Once again the City Council isn’t giving me that much to preview for its meeting tomorrow, February 18. But there is one big item and a few smaller tidbits worth touching on.

Consent Calendar: Addressing some long-overdue projects

First, in the consent calendar, we see a couple of long-delayed projects finally moving forward. The City Hall basement is getting a refresh as part of it is turned into a classroom, which will allow city employees to do training sessions in one consolidated location.

The city is also upgrading its emergency generators both at City Hall and at the communications center at the Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD). This seems like a very good thing; both generators have “exceeded their useful lives”, and it would be a huge problem if one or both institutions remained without power for an extended period of time.

However, I have two questions, one decidedly green/left and another fiscally-responsible-right.

First, on the environmentally conscious side of things, did City Hall consider installing back-up batteries rather than diesel generators? Several years ago this would have sounded far-fetched, but battery technology has come a long way in a short period of time. And doing so wouldn’t be unprecedented: Washington State, for example, has a program that provides funding for the installation of solar panels coupled with storage batteries at municipal sites. Closer to home, it looks like California might have some incentive programs for municipal batteries, too, though how much of that funding is available with the State looking to cut costs is hard to say.

But perhaps that’s a good idea whose time simply has not yet come.

My more conservative curiosity is whether the diesel generators themselves necessarily need to be funded by city funds. The agenda report makes it clear that the city needs its generators because our electricity utility is inherently unreliable. And no argument there: as a SoCal Edison customer, I can attest that brownouts or even blackouts aren’t as uncommon as I’d like, especially in inclement weather or when grid load is high.

But if we wouldn’t need these expenses but for our city’s unreliable power caused by various natural or man-made disasters, then does it make sense for the city to self-insure against these events, especially when it has no control over them?

Perhaps. But I would love to know if the city staff investigated whether there was funding, either from SoCal Edison or another level of government, that could help offset its investment here. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (aka FEMA) has a program that seems to fit the bill, at least for the CMPD communications generator. And I’m a stickler for the numbers because City Hall is being a bit vague with the funding analysis. Although it states that ~$350k of the requested funds are covered in the city’s capital improvement fund, the staff is also asking for “an additional $300,000 in appropriation authority” to cover the remainder of the project. Appropriation… from where? Is City Hall still looking for how to fund the back-half of this project?

The last Consent Calendar item worth mentioning is that Jamboree Housing is asking for yet another extension for its option to lease the parking lot at the Costa Mesa Senior Center on W. 19th Street. The Agenda Report states that the reason for the extension is to finalize the agreements with the city required for the project, as well as to allow Jamboree Housing to secure additional necessary funding sources.

That last detail is interesting. Further up the Agenda Report the city states that the project is somewhat dependent on “project-based vouchers from the County of Orange”. I wonder, and this is pure personal speculation: to what extent are those project-based vouchers in turn dependent on federal funding, and is that funding potentially subject to the on-again, off-again “federal funding freeze” desired by the Trump Administration?

While I don’t think existing project-based vouchers were ever subject to the proposed “freeze”, there is enough confusion regarding new projects to seriously disrupt the affordable housing fundraising process. For example, a development in in San Antonio was thrown into chaos because of the proposed freeze, which did in fact threaten to rescind its project-based voucher (after much work and stress the voucher was eventually granted). So at least some housing agencies see a real threat to this funding stream.

But hopefully that’s not the case.

Sadly, these questions are likely all moot unless someone pulls the item from the Consent Calendar to talk about them tomorrow. And sorry friends, that person won’t be me. I’m on vacation, snitches.

The big news: the City has a consultant for the Housing Element/Measure K rezones, and its Dudek

Woohoo! Finally! Some forward progress on the rezoning efforts that have been waiting in the wings since (checks watch) Fall 2022, when Measure K was placed on the ballot and City Hall officially flew past the State deadline that would have allowed it to get a compliant Housing Element without having to rezone first.

Ah, those days were so full of possibility. Fast forward almost two-and-a-half years later and the prospect of rezoning major swaths of the city seem less and less exciting by the day.

But great leadership can turn things around. And that is what Dudek, one of the most respected municipal consulting firms in the State, promises to do. In the pitch deck presented to the City Council for approval, Dudek promises to deliver a fully baked rezoning plan to California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by November 2026. And honestly, that would be lightning speed: More time has past between when Measure K was passed and today’s date than we have from today until November next year.

Dudek may be great, but I honestly don’t see how they get it done in that time frame. Not only do they have to tackle Costa Mesa’s myriad of zoning overlays and specific plans, they also need to address the big bad in the room: residential parking requirements. Parking requirements have the ability to make-or-break developments from a feasibility standpoint, and neither the city nor HCD will be happy if we go through the trouble of rezoning only to have no resulting development. However, equally, people hate the idea of letting developers set their own parking requirements.

Given that this is coming — now sooner rather than later, probably — may I make a quick pitch to City Council to really investigate, in earnest, what is going on with our award-winning permit parking program? Resident after resident has come to the microphones at City Council asking for clarity on a number of the program’s implementation shortcomings, from poor policing overnight and on weekends to hassles with guest permits. If we can’t make this a program that the residents can get behind, I’m afraid any discussion about changing residential parking requirements is going to be dead in the water. You must address the over-parking issue. And really, permits are the best way to do it, unless you are ready to spend big bucks on municipal parking lots and garages.

Anyway, have fun everyone. I can’t promise I’ll recap what happens later this week. The mountains are calling.