Regular City Council and Housing Authority* - Regular Meeting

All right, order everybody. Now I call the meeting to order. It's the regular meeting of the City Council and Housing Authority of Tuesday, September 15th, 2026. Now, please join me in standing and we're going to sing the National Anthem together as they play a video and then say the Pledge of Allegiance together.

Ready begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Well, I just want to say that was about the best timing and pitch that I've heard from a group, an audience this year. So congratulations. Okay, so now is the time for our moment of solemn expression, led by Pastor Christine Nelf from the Redemption Church. We're always happy to have her. Pastor, you have the floor.

That's exactly what we needed, thank you. Okay, Madam Clerk, would you please do the roll call?

Great. City Attorney, do you have a closed session report?

Thank you. OK, we don't have any presentations tonight, because we knew it was going to be a long meeting with a lot of public participation. So we're getting right down to it. Public comment is next. Now, with respect to public comment, you can speak about anything other than what's on the agenda. So basically, the Climate Action Plan and FDC. Anything else is fair game. You've got three minutes within which to speak. At two minutes, you'll hear a tone. Wrap it up. At three minutes, your mic will cut off. We'll first go to the people who are in the chambers, and then we'll go to Zoom. Sir, yo

All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Great job. Anybody else want to speak during public comment in the chambers? No? And then what about on Zoom? Closed public comment. Now we'll go directly to the council member committee reports, comments, and suggestions. First up is Mike Bewley, District 1.

Thank you, Mayor, Councilmembers, and members of the public. I'll be brief tonight as well because we've got some items of significant public interest that we're going to get into. But just a quick shout-out. I had a great time this last weekend at Segerstrom Performing Arts Center's 40th anniversary. Kudos to them. Mayor was there, Councilmember Reynolds, City Manager, Councilmember Guimaraes, Just a great event and what a great community member the Segerstrom family and their performing arts center and the museum and just a great day in the city and additionally I was It was a somber and mea

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. NEXT FROM DISTRICT 2 IS COUNCILMEMBER LAUREN GOMEROS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I AS WELL AM GOING TO BE BRIEF. I JUST WANT TO COVER A COUPLE THINGS. The first one is I had the chance not only to attend but to speak at the art venture and I got to actually deliver the award for the people's choice to an individual named Kingsley Ahrens. It was a great honor to be there. I love art in this city. We are the city of the arts and to have the opportunity to attend It was a great experience. We had several hundred people in attendance and it was well worth visiting. It's still going on. So get over to the Noma Herzog Center and check it out. The second thi

Yeah, thanks, Mr. Mayor. I wasn't going to comment tonight, but I just wanted to respond to the public comments we received. To the gentleman who spoke about Fairview Park, no, there are no plans to develop Fairview Park. There's actually a citizen's initiative called Measure AA that passed a couple of years ago to keep that park natural. without a vote of the citizens. So just wanna, before I start getting angry emails. And then the second point, Mr. Nunez, great job. Thank you for raising that for all of us, very important. And then last, I'm just so glad we've got a packed house for the cli

All right. Next up is Council Member Arliss Reynolds from District 5.

OKAY. NEXT IS FROM DISTRICT 6, COUNCIL MEMBER JEFF PETTIS.

Thank you, Mayor. Only thing I have tonight is I want to extend my appreciation to Public Works. Yesterday I had a resident contact me via email regarding a disturbance and a mess being made in the in the public right away at the apartment complex they lived at. And the response was same day pressure washer cleaning up and clearing out. And I thought that was an extraordinary. RESPONSE THANK YOU TO PUBLIC WORKS AND I ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO UTILIZE THE COASTA MESA 311 APP IT REALLY IS AN EFFECTIVE TOOL SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH OKAY NEXT IS OUR MAYOR PRO TEM MANUEL CHAVEZ FROM DISTRICT FOUR THANK

Well, you all might think you're helping us, but we can't start the public hearings until 7 o'clock. So... Yeah, sure, sure. If anybody wants a second bite of the apple, you can have it.

Thank you. ANYBODY? IF YOU THINK ABOUT SOMETHING, THAT'S GOOD. JUST FOR THE PUBLIC TO LET YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T START OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS UNTIL 7. WHAT WE HAVE AFTER THIS IS THE CONSENT CALENDAR WHICH USUALLY GOES LIKE THAT. WE HAVE THE CITY MANAGER. SHE HAS A REPORT SO SHE CAN VAMP FOR A WHILE AND THEN I'M SURE YOU KNOW, CITY ATTORNEY HAS A REPORT. SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO STRETCH A BIT, BUT WE CAN'T START UNTIL 7, SO AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE A BRIEF BREAK. THIS IS MY TIME TO TALK. I JUST WANT TO, AGAIN, LIKE COUNCILMEMBER GOMERO SAID, THANK EVERYBODY WHO WAS INVOLVED IN ART VENTURE

Many in our community will remember seeing Jim behind the fryer himself cooking fish and doing his part to raise funds for local charities and community organizations. Jim's roots in Costa Mesa ran deep. He was a graduate of Costa Mesa High School, a standout member of the football team, and then he went on to play college football at San Diego State, sorry, San Jose State University. For decades, Jim dedicated his time, energy and wit to serving the community he called home. Whether through local government, our schools, community organizations or simply volunteering his time, Jim demonstrate

Anyway, that's all I have. I stretched pretty good. City Manager Gallardo-Dailey, it's time for your report.

Thank you. Okay. Our city attorney, Hall Barlow.

Okay. Thank you. All right, so now we're going to move to the consent calendar. Consent calendar is going to be voted on in one motion unless somebody from either the public or the staff or the council pulls an item. Madam Clerk, have any consent calendar items been pulled? Okay. Council Member Gomeros, do you need to recuse on three? Yep. Okay, so Councilmember Ramirez has to recuse on consent calendar item number three because his wife was formerly employed by Priceless Pets. And so, with that, I'll accept a motion for the consent calendar.

I'll move to approve the consent calendar.

Okay, a motion by we'll say Councilmember Maher, seconded by Councilmember Chavez. Call for the question.

Okay. Does anybody have anything they wish to say before we go on a short break? Mr. Mayor? Yes.

Can I request that we pull public hearing item number two from the agenda so we can prioritize our focus on the FDC item and postpone it to a date certain?

I'll second. Third. Yeah. Okay. All right. That sounds good to me. So let's call for the...

Does the city manager have a date that she'd prefer? Sorry, I'm spanking this on you. I also feel like it's not a terrible item to push to a second meeting in November, given the...

THAT'S FINE WITH ME TOO. YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT YOUR MOTION?

AS LONG AS THE CITY MANAGER. POSTPONE IT TO NOVEMBER 17th.

AND SECOND, CHAVEZ CONCURS. LET'S VOTE ON THAT.

I KNOW MOST OF YOU WERE HERE FOR THE CLIMATE ACTION ITEM SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME.

SO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE DO, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTION ABOUT IT, IF YOU'RE HERE FOR THE CLIMATE ACTION ITEM MATTER, THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE in the second Tuesday, sorry. November 17th. Yeah, November 17th, whatever that is, the second Tuesday of November, just before Thanksgiving. Okay, good stuff. We're gonna be adjourned until seven o'clock and then we'll come back and we'll start our one item. Well, actually we have one item before that and the short one and then we'll do the Fairview Developmental Center item. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're back on the record, please. Please,

Okay, so anyway, so we just did this continuance of the climate action plan public hearing number two. We need to revisit that. So I'm going to make a motion to reconsider that and have it be continued not until November 17th, but October 20th. Okay, second. Okay, let's call for the question. Yeah. Yeah.

OKAY. I'LL ACCEPT THAT AS THE MOTION. SECOND. LET'S VOTE.

I WOULD HAVE KNOWN ACCIDENT. IT WAS GOING TO BE A YES.

Okay, good. So we have two public hearings. One is very short. Public hearing item number one. Madam Clerk, please read the title.

All right. That's fine. So moved. Second. Okay. Moved by me. Seconded by Council Member Chavez. Okay. Everybody, let's call for the question on that.

Okay, good. So now we're going to public hearing item number three. Would you please read the title?

Okay. Just if you could just I just want it because we have such a big group I'm so glad to see all of you many of you I've seen before but some of you it might be your first time that have come into City Hall and you're all very welcome I just want to give you an idea and the expectations of what's going to happen in the timing so first we're going to have a presentation it's a PowerPoint presentation And it's got 52 slides. So we're going to listen carefully to that. During that time, we're just going to let them flow. Then the council has an opportunity to ask questions. The council members

I'd like to just make a recommendation. There's a lot of folks here just doing some simple math. Everyone getting three minutes means 20 minutes per hour. 60 people speaking means three hours of public comment, and it's 10 p.m. I do not want to be voting on this at midnight. I think that's poor practice for public policy. I think it makes it really difficult for most of us who work during the day to attend and listen, and so I'd like to request that if we get to 10 p.m., we reduce time to two minutes.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL TAKE THAT UP AT THE TIME. HOW MANY PEOPLE WISH TO SPEAK TONIGHT? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, YOU KNOW, AND SOMETIMES THAT CHANGES AS WE GO. PEOPLE HAVE SAID WHAT YOU NEED TO SAY AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SO BUT, YEAH, THAT'S WHEN WE GET TO 10, WE'LL MAKE THAT DECISION. STAFF, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. I ORIGINALLY HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS BECAUSE I SPENT A LONG TIME TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS. But my question set has changed a little bit based on we received a legal implementation memo showing that the base density we authorized may not be the ultimate density. Staff has modeled a theoretical scenario which 4,000 units could reach 7,850 units. through state bonus density laws. So that changed the trajectory of my questions. My first question is, if council adopts a 4,000 base units, what legally enforceable mechanism guarantees the ultimate development cannot appr

So if density bonus materially increases the ultimate unit count above 4,000, what traffic, infrastructure, public safety, water, school noise, and other environmental analysis applies to those additional units? At what point would an additional CEQA review be required?

Okay. I'm going to leave it there for now. I've got other folks who want to ask questions. So next up.

Thank you, Council Member Pettis. Who wants to go first? You said, so Council Member Gamero, you have the floor.

Thank you. If you could turn to page 40 in the slide, I'd kind of like to direct everyone there. Under the CEQA findings here, we have some significant impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant impact. So let's talk about geology and soils, first of all, in regards to hazards and hazardous materials. It's my understanding that there's asbestos that was discovered or anticipated. Can you speak to that? Can somebody speak to that, please?

REPEAT WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT REGULATORY COMPLIANCE LESS THAN. WHEN YOU SAY ASBESTOS AND LEAD I HEARD 300 MILLION FOR THE REMEDIATION PROCESS. THAT SEEMS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT. SO CAN SOMEONE HELP ME OUT WITH WHAT I HEARD AND I HEARD YOU SPEAKING ENGLISH BUT I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF THE REST OF THE FOLKS HERE COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANT. SO.

Smarter than a sixth grader works good for me. Okay, so with that said, do we have a geotechnical report on what we actually discovered? Do we have that yet? From a geotechnical engineer, have we done any exploratory work? Do we have any findings so far?

Oh, yeah, no problem. I can go on to something else while we're waiting for that.

Okay. With that said, were these boring or trench logs? Excuse me. Oh, yeah boring logs or trench logs, you know, they're noted as borings and they have a certain depth that they went down Okay, do we know to what depth this is important information? I don't mean to get in the weeds, but We need to know this one.

So are we to expect that we have a 40 foot remediation in depth that we have to remove and replace?

OK, I would like to also know how far we intend on going down to make this place safe to build on where we plan on putting playgrounds and stuff like that. Okay, my other question is, we're coming up with a number of 3,800 units before this can reach a profitable margin. Is that, any of that based on the fact that there's a $300 million cost to remediate this stuff?

Was there a number in which if we did not have to assume that burden and it was, say, assumed, for example, by the state, where the profit margin would be there at that point?

Okay. For now, that's all I have. I appreciate you digging into this for me. No pun intended. Thanks.

Yeah, it's a good one. I just have a really quick question about just following up on his questions. I read the financial feasibility report and it said it was going to take $30 million to do the remediation, but of course I just heard $300 million, which is quite a different number. Can you reconcile that for me?

So the $30 million is the cost associated with remediating the lead and the asbestos and stuff like that? Correct. Okay. And just one last question I want to get on this topic while I'm at it. So who introduced the toxic substance into the site? What agency?

Who's next? I'm up. Mayor Pro Tem Chavez.

Thank you, Mayor Stevens. Thank you, staff, for your presentation. I want to focus a little bit on the affordable units just because you mentioned during your presentation that you might need a buffer. So could you elaborate on why we have to hit a certain level of affordable housing units and for what buffer you're referring to?

So I think, maybe I'm misspeaking, but I was under the impression that it was implied or said outright that we need to have a certain number of affordable housing units for a buffer. So I just want to clarify that for the public.

So to reiterate, if we were to go any lower, we would have to come back with another site to offset those very low or low units.

So if, hypothetically speaking, in this discourse, eventually we're talking about lowering, you know, we're looking at different options for unit sizes. You're saying if we were to lower anything, we should not lower the very low and low income because that would eat our buffer.

Any other questions? Council Member Reynolds? Oh, sorry. Let's go with Council Member Reynolds, then we'll go to Council Member Bioli. Thanks.

Excuse me, do you have any more questions?

I'm just trying to do some time management, because I know we've got two other council members who haven't asked any questions. We've got the public that wants to talk.

All right, thanks. Councilmember Bewley, you had questions.

Sure, just a couple questions. And thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council. Thank you, members of the public. I mean, it's awesome to see this level of engagement and outpouring. It's been my experience prior to coming to Council that oftentimes the community gets engaged after the big event happens and the effects are felt. So the fact that we're down here near the finish line and we've got a packed house, I think that speaks volumes and it's a good thing. Thank you, staff, for all your effort and everything that we've put into this. I'm going to ask kind of some bigger picture questions, and it

And then we're doing this juggling act because we also are trying to get our housing element certified. And we recently received a letter that kind of set tonight is the night to get this plan approved and as a potential condition to get our housing element certified. So tonight's the night to get this done for purposes of getting our housing element certified. Am I kind of correct on that?

Right. So to make this process not complicated enough, we're balancing these two very important, very significant interests. and each of them, if we don't hit these deadlines or whatever, there could be consequences, and I'll get to that next. Where I'm going with this, there has been a certain good level of community outreach, public outreach. Recently, we had the town hall that was great. Mayor Stevens invited the community in to express their concerns, and a lot of the council were there at that, heard a lot of good things. There was one stream of community commentary that night that struck

I think I'll follow you and I just want to synthesize that a little bit. My understanding is let's take the housing element and those potential lawsuits. If we don't complete this, we don't get certified. Based on what I've read in the paper with other cities, just to put a dollar amount on it, could be looking at 50k a month in penalties, setting aside the other problems that you mentioned we may be facing. Correct. Okay. And then just My review of the fdc agreement the agreement that's got the december date uh... i couldn't find a specific consequence uh... in the event we missed that deadli

I don't know if anybody else feels this way, but I respect you. I know you're a lawyer. Counselors, councilmen, counselor, I'm uncomfortable with this dialogue. If we're going to have this dialogue, then let's break and go to closed session. Okay, let's move. Can we move on to something else and not talk about the lawsuits?

Okay, fair enough. If we were to continue this back to... staff's question, what would we do with that time? Here's a few scenarios and you can tell me if this would make sense. You constitute an ad hoc committee comprised of stakeholders, renters rights groups, different members of the community, liaison from council, liaison from planning commission, that could happen during that timeframe.

And to make this not a restarting of the whole process, we could limit this ad hoc committees to review the work product that's been done to date. They don't get to engage in new research, new reports, new studies, but they review everything that's been completed up to date. That would be a potential scenario.

Okay, but I think we're heading back down to the legal.

Okay, okay, okay. No, no, no. I'm sorry. Excuse me, everybody. I mean, we cannot be talking about language in the contract and what if we breach it and stuff like that. In my opinion, that's stuff that needs to be discussed in closed session with our attorney.

And that's fair enough. I didn't want that level of legal analysis. I'm just saying if we have more time, I just really want to stay on target here as to what could be accomplished. And then should this ad hoc committee come up with a recommendation that actually reduces the specific plan amount from $2,300 to a recommendation that is something below that, and that winds up being the recommendation, comes before council, we decide that's something we wanna consider, and then I believe I heard Council Member Chavez allude to this, or somebody, if we did dip below this 2300 threshold that's curr

Okay. And cognizant of the time in the community here, just last year I want to talk about this 2300 number. I've been hearing that for months now that... That 2300 number, we go one above it, you get the second access road. We stay at the 2300, we avoid the access road. I've heard that, but tonight, I think on slide 48, it says the 2300 unit alternative requires a secondary access road. Can somebody explain that to me?

And then, another thing that I recently learned, and Councilman Pettis and some of the others alluded to it, if we were to go forward with a 2,300 number, I've seen some analysis that shows that sets the base. And then with the housing density bonus, that could realistically under one scenario get us to 3,825. So the fact that we were to select 2,300 tonight, it's a realistic expectation that something between 2,300 and 3,800 with a housing density bonus is what could actually be achieved out there.

Are you guys in a position tonight? And this isn't to put you on the spot, but it's a critical number. We've got a lot of people here. I'd like to know what is that base number that you probably can't give me an exact scenario. Cause I know the housing density bonus depends on all kinds of different conditions, the master developer plan, and then the sub plans and, this guy decides to seek the housing density bonus. The other guy doesn't. Um, but are you guys able tonight to tell me what is that base number that we could, um, approve tonight with a level of certainty or comfort that when all h

So tonight you couldn't, if you had additional time, would you be able to give us something with a 70% degree of certainty or 90% degree of certainty?

I can say with reasonable certainty tonight that if we approve 2300, we're going to get a developer where the housing density bonus is going to go beyond 2300.

I'M NOT TAKING FAULT. YOU WERE WORKING WITHIN YOUR PARAMETERS. YOU HAD TO PUT TOGETHER A this specific plan or this recommendation that we're reviewing tonight based on economic feasibility and what's an actual plausible outcome. So again, I'm not casting aspersions or pointing fingers. I'm just trying to get accurate information before we jump off this plank tonight, myself and my six other council members up here.

Sorry, Mr. Wright, can I follow up on that line of questioning real quick before you?

I think that's perfect segue. I was just wrapping up. Go ahead.

Okay, pulling that thread on density bonus. I know that's the boogeyman in the room, right? That we get much higher densities than the 2300. That assumes that a developer chooses to add more than 920 affordable units, that they stack additional affordability on top of that, and that's how they're triggering density bonus. Go ahead. Correct me, please.

I think the thing that's hanging me up on this, though, is that at the end of the day, this is not intended to be 100% affordable development. We are very likely to encounter a master developer who is also a nonprofit accumulating tax credits for the purpose of solely building affordable housing. Like there were also economic feasibility constraints that will cap the likelihood of the density increasing, particularly under the scenarios with increased affordability, correct?

PARTICULARLY IF WE CONSTRAIN THE OPEN SPACE, RIGHT, AND WE CALL FOR A HIGH OPEN SPACE NUMBER, THEN WE'RE FURTHER POTENTIALLY CONSTRAINING THE FACILITY. GO AHEAD.

Understood. But nevertheless, I mean, this is a high percentage of affordability. And that plays into the economics in a way that does not suggest that we're just going to keep stacking units on units. Anyway, all right. For the benefit of the public, I've got three lines of questioning. I think they're all things that you were curious about. Number one, fire station and public services. So looking at page 7-12. It is important to note that the specific plan does not identify or propose new public safety facility sites, but also does not preclude the siting of future public safety facilities,

Why not just force the issue? Why not just say a fire station is required, period, full stop, if we think we're close? I mean, we've got a 2019 to 2023 standards of cover study that basically says that we're pretty maxed out.

I'm going to keep going for the sake of time here. You know, I think that there is a number of components in this public services section where we're using shoulds and not shalls. Is there a reason for that? Like, can we be far more prescriptive in terms of what we're requiring, both on the emergency services side and then also in the library, right? And some of these other amenities that we've heard from the public are important.

Okay. And then back to Councilmember Buhle. So you've got a 2300 unit alternative. Are you saying that if we had a 2299 unit alternative, we would not require a secondary road?

But my understanding is we could use Merrimack as a secondary access for emergencies, correct?

Okay. Chief Pyle, you might want to start walking down to the podium here. So, all right. But again, we're talking about a phase 12 to 15 years, in which case the plan says 2300, when we cross that 2300 threshold, then we're talking about a road through the golf course. So they could build a thousand units And then in 10 years, build another 1,299 units. And then in another five years, build two more units. Something like that, right? And then we would say, oh, now we need a road through the golf course?

Okay. So there are multiple scenarios in which this is not happening for 15 years. Yeah, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. And then last, I told you I had three things like last train of thought here, commercial. There are so many numbers in here about commercial space. There's, The back talks about page 6 in the appendix talks about 29,000 to 55,000 of retail. That seems to be the range. If we built 2,300 units, 10,000 units becomes the minimum. I'm unclear if that includes the other commercial category. And then there's another section where we're back to talking about 29,000 to 55,000. It se

Got it. Okay. Uh, chief, if we had 2,299 units and you had the existing access road off of Harbor and emergency access through Merrimack, would that be sufficient?

I mean, the plan literally says we can use it for emergency access.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M DONE. THANK YOU. THANKS.

I HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I'M GOING TO JUST ASK A FEW. REALLY FOCUS ON THE GOLF COURSE. IT'S BEEN TOUCHED ON BY SOME. SO IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD OF MARIMAC, RIGHT? PRIVATE ROAD OF MARIMAC. RIGHT NOW IN THE GOLF COURSE GOING THROUGH MESA LINDA THERE'S NO ROAD AT ALL, RIGHT?

There's currently no road. And if there is a road, according to figures 5.7 and 5.8 of the specific plan, it would be either 58 feet or 64 feet, correct? If we adopt a specific plan that includes one of those options or both of those options, what's the likelihood, do you think, that there would be a secondary access road through the golf course if the project is built out?

We would have an access road through the golf course, right? IF WE HAD AN ACCESS ROAD THROUGH THE GOLF COURSE, IF WE VOTE ON THAT HERE IN THIS SPECIFIC PLAN, WHAT'S THE PROCESS FOR US TO GET COMPENSATION FOR THE real estate that we're giving up and the goodwill that we're losing and the redesign of the course and how do we get that and how can we be assured in this vote that we're taking today that we're doing everything we can to maximize that compensation.

WE DID A FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS. WE HIRED PLACEWORKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. IN THAT PROCESS, EVEN WITHIN SOME ORDER OF MAGNITUDE, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA like within a range or within 10 million, how much would be an appropriate compensation for the grant of land and the lost goodwill and the impact of the golf course?

SO THEN IS THE ANSWER WE DON'T HAVE ANY ORDER OF MAGNITUDE?

RIGHT. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT AN APPRAISAL. I'M TALKING ABOUT AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE, NOT EVEN APPRAISAL. THERE'S A LOT MORE TO IT THAN THAT. HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST TO We do have a golf course architect that we've retained, right? Has he provided any numerical or any idea about how much it's going to cost to fix the golf course?

Okay, Placeworks. Is anybody here from Placeworks that did the write up in the EIR pertaining to the golf course? Do we have that person here? Okay, come on. Ms. Kelly, I think it is. Couple of quick questions. So the ultimate conclusion as I understand it from the EIR is that really the golf course is not the type of golf course that you would consider environmentally sensitive. Because as I read it, even though it's a William F. Bell course, it's not like Torrey Pines or Sandpiper or one of his significant designs was one of the rationales. I think another rationale is really nobody's played

Did you talk to anybody from Mesa Verde Partners? the operator of the golf course in preparing the EIR?

Okay. Do you have an experience in prior EIR studying roads being cut through golf courses?

Thank you. Um, in 2020, January of 2020, the City Council voted on a recommendation. We had 1,500 units, which included 311 units for veteran housing, 200 units for affordable housing, permanent supportive housing. It had open space of 25 acres. What else? It had multifamily, single family. Okay. And we prepared this and we voted on it unanimously. Did you review this?

Okay. And then... Whatever happened to it? Was there discussions with the state that any current member of staff participated in where this vision that was voted on by the city council was discussed, advocated, anything like that with the state? Because we're way off of this now.

SO FROM THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, THE VOTING ON THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND WHAT WE INCLUDED IN THAT BASICALLY SUPERCEDED FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE WHAT WE HAD VOTED ON IN JANUARY OF 2020.

NOW, LAST QUESTION. SO THERE ARE THREE DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES SITES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HISTORICALLY. THERE'S ONE IN PORTERVILLE WHICH IS STILL ACTIVE. THERE'S ANOTHER ONE IN SONOMA WHICH SHUT DOWN IN 2018 AND THEN THERE'S COURSE COAST MESA. THE ONE IN SONOMA, THE SPECIFIC PLAN, IT'S A 945 ACRE SITE. The specific plan calls for 1,000 housing units, 200 affordable units, 410,000 square feet of non-residential use, and a preservation of open space of 755 acres. And to my knowledge, it's in litigation. What I mean and anybody can answer this what's the explanation for how come Sonoma? In a

YEAH. AND NONE OF THIS IS ADDRESSED TO YOU. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IT'S LIKE NONE OF IT. I'M JUST KIND OF GRUMPY BY OUR TREATMENT BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO ONE LAST THING. ARE YOU ABLE TO PUT UP A SLIDE FROM THE SPECIFIC PLAN? ARE YOU ABLE TO DO THAT? CAN WE DO THAT? DO WE HAVE THAT TECHNOLOGY? WE CAN PUT THIS UP. THIS IS SLIDE FIGURE 6.1 ON PAGE 6.3.

THIS IS MY LAST QUESTION. I PROMISE PUBLIC WE'RE GOING TO GET TO YOU. MY LAST QUESTION. I THINK IT'S WORTH IT.

Okay. You have the figure up, OK? I just want to ask some questions about this figure. Uh-oh. I lost it. Uh-oh. Now we've got a green screen. Whoever was perfect before, stop touching it. It's up there? Oh, it's not on mine. OK, good. So I look at this. And of course, up there in the corner, it's the Emergency Operations Center site. I read in the EIR that there have been 3,000 golf balls hit into that facility during construction. I look at all of this housing that is around the golf course and adjacent to the golf course. There doesn't appear to be much. by way of setback, how are we going t

Hold on one second. Hold on one second. It's important for her to answer the question. Yes.

Hold on. Don't do this. Don't do this. You've been so good. Go.

Have we considered the impact on the marketability of the residences if there are large nets right outside their residence?

Thank you. At last, let's open it up to the public. And by the way, we're going to keep going. You get three minutes. You're going to get the beep at 2. And then remember, no interrupting or disrupting. Thank you very much for being so good during the discussions. We're not going to take any breaks, but the council might go to the restroom. It's not disrespectful. It's just that we're human beings and we have biological needs. Go.

Excuse me. Two years. Oh, sorry. Sorry. You want to make sure your mic's on. Go ahead.

All right, now that's, now you're done. Mayor Pro Tem Chavez is going to take over. I've got to go, but do what he tells you to do.

Hold on one second. Who is on Zoom? Do we have anybody on Zoom? Let's hear from the people on Zoom.

Mr. Mayor, we're at almost 11 o'clock. Can I ask that we go to two minutes of public comment in person?

HOW MANY ARE ON ZOOM? YOU SAID FOUR, RIGHT? HOW MANY DO WE HAVE WITH THEIR HANDS RAISED? SEVEN WITH THEIR HANDS RAISED? ALL RIGHT. YOU MADE THE MOTION.

OKAY. NO SECOND. OKAY. GO AHEAD. WHO IS UP ON ZOOM?

Thank you, ma'am. Wendy, please. Wendy, you have the floor. Wendy?

Wendy, Wendy, we can hear you, but there's a lot of feedback. It's hard to hear me. No, no. You got to do something differently because you're echoing. Do you know the reason for the echo, Wendy? Yeah. Okay. Why don't we come back to you, Wendy? Fix the echo. We'll come back to you.

If I may interject, Wendy, it might be that you're not on mute on your phone or your laptop.

Yeah, that could be. Fix the mute button. We'll get back to you in another speaker. Go ahead.

Can you hear me now? Yeah, you still got the same problem, Wendy. We're going to go to somebody else, and then we're going to go back to you.

All right, Chris, that's good. Back to Wendy. No, still gotcha. It's not working out, Wendy.

Yes, Chris. Okay, let's go back to whoever's else and then we'll try Wendy again. Wendy, it's just intolerable. Kirk, please. Kirk, you got the floor.

Thank you. Let's do it, Wendy. One more time.

You got it, Wendy. You got it. This better be good.

Thank you very much for your patience with me tonight Thanks Wendy And then and Wendy thanks for your persistence and your prayers. Yes anybody else? No public comment. Okay. I've got a But how do you know you're going to second my motion? Okay, so anyway, so I've got a motion I'm going to throw out there. But listen, this is a starting place. If I get a second, I'll talk about it, and then I'll be open. Well, I don't know. We'll see. Maybe he'll withdraw when he hears the motion. You know, and then... WE'LL TALK ABOUT AMENDMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO UNIT COUNT OVERALL, 2,000. AFFORDABLE U

ONE LAST THING BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO THE SECOND AND AS I SAY I'M OPEN TO ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT amendments. But I don't think we should put this off. I mean, we're running out of time. We don't have any time. And that does not ever foreclose a future council for completely undoing what we're doing. So I do think that we owe it to ourselves and to the community to make a decision here. You're the second. Go, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor Stephens. My intuition was pretty on point because everything you recommended, I was going to agree with. The only question mark is the affordable units, but I'll put a pin on that until I make my next couple kind of comments. From my perspective, this has been a long journey. We've been talking about this since I first got on city council about eight years ago. I have been kind of clear from the beginning to my council peers that I've always figured the state would weigh its heavy hand on a property they own. And I think it's about time I share my thoughts on this. And it's r

Okay. To the best of your ability, I know I can't give you an exact, what number would make you feel more comfortable that the next council would have to come and find new units?

So Mayor Stephens, you just heard my two kind of guiding principles. Would you be comfortable going back to 921? 920. 920?

The only reason I reduced it was to make it more financially feasible. But I had some other, okay, let me ask you another question, which you might not be able to answer, but maybe the folks from Placeworks would be able to answer. If we went to a plan which had two elements, 920 affordable units and no cut through the golf course, is there any way we can have these other things that we consider in terms of a subsidy, in terms of reducing the amount of permanent supportive housing and as much as we've got a lot of permanent supportive housing, any way we can make it financially feasible? AT, A

To discuss, for example, Merrimack as a secondary access.

Because in terms of Merrimack as a secondary access, just can I say, is first of all, I know it was viewed as a private road, but it's been a public road in terms of its use for as long as I can remember. I have driven through it numerous times in deliberating on this decision. and it used to cut through all the way to fairview developmental center when fairview developmental center was open it's only since it's shut down that that you can't get through there there's a temporary gate number one number two i mean i've talked to octa um i've talked to uh experts on um uh on uh YOU KNOW, DEVELOPM

Because I actually have some thoughts on this. Yes, yes, please. So, I mean, it's not so much that they're forcing us to cut through the golf course. It's that the study is saying once we get to a certain number of units, The likely traffic impacts will make it really difficult to come out of one exit. We all agree having them 0.3 miles apart doesn't make a ton of sense. And so I think maybe it's an order of operations issue, right? Like number one is force a negotiation of some type, first to confirm the emergency vehicles. I mean, secondly, there's a discussion about pedestrians and bikes an

Then you go to a developer and say, You you're bringing an amendment to the specific plan correct right and then to get us to amend the specific plan This is way down the road and she says ten years from now you have to convince the golfing community and the council that this is better and I think that I'm I'm on board with what council member Mara is saying because I mean as much as we love Those guys are still here. As much as we love our Mesa Linda and everything like that, I don't think anybody's deluding themselves to think that Mesa Linda is Augusta Golf Course. I mean, you know, roads d

And we're still at 15,000 commercial square footage and 25 open space.

Can I ask a question about the commercial? Yes. I'm sorry. People have their mics on, so I don't know if I'm jumping order here. the commercials continue to confuse me. There's a commercial and then there's other commercial in the plan. And so if we say 15,000, we're talking about retail. Are we leaving the other commercial at 76,000 or do we now need to adjust that number based on the open space number and the other commercial number?

I'm on 2-27 of the specific plan, which I now recognize is what ONE STEP OUT OF DATE FROM WHAT THE REST OF COUNCIL HAS BUT I LIKED MY STICKY VERSION.

THAT'S THE MINIMUM. SORRY. THE 15,000 IS THE MINIMUM. Not the maximum. There's no maximum.

Page six of the summary. Finally, the plan area could also provide retail and other commercial development to serve the needs. The analysis recommends that the plan accommodate 29,000 to 55,000 square feet of gross retail and another 76,000 square feet of gross floor area for other commercial businesses such as fitness center and medical or professional offices. So I guess that's where I'm like, okay, we're 29,000 to 55,000 square feet of gross floor area, I'm guessing was based on 4,000.

Of the appendix? It's of the market study. But it's an and. It's 29,000 retail and another 76,000 square feet for other commercial businesses.

So how did we go from 100,000 square feet of retail and other commercial to 10,000?

So why don't we say for the motion, 15,000 to 35,000. I don't really know what number it is. I don't know what number it is. You understand my vision, right? Dos amigos. Yes.

I have a clarifying question because I know we got from Reynolds this. TEXTUAL EDITS. HAVE WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THESE YET? NOT YET. I HAVE A COMMENT FOR ONE OF THESE.

HOLD ON ONE SECOND. IS THE SECOND OKAY WITH 15? YES. THE 35? OKAY. MIKE, I'M SORRY, COUNCIL MEMBER BUEHLER. I JUST WANT TO BE HEARD AND THEN WE'LL GO TO CLARIFICATION.

There was this discussion, we've gone from 2,000 to now 2,300 units, and it sounds like there's discussion what triggers the secondary access road. And just so I can understand your motion, that in the motion, if we up it to this 2,300, in the event it's gonna trigger a secondary access road, I'm not clear on what happens next. What prohibition do we have if the, Density bonus adjustment comes in on the 2300 that makes it an obligation for safety reasons to get the secondary access road What controls do we have? I think you said that the developer will have to come back to council. What langua

So we're saying no, well, I would say no, based on what we have right now, no cut through the golf course. That's clear. That's going to be in the specific plan. Then what we had with Council Member Maher's addition is you know before a decision is made with respect to whether uh... secondary access is necessary there would be an additional traffic plan a new traffic plan based on development that has developed to that point in time because we've got what what is it called a developmental review application okay so we've got that week maybe have different phasing or whatever and so We don't ma

And we would have to approve it. You have to amend the specific plan.

That will have to come back to council to make that action?

Yes. With all the plans and all the budgets and all the financial commitments, all the renderings and engagement with the golf community. Not where we're at right now.

Are we back down to six or nine? Yeah, we're going to go to 23 and 920 so that we don't bollocks up our housing element concern. Yes, Council Member Guimaraes.

Thank you. So I have some friendly amendments. Yes. Okay, let me go through this. It's just a few, but I think they're really important. The first thing is, this is based on a lot of constituent requests. I think we definitely need to have A COMMITTEE OR I GUESS A COMMITTEE ON FDC WHERE WE CAN APPOINT SEVEN PEOPLE. I HEARD 11 AT ONE POINT BUT SEVEN PEOPLE ON THIS PROJECT MOVING FORWARD.

I'M GOOD WITH THAT. SECOND, ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT, A COMMITTEE? COMMITTEE WITH SEVEN PEOPLE AND OKAY, THAT'S GOOD. SO THAT'S APPROVED BY THE MOVEMENT AND THE SECOND.

SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. WHAT IS THE COMMITTEE?

CITIZENS COMMITTEE REGARDING FDC. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF STUFF GOING ON. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF ACTIVITY INTO THE FUTURE.

NO, NO, BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE GOING TO GET AT SOME POINT WE'RE GOING TO GET A DEVELOPMENT.

THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS NOT GOING TO NEGOTIATE A DA ON OUR BEHALF.

That could be figured out by another council.

Yeah, as long as we have it in there. I just don't want to get to push through without giving the opportunity to the residents of the community.

Okay. Um, secondarily, I think that we need to have an ad hoc committee for the next council that comes in on this moving forward for whatever happens.

Like I said, as long as you include the nine 21 units or nine 20 units, I'm happy with anything.

Okay. And then the last, uh, last but not least, um, any property, existing on FDC that is contiguous, excuse me, contiguous with the golf course Shelby R1 housing?

Well, I mean, I don't mind it in theory. It's just don't we need the density to make it profitable? Well, I don't know. I don't know. See, earlier I made the comment that it's not my job to make it profitable to the developer, knowing that they'll probably work with the state along the way to make edits to anything we do. I just think we get more profitability having more units in a tower than R1, because there's more units that face the golf course we could charge.

WELL, I DO THINK, I UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR IT. THERE'S A COUPLE REASONS. NUMBER ONE IS THAT'S PRIME PROPERTY AND IT WOULD MAKE, I THINK, SOME REALLY NICE HOMES THAT WOULD BE MARKETABLE. BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S THE DECISION OF THE DEVELOPER. SO WHAT CAN WE PUT IN THERE, STAFF, CAN WE PUT IN THERE THAT It can we put it to we could we put in the specific plan that the developer will consider? You know providing single-family homes In contiguous to the golf course if I can ask what can we put in there sure?

Yeah, a narrow green belt along. ANY PROPERTY THAT BORDERS THE GOLF COURSE. RIGHT.

IT'S KIND OF AKIN IN A WAY TO THE PROPERTY WE APPROVED IN COUNCIL MEMBER GOMERO'S DISTRICT THAT HAD THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING ON BEAR STREET AROUND THE MORE HIGHLY DENSE HOUSING.

I have a question. Can we just zone that area for the possibility for an option and we can look at it later? I don't want to exclude it.

Is that sufficient for you? I mean, what if we did this? I'm just brainstorming. What if we just dropped a footnote in that table and said R1, and we just said a footnote, preferred contiguous to the golf course, something like that? Not required, but preferred.

That's already there. We do a footnote, and it says preferred contiguous to the golf course.

I'm sorry in more open space so councilmember Camaros are you okay with the ability but not a preference or requirement I

Yeah, I'm gonna, yeah, I guess so. I just, I definitely want to see this have a blend of homes and not just a bunch of apartments and high density and so, okay.

That's it. John, real quick, did you have an athletic field in your original motion? I could have said that. Yeah, I did. With lights. With lights. Yes. All right, getting sweeter.

Does anybody want to speak to the motion? Mayor, can I give some context? Oh, yeah, you've got your list.

happy to talk through any but i think these are reasonable and strengthen the plan i i have i have no objection to any of these uh has staff read this is there anything we i should be concerned about i have a clarifying question mr yes i i am familiar with fruit trees um my big fear of fruit trees that we attract pests like rats and stuff Just get really concerned when I see like a fruit tree and pull right away because who's gonna maintain it So how we make sure that we're not getting pests with these fruit trees Yeah Yeah, that's a concern that we have with fruit trees.

Oh really so can I can we scratch that one out? Okay?

Why don't we just add this, Council Member Reynolds, if we say allow fruit trees to be planted in public areas provided that you know, what can we say, provided that it does not create a, what is it, like insect damage, or is it pest? Yeah, I'll maintain by private developer. Some private association. But also some provided that it doesn't create a pest problem, something like that. Right. Yes.

Is that okay? I mean, I don't, I don't think it's like worth adding the fruit tree thing, but sure.

Okay. We're this close. We're, we're, we're, we're a fruit tree away.

It's just like, I mean, again, it's fine. It's just whatever.

Good. Okay. Is everybody, is everybody good? We've talked a lot, but I mean, if people want to be heard about this, they can. I'd like to be a council member Buley. Yeah.

obviously significant motion and uh... pre-set all the efforts of staff pre-set uh... all the community came out and i appreciate the creative uh... motion but uh... by the mayor and i'm gonna support the motion but i just wanted to be heard on this motion you know to me what we've really been debating here whether we go uh... four thousand units high density or fifteen hundred units uh... it's a quality of life issue as quality of life issue for the affordable, people looking for affordable housing, they just want a house, they want an affordable house to get into, and it's a quality of life

Thank you. Okay. If we're going to talk more, we need to make a motion. We should make a motion to go past midnight. So moved. Any, any objection? Okay. That passes. Oh, you're, you're a no on it. We got it. We got it. We got at least call for the question. Does anybody else? So that passes. We're good with that. Uh, uh, you got that. Madam clerk, anybody else wish to be further heard on this? Uh, council member Reynolds.

We have a piece of paper we're going to give to the clerk and that is going to be part of the motion.

Anybody else wish to be heard? Okay, let's call for the question.

Oh, my goodness. Congratulations, Council. All right, all right. So remember, we're adjourning tonight in honor and memory of our good friend, former trustee, former board member of sanitary district, Jim Ferryman. May he rest in peace. Thank you, everybody.