THE CITY COUNCIL MEETS TOMORROW NIGHT, OCTOBER 1, AT 6:00 P.M., BUT DID YOU MISS ANY OF THE CITY MEETINGS IN SEPTEMBER? HERE’S A RECAP!
SEPTEMBER 3, 2024, CITY COUNCIL MEETING: All of the agendas for this month’s meetings were light and this meeting didn’t even have any presentations or recognitions. There were a number of public comments, many in Spanish. The Spanish-speaking public seem to be providing their own translators, but with the uptick in their participation, it begs the question as to why hasn’t the City gotten around to providing agendas in Spanish? That would necessitate that the City get agendas and reports done sooner, as other cities do.
The Council Member comment period was unusual because Don Harper, who usually doesn’t have much to say, spoke at length about the charities to which he would be donating his Council compensation for the four years he has held office. One of those charities is the Slammers Football Club, which will be recognized at tomorrow’s City Council meeting. He is donating $165k to the charities. Included in that is $15k which he challenged the other Council members to match. None of the Council Members immediately took up his challenge, so I guess the charities lost out on more donations.
The Consent Calendar was routine, except one item was pulled by a member of the public, Jay Humphrey, who requested that the biennial Conflict of Interest before the Council be accompanied by an Ethics Policy. Mayor John Stephens thanked Mr. Humphrey for his comment, but there was no further discussion. Many other cities have ethics policies, so why not Costa Mesa?
The Old Business portion of the evening covered the extension of the development agreement between the City and AAA for its location on Fairview Road. This item passed by a 7-0 vote at a prior meeting, and this second reading also received a 7-0 vote approving it.
The first New Business item was a screening for new homes proposed to be built on the old Trinity Broadcasting Network site at Bear Street and the 405 freeway. This is the first look the public had for the project, and after the meeting it will proceed through a more stringent approval process.
I previously wrote about this project, but to summarize, the developer intends to build 146 homeownership units, 20 of which would be two-story single-family homes with standard two-car garages, situated around the perimeter of the property that abuts existing single-family homes. The remainder of the units would be four-story stacked flat condos with tandem garages. All of this is on a 6.11-acre parcel (23.9 du/ac). While the project isn’t subject to our new Affordable Housing Ordinance, using the State density law which allows the use of affordable units to increase the density, reduce parking or reduce private open space, the developer is including eight deed-restricted units for very-low-income earners. The developer requested a “concession” increasing the maximum height allowed from 27 feet/two stories to 50 feet, 6 inches/four stories. That is much taller than any of the surrounding residential properties.
There were some questions from the City Council concerning how the State density bonus law works. Mayor Stephens brought up the use of a development agreement. Development agreements are typically used for larger projects than this, where the project is bringing in amenities such as new streets with utility hookups (sewer and storm drain facilities, water, electric for street lights, etc.), new schools, new parks, etc. and the city wants assurance that the developer will provide those facilities or provide the money for them. Thus far, the developer hasn’t requested a development agreement, and it isn’t providing any of those amenities, so it seems odd for a project of this size that one would be used. I’m not sure why the Mayor fixated on that when there are so many other issues with the project.
Council Member Jeff Harlan focused more on the design of the project, which is what the Council should be looking at during this stage of the project. Council Member Arlis Reynolds spotlighted broader topics, including missing sidewalks, how walkable and bikeable is this neighborhood, and the lack of open space within the project. Council Member Chavez focused on the cost of these homeownership units. He is of the opinion that the so-called “affordable units” in the project (priced at $800k) will drive down the cost of others (priced at $1m), but that has been proven false time and time again.
Council Member Loren Gameros reiterated many of the same benefits that the other Council Members spoke on (Harper correctly referred to it as a “sales pitch”). He incorrectly identified this property as the only property in District 2 that is on the Measure K map. In reality, there are a host of properties north of the 405 freeway and on Baker Street that made it on the map. Yes, he did specifically request this property be included in Measure K, but since the rezoning for that Measure has not been done, the developer is bringing the project forward in a General Plan Amendment instead. Mayor Stephens had a lot of suggestions, most of them involving the word “maybe.” “Maybe that’s what life is . . .the wink of an eye and the winking of stars.” (Jack Kerouac)
The second New Business item was the first reading for the raise the City Council gave itself. This item was taken off the agenda at a prior meeting. This bump in compensation raised the Council salary by $587.86 per month from a base salary of $904.40 to $1,492.26 per month. That is a 65% increase. A motion was made by Gameros to approve, seconded by Council Member Andrea Marr who used the opportunity to dig at Harper for giving his salary to charity. Little discussion was made, the final vote was 5-2, with Harlan and Harper voting no.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024, CITY COUNCIL MEETING: This was another short meeting. Mayor Stephens participated remotely due to a “contagious illness” and Harper was absent. Harlan ran the meeting, with Council Member Manuel Chavez moving into the Mayor Pro Tem’s chair. Having observed the relationship between the two Council Members, I find that move very telling about the need for Chavez to sit close to Harlan for instructions.
The Consent Calendar was voted on as predicted, with a member of the public pulling the contract awarded to Axon Enterprise for mobile video upgrade for $7m over 10 years. Resident Ralph Taboada was right when he said this needed more discussion than the Consent Calendar affords. He raised a number of questions about the contract and the system and how well it would work for the City. None of the Council Members had questions or comments about the contract, which seems odd for such an important need of the police department. It got a simple move the item from Chavez, second by Reynolds, and passed by a 6-0 vote. It is important to note that three years into the use of the prior video system, the PD started to have problems. I hope this quicky no-discussion vote doesn’t come back to the bite the City in the rear.
The Old Business item was the second reading of the Council’s raise for itself (see the prior meeting’s report above). The only public comment was from resident and former City Council Member Wendy Leece, who pointed out that the City Council doesn’t get performance reviews, like those of us in the private workforce get. I’ll point out that we don’t even get to review how the City is doing as a whole, which is a major failure on the part of the City. Do I get the feeling that the City Manager doesn’t care how we feel? Yes. And we don’t get to vote for her, so she doesn’t get a performance review from the residents either. That stinks.
There was no discussion, simply a motion by Gameros, seconded by Marr. The vote was 5-1 in favor, with Harlan casting the dissenting vote.
The first New Business item was the pay raises and bonuses to police department personnel and renaming of some job titles. The City is attempting to resolve the problem of loss of personnel to other cities to the tune of an 80% turnover rate in the communications department. There was one question by Reynolds, then the motion to approve, and then more comments by the Council. Finally, a unanimous vote of 6-0 approved the item.
The second New Business item was the amendment of the agreement with Mercy House, increasing the compensation by $197,894 for a new annual not-to-exceed amount of $2,383,180, along with an amendment of the agreement with Bracken’s Kitchen, increasing the compensation by $91,250 for a new annual not-to-exceed amount of $492,750. Both these organizations provide services at the City’s Bridge Shelter. If you blinked, you’d have missed this item. It was approved by a 6-0 vote.
SEPTEMBER 23, 2024, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: There was only one item on the agenda for this meeting and, you guessed it, it was ANOTHER pot shop. This one is located on Cannabis Row (Newport Boulevard) near some auto mechanics, including mine. Commissioner David Martinez recused himself because he lives too close to the project. The item was approved by a 5-1 vote, with Commissioner Angely Andrade voting no and Martinez recused.
SEPTEMBER 24, 2024, CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: Well, we got ourselves all prepared for this one, only to notice an email late in the day that it was canceled. The Council was to study the Housing Element implementation (mostly rezoning), but that will need to be brought back. It needs to be brought back soon, because the HCD isn’t going to like it if the City doesn’t start in on the Housing Element programs soon.
WHAT IS MISSING? THE SEPTEMBER 4, 2024, FAIRVIEW PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE: The better half and I attended a few minutes of this meeting before we got notification that our grandson, who we had babysat the weekend before, had COVID. Given our exposure, we decided to leave the meeting rather than infect a whole room full of people. As it turns out, we didn’t catch it, so perhaps someone else would like to fill me in on what we missed. There was a slide deck and other materials, which I requested from the City. But I’d love to know what happened during the visits to the various information stations.
Comments