From: Fairview Park Alliance
To: CITY CLERK; CITY COUNCIL; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FPA Comments forCity Council April 15, 2025
Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 9:11:48 AM
Attachments: USFW Recommendation Jan, 2025.png
Please provide comments to council members and add to the public record.
Dear Mayor Stephens and City Council Members,
Fairview Park Alliance (FPA would like the city of Costa Mesa to stop all activity in the vernal pool watershed at Fairview Park by following USFW recommendation. (See attached). This means to halt any glider plane activity while the Fairview Park Master Plan is being updated.
The glider plane activity is in the vernal pool watershed and is destroying it. There is continued trampling outside of designated areas, due to the nature of the activity and dragging of lines across sensitive habitat. (See attached photos)
The City of Costa Mesa has a responsibility to the community and to federal and state agencies to protect Fairview Park’s endangered and threatened species.
“While accommodating public uses within Fairview Park, it is the City’s responsibility to ensure that its actions comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
(USFW letter to City
Engineer and Project Manager Mr. Baltazar Mejia dated July 24, 2014 )
“The southern area has potential habitat but is adjacent to school and residential areas and is highly disturbed by pedestrian and model airplane activity. (FPMP p. 154)
FPA asks that you stop all activity on the vernal pool watershed and follow USFW recommendation.
- Fairview Park Alliance
fairviewparkalliance.org FB | IG
15 April 2025 Re: Active Transportation Committee Report Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council, 1. First, thank you for the investments you’ve made in active transportation so far! They’ve
made
a
real
difference
in
quality
of
life
and
safety
for
Costa
Mesa
residents.
I’d
like
to
speak
to
one
improvement
I’m
personally
excited
about:
the
Santa
Ana
bike
lane.
Previously,
the
lane
abruptly
ended
at
the
block
where
Kaiser
Elementary
sits,
forcing
kids
into
30 mph
traffic.
The
City
has
now
filled
that
gap,
making
a
crucial
stretch
safer
for
children
and
parents
commuting
to
and
from
school.
The
continuous
lane
now
extends
from
University
Drive
south
to
Broadway,
serving
not
only
elementary
students,
but
also
those
on
their
way
to
Ensign
and
Newport
Harbor,
as
well
as
everyday
riders
along
this
popular
corridor.
A typical school day before the bike lane completion A typical school day after the bike lane completion It is crucial that we continue to focus on (invest in) enabling safe and comfortable active transportation
in
the
city
because
our
population
is
growing
.
Most
of
the
strife
and
angst
that
new
development
generates
is
due
to
the
real
or
perceived
fear
of
more
cars
and
the
resulting
car
congestion.
We
need
to
think
about
this
problem
critically—there
is
plenty of room in Costa Mesa for more people, but not their cars. A greater population of people is positive for our city and adds to its value; a greater population of cars is negative
for
our
city
and
will
cost
us
value.
Right
now,
as
developers
are
likely
being
contacted
for
stakeholder
interviews
ahead
of
our
rezoning
efforts,
we
need
to
change
the
market
demand
for
parking
.
Developers
and
prospective
residents
need
to
know
that
Costa
Mesa
is
a
car-lite
community,
where
driving
is
almost
always
optional
and
getting
around
without
one
is
pleasant
and
convenient.
Trying
to
make
this
shift
during
or
after
an
increase
in
population
will
be
much
more
difficult.
2. Please remember that walking and riding a bicycle in a city are not inherently expensive
activities
.
Walking
and
biking
do
not
take
a
toll
on
infrastructure,
nor
do
they
even
require
much
of
it.
Expensive
infrastructure
is
needed
to
accommodate
heavy
and
fast-moving
machines
to
continually
flow
through
city
streets
and
cross
paths.
Automobile
traffic,
as
we’ve
seen
over
the
last
century,
needs
a
very
high
degree
of
expensive
control
for
the
sake
of
safety
and
has
an
insatiable
appetite
for
space.
The
accommodation
of
its
needs
always
comes
at
the
expense
of
not
only
the
viability
of
other
modes,
but
the
safety
and
comfort
of
the
places
that
it
flows
through.
Changes
to
such
spaces
will
be
expensive—but
it
is
really
the
result
of
such
heavy
prioritization
of
automobile
traffic,
not
the
need
to
accommodate
other
users.
I
feel
the
need
to
repeat
this
because
there
is
a
double
fallacy
out
there
that
1)
the
current
car-dominant
system
is
the
default
way
that
cities
must
function
and
2)
that
accommodating
active
transportation
is
an
optional
“nice-to-have”
but
expensive
addition
to
that
system.
In
a
city
,
walking
and
biking
should
be
the
default
modes
of
getting
around,
with
automobiles
accommodated.
3. We need to figure out how to do more with less . Grants that we used to depend on may
dry
up
and
our
own
budget
may
make
“active
transportation
projects”
more
difficult
to
justify.
But
what
I
personally
have
always
tried
to
advocate
for—the
reclamation
of
public
space
and
slower
automobile
traffic—does
not
depend
on
expensive
projects.
The
most
obvious
way
to
do
this
is
to
make
minor
changes
to
street
design
(like
tighten
vehicle
lanes,
widen
bike
lanes,
and
add
crosswalks
or
bulbout
aprons)
whenever
a
project
is
occurring
anyway.
We
need
strong
protocol
for
this
so
that
watchdogs
don’t
need
to
continually
pester
and
beg.
The
Circulation
Element
is
full
of
policies
that
speak
to
making
big
differences
with
small
and
inexpensive
changes:
pop-up
traffic-calming,
modal
filters,
lowering
speed
limits,
downgrading
arterials,
reclaiming
excess
road
space,
introducing
bike
boxes,
etc.
I would also encourage the city to think more of how we might make walking and biking easier
and
more
pleasant
through
land-use
decisions:
better
and
better-located
bike
racks
should
be
required
of
private
development,
access
and
wayfinding
to
on-site
bike
parking
should
be
required
to
be
comfortable
and
intuitive,
and
new
buildings
should
be
required
to
have
respectable
frontages
along
the
street
and
not
be
allowed
to
be
sealed
off
from
the
public
right
of
way.
Thank you for your continued support of active transportation and placemaking in Costa Mesa.
We’ve
all
inherited
this
great
city—let’s
ensure
that
we
help
it
grow
into
the
best
place
it
can
be.
Thanks for reading, Russell Toler
From: Eric Engle
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Safe Streets and Active Transportation
Date: Sunday, April 13, 2025 10:16:09 AM
Hello Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I'm writing to ask you to continue funding safe street infrastructure in Costa Mesa's next budget cycle.
Our community needs protected bike lanes, traffic calming measures, and pedestrian safety improvements. These projects make our streets safer for everyone—whether driving, biking, or walking—and create a more livable city for all residents.
By investing in these safety measures, Costa Mesa can reduce accidents, encourage active transportation, and build a more connected community.
Please prioritize funding for these vital street safety projects in your upcoming budget decisions.
Thank you for your consideration,
Eric engle
From: Mae Hubel
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Safe Streets and Active Transportation -- Continue Funding Date: Sunday, April 13, 2025 2:39:45 PM
Hello Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I'm writing to ask you to continue funding safe street infrastructure in Costa Mesa's next budget cycle. This cause is so important to me and has made such a big impact on how I move through the city and interact with local parks, businesses, people, and the community! I moved to Costa Mesa a couple years ago, and have been so impressed by ATC and their work. Please continue to provide them the precious funding needed to continue making this city a more livable and people-centered place.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mae Hubel
Dear Honorable City Council Members,
I am writing to request an amendment to our city's noise ordinance to include specific guidelines on the distances between properties when using power tools. This amendment would help clarify regulations and promote harmonious living in our community.
Currently, our noise ordinance addresses decibel levels and time restrictions for power tool use but does not specify distance requirements.
I propose that we consider the following additions to our noise ordinance:
1. Establish minimum distances between the point of power tool use and neighboring property lines, considering different residential zoning types (e.g., single-family, multi- family).
2. Create a sliding scale of allowable distances based on the type and noise level of power tools being used.
3. Include guidelines for the use of noise barriers or other mitigation measures when operating power tools near property lines.
4. Provide clear guidance on how these distance requirements interact with existing decibel limits and time restrictions.
These additions would help residents understand their responsibilities when using power tools and provide a clearer framework for addressing noise concerns. It would also assist in enforcement efforts and potentially reduce conflicts between neighbors.
I respectfully request that the City Council consider this amendment to enhance our noise control measures and maintain the quality of life in our residential areas. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Dana S. Lavin
The amendment to the noise ordinance regarding distances between properties for power tool use should consider including the following specific distances:
1. Side yard setbacks:
a. A minimum of 10 feet between the point of power tool use and the side property line.
b. For narrower lots, consider a percentage-based approach, such as 12% of the lot width at the front yard setback.
2. Rear yard setbacks:
a. A minimum of 20% of the lot depth, but not less than 30 feet and not required to exceed 40 feet.
3. Front yard setbacks:
a. Maintain existing front yard setback requirements, typically ranging from 5 to 15 feet depending on the local zoning regulations.
4. Corner lots:
a. Require front yard setbacks on both street sides, with a minimum of 6 feet along the side street.
5. Sliding scale based on tool noise levels:
a. For particularly loud power tools, consider increasing the minimum distance to 15 feet from property lines.
6. Special considerations:
a. For lots less than 7,500 square feet, allow for slightly reduced setbacks to accommodate smaller properties.
b. For lots over 20,000 square feet, consider larger setbacks to maintain consistency with the property size.
These distances provide a starting point for the amendment, balancing the need for noise reduction with practical use of residential properties. The specific distances can be adjusted based on local conditions and community feedback.
The proposed amendment to include specific distances between properties for power tool use would simplify enforcement for city officials in several ways:
1. Clear guidelines: By establishing specific distance requirements, officials would have concrete measurements to enforce, rather than relying solely on decibel levels which can be challenging to measure accurately.
2. Easier visual assessment: Enforcement officers could quickly determine compliance by visually assessing the distance between the power tool user and property lines, without needing specialized equipment.
3. Reduced ambiguity: Currently, many noise ordinances focus on decibel levels and time restrictions. Adding distance requirements would provide an additional, easily verifiable parameter for enforcement.
4. Streamlined complaint process: With clear distance guidelines, residents could more easily report violations, and officials could more quickly determine if a violation has occurred
5. Preventive measure: Distance requirements could prevent noise issues before they occur, potentially reducing the number of complaints officials need to address.
6. Consistent application: Specific distance requirements would allow for more uniform enforcement across different neighborhoods and situations.
7. Complementary to existing regulations: The distance requirements would work in conjunction with existing decibel limits and time restrictions, providing officials with multiple tools for enforcement.
By incorporating these distance requirements, the amendment would provide city officials with clearer, more easily enforceable guidelines, potentially improving the efficiency and effectiveness of noise control efforts in residential areas.
The proposed amendment to include specific distances between properties for power tool use would improve quality of life for residents in several ways:
1. Reduced noise exposure: By establishing minimum distances for power tool use, residents would experience less intense noise from neighboring properties. This is particularly important for tools like jackhammers (120-130 dB), circular saws (88-102 dB), and chain saws (109 dB), which can be extremely disruptive.
2. Better sleep and relaxation: With clearer guidelines on tool use distances, residents would be less likely to be disturbed during rest periods, leading to improved sleep quality and overall well-being.
3. Increased outdoor enjoyment: Residents would be able to spend more time in their yards without excessive noise interruptions, enhancing their ability to relax and enjoy outdoor spaces.
4. Improved home office environment: As remote work becomes more common, quieter residential areas would provide better conditions for concentration and productivity.
5. Reduced stress: Consistent exposure to loud noises can increase stress levels. By mitigating this exposure, the amendment would contribute to lower stress levels for residents.
6. Enhanced property values: Quieter neighborhoods are often more desirable, potentially leading to increased property values.
7. Clearer expectations: The amendment would provide residents with a better understanding of what to expect regarding noise levels in their neighborhood, reducing uncertainty and potential conflicts.
8. Healthier living environment: Prolonged exposure to noise levels above 85 dB can cause permanent hearing damage. The amendment would help protect residents' hearing health by reducing exposure to high-decibel power tools.
By addressing these quality of life factors, the amendment would contribute to creating more harmonious and comfortable living environments for all residents.
Jackhammers: These can produce noise levels of 120-130 dB, making them one of the loudest power tools used in construction and home improvement4.
Circular saws (skill saws): These common woodworking tools can generate noise levels of 88-102 dB2.
Hammer drills: Capable of producing up to 114 dB, these are among the noisiest handheld power tools2.
Chop saws: These can create noise levels of around 106 dB2.
Chain saws: With noise levels reaching 109 dB, these are particularly disruptive in residential areas.
Impact wrenches: These tools can produce noise levels of about 102 dB2.
Tile saws: Often used in home renovations, these can generate noise levels of 101 dB Proposed Noise Ordinance Amendment
(Incorporating Distance Standards for Residential Harmony) Mayor Stephens, Council Members, and City Staff. My name is Dana Lavin, a resident of Eastside Costa Mesa
I would like to propose amendments to our noise ordinance that address the unique challenges of Costa Mesa’s residential density, particularly the need for clear distance-based standards between homes.
Current Challenges
a. Density and Noise:
• Costa Mesa’s average residential density of ~7,000 people/sq. mile (2020 Census) creates close proximity between homes, amplifying noise impacts. • Existing decibel-based standards (55 dB daytime/50 dB nighttime) fail to account for spatial relationships between properties, per the General Plan Noise Element. b. Work-from-Home Realities:
• Remote workers require quiet environments for focus, yet prolonged power tool use disrupts concentration in tightly spaced neighborhoods.
Proposed Amendments
A. Distance-Based Standards:
• Daytime (7:00 AM–11:00 PM): Noise not audible beyond 25 feet from the property line. • Nighttime (11:00 PM–7:00 AM): Noise not audible beyond 15 feet from the property line. • Alignment: Complements Costa Mesa’s Municipal Code Chapter XIII (§42619123) by adding spatial clarity to decibel limits.
B. Operational Limits for DIY Repairs:
• Permitted Hours:
o Weekdays: 8:00 AM–5:00 PM
o Saturdays: 9:00 AM–5:00 PM
o Sundays/Holidays: Prohibited (except emergencies).
• Consecutive Use:
o No power tools for more than 2 consecutive hours without a 30-minute break. o Total daily use: 4 hours maximum per property.
C. Emergency Repairs:
• Allowed 24/7 with prior notice to adjacent properties.
4. Benefits of Distance Standards
a. Protects Dense Neighborhoods:
• Reduces noise bleed between closely spaced homes, critical in areas with <20-foot setbacks (common in older Costa Mesa developments).
• Aligns with Irvine’s approach to noise-sensitive land uses (Irvine Noise Element). b. Simplifies Enforcement:
• Audibility thresholds are easier to measure than decibel levels, per California noise guidelines.
• Reduces disputes between neighbors over subjective noise perceptions. c. Supports Modern Lifestyles:
• Accommodates remote workers by ensuring predictable quiet periods during core business hours.
Alignment with City Policies
a. General Plan Noise Element:
• Goal to “minimize exposure to adverse noise conditions” in residential areas. b. Municipal Code Chapter XIII:
• Existing decibel limits retained but supplemented with distance thresholds for clarity. c. Regional Consistency:
• Mirrors Newport Beach’s exterior noise standards (55 dBA daytime)[3] while adding spatial specificity.
Request for Action
• I urge the Council to adopt these distance-based standards to address Costa Mesa’s density challenges and protect residents from intrusive noise. • This update will modernize enforcement and align our ordinances with peer cities like Irvine and Newport Beach.
• Please refer to the email I sent the council with a request for action and an amendment proposal March 26, 2025
Thank you for your commitment to our community. I welcome further discussion and can be reached at [email protected]
This proposal addresses the unique acoustic challenges of Costa Mesa’s residential density while balancing property rights and community well-being
Protecting Quiet in a Dense Community
Proposed Noise Ordinance Amendments
Balancing DIY Repairs and Residential Tranquility
Why Distance Matters in Costa Mesa
● Costa Mesa’s density: 7,095 residents/sq. mile
● 30% of Orange County residents work from home
● Current noise rules lack spatial clarity
Balancing DIY Repairs and Residential Tranquility
● Daytime (7 AM– 11 PM): Noise not audible beyond 25 feet ● Nighttime (11 PM– 7 AM): Noise not audible beyond 15 feet ● Power Tools: 2-hour limit + 30-min break
Clear Boundaries for Peaceful Neighborhoods
Balancing DIY Repairs and Residential Tranquility
How This Helps Costa Mesa
● Protects work-from-home productivity
● Reduces neighbor conflicts
● Simplifies enforcement
Balancing DIY Repairs and Residential Tranquility
Modernize Our Noise Ordinance
● Support distance-based standards
● Limit consecutive hours for power tools
● Protect work-from-home residents
Balancing DIY Repairs and Residential Tranquility
From: Jim Fitzpatrick
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: CITY COUNCIL; MOLINA, CAROL; FARRELL HARRISON, LORI ANN Subject: Fwd: California Public Records Request
Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 10:37:19 AM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
City Council, we are facing a Structural Budget Deficit.
Staff has indicated this is driven by a decline in Auto Sales and associated taxes.
By studying the HdL Quarterly Tax Report will likely give an indication of trends.
Although Staff has provided the HdL Quarterly Tax Report, as seen below, in the past
Staff is now refusing to provide the document, documents in the possession of the City and are not confidential.
Facing a Structural Budget Deficit, Transparency is a MUST ! City Council Action Requested:
Direct Staff to provided the requested documents
Also, Staff has discontinued the practice to share this important document with City Council and Planning Commission
Direct Staff to continue to provide this document to
City Council
Planning Commission
FiPac Committee
Jim Fitzpatrick
These groups need to know who Costa Mesa's Top 25 Tax
Generators are, how South Coast Plaza is performing against Fashion Island. How Harbor Blvd of Cars vs Tustin Auto Center
Cheers,
Jim Fitzpatrick
Solutioneer
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <[email protected]
>
Date: Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 10:14 AM
Subject: California Public Records Request
To: <[email protected]
>
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name: Make A Public Records Request
Date & Time: 04/15/2025 10:14 am
Response #: 4966
Submitter ID: 38524
IP address: 68.15.88.43
Time to complete: 4 min. , 41 sec.
Survey Details
Please fill out the following online form and your request will be send to the Costa Mesa City Clerk's Office for processing. The responsible department will advise the person submitting the request, by telephone, e-mail or by mail of:
1. The location, date, and time at which the requested records may be inspected.
2. If copies of records requested are available, and the cost of providing such copies.
3. Which of the records requested are not subject to disclosure as public records pursuant to applicable provisions of the Public Records Act.
4. The City may also request additional information if the records request is not specific enough to permit the identification of the requested records.
If requesting Building Permits, please check our Document Search before submitting the request.
PLEASE NOTE:
If you would like a copy of a police record please call the Police Department Records Bureau directly at (714) 754- 5373.
***Do not file a public records request for police records.
1. What is your name?
Jim Fitzpatrick
2. What is your mailing address?
4040 MacArthur Blvd ste 240
3. What is your e-mail address?
[email protected]
4. What is your telephone number?
(949) 257-8448
5. Please describe the nature of the documents you are requesting. Please be as specific as possible for a timely response.
*** SECOND REQUEST ***
A previous request was submitted for known documents and the City was non responsive HdL provides the City of Costa Mesa a Quarterly Tax Report, as it does in many cities.
In the past, I have done a Public Records Request, and received the HdL Quarterly Tax Report from Costa Mesa, and other cities.
Please email a copy of the last 4 HdL Quarterly Tax Reports The City has these documents and must provide them
Thank you
Thank you,
City of Costa Mesa
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
From: Jim Fitzpatrick
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Request to Pull Consent Calendar #5 on City Council 4.15 Agenda Date: Monday, April 14, 2025 11:47:13 AM
Attachments: Budget Cut Options - Can Costa Mesa Afford Unfunded State Mandates 4.14.2025.pdf City Clerk, please pull Consent Calendar #5 for discussion and distribute the attached document to City Council. Thank you.
City Council ... we need action facing a Structural Budget Deficit! Goat Team: What should we work on next?
Agenda Link: https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx? ID=7299320&GUID=3CABB3E6-8248-4CB9-B5D3-8CC629E446EA
Cheers,
Jim Fitzpatrick
Solutioneer
GOAT – BUDGET CUTS – ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE
Government Openness and Transparency
GOAT is a riff on Goathill and the Greatest Of All Time.
It is a group of residents and business that are monitoring City policies, documenting facts, and taking action.
From an example here of a Newsletter, to neighborhood walks using the Costa Mesa 311 APP, and anything that the members of the group want to come together and work on. Let us know if you wish to participate, and what you recommend [email protected].
UNFUNDED STATE MANDATES IMPACT A CITY’S BUDGET
GOAT – BUDGET CUTS – ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE
Costa Mesa is facing a significant STRUCTURAL DEFICIT, and all options need to be considered.
QUESTION: Can the City’s structural budget deficit issues continue to support the State’s Unfunded Mandates?
###
Excerpts from the Staff Report and General Plan Annual Report:
NOTE: These are future actions. So City Council could remove these references and not commit valuable budget resources at a time of Structural Budget Deficits!
QUESTIONS:
• These funds are not yet committed, is City Council willing to Cut this Finding? • What does this say about City Council priorities? Funding DEI Policies over Streets? ###
OBSERV ATION:
• These funds are not yet committed and can be cut
###
GOAT – BUDGET CUTS – ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE
OBSERV ATION:
• Does Costa Mesa have DEI Policies? / DEI Policies are NOT State Mandated • Is Costa Mesa at risk for loosing Federal Funds because it still has DEI policies? QUESTION:
• Will Costa Mesa act to cancel any and all DEI Policies? ###
OBSERV ATION:
• Costa Mesa is facing a Structural Budget Deficit, and is currently only considering deferring maintenance of streets and CIP Projects.
QUESTION:
• What are the City Council priorities? DEI or the basic role of government to allocate funds to Infrastructure while solving for Structural Budget Deficits? ###
GOAT – BUDGET CUTS – ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE
ALL CITY CONSULTANT CONTRACTS HA VE A TERMINATION CLAUSE QUESTION:
• What are the City Council’s priorities when facing a Structural Budget Deficit? • Will City Council prioritize cutting budgets for contracts like this? • Or allow Staff to cut funding City Infrastructure and increase deferred maintenance ? City entered into a contract with DUDEK for a Climate Action Plan = $500,000
There is, in fact, an ability to terminate contracts to solve for the STRUCTURAL BUDGET DEFICIT
GOAT – BUDGET CUTS – ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE
Lastly, this feels like the time for Costa Mesa to change from a General Law City, where Sacramento issues Unfunded Mandates, to a Charter City for Local control, where Costa Mesa makes the decisions.
What say ye Costa Mesa? Sick and tired?
GOAT – BUDGET CUTS – ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE
In the last 5 Budget Years, the City has added 100 Employees
13 April 2025 City of Costa Mesa City Council 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mayor Stephens and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council, We are writing to express our concern about yet another marijuana shop opening up in our
neighborhood.
We
had
planned
to
attend
the
Planning
Commission
meeting
when
they
were
discussing
this
agenda
item,
but
a
family
emergency
precluded
our
attendance.
With
apologies,
we
would
like
to
weigh
in
on
this
issue
now,
though
we
recognize
it’s
a
bit
late
in
the
process.
And
we
are
heartened
to
see
local
businesses
and
neighbors
express
their
displeasure
with
this
proposed
business.
For several years now, we’ve watched our neighborhood decline in ways that make us sad,
and
also
angry.
We
live
in
a
mixed-use
neighborhood,
and
have
struggled
with
issues
of
trash,
noise,
graffiti,
fast
driving,
homeless
individuals
sleeping
on
sidewalks,
and
parking.
These
issues
have
been
getting
steadily
worse
over
the
past
few
years.
We wonder: At what point will our neighborhood reach the saturation point for weed shops?
Currently, we have 5 weed shops within a half mile of our home: ● 420 Central (1990 Harbor) – 700 feet from our home ● High Seas (1921 Harbor) – 800 feet from our home ● Mr. Nice Guy (1854 Newport) – .2 miles from our home ● A NEW weed shop opening in what was formerly Soloway Chiropractic – .3 miles from
our
home
● South Coast Safe Access (2001 Harbor) – .5 mile from our home Currently, we have an additional 3 weed shops within a mile of our home (and many more
just
beyond
the
mile
marker!):
● Nektar (2275 Newport Blvd) – .9 miles ● Another Mr. Nice Guy (167 Cabrillo Street) – .9 miles ● Catalyst (170 E. 17th St.) – 1 mile How many is too many? Is another weed shop what our neighborhood really needs? The answer is no. We desperately do not need a 6th weed store within .5 miles of our front
door.
We
were
disappointed
to
see
the
Planning
Commission
approve
this
addition
to
our
neighborhood.
Please
help
us
draw
the
line,
especially
in
light
of
the
concerns
that
our
local
business
leaders
have
about
the
project
and
the
owner.
Alongside the issues we mention above, we live in a neighborhood where our closest green
space/park
is
a
one
mile,
20-minute
walk
across
multiple
major
intersections
to
Lions
Park
OR
Wilson
Park.
We
mention
this
because
as
a
family,
we
are
interested
in
being
in
public
spaces
with
our
neighbors
in
ways
that
help
bring
us
together
as
a
community.
Adding
a
6th
weed
shop
to
our
neighborhood
feels
like
the
last
thing
we
need.
What
our
community
needs
are
businesses
and
spaces
that
welcome
all.
We’ve shouldered more than our fair share of the burden to support Costa Mesa’s marijuana
scene.
From an economic diversity perspective, we are also concerned about what our neighborhood
will
look
like
in
several
years
when
not
all
of
these
businesses
are
able
to
weather
the
extremely
intense
side-by-side
competition
with
one
another.
Like
Mayor
Stephens
expressed
in
the
budget
planning
meeting
from
last
month,
we,
too,
dislike
seeing
empty
storefronts
along
Harbor
Blvd.
But
for
us,
the
solution
needs
to
be
to
diversify
our
business
scene
so
that
our
neighborhood
isn’t
overly
invested
in
any
one
kind
of
business.
And
especially
not
an
over
investment
in
weed
shops.
Truthfully,
it’s
probably
too
late
for
that,
considering
we
already
have
5 shops
within
half-a-mile
of
our
house;
it’s
not
too
late,
however,
to
start
drawing
a
line
about
the
kinds
of
businesses
that
our
particular
neighborhood
needs.
As parents to a teen daughter, we are also interested in helping Costa Mesa be the kind of
city
that
offers
her
and
her
friends
opportunities
to
engage
in
neighborhood
activities.
Stop
and
imagine
what
the
built
environment
with
so
many
marijuana
shops
looks
like
through
her
eyes.
Business
upon
business
with
windows
that
you
can’t
see
into,
doors
that
you’re
not
allowed
to
open.
Think
about
the
lived
experience
of
being
a
kid
in
our
neighborhood
without
a
park,
but
with
over
half-a-dozen
weed
shops!
What
kind
of
neighborhood
experience
is
that??
And
in
the
past
couple
years,
more
younger
families
have
moved
into
the
neighborhood.
We
are
also
very
concerned
about
the
reputation
that
this
particular
business
owner
has
in
his
community,
and
do
not
think
it’s
the
direction
for
the
neighborhood.
When we moved into the neighborhood 12 years ago, the landscape was very different.
It’s
not
like
we
moved
here
6 months
ago,
with
the
existing
marijuana
shops
already
in
residence. And in light of the housing market in Costa Mesa, we feel trapped with few, if any,
options
to
keep
our
daughter
at
CMHS.
We also find the idea of a marijuana store that models itself on a convenience store mentality
particularly
anathema
to
our
sensibilities.
We
need
businesses
that
look
out
upon
the
world,
and
invite
us
in!
We’d
like
businesses
that
can
(legally)
welcome
our
daughter
and
her
friends
in!
We
want
businesses
that
are
at
least
mildly
interested
in
helping
foster
community–not
that
highlight
their
business
model
as
a
convenience
store
for
a
controlled
substance.
This
is
precisely
the
kind
of
business
we
don’t
want
or
need.
And
as
we
consider
the
impact
of
a
fast-paced
weed
dispensary
in
our
neighborhood,
we
are
especially
worried
about
allowing
our
daughter
to
walk
up
to
Boba
Pop,
trying
to
dodge
cars
zipping
into
and
out
of
the
parking
lot.
We ask that you please consider the objections that the local business owners and residents
have
about
approving
a
permit
for
the
proposed
marijuana
business
at
1912
Harbor
Blvd.
Many thanks for your time and consideration of our perspectives. Sincerely, Jeff, Kelly, and Nora Brown District 5 residents From: W Lewis
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: PCUP-24-0011 for 1912 Harbor Boulevard
Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 10:11:19 AM
I own several properties in Costa Mesa and I oppose this cannabis store.
I own 126-128 Broadway, 130-132 Broadway and 203-205 E 19th St and seven other properties in Costa Mesa.
Glenda Lewis
HEADQUARTERS 903 W. 17TH ST, #79 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 (714) 357-0320 [email protected] IRS 501(c)3: # 87-2919682 April 15, 2025 Mr. Mayor and Council Members, Thank you for your service to Costa Mesa. I am a long time resident of Costa Mesa. My foundation fureverheaven.org began during the pandemic with a junkyard rescue on 18th st of 22 cats. The feral Moms were returned to the junkyard and not put to death. With the help of Priceless Pets, I was able to afford the low cost spay and neutering they offer. My foundation is dedicated to rescuing, socializing, homing and educating pet guardians on the importance of fixing their pets. TNR is our only hope of slowing population explosions of feral colonies. We need to do right by the animals of Costa Mesa by adopting a formal TNR policy. My request -is for the city council members to use their comments to request the City Manager quickly agendize an item for a city council meeting where council can vote to approve over 4 hours of staff time to prepare and bring a TNR policy to the Animal Service Committee for discussion and ultimately recommend a policy for city council to adopt. Over the last seven years, there has been a lot of work done on a TNR policy and there is a current draft based on best practices in neighboring cities. Thank you for your consideration. Respec0ully, Debra Lee Founder, Furever Heaven Org