Costa Mesa council adjourns to closed session to discuss litigation, property and labor negotiations

The Costa Mesa City Council on May 20 adjourned to a closed session to discuss existing and potential litigation, negotiations over three real‑property interests and labor negotiations with multiple employee organizations.

Mayor called the special meeting to order and asked the city clerk to take roll call. The clerk said, “Mr. Mayor, the record will reflect that all council is present except for council member Gameros, who is expected to join the meeting at approximately 03:30, and council member Reynolds, who is expected to join via Zoom at approximately 4PM.” The meeting record shows no members of the public present; the clerk stated, “No, mister mayor,” when asked about Zoom public commenters.

The council listed closed‑session items under California Government Code provisions allowing confidential discussion. Items 1–3 were described as conferences with legal counsel regarding existing litigation under California Government Code section 54956.9(d), naming the cases Ohio House v. City of Costa Mesa; City of Costa Mesa v. Ohio House (as listed); and Insight Psychology and Addiction v. City of Costa Mesa. Items 4–6 were listed as conferences with the city’s real property negotiator under California Government Code section 54956.8. The agenda named three properties: 778 Shalimar Drive (negotiating party Dominic Balone; subject: price and terms of payment), an item listing the State of California as negotiating party (subject: price and terms of payment), and 3333 Susan Street (negotiating party Legacy Partners; subject: price and terms of payment).

Items 7–13 were described as conferences with labor negotiators under California Government Code section 54957.6(a). The agenda listed Ms. Gallardo Daly, assistant city manager, as the agency’s designated representative and named the following bargaining organizations: Costa Mesa Police Association; Costa Mesa Police Management Association; Costa Mesa City Employees Association; Costa Mesa Confidential Unit; Costa Mesa [Divinute/Divinate] Managers Association (as listed on the agenda); Costa Mesa Confidential Management Unit; and Costa Mesa City Executive Unit.

Item 14 was described as a conference with legal counsel regarding the anticipation of litigation (two cases) under California Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2). Item 15 was identified as a conference with legal counsel regarding initiation of litigation (one case) under California Government Code section 54956.9(d). The agenda also referenced a case name read as “City and County of San Francisco v. Trump” (as listed by staff).

The mayor closed the public portion and said, “Thank you very much. We'll adjourn to the community room for our closed session.” The record contains no motions or public votes on the matters; the meeting moved into the closed session for confidential deliberations permitted by state law.

Why it matters: closed sessions on litigation, real property and labor negotiations typically involve matters that can affect the city's legal exposure, property holdings and labor costs. Under California law those discussions occur out of public view, and the council’s public agenda identifies the specific cases, properties and bargaining units that will be discussed.

The council did not take public comments at the start of the meeting, and no public comments were noted in the record before the closed session.