Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Costa Mesa council adds late litigation item to closed-session agenda; to discuss two lawsuits and a property negotiation
Summary
The Costa Mesa City Council voted 7-0 April 15 to add a late potential litigation matter to a closed-session agenda that included two existing lawsuits and a real-estate negotiation over 3333 Susan Street.
The Costa Mesa City Council voted 7-0 Tuesday to add a late potential litigation item to its closed-session agenda and then recessed for private deliberations on two pending lawsuits and a real-estate negotiation.
The City Clerk read three closed-session items at the start of the meeting: two matters of “conference with legal counsel — existing litigation” under California Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1), identified as Schaefer v. City of Costa Mesa (Orange County Superior Court) and DBO Investments CMLLC v. City of Costa Mesa (Orange County Superior Court); and a “conference with real property negotiator” under California Government Code section 54956.8 regarding the property at 3333 Susan Street. The clerk recorded City Manager Lorien Farrell Harrison as the agency negotiator and Legacy Partners as a negotiating party, with price and other terms listed as under negotiation.
During the initial roll call and item reading, Councilmember Marr requested that the council add a separate potential litigation matter arising after the agenda was posted. Under the statute the clerk cited — California Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2) — adding such an item requires a four‑fifths vote of the legislative body. Mayor Stevens indicated he would treat Marr’s request as a motion; a second was made (not specified on the record). The council conducted a voice vote; the clerk recorded the following votes: Councilmember Perez — yes; Councilmember Reynolds — yes; Mayor Pro Tem Chavez — yes; Councilmember Bealey — yes; Councilmember Damaros — yes; Councilmember Marr — yes; Mayor Stevens — yes. The motion carried, 7‑0. The council then recessed into closed session.
No public comments were offered before the council entered closed session. The council did not disclose any deliberations or outcomes from the closed session during the public portion of the meeting.
The matters identified for closed-session discussion — the two lawsuits and the 3333 Susan Street negotiation — were described by the clerk only as to their statutory basis, the parties named, and the negotiator; no further details, dollar figures, or recommended actions were disclosed in the public record at the meeting’s start.
