We got the first look at Costa Mesa’s “new” City Council in action last evening. So how did they do? Should we expect a sea change in 2025?

I wouldn’t get your hopes up.

While the public certainly seemed excited — the public comment portion was especially substantive, with commenters touching on disaster preparedness in light of the LA fires, the impending termination of our rental assistance program (!), the potential for immigration enforcement to drive a wedge between residents and the CMPD, the ongoing conflict between the Harbor Soaring Society and the Fairview Park Alliance, the remarkable loss of revenue for the Toll Roads caused by license plate obstructions, and much more — the City Manager and the City Council, with a few exceptions, seems rather unperturbed about it all.

In fact, it was left to the public to pull items and scrutinize matters on the consent calendar, at least one of which should not have been there — as mentioned in the agenda preview, the large dollar amount alone for the so-called “Facilities Master Plan” should have raised eyebrows — as the new Council Members, Jeff Pettis and Mike Buley, seemed content to wave through City Manager Lori Ann Farrell Harrison’s agenda.

The acquiescence continued through the rest of the meeting, which wrapped up much earlier than one would expect for having such big items on the list.

Westend’s appeal sails through, with even fewer conditions of approval

For example, Westend’s proposed patio expansion — which faced tough scrutiny of its plan for parking, noise, and hours of operation at the Planning Commission, and eeked through on a closer-than-it-appears 4-2 vote — was basically met only with clarifying questions. Mayor John Stephens, who seems to be entering his YOLO (“you only live once”) period of his mayorship, not only moved to uphold Westend’s approval, but further removed the Planning Commission’s requirements curtailing Westend’s hours of operation and ordering a six-month evaluation of its compliance with its conditions of approval. His motion sailed through on a 6-1 vote, with only Council Member Andrea Marr (perhaps backing up her Planning Commissioner, Karen Klepack) voting no.

I was particularly surprised that Council Member Buley didn’t ask the questions posed by former City Council Member Don Harper in his appeal. In fact, he didn’t raise many of the issues that his fellow District 1 residents and Planning Commissioners, Jon Zich and Karen Klepack, raised at the Planning Commission and that led to their votes to deny Westend’s application. Zich in particular, who at the same meeting won praise from Buley for his knowledge and judgment on the way to his reappointment to the Planning Commission, strongly opposed Westend’s application, especially the reliance by staff and his fellow Planning Commissioners on the 6-month review as a salve for what he viewed as a clearly deficient proposal. “Hope is not a strategy,” Commissioner Zich had quipped then. I wonder how thrilled he is that his new City Council member not only implicitly dismissed his objections, but also voted with Mayor Stephens to remove the six-month review altogether.

Which isn’t to say Council Member Buley got it wrong. On the contrary, while Westend’s situation is complicated, it’s in Costa Mesa’s best interest to work with its small businesses to find ways to bring their visions to life. I am heartened that Council Member Buley seemed to recognize this. But if this is a “change” candidate, I’m not seeing it. Yet.

Safe Routes to School Action Plan also approved, despite hefty price tag

Another area where Harper’s absence was acutely felt was in the discussion of the proposed Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Action Plan , which, although I agree with its goals completely, carried a shocking price tag of almost $600,000. I feel confident that, had Harper been on the dais, at least a few words would have been spoken about the fact that this money is still taxpayer money, even if the vast majority of it is coming from the Feds.

Also, assuming student safety is a critical priority for the Newport-Mesa Unified School District, why aren’t they interested in helping to fund this plan? Why is the city going it alone here?

Well, I think I know the answer: NMUSD doesn’t see street safety as its responsibility. Council Member Pettis — fresh off of campaigning on opposing-but-not-opposing the Santa Ana Avenue bike lane expansion in front of Kaiser Elementary — posed questions aimed at ensuring that the NMUSD staff and stakeholders be deeply involved in the SRTS Action Plan. That seemed to imply that his problem with the Santa Ana Avenue project was that NMUSD was not more involved.

Unfortunately he’s barking up the wrong tree. I have on good authority that, not only was the principal of Kaiser Elementary School alerted to the proposed changes in advance, he took little interest in its implementation. This accords with my experience observing NMUSD’s approach to its students transportation options. For example, I believe it is the city, and not NMUSD, that is primarily funding bicycle rodeos for NMUSD students to address rules-of-the-road education for elementary- and middle-school-aged children. The city also funds, without supplementation or reimbursement, the crossing guards that fan out across the city every weekday morning and afternoon to ensure children walking and bicycling to school can safely cross busy intersections. For whatever reason, NMUSD seems to have taken the position that street safety is a city issue, not a school issue, even when their students’ safety is in play. And I expect that to continue, no matter how much “engagement” is budgeted in the SRTS Action Plan.

But I digress. In the end, the SRTS Action Plan was approved 7-0. And in a move that Harper almost certainly would have at least made a face at, Mayor Stephens asked City Manager Farrell Harrison to bring the item back in the event that Federal funding for the project were rescinded so that the city could instead pay for it through its general fund. And even though that kind of brazen statement gives me budget vertigo, I’m thankful. Promoting walking and bicycling to school — really, activities that serve cultural touchstones of close neighborhoods — is a complete no-brainer. It’s criminal we didn’t do this 30 years ago. So yeah, find the money. But, goodness: let’s at least ask if we have it first!

Somehow, despite a supposed mandate for change, District 6 ends up with three party-faithful Democrats as its representatives on the Parks and Community Services Commission and Planning Commission

For those keeping track at home, the following folks were added (or re-added) to the ranks of the Arts Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Parks and Community Services Commission:

Arts Commission

• Debora Wondercheck (non-resident, incumbent, nominated by Mayor Stephens)
• Allison Mann (District 5, incumbent, nominated by Council Member Buley)
• Brendan Ford (District 2, nominated by Council Member Gameros)
• Fisher Derderian (District 6, nominated by Council Member Pettis)

Parks and Community Services Commission

• Shayanne Wright (District 6, incumbent, nominated by Mayor Stephens)
• Jason Komala (District 1, nominated by Council Member Pettis)
• Jake Husen (District 5, nominated by Council Member Buley)
• Brandice Lea Leger (District 3, incumbent, nominated by Council Member Gameros)
• Elizabeth Dorn Parker (District 6, incumbent (albeit in a different seat), nominated by Council Member Marr)

Planning Commission

• Jeff Harlan (District 6, nominated by Mayor Stephens)
• Johnny Rojas (District 2, incumbent, nominated by Council Member Gameros)
• Rob Dickson (District 5, nominated by Council Member Jeff Pettis)
• Jon Zich (District 1, incumbent, nominated by Council Member Buley)

There aren’t a lot of surprises in here. However, setting the Arts Commission aside — all due respect to them, they have little to do when it comes to city policy — three things jump out to me regarding the PACS Commission and the Planning Commission:

Not a lot of new blood. As expected Mayor Stephens elevated Jeff Harlan to the Planning Commission, who recently lost re-election to the District 6 City Council seat. So he stays on the dais and switches Tuesdays for Mondays. Rojas and Zich are both incumbents. And Rob Dickson, who, it should be noted, had three protest votes lobbed against him by Council Members Marr, Reynolds and Gameros, is a former chair of the Planning Commission back in the Righeimer/Mensinger days. PACS didn’t fair much better: three incumbents kept their seats. Yes, these folks all have experience; but fresh faces they are not.

Psst – Fairview Park isn’t our only park. That said, we did get two new faces on the PACS Commission — Jake Husen and Jason Komala. Husen is a bit of a mysterious pick; his background is in personal injury law, so I wonder if Husen is colleague (or a son of a colleague) in Council Member Buley’s professional circle. In his application, Husen emphasized his interest in Fairview Park in particular. Similarly, Jason Komala — a former District 1 City Council candidate — also seems primarily interested in Fairview Park, as he presently sits on the Fairview Park Alliance board. Unfortunately, Fairview Park isn’t really where we need a lot of eyes at the moment; its master plan process is in its final stages, and Measure AA ensures that only minimal changes can be made to that park in any event. It would have been nice to get someone on PACS that has a bit more interest in our neighborhood parks or, absent that, a stronger connection to the “Community Services” aspect of the role, which is what the Staff seems to care more about anyway.

District 6 votes for change and gets more of the same. This was probably my biggest personal disappointment, and not because I had myself applied for Planning and PACS. I fully understand that elections have consequences, and backing the winner’s opponent in writing entitles one to little and less. But both Planning and PACS, but specifically PACS, really, really need representation from each district to adequately address resident concerns under the district system. Who will advocate for local parks if not a local? How can someone who lives across town keep tabs on what’s happening in a neighborhood park?

And, whether we want to admit it or not, District 6 in particular needs advocates. Many issues fall on the Westside/Eastside dividing line in terms of need, priority, demographics, and other matters, and the Eastside is only represented by District 6. Therefore, it faces a structural political disadvantage vis-a-vis the other districts. How this has manifested deserves its own post, which hopefully I’ll get around to, but suffice to say, the district system hasn’t been great for the Eastside.

That said, District 6 did get its representation — by three politically active Democrats. So much for District 6 thinking elevating Pettis would be its ticket to the Trump Golden Age (TM). As Pettis spent his picks for PACS and Planning elevating future GOP candidates in other districts (Dickson, for example, will almost certainly run again for the open District 5 seat in 2026), his Democrat-aligned colleagues busied themselves promoting their party faithful in his backyard. Harlan, as mentioned above, is a former City Council member who almost certainly will challenge Pettis in 2026 correction: 2028. Wright is the vice president of the Costa Mesa Democratic Club and a former Democratic candidate for the Mesa Water District. And Parker has been involved in Democratic politics for ages; she’s a former OC Board of Education board member and a current elected board member of the Coast Community College District, and she is a frequent booster of local Democratic candidates.

Not that I think they won’t do a good job. Personally I’m glad — they may not share my party ID, but they are able representatives. It’s just giving me severe whiplash to see District 6’s political representation effectively not change at all. And I wonder if Council Member Pettis has thought this through: now, if he needs guidance or assistance with a planning or parks matter in his own district, he’ll have to appeal to his political opponents. I get a feeling this is going to lead to dysfunction rather than collaboration in District 6. And that makes me sad.

Finally: Condolences to Mayor Pro Tem Manuel Chavez, who lost his father in December

In an emotional public comment, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez gave a very moving tribute to his late father, who passed away suddenly at the age of 68 in December. Chavez thanked his father for motivating him to become active in politics, and hoped that his father would be proud of his public accomplishments. I did not know the late Mr. Chavez but I have to think he would be. My heartfelt condolences go out to Chavez and his family.