From: Chance Wroe
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Re: Shalimar Drive No Parking Zone
Date: Thursday, July 10, 2025 10:47:15 PM
Hello.
I am writing again because I never heard any reply to my previous email.
I have again received multiple parking tickets over the past couple of months due to the insane parking laws and enforcement on Shalimar Dr. The extremely frustrating thing about this issue is that now on 3 separate occasions since my last email, I have received parking tickets within the ten minutes it takes me to get groceries carried into my house and put away before I have to go down and move my car blocks away from my home. This is insane. And now it appears that the tickets have increased in cost to $42.50. This is absolutely ridiculous. The police do nothing in this neighborhood except hand out parking tickets. The city should feel ashamed for what it is doing to my neighborhood. People just want to be able to park at their homes and not blocks and blocks away.
Something needs to be done.
William Wroe
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:17 PM Chance Wroe <[email protected] > wrote:
Hello,
As a resident of Costa Mesa who lives on Shalimar Drive, I am emailing you today to see how we can get the street updated to allow for parking. It has been a no-parking zone the entire time I've lived here and has caused myself and my neighbors a lot of trouble over the years. Because the entire street is marked as a no parking zone, the surrounding streets all fill up quickly and are often full the entire day, leaving nowhere to park within blocks of our homes. Because of this many people often risk a ticket and still park on the street and often receive tickets as well.
There is no good reason for this street be marked as a no parking zone and it needs to be updated for the residents of this neighborhood.
Please take time to review this and see if there is anyway that we can update this.
Thank you,
William Wroe
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: Dave Adams
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Question for July 15 City Council Meeting
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 10:43:59 AM
Hello there! I will be attending the city council meeting this evening and wanted to submit a question/topic for discussion:
What is being done about the large number of illegal fireworks being set off in neighborhoods all over Costa Mesa? These fireworks are even being set off outside the July 2-4 legal dates. It has become a serious public nuisance—with loud booms going off as early as 8am and as late as midnight all throughout June and July.
Thank you,
Dave Adams
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Illegal fireworks
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 10:14:36 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Flo Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2025 12:22 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Illegal fireworks
Dear Council members,
Last night two illegal "bombs" were ignited and "boomed" into my house. The first awoke me at 10 pm. The second rattled my cage around 10:30 pm.
I urge you to contact CMPD and ask officers to monitor Fair Drive, between Loyola and Fordham, in the late evening hours.
Flo Martin
2442 Andover Pl
CM
949.933.3699
"It is when we are alone that we are the least alone." St. Augustine CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: TORRES, IVIS; MUNOZ, SANDY
Subject: FW: Housing at Fairview Developmental Center
Date: Thursday, July 10, 2025 10:21:08 AM
Attachments: image001.wmz
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
Hello City Clerk Team,
Please see the public comment below regarding FDC.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Margaret Mooney <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 4:32 PM
To: CONSTITUENT SERVICES <[email protected]> Subject: Housing at Fairview Developmental Center
I am writing to express my
vote and admiration for the
proposal for 4,000
residences. I appreciate the
staff recommendation for a
plan to get the city closer to
the number of residences
needed to comply with State
requirements.
I appreciate the need for
retail space, certainly a
grocery store with a drug
store. I am not concerned
about the smaller amount of
open space. The residences
are close to Fairview park
and Wilson park.
I would appreciate
notification of a date that this
item will be on the Council
agenda as that is a meeting I
would like to attend.
Thank you for your attention
to this letter.
Margaret Mooney,
714-322-8261
Costa Mesa resident
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: Dana Croyle
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Cell Phone Tower Placentia and Federal
Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 10:06:57 AM
Dear Members of the City Planning Department,
I am writing as a homeowner and resident of Costa Mesa to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed installation of a cell phone tower near my property on Placentia Ave./Federal Ave.
I have serious concerns about the impact this would have on pur community. Specifically:
Numerous studies have shown that proximity to cell towers can negatively affect home values. As a homeowner who has invested significantly in my property, this is extremely concerning.
A cell tower would be visually intrusive and detract from the character and beauty of our residential neighborhood.
While the scientific community continues to evaluate the long-term health impacts of living near such towers, many residents are understandably wary of any possible risks
There has been no meaningful community engagement or outreach to gather feedback from affected residents, which I believe should be a requirement before moving forward with any installation in a residential area.
I respectfully urge the City to reject this proposal or consider alternative locations away from homes, schools, and community spaces. Our neighborhood should not bear the burden of infrastructure that benefits broader service areas at the expense of our local environment, home values, and peace of mind.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for considering the concerns of the residents you serve.
Sincerely,
Dana Kalionzes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
Joseph Miner
PO Box 11650
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
July 12, 2025
(949) 646-4466 .office
(949) 646-2794 .fax
(949) 903-5051 .cell
(800) 738-2583 .toll free
[email protected]
City of Costa Mesa
Members of the City Council
CC: Supervisor, Building and Safety
77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
VIA US postal mail and email
RE: 2323 Fordham Drive, Costa Mesa, CA, ISSUE #2
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This letter regards yet another issue with the rubber-stamp approvals issued at City of Costa Mesa building and safety.
Two construction projects are taking place adjacent to the home I purchased 20+ years ago. I have informed the City there are issues.
I noticed issues with the home next door being mansionized (like homes that have destroyed Newport Heights) next door at 2323 Fordham Drive. It’s a total white elephant and does not complement the neighborhood at all.
Setbacks ‘protect’ open space between homes for a reason. State law permits ADU construction 4' from a “naked” property line. A naked property line is a boundary line with no structure at all. Cities retain control over what they approve. (Scurlock v. City of Coronado 2024). I certainly did not buy in suburb-style College Park to be surrounded by two-story ADUs 4' from my property line on every side. Just imagine that!
The ADU at 2314 College is constructed both too close to the 7' privacy wall (structure), and is constructed within the 5' SCE easement. It was approved by your building department. There are many issues with the ADU.
The City could have forced the homeowner to place ADU somewhere else, the City was not forced by law to permit the construction because the City has existing development standards including the distance between “structures” and a zillion other regulations that can be drawn upon. The ADU could have been placed in the front yard, over the garage, or as an attachment
t
o the home. My expert will detail every single construction violation of the ADU.
Its another white elephant. It looks like a new “mobile” was dropped in.
The real estate agents who sold the 2.4 million dollar home down the street were aghast and stated many buyers would not even put an offer in on my home after seeing it and how it affects the ambiance of my home.
The remodel at 2323 Fordham was permitted based on an
unlicensed ‘draftsman’s’ plans. No professional license, no professional designation, no survey, not an architect, not a civil engineer. No survey was completed.
I went to the City. I spoke with several individuals. I was told the following: the City does not check these issues, if the plan submitter lies and we approved the plans, and the home is not constructed where it is required to be, the matter is a civil issue. Really? I don’t think so.
I did my research. I am a certified general appraiser. I have 40 years of experience in these issues. I am licensed 30 years to check these issues.
I spoke with the draftsman. No survey was done to establish a boundary line. He has no license, he is not a professional architect, he is not a professional engineer, he simply “guessed” at the building’s location and drew a ‘false’ fence line on the plans stating the fence was constructed 6" off of the boundary line. Does your building department simply take every plan submitter’s ‘word’ without verification? Without a survey? And without verification the home was constructed in its exact planned location after completion? Unfortunately developers lie, contractors lie, draftsman lie, and it’s the City’s job to check, recheck and verify - its about public safety - not construction fee collection. It is a constant game of cat and mouse.
I spoke with him (draftsman) personally. He has NO CLUE where the exact boundary line is. His fence location on the plans he submitted was just a guess. The City closed its eyes approved the plans!
The man’s actual comment to me was “what’s a few inches” is it really that big of a deal? As a professional, I was astonished! I know where the fence line is. It has been there for 50 years. I don’t know where the boundary line is. But what I do know is that the “draftsman” doesn’t know where the boundary line is either, and neither does the homeowner, or the contractor. And I know he plotted a fence line on the plans
he submitted that has no basis in fact. And the city approved it.
The fence has been there 50+ years and the building, a complete remodel, is being constructed within the setback, at 4'6" established by the existing fence. I have no reason to believe the fence is not on the property line. It has established the line for 50 years. The building’s eves, perhaps other construction, protrudes far into the setback encroaching into the setback open space. This is within the sphere of public protection and safety.
I have no issues with progress. I have issues when a person’s thoughtlessness, greed, and self interest negatively affect the value of an established innocent adjacent land owner.
My issues arise when a City official, collects a fee, then ministerially and negligently rubber stamps the entire process, no matter what devaluation or permanent nuisance it may cause, without thinking, rather than acting like the City of Coronado and saying “sorry, we think you should do something a little different because the ONLY reason we are here is to protect the public.”
Regards, Joseph Miner
Lic. 01214541, AG018937
Fighting
for
a
future
of
abundant
housing
in
Orange
County.
peopleforhousing.org
July 14, 2025 Mayor John Stephens City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: SUPPORT for Item #25-359 at 220 Victoria St. Dear Mayor Stephens and Members of the City Council, On behalf of People for Housing – Orange County, I am writing to express our strong support for the
proposed
40-unit
RCID
community
near
Victoria
Place.
This
thoughtfully
designed
project
represents
the
kind
of
smart
growth
Costa
Mesa
needs
to
address
our
housing
shortage
and
create
homeownership
opportunities
for
younger
residents
and
working
families.
People for Housing OC is the Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY) organization for Orange County, California.
We
represent
Orange
County
residents
who
support
more
affordable
and
attainable
housing
opportunities
and
more
diverse
housing
options
in
our
communities.
Our
advocacy
is
grounded
in
the
belief
that
everyone
should
have
access
to
a
safe,
stable
home
in
the
communities
where
they
work,
go
to
school,
and
raise
their
families.
This project proposes 36 duplex-style units and four detached units, providing much-needed for-sale
homes
in
a
region
where
homeownership
is
increasingly
out
of
reach
for
middle-income
households.
At
a
time
when
Orange
County
continues
to
face
a
critical
shortage
of
housing,
especially
for
young
professionals,
families,
and
first-time
buyers,
this
project
offers
a
rare
and
valuable
opportunity.
In addition to addressing the need for housing, the development enhances community connectivity
and
transportation
options.
The
proposed
new
sidewalk,
Class
II
bike
lane,
and
nearby
OCTA
transit
stops
improve
mobility
for
residents
and
reflect
a
forward-thinking
Fighting
for
a
future
of
abundant
housing
in
Orange
County.
peopleforhousing.org
approach to sustainable growth. These improvements support Costa Mesa’s broader climate, transportation,
and
livability
goals.
Furthermore, this project is fully consistent with the city’s zoning and land use policies. At 22.6 units
per
acre
—
well
below
the
maximum
30 units
per
acre
allowed
—
it
strikes
a
balance
between
density,
livability,
and
neighborhood
compatibility.
The
inclusion
of
family-sized
homes
with
garage
parking,
private
open
space,
and
rooftop
decks
offers
high-quality
housing
in
a
well-connected,
desirable
area.
We were disappointed to see the Planning Commission recommend denial of this project, especially
given
the
clear
public
benefit
it
offers.
We
urge
the
City
Council
to
disregard
that
recommendation
and
approve
this
project,
which
will
help
Costa
Mesa
meet
its
housing
goals
and
provide
more
pathways
to
homeownership
for
current
and
future
residents.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected]
if
you
have
any
questions
or
require
additional
information.
Sincerely, Elizabeth Hansburg Cofounder & Director
From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Cc: ESCOBAR, SERGIO; TORRES, IVIS
Subject: FW: Support for Cabrillo Street Residential Parking Permit Program – July 15 Council Vote Date: Thursday, July 10, 2025 2:59:42 PM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.wmz
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
Good afternoon,
Please see below for public comment.
Best,
Sandy Muñoz
Executive Assistant to the City Council
O: 714.754.5107 | C: 949.849.1730
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
“The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant community.”
City Hall is open to the public 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and alternating Fridays, except specified holidays.
PlEAsE COnsiDEr THE EnvirOnMEnT BEFOrE PrinTinG THis EMAil. THAnk yOu!
From: Andrew Layland <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 12:20 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for Cabrillo Street Residential Parking Permit Program – July 15 Council Vote
Dear Honorable Council Members,
My name is Andrew Layland, and I’m a resident of Eastside Costa Mesa at 240 Cabrillo Street. I’m writing on behalf of my neighbors—specifically the stretch of Cabrillo Street between Santa Ana Avenue and Orange Avenue—which has successfully submitted a petition with the required majority of signatures to apply for the Residential Parking Permit Program.
We’re excited to be on the City Council agenda for July 15, and we respectfully request your YES vote to allow us to move into Phase 2 of the process. This next phase would give residents the chance to sign up individually through the app and pay the permit fee. If enough residents participate, the program would be implemented; if not, it would sunset. We simply ask for the opportunity to complete this process together.
We deeply value the success of the nearby businesses on 17th Street—it’s been wonderful to see them thrive—but this growth has undeniably impacted residential parking in our area. With no street sweeping or time restrictions, overflow parking from commercial activity and long-term vehicle dwellers has made it difficult for residents to park near their homes.
This program will help:
Restore the neighborhood feel that defines Eastside Costa Mesa Improve safety and accessibility for families and emergency services Help enforce compliance with parking variances previously granted to local businesses Allow residents the basic ability to park reasonably close to their own homes
We’re approaching this as a unified community, and we’re grateful for your service and consideration. We hope you’ll support our effort to move forward and make this important decision as a neighborhood.
Warm regards,
Andrew Layland
240 Cabrillo Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
[email protected]
949-500-5722
AGENDA ITEM
NEW BUSINESS:
1. RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM - CABRILLO STREET BETWEEN ORANGE AVENUE AND SANTA ANA AVENUE 25-364
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt the proposed Resolution No. 2025-xx, approving the implementation of a Residential Permit Parking (RPP) only restriction on Cabrillo Street between Orange Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue, and authorizing the Transportation Services Manager to extend the restriction within a 1,000-foot radius as needed, based on a qualifying petition from affected residents and Council-adopted guidelines.
1. Proposed Resolution No. 2025-xx
2. Revised RPP Guidelines and Policies
3. Cabrillo Map
ANDREW LAYLAND
C (949) 500-5722
[email protected]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.