FEBRUARY 2026 CITY HALL UPDATE
- Cynthia McDonald
- Mar 25
- 34 min read
Updated: Mar 26
February was a busy month! We’ve already reported on the February 9 Planning Commission meeting because of the surprise withdrawal by Segerstrom of its properties from the Housing Element. Here’s an update on the rest of the month:
Council and Committee Meetings:
City Council held two meetings;
Planning Commission met twice;
Active Transportation Committee met once;
Fairview Park Steering Committee held one meeting; and
Finance and Pension Advisory Committee was scheduled to meet, but that meeting was canceled.
FEBRUARY 4 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING. All Committee members were present except Robert Morse and Joselyn Perez. Also in attendance were Fire Chief Jason Pyle, Police Lieutenant Stephanie Selinkse, and Council Liaison Arlis Reynolds.
PUBLIC COMMENT. Resident Ralph Taboada addressed the Committee regarding several topics, including the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, the capital improvement project budget, and the need for improvements to certain past bicycle projects. He also commented on the Newport‑Mesa Unified School District Board’s proposal to ban electric bicycles on school campuses.
COMMITTEE MEMBER/LIAISON COMMENTS:
Michael Moses Nolf suggested that the Committee consider advocating against the proposed e‑bike ban and asked questions about the use of cycle‑track separator bollards.
Flo Martin discussed traffic crash data, related media coverage, and potential enforcement tools, including red‑light cameras.
Andrew Barnes expressed opposition to adopting additional ordinances, emphasizing instead the importance of allocating adequate enforcement resources.
Sarah Coley, the NMUSD liaison, provided an update on the school district’s policy discussions, including bicycle safety education efforts and the review of existing policies.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A motion to approve the minutes of the December 3, 2025 meeting was made by Martin and seconded by Farhad Khosravi, with an amendment to correct the record regarding a member’s absence. The motion passed unanimously by a 6‑0 vote.
NEW BUSINESS. The Police Department delivered a presentation covering traffic collision statistics, the school district’s proposed e‑bike regulations, and the Department’s traffic safety program. Traffic incident and citation statistics are available on the City’s website: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/62400/639059684736470000
Paul Martin, the City’s Transportation Services Manager, also presented an overview of CalTrans’s role in the Costa Mesa roadway network.
OLD BUSINESS: The scheduled discussion regarding the Committee’s goals and objectives was postponed to the March meeting.
FEBRUARY 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. At this meeting, the items acted on were:
Adoption of Ordinance Amending Small Lot Ordinance (SLO) (Title 13 of Costa Mesa Municipal Code) to Allow Ministerial Approval Of Two-Unit SLO Projects
Ordinance Requiring Staffing at Self-Service Checkout Stations at Retail Food Businesses
Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Status and Outreach Update
Operations Agreement for Lions Park Café
Code of Ethics and Conduct
All Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Mike Buley (District 1), who was absent due to a medical emergency.
City Attorney Closed Session Report. City Attorney Kimberly Hall Barlow reported that the City Council, on a motion by Andrea Marr and a second by Loren Gameros, voted to direct the City Attorney to commence litigation against an unnamed party. The motion passed 5–0, with Mayor John Stephens and Councilmember Buley absent.
Note that Dennis D'Alessio spoke in public comments at the beginning of the Closed Session about his desire to reach a settlement in his case with the City. His cases have gone on for years, costing the taxpayers a lot in attorneys’ fees, so I have to ask, “Why doesn’t the City pursue this?”
Public Comment. Three speakers addressed the Council during public comment:
Flo Martin expressed appreciation for the City’s rideshare program, voiced support for Senate Bill 720 regarding red‑light traffic cameras, and requested that the City install cameras at the intersection of 19th Street and Newport Boulevard.
Steve Smith spoke in support of the Harbor Soaring Society remaining at Fairview Park, stating that the park is intended for the residents of Costa Mesa, not for the birds.
Dr. Nikan Khatibi, who is redeveloping the former Mesa Motel on Harbor Boulevard, requested City assistance to complete the project, specifically seeking gap funding or other forms of financial support.
Councilmember Comments. Arlis Reynolds (District 5) addressed several issues, including safety concerns along Newport Boulevard, noting that Caltrans has been asked to address those issues. She reported that Costa Mesa was not selected to receive red‑light cameras, and requested updates on:
Two potential ballot measures that are under review by the Finance and Pension Advisory Committee,
Status of additional bus shelters funded by the City,
Urban canopy and tree‑cover assessment scheduled for presentation to the Parks Commission, and
Progress on the Arts and Culture Master Plan.
Jeff Pettis (District 6) emphasized the importance of maintaining City infrastructure and ensuring responsive public safety services.
Loren Gameros (District 2) emphasized the importance of maintaining City infrastructure and ensuring responsive public safety services.
Andrea Marr (District 3) asked about the community garden waitlist and potential ways to reduce wait times. She also raised concerns about bicyclists riding over hills at Wilson Park, creating safety issues for pedestrians, and commented on efforts to expand the coastal marine protected area in Laguna Beach.
Manuel Chavez (District 4) congratulated Interim Fire Chief Pyle, shared that he attended ribbon‑cutting ceremonies at the Orange County Fair Administration Building and Pacific Pearl Café, and recognized the peaceful protest at Harbor Boulevard and Wilson Street.
John Stephens (Mayor) congratulated Interim Fire Chief Pyle and provided an update on his participation in the U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Washington, D.C.
City Manager Comments. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly recognized the promotion of Jason Pyle to Interim Fire Chief, congratulated recent Police Department promotions, and noted that the department is currently at record staffing levels. She also reported on the expansion of the Let’s Go Costa Mesa rideshare service.
City Attorney Comments. Hall Barlow reported that a 30‑year‑old case, Becker v. Costa Mesa, was dismissed following a waiver of costs.
CONSENT CALENDAR. No items were pulled, so Chavez made a motion to approve the items, which was seconded by Marr. The vote was 6-0, with Buley absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: There was one public hearing item on the agenda. Although it was approximately 15 minutes before 7:00 p.m., the scheduled start time for public hearings, Stephens chose to proceed with the item while keeping the hearing open in case members of the public who arrived after 7:00 p.m. wished to speak.
1. Continuation of Ohio House Appeal of Planning Commission’s Decision To Uphold Decision to Deny Reasonable Accommodation Request for Sober Living Home. This item concerned the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the denial of a reasonable accommodation request for a sober living home. The applicant had previously continued the item; however, at this meeting Staff requested a continuance to April 21, 2026.
Stephens moved to approve the continuance. However, no public comment was taken, and no second was called for the motion, despite a 6–0 vote approving the continuance.
At approximately 7:45 p.m., when New Business items were announced, a member of the public requested the opportunity to comment on this item, specifically questioning why the appeal has been repeatedly delayed.
OLD BUSINESS: There were two items:
1. Adoption of Ordinance Amending Small Lot Ordinance (SLO) (Title 13 of Costa Mesa Municipal Code) to Allow Ministerial Approval Of Two-Unit SLO Projects. This item was the second reading of an ordinance amending Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to allow ministerial approval of two‑unit Small Lot Ordinance projects. The ordinance was previously approved at the January 20 City Council meeting.
Chris Yeager, Senior Planner, was present and available to answer questions from the Council; however, no questions were asked.
Public Comment. Two members of the public spoke, both requesting that the ordinance include a requirement for neighbor notification, citing concerns about potential project impacts.
Motion. Marr moved to approve the ordinance, with a second by Chavez. Pettis voiced opposition to the item, specifically noting the lack of a notification requirement.
The motion passed 5–1, with Pettis voting “No” and Buley absent.
2. Ordinance Requiring Staffing at Self-Service Checkout Stations at Retail Food Businesses. This ordinance was previously reviewed at the January 20 City Council meeting, during which several revisions were made prior to first reading. Key changes included restoring applicability language for large retail stores, removing the alternative compliance option, and requiring that notices of violation be delivered directly to local store management. While the stated intent of the ordinance is to improve safety and customer service, the changes may also reduce operational flexibility for businesses and potentially limit consumer choice.
Jay Barkman, Government Affairs Manager, delivered the staff presentation.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Reynolds referenced a document during Council discussion and asked Barkman to explain its contents. The document—recently distributed to Councilmembers but not to the public—compared provisions of the proposed ordinance with elements of a pending state bill, collective bargaining agreements, and other related regulatory frameworks (see below).
Reynolds noted that she would like to see the cure period extended to 15 days.
Stephens asked for an update on the status of the related state legislation. Barkman explained that the bill must be heard within the next 60 days or it will effectively fail. Stephens also asked how passage of the state bill would affect the City’s ordinance. Barkman responded that, as currently drafted, the bill does not preempt local regulations that are more restrictive, meaning the City’s ordinance would remain in effect.
Public Comment. There were six public comments; all but one were in opposition to the ordinance.
Motion. Reynolds moved to bring back the item for another reading and to make the following changes:
The cure period would be 15 days (instead of seven);
Make the effective date the 60th day after the passing of the ordinance (extended from 30 days);
Require signage indicating a limit of 15 items or fewer at self-checkout; and
Revise the in-store notification requirements for customers to eliminate reference to enforcement options (a QR code linking to the City’s webpage regarding the ordinance would be required).
Chavez seconded that motion. When he spoke about the motion, he reminded everyone that in one year the ordinance would return to the City Council for review. Pettis stated that initially he was opposed to the ordinance, but that he agrees with the changes made by Reynolds represents a compromise. The motion passed 6-0, with Buley absent.
This item returned for a second reading on February 17.
NEW BUSINESS: There were three new business items, but Marr requested that New Business Item 2 be moved ahead of Item 1 to allow the operator to speak.
2. Operations Agreement for Lions Park Café. Staff recommended awarding the Lions Park Café operating agreement to Neat Coffee. Brian Gruner, Parks and Community Services Director, delivered the presentation. A competing proposal was submitted by Everytable, which scored slightly lower than Neat Coffee. Neat Coffee’s proposal also included a discount program for library patrons and seniors.
Gruner noted that the operations agreement is still under negotiation, including proposed tenant improvements requested by Neat Coffee.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Reynolds asked which contract terms remained under negotiation. Gruner explained that discussions were ongoing regarding special events, including advance notice requirements, methods of notification, and related provisions. He emphasized the importance of maintaining flexibility in the agreement to accommodate public use and to help activate this area of Lions Park, which he stated would also discourage transient activity.
Stephens asked how the City’s 3% share of the café’s gross revenues would be used. Gruner responded that those funds would support maintenance of the Donald Dungan Library and the Mesa Verde Library. He also noted that 50% of the café’s net revenue would go to the Orange County Public Library system.
Public Comment. Several speakers expressed support for the item. Ralph Taboada asked whether the City currently maintains the two libraries or whether this would represent a new expense. Jenn Tanaka voiced support, stating that the café would provide residents with a new community gathering place in Costa Mesa.
Motion and Vote. Marr moved to approve the item with two changes:
Exempt the operator from any special use permit fees that activate Lions Park; and
Hours of operation shall not be limited to events coordinated with Staff that activate Lions Park.
That motion was seconded by Reynolds and passed on a vote of 6-0, with Buley absent.
1. Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) Status and Outreach Update. The CAAP outlines Costa Mesa’s long-term strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and strengthen climate resilience. Amber Gregg, Planning Consultant, and Anna McGill, Planning Manager, delivered the presentation. A consultant from Dudek was also in attendance. The project is progressing on schedule, with major technical analysis, interdepartmental coordination, and community engagement already underway. Staff is now seeking City Council feedback to help refine priorities and ensure the plan reflects community needs. The next step is to develop the policy. Examples of that policy were given on this slide:
Examples of actions to be taken are:
Once draft policies are completed, the CAAP will be presented at a public workshop scheduled for April.
Councilmember Questions. Reynolds asked how proposed actions would be prioritized. Gregg explained that actions would be evaluated primarily based on cost‑effectiveness, with larger or more complex projects requiring further analysis to determine implementation strategies and funding sources. She noted that staff and consultants have already identified key milestones for achieving plan objectives.
Marr focused her questions on data collection and whether the City could take credit for existing actions, such as bike lane construction, and how the CAAP would build upon those ongoing efforts.
Stephens asked about the plan’s reliance on grant funding, particularly given reduced federal funding and current State budget challenges. The consultant emphasized that the CAAP is intended to be a living document, implemented over many years, with the expectation that additional funding opportunities may become available over time.
Public Comment. Resident Craig Preston spoke in support of the CAAP, emphasizing the importance of addressing the impacts of climate change.
Councilmember Comments. Reynolds requested that relevant documents—such as the new fire hazard zone map—be incorporated into the Plan and encouraged the inclusion of workforce development and training programs.
Stephens acknowledged the work the City has already undertaken to address climate change but cautioned against mandates that could overburden the private sector, encouraging the use of incentives rather than requirements.
Motion. Stephens moved to receive and file the report, with a second by Marr. The motion passed 6-0, with Buley absent.
3. Code of Ethics and Conduct. For many years, residents have urged the City Council to adopt a Code of Ethics and Conduct to strengthen ethical governance and reinforce public trust in City leadership. This item previously came before the Council on July 8, 2025.
City Attorney Kimberly Hall Barlow delivered the presentation. At the July 8 meeting, the City Council directed staff and the City Attorney to discard the draft code previously prepared and instead develop a new Code modeled on those adopted by the Cities of Gardena and Irvine. In addition to incorporating numerous boilerplate provisions from the Gardena policy, the revised draft included several additional provisions below:
Councilmember Questions. Marr requested clarification regarding the lobbying provision. Hall Barlow explained that the provision applies only to paid lobbyists. However, significant confusion arose during the discussion. Stephens questioned whether the provision would apply to attorneys representing clients with projects before the City, while Chavez expressed concern that it could restrict his work for another public agency.
Hall Barlow clarified that employment with another public agency would be permitted under the proposed language. However, City employees would be prohibited from being paid to lobby other public agencies on behalf of third parties. Lobbying on one’s own behalf, or on behalf of one’s employer, would not be restricted. She acknowledged that several provisions in the draft were inconsistent or unclear, attributing this to what she described as a “Frankenstein’s monster” created by combining language from multiple ethics codes adopted by other cities.
There was also discussion regarding conflicts of interest, which Hall Barlow noted are already governed by the Political Reform Act.
Marr concluded her questions by moving to defer the item to a future meeting, stating that she had substantial changes she wished to propose and preferred to work with the City Attorney outside the meeting. The motion was seconded by Reynolds.
Before proceeding to the vote, Stephens requested that all the Councilmembers' questions be addressed. Reynolds then asked whether traveling to Sacramento to advocate for legislation would constitute lobbying. Hall Barlow responded that it would not. Reynolds followed up by asking whether requesting support from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) would be considered lobbying because the AQMD has an office in Los Angeles County. Hall Barlow explained that such activity would not be permitted under the ordinance if it involved paid lobbying on behalf of a third party, but would be allowable if conducted on behalf of oneself or one’s employer.
Public Comment. I spoke in support of adopting a Code of Ethics and Conduct, emphasizing its importance in assuring residents that City officials are working for the common good, acting above reproach, and avoiding impropriety. I requested the inclusion of:
a nepotism clause,
mandatory disclosure of ex parte communications, and
timely reporting of corruption, including the public release of reports at the conclusion of investigations where permitted (such as the private investigator report commissioned by the former City Manager regarding alleged misconduct by Councilmembers).
I also requested that the Code be adopted annually at the first City Council meeting of each year.
Jay Humphrey spoke in support of the policy and requested the addition of a provision requiring Councilmembers to recuse themselves from items involving contributors who have made campaign donations during their time on the Council.
Craig Preston also expressed support for the policy, its annual adoption, and the importance of transparency.
Motion and Vote. Marr made a motion to postpone the item until the second meeting in February, but Stephens immediately requested an amendment because he felt he did not have enough time to research his changes. Marr changed the date to March 17, which made Stephens and the City Attorney happy. The motion had been seconded by Reynolds.
Speaking to the motion, Marr stated that her goal in advocating for a Code of Ethics and Conduct was to increase transparency and accountability for the public.
Chavez stated that he believed he would be among those most affected by the policy, expressing concern about how it might restrict his business dealings and post‑City employment. He noted that many of his professional opportunities arose because of his role as a City Councilmember and questioned how the policy might affect younger Commissioners or individuals seeking higher office. He also said he is on a lot of boards where he has had to recuse himself on certain items because he is a Council Member. Was he concerned about himself or the young Commissioners who are now running for public office?
Stephens requested that Councilmembers receive an editable version of the draft policy. He identified Section 7.a., Incompatible Employment or Service, as a potential “dealbreaker,” expressing concern that it could force Jeff Harlan, Chair of the Planning Commission, and an attorney, to resign due to the nature of his legal practice. Stephens argued that an attorney’s representation of clients could be construed as attempting to influence other governmental entities.
Stephens also requested that the Code include explicit references to other applicable ethics laws, and asked that defined terms be used consistently throughout the document. Long Beach has referred to other applicable ethical laws in its ethics policy.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0, with Buley absent.
Unfortunately, this item was not on the March 17 Agenda, so we must wait longer for the return of this policy.
FEBRUARY 11 FAIRVIEW PARK STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING. All Committee members were present, except Daniel Baume and Jose Toscano. Toscano has now missed more meetings than he has attended.
Also in attendance were:
Kelly Dalton, Fairview Park Administrator
Brian Gruener, Parks and Community Services Director
Seung Yang, City Engineer
Jason Komala, Parks and Community Services Commission Liaison, was present. Council Liaison Arlis Reynolds and Orange County Model Engineers Liaison Hank Castignetti were absent.
PUBLIC COMMENT. I spoke about the owner of Anduril, Palmer Luckey, flying a single-seat aircraft in Fairview Park. A video of the flight can be viewed here: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1865816864149689
I asked whether the flight was legal, and Staff confirmed that it was not. (See photo below.)
It remains unclear what action, if any, Staff intends to take. This incident further highlights the need for a full-time Park Ranger at Fairview Park.
Kim Hendricks spoke about the City’s contract with MIG to study an alternative location for the current flying field. The proposed site is on the east side of Fairview Park near the model train tracks. She asked whether the CEQA analysis would include this study and when the report would be available.
Hendricks also requested that Director Gruener accurately represent the Committee’s recommendations to the City Council regarding the Master Plan Update. In addition, she requested that Concerts in the Park be removed from Fairview Park.
The contract fee for the flying field study is for up to $25,000. Why isn’t Harbor Soaring Society paying for this?
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS.
Jennifer Thomas reported attending the Vernal Pool Walk and suggested that the event be held twice per year.
Terri Fuqua noted that many of the trails are currently impassible due to recent rain.
Jay Humphrey commented on the Palmer Luckey video, noting visible debris and significant air displacement. He observed that the video appeared to be edited and questioned whether the flight occurred over a habitat protection area. He emphasized the need for a full-time Park Ranger, stated that the City must take action, and asked whether the City received any revenue from a filming permit.
Kohl Crecelious asked Director Gruener whether the Luckey flight was legal. Gruener confirmed that it was not and added that he supports increased enforcement at Fairview Park.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A motion to approve the minutes from the December 10 meeting was made by Fuqua and seconded by Thomas. The motion passed on a 5–0 vote, with two members absent.
NEW BUSINESS: There was one item: the Annual Report to the City Council, scheduled for presentation on March 3.
Crecelious presented the draft report. Committee members and audience attendees provided suggestions and comments. The final presentation on March 3 incorporated many of these recommendations and was well received. Discussion also included potential park improvements and the future work of the Committee.
The City Council will need to review and approve a work plan before providing direction on any changes to the Committee’s scope of work.
A motion to approve the item was made by Bo Glover, seconded by Humphrey, and passed on a 5–0 vote, with two members absent.
ADMINISTRATOR’S UPDATE: Dalton provided an update on the Fairview Park Master Plan. The draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared in accordance with CEQA, is expected to be available in early March. A 30-day public review period will follow, after which the document will be revised based on comments received. The final version is anticipated to be presented to the City Council around June.
The Mesa Restoration Project has begun, following a brief delay due to a queen bee establishing a nest. The City is reviewing bids for the West Bluff Restoration Project and expects to select a contractor in March.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:12 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for April 8.
FEBRUARY 17 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. At this meeting, the items acted on were:
Ordinance Requiring Staffing at Self-Service Checkout Stations at Retail Food Businesses
Agreement With Bracken’s Kitchen for Kitchen Operations at Bridge Shelter
Urban Canopy and Land Assessment
Training Requirements for Elected and Appointed Officials
All Councilmembers were present.
City Attorney Closed Session Report. Kimberly Hall Barlow reported that she received direction from the City Council during closed session, but had nothing further to report publicly.
Public Comment. Eight members of the public addressed the Council. Key themes included:
Flock Safety Cameras: Several speakers raised concerns about the City’s use of Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras, citing reports that data collected in the City of Mountain View was accessed by out-of-state agencies. Speakers requested termination of Costa Mesa’s contract with Flock and removal of the cameras.
Civil Rights and Inclusion: Speakers expressed appreciation for City outreach efforts providing civil rights information and other actions aimed at keeping Costa Mesa safe and inclusive.
ICE Activity: Requests were made for the Police Department to document ICE activities occurring in Costa Mesa.
Public Safety Concerns: One resident testified about being threatened by an ICE agent at gunpoint and expressed ongoing concern for personal and community safety.
Use of City Funds: Speakers appreciated the City’s funding of outside assistance programs but raised concerns that some funds were not used for their intended purposes.
ICE Detainee Assistance: Appreciation was expressed for the City’s efforts to locate individuals taken by ICE.
Councilmember Comments. Arlis Reynolds (District 5) thanked City staff for assisting with community donations. She reported that the Active Transportation Committee is working on developing a standardized crash data report. She discussed the possibility of a “Costa Mesa Night” at the Orange County Soccer Club and relayed concerns from property owners about the impacts of Measure K. She stated that Costa Mesa does not share Flock Safety camera data with outside agencies, requested that the City Attorney confirm privacy protections, asked for an audit of the data, and stated she would support terminating the Flock contract if a data breach were found.
Jeff Pettis (District 6) spoke about concerns from the business community regarding the impacts of Measure K and the Housing Element on their properties. He complimented several City commissions for their work and encouraged continued public participation.
Mike Buley (District 1) explained his recent absences and recognized (now former) Finance Manager Carol Molina for providing information to the Finance and Pension Advisory Committee, requesting that she continue to provide timely information to that committee. He reported on attending the “district meeting” where concerns were raised about teenage e-bike riders and the Newport-Mesa Unified School District’s proposal to ban e-bikes on its campuses. He also discussed pending state legislation that would license and register e-bikes, including issuing tags. He reported assisting Bear Flag Fish Company with permitting to take over the former Santa Monica Seafood location, requested a way to obtain in-person assistance outside the TESSA permitting platform, and thanked Staff for working with the community on issues related to Moon Park.
Loren Gameros (District 2) thanked the public for their comments, expressed support for the Police Department, and addressed concerns related to the Flock cameras. He commented on what he views as high sales prices for single-family homes and stated he would help where possible (is he giving out money for a down payment? 😊). He also discussed operational changes at the Costa Mesa Tennis Center and reported that Adam Ereth of Some Cares Soup Kitchen stated the organization could provide food boxes (SCSK was given money by the City to do this, but it was later reported that the funds were used for something other than the designated program).
Andrea Marr (District 3) requested a review of the Flock Safety contract and associated policies, as well as a review of the circumstances that led the City of Mountain View to remove its cameras.
Manuel Chavez (District 4) reported on the groundbreaking ceremony for the Ketchum-Libolt Park remodel. He discussed meetings with high school students regarding City efforts to assist residents impacted by ICE raids, requested a report from the Police Department on the Flock camera policy, and stated his disagreement with the school district’s proposal to ban e-bikes.
John Stephens (Mayor) spoke about the Ketchum-Libolt Park groundbreaking and stated that the City Council must weigh the benefits of the Flock cameras against their potential drawbacks.
City Manager Comments. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly reported on “Neighborhoods Where We All Belong” outreach events related to Measure K and the Housing Element held in March. She announced that the operation of the Costa Mesa Tennis Center has been temporarily transferred to Agape Tennis Academy until a permanent operator is selected. She also announced that Earth Day and Arbor Day will be celebrated on Saturday, April 18, at City Hall and parks throughout Costa Mesa. Additionally, she stated that the City is monitoring court proceedings related to state law governing ICE operations.
City Attorney Comments. Hall Barlow reported that the City submitted a public records request in August 2025 to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security seeking information about immigration enforcement actions in Costa Mesa. The information received in September consisted of general material already available elsewhere. She relayed that Congressman Dave Min indicated federal privacy laws exempt many records from disclosure and that the most effective way to obtain information is for individuals with a legal relationship or power of attorney to submit requests directly.
CONSENT CALENDAR. No items were pulled, so Chavez made a motion to approve the items. That motion was seconded by Stephens. The vote was 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.
OLD BUSINESS: There was only one item:
Ordinance Requiring Staffing at Self-Service Checkout Stations at Retail Food Businesses. This item was the second reading of the proposed ordinance. Jay Barkman, Government Affairs Manager, provided a brief presentation. The ordinance is modeled after a similar one adopted by the City of Long Beach and was previously reviewed by the City Council on January 20 and February 3.
At the prior meeting, Councilmember Arlis Reynolds requested several revisions, which were incorporated into the version presented:
Extend the compliance “cure” period for violations from seven (7) to fifteen (15) days to reduce risk management reactions and avoid punitive measures for minor violations.
Delay the effective date from 30 days to 60 days following adoption of the ordinance.
Modify the “15 items or fewer” provision to require signage stating that self-checkout is limited to approximately 15 items, rather than imposing a strict limit.
Revise in-store customer notification requirements to remove references to enforcement actions.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Buley asked questions regarding the structure of the ordinance, particularly in relation to collective bargaining agreements and wage-and-hour laws. He also asked whether grocery stores already have sufficient business incentives to address theft without City regulation.
Public Comment. Two members of the public spoke:
One commenter stated that the issue did not merit the City Council’s time and argued that the ordinance would protect very few jobs.
The second commenter questioned whether Costa Mesa was adopting the ordinance simply because another city had done so, and expressed concern about government intrusion into private business operations.
Motion. Marr moved to approve the ordinance, which was seconded by Reynolds.
Pettis stated that he attempted to find sales tax data from the City of Long Beach and personally visited grocery stores there. He reported that many shoppers expressed dissatisfaction with the ordinance and that most stores had shut down their self-checkout stations. He also shared that, based on informal polling of shoppers on 17th Street, many indicated they would shop in Newport Beach if self-checkout were removed in Costa Mesa.
Buley described the ordinance as a “solution in search of a problem,” stating that the City was micromanaging private businesses. He urged his colleagues to reconsider and vote against the measure.
Gameros, who is employed by a union, questioned whether opponents of the ordinance had experience working long shifts as grocery clerks. He described the physical demands of the job and stated that one grocery store had indicated that if an employee failed to safely operate a checkout station, that employee could potentially face criminal liability.
Stephens said that Councilmember Buley’s concerns were reasonable, but added that if Councilmember Pettis’s prediction of shoppers leaving the City were to occur, the City Council could revisit, amend, or repeal the ordinance in the future.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 2, with Buley and Pettis voting “No.”
The ordinance will take effect on Saturday, April 18.
NEW BUSINESS: There were three new business items.
1. Agreement With Bracken’s Kitchen for Kitchen Operations at Bridge Shelter. The City Council considered a new agreement with Bracken’s Kitchen to provide kitchen operations at the Bridge Shelter. The proposed agreement is for a five-year term, with an annual cost not to exceed $492,750.
Bracken’s Kitchen has provided kitchen operations at the Bridge Shelter since April 2022 under a four-year agreement that is set to expire on April 20. Nate Robbins, Neighborhood Improvement Manager, presented the staff report.
Two vendors submitted proposals in response to the City’s request for bids, with Bracken’s Kitchen receiving the highest overall score.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Reynolds asked Robbins to confirm the length of the contract, noting that Bracken’s Kitchen’s bid referenced a one-year term. Mr. Robbins clarified that the agreement is structured as a three-year base term with two optional one-year extensions, for a total potential term of five years.
Councilmember Reynolds also asked what portion of the contract cost would be paid by the City of Costa Mesa, given that other cities—such as Newport Beach and Irvine—place clients at the Bridge Shelter. Mr. Robbins explained that Newport Beach contracts for beds that include meal service, making it difficult to isolate Costa Mesa’s specific share of kitchen costs. He added that the shelter’s behavioral health beds are funded through a grant that also covers the cost of meals. Overall, approximately one-third of the shelter’s operating costs are recovered through contracts with other jurisdictions or through the behavioral health grant.
Public Comment. No members of the public addressed the Council. Bill Bracken, representing Bracken’s Kitchen, stated that the reference to a one-year term in the bid was an error on his part. He confirmed that Bracken’s Kitchen is willing to comply with the three-year term and the two optional one-year extensions.
Motion and Vote. Stephens moved to approve the item, which was seconded by Chavez. The motion was passed on a vote of 6-0, with Marr, who was ill, absent.
2. Urban Canopy and Land Assessment. Staff requested feedback on the Urban Canopy and Land Assessment, a report intended to evaluate the City’s tree canopy, analyze its distribution, and develop strategies to guide future urban forestry efforts. Robert Ryan, Maintenance Services Manager, delivered the presentation.
Councilmember Questions. Reynolds asked whether the presentation materials would be available on the City’s website. Public Works Director Raja Sethuraman responded that it would take several weeks to post the materials, as the information must first be verified.
Reynolds asked whether the data presented applied only to City-owned trees. Mr. Ryan confirmed that the approximately 23,000 trees referenced in the report are City-owned. Reynolds noted that there are also a significant number of privately owned trees throughout the City. Ryan stated that the consultant is working to develop a rough estimate of privately owned trees.
Ryan observed that many of the City’s trees are still young and noted that meaningful canopy benefits typically take about five years to develop. Reynolds asked about the City’s tree pruning schedule. Sethuraman explained that funding availability and severe weather events can affect the pruning cycle. While a three-year cycle is preferred, Costa Mesa currently operates closer to a five-year cycle, except for palm trees, which require more frequent pruning.
Stephens requested that future budget materials include information on the cost of maintaining the City’s trees, including expenses related to root abatement, sidewalk repairs, and claims against the City for tree-related damage, such as falling limbs.
Public Comment. Three members of the public spoke, all expressing support for expanding the City’s tree canopy. Speakers requested that the maps included in the report clearly identify areas where additional trees are most needed.
Motion and Vote. Reynolds moved that staff return to the City Council by April 21 (with Earth Day occurring the following day) with additional information on the City’s existing tree program activities and expenses, along with potential recommendations for expanding the tree program, including the estimated cost of expansion in residential neighborhoods. She also requested that the report identify potential grant opportunities to help offset costs. In speaking to her motion, Reynolds stated that she was seeking guidance on the next step in the City’s analysis.
Stephens and Staff raised concerns about the proposed deadline, noting that it would fall during the middle of the budget development process and would require significant input from the consultant. Sethuraman added that funding would be challenging given expectations of a constrained budget, though the City has used gas tax funds to support some tree-related programs.
In response, Reynolds amended her motion to reduce the scope of the request, clarifying that staff should primarily return with information already available, while still including potential recommendations for expanding the tree program. The amended motion was seconded by Stephens.
The motion passed on a 5–1 vote, with Councilmember Buley voting “No” and Marr absent.
3. Training Requirements for Elected and Appointed Officials. City Attorney Hall Barlow provided a summary of training requirements mandated under current law for elected and appointed officials, including required deadlines. The presentation covered the following areas:
Ethics Training
Fiscal and Financial Administration Training
Councilmember Questions. None.
Public Comment. None.
Motion and Vote. Stephens made a motion to receive and file the report, which seconded by Gameros. The motion passed 6-0, with Marr absent.
The irony of Stephens and Gameros making this motion cannot be lost on the public! These are the two City Councilmembers who were mentioned in the lawsuit filed by former City Manager Lori Ann Farrell Harrison as being the subject of a private investigator’s report on violations of policy that would be covered by this training.
FEBRUARY 23 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. All Commissioners were present. Three items required action:
Resolution Recommending City Council Amend Sixth Cycle Housing Element (2021-2029) Sites Rezoning
Minor Conditional Use Permit to Amend Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Modify Hours of Operation, Remove Security Requirement, and Conduct Six-Month Review of Retail Cannabis Storefront at 167 Cabrillo Street
Review of Approval of Special Use Permit for Sober Living Home at 1601 Baker Street
Public Comment. Wendy Simao spoke about the treatment of undocumented workers and raised concerns about ongoing early-morning noise from The 12 Gym on 17th Street. She stated that the City has failed to enforce applicable sound limits. She may be happy to know that Erewhon Market will be replacing it.
I spoke critically about the City’s Measure K rezoning outreach meetings, stating that they do not function as true town halls. Instead, I described them as tightly controlled presentations that limit meaningful dialogue and provide little substantive information. I noted that earlier outreach efforts lacked transparency, including the failure to provide essential materials such as the adopted Housing Element and clear information regarding RHNA obligations.
I questioned the value of attending meetings when public input appears to have no impact on outcomes and stated that, due to a lack of leadership, the City’s engagement process merits a failing grade. I also raised concerns about the noon deadline for written public comments and the inconsistent handling of submitted correspondence. I stated that this practice undermines transparency, erodes public trust, and creates the appearance of preferential treatment. I further noted that the approach feels increasingly adversarial.
Commissioner Comments. David Martinez (District 5) announced upcoming events.
Rob Dickson (District 5) apologized for his recent absences. He stated that the role of municipal government is to serve the community and encouraged Staff to ensure that all written public comments received by established deadlines are made publicly accessible. He expressed concern about the limited information provided in City outreach materials, noting that postcards and other City communications often lack sufficient detail. He also observed that the City Hall Snapshot generally does not include information about upcoming public meetings.
Dickson reminded staff that, in the past, land use meetings have drawn hundreds of residents, demonstrating strong public interest when outreach is effective. He echoed calls for more town hall–style engagement and encouraged staff to expand outreach efforts to better inform residents about major planning decisions and the implications of rezoning proposals. He stated that increased awareness could help improve public participation.
Angely Andrade (District 4) expressed support for a town hall format for community engagement. She suggested incorporating an open-floor component into upcoming outreach meetings and allowing dedicated time for public comment.
CONSENT CALENDAR: The only item on the Consent Calendar was approval of the minutes from the February 6, 2026 meeting. Dickson moved to approve the minutes, which was seconded by Martinez. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were three public hearings. Harlan moved to change the order of the Agenda by moving Public Hearing Item 1 to the end. That motion was seconded by Dickson and passed on a vote of 6-1, with Martinez voting “No.” Here are the items in the order they were heard:
2. Minor Conditional Use Permit to Amend Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Modify Hours of Operation, Remove Security Requirement, and Conduct Six-Month Review of Retail Cannabis Storefront at 167 Cabrillo Street. The proposed amendment would modify hours of operation, remove the onsite security requirement, and complete the required six‑month operational review.
Gabriel Villalobos, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that the applicant requested changes to its approved CUP related to operating hours and security conditions, and that staff also conducted a six-month review of the business’s operations, as required by the original approval.
Commissioner Questions. Jon Zich (District 1) asked whether the applicant was required to pay a fee to amend the CUP. Mr. Villalobos responded that the fee was approximately $3,800.
Martinez followed up by asking whether, absent a request to amend the CUP, the Planning Commission would still have authority to make changes as part of the six-month review. Staff responded that it would.
Dickson asked whether this storefront’s operating hours differed from those of other cannabis storefronts. Mr. Villalobos confirmed that this location is the only one with different hours, due to its proximity to residential properties.
Applicant’s Presentation. The applicant’s representative, Chris Glew, stated that he had reviewed and agreed to all conditions of approval. He also noted that he had spoken with a nearby resident who had expressed concerns regarding security and stated that those concerns had since been addressed.
Public Comments. Jim Fitzpatrick spoke in support of the project. He expressed concern that the applicant was required to request changes and pay a fee, and asked the Commission to consider refunding the application fee.
Further Commissioner Questions and Comments. Dickson referenced a condition of approval stating that any changes to the CUP require review by the Planning Commission and asked whether there were ways to make the process more cost‑effective.
Martina Caron, Planning Manager, explained that the ordinance in effect at the time of the project’s approval required amendments to return to the Planning Commission, but that staff could explore potential ordinance changes. Carrie Tai, Economic and Development Services Director, added that any modification would require a policy change and could not be made administratively by staff alone.
Motion and Vote. Dickson moved to approve the item, which was seconded by Zich. Discussion continued regarding the $3,800 processing fee and whether broader policy changes should be considered by the City Council.
The motion passed unanimously on a 7–0 vote.
3. Call for Review of Approval of Special Use Permit for Sober Living Home at 1601 Baker Street. This was a review of the approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a sober living home proposed by Stephouse Recovery, Inc. The facility would serve six or fewer residents and include one house manager.
Victor Mendez, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that on January 7, 2026, Mayor John Stephens filed an application for review of the Hearing Officer’s decision, citing concerns regarding potential neighborhood impacts. As a result, the item was brought before the Planning Commission for review.
Commissioner Questions. Zich asked for confirmation that the sober living home was not operating and was told it was not. Zich then asked whether this constituted a new hearing and whether the Commission could consider all aspects of the application. City Attorney Tarquin Preziosi clarified that while this was a new hearing, the Commission’s review was limited to determining whether the applicant complies with applicable regulations. He added that any new evidence must be submitted prior to the appeal hearing. Zich offered suggestions to staff regarding improvements to the Commissioner packet to reduce confusion and avoid unnecessary follow-up questions.
Zich also asked about distance requirements between sober living homes. Staff explained that spacing requirements apply only to other sober living facilities and that other types of group living homes are not included in the distance calculation. Zich further asked about house rules, regulations governing house managers, and how compliance would be enforced. Staff stated that Code Enforcement would respond to complaints alleging violations.
As Staff appeared to have difficulty answering several of Zich’s questions regarding operator compliance, Chair Jeff Harlan (At Large) requested that Zich pause to allow other Commissioners to ask questions. Zich indicated that he had additional questions but agreed to yield the floor.
Andrade asked staff to address a potential conflict between the proposed sober living home and the adjacent group home for teenage girls. Staff responded that the neighboring facility is not a sober living home and therefore, no buffer requirement applies.
Zich returned to his questions, asking about the requirement that the number of occupants who are registered sex offenders not exceed limits established in the Penal Code. Mendez responded that because the facility is not yet operating, the City cannot verify compliance with that requirement at this time.
Dickson asked Staff to clarify statements in the Hearing Officer’s report suggesting that the facility may already be operating. Staff stated that the applicant had confirmed to the Hearing Officer that the sober living operation was not active, although the property was being rented by tenants.
Applicant’s Presentation. Mary Willcox, representing Stephouse Recovery, stated that she had reviewed and agreed to all conditions of approval. She explained that Stephouse Recovery is a contractor with the County of Orange Health Care Agency, which conducts client vetting. Clients must complete detox and recovery prior to placement, and the sober living home represents the final step in that process. She stated that Stephouse reserves the right to refuse any client and has a policy of not accepting individuals who are registered sex offenders. She also described the County’s role in overseeing the operation.
Zich asked additional questions regarding how the facility operates in coordination with the County.
Klepach asked about the requirement for a house manager to be present. Willcox responded that there would be a second person in charge and noted that the house is generally unoccupied during the day because clients are required to be employed or enrolled in school. She added that neighbors are provided with contact information, including County contact numbers.
Dickson asked about complaints raised by neighbors regarding prior activity at the property and whether those issues involved tenants or sober living clients. He also asked whether Stephouse Recovery had experienced complaints at its other facilities. Willcox stated that during her three years with the organization, she has not received any neighbor complaints and emphasized that clients may be discharged for violating house rules.
Public Comment. Six speakers spoke in opposition to the approval of the Special Use Permit. Jim Fitzpatrick was the only speaker in support of the applicant.
Additional Commissioner Questions. Both Zich and Dickson raised concerns about how the City verifies the accuracy of information provided in the application. Other than reviewing open Code Enforcement cases, staff indicated that verification relies largely on County oversight and the applicant’s representations.
Motion and Vote. Martinez moved to approve the item, which was seconded by Harlan. Martinez refused to speak to his motion. Harlan stated that the required findings were supported and that the proposed sober living home appears to comply with City regulations.
Zich stated that he reluctantly supported the motion, noting that while he had concerns, the Commission’s role does not include changing City policy.
The motion passed unanimously.
1. Resolution Recommending City Council Amend Sixth Cycle Housing Element (2021-2029) Sites Rezoning. Michelle Halligan, Senior Planner, Anna McGill, Advance Planning Manager, and Melinda Dacey, Principal Planner, presented the item. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission advise the City Council to add two new housing opportunity sites and remove 17 existing sites from the Housing Element Sites Inventory. Because these changes would modify the adopted Housing Element, a General Plan Amendment is required.
Commissioner Questions. Dickson asked how the City is reaching out to property owners to determine whether they wish to add or remove their properties from the Housing Element site list. Ms. McGill responded that in December, the City sent letters to all Housing Element site owners regarding the Redondo Beach lawsuit decision, which prompted some owners to request removal of their properties from the inventory. She explained that if the City Council approves the removal of sites, the Housing Element amendment would trigger a 180‑day public comment and review period, during which the City would continue outreach to affected property owners.
Martinez then asked questions regarding the City’s ongoing rezoning effort. Carrie Tai, Economic and Development Services Director, clarified that the rezoning program and the Housing Element are separate initiatives and that this item pertained only to the Housing Element. Martinez asked why the City would not wait until additional property owners expressed their preferences. McGill responded that Staff was attempting to be responsive to owners who had already requested removal. Halligan added that following the 180‑day comment period, the amended Housing Element would be reviewed by HCD for approximately 60 days, unless the department responded more quickly.
Andrade expressed interest in revisiting the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Halligan cautioned that reopening the ordinance at this stage could disrupt the City’s timeline and progress toward Housing Element compliance. McGill added that the immediate goal was to identify sufficient sites and capacity to meet the City’s RHNA allocation of approximately 11,700 housing units.
Public Comment. Fitzpatrick stated that the City is disregarding guidance from HCD and heading toward an iceberg. He referenced the City’s loss in the Insight sober living case and argued that the revised Housing Element does not adequately address the rights of sober living homes. He predicted that the City would receive further warnings from HCD and criticized City officials for being “tone deaf.”
Gay Royer, President of the Women’s Club, spoke in support of removing the Club’s property from the Housing Element site list. Several additional speakers also supported the removal of the Women’s Club property.
Two speakers, including myself, urged the Commission to slow the process to allow other property owners the same opportunity to request removal that had been afforded to the Segerstrom family, the Women’s Club, the owner of the new Trader Joe’s site, and others. Concerns were also raised about potential consequences if HCD were to reject the revised site analysis or require further changes. I expressed concern that HCD could view the accelerated process as a disregard for its guidance, potentially resulting in more serious consequences that could limit the City’s ability to act independently on ministerial matters such as building permits.
Motion and Vote. Martinez moved to approve the Staff recommendation, which was seconded by Dickson. In speaking to his motion, Martinez said that he wants a certified Housing Element, and he feels this action will get us closer to certification. Martinez also noted that the sites proposed for removal would still be subject to Measure K.
Dickson stated that he believed the recommendation appropriately responded to the concerns of property owners.
Zich spoke in opposition to the motion, though he supported the removal of sites at the request of property owners. He cited the practical impossibility of achieving the RHNA target assigned by the State and argued that the approach does not constitute a meaningful long-term plan for Costa Mesa. He likened the court decision to a regulatory taking, noting that designation as a Housing Element site restricts redevelopment options by requiring at least 50% residential use. Zich expressed concern that many property owners may not fully understand these limitations and suggested that the City obtain notarized acknowledgments from owners confirming their understanding.
Harlan stated that while Costa Mesa is not unique in facing these challenges, the recent court decision requires the City to adapt, and achieving Housing Element certification remains the overarching objective.
The motion passed on a 6-1 vote, with Zich voting “No.”
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: None.
Comments