CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 1 MEETING: Mayor John Stephens was not in the chambers due to an illness. He also was not in chambers for the September 17 meeting, also due to an illness. The meeting was run by Mayor Pro Tem Jeffrey Harlan, who moved into the Mayor’s chair for the evening. Council Member Manuel Chavez moved into Harlan’s Pro Tem chair for some reason (are they attached at the hip?). This was a light agenda with only one public hearing and one new business Item.
NEW BUSINESS: AMENDMENTS TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH SPIN AND FAMILIES FORWARD TO EXPAND EVICTION PREVENTION SERVICES FOR COSTA MESA RESIDENTS. This concerned the reallocation of funds for the City’s program under its Just Cause Residential Tenant Protections ordinance. There are two parts to the program and the part that appropriates funds to Serving People in Need (SPIN) and Families Forward needed adjustment because fewer households were requesting supplemental financial assistance for no-fault evictions than anticipated. Out of the $300k that was allocated, $293k was leftover. The City amended the agreements with the intent of helping those earning below 50% of the average median income and who are at imminent risk of eviction due to nonpayment of rent. The maximum amount received by each household would be $10k over a maximum term of 6 months. Since the funding came from ARPA, if the funds didn’t get used, they would have to be returned to the federal government, so doing the reallocation made sense. Once these funds run out, the program will end unless the City finds other funding. Chavez made a motion to approve, which was seconded by Council Member Andrea Marr. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: BEEKEEPING ORDINANCE. The draft ordinance presented by Stephanie Selinske of the Costa Mesa Police Department was modeled after the ordinance adopted by the City of Fullerton. There was a subcommittee of the Animal Services Committee that first drafted an ordinance. Police Department personnel who handle animal services revised that draft ordinance, resulting in the one presented to the City Council. The Animal Services Committee’s beekeeping subcommittee produced a report that was given to Staff, but it wasn’t included in the Agenda Report for this item, but was included in a written public comment, a redline of that committee’s changes from Fullerton’s ordinance, a redline of the changes made to the proposed ordinance by the Police Department, and a sample of a best practices manual.
It would have been nice to have the pertinent documents included in Animal Services Committee’s minutes for March 2023 The transparency of our City committees is almost nonexistent, with the Fairview Park Steering Committee being the lone exception. In addition, our City needs to do better to avoid violations of the Brown Act, which have almost become routine. This means providing the public with the same documents it gives to Council and Commission members.
Back on topic, the basics of the ordinance presented by Officer Selinske were:
Limited to R-1 properties of more than 3,000 sq ft, with a 3,000 sq ft property permitted to have one hive (properties over 7,000 sq ft could have two).
Bees must be domesticated honeybees kept in movable frames.
Fee would have to be paid by the beekeeper for a permit that would last two years.
Notification of neighbors would be required and posting of signage notifying anyone entering the property.
Permit could be denied if a neighbor of the beekeeper submitted proof of a medical allergy.
Much of this is consistent with the permit required to raise chickens. The City Council asked questions of Staff. After public comments, Council Member Loren Gameros made a motion to:
NOT require applicants to attend a beekeeping course.
NOT require signage.
Lower the fee (despite the fee not being disclosed).
Allow beekeeping in R2 zoning.
NOT limit the hives due to square footage.
That motion was seconded by Council Member Don Harper. Council Member Arlis Reynolds asked for amendments to include grandfathering current beekeepers and a six-month compliance window upon discovery of a nonpermitted hive. She also wanted modification to the language about denial of an application.
Stephens made comments, including words to the effect that he thought Gameros’s motion was a bridge too far, because if there is a legitimate health issue (i.e., bee sting allergy) of a neighboring property owner, then there shouldn't be beekeeping. He said we shouldn’t kid ourselves; there are people that are allergic to bees and could die if they got stung. I believe all of that is absolutely true, but then he went on to say, “I think it would be irresponsible for anybody to vote for an ordinance that didn't allow there to be scrutiny of the health risk of a neighbor.” That’s kind of ironic given his desire to have no boundaries on cannabis retail operations.
The motion passed 7-0. The ordinance will return for another hearing, likely another first hearing since there are so many changes to what was presented. Look for it in mid-November.
PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 2024 MEETING: This was a meeting where the Planning Commissioners actually looked at projects OTHER THAN CANNABIS RETAIL STORES! All the Commissioners, except Johnny Rojas of District 2, were present. There were three Public Hearings that took nearly four hours to get through:
1. PLANS FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF FIRE STATION 2 ON BAKER STREET. The existing station, built in 1966, has passed its lifetime of service and is well overdue for replacement. Along with a master plan for the new station, a minor conditional use permit was needed for the temporary structures to house fire department personnel and equipment during construction. This station will remain operational during construction. A motion was made by Chair Adam Ereth and seconded by Commissioner Russell Toler. The project was approved by a unanimous vote.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VALET PARKING AT PLAYA MESA RESTAURANT AND PEET’S COFFEE. This restaurant on 17th Street has been using a valet parking service for about 4 years because it's hard for customers to find a place to park during peak hours, and with valet parking it has been able to fit more cars on the lot. The CUP legalizes an operation that the owners of the property are already doing, which came to the attention of the City through a code enforcement complaint. The valet service, costing $5 per car (unless you are a Peet’s customer), will be provided by Streamline Valet Inc. If you have a problem, you cannot take it up with the restaurant; you will need to address it with that service. In addition, if folks decide to skip the valet and park in the neighborhoods or adjacent lots, the City would be encumbered with revisiting this plan and forcing the restaurant owner to make changes (such as not charging a fee).
A motion was made by Chair Ereth and seconded by Commissioner Toler. The project was approved by a vote of 5-1, with Commissioner Jon Zich voting “No.” Chair Ereth justified his motion because it would benefit the business. While there is no such thing as “free parking,” (and if you haven’t already, read one of the books about this by Donald Shoup) but I do worry about the impacts on the surrounding neighborhood by those who skip the valet, and the fact that the recipient of the CUP isn’t required to self-police.
3. REVIEW OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT AT WESTEND ON WEST 19TH STREET. While there were three names on the application, one of them being ROLAND BARRERA, it was disclosed by a member of the public in her comments that none of the applicants run the day-to-day operations of the business. Apparently, that is handled by the girlfriend of one of the owners.
Again, there is no such thing as “free parking,” so this restaurant? bar? wants to expand its serving space outdoors by removing all but one space of existing disabled parking. The applicant has an agreement with the owner of 1945 Placentia around the corner (where the Electric Bike Co. and BrandAmp are located) to use 17 parking spaces, but there is no current plan to provide valet service. Evidently, there are discussions between the two property owners to create a gateway between the two properties, which would eliminate a walk around the corner for the customers, but that gateway is not shown on any of the plans. There is a contract between the two parties, but that was not provided to the public. Expanding the service area also comes with expanding the hours of service and allowing live entertainment on the outdoor stage.
The specifics of the project include increasing the outdoor dining area by more than 50%; allowing the outdoor dining area to encroach into the setback by three feet; and removing more than 25% (two of three spaces) of parking. The live entertainment and alcohol service would continue after 11:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. There is no restriction on the use of amplification, other than a sound plan, which includes regular readings. The applicant intends to “utilize all areas for live and DJ music coupled with roaming Mariachi’s and performance art.” The applicant will install an approximately 7 ft high “partial” wall (some of which is metal mesh and some of which is wood siding) on the east side of the property and 16 ft high stucco wall on the west side of the property to try to stop the noise from drifting that direction, but will it?
WHY WAS THIS APPEALED? After the presentation by Staff, Chair Ereth voiced concerns about the request for review that was filed by Council Member Don Harper, stating that it “promulgated” the second look at the application (I believe he meant “prompted”). He also expressed some confusion over whether Harper’s concerns about the parking were over the current situation, but the review request said the surrounding businesses WOULD be impacted. Since the applicant had not been granted the CUP yet, I don’t understand the origin of Ereth’s confusion. Perhaps having to think about more than a cannabis application was too taxing for him. Clearly, Harper’s concerns are about the impacts going forward. However, it is important to note that this is a “de novo” hearing, which means ALL the impacts of the project, not just the parking, were up for review.
Before the meeting, I asked WHAT CAN GO WRONG? Many of my concerns were also expressed in the comments by nearby residents and business owners. The owner and manager of Vista Center across the street wrote letters in opposition because they are concerned there will continue to be drunks crossing 19th Street to get to their illegally parked vehicles. That is a valid concern. Other speakers expressed concerns about noise from the activities at the establishment and from the customers coming and going.
CONFUSION AND LOTS OF DISCUSSION. From the time this item came up to the time when the motion was finally voted on, nearly two hours passed. The Commissioners asked many questions of Staff and the applicant. When asked by Commissioner David Martinez about what happened between the time of the notice of the Zoning Administrator’s decision and the proceedings of that evening, part of Assistant Development Services Director Scott Drapkin’s answer included a statement that, after receiving negative letters from the neighbors of the project, the City “Staff pursued meeting with those neighbors and trying to find a common place for where they would be okay with the project approval . . . At that point, we didn't, we weren't making any real progress towards that. I spoke to the applicants about that, and then, the applicant gave it a shot as well. They did not make any progress also and then that sort of got us to about that third month period where we're trying to write a report look at what we can do. And then here we are today.” I found it interesting that City Staff tried to intervene between the applicant and the neighbors to mediate their disputes and come up with a solution. Frankly, I don’t think this is something that Staff should be doing, as their time is better spent elsewhere, but when the applicant was requested to speak on the project, I got a better picture of why that was.
One of the owners, Tyler Hertzske, attempted to speak about the project, but he was fairly disjointed (pun intended) and slow to impart information, much like his applicant letter. Frankly, he seemed a bit impaired to me, but I admit I got caught up in counting the number of times he said “you know” and “like, yeah” (way too many times). He stated that he has been gone for the past two years or so working on other projects. How do you give testimony on a project that clearly isn’t something you are focused on? Blow smoke rings?
Despite the late hour, there was about 30 minutes of public comment, many of whom are nearby residents and business owners. Hertzske said that most of the comments were not about his business. I don’t think he listened very closely. Apparently, the instructions to clients to not park in the Vista Center are done by “stories” on social media, some of which, according to Mr. Hertzske only last 24 hours before they disappear. I don’t see how that achieves the effect of restricting customer parking to Westend’s lot.
In attempting to resolve some of the noise concerns, Toler suggested that the City require signage instructing patrons to be quiet and respect the neighbors, including the nearby neighborhood where the parking permit districts are currently ignored by the customers of these bars. Chair Ereth expressed the thought that the CUP gives the City the power to enforce the conditions of approval. But will it?
Toler also expressed the idea that no one after a night of drinking should be driving. That is 100% true, but in practice, we can’t assume that everyone will not get in their car. In fact, in 2021, the CMPD made 1,026 DUI arrests involving motor vehicle incidents, so a better assumption would be that folks DO drive drunk and that only some of them get caught. The City has the ability and right to try to protect its citizens and visitors and this inclination to not involve government in protecting others’ lives lacks foresight. I wonder why someone would be on the Planning Commission, a governmental body, when they are antigovernment. SMH!
Commissioner Zich stated that “hope is not a strategy.” That seems to be all the residents are left with though. They can hope for a night of sleep uninterrupted by someone being loud in front of their residence. They can hope they don’t find vomit and trash on their street, left by someone who over-imbibed. They can hope the drunk crossing 19th Street to his illegally parked car won’t be hit by a car. They can just hope.
A motion was made by Martinez to approve the project, with modifications to the conditions of approval to limit the hours of operation and live music performance. There will also be a six-month review on the CUP for this establishment. The Planning Commission also applied the same restriction to a bar on Randolph Street, which means now we have a pattern of giving bars free reign for six months or until the complaints pile up. Commissioner Karen Klepack spoke as to why the Findings were incorrect. The motion passed 4-2, with Zich and Klepack voting “No.” Hope springs eternal, but I’m going to hold my breath for six months on this one.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON OCTOBER 15, 2024: All of the City Council members were present, as Mayor John Stephens had recovered from his illness. As I predicted, the City Attorney did not report on any of the sober living homes cases, particularly the one on the Closed Session Agenda. I understand there is a log jam with one of the Superior Court Judges, however, it would be nice to get at least a status report every three months so the residents can learn of the actions taken that result in all those legal fees the City is paying on our behalf. There were no Public Hearings or Old Business on the Agenda, but there were four New Business Items:
1. RECEIVE AND FILE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR FIRE STATION 2 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT. See my comments on this same topic under the Planning Commission meeting above. Upon a motion to receive and file made by Stephens and seconded by Gameros, the motion passed unanimously.
2. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DUDEK FOR CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN (CAAP). Why does the City need a CAAP? While cities aren’t required to adopt CAAPs, the chance of getting funding for climate-related projects is much greater if a city does have one. The scope of work (what the contractor will be doing for the City) is lengthy and likely fulfills grant requirements. Here are a few points from the Staff Presentation to the City Council:
CAAPs include strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels, increased heat, droughts, and wildfires.
CAAPs help address State legislation requiring cities address climate change and adaptation, such as SB 32, which requires a 40% reduction to 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutral by 2045, and housing and climate change requirements.
CEQA requires analysis of a project’s GHG emissions. On a project-by-project basis, such analysis can be complicated and costly, the CAAP provides a streamlined cumulative impacts analysis for CEQA purposes.
That last bullet point will be important when it comes to projects such as the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan, all the zoning changes required by Measure K, and the zoning changes anticipated by the Housing Element update. This tells me the City may intend to lump all these changes into one big environmental impact report that includes the GHG analysis. This can either be helpful (in terms of getting grants), or it can be a big smokescreen when the residents look at the impacts of these projects/zoning changes.
The CAAP will build on some of the other measures that the City is taking toward climate impact reduction, such as increasing walkability and bikeability, decreasing the dependence on fossil fuels, etc. It will also identify the most vulnerable areas in Costa Mesa and identify what steps can be taken to remedy the problems that exist in those areas.
The contract with Dudek includes a two-year term, with two one-year renewals, for a total of $418,625 for consulting services. The City also requested authorization for a ten percent (10%) contingency of $41,862 for unforeseen costs. This also includes Authorize a budget adjustment of $300,000 from the Capital Improvement Fund (401) fund balance and $50,000 from the SoCal Gas Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Grant.
Council Member Arlis Reynolds had many questions and comments. This is obviously in her wheelhouse, as it is for Council Member Andrea Marr. Reynolds moved to approve Staff’s recommendation, but asked that the scope of work for the contract be amended to require the consultant to (i) conduct individual meetings with Council Members during the visioning phase to get input on potential and priority measures; (ii) provide the City Council with a mid-project update at the completion of these milestones: (a) the GHG inventory and wedge analysis, (b)vulnerability assessment, and (c) the selection of the emissions reduction and adaptation measures; (iii) initiate the public engagement no later than April 2025; (iv) require any of the marketing materials to adhere to sustainability principles and be sourced through Costa Mesa businesses; and (v) work with the Staff to determine whether any interim deliverables are needed to leverage key grant funding opportunities.
The motion by Reynolds to approve was seconded by Marr. The motion passed by a 6-1 vote, with Council Member Don Harper voting “No.”
This was possibly the most interesting item I’ve seen come before the City Council in a long time. I could author an entire essay on the importance of the CAAP, but if you get a chance, watch that part of the meeting. There will also be updates on the City’s sustainability webpage, which is found here: https://www.costamesaca.gov/government/departments-and-divisions/public-works/sustainability
3. HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS TO FACILITATE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. This item was supposed to take up an entire Study Session in September until that meeting was canceled. The presentation by Staff included an update on progress towards meeting our RHNA, a status of the 47 Housing Element programs, and improvements to processing in the Development Services department.
From October 2021 forward, 3,060 housing units were either built or were in the pipeline. This does not include the units at Fairview Developmental Center that will be between 2,300 and 4,000 units. This contradicts Council Member Jeffrey Harlan’s assertion that no units have been built after the passage of Measure Y (and no, this isn't because of Measure K, because that rezoning has not happened yet).
A few things were learned from the presentation that weren’t included in the Agenda Report and attachments. The first is to expect to see a study session in late 2024 and early 2025 with the Planning Commission on the concepts and feedback received from the last public meeting (notice I didn’t say outreach meeting) on the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan, along with a feasibility analysis of those concepts. After that, the City will begin its CEQA analysis. Also, the City is conducting an assessment of fair housing for a report on the impacts and impediments to fair housing. The focus of that effort is on rental housing for low-income households. However, there was no mention of the sober living homes, which the State sued the City over. Yes, some of those Closed Session lawsuits involve fair housing.
The presentation included an appreciation of the planning department staff, which includes new hires, some of whom have been working as consultants to the City for some time. However, the work anticipated by the Housing Element and its 47 programs requires the hiring of a consultant because the City is not staffed to handle that work.
As the Agenda report concluded: “This is an informational item regarding Housing Element implementation progress, organizational resources, and staffing updates related to housing development. Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this report and provide feedback.” And that is what happened.
Too much time was spent by Harlan and Chavez complaining about how long projects take, despite the comment earlier by Stephens about the need to get projects right and to get them right, it takes time. Not all the time that is consumed by a project is the fault of the City; there are architects, engineers, etc. that have to produce plans, surveys, environmental reports, etc.; and getting a loan once the developer determines the feasibility and approximate cost of the project. It might be helpful if the City Council got a tutorial on the business aspect of housing development.
Harlan wants to take resources from other projects and focus only on the rezoning. No mention was made of Stephens’s planning advisory committee that he professed interest in a few months back, but then he rarely follows up on things that help the residents.
4. ACCEPTANCE OF PART 1 OF THE STORM DRAIN MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN (SDMDP) UPDATE. You may recall the entire Storm Drain Master Plan was to come before the City Council Agenda a few months back but was pulled right before the meeting. Only Part 1 returned to this meeting. Part 1 is an assessment of the existing conditions, along with information on what might be done to alleviate problems, and a prioritization of the areas that need improvement. While there is a lot of data and analysis here, Part 1 does not tell us what the City plans to do about our storm drain issues; that should be contained in Part 2 (once we see it).
What little information given about Part 2 is that the projects needed to fix the flood control problems in the City will cost about $94m. Yes, $94 million!! That doesn’t include addressing water quality problems (removing solid waste from the water going into storm drains). That’s another $12.5 m. Then there is replacing old, corrugated metal pipes. Add another $7.5m. Total? $112m. While these projects won’t be done all at one time and likely will qualify for grant money, it is still an “Ouch!”
Reynolds moved to accept the SDMDP Part 1 with corrections to correct the locations where the City discharges to reflect that besides the Santa Ana River, it also discharges to Talbert Regional Park, the Randall Preserve, and the Santa River Corridor which contain environmental mitigation sites and sensitive habitat areas; and revise the environmental restrictions to add that some downstream discharge areas contain environmental mitigation sites and sensitive habitat areas. The motion was seconded by Chavez. The motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 28, 2024 MEETING: There was only one item on the agenda, so this meeting was over very quickly.
DESIGN REVIEW OF A RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION AT 146 ROCHESTER STREET. The owner of the property wishes to divide the parcel into two lots, tear down the existing 894 sq ft cottage and 361 sq ft garage built in about 1923, and replace it with two two-story residences having about 2,400 sq ft of living space and two car garages. The project complies with the zoning requirements, and the Planning Commissioners had few questions before approving the project by a vote of 6-0 (Commissioner Klepack was absent). Some of them, Martinez and Toler included, took the extra time to get up on their soap boxes.
The new Director of Economic and Development Services, Carrie Tai, was at the meeting and by now should have her feet under her.
The next scheduled meeting for the Planning Commission would be Monday, November 11, but that is Veterans Day, so it is canceled. The City Council should meet on Tuesday, November 12.
Comentarios