211
EXPERIENCE & RECORD OF SUCCESS ON SIMILAR FEDERAL PROJECTS Z&K Consultants, Inc. has a long-standing relationship with the City of Costa Mesa and has successfully delivered multiple roadway, maintenance, and facility improvement projects within the community. Our team has provided both construction management and inspection services on a range of projects involving slurry seal, pavement rehabilitation, ADA improvements, striping, traffic control, and sports facility upgrades. These projects highlight our direct knowledge of Costa Mesa’s standards, procedures, and expectations, as well as our ability to coordinate effectively with City staff, contractors, and community stakeholders. The following representative projects demonstrate our proven track record of delivering high-quality services for the City of Costa Mesa.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE WITH THE CITY OF COSTA MESA
City of Costa Mesa, 2024–25 Citywide Parkway Maintenance, Street Rehabilitation & Slurry Seal Project, Project No. 24-03 | Z&K provided construction inspection services for the City of Costa Mesa’s 2024–25 Citywide Parkway Maintenance, Street Rehabilitation, and Slurry Seal Project. The project scope included slurry seal, roadway rehabilitation, ADA-compliant curb ramps, striping, and traffic control across multiple corridors. Z&K’s Senior Construction Inspector, Tom Verpooten, provided daily field inspection, monitored contractor activities, verified pay quantities, and ensured compliance with City standards. Through proactive communication and accurate reporting, Z&K supported the City in delivering high-quality improvements that met community needs.
City of Costa Mesa, Citywide Parkway Maintenance, Street Rehabilitation & Slurry Seal Project, Project No. 21-03 | Z&K provided construction management and inspection services for the City of Costa Mesa’s Citywide Parkway Maintenance, Street Rehabilitation, and Slurry Seal Project. The project scope included slurry seal, pavement rehabilitation, ADA-compliant curb ramps, roadway striping, and traffic control improvements across multiple corridors. Serving as Construction Manager, Zack Faqih, PE, oversaw contract administration, schedule monitoring, and field coordination, while Z&K inspection staff provided daily oversight of construction activities, verified quantities for payment, and enforced compliance with project specifications. Responsibilities also included processing RFIs and submittals, reviewing change orders, and coordinating with City staff to maintain clear communication throughout the project. Through this combined management and inspection role, Z&K supported the City in delivering durable pavement and safety enhancements that improved roadway conditions and mobility across the community.
City of Costa Mesa, Jack Hammett Sports Complex Improvement Project, Project No. 21-035 | Z&K provided construction management and inspection services for the City of Costa Mesa’s Jack Hammett Sports Complex Improvement Project. The scope included site improvements to enhance accessibility, safety, and functionality of the sports complex, such as ADA upgrades, parking lot and pedestrian improvements, lighting, landscaping, and irrigation enhancements. As Construction Manager, Zack Faqih, PE, oversaw contract administration, scheduling, and coordination with City staff, while Z&K’s inspection team provided daily oversight of construction activities to ensure compliance with specifications, quality standards, and labor requirements. Responsibilities also included reviewing RFIs and submittals, processing change orders, verifying quantities for payment, and maintaining proactive communication with stakeholders. Through this combined management and inspection role, Z&K supported the City in delivering high-quality facility improvements that serve the community’s recreational and event needs.
Through these recent City of Costa Mesa projects, Z&K has demonstrated its ability to provide the City with consistent, high-quality construction management and inspection services tailored to its needs.
Our hands-on experience within the City gives us unique insight into local conditions, stakeholder coordination, and agency requirements — lessons that we will carry forward into the Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project. With a proven record of delivering complex improvements in Costa Mesa, Z&K is well-positioned to support the City on this federally funded project, building on our local experience while applying our expertise with Caltrans and LAPM compliance.
212
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE WITH FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS
Z&K has extensive experience providing construction management and inspection services on federally funded roadway, multimodal, and active transportation projects administered through Caltrans. Our team is fully versed in Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements, DBE participation tracking, Buy America provisions, and all applicable Caltrans LAPM procedures, including invoicing, contract administration, civil rights compliance, and project close-out. Over the past five years, we have successfully managed and inspected multiple federally funded street rehabilitation, slurry seal, and bikeway improvement projects throughout Southern California. These projects, completed on time and within budget, demonstrate Z&K’s proven ability to deliver federally funded improvements.
City of Pomona, Street Rehabilitation, Districts 1 and 6, Federal Project No.: STPL-5070(040) | Z&K provided construction management and inspection services for the City’s federally funded Street Rehabilitation Project covering multiple major arterials in Districts 1 and 6. The project scope included pavement rehabilitation, ADA-compliant curb ramps, sidewalks, driveways, curb and gutter, utility coordination, and traffic control improvements. Z&K’s Resident Engineer managed contract administration, schedule tracking, and Caltrans LAPM documentation, while inspection staff provided daily oversight of contractor activities, verified pay quantities, and enforced compliance with Davis- Bacon prevailing wages, Buy America provisions, and DBE participation requirements. This project highlights Z&K’s ability to deliver federally funded roadway and ADA improvements with the same level of oversight, compliance, and coordination required for the Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project.
Similar Features:
ü Pavement rehabilitation and slurry seal across
multiple corridors
ü Construction of ADA-compliant curb ramps,
sidewalks, and driveways
ü Daily inspection, pay quantity verification, and
contract compliance
ü Comprehensive traffic control planning on
active city streets
ü Public coordination and minimizing impacts to
residents and businesses
ü Construction management oversight, including
RFIs, submittals, and change orders
ü Utility coordination and stakeholder
communication
ü Application of QA/QC practices and materials
testing oversight
City of Cathedral City, HSIP 9A Safety Improvements, Federal Project No.: HSIPL-5006(920) | Z&K provided construction management and inspection services for Cathedral City’s HSIP 9A Project, funded through the Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The project scope included roadway safety enhancements on major arterials such as traffic signal modifications, new signing and striping, ADA-compliant curb ramps, and pedestrian crossing upgrades. Z&K’s Resident Engineer managed contract administration, Caltrans LAPM documentation, and federal compliance reporting, while inspection staff provided daily oversight of construction, verified pay quantities, and enforced compliance with Davis-Bacon prevailing wages, Buy America provisions, and DBE participation requirements. This project demonstrates Z&K’s ability to manage federally funded roadway and safety improvements that align closely with the compliance and multimodal needs of the City’s Project.
Similar Features:
ü Federally funded project requiring Caltrans
LAPM documentation and reporting
ü Traffic signal modifications and intersection
safety improvements
ü Signing and striping enhancements to improve
roadway safety
ü Construction of ADA-compliant curb ramps and
pedestrian crossings
ü Daily field inspection, pay quantity verification,
and documentation
ü Contract administration, RFIs, submittals, and
change order processing
ü Enforcement of DBE participation, Davis-
Bacon wages, and Buy America compliance
ü Stakeholder and utility coordination to minimize
community impacts
ü QA/QC oversight and coordination of materials
testing
213
City Alhambra, Pedestrian Countdown Signal Head Installation Project, Federal Project No.:
HSIPL-5130(022) | Z&K provided construction management and inspection services for the City of Alhambra’s federally funded Pedestrian Countdown Signal Head Installation Project. The project scope included removal of existing pedestrian signal heads and installation of new LED pedestrian countdown modules at major intersections throughout the City. Responsibilities included oversight of traffic control and staging, inspection of electrical and signal work, verification of quantities, and review of contractor submittals. Z&K’s team also ensured compliance with Caltrans LAPM documentation, Davis-Bacon prevailing wages, Buy America provisions, and DBE participation requirements. This project demonstrates Z&K’s ability to manage federally funded traffic signal and pedestrian safety improvements that directly align with the Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project’s multimodal and safety objectives.
Similar Features:
ü Federally funded project requiring Caltrans
LAPM documentation and reporting
ü Traffic signal and pedestrian safety
improvements
ü Removal and replacement of electrical and
signal equipment
ü Daily field inspection and pay quantity
verification
ü Contractor submittal and RFI review
ü Davis-Bacon prevailing wage and Buy America
compliance
ü DBE participation monitoring and reporting
ü Traffic control planning and staging at active
intersections
ü Coordination with City staff and stakeholders to
minimize community impacts
City of Palm Springs, HSIP Cycle 9 Traffic Signal Improvements Federal Project No.: HSIPL-5282(049) | Z&K provided construction management and inspection services for the City of Palm Springs’ federally funded HSIP Cycle 9 Traffic Signal Improvements Project. The project scope included upgrades to nine signalized intersections on major arterials across the city, featuring traffic signal modifications, installation of video detection cameras, advanced dilemma zone detection, protected left-turn phases, pedestrian countdown heads, new signing and striping, and ADA-compliant curb ramp replacements. Z&K’s Resident Engineer oversaw contract administration, schedule tracking, and Caltrans LAPM documentation, while inspection staff monitored daily construction activities, verified pay quantities, and ensured compliance with Davis-Bacon prevailing wages, Buy America provisions, and DBE participation requirements. This project demonstrates Z&K’s ability to deliver federally funded traffic signal and safety improvements that align closely with the multimodal and safety objectives of the Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project.
Similar Features to Costa Mesa Projects
ü Federally funded project requiring Caltrans
LAPM documentation and reporting
ü Traffic signal modifications and intersection
safety upgrades
ü Installation of pedestrian countdown signal
heads and ADA curb ramps
ü Signing, striping, and roadway safety
enhancements
ü Daily field inspection, pay quantity verification,
and documentation
ü Contract administration, RFIs, submittals, and
change order processing
ü Enforcement of DBE participation, Davis-
Bacon wages, and Buy America compliance
ü Coordination with utilities, stakeholders, and
City staff to minimize impacts
ü QA/QC oversight and materials testing
Z&K has a consistent record of successfully managing federally funded roadway, traffic signal, and multimodal safety improvements that required strict compliance with Caltrans LAPM procedures, Davis- Bacon prevailing wages, Buy America provisions, and DBE participation requirements. Our experience demonstrates the ability to balance federal compliance with proactive construction management and inspection services, ensuring that projects are delivered safely, efficiently, and to the highest quality standards. This proven track record positions Z&K to provide the City of Costa Mesa with a reliable partner for the Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project.
214
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE WITH BICYCLE FACILITY PROJECTS
City of Corona, Citywide Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. ST-2021-01 | Z&K provided construction
management and inspection services for this project which was completed on time and within budget. The work involved extensive pavement rehabilitation on major arterials,
micromilling, slurry seal, and resurfacing across multiple corridors. As part of the multimodal improvements, the project installed new Class II striped bike lanes using thermoplastic striping, refreshed pavement markings, and raised markers to enhance visibility for cyclists. Additional safety upgrades included construction of ADA-compliant curb ramps and
pedestrian crossings, as well as installation of multiple solar- powered HAWK pedestrian hybrid beacons to improve safety at key intersections. Z&K’s Resident Engineer oversaw contract administration, schedule monitoring, and QA/QC documentation, while inspection staff verified pay quantities, enforced compliance with City standards, and coordinated with contractors to maintain safe mobility for bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles during construction.
Similar Features:
ü Pavement rehabilitation and slurry seal
ü Installation of Class II striped bike lanes
ü Thermoplastic roadway and bike lane striping
with raised markers
ü ADA-compliant curb ramp construction
ü Installation of pedestrian safety features,
including HAWK beacons
ü Daily inspection and compliance oversight
ü Traffic control on active arterial roadways
ü Coordination with utilities and public
stakeholders
City of El Segundo, El Segundo Boulevard
Improvement Project (PW 23-02) | Z&K provided
construction management and inspection services for
the City of El Segundo’s El Segundo Boulevard
Improvement Project. The project scope included
pavement rehabilitation on this major arterial, traffic signal modifications, ADA curb ramps, pedestrian
crossing upgrades, and installation of new signing and
striping, including Class II striped bike lanes. Z&K’s
Resident Engineer oversaw contract administration,
utility coordination, and schedule monitoring, while
inspection staff verified quantities, enforced
compliance with City standards, and ensured safe
implementation of bike lanes and roadway striping. This project reflects Z&K’s ability to manage complex corridor improvements that integrate bicycle facilities with roadway, pedestrian, and traffic signal upgrades. This project was completed on time and within budget.
Similar Features:
ü Pavement rehabilitation and corridor
resurfacing
ü Installation of Class II striped bike lanes with
thermoplastic striping
ü Traffic signal modifications and video detection
upgrades
ü ADA-compliant curb ramp and pedestrian
improvements
ü Signing, striping, and multimodal roadway
safety enhancements
ü Daily inspection, pay quantity verification, and
compliance oversight
ü Traffic control on active arterial streets
ü Coordination with City staff, utilities, and
community stakeholders
215
City of Chino, Citywide Slurry Seal Program |
Z&K provided construction management and
inspection services for the City of Chino’s Project,
which improved roadway conditions and extended
pavement life across multiple corridors. The project,
completed on time and within budget, included
slurry seal resurfacing, crack sealing, and
pavement preparation, along with new Class II bike
lanes and green conflict-zone striping at
intersections and driveways to improve visibility and
cyclist safety. Z&K’s inspection team provided daily
field oversight, verified pay quantities, and ensured compliance with City standards, while coordinating traffic control to maintain safe access for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists during construction. The addition of enhanced bike lanes reflects the City’s commitment to expanding its multimodal network and highlights Z&K’s experience delivering pavement projects that integrate bicycle facilities.
Similar Features:
ü Slurry seal resurfacing and crack sealing on
arterial and collector streets
ü Installation of Class II bike lanes with
thermoplastic striping
ü Green painted conflict zones at intersections
for cyclist visibility
ü ADA-compliant curb ramp coordination with
striping
ü Daily inspection, pay quantity verification, and
contract compliance
ü Traffic control management on active streets
ü Coordination with City staff, contractors, and
community stakeholders
REFERENCES
Z&K Consultants has developed a strong working relationship with the City of Costa Mesa through our successful delivery of roadway, maintenance, and facility improvement projects. Our team has provided construction management and inspection services for pavement rehabilitation, slurry seal, ADA improvements, traffic control, and sports facility upgrades, always emphasizing proactive communication, accurate documentation, and responsiveness to City staff. We are pleased to provide additional project details, sample deliverables, or facilitate direct communication with City staff from recent projects to further demonstrate our performance. This history of reliable service underscores Z&K’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and our continued readiness to support the City of Costa Mesa on the Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project.
City of Corona, Citywide Street Pavement Rehab Project
Contact Name: Aftab Hussain, Assistant Utilities Director Address: 400 S Vicentia Ave, Corona, CA 92882
Phone & Email: (909) 202-5981, [email protected]
City of Chino, Citywide Slurry Seal Program
Contact Name: Michele Hindersinn, Principal Engineer
Address: 13220 Central Ave, Chino, CA 91710
Phone & Email: (909) 334-3213, [email protected]
City of El Segundo, El Segundo Boulevard Improvement Project
Contact Name: Cheryl Ebert, PE, City Engineer
Address: 350 Main Street, El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone & Email: (310) 524-2321, [email protected]
Additional references available upon request.
216
FINANCIAL CAPACITY
Z&K Consultants, Inc. has the financial stability and resources necessary to successfully perform construction management and inspection services for the Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project. Our firm maintains a solid financial position supported by steady growth, diverse municipal contracts, and responsible fiscal management since our founding. Z&K has consistently demonstrated the ability to manage multiple projects concurrently while maintaining adequate working capital, insurance coverage, and bonding capacity to meet client requirements.
We understand the City may request financial data to evaluate our capabilities, and Z&K will provide all necessary documentation, including audited financial statements, banking references, bonding information, and insurance certificates, upon request. This transparency reflects our commitment to accountability and ensures the City’s confidence in our ability to perform as a reliable, long-term partner.
FEE SCHEDULE
In accordance with the requirements of the RFP, Z&K Consultants, Inc. will submit the Fee Schedule as a separate document. The schedule will include hourly rates for all proposed personnel by task, along with a total not-to-exceed amount for the project. All costs for meetings, reproduction, materials, and associated project expenses will be itemized and incorporated into the total not-to-exceed amount to provide the City with a complete and transparent cost proposal.
DISCLOSURE
Z&K Consultants, Inc. has no past or current business or personal relationships with any current Costa Mesa elected official, appointed official, City employee, or family member of any current Costa Mesa elected official, appointed official, or City employee.
Should any potential conflict of interest arise in the future, Z&K is committed to promptly disclosing it to the City to ensure full transparency and compliance with all ethical and contractual requirements.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Z&K Consultants, Inc. has reviewed the City of Costa Mesa’s sample Professional Services Agreement included as Appendix E of the RFP. We have no exceptions or conditions to the Agreement and will execute the contract as provided by the City.
CHECKLIST OF FORMS TO ACCOMPANY PROPOSAL
Z&K Consultants, Inc. has completed and included the required forms, located in Appendix F of the RFP, as part of this proposal. These forms include:
1. Vendor Application Form
2. Company Profile & References
3. Ex Parte Communications Certificate
4. Disclosure of Government Positions
5. Disqualifications Questionnaire
6. Bidder/Applicant/Contractor Campaign Contribution
217
APPENDIX A
FORMS
218
VENDOR APPLICATION FORM
FOR
RFP No. ______ for ______
TYPE OF APPLICANT: NEW CURRENT VENDOR
Legal Contractual Name of Corporation: ______________________________________ Contact Person for Agreement: ____________________________________________________ Corporate Mailing Address: ________________________________________________ City, State and Zip Code: __________________________________________________ E-Mail Address: _________________________
Phone: ________________________ Fax: ________________________ Contact Person for Proposals: ______________________________________________________ Title: ______________________________ E-Mail Address: ______________________ Business Telephone: _________________________ Business Fax: ________________ Is your business: (check one)
NON PROFIT CORPORATION FOR PROFIT CORPORATION Is your business: (check one)
CORPORATION LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
INDIVIDUAL SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP
PARTNERSHIP UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION
25-11
CM & Inspection Services for Adams
Avenue Bicycle Facility Project
X
Z&K Consultants, Inc.
Crystal Fraire
17130 Van Buren Blvd. #122
Riverside, CA 92504
[email protected]
(951) 310-7470 N/A
Brittany Duhn
Contract Manager [email protected]
(714) 788-9965 N/A
X
X
219
Names & Titles of Corporate Board Members
(Also list Names & Titles of persons with written authorization/resolution to sign contracts) Names Title Phone
___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Federal Tax Identification Number: __________________________________________ City of Costa Mesa Business License Number: ________________________________________ (If none, you must obtain a Costa Mesa Business License upon award of contract.) City of Costa Mesa Business License Expiration Date: ________________________________ Crystal Fraire President (951) 310-7470
Zack Faqih Vice President (949) 637-5040
Jasmine Pate Secretary (951) 317-3706
80-0359298
Will Obtain
Not Applicable
220
COMPANY PROFILE & REFERENCES
Company Legal Name:
Company Legal Status (corporation, partnership, sole proprietor etc.):
Active licenses issued by the California State Contractor’s License Board:
Business Address:
Website Address:
Telephone Number: Facsimile Number:
Email Address:
Length of time the firm has been in business:
Length of time at current location:
Is your firm a sole proprietorship doing business under a different name: ___Yes ___No If yes, please indicate sole proprietor’s name and the name you are doing business under:
Federal Taxpayer ID Number:
Regular Business Hours:
Regular holidays and hours when business is closed:
Contact person in reference to this solicitation:
Telephone Number: Facsimile Number:
Email Address:
Contact person for accounts payable:
Telephone Number: Facsimile Number:
Email Address:
Name of Project Manager:
Telephone Number: Facsimile Number:
Email Address:
California C Corporation
N/A
17130 Van Buren Blvd. #122, Riverside, CA 92504
www.zandkconsultants.com
(951) 310-7470 N/A
[email protected]
15+ years
9 years
X
N/A
80-0359298
7:30AM-5:00PM
Federal Holidays
Crystal Fraire
Crystal Fraire
(951) 310-7470
[email protected]
N/A
N/A
N/A
(951) 310-7470
[email protected]
[email protected]
(714) 788-9965
Brittany Duhn
221
COMPANY PROFILE & REFERENCES (Continued)
Submit the company names, addresses, telephone numbers, email, contact names, and brief contract descriptions of at least three clients, preferably other municipalities for whom comparable projects have been completed or submit letters from your references which include the requested information.
Company Name:
Company Name:
Telephone Number:
Contact Name:
Contract Amount:
Email:
Address:
Brief Contract Description:
Company Name:
Telephone Number:
Contact Name:
Contract Amount:
Email:
Address:
Brief Contract Description:
City of Corona
Aftab Hussain, Assistant Utilities Director
[email protected]
400 S Vicentia Ave, Corona, CA 92882
Construction Management & Inspection Services for City of Corona, Citywide Street Pavement Rehab Project
City of Chino
Telephone Number:
Contact Name:
Contract Amount:
Email:
Address:
Brief Contract Description:
(909) 202-5981
(909) 334-3213
Michele Hindersinn, Principal Engineer
[email protected]
13220 Central Ave, Chino, CA 91710
Construction Management & Inspection Services for City of Chino, Citywide Slurry Seal Program
City of El Segundo
(310) 524-2321
Cheryl Ebert, City Engineer
[email protected]
350 Main Street, El Segundo, CA 90245
Construction Management & Inspection Services for City of El Segundo, El Segundo Boulevard Improvement Project
$500,000
$400,000
$500,000
222
EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS CERTIFICATION
Please indicate by signing below one of the following two statements. Only sign one statement.
I certify that Proposer and Proposer’s representatives have not had any communication with a City Councilmember concerning informal RFP No. _____FOR ________ at any time after November 09, 2020.
________________________________ Date: _______________________ Signature
________________________________
Print
OR
I certify that Proposer or Proposer’s representatives have communicated after November 09, 2020 with a City Councilmember concerning informal RFP No. _____FOR ________ . A copy of all such communications is attached to this form for public distribution. ________________________________ Date: _______________________ Signature
________________________________
Print
9/23/25
Crystal Fraire
25-11 CMCI
223
DISCLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT POSITIONS
Each Proposer shall disclose below whether any owner or employee of Contractor currently hold positions as elected or appointed officials, directors, officers, or employees of a governmental entity or held such positions in the past twelve months. List below or state "None." None.
224
DISQUALIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE
The Contractor shall complete the following questionnaire:
Has the Contractor, any officer of the Contractor, or any employee of the Contractor who has proprietary interest in the Contractor, ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of a violation of law or safety regulation?
Yes _____ No _____
If the answer is yes, explain the circumstances in the following space.
X
N/A
225
BIDDER/APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION
DISCLOSURE FORM
Proposer/Consultant/Applicant is required to identify any campaign contribution or cumulative contributions greater than $249 to any city council member in the twelve months prior to submitting an application, proposal, statement of qualifications or bid requiring approval by the City Council.
Date Name of Donor
Company/Business
Affiliation
Name of
Recipient Amount
Except as described above, I/we have not made any campaign contribution in the amount of $250 or more to any Costa Mesa City Council Member in the twelve months preceding this Application/Proposal.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Bidder/Applicant/Proposer
Date
N/A
9/23/2025
226
EXHIBIT C
FEE SCHEDULE
227
FEE SCHEDULE September 23, 2025 City of Costa Mesa Public Works Department 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject: Fee Proposal for Construction Management and Inspection Services – Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project (City Project No. 25-11, Federal Project No. STPL-5312(108)) Dear Selection Committee, Z&K Consultants, Inc. (Z&K) is pleased to submit our cost proposal to provide Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project. Our proposed not-to-exceed fee is $241,374.00, which includes all labor, materials, transportation, insurance, and administrative costs. The City will negotiate the final fee with the selected consultant, and this proposal reflects compliance with all prevailing wage and labor requirements of the State of California. All rates are fully burdened, including overhead, profit, and insurance, and our personnel will meet all applicable labor standards for the full duration of the project. Z&K Consultants, Inc Hourly Rates: Resident Engineer ...................................................................................................................... $166.00 Senior Construction Inspector .................................................................................................... $155.00 Project Manager/Office Engineer ................................................................................................ $142.00 Labor Compliance Officer ........................................................................................................... $135.00 Material Testing & Geotechnical Services ................................................................................. Attached COST PROPOSAL TERMS & CONDITIONS Staff Substitution & Support | Qualified alternate staff may be assigned as needed and billed per the approved rate schedule. Subconsultant Costs | Subcontracted services billed at cost plus 10% for coordination and oversight. Exclusions | Excludes surveying and SWPPP services unless added by amendment. Late Payment Interest | 10% annual interest may apply to undisputed invoices unpaid after 30 days, unless disputed in writing within 7 days.
Invoices | Submitted monthly within three months of services. Includes cover sheet and detailed timesheets. Additional backup billed at $148/hour; invoicing meetings billed at contract labor rates. Net 30 days. Overtime & Double Time | Overtime (1.5x) applies beyond 8 hrs/day or 40 hrs/week; double time (2.0x) on Sundays/holidays. OT/DT applies when required by contractor schedule or conditions. Inspectors will provide coverage whenever the contractor is working. I am authorized to bind Z&K Consultants, Inc. to this proposal and will serve as the point of contact for the duration of the contract. By signing below, I affirm that all submitted information is accurate and that this proposal shall remain valid for no fewer than 120 days. Sincerely, Crystal Fraire, PE, President/Principal-in-Charge 17130 Van Buren Blvd. #122, Riverside, CA 92504 Phone. 951.310.7470 | [email protected] 228
NOT-TO-EXCEED FEE SCHEDULE Below is the not-to-exceed fee schedule for the Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project (City Project No. 25-11, Federal Project No. STPL-5312(108)). Material testing services will be provided by a certified subconsultant (Converse Consultants) on an as-needed basis. The proposed fee is based on a construction duration of 90 working days (approximately 18 weeks). This cost proposal includes all Construction Management, Inspection, Labor Compliance, and administrative support services required to successfully manage and deliver the project in compliance with City, State, and Federal requirements.
The above hours are an estimate of total hours for each team member per task. The total subtask hours will change as the City and the project dictate. Our team will redistribute hours as necessary throughout the project. Our proposed and fully committed team is fully capable and exceptionally qualified. They have held many leadership roles and supervisory management positions in many local agencies including the private and public sectors. All can multi-task, are multi-disciplined, and have a full understanding of all aspects of the proposed project requirements.
Construction Management and Inspection Support Services for Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project (Federal Project No. STPL-5312(108), City Project No. 25-11) Task/ Classification Resident Engineer (Hrs) Senior Construction Inspector (Hrs) Project Manager / Office Engineer (Hrs)
Labor Compliance Officer (Hrs)
Material Testing (Converse Consultants) Total Cost Hourly Rate $166.00 $155.00 $142.00 $135.00 - Preconstruction Phase 24 24 24 4 - $11,652.00 Construction Phase (90 WD) 270 720 270 90 - $206,910.00 Material Testing Services - - - - $11,160.00 $11,160.00 Project Closeout 24 24 24 4 - $11,652.00 Total Hours 318 768 318 98 - Total Cost $52,788.00 $119,040.00 $45,156.00 $13,230.00 $11,160.00 $241,374.00 229
Converse Consultants GLT2025
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
Schedule of Fees – Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Compensation for laboratory testing services will be made in accordance with this fee schedule which includes test report(s) and engineering time. Costs of tests not on this schedule will be by quote and/or in accordance with our current hourly fee schedule. The rates are based on non-c ontaminated soil. A surc harge will be charged for handling contaminated m aterial, which will be determined based on the project. This fee schedule is valid through December 31, 2025.
IDENTIFICATION AND INDEX PROPERTIES TESTS
Visual Classification, ASTM D2488 ................................... 15.00 Engineering Classification, ASTM D2487 ......................... 20.00 Moisture Content and Dry (bulk) Density,
ASTM D2216 and D2937 ............................................. 20.00 Moisture Content, ASTM D2216 .................................. 15.00 Shrinkage Limit, ASTM D4943 .......................................... 85.00 Atterberg Limits, ASTM D4318
Several points ............................................................ 150.00 One Point ..................................................................... 50.00 Particle Size Analysis, ASTM D6913
Fine Sieve, from +#200 to #4 ..................................... 100.00 Coarse and Fine Sieve, from #200 to 3 in .................. 180.00 Hydrometer ................................................................ 120.00 Percent Passing #200 Sieve, ASTM D1140 ...................... 80.00 Specific Gravity
Fine, passing #4 sieve, ASTM D854 ............................ 90.00 Coarse, retained on #4 sieve, ASTM C127 .................. 90.00 Sand Equivalent Test, ASTM D2419 ............................... 110.00 Double Hydrometer Dispersion, ASTM D4221 ................ 150.00 CO
MPACTION AND BEARING STRENGTH
Standard Proctor Compaction, ASTM D698 or ASTM D1557
Method A or B ............................................................ 200.00 Method C, 6” mold ...................................................... 200.00 California Impact Method, Caltrans 216 .......................... 200.00 R-value, ASTM D2844 and CTM301 ............................... 250.00 California Bearing Ratio (CBR), ASTM D1883
1 Point ........................................................................ 530.00 3 Points ...................................................................... 750.00 Relative Density
0.1 Cubic Foot Mold ................................................... 200.00
0.5 Cubic Foot Mold ................................................... 300.00 S
HEAR STRENGTH
Torvane/Pocket Penetrometer .......................................... 25.00 Direct Shear
Quick Test .................................................................... 75.00 Consolidated, Drained, granular soil,
ASTM D3080 ........................................................ 200.00 Consolidated, Drained, fine grained soil,
ASTM D3080 ........................................................ 250.00 Consolidated, Undrained, fine grained soil ................. 200.00 Residual Strength, per cycle ........................................ 60.00 Remolded Specimens .................................................. 60.00 S
TATIC UNIAXIAL AND TRIAXIAL STRENGTH TESTS
(PER POINT)
Unconfined Compression, ASTM D2166 ........................ 150.00 Unconsolidated, Undrained, ASTM D2850 ..................... 160.00 Consolidated, Undrained, per point ................................ 700.00 Consolidated, Drained, per point .................................... 700.00 With Pore Pressure Measurement, per load ................... 150.00 Remolded Specimen ......................................................... 90.00 CO
NSOLIDATION (ASTM2435) AND SWELL COLLAPSE
(ASTM D4546) TESTS
8 Load Increments .......................................................... 220.00 Additional Load Increment ................................................ 50.00 Time-Ratio, per load increment ......................................... 90.00 Single Point, collapse test ................................................. 90.00 Single Load Swell, ASTM D4546
R ing Sample, Field Moisture ......................................... 90.00 Ring Sample, Air Dried ................................................. 90.00 Remolded Sample .............................................................. 60.00 Expansion Index Test, UBC 29-2/ASTM D4829 ................130.00 HY
DRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTS
Constant Head, ASTM D2434 ...........................................250.00 Falling Head Flexible Wall, ASTM D5084 .........................300.00 Triaxial Permeability, EPA 9100 ........................................350.00 Remolded Specimen .......................................................... 60.00 CHE
MICAL TESTS
Corrosivity (pH, resistivity, sulfates, chlorides) ..................220.00 Organic Content, ASTM D2974 .......................................... 80.00 Conditions: Unit rates presented on this fee schedule are for routinely performed geotechnical laboratory tests. Numerous other earth material physical tests can be performed in our geotechnical laboratories, including rock core, soil cement and soil lime mix ture tests. Tests not listed can be quoted upon request.
Prices are based on the assumption that samples are uncontaminated and do not contain heavy metals, acids, carcinogens and/or volatile organics whi ch can be measured by an organic vapor analyzer or photoionization detector with a concentration greater than 50 parts -per-million (ppm). Quoted testing fees are based on the assumption that no protective clothing will be required to handle samples. If L evel D protective clothing will be required during handling of samples (as defined in Federal CFR Part 1910.120), then a 40% increase in fees presented in this schedule will be applied. Level C protective clothing will be a 60% increase in fees. Converse will not handle samples that require either Level B or Level A protection in our geotechnical laboratories.
Contaminated samples will be returned to the client. Uncontaminated samples will be disposed of 30 days after presentation of test results. The client must disclose the source of samples. Samples imported from out of state will be incinerated after testing in accordance with requirements of the United States Department of Agriculture. Soil samples obtained within the State of California currently designated quarantine areas will also be incinerated in accordance with the requirement of the State of California, Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry, Pest Exclusion. A $5.00 incineration fee will be added to each sample that
is required to be incinerated in
accordance with State and Federal law.
Test results requiring plots will be presented in a publishable format generated from computer programs. Otherwise, raw test numbers will be presented. A minimum laboratory fee of $50.00 will be charged to present and mail test results. Beyond the standard U.S. Mail delivery, specialized transmittal will be charged at additional cost (e.g., Federal Express, UPS, etc.). Geotechnical testing does not include engineering and/or geolog
ic review and analysis.
Typical turnaround for geotechnical laboratory testing is two weeks (or roughly ten working days). To expedite test turnaround to five working days, a 50% increase in the fees in this schedule will be applied. Many geotechnical tests require at least one week to perform in accordance with ASTM or other standard specifications. Fees presented in this schedule for relatively undisturbed direct shear, consolidation or expansion pressure tests are based on the assumption that 2.416-inch inside diameter brass ring samples will be provided to the geotechnical laboratory for testing. Remolded specimens will be compacted in standard 2.5 -inch outside diameter brass rings for direct shear, consolidation and expansion pressure tests. All fees presented in this schedule are based on the assumption that the client will deliver samples to our laboratory at no additional cost to Converse.
I
nvoices will be issued monthly and are payable on receipt unless otherwise agreed upon. Interest of 1.5% per month (but not exceeding the maximum allowed by law) will be payable on any amount not paid within thirty days; payment thereafter to be applied first to accrued interest and then to the principle unpaid amount. The Client shall pay any attorneys' fe es or other costs incurred in collecting any delinquent amounts.
230
Converse Consultants MTS2025
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
Schedule of Fees – Materials Laboratory Testing
Compensation for laboratory testing services will be based on rates in accordance with this fee schedule which includes test report(s) and engineering time. Costs of tests not on this schedule will be by quote and/or in accordance with our current hourly fee schedule. Our services will be performed in accordance with the General Conditions. This fee schedule is valid through December 31, 2025.
AGGREGATES
Moisture Content, ASTM D2216 .............................................. 15.00 Particle Size Analysis
Coarse, ASTM C136, each ............................................... 100.00 Coarse and Fine, ASTM C136 & C137), each .................. 180.00 Specific Gravity & Absorption
Coarse Aggregate, ASTM C127 ......................................... 85.00 Fine Aggregate, ASTM C128 ............................................. 85.00 Unit Weight per Cubic Foot, ASTM C29 ............................. 75.00 Soundness, Sodium or Magnesium, ASTM C88, each ..... 200.00 Potential Alkali Reactivity, ASTM D289 ............................ 300.00 Freeze Thaw Soundness .................................................. 175.00 Los Angeles Abrasion, per class, ASTM C131, C535 ....... 220.00 Sand Equivalent, ASTM D2419 ........................................ 110.00 Lightweight Particles, ASTM C123, each ............................ 85.00 Clay Lumps & Friable Particles, ASTM C142, each .......... 120.00 Stripping Test, ASTM D1664, each .................................... 85.00 Organic Impurities, ASTM C40 ........................................... 75.00 Durability ...................................................................... By Quote
CONCRETE TESTS
Laboratory Trial Batch, ASTM C192 .................................. By Quote Laboratory Mix Design, Historical Data .............................. By Quote Compression Test, 6”x12” Cylinder, ASTM C39, each ............. 50.00 Lightweight Concrete
Compression ...................................................................... 50.00 Unit Weight ......................................................................... 50.00 Specimen Preparation, Trimming or Coring, each ................... 60.00 Bond Strength, ASTM C321
Prepared by Converse...................................................... 150.00 Prepared by Others ............................................................ 80.00 Core Compression Test, ASTM C12, each .............................. 80.00 Flexure Test, 6”x6” Beams, ASTM C78, each ........................ 110.00 Modulus of Elasticity, Static, ASTM C469, each .................... 150.00 Length Change, ASTM C157, 3 bars, 5 readings each,
up to 26 days .................................................................... 320.00 Splitting Tensile, 6”x12” Cylinders, each .................................. 80.00 Field Concrete Control (sampling, slump, temperature,
cast 4 cylinders, molds, cylinder pick-up, within 10 miles of office, stand-by extra), ASTM/UBC, hourly rate
schedule, or each cylinder .................................................. 95.00 Field Concrete Control (same as above plus air content test), ASTM/UBC, each cylinder .................................................. 95.00 Hold Cylinder ........................................................................... 10.00 Cylinder Mold, sent to job site but not cast by Converse or returned to Converse ............................................................ 5.00
MASONRY (ASTM C140, E447, UBC STANDARD 24-22)
Moisture Content, as received, each ........................................ 20.00 Absorption, each ...................................................................... 50.00 Compression, each .................................................................. 55.00 Shrinkage, ASTM C426, each ............................................... 100.00 Net Area and Volume, each ..................................................... 25.00 Masonry Blocks, per set of 9 .................................................. 450.00 Masonry Core Compression, each........................................... 55.00 Masonry Core Shear, each ...................................................... 55.00 Masonry Core Trimming, each ................................................. 55.00 Compression Test, grouted prisms, 8”x8”x16”, each .............. 120.00 Compression Test, grouted prisms, 12”x16”x16”, each .......... 130.00 Compression Test
2”x4” Mortar Cylinder, each ................................................ 40.00 3”x6” Grout Prisms, each .................................................... 40.00 2” Cubes, ASTM C109, each .............................................. 40.00 Cast by Others ......................................................................... 40.00 Mortar or Grout Mix Designs .............................................. By Quote
FIREPROOFING TESTS
Oven Dry Density, per sample ................................................. 70.00
MOISTURE EMISSION TEST
Moisture Emission Test Kit ......................................................7 0.00
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
Stability, Flow, and Unit Weight, ASTM D6927 .....................200.00 Marshall ASTM D1559, ASTM D2726 ...................................200.00 Measured Maximum Specific Gravity of Mix, ASTM D2041,
Rice Method, each ............................................................95.00 Void Analysis of Cores or Marshall Specimens,
Calculations Only, ASTM D3203, set of 2 or 3 ...................60.00 Laboratory Mixing of Asphalt & Concrete, per sample .............75.00 Complete Asphalt Concrete Mix Design
Hveem or Marshall ...................................................... By Quote Extraction of Asphalt and Gradation, ASTM D2172, Method B, or California 310, including ash correction, each .............210.00 Extraction of Rubberized Asphalt & Gradation, each .............250.00 Specific Gravity, ASTM D2726 or ASTM D1188
Uncoated ...........................................................................95.00 Coated .............................................................................105.00 Immersion-Compression .......................................................400.00 Particle Coating, ASTM D2489 ...............................................60 .00 Stripping, ASTM D1664 ..........................................................70.00 Moisture or Volatile Distillates in Paving Mixtures, or Materials Containing Petroleum Products or
By-Products .....................................................................220.00 Retained Strength, ASTM D1074/D1075, 6 specimens ..... By Quote Retained Stability, Mil, Std, 520A, Method 104,
6 specimens ................................................................ By Quote CBR, ASTM D1883, including M/D Curve, 1 point ................350.00 Asphalt Temperature ...............................................................15.00
STRUCTURAL STEEL
Tensile Test #9 Bar or Smaller, each ......................................6 0.00 Bend Test #9 Bar or Smaller, each .........................................6 0.00 Tensile Test #10 Bar or Greater, each ..................................280.00 Tensile Test #14 Bar, each ...................................................310.00 Rebar Coupler Tensile Test ..................................................100.00 Tensile Test, Welded #9 Bar or Smaller, each ......................100.00 Tensile Test, Welded #10 Bar or Greater, each ....................280.00 Tensile Test, Welded #14 Bar, each .....................................310.00 Tensile Test, Mechanically Spliced, #9 Bar or Smaller,
each ................................................................................180.00 Tensile Test, Mechanically Spliced, #10 Bar or Greater, each ................................................................................350.00
HIGH STRENGTH BOLT, NUT, AND WASHER TESTING
Wedge Tensile Test, A490 Bolts
Under 100,000 lbs., each ..................................................6 5.00 Over 100,000 lbs., each ....................................................7 5.00 Wedge Tensile Test, A325 Bolts
Under 100,000 lbs., each ..................................................7 0.00 Tensile Test, Anchor Bolts, tested with displacement
transducers, each ............................................................300.00 Nut Hardness, Proof & Cone Proof Load Test, each ...............50.00 Washer Hardness, each ..........................................................4 0.00 A325 or A490, Bolt Hardness Only, each ................................40.00 Bolt A325 or A490 Wedge Tensile
Under 100,000 lbs. & Hardness, each ...............................90.00 Over 100,000 lbs. & Hardness, each ...............................100.00 Bolt, Nut & Washer, all tests per set with bolts
Under 100,000 lbs. ..........................................................300.00 Over 100,000 lbs. ............................................................380.00
See Schedule of Fees – Geotechnical Laboratory Testing for soil testing. Hourly rates are available upon request. Field Laboratory rates are available upon request. Listed unit rates are based upon the assumption that samples will be delivered to our laboratory at no cost to Converse.
231
Converse Consultants PW2025
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
Prevailing Wage Schedule of Fees
Personnel
Introduction
It is the objective of Converse Consultants to provide its clients with quality professional and technical services and a con tinuing source of professional advice and opinions. Services will be performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. This fee schedule i s valid through December 31, 2025.
Hourly Charges for Personnel
Staff assignments will depend on personnel availability, job complexity, project site location, and experience level required to satisfy the technical requirements of the project and to meet the prevailing standard of professional care.
Field Technical Services (all including vehicle and equipment) Construction Inspector – ACI/ICC and/or AWS/CWI certified (concrete, post-tension, masonry, structural steel, fireproofing; includes concrete batch plant and local steel fabrication inspections) ............................... $150 DSA Masonry Inspector ........................................................................................................................................................... 150 Non-Destructive Testing Inspector (ultrasonic, magnetic particle, dye penetrant, skidmore, pull testing, torque testing, Schmidt hammer, and pachometer) .......................................................................................................... 155 Coring Technician .................................................................................................................................................................... 150 Soils Technician (soil, base, asphalt concrete, and moisture emission testing) ....................................................................... 150 Sample Pick-Up ......................................................................................................................................................................... 60
Professional Services (consultation for field and office, if requested) Staff Professional ................................................................................................................................................................... $140 Senior Staff Professional .......................................................................................................................................................... 145 Project Professional ................................................................................................................................................................. 155 Project Manager ....................................................................................................................................................................... 160 Senior Professional .................................................................................................................................................................. 180 Principal Professional ............................................................................................................................................................... 210 Principal Consultant ................................................................................................................................................................. 225
Laboratory Testing
Laboratory Technician ...................................................................................................................................................... Per Test (see Geotechnical Laboratory Testing and Materials Testing Services fee schedules.) Laboratory Supervisor .............................................................................................................................................................. $85
Office Support
Clerical/Word Processing ......................................................................................................................................................... $80 Drafting ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 85 CAD Operator/Drafting Manager ................................................................................................................................................ 90
Overtime and special shift rates for Field Services personnel are determined in accordance with Prevailing Wage law. Travel time to and from the job site will be charged at the hourly rates for the appropriate personnel.
Expenses
1. Exploration expenses (drilling, trenching, etc.) are charged at cost plus fifteen percent.
2. Travel and subsistence expenses (transportation, room and board, etc.) for individuals on projects requiring travel and/or living 50 miles away from the project site are charged at cost plus fifteen percent.
3. Automobile and truck expenses are charged at cost plus fifteen percent (rentals) or at the current IRS milage rate per mile for company-owned vehicles traveling between principal office and project.
4. Other out-of-pocket direct project expenses (aerial photos, long-distance telephone calls, permits, bonds, outside printing services, tests, etc.) are charged at cost plus fifteen percent.
Invoices
1. Invoices will be submitted to the Client on a monthly basis, and a final bill will be submitted upon completion of services.
2. Payment is due upon presentation of invoice and is past-due thirty days from invoice date. In the event Client fails to make any payment to Converse when due, Converse may immediately cease work hereunder until said payment, together with a service charge at the rate of eighteen percent per annum (but not exceeding the maximum allowed by law) from the due date, has been received .
Further, Converse may at its sole option and discretion refuse to perform any further work irrespective of payment from Client in the event Client fails to pay Converse for services when said payments are due.
3. Client shall pay attorneys’ fees or other costs incurred in collecting any delinquent amount.
General Conditions
The terms and provisions of the Converse General Conditions are incorporated into this fee schedule as though set forth in full. If a copy of the General Conditions does not accompany this fee schedule, Client should request a copy from this office.
232
EXHIBIT D
CITY COUNCIL POLICY 100-5
233
CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
BACKGROUND
Under the Federal Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, passed as part of omnibus drug legislation enacted November 18, 1988, contractors and grantees of Federal funds must certify that they will provide drug-free workplaces. At the present time, the City of C osta Mesa, as a sub-grantee of Federal funds under a variety of programs, is required to abide by this Act. The City Council has expressed its support of the national effort to eradicate drug abuse through the creation of a Substance Abuse Committee, institution of a City-wide D.A.R.E. program in all local schools and other activities in support of a drug-free community. This policy is intended to extend that effort to contractors and grantees of the City of Costa Mesa in the elimination of dangerous drugs in the workplace.
PURPOSE
It is the purpose of this Policy to:
1. Clearly state the City of Costa Mesa’s commitment to a drug-free society.
2. Set forth guidelines to ensure that public, private, and nonprofit organizations receiving funds from the City of Costa Mesa share the commitment to a drug-free workplace.
POLICY
The City Manager, under direction by the City Council, shall take the necessary steps to see that the following provisions are included in all contracts and agreements entered into by the City of Costa Mesa involving the disbursement of funds.
1. Contractor or Sub-grantee hereby certifies that it will provide a drug-free workplace by:
A. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in Contractor’s and/or sub-grantee’s workplace, specifically the job site or location included in this contract, and specifying the actions that will be taken against the employees for violation of such prohibition;
B. Establishing a Drug-Free Awareness Program to inform employees about:
SUBJECT
DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE
POLICY
NUMBER
100-5
EFFECTIVE
DATE
8-8-89
PAGE
1 of 3
234
SUBJECT
DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE
POLICY
NUMBER
100-5
EFFECTIVE
DATE
8-8-89
PAGE
2 of 3
1. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
2. Contractor’s and/or sub-grantee’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
3. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and
4. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace;
C. Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the contract be given a copy of the statement required by subparagraph A;
D. Notifying the employee in the statement required by subparagraph 1 A that, as a condition of employment under the contract, the employee will:
1. Abide by the terms of the statement; and
2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five (5) days after such conviction;
E. Notifying the City of Costa Mesa within ten (10) days after receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 from an employee or otherwise receiving the actual notice of such conviction;
F. Taking one of the following actions within thirty (30) days of receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 with respect to an employee who is so convicted:
1. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination; or
2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health agency, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency;
235
SUBJECT
DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE
POLICY
NUMBER
100-5
EFFECTIVE
DATE
8-8-89
PAGE
3 of 3
G. Making a good faith effort to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 F, inclusive.
2. Contractor and/or sub-grantee shall be deemed to be in violation of this Policy if the City of Costa Mesa determines that:
a. Contractor and/or sub- grantee has made a false certification under paragraph 1 above;
b. Contractor and/or sub-grantee has violated the certification by failing to carry out the requirements of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 G above;
c. Such number of employees of Contractor and/or sub-grantee have been convicted of violations of criminal drug statutes for violations occurring in the workplace as to indicate that the contractor and/or sub-grantee has failed to make a good faith effort to provide a drug-free workplace.
3. Should any contractor and/or sub-grantee be deemed to be in violation of this Policy pursuant to the provisions of 2 A, B, and C, a suspension, termination or debarment proceeding subject to applicable Federal, State, and local laws shall be conducted. Upon issuance of any final decision under this section requiring debarment of a contractor and/or sub-grantee, the contractor and/or sub-grantee shall be ineligible for award of any contract, agreement or grant from the City of Costa Mesa for a period specified in the decision, not to exceed five (5) years. Upon issuance of any final decision recommending against debarment of the contractor and/or sub-grantee, the contractor and/or sub-grantee shall be eligible for compensation as provided by law.
236
CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-604 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
TITLE:
CONTINUATION REQUEST OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’SDECISION TO UPHOLD THE ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR’SDECISION TO DENY
A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM CERTAIN
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE TO OPERATE A SOBER LIVING HOME, OPERATED BY THE OHIO HOUSE AT 115 EAST WILSON STREET, UNITS A THROUGH E DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT/PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: VICTOR MENDEZ, SENIOR PLANNER
CONTACT INFORMATION: VICTOR MENDEZ, (714)754-5276
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council open the public hearing and continue the item to the February 3, 2026 meeting, pursuant to the applicants’ request.
BACKGROUND:
The public hearing was noticed for the December 2, 2025 City Council meeting. Following the noticing, the applicant requested to continue the item to the February 3, 2026 City Council meeting.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant requested that the public hearing be continued to a date certain to the February 3, 2026 City Council meeting. Staff will present the item at the February 3, 2026 meeting.
ALTERNATIVES:
There are no recommended alternatives.
FISCAL REVIEW:
The fiscal review will be included as part of the February 3, 2026 report.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The legal review will be included as part of the February 3, 2026 report.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
The priorities will be included as part of the February 3, 2026 report.
237
File #: 25-604 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
CONCLUSION:
The item will be presented at the February 3, 2026 City Council meeting.
238
From: Christopher Brancart <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 9:04 PM
To: MENDEZ, VICTOR <[email protected]>; GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>
Cc: TAI, CARRIE <[email protected]>; TERAN, STACY <[email protected]>; Kimberly Hall Barlow - City Attorney <[email protected]>; Tarquin Preziosi <tp@jones- mayer.com>; CARON, MARTINA <[email protected]> Subject: Re: PRAC-25-0002: Appeal to City Council
Victor,
Per our prior emails, this email confirms that appellants respectfully ask that the hearing of their appeal to City Council be set for Tuesday, February 3, 2026.
Thank you for your courtesy.
Happy Thanksgiving.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 4:51 PM Christopher Brancart <[email protected]> wrote:
Victor,
Thank you for your call and email.
Following our call, I immediately reached out to the appellants to determine the best date among the dates offered in your email.
I've received confirmation that February 3 works best for appellants; however, they are checking with their new representative
to determine if that date works for him as well.
The appellants appreciate the urgency in getting this date fixed and pledge to advise me today.
As soon as I hear back, I will immediately notify all persons on this email.
Thank you for your email and patience; happy thanksgiving.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 10:50 AM MENDEZ, VICTOR <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Christopher,
ATTACHMENT 1
239
I just sent you a voicemail. The notice for the appeal hearing has been sent and published in the newspaper. As a result, the associated noticing fees will be invoiced to you shortly.
Regarding your continuance request, please let me know which date works best for your team.
On December 2, the City Council will open the public hearing and continue it to a date certain.
The available Council dates for the timeframe you requested are January 20, February 3, and February 17.
Please confirm your preferred date at your earliest convenience so we can coordinate accordingly.
Thank you,
Victor Mendez
Senior Planner
Economic & Development Services Department
77 Fair Drive
|
Costa Mesa
|
CA 92626 | (714) 754-5276
From:
Christopher Brancart <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 4:18 PM
To: MENDEZ, VICTOR <[email protected]>
Cc: TAI, CARRIE <[email protected]>; TERAN, STACY <[email protected]>; Kimberly Hall Barlow - City Attorney <khb@jones- mayer.com>; GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>; Tarquin Preziosi <tp@jones- mayer.com>; Christopher Brancart <[email protected]> Subject: PRAC-25-0002: Appeal to City Council
Victor,
I hope you are well.
I email to request that we fix a date in late January or early February for conducting the hearing of Ohio House/Residents' appeal in PRAC-25-0002 to the City Council from the Planning Commission's affirmation of the Director's denial of Ohio House/Resident's 2025 RA request.
Ohio House/Residents have filed a timely notice of appeal to the City Council in PRAC-25-0002.
This request is for two reasons -- reasons I could not have anticipated before this week; namely:
· Among the appellants, one of the OH principals and/or one or more of the residents will be unavailable in December and January, until the last Tuesday in January.
Thereafter, they don't anticipate
any conflicts; and,
· Appellants are in the process of engaging a new or additional representative to guide or present the appeal on behalf of OH/Residents.
This representative requires
240
time to review the underlying materials and is unavailable until late January.
I anticipate that I will continue to represent OH/Residents in PRAC-25-0002 and I will remain the appellants' point of contact unless or until appellants or my office provide the City notice to the contrary.
In closing, please feel free to reachout to me if you have any questions regarding this request.
In the meantime, Happy Thanksgiving.
--
Christopher Brancart
Brancart & Brancart
(650) 879-0141 (voice)
(650) 879-1103 (fax)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please call me.
Thank you.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department. --
Christopher Brancart
Brancart & Brancart
(650) 879-0141 (voice)
(650) 879-1103 (fax)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please call me.
Thank you.
241
CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-582 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2025, AND THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS DEPARTMENT: FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PRESENTED BY: CAROL MOLINA, FINANCE DIRECTOR / RAJA SETHURAMAN,
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: CAROL MOLINA, FINANCE DIRECTOR, (714) 754-5243 / RAJA SETHURAMAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, (714) 754-5343
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Receive and file the Development Impact Fees Annual Report (Attachment 1) for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2025.
2. Adopt resolution (Attachment 2) continuing the citywide traffic impact fee for new development that incorporates recommendations from the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff, which include:
· Adopt a traffic impact fee of $231 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) based on the Capital Improvement Projects in Attachment 4 and Active Transportation projects in the adopted Active Transportation Plan (ATP).
· Approve allocation of up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects.
· Approve a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips as a result of ATP implementation and an additional five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for developments proposing to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical development requirements.
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Sections 66001 through 66009), the City Council established certain Development Impact Fees (DIFs) that must be paid by developers of property to help offset some (or all) of the cost of public facilities related to the development project.
The DIFs are for Park Development Impact Fees, Drainage Impact Fees, Traffic Impact Fees, and Fire Systems Development Fees. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that City Council approve an
242
File #: 25-582 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
Fire Systems Development Fees. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that City Council approve an annual report that provides information about the DIFs. These fees are required to be deposited into their own separate accounts or funds. The law also requires that certain findings be made in association with accumulated DIFs after the deposit into their respective account or fund.
ANALYSIS:
Reporting requirements under California Government Code 66006 specify that the City must prepare annual reports of Development Impact Fees within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year.
The reports must describe the fee, the amount of the fees collected, interest earned, and identification of any expenditures from those funds. The code also specifies that reports must be reviewed by the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting not less than 15 days following release to the public. The FY2025-25 Development Impact Fee Annual Report was released for public review on November 17, 2025.
The FY 2024-25 Development Impact Fee Annual Report is attached for City Council's review and approval (Attachment 1). A summary of the fees collected, and expenditures incurred in FY 2024-25 are included in the Financial Summary Report section.
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this Annual Report. Staff also requests the adoption of the attached resolution (Attachment 2), continuing the citywide traffic impact fee for new development in the City. The resolution incorporates the recommendations from the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff.
Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee - Annual Review
The Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff met twice on October 9, 2025, and October 30, 2025, to review the traffic impact fee program and calculation. Recently completed projects, consideration of active transportation projects, and the available traffic impact fee fund balance were accounted for in this review.
Attachment 4 provides the calculation of the traffic impact fee of $231 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) based on a revised list of capital improvement projects and the inclusion of Active Transportation projects. The Committee deliberated on the option to continue the current traffic impact fee of $228 per ADT or to modify the traffic impact fee to $231 per ADT. The discussion focused on the current balance of traffic impact fee fund, which is adequate to fund projects over the next two to three years, and the upcoming study to review traffic impact fees, taking into account future housing development as part of rezoning to meet state goals.
In response to public comment received, the Committee also discussed the eligibility of the traffic impact fee program for Active Transportation projects, reporting procedures, 1993 Ordinance requirements and consistency with recent government codes. Staff provided clarification on these items and provided information on ways the City is meeting the intent of Ordinance and government code requirements.
Following a review of the fee analysis and staff input, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended to adopt
243
File #: 25-582 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
Following a review of the fee analysis and staff input, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended to adopt the calculated traffic impact fee of $231 per ADT with the inclusion of Active Transportation projects in the Traffic Impact Fee program. In addition, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended to continue the allocation of up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects.
The Ad Hoc Committee also recommended to continue to provide a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for development projects due to the implementation of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and an additional five percent (5%) reduction in ADT if a development proposes to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical code requirements. The improvements have to be substantial, such as addition of a multipurpose trail, conversion of lower-class active bicycle facility to a higher-class bicycle facility, or enhanced pedestrian improvements in the vicinity of the project.
The Fiscal Year 2024-25 Traffic Impact Report (Attachment 2) depicts the opening balance, the ending balance on June 30, 2025, interest earned, revenues, expenditures, and unexpended funds from the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Account. This attachment also shows there is $308,479 of unallocated traffic impact fee that can be allocated to eligible projects in the next five (5) or more years. The accounting was presented to the Committee at their meetings on October 9, 2025, and October 30, 2025, and was approved.
As required by the Government Code, the updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is contained in the Fiscal Year 2025-26 adopted budget and remains valid for the current traffic impact fee review.
The traffic impact fee account information, including the interest earned, shown in Attachment 2, is available for public review.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council may choose to reject all, or part of the Annual Report as presented. California Government Code Section 66006 requires that the report be reviewed at a public meeting. The City Council may choose to modify the Committee recommendation on traffic impact fees to continue the current $228 per ADT. If this alternative is selected, the resolution will be modified to reflect City Council action.
FISCAL REVIEW:
The change to the traffic impact fee from $228 to $231 represents an increase of $3 per ADT, or approximately 1% increase, from the current fee. If approved, the increased fee is estimated to have positive fiscal impact of $3,900 in revenue in the Traffic Impact Fees Fund (Fund 214). This report is legally required annually for the development impact fee activity and traffic impact fee analysis for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2025.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed this report and approves as to form.
244
File #: 25-582 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
This item is administrative in nature.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Receive and file the Development Impact Fees Annual Report (Attachment 1) for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2025.
2. Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 2) continuing the citywide traffic impact fee for new development that incorporates recommendations from the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff, which include:
· Adopt a traffic impact fee of $231 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) based on the Capital Improvement Projects in Attachment 4 and Active Transportation projects in the adopted Active Transportation Plan (ATP).
· Approve allocation of up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects.
· Approve a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips as a result of ATP implementation and an additional five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for developments proposing to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical development requirements.
245
1 DECEMBER 2, 202 5
CITY OF COSTA MESA
77 FAIR DRIVE
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
City of Costa
Mesa
FY 2024-25
Development
Impact Fee
Report
ATTACHMENT 1
246
2 Table of Contents
City Council Directory ................................................................................................... 3
City Officials Directory .................................................................................................. 4
Introduction
Legal Requirements for Development Impact Fee Reporting ...................................... 5 Description of Development Impact Fees with corresponding Fee Schedules ............. 7
Development Impact Fee Report
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Summary ....... 9
Financial Summary Report and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Park Development Fees ............................................................................................. 10 Drainage Fees ........................................................................................................... 12 Traffic Impact Fees .................................................................................................... 13 Fire System Development Fees ................................................................................. 15 Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees .................................................................................... 16
Development Impact Project Identification
Park Development Projects ........................................................................................ 17 Drainage Projects ...................................................................................................... 18 Traffic Impact Projects ............................................................................................... 18 Fire System Development Projects ............................................................................ 18 Cannabis Traffic Impact Projects ............................................................................... 18
City Council Action and Studies
Review of the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program .................................................. 19 Update to the Park Impact Fees ................................................................................ 19
247
3 City Leadership
248
4 City Official Directory
City Manager’s Office
City Manager .............................................................. Lori Ann Farrell Harrison
Department Directors
City Attorney’s Office ............................................................... Kimberly Barlow Community Development Services .................................................... Carrie Tai Finance .......................................................................................... Carol Molina Information Technology ...................................................................... Steve Ely Parks and Community Services .................................................. . Brian Gruner Public Services ...................................................................... Raja Sethuraman
Public Safety
Fire and Rescue ......................................................................... Daniel Stefano Police ..................................................................................... Ronald Lawrence
249
5 Legal Requirements for Development Impact Fee Reporting
Legal Requirements for Development Impact Fee Reporting
California Government Code Section 66006 (b)
California Government Code Section 66006 (b) defines the specific reporting requirements for local agencies that impose AB 1600 DIFs on new development. Annually, for each separate fund established for the collection and expenditure of DIFs, the local agency shall, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, make available to the public the information shown below for the most recent fiscal year.
a) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. b) The amount of the fee.
c) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. d) The amount of the fees collected and interest earned. e) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees. f) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement, as identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 66001, and the public improvement remains incomplete.
g) A description of each inter -fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an inter-fund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan. h) The amount of refunds made pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 66001 and any allocations pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 66001.
California Government Code Section 66001
For all funds established for the collection and expenditure of DIFs, California Government Code Section 66001 (d) has additional requirements. For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the fund and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
a) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put.
b) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and purpose for which it is charged.
c) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). d) Designate the approximate dates on which the funding referred to in subparagraph (c) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
250
6 California Government Code Section 66002
The State of California Government Code Section 66002 states that:
a) Any local agency, which levies a fee subject to Section 66001, may adopt a capital improvement plan, which shall indicate the approximate location, size, time of availability, and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the fees.
b) The capital improvement plan shall be adopted by, and shall be annually updated by, a resolution of the governing body of the local agency adopted at a noticed public hearing.
Notice of the hearing shall be given pursuant to Section 65090. In addition, mai led notice shall be given to any city or county, which may be significantly affected by the capital improvement plan. This notice shall be given no later than the date the local agency notices the public hearing pursuant to Section 65090. The information in the notice shall be not less than the information contained in the notice of public hearing and shall be given by first-class mail or personal delivery.
c) "Facility" or "improvement," as used in this section, means any of the following:
1. Public buildings, including schools and related facilities; provided that school facilities shall not be included if Senate Bill 97 of the 1987 -88 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 1988.
2. Facilities for the storage, treatment, and distribution of nonagricultural water.
3. Facilities for the collection, treatment, reclamation, and disposal of sewage.
4. Facilities for the collection and disposal of storm waters and for flood control purposes.
5. Facilities for the generation of electricity and the distribution of gas and electricity.
6. Transportation and transit facilities, including but not limited to streets and supporting improvements, roads, overpasses, bridges, harbors, ports, airports, and related facilities.
7. Parks and recreation facilities.
8. Any other capital project identified in the capital facilities plan adopted.
251
7 Description of Development Impact Fees with Corresponding Fee Schedule
Park Development Impact Fees (Quimby Act Fees)
Fee Description: This fee provides funding for additional or improved park and/or recreation facility improvements for which the need is generated by new development within the City.
Fee Schedule: The table below indicates the applicable park development fee per unit that will be applied to new residential projects based on the net increase in residential units.
Development Fee per Unit
Single-family Dwelling Unit $13,572.00
Multi-family Dwelling Unit $13,829.00
Apartment Dwelling Unit $5,000.00
Drainage Impact Fees
Fee Description: This fee provides funding for additional construction and maintenance of the City's drainage system for which the need is generated by new development or redevelopment within the City.
Fee Schedule: The table below indicates the applicable drainage impact fee per acre that will be applied to new or redeveloped projects.
Development Type Fee per Acre
Low Density Residential Use $6,283.00
Medium Density Residential Use $7,539.00
High Density Residential Use $10,052.00
Commercial / Industrial Density Residential Use $11,309.00
Traffic Impact Fees
Fee Description: This fee provides funding for additional or improved traffic signal, operation, and infrastructure improvements for which the need is generated by new or expanding development within the City.
Fee Schedule: The citywide Traffic Impact Fee is assessed on the increased number of average daily trips generated by the proposed project. The City Council adopted a fee of $235 per daily trip on November 13, 2018. On November 17, 2020, the City Council voted to continue the Traffic Impact fees at $235 per daily trip. Additionally, Council voted to continue 252
8 with the Traffic Impact fees at $235 per daily in 2021 through 2023. On November 19, 2024, the City Council voted to decrease the Traffic Impact fees to $228 per daily trip.
Fire System Development Fees
Fee Description: This fee provides funding for additional fire protection facilities, equipment, and paramedic support for which the need is generated by future development within the North Costa Mesa area. This fee is only levied against five identified developments: Home Ranch, South Coast Plaza Town Center, South Coast Metro Center, and Sakioka Farms' Lots 1 and 2.
Fee Schedule: The fee is $0.29 per square foot of new commercial, industrial or residential development.
Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees
Fee Description: This fee provides funding for additional or improved traffic signal, operation, and infrastructure improvements within the City for which the need is generated by the cannabis retail establishments.
Fee Schedule: The citywide Cannabis Traffic Impact Fee is assessed on the increased number of average daily trips generated by the proposed project. The City Council adopted a fee of $235 per daily trip on November 13, 2018. On November 17, 2020, the City Council voted to continue the Traffic Impact fees at $235 per daily trip which is the same for the Cannabis Traffic Impact Fee. Additionally, Council voted to continue with the Traffic Impact fees at $235 per daily in 2021 through 2023. On November 19, 2024, the City Council voted to decrease the Traffic Impact fees to $228 per daily trip.
253
9 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
A summary of activities in each type of development impact fee for fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 is shown below:
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025*
Development Impact Fees
Description
Park
Development
Fees
Drainage
Fees
Traffic Impact
Fees
Fire System
Development
Fees
Cannabis
Traffic Impact
Fees
Revenue
Fees 262,786 150,933 554,731 18,753
Investment Earnings 104,336 109,517 207,685 16,967 27,021 Other
Revenue Total 367,122 260,450 762,416 16,967 45,774
Expense
Expenditures 678,009 266,580 1,584,597 0 0
Other
Transfers Out
Expense Total 678,009 266,580 1,584,597 0 0
Rev Over(Under) Exp (310,885) (6,129) (822,182) 16,967 45,774 Begin Fund Balance 2,331,723 2,159,858 4,580,203 349,836 545,919 End Fund Balance 2,020,837 2,153,729 3,758,021 366,803 591,693 *Unaudited actuals
254
10 Financial Summary Reporting and CIP
State law requires an identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the costs of the public improvement that was funded with fees. A summary of improvements for each Development Impact Fee is provided.
PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES (QUIMBY ACT FEES)
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Last Five Years:
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025*
Revenue
Fees 1,049,018 766,372 1,278,941 158,327 142,598 262,786 Investment Earnings 223,901 8,022 (100,792) 33,194 103,834 104,336 Other 106,966
Revenue Total 1,272,919 881,359 1,178,149 191,520 246,433 367,122 Expense
Expenditures 1,589,954 1,753,155 2,214,169 934,235 787,431 678,009 Other
Transfers Out
Expense Total 1,589,954 1,753,155 2,214,169 934,235 787,431 678,009
Rev Over(Under) Exp (317,035) (871,796) (1,036,020) (742,714) (540,999) (310,885) Begin Fund Balance 5,840,286 5,523,251 4,651,456 3,615,436 2,872,722 2,331,723 End Fund Balance 5,523,251 4,651,456 3,615,436 2,872,722 2,331,723 2,020,837 *Unaudited actuals
255
11 Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for the Last Five Years:
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Capital Project 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025*
208 - Park Development Fees
Tanagr Pk Plygrd Equip Repl 96,786 47,220
Wilson TeWinkle Park Bridge 18,630 4,273 109,118
Pk Security Lighting Repl 86,983 102,249 28,919 21,542 Jack Hammett Field Upgrade 3,300 8,796 1,532,681 204,580 106,056 Fairview Pk Master Plan 59,822 151,967 30,828
Fairview Pk Fence Sign Trail 5,136 762 110 20,756
Jordan Pk Playground Equip 96,384 77,371
TeWinkle Park Lakes Repairs 31,830 86,060 13,885
NCC - Library Development 1,282,483 1,427,452 225,904 Shalimar Park Improvements 6,940 14,942
Ketchum-Libolt Park Exp 6,940 12,867 12,300
Education Hubs Fairview Pk 5,185 3,172
208 - Park Development Fees
Fund Total 1,285,783 1,523,232 2,007,351 596,218 443,049
88,598
Funds held past the fifth year and first deposit
Not applicable at this time. All funds were expended within the five-year timeframe to fund park improvements and/or recreation facility improvements.
Construction Commencement Date for Incomplete Improvements Not applicable at this time.
Inter-fund Transfers and Loans
No loans were disbursed during this period.
Amount of Refunds
No refunds of any of these funds were made or required in during this period.
256
12 DRAINAGE FEES
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Last Five Years:
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025*
Revenue
Fees 898,498 433,328 348,736 76,516 81,806 150,933
Investment Earnings 78,484 2,100 (57,057) 22,712 86,162 109,517 Other 107,327
Revenue Total 976,982 435,428 291,679 206,555 167,968 260,450 Expense
Expenditures 194,127 593,405 145,850 273,825 183,061 266,580 Expense Total 194,127 593,405 145,850 273,825 183,061 266,580
Rev Over(Under) Exp 782,855 (157,977) 145,829 (67,270) (15,093) (6,129) Begin Fund Balance 1,471,513 2,254,368 2,096,392 2,242,221 2,174,951 2,159,858 End Fund Balance 2,254,368 2,096,392 2,242,221 2,174,951 2,159,858 2,153,729 *Unaudited actuals
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Expenditures for the Last Five Years:
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Capital Project 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025*
209 - Drainage Fees Fund
Catch Basin Inserts-Various 9,966 169,750 26,727 29,199 Citywide Storm Drain Impr 184,161 332,976 108,752 206,984 59,000 34,908 Westside Storm Drain Impr 10,370 66,841 89,625 106,671 Placentia Ave. Stormwater 125,000
NCC - Library Development 90,679
209 - Drainage Fees Fund Total 194,127 593,405 145,850 273,825 177,824 266,579
Funds held past the fifth year and first deposit
Not applicable at this time. All funds were expended or committed within the five -year timeframe to fund storm drain improvements.
Construction Commencement Date for Incomplete Improvements Not applicable at this time.
Inter-fund Transfers and Loans
No loans were disbursed during this period.
Amount of Refunds
No refunds of any of these funds were made or required in during this period.
257
13 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Last Five Years:
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025*
Revenue
Fees 259,298 1,212,500 437,943 601,330 39,292 554,731
Investment Earnings 174,806 (9,496) (143,170) 60,376 190,335 207,685 Other 1,855 7,167
Revenue Total 434,104 1,204,859 294,773 668,873 229,627 762,416 Expense
Expenditures 220,544 404,704 127,222 485,738 1,490,324 1,584,597 Other 75,000
Expense Total 295,544 404,704 127,222 485,738 1,490,324 1,584,597
Rev Over(Under) Exp 138,560 800,155 167,552 183,135 (1,260,697) (822,182) Begin Fund Balance 4,551,499 4,690,059 5,490,214 5,657,766 5,840,900 4,580,203 End Fund Balance 4,690,059 5,490,214 5,657,766 5,840,901 4,580,203 3,758,021 *Unaudited actuals
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Expenditures for the Last Five Years:
For the Fiscal Year Ended
Capital Projects 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025*
214 - Traffic Impact Fees Fund
W 19th St Wallace Av Traf Sig 181,157
Bicycle Racks Citywide 35,032 8,299 28,187 3,427
Hyland/MacArthur Intersct Impr 23,224
Adams at Pinecreek Imp 3,831 25,056 1,248,255
East 17th St. Landscape Enhanc (2,611)
Fairview Traffic Signal Sync 10,457 174,575
Baker/Placntia/19th/Victr TSSP 15,373 138,620 68,810 23,049 Sunflower Traff Signal Sync 93,407
W 17th Design Newport Westside 48,992
Newport Blvd Wide 19th to 17th 43,751 5,731 31,491 52,280 Class II and III Bicycle Project 712 1,805 12,052 82,152 861,298 116,599 Merrimac Way Bicycle Facility 181,847 16,837
Adams Av Bicycle Facility Project 5,715 6,832 122,846 Bicycle/Pedestrian Infra Lamp 1,976 2,459 56,707
Randolph Prkg & Pedestrin Impr 25,792 124,208
West 18th & Wilson Crosswalks 9,325 15,359 372,750
Fairview Road Improvement Proj 17,900 3,850 13,714
214 - Traffic Impact Fees Fund Total 220,544 404,704 127,222 485,738 1,490,324 1,584,597
258
14 Funds held past the fifth year and first deposit
Traffic Impact Fee funds are being held passed the fifth year and first deposit. These funds are intended to fund additional or improved traffic signal, operation, and infrastructure improvements for which the need is generated by new or expanding development within the City.
Construction Commencement Date for Incomplete Improvements Not applicable at this time.
Inter-fund Transfers and Loans
No loans were disbursed during this period.
Amount of Refunds
No refunds of any of these funds were made or required in during this period.
259
15 FIRE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEES
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Last Five Years:
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025*
Revenue
Fees 167,540
Investment Earnings 16,608 23 (8,300) 3,437 13,681 16,967 Other
Revenue Total 184,148 23 (8,300) 3,437 13,681 16,967
Expense
Expenditures
Transfers Out
Expense Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rev Over (Under) Exp 184,148 23 (8,300) 3,437 13,681 16,967 Begin Fund Balance 156,847 340,995 341,018 332,718 336,155 349,836 End Fund Balance 340,995 341,018 332,718 336,155 349,836 366,803 *Unaudited actuals
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Expenditures for the Last Five Years:
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Capital Projects 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025*
218 - Fire System Dev. Fees
218 - Fire System Dev. Fees
Fund Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
Funds held past the fifth year and first deposit
Fire System Development Fee funds are being held past the fifth year and first deposit. These funds are intended to fund additional fire protection facilities, equipment, and paramedic support for which the need is generated by future development within Costa Mesa.
Construction Commencement Date for Incomplete Improvements Not applicable at this time.
Inter-fund Transfers and Loans
No loans were disbursed during this period.
Amount of Refunds
No refunds of any of these funds were made or required in during this period.
260
16 CANNABIS TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Last Five Years:
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025*
Revenue
Fees 432,659 91,309 18,754
Investment Earnings 2,778 19,174 27,021
Other
Revenue Total 0 0 0 435,436 110,483 45,774
Expense
Expenditures
Transfers Out
Expense Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rev Over(Under) Exp 435,436 110,483 45,774
Begin Fund Balance 0 435,436 545,919
End Fund Balance 0 0 0 435,436 545,919 591,693
*Unaudited actuals
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Expenditures for the Last Five Years:
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Capital Projects 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025*
None 0 0 0 0 0 0
Funds held past the fifth year and first deposit
These funds are intended to fund off-site transportation improvements City -wide. Financing is provided by fees charged to cannabis retail establishments.
Construction Commencement Date for Incomplete Improvements Not applicable at this time.
Inter-fund Transfers and Loans
No loans were disbursed during this period.
Amount of Refunds
No refunds of any of these funds were made or required in during this period.
261
17 Development Impact Fee Project Identification
The City's current, Fiscal Year 2025-26 Adopted Budget, which includes the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) FY 2025-26 – FY 2029-30 can be found on the City's website at:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/61565/638978440985530000
Funding of Infrastructure
The FY 2025-26 – FY 2029-30 CIP identifies all funding sources and amounts for individual projects through FY 202 9-30. The CIP is updated annually to reflect the current City's infrastructure needs. As a CIP is identified, the project is evaluated to determine the portion of the project that will service existing residents and businesses versus new development.
Once the determination of use is made, the percentage of use attributed to new development is then funded by the appropriate development fee based on the type of project. The percentage of use associated with existing residents or businesses are funded fro m other appropriate sources. Estimated construction start dates for projects are adjusted, as needed, to reflect the needs of the community.
ONGOING/NEW CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Park Development Fees
Projects by Fund FY 2025-26 – FY 2029-30
208 - Park Development Fees Fund
700021 - Wilson TeWinkle Park Bridge Rep 67,981
700027 - TeWinkle Skate Park Expansion 100,000
700080 - Pk Security Lighting Replacement 11,789
700115 - Jack Hammett Field Upgrade 203,207
700129 - Shalimar Park Improvements 228,118
700133 - Canyon Pk Invntr Mgmt Restore 60,000
700134 - Fairview Pk Fence Sign Trail 273,236
700135 - Fairview Pk Master Plan Update 146,948
700137 - TeWinkle Park Lakes Repairs 700
700139 - Ketchum-Libolt Park Expansion 17892
700142 - Brentwood Park Improvements 400,000
700149 - Educational hubs @ Fairview Pk 81,642
208 - Park Development Fees Fund Total 1,591,513
262
18 Drainage Fees
Projects by Fund FY 2025-26 – FY 2029-30
209 - Drainage Fees Fund
550008 - Citywide Catch Basin Inserts and Water Quality Improvement 151,189 550011 - Citywide Storm Drain Improvements 460,546
550022 - Westside Storm Drain Improvements 1,326,494
209 - Drainage Fees Fund Total 1,938,229
Traffic Impact Fees
Projects by Fund FY 2025-26 – FY 2029-30
214 - Traffic Impact Fees Fund
300148 - Citywide Bicycle Rack Improvements 175,053
300174 - Adams at Pinecreek Improvements 160,311
300181 - Fairview Road Improvement Project 1,489,535
300187 - Fairview Road Improvement - Fair to Adams 120,000 370010 - Mesa del Mar Multi-Model Access 100,000
370039 - Baker/Placentia/19th/Victoria Traffic Signal Synchronization 7,265 450010 - Class II, III, and IV Bicycle Projects 125,383 450014 - Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project 817,154
450015 - Bicycle/Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements 538,857 450016 - Mesa/Santa Ana Bicycle Facility Improvements 100,000 450017 - MV/Peterson Place Class II Bicycle 100,000
214 - Traffic Impact Fees Fund Total 3,733,558
Fire System Development Fees
No current projects to report.
Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees
Projects by Fund FY 2025-26 – FY 2029-30
240 – Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees Fund
450015 – Bicycle Pedestrian Infra Improvements 300,000
240 – Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees Fund Total 300,000
263
19 City Council Action and Studies
The following attachments are Development Impact Fees related recent and prior Council Reviews (Traffic Impact Fees and Park Development Fees).
264
ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution No. 2024-xx Page 1 of 7
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,
CALIFORNIA, CONTINUING THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FOR NEW
DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AND CONDUCTING THE RELATED
ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM AND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 66000 et seq. enables cities to charge fees for transportation facilities; and
WHEREAS, Section 13-274 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to, by resolution, establish a development impact fee program based on the capital improvement program; and
WHEREAS, in 1993, by Resolution No. 93-43, the City Council established a traffic impact fee program and the rate of the traffic impact fee based upon a Traffic Impact Fee Study; and
WHEREAS, each year since 1993, the City has continued the traffic impact fee program; and
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2022, the City Council established a traffic impact fee of Two Hundred Thirty -Five Dollars ($235.00) per Average Daily Trip (ADT) based upon a Traffic Impact Fee Study completed in 2018; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 66001(d) requires the City to make specified findings every five years with respect to any portion of the traffic impact fees collected that remain unexpended in its account, including (1) identifying the purpose to which the fee is to be put; (2) demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged; (3) identifying all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements; and (4) d esignating approximate dates on which the anticipated funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 66002(b) further requires a separate annual review and update of the City’s capital improvement plan for improvements to be paid for by traffic impact fees; and 265
Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 2 of 7
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 66006(b) requires the City to make available to the public within 180 days of the last day of the fiscal year certain information, including but not limited to, a description of the type of fee, the amount of the fee, the amount of fees collected and the interest earned thereon, identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, identification of an approximate date by which the constructi on of the public improvement will commence if the City determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement, and the beginning and ending balance of the traffic impact fee account or fund for the pr evious fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the 2016 General Plan requires the City to maintain a traffic impact fee for improvements to the Master Plan of Streets and Highways and that the City review and update the fees on a regular basis; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 2016 General Plan and the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the City has elected to conduct the review of traffic impact fees required by California Government Code section 66001(d) on an annual basis in conjunction with its review of the capital improvement plan required by California Government Code section 66002(b) and the annual accounting required by California Government Code section 66006(b)(1); and
WHEREAS, the City reviewed and updated the capital improvement plan on June 3, 2025 in connection with its Measure M2 reporting; and WHEREAS, a primary purpose of this resolution is to continue the traffic impact fee based on the 2018 Traffic Impact Fee Study and to enable the City to continue the traffic impact fee; and
WHEREAS, the traffic impact fee is necessary because new development increases the need for transportation/circulation facilities in the City of Costa Mesa not only during peak periods, but throughout the day, and the City transportation/circulation system will be burdened by the demands of carrying vehicles of a larger number of persons and cargo due to new commercial, industrial, and residential uses; and WHEREAS, the 2015-2035 General Plan as well as Environmental Impact Report No. 1049 indicate that development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses is 266
Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 3 of 7
expected to exceed current commercial, industrial and residential uses and, accordingly, the City transportation/circulation systems will need to be increased in capacity to carry the increase in the number of vehicles due to new commercial, industrial and residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department has conducted an audit of the accounts for the traffic impact fee program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 66006, the audit was available for public inspection and review at least fifteen (15) days prior to the City Council review of the audit on December 2, 2025 and notice was mailed to all interested parties on record at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing held on December 2, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 2, 202 5, received testimony and evidence from interested parties in the City of Costa Mesa, and has evaluated justification for renewal of the traffic impact fee given economic and social factors, as well as average fees charged by surrounding cities.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby finds that:
a. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
b. The purpose of the traffic impact fee is to fund transportation/circulation improvements including active transportation improvements within the City of Costa Mesa which are directly related to the incremental traffic/vehicle burden imposed upon the City t ransportation/circulation system by the development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses. c. The fee will be used to fund transportation and circulation improvements within the City of Costa Mesa.
d. There is a reasonable relationship between the traffic impact fee’s use and the development projects on which the fee is imposed because the transportation/circulation facilities funded by the fee are needed to 267
Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 4 of 7
accommodate the incremental new traffic/vehicle burdens generated by the development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses upon which the fee is imposed.
e. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the transportation/circulation facilities and the development of new commercial, industrial and residential projects upon which the fee is imposed because the new development projects paying the fee w ill receive a direct benefit from the transportation/circulation facilities funded by the fee; the transportation/circulation facilities funded by the fee will increase traffic/vehicle circulation capacity on streets and highways directly burdened by the increase in traffic/vehicles generated by new development projects upon which the fee is charged; the cost of transportation/circulation facilities attributed to existing deficiencies, existing land uses and population, excess and reserve capacity, and regional transportation needs have been excluded from the fee calculation, and such costs are not included in the fee to be paid by the development.
f. There is no portion of the fees deposited into the traffic impact fee fund that remains unexpended.
g. The capital improvement plan is adequate to provide the facilities for which the traffic impact fee is charged and does not need to be amended. h. The audit by the Public Works Department set forth in Exhibit “A” accurately reflects the balance of the traffic impact fee account on the fees collected, the interest thereon, and other income and amount of expenditures and refunds of the traffic impact fee made by the City of Costa Mesa during the prior fiscal year.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby renews the traffic impact fee and establishes traffic impact fee regulations as follows:
a. The traffic impact fee shall be a fee of $231.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip end generated by all new commercial, industrial and residential developments. To encourage active transportation in Costa Mesa, staff shall provide a five percent (5%) reduction in ADT development trips for 268
Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 5 of 7
active transportation project benefits and may provide an additional five percent (5%) reduction in ADT development trips for a development project which proposes to implement active transportation improvements beyond those which would ordinarily be requir ed by the City as a condition of approval for such development project.
b. The traffic impact fee established pursuant to this resolution shall be collected and administered in accordance with all requirements of California Government Code section 66000 et seq. , the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and prior resolutions of the City Council.
c. There shall be no limitation on the amount of traffic impact fees which may be allocated toward active transportation projects.
d. Staff may allocate up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects.
Section 3 . The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby approves the updated comprehensive transportation/circulation system capital improvement plan as identified at the June 3, 2025 City Council meeting pursuant to Government Code section 66002.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of December, 2025.
____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________ ____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney
269
Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 6 of 7
THIS PAGE IS RESERVED FOR CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2025-xx and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 2nd day of December, 2025, by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 2nd day of December, 2025.
________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
270
Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 7 of 7
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACCOUNT
Fund Balance as of June 30, 2025
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
Audited Beginning Fund Balance as of July 1, 2024, including Cannabis TIF fund 5,126,122
1. Revenues
Fiscal Year 24-25 Traffic Impact Fees 554,731
Investment Earnings 139,154
GASB 31 Fair Market Value adjustment on Investment 61,768 Misc / Other Reimbursement -
Revenue Subtotal 800,513
Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees Revenue
FY24-25 Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees 18,753
Investment Earnings for Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees 17,525 GASB 31 Fair Market Value adjustment for Cannabis TIF Investment 8,582 Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees Revenue Subtotal 44,859
2. Expenditures 1,584,597
Bicycle Racks Citywide 3,427
Class II and III Bicycle Projects 116,599
Adams at Pinecreek Intersection Improvements 1,248,255
Bicycle/Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvement 56,707
Fairview Road Improvement Project 13,714
Baker/ Placentia/ 19th/ Victoria TSSP 23,049
Adams Ave Bicycle Facility Project 122,846
3. Refunds -
Amount of funds expended or
uncommitted after 5 years
-
4. Administrative Costs -
5. Fund Balance, including Cannabis TIF fund, as of June 30, 2025 4,342,038
6. Projects Current and Future Appropriations 4,033,559 Bicycle Racks Citywide
Class II and III Bicycle Projects
Adams at Pinecreek Intersection Improvements
Mesa Del Mar Multimodal Access
Baker/ Placentia/ 19th/ Victoria TSSP
Bicycle/ Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvement
Mesa Drive / Santa Ana Ave Bicycle Facility Improvement Mesa Verde Drive East/ Peterson Place Class II Bicycle Facility Fairview Road Improvement Project
Adams Ave Bicycle Facility Project
7. Unallocated Traffic Impact Fee Fund Balance 308,479
271
ATTACHMENT 3
CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REVIEW - REPORT
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the proposed resolution, continuing the citywide traffic impact fee for new development in the City of Costa Mesa and conducting the related annual review of the citywide traffic impact fee program and capital improvement plan for transportation improvements. The resolution incorporates the recommendations from the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff, which include:
1. Adopt a traffic impact fee of $231 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) based on the Capital Improvement Projects in Attachment 4 and Active Transportation projects in the adopted Active Transportation Plan (ATP).
2. Approve allocation of up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects.
3. Approve a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips as a result of ATP implementation and an additional five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for developments proposing to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical development requirements.
4. Approve the annual accounting of the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program.
Background
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000, et seq. and the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, a traffic impact fee study is required by the City to establish a basis for the imposition of Citywide traffic impact fees on new and expanding developments within the City. The purpose of the fee is to fund the necessary transportation/circulation improvements, which are related directly to the incremental traffic impacts imposed on the City’s transportation system by the development of new and/or changing commercial, industrial, and residential uses as permitted by the General Plan. The fee also maintains compliance with the eligibility requirements of the Orange County Transportation Authority’s (OCTA) Renewed Measure “M2” Program (Measure “M2”).
The City Council has reviewed the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program each year since the fee program was first adopted in 1993. The City Council, in July 1993, also approved the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of representatives from various stakeholder groups to work with staff on all aspects related to the revision and updating of traffic impact fees.
The City Council subsequently appointed an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of members representing large and small developers, the Chamber of Commerce, citizens -at-large, 272
ATTACHMENT 3
as well as members representing the City Council and the Planning Commission, to assist staff in the development and review of the traffic impact fee.
The current Ad Hoc Committee members and their representation are as follows:
George Sakioka (Chair) Major Developers’ Representative David Haithcock (Vice Chair) Chamber of Commerce
Steve Brahs Small Developers’ Representative
Jim Fitzpatrick At Large Representative
Nick Lapating At Large Representative
City Council Liaisons:
Council Member Andrea Marr
Council Member Arlis Reynolds
Planning Commission Liaison:
Vice Chair Jonathan Zich
The City Council, in June 2012, authorized a comprehensive review of the City’s General Plan, including the Land Use and Circulation Elements. The General Plan was completed and finalized in 2016.
The last major update of the Traffic Impact Fee Study was completed in November 2018.
The update took into account the most recent land use and circulation information contained in the 2016 General Plan update. The proposed General Plan circulation improvements identified in the new transportation model form the basis for the traffic impact fee update. A revised traffic impact fee calculation was conducted taking into account the 2016 General Plan and updated traffic analysis model. The estimated costs for various improvements were reviewed and updated using the most recent construction cost data. The Ad Hoc Committee, together with staff, reviewed all conditions and analyzed different trip fee scenarios. Several variations of improvement options were considered, and it was determined that trip fees in the range of $176 per ADT through $476 per ADT could be justified.
On November 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-65, approving a traffic impact fee of $235 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) to be continued with the inclusion of Active Transportation projects, selecting a fee from the calculated range of between $176 and $476 per ADT. The City Council also approved up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees being allocated toward traffic signal synchronization projects. In addition, City Council approved a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips as a result of ATP implementation and an additional five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for developments proposing to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical development requirements.
A chronology of actions taken by the City Council on the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program between the years of 1993 and 2024 is included in Attachment 5. 273
ATTACHMENT 3
Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee – Annual Review
The Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff met twice on October 9, 2025 and October 30, 2025 to review the traffic impact fee program and calculation. Recently completed projects, consideration of active transportation projects, and the available traffic impact fee fund balance were accounted for in this review.
Attachment 4 provides the calculation of the traffic impact fee of $231 per ADT based on a revised list of capital improvement projects and the inclusion of Active Transportation projects. The Committee deliberated option to continue the current traffic impact fee of $228 per ADT or to modify the traffic impact fees to $ 231 per ADT. The discussion focused on the current balance of traffic impact fee fund which is adequate to fund projects over the next two to three years and the upcoming study to review traffic impact fees taking into account future housing development as part of rezoning to meet state goals.
Following a review of the fee analysis and staff input, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended to adopt the calculated traffic impact fee of $ 231 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) with the inclusion of Active Transportation projects in the Traffic Impact Fee program. In addition, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended to continue the allocation of up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects.
The Ad Hoc Committee also recommended to continue to provide a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for development projects due to the implementation of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and an additional five percent (5%) reduction in ADT if a development proposes to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical code requirements. The improvements have to be substantial such as addition of a multipurpose trail, conversion of lower-class active bicycle facility to a higher-class bicycle facility, or enhanced pedestrian improvements in the vicinity of the project.
Annual Accounting of the Traffic Impact Fee:
California Government Code Section 66006(b) requires an annual review and accounting of the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program. Section 66001(d) requires that the City make specified findings every five years relating to any portion of the traffic impact fees collected that remain unexpended in its account. The City has elected to conduct the review of traffic impact fees required by California Government Code Section 66001(d) on an annual basis in conjunction with its review of the capital improvement p lan required by California Government Code Section 66002(b) and the annual accounting required by California Government Code Section 66006(b). Attachment 6 depicts the opening balance, the ending balance on June 30, 2025, interest earned, revenues, expenditures, and unexpended funds from the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Account. This attachment also shows there is $308,479 of unallocated traffic impact fee that can be allocated to eligible projects in the next five (5) or more years. The accounting was pre sented to the 274
ATTACHMENT 3
Committee at their meetings on October 9, 2025, and October 30, 2025 and was approved.
As required by the Government Code, the updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is contained in the Fiscal Year 2025-26 adopted budget and remains valid for the current traffic impact fee review. The traffic impact fee account information, including the interest earned, shown in Attachment 6, is available for public review. 275
Corridor Miles Limits ESTIMATED COST
Airport Channel/Delhi Channel Trail 1.27 Bristol Street to Anton Boulevard $3,169,920 Auto Club Channel Bicycle Trail 0.37 Sunflower Avenue to South Coast Drive $923,520 Fairview Channel Bicycle Trail 0.54 East Extension Placentia to Estancia $1,347,840 Gisler Avenue Trail 0.18 Gister Avenue Class II facility to Fairview Road $449,280 Greenville Banning Channel 1.02 Harbor Boulevard to Santa Ana River $2,545,920 Newport Frontage Road South 0.34 Bristol Street to Arlington Avenue $848,640 OCC West Bicycle Trail 0.37 Merrimac Way to Adams Avenue $923,520 Paularino Channel Trail-1 1.22 Fairview Road to Bristol Street $3,045,120 Paularino Channel Trail-2 0.39 Fairview Road to Pinecreek Drive $973,440 Trail along channel 0.27 Santa Ana Avenue to City Boundary (east) $673,920 Class I Off-Street Trail Total 5.97 $14,901,120
Corridor Miles Limits ESTIMATED COST
17th Street 1.13 West City Limits to Newport Boulevard $141,024 22nd Street 0.86 Newport Boulevard to Irvine Avenue (Victoria = $160,992 Adams Avenue 0.86 Royal Palm Drive to Fairview Road $160,992 American Avenue 0.29 Victoria Street to West Wilson Street $54,288 Baker Street 0.61 Bristol Street to Red Hill Avenue $114,192 Baker Street from e/o Fairview Road to west of Harbor Boulevard 1.06 Fairview Road to Royal Palm $198,432 Bear Street 0.14 Sunflower Avenue to the North City Limit $26,208 Bristol Street 0.53 Paularino Avenue to Bear Street $99,216 Bristol Street 0.27 Santa Ana Avenue to City Boundary (east) $50,544 Canyon Drive 0.43 Victoria Street to Fairview Park $80,496 College Avenue/Village Way 0.78 Gisler Avenue to Pinecreek Drive $146,016 Del Mar Avenue 0.19 Newport Frontage to Elden $35,568
East 17th Street 0.98 Newport Boulevard to Irvine Avenue $183,456 Gisler Avenue 0.49 Harbor Boulevard to Gisler Class I facilitiy $91,728 Golf Course Drive 0.21 Tanager Drive to Mesa Verde Drive East $39,312 Hamilton Street 0.29 Harbor Boulevard to Thurin Street $54,288 Harbor Boulevard 1.57 Merrimac Way to South Coast Drive $293,904 Harbor Boulevard 1.19 Joann Bike Trail to Newport Boulevard $222,768 Mesa Verde East 0.53 Adams Avenue to Peterson Place $99,216 Monrovia Avenue 0.49 17th Street to 19th Street $91,728 Pacific Avenue 0.59 Victoria Street to Fairview Park $110,448 Paularino Avenue 0.36 East of Bear Street to Bristol Street $67,392 Pinecreek Drive 0.18 Adams Avenue to Village Way $33,696 Pomona Avenue 0.76 Superior Street to 19th Street $142,272 Rochester Street 0.48 W 18th Street to Orange Avenue $89,856 Santa Ana Avenue 0.50 Bristol Street to Mesa Drive $93,600 Santa Ana Avenue 0.38 Broadway to East 17th Street $71,136 Sunflower Avenue 1.45 Park Center Drive to Fairview Road $271,440 Superior Avenue 0.34 17th Street to Pomona Avenue $63,648 West 18th Street 0.92 Monrovia Avenue to Newport Boulevard $172,224 Wilson Street 0.96 Miner Street to Newport Boulevard $179,712 Class II Bike Lane Total 19.82 $3,639,792
Corridor Miles Limits ESTIMATED COST
Avocado Street 0.50 College Avenue to Fairview Road $249,600 Bay Street 0.28 Thurin Street to Fullerton Avenue $139,776 Canary Drive 0.13 Oriole Street to Fairview Park $64,896 Cardinal Drive 0.16 Oriole Drive to Swan Circle $79,872 College Avenue 0.25 Wilson Street to Victoria Street $124,800 Del Mar Avenue 0.38 Elden Avenue to Santa Ana Avenue $189,696 Fullerton Avenue 0.63 Bay Street to East 18th Street $314,496 Labrador Drive/Gibralter Avenue 0.48 Baker Street to Gisler Avenue $239,616 Oriole Drive 0.40 Placentia Avenue to Tanager Drive $199,680 Peterson Place 0.20 Mesa Verde Drive East to Adams Avenue $99,840 Mace, Caraway, Cinnamon 0.63 Adams Avenue to Gisler Avenue $314,496 Santa Ana Avenue 0.25 Mesa Drive to Del Mar Avenue $124,800 Swan Circle 0.02 Cardinal Drive to Placentia Avenue $9,984 Tanager Drive 0.48 Golf Course Drive to Canary Drive $239,616 Thurin Street 0.24 Victoria Street to Bay Street $119,808 Vanguard Way/Santa Isabel Avenue 0.81 Fair Drive to Irvine Avenue $404,352 Wilson Street 0.50 Newport Boulevard to Santa Ana Avenue $249,600 Class III Bike Boulevard Total 6.34 $3,164,928
Corridor Miles Limits ESTIMATED COST
Conway Avenue/Killybrooke Lane 0.65 Fairview Road to Garlingford $16,224 Coronado Drive 0.46 Presidio Drive to Mendoza Drive $11,482 Fountain Way 0.13 Wilson Street to Joann Street Bicycle Trail $3,245 Junipero Drive 0.25 Presidio Drive to Arlington Drive $6,240 Wilson Street 0.65 Placentia Avenue to Pacific Avenue $16,224 Class III Bike Route Total 2.14 $53,414
Corridor Miles Limits ESTIMATED COST
Adams Avenue 1.69 West City Limit to Royal Palm Drive $1,054,560 Baker Street 0.16 Mesa Verde Drive East to Labrador Drive $99,840 Bristol Street 0.75 Newport Boulevard to Paularino Channel $468,000 Gisler Avenue 0.37 Gibraltar Avenue to Harbor Boulevard $230,880 Class IV Cycle Track Total 2.97 $1,853,280
TOTAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS 37.24 $23,612,534
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ESTIMATED COSTS
COSTA MESA TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE UPDATE
October 2025
ATTACHMENT 4 276
LOCAL REGIONA L TOTAL LOCAL REGIONA L TOTAL
17th (Orange to Tustin) Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes
17th (Pomona to Bluff) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes
Baker (Bear to Red Hill) Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes $8,652,358 5,120 2,786 7,906 $5,603,348 $3,049,009 $8,652,358 Bear (I-405 Overcrossing) Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Del Mar/University (Elden to Santa
Ana) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes
Wilson (Fairview to College) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Wilson (Newport to Fairview) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Wilson (Harbor to Placentia) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes $8,652,358 5,120 2,786 7,906 $5,603,348 $3,049,009 $8,652,358 Harbor & Sunflower Add WBR and EBR $1,097,280 4,982 2,859 7,841 $697,188 $400,092 $1,097,280 Bristol & Sunflower Add NBL $1,356,880 7,038 4,344 11,382 $839,019 $517,860 $1,356,880 Hyland & South Coast/I-405 NB On-
Ramp Add WBT $1,035,928 1,901 604 2,505 $786,147 $249,781 $1,035,928 Harbor & South Coast Add EBR $2,003,760 7,830 3,157 10,987 $1,428,000 $575,760 $2,003,760 Hyland & MacArthur Add NBL and NBR $314,326 2,003 1,797 3,800 $165,683 $148,643 $314,326 Bristol & I-405 NB Ramps Add WBR $1,080,010 13,117 5,615 18,732 $756,272 $323,738 $1,080,010 Harbor & Gisler Add SBR and EBL $5,874,084 9,893 4,259 14,152 $4,106,297 $1,767,787 $5,874,084 Bristol & Paularino Add WBL $360,252 6,710 1,690 8,400 $287,773 $72,479 $360,252 SR-55 SB Ramps & Paularino Add SBR $496,476 1,845 2,631 4,476 $204,647 $291,829 $496,476 SR-55 NB Ramps & Paularino Add WBR $771,300 1,649 2,504 4,153 $306,254 $465,046 $771,300 SR-55 SB Ramps & Baker Add SBR $750,420 3,477 2,446 5,923 $440,522 $309,898 $750,420 SR-55 NB Ramps & Baker Add NBL and EBL $1,644,390 2,728 2,001 4,729 $948,593 $695,797 $1,644,390 Harbor & Adams Add NBL and NBR $7,244,820 10,600 3,803 14,403 $5,331,882 $1,912,938 $7,244,820 Newport NB & Del Mar Add WBR $157,770 2,934 2,406 5,340 $86,685 $71,085 $157,770 Newport NB & 22nd Add WBT and NBL $18,000 3,332 2,625 5,957 $10,068 $7,932 $18,000 Placentia & 19th Add SBR $463,536 6,409 1,423 7,832 $379,316 $84,220 $463,536 Superior & 17th Add WBL and NBR $795,438 7,133 2,160 9,293 $610,552 $184,886 $795,438 Newport & 17th Add NBR $533,610 10,202 5,079 15,281 $356,252 $177,358 $533,610 Irvine & 17th Addd SBR and EBR $952,614 3,760 1,777 5,537 $646,890 $305,724 $952,614 $26,950,892 107,543 53,180 160,723 $18,388,039 $8,562,854 $26,950,892 $35,603,250 112,663 55,966 168,629 $23,991,387 $11,611,863 $35,603,250 Total Roadways and Intersection Improvements Local Cost Allocation $23,991,387 Total Active Transportation Project Costs $23,612,534
(-) Unallocated Traffic Impact Fee Fund Balance $308,479 Total Funding Needed to Implement Project List $47,295,442 227,767
204,990
$231Citywide TIF Calculation (Funding Need/New Trips Less 10%)
ROADWAYS
SUB-TOTAL
INTERSECTIONS
SUB-TOTAL
TOTAL ROADWAY & INTERSECTION PROJECTS
New Costa Mesa Trips Generated at General Plan Buildout New Costa Mesa Trips Generated at General Plan Buildout Less 10%
COSTA MESA TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE UPDATE
ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS COST ALLOCATION 2025-26 TIF CALCULATION
COST ALLOCATION
LOCATION IMPROVEMENT
ESTIMATED
COST
NEW DAILY TRIP ENDS
October 2025 277
ATTACHMENT 5
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CHRONOLOGY OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACTIONS
Date Adopted Resolution
Number
Area of
Benefit
Applicable Fees
7-June-1993 93-43 Citywide $228 per daily trip end based on the exclusion of all freeway improvements 20-June-1994 94-59 Citywide $228 per daily trip end based on the exclusion of all freeway improvements 1-May-1995 95-35 Citywide $200 per daily trip end based on the inclusion of freeway improvements 17-June-1996 96-57 Citywide $200 per daily trip end based on the inclusion of freeway improvements 20-January-1997 97-15 Newport
Bl. Spec.
Plan Area
Incentive program for developments in Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area Trip fees range from $33 to $108 per ADT based on project-related conditions. 16-June-1997 97-51 Citywide $150 per daily trip end based on the inclusion of freeway improvements 15-June-1998 98-64 Citywide $150 per daily trip end based on the inclusion of freeway improvements 4-January-1999 99-2 Citywide Incentive program for first 100 trips 0-25 ADT - $0
25-50 ADT - $50
50-75 ADT - $75
75-100 ADT - $100
>100 ADT - $150
7-June-1999 99-35 Citywide $149 per daily trip end based on inclusion of freeway improvements 7-June-1999 99-36 Citywide Incentive program for the first 100 trips 19-June-2000 00-52 District 1
District 2
$195 per daily trip end (areas north of I-405 and SR-73 Freeways) and incentive program for the first 100 trips
$149 per daily trip end (areas south of I-405 and SR-73 Freeways) and incentive program for the first 100 trips
Fees based on inclusion of freeway improvements
4-June-2001 01-34 District 1
District 2
$195 per daily trip end (areas north of I-405 and SR-73 Freeways) and incentive program for the first 100 trips
$149 per daily trip end (areas south of I-405 and SR-73 Freeways) and incentive program for the first 100 trips
Fees based on inclusion of freeway improvements
15-April-2002 02-27 Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Study Update $177 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 6-October-2003 03-62 Citywide $177 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 4-October-2004 04-59 Citywide $177 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site Suspension of incentive program for Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area
278
ATTACHMENT 5
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CHRONOLOGY OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACTIONS
Date Adopted Resolution
Number
Area of
Benefit
Applicable Fees
20-September-2005 05-70 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 17-October-2006 06-85 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 16-October-2007 07-77 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site Exemption of preschool and daycare facilities from traffic impact fee program (consider as part of exempt school facilities)
21-October-2008 08-81 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 20-October-2009 09-67 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 19-October-2010 10-70 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 18-October-2011 11-42 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 20-November-2012 12-73 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 11-November-2013 13-54 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 18-November-2014 14-73 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 1-December-2015 15-66 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 3-January-2017 17-02 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 21-November-2017 17-76 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 14-November-2018 18-79 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects, and up to 5% for active transportation projects. Terminate incentive program for new developments on an incremental basis for the first 100 trips.
17-December-2019 19-83 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, inclusion of ATP projects, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects, and no limitation on the amount of traffic impact fees allocated toward active transportation projects. Provide 5% reduction in ADT development trips for active transportation project benefits and may provide an additional 5% reduction in ADT development trips for a development project that proposes to implement active transportation improvements beyond those which would ordinarily be required by the City as a condition of approval for such development project.
17-November-2020 20-60 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, inclusion of ATP projects, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects. Provide 5% reduction in ADT development trips for active transportation and may provide additional 5% reduction in ADT development trips for development implementing active transportation improvements beyond those required as condition of approval. 7-December-2021 21-48 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, inclusion of ATP projects, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects. Provide 5% reduction in ADT development trips with conditions as approved in 2020. 15-November-2022 22-65 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, inclusion of ATP projects, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects. Provide 5% reduction in ADT development trips with conditions as approved in 2021. 05-December-2023 23-56 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, inclusion of ATP projects, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects. Provide 5% reduction in ADT development trips with conditions as approved in 2021. 279
ATTACHMENT 5
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CHRONOLOGY OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACTIONS
Date Adopted Resolution
Number
Area of
Benefit
Applicable Fees
19-November-2024 24-48 Citywide $228 per daily trip end, inclusion of ATP projects, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects. Provide 5% reduction in ADT development trips with conditions as approved in 2021.
280
CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-600 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
TITLE:
DRAFT FAIRVIEW PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE: DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
DEPARTMENT: PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
PRESENTED BY: BRIAN GRUNER, PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: KELLY DALTON, FAIRVIEW PARK ADMINISTRATOR (714) 754- 5009
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Review and discuss the Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update (Attachment 1) prepared by consultant Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman, Inc. (MIG); and
2. Provide direction on the Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update for inclusion in the final Fairview Park Master Plan Update for adoption.
BACKGROUND:
City Council Meeting Discussion
On November 18, 2025, staff presented the Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update to the City Council. During the meeting, staff and the consultant team addressed City Council questions regarding various elements of the Master Plan Draft. The meeting had over 40 public speakers providing public comments regarding the Draft Master Plan. After public comments, the City Council unanimously voted to continue the Draft Master Plan item under Old Business at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting on December 2, 2025.
Master Plan Update
The Draft Master Plan update provides a framework to guide the enhancement, restoration, and management of Fairview Park’s unique assets and open recreational space within existing environmental and cultural constraints. The Master Plan also serves as a management tool to inform sustainable park maintenance and operations, recreational activities, educational and interpretive opportunities.
Fairview Park is the City’slargest park, spanning 208 acres of open space, which forms an integral
281
File #: 25-600 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
Fairview Park is the City’slargest park, spanning 208 acres of open space, which forms an integral component of the lower Santa Ana River ecological corridor. Archeological investigations completed at the Fairview Park site indicate an extensive period of human occupancy at the site dating back over 3500 years. Within the 208 acres of open space, there are two Native American Nationally Registered Historic Sites, and five different habitat ecosystems, which are home to an array of sensitive, rare and endangered plant and animal species. The park also offers users multiple passive recreational opportunities and trails for walking, running, bicycling, and wildlife observation throughout the park’svarious habitats. The following key factors identify Fairview Park as a cultural, ecological and recreational resource of regional significance.
Cultural and Ecological Resources
· Cultural and historical significance: The park contains nationally registered cultural resource historic sites and is a sacred site to the tribal community. · Habitat diversity: Fairview Park encompasses several distinct habitat types, including wetlands, riparian areas, coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff scrub, and flower fields. These habitats support a wide array of plant and animal species, many of which are designated as endangered, rare, or special-status wildlife.
· Vernal pools: The park is home to rare vernal pools, which are ephemeral wetlands that provide critical habitat for a variety of unique and specialized organisms, including the San Diego fairy shrimp and Riverside fairy shrimp, both listed as endangered by the federal government.
· Wildlife corridor: Fairview Park serves as a crucial wildlife corridor, connecting the Santa Ana River system of trails and parks to other open spaces in the region, such as Talbert Regional Park.
· Wildlife refuge and human ecology: Fairview Park provides a valuable refuge for wildlife within the urban landscape of coastal Orange County, offering a unique space for people to connect with nature.
Organized Recreational Activities and User Groups
Fairview Park offers approximately seven (7) miles of trails, providing passive recreational opportunities such as walking, running, bicycling, wildlife observation, environmental interpretation, and connectivity to the Santa Ana River bikeway system. The park also hosts unique organized activities, including the narrow-gauge railroad, hobbyist model glider flying, and community-based restoration and educational activities.
In addition, the following non-profit organizations provide year-round programs and events at Fairview Park:
· Coastal Corridor Alliance (CCA): CCA partners with the City to host community-based restoration events, guided educational tours, volunteering opportunities and other programs to support community stewardship.
· Fairview Park Alliance (FPA): FPA partners with the City to organize volunteer-based restoration activities and educational activities in support of Fairview Park preservation,
282
File #: 25-600 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
restoration, and protection.
· Harbor Soaring Society (HSS): HSS is a radio-controlled soaring club, offering model glider flying activities for model aircraft enthusiasts in Fairview Park. · Institute for Conservation Research and Education (ICRE): ICRE works with schools and educational institutions to conduct student-led research in local natural environments, including Fairview Park.
· Orange County Model Engineers (OCME): OCME operates the narrow-gauge model railroad on the east side of Fairview Park, offering free public train rides through Fairview Park on the model train circuit.
· Sea and Sage Audubon Society: Sea and Sage Audubon conduct organized bird surveys to document bird activity in Fairview Park and offers other programs, including guided educational tours and workshops.
Master Plan Timeline
Over the past 30 years, the City has periodically updated the original Fairview Park Master Plan to comply with new regulatory agency requirements, community requests and ecological findings.
Below is a timeline of notable years when the plan was updated and/or impacted by certain events:
· 1996 to 1998: The City of Costa Mesa prepared and adopted the Fairview Park Master Plan (“MasterPlan”)to provide a framework for existing and future park improvements, public uses, interpretive elements, and restoration opportunities.
· 2000 and 2002: City Council subsequently adopted revisions to the Master Plan to address specific changes in park features, and in 2008 to account for an updated biological survey of the park.
· 2016: Costa Mesa voters adopted the citizen-initiated Ballot Measure AA, which became codified in the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Measure AA requires that further development and significant permanent constructed improvements in Fairview Park must be approved by the Costa Mesa electorate prior to being constructed, with certain exceptions for purposes of restoration, public safety, preservation, and maintenance. · 2017: City Council established the Fairview Park Steering Committee, which is tasked with providing advice and recommendations to the City Council on the implementation of the Fairview Park Master Plan and on Measure AA.
· 2019 to 2020: City Council allocated funding for the Fairview Park Master Plan from the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget.
· 2023: The City Council awarded the Professional Services Agreement to MIG for the Fairview Park Master Plan Update.
Master Plan Process
Since March 2023, the consultant team has undergone an intensive process of analyzing a large amount of information about Fairview Park, while evaluating conditions of the site and engaging with the site’s diverse stakeholders through the community outreach process.
283
File #: 25-600 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
The key activities completed by the consultant team are:
· Review of historical biological reports, surveys, and other technical reports from the site. · Conducted botanical investigations to develop a comprehensive list of plant species in the park.
· Review of relevant codes, regulations, and legal information pertaining to the site’sbiological resources, environmental resources and cultural resources. o Evaluated recreational features, public use patterns, furnishings, amenities, and other features.
· Confirmed the presence of over twenty rare and endangered species, including Western burrowing owl, Coastal California gnatcatcher, Least Bell’svireo, Crotch’sbumble bee, San Diego Button Celery, Southern tar plant, and several others. · Prepared and completed three technical reports addressing biological resources, vegetation community mapping and restoration opportunities, and cultural/historical resources assessment.
Outreach and Engagement
The Master Plan update process recognizes the interdependence of meaningful stakeholder engagement. In order to receive community input, staff and the consultant team engaged in the following activities:
· Conducted public outreach sessions, including a combination of community workshops, informational sessions, and presentations to the Parks and Community Services Commission, Fairview Park Steering Committee, and the City Council. · Consultation with representatives of the Tribal Advisory Group, both in-person at the site and in virtual format.
· Conducted a series of site reviews at various times, seasons, and periods of the day and week to examine use patterns by park visitors throughout the 208-acre site.
The project team synthesized the information gathered during the outreach activities to develop a framework for identifying key findings and recommendations for the Fairview Park Master Plan Update. The consultant team relied on the following criteria in the development of the recommendations for the Master Plan Update:
· Community need and public benefit
· Scientific integrity
· Feasibility
· Sustainability (economic and environmental)
· Legal and regulatory implications
· Consistency with the stated objectives of the Master Plan Update Fairview Park Steering Committee Recommendations
In July and October 2024, the consultant team presented the Master Plan Update findings and recommendations to the Fairview Park Steering Committee. During these meetings, the Committee
284
File #: 25-600 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
recommendations to the Fairview Park Steering Committee. During these meetings, the Committee discussed, revised and approved 25 recommendations as provided by the consultant from community engagement sessions, Attachment 2. The Committee’sgeneral direction was to maintain Fairview Park as a cultural and environmentally sensitive resource. The Committee supports conservation and restoration of native plants, hiking trails and the natural habitat while encouraging community engagement and passive use access.
Special Council Meeting
On January 28, 2025, staff presented to Council a status update on the development of the Draft Fairview Park Master Plan. The overview included key updates on the progress of the community outreach efforts, ecological conditions, a summary of historical documentation and completed restoration efforts, and highlights of resource assessment, technical investigations and field surveys.
City Council discussed the Draft Master Plan update and provided feedback to staff, including a balancing of resource protection and public use, which reflects the interest of the community and City.
ANALYSIS:
The Draft Master Plan was developed to reflect the following City Council direction and goals:
1. To restore and preserve the park as an environmental resource and provide interpretive opportunities to educate users of the park’s unique ecology, cultural history and resources.
2. To manage the park as a balanced recreational opportunity for all users.
3. To engage stakeholders, users, and the community at large in developing a blueprint to manage the park, which accounts for passive use recreation, environmental restoration and preservation, and funding considerations for years to come.
Project Objectives
The primary objectives of the Draft Master Plan are:
· Incorporate mitigation commitments and new conservation obligations associated with restored areas and conservation easements. (e.g., wetlands and riparian habitat restoration projects, Headlands coastal sage scrub mitigation, vernal pools restoration) · Reflect the passing of Ballot Measure AA.
· Account for completed improvements, trails, and access features (e.g., North Bluff stairs, Placentia Ave. bridge, Vernal Pool 1 boardwalk)
· Account for resource protection measures based on current regulatory requirements. · Account for documented species and resources present within the site and produce current biological and cultural resource assessments for the site. · Carry out tribal consultation in accordance with new State requirements, which require lead agencies to consult with California indigenous tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area of a proposed project.
· Utilize contemporary technology and asset mapping tools to support informed land
285
File #: 25-600 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
· Utilize contemporary technology and asset mapping tools to support informed land management.
· Conduct community outreach and engage the local community in planning the future enhancement and improvement of the park.
· Evaluate and account for current and future recreational activities.
Existing Conditions and Regulatory Framework
Fairview Park’s biological, cultural, and environmental resources are protected under a comprehensive regulatory and legal framework at federal, state, and local levels, including the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts, National Historic Preservation Act, National and California Registers of Historic Places, California Fish and Game Code, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Tribal Cultural Resource provisions. These regulations prohibit unauthorized “take”of endangered wildlife resources, and require that projects and activities consider, avoid, or mitigate impacts to significant ecological, historical, and cultural resources. Additionally, local regulations such as Measure AA ensure that major changes to the park’s facilities and infrastructure receive community oversight, reinforcing the protection of sensitive natural and cultural areas.
Master Plan Significant Findings and Recommendations
The Master Plan provides a framework for future improvements, enhancements, restoration efforts, and management of the 208-acre site. Significant findings and recommendations in the Master Plan Draft compared to the previous Master Plans are as follows:
· The tribal cultural significance of the Fairview Park site to the tribal community, and the need for continued coordination, site preservation, and relationship building between the City and tribes.
· The need to improve protection of the site’ssensitive archeological resources and treat the Fairview Park site as culturally sensitive at a landscape scale rather than as isolated cultural resource sites.
· Discovery of the vernal pool watershed’sexpansive area, the interconnectedness between the vernal pools and surrounding watershed habitats, and the connectivity of the vernal pool complex on the west side of Fairview Park.
· Improved understanding of the park’sbiological diversity and ecological sensitivity including several State and Federally listed endangered species found in the park, as well as sensitive habitats which provide habitat for native wildlife.
· The importance of ecologically appropriate maintenance, operations, and management protocols to guide sustainable land management activities around sensitive resources. · Relocate the fly field from its current location to a non-biological sensitive area of Fairview Park and to avoid environmental impacts to documented resources. · The importance of maintaining park accessibility to all community members, including incorporation of ADA accessible facilities.
· Recognition of the need for additional public access features such as elevated boardwalks to improve public access and trail connectivity, and to preserve sensitive features. · Recognition of the need to revegetate areas of excessive barren ground to prevent erosion,
286
File #: 25-600 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
· Recognition of the need to revegetate areas of excessive barren ground to prevent erosion, improve public safety, and provide users clear definitions for the designated trail system. · Recognition of the importance of Fairview Park as an exercise hub for community members, and the park’s value for physical and mental wellness.
· Recognition of the community’sinterest in local stewardship activities including volunteering, community-based restoration, and educational tours, and the value of non-profit partnerships in fulfilling this interest.
· Potential for a native plant growing space to supply restoration needs within the park, and to provide other community and educational benefits.
· The scientific value of the site as an open laboratory for scientific research, citizen science, and student learning opportunities in various scientific disciplines (biology, ecology, geology, hydrology, archeology, etc.).
· The educational value of the site for cultural historical storytelling at the site, and opportunities to educate the public about the connectedness between humans and their natural environment.
Community Input on the Draft Master Plan
On October 3, 2025, the City released the Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update for a 30-day public review period. Comments received from the public comment period are included in Attachment
3. The general community feedback themes are:
1. Conservation and education: Community members emphasized the importance of conserving sensitive features and educating the public to protect sensitive biological and cultural resources.
2. Trail management and public access: Participants supported consolidating and maintaining a system of well-defined trails while limiting off-trail use using natural barriers, physical barriers, and clear signage.
3. Resource protection measures: participants expressed strong support for prioritizing sensitive resource protection, including vernal pools and watersheds, sensitive flora and fauna, and cultural sites.
4. Enhanced park operations and amenities: feedback emphasized the need for increased ranger/staff presence onsite, incorporation of ADA-accessible furnishings near the lawn area, additional dog waste receptacles, and improved trails.
5. Opinions of recreational activities: participants had mixed opinions on some recreational activities. While some expressed support for retaining current non-authorized trail use, and the dirt fill mounds used as bike features, others expressed concern over adverse environmental impacts from these activities. Participants also emphasized safety concerns about BMX activity on the dirt fill features, and concerns with high-speed motorized bike and E-bike activity on trails.
287
File #: 25-600 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
Fairview Park Steering Committee Recommendations
On October 15, 2025, the Committee discussed the previous recommendations and agreed to keep the recommendations as reflected in the Draft Master Plan.
Parks and Community Services Commission Recommendations On October 30, 2025, the Parks and Community Services Commission held a special meeting to discuss and provide recommendations on the Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update. The meeting had approximately 35 public speakers advocating for various initiatives. Some advocated maintaining current programming/activities in their current locations and providing accessibility to all trails, while others focused on an environmentally sensitive approach to conserve Fairview Park.
The Commission’srecommendations were the following: include language to adhere to the City’s adopted Active Transportation Plan, explore fly field options outside of the park, add multi-language signs, address public safety concerns and encourage the public to participate in tribal coordination and storytelling.
Summary
The Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update represents several years of research and public outreach to develop a blueprint for future enhancements and improvements to Fairview Park. The recommendations in the Draft Master Plan are intended to reflect Fairview Park as a community focused park that encourages community interaction and accessibility while preserving its unique resources. By balancing resource protection and public use and exercising prudent management, Fairview Park can be an accessible ecological and recreational resource to all.
Next Steps
In order to implement the various elements of the Master Plan the following actions need to be completed:
· Staff will finalize the Fairview Park Master Plan Update per City Council direction. · Consultant will prepare CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) documentation. · CEQA documentation and draft Final Master Plan will be released for 30 day CEQA review period.
· Staff will return to the City Council for adoption of the Final Fairview Park Master Plan Update.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council may provide direction to staff to incorporate other recommendations and/or pursue other alternatives.
288
File #: 25-600 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
FISCAL REVIEW:
Funding for the Fairview Park Master Plan Update is available in the Park Development Fees Fund (Fund 208).
LEGAL REVIEW:
There is no legal review required for this item as the direction will be advisory in nature.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
This item supports the following City Council Goals:
· Strengthen the Public’s Safety and Improve the Quality of Life. · Maintain and enhance the City’s facilities, infrastructure, and technology. · Advance environmental sustainability and climate resiliency.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Review and discuss Attachment 1 - Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update prepared by consultant Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) and;
2. Provide direction on the Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update for inclusion in the final Fairview Park Master Plan Update for adoption.
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
Rec.
#
Consultant Team Rec.
;:ƵŶĞϮϬϮϰͿ
Fairview Park Steering
Committee Rec͘;KĐƚ͘ϮϬϮϰͿ.
Parks and Community Services
Commission Rec.;KĐƚ͘ϮϬϮϱͿ
Location referenced in the
Oct. 2025 Draft
Present in existing Master
Plan (revised 2008)
1 Provide clearly defined trails and establish a
designated trail system for the park. As-is.
Include language to adhere trails plan to
City’s adopted Active Transportation Plan
and south bluff stairs. Pages 11, 64, 75-76
Yes, described in graphic master
plan and environmental
documentation.
2 Adopt design standards for the designated
trail system, including widths, materials, and
designated modes of travel by trail type. As-is.
As-is.
Pages 75-76, 96-99 Yes.
3 Finalize and adopt the habitat restoration
and enhancement opportunities technical
report for Fairview Park. As-is.
As-is.
Appendix C, Pages 78-85
Partially. Habitat restoration
opportunities are described
generally in the high value
conservation areas including the
vernal pools and associated
grasslands.
4 Establish a boardwalk or similar pedestrian
pathway allowing for pedestrian access in
both wet and dry seasons from the north end
of Pacific Avenue to the north end of Canyon
Drive. The pathway shall be planned and
designed in a manner that protects the
integrity of the vernal pools and the vernal
pool watersheds.
Establish functional and pedestrian
pathways allowing for pedestrian access in
both wet and dry seasons for approved
trails (see Rec 1), including from the north
end of Pacific Avenue to the north end of
Canyon Drive. The pathway shall be
planned and designed in a manner that
protects the integrity of the vernal pools
and the vernal pool watersheds.
As-is.
Pages 76, 82, 98
Yes, partially. Seasonal ponding and
drainage issues are described
generally in the area, and potential
improvements are discussed to
maintain use/access.
5 Provide for long-term preservation of the
vernal pools and their associated watersheds
using suitable fencing, interpretive displays,
and the removal of unauthorized user-
defined trails that have formed through the
vernal pool watersheds. As-is.
As-is.
B
Yes, partially. Fencing and other
physical protective barriers are
described in the 2008 master plan
and adopted as mitigation measures
in CEQA environmental
documentation.
6 Relocate the fly field activity currently
located within the vernal pool watershed,
due to detrimental impacts to sensitive
biological resources associated with the
activity and required maintenance of the fly
field. Staff is working with the model flying
club to identify potential alternative flying
sites for the activity.
Relocate the fly field activity currently
located within the vernal pool watershed
to outside Fairview Park, due to
detrimental impacts to sensitive biological
resources associated with the activity and
required maintenance of the fly field.
As is. Revise to exploring outside of
Fairview Park. (3-2) Page 69, Appendix B
The 2008 Master Plan does not use
the term "fly field", but refers to the
"silent flyer launch/land site", which
is to be adjacent to the restroom
facility in the lawn area.
7 Revegetate and restore excessive areas of
barren ground and exposed soil using
ecologically appropriate native vegetation. As-is.
As-is.
Pages 50, 102
Yes. Fill removal and native plant
revegetation are identified in 2008
Master Plan and are adopted as a
mitigation measure in the CEQA
documentation.
8 Provide for a potential native plant growing
space on the east side of Fairview Park in a
location that avoids impacts to native
habitat. The growing space shall be planned
and designed in consultation with a qualified
restoration ecologist. As-is.
As-is.
Pages 11, 100, 102 No.
9 Provide for improved and updated signage
and interpretive materials to highlight the
exceptional conservation value of the site,
and the importance of local and global
biodiversity preservation. As-is.
Add multi-language content, accessibility,
all ages, and diversity of cultural
perspectives. Pages 12, 18, 55, 64, 67, 69, 73, 77,
100
Yes, partially. Interpretive
opportunities are described in the
2008 Master Plan.
10 Utilize the site to enhance community
education about the nexus between human
mental and physical health, and ecological
health and conservation of natural open
spaces.
Utilize the site to enhance community
education about the nexus between (1)
human health and (2) ecological health
and conservation of natural open spaces.
As is
Pages 77, 99
Yes, this theme is discussed partially
in the 2008 plan.
11 Provide for improved and updated signage
and interpretive materials to highlight the
cultural history of the site, indigenous
ecology, and to recognize the site’s
significance to tribal communities.
As-is.
As is
Pages 12, 55, 58, 64, 69, 73, 77, 100
Yes, partially. Interpretive
opportunities are described in the
2008 Master Plan.
12 Provide for an on-site maintenance and
storage facility, or designated area on the
east side for efficient storage and use of
Fairview Park restoration tools and
equipment, and to support the operations of
the native plant growing space. As-is.
As is
Pages 100, 102
Yes, partially. A museum/multi-
purpose building is shown on the
east side of Placentia Ave.
13 Continue the current Master Plan
recommendation that calls for unsuitable fill
removal and restoration of the Fairview Park
mesa.
Continue the current Master Plan
recommendation that calls for the removal
of unsuitable fill material (imported fill
material placed on the Mesa in the late
1980s), protection of culturally sensitive
resources, and habitat restoration of the
Fairview Park mesa.
As is
Pages 11, 56, 65, 69, 71-72, 82, 87,
100, 102, Appendix C
Yes, fill removal is recognized in the
2008 Master Plan, which calls for the
City to prepare a phasing plan to
remove the unsuitable fill in a
manner that protects the vernal
pools, sensitive biological resources,
and prevents damage to the cultural
resources site.
14 Continue the current Master Plan
recommendation that calls for stabilization
and restoration
of the Fairview Park west bluffs.
Continue the current Master Plan
recommendation that calls for stabilization
and habitat restoration of the Fairview
Park west bluffs to protect natural
resources and public safety.
As is
Pages 64, 71, 83, 88-89, Appendix C Yes.
15 Continue the operation of the model train
railroad facilities, and integrate
environmental interpretive content and
ecological enhancements along the model
train network to provide educational
opportunities to the youth while onboard
the model train circuit.
Continue the operation of the model train
railroad facilities, and integrate
environmental interpretive content and
ecological enhancements along the model
train network to provide educational
opportunities to all ages while onboard
the model train circuit.
As is
Pages 3, 57, 59, 67, 73 Yes.
16 Adopt the Maintenance, Operations, and
Management Plan for Fairview Park,
including the Invasive Species Management
Plan for Fairview Park.
Develop and adopt the Maintenance,
Operations, and Management Plan for
Fairview Park, including the Invasive Plant
Species Management Plan for Fairview
Park.
Broaden scope to address public safety,
enforcement with adequate staffing
resources and/or technology.
Pages 81-86, Appendix C
No. No O&M plan was prepared at
the time of the 2008 Master Plan.
Fairview Park Master Plan Update Recommendations
ATTACHMENT 2
394
Rec.
# Consultant Team Rec.
Fairview Park Steering Committee
Rec.
Parks and Community Services
Commission Rec.
Location referenced in the
Oct. 2025 Draft
Present in existing Master
Plan (revised 2008)
17 Continue to build community partnerships
with local organizations invested in
environmental conservation, and expand
opportunities to participate in community-
based restoration, stewardship, and nature-
based educational activities.
Continue to build partnerships with
organizations invested in environmental
conservation, and expand opportunities to
participate in community-based
restoration, stewardship, and nature-
based educational activities.
As is.
18 Provide continuing opportunities for tribal
coordination and participation in the
implementation of the Updated Fairview
Park Master Plan. As-is.
Revise to include participation in public
facing communications around historical
storytelling. Pages 10-11, 39-40, 82, Appendix D No.
19 Provide an ADA-accessible pathway from the
main parking lot to the existing paved multi-
purpose path west of the main parking lot.
Provide ADA-accessible pathway(s) from
the main parking lot to the existing paved
multipurpose path west of the main
parking lot.
As is.
Pages 96, 98 No.
20 Provide a service and emergency vehicular
access point into the park from Pacific
Avenue, to be accessible only by authorized
public safety vehicles and maintenance
vehicles.
Provide an emergency and service
vehicular access point into the park from
Pacific Avenue. Develop protocol
guidelines for vehicular use of this access
point.
As is.
Partially. 2008 Master Plan calls for a
small parking lot at the northern
terminus of Pacific Ave.
21 Provide for the incorporation of a central
interpretive area. As-is.
As is.
Partially. The 2008 Master Plan
reflects multiple small interpretive
areas in the park.
22 Incorporate viewing platforms and scenic
viewpoint features to enhance
environmental interpretive opportunities
while preserving sensitive features. As-is.
As is.
23 Incorporate a nature play area near the
central interpretive area.
Incorporate nature play elements
throughout the park and a nature play
area within the existing lawn area.
As is
Partially. The 2008 Master Plan
shows a small play area on the south
end of the park near Canyon Drive,
but not in the lawn area.
24 Incorporate a native pollinator area to
attract butterflies and other pollinators. The
native pollinator area would replace the
ornamental vegetation including invasive
species currently located in the planter area. As-is.
As is
Pages 68, 100
No. The 2008 Master Plan shows a
small play area on the south end of
the park.
25 Based on community input - consider
renaming the site to reflect the site's natural
and cultural resources.
Modify and refine the name of the
Fairview Park site to a more nature-
oriented name, such as “Fairview Nature
Park” to reflect the site’s exceptional
natural resources, significant conservation
value, and lasting legacy as Costa Mesa’s
premier natural open space asset.
As is
N/A No.
26 Request City Council to consider the
impact of Measure AA and the possibility
that elements of the Master Plan Update
may need a public vote.
Note: On October 15, 2025 the Fairview Park Steering Committee reviewed the Fairview Park Master Plan Draft. Discussion ensued with no formal vote and/or recommendation changes. The Committee verbally re-emphasized their recommendation that Fairview Park should be renamed and that the fly field should be relocated out of Fairview Park. 395
CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-603 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
TITLE:
AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FOR USE OF BEDS AT THE COSTA MESA BRIDGE SHELTER
DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
PRESENTED BY: NATE ROBBINS, NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT MANAGER CONTACT INFORMATION: NATE ROBBINS, 714-754-5274
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Amendment No. 2 (Attachment 1) to the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Newport Beach, reducing their allocation of beds at the Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter from twenty-five (25) to twenty (20) and adjusting their associated costs, accordingly.
BACKGROUND:
On December 15, 2020, the City of Costa Mesa (City) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Newport Beach for the provision of emergency shelter beds at the Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter (Shelter) located at 3175 Airway Ave, Costa Mesa. The MOU provided Newport Beach with exclusive rights to twenty (20) beds for use by its residents. In exchange for the exclusive use of these beds, Newport Beach agreed to pay the City $50,000 per bed, for an annual cost of $1,000,000.
On July 1, 2023, the City executed Amendment No. 1 to the MOU, increasing Newport Beach’s allocation of beds from twenty (20) to twenty-five (25). The cost of the original twenty (20) beds remained at $50,000 each; however, the cost of the five (5) additional beds increased to $55,000 each, or $275,000 annually. Combined, Newport Beach’sannual cost for use of up to twenty-five (25) beds was $1,275,000. Further, Amendment No. 1 afforded Newport Beach the right to use up to five (5) additional beds, as available, for a cost of $155 per bed, per day.
Both the MOU and Amendment No.1 included provisions for annual cost increases based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the preceding twelve-month period.
Currently, based on these CPI adjustments, Newport Beach’stotal annual cost for use of up to twenty -five (25) beds is $1,359,219, which is $54,369 per bed, per year, or $148.96 per bed, per day.
The City of Newport Beach desires to reduce its allocation of beds from twenty-five (25) to twenty (20), while maintaining its ability to utilize up to five (5) additional beds, as available. Newport Beach’sbed utilization has been trending down over the past 12 months, with its average occupancy over the past 60 days at 15-17 beds.
396
File #: 25-603 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
ANALYSIS:
Bridge Shelter Operational Expenses
The City of Costa Mesa conducted an analysis to determine the City’stotal annual cost to operate the Bridge Shelter. The “Cost Per Bed Analysis” (Attachment 2) concluded that the Shelter’stotal annual operating cost is $5,056,975, which is $59,494 per bed, per year, and $163 per bed, per day.
The annual cost per bed is calculated by dividing the total annual cost by eighty-five (85) beds, rather than the Shelter’smaximum capacity of one hundred (100) beds, as the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) reimburses the City for 100% of the operational costs to provide fifteen (15) behavioral health beds through the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program. The cost per bed, per day is calculated by dividing the annual cost per bed of $59,4949 by 365 days.
Impact of Newport Beach’s Reduction in Beds
With respect to the updated figures outlined in the Cost Per Bed Analysis, reducing Newport Beach’s bed allocation from twenty-five (25) to twenty (20) will decrease their total Fiscal Year 2025-26 cost from $1,359,219 to $1,200,182, a reduction of $159,037. However, the cost to utilize up to five (5) additional beds, as available, will increase from $148.96 per bed, per day to $163 per bed, per day.
Term of the MOU
Amendment No. 2 will bifurcate the term of the MOU into two (2) parts: the Initial Term and the Secondary Term. The Initial Term will commence upon execution of Amendment No. 2 and expire on June 30, 2026. The Initial Term provides Newport Beach exclusive use of up to twenty (20) beds at the Bridge Shelter at an annual cost of $59,494 per bed, as well as use of up to five (5) additional beds, as available, at a cost of $163 per bed, per day.
The Secondary Term will begin on July 1, 2026, and expire on December 31, 2026. Upon commencement of the Secondary Term, Newport Beach will no longer have exclusive access to beds at the Bridge Shelter but will have continued access to Shelter beds, as available, at a cost per day to be determined. In 2026, the City will begin new contracts with a Kitchen Operator and Shelter Operator, which may result in a per diem increase.
Upon expiration of the Secondary Term, Newport Beach will no longer have access to beds at the Bridge Shelter. Prior to termination of the MOU, City staff will make every effort to relocate Newport Beach clients to alternative housing options. Clients unable to be relocated, if any, will be transported back to Newport Beach.
ALTERNATIVES:
The current MOU with Newport Beach expires on December 16, 2025. The City Council can deny the recommendation, allow the MOU to expire, and direct staff to coordinate with Newport Beach to immediately relocate their residents currently residing in the Shelter.
Alternatively, the Council can direct staff to update Amendment No. 2 to allow Newport Beach exclusive access to Shelter beds beyond the expiration of the Initial Term on June 30, 2026.
397
File #: 25-603 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
FISCAL REVIEW:
The Fiscal Year 2025-26 impact for reducing Newport Beach’sbed allocation from twenty-five (25) to twenty (20) will decrease their total annual cost from $1,359,219 to $1,200,182, a net decrease of $159,037 to the Housing Authority Fund (Fund 222).
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has approved Amendment No. 2 as to form.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
Diversify, stabilize and increase housing to reflect community needs.
Strengthen the public’s safety and improve the quality of life.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Newport Beach, reducing their allocation of beds at the Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter from twenty-five (25) to twenty (20) and adjusting their associated costs, accordingly.
398
1 ATTACHMENT 1
AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AND
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
This AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(“Amendment No. Two”) is dated as of December 2, 2025 (“Effect Date of Amendment No. Two”), and entered into by and among the City of Costa Mesa, a municipal corporation organized and existing under California law (“Costa Mesa”) and the City of Newport Beach, which is a California charter city (“Newport Beach”), (cumulatively the “Parties,” and at times individually a “Party”), with reference to and in consideration of the following:
RECITALS
A. On December 15, 2020, Newport Beach and Costa Mesa entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“Agreement”) for the provision of temporary housing, and the provision of certain services to individuals experiencing homelessness located within the boundaries of the Parties at the property located at 3175 Airway Avenue, in the City of Costa Mesa (“Property”); B. On July 1, 2023, Newport Beach and Costa Mesa executed Amendment No. One, amending certain aspects of the Agreement;
C. Newport Beach is currently allocated twenty-five (25) beds and Costa Mesa is allocated seventy-five (75) beds for use by individuals experiencing homelessness in Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, respectively;
D. Newport Beach intends to reduce their number of allocated beds from twenty-five (25) to twenty (20), with up to five (5) of Costa Mesa’s allocated beds optionally available for use by Newport Beach as provided for herein; E. The Parties desire to enter into this Amendment No. Two to decrease Newport Beach’s allocation from twenty-five (25) to twenty (20) beds, memorialize availability and cost of up to five (5) Costa Mesa beds for use by Newport Beach and, accordingly, adjust Newport Beach Operations Payment to cover the associated costs.
AGREEMENT
Section 3.1 of the Agreement shall be amended in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“3.1 Initial Term and Secondary Term. This amendment will have two (2) terms. The Initial Term will be effective upon execution of Amendment No. 2 and expire 399
2 on June 30, 2026. The Secondary Term will begin on July 1, 2026, and shall expire on December 31, 2026. There shall be no extensions of this MOU.” Section 4.3 of the Agreement shall be amended in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“4.3 Newport Beach Annual Contribution for Operational Costs. Upon execution of this Amendment No. 2, Newport Beach shall be obligated to pay a monthly operational cost of Ninety-Nine Thousand One Hundred Fifty-Six Dollars and Sixty- Seven Cents ($99,156.67) (“Newport Beach Operations Payment”), which is specifically to provide for the operational costs of Fifty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-Four Dollars ($59,494.00) per each of the twenty (20) beds of which Newport Beach has use rights as provided herein, for the Initial Term of the Agreement. Further, during the Initial Term, Newport Beach’s cost shall be $163.00 per bed, per day, for use of each Costa Mesa bed made available to Newport beach as provided for in Section 4.7.
In addition, upon initiation of the Secondary Term, as provided for in Section 4.7 hereof, Newport Beach shall no longer have exclusive access for up to twenty (20) beds at the Bridge Shelter, but it shall have continued access to Costa Mesa beds, as available, and shall pay a cost equal to Costa Mesa’s actual daily per-bed cost (to be determined by Costa Mesa at a later date, subsequent to the execution of updated Shelter and Kitchen Operator Agreements) for the use by Newport Beach referrals.
Newport Beach shall be billed monthly for the use of these Costa Mesa beds.” Section 4.4 (“CPI Increases”) is deleted in its entirety since the Agreement ends after one year.
Section 4.7 of the Agreement shall be amended in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“4.7 Allocation of Beds. Newport Beach will work collaboratively with Costa Mesa to ensure the Central SPA cities are coordinating with the County and that the shelter beds addressed in this Agreement are prioritized to meet the greatest needs of both Parties. During the Initial Term, Costa Mesa will have exclusive access to eighty (80) beds and Newport Beach will have exclusive access to twenty (20) beds for its referrals. However, at Costa Mesa’s sole discretion, and only after exhausting the Wait List for Costa Mesa interested parties, up to five (5) of Costa Mesa’s beds may be made available to person(s) referred by Newport Beach.
During the Secondary Term, Newport Beach will no longer have exclusive access to beds at the Bridge Shelter. However, Newport Beach will have continued access to Costa Mesa beds, as available, at a daily per-bed cost to be determined later, subsequent to the performance of an updated cost per bed analysis. 400
3 The Parties expressly agree that it is the Parties’ intent to transition Shelter Residents to long-term stable housing and Newport Beach’s consent shall be required to continue to house any person referred by Newport Beach at the shelter for more than six (6) months.”
Section 4.8 of the Agreement shall be amended in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“4.8 No Subletting. Subletting of Beds will not be allowed. Newport Beach shall be allocated use of twenty (20) beds for Newport Beach to refer homeless individuals deemed by Newport Beach to be highest priority persons referred to the Project by Newport Beach over time.”
INTEGRATED AGREEMENT
Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants set forth in the Agreement and Amendment No. One shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect.
[SIGNATURE PAGE(S) TO FOLLOW]
401
4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties to the Agreement have caused this Amendment No. Two to be executed by each of their duly authorized officers as follows:
Dated: December __, 2025 CITY OF COSTA MESA
By:________________________
Cecilia Gallardo Daly
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM
____________________________
Kimberly Hall Barlow
City Attorney
ATTEST
____________________________
Brenda Green
City Clerk
Dated: December __, 2025 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
By:________________________
Grace Leung
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM
____________________________
Aaron C. Harp
City Attorney
ATTEST
____________________________
Lena Shumway
City Clerk
402
Housing Authority
Shelter Cost Per Bed Analysis
Housing Authority - Homeless
FY 2025-26 Annual Adopted Budget
Cost Per Bed Analysis
Summary
# of Beds Maximum Occupancy 100
# of Beds - Costa Mesa 60
# of Beds - Newport 25
# of Beds - BHBH 15
Outreach & Shelter
Financial Summary
FY 2025-26 Homeless
Adopted Budget
(Same as Amended)
Expense
Salaries and Benefits 1,535,537
Maintenance and Operations
Bracken's Kitchen 401,600
Mercy House 2,185,286
Assistance -
Utilities 57,100
Other Maint. & Operations 142,810
Total Operating Expenses 4,322,333
Estimated Annual Set Aside for Major Repairs 138,300
Indirect Costs 596,342
Total Expenses 5,056,975
Annual Cost Per Bed 59,494
10/30/2025 3:53 PM
ATTACHMENT 2
403
CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-583 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
TITLE:
PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO EXPLORE TWO CITY BALLOT INITIATIVES PERTAINING
TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX AND BUSINESS LICENSE TAX
DEPARTMENT: FINANCE DEPARTMENT
PRESENTED BY: CAROL MOLINA, FINANCE DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: CAROL MOLINA, FINANCE DIRECTOR, (714) 754-5036 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Provide direction to staff to explore placement of potentially two ballot initiatives in the November 2026 elections to consider an increase in the City of Costa Mesa’s Transient Occupancy Tax (Hotel tax) and/or Business License Tax.
BACKGROUND:
Transient Occupancy Tax (Hotel Tax)
The City’sfirst Hotel Tax went into effect in 1978 at a rate of 6%. In 2010, the City Council approved a ballot measure to increase the Hotel Tax from 6% to 8%, which was approved by the voters on November 2010.
Transient Occupancy Tax and Business License Tax revenues go into the City's general fund, providing flexible, non-property tax revenues that can be used for any municipal purpose the City Council directs, such as funding Public Safety, Capital Projects, etc. Per Costa Mesa Municipal Code 16-68, for the privilege of occupancy in any hotel or motel, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of 8% of the rent charged by the operator. The tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the City which is extinguished only by payment to the operator or to the City. The transient shall pay the tax to the hotel or motel operator at the time the rent is paid. Each operator shall file, on or before the last day of the month following the close of each calendar quarter or of such different reporting period as may be established by the Finance Department, a return to the Finance Department on forms provided by it, the total rents charged and received, the amount of tax collected for transient occupancies, and other information as reasonably required by the Finance Department. At the time the return is filed, the full amount of the tax collected shall be remitted to the Finance Department.
404
File #: 25-583 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
Business License Tax (Business Tax)
The City first adopted a Business License Tax by establishing Section 9-1 of the Municipal Code in April 1985.
Per Costa Mesa Municipal Code 9-1, every person conducting, carrying on, or engaging in any business shall pay a business tax to the City as hereinafter set forth. Costa Mesa collects business license taxes based on gross receipts, which is a commonly used methodology. Business taxes are a fixed amount per gross receipt level and range from $25 in gross receipts tax for $0 - $25,000 to a maximum tax of $200 for gross receipts of $500,000 and higher.
To date, the Business License Tax structure has not been amended or modified.
ANALYSIS:
Hotel Tax:
Several surrounding cities to Costa Mesa currently have a higher transient occupancy tax rate than 8%, ranging from 10% - 15% (e.g., Newport Beach, Santa Ana, Long Beach, Anaheim), and therefore an examination of a potential increase is warranted. Based on reported gross revenues from Costa Mesa hotels in Fiscal Year 2024-25, every 1% increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax rate would potentially result in approximately $1 million in additional General Fund revenue to the City.
Business License Tax:
Costa Mesa’sbusiness license taxes generally lag tax rates of nearby cities, particularly at the higher gross receipt levels. For example, a business with $5 million in gross receipts in Costa Mesa pays $200 business license tax, while the same business in Anaheim pays $475, and in Santa Ana pays $3,314. Some cities, such as Long Beach and Newport Beach, charge business license taxes based on the number of employees as opposed to gross receipts and therefore would not be an identical comparison. However, in absolute terms, when comparing the business tax levels of Costa Mesa to Long Beach and Newport Beach, Costa Mesa tax rates are significantly lower at all levels. For example, a business with only 5 employees would pay $535 in Long Beach, and $284 in Newport Beach, whereas the maximum business license tax paid currently in Costa Mesa is $200. By simply adding additional revenue categories from the gross receipts level of $500,000 and higher, thereby aligning Costa Mesa with neighboring cities, and adding correspondingly higher levels of business tax in those added categories, Costa Mesa would increase revenues without negatively impacting the smaller local businesses. Costa Mesa currently has greater than 1/3 of its total registered businesses with estimated annual gross receipts of $500,000 and greater and therefore would see a significant positive revenue impact by adding further granularity and corresponding higher business taxes for those larger gross receipts categories.
City Staff highly recommends no financial change in business license tax for small businesses. A small business will be defined depending on the potentially recommended new structure for the business license tax.
405
File #: 25-583 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
FIPAC:
At its October 1, 2025, meeting, FIPAC voted to establish an Ad Hoc committee to evaluate the feasibility of placing a Business License Tax and/or a Transient Occupancy Tax (Hotel Tax) increase measure on the November 2026 ballot. Subsequently, at its November 12, 2025, meeting, FIPAC unanimously approved a motion to formally request that the City Council authorize City staff, in coordination with FIPAC, to conduct a comprehensive review and analysis of both the Business License Tax and Transient Occupancy Tax as potential revenue sources for the City. This review may inform the development of a ballot initiative for consideration in the November 2026 Election.
Staff has prepared a suggested timeline (Attachment 1), should City Council consider placing one or more ballot measures on the November 3, 2026, Ballot.
ALTERNATIVES:
City Council may choose to:
1. Receive and file the report and decline to have staff work on the potential ballot initiative(s).
2. Provide staff direction to work on the review and analysis of one or two of the proposed ballot measures.
FISCAL REVIEW:
The fiscal impact to place an initiative on the previous November ballot was $25,000. The cost of citywide mailings was approximately $10,000.
City revenues would potentially increase by $1 million for every additional 1% that the Transient Occupancy Tax (Hotel Tax) above the current 8%.
City’srevenues would potentially increase in line with the percentage rise of any business license tax increases; however, the estimated absolute amount of the increase to City revenues would be contingent on the extent and structure of the increases from current levels within each revenue category.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed this report for legal content and approved it as to form.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
This item supports the following City Council Goal:
· Achieve Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability
406
File #: 25-583 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
CONCLUSION:
Staff is seeking direction whether to do a comprehensive review and analysis in connection with potentially placing one or more ballot measures on the November 3, 2026 ballot to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax and/or the Business License Tax. By increasing these taxes, the City achieves the goals of both an increase to total revenues, as well as increasing the diversity of revenues.
407
CITY OF COSTA MESA
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Suggested Timeline to Place Measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot:
• October 1, 2025: FIPAC takes action to create an ad hoc committee for two ballot measures (Hotel Tax and Business License Tax).
• November 2025: Potential FIPAC special meeting
• November 12, 2025: FIPAC ad hoc committees provide feedback on potential ballot measures.
• December 2, 2025: City Council provides direction for staff to explore placement of two ballot measures on the November 3, 2026 ballot; Hotel Tax (Transient Occupancy Tax) and Business License Tax.
• December 2025 to March 2026: Work with outside consultant to receive public input/polling.
• March/April 2026: Presentation to City Council.
• June/August 2026: City Council approves election resolutions calling for the November 3, 2026 election.
• June/August 2026: Suggested day for ballot measure to be approved to be placed on the November 3, 2026 ballot, approving ballot title and summary, directing City Attorney to prepare impartial analysis.
• June/August 2026: Last date to file direct arguments and impartial analysis with the City Clerk
• June/August 2026: Last date to file rebuttal arguments with the City Clerk. • August 2026: Absolute last date for City Clerk to deliver resolution placing a measure on the ballot to Registrar and request election consolidation. [Note:
highly suggested to file earlier]
• November 3, 2026: Election Day
• December 1, 2026: City Council accepts certification of the election results by the ROV (alternative December 8, 2026).
Attachment 1
408
CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-596 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
TITLE:
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR CITY MANAGER
DEPARTMENT: CITY ATTORNEY
PRESENTED BY: KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW, CITY ATTORNEY
CONTACT INFORMATION: (714) 446-1400
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider and approve the proposed agreement: (Attachment 1) with Cecilia Gallardo-Daly to serve as City Manager commencing December 2, 2025.
BACKGROUND:
The City Manager’sposition has been vacant since May 6, 2025. The City Council previously met in closed session and directed the City Attorney to negotiate terms of an employment agreement with Interim City Manager Cecilia Gallardo-Daly.
ANALYSIS:
In the absence of a contract, the City Manager’semployment would be governed solely by the California Government Code, the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and adopted Council Policies and Resolutions. Costa Mesa Municipal Code sections 2-97 and 2-224.5 make provisions for employment of the City Manager and expressly authorize the Council to vary these provisions by contract.
The proposed contract is for a term of three (3) years. Key terms of the contract include a proposed salary of $320,000 annually, deferred compensation of $50,000 annually, the same benefits as provided to other City executives, use of a City automobile, forty (40) hours of executive leave per year; the Mayor and City Council may award Employee an additional sixty (60) hours of executive leave annually. The contract is terminable at will, except within ninety (90) days after any municipal election for the selection or recall of one or more of the members of the City Council. If termination is without cause, there would be a severance payment of one year’s base salary. Termination with cause would not require any severance payment.
ALTERNATIVES:
Do not approve the agreement and give further direction to staff.
FISCAL REVIEW:
The proposed base salary for the City Manager would be $320,000 annually, with the caveat that the base salary is at least 10% higher than the highest paid executive. On July 1, 2026, a 10% compaction issue with the Assistant City Manager classification is expected to raise the annual base salary to $328,296. In addition, the City would contribute $50,000 annually starting in January 2026, increasing by $5,000 every year thereafter, subject to the maximum contribution limits allowed by Federal Law to a 401(a) deferred benefit
409
File #: 25-596 Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
thereafter, subject to the maximum contribution limits allowed by Federal Law to a 401(a) deferred benefit account on behalf of Ms. Gallardo-Daly. The contract also provides for a City assigned vehicle fully covered by the City (includes maintenance, repair, and insurance). All other benefits package matches those that are currently provided to City Executive employees, which would also apply to Ms. Gallardo-Daly.
The estimated annual fiscal impact of the attached agreement for the City Manager’sservices is $451,700, $320,000 in salary and $131,700 in benefits; not inclusive of the City assigned vehicle. The FY 2025/26 City Manager General Fund budget has sufficient appropriations to cover this contract. Future budgets will include the anticipated costs for this agreement.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney prepared this report and the proposed agreement and approves them as to form.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
Recruit and retain high-quality staff.
CONCLUSION:
The Council is requested to discuss the proposed agreement and corresponding salary resolution and authorize their execution by the Mayor and City Attorney as determined by the Council.
410
Attachment 1
CITY OF COSTA MESA AGREEMENT FOR
THE OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ____ day of December, 2025 by and between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, State of California, a Municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "the City" and Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, hereinafter referred to as "Employee."
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the City desires to retain the services of Employee as City Manager of the City of Costa Mesa; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa desires to provide certain benefits, establish certain conditions of employment and to establish working conditions for Employee; and
WHEREAS, Employee desires to provide said services as City Manager to the City under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, Employee represents that she is willing and qualified to provide such services to the City;
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the respective mutual covenants and promises hereinafter contained and made subject to all of the terms and conditions hereof, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:
1. DUTIES
(a) The City hereby agrees to retain the services of Employee as City Manager to perform the functions and duties specified in Title 2, Chapter IV, Article 2 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and to perform other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as designated by the City Council from time to time.
(b) Employee shall prepare and implement an annual plan of Organizational Goals and Objectives to be discussed with and approved by City Council which will be incorporated into an annual evaluation tool to assess performance.
(c) Employee may exercise only those powers expressly granted to her as City Manager through the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, any Resolution, or any minute action of the Council.
(d) Employee will conscientiously and loyally perform all of the duties, expressed or implied, required of her by the terms of this Agreement, the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, and the duties that may be delegated to her by the Council. Employee understands and agrees that she shall:
411
2 (i) Devote her time, ability and attention to matters of City and the City Council of not less than the regular business hours of the City.
(ii) Perform her duties within the budget adopted by the Council.
(e) The City Manager will not, without the prior consent of the Council, do or agree to do, any of the following acts:
(i) Borrow any amount of money on behalf of the City;
(ii) Enter into any contract on behalf of the City in excess of the limits established by ordinance or resolution;
(iii) Expend any amount in excess of the amounts budgeted for expenditure by the Council except as permitted within the City’s adopt ed ordinance, resolution or policy regarding the City Manager’s budget authority;
(iv) Sell any assets of the City except in strict accordance with the City’s adopted ordinance, resolution or policy on disposition of surplus property.
2. TERMS OF AGREEMENT
(a) Employee agrees to remain in the exclusive employment of the City and not to become otherwise employed while this Agreement is in effect, without approval from the City Council. Employee agrees that any other employment engaged in by her shall not interfere with the performance of her duties under this Agreement.
(b) The term of this Agreement shall commence on December 2, 2025, or such earlier date that Employee and City agree, and remain in effect for a period of three (3) years or until terminated by either party hereto as provided herein.
(c) This Agreement in its entirety may be renegotiated at any time so long as City and Employee desire and mutually agree to such terms in writing.
(d) City Manager and the City Council ad hoc committee shall jointly develop performance goals to be used to evaluate the annual performance of the City Manager at the commencement of Employee’s term of employment . The Mayor and City Council shall conduct a performance evaluation by July 30 , 2026, which is approximately six months after commencement of Employee’s term of employment, and annual ly thereafter by no later than August 1st in each year during the term of this Agreement. The Mayor, City Council and City Manager shall annually develop mutually agreeable performance goals and criteria which the City Council shall use in reviewing Employee’s performance in the following year. The Human Resources Manager and the City Attorney shall coordinate to ensure that this review process is initiated each year. The Mayor, City Council and City Manager shall 412
3 further establish a relative priority among those various goals and object ives, said goals to be reduced to writing. These objectives shall generally be attainable within the time limitations as sp ecified and the annual operating and capital budgets and appropriations provided , subject to and taking account of unexpected circumstances which may arise during any particular performance period which requires an adjustment to expectations for implementation of goals and obje ctives and related costs, if any. The failure of the Mayor/City Council to define such goals and performance objectives, and/or to reduce them to writing shall not affect the parties’ rights to terminate this Agreement. In the event the performance evalu ation results so warrant , there shall be agendized for discussion as provided for by law any pay or benefit enhancements the Mayor and City Council may feel is warranted. Any revisions to compensation, term or benefits shall be required to be considered a nd approved only at an open and public meeting . Future annual performance evaluations shall be measured against Employee's achievement of the goals set forth in the previous year’s annual performance evaluation. In addition to the required annual performance evaluations, the Mayor and City Council may schedule performance evaluations of Employee as they may deem necessary.
3. TERMINATION
(a) This Agreement may be terminated by the City Council for cause or misconduct by Employee. After giving notice to Employee that this Agreement is terminated for cause or misconduct, the City shall have no obligation to continue the employment of Employee or to provide compensation or benefits, including severance. For purposes of termination, "cause" is defined as willful breach of duty by Employee in the course of employment or habitual neglect of duty by Employee in the course of employment or continued incapacity of Employee to perform the duties of employment as City Manager. Cause may also include Employee being charged with, or entering a guilty plea or plea of nolo contendre to, or being convicted of, an offense which is a felony or crime of moral turpitude in the State of California; Employee’s willful misconduct or gross negligence; or Employee’s act of material dishonesty with or theft from the City.
(b) This Agreement may be terminated by the City Council without cause at any time. If Employee is terminated by the City Council without cause, then Employee is entitled to one year’s Base Salary as severance pay. In no event, however, shall Employee ever receive more than eighteen (18) months’ severance pay as provided by state law .
Employee shall also be entitled to payout of any unused accrued vacation leave at termination. The City will only provide Employee with the severance payment if Employee (1) continues to maintain the confidentiality of City’s information, and the circumstances of Employee’s separation from City, and ( 2) complies with h er obligations under this Agreement.
(c) In the event the Agreement is terminated by the City Council without cause, Employee will receive severance pay in a lump sum on the next regularly scheduled pay day after termination or in increments as may be determined by Employee which is convenient 413
4 to Employer, until all severance pay has been provided. Employee shall not be entitled to revert to her former position of Assistant City Manager should the City Council terminate this Agreement with or without cause.
(d) Employee may voluntarily terminate this Agreement at any time upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to the City Council and shall not be entitled to any severance pay or benefits upon such voluntary termination. City Council maintains discretion to accept Employee’s resignation immediately and forego the notice period. Nothing in this section entitles Employee to 30 days’ pay in lieu of notice.
(e) Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with the right of City Council to termin ate the services of Employee at any time, at the sole discretion of City Council, in accordance with the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, as the same may be amended from time to time, and in accord with the provisions contained herein; provided, however, that in no event may Employee be terminated within ninety (90) days after any municipal election for the selection or recall of one or more of the members of the City Council.
4. COMPENSATION
(a) Employee shall receive, as starting salary for her performance of the duties of City Manager , the sum of $ 320,000.00 per year , subject to future adjustments which may be approved by the Mayor and City Council following performance evaluations of Employee as provided for in section 2(d) above. City shall adjust Employee’s salary automatically to ensure that it is a minimum ten percent (10%) higher than the highest paid executive team member below City Manager in rank.
5. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
(a) Except as otherwise provided herein, Employee shall be granted the same package of benefits as is being provided to City’s Executive Management employees on the effective date of this Agreement. A ll future changes to the package of benefits provided to City’s Executive Management employees shall apply to the level of benefits for Employee unless the Parties agree otherwise.
All such benefits, and the benefits described hereunder shall be deemed “fringe benefits” herein. This includes the City’s continued participation and contributions of City ob ligations to the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), group health, dental and related insurance programs (family coverage) in accordance with the PERS contract with City. The Employee shall be enrolled in the CalPERS 2% at 6 2 PEPRA retirement plan, and shall pay the employee contribution percentage prov ided for in the current salary r esolution, as same may be amended from time to time in the future.
(b) Deferred Compensation. Employee has a 401(a) defined contribution plan account established by the City, which is subject to the contribution limits set 414
5 forth in Internal Revenue Code section 415(c)(1)(A), as adjusted for inflation.
Beginning in calendar year 2026, and each calendar year thereafter, the City shall contribute Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to the Employee’s 401(a) plan on a pre-tax basis, paid in equal bi -weekly installments (the “401(a) Contribution”).
Beginning in 2027, and each calendar year thereafter, the 401(a) Contribution to be made by the City shall increase by Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) per calendar year, subject to the maximum contribution limits allowed by federal law. Employee shall be immediately vested in all City contributions to the 401(a) plan. Employee shall not be entitled to receive the 401(a) contributions provided under the Executive Compensation and Salary Schedule Resolution. All City contributions to the Employee's 401(a) plan shall cease immediately upon the Employee’s separation from City employment.
Under federal law, there is an annual maximum contribution which may be made to an employee's 401(a) defined contribution plan account. If any contribution pursuant to this Agreement would exceed the maximum contributions allowable by law, the City will be excused from and will stop making payments towards Employee’s 401(a) account for the remainder of the calendar year and shall owe no further amount or additional compensation to Employee in connection with this benefit.
(c) In lieu of mileage reimbursement, City agrees to provide Employee with the full time use of an automobile owned or leased by the City, with all costs of operation paid for by the City, including maintenance, repair and insurance. All costs associated with an automobile (whether acquired or leased) shall be included in Manager's annual budget which is approved by the City Council. Employee may use the vehicle for all business and personal purposes as Employee may choose, provided, however, that Employee shall not take the City’s vehicle out of the State of California. Employee shall be responsible for any federal or state taxes which may be attributable to personal use of the vehicle. In no event may persons not employed by the City be permitted habitual use of such vehicle. Should the initial term of this Agreement be extended, Employee may replace the vehicle at the time of such extension.
(d) Employee has been employed by the City since December 12, 2023 . Employee shall not have a break in employment service and all of Employee's accrued leave and other benefit balances shall carry ove r as agreed, and Employee's leave and benefit balances shall continue to accrue under the terms of applicable City policies and at the same rate as Executive Management employees of the City are provided pursuant to the City’s current salary resolution. Employee shall continue to accrue vacation leave at the rate of a 15+ year employee of the City. Vacation time accrual is capped at 320 hours. Employee shall also be entitled to holidays, Leave Without Pay and Bereavement Leave on the same basis as Executive Management employees of City are receiving. Any future change to the holiday or leave benefits provided to City’s Executive Management employees sh all apply to the level of 415
6 holiday or leave benefits for Employee unless the Parties so agree. (e) Pursuant to the current Executive Compensation and Salary Schedule Resolution, Employee shall be credited with forty (40) hours executive leave per year automatically, commencing January 1, 2026 . The Mayor and City Council may exercise their discretion to award Employee an additional sixty (60) hours of executive leave each year of Employee’s employment, consistent with the terms of the Executive Compensation and Salary Schedule Resolution. Executive Leave will not accrue from calendar year to calendar year and must be used each calendar year or no additional entitlement of paid Executive Leave shall arise or occur. There is no right to cash out any unused Executive Leave otherwise. (f) City shall bear the full cost of any fidelity or other bonds required of Employee relating to her service as City Manager under any law or ordinance.
6. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
(a) The City acknowledges its interest in the continuing professional development of the City Manager and agrees to budget and pay professional dues and subscriptions on behalf of Employee which are reasonably necessary for Employee’s continued participation i n national, regional, state or local associations and organizations necessary and desirable for Employee’s continued professional participation, growth, and advancement or for the good of City including the International City/County Management Association and League of California Cities.
Furthermore, City shall budget and pay for the professional dues and subscriptions to such additional organizations as approved by the City Council. (b) City agrees to budget and pay the travel and subsistence expenses of Employee for official travel, meetings, and occasions reasonably adequate to continue the professional development of Employee and reasonably pursued necessary official and other functions for City, such as the annual conference of the International City/County Management Association, the League of California Cities, and other such national, regional, state and local government groups and committees of which Employee serves as a member, as approved by City Council. (c) City agrees to annually budget and pay for participation in training programs, institutes, conferences, conventions and similar gatherings that support leadership development and the advancement of Employer and Employee’s mutually agreed upon goals, and which are related to Employee’s duties or Employer’s operations.
With the prior consent of the Council, the City agrees to allow Manager to attend and participate in such other professional associations and conferences as may be mutually agreeable to both parties. The City acknowledges the right of Manager to engage in other professional activities as long as they do not interfere or conflict with Manager's duties as City Manager.
(d) Employee shall be subject to the City’s Travel and Meeting Reimbursement Policy. 416
7 7. INDEMNIFICATION
Subject to the provisions of Section 11 hereof, City shall defend, save harmless, and indemnify Employee against any claim for negligent tort or omissions, professional liability claim or demand, or other legal action , whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged negligent act or omission occ urring in the performance of her duties as Employee in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code section 825. Said indemnification shall extend beyond termination of employment to provide full and complete protection to Employee by City for any acts undertaken or committed in her capacity as Employee, regardless of whether the notice of filing of a lawsuit for such tort, claim, demand, or other legal action occurs during or following employment with City.
8. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
All claims, disputes and other matters in controversy (each a “Dispute”) arising, directly or indirectly out of or related to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, whether contractual or non- contractual, and whether during the Term or after the termination of this Agreement, shall be resolved exclusively according to the procedures set forth in this Section.
(a) Informal Resolution Process. Neither Party shall commence an arbitration proceeding pursuant to the provisions of Subsection (b) below unless such Party shall first give a written notice (a “Dispute Notice”) to the other Party setting forth the nature of the Dispute. The Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve the Dispute through a meet and confer process, which shall include a face-to-face meeting to be held within thirty (30) days following Delivery of the Dispute Notice. If the Dispute has not been resolved within sixty (60) days after delivery of the Dispute Not ice, then the Dispute shall be determined by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Subsection (b).
(b) Formal Resolution Process. Any Dispute that is not settled as provided in subsection (a) above shall be resolved by arbitration before a single arbitrator appointed by JAMS Orange County. Subject to repayment through the prevailing party process described below, City shall pay the fees charged by JAMS Orange County for the arbitration.
The determination of the arbitrator shall be final and abso lute. The arbitrator shall be governed by the duly promulgated rules and regulations of JAMS Orange County or its successor then in effect, and the pertinent provisions of the laws of California. The decision of the arbitrator may be entered as a final judgment in any court of competent jurisdiction. The prevailing party in any such arbitration shall also be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’, paralegals’, and experts’ fees and costs of suit (including the amount of fees paid to JAMS Orange County f or the arbitration) in addition to any other relief awarded such prevailing party.
9. NOTICES
Any notices to be given hereunder by either party to the other shall be in writing and may be transmitted by personal delivery or by mail, postage prepaid. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the parties as follows:
417
8 If sent by Employee to City: If sent to Employee by City:
City Clerk Cecilia Gallardo-Daly
City of Costa Mesa Address on File with Human
77 Fair Dr. Resources Manager
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Notices delivered personally shall be deemed communicated as of the date of actual receipt; mailed notices shall be deemed communicated as of the date of postmark.
10. ATTORNEYS' FEES
In the event any legal proceeding is instituted to enforce any term or provision of the Agreement, the prevailing party in said legal proceeding shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs from the opposing party in an amount determined by the Court to be reasonable.
11. REIMBURSEMENT TO CITY REQUIRED
Notwithstanding the foregoing , the following provisions requiring reimbursement for certain compensation and/or indemnification provided to Employee by the City apply:
(a) Paid Leave:
Pursuant to Government Code section 53243, i n the event that Employee is convicted of a c rime involving the abuse of her office or position, as defined by Government Code section 53243.4, with the City, any paid leave or salary provided by the City for the time period in which the Employee is under investigation for such crimes shall be fully reimbursed by Employee to the City.
(b) Legal Defense:
Pursuant to Government Code section 53243.1, in the event that Employee is convicted o f a crime involving abuse of her office or position , as defined by Government Code section 53243.4, Employee shall fully reimburse the City for all the costs of her legal criminal defense if a defense has been provided at City expense.
(c) Severance:
Pursuant to Government Code section 53243.2, in the event that Employee is convicted o f a crime involving abuse of her office or position , as defined by Government Code section 53243.4, Employee shall fully reimburse the City for any cash settlement, including but not limited to severance pay, paid to Employee related to her termination under this Agreement.
418
9 12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements whether oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to said matter , and each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that any other agree ment or modification of this Agreement shall be effective only if executed in writing and signed by both City and Employee.
13. VALIDITY
The validity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any of the other provisions of this Agreement.
14. AGREEMENT VOLUNTARY AND KNOWING
Employee agrees and acknowledges that she has had an opportunity to consult legal counsel of her own choosing in regard to this Agreement, that she has read and understands this Agreement, that she is fully aware of its legal effect, and that she has entered into it freely and voluntarily and based on her own judgment and not on any representation or promises other than those contained in this Agreement. Employee agrees that this Agreement should be interpreted as if mutually prepared and without the same being construed for or against any party.
15. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
16. EFFECT OF WAIVER
The failure of either party to insist on strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement by the other party shall not be deemed a waiver of that term, covenant, or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any right or power at any one time or times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of that right or power for all or any other times.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, the date and year first above written.
CITY OF COSTA MESA: EMPLOYEE:
___________________________ _________________________
JOHN STEPHENS, MAYOR CECILIA GALLARDO-DALY
419
10 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK, CITY OF COSTA MESA
A Municipal Corporation of the State of California
__________________________ __________________________
BRENDA GREEN KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW
CITY CLERK, CITY OF COSTA MESA CITY ATTORNEY
420