Public Comments — Costa Mesa City Council, August 5, 2025

From: City of Costa Mesa
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: eBike safety
Date: Monday, August 4, 2025 9:51:21 AM
Message submitted from the <City of Costa Mesa> website.

Site Visitor Name: Michael Tilley
Site Visitor Email: [email protected]
Will the city of Costa Mesa consider passing legislation to address issues of motorized eBikes using sidewalks at excessive speeds? Other jurisdictions in Orange and LA counties are considering this issue. Background - eBikes come in three categories. The fastest are capable of nearly 30 mph. Some can be controlled via throttle only without pedaling. They are often ridden on sidewalks where they pose a danger to pedestrians. I have had instances of riders (usually a teenager) having to skid to a halt from high speed to avoid hitting me. I will not yield to them by jumping out of their way if I am on a sidewalk. I instruct them to ride on the street. In future, if necessary, I will use physical force to push them into the street and out of my way. This is going to be a major liability issue for the city unless all *motorized* transport is banned from sidewalks. For reference - I am a cyclist (a regular human power bicycle). I ride on the road and have done so for 50 years. It is not as dangerous as some perceive, if done with knowledge and training. Sidewalks are for walking (or for young kids learning to ride a bike at walking pace). I recently moved to Costa Mesa from LA. There seem to be quite a lot more people riding electric bikes on sidewalks here for some reason. It is dangerous and needs to be banned.

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. /i255/1/2/3/1/4/3/5/6/i255
/i255/7/8/9/10/i255/11/9/12/13/10/i255/14/15/8/16/17/8/18/19/i255/9/18/20/i255/11/8/21/22/8/10/19/i255/13/23/i255/15/17/8/i255/24/25/15/12/i255/24/13/26/18/27/25/28/29/i255 /i255/30/19/i255/9/i255/10/8/19/25/20/8/18/15/i255/13/23/i255/31/9/19/15/19/25/20/8/i255/24/13/19/15/9/i255/11/8/19/9/29/i255/32/33/21/i255/34/10/25/15/25/18/35/i255/15/13/i255/36/13/25/27/8/i255/21/12/i255/19/15/10/13/18/35/i255/19/26/16/16/13/10/15/i255/23/13/10/i255/15/17/8/i255/16/10/13/16/13/19/8/20/i255 /i255/10/8/19/13/28/26/15/25/13/18/i255/10/8/35/9/10/20/25/18/35/i255/25/21/16/10/13/36/8/21/8/18/15/19/i255/15/13/i255/37/8/34/16/13/10/15/i255/38/13/26/28/8/36/9/10/20/29/i255/8/19/16/8/27/25/9/28/28/12/i255/15/17/8/i255/19/8/35/21/8/18/15/i255/19/13/26/15/17/i255/13/23/i255/39/40/15/17/i255 /i255/14/15/10/8/8/15/41/i255
/i255/42/13/10/i255/21/9/18/12/i255/13/23/i255/26/19/i255/28/25/36/25/18/35/i255/13/18/i255/15/17/8/i255/31/9/19/15/19/25/20/8/29/i255/37/8/34/16/13/10/15/i255/38/28/36/20/i255/25/19/i255/21/13/10/8/i255/15/17/9/18/i255/9/i255/17/25/35/17/34/9/12/43/25/15/33/19/i255/9/i255/20/9/25/28/12/i255/22/9/10/10/25/8/10/i255 /i255/22/8/15/34/8/8/18/i255/13/26/10/i255/17/13/21/8/19/i255/9/18/20/i255/8/19/19/8/18/15/25/9/28/i255/16/9/10/15/19/i255/13/23/i255/15/17/8/i255/27/25/15/12/41/i255/44/17/8/i255/27/26/10/10/8/18/15/i255/19/15/10/8/8/15/i255/20/8/19/25/35/18/i255/21/9/45/8/19/i255/34/9/28/45/25/18/35/i255/13/10/i255 /i255/22/25/45/25/18/35/i255/15/13/i255/16/28/9/27/8/19/i255/28/25/45/8/i255/46/25/13/18/19/i255/47/9/10/45/29/i255/15/17/8/i255/35/10/13/27/8/10/12/i255/19/15/13/10/8/29/i255/13/26/10/i255/23/9/36/13/10/25/15/8/i255/10/8/19/15/9/26/10/9/18/15/19/29/i255/9/18/20/i255/15/17/8/i255/44/10/25/9/18/35/28/8/i255 /i255/14/48/26/9/10/8/i255/19/17/13/16/16/25/18/35/i255/9/10/8/9/i255/18/13/15/i255/49/26/19/15/i255/20/25/23/23/25/27/26/28/15/29/i255/22/26/15/i255/20/9/18/35/8/10/13/26/19/41/i255/24/10/13/19/19/25/18/35/i255/37/8/34/16/13/10/15/i255/13/23/15/8/18/i255/23/8/8/28/19/i255/28/25/45/8/i255/15/9/45/25/18/35/i255 /i255/9/i255/10/25/19/45/29/i255/8/19/16/8/27/25/9/28/28/12/i255/9/15/i255/25/18/15/8/10/19/8/27/15/25/13/18/19/i255/28/25/45/8/i255/50/13/27/17/8/19/15/8/10/i255/14/15/41/i255/9/15/i255/37/8/34/16/13/10/15/i255/38/28/36/20/41/29/i255/9/18/20/i255/51/9/10/22/13/10/i255/38/28/36/20/i255/9/15/i255 /i255/37/8/34/16/13/10/15/i255/38/28/36/20/41/i255
/i255/32/i255/23/26/28/28/12/i255/19/26/16/16/13/10/15/i255/15/17/8/i255/24/25/15/12/33/19/i255/16/26/19/17/i255/23/13/10/i255/24/9/28/15/10/9/18/19/i255/15/13/i255/25/18/27/13/10/16/13/10/9/15/8/i255/19/9/23/8/10/i255/27/10/13/19/19/34/9/28/45/19/29/i255/22/8/15/15/8/10/i255/28/25/35/17/15/25/18/35/29/i255/27/26/10/22/i255 /i255/8/52/15/8/18/19/25/13/18/19/29/i255/25/21/16/10/13/36/8/20/i255/22/25/45/8/i255/28/9/18/8/19/29/i255/9/18/20/i255/26/16/20/9/15/8/20/i255/19/25/35/18/9/28/i255/15/25/21/25/18/35/41/i255/44/17/8/19/8/i255/9/10/8/18/33/15/i255/28/26/52/26/10/12/i255 /i255/26/16/35/10/9/20/8/19/43/15/17/8/12/i255/9/10/8/i255/22/9/19/25/27/i255/19/9/23/8/15/12/i255/21/8/9/19/26/10/8/19/41/i255/44/17/8/12/i255/34/13/26/28/20/i255/21/9/45/8/i255/9/i255/10/8/9/28/i255/20/25/23/23/8/10/8/18/27/8/i255/23/13/10/i255/45/25/20/19/i255/34/9/28/45/25/18/35/i255 /i255/15/13/i255/19/27/17/13/13/28/29/i255/23/9/21/25/28/25/8/19/i255/17/8/9/20/25/18/35/i255/15/13/i255/15/17/8/i255/16/9/10/45/29/i255/9/18/20/i255/9/28/28/i255/13/23/i255/26/19/i255/34/17/13/i255/19/25/21/16/28/12/i255/34/9/18/15/i255/9/i255/19/9/23/8/10/29/i255/21/13/10/8/i255/27/13/18/18/8/27/15/8/20/i255 /i255/27/13/21/21/26/18/25/15/12/41/i255
/i255/44/17/8/i255/27/10/9/19/17/i255/9/18/20/i255/23/9/15/9/28/25/15/12/i255/20/9/15/9/i255/16/10/8/19/8/18/15/8/20/i255/25/18/i255/15/17/8/i255/10/8/19/13/28/26/15/25/13/18/i255/25/19/i255/20/8/8/16/28/12/i255/15/10/13/26/22/28/25/18/35/29/i255/9/18/20/i255/25/15/i255/21/25/10/10/13/10/19/i255/34/17/9/15/i255 /i255/34/8/33/36/8/i255/9/28/28/i255/19/8/8/18/i255/9/18/20/i255/8/52/16/8/10/25/8/18/27/8/20/i255/23/13/10/i255/12/8/9/10/19/41/i255/44/17/8/19/8/i255/18/26/21/22/8/10/19/i255/9/10/8/18/53/15/i255/49/26/19/15/i255/19/15/9/15/25/19/15/25/27/19/43/15/17/8/12/i255/10/8/16/10/8/19/8/18/15/i255 /i255/28/25/36/8/19/i255/28/13/19/15/i255/9/18/20/i255/18/8/9/10/54/21/25/19/19/8/19/i255/15/17/9/15/i255/27/13/26/28/20/i255/17/9/36/8/i255/22/8/8/18/i255/9/36/13/25/20/8/20/i255/34/25/15/17/i255/22/8/15/15/8/10/i255/25/18/23/10/9/19/15/10/26/27/15/26/10/8/41/i255 /i255/32/i255/17/9/36/8/i255/16/8/10/19/13/18/9/28/28/12/i255/34/25/15/18/8/19/19/8/20/i255/i255/56/57/58/i255/59/60/60/61/62/63/64/65/66/i255/i255/13/27/27/26/10/i255/9/15/i255/i255/15/17/8/i255/25/18/15/8/10/19/8/27/15/25/13/18/i255/13/23/i255/i255/67/63/68/69/70/71/65/i255/72/73/74/62/i255/59/64/62/i255/75/76/65/77/i255 /i255/78/65/71/63/63/65/i255/79/i255/80/70/60/77/63/66/65/63/71/i255/78/65/71/63/63/65/i255/i255/29/i255/26/19/26/9/28/28/12/i255/25/18/i255/15/17/8/i255/9/23/15/8/10/18/13/13/18/i255/i255/13/10/i255/8/36/8/18/25/18/35/29/i255/9/18/20/i255/8/19/16/8/27/25/9/28/28/12/i255/13/18/i255/22/26/19/12/i255/20/9/12/19/29/i255 /i255/17/13/28/25/20/9/12/19/29/i255/13/36/8/10/i255/15/17/8/i255/34/8/8/45/8/18/20/29/i255/8/15/27/41/i255/34/17/25/28/8/i255/20/25/18/25/18/35/i255/9/15/i255/31/28/i255/11/9/15/9/20/13/10/i255/13/26/15/19/25/20/8/i255/13/18/i255/15/17/8/25/10/i255/81/16/9/15/25/13/82/41/i255/31/28/i255/11/9/15/9/20/13/10/i255 /i255/62/70/63/66/i255/i255/17/9/36/8/i255/19/13/21/8/i255/22/9/10/10/25/8/10/19/i255/26/16/i255/9/19/i255/9/i255/19/13/10/15/i255/13/23/i255/13/26/15/19/25/20/8/i255/23/8/18/27/8/29/i255/i255/22/26/15/i255/32/i255/13/23/15/8/18/i255/34/13/18/20/8/10/i255/25/23/i255/15/17/13/19/8/i255/22/9/10/10/25/8/10/19/i255 /i255/34/13/26/28/20/i255/9/27/15/26/9/28/28/12/i255/17/8/28/16/i255/16/10/13/15/8/27/15/i255/16/8/13/16/28/8/i255/20/25/18/25/18/35/i255/15/17/8/10/8/29/i255/25/18/i255/15/17/8/i255/8/36/8/18/15/i255/13/23/i255/9/18/i255/9/27/27/25/20/8/18/15/29/i255/9/19/i255/20/10/25/36/8/10/19/i255/15/8/18/20/i255/15/13/i255/15/10/12/i255 /i255/15/13/i255/10/26/19/17/i255/15/17/10/13/26/35/17/i255/28/25/35/17/15/19/i255/9/15/i255/15/17/9/15/i255/25/18/15/8/10/19/8/27/15/25/13/18/41/i255/37/13/15/i255/15/13/i255/21/8/18/15/25/13/18/i255/15/17/8/i255/10/8/28/9/15/25/36/8/28/12/i255/18/8/34/i255/24/13/19/15/9/i255/11/8/19/9/i255 /i255/83/25/15/27/17/8/18/19/i255/84/28/13/27/9/15/8/20/i255/25/18/i255/15/17/8/i255/23/13/10/21/8/10/i255/85/10/9/18/15/19/i255/23/13/10/i255/85/26/18/19/i255/16/10/13/16/8/10/15/12/86/i255/15/17/9/15/i255/25/19/i255/27/13/18/19/15/9/18/15/28/12/i255/22/26/19/12/i255/34/25/15/17/i255/36/9/10/25/13/26/19/i255 /i255/23/13/13/20/i255/20/8/28/25/36/8/10/12/i255/20/10/25/36/8/10/19/i255/34/17/13/i255/9/10/8/i255/9/28/19/13/i255/13/23/15/8/18/i255/25/18/i255/9/i255/17/26/10/10/12/i255/15/13/i255/20/8/28/25/36/8/10/i255/15/13/i255/16/8/13/16/28/8/41/i255 /i255/44/17/9/18/45/i255/12/13/26/i255/23/13/10/i255/15/9/45/25/18/35/i255/15/17/25/19/i255/19/8/10/25/13/26/19/28/12/i255/9/18/20/i255/23/13/10/i255/19/15/9/18/20/25/18/35/i255/26/16/i255/23/13/10/i255/19/9/23/8/10/i255/19/15/10/8/8/15/19/41/i255/32/i255/26/10/35/8/i255/24/9/28/15/10/9/18/19/i255/15/13/i255/28/25/19/15/8/18/i255 /i255/15/13/i255/15/17/8/i255/24/25/15/12/i255/9/18/20/i255/15/17/8/i255/27/13/21/21/26/18/25/15/12/i255/9/18/20/i255/25/21/16/28/8/21/8/18/15/i255/15/17/8/i255/19/9/23/8/15/12/i255/23/8/9/15/26/10/8/19/i255/20/8/15/9/25/28/8/20/i255/25/18/i255/15/17/8/i255/10/8/19/13/28/26/15/25/13/18/41/i255 /i255/14/25/18/27/8/10/8/28/12/29/i255
/i255/38/10/25/9/18/i255/87/9/27/45/19/13/18/i255
/i255/24/13/19/15/9/i255/11/8/19/9/i255/31/9/19/15/19/25/20/8/i255/50/8/19/25/20/8/18/15/i255 /i255/22/10/25/9/18/88/88/49/9/27/45/19/13/18/89/35/21/9/25/28/41/27/13/21/i255 From: Alec Daigle
To: CITY CLERK; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: City Council Consent Item #8
Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 11:12:15 AM
Hello,
As a resident of the east side, I wanted to strongly voice my support for consent item #8 regarding the request that CalTrans implement necessary safety improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists along Newport Blvd.

That stretch is extremely dangerous, and as our downtown, it is in dire need of not just traffic calming, but basic safety improvements that CalTrans has shown no indication of prioritizing without demand from the city and local residents. There are missing crosswalks, no leading pedestrian intervals, and the crossings are dangerously wide with no pedestrian refuges. In addition, there is no bike infrastructure, making traversing our downtown on bike prohibitively deadly (particularly at the Rochester/18th crossing, a frequently used bicyclist crossing).

Current conditions prohibit safe travel between the east and west sides of our city, and negatively impact local business and increase traffic and parking issues downtown by discouraging alternatives. We have had collisions within the last year, not to mention a car driving straight into a local storefront.

We need to demand that CalTrans take the issue seriously and prioritize the safety of Costa Mesans over the speed of freeway commuters.

Thank you,
Alec Daigle
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: Jennifer Tanaka
To: CITY CLERK; CITY COUNCIL
Cc: SETHURAMAN, RAJA; CityManager
Subject: Comment re: Consent Calendar #8 - Newport Blvd Caltrans Resolution Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 7:22:05 AM
Members of the City Council and City Staff:

First, I want to thank the City Clerk's office as well as Interim City Manager Cecilia Gallardo- Daly for publishing the City Council agenda in a timely manner. The effort to provide the public with additional advanced notice of city business has not gone unnoticed and I commend the effort.

Second, I want to write to strongly support the proposed resolution before you regarding necessary safety improvements on Newport Boulevard. In fact, I would support the city doing anything
in its power to impress upon Caltrans the dire need for these improvements and its responsibility to follow its own stated policies.

I am blessed to own a home in Eastside Costa Mesa. We chose this neighborhood in part due to its proximity to many shops and amenities, and I have taken full advantage of this by walking and bicycling around it often. Thanks to the tireless efforts of our police and public works departments I rarely feel unsafe doing so.

However, there have been more than a few occasions where I genuinely feared for my life, and all of them have occurred crossing Newport Boulevard. One time, I was walking -- on a clear walk signal -- the third leg of the crosswalk at 19th and Newport (I had to use all three to reach my destination, thanks to a missing fourth leg) when a vehicle came screaming up the 55 Freeway, took a right-on-red, and nearly hit me going at least 40 miles per hour. I sprinted out of harm's way in the nick of time.

Another time I was on my bicycle traveling to the Westside across the intersection of Rochester and Newport Boulevard. It should be noted I was going out of my way to do so because the prior incident and others like it made it clear that the 19th Street crossing was too risky. This time, I attempted to legally cross on a green light in my direction. I was turning the pedals as hard as I could -- the green in that direction can be VERY short, and the grading is uphill -- when two cars whizzed in front of me, running the red light in their direction. It was a rare moment I was glad I didn't have an e-bike at the time; if I had been quicker, I'd be dead.

Newport Boulevard is our most dangerous corridor. Every day Costa Mesa residents follow the rules, cross Newport Boulevard with care, and take their lives into their own hands anyway. We subject children to this, not only so that they can reach amenities like parks and libraries, but even to go to school (review the zones for Ensign Middle School, for example).

Our public works department has been doing everything that reason and budget permit to improve safety conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. I am deeply appreciative of the beautiful new crosswalk striping that has graced the Eastside in recent weeks. But our public works department cannot make improvements to Newport Boulevard -- only Caltrans can. And while every single Costa Mesa resident is also a California resident and thus a Caltrans constituent, it seems clear at this point safety and liveability simply aren't Caltrans's top priority in practice.

This must change, and the City of Costa Mesa must plead its residents' case. The safety improvements listed by the public works department are modest, reasonable, and proven to be effective at improving safety. By resisting them Caltrans is violating its own policies and harming the long-run potential of Newport Boulevard, not to mention putting Costa Mesa residents in danger.

Thank you for bringing forward this resolution and I hope to see even more action in the future.

Sincerely,
Jenn Tanaka
321 Broadway
Costa Mesa
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: Joseph Daigle
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Consent item #8
Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 11:38:50 AM
Hello Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council, as a 58 year resident of Costa Mesa I have seen the effects of CalTrans routing traffic through downtown firsthand and I’m writing to support the resolution by BBC taking a position on the necessary safety enhancements that must be included in the proposed Caltrans project along Newport Boulevard. As the Staff Report notes, the City’s requested safety features are consistent with Caltrans policy as well as the needs of the Costa Mesa community. And Caltrans is the only agency that can fully address the significant pedestrian and bicyclist safety issues present when crossing Newport Boulevard. In addition to impacting the economic vitality of this corridor, the lack of safe crossings undermines the cohesiveness of the city and places children who must cross Newport Boulevard to get to school in danger. I strongly support the City Council’s decision to make its position clear to Caltrans: these safety measures are NOT optional. Sincerely, Joseph Daigle
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: Joshua E Sawyer
To: CITY CLERK; WRIGHT, SHAYANNE
Subject: Newport and Rochester crossing in Costa Mesa
Date: Monday, August 4, 2025 6:49:27 PM
Dear City Councilmembers,
I'm an Eastside Costa Mesa resident and a cyclist who rides often in the city. One of the major pain points in getting across Costa Mesa is the lack of safe crossing at Newport and Rochester. It's the most direct way to pass from Eastside to Lions Park, the library, and the rest of Westside, but it's an extremely stressful crossing.

The walk signal across Newport is extremely short (the signal starts flashing almost immediately) and drivers frequently turn right on red even when there are people in the crosswalk. I think the signal length should be increased, there should be no right on red onto Newport, and the yield left turn should be removed. This would dramatically increase the safety for both cyclists and pedestrians crossing.

I love cycling in Costa Mesa and there's a lot going for the infrastructure, but the Newport crossings are dangerous. The one at Newport and Rochester is the worst. I hope the city continues pushing Caltrans to improve our infrastructure for the sake of all pedestrians and cyclists in the city.

Thank you for reading and for all your work.

Sincerely,
Josh Sawyer
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: Joel Medina
To: CITY CLERK; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Public comment: CalTrans on Newport Blvd
Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 11:59:08 AM
Good morning:

I would have liked to come to the meeting in person tonight to speak on the issue of CalTrans’ work on Newport Blvd, but I am unable, so I wanted to write to you ahead of tonight’s meeting.

My name is Joel Medina and I have been a Costa Mesa resident for 8 years, living on both the east and west side with my wife. I try to do most of my errands by bike to avoid contributing to the traffic in downtown, but the lack of infrastructure in downtown is treacherous. Two years ago, many concerned citizens spoke to CalTrans reps about making our downtown safer for pedestrians and cyclists, but our concerns were ignored. Please advocate for us, the residents of Costa Mesa, and advocate for concrete improvements to the downtown area to mitigate more accidents and injuries in the future.

Thank you
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: Marty
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for Consent Calendar Item #8 (Newport Blvd Resolution) Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 9:28:18 AM
Hello Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I'm writing to support the resolution taking a position on the necessary safety enhancements that must be included in the proposed Caltrans project along Newport Boulevard. As the Staff Report notes, the City's requested safety features are consistent with Caltrans policy as well as the needs of the Costa Mesa community. And Caltrans is the only agency that can fully address the significant pedestrian and bicyclist safety issues present when crossing Newport Boulevard.

In addition to impacting the economic vitality of this corridor, the lack of safe crossings undermines the cohesiveness of the city and places children who must cross Newport Boulevard to get to school in danger.

I strongly support the City Council's decision to make its position clear to Caltrans: these safety measures are NOT optional.

Sincerely,
Martin Varona
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: Kyle Ramer
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for Consent Calendar Item #8 (Newport Blvd Resolution) Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 11:24:35 AM
Hello Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I'm writing to support the resolution taking a position on the necessary safety enhancements that must be included in the proposed Caltrans project along Newport Boulevard. As the Staff Report notes, the City's requested safety features are consistent with Caltrans policy as well as the needs of the Costa Mesa community. And Caltrans is the only agency that can fully address the significant pedestrian and bicyclist safety issues present when crossing Newport Boulevard.

The city has made some really great strides in improving the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure citywide in the past few years. Working with an agency like Caltrans that is solely focused on vehicle throughput is challenging but if we can make real improvements to Newport boulevard then we can start to create the real downtown we deserve by truly connecting 19th to 17th streets via Newport and Harbor boulevards.

I strongly support the City Council's decision to make its position clear to Caltrans: these safety measures are NOT optional.

Sincerely,
Kyle Ramer
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: William Sellin
To: CITY CLERK; STEPHENS, JOHN
Cc: CMABS; Lan Zhou; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; THOMAS, BRETT ATENCIO Subject: Support for Consent Calendar Item #8 (Newport Blvd Resolution) Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 7:46:41 AM
Attachments: PastedGraphic-2.tiff
PastedGraphic-6.tiff
PastedGraphic-8.tiff
Honorable Mayor Stephens and City Council,
I'm writing to support the resolution taking a position on the necessary safety enhancements that must be included in the proposed Caltrans project along Newport Boulevard. As the Staff Report notes, the City's requested safety features are consistent with Caltrans policy as well as the needs of the Costa Mesa community. Caltrans is the only agency that can fully address the significant pedestrian and bicyclist safety issues present when navigating Newport Boulevard.

It is their own Complete Streets standards that are not being fully implemented.

Bicyclist from Costa Mesa as well as across the region share the streets of Costa Mesa to access US Bicycle Route 95 from across Orange County.

In addition to impacting the economic vitality of this corridor, the lack of safe crossings undermines the cohesiveness of the city and places local children who must cross Newport Boulevard to get to school in danger.

I strongly support the City Council's decision to make its position clear to Caltrans: these safety measures are NOT optional.

Sincerely,
Bill Sellin
714.943.3678
[email protected]
Infrastructure Review Committee
OCBike.org
Area Liaison to Caltrans District 12
CABOBike.org
League of American Bicyclists
Certified Bicycle Advocate
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: Taylor Chamberlin
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for Consent Calendar Item #8 (Newport Blvd Resolution) Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 10:05:23 AM
Hello Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I'm writing to support the resolution taking a position on the necessary safety enhancements that must be included in the proposed Caltrans project along Newport Boulevard. Newport Boulevard as it currently stands is like a wall between east and west Costa Mesa for pedestrians and cyclists. When I walk or bike in Costa Mesa, I don't feel safe crossing Newport Blvd and it limits opportunities for community connection.

As the Staff Report notes, the City's requested safety features are consistent with Caltrans policy as well as the needs of the Costa Mesa community. And Caltrans is the only agency that can fully address the significant pedestrian and bicyclist safety issues present when crossing Newport Boulevard. In addition to impacting the economic vitality of this corridor, the lack of safe crossings undermines the cohesiveness of the city and places children and families who must cross Newport Boulevard to get to school in danger.

I strongly support the City Council's decision to make its position clear to Caltrans: these safety measures are NOT optional.

Sincerely,
Taylor Rosetti
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: Angeline Hong
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for Consent Calendar Item #8 (Newport Blvd Resolution) Date: Monday, August 4, 2025 11:14:57 PM
Hello Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I'm writing to support the resolution taking a position on the necessary safety enhancements that must be included in the proposed Caltrans project along Newport Boulevard. As the Staff Report notes, the City's requested safety features are consistent with Caltrans policy as well as the needs of the Costa Mesa community. And Caltrans is the only agency that can fully address the significant pedestrian and bicyclist safety issues present when crossing Newport Boulevard.

I strongly support the City Council's decision to make its position clear to Caltrans: these safety measures are NOT optional.

Sincerely,
Angeline Hong
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: Kathryn Hoist
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for Consent Calendar Item #8 (Newport Blvd Resolution) Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 10:17:52 AM
Hello Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I'm writing to support the resolution taking a position on the necessary safety enhancements that must be included in the proposed Caltrans project along Newport Boulevard.

As a business owner on Newport Blvd, I have experienced the dangerous conditions on Newport after a car ran into the business next to mine in January this year. I regularly walk across Newport Blvd to the triangle and to the shopping center along harbor and every time I am on edge and worried about the safety of myself and those around me.

Since my business is on E 18th and Newport, I have to cross more than necessary to get across Newport no matter which direction I walk and would love to have crosswalks on Rochester and Harbor where it’s missing a leg.

LPIs should be an easy add on and makes a huge difference for pedestrians crossing the street.

I’m also very interested in the curb extensions and lane narrowing as I’ve witnessed so many people speeding down the road endangering others. No amount of speed limit signs will slow these people down.

I strongly support the City Council's decision to make its position clear to Caltrans: these safety measures are NOT optional.

Sincerely,
Kathryn Hoist
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: Andy Leon
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for Resolution 2025-XX – Safety Enhancements on Newport Blvd Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 10:32:50 AM
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
As a resident of Costa Mesa, I’m writing to express my strong support for Resolution 2025- XX, which outlines the City’s position on the vital safety enhancements needed as part of the proposed Caltrans project along Newport Boulevard.

As noted in the Staff Report, the safety features requested by the City are fully aligned with Caltrans policy—and more importantly, they reflect the real and pressing needs of the Costa Mesa community.

Caltrans is the only agency with the authority and capacity to properly address the serious risks faced by pedestrians and bicyclists trying to cross Newport Boulevard. This corridor is not only critical to the city’s economic vitality, but also to its connectivity. The absence of safe crossings endangers residents—particularly schoolchildren—and undermines the cohesion of our neighborhoods.

I fully support the City Council’s decision to send a clear message to Caltrans: these safety improvements are not optional. They are necessary.

Thank you for your leadership and for standing up for the safety of Costa Mesa residents.

Sincerely,
Andrew Leon
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: Russell Toler
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support the Resolution—Hold Caltrans Accountable on Newport Blvd Safety Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 8:58:16 AM
Mr. Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I’m writing in strong support of the resolution calling on Caltrans to include requested safety upgrades in their Newport Boulevard project.

Despite the fact that Newport Blvd. has all but turned into a freeway in recent decades, it is still heavily used by people walking, biking, and waiting for the bus—residents trying to access schools, parks, businesses, and civic services on foot. We’ve let these people be literally marginalized–pushed to the dirty and dusty margins of the public realm, dodging cars as they pop out of driveways and side streets, crossing the street apologetically, and on high alert as they watch for drivers turning right on red at both ends. We’ve let people who dare to walk in our downtown lose dignity, and the City of Costa Mesa should stand up for them.

We have been engaging in good faith with Caltrans for over two years. We’ve asked for reasonable, commonsense upgrades: completed crosswalks (you have to cross three times to get from E. 18th to Lion's Park!), better lighting, advanced signals, and other proven safety measures. These are not fringe requests. They are in line with Caltrans’ own Complete Streets Toolbox
, their Active Transportation Plan for District 12, as well as SB 960, which mandates these very kinds of improvements. Please read Director’s Policy 37, which says “all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans will provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail unless an exception is documented and approved.”
Despite their public commitment to serving all modes of transportation, when it comes time to actually implement those values, they are stalling and we should call them out for it.

This resolution is not asking for radical change. It is just asking for some alignment between what Caltrans says and what Caltrans does. They've had several meetings in Costa Mesa where they should have learned that we are different from other cities they work in–where we actually care about more than traffic throughput. We need to continue to make it clear to them that pedestrian safety and dignity are not optional features in Costa Mesa.

Russell Toler
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open Dangerous and Terrible Crosswalks
Triangle
Restaurants,
Grocery Store
Lions Park,
Library
Eastside High Density Residential
Give us safe access to our nearest park and businesses!! Lions Park,
Library
Restaurants,
Grocery Store
Triangle
No crosswalk WHY
No crosswalk WHY
Eastside High Density Residential
Give us safe access to our nearest park and businesses!! NO CROSSWALK HERE WHY???
10 LANES TO CROSS IN 30-40 SECONDS

RIGHT ON RED
Bikers at every corner Bikers at every corner
Bikers at every corner
Pedestrian crossing
10 LANES TO CROSS IN 30-40 SECONDSCars going into the crosswalk Lions Park
Cars going into the crosswalk
Small Curb Angles = FAST TURNS
Curb extended
Crosswalk at all intersections
Longer duration for crossing
10 LANES TO CROSS IN 30-40

SECONDS
NO CROSSWALK HERE WHY???
Cars turn really fast at this light and don’t stop
No protection for pedetrians
Restaurants & Triangle Square
NO CROSSWALK HERE WHY???
NO CROSSWALK HERE WHY???
Restaurants & Triangle Square
We NEED a crosswalk here
Extend the curb here to shorten
pedestrian distance
Extend median to give pedstrians an island
No right on red here

1 TERAN, STACY
From: Abie Chehade <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:36 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: 3150 Bear St. Costa Mesa.... project.

Dear Mr. Mayor and the City Council of the Beautiful City of Costa Mesa;;

My name is Abie Chehade, I live on 3074 yukon ave. off Bear Street. My neighborhood is a great place to live in, all the neighbors are wondeerful, and would love to keep it that way....

Now with the new project it is going to create problems for both neighborhood on both sides of bear, because:

1) 142 homes in that small area is too many with one exit to use all pouring down Bear... if each house has 2 or 3 cars the traffic would be a nightmare especially on Christmas and other holidays. we have seen it lines backing up to baker. Another problem which all of us are complaining about is the parking, they would park in the streets on both sides and walk accross the park to their residence. we bearly have spaces for the people that live here already...

2) building a connection to the shiffer park is also not good as they all are going to use it, it is bad enough people coming from other cities to party there and leave their trash..

3) my suggestion would be open an entrance to the 405 freeway and let them exit from there and the best one would be just let them build half like only 75 homes which makes at least residents happy somewhat.

Thank you and may God Bless Costa Mesa.

Abie.

From: Brent Millard
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Comments for 3150 Bear st
Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 5:42:00 PM
Hello, I have sent comments multiple times to multiple people and don't feel like they are being taken into consideration. This development is being over built with far to little parking.

Living in an attached neighborhood which already has major parking issues this will only make it worse. Costa mesa has a parking ordinance in place 13-85 which based on the number of units would require 477 parking spaces. For some reason the city is making an exception for this developer to allow only 319 parking spots. That is a huge drop from the standard for no reason. They can cut the number of units by 20% and increase the parking. There is no valid reason to lower Costa Mesa city standards which will impact the current residents and neighborhoods just to get a couple more living units in this development. There are several other developments in industrial areas on the other side of Costa Mesa that can be increased because don't have the same issues.

This will also directly impact the traffic in the area since Bear St is already a major path from the freeway to South Coast plaza or Santa Ana with an existing major bottleneck at the 405 overpass. If they actually did traffic studies at rush hours and near holidays they would see bear street is already at a standstill quite often. They cherry picked the days and times to do traffic studies to push their narrative.

Thank you,
Brent
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: Thomas M Vasich
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Objection to the planned sidewalk at the Trinity Broadcasting redevelopment site Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 9:49:09 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear members of the City Council,

Regarding your August 5 discussion about the application for a 142-unit residential development on Bear Street, we would like to share with you a letter we sent to Johnny Rojas of the Planning Commission.

The letter states our objections to opening the sidewalk between the new development and our neighborhood. Mr. Rojas has not responded.

The email we sent Mr. Rojas is below. In addition to legitimate concerns about overbuilding on that site, which will cause parking and traffic problems, we believe the sidewalk should not be opened.

Our neighborhood opposes it for the reasons detailed in the letter below.

Thank you for your consideration, and best wishes,

Tom & Deborah Vasich
778 Allegheny Ave.

Costa Mesa, CA 92626
949-285-6455
[email protected]

From: Thomas M Vasich <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 8:11 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Objection to the planned sidewalk at the Trinity Broadcasting redevelopment site Dear Mr. Rojas,

We live in the neighborhood behind the former Trinity Broadcasting site, and we understand that a housing development will be built on that location. Some of my neighbors are upset because they have heard that the project includes opening up the sidewalk connecting my neighborhood to the new housing area.

For as long as we can remember, access from my neighborhood, from Olympic Avenue to the Trinity Broadcasting site, has been blocked by an iron gate that can only be opened for emergency access purposes. Here is a screenshot to show you the area:

This includes the sidewalk. Under the supposed new development plan, traffic access from Olympic will still be blocked, but the sidewalk will be open, allowing access to and from the new development and my neighborhood.

We believe this is a bad idea for several reasons:

1. The residents in the new development will be able to park their extra cars in our neighborhood, which already has impacted parking. We already have problems with people from outside areas using our neighborhood for long-term parking.

2. It will encourage more illegal activity by giving criminals easy access to the homes on Olympic, Hudson, and Canadian, and also to the new housing development. Already, my neighborhood has sober living houses, houses where drugs are sold, and people abandoning or sleeping in cars. Opening easy access to Bear Street may only accelerate illegal activity, which is not good for my neighborhood or the new development.

3. I doubt the new residents in their new homes would appreciate having people from my neighborhood walking through their neighborhood at all hours to go to the park or over the shopping district on the other side of the 405.

We appreciate your interest in this matter.

With best regards,

Tom & Deborah Vasich
778 Allegheny Ave.

Costa Mesa, CA 92626
949-285-6455
[email protected]

From: m s
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: PGPA-24-0002 Public hearing Meritage Homes
Date: Monday, August 4, 2025 12:37:05 PM
Hello City Council
Here are the points of the Meritage Homes/Vanessa Scheidel development project at 3150 Bear Street
Mark Sato 904 Mackenzie Place CM CA 92626 I live one house away from Shffer Park My concerns are lack of resident parking inside the development for 146 units. The buyers themselves most likely will own more then 2 cars, (adults living with them) thus during the weekdays and weekends they will try and take advantage of parking overflow vehicles at Shiffer park which has limited parking spaces on Bear street. If people visiting Shiffer park will not be able to find parking on Bear street and start to park on Tanana Place and Mackenzie Place streets. Eventually we will ask for residential permit parking.

Yes we understand during
holidays the park is used and many cars park but this predominantly holidays and we put up with people parking on our streets and blocking our driveways.

I and asking Costa Mesa Ciry Council limit the number of units to less then 146 and have overflowing parking for residents.

Costa Mesa should put up signage at the Bear street parking explaining the time park is closed and no overnight parking.

The same for Mackenzie Place and Tanana Place Cul du sacs signage about no overnight parking.

There is already one person for 3 months living in his car

from around 6:30am to 5:30pm in
the Shiffer park parking thus already limiting guests who want to use the park. You will see a dark color car parking the corner with

black cloth covering all the sides windows and the front windshield will have a sunshade put up all day.

Mark Sato

August 4, 2025
Mayor Stevens and Council Members
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
RE: Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment (PGPA-24-0002), Rezone, Design Review, Tentative Tract Map No. 19334, and Density Bonus for a 142- Unit Ownership Residential Development at 3150 Bear Street (Meritage Homes) Dear Mayor Stevens and Council Members,
I am a longtime resident of Rancho Mesa, living directly across Bear Street from the proposed project site. My wife and I have called this peaceful neighborhood home since 1996, and we have always appreciated the openness and character of the surrounding area.

While we are not opposed to a thoughtfully planned residential development on the Trinity property, we are deeply concerned about the scale and parking inadequacies of the project as currently proposed. The proposed density is too high, and the parking provisions are insufficient to support the number of units.

Experience shows that developments like this often lead to spillover parking in adjacent neighborhoods. With our community located just across Bear Street and easily accessible via a protected crosswalk, it is only a matter of time before new residents begin parking in our neighborhood, creating congestion and negatively impacting our quality of life.

The project’s heavy reliance on garage parking is unrealistic. In most cases, garages are used for storage or only accommodate one vehicle. Without adequate surface parking, the development will inevitably burden surrounding streets. A practical solution would be to scale back one or two buildings and use that space to increase surface parking.

Let’s ensure this project serves both its future residents and the existing community responsibly. Once approved, we cannot undo the long-term impacts of an overbuilt and under-parked development. I respectfully urge you to deny the project unless signiﬁcant revisions are made to address the parking shortfall.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Kind regards,
Mick Meldrum
3118 Yukon Ave.

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County. peopleforhousing.org

August 4th, 2025
Mayor John Stephens
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

RE: SUPPORT for Bear Street Residential Project at 3150 Bear Street 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 142-unit residential community at 3150 Bear Street. This well-designed ownership development represents exactly the kind of smart, infill housing Costa Mesa needs to address its housing shortage and create more opportunities for homeownership.

As an organization committed to increasing access to affordable and attainable housing across Orange County, we advocate for projects that offer diverse housing options for the people who live, work, and raise families in our communities. The Bear Street project does just that—delivering a mix of stacked townhomes and single-family detached homes in a transit-accessible location near jobs, services, and parks.

In a region where homeownership remains out of reach for many working families and first-time buyers, this project creates new, for-sale housing in one of Orange County’s most central urban locations. These kinds of projects are urgently needed to meet demand, reduce pressure on the rental market, and give younger generations a chance to put down roots in cities like Costa Mesa.

The addition of a small number of deed-restricted very low-income units through the density bonus is a welcome inclusion, though the broader benefit is the expansion of the city’s overall housing stock. 1 This project adds housing in a well-connected location, consistent with the goals of Measure K and the city’s General Plan vision for smart growth and livable neighborhoods.

We were encouraged to see city staff recommend approval of this project and urge the Council to support their recommendation. The proposed community advances Costa Mesa’s housing, transportation, and sustainability goals while expanding homeownership opportunities in a high-opportunity area.

Thank you for your leadership on housing and your thoughtful consideration of this important proposal. Please don’t hesitate to contact me at [email protected] if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Hansburg
Cofounder & Director

Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County. peopleforhousing.org
2 From: John Tyler Blazona
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Subject: Meritage Homes Housing Project - 3150 Bear St - Letter of Support Date: Saturday, August 2, 2025 3:50:10 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
I’m writing as a resident of Costa Mesa who was a long time renter and recently had the opportunity to purchase a townhome in the City. I’m writing in strong support of Meritage Homes’ proposed redevelopment of the Trinity Broadcasting Center site.

As a young person in my mid 20's, finding an affordable home to purchase in the city I love has been extremely difficult. I fully support the transformation of the Trinity site into for sale housing that would give more of my peers and friends the same chance I had, to buy a home in the community we’ve built our lives around.

Meritage Homes is a leading homebuilder known for creating energy efficient communities that prioritize sustainability, affordability, and long-term livability. This is exactly the kind of thoughtful development Costa Mesa needs.

It would be a real shame if this project were denied. An underutilized event venue is not a better use of this site than housing that is attainable to entry-level homebuyers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
John Tyler Blazona.

From: [email protected]
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: PGPA-24-0002 Comment
Date: Monday, August 4, 2025 1:06:31 PM
Gentlemen,
My wife and I are residents of the Life Styles community. It is already difficult for us to exit onto Bear St, due to heavy traffic. If a traffic light is installed at the new homes egress, traffic will back up blocking our exit, thus making our situation even worse. As I pointed out in my previous email to the Planning Commission, paint on the street will not solve this problem because many people don’t care or pay attention.

A possible solution is to put the northbound traffic light south of our egress and the southbound traffic light north of their egress. Then we would have equal access to Bear St. This also would help visitors to the Grant building, in between, and to the park across the street.

Sincerely
Ralph Moore
3099 Promenade
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. omopyiimsesvcEsoep 2'l NUS -5 "" 'S -:'3
April 25, 2001
Court
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
SUBJECT: BUILDING PERMIT NO. BO1-00202
3150 BEAR STREET, COSTA MESA
DBar Ms.

This )etter has been prepared in response to your request for information on the above permit issued by the City for a 1 7Aoot tall statue for Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). The permit was issued by the City on February 13, 2001, for the statue to be located in the central courtyard/fountain area. On April 9, 2001, Mr.

Kent Whitmore of TBN requested that the statue be relocated to an existing landscape planter near the noiain entry of the facility on Bear Street. The planter contained a tar mature tree.
and the
Jhe plan and statue
and was approved on
homes to the south of the site to act as a natural buffer. relocation complied with all applicable code requirements April 12, 2001.

If you have any questions, I:ilease do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 754-5611, between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m.

Sincerely,
i,,['A

MEL LEE, AICP
Associate Planner
Kent C. Whitmore
Special Projects Coordinator
Trinity Broadcasting Ne'twork
3150 Bear Street
Costa Mesa. CA 92626
Building Division (714) 754-5273
77 FAIR DRIVE
Code Enforcement (714) 754-5623 Planning Division (714) 7545245 p(,pp, 1'4 - 0052, T'3 I 'X ?

1. As Long time resident of Costa Mesa, I would like to formally request a fffAAuA-P#EA"140!tMesa CityMEASURE K. The CityofCosta Mesa (the City) claimed it could cost any resident who intended on calling for a recount, upwards of $I14:000, which ttie'residentwouLd be required to payforthe Cityto proceed with there-65-unt?! How,inanyreasonableway,isthatfair,especiaLlygivenhow incredibly narrow the vote margin was? EspecialLy given Measure K was heavily promoted as the City's and DeveLoper's initiative. The citizens of Costa Mesa should have a legal right to not be buLldozed into submission to City/Developer initiatives by imposing an unfair financial burden on a concerned resident who has the reasonable and legitimate right to question the validity of the vote.

2. Measure K promised voters it would maintain the character of Costa Mesa's single- famiLyneighborhoods,protecttheenvironmentandopenspace!! l40+multistory apartment type homes, to include five story, 50 foot tall, Low-income housing would have a MAJOR impact to the surrounding residential homes and streets alongside.

Measure K passed by 22 votes. 32,944 totaL balLots....16,483 "for" the measure, 16,461 against the measure. I believe to be fact, that despite "winning" by half a perCentage paint, beCauSe the City/Developer "Wan", the Cite felt it had nO moral) civil, or other compulsion to confirm the results such that, to further dissuade, the City placed a major financial impediment on a citizen's ability act on forcin8 a vote reCOunt.

3. Manyoftheformersurroundingresidentialhomeowners(Lifestytesnamely) eventually gave up their homes due to contentious and persistent Litigation battles.

Additionally, those same homeowners had feared harm (financial and physical) to their properties. Aggressive Ficus trees were allowed to be planted, specijicatly by the City of Costa Mesa no less, immediately abutting the Lifestyle properties included in the Landscape Plan (Building Permit BO1-00202, Mel Lee was the ASSOCiate Planner (2001 )) WhiCt"i required oversight by the City Of COSt Mega. Linda Nguyen (City of Costa Mesa employee) subsequently claimed the document referenced was somehow "lost". This initiated my misgivings about the City's interests/agenda when it comes to the 3150 propertyversus my home and neighborhood.

4. It seems obvious, given the routine interaction between properties (Lifestyles and 3150 Bear), that the 501 C charity, which previously owned 3150 Bear Street, now owns material percentage of the LifestyLes homes and has what I believe to be contractors and others tangential to them rotate in an out as necessary. This is what leads me to feel that I remain on an island as I try to deaL with this truly upsetting and Life altering issue as my "neighbors" in reality aren't neighbors so much as they are part time visitors when it suits their purposes. (What residents have out of state %a - zQ -(:XX2- p - z €* 7
car plates?). Why would they and/or their contractors care about what goes on behind the property line?

5. The same entity appears in control of the LifestyLe neighborhood (contractor appears to have controLLinginterest of the HOA Board). From my perspective, it APPEARS aS though the COntraCtOrS) empl07eeS.0 famil7 membersi are rOtating throughout a number of the Lifestyles properties, do not appear to have any investment in the well-being of the homes or the neighborhood. As such, I believe this is why I've been placed at a severe disadvantage of being the only person on LifestyLes bordering property to speak out against what I believe is a blatant misrepresentation by the City of what Measure K was supposed to be.

6. Very recently, I was intimidated and ridiculed in my own backyard by a "surveyor" who physically, from the 3150 property side, reached out with a measuring tool without my permission, into my yard and raked my plants with the device to take a "measurement". I asked him to remove the device which he did. He then began to berate me to his colleague with verbal Language which I won't include here. (l have video footage of the event). The fact that he was "measuring" from within my property boundary makes me believe he was making false representations of the property Line.

7. TheCityofCostaMesaclaimsNeighborhoodandsenseofCommunityistheir goal.... That's interesting given that following every 3150 interaction I've had with City, they have left me feeling dismissed as irrelevant as well as alienated. What motivation would the city have to further dismantle the neighborhood surrounding 3150 Bear Street?? This Facilty was zoned as ADMINSTRATIVE-AP and has never been heLd accountable nor to the "spirit" of this zoning type. It has felt as though the 501 C charity, NGOs, and its affiliates were enabled by the city to help them overtake homes within LifestyLes neighborhood. It leaves one to question whether there could be outside interests controlling the current decisions, as well? Without faiLl've always been left to watch the city, reliably and predictably, support whatever corporate entity 3150 project, which came before them. Whatever Conditional Use Permit it took or other manipulation that needed to be crafted, it seems the City of Costa Mesa could and would come up with a way to make it happen.

8. MeasureKappearstobeyetanotherCityfaLsepromise."NolmpacttoResidential neighborhoods"? Well, I'm a long standing resident of a well-established neighborhood and I am telling you, the City, that this new housing proposal is causing me a tremendous amount of fear and anxiety, and despite my best efforts to express my concerns, nobody at the City seems to have anyinterest in coming up with real mitigating solutions. Actions speak louder than words. There has been no "outreach" other than very late, taped, paper notices, "going through the motions" v' € PA 2-$4 : 0002, p. 3 dt ,?
t6' make it 'a-p- 'p-ear': as though they care when in actuality, it Feels as they have no qeriqt in.my,of@'ty4@ncerns. The City says all the right things like "good for the community" but in reality, at least in my reality, they have no empathy at all about th,6Be Costa Mesa-residents most immediately impacted by their direct actions.

9. TFit,reappeared-tobeanenormousfundingadvantagebytheproponentsof Measure K. Residents didn't/don't stand a chance because the financial cards were/are so heavily stacked against regular everyday residents by those who want to comeinandprofitwhenanopportunitysuchasthis3150avaiLsitself. Isaw professionalty created signs stating that it would help reduce rentin Costa Mesa--- non-Citizen groups also appeared to be funding the measure. To me these signs appeared confusing and to be funded by outside interests?! Even given all the financial resources thrown its way, Measure K only "passed" by 22 votes and I believe should remain open to appeal and subsequently be appealed or reca(led.

10. I'malLformoreaffordabLehousing. lwishtheCitywouLdbesmartabouthowit resolves the housing issues. As well, the City, should show much more deference to the other half of Costa Mesa residents, who like myself, voted against K. Sadly, in my case specifically, they've Lett me reeling completely and utterly disregarded. (not by any measure an embellishment)
l1.lt is not Like,in anyway, Measure K can be considered to have the overwhelming support of the actual Costa Mesa community as a whole. In my opinion The City's agenda seems to be what matters to the City (government) most, not those of the actual residents. Measure K, in every way, seriously, turned out to be a very misleading way of accomplishing the City's agenda to suit its own purposes.

12. The Lifestyles neighborhood has already suffered FRACTURE of the [email protected] the takeover by the 501 C charity and its connected contractors and NGO's. The current situation feels Like the city has never held the interests of it's Citizens who simply want to invest in their home and neighborhoods. I believe I can safely say that at Least half of the Costa Mesa residents who own and live in their homes do not want Commercial interests ruining their retirement or lifestyLe plans! Windfall gains for Developers at the expense of the surrounding residential neighborhoods? How is that in any way considered fair? Will this same type of funding be allowed to purchase the homes in the same fashion as LifestyLes which appear to have been the case in some instances with NDAs with the residence of the homes? It was admitted many years ago, during a legal deposition that there were agreements.... NDAs with the homes in the LifestyLes neighborhood.

13. Yet another obvious problem, Bear Street already has traffic issues, specifically speeding traffic issues. Bear St, especially in front of Lifestyles is a reliable and well- established speed trap for vehicles that come flying over the bridge. Knowing the PG.,PA - 2.! - 0502, y5- ! Th ?
tr$ic characteristics, how can the City somehow stilL see fit to allow a developer to put 140 units in at 3150, each with its own 2 car garage/port plus guest parking, What about pnintended consequences? At the end of the day, hundreds of more ca(s:and even more hundreds of people will in future be transiting Bear at any given time increasing the order of risk which must be mitigated by the City if its plans were to go through.

14. What were the results of the Study, if any, which forecast/comparative future traffic stagnation rates relative to current traffic flow rates for Bear back to South Coast PLaza? There already exists two traffic lights on one side of the bridge. Yet another traffic light insta(led on the other side of the bridge will undoubtedly snarl traffic even worse than it already is. I can't imagine the impact over the holiday seasons.

15. The 3150 community will not be gated and as such how easy wouLd it be for a child to stray out of that neighborhood trying to get to the park? I can't imagine anything happening to a chiLd because the City didn't ensure its infrastructure is sound and that it will safely support the project given the character of Bear street traffic especially at that 3150 location.

16. Bear Street doesn't need the added burden of a Large neighborhood being stuffed into such a small geographical footprint! In my opinion it appears as though CEQA didn't put much thought into their determinations (many traffic citations and accidents already on Bear) In addition it seems commons sense CEQA should not be funded by the applicant? It leaves it appearing as though there could be a conflict of interest.... In my opinion this practice seems to ensure the City will come through with determinations that work in the best interests of the applicant and all those who fund them.

17. Does this proposed Developer have 501 C/ NGO /Switzerland/Sweeden -foreign funding/former 501 C funding? To me this feels Like it might have happened with the previous proposed 3150 land use?? A 501 C charity was allowed to buy up homes, which I can personally attest has Telt overwhelming because of it. Hard to know if there has been a nonstop abuse of power with certainty, but it has unquestionably removed my sense of safety and well-beingin my own home. It feels Like daily turmoil, with feelings of a lack of weLL-being, concern for my personal safety, and vutnerabitity tO their unmitigated COntrOt Of everything that happens here.

18. Purple Bee-High Energy Equipment-Was there also a hidden Marijuana Dispensary placed at 3140 Bear Street? I know at one point this was also a proposal. How couLd a Marijana Dispensary even have been considered so close to a city park and so many residential communities? Same thing can be said with high energy equipment Fbvp zTh - z p S d- I
al66 place; in tha:s'same building? What are the safety concerns to such nearby 5id5,,lS2a.swell';§, 43

19. Have there been NDAs behind the scenes of these proposals? I am personally aware of 6ttempts for NDAs with my home with previous attempts for CUPS and Rezonin@!! Makes me-wonder how many NDAs have been utilized to allow the powerful outside entities to gain further leverage?? The NDAs attempted to silence my voice, verbiage included broad statement to entities unnamed having ties to each other! Have these proposed projects been funded behind the scenes by NGOS that could ultimately show through history the funding ties together??

20. WHY has the City of Cost Mesa Planning and Council appeared to have repeatedly (my opinion based on 29 years direct experience dealing with 3150 issues) DISCOUNTED the Citizens for what appears to be accommodations to "Big Developers" (501 C'S/NGOs)"? Persona(ly, it now feels beyond my ability to believe there shouldn't be considerations of conflicts ofinterest formulating these decisions?? Starting with Measure K and, again, in my opinion, its sketchy roots!

21. I have a right to appeal this proposal that is coming from the Planning Commission to what appears Tast tracked to Council? Why am I being advised by the City Clerk (Brenda Green) to "not waste my money"? Does the City Clerk already know this to be a foregone conclusion? Where does that confidence come from? It would be great to have a reasoned discussion with the Council, however, very sadly my understanding or and experiences with this and prior councils with respect to prior public meetings are that they simply must be accomplished by code and that the meetings serve as a means for the City to feign interest by being present as residents try to assert heartfelt concerns and genuine hope that they can affect change. In my mind all the smoke and mirrors are for show only. In fact, during one (OnCe again) late night COunCil meeting, WhiCh I perSOnatl7 attendedi a representative for a separate 3150 project applicant actually, Leaned into my personal space, with a threatening demeanor/stance to ensure I fully understood his displeasure with my position. That experience felt threating and made me feel very uncomfortable about attending Live, in-person meetings.

22. After 29 years of this, and other similar like interactions with the City of Costa Mesa.

I can no longer bring myself to personally attend in-person meetings. I shouldn't have to feel concerned just because I want to share my worries with the City. Some say, why do I contest 3150, when I "know" the City has no interest in mitigating the project's impact on my life and I "should assume" they're going to do what they want anyway. As ludicrous as it might sound, the reason is, as I get older, I simply want to believe the daywill arrive when I will be able to peacefully Live out lifein my neighborhood and beautiful home which I purchased over 29 years ago. Despite all P&pb zu CTh2. F=51 i CA '7
my n6ga'tive experiences dealing with the City over all those years, white feeling like the0ty.O,ff, nHver-ahswrdegitimate COnCern about my well-being, just the plain, in your face, innate unfairness about the way the City approaches virtually helpless resideintsshouldn'tjU-s'?be accepted as "normal" ortreated like "whatever". It seems government "for the people" should be just that. Remarkably, I still have not Lost hope and I do continue to wish that the 3150 property will finally be held to its original Administrative (AP) zoning so that, for once, I can simply and peacefully enjoy my home the way I envisioned it when I first fell in Love with it 29 years ago.

23. Prior to the last Public Meeting, I submitted a PowerPoint presentation for Council consideration. The meeting, which started at 5:00 PM, did not get to the 3150 project item until-,11 :16 PM. They (The Council) as they worked through all the administrative processes got to the vote the next day! I was on the meetin@ from 5 until the conclusion. I raised my hand to comment on other agenda topics but my Zoom "raised hand" icon was never acknowledged.

24. I do not believe it to be simply coincidentaL that, given the alleged suspect behavior of some City representatives as highlighted in numerous Local publications, that all these City and Developer led initiatives are coming to fruition given the City's approach to Measure K. I believe this is more than adequate justification for withholding a vote until at minimum all the ethical questions hanging out there in the public domain are resolved.
" aa : " I - - - - - ' {
25 .Ail,'l..,' (, .i i ( [,3 2 5
The Costa Mesa Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing as follows to consider:

Hearing Date:

Application No.

Site Address:

Contact:

July 14, 2025
3150 Bear Street
Plann!zg D!V!S!On
(714) 754-5245
Hearing Time &
Location:

Applicant/Agent:

Zone:

Email Comments tO:
6:00 PM or as soon as possible
thereafter
City Hall Council Chambers
77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA; and
virtual locations
Meritage Homes/ Vanessa Scheidel
AP - Administrative and
Professional
[email protected]
Description: The applicant proposes a 142-unit (including 7 very low income units) ownership residential development on a 6.12-acre site, with 93,500 square feet of on-site open space including private balconies. The project proposes to install a new traffic signal and associated improvements at the project entrance. To facilitate the project, the applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment PGPA-24-0002 to modify maps, figures, texts, and tables of the City's Land Use Element. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Rezone, Design Review, Tentative Tract Map No. 19334, and Density Bonus Agreement to facilitate the project.

Environmental Determination: In accordance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project to analyze potential impacts of the project and identify measures to mitigate the environmental effects. No areas of significant impact were determined from the construction or operation of the proposed project with the implementation of mitigation measures.

Planning Division staff are available from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Thursday and alternating Fridays, except specified holidays. All interested parties may submit comments to the Planning Commission in regard to this application. Please refer to the Planning Commission meeting agenda For instructions regarding how to participate in the meeting. The Planning Commission meeting agenda and staff report will be posted online 72 hours prior to be provided to the Planning Commission, made available to the public, and will be part of the meeting record. Any written communications, photos, PowerPoints or other materials for distribution to the Planning Commission must be 10 pages or less and submitted to the City NO LATER THAN 12:00 PM on the day of the hearing via email or submitted to the Planning Department on a flash drive, or mailed to the Planning Department. All materials, pictures, PowerPoints, and videos submitted for display at a public meeting must be previously reviewed by staff to verify appropriateness for general audiences. No links to YouTube videos or other streaming services will be accepted. A direct video file will need to be emailed to staff prior to each meeting in crder to minimize complications and to play the video without delay. The video must be one of the following formats: .mp4, .mov, or.wmv. Only one file may be included per speaker for public comments. Please note that materials submitted by the public that are deemed appropriate for general audiences will not be redacted in any way and will be posted online as submitted, including any personal contact information. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues yoci, or someone else raised, during the public hearing orin written correspondence submitted to the City, during or prior to, the public hearing. i 7 I 1. k
nt
@Hh Fncore Ct
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7303
I , I li i , ii , t , . . ,, !. i , , i , 1, , , i ( I II , , , , , , ili, r4

CITYOFCOSTAMESA -,,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN(fJl :

NOTICE ffiS HEREBY GJVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Costa Mesa City Cot.ihcil at Titsuersegdualya,rAmuegeutsintg5,at20C2it5y, aHta71l:OCOouPncMil.,COhraamsbseorosn, 7a7s pFoasir,!:evtehpe,dreoa@fft:,IS,q0sc40.n(.,I&deiforrPnGiaPoAn 24-0002 for an application to construct a 142-unit (including 7 ver low income units) ownership residential development on a 6.12-acre site, with 93,500 squgre feet of on-iifi open space including private balconies. The applicant is also requesting-approval of a Rejzone, Design Review, Tentative Tract Map No. 19334, and Density Bonus Agreement to facilitate the project.

The project also includes a new traffic signal and associated improvements at the project entrance. To facilitate the project, the applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment to modify maps, figures, texts, and tables of the City's Land Use Element; and to introduce:

ORDINANCE N0. 2025-xx

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING PGPA-24-0002 TO REZONE A 6.12-ACRE SITE TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R3) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3150 BEAR STREET
Application No: PGPA-24-0002
Applicant/Agent/Appellant: Meritage Homes/ Vanessa Scheidel- Site Address: 3150 Bear Strem
(Zone: At"-:Administrative and Prof?
Description: -rhe Planning Commission recommended approval of the project (5-O vote) at its July 14, 2025 meeting.

Environmental Determination: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project to analyze potential impacts of the project and identify measures to mitigate the environmental effects. No areas of significant impact were determined fncm the construction or operation of the proposed project with the implementation of mitigation measures.

Public Comments: Members of the public wishing to participate in the meeting may find instructions on the agenda and may also submit written comments via email to the City Clerk at [email protected] and they will be provided to the City Council, made available to the public, and will be part of the meeting record. Any written communications, photos, or other materials for and distribution to the City Council that are 10 pages or less, can be e- mailed to cityclerk(,costamesaca.qov, submitted to the City Clerk's Office on a flash drive, or mailed to the City Clerk's Office. Kindly submit materials to the City Clerk AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE, BUT NO LATER THAN 12:00 p.m. on the day of the hearing, August 5, 2025. All materials, pictures, PowerPoints, and videos submitted for display at a public meeting must be previously reviewed by staff to verify appropriateness for general audiences. No links to YouTube videos or other streaming services will be accepted, a direct video file will need to be emailed to staff prior to each meeting in order to minimize complications and to play the video without delay.

The video must be one ofthefo(lowing formats,.mp4,.mov or.wmv. Only onefile may be included per speaker for public comments. Please note that materials submitted by the public that are deemed appropriate for general audiences will not be redacted in any way and wil! be posted online as submitted, including any personal contact information. For further assistance, contact the City Clerk's Office at (714) 754-5225. For questions on the project contact the project Planner:

Chris Yeager, Senior Planner at (714) 754-4883. The City Council agenda and related documents may also be viewed on the City's website at http://costamesaca.qov, 72 hours prior to the pub1ic hearing date. IF THE AFOREMENTIONED ACTION IS CHALLENGED IN COURT, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in the notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.

Brenda Green, City Clerk, City of Costa Mesa
Published: July 19, 2025
((t (.. ( li(i xlli !1 ill li Hr r ili p ! tit r i if r // iF i(if CO S t a Cc:tytyocflCeroksta Mesa
MeSa CpoostasoMxe's"ao.oCA92628-1200

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
7 .. i i0 - {
,d
Occupant
5'Mn:Usao, CCAI 92626-7303
"l
vhvx 2.Q-z
no 5[al
Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3-1 Filed 07/02/25 Entered'(i)?/02/25 01:43(13 Desc Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Pace 1 of 2
25F'i'J",'i-!A:al:,i'26
B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/24)
' ADVERSA_RY PROCEEJ)ING NUMBER I(CouitUseOnly) . _ '- I -

PLAINTIFFS
Merit Street Media, Inc.

ATTORNEYS (Firn"i Name, Address, and Telephone No.) Sidley Austin LLP
One South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 853-7000

DEFENDANTS
Trinity Broadcasting of Texas, Inc.

TCT Ministries, Inc.

ATTORNEYS (If Known) Raj' Dharnidharka
Foley & Lardner LLP
555 California Street, Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 438-6443
PARTY (Check One Box Only)
M Debtor a U.S. Trustee/Bankiuptcy Admin
€ Creditoi- a Other
t"i Trustee
' PARTY (Check One Box Only)
I a Debtor a u.s. Tnistee/Ban_kruptcy Admin
o Creditor % Other [for Trinity Broadcasting of Texas; a Trustee TCT Ministries is a Creditorl i
CAUSEOFACIION(WRITEABRIEFSTATETOFCAUSEOFACnON,INaUDINGALLU.S.STATUTESINVOLVED) i Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Declaratory Judgment for Preference Avoidance and Equitable Subordination under 28 u.s.c. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.

Relief also sought under sections 105, 365, and 541 of title 11 of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code"), and Bankruptcy Rule 7001.

NATURE OF SUIT
(Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1. first alteniative cause as 2, second alternative cause as 3, etc.) FRBP 7001(a) - Recovery of Money/Property FRBP 7001(f) - Dischargeability (continued) :
€ l l-ReCOVery ofmoney/property - %542 turnover ofproperty € 61-DisChargeabilily - §523(a)(5), dOmeStlC support ["}2-Recovery ofmoney/property - 4sp'i pret'erence € 68-Dischargeability - §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury € 13-Recovery of money/propeity - %548 fraudulem transfer € 63-Dischargeability - §523(a%8), studeni loan € 14-Recovery of money.'pi'operty - other € 64-Dischargeability - ti523(a)( i5), divorce or separation obligation (other than domestic support)
FRBP 7001(b) - Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien 0 65_Dis(,hal,geability _ other € 21-Validity, prionty Or eXlenl of lien or other interest in property FRBP 7001(g)-lnjunctive Relief
FRBP 7001(c)-.ilpproval ofSale ofProp"ty € 71QInjunctiye relief - imposition ofslay € 3 l-Approval of sale of properly oi' estate and of a co-owner - §363(li) 0 72_I1,un,lse relief- Ouler FRBP 7001(d) - Objection/Revocation of Discharge FRBP 700uh) Subordination of Clai m or Interest 041 -Ob3cction ,i rCl ocalion of riischargc - §72 7( c ),( d ),( (_) € 8, _SubOrdln,a,iOn O,,alln or llllereS, FRBP 7001(e) - Revocation of Confir(natj@B FRBP 7001(t') Decla0 ratOry Jud(l ment € 51-Reiocattonofconfinnatton [iOl-Dcclaraioiy3udgment F"P 70o"" - D""ha'g"ah'l" FRBP 7001(j) Determination of Remoi ed Action € 66-Dischargeability- <s' 523'a' )11).(14).(144)pnoniy 'a' clatms € 01-Determination ofremovedclaiin orcause € ti2-Dischargeability - S523(a)(2) false pretenses, false repi'eiielltatlOll, actualfraud Other
€ 67-Dischargcability - S5231a)i4i frarid as fiduciary, cmbcz.zlcmcnI larceny € SS-SIP.A Casc-15 U.S.C §!'78aaa eLscq ,Ontinue, nex t colu mn) € 02-Otlicr (c.g otlicr aCtlOnS thai u ould liavc liccn brought in staic corirt if unrclatcd to bankruptcy case)
F Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law a Check if this is asseited to be a class action under FRCP 23 € Check if a jury trial is demanded in coinplaint Demand $ Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3-1 Filed
Adversary Proceeding
B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/24)
07/02/25 Entered 07/02/95 5n:43:13 = 6isc
Cover Sheet Page 2 of 2
25 A"U'U"'.!i 71:.;a,"i,'26
BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS .uVERSA_RY PROCEEDiNG ARISES . _. .

N,=UVIE OF DEBTOR
Merit Street Media, Inc.

BANKRUPTCY CASE NO: ', a-" -a "
25-80156 (SWE) - '

DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas DrVTSION OFFICE
Dallas

NAME OF JUDGE
Judge Scott W. Everett

RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY)

PLAJNTIFF DEFENDANT ADVERSARY
PROCEEDING NO.

DISTRICT }N WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING DIVISION OFFICE NAME OF JUDGE SIGNATtJRE OF ATTORNEY (OR PI_.AINTTFF)
ffDATEzozs I

PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF')
James W. Ducayet
INSTRUCT i(NS
The filing of a bankruptcy case ci'eates an "estate" under the jurisdiction of the banki'uptcy court which consists of all of the propetty of the debtor, wherever that propeity is located. Because the bankruptcy estate is so extensive and the jurisdiction of the court so broad, there inay be lawsuits over the propeity or property i'ights of the estate. There also may be lawsuits concerning the debtor's discharge. If such a lawsuit is filed in a bankruptcy court, it is called an adversary proceeding.

A patty filing an adversary proceeding must also complete and file Form 1040, the Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet, unless the party files the adversary proceeding electronically ti'ough tlie court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system (CM/ECF). (CM/ECF captures the infonnation on Fonn 1040 as part of the fiting process.) When coinpleted. the cover sheet summai'izes basic infonnation on tlie adversary proceeding. The clerk of corirt needs the information to process the adversary proceeding and prepare required statistical reports on court activity.

The cover slieet and the infonnation contained on it do not replace or supplement t]ie filing and service of pleadings or otlier papers as required by law, tlie Bankruptcy Rules, or tlie local niles of court. The cover sheet, wliicli is largely self- explanatory, must be completed by tlie plaintiff's attox-ney (or by the plaintiff if the plaintiff is not represented by an attorney). A separate cover slieet rmist be submitted to the clerk for eac)i complaint filed.

Plaintiffs and Defendants. Give the names of the plaintiffs and defendants exactly as they appear on the coinplaint. ,'tttorncys. Give the oames ai'id addi'esses of the attomeys, if kr+o'wn.

Party. Check tlie most appi'opriate box in the first column for the plaintiffs and the second column for tlie defendants.

Demand. Enter the dollar amount being demanded in the complaint.

Signature. This cover slieet must be signed by tlie auoi'ney of record in the box on the second page of the form. Tf the plaintiff is represented by a law finn, a member of the fiim must sign. If the plaintiff is pro se, that is, not represented by an attomey, tlie plaintiff must sign.
ff- '/3'l
Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered 07/OZ,2,Z5:01:43:4=3" 'Desc Main Document Page 1 of 28
2":)A'J"U'-L'.i'n"i8:26

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
Tl'iomas R. Calif'ano (24122825)
Jeri Leigli Miller (24102176)
Parker G. Embiy (24]26826)
Clielsea McManus (24131499)
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 981-3300
Facsimile: (214) 981-3400
Email : [email protected]
[email protected]
parker.embi'[email protected]
[email protected]

SIDLEY AUST IN LLP
James W. Ducayet (pro /?(/C vice pending)
Steven E. Sexton (pro 77(!C vice pending)
Andrew F. Rodheim (pm /7(/C siice pending)
One South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Teleplione: (312) 853-7000
Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
SIDLEY AUSTINLIiP
Stephen E. Hessler (pi:o hae siice pending)
Patrick Venter (pro 77(/C siice pending)
Weii'u Fang (pro /?aC siice pending)
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York 10019
Telephone: (212) 839-5300
Facsimile: (2]2) 839-5599
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Pi-oposed,4ttorneys for the Debtrn'
arid Debtor ii'i Possession

IN THE UNITED ST ATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DlVtSION
In re:

MERIT STREET MEDIA, INC '
Debtor.

MERIT STREET MEDIA, INC.

Plaintiff,

TR&ITY BROADCASTING OF TEXAS,
INC., AND TCT MLNISTRIES, INC.

Defendants.

Cliapter 11
Case No. 25-80156 (SWE)
Aav. Proc. No. 25-
' Tlie last four digits of the Dcbtoras federal tav identification nun'ilicr are 8991). Tlie Debtor"s mailing address is 5501 Alliance Gatevvay Fwy, Fort 'vVortli, TX 76177
Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered 07/Gi2}25-01:4:3:lBa 'Desc Main Document Page 2 of 28

ADVERSARY COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY ANI)MONETARY RELIEF Plaintiff Merit Street Media, IIIC., ("Merit Street"i, by and tl'irough its undersigned attorneys, files tliis adversaiy proceeding pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 against Trinity Broadcasting of Texas Inc. ("TBN") and TCT Ministiies, Inc. ("TCT"), and alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. Tliis lawsuit arises orit of a sad but oft told story: one side lived up to its commitments but the other, the Defendant TBN, did not. Moreover, these faihu-es by TBN were neither unintended nor inadveitent. They were a conscious, intentional pattern of choices made witli tub! awareness that the consequence of which was to sabotage and seal the fate of a new but already nationally acclaimed network wliich has, since its launch in April of 2024, delivered its vicwers with cutting edge reports, interviews, and in-depth analysis of national importance. This fresh voice on the national stage is inexorably going dark, going off tlie air because TBN }'ias refused to honor its commitment to transfer its must carry rights and thereby provide national distribution for the network-Merit Street. And this conduct stretches beyond mere breac)i of contract and extends to breach of fiduciary duty and breach of tlie duty of good faitli and fair dealing-the full extent to wliich may require a forensic accounting aridit.

TBN fonned Merit Street as a joint venture and contractually comn'iitted to provide vahiable services to the joint venture. But 'iBN then reneged on its obligatioris anti abused its position as t)'ie controlling s)iareholder of Mei-it Street to iinproperly anct unilaterally burden Merit Street with rinsustainable dcbt, doing so eitlier witliorit notice or in direct violation of promises not- to do so. In total, TBN transferred its obligations to Merit Street causing it to pay or incur % PA, - 2-'4 - QC!01
Q "( 3-1 , = - . - -
Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered 0'77('2/25-:01743FI3 Desc Main Document Page 3 of 28
25 AtiG -!', l',:', 8: 26
TBN, not Merit Street.

The most egregioris impact is TBN's conscious and knowing clioice to carise Merit Sti'eet to lose its national distribution by withholding dish'ibution payments despite repeatedly acknowledging those distribution payments were 100o/a TBN's sole responsibility. Simply put, as a result of TBN's conduct, Merit Street has nowhere to send its broadcast signal and nowhere to air its programming no matter how great it n'iay be.

In Januaiy 2023, TBN and a company majority owned by Dr. Phillip C. McGraw ("Dr. Pliil") called Peteski Productions, IIIC. ("Peteski") entered into an agreement to form a joint venture (tlie 'Uoint Venttu-e Agreement"). Tlie joint venture would later be called Merit Street Media. Merit Street was fori'ned by TBN to create a new network, with TBN being required to transfer its must cany rights to Merit Street and provide distribution and all production services as well as to make cextain payments to Peteski. Ceitain new programming was to be ai'id was provided by Peteski. Peteski went above and beyond its contractiial duties in an effoit to save the network, including funding the expenses (including payroll) that should have been borne by TBN.

Importantly, TBN )ong ago stopped paying Peteski for Dr. Phil's services and lie has tluis been providing world class programs without compensation.

Under tlie Joint Vei'iture Agreement, Peteski agreed to provide Merit Street with ceitain new original episodes of the Dr. Pl'iil sliow, as well as primetime specials to air on the new TV r.etwork. For its part, TBN agreed te provide, at iio cost tc Avfei'it Sti"eet, cai-riage to distribute Dr. Phil's shows and specials to a nationwide audience. TBN also agreed to provide all "fii'st class quality" services necessai'y to prodrice Dr. Pliil's shows and primetii'ne specials. In sliort, the deal was simple and sh'aightforward: Dr. Phil/Peteski contributed content, while TBN contributed Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered 07/02!-2-5-(-1:43:13 Desc Main Document Page 4 of 28
;.!at 8: 2 625 i"il""v
access to a distribution network to air Dr. Phil's content alopg withthe pr'oduction services to suppoit the creation of that content. TBN agreed to provide these services to the joint venture at no cost, in excliange for wliich TBN would liave a controlling equity interest in tl'ie network.

6. Shortly after Merit Street was formed, howevei-, TBN reneged. It began to atnise its power as a controlling sliareholder to advance its own interests and those of its CEO Mattliew Crouch, while causing Merit Street to assume responsibility of TBN's obligations hinder theJoint Venhire Agreement and to otherwise enrich itself at Merit Street's expense. * TBN caused Merit Street to enter into expensive distribution agreements with tliird paities to distribute Dr. Pliil's new content. Those distribution agreements liave aggi-egate inontlily expense of approximately $2.6 n'iillion and total expenses during the life of tliose agreements of approximate]y $96 million. However, it was TBN-not Merit Street-tl'iat shorild have incurred those expenses. * TBN caused Merit Street to sign a five-year, inulti-million-dollar studio lease with TBN to produce Dr. Phil"s shows, even though TBN was responsible rmder the Joint Ventiu-e Agreement for paying for those studio production expenses. * TBN caused Merit Street to pay to license TBN content on tlie new Meiit Street network, even though the Joint Venhire Agreement reqriired TBN to license tliat content at no cost to Merit Street.
* TBN also caused Met-it Street to pay TBN for Merit Street's production expenses, such as employee and marketing expenses, even though those production expeiises were the sole responsibility of TBN under theJoint Venhire Agreement.

7. TBN's "production services" were also comically dysftmctional. Altliougli it promised tlie equivalent of the professional facilities and serv'ices that Dr. Phil had long relied on when producing his show in Los Angeles For CBS, the supposed "first class" services TBN promised under tlie Jiiint Ventiire Agreement were notliing of t)ie sort. TBN provided screens and teleprompters t1iat blacked out during live shows, an incomplete control room operating out of a truck, an unusable cell phone app for viewers, and amateur video editing software. Merit Street staff often could not even make phone calls in tlie stiidio due to poor cell coverage. Wlien confi'onted about tliese and inany ot}ier problems, TBN did not even atteinpt to remedy its 4 l I Zq - OCX)1
F'l- it/5-1
Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered C7'/Th-2725 01':4-3::13' Desc Main Document Page 5 of 28
25 A.Ua"-f'l :";'i'l 8: 26
breaches. Instead, TBN's CEO dismissed these concei'ns by tellipgi Merit-Street tl'iat-Dar. Pliil only needed two chairs and a camera.

8. Additionally, TBN caused CrossSeed, Inc ("CrossSeed")-a paity witli whom TBN is closely coimected-to make a $25 million loan to Merit Street, wliich is reflected in a September 2024 promissory note. CrossSeed's directors include TBN President and CEO Matthew Crouch and former TBN Cliief Business Officer Frank Amedia.

9. CrossSeed then assigned that note to another associated paity, TCT, on March 5, 2025. TCT perfected the security interest granted pursuant to the note on May 27, 2025. However, tlie transfer of tlie secuiity interest to TCT is an avoidable preference because perfection occuired more tlian 30 days after CrossSeed transferred the note to it and within 90 days of the date Merit Street filed its petition. Moreover, all of TBN and TCT's obligations should be equitably subordinated to Merit Street's other creditors due to TBN's gross misconduct.

10. This adversai-y proceeding seeks to hold TBN accountable for its multiple breaches of contract and fiduciai-y duties that gravely impaired Merit Street's ability to succeed and ultii"iiately led to its failure. While Peteski lias gone above and beyond to ensure Merit Street's success, including by continuing to loan on an unsecured basis over $25 million to Merit Street throughout 2024 and 2025 to keep its operations afloat, TBN has not held rip its end of the bai-gain.

TBN shirked its financial and operational commitments, and engaged in extensive self-dealing, all with the goal to benefit and enricl'i TBN, not Merit Street.

JURISDICTION

11. Tliis Court l'ias jurisdiction over this adversai'y proceeding pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1334(a) and (b) and 11 U.S.C. Fg 157.

12. Venue is proper before this Corirt pursuant to 28 u.s.c. Gs" 1408 and 1409.

Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered 07/02X2g 5j:43:-i3a-I- :Desc Main Document Page 6 of 28
';'5 ri' i;J'C"' - %' r-" l ." oUa"'a 2 7
13, The statiitory bases for the relief requested lierein,-are 28 U-.S.C,-§a 2201 (tlie "Declaratory Judgment Act") sections 105, 365, and 541 of title 11 of the Ui'iited States Code (tlie "Bai'ikniptcy Code"l and Banki-uptcy Rule 7001.

PARTIES

14. Plaintiff Merit Street is the debtor-in-possession in tlie above-captioned chapter 11 case tlie ("Chapter 11 Case"). The Debtor is authorized to continue to operate its business and n"ianage its properties as debtor-in-possession prirsuant to sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.

15. Defendant Trinity Broadcasting of Texas, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation tliat operates the Trinity Broadcasting Network, based in Foith Woith, Texas. TBN produces its own original Christian programs and also broadcasts those Christian programs as well as other Christian programming in the United States axid internationally.

16. According to TBN, "TBN is tlie world's most-watched faith and family broadcasting network, available in 98o/o of U.S. households, reacliing over 175 nations witli inspirational programming in 17 languages on over 30 global networks, allowing TBN to reach a potential 2 billion viewers daily." TBN's prograinming is available over-the-air on numeroris television stations that TBN owns, directly or throrigh its subsidiaries. Throrig)i cai'i'iage agreements, TBN's programing and networks are also available tlirough traditional cable and satellite companies and online streaming.

17. Americaii televarigelist Paul Croucli and his wife Jan Croucli founded TBN in late 1973. Today, TBN is overseen by its President and CEO Matthcw Crorich (Paul and Janas youngest son).

Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered 07iu72g 01)a:jEfL'3'. 'Desc Main Document Page 7 of 28

18. Defendant TCT Ministries, Inc. is a not-for-profit c5rp-qr4-jiouthat ope:rates tlie TCT Network, based in Marion, lllinois. Like TBN, TCT produces and broadcasts CJ'iristian programining. TCT prograinining is available on local television stations over-the-air or tlirougli traditional cable and satellite companies and on]ine streaming. On information and belief, from the mid- 1980s until 2007, TCT was an affiliate of TBN, and also currently maintains a relationship with TBN.

BACKGROUND
TBN And Peteski Form Merit Street.

19. Dr. Pliil has been one of the most prominent television personalities, podcast hosts, and authoi-s for the past twenty-t]iree years. Dr. Pliil created Peteski Productions, Inc., a Texas coi'poration, in 2002. Beginning in 2002, Dr. Phil hosted his ta]k show Dr. Phil, with Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Productions and CBS Media Ventiu-es ("CBS"). He was prepared to continue the highly successful program with CBS until Mr. Crouch approached him about the prospects of a Joint Venture wliicli evenhially became Merit Street. Mr. Crouch made many proinises following due diligence trips to Los Angeles to see tlie quality of the world class production facilities and to solicit Peteski and Dr. Phil.

20. Once Peteski agreed to the deal, tliere was significant dislocation for Dr. Phil liersonally who moved froin Los Ai'igeles, as well as many staff members of Dr. Pliil WIIO likewise relocated. In Januai'y 2023. CBS announced the Dr. Phi) show worild be ending after its 21st sea.son.

21. As of Januaiy 10, 2023, Peteski and TBN executed the Joint Venture Agreement to forin a joint venture, "NewCo," which later would become Merit Street-through wliidi Peteski 7 PC,>A z,S-m;i

3. l! hq
Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered-4-;7-A € %2/2Ei'.Ql:49:13 Desc Main Document Page 8 of 2Ef" '
25 AUS - !! l',i.% 8; 2 7
and TBN woiild launcli a new television netivork in 2024.2 Under the Joint-Veiit0ie,Agreement, ownership of Merit Street would be allocated 70% to TBN, and 50% to P-eTes!<i. -'

22. Under the Joint Venture Abo'reement, Peteski agreed to provide new, topical progran'iming-specifically, 160 new ninety-minute episodes of the =Dr. Phil" sliow, and fiirther, agreed that Merit Street worild serve as tlie exclusive broadcaster of those Dr. Phil shows.

Additionally, Peteski agreed to provide two primetime specials or documentaries for Merit Street to air 011 tl'ie new network.

23. For its part, under tlie Joint Venture Agreement TBN assun'ied full responsibility for all behind-tlie-scenes operations to produce Dr. Phil's programining. Specifically, TBN agreed in the Joint Venture Agreement to provide "[a]11 production sei'vices associated with 'Dr. Pliil' programming." It further agreed that its production services would be "first class quality," in a "comparable n"ianner to the quality of other... syndicated television programming." For example, the Joint Venffire Agreement required TBN to provide Merit Street with the following production services necessaiy for Dr. Phil's programming:
i) actual production and editing of all episodes, ii) dedicated hair and make-up aitist,
iii) all wardrobe expenses,
iv) administrative personnel,
v) legal personnel,
'-'! ) b'Ji'+]an resources persot'lnel,
vii) sales personnel,
2 In Februar>t 2023, TBN forined APG Ventures, Inc. as a Delaware corporatioi'i to sei've as tlie "NewCo= i-eferenced in tlic Joint Venture Agreement. APG Venlires, Inc. clianged its nan'ie to Merit Street Media,Inc. in Marcli 2024. In February 2025, Merit Street re-inccirporated in Texas. 8 PC,& z.u -(:xjb2,
is lF'5 3't -
Case25-80156-swell Doc3 Filed07/02/25 Ent-.pjid-07!5n-/2501:43:13 DescMain Document Page 9 of 28
25 t'iti;'J L b ;.:i' 5': 2 7
viii) insurance.
ix) ad can'ipaigns and public relations,
x) travel and enteitainment expenses,
xi) expenses relating to COVID protocols and mandates, and xii)promotional and n'iarketing and any and all otlier functions customai'ily associated witli a full scale, top level production, above and below t]ie line.

24. Under tl'ie Joint Vennire Agreement, TBN also agreed to "license all TBN content to" Merit Street.

25. Critically, TBN also agreed under the Joint Vei'iture Agreement to distribute Merit Street's programing at no expense to Merit Street. TBN, directly or througli its affiliates, owns dozens of local television stations t)'u'orighout the counti'y. Tliose stations liave exercised their "must cariy" rights-meaning they i"equire cable operators serving their geographic market to carry their signals at no cost. This ensures that the TBN-owned local stations are distributed to widespread audiences. TBN also has the right to broadcast its national networks with national satellite providers DISH and DirecTV.

26. TBN agreed under the Joint Venture Agreement to distribute Merit Street's content through TBN's extensive national footprint, including via its local stations' n'iust carry rights. Tl'iis unequivocal guai'antee t)iat it would pi'ovide distributioii to Merit Street on a national basis was :i linchpin of the deal.

27. The arrangen"ient and division of responsibilities under the Joint Venture Agreement made sense and played to tlie parties' strengths. Peteski and Dr. Phil focused on content creation, wliile TBN provided the production sei-vices and distribnition netwoi-k reqriired to launch and sustain a successful a new television network. 9 Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered 07A),2/25 01:43:13 : Desc Main Document Page 10 of 28
25i'i'g'G--!;a-';;'8:2a'l

28. On Febniary 20, 2024, Merit Street annorinced trial-it had-"successfiilly-con'ipleted Merit Street Launches MeritTV.
agreements to establish the Merit Street Media television network as a fiilly distributed, cable, satellite, and free over-the-air broadcast n-iedia brand." Merit Street furtlier announced: "With conunitments already exceeding 65 million television homes and pending agreen'ients set to significantlv expand that number, Merit Street, in partnership with Trinity Broadcasting Network, is poised to become one of the most widely distributed startup networks in modei-n histoiy." The feature program of the network would be Dr. Phil's new program, "Dr. Phil Primetime."

29. On April 2, 2024, Merit Street officially laruiched a new television network called MeritTV. At the oritset, Merit Street ii"icluded three oi'igina) programs: Moi'ning on Merit Street, The News on Mei'it Street, and Dr. Phil Pi-imetime.

C. TBN Abuses Its Power As The Controlling Shareholder.

30. From the get-go, TBN abrised its power as the controlling shareholder to carise Merit Street to pay for TBN's obligations and to otliei'wise enrich itself at Merit Street's expense.

It also failed to deliver on its obligations under tlie Joint Venhire Agreement to ensure that MeiitTV became a successful network.

1. TBN tails to distt'ibution Merit Sti-eet content tlirorigh its distribution network and instead negotiates expensive distribution agreements in Merit Street's name.

31. To start, TBN did not distribute MeritTV and Dr. Phils' progran'iming throrigh its national footprint-as it was required to do under the Joint Ventui-e Agreeinent.

32. Instead, and without telling Merit Street or Peteski, TBN unilaterally developed a new distribution plan: TBN inexplicably caused Merit Street to enter into agreements with local television stations, cable, and national satellite providers to broadcast Merit Street's content-at 10 Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered 07/02/-2i5=Ol:4313- Desc Main Document Page 11 of 28 ' " a - - - "
25 h' UO' - !'i ,': "1 5'1: 2 ?
approximately $96 million over the life of the agreements.

33. Specit-ically, TBN unilaterally caused Merit Street to execute a series of nine prograi'imiing license agreements with loca) televisioii stations for the ability to broadcast Merit Street's programming on those local television stations.-' Tlie tei-ms of these licensee agreements had fees ranging from approximately $400,000 to $5.27 million annually and became the contractual obligations of Merit Street, not TBN. This was a far cry from the free distribution tliat TBN pron"iised under tlie Joint Ventiire Agreement.

34. TBN also unilatcrally caused Merit Street to execute distribution agreements with DirecTV and DISH, for DirecTV and DISH to distribute Merit Street's programming to its subscribers throrighorit the United States. Those agreements again came at a substantial cost to Merit Street: each approximately $3.6 million per year. TBN caused Merit Street to enter into those new contracts witli DirectTV and DISH even thorigh TBN's own national network already had distribution rights with those distribution platfoi-ins.

35. Additionally, TBN caused Merit Street to enter into an agi-eeinent with Ocean Communications, LLC to grant Ocean a license to negotiate witli t)"iird parties to achieve further dish-ibution of the Merit Street network via Xfinity and Verizon Fios. These agreements, too, can"ie at a substantial cost to Meiit Street-approximately $4 million total per year, depending on the number of Xfinity and Verizon Fios subscribers. ' These agreetnents include the following station groups and stations: CNZ Conununications, LLC (WGBP, Atlanta'); KAZT, LLC (KAZT, Plioenix); Caballero ill, LLC (KGMM, San Antonio); Stiyker Media LLC (KYVV. San Ai'itonio): Stryker Media 2 LLC (KOFY, San Francisco); KVMD Licensee Co., LLC (KVMD, Los Angcles):

Entravision Connnunications Corp. (WJAL, Wasliington. D.C.); Motintain Broadcasting Coi'p. (WMBC, New York); Cunninghain Broadcasting Cot'p. (KTXD, Dallas; W'+'ZZ, Pcoria,Illinois; 'vVATM,Johnslon, Pennsylvania). 11 Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered?)7702/25.Ol'Ea3':13 Desc Main Document Page 12 of 28
"z5 *Al,j r,, 2., ;711 li tn,: 2 7

36. Althorigh TBN initially paid the distribution fees. nnc%er the @greem,ents for several months, soon TBN stopped paying those fees altogetl"ier.

Street was responsible for these contractual obligations. Tl"iis is notwitlistanding tlie fact tliat TBN has acknowledged, in a signed agreeinent, that these contracts are TBN's "sole respoi'isibility"' and a "TBN contractrial liability." The aggregate costs of these varioris agreements is approximately $2.6 million per month, with increased prices in future years, and approximately $96 million in total over the life of the agreements.

37. Because TBN has failed to satisfy its payment obligations under these agreements, numerous distributors have discontimied Merit Street's broadcast signals, which has resulted in millions of households losing access to Merit Street's programming, including Dr. Phil Primetime.

Merit Street has also received mimerous breacli notices, threatening damages and discontinuation of their broadcast signals. On April 28, 2025, for example, Merit Street received a notice of breach regarding its agreement with Ocean Conununications, LLC, and a second notice of breach on May 16, 2025. On May 22. 2025, Merit Street received a notice of continuing defarilt and intent to pursue legal remedies from a law fin'n on behalf of several of the stations groups with which Merit Street lias agreements: Stryker Media LLC, CNZ Communications SE, LLC, Caballero III, LLC', and Stryker Media 2 LLC. On June 2, 2025, Merit Street received a similar letter from the same firin on behalf of KVMD TV LLC. And on May 28, 2025, Merit Street received a Notice of Breach from Entravision Communications Corp.
38 In total, TBN saddlea Merit Street with approximately $96 mi!iioi'i ii'i contract',ial obligations that are tl-ie sole responsibility of TBN.

Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered 07/02/25'-O'l'J43:13="D)"-s:'c Main Document Page 13 of 28
25 ail, i;- Cl +/: i-:'; f l,:,: 2 7

2. TBN improperly causes Merit Street to enter into a lea.s;-to use TBN's - production facilities.

39. On February 1, 2024, TBN caused Merit Street to enter into a five-year, multi- million-dollar lease with TB.N to use TBN's shidio space (the "Plex") to produce Di-. Phil's content.

Under the lease agi'eement, Merit Street worild pay TBN over $2.3 million per year for five years to use 27% of tlie "Plex."

40. This is a classic example of self-dealing. TBN did not even inform Merit Street's senior management tliat it was executing the lease witli itself Instead, it caused TBN's General Counsel to sign tlie lease on Merit Street's behalf.

41. When Merit Street's senior management eventually leai'ned of the lease many months later, tliey were sliocked. TBN had agreed, as part of the Joint Venture Agreement that fot'med Merit Street, to provide "[a]11 production services associated with 'Dr. Phil' programming." Nothing in the Joint Venture Agreement suggests that Merit Street worild need to pa)i TBN to access its studio and production space.

3. TBN improperly charges Merit Street to license TBN's content.

42. Aithough tl"ie Joint Venture Agreement required TBN to license all TBN content to Merit Street at no cost, TBN improperly caused Merit Street to pay millions of dollars for TBN's content-some of which never even aired on MeritTV.

4. TBN improperly cliarges Merit Street for production servaices.

43. The grift did not stop there. TBN improperly c}iarged Merit Street for prodriction services TBN had aii obligation to provide under the Joint Venture Agreement.

44. The September 2024 balance slieet that TBN prepared on behalf of Merit Street reflect a "Notes Payable" liability to Merit Street in favor of TBN of $132,994,750. TBN lias claimed that this note payable is for personnel and other costs incurred by TBN on behalf of Merit PCS ?A z!-l -v :z,
r.x. zo/3cl
Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25
Document Page
Entered 07/02725-Q-1:4:3:13-y -. -[)'aesc Main
14 of 28
25 !:U""J - L:i f,a': ;' :": 2 7
Street. TBNlaterclaimedthatthenotepayablehadgrownto$140mill'ion. TBN-never-piovided, despite repeated requests, an accounting or breakdown of the expense's included in this $140 mil)ion note payable. "We don't do that," TBN's Vice President of Finance stated.

45. The financial statei'iients for Merit Street that TBN prepared while it was the conti-oiling sharebolder of Merit Street also reflect millions of dollars in expenses charged to Merit Street and paid to TBN and third parties for production services that TBN expressly agreed in tlie Joint Venture Agreement to provide. As just one example, tlie July 2024 income statement shows year-to-date marketing expenses of over $2 million. But the Joint Ventiu-e Agreement expressly stated that TBN would be responsible for all "[p]romotional and marketing" expenses of Merit Street.

D. TBN Provides Shoddy Production Services.

46. As soon as Merit Street began producing content it quickly became apparent that TBN's contractual promises for a state-of-the-art "first class quality" production facility and sei'-vices were empty. For example:
* The teleprompters suffered fi-om freqrient maljunctions, including blackouts during live Dr. Phil episodes before studio aridiences.
* T1ie control room was incomplete, so operations ran orit of a temporary setiip in a truck rather than in a control room for over a year. The truck-based control group had about one tliird of the functionality of an industi'y standard control room and, rinlike the standard setup, could not nin rmiltiple productions simultaneously. To make matters worse, tlie control room's monitors and communication systems malfunctioned frequently.
* TBN promised state-of-the-ait editing software. but instead provided OIIIY Adobe Premier, a basic tool used by enti'y-level video editors. During its pi'evious 21 -season run, Dr. Phil's show used an advanced program called Avid. The downgrade led to substantial wasted time and an inferior product.
@ Interi"ial studio screens showing the stage from otlier rooins-including the greei'iroom wliere Dr. Phil's guests waited before going on air-n'ialfunctioned, preventing guests, producers, and support staff from watching an ongoing pi-oduction in real time. Tliis hindered production and forced guests to take tlie stage blind and withorit context of 14 F(, PA, 2j.l- € 602,
m"xll:l
Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered 07/Ogf25 01743:-13a- Desc Main Document Page 15 of 28
what preceded their segments. Production staff resorte4-to sharirig,scre-en-s-because there were too few working ones to go around. ';:,-:
* TBN did not have an industry-standard system for tracking viewership. It had no Nielsen Ratings and Merit Street was never able to obtain aridience metrics. * The torich screens rised for film editing at tlie studio were nonfunctional, which hindered the editing of footage and degraded final productions. These included the three primary screens Dr. Phil liad been used to using for decades. The screens TBN provided struggled to perfoi-m basic tasks such as starting and stopping video, rearranging images, and calling up text.
* The Met'it Street cell phone app, an impoitant direct-to-consumer tool, was basically unusable.
* Cell phone sei'vice in tlie studio was often so pooi- tliat Merit Street staff could not make calls.
* TBN did not provide enough engineers to address the many technical glitches that arose during productions. This required Merit Street staff to compensate for TBN's deficient set-vice througli workarounds tliat involved rising liardware and software in ways tl-iey were not designed to be used. The time reqriired for even basic production tasks soared.

47. These glaring problems became apparent as soon as rehearsals for Dr. Phil Primetime began in early 2024. On a daily basis, Merit Street raised the issues with TBN. The rep]y was always the same: in effect, "don't worry about it, we'll handle it." But TBN did not handle it. Tlie probleins persisted.

48. Tndeed, TBN CEO Mr. Crouch dismissed Merit Sti-eet's reqriests for the industry- standard service to which it was contractually entitled as rinreasonable demands for "bells and whistles." if he had it his way, Mr. Crouch said, Dr. Phil Primetime's production would consist of two chairs in front of a single camera, and nothing more. This is liardly the bargain the paities reached; it is not =first class quality," nor is it "coinparable" to otlier syndicated te)evision prOgralllllllng.

49. There were otlier issries, too. For example, despite contractually agreeing to provide "first class quality" promotional and marketing services, TBN's marketing and PR 15 Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25
Document Page
Entered OT;Oz:725 01::4,q.4-3'-, Desc Main
16 of 28
@3 piljG i,.ail-ali4 8: 27
conti-ibutions were lackluster-limited to just minimal social media adveitising ar th-e,t.ime of the Merit Street launch and one other social media campaign. TBN designed those limited social media effoits so that TBN itself would benefit by ensuring tliat a TBN entity would receive payment foi' tlie advertising.

E, The TBN And Peteski Relationship Breaks Down.

50. TBN and Peteski's relationship reaclied a new low in JLIIY 2024, when TBN failed to make a $5 million payment owed to Peteski under tlie Joint Venture Agreement.

51. Shortly thereafter, in August 2024, Peteski and TBN agreed to amend the stock purchase agreements that each company had entered into in March 2024 wliereby TBN had acqriired a 70% ownership interest in Merit Street and Peteski liad acquired tlie remaining 30% owncrship interest in Mei-it Street. The ,%igust 2024 ainendment shifted Petcski's ownership interest in Merit Street to 70% with the remaining 30% owned by TBN.4 Although the parties' ownership interest shifted, TBN remained obligated to provide all distribution and production services to Merit Street.

52. Shortly after transfening 70% ownership of Merit St'i-eet to Peteski in Arigust 2024, and after just four shoit months of MeritTV being on the air, TBN declared that it would cease all further support for Merit Street. TBN claimed it lacked financial resorirces to continue to support Merit Street-notwithstanding it reported assets of over $900 mil)ion in recent filings.

F. CrossSeed Issues $25 Million Convertible Promissory Note.

53. In Septei'nber 2024, Merit Street issued a $25 mid)ion convertible pi-omissoi'y note to CrossSeed (tlie "CrossSeed Convertible Note"). CrossSeed is a Texas non-profit coi-poration and, on information and belief, closely coi'inected to TBN. The CrossSeed Convertible Note -' Currently, Peteski owns 66.5o."ii of Merit Sleet, TBN owns 28.5o&i, and SHG Partnership, LLC owns 5'!/o 16 Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25
Document Page
Entered Ofl92-1'2!5 01::43ej- g:. l Desc Main
17 of 28
25 i';"J"i-' - '! i'l"i 8: 2 7
conveits to equity at a fixed Merit Street valuation of $425 millioq at'the optiq3ojC'rossSeed. exercisable only at the time of an equity raise of qualified financing. The CrossSeed Convertible Note purports to be secured, and bears interest a rate of 12oA simple interest, payable on the matiirity date of September 7, 2026.

54. On March 5, 2025, CrossSeed assigned the note to TCT. On information and belief, TCT is closely connected to TBN. TCT filed a u.c.c. Financing Statement as a secured party on May 27, 2025.

G. The Parties Attempt-And Fail-To Salvage the Joint Venture.

55. By September 2024, it was becoming clear that TBN would never live up to its contractual obligations. Merit Street realized tliat in order to ensure its continued viability, it needed to resolve its oritstanding disputes with TBN. To that end, the parties entered negotiations.

56. The paities' negotiations culminated in a December 9, 2024 (utline of Proposed Tei-ms ("December 2024 Agreement"). In the December 2024 Agreement, TBN, Peteski and Merit Street "agree[d] to negotiate in good faith to reach definitive agreemems addressing tlie iSsueS oritlincd here as promptly as practical, and with the common goal of singing such definitive agreements prior to December 31, 2024." In the December 2024 Agreement, the parties also reached a resolution on a munber of det-inite terms to document in the definitive agreements, and agreed that the definitive agreements would supersede and replace the Joint Venture Agreement.

Tlie definite tei'ins upon whic)i the parties agreed, included:
* Tlie Plex Lease. TBN agreed to abate 45 months of rei'it * Shared Facilities. TBN agreed tliat it would grant Merit Street access to other studio areas in the Plex.
* $140 Million Note Payable. TBN agreed that Merit Street worild not be responsible for paying TBN the purpoited $140 million note payable tliat TBN caused Merit Street to record.
17 Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 EnterQq')07/02X2!i(>-1:43:13 Desc Main Document Page 18 of 28
* Prior Services. TBN agi'ced that TBN wouid rev5Cx'6e charg6s- iq %<-rj:t:-Street for prior services provided by TBN to Merit Street. -
* Administrative Service Expenses. TBN agreed that it would supply numerous administrative staff to Merit Street, including for accounting, payroll, billing, liuman resorirces, information technology services, technology suppoit, and engineering. @ Paymeiits to Peteski. TBN agreed to pay Peteski amounts owed. * LicenseandDistributionAgreementCosts.TBNacknowledgedthat"lt]liecontractual costs of [Merit Street's] cunent distritution agreements are the sole responsibility of TBN"-averaging aborit $2.6 million per month. Merit Street had paid, on TBN's behalf, approximately $13 million under these contracts. While the agreement stated that TBN maintained it was not in a position to pay those expenses, it acknowledged the "significant hardship and inequity for [Merit Street] to be servicing a TBN contractual liability," and agreed that it would reimburse Merit Street for these payments and assume current payments as it was able. Merit Street agreed to continue to make payments "subject to ultimate repayment by TBN."

57. The December 2024 Agreeinent reflected the vei'y same terms to whicli TBN had agreed and failed to abide by in the Joint Venture Agreement. In otlier words, TBN was responsible for providing distribution and production services to Merit Street at no cost to Merit Street.

58. Peteski immediately set out to prepare draft agreen'ients based on tlie tern'is of the December Tenn Sheet. But tlien TBN abruptly stated tliat it would not honor the signed December 2024 Agreement. Instead, TBN proposed entirely new ten'ns, wliich were unworkable and unacceptable to Merit Street.

59. All tlie while, the quality of TBN's already poor production services continued to decline. Earlier this year, a senior TBN executive admitted that TBN was doing only t)ie bare minimum for Met'-it Street. He souglit to justify TBN's position by baselessly characterizing Dr.

Phil's unchanged desire for first-class service as "unpredictable" expectations. Otl"ier TBN staff followed tliis executive's example by insinuating tliat meeting TBN's obligations to Merit Street wasted TBNas scarce resources.
18 Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered 07/02?2-501:43:I6:.Desc Main Document Page 19 of 28 "';" - =-- "
'2s7;i5'G--!!r;'i:;16:'Z8

60. Moreover, TBN defarilted on an additional $25 million in payments due tq Peteski, and continues to refuse to pay for the license and distribution agreements it -c-aused Merii'-Street to enter.

H. Peteski And Dr. Phil Take Steps To Keep Merit Street Afloat.

61. Even though TBN refused to lionor its commitments to Merit Street and refused to pay Peteski the amounts it was owed, Peteski and Dr. Phil continued to suppoit Merit Street to keep it afloat.

62. Between December 2024 and May 2025, Peteski advanced additional funds to Merit Street, totaling approximately $25.4 million. Specifically, on February 28, 2025, Merit Street issued to Peteski a conveitible promissory note, prirsuant to wliich Peteski purcliased approximately $ ] l,407, 166 of aggi-egate principal amount of convertible notes. And on June 1, 2025, Merit Street issued to Peteski a convertible promissory note, prirsuant to which Peteski purchased approximately $14 million of aggregate principal amount of convertible notes. Tliese convertible notes issued by Peteski convert to equity at the valuation of tlie next equity raise.

63. Additionally, on June 30, 2025, Peteski agreed to enter into an agreement with Merit Street, effective June 10, 2025, whereby Peteski agreed to issue a secured bridge loan of $6,996,636.

64. Ill total, to date-due to TBN's breaches of the Joint Venture Agreement-Peteski has loaned over $25 million to Merit Street.

COUNT T
(Breach of Contract ("Joint Venture Agreement") Against TBN)

65. Merit Street incorporates the allegations set foith in the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth in full below.
19 Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25
Document Page
Entered 07'ffi2j25'Ol:43)13' Desc Main
20 of 28

66. Venture Agreement.

67. Merit Street is a third-party beneficiary to the Joint Venture Agreement between Peteski and TBN. The Joint Venture %-eeinent was intended to benefit Mei-it Street directly and under the agreement TBN owes contractual duties directly to Merit Street.

68. Merit Street fully perfoi'med its obligations as a third-paity beneficiary rinder tlie Joint Venhire Agreement.

69. As alleged herein, TBN breached its obligations under the Joint Venture Agreement, including by failing to meet its obligations to provide production and distribution services to Merit Street and causing Merit Street to pay or incur obligations that were the responsibility of TBN.

70. AsadirectandproximateresultofTBN'sbreachesoftheJointVentureAgreement, Merit Street suffered and continues to suffer significant damages, including monetary damages.

COUNT II
(Breach of Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing (Joint Venture Agreement) Against TBN) (In the Alternative)

71. Merit Street incoi'porates the allegations set foith in the foregoing paragraphs as if set fortli in fiill below.

72. As of January 10, 2023, Peteski and TBN executed a valid contract, the Joint Venture Agreement, and Merit Street is a third-party beneficiary to tlie Joint Venture Agreement.

73. TBN IlaS all obligaiioll tO perfoi'iri ITS obligatlens under the Jomt 'v'el1hlre Agreement fairly, lionestly, in good faith, and in a n'ianner that does not deprive Mei-it Street of the benefits and overarcliing purpose of the agreement.

Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered 07/('2/2JEE: (:-1:a:.Th:13 Desc Main Document Page 21 of 28
2 5 !,,,i(i, :'J - 14 :7-i Ila.,f, 5- *a 7 8

74. Merit Street fiilly performed its obligations as'a,th'ird,;p,aity ben0j4giaiy rmder the Joint Venture Agreement.

75. To tlie extent tliat TBN's obligations to provide distribution and production services were not identified specifically in the Joint Venture Agreen"ient, TBN breaclied the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by depriving Merit Street of tl'ie benefit of tlie Joint Venture Agreement, which was for TBN to provide production and distribution services to Merit Street at no cost to Merit Street.

76. As a direct and proximate result of TBN's breaches of the imp]ied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Merit Street suffered and continues to suffer significant damages, including monetary damages.

COUNT III
(Breach of Contract (December 2024 Agreement) Against TBN)

17. Merit Street incorporates the allegations set forth in tl'ie foregoing paragraphs as if set forth in full below.

78. On December 9, 2024, Merit Street, Peteski, and TBN entei-ed into the binding December 2024 Agreement. In the December 2024 Agreement, the parties agreed on certain definite tenns relating to the operation of Merit Street. The December 2024 Agreement is a complete and enforceable agreement with respect to these definite terms. The December 2024 Agreement also contained a binding agreement to "negotiate in good faith to reach definitive agreements addressing the issues outlined here as promptly as practical, and with the common goal of singing such definitive agreements prior to December 31, 2024." The definitive agreements were to supersede and replace the.loint Venture Agreement, wliich is governed by Delaware law.

Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 ,En-tered 07/0:!'25 01:43:13 Desc Main Document Page 2'2 of 28 ' -
25AU"J-5,:+-,,t-8:28

79. Merit Street perfoimed its obligations ;n4er the De'c6ifiber 2024 Agreement, including by attempting in good faith to draft final 'agreerne'ms address-i-ng tlie iSsues in the December 2024 Agreement.

80. TBN breached its obligations rinder tlie December 2024 Agi-een'ient. It failed to honor the definite terms contained in the December 2024 Agreement. It also flatly refused to work in good faith to draft final agreements addressing the issues in the December 2024 Agreement.

But for TBN's bad-faith conduct, fuial agreements would have been executed.

81. As a c'lirect and proximate result of TBN's breaches of the December 2024 Agreement, Merit Street suffered and continues to suffer significant damages, including monetaiy daii'iages.

COUNT IV
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against TBN)

82. Merit Street incorporates the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragi-aphs as if set forth in full below.

83. As alleged herein, TBN exercised control over the affairs of Merit Street and owned 70oA of Merit Street throcigh August 2024. TBN owed Meiit Street fiduciaiy duties, including duties of loyalty and care.

84. As alleged lierein, TBN breached its fiduciary duties to Merit Street, inchiding by engaging in sclf-dealing and otl'ier gross misconduct to advance its own interests at the expense of Merit Street.

85. As a direct and proximate result of TBN's breaches of its fiduciary duties, Merit Street suffered and continues to suffer signit-rcant damages, including monetary damages. 22 Case25-80156-swell Doc3 Filed07/02/25 Entered07/O,?%,;!!§pl:43:'L3-.pQ*3cMain Document Page 23 of 28
25 AUIQ, % .A: .,J; L') 8

COUNT V
(Declaratory Judgment For Preference Avoidance Regarding CrQssSeed Convertib-le -Note Under 28 t.i.s.c. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 Against TCT)

86. Merit Street incorporates the allegations set forth in tl'ie foregoing paragraphs as if set forth in fiill below.

87. This claim for relief aiises under tlie Federal Declaratory Judginent Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

88. In September 2024, Merit Street issued a $25 million convertible promissory note to CrossSeed.

89. Pursuant to Section 4 of the CrossSeed Convertible Note and in consideration for such note, Merit Street (i) granted to CrossSeed a security interest in all of Met-it's personal property, uisti-uments, accounts, money, deposit accounts, securities and all otlier investment propcrty, contract rights or rights to the payment of money, insurance claims and proceeds, and all general intangibles, and (ii) autliorized the holder of the CrossSeed Convertible Note to prepare and file a financing statement to perfect the liolder's security interest.

90. On March 5, 2025, CrossSeed assigned the CrossSeed Convertible Note to TCT.

91. On May 27, 2025, TCT perfected its security interest in the CrossSeed Convertible Note by filing a UCC-1 Financing Statement as a secured pai-ty with the Secretaiy of State of Texas. TCT did not perfect with respect to litigation proceeds, which are not mentioned in its UCC-1 Financing Statement.

92. Under 11 U.S.C. § 547(e%2), the traosfer of an interest of the debtor ii-i pi-opeity- inchiding the transfer o'f a security interest-is made at the time such transfer is perfected, wliere the transfer is perfected more than 30 days after tlie transfer was made. 23 Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25
Document Page
Entered 07/02/2-5.01:4-3:13-Desc Main
24 of 28 :-' a ; ' - ' -' a a a a
75 i;U"ii -i't i',)'i 8: '18

93. Here, TCT perfected its security interest more tlian 30 days after CrossSeed transferred to it tlie CrossSeed Conveitible Note, so tlie transfer is defined-to-occur on the date of perfection, May 27, 2025.

94. May 27, 2025 is within Debtor's preference pei-iod because it is within 90 days of the date Merit Street filed its baii'iiptcy petition (.hily 2, 2025).

95. Accordingly, this Couit should issue an order declaring that the transfer is an avoidable preference underll U.S.C. % 547(b). In addition or in the alternative, this Court should issue an order declaring that TCT has no perfected security interest in Merit Street's litigation proceeds.

COUNTVI
(Declaratory Judgment for Equitable Subordination of the under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 Against TBN and TCT)

96. Merit Street incoiporates tlie allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth in fiill below.

97. This claim for relief arises under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 .

98. Equitable subordination is a remedy tliat allows a court to subordinate a creditor's claim to other daims as a result of misconduct by that creditor. In re Equip. Equity Holdings, Inc., 491 B.R. 792, 840 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2013 ). This remedy is properly granted when (1) tlie claimant engaged in inequitable conduct; (2) the misconduct resulted in injury to debtors or other creditors, or conferred an unfair advantage to the claimant; and (3 ) equitable subordination of the claimant's claim is not contrat-y to other provisions of the Bai*ruptcy Code. Id. at 841-42. Frirther, condrict is inequitable if it involves or is the result of breaches of fiduciary duties. Additionally, if tlie claimant is an insider, corirts scrutinize that claimant's condrict more rigorously. 24 Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered,57!Q2/25'01:4313 Desc Main Document Page 25 of 28" ' " =" "
25 i'i,t'l'l""a j), ia;.'r'i 'x'2""Zr'-'

99. As alleged above, TBN breacl'ied fiduciaiy duties jt owed to Merit Street, incLuding by engaging in self-interested transactions that depleted Merit-St+eet-'s capital. TBN then caused a $140 xi'iillion liability to be recorded 011 Merit Street's balance sheet in favor of TBN. Furtl'ier, because TBN caused Merit Sti-eet to pay TBN and others money that TBN itself should have paid, Merit Street was forced to borrow an additional $25 million from CrossSeed in September 2024, which note was later assigned to TCT. Tliat $25 million contribution was only n'iade necessary l)Y TBN's breaches of fiduciary duty.
100. This inequitable misconduct resulted in harin to Merit Street and its other creditors. 101. Equitable subordination worild not be contraiy to other provisions of the Banlabptcy Code.
102. Further,theFifthCircuitandcourtswithinithaveequitablysubordinatedclaimsof even a secured party after finding that party engaged in wrongful conduct, as TBN lias l-iere. See, e.g., In re Matter of Fabricatot"s, Inc., 926 F.2d 1458 (5th Cir. 1991) (equitably subordinating otlierwise secured lender's claim to unsecured status where, among other conduct, insider's exercise of control over debtor to allow insider to obtain a lien on debtor's assets); In re Athi.

ModgdarPowerSvs., Inc., 413 B.R. 643, 676 -77 (Banki'. S.D. Tex. 2009) (equitab]y subordinating claim to lower prioiity than other unsecured creditors based on insider's action in self-intei-est to deplete tlie debtors of their most profitable business). Because TBN lias exeited improper control over Merit Street to solely further its own interests at the expense of Merit Street, including by causing its affiliate te issae a loan to Merit Street, aiiy claims of TBN and TCT siiould be eqaitably subordinated.
25 P(iPA M-m>:z-

3. m /q
Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered 07/02/25-'01:43':13-. :Desc Main Document Page26of28 "" "----- '-
25 ,;iJ3 -i; 5',ai 8: 28

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Debtors respectfully request that upon final hearing,- a jutigment be -entered as follows:

A. Awarding Merit Street dainages suffered as a result of TBN's breach of the Joint Venture Agi'eement and December 2024 Agreement, including prejudgment interest and punitive damages.

B. Awarding Mei'it Street damages suffered as a result of TBN's breach of its fiduciary duties, inchiding prejudgment interest and prmitive damages.

C. Entering judgment in favor of Merit Street and declai'ing that the March 5, 2025 transfer of the CrossSeed Convertible Note to TCT is an avoidable prefei'ence ymdcr 11 u.s.c. g 547(b), and, or in the alternative, that TCT has no perfected security interest in Merit Street's litigation proceeds.

D. Entering judgment in favor of Merit Street and declaring that the CrossSeed Conveitible Note should be equitably subordinated under Section 510(c) of the Bai'ikruptcy Code;
E. Granting Merit Street its attorneys' fees and costs; and F. Granting Merit Street such otlier and further relief as the Court n"iay deem just and proper.
26 Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered 07/0274'5.Q1:43-:,13-,Desc Main Dated: July 2, 2025
Dallas, Texas
25;;UG3ia..;;4i,,a,,,2T,
/.s'/ jeri Leigh Miller

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
Thomas R. Califano (24122825)
Jeri Leigh Miller (24]02176)
Parker G. Embiy (24126826)
Chelsea McMamis (24131499)
2021 McKinney Ave'nue, Suite 2000
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 981-3300
Facsimile: (214) 981-3400
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
and
James W. Ducayet (pro hac vice pending)
Steven E. Sexton (pro hac vice pending)
Andrew F. Rodheim (pro hac vice pending)
One Sorith Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: (312) 853-7000
Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
Email: [email protected]'n
[email protected]
[email protected]
and
Stephen Hessler (pro /?(/C vice pending)
Patrick Venter (pro ha<: vice pending)
Weii-u Fang (pi"o hac vice pending)
787 Seventh Avemie
New York, New York 10019
Telephone: (212) 839-5300
Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Proposed -4ttorneysjor tlie Debtor
and Debtoi- in Possession
ffi?/!( Z.g- € €)CL
Case 25-80156-swell Doc 3 Filed 07/02/25 Entered 0770'272-5',01;-43-;13 Document Page 28 of 2n', ', : = - a a'
Desc Main
Certificate of Service
I certify that on July 2, 2025, I caused a copy of the foregoing document-to be served by the Electronic Case Filing System for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northem District of Texas.
/s/ Jei-i Leigh Miller
Jeri Leigh Miller
P!H
APPEALTO USE OF 3150 BEAR ST. AS A 142

HOUSING UNITS DEVELOPMENT
Application to establish a 142 unit
housing development in an AP
designated zone
#
3150 trees are and iot
line are closer to my
bedroom than MY
OWN DRIVEWA\
Local
-rib
Business
Finding:
"Grantingtheconditionaluse rmitorminorconditionaluse
aermit will not be
f the public or otherwise
r improvements within the immediate
'ieighborqood."
o This approval is 100% Materially detrimental to my wel(-being. The stress is absurd and
unnecessary.
o I did not attend the public meeting
precisely because of prior negative
experiences at previous public meetings
where I DID participate.
a 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:

Grantingthe conditional use permit or minor
:onditional use permitwill not bej!nateria!lydetrimental the immediate neighborhood.
* am clearly directly impacted.
* Ifeel like I'm on an island, handling this
issue all on my own.
a Wtio wouldn't be concerned about the
negative impact this project will have on
my market home value?
With that many people so near to my
residence, i vvill feel even more unsafe
than i alre.ady ao.
[JI7
Old footage from an old
computer typical of noise
ccming 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
appllcatJon,
a 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,
74/We
i,
*61a' Q':'<" - "l
li.'l'i.t:..i.in' " """"'N
i I .
;,:':"-,,-.,:4 -jQ"Jl
-!e'a''ay____61la,b _ J i..'
l'-a-"V
u'a' _ . i .A"a
f '-'-r .'.,
-y ' ,/ -.
mif Pads
- tl6plOCM 10tmet Tlin'tv B+OOdC()Itlng Center at 3150 ffeClt Slte#l
Includei 142 new high-qiiollly afjoched and detached. lorsole homei
Twti flio ploni for tne detiiched ceindoi
Fout Door ploni !O! the i+ocked.{loft
Tmdnior.ot iiichilec+uial itylei
jwo-cal goiager with oddAionol on Ill!l gueii ptirxlng Eneigy el!kJt'ti! and wotet elncierij bvlld?gs and I!T<llCoIiti',)
COIT1Ta' On Clmenll'l (Teos indudtng +Ol 101. IP(e slauctpreb IIJ+I tireo and !I!10 coun+ert
it is not plausible to believe that
he air/noise quality in my
backyard wiil not be even further
52 FOOT BUILDINGS
latlmes.com
DailyPilot LOG N Q
Density - while balanced to complement
the characteristics of the surrounding
residential neighborhoods - is key to
making the project pencil out, Crooker
added.

For that reason, the Meritage subsidiary is
planning to set aside eight deed-restricted
units forverylow-income residents, in
exchange for a density bonus from the state
that will allow it to build to greater heigl'its
and a higher density, wbile offeiig fewer
parl<jug spaces, than what's allowed for in
Costa Mesa's municipal code.

This means three- aiid four-story stacked '
flats up to 5: feet, as opposed to the z7-foot,
two-story cap imposed by tl'ie city Instead
of providing 477 parking spaces, applicants
are proposing 372.

NO TRAFFIC LIGHT

NO CROSSWALK
d
Y
It is already difficult left turn access onto Bear. Bear street will become so much more dangerous for residents and kids no plans to install even a crosswalk to Shiffer park much less a traffic light to handle all the newly increased residential traffic.

Tree
Intrusion/Damage
rinhterundeeffihlabrogren! ovre0raenr'JuSnTdreeerSmhyaVbeack yard.

L HproowpedrotylHroemsetrhvee nmeyighboring
roperty's roots and
ranches?

2. Where is the documentation
my pro-perty?

3. Does that approval remain
valid?

4. fear Santa Ana
winds may uproot
and cause 3150's
trees to fall on my
property and damage
my property or harm

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 thatI will be able to
live peaceably in my home?
FACTS
T'he Ci-ey of-Cos'ta Mesa (the city) has repeatedolynea.57oerd tO c U.Ps overand a.b-ove those.the property was origmally z As a long-time Costa M'esa resideni, I cannot-undersfandawhy the- City remains so disrnissive to my concerns and quality of life.. ' aPharevV.e'Ohuasdlya'chceescs'tYoatkerp0rvoepdeartnyaaptpalncya'giOvnenfOtrimEFe.EWduhcean'=0thnat!e410i0th'reoo!glhetWh0euClidty signed on to an Event Center.
dNw0"ellfi,nhgas'sriHOht"i!bthe'hmeidWdal!sodfeS,olhue!C'XaSseteMmestfrOo.bTehfenCeitwy =n'hqwh'!hdddreensssje'!the 3150propaerty as a high-aens-ity hgusing-projecr, once again, contrary its APzoning.

Conveni'ent use by t:he City6f Ab.atemerits a'rid CUPs which results in.detrim.enta-l consequences to t'he surrounding properties.
a, e aLinfe,lsttyyWlehs.lpcrhoKaedrtpi-erseVo.InOueSitOhWernseidrSeholpfOr?itnheea3re15o0wpnre0dpebrytyaas-nedpahraalvtee bllceoernpourSaetdeby" in/out of state persons as llhotel like" pr'operties rather than single family dwellin'gs.

As iuch I am -isolated in bringing this acti-on forward. j
4 , h I !
t
weffarq
xiel Idle '/tL' - !er J
Syncnyms ok welfare >
1 : the state of doing well especially in rprnpn m(y m
+l I J S l I OOk f'ci - l %. l '.'+)l -a OVP1 .VS'r 0 ? 2 a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b : an agencv or program through which such aut is distriouteo Welfal'e :ai= adjective
1 : of, relating to. or concerned with welfare and especially with improveinent of the IiVell-l)elllg nouu'x
Synonyms of well-being >

I ask the City carefully and empathetically consider my situation and take sufficient mitigating actions with respect to the 3150 Bear Street property which will lead to an opportunity for me to live peaceably in my beautiful home.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Delivered August 5, 2025, Easily Before 12:00PM, for City Council and City Council Meeting Agenda

Dear Costa Mesa City Council ([email protected]) and City Clerk ([email protected]):

Please read this verbally aloud before and during the August 5, 2025 City Council meeting. Please include this in the agenda packet for the August 5, 2025 City Council meeting.

Regarding the August 5, 2025 City Council meeting’s public hearing item 2 titled “MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (PGPA -24-0002), REZONE, DESIGN REVIEW, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19334, AND DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT, FOR A 142-UNIT, OWNERSHIP RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 3150 BEAR STREET (MERITAGE HOMES)”

Please reject Meritage Homes’ entire application including the mitigated negative d eclaration, general plan amendment, rezone, tentative tract map, and density bonus for the following reasons related to Meritage’s 142 units being too dense of a population for 3150 Bear Street:

1. Negative Impacts on Expansive Soil: The neighborhoods for a few miles around 3150 Bear Street are built on expansive soil. Heavy construction and dense buildings will disturb the expansive soil resulting in damage to the foundations , walls, etc. of bu ildings several miles around 3150 Bear Street.

2. Negative Impacts from New Traffic Light and Turn Lanes on Bear Street: Meritage requests a new stop light and turn lanes on Bear Street for Meritage’s private benefit for Meritage’s 142 units worth of people. Bear Street is already heavily congested during morning, late afternoon, and early night commuting hours. Bear Street is especially congested during holidays. The congestion is especially noticeable between Bear Street ’s intersections with Baker Street and MacArthur Boulevard.

Another traffic light that is not synchronized with other Bear Street traffic lights will exacerbate the already heavy congestion on Bear Street around 3150 Bear Street. Also near 3150 Bear Street, Bear Street only has two lanes in each direction. Adding new turn lanes to Bear Street for 142 units worth of people will result in Bear Street effectively having only 1 lane in each direction as 142 units worth of people wait on Bear Street to be able to enter 3150 Bear Street. Please note that 3140 Bear Street and the L ifestyles community do not have traffic lights for their private benefit, and denying 3140 Bear Street and the L ifestyles community traffic lights for their private benefit prevents further congestion of Bear Street. A double standard should not be applied to Meritage.

3. Crosswalk to Shiffer Park: A new cross walk across Bear Street is not needed to access Shiffer Park, because there is already a nearby crosswalk at the intersection of Bear Street and Paularino Avenue.

A new cross walk would turn the Shiffer Park neighborhood into additional parking for Meritage ’s parking lacking proposal for 3150 Be ar Street. A new cross walk would also further exacerbate traffic on Bear Street by adding another traffic light that is not synchronized with the rest of Bear Street’s traffic lights.

4. Gate to Olympic Avenue: An open access gate on Olympic Avenue would negatively impact already congested street parking in the e xisting neighborhoods surrounded by Olympic Aven ue, Trinity Drive, Paularino Avenue, Platte Drive, Allegheny Avenue, and Canadian Drive. An open access gate on Olympic Avenue would turn those neighborhoods into additional parking for the overly people dense and parking lacking Meritage proposal for 3150 Bear Street.

5. Negative Impacts on Traffic Congestion on Paularino Avenue: Paularino Avenue is already heavily congested during morning, late afternoon, and early night commuting ho urs, and neighbors (apartments, houses, busi nesses, etc.) on Paularino Avenue already have difficulty entering Paularino Avenue during hours of congestion. Paularino Avenue is only one lane in each direction so cannot handle an additional 142 units worth of people.

6. Sunlight Obstruction : Several almost 60 feet tall buildings will obstruct the sunlight and cast shadows on neighbors several miles around, which will negatively affect both their health and property values.

7. Airflow Obstruction: Several almost 60 feet tall buildings will obstruct the wind and airflow for neighbors several miles around, which will negatively affect both their health and property values.

8. View of Sky Obstruction: Several almost 60 feet tall buildings will obstruct the view of the sky for neighbors several miles around, which will negatively affect both their health and property values.

9. Should Widen Bear Street: To decrease congestion on Bear Street the City should purchase enough of 3150 Bear Street to extend and construct a third lane in both directions on Bear Street. Widening Bear Street would serve the public better than Meritage’s proposal as Meritage’s proposed dense construction harms the public to mainly benefit the already wealth y owners of 3150 Bear Street.

The Khoshbin family already has over between $50 million and $100 million in assets , and already uses 3150 Bear Street to store multiple luxury cars and manage their wealth. Costa Mesa should put its very many everyday residents’ wellbeing first, not the wellbeing of a few multimillionaires.

Comments on application by PGPA-24-0002.

Comments by William H. Spurgeon iv, 3078 Platte Drive.
1) Traffic impact: putting a signal on Bear Street will lead to traffic disasters. The north bound lanes shift from three lanes to two right at the new signal. This will cause traffic to back up into the Paularino intersection. Cars on Paularino and the housing tract exiting at Yukpn to be unable to turn north on Bear. Now Paularino and Yukon will back up, The two lanes coming off the 73 freeway will also now back up onto the freeway at the dangerous point where cars from the 55 merge left and cars from the 73 merge right to get off at Bear. Cars that stop to merge into the stopped line will become an accident hazard as they now block the second lane from the 55.

Southbound on Bear is already a mess. Left turning cars for the 55/73 onramp already often back up to Paularino causing cars on Paularino to back up too. The new signal will back cars into the shopping center and signals over the 405. 2) Parking. The city always underestimates the needed parking and they once told us on Platte Drive that new apartments on Paularino would not impact us. Not true. We daily pick up Del Taco bags and empty cups, and negotiate for parking spots on nights and weekends. Where will the “extra cars” park? On Canadian, Hudson or Olympic? This will increase traffic on our neighborhood streets. In Shiffer park or the access streets of MacKinzie or Tanana? Not cool. In the shopping center across the freeway/ There is no place for excess cars which there will be. 3) Obviously, this is a big money deal so the locals have little power. But this time I wanted to type up my comments so I would have a record of this “I told you so. ” From: Wendy Morales
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Public Comment: Opposition to 3150 Bear Street Housing Project (PGPA-24-0002) Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 11:44:45 AM
Dear Costa Mesa City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed housing development at 3150 Bear Street (Project PGPA-24-0002), which was recently approved by the Planning Commission.

As a homeowner living next to the project site, I am deeply concerned about the significant negative impact this 142-unit development, particularly the 52-foot-tall stacked flats, will have on our neighborhood’s quality of life, infrastructure, and safety.

My primary concerns include:

Traffic & Parking Overload
Bear Street and adjacent roads are already heavily impacted. Adding 142 units without sufficient parking mitigation will push more cars into our neighborhood streets, where many residents already struggle to find parking.

Height and Privacy Issues
The proposed 4-story stacked flats are completely out of character with the surrounding 1-story homes. This extreme height will cast shade, eliminate privacy for existing homeowners, and reduce property values.

Olympic Avenue Access
The pedestrian access point proposed at Olympic Avenue poses a safety concern and will likely increase foot traffic into a quiet residential street. We ask that this access point be removed or gated and strictly limited to emergency use only.

Infrastructure Strain
The current infrastructure—roads, schools, sewer, and utilities—was not designed to support such a high-density project on a 6-acre parcel.

Construction Impact to Adjacent Properties
My home is located in direct proximity to the project site, and I am seriously concerned about potential structural damage during construction. Heavy equipment, excavation, or pile driving may cause cracking or shifting in nearby homes. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) fails to address this risk. I respectfully request that the City require a pre-construction structural survey of neighboring properties and hold the developer accountable for any damage incurred.

I respectfully request:

A reduction in height and unit count to preserve neighborhood character
Removal of the Olympic Avenue pedestrian access point
A formal traffic and parking impact reassessment
Structural protections and accountability for homes adjacent to the site We are not opposed to new housing, but we urge the Council to prioritize responsible growth that respects current residents. This project, as proposed, is too dense, too tall, and too disruptive. Please vote NO on this proposal and request meaningful revisions.

Sincerely,
Wendy Morales
Costa Mesa Resident - District 2
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.

Aug. 5th, 2025

Subject: Community Concerns Regarding Proposed Development at 3150 Bear Street Dear City Council Members,
As residents of the neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed development at 3150 Bear Street, we respectfully submit the following concerns in advance of the July 14th Planning Commission hearing.

Traﬃc Safety and Congestion
Bear Street already experiences signiﬁcant congestion, particularly during peak hours, holidays, and summer weekends. The trip generation comparison in the current traﬃc analysis is based on prior estimated use when the building was occupied, not the current vacant condition. This results in an inaccurate baseline and may obscure the true traﬃc impacts. A Level of Service (LOS) analysis should be required.

The proposed addition of a signal-controlled driveway raises serious concerns. With two closely spaced signals already in place near the 73 freeway ramps, a third signal nearby could worsen backups and cause driver confusion. Cars often block intersections or run red lights in this area due to visual alignment and signal timing. Additional delays will aﬀect not only local residents but also the city's economic engine-South Coast Plaza-by creating greater congestion at key access points.

Speeding and Unsafe Crosswalk Placement
The proposed crosswalk just beyond the downhill slope on Bear Street presents a major safety issue. Drivers frequently speed down this stretch, and Costa Mesa Police often monitor it from Shiﬀer Park because of how common speeding violations are. Even with a signal, a crosswalk located just past a blind hill risks being overlooked by fast-moving traﬃc, posing a hazard for pedestrians.

Overﬂow Parking into Residential Streets
We are also very concerned about the project's potential to create parking overﬂow in our surrounding neighborhoods. With limited on-site parking and the likelihood of multi-car households or visitors, spillover parking will impact Mackenzie Place, Tanana Street, and Klondike Avenue-especially since two of these streets are cul-de-sacs with limited capacity. We already face tight parking conditions, and increased usage of Shiﬀer Park for overﬂow only exacerbates this. Residents and their guests are likely to use the park and nearby streets for both daytime and overnight parking, further straining the limited availability.

Additional Concerns
While we understand and appreciate the city's interest in investing in park improvements, we are concerned that the proposed budget may not be suﬃcient to support the increased use this development will generate. We urge a more thorough review of the funding allocation to ensure it can meet the long-term needs of the community. Additionally, the current design proposed in the plans with only having one entrance and exit will not be adequate for the park. As the number of residents and park visitors grows, expanded access and increased parking capacity will be essential.

In Conclusion
Safety and overﬂow parking are our community's top concerns. We ask the Planning Commission to carefully reconsider this project's design, traﬃc impact analysis, and neighborhood consequences. We respectfully request that these issues be thoroughly studied and addressed before any approval is granted.

Thank you for considering the voice of the community.

Justin and Regina Smith
900 Mackenzie Pl
Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626
Justin and Regina Smith
900 Mackenzie Pl
Costa Mesa, Ca 92626
[email protected]
Aug. 5th, 2025

To: Costa Mesa City Council
Subject: Opposition to Application PGPA-24-0002 3150 Bear Street We are writing to formally oppose the proposed 142-unit ownership residential development on the 6.12-acre site, which includes 93,500 square feet of on-site open space including private balconies and seven units designated for very low-income housing.

While the need for housing, especially affordable options, is undeniable in other cities in California, this project raises significant concerns for our community:
• Overdevelopment of a Limited Space

Packing 142 ownership units—regardless of unit size—onto just over 6 acres represents an extremely high density for the area. This intensity is out of character with the surrounding neighborhoods, which have historically maintained more open space, lower housing density, and a quieter residential atmosphere.
• Pressure on Services:

Local schools, water, sewer systems, and emergency services are already operating near the capacity for our city. Adding hundreds of new residents will place additional strain on public resources that the development does not adequately address.
• Environmental and Community Character Concerns:

This development would dramatically transform a relatively modest, low -density neighborhood into a high-density enclave, disrupting the established character, visual landscape, and close -knit sense of community that residents have spent years cultivating. It threatens to permanently alter both the natural environment and the social fabric of the area. We strongly urge the city to prioritize development that aligns with the community’s values—focusing on thoughtful planning, environmental responsibility, and long-term sustainability.

• Pressure on Infrastructure:

Increased traffic from this project will worsen congestion at several already overburdened intersections, particularly at Bear Street and Yukon, as well as the Bear Street on- and off-ramps to the 73 freeway. The intersection at Yukon and Bear regularly ba cks up starting around 3:30 PM and continues through the evening rush hour, often until 6:00 PM. During this time, vehicles routinely block the intersection, preventing residents from exiting the neighborhood via Yukon—whether attempting to go straight onto Paularino or turn right onto Bear to access the freeway.

Additionally, the short stretch of Paularino Avenue between Bear and Bristol is heavily congested as drivers use it as a cut-through to reach the freeways or the shopping center at Bristol and Paularino. This section of road is frequently backed up and often blocked by traffic, and the city is already filling potholes on Paularino nearly every month due to the volume and weight of vehicles.

Adding more vehicles from this proposed 142- unit development—along with traffic from the upcoming 1,583-unit Village Santa Ana at South Coast Plaza—will make Bear Street, particularly the segment from Sunflower to Baker, virtually impassable during peak ti mes and the Christmas holiday. This corridor already experiences gridlock during the holiday season, and this level of development threatens to turn seasonal congestion into a year-round issue.

In light of these issues, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny or significantly revise this proposal to better reflect the community's needs and values.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Justin and Regina Smith

From: Russell Toler
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Trinity Broadcasting Site
Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 12:00:36 PM
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
As you review the proposal for the Trinity Broadcasting site, I urge you to pause a bit and reflect on the question of whether this development is stitching itself into the fabric of the city—or sealing itself off from it? The former helps each increment of development integrate into the walkable, bike-able, and even drivable network of our city, while the latter guarantees just another isolated residential pod—places where cars simply go in and out and no one really knows what it’s like inside. We unfortunately have plenty of these now. No wonder people complain about density and new development—none of it is seen to “contribute” to anything but traffic.

When we allow disconnected enclaves, we perpetuate car dependency, and we miss opportunities to build a cohesive, livable city.

I also want to gently lament the design quality of this particular proposal (see my previous emails on this project, they’re in the record somewhere). While an improvement from previous iterations, it’s still another case of maximizing units with little regard for place or form. But we cannot blame developers—this is what they do. We as a city have not articulated what kind of residential development we want to see, and what kind we don’t.

As a city, we have not used our voice on design. We are still passive about it.

This, nor any single project will make or break Costa Mesa. But they add up, and together define the quality of our city. And each one sends a signal and sets a precedent—to the market, to the community, and to the next developer —of what we’re okay with.

Thanks for reading,
Russell Toler
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: Danielle Owens
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: 3150 Bear St-city council meeting
Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 11:59:44 AM
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing to express concerns about potential parking impacts from the proposed project at 3150 Bear St. and to suggest possible solutions for consideration.

As a resident living on the corner near the project, I am concerned that overflow parking from future residents and guests will spill into our neighborhood streets. While it has been suggested that people won’t want to walk that far, I measured it: it took me 190 steps — less than 1 minute 30 seconds — to walk from our street to the crosswalk leading directly to the project. This makes it very likely people will choose to park in our neighborhood.

To address these concerns, our community proposes:

1. Permit Parking After Hours – Implementing a permit parking program in the evenings and overnight to preserve resident parking access.

2. Alternative Off-Site Parking Arrangement – Negotiating with South Coast Plaza to utilize a rarely used portion of their parking lot. This could accommodate overflow parking for the project. Sellers Plaza could pay a monthly fee for these spaces, creating an incentive and additional income for the property owner.

We appreciate your consideration of both the potential impacts and the proactive solutions that could help preserve neighborhood safety, access, and quality of life. I will be attending tonight’s meeting to share further details, but I wanted these concerns and suggestions on the record in advance.

Sincerely,
Danielle and Brendan Owens
3116 Klondike Ave.

Danielle Owens
Real Estate Professional
Coldwell Banker Realty
840 Newport Center Drive #100
949-293-6712
[email protected]
www.DanielleOwensRealEstate.com
BRE#01914205
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: Michael Wauschek
To: CITY CLERK; Irvine Clerk
Subject: Public commit immigration
Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 12:14:39 PM
Hello my name is Michael wauschek I am concerned citizen We need stop allowing these gestapo thugs aka ICE spreading fear in our communities even if your alien or not it's effects us all even if we know or not. We also needs to a ban of them of uncovering their faces by so its only making looks themselves worse then what is already are. The time is know not let's talk about at our next city council meeting
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
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: Stewart Ramsey
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: RE: August 5th Agenda Item #3
Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 10:31:38 AM
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I’m writing as a Costa Mesa resident who values both the natural beauty of Fairview Park and the opportunity it represents for our community to engage, learn, and connect with the land.

While I appreciate the ecological goals outlined in the proposed $1.4 million Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Endemic Environmental Services for the Mesa Restoration Project, I respectfully urge you to pause and reconsider how we can fulfill our obligations while better serving Costa Mesa residents.

The current plan emphasizes passive restoration and biological compliance—but it does so at the expense of removing cherished recreational features like the dirt mounds used daily by kids on bikes, and by installing fencing that limits public access, rather than inviting people into nature.

Current Proposal Highlights:
$1.4 Million Contracted to a Fullerton-Based Firm Over 7 Years Removes popular dirt bike mounds with no replacement amenity Prioritizes fencing and restricted access over community engagement Long-term monitoring and site control are fully outsourced to Fullerton, with no local jobs, training, or volunteer engagement
Public education, recreation, and equitable access are not part of the scope Funded through state grants but misses an opportunity to create a public legacy Costa Mesa residents can feel and use
Possible Better Alternatives:

A Nature, Education, and Recreation Hub That Meets Restoration Goals — And Inspires Community
I believe it’s possible to both fulfill the City’s regulatory obligations and create lasting, visible, and equitable benefits through the same investment. Here's how:

1. Outdoor Amphitheater & Classroom
A natural, shaded amphitheater for school programs, cultural events, music, and nature learning
ADA-accessible with interpretive signage and community use Est. Cost: $250K–$400K

2. BMX/Pump Track Youth Zone
Upgrade and formalize the existing dirt mounds into a safe, inclusive BMX/pump track Encourages healthy activity, keeps kids engaged in nature, and honors how the space is actually used today
Est. Cost: $250K–$400K

3. Public Environmental Education Program
Run in partnership with OCC, UCI, nonprofits, and local educators Includes field trips, citizen science, restoration volunteering, and wildlife observation Est. Cost: $250K–$400K over 7 years

4. Interactive Trail Tools
QR-coded self-guided tours, augmented reality stations, and historical site storytelling Est. Cost: $50K–$100K
Why This Matters:

Fulfills ecological obligations to OCTA and regulatory bodies Engages the public directly in long-term stewardship and education Honors cultural and historic resources while allowing respectful access Keeps funding and energy local
Leaves a visible legacy, not just a fenced field and consultant reports This is a once-in-a-decade investment. Let’s ensure it not only meets habitat goals—but also invites people in, nurtures young minds, and reflects the values of an inclusive and engaged Costa Mesa.

Thank you for your leadership and consideration.

Sincerely,
Stewart William Ramsey
Costa Mesa West-Sider
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Reconsideration Request: Fairview Park Restoration and Community Use Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 2:53:35 PM
From: Andreas Arpiarian <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 10:45 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Reconsideration Request: Fairview Park Restoration and Community Use

As a Costa Mesa resident who deeply values the natural beauty of Fairview Park, I’m writing to share my perspective on the proposed $1.4 million Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Endemic Environmental Services for the Mesa Restoration Project.

While I appreciate the ecological goals outlined in the plan, I respectfully ask that the Council pause and reconsider how we can meet our environmental obligations while delivering greater benefits to our local community.

The current proposal focuses heavily on passive restoration and biological compliance, but it comes at the cost of removing beloved recreational features—such as the dirt mounds that kids use daily—and adding fencing that restricts access rather than encouraging people to engage with nature.

Concerns with the Current Proposal:
$1.4 million allocated to a Fullerton-based firm over 7 years Removal of the dirt bike mounds with no replacement
Emphasis on fencing and restricted access over community use Monitoring and maintenance fully outsourced with no local job or volunteer opportunities
No focus on public education, recreation, or equitable access Funded by state grants, yet lacks a community-oriented legacy A More Inclusive Alternative:

It is entirely possible to meet restoration requirements while creating a space that educates, inspires, and benefits Costa Mesa residents. Consider these enhancements:

1. Outdoor Amphitheater and Classroom
A shaded, natural space for school programs, cultural events, and nature education ADA-accessible with interpretive signage for community use Estimated cost: $250K–$400K

2. Youth BMX/Pump Track Zone
Upgrade the existing dirt mounds into a safe, inclusive space for riding Promotes healthy activity and honors how the land is used today Estimated cost: $250K–$400K

3. Public Environmental Education Program
Partner with OCC, UCI, and local nonprofits to provide hands-on learning Includes field trips, citizen science, and restoration volunteer opportunities Estimated cost: $250K–$400K over 7 years

4. Interactive Trail Tools
QR-coded self-guided tours, augmented reality features, and storytelling signage Estimated cost: $50K–$100K
Why This Approach Matters:

Meets environmental commitments to OCTA and regulators
Engages the community in stewardship and education
Respects cultural and historical significance while allowing thoughtful access Keeps funding, jobs, and energy local
Leaves a visible and meaningful legacy—not just reports and fencing Thank you for considering a more balanced and community-focused path forward for Fairview Park.

Andreas Arpiarian
The information contained in this message is privileged and intended only for the recipients named. If the reader is not a representative of the intended recipient, any review, dissemination or copying of this message or the information it contains is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and attachments.

From: Wendy Laurie
To: CITY COUNCIL; CITY CLERK
Subject: New Business Agenda Item 3- Fencing Areas of Fairview Park Date: Monday, August 4, 2025 3:15:48 PM
Dear City Council Members,
Please vote no on New Business Agenda Item 3 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ENDEMIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC. FOR THE FAIRVIEW PARK MESA RESTORATION PROJECT, etc.

I think we are all in agreement that “Parks make life better.” We need access to parks in order for this to be true. Fencing and restricting more areas of the park will cut into activities - hiking, glider flights, community gatherings - that give people reasons to love, respect, and maintain the natural beauty.

Thank you for your consideration.
-Wendy Russo, lifelong 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: Mat Garcia
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: August 5, 2025 Council Meeting - New Business Item 3 - Endemic Environmental PSA Date: Monday, August 4, 2025 1:09:31 PM
Attachments: Letter to City Council - 2025-08-05 New Business Item 3.pdf Hi City Clerk,
Please record this email and the attached letter as part of the public record for tomorrow's city council meeting for New Business Item 3.

Thank you,
Mat Garcia
From: Mat Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 12:59 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; GRUNER, BRIAN <[email protected]>
Subject: August 5, 2025 Council Meeting - New Business Item 3 - Endemic Environmental PSA

Dear Council Members,
Please see the attached letter urging you to vote no on New Business Agenda Item 3 regarding the Professional Services Agreement with Endemic Environmental Services Inc. for the Fairview Park Mesa Restoration Project.

Key concerns include:

Lack of community input
Premature action ahead of the pending Fairview Park Master Plan Revision (draft due Sept. 16)
Overreach in restoration area—162% of what is contractually required by OCTA Negative impacts on park access and use, especially for families, youth, and seniors Potential Measure AA violations due to permanent fencing and significant changes without a public vote
The proposal threatens to eliminate cherished open space and recreational trails without proper community engagement. I respectfully ask that this item be rejected or significantly amended to protect public access and balance diverse community interests.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Mat Garcia
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.

August 4, 2025
Dear City Council Members,
Please vote no on New Business Agenda Item 3 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ENDEMIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC. FOR THE FAIRVIEW PARK MESA RESTORATION PROJECT, etc. Here are some reasons why it does not make sense for Costa Mesa.

1. Approving this item will negatively impact many residents of Costa Mesa and visitors to Fairview Park. Speciﬁcally, fencing oƯ large areas of the north mesa that contain small trails that are highly valued by the community.
a. StaƯ did not collect community input on this project. b. Impacts, especially negative impacts, to the community are not factored in by staƯ.
c. Input from Parks and Community Services Commission or the Fairview Park Steering Committee is not present in the staƯ report.
d. No evidence of staƯ consideration given to how the community, especially the youth, families, and seniors, uses the current areas which are proposed to be closed.

2. This item should be considered only after the City Council has had the opportunity to weigh in and provide direction on the Fairview Park Master Plan Revision, which the draft is coming to Council soon.
a. The Draft Master Plan Revision is tentatively scheduled to come to Council on September 16, 2025.
b. The staƯ proposed temporary fencing will lead to permanent fencing. And that is not what many in the City want.
i. While the staƯ report’s map for this item speciﬁcally uses the term “temporary fencing” to close oƯ the areas to be restored, the Fairview Park Master Plan Revision Technical Reports [posted on the City’s website] recommend that “protective fencing should be installed along the perimeter of the [entire] Mesa” (source 2023 Vegetation Map and Habitat Restoration Opportunities for Fairview Park - LandIQ Technical Report p. 14 of 283) which will be permanent fencing leading to closure of many existing small trails and activities (which exist outside of environmentally sensitive areas of the park, see Figure 2) that currently are enjoyed by many residents of Costa Mesa and the surrounding communities.
ii. Many residents have already and will speak out against proposed extensive fencing oƯ of Fairview Park during the Master Plan Revision process.
iii. Extensive fencing prevents open play which is needed more than ever.

3. Only perform the minimum, contractually required acreage restoration. a. Understanding that the City has contracted obligations to fulﬁll the 2011 OCTA Environmental Mitigation Program, the City is not required to fulﬁll that obligation in this location of Fairview Park and the City is especially not obligated to restore additional acreage beyond what is required by the OCTA Contract. This only adds cost and, in this location, increases the negative impact to residents.
b. The City is required to provide 9.5 acres of restoration to fulﬁll their contracted obligations, but staƯ is choosing to provide 15.35 acres of restoration. That is 162% of the area that is required. c. Please have staƯ locate an area of Fairview Park that is less utilized by the community. There are portions of the park that are barren and are not utilized by the community.

4. The issuance of this contract is an “expansion or intensiﬁcation of use” which Measure AA speciﬁcally deﬁnes as a “Signiﬁcant Change” requiring a vote of the Costa Mesa Electorate.
a. This item is an expansion and intensiﬁcation of use that is favored by and beneﬁts one group of the community over others. Speciﬁcally, people that actively participate in the maintenance and ‘restoration’ activities stand to beneﬁt from this item, while people that enjoy the openness and small trails stand to lose.
b. Measure AA’s purpose is to give the voters of Costa Mesa a voice in large changes to Fairview Park. Measure AA provides for an exception to the City- wide vote for Signiﬁcant Changes requirement if the Signiﬁcant Change is for restoration purposes (Section 6). However, Section 6 of measure AA is meant to allow regular and needed, small project restorations to occur without having to endure the cost and time of a City-wide vote, not to allow major, community impacting changes to Fairview Park in the name of ‘restoration’ .

To make large, impactful changes to Fairview Park without a City-wide vote is to ignore the intent and the ﬁrst ﬁve and a half pages of Measure AA.

All residents of Costa Mesa and the surrounding community should be allowed to enjoy the remaining open spaces of Costa Mesa, and the City should balance the uses and desires of all groups that have interest in protecting Fairview Park. The staƯ recommendation turns open space (much of which is currently outside of deﬁned environmentally sensitive areas of the park) into fenced-oƯ environmentally sensitive areas. Please vote no or amend this item so that the community can continue to utilize the north mesa of Fairview Park to ﬁnd solitude and peace in the open spaces that remain. Closing oƯ large areas of some of the most actively used portions of the park does not help the City of Costa Mesa or its residents.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Mat Garcia
Resident of Costa Mesa

Figure 1. Map from the staƯ report showing proposed restoration area.

Figure 2. Map showing the west side of Fairview Park’s environmentally sensitive or restricted areas identiﬁed by the City in 2023. This map is currently posted on the City’s website. (https://www.costamesaca.gov/community/fairview-park/model-aircraft-permits)

Figure 3. Small trails on the north mesa will be closed, likely forever, within the areas identiﬁed to be fenced oƯ (most of the area in the green box).

From: GREEN, BRENDA
To: TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Letter for City Council
Date: Monday, August 4, 2025 2:50:01 PM
Attachments: image001.wmz
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png

Respectfully,
Brenda Green
City Clerk
City Clerk’s Office | (714) 754-5221
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626

As City Hall has reopened, we encourage the public to take advantage of our appointment system.

Appointments can be made at www.costamesaca.gov/appointments. Please note that It is required that all guests check in with our Concierge Staff, located on the 1st Floor Lobby, upon arrival at City Hall.

From: Jeffrey Cellini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 2:45 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter for City Council

Dear Brenda,
Please forward this to the city council member’s.

Thank you!
Dear City Council Members,
I am a Costa Mesa resident living at 2157 Pacific Ave, B-102. I am greatly opposed to Item 3 of your current agenda, Professional Services Agreement with Endemic Environmental Services Inc. for the Fairview Park Mesa Restoration Project.

Approving this item will negatively impact many Costa Mesa residents and visitors to the park, including myself and many of the friend I have met while walking there daily.

I am 70 years old and retired. This is a big part of my day / life. I enjoy walking on all of the trails
partaking in all that nature has to offer. Doing this contributes greatly to my physical, mental, and spiritual well being! If you were to visit the park you will see that there are hundreds of people that utilize and enjoy this area daily. I have talked to many people since it was first on your agenda months ago and everyone I talked to was in agreement with me that we did not want to see any restriction’s, fences, or trails close in the park area.

I certainly hope that you will visit the park many times and talk to the patrons personally before making a decision that will make so many people unhappy taking away a privilege that they have and enjoy!
Thank you for your consideration,
Jeffrey Cellini

From: TORRES, IVIS
To: GREEN, BRENDA
Cc: TERAN, STACY; CONSTITUENT SERVICES
Subject: FW: Fairview Park
Date: Monday, August 4, 2025 2:29:38 PM
Hi Brenda,
Please see the public comment below to be shared with the Mayor and City Council. Thank you! Kind regards,
Ivis D. Torres
Management Aide | Constituent Services Team
(714) 754-4867 (office) | (949) 629-5032 (cellphone)
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626

PLEASE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL. THANK YOU!
-----Original Message-----
From: SUSAN BURGESS <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2025 11:32 PM
To: CONSTITUENT SERVICES <[email protected]> Subject: Fairview Park
To Whom It May Concern:

Thank you for adding the Burrowing Owl and Crotch’s Bumblebee to the Consultants Contract Document. These are little creatures, but they play an important role.

This bumblebee is a prolific pollinator for both native plants and crops like tomatoes and blueberries. It’s also an ally to other species such as the Monarch Butterfly because of its fondness for milkweed.

Burrowing owls serve as effective pest control, consuming insect and rodent populations. They help protect our crops from destructive insects and the ecosystem from disease. A family of burrowing owls consumes thousands of insects and rodents in a single season.

As you vote for the Fairview Park Master Plan, please consider that these animals need protection. They need the natural habitat that is unique to Fairview Park. Please protect the highly biologically sensitive areas within the park, such as the vernal pools.

By protecting the environment, you are helping not only the animals but us humans too! Thank you for your consideration,
Susan Burgess
Sent from my iPhone
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: Priscilla Rocco
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Preserve and Protect Fairview Park, the Jewel of Costa Mesa Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 11:13:59 AM
Attachments: DYK Burrowing Owl PDF.pdf
DYK Crotch"s Bumble Bee.pdf
DYK Fairy Shrimp PDF.pdf
City Council,
Finding the Crotch's Bumble Bee and the Western Burrowing Owl in Fairview Park shows that we must be serious about restoring and protecting the habitat at the park, as it is home to more endangered and threatened species every day.

What some of the new council members may not know is this (and past) city councils have welcomed destruction to the habitats that must legally be protected by any consultant working in the park. The habitats that would be home to these new endangered species - and present home to endangered fairy shrimp - are being destroyed by a few plane hobbyists (Harbor Soaring Society) launching their planes from the vernal pool watershed.

Fairview Park:
⦁ Has the largest vernal pool complex west of the Mississippi ⦁ Is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as the Fairview Indian Site
⦁ Is a federally listed archeological site and spiritual home of the Acjachemen and Tongva tribes
⦁ Is larger than all of Costa Mesa's city parks put together (208 acres) ⦁ Is the only passive use nature park in the city with unique native habitat and animals
⦁ Is without a park ranger due to the city council's refusal to protect these treasures
Costa Mesa City Councils have welcomed Harbor Soaring Society despite the fact that they have:
⦁ Altered the vernal pool watershed, redirecting rain that supports endangered fairy shrimp
⦁ Trampled fairy shrimp habitat while retrieving their planes and lines from the vernal pools
⦁ Mowed and trampled habitat that would support Western Burrowing Owls and Crotch's Bumble Bees
⦁ Frighten away birds who must hunt and nest in these habitats ⦁ Fly their planes regularly at other local venues, negating their need for Fairview Park
⦁ Threatened in a public meeting to oust council members who vote to prevent HSS from flying their glider planes in Fairview Park The council has welcomed HSS against the recommendations and directives of:
⦁ The consulting team of scientists and experts updating the Fairview Park Master Plan
⦁ The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife
⦁ The biologists they've hired showing the damage using 100 years of aerial photographs
⦁ The Fairview Park Steering Committee they've appointed ⦁ The Fairview Park Administrators they've hired
⦁ Hundreds of members and experts in Fairview Park Alliance ⦁ 70% of residents who voted to protect and restore Fairview Park with Measure AA
Ecosystems are like a delicate machine. If one component is destroyed, the machine won't run. It took thousands of years for the soil structures to be laid down and the native plants and animals to evolve together to create the vernal pool complex in Fairview Park. When the native plants and habitats are destroyed, species die.

As biodiversity is destroyed world wide, the human species will also die.

This is not hyperbole, it is a scientific fact that has been known for at least 100 years. If this city council wants to join a worldwide effort to protect 30% of plant, animal, and water biodiversity by 2030, there is an easy solution.

Stop the destruction at Fairview Park by the Harbor Soaring Society (and ebikes) and restore and protect the park for future generations and for the burgeoning EcoTravel visitors.

Priscilla Rocc
Costa Mesa
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 DID YOU KNOW?
There is a mystery afoot! One of California's native pollinators, the Crotch's bumble bee, is vanishing from many regions. But just recently, this mysterious bee has been seen in Fairview Park!
In 2019, the California Fish and Game Commission voted to classify the Crotch's bumble bee as "Endangered" under the California Endangered Species Act. This designation protects creatures and the habitats they need to survive, like Fairview Park. As it is not a migratory species of bee, if it's happy in Fairview Park it will stay year-round pollinating native plants that native ecosystems rely upon.

Your mission, as a Fairview Park Nature Explorer, is to help us find, observe, photograph, and record any sightings of the Crotch's bumble bee on the iNaturalist app. The more endangered species documented in Fairview Park, the more people will become aware of Fairview Park’s biodiversity and beauty and want to protect it. Just be careful, because Crotch's bumble bees nest underground in abandoned rodent dens, as over 70% of bee species do.

Named after entomologist George Robert Crotch, the Crotch's bumble bee is found from May to September, with their peak occurring in July, in coastal grasslands and scrub areas from San Diego to Redding (in Northern California). Their favorite nectar source is milkweed, which they pollinate while feeding, which in turn benefits Monarch butterflies who lay their eggs there. But they feed on a wide range of native plants such as dusty maidens, lupines, phacelias, sages, delphinium, snapdragons, poppies, and wild buckwheat. The reasons for their decline is humans encroaching in wild areas bringing development, agriculture, fire and fire suppression, pesticides, pollution, and climate change.

Quiet natural places like Fairview Park help us protect birds, animals, and native plants from disappearing from the earth forever. THIS IS THE HIDDEN MAGIC OF FAIRVIEW PARK.

Presented by Fairview Park Alliance.

Join us and/or donate: https://www.fairviewparkalliance.org Photograph by Travis Cooper from iNaturalist.

DID YOU KNOW?
Some owls live in the ground. Burrowing Owls use empty ground squirrel holes as homes. If you look at Fairveiw Park around October, you may see them standing outside their burrows. But unlike Harry Potter's owl, they're small and brown, with round heads, long legs, and short tails. When it's quiet you may see them hunting insects and small
animals for food. But stay on the paths or you may crush their burrows.

They like Fairview Park because it provides them with all they need during the winter. Where they come from, in the northern prairies and plains, winters are very cold. In February or March when the weather warms up, they head
back up north to nest and raise their young. Quiet natural places like Fairview Park help us protect birds, animals, and native plants from disappearing from the earth forever.

THIS IS THE HIDDEN MAGIC OF FAIRVIEW PARK!
Presented by Fairview Park Alliance.

Join us and/or donate:
https://www.fairviewparkalliance.org/
Photo of Burrowing Owl donated to FPA by Lam-Som Vinh
7 DID YOU KNOW?
In Costa Mesa there are fairies that live in vernal pools that disappear and reappear like magic. But these fairies don't have wings, they are tiny shrimp. If you go to Fairview Park when rain has filled the vernal pools, the Fairy Shrimp wake up. Their eleven pairs of legs allow them to glide gracefully upside down in wavelike movements in the water. They live happily eating the algae, bacteria, protozoa, and other things the vernal pools provide. Then they mate and produce eggs.

When the summer comes, the vernal pools dry out, and the eggs wait. Like most tiny things, they are very delicate and need to be protected, as does their home. That's why you should ALWAYS stay on the paths at Fairview Park. You might trample the Fairy Shrimp eggs, or insects, small animals, or plants that live there. Quiet natural places like Fairview Park help us protect birds, animals, and native plants from disappearing from the earth forever. THIS IS THE HIDDEN MAGIC OF FAIRVIEW PARK.

Presented by Fairview Park Alliance.

Join us and/or donate: https://www.fairviewparkalliance.org/ Photo of Vernal Pool with Snowy Egret and Great White Egret hunting donated to FPA by Jonathan Schiesel.
5 From: Devon Pfeil
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fwd: Please vote no on New Business Agenda Item 3 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ENDEMIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC. FOR THE FAIRVIEW PARK MESA RESTORATION PROJECT Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 9:16:31 AM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Devon Pfeil <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 9:15 AM
Subject: Please vote no on New Business Agenda Item 3 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ENDEMIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC. FOR THE

FAIRVIEW PARK MESA RESTORATION PROJECT
To: <[email protected]
>
Dear Council Members,
Please vote no on New Business Agenda Item 3 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ENDEMIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC. FOR THE FAIRVIEW PARK MESA RESTORATION PROJECT, etc. Here are some reasons why it does not make sense for Costa Mesa.

1. Approving this item will negatively impact many residents of Costa Mesa and visitors to Fairview Park. Specifically, fencing off large areas of the north mesa that contain small trails that are highly valued by the community.

3. Only perform the minimum, contractually required acreage restoration.

4. The issuance of this contract is an “expansion or intensification of use” which Measure AA specifically defines as a “Significant Change” requiring a vote of the Costa Mesa Electorate.

All residents of Costa Mesa and the surrounding community should be allowed to enjoy the remaining open spaces of Costa Mesa, and the City should balance the uses and desires of all groups that have interest in protecting Fairview Park. The staff recommendation turns open space (much of which is currently outside of defined environmentally sensitive areas of the park) into fenced-off environmentally sensitive areas. Please vote no or amend this item so that the community can continue to utilize the north mesa of Fairview Park to find solitude and peace in the open spaces that remain. Closing off large areas of some of the most actively used portions of the park does not help the City of Costa Mesa or its residents.

While I am no longer a Costa Mesa resident, I have fond memories of using this park when I was, from 2014-2021. I still find myself driving from Tustin to use this park and hope to continue to enjoy it in a way that is beneficial to more Orange County families.

Thank you for the consideration,
Devon Pfeil
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: Patrick Flynn
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fwd: August 5, 2025 Council Meeting - Protect Fairview Park – Vote No on Item 3 Date: Monday, August 4, 2025 9:37:31 PM
Good evening. I'm forwarding my email I sent to the City Council regarding Fairview Park below.

Thank you for your support and attention to this matter.

Best,
Patrick
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Patrick Flynn <[email protected]
>
Date: Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 9:29 PM
Subject: August 5, 2025 Council Meeting - Protect Fairview Park – Vote No on Item 3 To: <[email protected]
>
Dear Council Members,
I’m writing to urge you to vote no on New Business Agenda Item 3 regarding the Professional Services Agreement with Endemic Environmental Services Inc. for the Fairview Park Mesa Restoration Project.

While I appreciate efforts to preserve and care for Fairview Park, this proposal raises serious concerns:

Minimal opportunity for meaningful community input
Action taken before completion of the Fairview Park Master Plan Revision (draft due September 16)
Restoration scope exceeding contractual OCTA requirements by 162% Loss of public access and enjoyment for families, youth, and seniors Possible Measure AA violations due to permanent fencing and major changes without a public vote
Fairview Park is more than just open space—it’s a community gathering place. It’s where we walk our dogs in the morning, take weekend bike rides with our kids, meet friends for Concerts in the Park, play games on the grass, and where many have enjoyed model airplane flying with the Harbor Soaring Society. These experiences and freedoms are part of what makes our city special.

I respectfully request that this proposal be rejected or significantly revised to ensure public access, safeguard cherished recreational spaces, and reflect the diverse interests of our community.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Patrick Flynn
Westside Costa Mesa Resident
--
Patrick Flynn
949.355.4379
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: [email protected]
To: CITY COUNCIL
Cc: CITY CLERK
Subject: New Business meeting Item 3. Endemic Environmental Services for the Fairview Park restoration project...

Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 11:45:03 AM
Importance: High
Dear City Council Members,

I writing this email in regards to your August 5, council meeting – New Business meeting Item 3.

A you are well aware, any actions taken in regards to Fairview Park, have become increasingly contentions and controversial. As such, I assume you have received numerous pro/con comments regarding the awarding of a 1.44-million-dollar contract, to Endemic Environmental Services for the Fairview Park restoration project. While I do have my opinions on the subject… the intent of my following comments regards the “process” not the outcome, specifically…

Having resided in Costa Mesa for 55+ years, I have become familiar with the ebbs and flows (political swings) in City Hall and the administration of the city. I have become increasingly concerned about the increasing polarization and acrimony taking place during council meetings and other venues. In my opinion, there are many ways this trend could be attenuated and reversed. Of course, one way the council could effect a positive change would be assuring that all deliberations are done with the greatest degree of transparency possible.

To that end, I believe it would be in everyone’s best interest to delay the awarding of the aforementioned “Restoration” contract until the long awaited FVP Master Plan has been presented (Sept. 16) and the residents of Costa Mesa have had a chance to comment and voice their collective opinions. The delay would allow the optimal integration of the restoration project into the Master Plan, with possible cost savings.

The integration of the FVP Master Plan and “Restoration” project… after the public has had a full opportunity to measure and evaluate the outcome, will possibly
result in the most cost-effective solution… and
certainly a more transparent outcome!

Thank you for your consideration,

John Rittenhouse

From: Ross Minion
To: CITY COUNCIL
Cc: CITY CLERK
Subject: Proposed Endemic Environmental PSA, New Business #3, August 5th, 2025 Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 11:12:48 AM
Dear Council Members,

I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed PSA with Endemic Environmental Services Inc. for Fairview Park.

The Mesa Restoration Project Location Map indicates that 6,400 feet of fencing would be installed, blocking off access to trails and vital open space for the next seven years. This proposal effectively removes 15+ acres of already limited open space for our children and community members to walk, play and enjoy the great outdoors. If restoration activities are required, they can be completed without blocking off or removing trails.

The community has already lost use of much of the park. Community partners have been turned away, forced to move loved events to the tiny Lions Park. Why are we considering any proposal which further removes, reduces, or restricts access and enjoyment of our beloved park?

Please vote no on the PSA as submitted.

Sincerely,

Ross Minion

The Costa Mesa City Hall sign in Costa Mesa, Calif., on July 15, 2025. Credit: JOSIAH MENDOZA, Voice of OC.

ALL TOP STORIES
Former Costa Mesa City Manager Alleges
Unlawful Firing

BY ANGELINA HICKS
Jul 22, 2025
Why you can trust Voice of OC
After a narrow majority of Costa Mesa City Council members abruptly fired City Manager Lori Ann Farrell Harrison earlier this year, she brought a lawsuit against the city, claiming Brown Act violations and unlawful activity by the mayor.

She’s also claiming the city retaliated against her after she brought forward concerns of the mayor’s alleged illegal actions, like quid pro quo.

There have been few details offered to explain Farrell Harrison’s termination after a 4-2-1 closed session vote on May 6 ended her employment at city hall. At that meeting, Councilmembers Andrea Marr and Arlis Reynolds voted no, and Mayor John Stephens abstained from the vote. [Read: Costa Mesa City Council Abruptly Fires City Manager] In a July 7 petition filed with the Orange County Superior Court, Farrell Harrison claims the city failed to properly agendize two discussions regarding her employment during council meetings on April 15 and May

6. She alleges the city violated California’s open meetings law, known as the Brown Act, by failing to properly alert the public about these closed session discussions.

Farrell Harrison is also claiming the city retaliated against her after she brought forward complaints about Mayor Stephens’ alleged illegal activity, including potential conflicts of interest, quid pro quo activities and gender and racial discrimination toward city employees, according to the lawsuit. “Ms. Farrell Harrison was stunned by these events, as was her staff, who supported her efforts to elevate the discussion about these serious challenges with Mayor Stephens, and required that the behaviors discontinue,” reads the lawsuit.
“How the City moved from trying to solve a serious liability with Mayor Stephens’s potentially illegal activity to a public firing of its well-respected, accomplished City Manager has but one answer: the City retaliated against Ms. Farrell Harrison for her protected disclosures.” Stephens did not return a request for comment for this story. The rest of the city council also did not respond to email requests.

The lawsuit claims that Farrell Harrison notified three city council members about her concerns regarding Mayor Stephens on March 28.

It also explains that she provided six members of the council with a 14-page complaint regarding potential unlawful activity by Stephens titled, “Formal Complaint – Mayoral Potential Conflicts of Interest, Illicit Interference, and Undue Influence in City Operations, Permitting and Contracts” on April 29 – a week before she was fired.

According to the lawsuit, the report was developed by Farrell Harrison and other city staff members based on their interactions with the mayor.

Mayor John Stephens listens at this City Council meeting in Costa Mesa, Calif., on July 15, 2025. Credit: JOSIAH MENDOZA, Voice of OC.

The former city manager claims the city’s first Brown Act violation was on April 15. Farrell Harrison is claiming the council unlawfully held a discussion about her employee performance review during a closed session item agendized as “Potential Litigation.”
A second Brown Act violation is alleged to have happened during the council’s meeting on May 6.

During the closed session at that meeting, one agenda item was listed as a “Public Employee Performance Evaluation” for the city manager.

Farrell Harrison alleges the city improperly noticed this item by failing to mention an employee dismissal or disciplinary discussion on the agenda.
“Further, the City’s notice of the ‘Performance Review’ of the City Manager was part of a deliberate intent to deceive Ms. Farrell Harrison, City employees, and members of the public,” reads the lawsuit.

© 2025 Voice of OC
Powered by Newspack
“Ms. Farrell Harrison is informed and believes that the City Council deliberately described the May 6, 2025, Closed Session meeting as a ‘performance evaluation’ rather than a ‘dismissal’ to conceal the fact that certain City Councilmembers had engaged in serial meetings outside of a properly noticed City Council meeting.” The lawsuit seeks a judge to rule on whether or not the city violated the Brown Act, which forbids serial meetings — meaning that decisions are daisy-chained together before an official vote.

It also asks the court to nullify the city’s action of terminating Farrell Harrison from May 6.

If the city doesn’t nullify Farrell Harrison’s termination, the lawsuit asks the city to instead produce all documents, reports, emails, texts and phone logs related to the closed session meeting where Farrell Harrison was fired.

The lawsuit also asks that all closed session meetings for the next three years be recorded with audio and video.

Angelina Hicks is the Voice of OC Collegiate News Service Editor. Contact her at [email protected] or on Twitter @angelinahicks13.

Costa Mesa City CouncilAugust 5, 2025

Costa Mesa City Council
August 5, 2025