27 February 2026 Costa Mesa City Council 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 RE: NB2 - 2026 Legislative Update Dear Mayor Stephens and Members of the City Council, Streets For All is a transportation and land use advocacy organization that is engaged in work that promotes sustainable multi-modal transportation solutions, street safety, and smart land use
decision
making
throughout
California.
We
are
committed
to
crafting
policies
that
allow
communities
to
benefit
everyone.
We respectfully request the City consider a SUPPORT position on two pieces of common-sense e-bike
legislation.
SB
1167
by
Senator
Blakespear
would
tighten
e-bike
definitions,
crack
down
on
mislabeling
and
false
advertising,
and
strengthen
safety
and
disclosure
requirements
for
electric
motorcycles
and
mopeds.
AB
2284
by
Assemblymember
Dixon
would
require
CHP
to
publish
and
maintain
a
public
list
of
electric
bicycles
and
products
that
violate
state
labeling
and
advertising
laws.
These bills address a growing problem facing communities across California, including here in Costa
Mesa:
the
proliferation
of
high-powered
electric
motorcycles
being
marketed
and
sold
as
“e-bikes.”
These
vehicles
often
exceed
lawful
speed
and
power
limits
and
lack
proper
safety
equipment.
This
creates
confusion
for
consumers,
enforcement
challenges
for
local
agencies,
and
safety
risks
for
pedestrians
and
people
riding
bicycles.
SB 1167 would help clarify the distinctions between legitimate electric bicycles and higher-powered
motor-driven
cycles,
ensuring
that
products
sold
as
e-bikes
actually
meet
California’s
three-class
e-bike
framework.
Clearer
definitions
and
stronger
disclosure
requirements
will
support
responsible
retailers,
protect
consumers
from
misleading
marketing,
and
improve
compliance.
AB 2284 complements this effort by increasing transparency and accountability. A publicly available
list
of
noncompliant
products
would
provide
cities,
schools,
retailers,
and
families
with
an
accessible
resource
to
identify
vehicles
that
do
not
meet
state
standards.
This
is
a
practical
enforcement
tool
that
supports
local
jurisdictions
without
imposing
new
burdens
on
city
staff.
Importantly, these measures do not restrict properly classified e-bikes, which remain a critical part
of
advancing
climate
goals,
reducing
traffic
congestion,
and
expanding
mobility
options.
Instead,
they
preserve
public
trust
in
e-bike
policy
by
ensuring
that
bad
actors
do
not
undermine
the
benefits
of
safe
and
lawful
electric
bicycles.
Costa Mesa has long demonstrated leadership in active transportation and traffic safety.
Supporting
these
bills
would
align
with
the
City’s
commitment
to
safe
streets,
responsible
innovation,
and
clear,
enforceable
standards
that
protect
residents
of
all
ages.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City Council adopt a SUPPORT position on SB 1167
and
AB
2284
as
part
of
its
2026
legislative
platform.
Thank you for your consideration and for your continued work to make Costa Mesa safer and more
livable
for
all.
Please
feel
free
to
contact
us
with
any
questions.
Sincerely, David Martinez State Policy Manager Streets For All From: debra marsteller
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Moon Park ideas
Date: Saturday, February 28, 2026 2:26:45 PM
Dear council members,
After attending the Park commission meeting last week, I recognize the upgrade needs in all of our city parks.
Moon Park also needs some more upgrades, including a working water fountain. We have had additional fencing put in as well as a change in the lighting in the last few years, but the equipment is old as is true with a number of Park facilities. My suggestion would be to move the playground equipment over to suburbia 2 park around the corner. There would be no fencing or line of sight issues at suburbia 2 as it is already flat and fully fenced on three sides.
Most of the neighbors like Moon Park and after a similar petition to take out the hills and the moon 30 years ago, the park was renamed Moon Park so we wouldn’t have to go through this every few years. So maybe add a few more trees, fix the water fountain, move the playground equipment and call it good!
It is a quirky thing to have a giant cement moon in the middle of a park, but it is our quirky park and I like it -as do most of our neighbors
Thank you for your service to the city. We are lucky to have you and appreciate your time.
Debbie Marsteller
3374 California St.
Costa Mesa
714-336-3424
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: Jennifer Tanaka
To: CITY COUNCIL; CityManager
Cc: CITY CLERK
Subject: Public Comment for March 3, 2026 Meeting
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:21:39 AM
Members of the City Council and City Manager Gallardo-Daly:
I wanted to write to you to highlight three matters that came up at the last Parks and Community Services (PACS) Commission meeting.
1. It was reported at the meeting that you received the parks assessment conducted by DVD Creative. I hope that you did, because it indicates that there is a five-alarm fire with respect to our capital spending approach to parks. Twelve neighborhood parks received a "C" rating, such that they were rated "poor" or "very poor" in at least one element. And many of these parks received poor marks in multiple elements.
These twelve neighborhood parks represent more than a third of the city's total parks.
Allowing this many parks to materially degrade suggests a systemic decision to underfund neighborhood park improvement and maintenance out of the general fund. Yes, millions of dollars of state/county funds have been concentrated in two small parks (and the skate park), and millions more of outside funds support environmental preservation at Fairview Park.
Those are nice achievements. But no state or federal funding is coming for ordinary, work- horse neighborhood parks.
The city's budget reflects its values. Our current funding approach says that we don't value our neighborhood parks and, by extension, the families and residents served by them. I beg you to fix this.
2. I was somewhat perplexed by two procedural matters that came up during the PACS meeting. First, at the end of the meeting, Chair Kelly Brown attempted to make a motion to continue the park assessment item. Director Gruner then chimed in, saying that the park assessment "was not an actual item, just an informational item, it's a special meeting where there's no action really actually to be taken by the Commission." Chair Brown responded asking, "So, this has been a study session?" And Director Gruner responded, "Correct." The exchange can be viewed here
.
With all due respect to Director Gruner, the PACS Commission meeting was labeled as a special meeting
, not a study session, and historically this distinction has had meaning (at least in the City Council context). Additionally, the agenda report had a clear recommendation of an action it wished the Commission to take, which was to receive and file. If it were a true study session, there would be no action to take at all. Additionally, labeling the agenda as a "special meeting" and inviting the Commission to "act", even in a limited way, set up the expectation for the public and for the Chair, clearly, that motions could be debated and voted on.
I would encourage city staff to be clearer in meeting agendas whether or not action is expected to be taken, in accordance with the Brown Act and the city's own practices.
3. I would also draw your attention to the fact that the agenda report for the parks assessment contained the curious statement that "there are no alternatives to be considered for this item." That is almost never the case. If the meeting were "merely informational," shouldn't the Commission have been allowed to provide direction regarding next steps or how the assessment might be improved? And if action could be taken, certainly the Commission could have declined to receive and file it?
Providing agenda reports with "no alternative" to staff recommendation seems like a bad practice even in the Study Session context. Even where there is no advisable alternative, the City Council (and by extension the PACS Commission) retains authority to debate and discuss alternatives within the scope of the agendized item. The agenda report should affirm, rather than passively deny, that authority.
In this case, neither of these latter two procedural matters make a substantive difference, and I think Director Gruner and his staff produced the agenda report in good faith. Additionally, I am under the impression that transparency, communication and adherence to the spirit of the Brown Act has markedly improved in the last few months. But I would like to continue to see that improvement by making allowable actions by the PACS Commission and other bodies much clearer in the future.
Sincerely,
Jenn Tanaka
321 Broadway
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 March 2nd, 2026
Dear Mayor Stephens and Costa Mesa City Council, Following the City Council’s vote on Tuesday, September 9th, 2025, to research the expansion of protections for tenants
in
the
City
of
Costa,
the
majority
of
the
council
supported
directing
city
staff
to
research
the
following:
1. Updating the 2024 Tenant Protection Ordinance to require notice to the City on any evictions 2. Develop a proposal for a Costa Mesa Rental Registry to systematically track all evictions 3. Establish a Network for Renters’ Solutions with a focus on improving outreach communication to the renter/landlord
population
Combined, these three actions together expand the pool of those who could be protected, give staff direction on how
to
apply
these
protections,
and
create
a
network
for
landlords
and
tenants
to
seek
resources
and
information
on
the
latest
laws
and
best
practices.
We call on the Mayor and the Costa Mesa City Council to take action and pass a rental registry to address data gaps and
transparency
on
evictions
occurring
in
the
City.
Now
is
the
moment
to
act!
Ongoing
ICE
raids
in
the
city
and
greater
Orange
County
are
having
a
negative
economic
impact
not
only
on
immigrant
communities
but
on
all
businesses.
This is leading to loss of work, which amounts to a loss of income. And in some cases, families are facing a complete loss
of
income
due
to
family
members
being
detained,
at
times
including
a
household
member
who
contributes
to
paying
rent.
Others,
out
of
safety,
no
longer
work
to
avoid
the
anxiety
and
possibility
of
being
detained
out
in
public.
Fears of losing one's housing has been a real issue here in the City of Costa Mesa for years. Now immigrant families face
the
additional
anxiety
and
reality
of
cutting
other
costs
to
meet
the
rising
rent.
At
worst,
tenants
fear
landlords
might
exploit
their
immigration
status
for
choosing
to
exercise
their
rights
as
tenants.
And sadly, unlawful evictions continue to exist where landlords either knowingly or unknowingly circumvent existing state
and
local
tenant
protections,
including
the
City’s
Just
Cause
Residential
Tenant
Protection
Ordinance.
We
have
seen
community
members
fall
through
the
cracks
of
the
City’s
current
tenant
protection
ordinance,
something
that
could
have
been
prevented
with
better
oversight.
In a City that is made up of over 60% of renters, the city has a duty to be at the forefront and be proactive in addressing
these
issues
.A
Rental
Registry
will
support
with
the
systematic
tracking
of
all
evictions
so
that
residents
of Costa Mesa no longer have to face unlawful evictions. As it is, all of the data the City has collected has been self-reported
data.
In
order
to
support
with
the
tracking
of
evictions,
the
City
must
implement
a
Rental
Registry.
A strong Rental Registry would provide overall better data and transparency to the public and City Council, and improve
communication
channels
for
both
tenants
and
landlords,
allowing
the
city
to
better
provide
updates
on
resources,
policies,
and
best
practices
that
may
impact
either.
We call on the Mayor and Costa Mesa City Council to pass a rental registry to systemically track all evictions, including
at-fault
evictions,
and
create
a
Network
for
Renters’
Solutions.
###
Roberto Herrera Christian Lopez Leadership Development Director Tenant Rights Organizer Resilience
Orange
County
Resilience
Orange
County
Costa Mesa Unidos Changing Hearts And Minds of Youth (CHAMOY)