Costa Mesa City Council
April 7, 2026

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

MEMORANDUM

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, City Manager

FROM: Anna McGill, Advanced Planning Manager

DATE: April 3, 2026

SUBJECT: April 7, 2026, City Council Old Business Item #1

Following publication of the April 7, 2026 City Council Agenda and attachments, staff re- reviewed the recording of the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting and determined that modifications would be necessary to accurately reflect the motion for Public Hearing Item #4. Subsequently, staff revised the proposed Mixed-Use Overlay District amendments to remove residential guest parking minimums and allow any portion (100 percent) of all usable common residential open space to be substituted by publicly accessible open space and allow any portion (100 percent) of all usable private open space to be substituted by usable common residential and/or publicly accessible open space. The impacted tables are shown below in with the changes to the changes in underline and strikethrough format.

ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

2 | Page

Attachment: Revised MUOD for Attachment 2 – Exhibit A and B to Attachment 1

1 Article 11. Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD)
13-83.50. Purpose
13-83.51. Definitions
13-83.52. Mixed-use development types
13-83.53. Application review procedures in mixed-use overlay district
13-83.54. Mixed-use development standards
13-83.55. Mixed-use compatibility standards
13-83.56. Phase mixed-use developments
13-83.57. Harbor Mixed-Use Overlay
13-83.58. Properties identified in Housing Element
(a) Purpose.
(1) The purpose of this Section is to implement the City’s currently adopted Housing Element by establishing zoning provisions for sites identified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory to accommodate the City’s lower-, moderate-, and above-moderate-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) consistent with Government Code sections 65583 and 65583.2, Subsections (c), (h) and (i). (b) Applicability.
(1) The provisions of this Section shall apply to all sites identified in the City’s currently adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory to accommodate the City’s RHNA, shown in the Housing Element as Table B-6: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA or any future adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory to accommodate the City’s RHNA.
(2) Previously Identified Sites. The provisions of this Section shall also apply to any non-vacant Housing Element Site that was identified in a prior Housing Element and any vacant Housing Element Site that was identified in two or more consecutive prior Housing Elements, consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2 Subsection (c). Such sites shall be subject to the minimum density and by-right approval standards established in this Section. Such sites are identified in the City’s currently adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory, shown as Table 2 B-6: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA or any future adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory to accommodate the City’s RHNA. (3) Exception. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to residential projects, mixed-use projects, or other projects located within the boundaries of the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan or any of the following properties identified in Table B-6 of the Housing Element by address or APN:
• 610 W. 18th St. (HE Site 96)
• 3390 Harbor Blvd. (HE Site 134)
• 3390 Harbor Blvd. (HE Site 136)
• 3315 Fairview Rd. (HE Site 137)
• 1201 S. Coast Dr. (HE Site 138)
• 3400 Bristol St. (HE Site 139)
• 685 Sunflower Ave. (HE Site 140)
• 3410 Bristol St. (HE Site 141)
• 3333 Bristol St. (HE Site 145)
• APN: 412-491-11 (HE Site 146)
• 3333 Bristol St. (HE Site 147)
• 2180 Harbor Blvd. (HE Site 194)
• 2180 Harbor Blvd. (HE Site 195)
• APN: 140-041-83 (HE Site 198)
• 3333 Susan St. (HE Site 196)
• 1590 Adams Ave. (HE Site 203)
• 1590 Adams Ave. (HE Site 204)
• 3420 Bristol St. (HE Site 205)
(c) Severability and State Law Consistency.
(1) This Section is intended to be consistent with, and shall be interpreted and applied to comply with, all applicable requirements of State housing law, including Government Code Sections 65915(c)(3), 65583 and 65583.2 as those provisions may be amended from time to time, and any successor statutes. If any provision of this Section conflicts with State law, the applicable State law shall control.
(2) If any provision of this Section, or its application to any person or circumstance, is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Section that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Section and each provision, section, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more provisions may be declared invalid or unenforceable. (d) Definitions
(1) “Housing Element Site” means any site identified in the currently adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory to accommodate the City’s (RHNA), shown in the Housing Element as Table B-6: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021- 2029 RHNA.
3 (2) “Lower-Income Household” has the same meaning as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5.
(3) “Lower-Income Housing Element Site” means any Housing Element Site identified in the currently adopted Housing Element that accommodates any portion of the City’s lower-income RHNA and subject to the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2 (h) and (i), shown in the Housing Element as Table B-6: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA. (4) “Use by Right” has the same meaning as in Government Code Section 65583.2 Subsection (i) and requires ministerial approval for multifamily housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the total number of units are affordable to lower-income households. “Use by Right” means that the review of an owner-occupied or renter-occupied multifamily residential use may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary review or approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (5) “Prior Housing Element Site” means any non-vacant Housing Element Site that was identified in the prior Housing Element and any vacant Housing Element Site that was identified in two or more consecutive prior Housing Elements. Such sites are identified in the City’s currently adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory, shown as Table B-6: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA.
(6) “Protected Unit” means any unit that, within the past five years, was occupied by a lower-income household regardless of whether the unit was deed-restricted or that was subject to an affordability covenant or rent control. (e) Supersession of Overlay
(1) For Lower-Income Housing Element Sites:
• Supersession of Other Zoning Provisions. Projects on Lower-Income Housing Element Sites shall be governed by this Section, and the provisions in this Section shall supersede and prevail over any conflicting provisions of the underlying base zone, including, but not limited to, minimum residential floor area, minimum residential capacities and densities, unit caps, trip budgets (if applicable), ministerial review and approval requirements, and permitted uses, and all other applicable zoning provisions, such as other urban plans, overlays, and specific plans, and the provisions of this Article that apply to non-Lower-Income Housing Element sites. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent an applicable Specific Plan allows for more permissive standards or greater heights, projects on Lower-Income Housing Element Sites may utilize such standards or heights. 4 • Ministerial Review and Approval. Projects on Lower-Income Housing Element Sites shall be a Use by Right pursuant to Subsection (f)(1). • Minimum Residential Floor Area. Projects on Lower-Income Housing Element Sites shall satisfy the minimum residential floor area requirements established in Subsection (g)(3).
• Minimum Residential Site Capacity and Density. Projects on Lower- Income Housing Element Sites shall satisfy the minimum residential capacity and density requirements established in Subsection (h)(1)(ii) and (h)(1)(iii).
(f) Review and Approvals Procedures
(1) Use by Right. A project on a Lower-Income Housing Element Site that provides at least 20 percent of the total dwelling units affordable to Lower-Income Households shall be processed as a Use by Right, consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2(h) and (i). Such projects shall be subject only to ministerial review to verify compliance with all applicable objective design and development standards in accordance with a Streamlined Development Review process per CMMC Title 13, Chapter III (Planning Applications). A project that does not qualify as a Use by Right shall be processed in accordance with a Development Review process per CMMC Title 13, Chapter III (Planning Applications).
(2) Subdivision. Any subdivision of a Lower Income Housing Element Site shall comply with all applicable provisions of CMMC Title 13, Chapter XI (Subdivisions) and the Subdivision Map Act.
(g) Permitted Uses
(1) Multi-Family Dwellings. Multi-family dwellings shall be permitted on all Housing Element Sites subject to the requirements of this Section. (2) Non-Residential Uses. Those non-residential uses permitted in Commercial Zones in accordance with CMMC Title 13, Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) shall be permitted as part of mixed-use projects on all Housing Element Sites. (3) Mixed-Use on Lower-Income Housing Element Sites. Mixed-use projects shall be permitted on Lower-Income Housing Element Sites so long as at least 50 percent of total floor area is provided as residential uses, consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2, Subsection (h)(1)(B).
(4) Multi-Family Dwellings on Lower-Income Housing Element Sites. Multi- family dwellings consisting of 100 percent residential uses shall be permitted on Lower-Income Housing Element Sites, consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2, Subsection (h)(1)(B).
5 (h) Development Standards
(1) Density Standards
• Maximum Densities. Maximum residential densities shall be permitted as specified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory.
• Minimum Site Capacity for Lower-Income Housing Element Sites. If the identified maximum density of a Lower-Income Housing Element Site does not allow at least 16 dwelling units on site, then the maximum density identified shall be waived, and the maximum number of dwelling units permitted shall be 16 dwelling units on site consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2 Subsection (h).
• Minimum Densities for Lower-Income Housing Element Sites. A project proposed on a Lower Income Housing Element Site shall meet a minimum density requirement of 20 units per acre, inclusive of Accessory Dwelling Units, consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2, Subsection (h).
(2) Off-Street Parking Standards
• Residential Uses. Minimum off-street parking requirements for multi- family dwellings on Housing Element sites are provided in Table 13-

83.58-A. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements.
• Non-Residential Uses. Minimum off-street parking requirements for those permitted non-residential uses on Housing Element sites shall be subject to CMMC Title 13, Chapter VI (Off-Street Parking Standards).

Table 13-83.58-A. Off-Street Parking Standards for Residential Uses TABLE 13 -83.58- A. OFF -STREET PARKING STANDARDS
Dwelling Unit Type
Minimum Off -Street
Parking Requirement
Minimum Off -Street
Guest Parking
Requirement
Studio or 1-bedroom unit No minimum No minimum
2 or more bedrooms per unit No minimum No Minimum

(3) Development Standards
• Minimum and maximum requirements for building height, non- residential intensity, setbacks, lot coverage, and open space are provided in Table 13-83.58-B. Development Standards.
6 Table 13-83.58-B. Development Standards.

TABLE 13 -83.58- B. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND BUILDING HEIGHT

STANDARDS

ADDITIONAL

PROVISIONS
Min. Residential
Density1
Max. Residential
Density2
Max. Building
Height

20 du/ac
40 du/ac
60 ft.

50 du/ac
60 du/ac 72 ft.
90 du/ac 108 ft. Or an applicable Specific
Plan, whichever is higher

NON- RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY STANDARDS ADDITIONAL

PROVISIONS
Min. FAR None
Max. FAR 1.0

SETBACK STANDARDS 3 ADDITIONAL

PROVISIONS
Front or side abutting a public
street
Min. 10 ft. and max. 20 ft.

Side or rear abutting alley 0 ft.

Side or rear abutting:
• Residential zone 20 ft.
• Industrial use
Side or rear abutting bluff crest 10 ft. Section 13-34 (Bluff-Top Development) of Chapter V of
Title 13 of the Costa Mesa
Municipal Code

LOT STANDARDS ADDITIONAL

PROVISIONS
Min. lot size None
Max. lot coverage 90%

OPEN SPACE STANDARDS ADDITIONAL

PROVISIONS
Usable common
residential open
space4
Total area equivalent to min. 30% of lot Or as provided in an applicable Specific Plan
Usable private
open space
5 Min. 100 sq. ft./unit provided on the ground
floor for dwelling units located on the
ground floor, and min. 50 sq. ft./unit
provided for dwelling units located above
the ground floor
Or as provided in an
applicable Specific Plan
7 Table 13-83.58-B. Development Standards.

TABLE 13 -83.58- B. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND BUILDING HEIGHT

STANDARDS

ADDITIONAL

PROVISIONS
Publicly
accessible open
space
Total area equivalent to min. 5% of
commercial gross floor area for
developments with a commercial gross floor
area greater than 100,000 sq. ft.

1 Based on the currently adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory. 2 Only applicable to Lower-Income Housing Element Sites and inclusive of Accessory Dwelling Units. 3 Minimum setbacks shall apply to all portions of a building or structure. Maximum setbacks along public streets shall only apply to a building or structure’s ground floor, with exceptions for driveways, walkways, and open space.
4 All or a portion of the required usable common residential open space may be substituted by publicly accessible open space.
5 All or a portion of the required usable private open space may be substituted by usable common residential and/or publicly accessible open space.
(4) Objective Design Standards forthcoming.
• The City intends to prepare and adopt design standards to further guide the physical form and character of development on the rezoned sites.

Until such standards are adopted, projects shall be subject only to the objective development standards contained in this Section. Upon adoption, the objective design standards shall apply to all projects subject to this Section and shall serve as the sole design criteria for ministerial review, consistent with Government Code Sections 65583.2 and 65589.5.
(i) Replacement of Protected Units
(1) Demolition or Conversion of Protected Units. Any project that involves the demolition or conversion of Protected Units, or that is located on a site where Protected Units were demolished or converted within the previous five years, shall comply with all applicable replacement housing, tenant protection, and right- of-return requirements under State Density Bonus Law, including Government Code Section 65915, Subsection (c)(3), and any successor statutes.

C

ITY OF COSTA MESA
DE

PARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
SU

PPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
TO
: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
F
ROM: RAJA SETHURAMAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DA
TE: APRIL 6, 2026
S
UBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. NB -3: AWARD OF THE COSTA MESA SKATE PARK EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 25 -01, AND

FINDING OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Following publication of the April 7, 2026 City Council Agenda and attachments, staff determined that the incorrect Attachment 2 of Agenda Item No. NB-3, Bid Rejection Notice, was inadvertently attached. E nclosed for your review and reference is the correct attachment.

I
f you have any further questions, please contact me or Seung Yang, City Engineer.

C Ce
cilia Gallardo-Daly, City Manager
Alma Reyes, Assistant City Manager
Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney
Seung Yang, City Engineer
Brenda Green, City Clerk
REVISED ATTACHMENT 2
RCCI Company dba Ramirez Construction
March 9, 2026

assigned to that subcontractor in the bid proposal. The Contract Documents require that all designated speciaity skate park work be perf
o
rmed by a qualified specialty contractor.

Under California subcontractor listing requirements, when required work is not properly listed, the bidder is deemed to perform that work with its own forces. RCCI is not qualified to perform the specialty skate park work, and the incomplete subcontractor listing constitutes a material non-compliance with the bidding requirements.

4. Insufficient References: RCCI provided a reference list identifying prior projects and associated contact information; however, the listed references were either unreachable or indicated that they had no knowledge of RCCI or its work. As a result, the City was unable to independently verify the firm's experience and past performance on similar projects.

During the City's review of the bid, RCCI was notified of the above deficiencies and was provided an opportunity to cure certain irregularities by submitting: (1) the original bid bond, properly executed and notarized by an authorized representative; (2) acknowledgment of Addendum No. 3, along with written confirmation that all revisions were incorporated into the Total Bid Amount; (3) a written explanation regarding the specialty skate park construction work identified in the bid proposal; and (4) additional verifiable references confirming completion of similar work. RCCI failed to provide the requested documentation and confirmations. Accordingly, the bid is deemed non-responsive.

The Project is scheduled for presentation to the City Council at 6:00 p.m. on April 7, 2026, for award to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. City staff will recommend the rejection of RCCl's bid for the reasons identified above.

If RCCI wishes to protest or otherwise object to the City's determination of non-responsiveness, it must be presented at the Council Meeting and submit any written objection and/or supporting evidence to the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, on or before March 31, 2026.

Sincerely,
Seung Yang
City Engineer
c: Raja Sethuraman, Public Works Director
Irina Gurovich, Associate Engineer
Tarquin Preziosi, Assistant City Attorney
File
1 DEVELOPMENT

IMPACT FEE

NEXUS STUDY UPDATE

STORM DRAINAGE IMPACT FEE
April 7, 2026

2  Last version of Storm Drain Master Plan (and associated drainage fees) were approved by City Council in 2006.
 Phase 1 of Current Storm Drain Master Plan Update - Approved and accepted by City Council on October 15, 2024. Comprised of two reports:
• Existing Conditions Assessment Report (ECAR) – identification and study of existing drainage conditions.
• Proposed Drainage & Water Quality Improvements Report - recommended storm drain and water quality improvements throughout the City.

BACKGROUND/HISTORY

3  Phase 1 - ECAR with Proposed Drainage & Water
Quality Improvement Reports: ranking and
identification of $100 Million in Storm Drain
Improvements.
 Phase 2 - Storm Drainage Impact Fee Nexus Study:
facilitates drainage fee update and establishment of
Storm Drain Capital Improvement Program.

COMPLETE

STORM DRAIN SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
4 Development Impact Fees (DIFs) are fees imposed by a local government on New Development or Significant Re- development projects to ensure public services and infrastructure will be sufficient to serve New Development or Significant Re-development.
 Governing law for DIFs is Assembly Bill 1600 (Mitigation Fee Act) (GC 66000)  Fees are established on New Development or Significant Re-development’s fair share based on a rational nexus test  DIFs are a one-time fee on New Development or Significant Re-development to mitigate their impacts  Only includes cost attributable to New Development or Significant Re-development  Fees can only fund capital costs
 Fees cannot fund existing deficiencies, ongoing maintenance, or salaries (except fee administration)  Funds must be used for the projects for which they were intended  AB602 (July 2022) made several amendments to state law to fees and fee studies  Encourages Jurisdictions to charge fees on residential land uses per square foot but fees can remain per acre or per unit if the Jurisdiction makes three additional findings detailing why a fee per square foot is not appropriate
 Nexus Study must identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is necessary  Requires that the Jurisdiction includes a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as part of the Nexus Study  Nexus Study updated every 8 years

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (DIFS)

OVERVIEW
5 NEXUS STUDY PURPOSE
• This report updates the Storm Drainage Impact Fee to provide partial funding for the facilities identified in the newly adopted master plan.
• Satisfy AB 1600 Nexus requirements, AB 602 guidance, and provide the necessary technical analysis to support the adoption of the updated fees.
• Makes additional required findings to collect fees on a per acre basis. • The fees will be effective 60 days after the City’s final action establishing and authorizing the collection of the fees.
6 EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE FEE
(EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2009)
Land Use Fee per Acre
Low Density Residential 6,283$
Medium Density Residential 7,539$
High Density Residential 10,052$
Commercial 11,309$
Industrial 11,309$

THE FEE PAID BY DEVELOPMENT IS THE

TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE CITYWIDE

STORM DRAINAGE FEE AND ANY

APPLICABLE SUB-WATERSHED FEE
7 EXISTING SUB-WATERSHED DRAINAGE FEE
(EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2009)

THE FEE PAID BY DEVELOPMENT IS THE

TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE CITYWIDE

STORM DRAINAGE FEE AND ANY

APPLICABLE SUB-WATERSHED FEE
Sub-Watershed Fee per Acre
Area 1 1,639$
Area 3 17,567$
Area 4 9,529$
Area 5 17,099$
Area 6 5,052$
Area 7 17,572$
Area 8 27,044$
Area 9 5,356$
Area 10 12,873$
Area 11 20,162$
Area 12 11,936$
Area 13 10,220$
Area 14 20,393$
Area 15 17,473$
Area 16 3,303$
Area 17 7,783$
Area 27 2,548$

8 Breaks storm drainage fee into two distinct drainage
basins based on the ultimate outfall of the runoff.

Eliminates the collection of the sub-watershed fees.

Updates planned projects and cost estimates
based on the 2024 Storm Drainage Master Plan
prepared by Q3.
3 1
2 CHANGES TO

THE FEE

PROGRAM
Evaluates existing land uses and future land uses
to determine the net increase in impervious area.

Complies with current legislative requirements
including AB 602.
4 9

SANTA ANA WATERSHED COST

PER IMPERVIOUS ACRE
Description Value
Estimated Future Santa Ana Watershed Project Costs (1)
North Zone 10,885,314$
West Zone 24,860,448$
Regional Water Quality Projects 9,165,900$
Corrugated Metal Pipe Replacement 2,644,040$
Total Santa Ana Watershed Storm Drainage Improvements 47,555,701$ Existing Pipes (2) (3) 155,510,829$
Total Santa Ana Watershed System Value 203,066,531$
Total Impervious Acres at Buildout 1,941.74
Maximum Justifiable fee per Impervious Acre 104,580$
Notes:
1 2
3 Source:

City of Costa Mesa Public Works Department.

City of Costa Mesa 2024 Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared by Q3.

Ex isting storm drainage pipe diameters and lengths deriv ed from the City of Costa Mesa's GIS Database maintained by the Public Works Department.

Future facilities and associated costs deriv ed from the City of Costa Mesa 2024 Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared by Ex isting facilities costs per unit deriv ed from the City of Costa Mesa 2024 Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared by Q3. 10 SANTA ANA WATERSHED MAXIMUM

JUSTIFIABLE FEE

FEE PER ACRE BASED ON

THE DEVELOPMENT OF
VACANT LAND.

Land Use
Fee Per Impervious
Acre
Impervious
Factor Fee per Acre
Administration
Fee (5%)
Total Fee per
Acre
Fee Per Impervious Acre 104,580$ 1.00 104,580$ 5,229$ 109,809$ Residential
Low Density Residential 104,580$ 0.50 52,290$ 2,615$ 54,905$ Medium Density Residential 104,580$ 0.70 73,206$ 3,660$ 76,866$ High Density Residential 104,580$ 0.80 83,664$ 4,183$ 87,847$ Non-Residential
Commercial 104,580$ 0.90 94,122$ 4,706$ 98,828$ Industrial 104,580$ 0.90 94,122$ 4,706$ 98,828$ 11 SANTA ANA WATERSHED

ANTICIPATED REVENUE COLLECTION AT
CITY BUILDOUT:

TOTAL ANTICIPATED FEE

REVENUE MAY DIFFER

SLIGHTLY FROM COST

ATTRIBUTABLE TO FEE

PROGRAM DUE TO
ROUNDING.

Description Value
Total Improvements to be Funded
North Zone 10,885,314$
West Zone 24,860,448$
Regional Water Quality Projects 9,165,900$
Corrugated Metal Pipe Replacement 2,644,040$
Less: Fund Balance (197,347)$
Total Santa Ana Watershed Storm Drainage Improvements 47,358,354$ Total Revenue Anticipated to be Collected 12,134,417
Costs to be Funded From Other Funding Sources 35,223,936.86$

12 NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED

COST PER IMPERVIOUS ACRE
Description Value
Estimated Future Newport Bay Watershed Project Costs (1) North East Zone 7,748,496$
South East Zone 41,184,022$
West Zone 7,898,997$
Regional Water Quality Projects 3,374,000$
Corrugated Metal Pipe Replacement 4,793,180$
Total Newport Bay Watershed Storm Drainage Improvements 64,998,695$ Existing Pipes (2) (3) 157,034,961$
Total Newport Bay Watershed System Value 222,033,656$
Total Impervious Acres at Buildout 2,453.67
Maximum Justifiable fee per Impervious Acre 90,490$
Notes:
1 2
3 Source:

City of Costa Mesa Public Works Department.

City of Costa Mesa 2024 Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared by Q3.

Ex isting facilities costs per unit deriv ed from the City of Costa Mesa 2024 Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared by Q3.

Future facilities and associated costs deriv ed from the City of Costa Mesa 2024 Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared by Q3.

Ex isting storm drainage pipe diameters and lengths deriv ed from the City of Costa Mesa's GIS Database maintained by the Public Works Department.
13 NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED MAXIMUM

JUSTIFIABLE FEE

FEE PER ACRE BASED ON

THE DEVELOPMENT OF
VACANT LAND.

Land Use
Fee Per Impervious
Acre
Impervious
Factor
Fee per
Acre
Administration
Fee (5%)
Total Fee per
Acre
Fee Per Impervious Acre 90,490$ 1.00 90,490$ 4,525$ 95,015$ Residential
Low Density Residential 90,490$ 0.50 45,245$ 2,262$ 47,507$ Medium Density Residential 90,490$ 0.70 63,343$ 3,167$ 66,510$ High Density Residential 90,490$ 0.80 72,392$ 3,620$ 76,012$ Non-Residential
Commercial 90,490$ 0.90 81,441$ 4,072$ 85,513$ Industrial 90,490$ 0.90 81,441$ 4,072$ 85,513$ 14 NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED

ANTICIPATED REVENUE COLLECTION AT
CITY BUILDOUT:

TOTAL ANTICIPATED FEE

REVENUE MAY DIFFER

SLIGHTLY FROM COST

ATTRIBUTABLE TO FEE

PROGRAM DUE TO
ROUNDING.

Description Value
Total Improvements to be Funded
North East Zone 7,748,496$
South East Zone 41,184,022$
West Zone 7,898,997$
Regional Water Quality Projects 3,374,000$
Corrugated Metal Pipe Replacement 4,793,180$
Less: Fund Balance (249,377)$
Total Newport Bay Watershed Storm Drainage Improvements 64,749,318$ Total Revenue Anticipated to be Collected 24,600,611
Costs to be Funded From Other Funding Sources 40,148,707.00$

15 FUNDING

ALTERNATIVES

FOR CITY
SHARE
Grant Funding2
1 Storm Drainage Benefit Assessment
County Tax Measure 3
16 WHO PAYS THE FEES?
Land Use Low Density
Residential
Medium Density
Residential
High Density
Residential Commercial Industrial
Vacant Fee paid. Fee paid. Fee paid. Fee paid. Fee paid.

Low Density
Residential
No fee paid. Unless
above impervious
threshold.

Difference in fee
paid.

Difference in fee
paid.

Difference in fee
paid.

Difference in fee
paid.

Medium Density
Residential
No fee paid. No fee paid. Unless
above impervious
threshold.

Difference in fee
paid.

Difference in fee
paid.

Difference in fee
paid.

High Density
Residential
No fee paid. No fee paid. No fee paid. Unless
above impervious
threshold.

Difference in fee
paid.

Difference in fee
paid.

Commercial No fee paid. No fee paid. No fee paid. No fee paid. Unless above impervious
threshold.

No fee paid. Unless
above impervious
threshold.

Industrial No fee paid. No fee paid. No fee paid. No fee paid. Unless above impervious
threshold.

No fee paid. Unless
above impervious
threshold.

Future Land Use
Current Land Use

REDEVELOPMENT HAS

HISTORICALLY BEEN THE

CONVERSION FROM

INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL
17 FEE APPLICATION SCENARIO NO. 1

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION
 A homeowner of a 4,350 square foot
single-family residential home in the
Newport Bay Watershed is proposing to
expand their current home to add another
bedroom and restroom. The proposed
expansion is 800 square feet.
 The parcel is 8,700 square feet or 0.2
acres and is zoned low density residential.
 The existing home and proposed
additional impervious surface totals 5,150
square feet.

Lot Square Footage 8,700
Existing Impervious Square Footage 4,350
Existing Impervious Percentage 50%
Proposed Expansion Square Footage 800
Proposed Total Impervious Square Footage 5,150
Proposed Impervious Percentage 59%
Proposed New Impervious Acres Above 50% Threshold (Rounded) 0.018 Newport Bay Watershed Fee per Impervious Acre 95,015$
Storm Drainage Fee Due at Building Permit Issuance 1,710.27$ 18 FEE APPLICATION SCENARIO NO. 2

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION
 A homeowner of a 3,500 square foot
single-family residential home in the Santa
Ana Watershed is proposing to expand
their current home to add another bedroom
and restroom. The proposed expansion is
800 square feet.
 The parcel is 8,700 square feet or 0.2
acres and is zoned low density residential.
 The existing home and proposed
additional impervious surface totals 4,300
square feet.

19 FEE APPLICATION SCENARIO NO. 3

INDUSTRIAL CONVERSION TO MEDIUM DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL
 An 10,000 square foot industrial complex
in the Santa Ana Watershed is proposing
to significant redevelop into a medium
density residential complex.
 The parcel is 11,000 square feet and the
existing land use has an impervious factor
of 90% and the proposed land use has an
impervious factor of 70%.
 The property is redeveloping from a higher
density land use to a lower density land
use.

20 FEE APPLICATION SCENARIO NO. 4

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION TO HIGH

DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
 A homeowner of a 3,500 square foot single-
family residential home in the Santa Ana
Watershed is proposing to demolish the
existing single family residential unit and
construct a high-density apartment complex.
 The parcel is 21,780 square feet or 0.5 acres
and has been zoned high-density residential.
 The existing and proposed land uses are not
above the 50% and 70% impervious
thresholds.

21 FEE APPLICATION SCENARIO NO. 5

RAW LAND DEVELOPING TO MEDIUM DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL
 A raw land owner of a 21,780 square foot
lot or .5 acres is proposing to construct a
high-density apartment complex in the
Santa Ana Watershed.
 The proposed development and land use
is not above the 80% impervious
threshold.

22 JANUARY 2026NOVEMBER 2025OCTOBER 2025
• City met with Segerstroms

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM

TENTATIVE FEE ADOPTION SCHEDULE
• Stakeholders meeting
with City, South Coast
Metro, Costa Mesa
Chamber of Commerce,
and Sakioka
• City met with Building
Industry Association (BIA)
Meeting
JUNE 2026
• Fees go into effect 60 days after
adoption
APRIL 2026
• City Council Public Hearing
23 RECOMMENDATIONS:
 Adopt the 2026 Storm Drainage Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Nexus Study”) as the final component of the 2024 Storm Drain System Master Plan Update.
 Adopt the storm drain Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as provided in the Nexus Study.  Adopt Resolution 2026-XX for the updated development impact fees for storm drainage, in compliance with governing California laws AB1600 (Mitigation Fee Act) and AB 1600 (Development Impact Fees).  Introduce for first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 26-XX amending Chapter III of Title 15 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code relating to drainage and waive further readings.  Authorize staff to implement the updated fees sixty (60) days after adoption, in compliance with AB 1600 (Mitigation Fee Act).
24 THANK YOU
25 BACKUP SLIDES
26 SANTA ANA WATERSHED LAND USE

EXISTING LAND USES BUILDOUT LAND USES
Land Use Acres (1)
Residential
Low Density Residential 1,430.74
Medium Density Residential 522.99
High Density Residential 3.26
Non-Residential
Commercial 574.12
Industrial 249.92
Notes:
1 Ex isting Land Uses is the Santa Ana Watershed w ere prov ided by the City 's Community Dev elopment Department.

Land Use Acres (1)
Residential
Low Density Residential 1,374.18
Medium Density Residential 272.82
High Density Residential 357.17
Non-Residential
Commercial 375.63
Industrial 488.74
Notes:
1 Future Land Uses is the Santa Ana Watershed w ere deriv ed from the City of Costa Mesa 2035 General Plan, the City of Costa Mesa Housing Element and the Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared by Q3.
27 SANTA ANA

WATERSHED FUTURE

IMPROVEMENTS
Facility Location Total Cost (1)
North Zone
Harbor Blvd. Line N1 Install 24 & 36 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 1,511,757.88$ Watson Avenue Line N2 Install 18-inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 1,760,864.86$ McKinley Way Line N3 Install 18, 30, & 36 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 3,708,777.44$ Wimbledon Way Line N4 Install 18 & 36 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 1,656,265.63$ Iowa Street (Inlets Only) - East Side Line N4 Install 18-inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 450,234.92$ Gisler Ave Line N6 Install 18-inch RCP 613,751.14$
Iowa Street - West Side Line N7 Catch Basin Inlets (28' L) 75,387.50$ Mesa Verde Dr. Line N8 Install 18-inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 1,038,999.40$ Kornat Drive Line N9 Catch Basin Inlets (21'L) 69,275.00$ Subtotal North Zone Storm Drainage Improvements 10,885,313.76$ West Zone
Fairview Park, Upper Canyon SD. Line W1 Install 18-inch RCP 1,238,096.25$ Canyon Storm Drain Line W2 Install 24, 36 & 48 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 3,253,575.16$ East Canyon Park Line W3 Install 18, 24 & 36 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 1,274,215.81$ 16th St./Newport Blvd. Line W6 Install 30-inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 1,098,031.03$ 19th & 18th Street SD Line W7 & W8 Install 18-inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 2,381,577.96$ Fairview Channel South Model Line W9 Install 18, 24, 42, & 48 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 12,820,545.93$ West of Harbor Blvd. Line W10 Install 18 & 24 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 1,099,321.26$ North of Fairview Channel Line W11 Install 18, 24, & 48 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 1,695,084.29$ Subtotal West Zone Storm Drainage Improvements 24,860,447.68$ Regional Stormwater Quality Improvements
Wilson Park Water Quality Improvements to Meet MS4 Regulations 2,538,000.00$ Canyon Park Water Quality Improvements to Meet MS4 Regulations 6,067,000.00$ Hydrodynamic Separator - Placentia Avenue Hydrodynamic Separator 560,900.00$ Subtotal Regional Stormwater Quality Improvements 9,165,900.00$ Corrugated Metal Pipe Replacement
Various Locations (2) Replace Corrugated Metal Pipe Like in Kind to Retain Water Quality 2,644,040.00$ Subtotal Corrugated Metal Pipe Replacement Improvements 2,644,040.00$ Total Santa Ana Watershed Storm Drainage Improvements 47,555,701.44$ Notes:
1 Future facilities and associated costs are inclusiv e of a soft cost markup of 10% and are deriv ed from the City of Costa Mesa 2024 Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared by Q3. 2 Corrugated Metal Pipe Replacement costs reduced by tw o percent to account for the ov erlapping linear footage w ith upsizing projects.

Source:

City of Costa Mesa 2024 Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared by Q3. 28 SANTA ANA WATERSHED

EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
Pipe Size (1) Linear Footage Cost per LF (2) Total Cost Existing Pipes
18-Inch 13,919.55 452.52$ 6,298,840.48$ 21-Inch 2,525.83 468.17$ 1,182,523.18$ 24-Inch 13,239.98 514.22$ 6,808,320.04$ 27-Inch 3,781.03 601.94$ 2,275,937.58$ 30-Inch 6,961.12 586.22$ 4,080,717.93$ 33-Inch 4,113.73 735.70$ 3,026,470.72$ 36-Inch 11,878.54 658.21$ 7,818,543.01$ 39-Inch 766.72 869.46$ 666,634.89$ 42-Inch 15,840.09 925.60$ 14,661,646.63$ 45-Inch 1,372.10 1,003.23$ 1,376,528.33$ 48-Inch 11,721.44 1,069.59$ 12,537,100.73$ 51-Inch 4,288.11 1,136.99$ 4,875,544.47$ 54-Inch 8,291.26 1,234.14$ 10,232,569.22$ 57-Inch 1,646.98 1,270.75$ 2,092,902.12$ 60-Inch 8,228.47 1,522.10$ 12,524,591.00$ 63-Inch 3,155.51 1,404.52$ 4,431,974.15$ 66-Inch 4,029.57 1,471.40$ 5,929,112.82$ 69-Inch 1,211.02 1,538.28$ 1,862,890.30$ 72-Inch 8,141.07 1,707.23$ 13,898,643.64$ 78-Inch 2,063.60 1,738.93$ 3,588,450.80$ 90-Inch 1,622.64 2,006.45$ 3,255,749.52$ 96-Inch 3,699.29 2,140.22$ 7,917,288.78$ 114-Inch 1,912.19 2,541.51$ 4,859,848.92$ Subtotal Santa Ana Watershed Existing Pipes 136,202,829.26$ Existing Structures
Curb Inlets 509.00 22,000.00$ 11,198,000.00$ Drop Inlets 15.00 22,000.00$ 330,000.00$ Grate Inlet 26.00 22,000.00$ 572,000.00$ Inlet 11.00 22,000.00$ 242,000.00$ Headwall 6.00 8,000.00$ 48,000.00$ Junction 171.00 15,000.00$ 2,565,000.00$ Manhole 263.00 15,000.00$ 3,945,000.00$ Outlet 51.00 8,000.00$ 408,000.00$ Subtotal Santa Ana Watershed Existing Structures 19,308,000.00$ Total Santa Ana Watershed Existing Storm Drainage Improvements 155,510,829.26$ Notes:
1 Ex isting storm drainage pipe diameters and lengths deriv ed from the City of Costa Mesa's GIS Database maintained by the Public Works Department. 2 Ex isting facilities costs per unit deriv ed from the City of Costa Mesa 2024 Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared by Q3.

Source:

City of Costa Mesa Public Works Department.

City of Costa Mesa 2024 Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared by Q3. 29 NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED LAND USE

EXISTING LAND USES BUILDOUT LAND USES
Land Use Acres (1)
Residential
Low Density Residential 1,090.43
Medium Density Residential 716.04
High Density Residential 73.94
Non-Residential
Commercial 859.45
Industrial 336.34
Notes:
1 Ex isting Land Uses is the New port Bay Watershed w ere prov ided by the City 's Community Dev elopment Department.

Land Use Acres (1)
Residential
Low Density Residential 989.83
Medium Density Residential 448.11
High Density Residential 464.55
Non-Residential
Commercial 669.47
Industrial 745.45
Notes:
1 Future Land Uses is the New port Bay Watershed w ere deriv ed from the City of Costa Mesa 2035 General Plan, the City of Costa Mesa Housing Element and the Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared by Q3.
30 NEWPORT BAY

WATERSHED FUTURE

IMPROVEMENTS
Facility Description Total Cost
North East Zone
West Side Line E1N Install 51 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) and Appurtenant Facilities 3,500,456.16$ La Salle Avenue Line E2N Install 18, 24, 30, & 60 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 3,298,726.39$ Drake Avenue Line E3N Install 18 & 24 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 949,313.22$ Subtotal North East Zone Storm Drainage Improvements 7,748,495.77$ South East Zone
Santa Ana Ave. Central Line E1s Install 18, 24, 36, 48, & 72 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 18,519,864.76$ Northwest of E1s Line E2s Install 18, 24, 36, & 42 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 3,620,480.35$ Orange Ave/ Central Line E3s Install 18, 42, 60, & 84 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 10,143,889.95$ East side of Newport Coast Line E4s Install 18, 24, 36, & 42 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 5,127,020.81$ Del Mar Avenue Line E5s Install 42-inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 886,897.51$ Irvine Avenue Line E6s Install 12, 18, & 24 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 2,560,908.81$ E 18th Street Line E7s Install 12 & 18 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 324,960.21$ Subtotal Storm Drainage Improvements 41,184,022.40$
West Zone
Pomona/17th Storm Drain - Local Alternatives Line W4 Install 18 & 36 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 6,356,678.06$ East of Harbor Blvd. Line W5 Install 18 & 36 Inch RCP (w/ Surface Restoration) 1,542,318.94$ Subtotal Storm Drainage Improvements 7,898,997.00$
Regional Stormwater Quality Improvements
Lions Park Water Quaility Improvements to Meet MS4 Regulations 2,924,000.00$ Hydrodynamic Seperator - Harper Park/18th Street Hydrodynamic Seperator 450,000.00$ Subtotal Regional Stormwater Quality Improvements 3,374,000.00$ Corrugated Metal Pipe Replacement
Various Locations 2 Replace Corrugated Metal Pipe Like in Kind to Retain Water Quality 4,793,180.00$ Subtotal Corrugated Metal Pipe Replacement Improvements 4,793,180.00$ Total Newport Bay Watershed Storm Drainage Improvements 64,998,695.17$ Notes:
1 Future facilities and associated costs deriv ed from the City of Costa Mesa 2024 Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared by Q3.

Source:

City of Costa Mesa 2024 Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared by Q3. 31 NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED

EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
Pipe Size (1)
Linear Footage
/ Quantity Unit Cost (2) Total Cost
Existing Pipes
18-Inch 25,275.27 452.52$ 11,437,500.49$ 20-Inch 253.55 451.36$ 114,439.24$ 21-Inch 2,583.61 473.92$ 1,224,437.49$ 24-Inch 23,700.74 514.22$ 12,187,502.24$ 26-Inch 172.40 586.76$ 101,158.05$ 27-Inch 1,376.81 609.33$ 838,931.77$ 30-Inch 8,399.91 586.22$ 4,924,162.53$ 33-Inch 6,122.81 744.74$ 4,559,892.20$ 36-Inch 14,418.01 658.21$ 9,490,038.50$ 39-Inch 1,215.43 880.15$ 1,069,755.21$ 42-Inch 6,640.36 925.60$ 6,146,346.66$ 45-Inch 3,044.39 1,015.55$ 3,091,737.78$ 48-Inch 13,127.00 1,069.59$ 14,040,468.34$ 51-Inch 2,808.22 1,150.96$ 3,232,147.39$ 54-Inch 17,665.16 1,234.14$ 21,801,258.17$ 57-Inch 3,339.12 1,286.37$ 4,295,331.98$ 60-Inch 6,451.98 1,522.10$ 9,820,586.89$ 63-Inch 1,138.82 1,421.77$ 1,619,140.02$ 66-Inch 6,128.83 1,489.48$ 9,128,743.75$ 69-Inch 1,750.00 1,557.18$ 2,725,065.79$ 72-Inch 2,411.34 1,707.23$ 4,116,692.72$ 78-Inch 1,867.00 1,760.29$ 3,286,463.20$ 84-Inch 1,503.72 2,126.83$ 3,198,160.28$ Subtotal Newport Bay Watershed Existing Pipes 132,449,960.69$ Existing Structures
Curb Inlets 607.00 22,000.00$ 13,354,000.00$ Drop Inlets 36.00 22,000.00$ 792,000.00$ Grate Inlet 32.00 22,000.00$ 704,000.00$ Inlet 26.00 22,000.00$ 572,000.00$ Headwall 4.00 8,000.00$ 32,000.00$ Junction 279.00 15,000.00$ 4,185,000.00$ Manhole 302.00 15,000.00$ 4,530,000.00$ Outlet 52.00 8,000.00$ 416,000.00$ Subtotal Newport Bay Watershed Existing Structures 24,585,000.00$ Total Newport Bay Watershed Existing Storm Drainage Improvements 157,034,960.69$ Notes:
1 Ex isting storm drainage pipe diamaters and lengths deriv ed from the City of Costa Mesa's GIS Database maintained by the Public Works Department. 2 Ex isting facilities costs per unit deriv ed from the City of Costa Mesa 2024 Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared by Q3.

Source:

City of Costa Mesa Public Works Department.

City of Costa Mesa 2024 Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared by Q3. 32 • Storm Drainage Benefit Assessment
 Municipal Improvement Act of 1913/ Improvement Bond Act of 1915 or Benefit Assessment Act of 1982.  Restricts use of benefit assessments to projects which provide a “specific benefit” to the assessed parcels.
 The assessment must be proportional to the “special benefit” received by the parcel.  Since general benefits to the public at large cannot be assessed, may not be able to fund 100% of proposed program. (Article XIII D of the California Constitution) General benefits must be quantified. (Steven Beutzvs County of Riverside, 2010, Golden Hills Neighborhood Association vs City of San Diego, 2011)) General benefits must be funded from a source outside the assessment.  Must assign assessments to all benefitting properties, including any benefitting government owned parcels or benefitting parcels outside the assessment area. (Manteca Unified School District vs.

Reclamation District No, 17, 2017, Tiburon vs Bonander, 2009). Assessments that cannot be levied will have to be funded from a source outside the assessment. • Grant Funding
 Specific grant programs would need to be identified and evaluated to ensure eligibility.

FUNDING ALTERNATIVES

OVERVIEW
33 PLANNED FACILITIES MAXIMUM JUSTIFIABLE FEE
Land Use
Cost Per
Impervious Acre
Impervious
Factor
Fee per
Acre
Units per
Acre Total Fee
Residential (per Unit)
Low Density Residential 24,591.42$ 0.50 12,295.71$ 8.00 1,536.96$ Medium Density Residentia 24,591.42$ 0.70 17,213.99$ 12.00 1,434.50$ High Density Residential 24,591.42$ 0.80 19,673.14$ 20.00 983.66$ Non-Residential
Commercial 24,591.42$ 0.90 22,132.28$
Industrial 24,591.42$ 0.90 22,132.28$

SANTA ANA WATERSHED

NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED
Land Use
Cost Per
Impervious Acre
Impervious
Factor Fee per Acre
Units per
Acre Total Fee
Residential (per Unit)
Low Density Residential 26,299.77$ 0.50 13,149.89$ 8.00 1,643.74$ Medium Density Residential 26,299.77$ 0.70 18,409.84$ 12.00 1,534.15$ High Density Residential 26,299.77$ 0.80 21,039.82$ 20.00 1,051.99$ Non-Residential
Commercial 26,299.77$ 0.90 23,669.79$
Industrial 26,299.77$ 0.90 23,669.79$
The Planned Facilities Method was deemed to
be not preferable to the System Plan Method
for the following reasons:

1. The Planned Facilities Method is a very
conservative approach that results in less
than 10% of the necessary capital
improvements being funded.

2. Requires additional information to ensure
that existing deficiencies are not being
funded by future development.

3. The system plan method is deemed to be
the most justifiable and legally defensible
fee calculation methodology based on the
Impact Fee Nexus Study Template
published by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development.
34 Measure K
• Approved by Costa Mesa’s voters on November 8,
2022.
• Measure K modified existing City regulations to allow for development of housing in commercial and
industrial areas, while keeping residential
neighborhoods intact and revitalizing commercial
corridors.
35 SANTA ANA WATERSHED

MEASURE K PARCEL REVENUE

DISTRIBUTION

TOTAL ANTICIPATED FEE

REVENUE MAY DIFFER

SLIGHTLY FROM COST

ATTRIBUTABLE TO FEE

PROGRAM DUE TO
ROUNDING.

Description Value
Total Santa Ana Watershed Measure K Anticipated Revenue 2,323,186.25$ Total Santa Ana Watershed Storm Drainage Anticipated Revenue 12,134,417.40$ Percentage of Revenue from Measure K Parcels 19.15%
Anticipated Revenue from Vacant Measure K Parcels 2,295,345.25$ Anticipated Revenue from Residential Measure K Parcels 27,841.00$ Anticipated Revenue from Commercial and Industrial Measure K Parcels -$ 36 NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED

MEASURE K PARCEL REVENUE

DISTRIBUTION

TOTAL ANTICIPATED FEE

REVENUE MAY DIFFER

SLIGHTLY FROM COST

ATTRIBUTABLE TO FEE

PROGRAM DUE TO
ROUNDING.

Description Value
Total Newport Bay Watershed Measure K Anticipated Revenue 569,992.91$ Total Newport Bay Watershed Storm Drainage Anticipated Revenue 24,600,611.40$ Percentage of Revenue from Measure K Parcels 2.32%
Anticipated Revenue from Vacant Measure K Parcels (Commercial / Industrial) 242,856.92$ Anticipated Revenue from Residential Measure K Parcels 327,135.99$ 37 FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
• System Plan Method
 Fees calculated utilizing an integrated approach to allocate the cost of existing facilities and the costs of planned facilities to the total impervious acres in the study area. Ensures that future development pays their proportional share of the total system costs and is not responsible for rectifying any existing deficiencies.
 Harris completed the analysis using the System Plan Method and Planned Facilities Method.

The System Plan Method was identified as the preferred calculation method as it funds New Development or Significant Re-developments proportional share of the facilities identified in the Drainage Master Plan while also buying-in to the existing storm drainage infrastructure. 1 Amendments to Rezone Housing Element Sites,
Implement Housing Element Programs, and Establish
Associated Fees
City Council Meeting
April 7, 2026
2 • March 17, 2026, City Council moved to adopt an:
• Ordinance to rezone the Housing Element sites to a new section of the Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD);
o Minimum 50% residential and minimum 20 du/ac
o Modified to exclude 17 sites removed from Housing Element (and 3333 Susan Street) from MUOD
o Modified to remove minimum residential parking requirements o Modified to allow some usable common residential open space to be substituted by publicly accessible open space and for some private open space to be substituted by usable common residential and/or publicly accessible open space • Ordinance to amend Title 13 (Zoning Code);
• Ordinance to amend Title 9; and
• City Council also discussed a draft fee for review of Housing Development applications

OVERVIEW
3 Zoning Code Amendments
4 ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
Location in Title 13 Draft Amendment Summary
Ch. I, Art. 2: Definitions • Update specific definitions to meet State law Ch. I, Art. 3: Review Authorities • Replace Major Amendment with Major Modification Ch. II Zoning Districts Established • Zoning Districts Map will be amended by reference Ch. III Planning Applications • New streamline development review, including removing master plans/master plan screening/master
plan findings for the MUOD
Ch. IV, Land Use Matrix • Add employee housing, supportive housing, transitional housing, and low barrier navigation center uses
Ch. V Development Standards,
Article 11 Mixed-Use Overlay
• Add new section to the MUOD for Housing Element
sites; minimum 50% residential at a minimum density of
20 units per acre
5 ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
Location in Title 13 Draft Amendment Summary
Ch. VI Off-Street Parking Standards,
Article 1 Residential Districts
• Remove additional parking for bedroom additions
• Multifamily units with 3 or more bedrooms subject to
the same parking requirements as those with 2
bedrooms
• Reduce multifamily open and guest parking minimums
Ch. IX Special Land Use Regulations,
Article 8 Motels
• Amend a provision on termination of tenancy to comply with State and Federal laws
Ch. IX Special Land Use
Regulations, Article 15 Reasonable
Accommodation
• Removing Finding 7 and revising Findings 3, 4, and 5
to provide more certainty
Ch. IX Special Land Use
Regulations, Article 18 Emergency
Shelters
• Clarify parking requirements and remove regulations
pertaining to towing vehicles and alcohol/narcotics per State

6 ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
Location in Title 13 Draft Amendment Summary
Ch. XII Transportation System
Management
• Replace Major Amendment with Major Modification
Ch. XV Group Homes and Ch. XVI
Group Homes in the R2-MD, R2-HD
and R3 Residential Zones and the

PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-
NCM, PDC, and PDI
• Only require Special Use Permit for group homes with
an operator, remove parking requirements not required
for similar uses, and reduce noticing from 500 to 100
feet
Title 9, Article 23 Group Homes • Update Title 9 for consistency with amendments to Title 13 Ch. XV Group Homes
7 Zoning Code Amendments-
March 17th Modifications
8 MARCH 17, 2026, ZONING CODE MODIFICATIONS
Section 13-83.58(b)(3)
(3) Exception. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to residential projects, mixed-use projects, or other projects located within the boundaries of the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan or any of the following properties identified in Table B-6 of the Housing Element by address or APN:
• 610 W. 18th St. (HE Site 96)
• 3390 Harbor Blvd. (HE Site 134)
• 3390 Harbor Blvd. (HE Site 136)
• 3315 Fairview Rd. (HE Site 137)
• 1201 S. Coast Dr. (HE Site 138)
• 3400 Bristol St. (HE Site 139)
• 685 Sunflower Ave. (HE Site 140)
• 3410 Bristol St. (HE Site 141)
• 3333 Bristol St. (HE Site 145)
• APN: 412-491-11 (HE Site 146)
• 3333 Bristol St. (HE Site 147)
• 2180 Harbor Blvd. (HE Site 194)
• 2180 Harbor Blvd. (HE Site 195)
• 3333 Susan St. (HE Site 196)
• APN: 140-041-83 (HE Site 198)
• 1590 Adams Ave. (HE Site 203)
• 1590 Adams Ave. (HE Site 204)
• 3420 Bristol St. (HE Site 205)
9 MARCH 17, 2026, ZONING CODE MODIFICATIONS
Section 13-83.58(h)(2), Table 13-83.58-A. Off-Street Parking Standards for Residential Uses TABLE 13 -83.58- A. OFF- STREET PARKING STANDARDS
Dwelling Unit Type
Minimum Off -Street Parking
Requirement
Minimum Off -Street Guest
Parking Requirement
Studio or 1-bedroom unit No minimum No minimum
2 or more bedrooms per unit No minimum No minimum
10 Section 13-83.58(h)(3), Table 13-83.58-B. Development Standards

OPEN SPACE STANDARDS ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
Usable common residential
open space4
Total area equivalent to min. 30% of lot Or as provided in an applicable Specific Plan
Usable private open space5
Min. 100 sq. ft./unit provided on the ground floor for dwelling units located on the ground floor, and min. 50 sq. ft./unit provided for dwelling units located above the ground floor
Or as provided in an applicable Specific
Plan
Publicly accessible open
space
Total area equivalent to min. 5% of commercial gross floor area for developments with a commercial gross floor area greater than 100,000 sq. ft.

1. Based on the currently adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory

2. Only applicable to Lower-Income Housing Element Sites and inclusive of Accessory Dwelling Units.

3. Minimum setbacks shall apply to all portions of a building or structure. Maximum setbacks along public streets shall only apply to a building or structure’s ground floor, with exceptions for driveways, walkways, and open space.

4. Any portion of the required usable common residential open space may be substituted by publicly accessible open space.

5. Any portion of the required usable private open space may be substituted by usable common residential and/or publicly accessible open space.

MARCH 17, 2026, ZONING CODE MODIFICATIONS
11 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES
12 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES
• Establish Housing Development Review Fees
• Cost recovery for development review of certain housing projects • Draft fees provided for public awareness/notification and presented to City Council for input on March 17, 2026
Activity Description Fee Charge Basis

1. Fee to be paid for the development review
of housing projects proposing 5-29 units
$8,400

2. Fee to be paid for the development review
of housing projects proposing 30-49 units
$21,000

3. Fee to be paid for the development review
of housing projects proposing 50 or more units
$30,000 Time and materials with
minimum deposit
13 RECOMMENDATION
14 RECOMMENDATION
• Staff recommends the City Council find that the following actions statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.085(a) (Senate Bill 131); and • Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2026-XX to amend Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Planning, Zoning, and Development) to rezone Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element sites and implement specific Housing Element programs (Attachment 1); and
• Staff recommends the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2026-XX to amend Title 9 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Licenses and Business Regulations) Article 23 for consistency with amendments to Chapter XVI of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning, and Development) (Attachment 3); and
• Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-XX establishing fees for new development review processes for housing projects (Attachment 4). 15 For more information, visit:
www.CostaMesaNeighborhoods.com
Thank you!
16 • August 22, 2025 HCD letter: timely completion
of rezoning to meet statutory requirements and
obtain certification
• Path 1: New CEQA exemption allows the City
to expedite the rezoning of Housing Element
sites (Senate Bill 131)
• Path 2: rezoning Non-Housing Element
Measure K sites following the original schedule
(Fall 2026)
• Environmental Impact Report will still study
potential impacts of rezoning Measure K sites,
including Housing Element sites (Fall 2026)

OVERVIEW

City Council Meeting
April 7, 2026

APPROVAL OF A CODE OF

ETHICS AND CONDUCT
2 BACKGROUND
• Currently, the City has no established Code of Ethics and Conduct.

Various federal, state and local laws govern most financial conflicts. • On July 8, 2025, the Council discussed potential adoption of a Code of Ethics and Conduct, giving direction to staff regarding potential provisions of such a code to be considered at a future City Council meeting for approval.
• On February 3, 2026, the Council discussed a draft code of conduct (See Attachment 1) and gave staff direction to return with revised draft on April 21, 2026.

• The goal of the Code of Ethics and Conduct is to ensure public confidence in the integrity of local government elected and appointed officials.
3 BACKGROUND
• Establishing an ethics code promotes an honest, effective, and accountable city government, encouraging high standards of behavior by public officials, and assists with decision-making.
• The intent of the Code of Ethics is to achieve fair, ethical, and accountable local government for the City of Costa Mesa. • Staff has drafted a revised draft Code of Ethics and Conduct, clarifying and streamlining some of the prior provisions. Attachment 2. • Attachment 3 compares the prior version to the new version, showing changes in blackline. Attachment 4 provides a highlighted version showing some of the provisions which are partly covered by federal, state or local law.
4 The following key components are in the draft Code of Ethics and Conduct:
• Act in the Public’s Interest
• Comply with the Law
• Conduct of Members
• Respect for Process
• Conduct of Public Meetings
• Decisions Based on Merit
• Conflict of Interest
• City Allegiance and Proper Conduct
• Gifts and Favors

PROPOSED CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT
5 PROPOSED CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT
• Confidential Information
• Use of Public Resources
• Representation of Private Interests
• Advocacy
• Policy role of Members
• Independence of Commissions and Committees
• Positive Workplace Environment
• Implementation
• Compliance and Enforcement
• Statement of Commitment
6 PROPOSED CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT
• Would prohibit Council Members from appearing on
behalf of third parties before the City Council or any
subordinate body.
• Prohibits any financial interest in any contract with City. • Requires disclosure of employment or spouse’s
employment with government agency or non-profit
involved in decisions.
• In some cases, goes beyond existing state laws on
financial and other conflicts.
7 PROPOSED CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT
• Emphasizes policy role of Council and Commissions
versus administrative functions of City Manager and
subordinate employees.
• Addresses relations between Council and Commission
Members with staff, the public and other Members,
requiring civility and professionalism.
• Includes reporting, investigation and enforcement
mechanisms.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council
consider adoption of a Code of Ethics
and Conduct, or provide alternative
direction to staff.

COSTA MESA

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

COMMITTEE

ANNUAL REPORT
City Council Meeting
APRIL 7, 2026
1 2025 Committee Composition
and Meeting Attendees
Members
Andrew Barnes (Chair)
Michael Moses Nolf
(Vice Chair)
Tiia Alcazar
Alex Campoli
Farhad Khosravi
Florence Martin
Robert Morse
Joselyn Perez
Trace Yulie
Liaisons
Arlis Reynolds
Andrea Marr
Sarah Coley
City Staff
Raja Sethuraman
Paul Martin
Brett Atencio Thomas
Ramin Nikoui
Elizabeth Palacio
2 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION VISION
City Council Goals/Objectives
• Advance environmental
sustainability and climate
resiliency
• Strengthen the public’s safety
and improve the quality of life
o Implement a Safe Routes to
School Program
o Approve a plan to mitigate
collisions and injuries on
roadways
Goals of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
• Promote a user-friendly and welcoming Active
Transportation System in Costa Mesa
• Create a safer place to walk and ride a bicycle
• Integrate Active Transportation Elements into the
circulation systems and land use planning
• Promote an Active Transportation culture
• Promote the positive air quality, health, and
economic benefits of Active Transportation
• Monitor, evaluate, and pursue funding for
implementation of the Active Transportation Plan
3 Committee Meetings
 Met ten times in 2025
 Forum for public comments
 Presented community voices/issues to staff
 Advocated for City to apply pressure to
Caltrans for safety improvements
 Provided letters of support for grant
applications
 Active Transportation design review
 Advocated for road safety improvements
4 ATC Identified 2025/26 Near-Term
Goals

1. Provide active transportation education and advocacy to stakeholders (e.g., Caltrans, OCTA, NMUSD, City, County). This requires identification of specific targets and a list or matrix of activities to be conducted.

2. Develop a process for tracking progress of and updating the Active Transportation Plan within the Circulation Element. The outcome would be a list of activities, list of deliverables (e.g., recommendations to City Council) and an associated schedule.

3. Work with staff to develop a frequency and content of reporting on pedestrian, cyclist and vehicle involved collisions that will be included in the Annual Report to Council.
5 Bicycle
Count
Data
OCTA 2025
6 2023 2024
Map Source: Berkeley TIMS; Data Source: CMPD
7 2025*
*Through 9/30/25
Bicycle and Pedestrian Fatality/Injury Maps
Pedestrian and Bicyclist
Crash Results 2023-2025
Total Crashes: 456
Total Deaths: 8
Collisions Involving
Bicycle(s)
2023 – 133
2024 – 151
2025 – 112*
People, Not Statistics – Newport Blvd.

Fatalities
8 Michael McLaughlin (Newport & E. 19th) 2009
Pedestrian
David Michael Hird (Newport & Rochester) 2013
Pedestrian
Michelle Lee Lounsbury (Newport & Bay) 2013
Bicyclist
Sudi Nsengiyumva (Newport & E. 18th) 2015
Pedestrian
Misael Espinoza (Newport & W. 19th) 2015
Pedestrian
Alexandria Faith Hill (Newport & Rochester) 2016
Pedestrian
Jorge Luis Alcazar-Arellano (Newport & Ford) 2016
Pedestrian
Patrick Charles Ogara (Newport & E. 17th) 2016
Pedestrian
David Stryder Franklin (Newport & E. 17th) 2018
Pedestrian
Jose Armando Racancoj (Newport & E. 17th) 2021
Pedestrian
Richard Harold Smith (Newport & Industrial) 2022
Pedestrian
David Jason Franz (Newport & E. 17th) 2022
Pedestrian
Hani Banil Atalla (Newport & Broadway) 2023
Pedestrian
Sharen Fay Scott (Newport & Harbor) 2024
Pedestrian
Victor Anthony Coronado (Newport & E. 19th) 2024
Pedestrian
Jose Rosario Rojasmoreno (Newport & Broadway)
2024 Pedestrian
Caltrans – Reconnecting Our
Communities Study
9 The Caltrans District 12 Reconnecting Our Communities (ROC) Study is focused on improving how people move through neighborhoods impacted or divided by highways and major roadways. The study looks at ways to make walking, biking, and using public transit safer, easier, and more accessible for everyone.

Virtual community meeting was conducted March 16 to hear from the community the challenges faced getting around, and ideas for making travel safer and easier in our community.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS
10 Neighborhood Safety
Improvements
11  Del Mar Avenue
 Washington
Avenue/Gisler Avenue
All-Way Stop Sign
 Wallace Avenue/18th
Street
 Westminster
Avenue/16th Street
 West 19th Street
 Hamilton Street
 College Avenue/Watson
Avenue

Road/Intersection
Mobility and Safety
Improvements
 Adams/Pinecreek
 Fairview Road S. of Fair Dr
 Pedestrian Safety
Daylighting (Various
Locations)
 Jordan Park Crosswalk &
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
 Placentia Avenue Cycle
Track Gap Closure
 Mendoza Drive Bike Lane
12 Budgetary Accomplishment
 58% of the 2025 CIP transportation project budgets were grant funded. The city’s return on investment is
substantial
13  American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) OC Chapter
2025 Award for Outstanding
Bikeway and Trails Project
 American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) Los Angeles
Section 2 Award for
Outstanding Bikeway and
Trails Project
 Association of California Cities –
Orange County 2025 Award for
Transportation Innovation and
Mobility Solutions
14 Adams Avenue/Pinecreek Drive Intersection
Improvement Project
Project Recognition

COMMUNITY

ACTIVITIES
Walk to School Day and Bike
to School Day: Both events continue
to grow year after year!
▪14 Schools participated in Walk to
School Day
▪11 schools participated in Bike to
School Day
▪~3,200 students participated along
with Committee Members, CMPD,
Staff, NMUSD and local advocates
15 COMMUNITY

ACTIVITIES
Earth Day
TEAM SoCalCross
Cyclocross Race
Bike and E-Bike
Safety Training
World Day of
Remembrance
16 COMMUNITY

INITIATIVE
17  College Park Bike Bus
 Lillordag community
weekly bike ride
 Inconvenience Store
community bike rides
 Bike store rides

Bicycle Friendly Community
Bronze Award
18 Understanding
the E-Issue
E-Bikes
max assist speed 28 mph
Under 16, max speed 20 mph
Under 18, helmet mandatory
E-Motorcycles and the rest
Max speed >28 mph
Must meet CVC for street-legal vehicles
License plate, VIN, headlights, turn indicators, etc.
Requires Class M1 license to operate
CVC regulates safe operation of
bicycles, e-bikes, and e-motorcycles
19 COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATIONS
20 CIP
Receive ATC’s
list of
recommended
projects for
next year’s
budget
Align grant
applications
process with
CIP priorities
Collect safety
data before
and after CIP
implementation
Safety
Safe Routes to
School: Work with
Staff, Consultant,
NMUSD and
community
Increase
implementation of
red curb painting
consistent with CA
Daylighting law
AB413
Support CMPD
enforcement of
the CVC as
related to illegal
e-motorcycles,
and the safe
operation of e-
bikes
Education
Promote Active
Transportation
related actions
and projects on
City website and
social media
channels
frequently during
May - National
Bike Month
Present to the
Chamber of
Commerce the
well-documented
economic
benefits of bicycle
ridership to local
business
Other
Adopt a bike
parking ordinance
that meets APBP
standards
Implement no turn
on red light rule at
recommended
intersections
Council work
through legislative
channels to help
Caltrans improve
safety along 55/
Newport Blvd
corridor
Update the Active
Transportation
Plan
CIP Recommendations
 Receive the ATC’s list of recommended projects for next year’s budget
 Align grant application process with CIP priorities
 Collect safety data before and after safety improvement implementation so that the measures can be evaluated
21 Safety Recommendations
 Safe Routes to School: continue supporting Staff,
Consultants, NMUSD and community
 Increase implementation of red curb painting consistent with CA Daylighting Law AB413
 Support CMPD enforcement of the CVC as related to
illegal e-motorcycles, and the safe operation of e-bikes 22 Education Recommendations
 Promote Active Transportation related actions and projects on City website and social media channels frequently
during May - National Bike Month
 Facilitate presentation to the Chamber of Commerce on the well-documented economic benefits to local business of bicycle ridership
23 Other Recommendations
 Adopt a bike parking ordinance that meets APBP
standards
 Implement no turn on red light rule at additional
recommended intersections
 Continue working through legislative channels to help Caltrans improve safety along 55/ Newport Blvd corridor  Update the Active Transportation Plan
24 CHALLENGES
25 INCREASED USE OF MULTI-MODAL

TRANSPORTATION
Places a higher demand for more
Active Transportation infrastructure
(including permanent separation),
police, staff and public awareness
of new municipal code.

PACE OF PROGRESS
Mode shift to biking and walking
is good but need to make more
progress to meet ATP goals of
10% bicycle and 20% walking.

Budget constraints.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Existing staff split their time with
other job responsibilities.

Backlog of Capital Improvements
would benefit from additional PM
resources.

VEHICLES & ROAD HAZARDS
Excessive speed, DUI and
distracted driving.

April 7, 2026
City Council Meeting
Professional Services Agreement
with PSOMAS for the Fairview Park
West Bluff Restoration Project
2 Project Background
• 1998 - Bluff erosion issues identified in Master Plan technical studies.
• 2003 - Engineering evaluation report of west bluffs completed. • 2019 - Completed emergency project to construct a berm along west bluff, slowing surface erosion and reducing sheet
flows.
• 2022 - City was awarded $2.0M in State funding from Senator Min’s office for the Fairview Park West Bluff Restoration. • 2024 - City completed geotechnical and soil investigations to characterize current soil conditions and erosion rates. 3 Project Focus and Objectives
• Repair and enhance west bluffs of Fairview
Park
• Stabilize bluff slopes and address erosion
risks
• Revegetate damaged and eroded slope faces
• Enhance recreational trail safety and
preserve viewsheds
• Restore coastal bluff scrub native plant
community
• Protect existing biological resources
• Preserve significant cultural and tribal cultural
resources
• Design and plan improvements with minimal
impact to existing resources
Fairview Park
West Bluffs
4 Existing Site Photos
Aerial West Bluff View West Bluff Erosion
5 RFP Process
• City released the RFP for engineering design and environmental planning services for the Fairview Park West Bluff Restoration, RFP 25-23, on June 5, 2025.
• Interviews were held with the three proposers who responded to the RFP.

Proposers Total Score Rank
PSOMAS 2687.5 1st
Dudek 2238.55 2nd
S2SERM 2152.1 3rd
6 Consultant Selection
• PSOMAS was determined to be the most qualified consultant to perform the work.
• Factors differentiating PSOMAS from other firms:
 Strength and experience in leading complex multidisciplinary projects (geotechnical and civil engineering, biological resources management, cultural resources planning, recreational trails, habitat restoration)
 Strength of community engagement effort and intentional stakeholder consideration during public outreach
 Adaptive design approach, tailoring solutions to specific conditions of each erosion feature
• Cost is elevated due to its complexity and unique nature of the project
7 Contract Scope of Work
• Project Coordination
• Site Design Investigations
• Design Development: Plans,
Specifications, and Estimates
• Cultural Resource Management Plan
and Environmental Permitting
• Construction Documents and Bid
Package Preparation
• Environmental Documentation/CEQA
• Public Outreach and Engagement
• Bid and Construction Support

8 Recommendation

1. Award a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to PSOMAS, Inc. to provide engineering design, environmental planning, cultural resource management, and related professional
services for the Fairview Park West Bluff Restoration Project in an amount not to exceed $533,189 from April 7, 2026 to April 6, 2028 with three (3) additional one-year renewal options.

2. Authorize a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $53,319 for any unforeseen costs that may arise.

3. Authorize the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the PSA and future amendments to the agreement within City
Council-authorized limits.

City Council Meeting
April 7, 2026
Award of the Costa Mesa Skate Park
Expansion Project
City Project No. 25-01
2 Today’s Costa Mesa Skate Park

3 Today’s Costa Mesa Skate Park

4 Project Background
• Costa Mesa Skate Park is located at 900 Arlington Drive and is one of the most popular skate parks in Orange County. • The facility currently offers a skateboarding area of 15,000 square feet and features a combination of street elements, bowls and transition areas.
• The project goal is to expand the current skate park facility by approximately 19,000 square feet to ensure that it remains a top-notch and state-of-the-art skate park facility.
5 Proposed Project
• Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley earmarked $2
million of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds
for the skate park expansion.
• At the November 7, 2023 City Council meeting, David
Volz Design (DVD), with Spohn Ranch Skate Parks as
subconsultant, was selected to design the Costa Mesa
Skate Park expansion.
• DVD has previously designed projects in the City before, such as Lions Park playground.
• Spohn Ranch is a highly reputable firm and has
experience in designing prior high-profile skate parks
throughout the United States.
6 Skate Park Outreach
• Design of the Skate Park Expansion project
was initiated in early 2024.
• Community outreach events were organized by
staff, along with consultants DVD and Spohn
Ranch.
• First Community Outreach event was held at
the Skate Park on May 11, 2024 with
approximately 110 attendees present:
 Popular feedback received included:
 Adding a euro gap
 Clover bowl request
 More handrails – Flat Bars
 Pump track
 Manual pads
 Protect existing trees
 Eliminate fencing

7 Skate Park Outreach
• Second community outreach event was held on
March 12, 2025 at Davis Magnet School.
• Outreach methods included social media, facility
postings, and contacts to various skate / surf
shops.
• About 95 attendees were present.
• The concept plan was largely accepted by the
community, and the improvements were in line
with input received at the first community meeting.
• In addition, staff participated in extensive
collaboration with Orange County Supervisor
Foley’s office and stakeholders throughout the
design process. Actions included concept
refinement, sizing and features of various
elements that were reviewed and addressed in the
final plans.

8 CONCEPT VIDEO PRESENTATION
New Skate Park Flyover Video Presentation

9 Skate Park Concept Plan
• Proposed concept plan includes four major elements:
 Clover Pool
 Pump Track
 Snake Run
 Street Area
• The proposed expansion area is approximately 19,000 square feet, more than doubling the size of current skatepark. 10 Design Renderings

11 Design Renderings
12 Project Construction Procurement
• Bid Opening on January 22, 2026
• *Contractor: Elegant Construction, Inc.
• Contract Amount: $2,898,375
• Financed through:
 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds from the Office of the 5th District Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley
 Park Development Fees Fund
 Capital Improvement Fund
 Additional allocation will be requested during the FY 2026-27 CIP Budget to fund contingency and construction management
*Apparent Low Bidder: RCCI dba Ramirez Company was deemed to be non-responsive. 13 Project Construction Timeline
• Skate Park approximate construction timeline:
 Public Bid Opening – January 22, 2026 [COMPLETED]
 City Council Award – April 7, 2026
 Tentative Construction Timeline – May 2026 to April 2027  City Council Acceptance – June 2027
14 Staff Recommendations
• Make a finding of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15301 and 15304.
• Adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the Costa Mesa Skate Park Expansion and Improvement Project, City Project No. 25-01. • Reject the apparent low base bid submitted by RCCI dba Ramirez Company as non- responsive.
• Award a Public Works Agreement (PWA) for construction to the second lowest base bidder, Elegant Construction, Inc. in the amount of $2,898,375, authorize a ten percent (10%) contingency for unforeseen costs related to this project, and an additional ten percent (10%) for construction management and material testing services. • Authorize the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the PWA with Elegant Construction, Inc., and related agreements for the project within Council authorized limits.

City Council Meeting
April 7, 2026
Waste Infrastructure System
Enterprise (WISE) Agreement
2 Waste Infrastructure System Enterprise (WISE)
• City is operating under current Waste
Disposal Agreement (WDA) which
concludes on June 30, 2026.
• Negotiations through OC City
Manager’s Association (OCCMA)
began in late 2024 to address the
need for a new countywide waste
disposal agreement.
• The new agreement developed by
County is the Waste Infrastructure
System Enterprise (WISE).
• Proposed rate structure agreed by
OC Waste & Recycling and OCCMA
in February 2026.

3 Benefits of WISE
• WISE will guarantee landfill
capacity for jurisdictions that enter
into the agreement.
• Pre-negotiated rates
• Year 1 WISE rate is 38% lower than
non-contract rate.
• Optional organics agreement
• Intended to be long-term solution
addressing future needs to comply
with state policies
• 10-year initial term with an optional
10-year extension

4 Proposed WISE Rates
WISE Agreement (solid waste) Year 1: $67/ton
Year 2: $74/ton
Year 3: $81/ton
Year 4: $81/ton + CPI
Non-Contract Gate Rate (solid waste) Year 1: $92.70/ton Year 2: $100.40/ton
Year 3: $108.10/ton
Year 4: $110.77/ton
Note - current solid waste disposal rate is $43.73
5 WISE Agreement
• County is requesting all jurisdictions to approve agreement before April 30, 2026.
• Costa Mesa Sanitary District approved the WISE Agreement at their March 23, 2026 meeting.
• Potential for rate increases of between 8 to 12 percent per year for residential customers and higher for commercial customers are expected with the new WISE Agreement.
• City will collaborate with CMSD and haulers to communicate with residents and businesses on the potential rate increases. 6 Recommendations

1. Approve the WISE Agreement with the County of
Orange for municipal solid waste disposal rates and
services.

2. Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the agreement, and all related documents, on behalf of the City and make minor modifications as necessary.

City Council Meeting
April 7, 2026

APPOINTMENTS TO

VARIOUS CITY COMMITTEES

BACKGROUND
• The Committee recruitment period opened from March 3, 2026 to March 26, 2026. The recruitment also included the vacancies on the Animal Services Committee, Finance and Pension
Advisory Committee and Mobile Home Park Advisory
Committee.
• Recruitment press releases were sent on March 3, March 10,18,23, and March 26, 2026. The recruitment was also
featured across the City’s social media platforms in form of Instagram reels, Let’s Talk Costa Mesa Q & A, and the City Snapshot. A total of 25 applications were received.
3 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
• Make six (6) member appointments with a term expiration of April 2028 Appointments by Mayor Stephens, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Buley, and Council Member Pettis, and two (2) appointments by the Council Liaison; Council Member Reynolds.

1. Erik Rundlett – District 2

2. Syed Zia Hussain – District 2

3. Flo Martin – District 3 (Incumbent)

4. Michael Moses Nolf – District 4 (Incumbent)

5. Mo (Kevin) El-Ajouz – District 4

6. Andrew Barnes – District 5 (Incumbent)

7. Alyson Rutledge – District 5

8. Greg Pinney – District 5

9. Farhad Edward Khrosravi – District 6 (Incumbent)
4 ANIMAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
• Make four (4) member appointments with a term expiration of April 2028 Appointments by Mayor Stephens, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Buley, and Council Member Pettis.
• Make one (1) member appointment with a term expiration of April 2027 Appointment by Council Member Marr

1. Jody Pedri – District 1

2. Syed Zia Hussain – District 2

3. Beatriz Leon – District 3

4. Anna Marie Rodriguez – District 3

5. Barbara Bellina – District 3

6. Cara Stewart – District 3 (Incumbent)

7. Alyson Rutledge – District 5

8. Greg Pinney – District 5

9. Nicole Wiltshire – District 6

10. Randi Miller – Non-Resident; Small Business based in Costa Mesa 5 FINANCE AND PENSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
• Make one (1) member appointment with a term expiration of April 2028 Appointment by Council Member Pettis

1. Jesse Todd Hiser– District 2

2. Syed Zia Hussain – District 2

3. Jordan Johnson – District 3

4. Mo (Kevin) El-Ajouz – District 4

5. Luke Ziegenmeyer – District 5

6. Eric Vu – District 6
6 HOUSING AND PUBLIC SERVICE

GRANTS COMMITTEE
• Make four (4) member appointments with a term expiration of April 2028 Appointments by Mayor Stephens, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Buley, and Council Member Pettis.

1. Maria Castellon – District 1

2. Syed Zia Hussain – District 2

3. Andrew Kenny – District 2

4. Michael Tou – District 4 (Incumbent)

5. Katherine Stewart - District 5

6. Greg Pinney – District 5
7 MOBILE HOME PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE
• Reduce the number of Mobile Home Park Advisory Committee members to seven (7) to align with the other City Committees.
The City received one (1) application for the two (2) vacancies to be filled.

1. Jim Fitzpatrick – District 6 (Independent Citizen At-large)