While I haven’t been at this all that long, it’s fun to get an agenda where almost all of the big items are ones I’ve written about before. Here’s what to expect tomorrow night:

Consent Calendar-palooza

There are a ton of big items jammed onto the consent calendar, though not without cause. Most of these are true second readings of ordinances that are typically relegated to the consent calendar unless the Staff has reason to believe additional substantive changes may be made. Here are the ones that jumped out at me:

The Circuit Transit program is here! Circuit Transit, operators of cute little vehicles like the one pictured below, is ready to sign onto a pilot program to provide a Westside-focused on-demand rideshare service, thanks to the award of a $1.5 million, three-year great from the Clean Mobility Options State grant program. While it isn’t the expanded local bus service of my dreams, it at least takes a stab at offering better mobility to people who don’t want or can’t take a personal vehicle to run short trips. And it is nice to see the City finally get a green/environmental-related grant for a change. As much as I dislike running the city on grant funding, there are a lot of grants available under the climate change umbrella. If those tax dollars are going to be spent somewhere they might as well be spent here.

The Mills Act historic house on Magnolia is back! I’ve already written too much about this one already, so if you are so inclined to hear me rant about how I don’t want this property to open the flood gates of historic preservation requests, you can check out my thoughts on it here.

Yes, we have to rehash One Metro West’s ordinances again. I have zero doubt this will get pulled for public discussion. As tiresome as this is getting I am curious if we’ll see any of the candidates that have announced challenger runs against Mayor John Stephens and Council Member Jeff Harlan will show up to complain. At least that would keep things interesting. Here is what I wrote about this when it was before the Planning Commission a few weeks back.

And here is the ultimate deja vu: we actually have to approve the inclusionary housing ordinance. Again. Yes, unbelievably, the IHO hasn’t gotten a true second reading yet. Ah well, so the grinds on the slow wheels of government. I am crossing my fingers that no one will pull this one for a rehashing of the past, but I doubt I’ll get my wish. I’ve written too much on this one to comment so instead I’ll just leave you my thoughts when the Council “passed” this last time.

New (Old) Business in the Public Hearing Items

The first item of “new” business under the Public Hearing items is the so-called “e-bike” ordinance, which I have covered fairly extensively as it wound its way through the Active Transportation Committee. This item is fresh off of comments last meeting where Deputy Police Chief Joyce LaPointe commented, off the cuff, that the increase in traffic collision-related injuries in the past 2 or 3 years was primarily caused by an uptick in e-bike collisions, which drew swift (and correct) rebuke of that assumption from Council Member Arlis Reynolds.

Of course, it would be a lot easier to figure out who is right if the City Council got regular reports from the Costa Mesa Police Department regarding the state of traffic collisions in the City. And lo and behold, it goes unmentioned by the Agenda Report that the CMPD is actually obligated to do just that! Hopefully someone (😏) will remind them at the public comment phase.

The second “new” public hearing item is the establishment of the in lieu fee schedule for the inclusionary housing ordinance. While I have a lot of thoughts on this, I actually want to sit and listen to what the City Council has to say here. Unlike other elements of the IHO the in-lieu fees seem to have been given very little analysis, and in particular doesn’t attach an analysis of the new fees by Keyser Marston Associates (KMA). While the report states that the proposed fees are “based on” the KMA analysis, that seems a bit odd given that the parameters of the program have significantly changed (for example, the IHO is no longer a density-based program, but one that sets a threshold of absolute number of units to determine eligibility).

You know what else is odd? In the Agenda Report, the Staff leans on a comparison to in lieu fees charged by “comparable” cities in order to justify the proposed fees. While I think it’s pretty obvious a city like San Diego isn’t “comparable”, what is more interesting is that the table omits one of our direct neighbors — Huntington Beach. This is especially strange given that the City Manager formally worked for Huntington Beach and has repeatedly praised that city’s inclusionary housing program as a model of success. And it is even stranger given that Huntington Beach actually charges fairly high in-lieu fees for 50+ unit developments. Ah well. If you are curious, I did a deep dive on Huntington Beach’s inclusionary program, including its recent odd trend of raking in fees instead of building units.

Finally, Actually New Business

The meeting will round itself out with a nice little General Plan screening of a proposed 38 unit (Measure Y proponents: behold regulatory avoidance in action!) condominum development down on W. 16th Street. While “tuck under” townhomes with interior spaces dominated by car driveways aren’t my cup of tea, I’ll take housing however we can get it until we can get our codes to match up with the way we would like to see our land develop.

A new Parks and Community Services Commissioner will also be selected by Council Member Loren Gameros (District 2), to replace outgoing Commissioner Cassius Rutherford.