Happy New Year! While the Costa Mesa City Council and Planning Commission only had one meeting each in December, here’s an update on those meetings and a look back at the year.
DECEMBER 5 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Absent from the meeting was Councilmember Arlis Reynolds. Because this was a Special Meeting, only one item was on the agenda, which was the certification of the November 2024 election and swearing into office of the election winners. You would think that would proceed quickly. Not so.
Recognition of Exiting City Councilmembers Jeff Harlan and Don Harper. City Manager Lori Ann Farrell Harrison reviewed the accomplishments of Council Members Jeff Harlan and Don Harper and presented a street sign with each of their names along with a City tile. Mayor John Stephens then spoke about each of the departing Council Members and gave each of them a key to the City. Following that were comments by Supervisor Katrina Foley (who also spoke about the incoming/returning members) and State Assemblymember Cottie Petrie Norris.
City Attorney Report. Well, we haven’t had one of these for some time, but given the City’s victory in the Ohio House, LLC. v. City of Costa Mesa case, it was appropriate for City Attorney Kim Barlow to speak. On December 3, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s verdict affirming that the City’s sober living home ordinance covering residences in the multifamily home area is not discriminatory. What is interesting is that the State of California had joined into the lawsuit at the last moment to try to reverse the lower court decision, arguing that the City’s ordinance violated fair housing laws and warned the City that its Housing Element is noncompliant due to its ordinance. Since Ohio House has already seen fit to appeal a decision once, it may appeal this decision to a higher court, but that would be to the US Supreme Court which has already refused to hear the appeal of another sober living operator, SoCal Recovery. Note that the cost of appeal suits are VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE. In newspaper articles the estimate of the City’s legal fees was given as $20 million. Given the recent ruling in this case, cities throughout California are already stepping up their efforts to regulate sober living homes.
Public Comment. Some of the comments were congratulatory to the new and returning Councilmembers. James Peters, who ran for Mayor, voiced his opinion that the election didn’t comply with federal and state law, citing that the voting machines weren’t certified and didn’t operate to his satisfaction, and stated that the election was a fraud. He also stated that with “Trump coming into office, you don’t want to be in his path.” I don’t know what purpose that threat served because there was no way that the City Council was not going to certify the election when the Secretary of State and County Registrar of Voters had already done so. A few more people of the same mindset as Peters spoke. Some alluded to the possibility that the President-elect would somehow interject himself into the certification of our town’s election, but I doubt that will happen. And besides, if our local election was fraudulent, wouldn’t that also mean the results on a countywide, statewide and nationwide level were also fraudulent?
Councilmember Comments. Andrea Marr was first up. In her comments she brought up Teddy Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” speech and then talked about how it isn’t the only responsibility of the City Councilmembers to say what they wouldn’t do, but to also to talk about what they will do. I would love it if every member of the Council would do just that. They can start with their vision of what Costa Mesa will look like 10 years from now, 20 years from now, and 40 years from now and how our planning laws should be changed to manifest that vision.
Other members of the City Council thanked their families and City Staff for their assistance.
Harper’s comments were the longest. He gave some thoughts about his time on the Council, and also thanked members of the public who wrote to the City Council and attended the meetings and made comments because your engagement is a cornerstone of the process and strengthens it. To his fellow City Councilmembers, he said “I like you all. I disagree with most of you, but I like you all, and I wish you all the best.”
Harlan seemed to be grieving his loss in the election and the fact that he had to leave the dais. He said that he loved being a public servant. He also said “I’m not going anywhere. I will continue to serve in whatever capacity I can.” That comment makes me think he will be appointed by the Mayor to the at-large seat on the Planning Commission.
Then it was Mayor Stephens’ turn again and he announced the opening of the pickleball courts at the Costa Mesa Tennis Center in Tewinkle Park. The City has been working on the Tennis Center, installing new lights, and resurfacing the courts, which is part of a long overdue refurbishment that needs to be completed. Please check out the upgrades.
Stephens then had to clarify that the legal fees in the Ohio House case that newspapers were citing, $20 million, came from him and is only his estimate of what the City spent on all the work on sober living home litigation (all cases). That estimate is based on what? We never see specifics in the Warrant Register that let us know what is being spent on lawyers. The City must improve transparency there. Stephens pointed out that each of the 13 States that fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also benefit from this ruling in the case. Too bad they didn’t help pay the bills.
Special Item. A little past the one and one-half hour mark the only item on the agenda was heard. The City Clerk, Brenda Green, read the results of the citywide election. Stephens made a motion to certify the election, which was seconded by Councilmember Manual Chavez. There were no comments and the motion carried 6-0.
The oaths of office were then taken by each of the new and returning members of the City Council. After a short recess, the new members of the City Council were seated as bookends. Michael Buley took Harper’s seat (next to the City Manager) and Jeff Pettis was placed in Councilmember Arlis Reynolds’ seat (next to the City Attorney). The new Councilmembers spoke and gave thanks to their supporters.
Mayor Stephens then took the opportunity to once again give his comments, thanking his family and supporters, and then speaking about each of the new and returning Councilmembers. When it came to Loren Gameros, Stephens made the statement about him that “when you get elected and then nobody has the courage to run against you, that means you must be doing something right. It’s not a free kick that he didn’t get an opponent. He earned that by being very prominent in his community and delivering results for four years.” As one of his constituents in District 2 who has tried to engage with Gameros, I really take issue with that last statement. The only action I can link to Gameros is the removal of some rocks from tiny Paularino Park. That was supposedly to make room so kids could kick a soccer ball around, but opening the adjacent school grounds would be a much better solution, as balls flying into the little park’s tot lot doesn’t increase safety for the little kids. As far as earning anything, he certainly earned huge financial support from the unions. Anyone considering a City Council run likely looked at donations as an impediment to running a serious campaign. In other words, why run when your opponent has a huge campaign coffer with which to run against you?
Stephens ran on for some time but eventually got around to nominating Chavez for the position of Mayor Pro Tem. After a pregnant pause, Gameros seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 6-0. After Chavez gave his acceptance speech the meeting was adjourned. That was the only City Council meeting in December.
DECEMBER 9TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Planning Commissioners Russell Toler and Jon Zich were absent.
Public Comment. The only public comment was from a resident who was attempting to get approval for a solar energy system for his house. The City is supposed to process permits for smaller systems immediately per California law. Since there are tax credits associated with solar energy systems, this resident was going to lose those credits if his project didn’t go forward by December 31. The commissioners did not address his issue, nor did they direct Staff to do so.
Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar had one item on it, but it was for the approval of five sets of Minutes, one of which was from 2022. Chair Adam Ereth, pulled the Minutes from the November 12, 2024, meeting because documentation of the discussion among the Commissioners about the Shalimar project was absent and then proceeded to talk about them without giving the public any opportunity to provide their comments. This was yet another Brown Act violation, which interesting enough, was the topic documented in those November 12 Minutes by way of a comment by resident Jay Humphrey. Obviously, Mr. Humphrey’s comment was ignored.
Public Hearings. There were two public hearings:
1. Tentative Parcel Map and Master Plan for the 70 Unit Multi-Family Residential Development at the Senior Center. Staff requested that the Planning Commissioners find that the lease and use of City property by Jamboree Housing Corporation (JHC) is in conformance with the General Plan; approve the Master Plan (including a density bonus), and Tentative Parcel Map; and recommend that the City Council also approve those documents. The land the Senior Center sits on is being divided so that the housing project, which is covered by a long-term ground lease, can be treated separately to enable JHC to apply for tax credits. The City will still own both parcels. Because JHC is using the State density bonus for affordable units, the project does not have to comply with open space, floor area ratio, or parking requirements of the City, but has agreed to comply with the City’s parking requirements. To address parking restrictions during construction, JHC has hired a valet service. There will be a period of time (about three months) when the site and the Senior Center will be closed.
While there are 70 affordable units in the project, the parcel was identified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory List to provide 40 very low-income units and 20 low-income units (60 units). This project proposes 34 very low-income units, and 35 low-income units, which is a site shortfall of 6 very-low-income units. Due to the deficiency in very-low income units, the City is required to make “No Net Loss” findings pursuant to the California Government Code unless JHC decides to change the composition prior to finalization of the building plans.
Commissioner Questions. After a presentation by Victor Mendez, Senior Planner for the City, the Commissioners were given an opportunity to ask questions. One question by Commissioner David Martinez (who had the most questions and took this as a chance to do a deep dive into the project) was “What is a senior?” which you may think is obvious, but in fact, many of the documents required by the project have specific definitions about who qualifies as a senior, and who can live in the units. The answer given by Staff to Martinez of “anyone 55 or older” wasn’t technically correct, because to occupy a unit, at least one member of the household must be 62 years of age or older and no member can be less than 55 years of age. That means someone who is 55 cannot rent a unit unless that person has a roommate who is at least 62.
While there were some good questions asked by the Commissioners, many of their questions could have been answered by reading the Agenda Report and accompanying documents. Staff was not able to answer some of the questions because the project is not far enough along in the planning process.
I found one question in particular revealing because, despite the fact it really didn’t pertain to the project, it showed that the Commissioners don’t always do their homework. Planning Commissioner Martinez should have known the answer to his question before he asked it. The question was this: “If Measure K was not passed, would Measure Y have applied to the site?” Scott Drapkin answered his question by citing that the site for the project doesn’t trigger a change in land use, which is part of the answer. The other part of the answer is that the project is a 100% affordable housing project, and those projects are exempt from a vote of the people under Measure Y.
After the questions for Staff, it was then time to ask questions of JHC. When asked if they accepted the Conditions of Approval, the applicant seemed somewhat taken aback as it had only recently received them and had questions (it did indicate later in the meeting that it accepted them). At Chair Ereth’s direction, the applicant proceeded with its presentation and answered the Commissioners’ questions.
Public Comment. First up was Shirley McDaniels, who has voiced her opposition to the project many times. She stated that JHC has never built on an existing parking lot before. McDaniels was also concerned that the seniors wouldn’t know how to text for a ride from the valet service, stating that 90% of seniors don’t text. While some seniors may not be comfortable with it, texting is rudimentary and most seniors (yes, I fall in that category) are more tech-savvy than she gives us credit. She also said that folks going to the Senior Center won’t be able to park in the lot isn’t completely true either. Yes, there will be times when the parking will be limited to the Smart and Final lot or street parking, and the Senior Center will be closed for three months, with operations moving offsite, but that isn’t forever and the final parking plan shows plenty of parking for most classes and events at the Senior Center.
Former Commissioner and affordable housing advocate Diane Russell spoke in support of the project and cited many reasons for her support, including the fact that the original plan for the Senior Center included housing. That is because its location near the library, community center, bus lines, shopping, etc., make it convenient for seniors. She recommended that the Senior Center provide written information to its users about the project so they don’t have to use a computer or phone to get info, and to avoid the spread of disinformation that is currently happening. She expressed concern about the need to improve walkability and safety of the neighborhood given its expanded use by seniors.
Betsy Densmore spoke in support of the project, given the need for more affordable housing for seniors. She also stated that this neighborhood is a “15-minute neighborhood,” meaning it is very walkable for shopping and services, and therefore, this project is appropriately located.
Frances Woods spoke about the bus stop on 19th St. obstructing the entrance to the Senior Center and asked if there would be enough handicap parking.
Alan Mayeda, who is a volunteer instructor at the Senior Center, stated the prior meeting at the Senior Center on the project was inadequate. He was also concerned about the cost of the project and parking.
An unidentified person who lives across the street from the project spoke about the parking and homeless issues in the area.
Chris McEvoy spoke on parking, the driveways on Plumer Street, and traffic on 19th Street.
Linda Tang, an affordable housing advocate, voiced support for the project.
Kathy Esfahani spoke on behalf of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition in support of the project and the need for affordable housing in Costa Mesa.
More Questions for the Applicant. After public comment, the Commissioners asked more questions of the applicant. Commissioner Karen Klepack asked for clarification of JHC’s parking arrangement with Smart & Final and the local churches. The applicant explained that because it is years before construction will begin on the project, no formal agreement has been reached, but talks have been taking place. The texting issue was addressed and it was stated there would be other options. As to the driveways, those have been reviewed by the City’s transportation department and the driveways meet or exceed minimum standards. The applicant also addressed a comment that increased construction costs would be passed on to the tenants. That is not true, as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the State and County governments will set the rents. With respect to security, there will not be a security guard, but there will be cameras that monitor the site.
Chair Ereth made a motion as per the draft Resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Angely Andrade. The Chair then spoke, at length, about his personal experience with senior housing and senior care. Andrade gave facts about affordable housing and about the need to slow traffic in the area to comport with the slower speed of some seniors. At about the two and one-half hour make of the meeting, the vote on the motion finally took place and the motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
2. Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map to Convert Four Office Buildings into a Non-Residential Common Interest Development at 660 Baker St. This older office complex was remodeled a few years back and the owner proposed to convert them to office condos. Because it was originally built in 1974, it does not conform to new regulations on parking, setbacks, and landscaping. This project has been compatible with surrounding businesses and Staff requested that the Commissioners grant deviations in connection with approving the CUP. However, a new driveway will need to be constructed to comply with current code.
This item moved quickly, which was a relief after the last item dragged on and on. Staff gave a short presentation about the project. After a few questions, Martinez made a motion to approve which was seconded by Klepack. That motion was approved by a vote of 5-0.
That wrapped up 2024 for the Planning Commission. Its next meeting is scheduled for January 27, 2025.
WHAT’S COMING UP?
January 21, 2025 City Council Meeting. On January 21, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. the City Council will meet to, among other things, (1) consider a resolution adopting fees associated with the beekeeping ordinance (the new and renewal fees are proposed to be $75); (2) take up where the Planning Commission left off on the housing project at the Senior Center; and (3) review the approval of the expansion of the Westend bar on 19th Street (this one shows up on the public notices, but the notice is for the beekeeping fees pops up when I click on it, so what’s up with that?!).
January 28, 2025 City Council Study Session. At a January 28, 2025, City Council Study Session, the Councilmembers will consider the Fairview Park Master Plan. Study Sessions typically start at 5:00 p.m.
Sometime in the Future. At some point the City Council will consider a raise for City Manager Lori Ann Farrell Harrison. On that subject, why don’t the residents of Costa Mesa have an opportunity to voice our opinions on how the City and the City Manager are doing? Other cities, like Newport and Laguna, survey their residents.
RECAP OF 2024. Looking back at 2024, here’s a list of what the City/City Council was able to accomplish:
The City held elections. More than $335,000 was raised by the candidates. For a relatively small city, that seems like a ridiculous amount of money that must be raised to earn a seat on the dais.
The US Supreme Court refused to hear the case of SoCal Recovery against Costa Mesa in connection with our sober living home ordinance. This meant that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion remanding the case back down to the Superior Court stood. Given the Ohio House ruling, I feel it is possible that this case will quietly die. In the meantime, it is (metaphorically?) lying around somewhere in the courthouse in Santa Ana.
Changes were made to the City’s ordinance covering cannabis retail sales, but only after so many operators had filed their applications that residents were outraged by the oversaturation and perceived cheapening of the City’s brand. Did it stop the applications? We haven’t seen one recently, but there were so many left to process, I can’t imagine that happening. One can only hope the pause is due to attrition and it will become permanent. When the mid-cycle budget review occurs in March, the revenue from retail cannabis needs to show improvement.
Meetings on the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan continued. We have little information of what the actual project might look like. The last public meeting showed several options, and the results of the City’s survey showed that the residents preferred the lower density option. Don’t get too invested in any one of the options. The City Council will approve the option it prefers, but the master developer will likely ask to amend the Council’s approved Specific Plan once it begins its planning and attempts to finance the acquisition and buildout. We also have no indication what the State intends to do with the portion of land it is reserving for its own affordable housing project. The biggest disappointment by the City Council was its failure to form an advisory committee in association with this, the largest development in Costa Mesa ever.
The State of California awarded a contract for the Emergency Operations Center to be built on a portion of the Fairview Developmental Center site. Will it have the helicopter pad? Apparently, it was removed from the budget, but the depictions of the project show enough room for it to be added later (a copy of the final contract has been requested from the State by yours truly).
The City adopted a weak inclusionary housing ordinance that will likely have no effect on providing more affordable housing for seniors, veterans, workers or anyone else that wants to live in Costa Mesa. The good news is we have an ordinance on the books that a future City Council can build upon.
The City Council adopted a Pedestrian Master Plan that was anything but a Master Plan. This document should have been a roadmap for the City to follow to improve the walkability, accessibility and connectivity in all of Costa Mesa, but without any specific projects, it will likely be tossed up on a shelf to gather dust.
The City adopted a balanced budget that received an excellent rating from the folks who rate such things. However, after the budget was adopted, the City handed out raises, bonuses, and increased benefits for some. So how does it look to the rating folks now? In addition, next year’s budget won’t include grant money from the feds, state or county that helped balance the budget this year.
The City Council voted to approve amendments to the One Metro West project in North Costa Mesa that retroactively took away the residents’ right to vote on the project. I’m sure this was what Rose Equities wanted when it put all that money into Measure K in 2022.
Rental Assistance programs were adopted and revised. What will happen to those programs now that the City has run out of ARPA funds?
The City Council gave its blessing for two projects to continue through the planning process: the Hive Project on the old Chargers practice facility and a project on the old Trinity Broadcasting Network site. At some point we will see those projects come to the Planning Commission, although the Hive has more hurdles (such as CEQA) to overcome.
Ebike ordinances were adopted by the City Council. Did they make a difference?
Work was done on the Fairview Park Master Plan by the Steering Committee and City Staff. Will the City Council follow the recommendations of its advisory committee and City Staff and remove the flying field from the park? The remediation and restoration work by volunteers has been incredible! Just take a walk in the park and you will see the incredible number and variety of birds and bees that visit and cohabit the park now.
The City Council approved remodeling of Fire Station 2. Finally! The financing will be by a $10 million bond that will be paid back through the general fund.
Bzzz! We got a beekeeping ordinance so all the apiarists in Costa Mesa don’t have to hide their hives anymore. At the January 21, 2025 City Council meeting the fees will be considered. Staff is recommending $75 as the initial fee and $75 to renew. Bzzz!
Last, but certainly not least, was the City Council’s raise for itself—a whopping 65% raise in base salary. We had a balanced budget, but what about now? This trend of tinkering with the budget after adoption has me worried.
NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTIONS I’D LIKE TO SEE THE CITY MAKE.
Stop violating the Brown Act for heaven’s sake! It’s not that complicated!
Adopt an Ethics Policy
Listen to advisory committees because they have a lot of good advice.
Bring back the inclusionary housing ordinance and Pedestrian Master Plan and strengthen them.
Provide the public with a draft Specific Plan for Fairview Developmental Center that shows the vision agreed upon by the residents, community groups/activists and professional planners (not one that originates from the AI generated version produced by the consultant).
Take responsibility for the planning of the City and don’t leave it to developers.
Strive for:
Better Transparency
Better Engagement of and Participation by the Public
Accountability
Effectiveness and Efficiency
Perform satisfaction surveys of residents, visitors and businesses.
Comments