WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT WORKING WARDROBES…
“Behind the Suit”
Changes on the outside
start on the inside
4 Empowerment.
Employment.
Dignity.
THE POWER OF THE RIPPLE EFFECT STARTS HERE
Values
Integrity
Grit
Humble Achiever
Thoughtful Relator
5400+
Clients reached
with
185+
Partner programs &
service providers
9 BARRIERS TO GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT
…AND THE HIGH COST OF LIVING
Workforce
Development
addresses…
Housing
issues
Education
issues
Public safety
issues
Justice reform
issues
Public health
issues
Food security
issues
Family
issues
Generational
issues
Human issues
IMPACT: FROM INDIVIDUAL TO COMMUNAL
Ability to
afford rent
Ability to
pay
bills
Access to
healthcare
Ability to
buy
food
Less likely to
experience
homelessness
Stable housing
for family
and children
Less likely to
engage in illegal
activity to pay bills
Reduced
recidivism
of incarceration
Ability to address
personal health
concerns
Ability to address
family and children’s
health concerns
Less likely to
experience
food insecurity
Ability to buy
healthy food for
family and children
Community
-
wide
reduced rates of
homelessness
Youth able
to focus on
education
Community
-
wide
reduced
crime rates
Community
-
wide
reduced rates of
incarceration
Greater
overall
public health
Family primed
to live healthier,
longer lives
Community
-
wide
reduced rates of
food insecurity
Family receives
sufficient energy
and nutrition
A Thriving Southern California
“Thank you for how you
received me, how you treated
me, spoke to me, for how you
served me and embraced me.
Your human touch and
acceptance was a healing
balm to my innermost hurts.
Thank you!!!”
<Client quoted is NOT pictured here>
CLIENT TESTIMONIAL
SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
FUNDING THE MISSION
CLIENT SERVICES
FUND DEVELOPMENT
How will you
Create Transformations
“Behind the Success Suit”
Fund these resources
for our community
Create Transformations
“Behind the Success Suit”
THE POWER OF ONE
Who
should
see this?!
ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT DIVISION
Enforcement of the City’s Sidewalk
Vendor Permit Ordinance
April 16, 2024
City Council
2 Sidewalk Vendor Background
• In 2020, the City established requirements pursuant to Senate Bill 946 (Safe Sidewalk Vending Act) that established a local program for sidewalk vendors.
• Vendors are subject to a City permit and numerous specific operating conditions, including (but not limited to) size, location, distance requirements, sanitary conditions, and minimum ages for employees.
• Recently, residents have contacted the City regarding potential illegal street vendor operations that are operating without permits and cooking on the sidewalk.
• Staff initiated plans to illuminate illegal street vendors.
3 Orange County Health Agency
Allowed with Permits
Not Allowed
4 Code Enforcement Initial Response
• Education - Path for permit issuance through County Health and then through the City’s Ordinance.
• Noticing - More education and violation notices.
5 Stepped-up Response - Five-Pronged Approach
1. Code Enforcement Staffing – Shifted staff resources and hours to address vendors when operating.
2. Code Enforcement – Proactive presence, contact with vendors prior to operation to avert set-ups.
3. OC Health – Organized weekly joint inspections with county Inspectors. OC Health is the City’s Health Officer and has the authority for “Food Establishment Closures” to “safeguard health and safety of the public”.
4. Police – Coordinated police presence when contacting illegal vendors operations.
5. Spearheaded Street Vendor Roundtable - 10 O.C. cities to discuss best enforcement practices/strategies.
6 Stepped-up Response
Results:
Authorized by the State’s Health and Safety Code, California Retail Food Code, Food and equipment was destroyed and or impounded by health inspectors.
Confiscation of equipment & food is effective means to shut down illegal operators.
7 Results as of Today:
Shut down approximately 20 illegal food vendor stands!
Illegal food vendor stands
Approximately six (6) vendor vehicles were impounded by the police department due to vehicle code violations.
8 April 3, 2023 – City of Costa Mesa’s Code
Enforcement Roundtable
1. Tustin 6. Stanton
2. Huntington Beach 7. Fullerton
3. Newport Beach 8. Orange
4. Santa Ana 9. Placentia
5. Lake Forest 10.Fountain Valley
In general, other City’s approach is very similar to Costa Mesa’s:
• Educate.
• Notice
• Enforcement team. OC Health Department is a critical
component.
9 Next Steps
• We will continue to mobilize our resources to address this issue. • We are meeting with our counter parts at neighboring cities to coordinate enforcement strategies.
• Evaluating ways to augment City enforcement with use of 3rd party contractor for impound and storage of illegal equipment. • Continue to monitor and modify enforcement strategies as needed to ensure no illegal street vendors.
ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT DIVISION
Enforcement of the City’s Sidewalk
Vendor Permit Ordinance
April 16, 2024
City Council
April 16, 2024
City Council
Planning Application ZA-22-011, PDVR-23-0003, PMND-23-0003 1595 Old Newport Boulevard
Review of Planning Commission
Decision to approve Raising Cane’s
2 Application:
• Development Review (PDVR-23-0003)
• Minor Modification (PMND-23-0003)
• Minor Conditional Use (Permit ZA-22-011)
To:
Demolish existing furniture store and
construct a new drive-through restaurant
with 828 square feet of interior dining and
1,303 SF patio dining
3 Planning Commission Hearing
4 Existing View from
Old Newport Boulevard
Existing View from
Old Newport Boulevard
Proposed Site (Photo simulation)
Existing and Proposed Site
5 Site Plan
6 Circulation & Queuing
7 • New building in the C2 Zone
• Subject to Review Criteria:
- Design compatible with area
- Appropriate for the site
- Consistent with General Plan
- Consistent with Zoning Code
Development Review
8 Minor Modification
• Building projects 4 feet into front
setback
• Code allows up to 20 percent (4 feet
encroachment)
• Pedestrian walkway added
• Enhanced landscape provided
9 Minor CUP
• Drive-through operation
- 9 am to 2 am Sunday – Wednesday
- 9 am to 3:30 am Thursday -
Saturday
• Narrower drive-through lanes
- from 11 feet wide to 10 feet
• Reduce required parking spaces
- from 41 spaces to 34
- supported by parking study
• Parking adjacent to drive-through exit
10 • Red Curb
- Both sides of project driveway
- Improves driver visibility
• Add Bulb-Out and Crosswalk
- Narrows width of Old Newport Blvd at 16th
- Establishes pedestrian crossing
- Improves pedestrian safety
Off-Site Improvements
11 Findings
Minor Conditional Use Permit Findings:
The proposed development or use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area.
Granting the conditional use permit or minor conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood.
Granting the conditional use permit or minor conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. 12 Findings
Minor Modification Findings:
The improvement will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood.
The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development.
Review of Planning Commission
Decision to approve Raising Cane’s
Planning Application ZA-22-011, PDVR-23-0003, PMND-23-0003 1595 Old Newport Boulevard
April 16, 2024
City Council
City Council Hearing
April 16,2024
Costa Mesa, CA
Raising Cane’s
Planning Commission Recap
Planning Requests
Parking
Setback
Drive-Through
On-site Queuing
Hours
Sunday – Wednesday 9:00 a.m. – 2:00 a.m.
Thursday – Saturday 9:00 a.m. – 3:30 a.m.
Planning Commission Recap
Traffic
City directed analysis
No Impacts
Crosswalk
Air Quality & Noise
City directed analysis
No Impacts
Outreach
Sea Breeze Villas
Level 1
We look forward to continuing to grow with the Costa Mesa community! Thank you!
April 16, 2024
City Council
Appeal Hearing
Planning Application 22-37
3150 Bear Street
2 Project Overview
• Conditional Use Permits
- Event Center (CMMC 13-30(d))
- Valet Parking (CMMC 13-96)
• Minor Conditional Use Permits
- Ancillary Outdoor Activities (CMMC 13-44)
- Parking Deviation (CMMC 13-89.5)
• 3150 Bear Street
• AP (Administrative Professional) Zone
• Currently used as an office
405 Fwy
Bear Street
3 Administrative Professional Zone (AP)
• AP district is intended to establish areas for public administrative, professional and similar business office uses
• Limit the intensity of use within the district to be compatible with the types of activities generally associated with office developments • An event center is allowed with a CUP
4 Event Center
• Three Interior Event Spaces:
• Atrium
• Auditorium
• Dining room
• Ancillary events in Grand Courtyard
• Two events per day
• No concurrent events
• Limit of 225 people total
• No simultaneous office/event use
5 Valet Parking and Parking Deviation
• Parking Deviation
- 241 on-site spaces present
- Office requires 20 spaces
- Events require 225 parking spaces
- Non-concurrent use
- Conditions limit persons on-site
- Result is adequate parking available
• Valet Parking
- Valet parking to improve event experience
- Not required to meet parking demand
- Valet podium located 300 feet from homes
- Manages queuing and parking locations
6 Appellant’s Concerns
• CEQA determination
• Noise impacts to neighboring properties
• Circulation impacts to Bear Street
• Enforcement of the Conditions of Approval
7 Appellant’s Concerns - CEQA Determination
• Project is exempt under Existing Facilities
(Class 1) CEQA exemption
• Involves negligible or no expansion of
existing or former use
• Class 1 has been used with previous event
center projects within the City, such as
“The Harper”
8 Appellant’s Concerns - Noise Impacts
Indoor Events 8 AM to 10 PM all week
Outdoor Events 8 AM to 9 PM weekdays
7 AM to 9 PM weekends
• Outdoor Events
- no amplified sound
- only four musicians
- only small selection of acoustic instruments
- close as 120 feet from residential but often
significantly more
- must comply with City’s noise ordinance
• Valet Parking
- podium distant from homes (at least 300 feet)
- vehicles driven by professional attendants
9 Appellant’s Concerns - Traffic/Circulation Impacts
• Events are limited to 225 total persons
• Events do not begin or end during peak traffic hour
• Office and event activities will not occur at the
same time
• Two events maximum per day
• Access only from Bear Street
- fire access gate from Olympic Ave. not used
10 Appellant’s Concerns - Enforcement of Conditions
• Code Enforcement can be contacted regarding
potential violations of conditions of approval
• The Police Department can be contacted
regarding noise complaints outside of business
hours
• The City will investigate any potential violations
• The City can take action to enforce the Conditions
of Approval
11 Conclusion
• Suitable site and building layout
• 225 attendee cap
• 241 on-site parking spaces
• Limited hours of operation (10 PM indoor and 9 PM outdoor) • Limited outdoor operations
• Employment for smaller businesses (caterers, musicians, etc.) • Gathering space for the community and region
12 Recommendation
Staff recommends City Council adopt a Resolution to:
• Find that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1), Existing Facilities; and
• Uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Planning Application 22-37, based on findings of fact and subject to conditions of approval.
April 16, 2024
City Council
Appeal Hearing
Planning Application 22-37
3150 Bear Street
APPEAL-22-27 TO USE OF 3150 BEAR ST. AS AN
EVENT CENTER
PA-22-37 Application to establish an
EVENT CENTER in an AP Zone
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS
“The proposed development or use is substantially
compatible with developments in the same general
area and would not be materially detrimental to
other properties within the area”
The “finding” parrots verbatim the applicant’s
position? How is this an independent finding of
fact?
Does the city consider me and my
well-being to be immaterial?
Facts in Support of Findings:….
REBUTTAL• Though titled “Facts in Support of Findings”
the statements within are assumption
based and entirely supposition.
• No supporting empirical data.
• Mimics Applicant’s application verbiage. • What about an Events Centers (RED) is compatible with developments
(neighborhoods)?
• Apart from my home the Lifestyles
common property line properties are
largely owned by extension by the former
3150 property owner/entity.
Local
Business
Temporary Domiciles
My Residence
3150 parking is closer
to my bedroom than
MY OWN DRIVEWAY
Finding:
“Granting the conditional use permit or minor conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate
neighborhood.”
• This approval is 100% Materially detrimental to
my well-being. The stress is absurd and
unnecessary.
• I did not attend the public meeting
precisely because of prior negative
experiences at previous public meetings
where I DID participate.
• I realize I live in a City, but I love my home
and I only wish to live peacefully in it
without undue duress.
Finding:
“Granting the conditional use permit or minor
conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfareof the public or otherwise injurious to propertyor improvements within
the immediate neighborhood.”
• I am clearly directly impacted.
• I feel like I’m on an island, handling this
issue all on my own.
• Who wouldn’t be concerned that all
morning/night, every morning/night, there
could be any number of ceremonies/car
alarms/car exhaust/strangers (loud) 25’
from my bedroom at 10:00 at night?!
• Why am I left feeling helpless and
hopeless by the city?
Old footage from an old
computer typical of noise
coming from the 3150 property
• The application does not describe any
steps the property intends to take to
mitigate noise.
• There are no controls included in the
application.
• This footage captures typical noises I
was exposed to for years.
• I cannot understand why the city finds
this acceptable.
• Late night/early morning noise is not
compatible with the with the general
welfare.
Please do not
allow rows
and rows of
cars to park
and traverse
near or past
my HOME
Cars backed into the parking spots will have their exhaust within 5 or 6’ of my backyard.
It is not plausible to believe that the air quality in backyard will not be degraded.
How is this fact fair or inconsequential to me? How am I supposed to peacefully enjoy my backyard with people, cars, car alarms, exhaust, traffic noise, etc., all within a few feet of me?
Tree
Intrusion/Damage
The neighboring property’s trees have
intruded largely over and under my back
yard.
1. How do I preserve my
property from the neighboring
property’s roots and
branches?
2. Where is the documentation
supporting the approval of
planting these trees so close to
my property?
3. Does that approval remain
valid?
4. I fear Santa Ana
winds may uproot
and cause 3150’s
trees to fall on my
property and damage
my property or harm
me.
Car Parking and Transit
Despite depiction of serenity the property
here, the reality is everything you see here
will be surrounded by car parking as well as
Vehicular traffic.
Application Flaws
• Page 2, Background:
• ….”The previous tenant was Trinity
Broadcast Network (TBN)…
• EF Education First was in fact the
previous tenant.
• The description of it’s use omits key
facts. (Sufficient noise, Air, Tree
damage) mitigation means.
• There are no processes or
procedures attached to the
application which supports how
“conflicts” will ACTUALLY be
supported.
• Will cars be turned away? If so,
will that affect parking at Shiffer
Park?
Transparency
1. Policy N-2.2:
a) Where is the data that supports that full
consideration was given?
b) Where is the documentation that supports
conclusion.
c) Where is the process documentation that
supports how the conclusions were arrived
at?
2. Policy N-2.5:
a) What are the city’s plans for enforcement?
b) How many code/CUP enforcements before
this permit is revoked?
3. Policy N-2.9:
a) Has the received noise test results from the
applicant per scenarios proposed by the
applicant?
b) Where does the city’s confidence come
from that the applicant will abide by the
CUPs/codes, etc and that I will be able to
live peaceably in my home?
FACTS
The City of Costa Mesa (the city) has repeatedly agreed to CUPs over and above those the property was originally zoned for.
• The City now addresses the 3150 property as an Event Center despite its AP zoning.
• The city approved an application for EF Education. 1,400 people would have had access to the property at any given time. • Lifestyles properties on either side of mine are owned by a separate “corporate” entity and are treated as temporary domiciles. As such I am somewhat isolated in bringing this action forward.
These parking spots directly abut the trees which
directly abut my wall which is only 20’ from my
bedroom.
Finding:
“Granting the conditional use permit or
minor conditional use permit will not be
materially detrimental to the health, safety,
and general welfare of the public or
otherwise injurious to property or
improvements within the immediate
neighborhood.”
I ask the City carefully consider my situation and take sufficient mitigating actions with respect to the 3150 Bear Street propertywhich will lead to an opportunity for me to live peaceably in my beautiful home.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
APPOINTMENT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND
VARIOUS CITY COMMITTEES
City Council Meeting
April 16, 2024
2 BACKGROUND
• At the September 5, 2023 City Council meeting, it was approved that each Council Member shall have the opportunity to either nominate a member or to defer his or her nomination to the City Council liaison for all committees. • At the October 17, 2023 City Council meeting, Council Member Marr (District 3), Council Member Chavez (District 4), and Council Member Reynolds (District 5) made their appointments.
• Nominations at tonight’s Council Meeting will be made by Mayor Stephens, Council Member Harper (District 1), Council Member Gameros (District 2), and Mayor Pro Tem Harlan (District 6).
3 BACKGROUND
• On September 5, 2023, City Council also requested staff to meet with the Costa Mesa Historical Society on a potential merger of the Society and the Historical Preservation Committee.
• On February 17, 2024, the Historical Preservation Committee held a Special Meeting and unanimously voted to dissolve the committee and not merge with the Costa Mesa Historical Society.
• On February 27, 2024, Jimmy Vivar informed the City that he was stepping down as Planning Commissioner. His last Commission meeting was April 8, 2024. A vacancy notice was posted by the City and a recruitment process was initiated.
4 • Make one (1) member appointment to fill the vacancy with a remaining term expiration of January 2027. Appointment by Council Member Reynolds.
1. David Jordan Smith - District 2
2. Syed Zia Hussain - District 2
3. Christopher R. Ganiere - District 3
4. Valerie M. Hass - District 3
5. Robert Lee Dickson Jr. - District 5
6. Diana Gardiner - District 5
7. Sarah Roughan Laurie Martinez - District 5
8. David Martinez - District 5
9. Andrew Barnes - District 5
10. Eric Vu - District 6
11. Garrett Scott Whitfield - District 6
Planning Commission
5 Animal Services Committee
• Make four (4) member appointments with a term expiration of April 2026
1. Sean Healey - District 1
2. Syed Zia Hussain - District 2
3. Caley Turner - District 2
4. Cara R. Stewart - District 2
5. Danielle Mills - District 3
6. Paul Lancaster - District 4
7. Angela Minjares - District 5 (Incumbent)
8. Debra Lee - District 5
Council Liaisons - Mayor Stephens, Council Member Harper 6 Active Transportation Committee
• Make six (6) member appointments with a term expiration of April 2026. Two of the appointments are at-large to ensure broad representation of different mobility options and experiences (e.g., walk, bike, bus, and age ability).
1. Syed Zia Hussain - District 2
2. Florence Nedeff Martin - District 3 (Incumbent)
3. Arthur Alderete - District 3
4. Michael Moses Nolf - District 4
5. Paul Lancaster - District 4
6. Andrew Barnes - District 5 (Incumbent)
7. Jay C. McGlinchey - District 5
8. Alex Campoli - District 6
9. Robert Morse - District 6
10. Farhad Edward Khrosravi - District 6
Council Liaison – Council Member Reynolds
7 • Make four (4) member appointments with a term expiration of April 2028
1. Quinn Callanan - District 1
2. Sean Healey - District 1
3. Syed Zia Hussain - District 2
4. James Andrews - District 3
5. Kathryn Grant - District 6
Council Liaisons - Mayor Stephens, and Alternates Council Member Marr, Council Member Harper
Finance and Pension Advisory Committee
8 Housing and Public Service Grants Committee
• Make four (4) member appointments with a term expiration of April 2026
1. Gloria A. Fallon - District 1
2. Syed Zia Hussain - District 2
3. Ricardo Ramirez - District 3
4. Arthur Alderete - District 3
5. Paul Lancaster - District 4
6. Michael Tou - District 4 (Incumbent)
7. Kathryn Grant - District 6
Council Liaisons - Council Member Chavez, Alternate Council Member Harper 9 Mobile Home Park Advisory Committee
• Make one (1) Costa Mesa Park Owner or Representative appointment, two (2) Mobile Home Park Resident appointments, and one (1) Independent Citizen At-large appointment, with a term expiration of April 2028.
1. Paul Lancaster - District 4 (Independent Citizen At-Large)
2. Gregory Harold - District 4 (Mobile Home Park Resident)
3. Leslie E Chaney-Eames - District 5 (Mobile Home Park Resident - Incumbent)
4. Georgette M. Quinn - District 5 (Costa Mesa Park Owner or Rep. OR Mobile Home Park Resident)
5. Michael Dougher - District 5 (Mobile Home Park Resident - Incumbent)
6. Mary Lamas - District 5 (Mobile Home Park Resident)
7. Wyatt Lin - District 5 (Costa Mesa Park Owner or Rep.)
8. Lucia Salinas Holt - District 5 (Mobile Home Park Resident)
9. Debra Lee - District 5 (Mobile Home Park Resident)
10. Laurie Beverage - Non-Resident
11. Vickie M. Talley - Non-Resident (Costa Mesa Park Owner or Rep. - Incumbent) Council Liaisons - Council Member Reynolds, Alternate Council Member Chavez
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Make appointments to the Planning Commission and
various City Committees.
2. Approve the recommendation from the Historical
Preservation Committee to formally dissolve, and
appropriate an estimated total of $13,000 from
uncommitted Costa Mesa Community Foundation Fund
and authorize a transfer from the Costa Mesa Historical Preservation Committee to the Costa Mesa Historical
Society.