Agenda packet — Costa Mesa City Council, January 20, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF COSTA MESA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended
City Council Chambers
77 Fair Drive
6:00 PMTuesday, January 20, 2026
*Note: All agency memberships are reflected in the title "Council Member" Announcement:

Special Amended Agenda
Council Member Buley will be attending the meeting remotely via Zoom Webinar from:

Mission Inn Hotel & Spa
3649 Mission Inn Ave.

Riverside, CA 92501
The City Council meetings are presented in a hybrid format, both in-person at City Hall and as a courtesy virtually via Zoom Webinar. If the Zoom feature is having technical difficulties or experiencing any other critical issues, and unless required by the Brown Act, the meeting will continue in person.

TRANSLATION SERVICES AVAILABLE / SERVICIOS DE TRADUCCIÓN DISPONIBLE Please contact the City Clerk at (714) 754-5225 to request language interpreting services for City meetings. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make arrangements.

Favor de comunicarse con la Secretaria Municipal al (714) 754-5225 para solicitar servicios de interpretación de idioma para las juntas de la Ciudad. Se pide notificación por lo mínimo 48 horas de anticipación, esto permite que la Ciudad haga los arreglos necesarios.

Members of the public can view the City Council meetings live on COSTA MESA TV (SPECTRUM CHANNEL 3 AND AT&T U-VERSE CHANNEL 99) or
http://costamesa.granicus.com/player/camera/2?publish_id=10&redirect=true and online at youtube.com/costamesatv.

Closed Captioning is available via the Zoom option in English and Spanish.

Page 1 of 13 ends

1 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended January 20, 2026
Members of the public are welcome to speak during the meeting when the Mayor opens the floor for public comment. There is no need to register in advance or complete a comment card. When it's time to comment, line up at one of the two podiums in the room and wait for your turn. Each speaker will have up to 3 minutes (or as directed) to address the City Council.

To maintain a respectful and orderly atmosphere during the meeting, attendees shall refrain from using horns or amplified speakers. Signs and props may be brought into the Chamber, provided they do not exceed 11 inches by 18 inches in size and do not hinder the visibility of other attendees. The possession of poles, sticks, or stakes is strictly prohibited.

All attendees must remain seated while in the chamber until instructed by the Presiding Officer to approach and line up for public comment. To ensure safety and maintain order during the proceedings, standing or congregating in the aisles or foyer is strictly prohibited.

Further information regarding the City's regulations on addressing the City Council and expected conduct during meetings are available at the following links.

Title 2: Administration
§ 2-61: Conduct while addressing the council.
https://ecode360.com/42609578
Title 2: Administration
§ 2-64: Disorderliness by members of the audience.
https://ecode360.com/42609598
As a courtesy, the public may participate via the Zoom option.

Zoom Webinar:

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85013769834?pwd=L02bFfIvajdwcasOWvbCN4nHpwnblN.1 Or sign into Zoom.com and “Join a Meeting”
Enter Webinar ID: 850 1376 9834/ Password: 245263
• If Zoom is not already installed on your computer, click “Download & Run Zoom” on the launch page and press “Run” when prompted by your browser. If Zoom has previously been installed on your computer, please allow a few moments for the application to launch automatically.
• Select “Join Audio via Computer.”
• The virtual conference room will open. If you receive a message reading, “Please wait for the host to start this meeting,” simply remain in the room until the meeting begins.
• During the Public Comment Period, use the “raise hand” feature located in the participants’ window and wait for city staff to announce your name and unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

Page 2 of 13 ends

2 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended January 20, 2026
Participate via telephone:

Call: 1 669 900 6833 Enter Webinar ID: 850 1376 9834/ Password: 245263 During the Public Comment Period, press *9 to add yourself to the queue and wait for city staff to announce your name/phone number and press *6 to unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

Note, if you have installed a zoom update, please restart your computer before participating in the meeting.

Additionally, members of the public who wish to make a written comment on a specific agenda item, may submit a written comment via email to the City Clerk at [email protected].

Any written communications, photos, or other materials for copying and distribution to the City Council that are 10 pages or less, can be e-mailed to [email protected], submitted to the City Clerk’s Office on a flash drive, or mailed to the City Clerk’s Office. Kindly submit materials to the City Clerk AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE, BUT NO LATER THAN 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.

Comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be provided to the City Council, made available to the public, and will be part of the meeting record.

Please know that it is important for the City to allow public participation at this meeting. If you are unable to participate in the meeting via the processes set forth above, please contact the City Clerk at (714) 754-5225 or [email protected] and staff will attempt to accommodate you. While the City does not expect there to be any changes to the above process for participating in this meeting, if there is a change, the City will post the information as soon as possible to the City’s website.

Note that records submitted by the public will not be redacted in any way and will be posted online as submitted, including any personal contact information. All pictures, PowerPoints, and videos submitted for display at a public meeting must be previously reviewed by staff to verify appropriateness for general audiences. This includes items submitted for the overhead screen during the meeting. Items submitted for the overhead screen should be 1 page and provided to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. No links to YouTube videos or other streaming services will be accepted, a direct video file will need to be emailed to staff prior to each meeting in order to minimize complications and to play the video without delay. The video must be one of the following formats, .mp4, .mov or .wmv. Only one file may be included per speaker for public comments, for both videos and pictures. Please e-mail to the City Clerk at [email protected] NO LATER THAN 12:00 Noon on the date of the meeting. If you do not receive confirmation from the city prior to the meeting, please call the City Clerks office at 714-754-5225.

Page 3 of 13 ends

3 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended January 20, 2026
Note regarding agenda-related documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council agenda packet (GC §54957.5): Any related documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council Agenda Packets will be made available for public inspection. Such documents will be posted on the city’s website and will be available at the City Clerk's office, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626.

All cell phones and other electronic devices are to be turned off or set to vibrate. Members of the audience are requested to step outside the Council Chambers to conduct a phone conversation.

Free Wi-Fi is available in the Council Chambers during the meetings. The network username available is: CM_Council. The password is: cmcouncil1953.

As a LEED Gold Certified City, Costa Mesa is fully committed to environmental sustainability.

A minimum number of hard copies of the agenda will be available in the Council Chambers.

For your convenience, a binder of the entire agenda packet will be at the table in the foyer of the Council Chambers for viewing. Agendas and reports can be viewed on the City website at https://costamesa.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx. Las agendas y los informes se pueden ver en español en el sitio web de la Ciudad en
https://www.costamesaca.gov/trending/current-agendas/spanish-city-council-agendas.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Assistive Listening headphones are available and can be checked out from the City Clerk. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (714) 754-5225. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].

En conformidad con la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades (ADA), aparatos de asistencia están disponibles y podrán ser prestados notificando a la Secretaria Municipal. Si necesita asistencia especial para participar en esta junta, comuníquese con la oficina de la Secretaria Municipal al (714) 754-5225. Se pide dar notificación a la Ciudad por lo mínimo 48 horas de anticipación para garantizar accesibilidad razonable a la junta. [28 CFR

35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].

Page 4 of 13 ends

4 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended January 20, 2026

SPECIAL AMENDED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING

AUTHORITY
JANUARY 20, 2026 – 6:00 P.M.

JOHN STEPHENS
Mayor

MANUEL CHAVEZ ANDREA MARR Mayor Pro Tem - District 4 Council Member - District 3

ARLIS REYNOLDS LOREN GAMEROS Council Member - District 5 Council Member - District 2

JEFF PETTIS MIKE BULEY Council Member - District 6 Council Member - District 1

KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW CECILIA GALLARDO-DALY City Attorney City Manager

CALL TO ORDER

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION
[Per Council Policy 000-12, these presentations are made by community volunteers stating their own views. The City Council disclaims any intent to endorse or sponsor the views of any speaker.]

ROLL CALL

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
PRESENTATIONS:

1. Recognition of AYSO 40-Year Volunteer Anne McEligot
PUBLIC COMMENTS – MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Comments on Presentations and Consent Calendar items may also be heard at this time. Comments are limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

Page 5 of 13 ends

5 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended January 20, 2026

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS Each council member is limited to 3 minutes. Additional comments will be heard at the end of the meeting.

1. Council Member Gameros

2. Council Member Marr

3. Council Member Reynolds

4. Council Member Pettis

5. Council Member Buley

6. Mayor Pro Tem Chavez

7. Mayor Stephens
REPORT – CITY MANAGER
REPORT – CITY ATTORNEY

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City Council, staff, or the public request specific items to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ALL

ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
26-103
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council and Housing Authority approve the reading by title only and waive further reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

2. READING FOLDER 26-104
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council receive and file Claims received by the City Clerk and authorize staff to reject any and all Claims: Thomas Devlin, Magdy Elias, Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, Silvestra Rojas Lara, Rose Michelson, Elizabeth Nelson, Jeffrey Standel, Melody Waterman.

Page 6 of 13 ends

6 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended January 20, 2026

3. ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION 25-614
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve Warrant Resolution No. 2746.

1. Summary Check Registration 11-20-2025

2. Summary Check Registration 11-24-2025

3. Summary Check Registration 12-2-2025

4. Summary Check Registration 12-11-2025
Attachments:

4. MINUTES 26-105
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve the minutes of the regular meetings of November 4, 2025, November 18, 2025, and December 2, 2025.

1. 11-04-2025 Draft Minutes

2. 11-18-2025 Draft Minutes

3. 12-02-2025 Draft Minutes
Attachments:

5. ACCEPTANCE OF THE COSTA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT
FLOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 24-05
25-622
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Accept the work performed by Interior Resources, Inc ., dba Commercial Interior Resources, Inc. ( CIR) for the Costa Mesa Police Department Floor Replacement Project, City Project No. 24-05, and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.

2. Authorize the City Manager to release the retention monies thirty-five ( 35) days after the Notice of Completion filing date; release the Labor and Material Bond seven (7) months after the filing date; and release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after the filing date.

1. Final CostAttachments:

AT THIS TIME COUNCIL WILL ADDRESS ANY ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT

CALENDAR
------------------------------END OF CONSENT CALENDAR-------------------------------

Page 7 of 13 ends

7 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended January 20, 2026
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Pursuant to Resolution No. 05-55, Public Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m.)

1. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY OF AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 13 OF THE COSTA MESA

MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW FOR MINISTERIAL APPROVAL OF
TWO-UNIT SMALL LOT ORDINANCE PROJECTS (PCTY- 25-0007)

AND ADOPTION OF ASSOCIATED FEES
25-613
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Find that the project is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15061(b)(3) (“General Rule”) based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report.

2. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the revisions to Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Zoning Code) to allow for ministerial approval of two-unit Small Lot Ordinance (SLO) projects. Therefore, staff recommends the City Council introduce for first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 2026-XX approving Code Amendment PCTY-25-0007, amending the Zoning Code sections pertaining to two-unit SLO projects; and

3. Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution establishing a fee for two-unit ministerial SLO projects and reaffirming the same fee for Urban Lot Split projects.

Agenda Report

1. Draft Ordinance

2. Ordinance strikethrough version

3. Checklist

4. Draft Fee Resolution
Attachments:

Page 8 of 13 ends

8 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended January 20, 2026

2. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA

MESA, REQUIRING STAFFING AT SELF-SERVICE CHECKOUT

STATIONS
25-621
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Receive public comment and consider the provisions of the draft ordinance.

2. Introduce and give first reading, waiving further reading, to Ordinance No . 2026-XX Adding Article 7 of Chapter II of Title 9 to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code relating to Grocery and Drug Store Staffing Standards for Self-Service Checkout Stations.

1. Draft Ordinance on Staffing of Self Checkout StationsAttachments:

OLD BUSINESS: NONE.

Page 9 of 13 ends

9 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended January 20, 2026
NEW BUSINESS:

1. AWARD OF THE SHALIMAR PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 25-06, AND FINDING OF CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) CATEGORICAL

EXEMPTION
25-626
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Make a finding of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301.

2. Adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the Shalimar Park Improvement Project, City Project No. 25-06.

3. Reject the apparent low bid submitted by ACC & Engineering, LLC (ACC) , 1130 North Kraemer Boulevard # I, Anaheim, California 92806 as non-responsive.

4. Reject the bid submitted by Earthscapes Landscape, Inc ., 603 South Milliken Avenue, Unit J, Ontario, California 91761 as non-responsive.

5. Award a Public Works Agreement (PWA) for construction to the second lowest bidder, Micon Construction, Inc ., 1616 Sierra Madre Circle, Placentia, California 92870 in the amount of $1,296,650 and authorize a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $129,665 for unforeseen costs related to this project.

6. Authorize the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the PWA with Micon Construction, Inc ., and future amendments to the agreement within Council authorized limits.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The action involves an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, the proposed action is exempt under section 15301 relating to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, and /or minor alteration of existing public facilities.

1. ACC's Bid Rejection

2. Bid Summary

3. PWA
Attachments:

Page 10 of 13 ends

10 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended January 20, 2026

2. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF IRVINE

FOR USE OF BEDS AT THE COSTA MESA BRIDGE SHELTER
25-620
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Irvine for access to beds, as available, at the Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter.

1. Draft MOUAttachments:

3. APPROPRIATION OF OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS 25-618
RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the appropriation of past and future Opioid Settlement Funds to subsidize eligible expenses including legal fees and opioid remediation services for people experiencing homelessness.

4. URBAN PLAN MASTER PLAN SCREENING REQUEST
(PSCR-25-0001) FOR A PROPOSED 34 UNIT LIVE /WORK AND
RESIDENTIAL LOFT DEVELOPMENT ON A 1.4 ACRE SITE WITHIN
THE MESA WEST BLUFFS URBAN PLAN LOCATED AT 1626

PLACENTIA AVENUE
25-606
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends City Council discuss the screening application and provide preliminary feedback to the staff and the applicant.

Agenda Report

1. Application Summary Sheet

2. Applicant Letter

3. Project Plans

4. Tentative Tract Map
Attachments:

Page 11 of 13 ends

11 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended January 20, 2026

5. COMPENSATION, CLASSIFICATION AND STAFFING UPDATES AND

ADOPTION OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)

AND SALARY RESOLUTIONS BETWEEN THE CITY OF COSTA

MESA (CITY) AND THE COSTA MESA CITY EMPLOYEES

ASSOCIATION (CMCEA), COSTA MESA DIVISION MANAGERS

ASSOCIATION (CMDMA), CONFIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT UNIT,

CONFIDENTIAL UNIT, EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES, PART TIME

EMPLOYEES AND POLICE RECRUITS
25-602
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve and adopt the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Costa Mesa and CMCEA (Attachment 1); and

2. Approve and adopt Resolutions Number 2026-xx establishing the Senior Community Services Specialist, Lead Community Services Specialist, Senior Property and Evidence Specialist, Senior Civilian Investigator and Fairview Park Senior Maintenance Technician classifications and revising pay ranges for Community Outreach Supervisor (Attachment 2); and

3. Approve and adopt Resolution Number 2026-XX revising pay ranges for Neighborhood Improvement Manager, Recreation Manager, Public Affairs Manager, Assistant Development Services Director and renaming the Community Improvement Manager, Planning and Sustainable Development Manager and Telecommunications Manager classifications and updating benefits information for the CMDMA (Attachment 3); and

4. Approve and adopt Resolution Number 2026-XX updating benefits information for the Confidential Management Unit (Attachment 4); and

5. Approve and adopt Resolution Number 2026-XX revising benefits information for the Confidential Unit (Attachment 5); and

6. Approve and adopt Resolution Number 2026-XX revising pay ranges for City Manager, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Deputy Police Chief and Assistant Fire Chief and benefits information for Executive Employees (Attachment 6); and

7. Approve and adopt Resolution Number 2026-XX revising pay ranges for Video Production Aide and Reserve Public Safety Dispatcher and updating benefits information for Part Time employees (Attachment 7); and

8. Approve and adopt Resolution Number 2026-XX revising pay ranges for Police Recruits (Attachment 8); and

9. Authorize and approve staffing for following full-time position: Office Specialist II (Confidential) in the City Clerk ’s Division of the City Manager’s Department; and

10.Authorize the City Manager and members of the City ’s Negotiation Team

Page 12 of 13 ends

12 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended January 20, 2026
to execute the MOU.

1. CMCEA MOU

2. CMCEA Resolution

3. CMDMA Resolution

4. CMU Resolution

5. CONF Salary Resolution

6. Exec Resolution

7. PT Resolution

8. Police Recruit Resolution
Attachments:

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL /BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND

SUGGESTIONS

ADJOURNMENT

Page 13 of 13 ends

13 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-103 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
TITLE:

PROCEDURAL WAIVER: WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND

RESOLUTIONS
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council and Housing Authority approve the reading by title only and waive further reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

Page 1 of 1 ends

14 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-104 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
TITLE:

READING FOLDER
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office/City Clerk’s Division RECOMMENDATION:

Page 1 of 1 ends

15 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-614 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
TITLE:

ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION
DEPARTMENT: FINANCE DEPARTMENT
PRESENTED BY: CAROL MOLINA, FINANCE DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: CAROL MOLINA, FINANCE DIRECTOR AT (714) 754-5243 RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve Warrant Resolution No. 2746.

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with Section 37202 of the California Government Code, the Director of Finance or their designated representative hereby certify to the accuracy of the following demands and to the availability of funds for payment thereof.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Funding Payroll Register No. 25-24 On Cycle for $4,038,215.22 and No. 25-25 On Cycle for $4,273,156.83, and City operating expenses for $5,928,914.74.

Page 1 of 1 ends

16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
62 63
64 65
66 67
68 69
70 71
72 73
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-105 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
TITLE:

MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office/City Clerk’s Division RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve the minutes of the regular meetings of November 4, 2025, November 18, 2025, and December 2, 2025.

Page 1 of 1 ends

103
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 4, 2025 Page 1 of 10

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
NOVEMBER 4, 2025 - MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER – The Closed Session meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 4:01 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros (Arrived at 4:08 p.m.), Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – NONE.

CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.8
APN: 427-091-12; Property: 3175 Airway Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Agency Negotiators: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Interim City Manager Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION - TWO CASES
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2), Potential Litigation.

3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6 (a) Agency Designated Representative: Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney.

Unrepresented Employee: City Manager
City Council recessed at 4:02 p.m. for Closed Session.

Closed Session recessed to the open session at 5:55 p.m.

Closed Session resumed at 9:57 p.m., after the open session.

Closed Session adjourned at 11:05 p.m. and there was no reportable action taken. 104
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 4, 2025 Page 2 of 10 CALL TO ORDER - The Regular City Council and Housing Authority meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 6:04 p.m.

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – A video was played of the National Anthem and the Mayor led the Pledge of Allegiance.

MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION – Led by Mayor Stephens.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT – No reportable action, City Council will return to closed session after the conclusion of open session.

PRESENTATIONS:

The City Council presented a proclamation in recognition of Veterans Day.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke on bicycle and pedestrian safety, and on the number of speeding citations, collisions, and pedestrian injuries.

Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, spoke on the Fairview Developmental Center project and the part of land that is currently a golf course, spoke on Measure Y requirements and open space, and spoke on the Fairview Park Master Plan, and changing the name of the park and removing the fly field.

Speaker, spoke on his civil rights having been violated.

Don Harper, Costa Mesa, representing Top Seed and the Ball Brothers, spoke on the programing at the Tennis Center, and spoke on the contract and collaboration between the City and the Ball Brothers.

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS Council Member Reynolds spoke on honoring Veterans and Veterans Day, and on working on bringing home Veterans that have been deported, spoke on staff providing information on resources that are available during the Federal Government shutdown, spoke on Safe Streets projects and accomplishments, and spoke on the new World Day of Remembrance event for road traffic victims on Sunday, November 16th at 2:00 p.m. starting at City Hall.

Council Member Pettis spoke on working at the Veterans Hospital and on honoring Veterans. 105
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 4, 2025 Page 3 of 10 Council Member Buley spoke on having a meeting with staff regarding the Tennis Center, spoke on Veterans Day, spoke on the Arts Commission idea for honoring America’s 250-year history, spoke on the budget, and spoke on reconsidering the implementation of the Climate Action Plan and the budget.

Council Member Gameros spoke on parking issues in residential areas and thanked staff for resolving the issue and praised the Someone Cares Soup Kitchen and Adam Ereth for their services.

Council Member Marr spoke on the Freedom Committee, spoke on the 50 th anniversary of women being allowed to attend military service academies, and spoke in honor of Veterans Day, congratulated and thanked residents for organizing the “bike bus” for residents to bike safely together, spoke on a meeting on Thursday, November 6 th at Costa Mesa High School’s is a safe routes to school and Fairview Road meeting, and requested to adjourn the meeting in honor of Gabriel Garcia-Aviles who was detained by ICE and passed away on October 23rd.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavez thanked students for attending the meeting, spoke on elections, democracy, and the importance of voting, requested to adjourn in honor of Christopher Aldana, and spoke on the Fairview Park Master Plan will be considered at the November 18 th City Council meeting and encouraged people to attend and speak.

Mayor Stephens spoke on the November 17 th mayor’s event at Muldoon’s, spoke on Veterans Day and that City Hall was formerly the Santa Ana Air Base and how that contributed to the incorporation of the City of Costa Mesa, and spoke in memory of Christopher Aldana.

REPORT – CITY MANAGER – Ms. Gallardo-Daly spoke on honoring Veterans and on Veterans Day, spoke on upcoming events: November 6 th joint workshop for safe routes to school and the Fairview Road improvement project, November 15 th is a bicycle skills and safety workshop, and November 17 th is a public scoping meeting on the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan.

REPORT – CITY ATTORNEY – Ms. Hall Barlow thanked the City Council and staff for their support during her partners surgery and thanked Veterans for their service.

CONSENT CALENDAR
MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez/Council Member Marr
MOTION: Approve the Consent Calendar.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0
106
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 4, 2025 Page 4 of 10

1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND

RESOLUTIONS
ACTION:

City Council and Housing Authority approved the reading by title only and waived further reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

2. ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION
ACTION:

City Council approved Warrant Resolution No. 2743.

3. MINUTES
ACTION:

City Council approved the minutes of the regular meeting of October 7, 2025.

4. COMPUTER SYSTEM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
ACTION:

1. Authorized the use of the National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO) ValuePoint Cooperative Master Program Agreement with Dell Technologies.

2. Approved the purchase of 150 computer systems to replace existing end-of-life computers.

3. Authorized the Interim City Manager, or designee, to execute a purchase order with Dell Technologies in the amount of $220,349.

5. 2027 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
ACTION:

City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-43, approving projects for inclusion in the Orange County Transportation Authority’s (OCTA) Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) for Fiscal Years 2026-27 through 2031-32.

6. AWARD OF THE COSTA MESA FIRE STATION NO. 3 ABOVE GROUND STORAGE TANK INSTALLATION, CITY PROJECT NO. 25-12
ACTION:

1. Awarded a Public Works Agreement (PWA) in the amount of $409,996 to Fleming Environmental, Inc., Fullerton, CA, to install a new above ground diesel storage tank, fuel management solution, and accompanying items at the Costa Mesa Fire Station No. 3.

2. Authorized an additional ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $41,000 as needed for any unforeseen costs related to the project. 107
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 4, 2025 Page 5 of 10

3. Authorized the Interim City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the PWA and any future amendments to the agreement within Council authorized limits. -------------------------------------END OF CONSENT CALENDAR-------------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Pursuant to Resolution No. 05-55, Public Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m.)

1. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5: BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AND TITLE 7:

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS

CODE, INCLUDING SPECIFIED APPENDICES AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS, AND

ADOPTING THE ORANGE COUNTY GRADING AND EXCAVATION CODE AND

ASSOCIATED SUPPLEMENTS
Presentation by Mr. Doudar, Building Official, and Mr. Bohr, Fire Marshall.

Public Comments: None.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Marr/Council Member Reynolds MOTION: Approve staff recommendation with a change in sections 1207.4.1 and 1207.11.5.1, electrical disconnects shall be 6 feet instead of 36 inches of the main electrical service disconnecting means.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

1. Conducted a public hearing and introduced Ordinance No. 2025-08 for first reading to amend Title 5 and Title 7 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to:
a. Adopt by reference the 2025 California Building Standards Code, as locally amended, and the current edition of the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code
b. Repeal the City’s prior adoption of the 2022 code editions c. Set an effective date of January 1, 2026

2. Adopted Resolution No. 2025-44 of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, setting forth findings of local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions within the City of Costa Mesa to support certain local amendments to the California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Fire Code, and California Wildland-Urban Interface Code.

3. Found that this action is not a project under CEQA Guidelines §15378(b) and, alternatively, is exempt under §15061(b)(3).
108
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 4, 2025 Page 6 of 10 City Council recessed into break at 7:46 p.m.

City Council reconvened at 7:56 p.m.

2. AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY WITH THE SIXTH CYCLE (2021-2029) HOUSING ELEMENT - PCTY-25-0004
Presentation by Ms. Dacey, Principal Planner, Ms. McGill, Planning and Sustainability Manager.

Public Comments:

Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa, spoke on transparency and public noticing requirements, and spoke against City Council consideration of the item until a full environmental review is completed.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez/Mayor Stephens
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: Council Member Pettis.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 6-1
ACTION:

City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-45 to adopt the amendments to the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan to provide consistency with the Sixth Cycle Housing Element and associated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental determination.

OLD BUSINESS:

1. AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO AGREEMENT NO. C-5-3612 BETWEEN ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FOR THE I-405

IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Presentation by Mr. Sethuraman, Public Works Director.

Public Comments:

Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, noted that underneath the 405 freeway on Harbor Blvd there are three dips that need to be repaired, and suggested the light at Gisler be investigated for repair.
109
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 4, 2025 Page 7 of 10 MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/Council Member Reynolds
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

1. Approved Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. C-5-3612 between Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the City of Costa Mesa for the I-405 Improvements Project and authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement.

2. Appropriated $1,989,000 in compensation towards Pavement Mitigation I-405 Project.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE STAFFING AT

SELF-SERVICE CHECKOUT STATIONS
Presentation by Mr. Barkman, Government Affairs Manager.

Public Comments:

Brian Baxley, union representative, spoke in support of the ordinance.

Matt Walters spoke in support of the ordinance and presented a petition signed by 179 workers in support of the ordinance.

Vincent Chavez spoke in support of the ordinance.

Jose Espinoza spoke in support of the ordinance.

Jackie Weber, Development Director for Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, spoke in support of the ordinance.

Sean Drexler, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, spoke in support of the ordinance.

Derek Smith, Political Director for UFCW Local 324, spoke in support of the ordinance. 110
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 4, 2025 Page 8 of 10 Tim James, California Grocers Association, requested to be a part of the discussion, spoke on statistics, spoke in opposition to the ordinance, noted that similar proposals died in the state legislature and goes beyond what has been ratified in the collective bargaining agreements.

Andrew Barnes, spoke on the issue being a business issue and not a municipal ordinance issue, and spoke in opposition of the ordinance.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez/Council Member Gameros MOTION: Bring back an ordinance identical to the City of Long Beach’s ordinance.

Council Member Pettis spoke on not supporting the motion due to government overreach.

Council Member Buley spoke on not supporting the motion due to government overreach.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez/Council Member Gameros MOTION: Bring back an ordinance identical to the City of Long Beach’s ordinance.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: Council Member Buley and Council Member Pettis.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 5-2
ACTION:

City Council provided direction to staff to bring back an ordinance identical to the City of Long Beach’s ordinance for consideration.

2. HOUSING ELEMENT REZONING (NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE ALL BELONG)

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE
Presentation by Ms. Halligan, Senior Planner and Cathrine Tang Saez, Consultant with Dudek.

Public Comments:

Alex Tourje, Costa Mesa, spoke on participation and appreciated the process, and supports additional housing.

Sebastian Ayala, Costa Mesa, spoke on cooperation between the Newport Mesa Police Department and the Costa Mesa Police Department on gang related activity and combatting the issue, and spoke on cooperation between the entities.

Speaker, spoke on the RNHA process, spoke on the comment process at the community meetings, spoke on development, and expressed concerns on parking and the height of buildings.
111
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 4, 2025 Page 9 of 10 Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa, spoke on the community meetings, expressed concerns on the workshops and the moderator, spoke on public participation, and supports an advisory committee.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Marr/Mayor Pro Tem Chavez
MOTION: Receive and file the report.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

City Council received filed the report.

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL/BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS – NONE.

ADJOURNMENT – Mayor Stephens adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 9:57 p.m. in honor and memory of Christopher Aldana and Gabriel Garcia-Aviles.

Closed Session adjourned at 11:05 p.m. and there was no reportable action taken. 112
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 4, 2025 Page 10 of 10 Minutes adopted on this 20th day of January, 2026.
___________________________
John Stephens, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
113
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 18, 2025 Page 1 of 11

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
NOVEMBER 18, 2025 - MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER – The Closed Session meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 4:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr (arrived 4:05 p.m.), Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds (arrived 4:04 p.m.), and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – NONE.

CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION - THREE CASES
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2), Potential Litigation.

2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6 (a) Agency Designated Representative: Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney.

Unrepresented Employee: City Manager

3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6, (a) Agency Designated Representative: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Interim City Manager Name of Employee Organization: Costa Mesa City Executive Unit

4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: Juan David Veramancini and Rodrigo Torresmarini vs. County of Orange; City of Costa Mesa, et al.

United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:22-cv-01501-FWS (JDEx)
114
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 18, 2025 Page 2 of 11

5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: City of Costa Mesa; People of State of Cal. v. D'Alessio Investments LLC, et al.
440 Fair Dr. and 1779 Newport Blvd.

Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2020-01170520

6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: D'Alessio Investments LLC v. City of Costa Mesa Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2020-01132646

7. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: D’Alessio v. City of Costa Mesa, et al.,
United States District Court, Central District of CA, Case No. 8:25-cv-00679-DOC-DFM

8. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio; 1963 Wallace Ave.

Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30 2020 01133479

9. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.8
APN: 427-091-12; Property: 3175 Airway Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Agency Negotiators: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Interim City Manager Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
City Council recessed at 4:03 p.m. for Closed Session.

Closed Session adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER - The Regular City Council and Housing Authority meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 6:00 p.m.

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – A video was played of the National Anthem and the Mayor led the Pledge of Allegiance.

MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION – Led by Pastor Christine Nolf, Redemption Church.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez (Via Zoom Webinar from Juarez Jalisco, Pursuant to CA Government Code 54953(b)(2)), and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT – No reportable action. 115
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 18, 2025 Page 3 of 11 PRESENTATIONS: NONE.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Wendy Simao expressed concerns regarding noise issues associated with The 12 gym and indicated the establishment has been leaving the doors open.

Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, thanked the City staff for repairing the dips on Harbor Blvd.

Geoff West, Costa Mesa, thanked the City Council for recognizing Veterans, and expressed gratitude to the City Council.

Scott Nestel, Costa Mesa, requested clarification on the parking tickets issued to him and if they could be waived.

Brooke Grey spoke in support of posting Know Your Rights resources.

Speaker, spoke in support of posting Know Your Rights resources and adding the California Labor Commissioner information to the webpage.

Roberto Herrera, Resilience Orange County, spoke in support of posting Know Your Rights resources, requested more funding for the Enough For All fund, requested an update on the crosswalk at Center Street and Placentia Avenue, and requested to incorporate into the budget virtual outreach and Spanish outreach.

Christian Lopez, Resilience Orange County, spoke in support of previous comments.

Juana Trejo, spoke on a hit and run traffic accident, requested options for reducing drivers speeds, and thanked the City Council and the constituent services team.

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS Council Member Pettis wished everyone Happy Thanksgiving and expressed gratefulness to be able to serve as a Council Member.

Council Member Buley thanked Shirley McDaniels for highlighting Jamboree Housing Company and financial issues in Huntington Beach, and requested staff to monitor.

Council Member Gameros spoke on giving thanks and providing to those in need, and spoke on Someone Cares Soup Kitchen and the need for volunteers.

Council Member Marr reported that the Enough For All funds have supported 65 families so far and requested an update on the funds provided to Someone Cares Soup Kitchen and an update on an ethics policy, requested an update on a rental registry, and requested an update on the Jamboree Housing financing, spoke on the Safe Routes to School and Fairview Avenue improvement project community meeting, and congratulated Neat Coffee on celebrating their 10 year anniversary.
116
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 18, 2025 Page 4 of 11 Council Member Reynolds requested an update on an ethics policy, spoke on supporting those in the community who are vulnerable, spoke on attending a housing forum regarding the work carried out withing the city, spoke on a bike ride in remembrance for road traffic victims, requested regular reporting to City Council on traffic collisions, spoke on online surveys for the Safe Routes to school grant, and provided an update on the Center Street crosswalk project.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavez spoke on the ROP program at Estancia High School and speaking with the students, thanked Flo Martin and Michael Nolf for their comments on 19 th Street bike path changes, requested an update on the Center Street crosswalk, suggested auditing both Someone Cares Soup Kitchen and Enough For All at the same time.

Mayor Stephens thanked those who came to his recent event, spoke on promoting Know Your Rights, spoke on the basket brigade event in the City Hall parking lot on Sunday, November 23rd to provide thanksgiving baskets, and thanked Geoff West for his comments.

REPORT – CITY MANAGER – Ms. Gallardo-Daly spoke on the upcoming rainstorm and that free sandbags are available to residents of the City, spoke on Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week, spoke on opening the inclement weather shelter during the rainstorm, and spoke on the Senior Grocery program at the Senior Center.

REPORT – CITY ATTORNEY – Ms. Hall Barlow reported that referrals for both groups designated for legal defense funds are being made and there are no reports yet on those assisted, reported that she spoke to the Jamboree Housing attorney, and they will provide a current pro forma.

CONSENT CALENDAR
MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Reynolds/Council Member Marr MOTION: Approve the Consent Calendar except for Consent Calendar Item No. 6.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: Council Member Gameros recused himself on item 3 the Warrant Resolution due to his wife working for Priceless Pet Recue.

Motion carried: 7-0

1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND

RESOLUTIONS
ACTION:

City Council and Housing Authority approved the reading by title only and waived further reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.
117
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 18, 2025 Page 5 of 11

2. READING FOLDER
ACTION:

City Council received and filed Claims received by the City Clerk and authorized staff to reject any and all Claims: Shea Weston.

3. ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION
ACTION:

City Council approved Warrant Resolution No. 2744.

4. ACCEPTANCE OF THE GREENVILLE-BANNING CHANNEL HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR INSTALLATION PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 25-02
ACTION:

1. City Council accepted the work performed by Zusser Company Inc., 528 Palisades Drive, Suite 504, Los Angeles, California 90272, for the Greenville-Banning Channel Hydrodynamic Separator Installation Project, and authorized the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.

2. Authorized the Interim City Manager to release the retention monies thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion filing date; release the Labor and Material Bond seven (7) months after the filing date; and release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after the filing date.

5. REJECT SOLE BID FOR THE SEWER PIPE RELINE PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 25-14
ACTION:

City Council rejected the sole bid received for the Sewer Pipe Reline Project, City Project No. 25-14 and authorized staff to re-advertise the project.

ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

6. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2025-08 - AMENDING TITLE 5: BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AND TITLE 7: FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE; ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2025

CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, INCLUDING SPECIFIED

APPENDICES AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS, AND ADOPTING THE ORANGE

COUNTY GRADING AND EXCAVATION CODE AND ASSOCIATED SUPPLEMENTS Ms. Hall Barlow, City Attorney, clarified that the distance requirements from the disconnect will be amended in both sections of the ordinance.

Public Comments: None.
118
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 18, 2025 Page 6 of 11 MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Marr/Mayor Stephens
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

1. City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-08 to:
- Amend Titles 5 and 7 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code; - Adopt by reference the 2025 California Building Standards Code, as locally amended, and the current Orange County Grading and Excavation Code; - Repeal the City’s prior adoption of the 2022 editions; and - Set an effective date of January 1, 2026.
--------------------------------------END OF CONSENT CALENDAR--------------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
(Pursuant to Resolution No. 05-55, Public Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m.) OLD BUSINESS: NONE.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. DRAFT FAIRVIEW PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE: DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL

OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff presentation by Mr. Gruner, Parks and Community Services Director, Kelly Dalton, Fairview Park Administrator, Travis Brooks with Land IQ Biologist, and Jenny Cell with Moore, lacofano, Goltsman, Inc. (MIG).

Kohl Crecelius, Fairview Park Steering Committee Chair, provided a presentation.

Matt Garcia, Harbor Soaring Society President, provided a presentation.

City Council recessed into a break at 9:06 p.m.

City Council reconvened at 9:18 p.m.

Public Comments:

Vida Underwood, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of concerts in the park, flying planes, and riding bikes, and spoke on the wildlife thriving in the park.

Annie Erickson, Costa Mesa, spoke on keeping Fairview Park the same, spoke in support of riding bikes and flying planes.
119
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 18, 2025 Page 7 of 11 Speaker, spoke in support of riding bikes and flying planes, spoke in support of Harbor Soaring Society, and spoke in opposition of the Master Plan.

Bill Erickson, Costa Mesa, spoke on keeping Fairview Park the same, spoke in support of riding bikes and in support of the Harbor Soaring Society.

Josh Guesman, Orange County Model Engineers President, spoke on behalf of the 318 members in support of the Master Plan and will work in coordination with the city and assist wherever is needed.

Kari Nieblas Vozenilek, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Master Plan as it reduces active uses in the park.

Jennifer Thomas, Costa Mesa, Fairview Park Steering Committee, spoke in support of the Master Plan.

Sergio Tellez, Coastal Corridor Alliance, spoke in support of the Master Plan and supports the incorporation of the recommendations from the Parks and Community Services Commission and the Fairview Park Steering Committee.

Hank Castignetti, Orange County Model Engineers, spoke in support of the Master Plan.

Shannon Wingfield, Tribal Secretary of the Juaneño Band of the Mission Indians Acjahemen Nation, spoke in strong support of the Master Plan, supports recommendation no. 6 to relocate the fly field and spoke on recommendation no. 18 as the tribe was not consulted.

Scott Thomas, Sea & Sage Audubon Society, spoke in support of the Master Plan.

Jim Erickson, Costa Mesa, spoke on Measure AA and in support of the active transportation plan and biking in the park.

Bridget Duffin, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the Master Plan.

Jacob Underwood, Costa Mesa, Harbor Soaring Society, spoke in support of the fly field.

Dr. Kelly Anne Brown, Costa Mesa, Parks and Community Services Commission Chair, spoke in support of the Master Plan, spoke on fiscal responsibility, and that both the Fairview Park Steering Committee and the Parks and Community Services Commission support adoption of the plan.

Speaker, spoke in support of flying airplanes in the park.

Bill McCarty, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the Master Plan.

Dan Vozenilek, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of flying airplanes in the park. 120
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 18, 2025 Page 8 of 11 Julie Kennedy, spoke in support of the Master Plan.

Speaker, spoke on the trails being fenced off and requested to keep nature pristine without fencing.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the Master Plan.

Debby Koken, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the Master Plan and in support of science.

Speaker, spoke in support of the Master Plan.

Connie Chang, spoke in support of the Master Plan.

Kim Hendricks, Fairview Park Alliance President, spoke in support of the Master Plan, suggested to change the name to Fairview Nature Park, spoke on endangered species, and allowing bikes on identified trails.

Speaker, spoke in support of the fly field and in support of Harbor Soaring Society.

Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the Master Plan with moving the fly field and changing the name.

Terry Koken, spoke in support of the Master Plan, a science-based analysis, and in support of the Orange County Model Engineers.

Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the Master Plan, moving Harbor Soaring Society out of the park, supports more enforcement, signage, and renaming the park to Fairview Nature Preserve.

James Jones, Costa Mesa, spoke on communicating with the correct tribe, expressed concern on the state of the park, and that the City should be stewards of the park.

Rick Huffman, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the Master Plan.

Andy Campbell spoke in support of the Master Plan, and in support of Harbor Soaring Society moving out of Fairview Park.

Dean Johnson, Orange County Model Engineers, spoke in support of Harbor Soaring Society.

Speaker, spoke in support of Harbor Soaring Society.

Larry Courter, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the park.

Cristian Garcia Arcos spoke in support of the Master Plan.

Paul Wagner, Coastal Corridor Alliance, spoke in support of the Master Plan. 121
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 18, 2025 Page 9 of 11 Speaker, spoke in support of the Master Plan.

Speaker, inquired whether the flying field, currently an established use in the park is able to be removed under the AA analysis, noted that a vernal pool was identified underneath the tracks of the Railroad, noted that significant time is being spent on a small club, and requested more clarity on the process.

Sara Rodelo, Costa Mesa, Waldorf School Administrator, spoke in support of the Master Plan and provided a petition with 500 signatures in support of the plan.

Eric Roberts, former Chair of the Fairview Park Steering Committee, spoke in support of the Master Plan.

John Rittenhouse, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of Harbor Soaring Society.

Speaker, spoke in support of the Master Plan.

David Martinez, Costa Mesa, Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets, spoke on amending the plan so that bicycles are allowed on identified trails, in line with the circulation element of the general plan.

Michael Moses Nolf, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the current draft plan and in support of bike riding at the park.

Speaker, spoke in support of the Master Plan.

Dan Noon spoke in support of Harbor Soaring Society.

John Carter, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of Harbor Soaring Society and bike riding, and in opposition of the Master Plan.

Priscilla Rocco spoke in support of the Master Plan.

Melanie Schlotterbeck, Coastal Corridor Alliance, spoke in support of the Master Plan.

Roberto Herrera, Parks and Recreation Commission Chair for the City of Santa Ana, spoke in support of the Master Plan.

Henry Smith spoke in support of Harbor Soaring Society.

Patrick Flynn, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition of the current draft of the Master Plan. 122
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 18, 2025 Page 10 of 11 MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/Council Member Marr
MOTION: Close public comments and continue the item to the December 2, 2025 City Council meeting.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

1. City Council received public comments and reviewed the Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update prepared by consultant Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman, Inc. (MIG).

2. Continued the item to the December 2, 2025 City Council meeting.

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL/BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS – NONE.

ADJOURNMENT – Mayor Stephens adjourned the meeting at 11:28 p.m. 123
Minutes – Regular Meeting November 18, 2025 Page 11 of 11 Minutes adopted on this 20th day of January, 2026.
___________________________
John Stephens, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
124
Minutes – Regular Meeting December 2, 2025 Page 1 of 15

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY DECEMBER 2, 2025 - MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER – The Closed Session meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 4:01 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr (arrived at 5:00 p.m. Via Zoom Webinar, from Arlington Virgina), Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds (arrived at 4:15 p.m.), Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – NONE.

CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6 (a) Agency Designated Representative: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Interim City Manager Name of Employee Organization: Costa Mesa City Employees Association (CMCEA)

2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6 (a) Agency Designated Representative: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Interim City Manager Name of Employee Organization: Costa Mesa Division Managers Association (CMDMA)

3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6 (a) Agency Designated Representative: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Interim City Manager Name of Employee Organization: Costa Mesa City Executive Unit

4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION - THREE CASES
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2), Potential Litigation.

5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – INITIATION OF LITIGATION – ONE CASE
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(4), Potential Litigation. 125
Minutes – Regular Meeting December 2, 2025 Page 2 of 15

6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: Farrell Harrison v. City of Costa Mesa, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2025-01495293-CU-WM-CJC

7. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: City of Costa Mesa; People of State of Cal. v. D'Alessio Investments LLC, et al.
440 Fair Dr. and 1779 Newport Blvd.

Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2020-01170520

8. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: D'Alessio Investments LLC v. City of Costa Mesa Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2020-01132646

9. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: D’Alessio v. City of Costa Mesa, et al.,
United States District Court, Central District of CA, Case No. 8:25-cv-00679-DOC-DFM

10. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio; 1963 Wallace Ave.

Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30 2020 01133479

11. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: City of Costa Mesa v. Ohio House LLC
Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2020-01146835-CU-OR-CJC City Council recessed at 4:03 p.m. for Closed Session.

Closed Session adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER - The Regular City Council and Housing Authority meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 6:10 p.m.

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – A video was played of the National Anthem and the Mayor led the Pledge of Allegiance.

MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION – Led by Pastor Phil Eyskens, Lighthouse Church.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr (Via Zoom Webinar, from Arlington Virgina, excused at 9:35 p.m.), Cou Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.
126
Minutes – Regular Meeting December 2, 2025 Page 3 of 15 CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT – Ms. Hall Barlow reported no reportable action was taken and direction was given. Ms. Hall Barlow commented on a social media item stating that the city has failed to move forward with immigration defense agreements. Ms. Hall Barlow stated that the statement is incorrect, and that immigration legal defense are already representing a number of Costa Mesa residents, and stated that a website is available for residents to donate additional funding for the services.

PRESENTATIONS: NONE.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, wished everyone Happy Holidays and best wishes, and spoke on an Orange County Register article that reported inaccurate public commenters on the Fairview Park item.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, thanked City Council and staff for the legal defense funds, inquired on the contract and how to access the funds, spoke on Gabriel Garcia-Aviles and if the city has contacted the family, and spoke on the funding for the Someone Cares Soup Kitchen.

Speaker, spoke on Project Based Learning and invited City Council to visit International School for Science and Culture (ISSAC) School.

Natalie Foley, requested the accessibility of immigrant resources on the website to be updated, and more visibility on the website regarding Know Your Rights.

Kim Hendricks, representing Fairview Park Alliance, advertised the Fairview Park calendar is available with a $20 donation, and spoke on volunteer opportunities with the Alliance.

Haley Horton, Costa Mesa, spoke on the impact of ICE raids and requested the website be updated with Know Your Rights information.

Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa, requested to reopen the public hearing for additional public comments on the Fairview Park Master Plan.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, requested more information on the website regarding Know Your Rights, and suggested having the information available in public spaces such as bus stops and libraries, and to have Know Your Rights packets be made available for businesses in the community.

Padmini Srinivasan Hands, Principal and Executive Director of International School for Science and Culture (ISSAC) School spoke on being thankful for being a part of Costa Mesa and is grateful for City Councils support, spoke on Project Based Learning and Human Rights, and spoke on celebrating culture.

Speaker, requested an update on the legal defense funds, requested the city share the contracts, and inquired on the plan to share the information with the community. 127
Minutes – Regular Meeting December 2, 2025 Page 4 of 15 Hank Castignetti, Orange County Model Engineers, invited City Council and residents to visit on December 20th and 21st to visit Santa and Mrs. Claus and the Grinch at the train, and spoke on partnering with Sparks of Love Toy Drive.

Speaker, thanked City Council for the work done over the past year, requested another dog park and to upgrade the current one, and requested to adjourn the meeting in honor of Mr.

Surratt of Surratt Car Wash.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, requested an update on efforts to improve visibility of Know Your Rights information and requested information on how immigrant defense funds are being disseminated.

Speaker, spoke on ICE enforcement, spoke on immigration, and open borders, and spoke on affordable housing mandates.

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS Council Member Buley spoke in support of an additional dog park, spoke on one year of being on the Council, spoke on visiting the Orange County Christian Learning Center, spoke on attending the Segerstrom tree lighting event, and thanked staff for their support.

Council Member Gameros thanked staff for their work and support, requested clarification regarding the funds for Someone Cares Soup Kitchen, and wished everyone Happy Holidays.

Council Member Marr spoke on attending the firefighter’s promotion ceremony and thanked staff for their support.

Council Member Reynolds spoke on a Coastkeeper’s event on Monday, December 8 th at the Library regarding oil drilling off the coast, spoke on the Historical Society walking tour on Sunday, December 14 th, spoke on supporting community members that are afraid, spoke on having resources on the website easily accessible, and spoke on the budget process, and encouraged everyone to shop local.

Council Member Pettis spoke on attending the firefighter’s promotion ceremony, and wished everyone a Merry Christmas.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavez spoke on visiting International School for Science and Culture (ISSAC) School, spoke on updating the content on the website regarding Know Your Rights, and invited everyone to visit Snoopy House.

Mayor Stephens thanked Sergio Escobar for his work on the Basket Brigade event, spoke on attending the 100 th birthday celebration of Shirley Foster, spoke on attending the firefighter’s promotion ceremony, spoke on Snoopy House, spoke on updating the website for Know Your Rights information, spoke on donating monies to the Immigration Defense Fund, and wished everyone a Merry Christmas.
128
Minutes – Regular Meeting December 2, 2025 Page 5 of 15 REPORT – CITY MANAGER – Ms. Gallardo-Daly reported that Snoopy House is returning to City Hall December 12th -19th and thanked the Estancia High School Students for assisting with rebuilding the sets, spoke on updating the Know Your Rights information on the website, and wished everyone Happy Holidays.

REPORT – CITY ATTORNEY – Ms. Hall Barlow reported on the legal defense funds and that direction was to enter into agreements with Public Law Center and Immigration Defenders, reported the Public Law Center agreement is final and they are accepting clients, and the Immigration Defenders agreement is being finalized and they have been accepting clients, contact information is available on the website, clarified that the money does not go to individuals, it goes to the providers of the services, individuals in need should contact Public Law Center or Immigration Defenders for legal services, and clarified that clients information is confidential.

CONSENT CALENDAR
MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Reynolds/Mayor Pro Tem Chavez MOTION: Approve the Consent Calendar except for Consent Calendar Item Nos. 7 and 9.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: Council Member Gameros recused himself on item 3 the Warrant Resolution due to his wife working for Priceless Pet Recue.

Motion carried: 7-0

1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND

RESOLUTIONS
ACTION:

City Council and Housing Authority approved the reading by title only and waived further reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

2. READING FOLDER
ACTION:

City Council received and filed Claims received by the City Clerk and authorized staff to reject any and all Claims: Jonathan Barillas, Jeffrey Brian Magy, Kyle Samuelson.

3. ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION
ACTION:

City Council approved Warrant Resolution No. 2745.
129
Minutes – Regular Meeting December 2, 2025 Page 6 of 15

4. REVIEW AND APPROVE RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR FOR 2026
ACTION:

Reviewed and approved the City Council Meeting Calendar for 2026.

5. AUTHORIZE THE USE OF SOURCEWELL’S NATIONAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH NATIONAL AUTO FLEET FOR THE PURCHASE OF EIGHT (8)

ALLMAND PORTABLE LIGHT TOWERS
ACTION:

1. City Council authorized the use of Sourcewell’s Cooperative Agreement No. 091521-NAF with National Auto Fleet Group for the purchase of eight (8) Allmand GR Series portable light towers.

2. Authorized the City Manager to execute the necessary documents for the purchase in the amount of $109,897 through National Auto Fleet Group located at 490 Auto Center Drive, Watsonville, CA 95076.

6. AUTHORIZE THE USE OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH LONG BEACH BMW FOR THE PURCHASE OF FOUR NEW 2026 BMW R1300 RT-P POLICE

MOTORCYCLES
ACTION:

1. City Council approved the purchase of four (4) new 2026 BMW R1300 RT-P police motorcycles based on pricing through a Goods Purchase Agreement between The City of San Bernardino and Long Beach BMW entered on June 25, 2025.

2. Authorized the City Manager to execute the necessary documents for the purchase in the amount of $164,439 from Long Beach BMW Motorcycles located at 2125 E.

Spring Street, Long Beach, CA 90806.

8. FREEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND AGREEMENT FOR SHARING

COSTS OF STATE HIGHWAY ELECTRICAL FACILITIES
ACTION:

1. City Council approved Freeway Maintenance Agreement between the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Costa Mesa for the I-405 Improvements Project.

2. Approved the Agreement for Sharing Costs of State Highway Electrical Facilities between Caltrans and the City of Costa Mesa.

3. Authorized staff to accept any minor amendments to the agreements based on final review by all parties and for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute final agreements. 130
Minutes – Regular Meeting December 2, 2025 Page 7 of 15

ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

7. MEASURE M2 EXPENDITURE REPORT
Public Comments:

Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, spoke on the listing for a traffic signal at Belfast Avenue.

Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa, spoke on the listing for a traffic signal at Belfast Avenue.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/Mayor Pro Tem Chavez
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-46, approving the Measure M2 Expenditure Report and authorized staff to submit the report to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA).

9. ADAMS AVENUE BICYCLE FACILITY PROJECT (FROM HARBOR BOULEVARD TO FAIRVIEW ROAD), FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STPL-5312(108), CITY PROJECT NO. 25-11
Presentation by Mr. Nikoui, Senior Engineer.

Public Comments: None.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/Council Member Marr
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0
131
Minutes – Regular Meeting December 2, 2025 Page 8 of 15 ACTION:

1. City Council adopted plans, specifications, and working details for the Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project (From Harbor Boulevard to Fairview Road), Federal Project No. STPL-5312(108), City Project No. 25-11, and found the project categorically exempt from CEQA.

2. Approved a Public Works Agreement (PWA) in the amount of $2,268,636, and a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $226,864 to Excel Paving Company, 2230 Lemon Avenue, Long Beach CA 90806.

3. Approved Professional Services Agreement (PSA) in the amount of $241,374 and a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $24,137, to Z&K Consultants, Inc., 17130 Van Buren Blvd. #122, Riverside, CA 92504, for construction management and inspection support services for the Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project.

4. Authorized the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the PWA and the PSA and any future amendments to the agreements within Council authorized limits. -------------------------------------END OF CONSENT CALENDAR--------------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Pursuant to Resolution No. 05-55, Public Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m.)

1. CONTINUATION REQUEST OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S

DECISION TO UPHOLD THE ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR’S DECISION 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
Public Comments: None.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/Mayor Pro Tem Chavez
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

City Council opened the public hearing and continued the item to the February 3, 2026 meeting, pursuant to the applicants’ request.
132
Minutes – Regular Meeting December 2, 2025 Page 9 of 15

2. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2025, AND THE TRAFFIC

IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
Presentation by Ms. Molina, Finance Director and Mr. Martin, Transportation Services Manager.

Public Comments:

David Martinez spoke on Senate Bill 358 regarding mitigation impact fees.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Reynolds/Mayor Stephens
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

1. City Council received and filed the Development Impact Fees Annual Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2025.

2. Adopted Resolution No. 2025-47 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.

City Council recessed into a break at 7:50 p.m.

City Council reconvened at 8:12 p.m.
133
Minutes – Regular Meeting December 2, 2025 Page 10 of 15 OLD BUSINESS:

1. DRAFT FAIRVIEW PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE: DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL

OF RECOMMENDATIONS
MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Reynolds/Council Member Marr MOTION: Move forward with the Draft Master Plan and include the following:
 Bring the trails map into consistency with the Active Transportation Plan.  The fly field can either stay in the current location or be moved to the proposed new location for the purpose of the CEQA analysis.
 Related to the tribal work:
o Where the plan discusses interpretive programming, explicitly include collaboration and coordination with the tribes.
o Regarding multi-lingual signage, include incorporation of tribal languages if supported by the tribes, and
o On page 65 regarding cultural and tribal restoration to add language to establish on going communication and collaboration with the tribal advisory group.
 Direct staff to continue engagement with the tribal advisory group and bring back a proposal for council for ongoing relations with tribal governments, engagement for interpretive signage and other park programing, site access and use, and any other recommendations prioritized by the tribes.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION/SECOND: Council Member Buley/Mayor Stephens SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Amend the 2008 Master Plan to include the following items from attachment 2 of the staff report:
 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.  16: Adopt the Maintenance, Operations, and Management Plan for Fairview Park, including the Invasive Species Management Plan for Fairview Park.  18: Provide continuing opportunities for tribal coordination and participation in the implementation of the Updated Fairview Park Master Plan.  19: Provide an ADA-accessible pathway from the main parking lot to the existing paved multi-purpose path west of the main parking lot.
 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.  25: Based on community input - consider renaming the site to reflect the site's natural and cultural resources.

Council Member Gameros requested to amend the substitute motion to include moving the flying field to the east side of the park as long as it does not trigger Measure AA.

Council Member Buley (1st) did not agree to the change.

Council Member Reynolds clarified that the staff recommendation is to move the flying field to the east side of the park and agreed to make the change to the original motion. 134
Minutes – Regular Meeting December 2, 2025 Page 11 of 15 Mayor Pro Tem Chavez noted that he does not support the substitute motion due to the flying field remaining at its current location.

The motion failed by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Pettis, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Reynolds, and Mayor Pro Tem Chavez.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion failed: 3-4
Council Member Gameros requested the original motion be restated.

Council Member Reynolds restated the original motion and added the inclusion of speed limits for biking and to move the flying field to the east side of the park.

ORIGINAL MOTION/SECOND: Council Member Reynolds/Council Member Marr ORIGINAL MOTION: Move forward with the Draft Master Plan and include the following:
 Bring the trails map into consistency with the Active Transportation Plan.  Speed limits for biking.
 The fly field be moved to the proposed new location on the east side of the park.  Related to the tribal work:
o Where the plan discusses interpretive programming, explicitly include collaboration and coordination with the tribes.
o Regarding multi-lingual signage, include incorporation of tribal languages if supported by the tribes, and
o On page 65 regarding cultural and tribal restoration to add language to establish on going communication and collaboration with the tribal advisory group.
135
Minutes – Regular Meeting December 2, 2025 Page 12 of 15 The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Reynolds, and Mayor Pro Tem Chavez.

Nays: Council Member Buley, Council Member Pettis, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 4-3
ACTION:

1. City Council reviewed and discussed the Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update prepared by consultant Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman, Inc. (MIG); and

2. Provided the following direction on the Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update for inclusion in the final Fairview Park Master Plan Update for adoption:
 Bring the trails map into consistency with the Active Transportation Plan.  Speed limits for biking.
 The fly field be moved to the proposed new location on the east side of the park.  Related to the tribal work:
o Where the plan discusses interpretive programming, explicitly include collaboration and coordination with the tribes.
o Regarding multi-lingual signage, include incorporation of tribal languages if supported by the tribes, and
o On page 65 regarding cultural and tribal restoration to add language to establish on going communication and collaboration with the tribal advisory group.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Reynolds/Mayor Stephens
MOTION: Direct staff to continue engagement with the tribal advisory group and bring back a proposal to council for ongoing relations with tribal governments, engagement for interpretive signage and other park programing, site access and use, and any other recommendations prioritized by the tribes.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: Council Member Pettis.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 6-1
ACTION:

1. City Council directed staff to continue engagement with the tribal advisory group and bring back a proposal to council for ongoing relations with tribal governments, engagement for interpretive signage and other park programing, site access and use, and any other recommendations prioritized by the tribes.

NEW BUSINESS:
136
Minutes – Regular Meeting December 2, 2025 Page 13 of 15

1. AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF

NEWPORT BEACH FOR USE OF BEDS AT THE COSTA MESA BRIDGE SHELTER Presentation by Mr. Robbins, Neighborhood Improvement Manager.

Public Comments: None.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez/Mayor Stephens
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

Council Member Reynolds requested adding a section that the City of Newport Beach shall be responsible for housing or relocating any Newport Beach residents who remain at the shelter at the conclusion of the agreement.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavez (1st) and Mayor Stephens (2nd) agreed to the change.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez/Mayor Stephens
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation and include a sentence or section that the City of Newport Beach shall be responsible for housing or relocating any Newport Beach residents who remain at the shelter at the conclusion of the agreement.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: Council Member Marr.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 6-0
ACTION:

City Council approved 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 and include that the City of Newport Beach shall be responsible for housing or relocating any Newport Beach residents who remain at the shelter at the conclusion of the agreement.

2. PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO EXPLORE TWO CITY BALLOT INITIATIVES

PERTAINING TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX AND BUSINESS LICENSE TAX Presentation by Ms. Molina, Finance Director and Mr. Diminich, Finance Officer.

Public Comments:

David Martinez, Costa Mesa, inquired on why these specific items were chosen.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/ Mayor Pro Tem Chavez
137
Minutes – Regular Meeting December 2, 2025 Page 14 of 15 MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION/SECOND: Council Member Buley/Council Member Pettis SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Direct staff to explore Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) only.

The motion failed by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley and Council Member Pettis.

Nays: Council Member Gameros, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: Council Member Marr.

Abstain: None.

Motion failed 2-4
ORIGINAL MOTION/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/ Mayor Pro Tem Chavez ORIGINAL MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Gameros, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: Council Member Buley and Council Member Pettis.

Absent: Council Member Marr.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 4-2
ACTION:

City Council provided direction to staff to explore placement of potentially two ballot measures in the November 2026 elections to consider an increase in the City of Costa Mesa’s Transient Occupancy Tax (Hotel tax) and a Business License Tax.

3. EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR CITY MANAGER
Presentation by Ms. Hall Barlow, City Attorney.

Public Comments: None.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Gameros/Mayor Stephens
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation and include revising section 2(d) stating that the City Manager and City Council will agree on performance goals.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: Council Member Marr.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 6-0
ACTION:

City Council approved the agreement with Cecilia Gallardo-Daly to serve as City Manager commencing December 2, 2025.

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL/BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND 138
Minutes – Regular Meeting December 2, 2025 Page 15 of 15 SUGGESTIONS – NONE.

ADJOURNMENT – Mayor Stephens adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. in honor and memory of Mr. Surratt.

Minutes adopted on this 20th day of January, 2026.
___________________________
John Stephens, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
139

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-622 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
TITLE:

ACCEPTANCE OF THE COSTA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT FLOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 24-05
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/GENERAL SERVICES

DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: RAJA SETHURAMAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: PATRICK BAUER, DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, (714) 754-5029
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Accept the work performed by Interior Resources, Inc., dba Commercial Interior Resources, Inc. (CIR) for the Costa Mesa Police Department Floor Replacement Project, City Project No. 24-05, and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.

2. Authorize the City Manager to release the retention monies thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion filing date; release the Labor and Material Bond seven (7) months after the filing date; and release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after the filing date.

BACKGROUND:

On March 18, 2025, City Council awarded a construction contract for $335,000 to CIR for the Police Department Floor Replacement Project, City Project 24-05.

The scope of work for this project consisted of removing the existing flooring in the basement hallway and the east wing of the first floor and replacing it with new vinyl tile, placing new vinyl tile over all other existing flooring on all floors, and removing all existing carpeting and replacing it with new carpeting on all floors. In addition, the existing gym flooring was replaced, the rubber stair tread on the south stairwell was replaced, the rubber base throughout the entire facility was replaced, and the jail office flooring was removed and replaced with vinyl tile.

ANALYSIS:

The contractor, CIR, completed all flooring demo and removal, floor sanding, cleaning and preparation, and floor, stairwell flooring, and rubber base installation two (2) weeks ahead of schedule. A separate contract completed the painting of the Police Department facility following flooring installation.

Page 1 of 4 ends

140
File #: 25-622 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
The work required by the project was completed on October 15, 2025, to the satisfaction of the Deputy Public Works Director and the City Engineer, with a final contract cost of $335,000. A report of the final costs is included as Attachment 1.

A summary of the costs is as follows:

Approved Contract Cost: $335,000.00
Total Project Cost: $329,449.07
Final Quantity Adjustments: $ 0.00
Final Contract Cost: $329,449.07
Remaining Balance: $5,550.93
As of this date, there are no Stop Notices filed against the monies due to CIR.

BEFORE AFTER

Page 2 of 4 ends

141
File #: 25-622 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
ALTERNATIVES:

This item is administrative in nature, and there are no alternatives to be considered.

FISCAL REVIEW:

The total cost of the Police Department Floor Replacement Project of $329,449.07 was funded out of the Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 401).

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed this agenda report and approves it as to form.

Page 3 of 4 ends

142
File #: 25-622 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This completed project supports the following City Council goal:
· Maintain and enhance the City’s facilities, equipment and technology.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Accept the work performed by CIR for the Costa Mesa Police Department Floor Replacement Project, City Project No. 24-05, and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.

2. Authorize the City Manager to release the retention monies thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion filing date; release the Labor and Material Bond seven (7) months after the filing date; and release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after the filing date.

Page 4 of 4 ends

143
ATTACHMENT 1
Payment to: Commercial Interior Resources
1761 Reynolds Avenue, Irvine, CA, 92614
PROJECT: Police Department Floor Replacement
CITY PROJECT 24-05

ACCOUNT NUMBER AMOUNT TOTAL RETENTION OTHER PREVIOUS AMOUNT

ENCUMBERED EARNED MONIES PAYMENT DUE THIS
TO DATE WITHHELD(*) ESTIMATE
A 500000 401 19500 50910 200017 $335,000.00 $329,449.07 - $ $0.00 $0.00 B 210300 401 $0.00 $0.00
Total: $335,000.00 $329,449.07 $16,472.45 - $ $0.00 $0.00 Retention
Account Previous Amount This Estimate Other Monies Total 200017 Fund 401 $16,472.45 $0.00 $0.00 $16,472.45
Total: $16,472.45
P.O. No. 18492
144

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-613 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
TITLE:

INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 13 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW FOR MINISTERIAL APPROVAL OF TWO-UNIT SMALL LOT ORDINANCE PROJECTS (PCTY-25-0007) AND ADOPTION OF

ASSOCIATED FEES
DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DEPARTMENT/PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: CHRIS YEAGER, SENIOR PLANNER
CONTACT INFORMATION: CHRIS YEAGER, SENIOR PLANNER, (714) 754-4883 RECOMMENDATION:

1. Find that the project is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15061(b)(3) (“General Rule”) based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report.

3. Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution establishing a fee for two-unit ministerial SLO projects and reaffirming the same fee for Urban Lot Split projects.

Page 1 of 1 ends

145

Page 1 of 7 ends

City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report

77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Item #: 25-613 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
TITLE: INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 13 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW FOR MINISTERIAL APPROVAL OF TWO -UNIT SMALL LOT ORDINANCE PROJECTS (PCTY -25-0007) AND ADOPTION OF

ASSOCIATED FEES

DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/PLANNING

DIVISION

PRESENTED BY: CHRIS YEAGER, SENIOR PLANNER

CONTACT INFORMATION: CHRIS YEAGER, SENIOR PLANNER, (714) 754-4883

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Find that the project is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15061(b)(3) (“General Rule”) based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report.

2. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the revisions to Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code ( Zoning Code ) to allow for ministerial approval of two -unit Small Lot Ordinance (SLO) projects. Therefore, staff recommends the City Council introduce for first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 202 6-XX approving Code Amendment PCTY -25-0007, amending the Zoning Code sections pertaining to two-unit SLO projects; and

3. Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution establishing a fee for two-unit ministerial SLO projects and reaffirming the same fee for Urban Lot Split projects.

BACKGROUND:

Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance History

On April 1, 2014, the City adopted the first SLO (Ord. 14-04) in Orange County , which allows the subdivision of multi -family zoned lots into small, fee -simple parcels. The SLO applies to residential subdivisions of two to fifteen (2 –15) units within the Ci ty’s multi -family zones, which include: the Multiple-Family Residential District, Medium Density (R2-MD), the Multiple-Family Residential District, High Density (R2-HD), and the Multiple -Family Residential Districts (R3). The purpose and intent of the SLO was to promote attainable ownership housing by allowing more flexible development standards and maintenance mechanisms for underutilized multi -family lots, while staying within densities permitted by the General Plan.

146

Item #: 25-613 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026

Page 2 of 7 ends

The SLO was not intended to increase allowable density within multi -family zones, alter minimum parking requirements, or change the existing approval process for small subdivisions (Parcel/Tract Maps).

Since 2014, the SLO has been amended by the Council on three occasions. Below is a summary of the amendments (links are also provided):

 April 21, 2015 (Ord. 15-03): Revised side-yard setbacks from 10 feet to 5 feet to align with the R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 development standards, and modified parking requirements to allow one (1) open parking space.

 September 18, 2018 (Ord. 18-10): Further amended the SLO to revise open space and second-floor setback requirements, allow two (2) open parking spaces, and update flag -lot driveway design standards.

 December 7, 2021 (Ord. 21-20): Council approved a technical code clean-up to the Zoning Code. As a result, the SLO was amended to eliminate the limitation that side-by-side attached units be restricted to four (4) or fewer units per building and removed the prior requirement to include a façade break between such units.

Senate Bill (SB) 9 – Urban Lot Split for R1

On January 1, 2022, Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) went into effect, requiring ministerial review for qualifying two- unit developments and for “urban lot splits” in the City’s Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district. The law limits local discretionary review and caps the number of units per lot created by the statute to a practical maximum of four units on an original single-family lot when combined with Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and/or Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs). Under these requirements, both one- and two-story structures are permitted by right.

Additionally, approval of SB 9 projects can only be based on objective standards, which the City Council incorporated into Urgency Ordinance 2021-21 on December 7, 2021. More recently, on October 7, 2025, City Council codified the Urgency Ordinance as part of a Technical Code Update. See the links below for additional information.

December 7, 2021 Staff Report:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5349698&GUID=33A8811C-7717-4B91- B25C-6E6E2A7787E4

December 7, 2021 Video: https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3805?view_id=14&redirect=true

October 7, 2025 Staff Report:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7686606&GUID=4504BA6A-3428-43CD- B106-68DFECF410F0

October 7, 2025 Video: https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/4311?view_id=14&redirect=true

147

Item #: 25-613 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026

Page 3 of 7 ends

Purpose of Proposed Code Amendment

In October 2025, during a public hearing for an appeal of Planning Commission’s approval of a two-unit small-lot subdivision, City Councilmembers requested that staff explore ways to streamline application processing for two-unit small-lot subdivisions, as these were allowed in other locations ministerially.

With the adoption of the SB 9 local ordinance, two-lot subdivisions are permitted ministerially on all R1 properties in the City. However, the Zoning Code does not currently allow for the same ministe rial processing of two lot subdivisions in multi-family residential zones, where multi-family developments are more likely to already exist. SLO projects are subject to specific development standards and are required to obtain Planning Commission approval of tentative parcel/tract map, and as noted above, often design review. This code amendment is proposed to allow for ministerial processing of parcel maps and development applications for two-unit SLO subdivisions on all multiple-family zoned lots in the City (R2- MD, R2-HD, and R3), similar to what is already permitted in the R1 district.

DESCRIPTION

The Zoning Code amendment is proposed to allow for ministerial processing of two -unit small lot subdivisions, Chapter II, Section 13-29; and Chapter V, Section 13-42.2 and Chapter V, Section 13-42.3 of the Zoning Code are proposed to be amended to allow for a ministerial review of subdivisions of up to two main units in multi-family zoning districts (R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 zones). Three or more main units (up to 15 units) would still be required to obtain approval from the Planning Commission.

Additional amendments to the SLO are proposed to provide clarity, ensure consistency with past practices, reduce barriers to housing development, further increase opportunities for home ownership, and to eliminate Design Review for projects containing two or fewer units.

To ensure that all projects are processed ministerially using objective standards, a new development checklist (Attachment 3) is proposed and would be required for all ministerial SLO applications.

Planning Commission Hearing

On December 8 , 2025, t he Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Code Amendment. The Planning Commission supported the ordinance and voted 5-2 (Vice Chair Zich and Commissioner Dickson dissenting) to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance. Agenda details for the meeting are found in the following link:

https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7773714&GUID=CA876B52-3B66-4948- 8923-756C5F19C165

In making the recommendation, the commissioners proposed a minor clerical amendment to Table 13- 29(c) and expressed support for streamlining the process through ministerial approval. The Commission also requested that the City Council consider reducing fees for two-unit ministerial subdivisions to lessen the financial burden on these types of projects. Commissioners who dissented noted that they could not support the recommendation because ministerial approval would eliminate public notice to neighboring properties and remove opportunities for public input on proposed projects.

148

Item #: 25-613 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026

Page 4 of 7 ends

ANALYSIS:

The existing SLO ( Chapter V, Section 13 -32 of the Zoning Code) consists of sections outlining the application and specific development standards and requirements. The proposed SLO code amendment also includes modifications to the development standards to provide clarity and to reduce burdens on SLO projects. Each proposed subdivision, whether ministerial or not, would largely still be subject to the same requirements that are currently in place. To facilitate the ministerial review, the Planning Application section of the zoning code is also proposed to be amended.

The following discussion outlines the proposed revisions to the Zoning Code and provides justification for said revisions. The comprehensive strikethrough version is included in Attachment 2.

Planning Applications

Zoning Code Chapter III, Table 13 -29(c), Planning Applications Review Process, is proposed to be modified to allow for the ministerial processing of parcel maps for two-unit SLO subdivisions. The table includes provisions that no public notice or public hearing is required and that the Planning Division would be the final review authority for qualifying projects.

As noted above, the City adopted a process and standards for approving tentative parcel maps for urban lot splits in the R1 zoning district; however, the Planning Application table was never modified to allow for the ministerial approval of those parcel maps. This code amendment remedies this omission and indicates that two-unit subdivisions will be reviewed in the same manner as currently allowed in the R1 zoning district.

Small Lot Ordinance Planning Applications Required

Zoning Code Chapter V, Section 13-42.2 requires a subdivision and design review to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for two-unit, SLO projects. This code section, proposed to be amended, exempts two-unit SLO projects from the design review requirements and allow s for ministerial processing of requisite parcel maps.

To maintain the ministerial processing of two -unit developments, design review would no longer be required; however, any proposed project would be required to submit a SLO Checklist (Attachment 3) with an application, which is further discussed below. The project and checklist would be reviewed against the applicable objective development standards to ensure compliance.

Small Lot Ordinance Development Standards and Requirements

Zoning Code Chapter V, Section 13-42.3 provides the development standards and requirements for all SLO projects. Amendments to this section are proposed to provide clarity based on interpretations and previous project approvals. Language is proposed to clarify the setback required for the development lots, and not the individual subdivided lots. The front setback is already called out as the development lot; however, the side and rear setbacks are not clear. Previous approvals of SLO projects throughout the City have included the requirement as development lot setbacks, and this proposed code amendment would codify these practices.

149

Item #: 25-613 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026

Page 5 of 7 ends

It is typical for SLO projects to include flag lots on narrow parcels with a front unit and a second unit being constructed behind, accessed by a driveway on either side of the front unit. These lots are referred to as flag lots. The SLO flag lot driveway standards require a 16-foot-wide driveway to access the rear unit.

Residential Development Standards that apply to all other residential projects (CMMC Table 13 -32), require a minimum driveway width of 10 feet for driveways providing access to only one unit. The code amendment proposes to reduce the required driveway width to 10 feet for fl ag lots, provided that the driveway provides access to only one unit. The reduced driveway width would allow for additional buildable space on the development lot.

Two-Unit Small Lot Ordinance Checklist

The ordinance introduces that ministerial approval of a project can be obtained when it meets objective standards. To ensure objectivity and provide transparency to developers, a Two -Unit SLO Checklist (Attachment 3) is proposed , which would outline all standards, requirements, and objective design guidelines listed in the City’s Residential Design Guidelines for the proposed projects.

Two-unit SLO projects would be required to complete the checklist with the project application. Staff will verify the project and check the applicable development standards, and as long as all items comply with the requirements, the project can be approved without a public hearing. If a project does not meet all of the objective standards, the existing zoning code includes provisions for deviations , including minor modifications, administrative adjustments, variances, and minor design review which would allow for specific deviations to the requirements on a case-by-case basis.

Fee Reductions for Creation of Housing

Since 2014, the City has approved 78 SLO projects. Of these, 48 were two-unit SLO projects, which total approximately 62 percent of all SLO applications.

For reference, the City’s adopted Fee Schedule currently includes application fees for SLO projects consisting of a $3,925.39 Tentative Parcel Map fee and, in most cases, an additional Design Review fee of $3,925.39, for a typical total of $7,850.78. With the proposed transition to a ministerial review process for two-unit SLO subdivisions, property owners would experience a meaningful reduction in processing times and fees for two-unit small lot development projects.

Proposed Reduced Fee

Staff proposes a fee resolution to formally adopt a fee for two-unit small lot subdivision ordinance. Based on the actual time spent on the review, the base fee would be $2,800. Furthermore, the City did not formally adopt a fee for Urban Lot Splits (Senate Bill 9 projects) when the SB 9 Ordinance was adopted in 2024. As such, staff proposes to incorporate this administrative cleanup item as part of the attached resolution as well.

GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE

The proposed Zoning Code Amendment would continue to allow for high -quality SLO developments within Costa Mesa and encourage economic growth in the community by reducing barriers for two-unit projects in multiple -family residential zones. The implementatio n of ministerial zoning approval included in the code amendment provides support for housing development within the City and 150

Item #: 25-613 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026

Page 6 of 7 ends

streamlines approval processes for building permits and entitlements. In addition, the modification of the development standards wo uld bring the code into conformance with existing practice and other residential development standards.

The Housing Element includes various programs to remove governmental constraints related to housing production. It endorses implementing zoning and p rocess changes to make sites available and realistic for housing. The proposed zoning code amendment allow s for ministerial approvals and provides objective standards, thereby removing the discretionary barriers for two-unit projects in multi- family residential zones

The proposed ordinance is in conformance with the City’s General Plan, including:

 Policy LU-1.2 Balance economic gains from new development while preserving the character and densities of residential neighborhoods.
 Policy LU-1.3 Strongly encourage the development of residential uses and owner-occupied housing (single-family detached residences, condominiums, townhouses) where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities.  HE Goal #2: Facilitate the creation and availability of housing for residents at all income levels and for those with special housing needs.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

The adoption of the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the common-sense exemption. This exemption is typically applied to procedural -only code amendments in which no increase in density is created, no new land uses are authorized, and no reasonably foreseeable physical change to the environment could occur. The proposed Ordinance fits squarely within this category. It establishes a ministerial review process and objective standards for two-unit residential developments on parcels already zoned for residential use, and it does not expand the range of permitted uses or increase allowable density beyond what is already established under the General Plan and existing zoning regulations. The Ordinance also does not authorize construction on any specific site or grant any development entitlement; rather, it simply streamlines the review process by removing discretionary hearings and clarifying procedural steps. Any future project would remain subject to ministerial review and would be independently responsible for demonstrating eligibili ty for any applicable CEQA exemption. Because the Ordinance is limited to procedural changes and has no potential to result in a reasonably foreseeable physical impact on the environment, it is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council has the following alternatives:

1) Introduce and give first reading with modifications; adopt fee resolution. The City Council may recommend approval with modifications provided that the revisions are consistent with State law.

2) Not adopt the changes to the City’s Zoning Code; do not adopt fee resolution. The City Council may choose to not adopt the proposed Code amendments.

151

Item #: 25-613 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026

Page 7 of 7 ends

3) Continue the Ordinance review to a date certain; do not adopt fee resolution. The City Council may continue the item to a date certain with direction for staff to return with additional information, changes and/or clarifications.

FISCAL REVIEW:

All City user fees are intended to recover the costs of staff time associated with application processing.

The City may charge fees solely for purposes of cost recovery. With Council’s approval to transition the two-unit small-lot subdivision ordinances to ministerial processing , staff time required for application processing will be reduced. As result, the proposed fee will achieve full cost recovery.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The proposed Resolution, draft Code Amendment and report have been prepared in conjunction with and review by the City Attorney’s Office

PUBLIC NOTICE:

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65854(a), a public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper on January 9, 2026 exceeding the minimum 10 days prior to the January 20, 2026, public hearing.

Any public comments received for the January 20, 2026 City Council meeting, may be viewed at this link: CITY OF COSTA MESA - Calendar (legistar.com)

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council Goal:

 Diversify, Stabilize and Increase Housing to Reflect Community Needs

CONCLUSION:

The proposed Zoning Code Amendment would allow for ministerial approval of two -unit SLO projects and clarify development standards based on past practices and previously approved proje cts. The revisions do not increase allowable density in multi-family zones or alter minimum parking requirements.

The amendment is consistent with the General Plan and State law and is intended to remove barriers and streamline the review process while minimizing potential impacts on neighboring properties.

152
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 1 of 11

ORDINANCE NO. 2026-xx

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 13 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANNING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT) TO ALLOW FOR MINISTERIAL

PROCESSING OF TWO -UNIT SMALL LOT ORDINANCE PROJECTS (CODE AMENDMENT PCTY-2025-0007)

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the Zoning Code (Title 13 of Costa Mesa Municipal Code) sets the zoning and land use regulations for the City of Costa Mesa in general; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this code amendment is to reduce barriers to developing two-unit small lot ordinance projects in the City; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on December 8, 2025 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt this ordinance updating the Zoning Code as set forth herein on a 5-2 (Zich and Dixon voting no) vote; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on January 20, 2026 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal.

Now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Title 13 Chapter II, Section 13-29 Planning Application Review Process, Table 13-29 (c) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

TABLE 13-29(c)

Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 2 of 11

TABLE 13-29(c)

PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS
Planning
Applications
Public
Notice
Required
Public
Hearing
Required
Recommending
Authority
Final Review
Authority
Notice
of
Decision
Reasonable
Accommodation No No None Planning
Division No
Lot Line
Adjustment No No None Planning
Division No
Tentative Parcel
Map for Urban
Lot Splits and
Ministerial
Small
Lot Subdivisions
No No None Planning
Division No
Special Use
Permit Yes Yes None Planning
Division No
Administrative
Adjustment
Minor
Conditional Use
Permit Minor
Design Review
Planned
Signing
Program
Yes No None Zoning
Administrator Yes
Design Review
Mobile Home
Park
Conversion
Common
Interest
Development
Conversion
(Residential or
Nonresidential)
Specific Plan
Conformity
Review
Tentative Parcel
Map
Tentative Tract
Map
Variance
Yes Yes Planning Division Planning
Commission Yes
154

Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 3 of 11

TABLE 13-29(c)

PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS
Planning
Applications
Public
Notice
Required
Public
Hearing
Required
Recommending
Authority
Final Review
Authority
Notice
of
Decision
Conditional Use
Permit Density
Bonus
Master Plan
Master Plan—
Preliminary
Yes Yes Planning Division
Planning
Commission
(excepted
where noted
otherwise in
this zoning
code)
Yes
Redevelopment
Action Yes Yes Planning Commission Redevelopment
Agency Yes
Rezone Yes Yes
Planning Commission;
and, if located in a
redevelopment project
area, the
Redevelopment
Agency
City Council No
Local Register
of Historic
Places
No No
Planning Commission
or other
commission/committee
as designated by the
City Council
City Council Yes
Certificate of
Appropriateness
No No
Planning Commission
or other commission/
committee as
designated by the City
Council
Planning
Commission or
other
commission/
committee as
designated by
the City Council
No

Section 2. T
itle 13 Chapter V, Section 13-42.2 Planning Applications Required of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

SECTION 13-42.2: Planning application required.
(a) Small lot subdivisions are permitted in appropriate residential districts and not in combination with other development standards in the overlays zones, subject to approval of the following planning application as may be applicable. This requirement is in addition to other permits or certificates required by law. (1) All new small lot development projects for three or more main dwelling units shall be processed according to the design review procedures contained in 155

Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 4 of 11

section 13-29. Projects with two main dwelling units being proposed or converted shall be processed ministerially subject to the development standards within this chapter and the residential design guidelines as contained in the Tw o Unit Small Lot Ordinance Checklist.
(2) All small lot development projects for three or more main dwelling units require approval of a tentative tract or parcel map as required by law. A tentative tract map or parcel map shall not be required until a design review has been approved; however, the map may be processed concurrently. Small lot development projects consisting of two main dwelling units shall be processed ministerially.

(b) No person shall construct, sell, lease, convey, maintain or use a lot in a small lot subdivision project within the city without first complying with the provisions of this article.

Section 3. T itle 13 Chapter V, Section 13-42.3 Development Standards and Requirements of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

SECTION 13-42.3: Development standards and requirements.

(a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to all new residential small lot subdivisions of 15 lots or less in multi-family zones and not in combination with other development standards in the overlays zones except as allowed in Table 13-42 below.
(b) Development standards. Table 13-42 identifies the development standards for small lot subdivision developments. See also Article 9 general site improvement standards of this chapter for additional requirements. Projects shall comply with all applicable standard plans and specifications and adopted city and state codes, as well as the following provisions:
(1) The location and orientation of all buildings shall be designed and arranged to preserve natural features by minimizing the disturbance to the natural environment. Natural features such as trees, groves, waterways, scenic points, historic spots or landmarks, bluffs or slopes shall be delineated on the site plan and considered when planning the location and orientation of buildings, open spaces, underground services, walks, paved areas, playgrounds, parking areas and finished grade elevations. Pre- existing development should guide the building setbacks and new development should preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. (2) The site design must consider both the design elements of each unit and how these designs will enhance the overall neighborhood character and vitality of the street and sidewalk. Building setbacks and site planning must relate to surrounding built form, respecting the overall neighborhood character and existing topography. Additionally, each unit must exhibit a high level of design quality with well-articulated entries and façades, proportionate windows, quality building materials and contextual landscaping.
156

Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 5 of 11

(3) All structures proposed to be constructed within a project shall conform to the following requirements:
a. Each unit shall be provided with direct pedestrian and vehicular access to a public street, or an alley or a common drive connecting to a public street/alley.
b. Structure shall be constructed to minimize impact of the proposed development on the light, air and privacy of adjacent properties.
(4) On-site lighting shall be provided in all parking areas, vehicular access ways, and along major walkways. The lighting shall be directed onto driveways and walkways within the project and away from dwelling units and adjacent properties, and shall be of a type approved by the development services department.
(5) The development shall comply with the provisions of Chapter XI, subdivisions, which may include, but are not limited to, land dedication and improvements, such as drainage improvements and payment of fees. (6) Outside uncovered and unenclosed storage of boats, trailers, recreational vehicles and other similar vehicles shall be prohibited unless specifically designated areas for the exclusive storage of such vehicles are set aside on the final master plan and provided for in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Where such areas are provided, they shall be enclosed and screened from view on a horizontal plane from adjacent areas by a combination of six-foot high opaque fences and permanently maintained landscaping.

Table 13-42

SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION STANDARDS

STANDARDS
SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS (located on individual dwelling
unit lots and excluding townhouses)
Maximum Number of
Stories & Building
Height
2 stories/27 feet, except as allowed in the Westside Overlay Districts.

Note: Lofts, as defined in section 13-6, without exterior access and having only clerestory windows will not be
regarded as a story. See also Attic discussion below.

Attics Attics shall not be heated or cooled, nor contain any electrical outlets or operable windows. In zoning districts where the maximum number of stories is two stories, attics above second stories shall be an integral part of the second story roofline and not appear as a 3rd story on any building elevation.

Windows in any attic space above the second story shall be incidental and limited to a dormer style.
157

Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 6 of 11

Table 13-42

SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION STANDARDS

STANDARDS
SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS (located on individual dwelling
unit lots and excluding townhouses)
Maximum Density
(based on gross
acreage)
Same as underlying zoning district or as specified in an applicable specific plan.

Minimum Open
Space (development
lot)
35% of total lot area. No asphalt shall be permitted for paved areas. Parking and driveways shall consist of
decorative concrete, pavers or other materials as deemed appropriate by the Development Services Director. This
requirement may be decreased to a minimum of up to 30%, if the difference in the area is provided as additional open guest parking, located in a common area, and not exclusive for any specific unit.

Minimum Open
Space (individual
unit)
200 square feet with no dimension less than 10 feet.

Development Lot Separately owned private property interests or any portion thereof, necessary or desirable for common use, are subject to recordation of an easement for reciprocal access and maintenance. All areas of a development with 5 or more
parcels, subject to a reciprocal access and/or maintenance easement shall be maintained by an association that may be incorporated or unincorporated. The association may be referred to as a maintenance association.

For developments with 5 or more units (up to 10 units)
where open/guest parking spaces are provided in driveways in front of garages for exclusive use of that unit, one additional on-site guest parking shall be provided. Two additional open guest-parking shall be provided for
developments with more than 10 units.
• For all small lot developments subject to the provisions of this article, all open parking not located within an individual driveway shall be unassigned and nonexclusive.
158

Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 7 of 11

Table 13-42

SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION STANDARDS

STANDARDS
SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS (located on individual dwelling
unit lots and excluding townhouses)
Distance Between
Buildings
(development lot)
6 feet minimum
Driveway Width
(development lot)
10-foot minimum, except 16-foot minimum driveway is
required if the driveway serves tenants and/or guest parking for more than one dwelling unit. Driveway width shall be a maximum of 26 feet for lots less than 50 feet wide and a maximum of 50% for lots greater than 50 feet wide.

Driveway Length

Straight-in driveways to garages shall have a minimum
length of 19 feet from the ultimate public or private right-of- way. No driveways shall be more than 5 feet in length if parking is not provided in front of garage.

Driveways accessing rear parcels shall be in compliance with the requirements of the Parking Design Standards,
minimum separation between driveways and maximum 50%
hardscape requirement.

Mechanical
Equipment
(excluding antennas
and flush-mounted
solar panels on
roofs)
Roof-top location is prohibited unless completely screened from public rights-of-way and adjacent properties.

Development Lot
Front Setback
20 feet
Development Lot
Side yard Setback
(interior)
5 feet
Development Lot
Side Setback (street
side, if applicable)
10 feet
Note: Driveways providing straight-in access from a public street to a garage shall be at least 19 feet long, as
measured from the ultimate public or private right-of-way.

Development Lot
Rear yard Setback
(interior)
15 feet
Development Lot
Rear Setback
Abutting a Publicly
Dedicated Alley
5 feet; however, garages may be required to be set back further to ensure adequate back up distance. Rear Yard
Coverage does not apply.
159

Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 8 of 11

Table 13-42

SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION STANDARDS

STANDARDS
SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS (located on individual dwelling
unit lots and excluding townhouses)
Flag Lots and Alley
Fronting Lots
Flag lots are required to be accessed with a minimum 16- foot wide driveway unless serving one unit in which case a minimum of driveway width of 10-feet shall be provided.

Parcels with alley frontage should include a minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian access to the public street in the front.

Parcels with frontage only on public alleys are prohibited.

Bluff Top Setback No building or structure closer than 10 feet from bluff crest (see section 13-34 Bluff-top development).

Roof or Eaves
Overhang; Awning
2 feet 6 inches into required side setback or building
separation area.
5 feet into required front or rear setback.

Open, Unenclosed
Stairways
Not permitted
Chimneys May extend 2 feet above maximum building height.

Fireplaces 2 feet into required setback of building separation area Automatic Roll-Up
Garage Doors
Required
Location of Open
Parking
Guest parking shall be located within a reasonable distance of the unit it serves. Detached garages that are not located within a reasonable distance to the units they are intended to serve are prohibited.

Trash Storage All units shall be provided with a small alcove inside or outside the unit to allow storage of at least three trash carts without encroaching into the garage space.

All efforts shall be made to provide on-site trash service.

Trash carts shall be stored on-site for trash pick up to the greatest extent possible.

Above-Ground Pools
and Spas
Prohibited in front yards and subject to 5-foot side and rear setback from the main structures.

LANDSCAPING
A detailed landscape plan prepared pursuant to Chapter VII Landscaping Standards shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permits.

SIGNS (See Chapter VIII).

FENCES AND WALLS
160

Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 9 of 11

Table 13-42

SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION STANDARDS

STANDARDS
SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS (located on individual dwelling
unit lots and excluding townhouses)
Fences and walls placed between the property line and required setback line for main buildings shall conform to the city's walls, fences, and landscaping standards.

See Article 9 General Site Improvement Standards of this chapter for further information.

PREEXISTING DEVELOPMENT
Small lot subdivisions and structures constructed, permitted or approved under the small lot ordinance prior to October 18, 2018, shall be considered conforming with regard to the above provisions.

TWO UNIT CONVERSIONS
Projects proposing to subdivide a property with two existing units shall comply with all development standards within this table.

Section 4. Compliance with CEQA. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (“Common Sense Exemption”) as it can be seen with certainty that these minor amendments to the Zoning Code will not have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 3. Inconsistencies. Any provision of this Ordinance which is inconsistent with state law shall be interpreted in a manner to be consistent with state law. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on the 31st day after adoption. 161

Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 10 of 11

Section 6. Certification. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of _____, 2026.

_____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________ _____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney

162

Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 11 of 11

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 Ordinance No. 2026-xx was duly introduced for first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ____day of _________ 2026, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ___ day of _________, 2026, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this ___ day of ___________, 2026.

__________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
163
ATTACHMENT 2

TABLE 13-29(c)

PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS
Planning
Applications
Public
Notice
Required
Public
Hearing
Required
Recommending
Authority
Final Review
Authority
Notice
of
Decision
Development
Review
Minor
Modification
No No None Planning
Division No
Reasonable
Accommodation No No None Planning
Division No
Lot Line
Adjustment No No None Planning
Division No
Tentative Parcel
Map for Urban
Lot Splits and
Small Lot
Subdivisions
(two units or
fewer)
No No None Planning
Division No
Special Use
Permit Yes Yes None Planning
Division No
Administrative
Adjustment
Minor
Conditional Use
Permit Minor
Design Review
Planned
Signing
Program
Yes No None Zoning
Administrator Yes
164
ATTACHMENT 2

TABLE 13-29(c)

PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS
Planning
Applications
Public
Notice
Required
Public
Hearing
Required
Recommending
Authority
Final Review
Authority
Notice
of
Decision
Design Review
Mobile Home
Park
Conversion
Common
Interest
Development
Conversion
(Residential or
Nonresidential)
Specific Plan
Conformity
Review
Tentative Parcel
Map
Tentative Tract
Map
Variance
Yes Yes Planning Division Planning
Commission Yes
Conditional Use
Permit Density
Bonus
Master Plan
Master Plan—
Preliminary
Yes Yes Planning Division
Planning
Commission
(excepted
where noted
otherwise in
this zoning
code)
Yes
Redevelopment
Action Yes Yes Planning Commission Redevelopment
Agency Yes
Rezone Yes Yes
Planning Commission;
and, if located in a
redevelopment project
area, the
Redevelopment
Agency
City Council No
Local Register
of Historic
Places
No No
Planning Commission
or other
commission/committee
as designated by the
City Council
City Council Yes
165
ATTACHMENT 2

TABLE 13-29(c)

PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS
Planning
Applications
Public
Notice
Required
Public
Hearing
Required
Recommending
Authority
Final Review
Authority
Notice
of
Decision
Certificate of
Appropriateness No No
Planning Commission
or other commission/
committee as
designated by the City
Council
Planning
Commission or
other
commission/
committee as
designated by
the City Council
No

Section 2. T
itle 13 Chapter V, Section 13-42.2 Planning Applications Required of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (strikeout is used to denote existing text being deleted; underline is used to denote new text being added):

SECTION 13-42.2: Planning application required.

(a) Small lot subdivisions are permitted in appropriate residential districts and not in combination with other development standards in the overlays zones, subject to approval of the following planning application as may be applicable. This requirement is in addition to other permits or certificates required by law.

(1) All new small lot development projects for three or more main dwelling units shall be processed according to the design review procedures contained in section 13-29. Projects with two main dwelling units being proposed or converted shall be processed ministerially subject to the development standards within this chapter and the residential design guidelines as contained in the Tw o Unit Small Lot Ordinance Checklist.

(2) All small lot development projects for three or more main dwelling units require approval of a tentative tract or parcel map as required by law. A tentative tract map or parcel map shall not be required until a design review has been approved; however, the map may be processed concurrently. Small lot development projects consisting of two main dwelling units shall be processed ministerially.

(b) No person shall construct, sell, lease, convey, maintain or use a lot in a small lot subdivision project within the city without first complying with the provisions of this article.

Section 3. Title 13 Chapter V, Section 13-42.3 Development Standards and Requirements of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (strikeout is used 166
ATTACHMENT 2

to denote existing text being deleted; underline is used to denote new text being added):

SECTION 13-42.3: Development standards and requirements.

(b) Development standards. Table 13-42 identifies the development standards for small lot subdivision developments. See also Article 9 general site improvement standards of this chapter for additional requirements. Projects shall comply with all applicable standard plans and specifications and adopted city and state codes, as well as the following provisions:

(1) The location and orientation of all buildings shall be designed and arranged to preserve natural features by minimizing the disturbance to the natural environment. Natural features such as trees, groves, waterways, scenic points, historic spots or landmarks, bluffs or slopes shall be delineated on the site plan and considered when planning the location and orientation of buildings, open spaces, underground services, walks, paved areas, playgrounds, parking areas and finished grade elevations. Pre-existing development should guide the building setbacks and new development should preserve the existing character of the neighborhood.

(2) The site design must consider both the design elements of each unit and how these designs will enhance the overall neighborhood character and vitality of the street and sidewalk. Building setbacks and site planning must relate to surrounding built form, respecting the overall neighborhood character and existing topography. Additionally, each unit must exhibit a high level of design quality with well-articulated entries and façades, proportionate windows, quality building materials and contextual landscaping.

(3) All structures proposed to be constructed within a project shall conform to the following requirements:

a. Each unit shall be provided with direct pedestrian and vehicular access to a public street, or an alley or a common drive connecting to a public street/alley.

b. Structure shall be constructed to minimize impact of the proposed development on the light, air and privacy of adjacent properties.

(4) On-site lighting shall be provided in all parking areas, vehicular access ways, and along major walkways. The lighting shall be directed onto driveways and walkways within the project and away from dwelling units and adjacent properties, and shall be of a type approved by the development services department.
167
ATTACHMENT 2

(5) The development shall comply with the provisions of Chapter XI, subdivisions, which may include, but are not limited to, land dedication and improvements, such as drainage improvements and payment of fees.

(6) Outside uncovered and unenclosed storage of boats, trailers, recreational vehicles and other similar vehicles shall be prohibited unless specifically designated areas for the exclusive storage of such vehicles are set aside on the final master plan and provided for in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions.

Where such areas are provided, they shall be enclosed and screened from view on a horizontal plane from adjacent areas by a combination of six-foot high opaque fences and permanently maintained landscaping.

Table 13-42

SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION STANDARDS

STANDARDS
SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS (located on individual dwelling
unit lots and excluding townhouses)
Maximum Number of
Stories & Building Height
2 stories/27 feet, except as allowed in the Westside Overlay Districts.

Note: Lofts, as defined in section 13-6, without exterior access and having only clerestory windows will not be
regarded as a story. See also Attic discussion below.

Windows in any attic space above the second story shall be incidental and limited to a dormer style.

Maximum Density
(based on gross
acreage)
Same as underlying zoning district or as specified in an applicable specific plan.

Minimum Open Space
(development lot)
35% of total lot area. No asphalt shall be permitted for paved areas. Parking and driveways shall consist of
decorative concrete, pavers or other materials as deemed appropriate by the Development Services Director. This
requirement may be decreased to a minimum of up to 30%, if the difference in the area is provided as additional open guest parking, located in a common area, and not exclusive for any specific unit.

Minimum Open Space
(individual unit)
200 square feet with no dimension less than 10 feet.
168
ATTACHMENT 2

Table 13-42

SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION STANDARDS

STANDARDS
SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS (located on individual dwelling
unit lots and excluding townhouses)
Development Lot Separately owned private property interests or any portion thereof, necessary or desirable for common use, are subject to recordation of an easement for reciprocal access and maintenance. All areas of a development with 5 or more
parcels, subject to a reciprocal access and/or maintenance easement shall be maintained by an association that may be incorporated or unincorporated. The association may be referred to as a maintenance association.

Distance Between
Buildings
(development lot)
6 feet minimum
Driveway Width
(development lot)
10-foot minimum, except 16-foot minimum driveway is
required if the driveway serves tenants and/or guest parking for more than one dwelling unit. Driveway width shall be a maximum of 26 feet for lots less than 50 feet wide and a maximum of 50% for lots greater than 50 feet wide.

Driveway Length

Driveways accessing rear parcels shall be in compliance with the requirements of the Parking Design Standards,
minimum separation between driveways and maximum 50%
hardscape requirement.
169
ATTACHMENT 2

Table 13-42

SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION STANDARDS

STANDARDS
SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS (located on individual dwelling
unit lots and excluding townhouses)
Mechanical Equipment
(excluding antennas and
flush-mounted solar
panels on roofs)
Roof-top location is prohibited unless completely screened from public rights-of-way and adjacent properties.

Development Lot Front
Setback Development
Lot
20 feet
Development Lot Side
yard Setback (interior)
5 feet
Development Lot Side
Setback (street side, if
applicable)
10 feet
Note: Driveways providing straight-in access from a public street to a garage shall be at least 19 feet long, as
measured from the ultimate public or private right-of-way.

Development Lot Rear
yard Setback (interior)
15 feet
Development Lot Rear
Setback Abutting a
Publicly Dedicated Alley
5 feet; however, garages may be required to be set back further to ensure adequate back up distance. Rear Yard
Coverage does not apply.

Flag Lots and Alley
Fronting Lots
Flag lots are required to be accessed with a minimum 16- foot wide driveway unless serving one unit in which case a minimum of driveway width of 10-feet shall be provided.

Parcels with alley frontage should include a minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian access to the public street in the front.

Parcels with frontage only on public alleys are prohibited.

Bluff Top Setback No building or structure closer than 10 feet from bluff crest (see section 13-34 Bluff-top development).

Roof or Eaves
Overhang; Awning
2 feet 6 inches into required side setback or building
separation area.
5 feet into required front or rear setback.

Open, Unenclosed
Stairways
Not permitted
Chimneys May extend 2 feet above maximum building height.

Fireplaces 2 feet into required setback of building separation area Automatic Roll-Up
Garage Doors
Required
170
ATTACHMENT 2

Table 13-42

SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION STANDARDS

STANDARDS
SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS (located on individual dwelling
unit lots and excluding townhouses)
Location of Open
Parking
Guest parking shall be located within a reasonable distance of the unit it serves. Detached garages that are not located within a reasonable distance to the units they are intended to serve are prohibited.

Trash Storage All units shall be provided with a small alcove inside or outside the unit to allow storage of at least three trash carts without encroaching into the garage space.

All efforts shall be made to provide on-site trash service.

Trash carts shall be stored on-site for trash pick up to the greatest extent possible.

Above-Ground Pools and
Spas
Prohibited in front yards and subject to 5-foot side and rear setback from the main structures.

LANDSCAPING
A detailed landscape plan prepared pursuant to Chapter VII Landscaping Standards shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permits.

SIGNS (See Chapter VIII).

FENCES AND WALLS
Fences and walls placed between the property line and required setback line for main buildings shall conform to the city's walls, fences, and landscaping standards.

See Article 9 General Site Improvement Standards of this chapter for further information.

TWO UNIT CONVERSIONS
Projects proposing to subdivide a property with two existing units shall comply with all development standards within this table.

171

ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
77 FAIR DRIVE, POST OFFICE BOX 1200, COSTA MESA CA. 92628-1200 Building Safety Division (714) 754-5273 Community Improvement Division (714) 754-5638 Housing & Community Development (714) 754-4870 Planning Division (714) 754-5245 www.costamesaca.gov
1 | Page
DRAFT

TWO UNIT SMALL LOT ORDINANCE

SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST
Project Address:

Accessors Parcel Number (APN):

General requirements
To qualify as a ministerial approval project, the project must comply with all the following development standards. Indicate below if the project complies:

Table 13-42

SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION STANDARDS

STANDARDS

SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS
(located on individual dwelling unit lots
and excluding townhouses)
Compliance?
Yes No
Maximum Number of
Stories & Building Height
2 stories/27 feet, except as allowed in the
Westside Overlay Districts. Flat roofs do not
exceed 22 feet.

Note: Lofts, as defined in section 13-6,
without exterior access and having only
clerestory windows will not be regarded as a
story. See also Attic discussion below.

Attics Attics shall not be heated or cooled, nor
contain any electrical outlets or operable
windows. In zoning districts where the
maximum number of stories is two stories,
attics above second stories shall be an
integral part of the second story roofline and
not appear as a 3rd story on any building
elevation.

Windows in any attic space above the second
story shall be incidental and limited to a
dormer style.

Maximum Density (based on
gross acreage)
The project proposes no more than two
units. The maximum permitted density is the
Attachment 3
172

ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

77 FAIR DRIVE, POST OFFICE BOX 1200, COSTA MESA CA. 92628-1200 Building Safety Division (714) 754-5273 Community Improvement Division (714) 754-5638 Housing & Community Development (714) 754-4870 Planning Division (714) 754-5245 www.costamesaca.gov
2 | Page

Table 13-42

SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION STANDARDS

STANDARDS

SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS
(located on individual dwelling unit lots
and excluding townhouses)
Compliance?
Yes No
same as underlying zoning district or as
specified in an applicable specific plan.

Minimum Open Space
(development lot)
35% of total lot area. No asphalt shall be
permitted for paved areas. Parking and
driveways shall consist of decorative
concrete, pavers or other materials as
deemed appropriate by the Development
Services Director. This requirement may be
decreased to a minimum of up to 30%, if the
difference in the area is provided as
additional open guest parking, located in a
common area, and not exclusive for any
specific unit.

Minimum Open Space
(individual unit)
200 square feet with no dimension less than
10 feet.

Parking • Three-bedroom or more units (including a
den or home office) – 2 garage spaces and 2
open parking spaces.
• Two-bedroom or less units (including a
den) – 2 garage spaces and one open
parking.
• No tandem parking is permitted for open
or guest parking spaces.
• For all small lot developments subject to
the provisions of this article, all open parking
not located within an individual driveway
shall be unassigned and nonexclusive.

173

ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Table 13-42

SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION STANDARDS

STANDARDS

SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS
(located on individual dwelling unit lots
and excluding townhouses)
Compliance?
Yes No
Distance Between Buildings
(development lot)
6 feet minimum
Driveway Width
(development lot)
10-foot minimum, except 16-foot minimum
driveway is required if the driveway serves
tenants and/or guest parking for more than
one dwelling unit. Driveway width shall be a
maximum of 26 feet for lots less than 50 feet
wide and a maximum of 50% for lots greater
than 50 feet wide.

Driveway Length Straight-in driveways to garages shall have a minimum length of 19 feet from the ultimate
public or private right-of-way. No driveways
shall be more than 5 feet in length if parking
is not provided in front of garage.

Driveways accessing rear parcels shall be in
compliance with the requirements of the
Parking Design Standards, minimum
separation between driveways and maximum
50% hardscape requirement.

Mechanical Equipment
(excluding antennas and
flush-mounted solar panels
on roofs)
Roof-top location is prohibited unless
completely screened from public rights-of-
way and adjacent properties.

Development Lot Front
Setback
20 feet
Development Lot Side Yard
Setback (interior)
5 feet. Additional setbacks are required for
second story side elevations, see below.

Development Lot Side
Setback (street side, if
applicable)
10 feet
Note: Driveways providing straight-in access
from a public street to a garage shall be at
least 19 feet long, as measured from the
ultimate public or private right-of-way.

174

ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Table 13-42

SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION STANDARDS

STANDARDS

SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS
(located on individual dwelling unit lots
and excluding townhouses)
Compliance?
Yes No
Development Lot Rear Yard
setback (interior)
15 feet
Development Lot Rear
Setback Abutting a Publicly
Dedicated Alley
5 feet; however, garages may be required to
be set back further to ensure adequate back
up distance. Rear Yard Coverage does not
apply.

Flag Lots and Alley Fronting
Lots
Flag lots are required to be accessed with a
minimum 16-foot wide driveway unless
serving one unit in which case a minimum of
driveway width of 10-feet shall be provided.

Parcels with alley frontage should include a
minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian access to
the public street in the front. Parcels with
frontage only on public alleys are prohibited.

Bluff Top Setback No building or structure closer than 10 feet from bluff crest (see section 13-34 Bluff-top
development).

Roof or Eaves Overhang;
Awning
2 feet 6 inches into required side setback or
building separation area.
5 feet into required front or rear setback.

Open, Unenclosed
Stairways
Not permitted
Chimneys May extend 2 feet above maximum building
height.

Fireplaces 2 feet into required setback or building
separation area

Automatic Roll-Up Garage
Doors
Required
Location of Open Parking Guest parking shall be located within a reasonable distance of the unit it serves.

Detached garages that are not located within

175

ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Table 13-42

SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION STANDARDS

STANDARDS

SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS
(located on individual dwelling unit lots
and excluding townhouses)
Compliance?
Yes No
a reasonable distance to the units they are
intended to serve are prohibited.

Trash Storage All units shall be provided with a small alcove inside or outside the unit to allow storage of
at least three trash carts without encroaching
into the garage space.

All efforts shall be made to provide on-site
trash service. Trash carts shall be stored on-
site for trash pick up to the greatest extent
possible.

Above-Ground Pools and
Spas
Prohibited in front yards and subject to 5-
foot side and rear setback from the main
structures.

LANDSCAPING
A detailed landscape plan prepared pursuant to Chapter VII Landscaping Standards shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permits. A preliminary plan shall include number of plants and plant materials compliant with the CMMC.

FENCES AND WALLS
Fences and walls placed between the property line and required setback line for main buildings shall conform to the city's walls, fences, and landscaping standards. See Article 9 General Site Improvement Standards of this chapter for further information.

UTILITIES
Installation or relocation of utility equipment or facilities is obscured from view from any place on or off the property.

Utilities are shown to be installed underground on the building site in accordance with the serving utilities rules, regulations and tariffs on file with the state public utilities commission.

TWO UNIT CONVERSION PROJECTS
176

ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Table 13-42

SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION STANDARDS

STANDARDS

SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS
(located on individual dwelling unit lots
and excluding townhouses)
Compliance?
Yes No
Projects proposing to subdivide a property with two existing units shall comply with all development standards listed above within this table.

RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES. PROJECTS THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIRE MINOR DESIGN REVIEW.

Second-story floor areas does not exceed 100% of the first-story floor area (including garage area, if attached). Open balconies are included in the footprint area of the second floor

The second-story interior side building elevation is setback an average of 10 feet at a minimum, but shall be no closer than 5 feet from the side property line.

Exception: This requirement would not apply to the following:
a) The distance between dwelling units within the same development in multiple family residential zones; or
b) The initial development in planned development zones (subsequent additions would be subject to this requirement); or
c) Second-story additions to existing residences with current side yard setbacks that are less than 10 feet; provided that the current width of the side yard is not further decreased. A minimum 5-foot setback shall be required; or
d) Two-story new construction with less than 2,700 square feet of living area (not including garage).
e) e. Two-story new construction over 2,700 square feet in area (not including garage) with up to 50 percent lot coverage as deﬁned by Article 2 of Title 13 (Zoning Code).

Second-story windows on side elevations do not have direct views into the windows of existing neighboring structures or private yard areas and a view study is provided. The study shows that there are no windows directly facing neighboring windows or overlooking neighboring private yard areas.

Second-story floor-to-ceiling dimension is equal or less to the first-story floor-to-ceiling dimension, so that the second story does not appear out of proportion or top heavy in relation to the first story

177

ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Application requirements checklist
To process a ministerial two unit small lot radiance project, you will need to apply for a Tentative Parcel Map Application on TESSA. Please submit the following documents with your application:

Tentative Parcel Map: The required plans for a Tentative Tract/Parcel Map must contain the following information:

1. Title of subdivision and legal description of property

2. Name and address of owner and subdivider

3. Name and address of person preparing map

4. Approximate acreage (gross and net)

5. North arrow

6. Scale: Large enough to be descriptive, depending on area being divided, 1”=100 feet minimum

7. Date of map

8. Boundary lines

9. Name, location, width, and grades of existing adjacent streets

10. Location, width, and grades of proposed streets

11. Cross sections of proposed streets

12. Width of alleys, existing and proposed

13. Width and location of easements and dedications: dimensions of reservations (proposed and existing)

14. Proposed building site elevations

15. Existing structures

16. Locations of existing and proposed public utilities, sewers, water lines, storm drains, culverts, etc.

17. Existing watercourses and/or drainage pattern(s) including cross lot drainage.

18. Land subject overflow, inundation, or flood hazard

19. Lot/parcel lines and dimensions

20. Lot/parcel numbers or other designations

21. Approximate radii of curves

22. Lands and parks to be dedicated for public use

23. Contours at 5 foot intervals if slope is grater than 10%

24. Contours at 2 foot intervals if slop is less than 10%

25. Proposed land use: single-family, multi-family, business or industrial

26. Existing property use immediately surrounding the subdivision 178

ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

27. Names/numbers of adjoining subdivisions

Filing of a vesting tentative map, requires the submittal of the following additional information:

1. At the time a vesting tentative map is filed, it shall have printed conspicuously on its face the words “Vesting Tentative Map.” This requirement is mandatory and failure to comply with it will prevent the subdivider from obtaining the benefits of a vesting map.

2. The subdivider must provide the following additional information at the time the vesting tentative map is filed:
a. The maximum height, total square footage, and general location of all future buildings on the subject property (include one 11” x 17” site plan containing this information);
b. The proposed location and size of connections to sewer, water, storm drain, and roadways;
c. A preliminary grading plan indicating reasonable approximation of site cut and fill (cubic yards) along with any required geological studies; d. Methodology of satisfying storm water runoff and the estimated amount of storm water runoff in CFS (cubic feet per second);
e. School impact analysis for grades k through 12;
f. Traffic impact analysis, as required by CEQA;
g. Conceptual building signing program;
h. Any other material considered essential to the proper evaluation of the project (i.e., open space maintenance responsibilities, provisions made for trails and/or parks and their maintenance responsibilities).

3. A vesting tentative map cannot be accepted for filling unless all other discretionary land use approval applications are already approved or are filed concurrently with the map.

4. If the vesting tentative map accompanies a project that is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance in existence at the time of filling, such inconsistency shall be noted on the map by the subdivider.

For the following submission requirements, please see the E-submittal Requirements
guide for details on what should be included with each document.

1. Parcel Map Fee

2. Applicant Letter

3. Project Plans
179

ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

4. Draft organizational documents and/or maintenance agreement for common lot areas

5. Additional fees will be assessed prior to building permit issuance including Parkland Impact Fees and Trafﬁc Impact Fees. Outside agencies will also assess impact fees.

ONLINE PORTAL (TESSA): TESSA will help you submit, pay for, and track all planning land use or development applications and requests. All applications and requests must be submitted through TESSA
. First time users will need to set up an online account with TESSA to manage your project. Please make an appointment with the Planning Division if you need access to a computer or help setting up an account.

180
ATTACHMENT 4

Resolution No. 2026-xx Page 1 of 3

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,

CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AND ADOPTING AN TWO-UNIT MINISTERIAL

SMALL LOT ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION AND URBAN LOT SPLIT FEE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, on January 20, 2026, the City Council gave first reading to the Ministerial Two-Unit Small Lot Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2026-__) a duly noticed public hearing, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal, and staff presented the Ministerial Parcel Map Fee Resolution for consideration along with the first reading of the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution and the laws of the State of California, the City of Costa Mesa is authorized to adopt and implement rates, fees, and charges for municipal services; provided, however, that such rates, fees, and/or charges do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing such services; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66016 requires notice to be given and data made available at specified times prior to the adoption of certain increases in rates, fees, and charges, or the adoption of new rates, fees, and charges for use permits and inspections; and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the noticing requirements of Government Code Section 66016; and
WHEREAS, although the C ity is not required to comply with the noticing requirements of Government Code Section 66018, the C ity has nevertheless published all notices consistent with the requirements of that section, including having published notice in accordance with Government Code Section 6062a and having made the data available concerning rates, fees, and charges prior to conducting a public hearing on the fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held at a public hearing on January 20, 2026 and received oral and written presentations with respect to the proposed fee before adopting this Resolution; and
181
Resolution No. 2026-xx Page 2 of 3

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish the Ministerial Parcel Map Fee as a means of establishing cost recovery for the newly created ministerial parcel map fee; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:

Section 1. Findings . The City Council hereby finds that based upon the data, information, analysis, oral and written documentation presented to the City Council concerning the fees described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, do not exceed the established reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fees are levied and that the fees solely recover an objectively reasonable approximation of the city’s actual and reasonable costs.

S ection 2 . Approval. The fees set forth in Exhibit “A” are hereby adopted and approved.

S ection 3 . Effective Date. The fees set forth in Exhibit "A" shall be effective on the later to occur of (a) 60 days after Council adoption of this Resolution; or (b) the effective date of the Ministerial Two-Unit Small Lot Ordinance or any other ordinance which authorizes the fees set forth in this resolution.

S ection 4. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of January, 2026.

_____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________ _____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney

182
Resolution No. 2026-xx Page 3 of 3

EXHIBIT A
Ministerial Map Processing Fee Schedule

Fee to be paid for the ministerial processing of Two-Unit Small Lot Ordinance Subdivisions and SB9 Urban Lot
Splits
$2,800

183

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-621 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
TITLE:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, REQUIRING

STAFFING AT SELF-SERVICE CHECKOUT STATIONS
DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
PRESENTED BY: JAY BARKMAN, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MANAGER
CONTACT INFORMATION: JAY BARKMAN, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MANAGER (714) 754-5347
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Receive public comment and consider the provisions of the draft ordinance.

2. Introduce and give first reading, waiving further reading, to Ordinance No. 2026-XX Adding Article 7 of Chapter II of Title 9 to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code relating to Grocery and Drug Store Staffing Standards for Self-Service Checkout Stations.

BACKGROUND:

On August 12, 2025, the Long Beach City Council adopted an ordinance mandating staffing requirements and operational standards for self-service checkout stations in grocery retail stores and retail drug establishments to proactively address retail theft and advance the preservation of public safety and welfare.

At the November 4, 2025, City Council meeting, a preliminary analysis was presented of the City of Long Beach’s ordinance and its implementation. This included identifying supermarkets/grocery stores and retail pharmacies with self-service checkout stations in the City of Costa Mesa.

Staff observed the following:
· CVS drug stores in Costa Mesa comply with the staffing to station ratio; however, employees were not dedicated to monitoring self-service checkout stations. · Target and some food retail stores have more than three self-service checkout stations and exceed the 1:3 ratio required by the proposed ordinance.

The Long Beach ordinance requires food and drug retail establishments to have dedicated staffing of

Page 1 of 7 ends

184
File #: 25-621 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
The Long Beach ordinance requires food and drug retail establishments to have dedicated staffing of one employee per three self-service checkout stations and limit self-service checkout to 15 items or less. Enforcement of the ordinance is provided through civil action by employees or customers.

At the direction of City Council, from the November 4, 2025 Council meeting, staff is presenting the proposed draft ordinance replicating the City of Long Beach’s ordinance for City Council consideration (Attachment 1).

Staff is recommending amendments shown in redline of Attachment 1 that address Costa Mesa specific issues. The most significant amendment allows an alternative compliance method for stores that implement proven design measures discouraging theft. These measures are discussed further below.

ANALYSIS:

Costa Mesa Proposed Ordinance
• Applies to food retail establishments over 15,000 square feet and to all drug retail establishments.
• Requires staffing of one employee per three stations (1:3). • Limits self-checkout to 15 items or less.
• Alternative compliance through use of design elements and staffing:
• Separated and secured by barriers
• Placed away from exits
• Dedicated staff in self-checkout areas
Enforcement & Penalties
• Ordinance does not specify enforcement by any city department. • Provides for civil action by employees or customers.
• Notification to stores and seven days to cure.
• Penalties
ü $100 per Violation per employee Increasing by $100 per Day ($1,000 max per employee)
ü Attorney’s Fees and Costs
State Legislation
In 2024, Senate Bill 1446 (Smallwood-Cuevas) sought to impose a staffing standard of one employee per two self-service checkout stations, one staffed checkout station be available to customers at any time a self-service checkout station is open, and self-service checkout be limited to 15 items or less.

The bill passed the Senate but was held in the Assembly.

In 2025, the Senator introduced Senate Bill 442 (Smallwood-Cuevas) which requires that one staffed checkout station be available to customers at any time a self-service checkout station is open, and self-service checkout be limited to 15 items or less. No staffing ratio is mandated by the bill. The Senator has stated that the bill is intended to address the increasing use of self-service checkout stations creating “a range of problems for retailers, workers, and the public.” The bill is pending consideration by the Assembly.

The United Food and Commercial Works (UFCW) is sponsoring Senate Bill 442 (Smallwood-Cuevas)

Page 2 of 7 ends

185
File #: 25-621 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
The United Food and Commercial Works (UFCW) is sponsoring Senate Bill 442 (Smallwood-Cuevas) along with leading efforts in cities to adopt ordinances such as the one adopted in Long Beach.

Outreach
Following the November 4, 2025, City Council meeting, requests were received from UFCW Local #324 and grocery stores to meet with city staff. On December 16, 2025, City staff met with representatives of the following groups:

UFCW Local #324 Albertsons Vons Pavilions
California Grocers Association Stater Brothers Markets
California Retailers Association Northgate Markets
Kroger (Ralphs) Target
In meeting with City staff the UFCW representatives shared their views and stated that:
· Self-service checkout is being offered as the only option during portions of the day. · Employees are assigned additional duties diverting them from assisting customers. · Language barriers or unfamiliarity with stations by customers to redeem coupons, enter codes, or search for non-stickered items result in negative customer experience.

The UFCW also stated that understaffing leads to underreporting of retail theft, and that policies prohibiting employees from reporting incidents contribute to the perception in local statistics that retail theft is not as much of a problem. They contend that staff presence and interactions with customers discourages theft, and while the Long Beach ordinance has been in effect for a short period, their members have observed improved conditions.

To support their arguments the UFCW has cited sources such as the Retail Industry Leaders Association <https://www.rila.org/focus-areas/asset-protection/study-reveals-retail-theft-is- underreported> and their 2024 survey working with Southern Illinois University Carbondale. A key finding of the survey was that reporting of theft had “essentially declined to about half of what was reported in 2019.” Additional information provided by UFCW cites post pandemic increases in prices and usage of self-service checkout as a contributor to increased theft.

Staff also met with representatives from retail drug and grocery stores to discuss the Long Beach ordinance and the City’sintent to replicate and adopt such ordinance. Store representatives from this group stated that their view on the Long Beach ordinance is essentially “a ban on self-service checkout stations,” due to the exposure, enforcement mechanism, and difficulty in implementation.

The California Grocers Association stated that over half of all stores with self-service checkout stations in Long Beach have removed or discontinued their use due to the ordinance. Store representatives contend that addressing retail theft and customer satisfaction is a primary concern for their companies, and self-service checkout stations are part of their strategy to serve a growing number of customers that prefer this option.

A representative for the Northgate Mercado also shared that their Costa Mesa location was

Page 3 of 7 ends

186
File #: 25-621 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
A representative for the Northgate Mercado also shared that their Costa Mesa location was specifically designed to maximize throughput of customers due to challenges with parking. This includes design features to deter theft, locating the self-service checkout bank away from the exit, secluded by railing, and use of receipt scanner along with dedicated staffing. As a result, the Mercado estimates less than five incidents of theft have been associated with its self-service checkout stations.

Store representatives also stated the 2025-28 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with UFCW for Southern California addresses this issue with provisions of the CBA that state:
· Employers have discretion to use multi-unit self-service checkout stands in stores. · During the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. employers shall have at least one full-service checkout lane open.
· A dedicated employee must be assigned to monitor a “self-service checkout bank” and “may be assigned to perform incidental work in the general vicinity.” · In the event the State or any municipality passes legislation impacting a store covered by this Agreement, the above provisions will be null and void within that jurisdiction unless the law allows for a CBA exemption from the law.

The above information was confirmed by UFCW and is posted online at:
<https://www.ufcw770.org/grocerycontracts>.

Store representatives stated that this ordinance will lead to the closure of self-checkout lanes and continued loss of shoppers from Costa Mesa to alternatives such as online or adjacent cities. Staff requested and is awaiting information from store representatives on theft incidents and customer responses due to the closure of self-checkout stations at their Long Beach stores. A representative for Northgate Mercado stated that plans to add a location in the City of Long Beach have now been cancelled because of the new ordinance.

The California Grocers Association provided a summary of data from their members showing that over half of consumers who shop primarily in Costa Mesa also shop for groceries in other jurisdictions. They point to the ordinance as creating additional inconvenience in customer preference and resulting in additional retail leakage to other jurisdictions without such policies.

Potential Economic Impacts
According to Costa Mesa’sEconomic Development staff, the City of Costa Mesa is experiencing retail loss to neighboring cities in the General Merchandise (Target) category because of a lack of general merchandise stores. Staff utilized data from the private business intelligence company Buxton to research and analyze consumer and business trends. Based on reports from Buxton, 60% of Costa Mesa’sgeneral merchandise demand is conditioned to seek purchases outside of Costa Mesa.

This is in significant contrast when considering other types of retail where Costa Mesa is a magnet attracting a disproportionate share of non-residents in other commercial categories. This includes in grocery store sales which attracts 30% more demand from outside communities. Pulling demand from other communities like this is due to creative and diverse options which are attracted to Costa Mesa because of our brand of being business friendly.

Page 4 of 7 ends

187
File #: 25-621 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
Impacts on Costa Mesa and Recommendations
As discussed in the background section, amendments are proposed by staff to address Costa Mesa conditions. Staff has identified potential impacts and recommendations to be considered.

1. Eliminate the “Food Retail Establishment” provision section that includes, stores over 85,000 square feet with 10 percent of its sales floor area dedicated to the sale of non-taxable merchandise including the sale of fresh produce, meats, poultry. Fish, deli products, dairy products, canned foods, dry foods, beverages, baked goods and/or prepared foods.

This provision section does not apply as there are no food retail stores in Costa Mesa over 85,000 square feet; therefore, staff is recommending the removal of that language.

2. Public notice of Ordinance. The ordinance mandates that stores shall notify the public of the Ordinance by prominently posting signage accessible to the public, which includes QR code to the City’swebsite regarding the ordinance, a summary of the public’srights, and enforcement options available to the public.

Staff is recommending that additional language be added that such signage includes a physical and/or email address to which notifications of violations of this ordinance may be delivered, and pursuant to this code section, failure to have and/or maintain an address shall waive a Drug and/or Food Retail Establishment’sability to assert lack of notice in any civil action brought pursuant to this Ordinance.

3. Notification of Violation. A customer or employee must notify a Drug and/or Food Retail Establishment in writing of a violation at the established address. The establishment will have seven calendar days from the date of notification to cure violations.

Staff is recommending this amendment to allow stores a period of seven (7) days to cure the complaint and avoid costly litigation for both sides.

4. Enforcement of the proposed ordinance is provided through a “private right of action” filed by customers or employees with penalties of $100 for each violation per employee and increasing an additional $100 per employee for each day the violation is not resolved. Civil penalties are limited to $1,000 per employee per day; however, a store may face claims from multiple employees starting at $100 and growing to $1,000 per employee. Persons who file complaints may also be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs.

The UFCW stated this process was selected to avoid burdening local governments and added that, due to the barrier in pursuing a civil action through the courts, they do not anticipate frequent or numerous claims. However, store representatives raised concerns that the ordinance lacks a “Right to Cure”provision to allow time to address the complaint prior to litigation proceedings. The process of pursuing a civil action is complicated and unfamiliar for individuals seeking to resolve a business complaint when no substantial injury or financial loss is alleged.

Lastly, the primary concern expressed in support of an ordinance has been to protect employees,

Page 5 of 7 ends

188
File #: 25-621 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
Lastly, the primary concern expressed in support of an ordinance has been to protect employees, customers, and prevent theft. There are several tools businesses may implement, other than staffing, to address these concerns, including the use of physical design elements. Staff is recommending the ordinance allow for alternative compliance through a combination of staffing and design elements. Specifically, the proposed ordinance includes amendments to allow for alternative compliance by:

1. Designing self-service checkout stations to be in a clearly defined area separated by railing or other barriers.

2. Placing self-service checkout stations in relation to staffed stations so that customers must pass by staffed stations when exiting.

3. Dedicating at least one staff person to the separate and secured area of self-service checkout stations.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may choose to take no action on the proposed ordinance and direct staff to support state legislation to ensure reasonable standards apply to stores in all cities.

The City Council may direct staff to amend the proposed ordinance in alignment with pending state legislation and existing CBAs that require a Non-Self Service Checkout station always be open and one staff person be dedicated per bank of self-checkout machines.

FISCAL REVIEW:

The direct impacts to the City’sGeneral Fund (Fund 101) cannot be quantified at this time; however, any potentially negative impacts to consumer spending/behavior within the City of Costa Mesa due to the ordinance may reduce sales tax revenues in the General Consumer Goods group.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the Agenda Report and Ordinance and approves them both as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council Goal:
· Strengthen the public’s safety and improve the quality of life.

CONCLUSION:

Information provided by both UFCW and store representatives points to self-checkout stations as growing due to consumer preferences. Businesses are responding to these trends, especially with younger shoppers, and considering self-checkout to retain consumers that have increasing choices in shopping. Overall, the consumer retail market is experiencing increased volatility with a disproportionate reliance on high income in-person shoppers. Discount or mid-level retail is more prone to volatility as those shoppers are seeking best value and convenience.

Employees are experiencing the effects of this new technology, the failures in its capabilities, and the delays by stores in addressing shortfalls.

In Costa Mesa the transition of underutilized spaces into new retail or mixed-use spaces has focused

Page 6 of 7 ends

189
File #: 25-621 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
In Costa Mesa the transition of underutilized spaces into new retail or mixed-use spaces has focused on customer experience. Stores such as Northgate Mercado, designed self-checkout to maximize convenience and discourage theft using design elements, staffing, and technology. In addition to costs, older stores may face challenges with redesigning their current spaces to install security features near exits.

Following what has transpired in Long Beach after the adoption of its self-checkout ordinance, it is not anticipated that the proposed ordinance will lead stores to increase staffing. Likewise, stores are experiencing various challenges from changing consumer trends to shifting trade policies. The proposed ordinance may not have a substantial impact on revenues, but it eliminates the flexibility and tools for stores to attract shoppers who may continue to shift their preferences.

Should the City Council choose to adopt the proposed ordinance, staff recommends that the City Council consider the recommended changes to the ordinance that are applicable to Costa Mesa.

Page 7 of 7 ends

190
Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 1 of 6
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-xx

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING ARTICLE 7 TO CHAPTER II OF TITLE 9 OF THE COSTA

MESA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO GROCERY AND DRUG STORE STAFFING

STANDARDS FOR SELF-SERVICE CHECKOUT STATIONS

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa, pursuant to its police power, may enact regulations for the public peace, morals, and welfare of the City; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2025, the City Council directed staff to return with a draft ordinance to establish staffing requirements for self-service checkout stations; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish staffing standards for self- service checkout stations located in retail grocery and/or drug stores.

Now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA , CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Article 7 is hereby added to Chapter II of Title 9 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to read as follows:

GROCERY AND DRUG STORE STAFFING STANDARDS FOR SELF-SERVICE

CHECKOUT STATIONS
9-170 Purpose.

It is in the public’s interest to require grocery and drug stores to adopt effective preventative measures that will address the impacts on public health and safety that retail theft creates within the context of self-service checkout operations where theft commonly occurs but remains largely unchecked and underreported. Regulating the staffing of self-service checkout operations will address the hostile and unsafe working conditions for employees, and unsafe shopping environments for customers. 9-171 Short Title.

This ordinance shall be known as the “Self-Service Checkout Staffing Requirements.” 9-172 Definitions.
191
Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 2 of 6
For the purpose of this Ordinance:
“City” means the City of Costa Mesa.
“Customer” means an individual who buys consumer goods from a Drug Retail Establishment or Food Retail Establishment.
“Drug Retail Establishment” means a retail store that sells a variety of prescription and nonprescription medicines and miscellaneous items, including drugs, pharmaceuticals, sundries, fresh produce, meats, poultry, fish, deli products, dairy products, canned foods, dry foods, beverages, prepared foods, and other merchandise.
“Employee” means a worker employed directly by a hiring entity at a Drug Retail Establishment or Food Retail Establishment. Employee does not include managers, supervisors or confidential employees.
“Food Retail Establishment” means a retail store that is over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in size and sells primarily household foodstuff for offsite consumption, including fresh produce, meats, poultry, fish, deli products, dairy products, canned foods, dry foods, beverages, baked foods and/or prepared foods (other household supplies or products are secondary to the primary purpose of food sales). “Non-Self-Service Checkout station” means a station that is not a Self-Service Checkout and at which an employee provides human assistance to a customer for scanning, bagging, and/or accepting payment for the customer’s purchases. “Self-Service Checkout” means the automated processes that enable customers to scan, bag, and pay for their purchases without human assistance, including but not limited to fixed self-checkout, scan-and-go self-checkout, or mobile self-checkout. “Self-Service Checkout station” means a station at a fixed location within a Drug Retail Establishment and/or Food Retail Establishment at which a customer can engage in a Self-Service Checkout for the customer’s purchases.

9-173 Self-Service Checkout requirement.

A. Drug Retail Establishments and Food Retail Establishments that provide Self- Service Checkout options shall provide at least one Non-Self-Service Checkout station staffed by an Employee that is available during the times that a Self-Service Checkout 192
Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 3 of 6
option is available to customers, and Drug Retail Establishments and Food Retail Establishments shall establish, implement, and advertise limits to Self-Service Checkout to purchases of no more than fifteen (15) items.

B. Drug Retail Establishments and Food Retail Establishments shall have an established workforce policy that prohibits customers from using a Self-Service Checkout station to purchase either of the following:

1. Items that require customers to provide a form of identification, including, but not limited to, alcohol and tobacco products.

2. Items subject to special theft-deterrent measures that are affixed to the item, including, but not limited to, electronic article surveillance, ink, or other tags, or items placed in locked cabinets, that require the intervention of an Employee to remove them before purchase.

C. Drug Retail Establishments and Food Retail Establishments shall notify the public of this Ordinance by prominently posting signage in a location accessible to customers, which includes either a link or QR code to the City of Costa Mesa website regarding this Ordinance, a summary of the public’s rights under this Ordinance, a physical and/or email address to which notifications of violations of this Ordinance may be delivered, and the enforcement options available to the public pursuant to this Article. Failure to have and/or maintain an address pursuant to this section shall waive a Drug and/or Food Retail Establishment’s ability to assert lack of notice in any civil action brought pursuant to this Ordinance.

D. Self-Service Checkout stations shall be located to enable observation and surveillance from both employees of Drug Retail Establishments and Food Retail Establishments and local law enforcement.
9-174 Self-Service Checkout staffing requirements.

A. Drug Retail Establishments and Food Retail Establishments that provide Self- Service Checkout options shall assign at least one (1) Employee to supervise the Self- Service Checkout operation at all times that Self-Service Checkout is in operation during business hours. The assigned Employee shall have no other work responsibilities that would interfere with their ability to maintain direct visual inspection and surveillance of the Self-Service Checkout operations. 193
Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 4 of 6
B. In the event a Drug Retail Establishment or Food Retail Establishment operates two (2) or more Self-Service Checkout stations, the Drug Retail Establishment or Food Retail Establishment shall maintain a staffing ratio of at least one (1) Employee for every three (3) Self-Service Checkout Stations (1:3 ratio). The manner in which this standard is implemented may take into account operational and logistical feasibility. 9-175 Enforcement.

A. A Customer or Employee must notify a Drug Retail Establishment or Food Retail Establishment in writing at the address established pursuant to section 9-173(c) of a violation, after which the establishment shall have seven calendar days from the date of notification to cure the violation. If the violation is not cured, a Customer or Employee of a Drug Retail Establishment or Food Retail Establishment may bring a private right of action in the Superior Court of the State of California against a Drug Retail Establishment or Food Retail Establishment for violating this Article and, upon prevailing, may be awarded:

1. A civil penalty for each violation of this Article of one hundred dollars ($100) for each employee of the Drug Retail Establishment or Food Retail Establishment. Each day the violation is not cured, the penalty shall increase an additional one hundred dollars ($100) per employee per day up to a limit of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per employee per day for each day in which the violation remains uncured.

2. Attorneys’ fees and costs.
9-176 Retaliatory action prohibited.

No Drug Retail Establishment or Food Retail Establishment shall terminate, reduce in compensation, or otherwise discriminate against any Employee for seeking to enforce their rights under this Article by any lawful means, for participating in proceedings related to this Article, for opposing any practice proscribed by this Article, or for otherwise asserting rights under this Article9.
9-177 Alternative Compliance
As an alternative means of compliance, a Drug Retail Establishment or Food Retail Establishment shall implement all the following security measures:

A. Self-Service Checkout Stations are separated from Non-Self Service Checkout stations by railing or other barriers.
194
Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 5 of 6
B. At least one Non-Self Service Checkout station is in operation and located between the public exit and the Self-Service Checkout Stations allowing employees to monitor customers exiting.

C. At least one staff person is dedicated to the self-checkout area during all hours of self-checkout operation.

Section 2. Inconsistencies. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.

Section 3. S everability. If any chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. No portion of this Ordinance shall supersede any local, State, or Federal law, regulation, or codes dealing with life safety factors.

Section 4. E
ffective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage.

Section 5. C er tification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law.

195
Ordinance No. 2026-xx Page 6 of 6
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of _____, 2026.

_____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________ _____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this ___ day of ___________, 2026.

__________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
196

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-626 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
TITLE:

AWARD OF THE SHALIMAR PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 25-06, AND

FINDING OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) CATEGORICAL

EXEMPTION
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTED BY: RAJA SETHURAMAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: SEUNG YANG, P.E., CITY ENGINEER (714) 754-5335 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Make a finding of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301.

2. Adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the Shalimar Park Improvement Project, City Project No. 25-06.

3. Reject the apparent low bid submitted by ACC & Engineering, LLC (ACC), 1130 North Kraemer Boulevard # I, Anaheim, California 92806 as non-responsive.

4. Reject the bid submitted by Earthscapes Landscape, Inc., 603 South Milliken Avenue, Unit J, Ontario, California 91761 as non-responsive.

5. Award a Public Works Agreement (PWA) for construction to the second lowest bidder, Micon Construction, Inc., 1616 Sierra Madre Circle, Placentia, California 92870 in the amount of $1,296,650 and authorize a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $129,665 for unforeseen costs related to this project.

6. Authorize the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the PWA with Micon Construction, Inc., and future amendments to the agreement within Council authorized limits.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The action involves an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, the proposed action is exempt under section 15301 relating to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, and/or minor alteration of existing public facilities.

BACKGROUND:

Shalimar Park is located at 782 Shalimar Drive between Wallace Avenue and Placentia Avenue in the Westside neighborhood of Costa Mesa. The park was dedicated in January 1999, and despite its relatively small, less than half-acre size, it includes a playground featuring elements for young

Page 1 of 5 ends

197
File #: 25-626 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
relatively small, less than half-acre size, it includes a playground featuring elements for young children, trees, a seating area and benches. The park is situated between two apartment complexes and is an essential part of the community that has been identified as deficient in public park amenities. The City Council authorized purchase of the apartment building immediately to the east of Shalimar Park for a future park expansion project that has yet to be determined. The demolition of this building is being implemented under a separate contract.

The proposed improvements to the existing park area will enhance the playground equipment, play area, landscaping, irrigation, lighting, and supporting facilities. At the front of the park, there will be a “bulb-out” expansion into Shalimar Drive, including a new crosswalk.

Shalimar Park
The City received $1 million in earmarked funds from the State Budget through the office of then State Senator David Min to upgrade and improve the existing park. In addition, City Council allocated additional $1 million in Capital Improvement Fuinds through budget process for Shalimar Park improvements.

In 2023, the City secured the services of Pat West, LLC, and City Fabrick to conduct several community outreach meetings for the Shalimar Park improvements. The preliminary park design options were then presented and discussed at the City’sParks and Community Services (PACS) Commission on August 10, 2023. On January 16, 2024, the City Council awarded Community Works Design Group (CWDG) as the consultant to provide design services for the Shalimar Park improvements.

Additional community engagement, including meetings and surveys, were conducted in early 2024 during the project design phase. Notices were sent to neighboring residents in the surrounding area.

A copy of the notice was also posted on the City’swebsite and various social media platforms. For those who could not attend the community outreach meetings, a City-sponsored online opinion

Page 2 of 5 ends

198
File #: 25-626 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
those who could not attend the community outreach meetings, a City-sponsored online opinion survey was commissioned to obtain additional input. During its regularly scheduled meeting on August 6, 2024, the City Council approved the proposed design improvements for Shalimar Park.

The project scope of work includes removal of existing site features, followed by construction of new recreational amenities. Improvements include new playground equipment, swings, a multi-use court, a bulb-out feature, and safety surfacing. The project also includes new landscaping, planting, irrigation, and related site improvements necessary to complete the project.

The contractor will be required to complete all of the tasks necessary to perform the scope of work as outlined in the contract documents, plans, and specifications. A copy of the plans, specifications, and working details is available for review in the Office of the City Clerk.

ANALYSIS:

The City Clerk received and opened thirteen (13) bids for this project on October 27, 2025. ACC & Engineering, LLC, was the apparent low bidder with a base bid proposal of $1,143,477. Micon Construction, Inc., was the apparent second low bidder with a base bid proposal of $1,296,650 and DD Systems, Inc., was the apparent third low bidder with a bid proposal of $1,376,703.

Rejection of Non-Responsive Bidders
ACC & Engineering, LLC (ACC), submitted the apparent low bid, with a base bid proposal of $1,143,477. However, upon review of ACC’sbid, staff determined that the bid contained multiple material deficiencies, which rendered it non-responsive. Staff notified ACC of its determination on December 4, 2025 (Attachment 1). The bid was found to be non-responsive due to the following reasons: (1) missing required initials and documents; (2) failure to submit the required Schedule of Values; (3) omission of signed addenda in the bid package; (4) materially unbalanced pricing; (5) insufficient demonstration of qualifications and experience; (6) failure to identify subcontractors for specialized work; and (7) failure to submit the required City of Costa Mesa bidders list.

Based on these material deficiencies, staff determined that ACC’sbid does not conform to the City’s bid requirements and is therefore disqualified as being non-responsive. As a result, staff recommends that the City Council reject ACC’s bid as non-responsive.

The fourth bid submitted by Earthscapes Landscape, Inc., was immediately rejected as non- responsive due to failure to comply with mandatory submittal requirements and failure to submit the original bid bond as required by the bid documents.

Selection of Lowest Responsible Bidder
Micon Construction, Inc. (Micon), submitted the apparent second low bid with a base bid proposal of $1,296,650. The proposal submitted by Micon includes all the required documents necessary with the bid package and had no irregularities. Therefore, staff recommends that City Council award the

Page 3 of 5 ends

199
File #: 25-626 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
PWA to Micon as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

The Engineer’sestimate for this project is $1,319,427, and the average of the bids received for the remaining eleven (11) bidders amounted to $1,637,431. The bid summary is included as Attachment

2. The license and references of Micon were checked and staff found them to be in good standing.

Micon has successfully completed several comparable parks projects in other cities, such as Madrid Fore Park in Mission Viejo, Hamilton Park in Pomona, and Pacific Drive Park in Fullerton.

Upon City Council award of the PWA (Attachment 3), Micon will furnish the necessary bonds and insurance, which will be approved as to form by Risk Management. After the award and subsequent execution of the agreement, a “Notice to Proceed” will be issued.

Staff requests that City Council award the project to Micon as the lowest responsible bidder.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternative to this Council action would be to reject all bids, re-advertise, and re-bid the construction project. However, staff has determined that re-advertising and re-bidding the project will not result in lower bids and will further delay the project.

FISCAL REVIEW:

The amount for the proposed project, inclusive of a ten percent (10%) contingency, is $1,426,315.

Construction Management services for the project will be provided by Interwest, Inc., under a separate contract for approximately $100,000. The funding for the Shalimar Park Improvement Project is available in the FY 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program budget consisting of State Grant Fund (Fund 231) with an available project budget of $894,333 and in the Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 401) with an available project budget of $968,397.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’sOffice has reviewed this agenda report, prepared the PWA, and approves them both as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This project works toward achieving the following City Council goals:
· Maintain and Enhance the City’s Facilities, Equipment and Technology · Strengthen the Public’s Safety and Improve the Quality of Life CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Make a finding of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301.

2. Adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the Shalimar Park Improvement Project, City Project No. 25-06.

Page 4 of 5 ends

200
File #: 25-626 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026

3. Reject the apparent low bid submitted by ACC & Engineering, LLC (ACC), 1130 North Kraemer Boulevard # I, Anaheim, California 92806 as non-responsive.

4. Reject the bid submitted by Earthscapes Landscape, Inc., 603 South Milliken Avenue, Unit J, Ontario, California 91761 as non-responsive.

5. Award a Public Works Agreement (PWA) for construction to the second lowest bidder, Micon Construction, Inc., 1616 Sierra Madre Circle, Placentia, California 92870 in the amount of $1,296,650 and authorize a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $129,665 for unforeseen costs related to this project.

6. Authorize the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the PWA with Micon Construction, Inc., and future amendments to the agreement within Council authorized limits.

Page 5 of 5 ends

201
ATTACHMENT 1
202
203
204
205
City Total Base Bid
PLACENTIA $1,296,650.00
GLENDORA $1,376,702.74
ESCONDIDO $1,499,049.01
IRVINE $1,518,000.00
COLTON $1,613,614.00
WHITTIER $1,651,460.00

WOODLAND
HILLS $1,712,590.00
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA $1,733,000.00
IRVINE $1,748,450.00
PERRIS $1,899,420.00
CHINO $1,962,800.00
$1,637,430.52
Engineer's Estimate $1,319,427.48

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Average

11.KASA Construction, Inc
Bidder

9. Elegent Construction, Inc.

10.Roadw
ay Engineering & Construction
Corp.

8.H2M Construction, Inc.

7. Environm
ental Construction, Inc.

6. Aguilar & Calderon Corporation

4. Em
pire Design & Build
BID OPENING RESULTS: OCTOBER 27, 2025

2. DD Systems, INC DBA Ace Cd, Inc.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

SHALIMAR PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
782 S

HALIMAR DRIVE, COSTA MESA
CITY PROJECT NO. 25-06

1.Micon Construction, Inc.

Bids submitted by ACC & Engineering, LLC and Earthscapes Landscape, Inc. were rejected as non-responsive.

5.Gentry General Engineering, Inc.

3.Western State Builders, Inc.

ATTACHMENT 2
206
1 CITY OF COSTA MESA

PUBLIC W

ORKS AGREEMENT FOR
CITY PROJECT NO. 25-06
THIS PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT (“A greement”), dated January 20, 2026 (“Effective Date”), is made by the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a political subdivision of the State of California (“CITY”), and MICON CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California corporation (“CONTRACTOR”).

WHEREAS, CITY desires to construct t he public improvements described below under Paragraph 1, Scope of Work (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, CITY has determined that CONT RACTOR is the lowest responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, CITY now desires to contract with CONTRACTOR to furnish construction and related services for the Project; and
WHEREAS, CITY and CONTRACTOR desire to set forth their rights, duties and liabilities in connection with the services to be performed.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consider ation of the covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1. SCOPE OF WORK.

The scope
of work generally consists of all mobilization; demolition of existing improvements; rough gr ading; construction items includi ng concrete paving, pavers, concrete curbs, custom fencing, play area safety surfacing, and decomposed granite surfacing; installation of new play equipm ent, new pre-fabricated shade shelters, new picnic tables, new drinking fountains, concrete sculptures; relocation and installation of benches, drinking fountains, backflow preventer; installation of a new irrigation system; installation of new planting, and any other work required by the contract documents (the “Work”).

The Work is further described in the “Contract Documents” referred to below.

The Project is known as the Shalimar Park Improvement Project, City Project No. 25-06 (the “Project”).

2. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

The complete Agreement consists of t he following documents relating to th e
Project:

ATTACHMENT 3
207
Project and Specification No. 25-06
2 (a) This Agreement;

(b) CONTRACTOR’s bid, a ttached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein;

(c) Bid package, including, but not lim ited to, addenda (one to three) to bid package, notice inviting bids, State of California – Natural Resources Agency Department of Parks and Recreation Grant Contract, complete plans, profiles, detailed drawings and specifications, general provisions and special provisions. The bid package is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein;

(d) Faithful Performance Bond and Labor and Material Bond, including agent’s Power of Attorney for each bond, attached hereto as Exhibit C;

(e) Drug-Free Workplace Policy, atta ched hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein; and

(f) Provisions of the most curre nt edition of The Greenbook: Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“The Greenbook”). Provisions of The Greenbook are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein.

The documents comprising the complete Agreement will be referred to as the “Contract Documents.”

All of the Contract Documents are intended to comple ment one another, so that any Work called for in one and not menti oned in another is to be performed as if mentioned in all documents.

In the event of an inconsistency in the Contract Documents, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail over all other Contract Documents. The order of precedence between the remaining Contract Documents shall be as set forth in The Greenbook.

The Contract Documents constitute the entire agreement between the parties and supersede any and all other writings and oral negotiations.

3. CITY’S REPRESENTATIVE.

The CITY’s Representative is Seung Yang, referred to herein as the Project Manager (“Project Manager”).

4. CONTRACTOR’S PROJECT MANAGER; PERSONNEL.

(a) Project Manager. CONTRACTOR’s Project Manager must be approved by City. Such approval shall be at CITY’s sole discretion.

(b) Personnel. CITY has the right to review and approve any personnel who are assigned to perform work under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall remove 208
Project and Specification No. 25-06
3 personnel from performing work under this Agreement if requested to do so by CITY.

This Paragraph 4 is a material provision of the Agreement.

5. SCHEDULE.

All Work shall be performed in accordance with the schedule approved on behalf of CITY by the Project Manager, and in accordance with the time of performance set forth in Paragraph 11 (Time of Performance).

6. EQUIPMENT - PERFORMANCE OF WORK.

CONTRACTOR shall furnish all tools, equipment, apparatus, facilities, labor and materials necessary to perform and comple te the Work in a good and workmanlike manner in strict conformity with the Contract Documents.

The equipment, apparatus, facilities, labor and material shall be furnished and such Work performed and completed as required in the plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the Project Manager or his or her designee, and subject to his or her approval.

7. COMPENSATION.

CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR in accordan ce with the fee schedule set forth in CONTRACTOR’s bid. CONTRACTOR’s total compensation shall not exceed One Million Two Hundred Ninety-Six Thousand Six H undred Fifty Dollars and Zero Cents ($1,296,650.00).

8. ADDITIONAL SERVICES.

CONTRACTOR shall not receive compensation for any services provided outside the scope of the Contract Do cuments unless such additional services, including change orders, are approved in writing by CITY prior to CONTRACTOR performing the additional services.

It is specifically understood that oral requests or approvals of such additional services, change orders or additional compensat ion and any approvals from CITY shall be barred and are unenforceable.

9. PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTOR.

On or before the last Monday of each and every month during the performance of the Work, CONTRACTOR shall meet with the Project Manager or his or her designee to determine the quantity of pay items incorporated into the improvement during that month.

A “Progress Payment Order” will then be jointly prepared, approved, and signed by the Project Manager and the CONTRACTOR setting forth the amount to be paid and 209
Project and Specification No. 25-06
4 providing for a five percent (5%) retention. Upon approval of the progress payment order by the Project Manager, or his or her designee, it shall be submitt ed to CITY’s Finance Department and processed for payment by obtai ning approval from the City Council to issue a warrant.

Within three (3) days following City Counc il’s approval to issue a warrant, CITY shall mail to CONTRACTOR a warrant for the amount specified in the progress payment order as the amount to be paid. The retai ned five percent (5%) shall be paid to CONTRACTOR thirty-five (35) days after the recording of the Notice of Completion of the Work by the CITY with the Orange County Clerk-Recorder and after CONTRACTOR has furnished releases of all claims against CITY by persons who furnished labor or materials for the Work, if required by CITY.

Upon the request of CONTRACT OR and at its expense, securities equivalent to the amount withheld pursuant to the foregoing provisions may be presented to CITY for substitution for the retained funds. If CITY approves the form and amount of the offered securities it will release the retained funds and will hold the securities in lieu thereof.

CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to any interest earned on the securities.

In the event that claims for property damage or bodily injury are presented to CITY arising out of CONTRACTOR’s or any subcontractor’s work under this Agreement, CITY shall give notice thereof to CONTRACTOR, and CONTRACTOR shall have thirty-five (35) days from the mailing of any such notice to evaluate the claim and to settle it by whole or partial payment, or to reject it, and to give notice of settlement or rejection to CITY. If CITY does not receive notice within the above-mentioned 35-day period that the claim has been settled, and if the Project Manager, after cons ultation with the City Attorney, determines that the claim is meritorious, CITY may pay the claim or a portion of it in exchange for an appropriate release from the claimant, and ma y deduct the amount of the payment from the retained funds that would otherwise be paid to CONTRACTOR upon completion of the Work; provided, however, that the maximum amount paid for any one claim pursuant to this provision shall be One Thousand Do llars ($1,000.00), and the maximum amount for all such claims in the aggregate paid pursuant to this provision shall be Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00).

10. PROMPT PAYMENT OF SUBCONTRACTORS.

CONTRACTOR agrees to pay each subcontractor under this Agreement for satisfactory performance of its contract no la ter than seven (7) days from the receipt of each payment the CONTRACTOR receives from CITY.

CONTRACTOR agrees further to release retainage payments to each subcontractor within thirty ( 30) days after the subcontractor ’s work is satisfactorily completed.

Any delay or postponement of payment from the above-referenced time frame may occur only for good cause following written approval of the CITY. 210
Project and Specification No. 25-06
5 11. TIME OF PERFORMANCE.

CONTRACTOR shall commence Work by the date specified in CITY’s Notice to Proceed, unless a later date is agreed upon in writing by the parties. The Work shall be completed within One Hundred Sixty (160) working days from the first day of commencement of the Work.

12. TERMINATION.

(a) Termination for Convenience. CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, by providing thirty (30) days’ written notice to CONTRACTOR.

(b) Termination for Breach of Contract.

(i) If CONTRACTOR refuses or fails to prosecute the Work or any severable part of it with such diligence as will ensure its timely completion, or if CONTRACTOR fails to complete the Work on time, or if CONTRACTOR, or any subcontractor, violates any of the provisions of the Contract Documents, the Project Manager may give written notice to CONTRACTOR and CONTRACTOR’s sureties of the CITY’s intention to terminate this Agreement; and, unless within five (5) days after the serving of that notice, such conduct shall cease and arrangements for the correction thereof be made to the satisfaction of the CITY, this Ag reement may be terminated at the option of CITY effective upon CONT RACTOR’s receipt of a second notice sent by the CITY indicating that the CITY has exercised its option to terminate.

(ii) If CONTRACTOR is adjudged bankru pt or files for any relief under the Federal Bankruptcy Code or State insolvency laws, this Agreement shall automatically terminate without any further action or notice by CITY.

(iii) If CONTRACTOR is in breach of any material provision of this Agreement, CITY may immediately terminate this Agreement by providing written notice to CONTRACTOR of same.

13. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.

In the event the Work is not completed, for any reas on, within the time required including any approved extensions of time, and to the satisfaction of the Project Manager, CITY may, in addition to any other remedies , equitable and legal, including remedies authorized by Paragraph 12 (Termination) of this Agreement, charge to CONTRACTOR or its sureties, or deduct from payments or credits due CONTRACTOR, a sum equal to One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) as liquidated damages for each calendar day beyond 211
Project and Specification No. 25-06
6 the date provided for the completion of such work.

The parties hereto agree that the amount set forth abov e, as liquidated damages constitutes a fair and reasonable estimate of the costs the CITY would suffer for each day that the CONTRACTOR fails to meet th e performance schedule. The parties hereby agree and acknowledge that the delays in the performanc e schedule will cause CITY to incur costs and expenses not contemplated by this Agreement.

14. PERFORMANCE BY SURETIES.

In the event CONTRACTOR fails or re fuses to perform the Work, CITY may provide CONTRACTOR with a notice of intent to terminate as provided in Paragraph 12 (Termination), of this Agreement. CITY shall immediately give written notice of such intent to terminate to CONTRACTOR and CONTRACTOR’s surety or sureties, and the sureties shall have the right to take over and perform this Agreement; provided, however, that the sureties must, within five (5) days after CITY ’s giving notice of termination, (a) give the CITY written notice of their intention to take over the perf ormance of this Agreement; (b) provide adequate assurances, to the satisfaction of the CITY, that the Work shall be performed diligently and in a timely manner; and (c) must commence performance thereof within five (5) days after providing notice to t he CITY of their intent ion to take over the Work. Upon the failure of the sureties to comply with the provisions set forth above, CITY may take over the Work and complete it, at the expense of CONTRACTOR, and the CONTRACTOR and the sureties shall be liable to CITY for any excess costs or damages including those referred to in Paragraph 13 (Liquidated Damages), incurred by CITY. In such event, CITY may, without liability for so doing, take possession of such materials, equipment, tools, appliances, Contract Documents and other property belonging to CONTRACTOR as may be on the site of the Work and reasonably necessary therefor and may use them to complete the Work.

15. DISPUTES PERTAINING TO PAYMENT FOR WORK.

Should any dispute arise respecting whet her any delay is excusable, or its duration, or the value of the Work done, or of any Work omi tted, or of any extra Work which CONTRACTOR may be required to do, or respecting any payment to CONTRACTOR during the performance of this Agreement, such dispute shall be decided by the Project Manager, and his or her dec isions shall be final and binding upon CONTRACTOR and its sureties.

16. SUPERINTENDENCE BY CONTRACTOR.

At all times during performance of the Work, CONTRACTOR shall give personal superintendence or have a competent foreman or superintendent on the worksite, with authority to act for CONTRACTOR.

17. INSPECTION BY CITY.

212
Project and Specification No. 25-06
7 CONTRACTOR shall at all times maintain proper facilities and provide safe access for inspection by CITY to all parts of the Wo rk and to all shops on or off-site where the Work or portions of the Work, are in preparation. CITY shall have the right of access to the premises for inspection at all times. Howe ver, CITY shall, at all times, comply with CONTRACTOR’s safety requirements on the job site.

18. CARE OF THE WORK A ND OFF-SITE AUTHORIZATION.

CONTRACTOR warrants that it has examined the site of the Work and is familiar with its topography and condition, location of property lines, easements, building lines and other physical factors and lim itations affecting the perfo rmance of this Agreement.

CONTRACTOR, at CONTRACTOR’s sole cost and expense, shall obtain any permission, and all approvals, licenses, or easements necessary for any operations conducted off the premises owned or controlled by CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for the proper care and protection of all materials delivered to the site or stored off-site and for the Work performed until completion and final inspection and acceptance by CITY. The risk, damage or destruction of materials delive red to the site or to Work performed shall be borne by CONTRACTOR.

19. CONTRACT SECURITY AND GUARANTEE.

CONTRACTOR shall furnish, concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, the following: (1) a surety bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price as security for the faithful performance of this Agreement, and (2) a separate surety bond in an amount equal to at least one hundr ed percent (100%) of the contract price as security for the payment of all persons furn ishing labor or materials in connection with the Work under th is Agreement. Sureties for each of the bonds and the forms thereof shall be satisfactory to CITY. In addition, such sureties must be authorized to issue bonds in California; sureties must be listed on the latest revision to the U.S.

Department of the Treasury Circular 570; and must be shown to have sufficient bonding capacity to provide the bonds required by the Contract Documents.

CONTRACTOR shall provide a certified copy of the certificate of authority of the surety issued by the Insurance Commissioner; a certificate from the clerk of the county in which the court or officer is lo cated that the certif icate of authority of the surety has not been surrendered, revoked, canceled, annulled, or suspended or, in the event that it has, that renewed authority has been granted; and copies of the surety’s most recent annual statement and quarterly statement filed with the Departm ent of Insurance pursuant to Article 10 (commencing with Section 900) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 1 of the Insurance Code.

CONTRACTOR guarantees that all mate rials used in the Work and all labor performed shall be in conformity with the C ontract Documents including, but not limited to, the standards and specifications set forth in the most current edition of The Greenbook.

CONTRACTOR shall, at its own expense, make any and all repairs and replacements that shall become necessary as the result of any failure of the Work to conform to the 213
Project and Specification No. 25-06
8 aforementioned Contract Documents, and/or standard specifications; provided, however, that CONTRACTOR shall be obligated under this provision only to the extent of those failures or defects of which CONTRACTOR is given notice within a period of twelve (12) months from the date that the Notice of Completion is recorded.

The rights and remedies available to CITY pursuant to this provision shall be cumulative with all rights and remedies ava ilable to CITY pursuant to statutory and common law, which rights and remedies are her eby expressly reserved, and neither the foregoing guarantee by CONTRACT OR nor its furnishing of the bonds, nor acceptance thereof by CITY, shall constitu te a waiver of any rights or remedies available to CITY against CONTRACTOR.

20. INDEMNIFICATION.

CONTRACTOR agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY and State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (“STATE”) and their elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, or damages of any nature, including a ttorneys’ fees, for injury to or death of any person, and for injury or damage to any property, including consequential damages of any nature resulting therefrom, arisi ng out of or in any way connected with the performance of this Agreemen t. The defense obligation pr ovided for hereunder shall apply without any advance showing of negligence or wrongdoing by the CONTRACTOR, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractor s, but shall be required whenever any claim, action, complaint, or suit asserts as its basis the negligence, errors, omissions or misconduct of the CONTRACTOR, its employ ees, and/or authorized subcontractors, and/or whenever any claim, action, complaint or suit asserts liability against the CITY and STATE, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees based upon the work performed by the CONTRACTOR, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors under this Agreement, whether or not the CONTRACTOR, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors are specifically named or otherwise asserted to be liable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CONTRACTOR shall not be liable for the defense or indemnification of the CITY and STATE for claims, actions, complaints or suits arising out of the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY and STATE. This provision shall supersede and replace all other indemnity provisions contained either in the CITY’s specifications or CONTRACTOR’s proposal, which shall be of no force and effect.

CONTRACTOR shall comply with all of the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation insurance laws and Safety in Employment laws of the State of California, including the applicable provisions of Divisions 4 and 5 of the California Labor Code and all amendments thereto and regul ations promulgated pursuant thereto, and all similar State, Federal or local laws applicable ; and CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY and STATE from and against all claims, liabilities, expenses, damages, suits, actions, proceedings and judgments, of every nature and description, including attorney fees, that may be presented, brought or recovered against CITY and STATE for or on account of any liability under or failure to comply with any of said laws which may be incurred by reason of any Work perform ed under this Agreement by CONTRACTOR 214
Project and Specification No. 25-06
9 or any subcontractor or others performing on behalf of CONTRACTOR.

CITY and STATE do not, and shall not, waive any rights against CONTRACTOR which it may have by reason of the above hold harmless agreement s, because of the acceptance by CITY and STATE or the deposit with CITY and STATE by CONTRACTOR of any or all of the insur ance policies described in Paragr aph 21 (Insurance) of this Agreement.

The hold harmless agreements by CONTRACT OR shall apply to all liabilities, expenses, claims, and damages of every kind (including but not limited to attorneys’ fees) incurred or alleged to have been incurred, by reason of the operations of CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor or ot hers performing on behalf of CONTRACTOR, whether or not such insurance policies are applicable. CONTRA CTOR shall require any and all tiers of subcontractors to afford the same degree of indemnification to the CITY and STATE and their elected and appointed boards, officers, agent s, and employees that is required of CONTRACTOR and shall incorporate identical indemnity provisions in all contracts between CONTRACTOR and all tiers of its subcontractors.

In the event that CONTRACTOR and CI TY and STATE are sued by a third party for damages caused or allegedly caused by negligent or other wrongful conduct of CONTRACTOR, or by a dangerous condition of CITY’s and STATE’s property created by CONTRACTOR or existing while the property was under t he control of CONTRACTOR, CONTRACTOR shall not be relie ved of its indemnity obligat ion to CITY and STATE by any settlement with any such third party unless that settlement includes a full release and dismissal of all claims by the third party against the CITY and STATE.

21. INSURANCE.

(a) Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. CONTRACTOR shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has obtained all insurance required under this Paragraph 21 and CITY has approved the insurance as to form, amount, and carrier, nor shall CONTRACTOR allow any subcontractor to commence any Work until all similar insurance required of the subcontractor has been obtained and approved.

CONTRACTOR shall obtain, maintain, and keep in full force and effect during the life of this Agreement all of the following minimum scope of insurance coverages with an insurance company admitted to do business in California, rated “A,” Class X, or better in the most recent Best’s Key Insurance Rating Guide, and approved by CITY:

(i) Commercial general liability, in cluding premises-operations, products/completed operations, broad form property damage, blanket contractual liability, independent contractors, personal injury or bodily injury with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this Agreement or shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
215
Project and Specification No. 25-06
10 (ii) Business automobile liability for owned vehicles, hired, and non- owned vehicles, with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

(iii) Workers’ compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability insurance with a limit of no less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per accident for bodily injury or disease. CONTRACTOR agrees to waive, and to obtain endorsements fr om its workers’ compensation insurer waiving subrogation right s under its workers’ compensation insurance policy agains t the CITY and STATE, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers arisi ng from work performed by CONTRACTOR for the CITY and STATE and to require each of its subcontractors, if any, to do likewise under their workers’ compensation insurance policies.

(iv) Umbrella or excess liability insu rance that will provide bodily injury, personal injury and property damage li ability coverage at least as broad as the primary coverages set forth above, including commercial general liability, autom obile liability, and employer’s liability. Such policy or policies shall include the following terms and conditions:

(1) A drop down feature requiring the policy to respond in the event that any primary insur ance that would otherwise have applied proves to be uncollectable in whole or in part for any reason;
(2) Pay on behalf of wording as opposed to reimbursement; (3) Concurrency of effective dates with primary policies; (4) Policies shall “follow form” to underlying primary policies; and (5) Insureds under primary policies shall also be insureds under the umbrella or excess policies.

(b) Endorsements. The commercial gener al liability insurance policy and business automobile liability policy shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:

(i) Additional insureds: The City of Costa Mesa and State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and their elected and appointed boards, officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds with respect to: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of th e CONTRACTOR pursuant to its contract with the City; products and completed operations of the CONTRACTOR; premises owned, occupied or used by the
216
Project and Specification No. 25-06
11 CONTRACTOR; automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the CONTRACTOR.”

(ii) Notice: “Said policy shall not term inate, nor shall it be canceled nor the coverage reduced, until thirty ( 30) days after written notice is given to CITY.”

(iii) Other Insurance: “CONTRACTO R’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. Any other insurance maintained by the City of Costa Mesa shall be excess and not contributing with the insurance provided by this policy.”

(c) Reporting Provisions. Any failure of CONTRACTOR to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers.

(d) Insurance Applies Separately. CONTRACTOR’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.

(e) Deductible or Self-Insured Retention. If any of such policies provide for a deductible or self-insured retention to prov ide such coverage, the amount of such deductible or self-insured retention shall be approved in advance by CITY. No policy of insurance issued as to which the CITY is an additional insured shall contain a provision which requires that no insured except the named insured can satisfy any such deductible or self-insured retention.

(f) Proof of Insurance. Prior to commencement of the Work, CONTRACTOR shall furnish CITY, through the Project Mana ger, proof of compliance with the above insurance requirements in a form satisfactory to City’s Risk Management.

(g) Non-Limiting. Nothing in this Paragraph 21 shall be construed as limiting in any way, the indemnification provision contained in this Agreement, or the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property.

22. PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Prevailing Wage Laws. CONTRACTOR is aware of the requirements of Chapter 1 (beginning at Section 1720 et seq.) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the California Labor Code, as well as Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on “public works” and “maintenance” projects. This Project is a “public works” project and requires compliance with the Prevailing Wage Laws. CONTRACTOR shall defend, indemnify and hold the CITY, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of 217
Project and Specification No. 25-06
12 any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws.

(b) Payment of Prevailin g Wages. CONTRACTOR shal l pay the prevailing wage rates for all work performed under this Agreement. When any craft or classification is omitted from the general prevailing wage determinations, CONTRACTOR shall pay the wage rate of the craft or classification most closely related to the omitted classification. A copy of the general prevailing wage rate determi nation is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and is incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at all times at the project site(s).

(c) Legal Working Day. In accordance with the provisions of Labor Code Section 1810 et seq., eight (8) hours is the legal wo rking day. CONTRACTOR and any subcontractor(s) of CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of the Labor Code regarding eight (8)-hour workday and 40-hour wo rk week requirements, and overtime, Saturday, Sunday, and holiday work. Work performed by CONTRACTOR’s or any subcontractor’s employees in excess of eight (8) hours per day, and 40 hours during any one week, must include compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day, or 40 hours during any one week, at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay. CONTRACTOR shall forfeit as a penalty to CITY Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00), or any greater penalty set forth in the Labor Code, for each worker employed in the execution of the Work by CONTRACTOR or by any subcontractor(s) of CONTRACTOR, for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to the work more than eight (8) hours in one calendar day or more than 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the Labor Code.

(d) Apprentices. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of Labor Code Section 1777.5 concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects.

CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for ensuring compliance by its subcontractors with Labor Code Section 1777.5.

(e) Payroll Records. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1776, CONTRACTOR and any subcontractor(s) shall keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classifi cation, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor in connection with this Agreement. Each payroll record shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under penalty of perjury, st ating both of the following:
(1) The information contained in the payroll record is true and correct; and (2) The employer has complied with the requirements of Sections 1771, 1881, and 1815 of the Labor Code for any work performed by his or her employees on this Project. The payroll records shall be certified and shall be availabl e for inspection at all reasonable hours in accordance with the requirements of Labor Code Section 1776. CONTRACTOR shall also furnish each week to CITY’s Project Administration Division a statement with respect to the wages of each of its employees during the preceding weekly payroll period.

(f) Registration with DIR. CONTRA CTOR and any subcontractor(s) of 218
Project and Specification No. 25-06
13 CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of Labor Code Section 1771 and Labor Code Section 1725.5 requiring registration with the DIR.

23. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS.

CONTRACTOR shall, at its own cost and expense, comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and requirements in the performance of this Agreement, including but not limited to laws regarding health and safety, labor and employment, and wage and hours.

24. ADDITIONAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS – State. Contractor shall comply with all of the terms and conditions of the documents included in Exhibit “A”, specifically, State of California – Natural Resources Agency Departm ent of Parks and Recreation Grant Contract, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.

25. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE POLICY.

CONTRACTOR, upon notification of the awar d of this Agreement, shall establish a Drug-Free Awareness Program to inform employees of t he dangers of drug abuse in the workplace, the penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace, and the employee assistance programs available to employees. Each employee engaged in the per formance of a CITY contract must be notified of this Drug-Free Awareness Pr ogram, and must abide by its terms.

CONTRACTOR shall conform to all the r equirements of CITY’s Policy No. 100-5, attached hereto. Failure to establish a progra m, notify employees, or inform the CITY of a drug-related workplace conviction will constitute a material breach of contract and cause for immediate termination of the contract by the CITY.

26. NON–DISCRIMINATION.

In performing this Agreement, CONTRACTOR will not engage in, nor permit its agents to engage in, discrimination in employm ent of persons because of their race, religion, color, national orig in, ancestry, physical handicap , medical condition, marital status or sex, or sexual orientation, except as permitted pursuant to Section 12940 of the Government Code. Violation of this provisi on may result in the imposition of penalties referred to in Section 1735 of the California Labor Code.

27. PROVISIONS CUMULATIVE.

The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to, and not in limitation of, any other rights or remedies available to CITY.

28. NOTICES.

It shall be the duty and responsibility of CONTRACTOR to notify all tiers of subcontractors and material m en of the following special not ice provision; namely, all 219
Project and Specification No. 25-06
14 preliminary 20-day notices or stop notices shall be directed only to the City Clerk and to no other department, and shal l be either personally delivered or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid.

All other notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to CITY pursuant to this Agreement shall be addressed as follows:

City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Attn: Seung Yang, P.E.

Notices required to be given to CONTRACTOR shall be addressed as follows:

Micon Construction, Inc.
1616 Sierra Madre Circle
Placentia, CA 92870
Attn: Mitch Holle, President

Notices required to be given to CONTRACTOR’s sureties shall be addressed as follows:

_____________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
Attn: _________________________

29. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.

The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that the relationship between CITY and CONTRACTOR is one of principal and independent contractor and no other. All personnel to be utilized by CONTRACTOR in the performance of this Agreement shall be employees of CONTRACTOR and not employees of the CITY. CONTRACTOR shall pay all salaries and wages, employer’s social security taxes, unemployment insurance and similar taxes relating to employees and shall be responsible for all applicable withholding taxes.

Nothing contained in this Agreement sha ll create or be construed as creating a partnership, joint venture, employment relations, or any other relationship except as set forth between the parties. The parties specifically acknowledge and agree that CONTRACTOR is not a partner with CITY, whether general or limited, and no activities of CITY or CONTRACTOR or statements made by CITY or CONTRACTOR shall be interpreted by any of the parties hereto as establishing any type of business relationship other than an independent contractor relationship.

30. PERS ELIGIBILITY INDEMNIFICATION.

220
Project and Specification No. 25-06
15 In the event that CONTRACTOR or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of CONTRACTOR providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the Calif ornia Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of the CITY, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of CONTRACTOR or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of CITY.

Notwithstanding any other agency, state or federal policy, rule, regulation, law or ordinance to the contrary, CONTRACTOR and any of its empl oyees, agents, and subcontractors providing service under this Agreement shall not qual ify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by CITY, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in PERS as an employee of CITY and entit lement to any contribution to be paid by CITY for employer contribution and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.

31. VALIDITY.

The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of th is Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any of the other provisions of this Agreement.

32. GOVERNING LAW.

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any legal action relating to or arising out of this Agreement shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the County of Orange, California.

33. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY RIGHTS.

This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of the CITY and CONTRACTOR and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this Agreement and no third party shall have any right in, under or to this Agreement.

34. ASSIGNABILITY.

This Agreement may not be transferred or assigned by either party, or by operation of law, to any other person or persons or business entity, without the other party’s written permission. Any such transfer or assignmen t, or attempted transfer or assignment, without written permission, may be deemed by the other party to constitute a voluntary termination of this Agreement and this Agreement shall thereafter be deemed terminated and void.

35. WAIVER.

No waiver of any provision of this Agr eement shall be effective unless in writing 221
Project and Specification No. 25-06
16 and signed by a duly authorized r epresentative of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought referring expressly to this Paragraph. The waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any occurrence or even t shall not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any other occurrence or event, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver.

36. HEADINGS.

Section and subsection headings are not to be considered part of this Agreement, are included solely for convenience, and are not intended to modify or explain or to be a full or accurate description of the content thereof.

37. CONSTRUCTION.

The parties have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement and have had an adequate opportunity to review each and every provision of the Agreement and submit the same to couns el or other consultants for review and comment. In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to this Agreement, this Agreement sha ll be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties and in accordance with its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement.

38. COUNTERPARTS.

This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts by the parties hereto. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one Agreement.

39. CORPORATE AUTHORITY.

The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreem ent on behalf of said parties and that by doing so, the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement.

40. EXECUTIVE ORDER N- 6-22 RUSSIA SANCTIONS.

On March 4, 2022, Governor Gavin Ne wsom issued Executive Order N-6-22 (the EO) regarding Economic Sanctions against Russia and Russian entities and individuals. "Economic Sanctions" refers to sanctions im posed by the U.S. gover nment in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine, as well as any sanctions imposed under state law. The EO directs state agencies to terminate contracts with, and to refrain from entering any new contracts with, individuals or entities that are determined to be a target of Economic Sanctions. This Executive Order extends to recipients of any State Grants (Grantee).

Grantees include those who have contracted or will contract to receive State grants funds.

Accordingly, should the State determine that a Grantee is a target of Economic Sanctions or is conducting prohibited transactions with sanc tioned individuals or entities, that shall 222
Project and Specification No. 25-06
17 be grounds for termination of this agreement . The State shall provide the Grantee advance written notice of such termination, allowing the Grantee at least 30 calendar days to provide a written response. Termination of any contract found to be in violation of this Executive Order shall be at the sole discretion of the State.

[Signature page follows.]
223
Project and Specification No. 25-06
18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their respective authorized officers, as of the date first above written.

CITY OF COSTA MESA
A municipal corporation

__________________________________ Date: _____________________ Cecilia Gallardo-Daly
City Manager

CONTRACTOR

__________________________________ Date: _____________________ Signature

__________________________________
Name and Title (print)

ATTEST:

__________________________________ Date: _____________________ Brenda Green
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

__________________________________ Date: _____________________ Kimberly Hall Barlow
City Attorney

APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE:

__________________________________ Date: _____________________ Ruth Wang
Risk Management

224
Project and Specification No. 25-06
19 APPROVED AS TO PURCHASING:

__________________________________ Date: _____________________ Carol Molina
Finance Director

DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL:

__________________________________ Date: _____________________ Raja Sethuraman
Public Works Director

__________________________________ Date: _____________________ Seung Yang, P.E. City Engineer
Project Manager

225

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-620 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
TITLE:

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF IRVINE FOR USE OF BEDS AT THE

COSTA MESA BRIDGE SHELTER
DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
PRESENTED BY: NATE ROBBINS, NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT MANAGER CONTACT INFORMATION: NATE ROBBINS, 714-754-5274
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Irvine for access to beds, as available, at the Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter.

BACKGROUND:

In April 2021, the City of Costa Mesa (“City”)opened the Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter (“BridgeShelter” or “Shelter”),which provides emergency housing and supportive services to Costa Mesa residents experiencing homelessness. At that time, the City negotiated an agreement with the City of Newport Beach (“Newport Beach MOU”) to secure exclusive rights of up to twenty (20) beds for use by its residents. The Newport Beach MOU was amended in 2023 to increase Newport Beach’sallocation to twenty-five (25) beds. Recently, in December 2025, the Newport Beach MOU was amended a second time to reduce Newport Beach’sallocation back down to twenty (20) beds through June 30, 2026. Further, the amendment terminates Newport Beach’sexclusive access to beds at the Shelter as of July 1, 2026, but continues to provide access to beds, as available, through December 31, 2026. Beginning January 1, 2027, Newport Beach will no longer have access to beds at the Bridge Shelter.

In August 2025, the City began communication with the City of Irvine to discuss the possibility of granting access to beds at the Bridge Shelter for use by its residents. Over the past several months, the City has worked with Irvine to negotiate the terms and pricing included in the attached Memorandum of Understanding (“Irvine MOU”) (Attachment 1).

ANALYSIS:

The Bridge Shelter is a 100-bed facility that provides emergency shelter and associated services to adult individuals with strong community ties to Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. Per the recent Newport Beach MOU, Newport Beach has exclusive access to 20 beds and the City has access to the remaining 80 beds. Further, the City was awarded grant funding by the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) to convert 15 of the 80 Costa Mesa beds to Behavioral Health Bridge Housing (BHBH) beds. Operations costs for these 15 BHBH beds are fully reimbursed by the

Page 1 of 4 ends

226
File #: 25-620 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
OCHCA, and thus can only be occupied by Costa Mesa residents.

Costa Mesa Bed Utilization
The City has exclusive access to 80 beds at the Shelter, with 15 of those beds occupied by BHBH clients. Over the past 60 days, Costa Mesa’saverage utilization has been 52 beds per day, resulting in an average vacancy rate of 28 beds per day.

As to other operational costs, the kitchen operator agreement with Bracken’sKitchen allows for cost reduction based on the number of actual meals prepared; however, the Shelter operator agreement with Mercy House does not. As a result, regardless of the number of beds occupied by Costa Mesa residents, the City’sexpenses to operate the Shelter remain static. Therefore, it would be beneficial to the City’sShelter operating budget in the Housing Authority Fund (Fund 222) to ensure maximum occupancy of 80 beds to offset operational expenses.

Summary of the MOU with the City of Irvine
The following is a summary of the Irvine MOU, as proposed:
· Term - The MOU would begin upon execution and terminate on June 30, 2026. · Allocation of Beds - The MOU would give Irvine access to Costa Mesa beds, as available, and as determined by the City Manager or their designee. Irvine would not have exclusive access to beds at the Shelter.
· Cost - The MOU would give Irvine access to Costa Mesa beds at a cost of $163.00 per bed, per day.
· Payment - The MOU would require Irvine to make monthly payments to the City based on its actual use of Costa Mesa beds during the previous month. · Referrals - The MOU would require Irvine to identify specific personnel authorized to make referrals to the Shelter. These personnel would be responsible for screening referrals prior to entry based upon the Shelter’sestablished intake guidelines (i.e., no outstanding warrants, no arson convictions, and no sexual offenders).
· Transportation - The MOU would require Irvine to transport its residents to the Shelter upon initial intake; however, the City would be responsible for providing transportation to residents actively enrolled at the Shelter.
· Exit Procedures - The MOU would require Irvine residents to be transported back to the City of Irvine upon exit from the Shelter. Transportation may be provided by the Shelter’sshuttle service, rideshare, or Irvine staff/service partners.

Kitchen and Shelter Operator Agreements
The current Kitchen and Shelter Operator Agreements expire on April 30, 2026, and June 30, 2026, respectively. The City is currently conducting a Request For Proposals (RFP) for Kitchen Operations and will release an RFP for Shelter Operations in the first quarter of the 2026 calendar year. As the Shelter’sbudget is largely dependent upon these two (2) expenses, the City is unable to enter a long-

Page 2 of 4 ends

227
File #: 25-620 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
term contract with Irvine until these costs and the overall Shelter budget are finalized.

Intent of the MOU
The intent of the MOU is three-fold:

1. To ensure Costa Mesa beds are always occupied to assist in balancing the Shelter’s budget.

2. To allow Irvine to begin referring residents on an “as available” basis while the Shelter’s operational costs are finalized.

3. To allow both cities time to develop seamless referral and operational processes before executing a multi-year agreement proposed to commence on July 1, 2026.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council can choose to disapprove the proposed Irvine MOU and direct staff to bring back an updated MOU with alternative language.

The City Council can choose to deny the proposed Irvine MOU and direct staff to initiate discussions regarding use of beds at the Bridge Shelter with other potential partners.

FISCAL REVIEW:

The proposed MOU with the City of Irvine would provide a continuous revenue stream that would help offset the City’s expenses to operate the Bridge Shelter. The following table provides an example of potential payments due by the City of Irvine based on the continuous use of beds at the shelter over a 30-day period, subject to availability:

Bed
Utilization
Monthly Revenue Remainder FY 2025
-26 Revenue
5 beds $24,450 $122,250
10 beds $48,900 $244,500
15 beds $73,350 $366,750
20 beds $97,800 $489,000
This agreement is estimated to have a net positive impact of $122,250 for the continuous use of five (5) beds for the remainder of fiscal year 2025-26 in the Housing Authority Fund (Fund 222).

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney has reviewed this report and approves it as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item achieves City Council goals:
· Diversify, stabilize and increase housing to reflect community needs. · Strengthen the public’s safety and improve the quality of life.

Page 3 of 4 ends

228
File #: 25-620 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Irvine for access to beds, as available, at the Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter.

Page 4 of 4 ends

229
1 M

EMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AND

THE CITY OF IRVINE
T
his MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("Agreement") is dated as of ______________, 2026 ("Effective Date"), and entered by and among the City of Costa Mesa, a municipal corporation organized and existing under California law ("Costa Mesa") and the City of Irvine, which is a California charter city (" Irvine"), (cumulatively the "Parties," and at times individually a "Party"), with reference to and in consideration of the following:

W
HEREAS, on April 9, 2019, Costa Mesa closed escrow on real property at 3175 Airway Avenue, in the City of Costa Mesa ("the Property" as more fully described in Section 2.10) for the purpose of developing a permanent shelter in the City of Costa Mesa; W
HEREAS, 12,285 square feet of the structure located on the Property is currently being used to operate a 100-bed emergency shelter (the “Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter” or “Shelter”); W
HEREAS, the Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter provides temporary shelter and social services assistance with a "housing first" model of operation. The Shelter’s goal is to assist individuals experiencing homelessness by providing them with temporary shelter while working with a client case manager to create and follow through on a housing plan that seeks to match them to permanent housing as soon as possible;
W
HEREAS, Irvine is committed to a regional solution to address homelessness and, as such, has expressed a desire to partner with Costa Mesa to provide funding to operate the Shelter, as provided herein, in exchange for use of Costa Mesa beds, as available, in the Shelter, as more fully described in Section 4.3;
W
HEREAS, the Parties desire to memorialize the terms and conditions by which Irvine will provide funding to support the operation of the Shelter and to agree on how Shelter beds will be accessible for Irvine ; certain aspects or Shelter governance; how the Parties will share access to the capacity provided by the Shelter; how the Parties will share the costs and responsibilities associated with the operation of the Shetter; and other related matters in furtherance of their common purpose; W
HEREAS, each Party has caused this Agreement to be duly approved by its respective governing body, and by so doing, has found and determined that this Agreement furthers the health, safety, and general welfare or their respective residents.

NO
W THEREFORE , in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

REEMENT

1. PU
RPOSE
T
his Agreement establishes a memorandum of understanding for maintaining, providing, operating, Attachment 1
230
2 and facilitating the provision of temporary housing in the Shelter, and the provision of certain services to homeless and chronically homeless adults located within the boundaries of the Parties. This Agreement defines the respective rights and responsibilities of the Parties with respect to the financing, implementing, operating, and the provision of Services, as defined in Section 2.11, at the Shelter.

2. DEFINITIONS

In addition to the other terms and phrases defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following key capitalized terms and phrases used throughout this Agreement shall have the meaning assigned in this Section.

2.1. "Case Management Plan" shall mean the individual plan for each Shelter Resident that, among other things, sets forth details regarding how the Shelter Resident can reach the goal of obtaining long-term stable housing.

2.2. "Management and Operations Plan" shall mean and refer to the plan approved by Costa Mesa and the Shelter Operator, which details the terms, conditions, and standards by which Services are made available to Shelter Residents at the Shelter and shall require Services to meet or exceed industry standards.

2.3. "Operating Agreement" shall mean and refer to the contract between Costa Mesa and the Shelter Operator for the operation of the Shelter.

2.4. "Party Representative" shall mean and refer to the highest -ranking appointed executive official for each of the Parties, or his/or her duly authorized designee.

2.5. "Program" shall mean and refer to the Parties' cooperative financing and planning for the operation and the provision of Services at the Shelter.

2.6. "Program Area" shall mean and refer to the jurisdictional boundaries of the respective Parties.

2.7. "Property" shall mean the approximately 29,816 square foot building on a 1.34-acre parcel, located at 3175 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA (A.P.N. 427-091-12).

2.8. "Shelter" shall have the meaning ascribed in the Recitals above, and including but not limited to the operation, maintenance, repair of and/or provision of Services at the Shelter.

2.9. "Resident Transportation" shall mean how each Party shall arrange for its respective Shelter Residents to be transported to and from the Shelter and for appointments related to their Case Management Plan.

2.10. "Services" shall mean and refer to the provision of overnight shelter and other sanitation, nutritional, health, educational, supportive, and/or basic human services at the Shelter, as described in the Management and Operations Plan.

2.11. "Shelter Advisory Committee" shall mean any committee formed with local stakeholders to provide review of Shelter operations, enhance community relations, and provide information to the neighborhood surrounding the Shelter, local businesses, the Parties' respective staff or City Council of 231
3 either Party, and Shelter Operator and service providers.

2.12. "Shelter Operator" shall mean and refer to an experienced and qualified third- party contracted by Costa Mesa to provide comprehensive and day-to-day management and operation of the Shelter.

2.13. "Shelter Residents" shall mean and refer to homeless and chronically homeless adults located within the Program Area s of the respective Parties who receive services and reside at the Shelter.

3. TERM

3.1. General Term. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date which the last of the Parties has executed the same, which shall be inserted as the Effective Date in the first paragraph above and shall remain in full force and effect through June 30, 2026. This Agreemen t may be earlier terminated in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

3.2. Termination by Parties. Either Party may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving the other Party 30-days written notice pursuant to Section 9.2 herein.

3.3. Termination for Default. Upon the occurrence of any default, and following written notice and expiration of the time to cure as provided in Section 7.1 herein, the non- defaulting Party may, at its option declare this Agreement null and void with respe ct to the defaulting Party, in which case the defaulting party shall not be entitled to the benefits and privileges of this Agreement or the Program following termination. Nothing herein shall be construed as the non- defaulting Party's exclusive remedy for the remediation of default by a Party, and the non- defaulting Party reserves the right to pursue any and all available rights and remedies at law or in equity.

3.4. Continuing Enforceability. Following the effective date of termination, the Parties shall have no further obligations or rights with respect to this Agreement, except as expressly provided otherwise herein.

4. IRVINE'S OBLIGATIONS

4.1. Irvine Per Diem Rate for Operations Costs. Upon the Effective Date, Irvine shall, at Costa Mesa’s sole discretion, have access to Costa Mesa beds for use by Irvine clients, at a cost of $163.00 per bed, per day (“Per Diem Rate”). Irvine shall make monthly payments to Costa Mesa for actual use of Costa Mesa beds, to be paid within 30 days of the close o f the preceding month. The Parties expressly agree that Irvine shall not be liable for any operational costs prior to the Effective Date.

4.2. Irvine Outreach. Irvine shall assign a designated staff member as the main point of contact for all Shelter related items, who will participate in the various weekly and monthly meetings . Irvine reserves the right to amend the designated staff member; provided Irvine shall give Costa Mesa advanced notice of any new designee. Irvine outreach providers shall provide potential client referrals and all required paperwork to Costa Mesa's Neighborhood Improvement Manager or their designee to 232
4 confirm bed availability and acceptance. Irvine will coordinate outreach within its jurisdiction and provide transportation to the shelter.

4.3. Allocation of Beds. Irvine will work collaboratively with Costa Mesa to ensure that the shelter beds addressed in this Agreement are prioritized to meet the greatest needs of both Parties.

Irvine shall, at Costa Mesa’s sole discretion, have access to Costa Mesa beds at the Per Diem Rate stated in Section 4.1.

4.4. No Subletting. Subletting of Beds will not be allowed. Irvine shall be allocated use of Costa Mesa beds to refer homeless individuals deemed by Irvine to be highest priority persons referred to the Shelter by Irvine over time.

5.0 COSTA MESA OBLIGATIONS

5.1. Operation of Shelter. Costa Mesa shall act as the lead agency with respect to the operation of the Shelter. Costa Mesa shall provide to Irvine a copy of the Operating Agreement and Management and Operations Plan, which provides the Standards of Care for the Program, which meet or exceed industry standards. Costa Mesa shall ensure that Shelter Residents referred to the Shelter by either Costa Mesa or Irvine shall receive the same level of Services, as provided for in the Operating Agreement and Management and Operations Plan.

5.2. Intake. Costa Mesa shall maintain oversight of the Shelter intake clearance process for a reservation at the Shelter, which requires clearance by either Party's Police Department or the Neighborhood Improvement Manager or their designee. Entry will not be approved for individuals with an active felony warrant, who are a registered sex offender and/or have been convicted of any arson offense, as reflected on their background check, as confirmed by Costa Mesa Police Department or Irvine Police Department prior to entry.

5.3. Shelter Resident Outcomes. The Parties agree to cooperate to build a system where outcomes related to family unification, employment opportunities, affordable housing placement and services for subpopulations (veterans, domestic viol ence, seniors and transitional age youth) are addressed through connections to the broader Countywide System of Care. The Parties agree that such system shall include provisions to exclude all non- emancipated minors from utilizing any of the Services or being housed at the Shelter.

5.4. Service Contracts. Costa Mesa will be the "contracting party" to any written agreements with qualified professional(s), service providers, and/or licensed contractor(s) ("Consultant") necessary for the development or operation of the Shelter consistent with this Agreement.

5.5. Procurement Practices. Costa Mesa shall follow its own procedural formalities and requirements for services, purchases and acquisitions relating to the Property and the Shelter.

5.6. Provision of Documents. Costa Mesa agrees to provide all relevant documents related to the Operating Agreement, Management and Operations Plan, and operating costs of the Shelter, within forty-five (45) days of request from Irvine. With respect to any additional document s, besides the aforementioned, each request will be evaluated on a case- by-case basis and may be provided at an additional administrative cost. Any document provided identified as confidential shall be maintained as such by Irvine and not released without the express written permission of Costa Mesa.

233
5 6. JOINT OBLIGATIONS

6.1. Grants and other Third -Party Funding. The parties shall work together in regional alignment on any applications for local, state, and federal funding. As the permanent Shelter on the Property is owned and operated by Costa Mesa, Costa Mesa will serve as the lead agency, working in concert with Irvine , on all applications, requests and solicitations for federal, state and/or county funding and grant opportunities, loans, and subsidies related to all costs associated with the Shelter.

Irvine agrees to cooperate in the grant application process by providing any data necessary to improve the chances of securing grant funding. The Parties will work together cooperatively to augment shelter operational enhancements whenever advantageous, with Costa Mesa as lead applicant endorsing grant applications and partnerships.

6.2. Security. Costa Mesa shall ensure that adequate security measures and policies are incorporated into the operation of the Shelter. This includes the requirement that entry to the Shelter is controlled by referral only, with no walk- up admission. Both Parties shall ensure their outreach staff provide clear direction to potential Shelter Residents on requirements for accessing the Shelter and its services, including the prohibition of walk-ups. Irvine will abide by any reasonable intake procedures and protocols established by Costa Mesa.

6.3. Long Term Housing. Consistent with the purposes of this Agreement, Irvine agrees to cooperate with Costa Mesa in providing for a regional solution to the unsheltered homeless population within the ir respective Program Area s, with the goal of transitioning Shelter Residents from the emergency shelter to long-term housing.

6.4. Community Coordination and Communication. The Parties are committed to communication with neighbors on an ongoing basis. During the Term, the Parties and the Shelter Operator will work together cooperatively and in good faith to facilitate community partnerships , generate educational or outreach materials, and engage in similar activities to promote or further the purposes of the Program. The goal of such eff orts will be to provide members of the community with opportunities to ask questions and receive information about the Shelter and the Program. Any printed or published materials relating to the Program shall be subject to approval by the Party Representatives.

a) Complaints/ Inquiries. Any community complaints and/or inquiries about the Program should be recorded and forwarded to the appropriate Party, or its designated point of contact, for prompt investigation. The Party Representatives and Shelter Oper ator shall work together to facilitate appropriate responses to customer service requests and prompt resolution of community complaints.

b) Visitors / Tours. Visits by members of the community and tours of the Shelter should be made reasonably available by Costa Mesa and will be coordinated by and through Costa Mesa Shelter staff and the Shelter Operator.

c) Coordination of Government Agencies. The Program will be operated for the public good, and successful implementation will require the partnership of various stakeholders , including the Parties, the Shelter Operator, local school districts, and other local political subdivisions and community organizations. The Parties are, and the Shelter Operator shall be, committed to working cooperatively with numerous stakeholders to serve Shelter Residents in the Program Area. The Parties and the Operator will communicate and work collaboratively with lo cal healthcare, housing, social services, and public safety departments through all stages of Program implementation, including but not limited to the implementation of the Management Operations Plan and Operating Agreement, 234
6 including ensuring compliance w ith intake and security procedures, implementation of Case Management Plans and placement in long term housing; however, Irvine shall have no obligations related to the Program not specifically addressed in the Operating Agreement, Management and Operations Plan and/or in this Agreement, unless expressly agreed to by Irvine.

6.5. Cooperation. The Parties agree to cooperate to the extent necessary in connection with ongoing administrative, grant funding, regulatory, and/or litigation proceedings, other than the Action, and similar matters which affect both Parties to this Agreement.

7. DEAULTS, AND REMEDIES

7.1. Defaults.

a) Notice and Time to Cure. The failure by any Party to perform any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement shall constitute a d efault, except as provided in Section 9.4 hereof. Except as required to protect against further damages, the non-defaulting Party may not institute legal proceedings against the Party in default unti l the non-defaulting Party has provided the defaulting Party notice of the default and the cure period has expired. The cure period for any default shall be thirty (30) calendar days a fter the defaulting Party's receipt of written notice from the non- defaulting Party that such obligation was not performed. In the case of a default which cannot be cured within the cure periods set forth in this Section, the defaulting Party shall commence efforts to cure within such time periods and shall diligently thereafte r pursue to cure the default to completion within a reasonable period of time.

b) Cooperative Resolution. During the cure period set forth in paragraph (a), and prior to pursing any remedies described in this Section, the Parties will attempt, in good faith, to find a mutually agreeable resolution through communicating with each other and attempting to resolve any substantive problems arising under this Agreement, including challenges arising from funding difficulties, and/or any difficulty with effectivel y implementing the responsibilities detailed in this Agreement.

Communication and attempts to resolve such problems and difficulties prior to pursuing remedies under this Agreement include, but are not limited to, meeting together, amending this Agreement, and/or seeking the assistance of a jointly agreed upon mediator.

7.2. Remedies. Upon the occurrence of any default, and following written notice and expiration of the time to cure, the non- defaulting Party may, at its option: declare this Agreement null and void with respect to the defaulting Party, in which case the defaulting party shall not be entitled to the benefits and privileges of this Agreement or the Program; or pursue damages or specific performance or other legal and equitable remedies the inj ured Parties may have against the non-defaulting Party in accordance with applicable law. Nothing herein shall be construed as the non -defaulting Party's exclusive remedy for the remediation of default by a Party, and the non- defaulting Party reserves the right to pursue any and all available rights and remedies at law or in equity.

7.3. Non-refund of Contributions. The payments made by all Parties pursuant to this Agreement shall be used for the Program in the manner described herein, and all Parties acknowledge and agree that the administration and operation of the Program, provides an immediate benefit to each Party and that no payments made pursuant to this Agreement shall be refunded for any reason other than as specifically authorized herein.

8. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE
235
7 8.1. Indemnity / Hold Harmless. Each Party shall hold harmless, indemnity, and defend the other Party, and its officers, employees, and agents, from and against any and all claims, suits, or actions of every kind brought for or on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to any property of any kind whatsoever and to whomsoever belonging to the extent caused by a Party's failure to fulfill any obligation of such Party arising pursuant to the performance or nonperformance o f the Party's covenants and obligations under this Agreement, and/or which result from the negligent or wrongful act of the Party, or its officers, employees, or agents. This provision requiring a Party to hold harmless, indemnity, and defend the other Party shall expressly not apply to claims, losses, liabilities, or damages arising solely from actions or omissions, negligent or otherwise, of any independent contractor providing services pursuant to a contract with any other Party. In the event of concurrent negligence of the Parties, their respective officers, or employees, then the liability for any and all claims for injuries or damages to persons and/or property or any other loss or cost which arises out of the terms, conditions, covenants or responsibi lities of this Agreement shall be apportioned in any dispute or litigation according to the California theory of comparative negligence. Costa Mesa, in contracting following the Effective Date of this Agreement with third parties for design, development, construction, equipping, maintenance and repair of the Proper ty, and operation of any aspect of the Shelter , shall require full indemnification and hold harmless clauses naming all Parties as provided for herein below. Irvine, in contracting following the Effective Date of this Agreement with any third parties relating to operation of any aspects of the Shelter, including, but not limited to, street outreach and transportation of Irvine referrals to and from the Shelter, shall require full indemnification and hold harmless clauses naming all Parties as provided for hereinbelow.

8.2. Insurance. Costa Mesa shall insure the Property and the Shelter, and shall require any Consultants, contractors or subcontractors operating or performing work at the Property, or for the Shelter, to hold policies of insurance with coverage and limits commensurate with industry standards and practices, which shall be agreed to by the Risk Managers of the Parti es. Both Parties and their respective officers, employees and agents shall be named insureds on any liability coverage. Each Party shall provide for Workers' Compensation coverage for its own employees. Each party shall obtain endorsements from its workers' compensation insurer waiving subrogation rights under its workers' compensation insurance policy against the other and their respective officers, agents, employees, and volunteers arising from this Agreement and to require each of its subcontractors, if any, to do likewise under their workers' compensation insurance policies.

8.3. Insurance for Consultants. Each Party shall require any Consultants engaged by them in conjunction with this Agreement to obtain, maintain, and keep in full force and effect during the life of this Agreement all of the following minimum scope of insurance coverages with an insurance company admitted to do business in California, rated "A," Class X, or better in the most recent Best's Key Insurance Rating Guide, and approved by each Party's Risk Manager:

a) Commercial general liability, including premises -operations, products/completed operations, broad form property damage, blanket contractual liability, independent contractors, personal injury or bodily injury with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this Agreement or shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

b) Business automobile liability for owned vehicles, hired, and non- owned vehicles, with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.
236
8 c) Workers' compensation insurance as required by the State of California. Consultants shall be required to waive, and to obtain endorsements from their workers' compensation insurer(s) waiving subrogation rights under their workers' compensation insurance policy(ies) against e ach Party, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers arising from work performed by Consultant for the Party and to require each of its subcontractors, if any, to do likewise under their workers' compensation insurance policies.

d) Professional errors and omissions ("E&O") liability insurance with policy limits of' not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,00(l.00), combined single limits, per occurrence and aggregate.

Architects' and engineers' coverage shall be endorsed to include contractual liabi lity. If the policy is written as a "claims made" policy, the retro date shall be prior to the start of the contract work.

Consultants shall obtain and maintain, said E&O liability insurance during the life of the Agreement and for three years after completion of the work thereunder.

e) In addition, the Shelter Operator shall be required to provide Sexual abuse/molestation coverage with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) in the aggregate and Cyber liability insurance with policy limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) in the aggregate covering: (i) all acts, errors, omissions, negligence, infringement of intellectual property; (ii) network security and privacy risks including, but not limited to, unauthorized access, failure of security, breach of privacy perils, wrongful disclosure, collection, or negligence in the handling of confidential information, privacy perils including coverage for related regulatory defense and penalties; and (iii) data breach expenses payable whether incurred by the Parties or Shelter Operator including, but not limited to, consumer notification, whether or not required by law, computer forensic investigations, public relations and crisis management firm fees, credit file or identity monitoring or remediation services in the performance of services for Costa Mesa and/or Irvine.

f) Endorsements. Unless otherwise agreed to by the P arties, all insurance referred to in this Section 8.3 shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:

(i) Additional insureds: "The City of Costa Mesa and the City of Irvine and their elected and appointed boards, officers, officials, ag ents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds with respect to: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant pursuant to its contract with the respective city; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Consultant." This endorsement requirement does not apply to Professional Errors and Omissions insurance required by subsection (d) of this Section 8.3.

(ii) Notice: "Said policy shall not terminate, be suspended, or voided, nor shall it be cancelled, nor the coverage or limits reduced, until thirty (30) days after written notice is given to the City of Costa Mesa and City of Irvine."

(iii) Other insur ance: "The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance, as respects the City of Costa Mesa, the City of Irvine and their officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. Any other insurance maintained by the City of Costa Mesa or the City of Irvine shall be excess and not contributing with the insurance provided by this policy."

g) Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage 237
9 provided to Costa Mesa, Irvine, or their respective officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers.

h) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.

i) Deductible or Self-Insured Retention. If any of such policies provide for a deductible or self- insured retention to provide such coverage, the amount of such deductible or self-insured retention shall be approved in advance by the contracting party. No policy of insurance issued as to which the Parties are an additional insured shall contain a provision which requires that no insured except the named insured can satisfy any such deductible or self-insured retention.

8.4. Certificates of Insurance. Consultants shall be required to provide to each Party certificates of insurance showing the insurance coverages and required endorsements described above, in a form and content approved by the Parties, prior to performing any services under the agreement.

The certificates of insurance shall be attached to any Consultant agreement.

8.5. Non-limiting. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting in any way, the indemnification provision contained in this Agreement, or the extent to which any Consultants contracted by either Party may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property.

9. MISCELLANEOUS

9.1. Approval by Party Representatives. Any term or provision of this Agreement that calls for the direction, approval, or consent of the Parties or Party Representatives, shall mean and refer to the direction, approval, or consent of both of the Party Representatives; provided that, notwithstanding anything contrary in this Agreement, Costa Mesa shall have sole discretion to approve or disprove any such action that: directly relates to the operation, management, capacity, construction, location, design, or scale of the Shelter, so long as Irvine's ability to use its allocated beds is not unreasonably impaired thereby; or any other action that, in Costa Mesa's reasonable discretion, will have a reasonably foreseeable negative material impact on residents, business, or public facilities in the area surrounding the Shelter, materially increase the intensity of Shelter use or capacity, or materially increase burdens on public services provided to said area. Except as specifically provided herein, all actions reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of this Agreement and the Program may be performed by the Party Representatives except as may otherwise be prohibited by state or federal law.

9.2. Notice. Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either Party desires or is required to give to the other Party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail to the person(s) at the address below. Either Party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in seventy-two (72) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.

CITY OF COSTA MESA CITY OF IRVINE

Cecilia Gallardo-Daly Sean Crumby
City Manager City Manager
77 Fair Drive 1 Civic Center Plaza
238
10 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Irvine, CA 92606

With a copy to:

Kimberly Hall Barlow Name
City Attorney City Attorney
3777 N. Harbor Blvd. Street Address
Fullerton, CA 92835 City, State, Zip Code

9.3. Parties as Independent Contractors. Each Party is, and at all times shall be deemed to be, an independent contractor as to the other Party. Nothing herein is intended or shall be construed as creating the relationship of employer and employee, or principal and agent, between any Party, or any Party's agents or employees. Each Party shall retain all authority for rendition of services, standards of performance, control of personnel, and other matters incident to the performance of the Program pursuant to this Agreement. Each Party, and its agents and employees, shall not be considered to be employees of any other Party.

9.4. Force Majeure. In no event shall either Party be responsible or liable for any failure or delay in the performance of its obligations hereunder arising out of or caused by, directly or indirectly, forces beyond the control of the party obligated, including, without limitation, strikes, work stoppages, accidents, acts of war or terrorism, civil or military disturbances, nuclear or natural catastrophes or acts of God, epidemic, and interruptions, loss or malfunctions of utilities, communications or computer (software and hardware) services; it being understood that the Parties shall each use reasonable efforts to resume performance as soon as practicable under the circumstances.

9.5. Survival of Terms at Termination. The provisions of Sections 3.4, 7.1-7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.5,

9.2, 9.4-9.10, and 9.12 shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

9.6. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement has been negotiated and executed in the State of California and shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction, located in Orange County, California, and the Parties agree to and hereby submit to the jurisdiction of such court, notwithstanding Code of Civil Procedure Section 394.

Furthermore, the Parties specifically a gree to waive any and all rights to request that an action be transferred for trial to another county.

9.7. Amendments/ Entire Agreement. Amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and approved by the governing body of each Party. This Agreement, and the various Exhibits referenced herein which are incorporated fully by this reference, is the entire agreement among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof: and it supersedes any prior written or oral agreements with respect to the subject matter.

9.8. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, term, or provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof: is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, such section, subsection, paragraph, term, or provision, to the extent the same is valid and enforceable, and all other remaining provisions hereof, shall remain in full force and effect, to the fullest extent possible, and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby to the exte nt such are not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement.

239
11 9.9. Interpretation. This Agreement has been negotiated at arm's length and between persons sophisticated and knowledgeable in the matters dealt with in this Agreement. ln addition, each Party has been represented by experienced and knowledgeable independent legal counsel of its own choosing or has knowingly declined to seek such counsel despite being encouraged and given the opportunity to do so. Each Party further acknowledges that is has not been influenced to any extent whatsoever in executing this Agreement by the other Parties, or by any person representing the other Parties, or both.

Accordingly, any rule or law (including Civil Code Section 1654) or legal decision that would require interpretation of any ambiguities in this Agreement against the Party that has drafted it is not applicable and is waived. The provisions of this Agreement shall be interpreted in a reasonable manner to affect the purpose of the Parties and this Agreement.

9.10. Non-Waiver of Rights and Remedies. No term or provision of this Agreement shall be deemed waived and no breach excused, unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the Party claimed to have waived or consented. Any consent by any Party to, or waiver of, a breach by the other, whether express or implied, shall not constitute consent to, waiver of, or excuse for any other different or subsequent breach.

9.11. Authority. The Parties represent and warrant that this Agreement has been duly authorized by their respective governing boards, and executed by a duly authorized representative thereof, and constitutes the legally binding obligation of their respective Party, enforceable in accordance with its terms.

9.12. Assignment. Except as otherwise expressly provided for herein, no Party shall assign any of its obligations or rights hereunder without the consent of the other Party, and any such assignment without consent shall be null and void.

9.13. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may he executed in counterparts, each of which, when the Parties have signed this Agreement, shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.

[SIGNATURE PAGE(S) TO FOLLOW]
240
12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties to this Agreement have caused the same to be executed by each of their duly authorized officers as follows:

Dated: _____________________, 2026 CITY OF COSTA MESA

By: _____________________________
Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, City Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______________________________
Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney

Dated: _____________________, 2026 CITY OF IRVINE

By: _____________________________

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______________________________

ATTEST:

By: _______________________
City Clerk
241
13 EXHIBIT A.

Legal Description

Parcel 4, in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, as per map filed in book 34, page 13 of parcel maps, in the office of the county recorder of said county.

Except therefrom the minerals, oil, gas, and other hydrocarbon substances lying be low the surface of said land.

APN/Parcel ID(s): 427-091-1.2

Commonly known as 3175 Airway Ave, Costa Mesa, California

Photographic depiction of the Property

242

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-618 Meeting Date: 1/20/2026
TITLE:

APPROPRIATION OF OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS
DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER OFFICE
PRESENTED BY: NATE ROBBINS, NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT MANAGER CONTACT INFORMATION: NATE ROBBINS, 714-754-5274
RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the appropriation of past and future Opioid Settlement Funds to subsidize eligible expenses including legal fees and opioid remediation services for people experiencing homelessness.

BACKGROUND:

In 2021, nationwide settlements (“2021 National Settlements”) were reached to resolve all opioid litigation brought by states and local political subdivisions against the three largest pharmaceutical distributors, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen (“Distributors”) and against manufacturer Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its parent company Johnson & Johnson (collectively, “J&J”).The 2021 National Settlements have been finalized, and payments have already begun. In all, the Distributors and J&J will pay up to $26 billion over 18 years, with the City of Costa Mesa’s (“City”) allocation projected at $1,839,901 over 15 years.

In late 2022, settlement agreements (“2022 National Settlements”) were announced with three pharmacy chains, CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart and two additional manufacturers, Allergan and Teva. In January 2023, each of those pharmacy chains and manufacturers confirmed that a sufficient number of states had agreed to the settlements to move forward with finalizing the agreements. The 2022 National Settlements have been finalized, and payments have already begun. In all, the pharmacies and manufacturers will pay up to $18.52 billion over 15 years, with the City’sallocation projected at $2,780,265 over 15 years.

The City’stotal projected allocation from the 2021 and 2022 National Settlements is $4,620,166. As outlined in both settlement agreements, at least 85% of the funds going directly to participating states and subdivisions must be used for abatement of the opioid epidemic, with the overwhelming bulk of the proceeds restricted to funding future abatement efforts by state and local governments. As stipulated in the 2021 and 2022 National Settlements, 15% of all Opioid Settlement Funds received shall be set aside to pay for services rendered by attorneys appointed to represent participating subdivisions (i.e., Costa Mesa) in litigation against the opioid manufacturers and distributors.

To date, the City has received a total of $1,660,063 in Opioid Settlement Funds (OSF) and has

Page 1 of 3 ends

Costa Mesa City CouncilJanuary 20, 2026

Costa Mesa City Council
January 20, 2026