Another week, another City Council meeting. Thankfully the council members will get a bit of reprieve from the budget discussions and focus instead on the mundane tasks required to run a city.

At least, that’s what they’ll be doing in public.

I’ve included a summary of the regular meeting agenda down below. But before I get to that, it’s worth noting that this agenda contains perhaps the longest closed session agenda I’ve seen in a very long time. In fact, it is so long that assistant (and effectively acting) city manager, Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, has declared a special closed session meeting and scheduled it to begin two hours earlier, at 3pm this afternoon.

And I think they’re going to need every minute of extra time.

First, it looks like they will be discussing the remaining sober living home cases, which no doubt are wrapping up in the wake of the Ninth Circuit’s definitive Ohio House ruling a few months ago.

Then, there are some big real estate negotiations going on. One is for 778 Shalimar Drive, which was discussed a few meetings ago. This is the property adjacent to Shalimar Park in the Westside that the city is proposing to purchase and redevelop as an expansion of Shalimar Park. Another is in regards to Fairview Developmental Center, which purportedly will be the subject of an upcoming Planning Commission presentation on May 27, 2025 at 6pm in the City Council chambers. And the third relates to the so-called “Hive Live” development at 3333 Susan Street, which is the old Chargers practice facility. That too will be going to the Planning Commission in early June, so we’ll figure out what those negotiations are about sooner rather than later.

Next, the City Council will have to wade through not one, not two, not three, but SEVEN labor negotiations with various city labor representatives. Assistant City Manager Gallardo-Daly is listed as the lead negotiator on all seven. This seems like a tremendous workload in the wake of former city manager Lori Ann Farrell Harrison’s abrupt firing a couple weeks ago. While I get that sticking with in-house negotiators is more economical, I stand by my recommendation that the city consider contracting out the lead negotiator position to an outside firm. Losing the city manager — and the institutional knowledge she had going with her — is exactly the scenario where the continuity of an outside firm would have been very helpful. Alas.

And if they somehow miraculously get through all of that work in the three hours they have before the regular meeting is scheduled to begin, they have what might be the biggest items last: two unknown litigation cases and the opportunity to join City and County of San Francisco, et al. v. Trump as a co-plaintiff city.

Now, TO BE CLEAR: there is absolutely no way to know what the “anticipation of litigation” cases refer to. They could be something as benign as a potential slip-and-fall case in a city facility. But given that wonton, irresponsible speculation is one of the privileges of writing a (mostly) anonymous blog, let me indulge my curiosity.

Is the former city manager suing the city over her termination?

Let’s look at the circumstantial evidence because my lawyer spidey-sense is tingling. Timing seems about right. Certain council member comments emphasized Ms. Farrell Harrison’s identity as a woman, and these commenters also opined that the decision was irresponsible and disrespectful. The decision was a split one, with the only two female city council members voting against the decision to terminate (as you may recall, Mayor John Stephens abstained). And while the firing was not for cause, though not one city council member has come forward to provide any color on why the city council chose to go a different direction.

Politicians usually aren’t tight-lipped about one of the most consequential decisions of their careers thus far unless… they’ve gotten professional advice to lay low. Add to this the fact that Ms. Farrell Harrison may well have cause to be unhappy — her firing was sudden, even for close watchers like myself, and if there was a smoking gun precipitating the firing, the public certainly hasn’t seen it — and the case becomes stronger. She also may want to take action to protect her personal reputation. Fired because Costa Mesa’s council members didn’t like her management decisions or style? That’s tricky to explain to the next city. Fired because she was discriminated against? Much easier sell.

So timing make sense and motivation could be there.

Or maybe this is all gross conjecture and the split was amicable. I really hope that’s the case. Because an intermural lawsuit would be very messy indeed.

So what is this case against the Trump Administration?

The last litigation appears to be one potentially of choice: the staff is proposing (maybe?) that the city join the City and County of San Francisco, along with many other jurisdictions at this point, in a lawsuit against the Trump Administration to stave off threats that it would withhold federal funding and/or pursue federal enforcement actions against so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions. What is curious about this possibility is that, to my knowledge, Costa Mesa is not, and has never been, a “sanctuary city”.

So why would the city want to join hands with actual sanctuary cities in this lawsuit? Are we considering some “sanctuary-esque” policies in the near future and are fearing federal retaliation? Have there been actual Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in the city limits, and are we going to take a formal position on those?

As I feared, the Trump Golden Age (TM) is bringing some of these thorny national issues directly to Costa Mesa’s doorstep. Oh, to be a fly on the wall for this one.

The Regular Agenda

As for the regular agenda, it is rather mundane in comparison. There are some oddities in there that might spark discussion, but otherwise, it really is a breather agenda in an otherwise packed May and June:

The evening will kick off with recognition for some local athletic achievements:

• Corrina Ruffini will be honored for her CIF Diving Championship
• NMUSD Student Athletes will also receive recognition

The the consent calendar contains a number of routine items, including:

• A new contract with Galls, LLC for police uniforms and duty gear ($175,000 annually — it would be nice to know what our current spend on uniforms is, and whether $175k is more or less. My quick flip of the budget from last year suggests this would be a nice savings, actually)
• A second amendment to the Waste Disposal Agreement with Orange County
• Professional services agreements with several environmental consulting firms (worth noting: Didn’t Mayor John Stephens ask to review exactly these kinds of contracts? Hmmm.)

The public hearing will cover two items:

1. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Ordinance
   The Council will consider an ordinance designating moderate and high fire hazard severity zones within Costa Mesa, as identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
2. 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan for Federal Housing Funds
   This hearing covers allocation of approximately $1.3 million in federal funds:
   • $907,261 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
   • $378,720 in HOME Investment Partnerships funds The Council will also review the updated Citizen Participation Plan and the Orange County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing (interesting tidbit: The agenda report notes that we had over $1.5 million in unallocated HOME funds from last year? When added to the $379k the city is receiving this year, our HOME fund spending is going way up rather than getting trimmed back. I’m not sure how that’s possible given that $1.5 million is greater than the entire HOME grant the city received last year. I feel like the Agenda Report is missing a detail there.)

And finally, the only item of new business is a legislative update from Townsend Public Affairs regarding Federal and State budgets. The Council will also review and potentially adopt a proposed Legislative Platform and recommended legislative positions.

Hopefully the City Council has already started chugging some coffee at this point. It’s going to be a very, very long day.