City Council Meeting
October 6, 2026
115 E Wilson St (Units A – E)
Ohio House - Appeal
2 Project Location
3 Existing Development
4 Background• 2012: Ohio House begins operations • 2017: 1st Reasonable Accommodation (RA) request → Denied by Director• 2019: Planning Commission + Council uphold Director’s denial (PA-17-10)• 2022: U.S. District Court upholds City’s denial, finding no unlawful discrimination• 2023: Second RA request denied (no new facts)• 2025: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms, holding the City’s separation requirement lawful• 2025: 3rd RA request denied by Director → Appeal filed • September 22, 2025: Planning Commission upheld Director’s denial • September 29, 2025: Applicant appealed Planning Commission’s decision• December 2, 2025 through October 20, 2026: City Council continued item five times 5 Planning Commission Appeal Hearing - 9/22/2025Public Comments • Nine speakers supported Ohio House, emphasizing recovery and community benefits.
• One speaker urged enforcement of ordinances to avoid
overconcentration and legal risk.
Commission Vote
• Voted 5–1 (one absent) to uphold denial of the Reasonable Accommodation
Discussion
• Commissioners appreciated testimonies but reiterated the decision was a zoning/land-use matter and required criteria for sober living operations were not met. 6 “De Novo” Hearing• Pursuant to Costa Mesa Municipal Code Chapter 9, Appeal and Review Procedures the City Council shall conduct a de novo review. • Council may exercise independent judgment and is not limited to prior evidence.
• The Council’s decision is final.
7 Ohio House’s Reasonable Accommodation Request
• A Reasonable Accommodation request allows applicants serving individuals with disabilities to ask for relief from zoning coderequirements that would otherwise limit equal access to housing. • CMMC § 13-6 - Relief from the strict definition of “single housekeeping unit” so the Wilson Street residents qualify as exempt from the CUP requirement under CMMC § 13-323(b). • Alternatively, CMMC § 13-323(b) – A 100-foot reduction in the 650-foot separation requirement due to an existing City-permitted sober living home at 165 E. Wilson Street, located 550 feet away. If granted, they request the City reconsider its prior denial of CUP application PA-17-10 for the sober living home. 8 Single Housekeeping Unit Conflict Single Housekeeping Unit • A stable, nonprofit household whose members share meals, chores, expenses, and common areas, have some control over membership, and are not part of institutional settings—while separate leases, private entrances, locked bedrooms, or individual food storage indicate it is not a SHU.
Ohio House Is Not a Single Housing Unit
• Operates as a group home / business, hosting 30–45 transient residents plus staff. • Residents follow management-imposed rules (curfews, drug testing, mandatory meetings).
• Residents cannot control admissions; chores and household activities are contractual.• Scale and institutional oversight are inconsistent with single housekeeping unit. 9 Separation Conflict
• Located within 650 feet of another
similar use (group home, sober living home or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility). • Distance is measured from
property line to property line.
• Exceptions may be granted if the
reviewing authority determines the location will not create an overconcentration of similar facilities. 10 Reasonable Accommodation FindingsRequired Findings:
• Necessary to ensure use of a dwelling • Consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity• Necessary to allow disabled to live in a residential setting• Accommodation will not alter the City’s zoning program 11 Public NoticePursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(d), of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, three types of public notification have been completed:
1. On September 23, 2026, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project site.
2. On September 24, 2026, a public notice was posted on each street frontage of the project site.
3. On September 25, 2026, a public notice was published on the Daily Pilot newspaper.
The item was continued five times to dates certain (February 3, April 21, June 16, September 1, 2026, and October 20, 2026). A new public notice completed for October 6, 2026 City Council meeting 12 Remand to Community Development Director1. Reconsider Ohio House Reasonable Accommodation request2. Director to issue written findings regarding reasonable accommodation request on separation requirement and requests concerning Operator’s Permit conditions
3. Direct staff to initiate revision of City’s reasonable accommodation provisions to align with current State regulations
4. Following action of Director, hold public hearing for City Council reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit request
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council remand the RA request to the Community Development Director for reconsideration consistent with anticipated code amendments and updated State regulations. Additionally, notice a subsequent hearing for October 20, 2026 to reconsider the denial of the CUP in light of the Director’s decision on the RA request.Alternatives Considered • Remand this matter back to the Planning Commission
for further consideration on specific issues as identified by the City Council. • Continue the Public Hearing to make a determination on the merits. 13
14 Back-up Slides
Back-up slides
15 Site Plan
16 Floor Plan – A Through D (E is Reversed)
17 115 E Wilson Street
18 165 E Wilson Street
19 Project Background
2012:
Ohio House
begins
operations
2017:
1st
Reasonable
Accommod
ation (RA)
request →
Denied by
Director
2019:
Planning
Commission +
Council uphold
Director’s
denial (PA-17-
10)
2022:
U.S. District
Court upholds
City’s denial,
finding no
unlawful
discrimination
2023:
Second RA
request
denied (no
new facts)
2025:
Ninth Circuit
Court of
Appeals
affirms,
holding the
City’s
separation
requirement
lawful
2025:
3rd RA
request
denied by
Director →
Appeal filed
September 22,
2025:
Planning
Commission
upheld
Director’s
denial
September 29,
2025:
Applicant appealed
Planning
Commission’s
decision
20 Project Background
February 3, 2026:
City Council continued
project to the April 21,
2026 City Council
Meeting at the request
of staff
April 21, 2026:
City Council continued
project to the June 16,
2026, City Council
Meeting at the request
of the applicant
June 16, 2026:
City Council continued
project to the
September 1, 2026,
City Council Meeting at
the request of the
applicant
December 2, 2025:
City Council continued
project to the February
3, 2026, City Council
Meeting at the request
of the applicant
September 1,
2026:
City Council
continued project
to the October 20,
2026, City Council
Meeting at the
request of the
applicant
The project was
agenized for the
October 6, 2026,
City Council
meeting based on
staff’s
recommendation
and consent of the
applicant
City Council Public Hearing
October 6, 2026
2 City Council Action on September 15, 2026
Adopted Resolution No. 2026-51
• Certify the Environmental Impact Report
• Adopt Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Adopt Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Adopted Resolution No. 2026-52
• Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan
Introduced Ordinance No. 2026-08 with modifications to the Specific Plan 3 City Council Direction and Specific Plan Modifications Reduce the maximum units from 4,000 to 2,300, with no change to affordable units.
Increase the minimum acres of open space from 14 acres to 25 acres. Increase the minimum non-residential square footage from 10,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet.
Include requirement for transportation or traffic study to determine if, and when, it is necessary to construct a secondary access road. Incorporate list of 22 non-substantive text amendments presented at the hearing with modification to fruit tree item.
Direct staff to continue discussions with Department of General Services and Department of Developmental Services around Merrimac Way access and seek subsidy for site remediation.
4 Additional Specific Plan Modifications
Chapter 5: Mobility, Section 5.2.3
• Updated secondary access road to refer to new Chapter 8 application requirements.
Chapter 6: Open Space, Landscaping & Public Art, Section 6.2.1 • Add a new bullet for any lighted sports field to complete a lighting study and potential environmental review.
Chapter 8: Administration & Implementation
• Application processing updates around the secondary access road (specific plan amendment is required).
All Figures that depict the secondary access road now include the following:
• NOTE: This graphic is conceptual and represents potential roadway configurations and does not pre-commit the use of the City Municipal Golf Course for road access.
5 Phase 1: Community
Visioning
Phase 2: Selecting
a Preferred Plan
Phase 4:
Approving the
Plan
Phase 5:
Implementing the
Plan
• Community workshops
1, 2 & 3
• Creating the vision and
guiding principles
• Reviewing existing
conditions
• Exploring the land use
alternatives
• Community
Workshop No. 4 &
survey
• Draft land use and
circulation
alternatives
• Meetings with PC (3) &
CC (1) to review and
discuss alternatives
• Directed Study of a
Land Use Plan – up to
4,000 units
• Townhall
• Public can review and
comment on the drafts
• Planning Commission
recommendation on
the drafts
• City Council approves
and finalizes drafts and
certifies the EIR
Master Developer
selected by the State, who
then takes the lead:
• Begins to build out
the area
• Must comply with
plan created through
this process
• Coordinates with the
City to obtain
necessary permits
Fall 2023 to 2024 2024 to Summer 2025 2026 2026 and Beyond Next Steps
Phase 3: Drafting
the Specific plan
• Community
Workshop No. 5
Draft the Specific Plan
• Land use, open
space, design, &
circulation plans
Draft the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR)
• Air quality, noise,
traffic, etc. analyses
Late 2025
This is next!
6 Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Adopt Ordinance No. 2026-08 titled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, Adopting the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDCSP) and Amend Sections 13-20, 13-28, 13-30, Chapter V, Article 7, and Add Chapter XVIII “Specific Plans” to Title 13 of the Zoning Code, and Amend the Zoning Map to Change the Zoning Designation of the 110 Acre Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Site Located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard to Refer to the 95 Acre FDCSP and Change the Remaining 15 Acres to Institutional and Recreational (I&R).” City Council Meeting
October 6, 2026
Review of Conceptual Design for
Open Parcel Adjacent to
Shalimar Park
2 Overview
• Background on property located at 778 Shalimar Drive
• Shalimar Park Phase II outreach and engagement
• Presentation of conceptual designs
• Recommendations
3 Background
• Shalimar Park is half-acre park located in the Westside of Costa Mesa • Park renovations are currently underway
• Property acquisition of 778 Shalimar Drive
o City Council approved the $1.5 million property acquisition in FY 2024–25 o Park Expansion opportunity that double the size of the existing park o Asbestos removal and demolition of building have been completed o Site is currently being used as a staging area for the existing Shalimar Park renovation
4 Community Outreach
• City retained the services of Pat West and City Fabrick o Outreach and engagement
o Conceptual designs
• Approximately 100 participants per outreach event.
• Approximately 1,300 community votes received on park amenity preference. • Two (2) conceptual designs were presented to the community on September 3. 5 PACS Review and Recommendations
• Support Moving Project Forward
• Functional Interim Space
o Include greenery, gathering areas, natural turf, and recreational amenities o Hydration station
• Funding & Long-Term Planning
o Continue pursuing funding through the Five-Year CIP and other opportunities • Community Engagement
o Continue community engagement as design and implementation move forward
6 Recommended Park Plan
• Phase 1 – Multi-use Park Expansion
o Advance the conceptual plan to design and build for a multi-use outdoor gathering area
o Utilize available funding from the Shalimar Park Project to fund the park expansion
• Phase 2 – Future Community Center
o Maintain flexibility to incorporate a future community center and other community-serving amenities
o Pursue additional funding through future budget cycles and grant opportunities
7 Recommendation
• Staff recommends the City Council review and approve the conceptual design plan for the proposed improvement project adjacent to Shalimar Park, located at 778 Shalimar Drive
vv
SHALIMAR PARK!
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
782 Shalimar Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Conceptual Design
by City Fabrick
for City of Costa Mesa
PROJECT TIMELINE
July 2026 Jul 24th, Aug 7th, Aug 15th
Sep 2nd
August 2026
September 2026
Project Kickoff +
Site Understanding
Review existing conditions,
available site drawings,
opportunities, and
constraints.
Community
Concept
Review
(Pop-Up Round 2)
Present the two concepts
to the community for voting
and additional feedback.
Feedback + Concept
Refinement
Analyze votes and comments
from the community concept
review.
Final
Concept
Refine the preferred direction and
develop a consolidated concept based
on community feedback. The Parks
and Community Services Commission
(PACS) reviewed the concept and
provided feedback.
Understanding
Community
Priorities
(Pop-Up Round 1)
Conduct in-person engagement and online surveys to
understand prioritie.
Community
Feedback Analysis
Compile quantitative voting
results and qualitative
comments to identify key
community priorities and
design implications.
Concept
Development
Translate community
feedback into two initial park
concepts.
METHODS OF OUTREACH
• Mailer (416 households)
• Shalimar Neighborhood WhatsApp
Group
• Neighborhood Leaders Notification
• Neighborhood Posters
• Mobile Rec – Shalimar Park
• Social Media
• City Website Calendar
• City Facilities and Libraries
• Back to School Fresh Event
• Movies in the Park Event
SHALIMAR PARK SURVEY!
PARQUE SHALIMAR ENCUESTA!
Your ideas will help guide future improvements to the park.
Sus ideas ayudarán a orientar las futuras mejoras del parque.
Share your thoughts and make a difference.
AYÚDENOS A DISEÑAR EL FUTURO DEL PARQUE SHALIMAR!
HELP SHAPE THE FUTURE OF SHALIMAR PARK!
TAKE OUR 5 MINUTE SURVEY!
TOME NUESTRA ENCUESTA DE 5 MINUTOS!
SCAN THE QR CODE
TO TAKE THE SURVEY
Comparte tus pensamientos y marca la diferencia.
ESCANEE EL CODIGO QR
PARA RESPONDER LA ENCUESTA
COMMUNITY POP UP - ROUND 1
Jul 24th, Aug 7th, Aug 15th - Understanding Community Priorities
UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITY PRIORITIES
WHAT WE HEARD
WHAT WE HEARD
WHAT WE HEARD
COMMUNITY POP UP - ROUND 2
Sep 2nd - Community Concept Review
COMMUNITY CONCEPT REVIEW
Concept 1: Recreation + Future Flexibility Concept 2: Community Center + Park Connection Prioritizes active recreation today while keeping the recreation zone flat for long-term building potential.
Expands community center space while strengthening the connection between indoor programs, the lobby, and the park.
CONCEPT 1 - 39 VOTES (DOTS)
CONCEPT 2 - 26 VOTES (DOTS)
Key Feedback for Concept 1
Key Feedback for Concept 2
NATURAL GRASS + MORE TREES
Strong preference for real grass rather than artificial turf, along with additional trees and greener landscape areas.
MURALS + CULTURALLY INSPIRED IDENTITY
Incorporating murals on the community center exterior, and using culturally inspired design.
HALF COURT + SPACE FOR GATHERINGS/COMMUNITY CENTER
Many supported reducing basketball to a half court to preserve more space for events, gatherings, or a future community center.
HEALTH + SAFETY SERVICES
A first-aid office and using the community center as a cooling center.
SOCCER FIELD INTO THE MULTI-USE COURT
Strong interest in incorporating soccer into the multi-use court, including goals.
COMMUNITY ART + COLOR
Interest in community-painted murals and adding vibrant color to pathways and recreation areas.
Design Vibe for the community center
vv
THANK YOU!
City Council Meeting
October 6, 2026
Resolution Establishing New Prima Facie
Speed Limits in School Zones
2 • California Vehicle Code allows
school zone speed limit of 25
mph
• In 2025, Assembly Bill 382 bill
was signed by the Governor,
which requires reduction of
prima facie speed limit to 20
mph in school zones; effective
January 2031.
• Cities can adopt new school
zone speed limit earlier, by
resolution, reducing posted
speed limit from 25 mph to 20
or 15 mph.
Background
3 • Posted speed limit can be
reduced to 25 mph when
children are present.
• School zone speed limit
reduction yields no change
when residential street is
already posted for 25 mph.
• School zone is defined as
within 500-feet of a school
boundary.
School Zone Speed Limits
4 • Modifying school zone speed
limit to 20 mph requires lower
speed for youth safety.
• Recommended for residential
streets with current 25 mph
speed limit.
Reduced School Zone Speed Limits
5 • Establish a new prima facie speed limit of 20 mph for residential streets with existing speed limits of 25 mph that are within school zones across the City.
• Major streets adjacent to a school zone that have speed limits of 30 mph or greater will have their school zone speed limits maintained at the original limit of 25 mph until January 1, 2031, when AB 382 takes effect or subject to further consideration by the City. • The Resolution will also allow City staff to establish a lower prima facie speed limit of 15 mph for certain residential school zones.
Proposed Resolution
6 The benefits of reducing speed limits in school
zones include:
• Allows evaluation and enforcement to
consider applicability at higher speed
roadways
• Reduce crashes and severity of incident
• Fosters safer environment near schools on
residential streets for all travelers
• Aligns with Council Goals and Priorities
• Aligns with General Plan, Pedestrian Master
Plan, and Draft Safe Routes to School Plan
Note: Image Edited to show 20 mph
Objectives
7 • The City’s Transportation Services Division will identify eligible residential streets for school speed limit reductions.
• Any changes to the school zone speed limits will only take effect after school speed limit signs have been posted following the adoption of the attached resolution.
• Outreach activities include City
communications and collaboration with schools
and Newport-Mesa Unified School District staff.
• Enforcement of new school zone speed limits
will occur following a period of education for
public understanding.
Outreach and Enforcement
8 • Staff recommends the City Council adopt the proposed Resolution No. 2026-xx, establishing new prima facie speed limits within school zones in the City of Costa Mesa as permitted by the California Vehicle Code, California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and California Assembly Bill 382.
Recommendation
City Council Meeting
October 6, 2026
Fair Drive Circulation Improvements
“Fair Drive For All”
2 College Park Community Concerns • Motorist speeding on Fair Drive • Difficulty crossing at Fordham Drive • Pedestrian Travel to College Park Elementary School & Wilson Park
Project Scope • Consider traffic safety improvements
such as new paving, center medians,
enhanced bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, traffic signal modifications,
and intersection improvements.
• Evaluate north-south crossing
including Fair/Fordham intersection.
Background
3 Project Extents
4 • OC Fair & Event Center • City Hall, Police Station, Fire Station, Vanguard University
• College Park Residential Area,
Religious, Commercial Uses
• Fairview Developmental Center
& Southern Emergency
Operations Center
Corridor Land Uses
5 City staff secured $679,000 Federal
grant to plan & design safety and
mobility improvements along Fair Drive.
Multi-Phase Project
• Phase 1: Community Engagement &
Alternatives Analysis
• Phase 2: Environmental Review &
Project Design
• Future Phase: Pursue Construction
Funding & Implementation
Grant Funded Project
6 Consultant Selection & Cost
Consultant Selection • City issued Request for Proposals in June 2026. • Seven (7) proposals, with three (3) interviews in August 2026.
• Highest ranked consultant was Kimley-Horn and
Associates.
• Kimley-Horn has demonstrated experience working
on safety and complete streets projects that
accommodate all users. o Recent Engineering Design & Planning Experience with City
Project Cost • Total Cost: $863,000 ($949,300 including 10% contingency).
• Funding available in FY26/27 budget.
7 Community & Stakeholder Outreach
• Kimley-Horn’s subconsultant, Arellano
Associates, will lead community
engagement efforts.
• Many opportunities for public input:
One (1) City Council Meeting
Two (2) Active Transportation Committee
Meetings
Three (3) community workshops
Four (4) stakeholder meetings
Mobile application/web-map to gain
public input
Printed & Digital Promotional Collateral
8 Project Benefits • Improve safety and accessibility for all travelers.
• Identify crossing improvements at the Fair
Drive/Fordham Drive intersection.
• Enhance access to nearby school & park. • Develop separation between cyclists and motorists.
• Address Fair Drive speeding concerns. • Provide ADA improvements. • Deliver solutions consistent with City’s General Plan, Active Transportation Plan,
Pedestrian Master Plan, and Draft Safe
Routes to School Plan.
9 Recommendation
• Award a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for professional engineering design services for the Fair Drive Circulation Improvements – “Fair Drive For All” project (Federal Project No. CML-5312(112)) in the amount of $863,000, in final form as approved by the City Attorney.
• Authorize a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $86,300 for any unforeseen costs or additional services that may be required by the project.
• Authorize the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the PSA and any future amendments to the agreement.
Procurement of Skydio Drone and
Docking Stations with Axon Enterprise
Inc.
Captain Carlos Diaz
Lieutenant Nick Wilson
October 6, 2026
2 Background
• Drone Program
o Began in 2019
o Fleet of 7 Drones
o Outdoor and Indoor Platforms
o 24 Active Pilots
o 2025-2026- Deployed over 400 times
• Unmanned Aerial System program supported broad range of missions:
o Search and Rescue
o Missing Persons
o Perimeter Containment
o High Risk Warrant Service
o Critical Incident Overwatch
o Situational Awareness
• Drones
o Technologies are being used by other Orange County Agencies 3 Drone as First Responder (DFR) Pilot Program
• Value of the Drone Program
o Improved awareness
o Efficiency in response to urgent calls for service
o De-Escalation in response to calls
o Faster Response times to calls
o Ability to clear calls without officers. Keeps officers available for emergency calls for service.
o Drones are used during critical incidents, planned special events, or unplanned large scale gatherings
o Flight Operations allows Incident Commanders and Field Supervisors to view events in real time enabling rapid and effective response from field personnel.
4 Skydio DFR– Pilot Program
• Skydio DFR Pilot Program
o May and June of 2025-Trial Assessment of Skydio Drone system. o Three-week trial
Assessment of reliability
Suitable for deployment
Rapid Response
Real Time Information
• Results
o Ability to stream live video feed to proper resources o Rapid aerial response
o Accurate routing to incident locations
o 63 calls for service
o 24 calls were cleared without having officers respond to the call o 39 calls-maintained observation providing valuable information 5 Outcomes of Pilot Program • Results of the Program • FAA Approvals • Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) • Need for Docking Stations o Locations to be determined based on calls for service Operational needs Geographic coverage Response Times Existing infrastructure o Provides ability to rapidly deploy Pilot does not have to be colocated with the drone Decreased flight times to calls 6 Established DFR Program at South Coast Plaza
• DFR Pilot Program was funded under the ORT Grant
o May of 2026
o 112 Drone flights
o 40 Calls for service resolved without a unit
o 56 deployments where the drone arrived prior to a police unit o 2 minutes was the average response time
7 Future Operations
• The Costa Mesa Police Department is Planning for a Future Real-Time Information Center (RTIC)
o $1.039 million dollars allocated through Congressman Dave Min’s Office o DFR program will be managed through the RTIC
o Integration of other technologies
Emerging threats & Critical Incidents
Supporting faster and more informed decision-making
Support Field Personnel
• Currently in the planning phase
• DFR Program enhances coordinated drone deployment and monitor live-video feeds during critical incidents and special events
• Support Multi-disciplinary response efforts (Fire, Emergency Management, Public Works) 8 Compliance
• Compliant with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) o US Security Standards
Parts, Software, and data pathways meet standards
o Reducing Cyber Security Risk
o CJIS Compliant
• AB 481
o Disclosable under AB481
o Purchase of law enforcement equipment
9 Operational Scope and Safeguards
Operational Safeguards What We Won't Do
Public Facing Web Portal
• Drone Flight Times
• Flight Location and Telemetry on a map
• Reason for Flight
Routine Patrols
Videos stored in Axon Evidence Management System
Multi-Factor Authentication
• Role Based Access
Random and Discretionary Surveillance
Detailed Audit Trail
• Protects Evidence
• Tracks access to Evidence
• Maintains Integrity and Chain of Evidence
10 Procurement
• Utilize Axon Enterprises Inc. (Skydio Inc) Cooperative Agreement through Omina Partners (Contract #3544-21-4615)
• Purchase of 3 Drone Docking Stations
• Purchase of 1 Skydio X-10 drone
• Purchase of Software Solutions
• Total Amount $300,000
o $292,144.59-Total Purchase
o $7,855.41- Contingency
oFunding Purchased with ORT Grant funds.
11 Recommendations
• Approve the purchase of three drone docking stations and one Skydio drone based on pricing through a cooperative agreement in the amount of $292,144.59. • Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute an agreement with Axon Enterprises, Inc. (Skydio Inc), for a two-year term.
• Authorize a purchase contingency in the amount of $7,855.41 for unforeseen costs, which is the remaining balance from the maximum approved allocation under the ORT grant.
QUESTIONS?