral and stray cats; complaint about how money is budgeted for arts programs; complaints about sober living homes operating in the Mesa Verde neighborhood; request for preservation of Fairview Park as natural open space; request for information about a person who was arrested.

Councilmember Comments. Loren Gameros (District 2) thanked Police Chief Ron Lawrence for his service. Lawrence is retiring on June 27. He also thanked his constituent services team.

Andrea Marr (District 3) spoke about attending events, including the Radiant Healthcare gala. She recognized Transgender Day of Disability. Marr stated she serves everyone in her District, despite the way they identify, their birthplace, etc., and that she wants to use her platform to speak as an ally.

Arlis Reynolds (District 5) acknowledged the presentation about the Poet Laureate and spoke about putting poetry in public places. She announced that at the upcoming Cultural Arts Commission hearing, recipients of grants would be decided. She requested that if there is a small shortfall between the amount of the grant requested and the amount awarded, that the shortfall be made up by the City. She asked about permits for special events, such as block parties. She feels that the requirements may be too stringent, and the City should look at making it easier for the community to gather. She spoke about the iNaturalist nature challenge. If you haven’t done so already, get out and take your photos and submit them through the iNaturalist app and Costa Mesa might win a prize.

Jeff Pettis (District 6) spoke of attending the soft opening of Harper Barbecue, and about reporting a street repair issue on the Costa Mesa 311 app, and that Staff was responsive and made the repair. He spoke about a constituent being harassed by an unhoused individual in Pinkley Park and requested the City look into monitoring the park more.

Mike Buley (District 1) thanked Chief Lawrence, and the Police Department for a ride-along. He spoke about attending the neighborhood meeting for the Balearic Park improvements. He was at a “Women of Distinction” award event. He asked about undergrounding of electric lines and mentioned a study session on the subject. He thanked Staff for helping with an emergency issue with a tree in District 1. He spoke about attending an Emergency Preparedness meeting. He attended a fundraiser for Charle Street sober living/recovery.

Manuel Chavez (District 4) spoke about Chief Lawrence’s retirement. He spoke about being an event where a Habitat for Humanity home was awarded to a family on the Eastside. He attended the opening of Mesa Water’s second facility. He advocated for using the Costa Mesa 311 app.

John Stephens (Mayor) spoke about attending an award ceremony for women of the year and the work of Rising Above Disabilities which has a summer camp at Vanguard University. He talked about the Radiant Healthcare fundraiser. He said the TNR (trap, neuter, and release) ordinance is being worked on by Staff. He requested that Staff look into the sober living homes about which a public comment was made. Stephens requested that Staff look into other uses for the cannabis tax revenue. He spoke about attending the Harbor Lions Club fashion show. He recognized Chief Lawrence’s upcoming retirement. He read a letter from Jamboree Housing about the 38% increase in unsheltered people in Orange County and how the project on the Senior Center property will help curtail that.

City Manager Comments.  Lori Ann Farrell Harrison praised Chief Lawrence for his work in Costa Mesa. She spoke about the prior night’s community Emergency Preparedness meeting at the Senior Center. An update on the residential parking permit program is being worked on and will come to the City Council soon. She thanked Reynolds and Marr for being panelists at a luncheon for employees. She indicated the TNR will be coming soon. During the budget process, the funding of the Arts and Culture Master Plan and programs will be discussed. She said that the cannabis revenue doesn’t cover the arts programs, so the General Fund supplements the cost of those programs.

City Attorney Comments.  Kim Hall Barlow addressed a public commenter that apparently had her phone number wrong. She acknowledge Staff that worked on the Jamboree Housing senior housing project.

CONSENT CALENDAR.  Two items were pulled by City Council members. Neither of the pulled items was given a presentation by Staff, well, at least not right away. Buley pulled the Designation of City Negotiators for the Costa Mesa Police Management Association, the Costa Mesa Police Association, and the Costa Mesa City Employees’ Association Labor Negotiations. Buley’s concern was that putting the City Manager in the position of negotiator could create an awkward situation, versus a paid neutral third party acting in that position. Kasama Lee, Human Resources Manager, assured Buley this was normal and there is no conflict of interest because the City Manager is not a member of any of these associations. Chavez wanted to know if using the City Manager saves money. Lee explained that yes, the City doesn’t have to pay a lawyer if the City Manager is the negotiator, but legal counsel will review the final contract. There were no public comments. A motion was made by Chavez to approve Staff’s recommendation, and seconded by Stephens. Buley said he decided having the City Manager as the lead negotiator was a good idea after all. The item was unanimously approved.

The next item, a Contract Amendment to Increase Funding for the Families Forward Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program By $50,000 for the Current Fiscal Year and up to Three Additional Yearly Renewals for up to $200,000 Each Year, if Funding is Available, was pulled by Pettis. His concern was the three additional yearly renewals. He was worried that the Federal funding wouldn’t come through. He also expressed some unease that the amount of the funding was too large for the Consent Calendar, and said that he may not vote yes on Consent Calendar items unless they are truly routine. The City Manager said that the items that go on the Consent Calendar have to be more than $200,000 per year, because that is the threshold for her to approve items without the Council’s consent, despite those items being in the budget. The other criterion is that the item has to be an existing contract or program that is being amended and is already in the budget. Stephens asked how the dollar amounts were determined and would it be better to increase the amounts? The answer was interesting. First, the program provider is at capacity, but “If we increase the amount, we’re going to be over 45% of the annual allocation, which triggers a substantial amendment, which means we need a public hearing and a 30-day public comment period.” So that is why sometimes we get amendments to contracts in a piecemeal fashion.

There was a substantial amount of discussion on this item and how things get on the Consent Calendar and whether they are in the budget. The City Manager indicated that the reason for the requested item is in the Agenda Report. At this point, Stephens tried to call for a vote (forgetting to take public comment), but Reynolds requested that the Staff give a presentation on this item. The only public comment was from Rosalinda Bermudez of Families Forward, the service provider. She explained the program and about how people receive benefits that are weighted towards the beginning of their participation, and then taper off. Motion was made by Marr, and seconded by Reynolds. Reynolds spoke to the motion (NOTE: speaking to a motion is a big part of accountability by our representatives). It was unanimously approved.

This was one of the best displays of transparency I’ve seen from this City Council and City Manager.

Old Business: There was only one item, the Second Reading and Adoption of Amendment to Ordinance Pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units. This item got its first reading on March 18 and I wrote it about here: https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/update-from-costa-mesa-first-for-march-2025 Christopher Yeager, Senior Planner, gave a brief presentation. There were a few changes since March 18, namely that ADUs will be allowed in any zone on properties with a master plan for residential uses—this is so live/work units can be converted to ADUs—and driveways can be removed if desired, but if they are they must be replaced with a curb and landscaping. There were no questions from the City Council and no public comments. Motion was made by Chavez to approve Staff’s recommendation, and seconded by Marr. The motion passed unanimously.

New Business: There were two items of New Business:

1.            Professional Construction Management Services for Reconstruction of Fire Station No. 2. A presentation was given by Arash Rahimian, Senior Engineer, including a history of the project and a general description of the new fire station. The contract being awarded to Accenture Infrastructure and Capital Projects LLC is for $1,774,775 for construction management services, along with a 10% contingency, with an initial allocation of $225,000 and the remaining allocation following successful issuance of a bond for the project. The total estimated cost of the project is $15.1 million (note that the estimate last summer was $12 million, $10 million of which would have been a bond). Construction will take about two years and is scheduled to begin in November.

Gameros asked about the temporary living quarters. They will be trailers with showers and toilets which will be located on the existing site. Buley questioned how much of the cost is coming out of budgeted funds versus the bond proceeds. $225,000 will come out of the budget and the rest will come from the bond. Finance Director Carol Molina said that she is working on getting the bond process started, and it will be around September or October before it comes to the City Council for approval. Stephens complained that the Agenda Report did not provide any information about the competing bids for the contract. He requested that the next time Staff brings a contract for approval that there be a comprehensive analysis of all the bids so he can see the justification for selecting the award of the contract. He wanted to know who the lowest bidder was. He didn’t get that question answered, but Rahimian gave a description of the decision-making process. Stephens reiterated his request. He didn’t say this, but what he is getting at is more transparency.

Public Comment: Ralph Taboada recognized the Mayor’s attempt to bring transparency to this item. He asked about companies that may or may not have bid on this project. He broke down the cost to be $600,000 per year and wanted to know how many people would be managing the project at that cost and said he felt that was expensive. He noted that the cost of the project has gone up since it was put into the budget last year. His concern is that the project, in terms of square footage, is not that large, so why would it take $600,000 a year to manage?

Stephens repeated Mr. Taboada’s question to Staff. The answer he got was that it depends on the stage of the project, that there are two full-time managers, and then specialty testing staff, and pre-construction and post-construction management. I’m not sure that was an answer.

Motion. Motion was made by Stephens approve, and seconded by Gameros. Stephens spoke briefly to his motion. Gameros didn’t want to speak to the item. That’s a serious lack of accountability by Gameros. At a minimum, he should have said why he supported the motion and the project. The motion passed unanimously.

2.            Appointments to Various Committees.  Chavez moved that his appointment to the Animal Services Committee be postponed to the April 15 meeting. Did his applicant not file by the deadline? Answer: No. Kevin Alvarez applied under the new deadline. Stephens seconded the motion. It passed unanimously These were the appointments:

Animal Services Committee:  Tammy McGregor (Marr) and Stephen M. Smith (Reynolds).

Active Transportation Committee:  Joselyn Perez (Chavez), Tiia Alcazar (Reynolds), and Trace Yulie (Marr)

Fairview Park Steering Committee: Terri Fuqua (Stephens), Jay Humphrey (Buley), Jose Toscano (Pettis), Gameros deferred his selection Reynolds, who picked Edwin (Bo) Glover for him. They were supposed to confirm Hank Castignetti as the Orange County Model Engineers (OCME) City liaison, but forgot (!!!).

Finance and Pension Advisory Committee:  Daniel Morgan (Buley)

Housing and Public Service Grants Committee:  Valerie Hass (Buley), Andrea Schmidt (Chavez), Alma Fausto (Reynolds), and Becks Heyhoe-Khalil (Marr)

Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee:  All appointments by Reynolds: George M.K. Sakioka (Major Developers’ Representative); Stephen Brahs (Small Developers’ Representative), and two at large, Nicholas Lapating and Eric Vu. OH WAIT! A SCREW WAS THROWN INTO THE WORKS.

Buley moved to substitute Eric Vu with Jim Fitzpatrick, which was seconded by Pettis. There was something said by Gameros to Buley, which I never could make out, but Buley’s response was, “Oh yeah, thanks.” That interaction could prove to be a tip-off to events at the May 6, 2025 City Council meeting. Buley spoke to the motion and said that he has seen Jim Fitzpatrick in the chambers on a regular basis and that he may not be everyone’s “cup of tea,” but he does his homework. Buley feels that opposing viewpoints are good for committees. He feels that Fitzpatrick will be a significant asset to any committee. Pettis said he was supporting the motion because Fitzpatrick is one of the most knowledgeable persons on City issues he knows.

Reynolds commented that not including Fitzpatrick in her motion was not a disagreement with his viewpoints, but behavior and decorum are important to committees, and he would not be a constructive addition to the committee.

The substitute motion passed 5-2, with Councilmembers Reynolds and Marr voting “No,” which means that Chavez, Stephens, and Gameros went along with Buley and Pettis. I could hear the Clerk’s surprise in her voice when she announced the vote.

Fitzpatrick has only been showing up at City Hall again in the last few months. He was one of Jim Righeimer’s sycophants and has a history of making poor choices. He has an overinflated ego. He told me that he didn’t want me coming down to the Planning Commission to speak about projects anymore (little good that did). He has made more than one resident angry with his arrogant know-it-all attitude and disrespect of others’ opinions. At one point, that led to fisticuffs with a resident at the Lions Club Fish Fry event. He has mocked that resident for his disability. I was not a witness to this, but numerous people, some close friends, have told me how one evening in front of the Council Chambers he made a machine gun out of his hands and motioned to a group of ladies, as if he was mowing them down. In terms of knowledge, he isn’t that knowledgeable because he frequently says things that aren’t quite true and it shows he didn’t do his homework. Pettis and Buley would do themselves a big favor if they didn’t listen to this blowhard.

That ended the meeting. But probably not some hard feelings.

APRIL 9 FINANCE AND PENSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING. All Committee members were present, along with Council Liaisons John Stephens and Mike Buley. Council Liaison Manuel Chavez was absent. Chair Tom Arnold called the meeting to order and then informed the attendees that the audio of the meeting is recorded, but will be destroyed after the minutes are transcribed. There were no public comments.

Raja Sethuramen, Director of Public Works, gave a presentation. Finance Director Carol Molina, who spoke so quietly it was difficult to hear her at the end of the table (far from the audience), said that for 2024-2025, Staff will be requesting a partial waiver of the CAN ordinance, the ordinance that requires that 5% of the budget be set aside for capital improvements.

There were good questions by the Committee members. Lisa Buchanan asked about something that a Council member had brought up at a prior meeting, which is when a project is delayed, will the costs go up? The answer given was there is no certainty. Sethuramen said the City comes in under budget by 5-10% most of the time.

Ralph Taboada, after reading from descriptions in the 2024-2025 budget, asked why some previously urgent projects, such as HVAC repairs, were being categorized as ones that could be deferred. He suggested that keeping those repairs and deferring something else, such as the Mesa del Mar Multimodel project, would be more appropriate. Sethuramen indicated he didn’t want to give that one up.

Stephens then interjected that the City Council hasn’t voted on the CIP deferrals yet. He thinks the Committee members are being too passive. Stephens wants the Committee to advise the City Council and that more suggestions need to be made.

Chair Arnold responded that the Committee needs help prioritizing.

A lot of the information that was provided to the Committee had only been given to them a few hours before.

There were more questions, but not much in the way of discussion from the Committee. I got the feeling that for some of the members, the CIP wasn’t something they were familiar with, and they didn’t feel comfortable making cuts. In the end, the Committee decided to support Staff’s proposal to waive the CAN ordinance for FY 2024-2025 and to support the deferral of projects, with the exception of the City Hall cast iron drain repipe, the City Hall Fifth Floor air handler replacement, and the City Hall heater replacement. The Committee would look to Staff for recommendations for alternative reductions to cover the cost of those projects.

There was discussion about a project called “Westside Improvement Project,” some of which has been underway in the form of street banners, bikeways, parkway improvements. So far, it has been funded partially by the gas tax, but the larger projects (what are those? I’d like to know too) will be funded by the park fees on the One Metro West project, which hasn’t pulled a permit yet.

There was also a discussion about the funding of the Fire Station No. 2 reconstruction project. That is going to be more expensive than originally projected, and Molina wants to pay down the bond rate.

Buley stated that the Committee needs to look at the entire budget to determine the CIP. That is what the Committee will do when it meets again on May 14.

APRIL 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. All Commissioners were present, except Johnny Rojas. Only one item required action, the Six-Month Review of CUP for Arena OC Bar.

Presentation: The 2024 Progress Report was presented by Phayvanh Nanthavongdouangsy, Principal Planner. This was a report about the number of housing units that have been built or are in the pipeline under our Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The very long presentation summarized the report for 2024, which was filed on or before April 1, 2025. 2,604 total units have either been approved or are in the process of entitlement, but only 397 of those units are in the very low- and low-income categories. Of those 397 units, 193 come from the Senior Center project and Project HomeKey projects, and most of the others are ADUs. We now know that the 46 affordable units at the Mesa Motel at 2205 Harbor Boulevard will be for very low-income residents (see report on April 28, 2025 Planning Commission meeting). Most of the other affordable units come from One Metro West and the Hive Live projects, which are both large projects that have some affordable units, but most of the units are market rate. Information about the various programs in the Housing Element was also given, including the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDCSP) which is supposed to be the topic of a Study Session next month (May).

Again, this was a long presentation since it contained information about every project and upcoming project. One upcoming project that has yet to have a hearing is 21 detached townhomes on a lot next to Kaiser School near Tustin Avenue and 21st Street. This location was a mobile home park but is now vacant.

Commissioner Questions. Jon Zich asked about the One Metro West project and whether it would be completed by October 15, 2029, the end of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element period. Nanthavongdouangsy indicated that the developer is revising its tract map, but that it appears it will meet that deadline on all phases.

David Martinez requested that a presentation like this be agendized as New Business, with a receive and file recommendation, versus a presentation at the top of the meeting. He asked about the timing of FDCSP Study Session and Anna McGill, Planning and Sustainable Development Manager, responded that Staff is working towards a May Study Session, but that since the work on the Economic Feasibility Report is taking a long time, she cannot promise it. Developers and the State of California are weighing in on its accuracy. Martinez asked about the Hive Live project and was told that the developer submitted its application prior to the adoption of the inclusionary housing ordinance, so the numbers of affordable units in that project don’t have to align with the requirements of that ordinance. Zich requested clarification that the Hive Live project will be covered by a development agreement, and therefore, would be exempt from the ordinance.

Rob Dickson asked about the rezoning effort and how much of a role the consultant is going to play, versus how much the residents will be influencing the work product of that effort. McGill responded that much of what is part of the rezoning has already been determined by the City, such as the Housing Element targeted locations and the Measure K Map. She said that the public would be surveyed as to what the design and look of the housing product, but not the location or the density. Staff has already had a kickoff meeting with the consultant team. Get ready for pushback when residents become aware of how high the densities are!

Angely Andrade asked about the number of rental versus for-sale housing. Most of the pipeline projects are rental. Andrade requested information about our sustainability requirements and disaster preparedness requirements in our building codes. McGill answered that there wasn’t much the City could require at the moment, but the Climate Action and Adaption Plan will help identify measures the City needs to take.

Chair Jeff Harlan complained there weren’t enough projects being built. He forgot about allowing the public to comment on the report, which should have been done under the Brown Act. Yes, another Brown Act violation.

Public Comment.  Forty-seven minutes into the meeting and the public was finally given the opportunity to speak. That should NOT have happened. The order of the Agenda should favor the citizens. Martinez was right when he said the presentation should have been agendized under New Business. The only public comment was from a resident who felt that the projects being planned in Costa Mesa were going to destroy the city. He said he wishes the City had fought harder against the RHNA numbers. He feels the Planning Commission and City Council are out of touch with the residents.

Planning Commissioner Comments: Zich supported Martinez’s request that presentations be placed on the Agenda under New Business. He also commented that he would like to listen to the public more, but that the chamber was empty, except for one individual. Dickson also supported putting the presentation on the Agenda as New Business. He noted that there has been a long time between Planning Commission meetings, and there are reasons why the pipeline might not flow, but he would like to know the reasons why developments aren’t coming to the Commission more often. He remarked that there are residents in the City that are disengaged from what is going on at City Hall. Martinez spoke about upcoming events. He also spoke about the Orange County Transit Authority meeting he attended, where the removal of the Gisler Bridge from the master plan of highways was postponed. He advocated for a Study Session for the Planning Commission to discuss an item among themselves without violating the Brown Act. He also talked about the need to engage the public more. Harlan tried to clarify a comment he made earlier and said he didn’t mean to insult any small projects that are built.

OLD BUSINESS: There is only one item, the Six-Month Review of CUP for Arena OC Bar. Six months ago, as part of issuing an updated Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Arena OC Bar (formerly the Commissary) on Randolph Street, the Planning Commissioners asked that the item return to them in six months. At that time, the owner asked to alter its CUP to accommodate a new Type 90 liquor license that allows 18–21-year-olds to patronize certain areas of its bar. The applicant appears to have stayed out of trouble because the calls for service were minimal. Gabriel Villalobos, Assistant Planner, gave a presentation. Zich asked if the owner would be in chambers for questions. The owner had indicated that someone would be there, BUT NO ONE SHOWED UP. Martinez moved to receive and file, which was seconded by Andrade. Martinez didn’t speak to his motion, but he should have (accountability). Harlan spoke to it and said he was disappointed the applicant didn’t attend the meeting. Zich spoke to why he did not support the motion, which was he doesn’t believe that having minors in a nightclub is a good idea, and further, that the Police Department didn’t support it either. The motion was approved by a 5-1 vote, with Zich voting No.

APRIL 15 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.  At this meeting, the items acted on include:

• 2024 General Plan Annual Progress Report

• Appeal of Planning Commission’s Decision to approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Green Mart cannabis retail store to be located near Harbor and 19th Street

• Approval of Relocation Plan and Relocation Assistance for tenants of 778 Shalimar Drive

• Appointment to Animal Services Committee and Confirmation of Orange County Model Engineers Liaison to Fairview Park Steering Committee

• 
  

All City Councilmembers were present. Mayor John Stephens announced that New Business Item 1, Direction re Research for Development of an Ordinance re Self-Checkout Operations at Grocery Stores had been removed from the Agenda. The Chair and Vice Chair of the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) delivered that Committee’s annual report to the City Council. This Committee is one of the hardest-working committees as not only does it meet as a group, but its members also do public outreach at events, including the popular walk and bike to school days. It monitors data about active transportation, such as crashes. See photo.

Decrease in Cyclist and Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries 2022-2024

Evidence of the positive impacts on roadway modifications and slowing of speed limits was presented. The data shows that making these modifications has reduced traffic impacts, not only for cyclists and pedestrians, but also for motorists.

Public Comment. There were 24 (!) public comments. Jose Toscano, new member of the Fairview Park Steering Committee, remarked about a social media post he considered unethical. Councilmember Andrea Marr had remarked that she’d like to see evidence of Jim Fitzpatrick’s rude behavior. Good lord! I must have a million! He went on to chastise Marr. While her choice may not have been wise, it is minor compared with some of the things Fitzpatrick has said and written over the years.

Other comments were about the Harbor Soaring Society’s educational activities; appreciation for removal of dead palm trees on the Tanager bike trail and a request for attention to pedestrian safety issues on Harbor Boulevard; many comments were about appreciation for the ATC, its presentation and its work towards making the community safer; requesting support for the Epilepsy Support Network’s epilepsy walk event; several comments in support for public works projects, particularly improved bike facilities, to improve public safety; requests for a trap, neuter and release program for feral and stray cats; request for preservation of Fairview Park as natural open space and to not allow Harbor Soaring Society to fly on the vernal pool watershed, as was instructed by the US Department of Fish and Wildlife. When this speaker’s time ended, the Mayor rudely replied to her “Yeah, you’re done.”

A group from the Save Our Youth (SOY) Youth Council program spoke about ending homelessness and overcrowded living situations. Some of the speakers talked about impacts on the community in terms of economics, such as deterring persons from entering businesses, and the expense of medical care for those who are exposed to harsh weather or don’t seek help early, etc. These youth held a blanket drive last month.

Jim Fitzpatrick spoke about a report from HdL tax report that he had received through a public records request. It identifies the top 25 tax generators in the city. He went on to speak about the Arts Commission and his opinion that the cannabis taxes were supposed to incrementally support arts programs. He also said that Staff is shielding committee and commission members from giving advice to the City Council. He specifically cited the Finance and Pension Advisory Committee as one that has been prevented from giving information to the City Council. I was unable to locate the HdL report on the City’s website, but I found this interesting information from them: https://www.hdlcompanies.com/news/california-sales-tax-trends-and-economic-drivers-report-q2-2024-data 

Jenn Tenaka spoke about the ATC, that Councilmember Arlis Reynolds is a role model for how a liaison should work with a committee, and that there should be more presentations from committees. She also said that keeping everyone on the street safe is a fundamental obligation of the City. The data presented by the ATC shows that the projects built by the City are making the community safer. She remarked that the active transportation components of street projects are often a small component of the cost. She also requested that the Police Department provide constant enforcement of its laws, despite the expense.

The next speaker requested help with convincing the City to NOT remove a tree in front of his house, but to trim it instead. He said that the buckled sidewalk has been that way for three decades to which the City Attorney covered her face and shook her head.

I spoke about the lack of engagement of the public, the lack of town hall meetings, and surveys that would help with better engagement. The City needs to learn the concerns of the public and Staff needs to stop interfering with the work of the committees and their advice to the City Council.

Other comments were about illegal activities, including a request that the police look into the routine setting off loud fireworks during the night near Adams Avenue and Fairview Road; complaint about the City’s lack of response to a car parked at a red curb that was reported on the Costa Mesa 311 app, which apparently isn’t monitored by parking enforcement; complaints from one resident about cut-through traffic on Towne Street and the traffic-calming project on 19th Street, about homelessness, that people don’t pay attention to what is happening in the states and cities, and that he feels the Council is out of touch with the residents; comment about preserving Fairview Park and observation that the City Council isn’t paying attention to the recommendation of Staff, the Fairview Park Steering Committee or the thousands of residents that voted for Measure AA.

Councilmember Comments.  Andrea Marr (District 3) thanked everyone who spoke that night. She spoke about being the new alternate liaison to the ATC, attending an ATC meeting (which most alternates rarely, if ever, did) and how proud she is of its accomplishments over the past 10 years. She recognized the teens from SOY. Marr brought up having a Spanish-language simulcast of the City Council meetings for those listening on television. There is in-chambers live translation and closed captioning on Zoom. She spoke about supporting keeping the resident’s Chinese elm tree. Finally, she advocated bringing an ethics policy to the City. Marr mentioned Irvine’s policy, which has many good provisions, including the limitations on what Councilmembers or Staff can do once they leave the employment of the city, such as lobbying or accepting employment with a contractor which was awarded a city contract. I have asked for this for years!

Arlis Reynolds (District 5) said she supported keeping the Chinese elm tree since she has one. She spoke about a traffic study of Towne Street and said that the concerned residents would be contacted by the Director of Transportation. Reynolds spoke about traffic safety and the strides the City is making towards making streets safe for everyone, and the responsiveness of Staff to residents’ concerns. She requested that Staff look into waiving city facility fees for grantees of arts grants. She brought up Marr’s request for an ethics policy but noted she was looking for a code of conduct, particularly in light of the last City Council meeting. What she was alluding to was the appointment of Jim Fitzpatrick to the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee. Reynolds also brought up her desire that the City Council values be posted in City Hall, as other cities do. They were posted on the TV screens facing the audience in the Council Chambers (but they should be facing the Council too!).

Jeff Pettis (District 6) spoke of attending the OC Japan Fair; he has ideas about engaging the public in District 6; he then read some concerns from residents contacted by him, such as Heller Park area street safety, parking enforcement during street sweeping.

Mike Buley (District 1) thanked the teens from SOY and the resident who spoke about nightly problems near Adams and Fairview. He spoke about the Chinese elm tree and Staff’s responsiveness to his request to respond to the resident. He reiterated to Staff to have an arborist look at the situation and see if the tree can be preserved. He attended the FiPAC meeting as liaison for the first time. He advocated getting the voice of the people involved in the decision-making process on the committee level. He gave a brief report on that committee meeting. He asked that Staff bring the City Council as much information and alternatives as possible. Buley also reported on the OCTA meeting and the delay of removing the proposed Gisler Bridge from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, but requested that Stephens give the specifics.

Loren Gameros (District 2) recognized an employee for receiving the City Manager’s award and another for a leadership award. He encouraged the public to provide mentorship to the SOY members.

Manuel Chavez (District 4) spoke about the teens from SOY’s presentation and comments. Chavez is employed by SOY. He recognized the dispatchers who work for our emergency services departments. He attended an awards dinner held by the Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. He thanked the Vista Harbor Center for repaving its alley. He supports keeping the elm tree, more patrolling for the Adams and Fairview Area, and town hall meetings. He reminded Staff about the trap, neuter, and release ordinance the City Council had promised the community.

John Stephens (Mayor) said that he would be up for a town hall. He said that he can’t remember a general town hall and that most of the meetings are about specific topics. There have been “Meet the Chief” meetings and the like, and what he called town halls but are actually public outreach meetings, some of which are required because they are capital improvement projects. Most of those events don’t have a question-and-answer period where a constituent can voice a concern or request more detailed information about what has been previously said. He says that just because there isn’t a town hall they aren’t trying to engage people. He cited the meeting at the Senior Center about the Jamboree Housing project there. I beg to differ. Those aren’t town halls. Those are project meetings and often the questions are limited and filtered by Staff. For example, they won’t take questions from a group where all of the audience members can hear the questions and the answer, but rather they only take questions one-on-one with a Staff person or consultant.

Stephens asked about the tree appeal process. He praised the teens from SOY. He asked about the City’s webpage for the Arts Commission, as a member of the public said it had changed. He reported about the FiPAC meeting and a subsequent meeting he had with the chair and vice chair. See my report above.

He reported about the OCTA meeting and the Gisler Bridge. At the last moment, Fountain Valley pulled its consent for removing the bridge from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The item was continued for 30 days, and hopefully, he can get Fountain Valley to reinstate its approval. In the meantime, the Fountain Valley City Council will hold a study session meeting about the Gisler Bridge on May 6, 2025. In the report provided in the agenda, it states “However, due to concerns associated with the completeness of all program projects listed within the MOU, the City of Fountain Valley requested that the Board postpone final approval to remove the bridge from the MPAH until the City and its residents could further discuss the topic.” What isn’t complete? The report doesn’t state.

City Manager Comments.  No comments.

City Attorney Comments.  No comments either.

CONSENT CALENDAR.  Item 5, the 2024 General Plan Annual Progress Report, was pulled by members of the public. The mayor declined a presentation by Staff and opened the matter up to public comment. Fitzpatrick spoke first about a structural budget deficit and then launched into a criticism of SB 1000, which doesn’t provide any funding for the programs required by that law. He asked the City Council to vote no on sending this report to the State, as required by law, because he opposes SB 1000. He brought back a request from the Righeimer regime that the City become a charter city.

I spoke about what the report is supposed to do, which is to inform the State how well we are doing with implementing the goals and policies in our General Plan. It is also an indication of how well the City is doing on following State law covering General Plans. The City isn’t following the requirements of SB 1000 (passed in 2016) at this point and I told the City Council why. I also remarked that the biggest impediment to public health is the lack of restrooms in our parks. Winners of arts grants are having to pay as much as they were awarded by the City to cover the cost of port-a-potties at their events and that’s just wrong! The City should be providing those.

The last speaker was a resident whom Fitzpatrick made fun of for having a disability. He remarked that Fitzpatrick should step down from his appointment.

Stephens remarked about his scars from advocating for public restrooms. Gameros asked about getting restrooms returned to Paularino Park. He didn’t know why the restrooms were removed. I do. He didn’t ask about his own park, Gisler Park, which is also missing restrooms. He also requested that Staff look into renting or purchasing a trailer with port-a-potties for events. Pettis asked about the $500,000 contract to Dudek for the Climate Action Plan and whether the City could cancel the contract. Anna McGill, Planning and Sustainable Development Manager, said that the City must look into making all elements of the General Plan comply with SB 1000, and Staff will be doing so after the Climate Action Plan is completed, as it is not in the scope of the consultant to do that work. The City Attorney informed Pettis that the City would have to pay for whatever work has already been done, if it terminated the contract. McGill said that substantial work has already been done on the project. Reynolds remarked that the Parks and Community Services Commission is doing a parks review, including restroom facilities. Buley commented that the document is backward-looking is and just a ministerial report to the State. A motion was made by Stephens to approve, seconded by Chavez, and approved 6-1, with Pettis voting No.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: Now at the 2-hour and 20-minute mark of the meeting, the City Council finally turned to the two Public Hearing items:

1.     Appeal of Planning Commission’s Decision to approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Green Mart cannabis retail store to be located near Harbor and 19th Street. The Appellant, a neighboring property owner, along with a couple of businesses, didn’t support this, particularly in light of the adult film business activities the Green Mart owner supposedly engaged in down in Newport Beach and at his home in Costa Mesa. Other issues cited by the Appellant is a shortage of parking, the modern design would be incompatible with the other more traditional mission-style of surrounding buildings, and loading of products for deliveries would conflict with the surrounding businesses’ hours of operation.

This was a de novo hearing, which allowed the City Council to review the application and make a new decision. Scott Drapkin, Assistant Development Services Director, gave a presentation, including the findings that are necessary to issue the CUP.

The Appellant’s lawyer, a former city attorney, gave a presentation outlining its concerns and reasons why it wanted the CUP rejected, including its contention that the City wasn’t adhering to its zoning standards, that is, that the cannabis store shares a wall with the appellant, is to be located within 250 feet of a property zoned for residential use, and it is also close to the Methodist Church, which offers youth camps on its property. The Appellant herself spoke about her experience living in Newport Beach next door to the applicant’s principal, who operated unpermitted businesses that had a negative impact on the neighborhood, for which he received citations. She alleged that he is now operating a similar business in Costa Mesa. The Appellant’s property manager complained about the maintenance and security at the proposed cannabis store location, which the Applicant has leased for about four years.

Next up was the Applicant, who spent too much time talking about himself and complaining about the Appellant trying to “derail my life.” He contended that the wall between the properties is not a shared wall. He mostly addressed the allegations of his misconduct by the Appellant, which he characterized as libelous.

Councilmember Questions. Gameros mistakenly argued that the measurement between properties isn’t “as the crow flies.” Chavez asked about security, and the Applicant replied there would be a security guard that would have access to the rear of the property through a gate. He alleged that the Appellant had, at one point, an illegal cannabis shop on her property. Chavez had to ask the Applicant to clarify the security. He then asked the Applicant about how deliveries would be made (through the front door). Chavez returned to the shared wall, and the architect for the Applicant had to explain that there will no longer be a shared wall once the remodeling is completed.

Reynolds questioned Staff about maintenance issues with the subject property and whether any complaints had been filed (none, but the City, during its site inspection, requested that the Applicant clean up the site, which it did not). She also asked about parking, but since AB 2097 removed the City’s ability to require parking, that was not an issue. Buley asked about the purpose of the background check. The City Attorney responded that it was for drug-related felonies and misdemeanors. Drapkin clarified that the background checks are looking for cannabis felonies, based on the City’s code.

Stephens asked about the buffer zones. Drapkin stated that the buffer zone requirement was enacted after the Applicant had submitted its completed application. Stephens also asked about the youth center only applies to locations that operate primarily as a youth center, which the church does not.

Public Comment. Most of the comments were in opposition to the project. Some opposed cannabis altogether, and others dislike the oversaturation of pot shops in the area. Some are residents in the area; several are nearby business owners, including one who said the Applicant tried to pressure her into supporting his application. The supporters were two of the Applicant’s neighbors, one of his employees, and the daughter of the owner of the subject property, who spoke about how the applicant will provide security to make the center safer. The quote of the night from an opponent: “If you go with it, how about another massage parlor, two liquor stores and a couple of titty bars to go with it, because this area is becoming so degenerate.”

Appellant’s Rebuttal. The attorney for the Appellant corrected the Applicant’s allegation that it leased to an illegal pot shop; it was a tenant who lied to her, and she evicted that tenant. She also spoke about the background check being very narrow and not covering violations of old CUPs, moral turpitude, etc. She also corrected Gamero’s misstatement about how distances are measured between properties (yes, it is as the crow flies). She said if there was a mistake in the interpretation of the code that allowed the application to be deemed complete, then the application needs to be resubmitted before a CUP can be issued, and it would have to conform to the changed ordinance.

Applicant’s Rebuttal. The Applicant claimed that the Appellant had accused him of being a criminal. He intends to use the security guard to clean the site. He deflected to one of the local unhoused individuals who dresses in a tutu and said that a security guard will deter homeless people from illegal acts or from riding their bikes down the alley. How does he know that person is homeless? Not everyone on a bike in an alley is. He spoke about the Council deciding to allow a lot of shops, and he deserves the right to the CUP since he fulfilled the requirements. He reiterated that he would have the site cleaned up.

Motion. Gameros moved to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval, which was seconded by Stephens. When asked if he wanted to speak to his motion, Gameros replied “Nope!” THAT IS NOT ACCOUNTABILITY! Stephens spoke to motion for him, reading a prepared statement about the nonshared wall, the lack of requirement for separation from residential for this applicant. He stated that having security makes the area safer. He spoke about the cost of getting the cannabis CUP and permits. He said the City Council is business friendly and this is an ordinance the voters voted for.

Reynolds made a substitute motion to deny the CUP, which was seconded by Marr. The motion cited that the necessary findings could not be met, that the use is not compatible with other uses in the area, and that the use would be injurious to the neighborhood and the persons living nearby. Stephens asked her to speak to her motion. She pointed to findings of compatibility and impacts of the use on other businesses in terms of parking. She cited the frequency of vehicles out of the site would impact pedestrian and cyclist safety. Buley spoke in support of the motion, citing the General Plan’s goal of a balance of land uses, and the overconcentration of cannabis shops contradicts that goal. Stephens asked about the parking issue. The City Attorney clarified that the City can’t require any parking for a project in an AB 2097 corridor (Harbor Boulevard is one of those corridors). The substitute motion carried by a vote of 5-2, with Pettis, Reynolds, Chavez, Marr, and Buley voting Yes, and Stephens, and Gameros voting No.

2.     Approval of Relocation Plan and Relocation Assistance for tenants of 778 Shalimar Drive. The City is in the process of purchasing this rundown property on Shalimar Drive and must relocate the tenants to other rental units. The cost to relocate the tenants is nearly $204,000. If the tenants could move into City-owned units on rehabbed James Street and 18th Street, the cost would be less, but the tenants would have to agree. The City hasn’t indicated what the plans are for the Shalimar property yet. A presentation was made by Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, the Assistant City Manager. Buley had questions about the State law governing tenant relocation. He asked if the City was a charter city, would it have to comply with State law. The City Attorney didn’t have a definitive answer, but said it would likely be deemed an issue of statewide concern and that the City would have to comply.

Public Comment. There was one public comment from Jenn Tenaka, who noted that the monies are coming from the Housing Trust Fund, which was supposed to be used as provided by the terms of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and this isn’t one of those. If we use monies out of the trust for things like this, we’ll never see any affordable housing built.

Stephens asked Staff if it was appropriate to use the funds or if there were other funds that could be used. Carol Molina, Finance Director, stated that it is appropriate to use the Housing Trust Fund, and the only other way to do this would be to dip into the reserves.

A motion to approve was made by Chavez and seconded by Stephens. Chavez elaborated as to why he felt it was appropriate to make the payments and allow the City to move forward on the acquisition of the property. The motion carried unanimously.

OLD BUSINESS: Only one item here: Appointment to Animal Services Committee and Confirmation of Orange County Model Engineers Liaison to Fairview Park Steering Committee. At the April 1,2025 City Council meeting, Chavez requested one additional week of recruiting for the Animal Services Committee. There were additional applications received, so now is the time for him to make his selection. Also, Hank Castignetti needed to be confirmed as the model engineer’s liaison to the Fairview Park Steering Committee. Kevin Alvarez was Chavez’s appointment. He and Castignetti were voted in unanimously.

APRIL 16 FAIRVIEW PARK STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING. Kohl Crecelius called the meeting to order. Kohl had previously been Vice Chair, but I don’t think he had ever run a meeting. All members, including new members, were present, except for Daniel Baume. City Councilmember Arlis Reynolds, Hank Castignetti of Orange County Model Engineers (OCME), and Commissioner Jason Komala of Parks and Community Services were also in attendance. Staff present included Kelly Dalton, Fairview Park Administrator, Brian Gruner, Parks and Community Services Director, and Seung Yang, City Engineer.

Public Comments were made by a handful of attendees, including Kim Hendricks, me, former Committee members Andy Campbell and Erik Roberts, and Mat Garcia of Harbor Soaring Society (HSS). Most of the commenters welcomed the new members and then made comments about the presence of HSS in the park and the impacts the club had on the physical environment in Fairview Park, with the exception being Garcia who made all sorts of statements that don’t bear repeating as some of what he said has generally been proven wrong, and was later proven wrong by Staff. See Old Business for more on that.

Committee Member Comments followed, and then comments by Reynolds and Castignetti, mostly welcoming new members, but also comments about security issues and dogs off leash in the park.

Election of Chair and Vice Chair. Then the meeting turned to the election of Chair and Vice Chair, which took some time because of the unfamiliarity of proper procedure (Reynolds had to help out on this, but there should have been a script provided to Crecelius) and because of the hesitation of one nominee to assume the responsibilities of Chair. The Committee finally landed on Crecelious and Bo Glover, who I believe have served the longest of this group, as Chair and Vice Chair, respectfully.

OLD BUSINESS. And now for the meat of the meeting! Dalton gave a presentation as to why Staff was requesting the Committee, despite three new members, to consider the revision of one of the “Emerging Recommendations” that will be included somewhere in the updated Fairview Park Master Plan or as part of the Committee’s recommendations to the City Council. Specifically, that recommendation reads:

“Relocate the fly field activity currently located within the vernal pool watershed to outside Fairview Park, due to detrimental impacts to sensitive biological resources associated with the activity and required maintenance of the fly field. (C, E)”

During the discussion and question period, Committee Member Jennifer Thomas asked City staff what the biologist’s and ecologist’s reports (prepared in connection with the FPMP) revealed in connection with the flying field and Harbor Soaring Society’s (HSS) activities. Kelly Dalton, the City’s Fairview Park Administrator, replied that the flying field is in the vernal pool watershed, and the activities could have an impact on sensitive habitat and species. He also indicated that, while the biologist and ecologist did not offer opinions, their reports indicate that there has been an adverse impact on the park as a result of the mowing activities of HSS.

There were a lot of questions of Staff and comments made by the Committee members. Jay Humphrey asked what if the City just ignored the direction of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW). The response from Dalton was that one cannot know exactly what would be done, but it could include monetary fines, criminal action, and the City could lose funding if it is found to be a bad steward of the park’s resources.

There was discussion about moving the flying field from its present location. Four alternative locations were given, two on the east side of the park, and the others are Balearic Park and Parsons Field (behind the Waldorf School). Apparently, none of these please HSS. To remain at the existing location, the City would need to get an incidental take permit. The City would have to make a long-term, expensive financial commitment to continuously monitor the activities of HSS.

Given an email exchange between Christine Medak of USFW and Dalton, where Medak told Dalton that USFW doesn’t support HSS’s activities in the park, I doubt that USFW is going to consider the damage that is being done by HSS is more than incidental. I also doubt that the City Council is fully aware of the content of the biologist’s and ecologist’s reports. If they were aware of the taking by HSS, and the possible ramification of criminal action against the City for allowing mowing and grading in the vernal pool watershed, along with the fines and the loss of funding for the restoration projects that have yet to commence (but are part of the programs in the updated Fairview Park Master Plan), the City Council would likely change its desire to do anything to keep HSS in Fairview Park. At a minimum, I hope it would be wise enough to not be arrogant when it comes to dealing with USFW.

Humphrey gave a great summary of how HSS is impacted by Measure AA. He also responded to a comment by Jose Toscano, a new member appointed by Councilmember Jeff Pettis, that the Committee needs to make a compromise so that HSS is treated the same as OCME. Jay said, and I summarize, that compromise is only appropriate when no harm comes of it. In this case, the planes are having an impact that the trains do not—trains don’t fall from the sky into the vernal pools. He went on to say that the more we allow impacts like this, the more we limit our future ability to preserve and restore the park. Also, AA would require the City Council approve a new fly field on the east side of the park, and then it would have to go to a vote of the citizens.

Public Comments. Most of the public comments were against changing the recommendation, mainly because the Steering Committee should be the ones who are steering this issue, not Staff. Rick Huffman spoke about how the flying field issue has become politicized and that the Committee should be listening to the science. Garcia was defensive and tried to convince everyone that HSS wasn’t doing what it was doing, and wants a meeting with USFW.

The Committee, on a vote of 4-2 (Baume absent) to keep the recommendation as it is written. Crecilius and Toscano were the No votes.

The rest of the meeting was a presentation by Dalton, however, technical difficulties prevented his slide deck from being shown. A lot of the information was ministerial, but the City is looking for volunteers to work on weeding, planting, and irrigation on Fridays from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.. There will also be some docent opportunities at some point. The City’s website has more about that.

After a few more Committee member comments, the meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m.

IMPORTANT: Tuesday, June 3, 2025, is the tentative date for the next City Council Study Session on the updated Fairview Park Master Plan. It will likely be a 5:00 p.m. start.

The Saturday following this meeting, I, along with my better half, visited the flying field. It was too windy for the gliders, but Mat Garcia wanted to chat it up with Rick. He offered to show us how the launching wench worked, but since the path of the wench was clearly visible, I decided to pass. I was amazed at the length of the cable (about 250 ft). It was also apparent that the path for the cable extended through the fence, as if someone had gone out past the pulley at the end to retrieve a lost plane.

Launch Winch

Note how the winch cable) cuts through the vernal pool watershed. Also note the electric cable on left in next photo. Not sure what that is for.

Electric Cable in Watershed

Despite the fencing, the path continues. Is this to retrieve gliders that didn’t launch correctly?

Path Beyond Fencing

Only a small portion of how long the cable is.

Cable is about 250 ft long

APRIL 22 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION. Since this was a Study Session, there was only one item on the Agenda - Fiscal Year 2025-26 Proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget and Five-Year (2025-26 To 2029-30) CIP. Don’t let that title fool you, this year’s (2024-2025) budget deficit was the topic as well.

Instead of taking public comments at the beginning of the meeting, Staff gave its presentation. Carol Molina, Finance Director, spoke about the 2024-2025 adopted budget and how the funds are broken down. This slide provides a breakdown of expenses by department:

Expenses by Department

Molina pointed out several times that police and firefighters are the largest expense. They get paid out of the General Fund. She also stated that there is a $6 million shortfall this year, but Staff had only requested $3.6 million of CIP Projects be reduced. Because of internal modifications to the books, that $6 million shortfall has been reduced. An example given was the $1 million that would have gone to the bond for the Fire Station No. 2 rebuild, but since construction will be done next year, that project was to be moved into the 2025-2026 budget.

She then moved to the subject of the Capital Assessment Needs reserve, or the CAN. You may recall that during the Righeimer regime, the City Council passed an ordinance requiring that 5% of the General Fund Revenue be set aside for CIP projects, as that City Council was afraid that police and firefighter costs would prevent the maintenance of facilities and roadways. In the current year, $6.8 million of the CAN is being used to pay down the debt on the Lions Park project. She then revealed that Staff is requesting a partial waiver of the CAN to address the $3.6 million revenue shortfall. That waiver requires a supermajority vote of the City Council (five members).

Raja Sethuraman, Public Works Director, gave an overview of the Public Works Department, the responsibilities of each division, and the restrictions upon the use of the funds the City receives for these projects. Most of the projects are large, so they go through the lengthy CIP process, but if the project cost is below $30,000, then it goes through the General Fund. He then passed it on to other Public Works Staff to talk about specific projects.

Sethuraman then returned to the CAN waiver. He reviewed the deferred projects list that Staff came up with, along with the CIP projects that the Finance and Pension Advisory Committee (FiPAC) had suggested NOT be deferred, which are the Cast Iron Drain Repipe, the Air Handler Replacement, and the Heater Replacement projects at City Hall. Staff suggested that the Cast Iron Drain Pipe not be deferred, but if the other FiPAC suggested projects were deferred, then a sewer line improvement project and the Senior Center improvement project (paint and carpet) could be deferred instead. To be clear, the Senior Center improvements would be done at the time the housing project on the parking lot nears completion.

On May 6, Staff will bring the following items to the City Council for approval:

• Partial waiver of the CAN Ordinance for FY 2024-25

• Reduce General Fund transfer to Capital Improvement Fund (401) in the approximate amount of $2.9 million

• Allocate $0.7 million in Gas Tax (201) funds for street sweeping

• Deferred projects will receive priority in FY 2026-27

  
  

Sethuraman moved on to the upcoming 2025-2026 budget. Staff is requesting a FULL waiver of the CAN for 2025-2026 because it expects a revenue shortfall. It also expects having to tap into Capital Reserves. Oh, but that was described as a “third rail” in another meeting. ZAP!! The reason given for this is to meet the Maintenance of Effort on our roadways so the City qualifies for Gas Tax and Measure M funds. If we have too many potholes, the City cannot do that. It also frees up funds to be used in the General Fund to pay for first responder salaries and benefits.

For the next fiscal year, only 23 projects will be recommended for a total of $28.7 million, $12 million of which will be financed by a bond. Here is where the funding will come from:

Funding Sources

The projects that are being recommended can be found on this list: https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=14072588&GUID=04CA7ECC-1452-4777-86E5-4CC29ECE0771 

Here is a breakdown of how those monies will be spent:

CIP Categories

There was then a presentation on the projects for 2025-2026. Following that was what the Parks and Community Services Commission recommendation, which was that it concurred with Staff’s recommendation on funding of projects but requested that $250,000 go towards Westside park development. The Westside park development project is an existing project that has $250,000 of unspent funds.

Sethuraman then turned to the Five-Year CIP, which is a list of 102 projects that are either in the pipeline or are on a to do list and estimated to cost $93 million. Sethuraman said that Staff would be looking at the reality of having so many projects, their priority, and how soon they may be completed, especially if there is no funding source.

The next time we will see the 2025-2026 Budget come up will be at the May 12, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.

Public Comments. Flo Martin spoke about how far active transportation facilities have come since 2015. Several speakers requested a new crosswalk on Placentia at Center Street so people can safely access bus stops. They collected 125 signatures on a petition requesting the crosswalks. The crosswalk is a project on the CIP.

Jim Fitzpatrick spoke on the CAN waiver. He took exception to the City’s reading of the provisions of the CAN ordinance that gives an emergency exception (if voted on by a supermajority of the City Council) and the fact that it also requires that the City plan for replenishment of the exempted funds. He said that the City is required to declare a fiscal emergency and that there is no such thing as a partial waiver of the CAN. He went on to question what if the City is wrong and the economic downturn is worse? He stated that Staff is only giving the City one option and that more choices need to be given to the Councilmembers. He also said that Staff is preventing the City Council from hearing from the Commissions and Committees.

I agree there is no language in the CAN ordinance about a partial waiver. I think Staff is trying to say that they want to get a waiver so it can transfer some of the funds in the CAN account to the General Fund, so the City doesn’t have to take drastic steps, like laying off employees or dipping into reserves. In addition, there are two operative sections to the ordinance, and while both require a supermajority vote to enact, only one section applies to emergency exceptions. The City Council can elect to use the other section that is a nonemergency waiver and it will use that section for the next fiscal year. And to be clear, it doesn’t have to declare an emergency, it just has to recognize there has been a downturn in the economy, natural disaster, emergency, or other unforeseen circumstance. If it uses that provision, however, the City must plan to pay the funds back in the next fiscal year.

Next up was Ralph Taboada, who had written a thoughtful email to the City Council that can be found here: https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E3&ID=1288568&GUID=8F19E6BC-D056-45C0-AE55-DC46DA5A012D . He asked for clarification of the request for a full waiver versus a partial waiver. He said that in the past, the payment on the library bond had been counted towards the CAN.

Then it was my turn. I requested that one of the projects on that long CIP list be removed. It is the proposed signal at Belfast and Fairview Road that will cost the City around $600,000, but hasn’t had much work done on it, so the funds could be used for another project, as the funding comes from gas taxes. That signal isn’t wanted by the public, nor is it needed.

The next speaker supported the “reimagining” of Brentwood Park and requested that the City apply for grants to improve the park and playground.

Jake asked that the City not do its own study on joining the Orange County Power Authority because there is a study being done by the County that it could review instead.

Rick Huffman also spoke on removing/deferring the proposed Belfast signal.

Philip said he supports bike lanes with bollards. He also inquired about the Orange County Power Authority study.

Councilmember Questions and Comments.  Loren Gameros (District 2) asked the City Attorney whether the City had to declare an emergency to use the waiver provisions of the CAN ordinance. She explained the two different options under the ordinance, including the one that doesn’t involve making an emergency declaration. He also asked about the timing of finalizing the bond for Fire Station No. 2. Molina said it would likely come to the City Council in September or October, and the funding would be available 30-60 days afterwards. In terms of the cost, Sethuraman would not commit to coming in under $15 million.

Jeff Pettis (District 6) questioned the time it takes to get projects for businesses permitted and whether it impacts the way businesses think about locating here. He said he wants the City to look how to “get buttoned up in that regard.” He also wants to put together a task force to look at the loss of auto sales tax revenue. He then gave a presentation about Eastside Parks and noted there are facilities for kids, but there isn’t much for adults using the parks. He then said he had come up with an Eastside park challenge. He wants adult park equipment installed in each park, and the challenge will be to visit each park in one day and use the equipment. He said that Sethuraman thought the cost wouldn’t be astronomical, but Pettis didn’t give an estimate. He finished up with “Brentwood is going to get done.”

I’m not sure about the funding for adult exercise equipment. Perhaps there are grants the City can explore, but this is a pie-in-the-sky project that I doubt will get much traction until the City’s budget is showing a surplus again.

Mike Buley (District 1) acknowledged the City’s efforts in gathering input from its Commissions and Committees. He also asked about the partial deferral of the CAN and what the actual percentage is that Staff is requesting. Molina didn’t give a percentage, but said that for the current fiscal year, approximately $3.9 million would go towards projects. Buley questioned the project list and how long it takes projects to get done. Sethuramen said that 30-35% of the projects get done in a budget year and about 2/3rds of the projects get underway. He then requested when the CAN waiver is brought to the City Council for a vote, that it include a repayment plan.

Andrea Marr (District 3) thanked Sethuramen for the attachment of the Five-Year Capital Improvement program, which is the list of projects and a timeline for when the funds will be spent on them. She asked about the gas tax money and whether we have a surplus. Sethuraman said the money was close to being used up, but didn’t specify how much that was. She told the City Manager that the next time it comes up, she wants to talk about doing something about the street sweeping contract. Like what? More from me on that later. 

Marr also stated that the ambulance program is making excess revenue and asked if the excess could be dedicated to future fire station upgrades. Molina said that the ambulance, despite bringing in $7.2 million per year, is no longer making excess revenue. Despite some resistance from Sethuraman, Marr expressed her desire to defer the golf course and tennis center projects in favor of painting and carpeting the Senior Center.

Arlis Reynolds (District 5) asked about the parks needs assessment that is being done, and will be ready early 2026. She requested that Brian Gruner, the Director of Parks and Community Services, describe the Parks and Community Services Commission’s endeavor to make recommendations on parks-related CIP projects. She asked about private donors funding projects. Sethuraman indicated that this is helpful in large projects, such as the library, but that not so much for smaller ones. She had a long list of items that she wants to add to the CIP projects.

Manuel Chavez (District 4) said that we have first responders to serve the public. He said he wants the City to be more responsive to businesses. He wants houses to be built faster to increase property tax revenue. Chavez always wants to raise the fees at the Costa Mesa Tennis Center. He spoke on the shortage of parks throughout Costa Mesa. Chavez agreed with something brought up by Reynolds in that parts of the College Park neighborhood have parking problems, and he wants the City to create more parking. He said he would accept the deferral of the Westside improvement project.

I find it interesting that he wants housing built as quickly as possible, but then fails to recognize because of the State taking away parking mandates associated with parking, that a lack of parking will result. The State continues to weaken parking mandates, yet it completely ignores that good quality public transit is nonexistent in many neighborhoods and it isn’t providing funding for that.

Gameros returned for a comment about street sweeping. He showed a video of a street sweeper going around cars as it swept the street. He claims that allocating money to pay for street sweeping is not a good use of funds when all of the street isn’t being swept. He also asked if the golf course is profitable for the City. Molina responded it brings in about $3.5 million per year. [NOTE: she only partially answered his question. She didn’t say if the expenses to run it exceeds that.] He went on to say that since the golf course makes money (he assumed that it does), then the City should be spending $400,000 in tenant improvements that was on the deferral list, and asked Staff about borrowing that amount. Molina stated that a loan would be an additional General Fund hit.

First, put up signs and issue tickets to scofflaws on street sweeping days. The fact that cars are in the way isn’t the fault of the guy driving the street sweeper. Issuing more tickets is how Laguna Beach intends to partially make up its revenue shortfall. But then see how that goes over with your constituents.

John Stephens (Mayor) asked Staff to come back at the next meeting with a series of things. First was data on six years of collections at the golf course, ten years of expenditures at the golf course, then starting at 2009, what funds were taken out of a “golf course fund” that was supposedly set aside for golf course improvements. He thinks that there has been $3-$4 million taken out of that fund and deposited into the General Fund. He went on to say how proud he is of the condition of our streets and our high rating.

Stephens then turned to the claims that are filed against the City that pop up in the Consent Calendar for each City Council meeting. There is virtually no information about these claims other than the names of those making the claims. As I understand it, these are often injuries or damages that are suffered on City property, and the injured party is seeking payment for their expenses, etc. Stephens gave the example of a tree that falls over or someone trips on tree roots. The City Clerk is given the option to reject the claims. He asked that Staff provide the cost of maintaining trees because he feels we may need to spend more to avoid these claims.

Stephens asked about the CAN deferrals and received confirmation that this year’s CAN waiver would be $2.9 million, and then asked about the estimated amount for 2025-2026 to be waived. That amount will be $6.6 million. OUCH! That means for these two years, we’d be $9.5 million under the CAN. He discussed the waiver language of the ordinance and the fact that a repayment plan may be necessary and asked that Staff and/or the City Attorney bring back more information on its interpretation of the ordinance and the timing of required events.

Stephens asked Staff to provide information about contracts for outsourced labor, and that consideration should be given to canceling those so more CIP projects can be restored to the budget. Molina felt that would require considerable administrative work. Sethuramen explained that the contracts are for current projects, not future projects, so cutting those contracts would involve cutting a project that was in the works. The City Manager added that cutting those contracts would likely hurt Council priorities.

STAY TUNED BECAUSE THE MAY 6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE INTERESTING. Spoiler Alert: The City Manager was fired! 

APRIL 28 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. All Commissioners were present. There were no public comments, and the majority of the Commissioners’ comments were about the Earth Day event at City Hall.

There was only one Public Hearing, the Conditional Use Permit for a 47-Unit Single Room Occupancy Motel Conversion at 2205 Harbor Boulevard. Commissioner Angely Andrade had to recuse herself because she lives next door. This item is for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a 47-unit single room occupancy (SRO) motel conversion. Forty-two of the units would be single occupancy, four would be double occupancy, and one would be for the onsite manager to occupy. Ordinarily, this is something that the City would partner with a nonprofit to do, but in this case, it is being brought by a private party, a doctor with philanthropic desires, and with enough money to afford to buy the property and rent it out.

Scott Drapkin, Assistant Development Services Director, gave a presentation.

The Commissioners had questions about the bike rack requirements, the parking indemnification form, affordable housing reporting requirements, social services on the property (there will be no services offered). Jon Zich dug into the Property Management Plan (PMP), which was a messy, pieced -together document that had conflicting provisions. He also asked about the project conforming to the Housing Element, the possible overflow of parking, the layout of the units, and occupancy limitations. Zich obviously did his homework because he then asked about the list of agencies and nonprofits in the PMP, and specifically their role and possible funding of the project. Drapkin answered that it is pretty much the same as any project, and no funding is coming from the City. Zich then questioned why, contrary to City policy, that the project was not brought to a prehearing or study session. Drapkin didn’t really have an answer to that, so he said it was probably because Staff felt it could get the project approved in one shot.

Applicant’s Presentation. The applicant, Dr. Nikan Khatibi of Ahura Investments LLC attended by Zoom. He responded to some of the questions the Commissioners had about case managers (those would be coming from offsite to visit clients), about furnishings, utilities, smoking area, and a bunch of questions about the confusing and conflicting provisions of the PMP. Rob Dickson asked some very specific questions about the relationship of the landlord to the service providers and received clarification that he seemed to accept.

Public Comment. Ashley Anderson voiced her support of the project and about the issues that those who need very low-income housing face. I asked questions about the source of the tenants since the applicant is involved in the treatment of substance abuse and pointed out to Staff that the bus bench near the project is old, uncovered, and needs to be replaced. Rick Huffman asked about whether a tenant must be referred from a nonprofit, or if anyone could apply to live there.

The applicant responded to the last question that his organization would be primarily accepting referrals from the nonprofits, but would not be discriminating against anyone who simply approached them.

David Martinez made a motion to approve the Staff recommendation, but added several conditions of approval to add policies provided in the City ordinance and to add items in the PMP that needed clarification. It was seconded by Chair Jeff Harlan. Zich spoke about the reasons he could not support the project, because it does not comply with the City Council policy on SROs. He felt the PMP was basically a draft and needed to cleaned up. Dickson also voiced concern with the draft condition of the PMP, but ultimately supported the project. The motion passed on a 5-1 vote, with Zich voting No.

APRIL 29 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS MEETING.  We attended the meeting at Estancia High School. Police Chief Ron Lawrence and Fire Chief Dan Stefano, Emergency Operations Manager Delcie Hynes were in attendance, along with Paul Schoenberger of Mesa Water District, and lots of City personnel, fire personnel, and police cadets. Councilmember Arlis Reynolds also attended.

Here is a summary of the notes I took: There was a presentation about the January fires in Pacific Palisades and Altadena. For the first 36 hours, the focus was on preserving lives versus saving property. They worked nonstop for those 36 hours and were on the lines for 12 days. The City has three apparatuses that are assigned for mutual aid (we get reimbursed). Because of the change in the State fire map to add areas in Fairview Park and Talbert Park as hazard zones, the City may need to look at updating building and other codes. The residents must urge the City to do this. The Fire Department is already aware of the hazard status in those parks and will not need to make changes to its operations.

We have enough water, hydrants, and backup generators to provide sufficient water in a fire emergency. We would get mutual aid from other cities in a fire emergency or something like a riot at the Fairgrounds. The biggest thing we have to worry about is if an earthquake or hurricane hit us directly. That’s where being prepared comes in.

The City Emergency Operations had a lot of great information and checklists on hand, as did the Police and Fire Departments. The Water Department had a really cool, flexible and unbreakable glass it had just received for giveaways (get one!).

Tip of the night: scan your important documents and put them on a thumb drive you give to someone who does NOT live nearby. FEMA won’t give money to folks who don’t prove they need or deserve it.

If you haven’t attended one of these events, there are a few more coming, and it is well worth the time!