Well, we’ve got another round of city business. Let’s dive in!

First, let’s talk about what’s not on here. There is still no sign of an inclusionary housing ordinance, despite two study sessions over the Summer. Our Housing Element deadline to adopt this is May 2024 eek, December 2023(!) (I was looking at the wrong version, the most recent one has an updated deadline), but… it’s gotta get through both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Tick tock. I’ll have some thoughts on this in another post (or ten) I’m sure.

I also don’t see an outdoor dining ordinance update. Some might recall that Costa Mesa adopted an outdoor dining ordinance as part of its emergency COVID measures back in 2020. It’s been continued since then, but now it is set to expire on December 31, 2023. It would be good to have a nice, thoughtful discussion about the pros and cons of our outdoor dining ordinance and whether it is achieving the goals we have set for it, and how it could be improved. Alas, it looks like this might get jammed into the last meeting of the year and allowed to limp along until next year.

Notwithstanding these absences, there’s plenty for the Council to do. First up is the eviction ordinance, which was continued from last time. I’ve already written plenty on this here and here. There is a new wrinkle: not only is the Staff now armed with some more data (none of it good), they are also proposing adopting an urgency ordinance to allow the ordinance to go into effect immediately. They’ve also put some numbers on the cost of this program, which looks like will cost upwards of $550,000 just this year. And while Staff thinks this can be covered with ARPA (Federal Covid) money, that’s not a recurring revenue stream. Eventually those funds will run out.

Absent from the materials is the form the Mayor requested regarding what the landlords would have to provide the City in the event it intends to serve a tenant with a no fault just cause eviction. Instead, the Staff has attached the form that the landlords would serve on the tenants in compliance with AB 1482 and SB 567 (when it goes into effect). So it’s still an open question whether the landlords will be providing to the City the names and contact information of the potentially affected tenants. I’m assuming they’ll have to turn over more than that if the City is really going to enforce AB 1482, SB 567 and our own new ordinance.

If an urgency ordinance is on the table, I would think the prudent thing to do would be to adopt one only incorporating SB 567 and immediately closing the “substantial remodel” loophole, and then tapping the brakes on further reforms. Trying to jam in a substantial new government program before the holidays seems like questionable governance. As they say, the plans of the diligent lead surely to abundance, but the hasty come only to poverty.

And as for the new business, there are some fun items.

First, it looks like the rumored $4 million to $6 million budget surplus is likely to come to fruition. The City’s Finance and Pension Advisory Committee (FiPAC) had first crack at allocating this budget surplus and, if I say so myself (me being a member and all), I think they did a pretty good job allocating those one-time funds. Looks like the Staff thinks so, too, as the Staff Report styles this one as a “concurrence” with FiPAC recommendations. Which would be flattering, except…

Take a look at New Business Item #2 – lo and behold, Staff was already ready with an amendment to the existing Lions Park construction agreements to get the cafe built. Someone really wants that cafe, huh. Glad they are “concurring” with FiPAC on that.

And finally, the City Council has an item to consider, whether the Staff should consider so the City Council can consider, a cannabis moratorium. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on cannabis. But I do find the idea of a moratorium particularly amusing, because, in order to suspend one’s own ordinances, it turns out the bar is pretty high. The City Council must make a finding that:

“there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare.”

Will the City Council find that their own ordinance and lack of foresight regarding the market demand for cannabis in Costa Mesa is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare of the City? I can’t help but giggle at that one.