From: Taylor Zuniga
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Moon Park Project
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2026 9:02:13 PM
My husband and I moved our family to Alabama Circle when our daughter was 4 weeks old. We are celebrating her 3rd birthday this Tuesday during the City Council Meeting.
Since then, we have also welcomed a son and improving Moon Park is so important to us. Our son goes to the park almost every day and has had to leave before because of unsafe situations.
We absolutely love our neighborhood and the community we have built. It will infinitely improve our children’s childhood and our nights and weekends to have a fun, renovated, and safe place to meet.
Thank you for your time in considering Moon Park as a priority in your parks budget.
Taylor Zuniga
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: Courtney Fletcher
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Moon Park Upgrade
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2026 9:11:06 PM
Hi,
I’m writing to ask that Moon Park is on the list of Parks to update. Our family lives in the state streets off New Hampshire Dr. We love to ride bikes over there but have found broken glass in the sand and drug paraphernalia in the park which brings a lot of concern. We have also had to continue to pass by the park a couple times because of suspicious looking individuals that were loitering there.
We LOVE the amount of grass, trees and hills that are already there but the playground equipment is due for an update, the sand needs to be removed and a fence around the park would be amazing for deterring unwanted individuals and for moms of multiples, like myself; our toddler runs off straight for the bike path or street frequently.
While I understand the historical significance of the moon, it makes it impossible to keep an eye on more than one kid at a time if they’re on the other side of it. The craters in the moon collect water that sits and gets gross (and of course the toddlers go straight for it) and we consistently find cigarette butts and sometimes drug paraphernalia in there. It would make a lot more sense (and safety) to have it removed and utilize the space for more playground equipment or a shaded rest area for parents to be able to see both sides of the park.
Thank you so much for your consideration in this. I know many of us in the neighborhood are looking forward to a renovation that would make this park safer, cleaner and a staple in our community.
Best wishes,
Courtney
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: Andrew Ball
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Moon Park Project!
Date: Friday, March 27, 2026 7:20:14 AM
Hello,
My name is Andy Ball, and I live at 3201 Oregon Avenue. I’ve long enjoyed passing through Moon Park as part of my daily walks; it’s the only park within walking distance of my home (aside from the small park on Alabama), and the trees and setting make it a highlight of my day.
Over time, I’ve also noticed that the playground equipment appears quite dated and, in some areas, in need of repair. My wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and we hope Moon Park will be a meaningful part of his childhood; a place to play, connect with other children, and grow.
I’m encouraged that the city is considering updates to the park, and I strongly support the proposed improvements. I hope the council will vote in favor of the overhaul.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best,
Andy Ball
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: Madeline Bury
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Funds for Moon Park
Date: Friday, March 27, 2026 9:10:37 AM
Dear Members of City Council,
I am writing to urge the Council to secure—and consider increasing—the proposed funding for Moon Park in the upcoming budgets. I appreciate that the proposed budget currently includes $50,000 for this fiscal year and $600,000 for next fiscal year. Please ensure these allocations remain in the final approved budgets and, if possible, expand them to complete critical improvements.
As a resident who lives one block from Moon Park and the parent of a 16‑month‑old toddler, this park is vital to my family’s daily life and to the well‑being of our neighborhood. Reliable funding will allow necessary upgrades (safety improvements, accessible play equipment, shade and seating, lighting, and maintenance) so the park can serve children, seniors, and families safely and year‑round.
I respectfully ask the Council to:
Commit to the $50,000 in the current fiscal year and the $600,000 in next fiscal year as listed in the proposed budget.
Prioritize the funds for safety, accessibility, and play equipment that serves young children and families.
Consider increasing the allocations if project cost estimates or community needs warrant it.
Thank you for your attention to this community priority. I would welcome the opportunity to speak with Council members or staff about community needs and how these funds can be used effectively.
Best,
Madeline Bury
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: BROWN, KELLY
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: STEPHENS, JOHN; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; GALLARDO DALY, CECILIA; GRUNER, BRIAN; FAUTUA, LAURA; WRIGHT,
SHAYANNE
Subject: PACS CIP Recommendation
Date: Sunday, March 29, 2026 8:32:26 PM
Attachments: PACS 3_31_26 Memo to Council.pdf
Park Assessment PDF.pdf
Parks Budget.pdf
Dear Ms. Green,
Attached please find three documents to be included with the City Council agenda for their Tuesday, March 31st CIP study session. We look forward to providing public comment at your meeting.
Best Regards,
Kelly Brown, PhD
Chair, PACS (District 5)
and Shayanne Wright
Vice Chair, PACS (At-Large)
29 March 2026
Dear Honorable Mayor Stephens and City Councilmembers, As Chair and Vice Chair of the Parks and Community Services Commission, we are writing to provide a brief
update
on
our
March
12 discussion
regarding
our
Parks
Capital
Improvement
Program
(CIP)
recommendations
for
this
upcoming
year.
As part of the assessment and recommendation process, PACS reviewed the City’s recent Parks Assessment
report–a
300+
page
document
that
outlines
park
needs–
and
conducted
site
visits
to
all
parks
identified
with
a
“C”
condition
rating
.
While
there
are
12 parks
in
this
category,
we
found
a
wide
range
in
the
actual
severity
of
conditions.
Our
recommendations
were
developed
through
a
consistent
and
analytical
approach,
taking
into
account
park
conditions,
specific
deficiencies,
proximity
to
park
deserts,
and
the
demographics
of
surrounding
communities
(identified
in
the
Open
Space
Master
Plan
draft).
In addition to synthesizing the parks assessment plan, we also applied our values matrix—particularly safety
and
maintenance,
equity
and
access,
and
community-centered
planning—in
order
to
develop
recommendations
grounded
in
both
need
and
impact.
We
believe
these
recommendations
reflect
the
best
interests
of
Costa
Mesa
while
demonstrating
a
thoughtful
and
fiscally
responsible
approach
to
prioritization.
We
look
forward
to
talking
more
about
our
values
document
at
our
April
presentation
to
City
Council.
Attached you will find a budget comparison of our recommendations alongside the draft CIP presented by staff,
as
well
as
a
map
illustrating
the
Parks
Assessment’s
“C”-rated
parks
in
relation
to
demographic
data
from
the
Open
Space
Master
Plan.
PACS Commission CIP Recommendations (as voted on March 12):
Add Marina View Park (sand replacement and sidewalks) to FY 26/27 priorities (6–0, 1 absent) Add Wilson Park (restrooms) to FY 26/27 priorities (5–1, 1 absent) Add Community Gardens ($50,000) to FY 27/28 CIP and pursue a teaching garden at Neth Park (6–0, 1 absent) Add Westside Park Development ($400,000) to FY 27/28 CIP (5–1, 1 absent) Prioritize “C” rated parks within the 5-year CIP (5–1, 1 absent) For Fairview Park and Skate Park projects , explore reducing City funding and pursuing alternative funding sources (4–2, 1 absent) Accept all other Staff recommendations as presented in the Draft CIP.
Overall, the Commission’s focus was to ensure that limited resources are directed toward parks with the greatest
safety
needs
and
highest
impact
for
underserved
communities
,
while
also
being
thoughtful
about
long-term
investment
strategy.
Thank you for your time and continued support of our work we do on behalf of Costa Mesa residents. We look
forward
to
working
closely
with
you
on
these
matters.
Sincerely,
Kelly Anne Brown, PhD and Shayanne Wright
Chair,
District
5 Vice
Chair,
At-Large
Parks and Community Services (PACS) Guiding Values
How does a governmental body make informed decisions about funding parks projects for their community? By ensuring that they evaluate potential projects in line with values that help promote community wellness throughout Costa Mesa. The Commission has identified five key values to be considered when evaluating and prioritizing park projects.
The first two values are foundational values as they stretch across all park projects, and should be understood as a keystone to other values.
1. Community-centered planning and engagement
2. Equity and access
3. Sustainability
4. Safety and maintenance
5. Creativity and innovation
Foundational: Community-centered planning and engagement Park projects that center and engage community voices create greater investment in and preservation of local spaces, result in less waste, and demonstrate that Costa Mesa government values the voices of its citizens.
Attention to: Strong communications that include ample time for outreach and thoughtful internal analysis; a multi-modal communications strategy (including opt-in text message threads alongside online and in person activities) that thinks outside the traditional closed loop of social media followers; following through on communications throughout the life cycle of a project | Proceed slow and steady – privilege processes that involve voices early, over time, and on topics that genuinely benefit from engagement. Avoid “feel good” processes that don’t knowingly lead to impactful public inclusion | Engage different demographics across the City where they are, and in the ways that they need | Attentive to language diversity at every point of contact | Utilize cross-Commission collaboration around shared project interests.
Local example of excellence: Shalimar Park.
Foundational: Equity and Access
Public parks are for everyone. Always. Decisions made for one park should be considered as part of a holistic park strategy that recognizes different needs, equitably.
Attention to: Parks that represent and reflect neighborhood needs and personality | Park project decisions based upon the Park Needs Assessment, with attention to areas with longstanding unmet needs and citywide inequities | Equipment that supports differently abled as a necessary element in park (re)designs | Signage that reflects the evolving linguistic diversity of Costa Mesa | Responds to and predicts needs around the impact of high-density housing | Recognizes the varied needs according to different economic considerations, including renters, seniors, and lower-income citizens | Supports the range of ages from birth to our most senior of citizens, with attention to particular populations, like teens, that may not always be as visible.
Sustainability
Promote and ensure the long-term environmental health for generations of Costa Mesans (people, pets, wildlife, and plants) and the land we live on as part of a climate resilience strategy that stretches across all areas of City government.
Attention to: Utilizing green technology (like solar and stormwater) as we maintain and rebuild park infrastructure | Promote education and new work processes around sustainability that utilizes local expertise like environmental organizations, and that speaks to varied community interests | Transition to using solely native and/or drought- resistant plants. Though grass may be utilized in some parks, move away from an overreliance on grass. | Increase and support indigenous wildlife (through bat boxes and butterfly gardens, for example) | Staying up to date with research regarding which trees will be able to withstand our changing climate conditions.
Safety and Maintenance
Supporting the safety and maintenance of park infrastructure requires consistent investment.
Attention to: Improving safety features like lighting and signage | Consider long-term maintenance needs and issues of durability | Incorporate appropriate landscape design and plant choices | Promoting healthy tree growth early, and consistently, to protect public safety | Address immediate safety concerns | Develop an inspection regime to help assure the safety of all park equipment | Utilize Park Ranger knowledge to mitigate hazardous activities.
Creativity and Innovation
Strive to be a leader in community parks by pushing at the boundaries of what’s possible, utilizing innovative technologies as well as time-tested knowledge and traditions.
Attention to: Continue developing Costa Mesa’s uniqueness through its parks, and embrace the city’s motto at a scale that speaks to the variety of creative hubs in the city | Utilize nature’s strengths to minimize additional/unnecessary work | Prioritize grant opportunities that fund art projects for local artists and residents to increase park ownership and pride | Recognizing that innovation often comes from collaboration, develop processes for parks that necessitate cross-Commission collaboration and learning from others | Ensure that preservation and innovation work in tandem | Consider botanical parks, and their educative functions, as a model for what can be achieved in a park space that has layers of history and experiences | Set and maintain limits for privacy- invading technologies (such as drones in parks).
PACS Park Project Evaluation Rubric (Weighted)
Value Weight Score Scale Criteria
1. Community-
Centered
Planning &
Engagement
×2 0–4 4 – Exemplary: Robust outreach (multi-modal, diverse demographics, language inclusion, follow-through, cross- Commission collaboration).
3 – Strong: Multiple outreach methods, inclusive but not fully comprehensive.
2 – Adequate: Some outreach but limited in scope.
1 – Minimal: Token outreach with little impact.
0 – Not Demonstrated: No community engagement.
2. Equity & Access ×2 0–4 4 – Exemplary: Equitable across neighborhoods; ADA elements; multilingual signage; amenities for all ages; prioritizes underserved.
3 – Strong: Considers equity and accessibility with some gaps.
2 – Adequate: General access but limited intentionality. 1 – Minimal: Accessibility addressed superficially.
0 – Not Demonstrated: No equity or access evident.
3. Sustainability ×1 0–4
4 – Exemplary: Green tech, native/drought plants, climate- resilient tree planning, wildlife features, environmental education/partners.
3 – Strong: Includes some sustainable features.
2 – Adequate: Minimal sustainability elements.
1 – Minimal: Sustainability is an afterthought.
0 – Not Demonstrated: None present.
4. Safety &
Maintenance
×1 0–4
4 – Exemplary: Safety features (lighting, signage,
inspections); durable design; proactive maintenance plan; Park Ranger input.
3 – Strong: Addressed but with gaps.
2 – Adequate: Some features, inconsistent.
1 – Minimal: Safety only when required.
0 – Not Demonstrated: Not addressed.
5. Creativity &
Innovation
×1 0–4
4 – Exemplary: Embraces creative identity; integrates art, cultural/botanical features; balances
innovation/preservation; cross-Commission collaboration. 3 – Strong: Includes creative aspects, not fully integrated. 2 – Adequate: Limited creativity, conventional.
1 – Minimal: Superficial creativity.
0 – Not Demonstrated: No innovation.
Scoring Guide
• 25–30 points = Highly Recommended
• 19–24 points = Recommended with Revisions
• 13–18 points = Needs Major Improvement
• 0–12 points = Not Recommended
DRAFT As Presented By Staff 26/27 CIP Recommendations by PACS Commission 26/27 Facilities Facilities PACS CommentsDowntown Aquatic CenterPool Gutter Grates $100,000 Downtown Aquatic CenterPool Gutter Grates $100,000ApproveSenior CenterFacility Improvements $250,000 Senior CenterFacility Improvements $250,000Approve Streets StreetsParkway & Median Improvement Program $75,000 Parkway & Median Improvement Program $75,000Approve Slush Funds Citywide Tree Maintenance$200,000 Slush Funds Citywide Tree Maintenance$200,000ApprovePark Parking Lot & Playground Rehab$100,000 Park Parking Lot & Playground Rehab$100,000ApprovePark Security Lighting $50,000 Park Security Lighting $50,000ApprovePark Sidewalk Replacement$50,000 Park Sidewalk Replacement$50,000Approve Fairview Park Fairview ParkVernal Pools Restoration $80,000 Vernal Pools Restoration $80,000ApproveMaster Plan Implementation$100,000 Master Plan Implementation$100,000Disapprove / Cut Back on Allocation Harper Park Playground Replacement$400,000 Harper Park Playground Replacement$400,000Approve Moon Park Community Outreach $50,000 Moon Park Community Outreach $50,000Approve Tewinkle ParkSkate Park Expansion $500,000 Tewinkle ParkSkate Park Expansion$500,000Disapprove / Cut Back on Allocation Total $1,955,000 Marina View Park Fill Sand $31,000Recommend to Add/Prioritize for this YearHardscape $21,000Recommend to Add/Prioritize for this Year Wilson Park Bathrooms $60,000Recommend to Add/Prioritize for this Year Total $2,067,000Difference between Staff & PACS Recs:$112,000 CIP Recommendations by PACS Commission 5-Year
Neth Park Community Gardens $50,000Add for FY 27/28
Westide Park Development $400,000Add for FY 27/28
General Policy Strictly prioritize C-rated parks
From: Emily Gavaletz
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Moon Park
Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 10:03:17 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing on behalf of Moon Park & the support I wish to show. That park is vital to our community and deserves attention! PLEASE follow through with the proposed financial commitment for this year and the following fiscal year. The children in the state streets deserve to have a safe & fun park like Smallwood. One that is up to date, not littered with drugs & homeless and is a solid part of the community.
Feel free to reach out to me with any questions or concerns Emily Gavaletz
Resident of Oregon Ave
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
Cc: CITY CLERK; SETHURAMAN, RAJA
Subject: Comment re: CIP Study Session
Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 11:49:54 AM
Dear Members of the City Council and Director Sethuraman:
I look forward to the discussion tonight regarding the 2026-2027 CIP program. I will not be able to attend tonight so I wanted to send along a few comments/notes.
1. Regarding the proposed Harper Park spending: I am, of course, very enthusiastic about the possibility that this project will move forward this year and I am deeply grateful to the Public Works staff for its support of this project so far. I spoke at the Parks and Community Services Commission on this project and I believe it had strong support from that body as well.
That said, I would like to ask that a nominal amount of additional funds, perhaps $15-25k, be allocated towards doing in-house outreach and planning for this project. I am sure you all recall that this park was temporarily separated from the NMUSD playing fields several years ago, which significantly disrupted the use of this park. If physical separation will be included in this new CIP project, I hope that the city will engage in the outreach and planning necessary to ensure that the park functions well after the project is finished and that appropriate access to field space is maintained.
As an aside, I am also very supportive of the Moon Park neighborhood receiving their CIP allocations this year and next year. Like Harper Park, Moon Park represents another neglected and overlooked neighborhood park that will always fall between the cracks of large, grant- funded projects. I hope you will continue to support them as I do.
2. Regarding the CIP program presented itself, I have the following questions/observations:
- Does City Staff take the position that continuing to defer "waived" amounts under the CAN and ITN ordinances requires a majority of the City Council, or a supermajority? I think either interpretation could be defensible, but it would be good to understand the thresholds here. - When will the City Council and/or its committee(s) receive a mid-year budget update? - Speaking of the mid-year budget update, will Staff be including a proposed amendment to the CAN/ITN ordinances, as instructed by the City Council when approving the budget last year?
- The staff report states that the "proposed General Fund allocation also takes into account staffing costs associated with the implementation of CIP projects, estimated at approximately $800,000." Can you clarify how "staffing costs" can be considered "capital asset needs" spending? And if this spending doesn't accord with the CAN ordinance text, will the City Council avail itself of the supermajority exception in Section 2-209.1(b) of the CAN ordinance?
3. Please consider setting money aside for planning to address the city's growing animal shelter problems. As reported recently in the Daily Pilot , the new Priceless Pets facility is not
going as planned. Therefore, I think it would be prudent to set aside funds in this fiscal year to fund costs associated with whatever the solution ends up being, whether it's helping Priceless Pets to finish its build out, finding an alternative provider, or some other solution. I would particularly be interested in whether neighboring cities would be interested in funding a jointly funded and managed no-kill shelter, similar to our Bridge Shelter model.
Thank you and I look forward to the presentation this evening.
Best,
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.
Adopted CIP 10-Year History
Fiscal Year Adopted Amount
2016-17 $16,057,334
2017-18 $20,934,170
2018-19 $16,972,189
2019-20 $17,597,366
2020-21 $25,812,500
2021-22 $24,566,362
2022-23 $25,312,023
2023-24 $31,081,719
2024-25 $47,901,236
2025-26 $30,457,631