Short Week, Thin Agendas And The Fish Fry

SHORT WEEK
This week in Costa Mesa has an abbreviated schedule of official meetings.  The City Council has a Special Closed session Wednesday, HERE, (NOTE: The special closed session has been cancelled.. no quorum!) in which negotiations with the two Fire organizations will be discussed, but you can't attend.  The Parks and Recreation Commission meeting originally scheduled for Thursday has been cancelled, but we're not sure why.  The Finance Committee meets tomorrow, but few actually care about it or attend the meetings.  If you really want to attend, the meeting is in Conference Room 1A and begins at 3:30 p.m.  The agenda is HERE.

PLANNING COMMISSION

However, we DO have a Planning Commission meeting scheduled on Tuesday, May 26th, at 6:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers.  You can read that agenda HERE.  There are only five (5) items on the agenda.

PACIFIC ARTS PLAZA REVIEW
First is Public Hearing #1, HERE, is the two-year review of Pacific Arts Plaza, an area bounded by Bristol Street, Anton boulevard, Avenue of the Arts and 405 Freeway.  The staff recommends approval.

PLUMS EXPANSION
Next up is Public Hearing #2, HERE, a request from Plums Cafe, 369 E. 17th Street, Suite #8, for a conditional use permit for 1) valet parking service during peak hours on Saturday and Sunday, from 8 a.m.-2 p.m. and 6 p.m.- 11 p.m. and, 2) an amendment to a zoning application to expand their use of space and deviate from the Shared Parking Requirements.  Staff recommends approval.

NEWPORT ITALIAN STORE
Public Hearing #3, HERE, is a request for a conditional use permit for sale/outdoor display, and repair services of motorcycles within 200 feet of a residential zone and use of storage containers and a planned signing program at 1536 Newport Boulevard.  Apparently the operator has been operating in violation of codes for more than two years and has been cited several times.  The staff recommends approval.

MORE VERTICAL HOMES
Public Hearing #4, HERE, is a planning application and tentative parcel map for four (4) detached residential units at 2068 Maple Avenue.  This is another of the three (3) story plus roof deck developments popping up all over the Westside like so many mushrooms.  This one includes deviations in lot size and front landscape setbacks and appears to meet the parking requirements.

ANOTHER TATTOO SHOP
Public Hearing #5, HERE, is a planning application for a conditional use permit for a tattoo shop at 2052 Newport Blvd., Suite 11.  This is another request from a business that has been operating in violation of code.  According to the staff report, the Planning Commission has previously approved CUPs for a dozen such tattoo shops in the past.  There's a chart in the staff report on handwritten page 3 listing those.  The image below shows the location of each, including the one proposed in this request. (Click on image to enlarge)

*****

FISH FRY STARTS FRIDAY NIGHT

That's it for this meeting.  However, Friday, May 29th, begins the 68th annual Costa Mesa-Newport Harbor Lions Club Fish Fry and Carnival at Fairview Park.  You can learn all about it by clicking on their website, HERE.  Once there you can find out how to receive a coupon for $1.00 off on a Fish Dinner.  So, plan to spend at least part of your weekend at Fairview Park, for rides, food, entertainment and lots of fun.

Planning Commission Votes To "Zero-Out" Long-Term Stays

HOBBLING MOTEL OWNERS
The Costa Mesa Planning Commission, on a 4-0 vote, (Vice Chair Rob Dickson was absent) decided to pass the staff recommendation that will make it virtually impossible for Costa Mesa motel operators to house folks for long-term stays on to the City Council for further action/codification.  If the council passes this measure motels will no longer be able to use up to 25% of their rooms for long-term stays without a conditional use permit.  Unless they qualify, their allocation would be dropped to ZERO!

CRITERIA OUTLINED
The staff report, HERE, provides the details of their decision.  As I mentioned in my previous entry about this issue, in order for a motel operator to qualify for a conditional use permit for long-term stays at their establishment they must meet very specific criteria.  Those are:

1 - The motel must have a minimum of at least seventy-five (75) rooms.
2 - Fireproof safety deposit boxes must be available to all occupants of the motel.
3 - Each guest room shall be serviced daily with central maid, mail, and room services.
4 - Each room shall be a minimum of three hundred seventy-five (375) square feet.
5 - The motel shall maintain on-site laundry services.
6 - The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, uses, zoning and general plan.

AN ADDED CONDITION
As they were about to take the vote they added one additional proviso - that there be some capability to prepare meals in units earmarked for long-term stays.  The staff will cobble together some verbiage for the presentation to the City Council - sometime next month.

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE?
As that issue evolved Chairman Jim Fitzpatrick told his fellow-commissioners, the staff and the handful of folks in the audience that he thought it was important because he had gone through a situation where he spent some time in a motel and really needed cooking facilities.  One had the impression that his experience was recent...

COMPLY OR GET OUT!
Commissioner Colin McCarthy said this ordinance seemed quite rudimentary and was surprised there was any opposition to it at all.  He told us that if businesses don't want to follow these minimal standards to help folks who are down and out then, "I don't want them doing business in our city".

CORRESPONDENCE MISREPRESENTED
As part of the discussion Kathy Esfahani - a member of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition - spoke to what she referred to as the misrepresentation of a letter from her on the subject written a year ago that formed part of the foundation of this move to oust long-term residents from motels.  To his credit, Fitzpatrick gave her much more than 3 minutes to present her views, then gave her a little more time to further clarify the issue.

MOTEL OPERATOR SPEAKS OUT
Among the speakers on this subject was Mike Lin, owner of the beleaguered Sandpiper Motel.  He opined that the fact there are people who NEED long term housing is not a result of actions the motel operators take - it's the result of actions those folks take.  His words fell on deaf ears.  The commission certainly appears to be completely unsympathetic with him on these issues.

WE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Former City Councilman and current council candidate Jay Humphrey told us that there are only two motels that might qualify now, then spoke on the need for affordable housing, and pointed out to the commissioners that NONE of the many projects they and the city council have approved recently had ANY affordable units included.  He implied that was very short-sighted of them.

TAMAR GETS IT RIGHT
Tamar Goldmann, as she spoke on this issue, may have captured that sentiment more precisely when she referred to it as a "let them eat cake" attitude.  Uh, huh...

TATTOO PARLOR APPROVED (BARELY)
The only other item on the agenda was the request by operator Eric Jones for another tattoo parlor in town, at 1145 Baker Street.  Surprisingly, this request got a luke warm reception.  McCarthy said he wouldn't vote for it at the planned location because it was across the street from a residential neighborhood.  The issue passed on a 3-1 vote, but you got the impression from the almost complete lack of enthusiasm for the business that it could easily have gone the other way.  McCarthy had made a motion to deny the request, but received no second to it.  So, those of you in the north part of town will soon have your own tattoo parlor for your inking pleasure.

UNNECESSARY POLITICIZING OF ISSUES
An interesting sidebar - McCarthy was the first to politicize this issue by mentioning the "silly season" is upon us - campaign season.  Then, during his little discussion, Tim Sesler mentioned Humphrey's presentation and referred to him as a council candidate - completely ignoring the fact that Humphrey is a regular attendee at most important city meetings and a regular presenter of facts and questions and offers solutions, too.  Indeed, the "silly season" is upon us.

SHE'S FINALLY HEARD!
Oh, yes... before I completely forget... the woman that Mayor Jim Righeimer stiff-armed at the last council meeting when he prohibited her from addressing the council during Public Comments - I'm sorry, I missed her name -  had another shot at it when she and her husband addressed the Planning Commission at the beginning of the meeting about the poor condition of their street in front of their home.  They complained about lack of responsiveness from City Staff.  Fitzpatrick jumped right on it - referred her to Bart Mejia who was standing in for Fariba Faseli in the meeting.  One had the impression this problem would be solved rapidly.  Too bad she had to wait another week to be heard.

A Lot Of Talk, No Action

AT LEAST THEY HAD A QUORUM
Four-fifths of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission met Monday night for yet another short meeting.  Commissioner Jeff Mathews was absent.



CODE ENFORCEMENT RESULTS IN THREATS
The meeting began at 6:04 and moved briskly through the Public Comments segment - there was only one speaker, a grumpy old fella who griped about Code Enforcement in his neighborhood and implied that certain commissioners might be stalking his neighborhood, reporting folks with "grass was a little long".  He implied that such heavy-handedness could break a political career.  I watched the commissioners as he spoke... none seemed to be shaking in their boots. He promptly left the building...

FAST START OUT OF THE BLOCKS
The commissioners kept their comments short and blitzed through the Consent Calendar on a 4-0 vote and began the first Public Hearing at 6:15.

A QUICKIE
That item, the withdrawal of a Conditional Use Permit for a tattoo parlor that had moved a few feet away, was given quick action and five minutes later the 20 or so members in the audience were ready to hear the item they really came for.

A SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE
Public Hearing #2, HERE, is the proposal by developer Peter Zehnder to build an 8-unit, detached common interest development in the 2500 block of Santa Ana Avenue.  This issue has gone on for month and was continued from a previous meeting so the developer could do more community outreach.  A meeting was held with him and city staffers and concerned residents on June 27th.  From what I saw and heard last night, they are still a very long way from getting together on this subject.

STUBBORNNESS OVER AN EASEMENT
Although this project, as mentioned in my earlier post, has many deviations from the code, the biggest stumbling block seemed to be an easement that is part of the project.  From the dialogue by both the developer and the neighbor with the easement, John Bushnell, only expensive legal action is going to resolve it.

IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO WORK...
The short version of events is that the staff presented their report, including a detailed description of the variances, deviations, etc. - all 11 of them.  I got the impression this development is in trouble when I read through the 53 conditions of approval contained in the staff report!  Yikes!

ORGANIZED OPPOSITION
Zehnder presented his summary of the project and some of the more contentious issues - including his version of the "easement" issue.  Six members of the public spoke, including Mark Austin, a lawyer from Rutan and Tucker, who represented "many" contiguous residents.  It was an interesting night.

KICKING THE CAN....
The council went back and forth and finally voted to follow the staff recommendation to continue this item until July 22nd - at least.  It's possible that it will be pushed further out - to August 26th - if significant progress cannot be made within a couple days.

A LOT OF TALKING AND NO ACTION
This segment of the meeting took over two hours, and I'm not sure it actually needed to be that long.  As the discussion moved to which date to use for the next pass at it, Chairman Jim Fitzpatrick postulated that the July 22nd meeting might have a light agenda - I smiled.

TWO MEETINGS WEDNESDAY
Next up, Wednesday's meetings of the Pension Oversight Committee and the Charter Committee.