March 2026 Costa Mesa City Hall Update Part One—If you blinked, you might’ve missed a lot
- Cynthia McDonald
- 3 hours ago
- 20 min read
Updated: 1 hour ago
March was an exceptionally busy month at City Hall. So busy, in fact, that this report is divided into two parts. In addition to a heavy meeting schedule (we attend as many as we can), the City released the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan, a nearly 300‑page document. After a thorough review, we submitted a detailed 24-page comment letter addressing key concerns.
We’ve already reported on several March meetings (links included below). Unfortunately, one of our writers needed time off for surgery and recovery, which delayed this monthly update. We appreciate your patience and will aim to deliver April’s report more quickly.
Below is a summary of City Hall activity for March 2026.
Council and Committee Meetings:
City Council: four meetings held.
Planning Commission: scheduled for two meetings, but only met once.
Active Transportation Committee: one meeting held.
Finance and Pension Advisory Committee met twice.
City Outreach: Multiple outreach meetings were conducted for the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong rezoning initiative and the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan.
MARCH 2 “NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE ALL BELONG” OUTREACH MEETING: We previously covered this meeting in detail.
MARCH 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. At this meeting, the items acted on were:
Traffic Impact Fee Program Update and Award of Contract to Kimley Horn
Legislative Update
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with City of Irvine for Use of Beds at Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter
All Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Jeff Pettis (District 6).
City Attorney Closed Session Report. City Attorney Kimberly Hall Barlow reported that the City Council gave direction, but there was no reportable action.
Presentations: Daniel Inloes, Economic Development Administrator, gave a presentation about the City’s new Active Development Map. Here is a link to the map: https://apps.costamesaca.gov/gismaps1/apps/dashboards/8b898e2be886413491d6c31706526dc3
The second presentation was by Kohl Crecelius, Chair of the Fairview Park Steering Committee, who gave the Committee’s Annual Report to the City Council. Here is a slide from that presentation:
Public Comment. Twelve speakers addressed the Council during public comment. Those comments included:
Support for an eviction tracking system through a rental registry; establishment of a network for rental solutions.
Requests for results of the audit of the Flock Safety camera services; requests to cancel contract with Flock.
Resident and his caregiver requesting assistance from the City dealing with code enforcement issues.
Testimony about injuries suffered at the hands of ICE agents.
Request that the Costa Mesa police officers be trained how to handle persons with disabilities
Councilmember Comments. Mike Buley (District 1) complemented Staff on the New Active Development Map; reported on Little League opening Day; and requested that Staff report on the possibility of taxing sober living homes.
Loren Gameros (District 2) spoke about Police Chief Joyce LaPointe’s response to a request for an audit of the Flock Safety cameras, which was that the system is regularly audited and there have been no network breaches and no unauthorized persons or agencies have accessed the data collected by the City. He stated that the Police Department doesn’t share data with Federal or out-of-state agencies. However, data is shared with other State agencies.
While the Costa Mesa Police Department may not share data, Flock itself has shared data from multiple cities nationwide with out-of-state and federal agencies. According to a March 1 article in The Los Angeles Times, “Flock’s AI-powered cameras go even further by also documenting other identifying vehicle details, such as make, model, and color, as well as any distinctive markings, such as scratches or dents on a bumper.” How innocuous is Flock’s system if data is shared, sometimes without the licensing city’s permission, with the federal government?
Andrea Marr (District 3) confirmed the City Council would revisit the rental protection ordinance in two weeks and invited public feedback.
Arlis Reynolds (District 5) discussed safety improvements on Newport Boulevard following meetings with Caltrans. She spoke about the outreach for the Measure K and Housing Element rezoning efforts. She spoke about the possibility of a rental registry and emphasized the need for transparency in the rental market, noting that two-thirds of Costa Mesa residents are renters. Reynolds thanked the police department for the report on Flock, but requested that the audit results be made public. She recognized community volunteers who assist those impacted by the ICE activities in the City.
Manuel Chavez (District 4) thanked the Mexican Consulate in Santa Ana and the Counsel General for sharing resources on immigrant rights. He also highlighted food assistance programs for seniors, such as those available at the Senior Center and from Meals on Wheels.
John Stephens (Mayor) suggested the city look into providing real-time meeting transcripts in English and Spanish, similar to the system used in Moreno Valley. He also requested a report on the legal issues surrounding a resident who spoke earlier.
City Manager Comments. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly requested volunteers to serve on City Committees, and reported on a new Legislative and Government Affairs page on the City’s website.
City Attorney Comments. None.
CONSENT CALENDAR: No items were pulled, so Chavez moved to approve the items, which Marr seconded. The vote was 6-0, with Pettis absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: There were three new business items.
1. Traffic Impact Fee Program Update. Staff requested that the City Council approve the selection of Kimley Horn and Associates to conduct an eight-month study to update the city's traffic impact fees, which are required every eight years. Paul Martin, Transportation Services Manager, and Ramin Nikoui, Senior Civil Engineer, gave the presentation.
The Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program funds transportation improvements necessitated by new development. The proposed update will revise eligible projects and associated costs, align the program with statewide goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions, and ensure compliance with recent state legislation, consistent with recommendations from the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee.
The current TIF program relies on capacity‑based Level of Service metrics. As part of this update, the City will evaluate and, if appropriate, modify these metrics to incorporate VMT or other performance measures that better reflect current state policy.
The contract would be for three years, with an option for a one‑year extension, to assist with the development and implementation of the updated TIF program. The Total project cost: $164,714 (Base contract of $149,740 plus a 10% contingency: $14,974 for unforeseen costs).
Funding sources: An appropriation of $164,714 from Measure M2 Fairshare Fund balance.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Reynolds asked if this was a one-time study. As noted above, the program would receive a thorough review each year, but Staff indicated that a review of the project costs could be done annually.
Public Comment. David Martinez requested that consideration be given to Senate Bill 358 (2025), which aims to reduce costly, outdated traffic impact fees for housing projects built within 1/2 mile of public transit, making projects more financially feasible and reducing car dependency.
Motion. Reynolds moved to approve the Staff recommendation, with a second by Stephens. That motion passed 6-0, with Pettis absent.
2. Legislative Update. Government Affairs Manager Jay Barkman, joined by a consultant from Townsend Public Affairs, presented an update on state and federal legislative activity. The presentation covered the status of both budget processes—each still in the early stages—and provided an overview of pending legislation that could impact the City. Staff noted that more detailed updates will be brought forward as additional information becomes available.
Among the items highlighted in the Agenda Report was proposed legislation for funding homeless housing, assistance, and prevention. However, eligibility for these funds would require a jurisdiction to have a compliant Housing Element, which Costa Mesa currently does not. The report also referenced several proposed bond measures related to homeless assistance, though specific eligibility requirements and access details remain unclear.
Staff recommended that the City Council adopt formal positions supporting several bills, including support for a statewide housing bond (AB 736 / SB 417) and legislation requiring mandatory ignition interlock devices for DUI offenders (AB 1830). Although the item was originally scheduled as informational only, Barkman modified the recommendation to include the adoption of these positions.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Stephens requested clarification of the action to be taken. Reynolds asked if action was taken, would the support position letter be sent to the author of the legislation right away? Barkman indicated that the support letter would go out that week or the following week. Buley asked for clarification of the housing bond legislation. The consultant indicated there would be more to come on the specifics of those bills.
Public Comment. David Martinez requested support for e-bike legislation contained in Senate Bill 1157 and Assembly Bill 2284.
Motion. Stephens moved to adopt the legislative platforms identified on pages 10 and 11 of the Agenda Report, and then to receive and file the report, which motion was seconded by Chavez. Reynolds commented that the City needs to send feedback on bills that have been passed to the appropriate department of the Sacramento Legislature. Stephens amended his motion to add direction to Staff to pass on their feedback, but to also bring back to the City Council information about the pending e-bike legislation. That motion passed 6-0, with Pettis absent.
3. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with City of Irvine for Use of Beds at Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter. Staff requested that the City Council consider a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Irvine that would allow Irvine to utilize available beds at the Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter. This item was originally scheduled for a meeting in January, but was pulled from the Agenda at the last minute. Nate Robbins, Neighborhood Improvement Manager, gave the presentation.
Details of the Irvine MOU:
Term: Effective upon execution, ending June 30, 2026. The MOU may be terminated earlier if Shelter Operator Agreement expires or is terminated. Bids for Shelter Operator are currently being solicited.
Bed Allocation:
Irvine will have access to beds on an "as available" basis, without exclusivity.
Costa Mesa retains discretion over the allocation of beds, but both cities will collaborate to prioritize beds based on the needs of their residents.
Subletting of beds is prohibited.
Cost: $163 per bed, per day.
Payment: Monthly payments based on actual bed usage in previous month.
Referrals: Irvine must identify specific personnel authorized to make referrals to the Shelter. The personnel are responsible for screening referrals based on Shelter guidelines (e.g., no warrants, arson convictions, or sexual offenders).
Transportation: Irvine will transport residents to the Shelter initially, while Costa Mesa will provide transportation for enrolled residents.
Fiscal Impact: The MOU will generate revenue to offset Shelter operational costs. Example: Continuous use of five beds for 30 days = $24,450 monthly and approximately $73,350 for the term of the MOU; if Irvine takes 20 beds each month, the revenue will be $293,400 for the term of the MOU. Note that because the City does not have a certified Housing Element, it is unlikely the City will be eligible for grants.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Buley asked whether Staff knew why the number of clients seeking assistance at the Bridge Shelter had decreased. Robbins cited two primary factors. First, the level of care and services provided to Bridge Shelter clients has helped prevent many individuals from returning to the streets. Second, recent enforcement efforts related to drug use, along with changes in state law that impose jail or prison time, have reduced the number of people seeking shelter services.
A brief discussion followed regarding operational costs. Staff explained that although demand fluctuates, the Bridge Shelter operates at or near maximum capacity most of the time, meaning staffing levels—and associated costs—remain largely constant.
Reynolds asked about the capacity of behavioral health beds. Staff explained that those beds are provided through County referrals, funded by the County, and reserved for Costa Mesa residents. These beds are consistently full. In addition, there are State‑funded behavioral health beds that the City of Irvine is able to access. Staff noted that vacancies typically occur only in the non‑behavioral health beds.
Public Comment. None.
Motion. Reynolds moved to approve the Staff recommendation, with a second by Marr. That motion passed 6-0, with Pettis absent.
MARCH 4 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING. All Committee members were present except Robert Morse and Alex Campoli. Also in attendance were NMUSD Liaison Sarah Coley and Councilmember Andrea Marr.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Resident Tom Arnold said many people don’t know about the new daylighting law and suggested painting curbs red. I spoke about confusion at the southbound left turn lane at the intersection of Fairview Rd at Fair Dr and requested additional signage; I also noted bollards on Placentia Avenue that had been knocked down by motorists and suggested installing concrete or plastic armadillos between the bollards to protect the bollards and cyclists. Resident Ralph Taboada spoke about National Engineers Week and acknowledged Staff’s participation in the active transportation projects, including the one on Fairview Road and the Adams/Pinecreek Intersection Improvements.
COMMITTEE MEMBER/LIAISON COMMENTS:
Michael Moses Nolf suggested that the Committee consider advocating against the proposed e‑bike ban and asked questions about the use of cycle‑track separator bollards.
Flo Martin discussed traffic crash data, related media coverage, and potential enforcement tools, including red‑light cameras.
Andrew Barnes expressed opposition to adopting additional ordinances, emphasizing instead the importance of allocating adequate enforcement resources.
Sarah Coley, the NMUSD liaison, provided an update on the school district’s policy discussions, including bicycle safety education efforts and the review of existing policies.
STAFF COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS: Raja Sethuraman, Public Works Director, said that Robert “Santa Bob” Morse had resigned. Paul Martin, Transportation Services Manager, updated the committee about upcoming events and the traffic impact fee study, which will help determine which projects can use the traffic impact fees assigned to new developments.
Brett Atencio Thomas, Active Transportation Coordinator, provided an update on the following:
The City was awarded Bronze Level Bicycle Friendly Community status by the national League of American Bicyclists.
Fairview Road South of Fair Drive roadway improvement project: concrete work and paving is complete, new tactile strips and pavers on boarding islands were installed, new roadway and green conflict zone striping were installed, progress was made on a new crosswalk at Valley Forge (south of Fair Drive. Future work includes the City’s first bicycle signal for southbound Fairview Road at Wilson Street.
Fairview Road North project: technical studies are underway. This is a federally funded project—the grant funding requires that construction begin in early 2027.
Safe Routes to School Action Plan: public survey and comment process garnered over 230 public surveys and comments. Concept recommendations are being prepared.
Walk and Roll to School Day: events will be on May 6 and May 13.
Adams Bicycle Facility Project: construction began in early February, and median work is currently underway. The project will install Class IV Cycle Tracks between Fairview Road and Harbor Boulevard and link to the Adams/Pinecreek project.
Center and Placentia Pedestrian Signal: Staff is studying adding a HAWK signal based on demand from the community; outreach activities will be held over the next several weeks.
SS4A Grant for Open Streets: The City received a grant in 2024, and the formal agreement is currently under negotiation with the Federal Highway Administration.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion to approve the minutes of the February 4, 2026 meeting was made by Martin and seconded by Nolf. The motion passed unanimously by a 6‑0-1 vote, with Joselyn Perez abstaining.
OLD BUSINESS: The scheduled discussion regarding the Committee’s goals and objectives was moved to the end of the meeting, but was ultimately postponed to the April 1 meeting.
NEW BUSINESS. Director Sethuraman presented an overview of the next fiscal year’s CIP budget. That presentation can be found here: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/62696/639094286655870000
Committee members asked questions about crosswalk projects, streetlights, and traffic signal equipment.
Public Comments. Speakers expressed concern for funding for Adams Avenue, opposition to a traffic signal project at Fairview Road and Belfast Street, and a desire to add fees to development projects to fund public benefit projects (such as Adams Avenue undergrounding/road rehabilitation).
Continuing with New Business, Chair Barnes shared the draft Presentation of the Committee’s Report to the City Council, which was given at the April 7 City Council meeting. The Committee provided comments.
Senior Engineer Ramin Nikoui presented information about the Bristol Traffic Signal Synchronization Project (TSSP). See photo for more information.
MARCH 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. All Commissioners were present. Aside from approval of minutes from a prior meeting, the Commission considered two action items:
Two-Year Extension for Eight-Unit Live/Work Development at 1711–1719 Pomona Avenue
Design Review, Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Review for Two Two-Story Townhome Condos at 121 Cecil Place
Public Comment. None.
Commissioner Comments. Angely Andrade (District 4) commented on her attendance at the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong outreach meeting held on March 2 at the Norma Herzog Community Center. She described the meeting as having a “great turnout.” We disagree with that characterization and found that the attendance was quite limited. Our full report is available here: https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/reflections-from-the-measure-k-rezoning-outreach-meeting
Rob Dickson (District 5) provided an update on the City’s policy requiring 24‑hour security at cannabis retail locations. He noted that the issue may be addressed directly by the City Council and suggested that streamlining the process could reduce Staff time and applicant costs by eliminating the need for repeated individual applications.
David Martinez (District 5) shared announcements regarding upcoming events. He also attended the March 2 Neighborhoods Where We All Belong outreach meeting and observed Staff evaluating a potential crosswalk at Placentia Avenue and Center Street. In addition, he discussed a recent Newport‑Mesa Unified School District meeting where an electric bike ban was on the agenda, stating that the proposed policy was poorly written and encouraging community members to attend and provide input.
CONSENT CALENDAR: The sole item on the Consent Calendar was approval of the minutes from the February 23, 2026 meeting. Dickson moved approval, Martinez seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were two public hearings:
1. Two-Year Extension for Eight-Unit Live/Work Development at 1711–1719 Pomona Avenue. The applicant, Build/Group Properties, LLC, requested a two‑year extension to complete the permitting process for an approved eight‑unit live/work development. The Planning Commission initially approved the project’s Master Plan and Tentative Tract Map on September 11, 2023, followed by a 180‑day extension.
In its extension request letter, the applicant cited delays in the City’s plan check process. The Agenda Report also noted that ongoing coordination with Southern California Edison regarding utility undergrounding contributed to the need for additional time. Approval of the extension would allow permits to be issued and construction to move forward while maintaining consistency with the original approvals.
Christopher Yeager, Senior Planner, presented the item and explained that Staff recommended a two‑year extension to provide flexibility and to avoid the applicant having to return with another extension request and application fee.
Commissioner Questions. Jon Zich (District 1) asked about the conditions of approval, specifically the requirement to notify buyers that the project is located in an industrial area, and whether the permit process imposed a deadline for project completion. Yeager explained the applicable time limits and procedures. Zich stated his view that a one‑year extension would be sufficient.
Martinez asked about the undergrounding of utilities. He thought the utilities could be undergrounded after the project was complete. Yeager indicated it must be done at the time of grading. In addition, the applicant did not include the undergrounding in the plan check, and that caused a delay, but the applicant is actively working with Edison.
Dickson spoke about the notice that had to be provided to buyers that the project is located in an industrial area, and the context of its origination.
Applicant’s Presentation. The applicant’s representative, Derick Thelen, stated that he had reviewed and agreed to all conditions of approval. He also addressed questions regarding utility undergrounding and concurred with Staff’s assessment.
Public Comments. None.
Motion and Vote. Zich moved to approve the extension, but limited it to one year. The motion was seconded by Dickson. During the discussion, concerns were raised that a shorter extension could require the applicant to submit another request and pay an additional application fee.
Chair Jeff Harlan introduced a substitute motion to grant an 18‑month extension, which was seconded by Martinez. The substitute motion passed unanimously.
2. Design Review, Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Review for Two Two-Story Townhome Condos at 121 Cecil Place. The proposed project consists of two two‑story townhome condominiums, each measuring approximately 3,382 square feet and featuring four bedrooms, four and one‑half bathrooms, and an attached two‑car garage. The development exceeds the City’s minimum open‑space requirement, providing approximately 47 percent open space, and complies with applicable height, setback, and parking standards.
Gabriel Villalobos, Assistant Planner, and Martina Caron, Planning Manager, presented the item.
Commissioner Questions. Martinez asked why this item had to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Caron explained that the City’s ordinances require it. The reason behind the City’s ordinances is that having the City review the Tentative Parcel Map ensures that the proposed site and layout meets local requirements for private or public use, setbacks, and utility access. Without an approved Parcel Map, a Final Map cannot be recorded, and new parcels can’t be sold, built upon, or developed. Martinez also asked about the sidewalk easement, which is the bare minimum of three feet. However, a four-foot-wide sidewalk will be built.
Applicant’s Presentation. Josh Martinez, representing the applicant, Cecil Ventures, LLC, stated that he had reviewed and agreed to all conditions of approval. He gave a presentation of the project.
Additional Commissioner Questions. Zich and Dickson raised questions regarding how the City verifies the accuracy of information submitted in development applications. Staff explained that, aside from reviewing any open Code Enforcement cases, verification relies primarily on County oversight and the representations made by the applicant.
Several Commissioners also expressed concern regarding the removal of an existing tree and the placement of replacement trees on the site. Commissioners emphasized the importance of providing shade along the sidewalk and making the project more pedestrian‑friendly.
Public Comment. None.
Motion and Vote. Dickson moved to approve the project with an amendment to Condition of Approval No. 17, adding the phrase “or removed after damaged” to the second sentence and specifying that replacement trees “will be placed as close to the sidewalk as feasible.” The motion was seconded by Zich and passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: None.
MARCH 10 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION. All Councilmembers were present. Councilmember Andrea Marr participated remotely and joined approximately 25 minutes into the meeting. The Study Session focused on a single item: a presentation of findings from a comprehensive assessment of City‑owned facilities, intended to guide future maintenance priorities, capital upgrades, and long‑term investment planning.
Presentation. Raja Sethuramen, Public Works Director, led the presentation, joined by Mike Adkins and Kevin Rosenstein of Gensler Associates, the consultant that prepared the Facilities Master Plan. After introducing their team, they explained the purpose of the assessment and the methodology used to evaluate City facilities.
The presentation reviewed:
The facilities evaluated
The criteria and scoring methodology used
The resulting condition ratings
The assessment focused on maintaining existing operations and addressing deferred maintenance—not expanding facility footprints or changing how facilities function.
Here are the facilities that were evaluated:
And the criteria and scoring used for the facilities:
And the scores:
Councilmember Questions. Mike Buley (District 1) asked about future facility capacity. Sethuramen explained that the assessment evaluated only current operations and maintenance needs, not expansion or future functional changes. The primary objective is to address deferred maintenance and bring facilities back to baseline condition.
John Stephens (Mayor) asked about future staffing needs in light of anticipated population growth from new housing. He inquired whether artificial intelligence or alternative workplace strategies could offset the need for additional Staff. Sethuramen responded that tools such as AI, remote work, and seat‑sharing are potential options for meeting increased service demands. Stephens also requested additional detail on the scoring rubric.
Arlis Reynolds (District 5) asked whether space adequacy ratings accounted for future needs. Staff clarified that the ratings reflect current needs only.
The presentation continued with information on estimated repair and replacement costs.
And projected timelines for facility improvements.
Additional Council questions focused on the types of renovations or replacements anticipated and potential funding sources.
Public Comment. Ralph Taboada commented on the City’s decision last year not to fully fund the Capital Asset Needs (CAN) account. He stated that the Facilities Assessment clearly demonstrates the need to fully fund CAN and again advocated for a five‑year capital improvements plan. He noted that recent financial planning has been overly optimistic and called for a realistic, comprehensive capital plan that integrates facilities, parks, roads, and other infrastructure.
I also spoke in favor of developing a long‑term capital plan and highlighted the Costa Mesa Tennis Center, which has not been significantly updated in years. I noted that other cities successfully use their tennis facilities for community events and meetings.
Note: While the Parks and Community Services Commission reviewed a Citywide Parks Assessment in February, the Tennis Center was not evaluated at that time. It was assessed as part of this Facilities Assessment and rated as “aged, but functional.” However, the report does not address issues such as the lack of locker rooms—forcing users to change in the parking lot—or the fact that the USTA deemed the facility unsafe and relocated its tournament elsewhere. The Tennis Center has reached the end of its useful life and should be demolished and rebuilt to achieve its full potential.
After a few more questions, the Councilmembers provided extensive direction to Staff, summarized as follows:
1. Develop a Realistic, Citywide Long‑Term Plan: The Council directed Staff to move beyond facilities alone and develop a realistic 5–10+ year capital roadmap covering:
Facilities
Parks
Streets
Alleys
Fleet
IT / digital infrastructure
The plan should be practical, not aspirational, usable by current and future Councils, and grounded in actual funding constraints.
2. Use Assessment Data to Directly Influence CIP Decisions: The Council emphasized that the assessments must actively inform:
Five‑year CIP prioritization
Budget deliberations
Project sequencing
Several members asked for amalgamated scoring across facilities and parks.
3. Identify and Plan for Critical Improvements: Priority areas identified include:
Electrical systems (widely noted as nearing end of life)
Fire stations and public safety facilities, especially electrical and fire alarm systems
ADA, gender, and modern operational compliance
Preventing deferred maintenance from becoming a safety issue
Staff was directed to clearly flag high‑risk systems in near‑term planning.
4. Adopt an “All‑of‑the‑Above” Funding Strategy: Council agreed that funding analysis must consider:
General Fund allocations
Existing maintenance and construction funding
Bonds for major projects
State, federal, and county grants
One‑time or opportunistic funding (e.g., state senator / congressional funding)
Councilmembers stressed the importance of honesty with respect to budget limitations and comparing current spending to demonstrated needs.
5. Address Immediate Safety, Environmental, and Accessibility Items. Councilmembers noted that some safety and accessibility issues require relatively modest funding and should continue to be addressed immediately, clearly distinguishing urgent repairs from long‑term replacements.
6. Improve Communication and Documentation: Councilmembers requested:
Presentation materials distributed in advance
A written narrative report, not just slides
Public‑friendly documentation explaining what needs fixing, why it matters, what it costs, and the choices before Council.
7. Evaluate Cost Savings and Revenue Opportunities: Council directed Staff to consider:
Utility and lifecycle cost savings
Revenue‑generating uses
Public‑private partnerships
Project evaluations should include cost avoidance and operating savings, not just capital costs.
8. Reimagine Facilities — Don’t Just Replace Them: Council encouraged Staff to consider whether the size, function, or service model of facilities should change when replacements are proposed, including shared facilities and alternative construction methods.
9. Move Faster Where Feasible: Manuel Chavez (District 4) urged Staff to advance timelines where possible and not wait for perfect information before beginning directional planning:
Bottom Line: Council directed staff to use the facility and park assessments to build a realistic, citywide, long‑term capital plan that directly informs CIP prioritization and funding decisions, communicates clearly with the public, reflects honest budget constraints, and preserves flexibility to take advantage of outside funding and partnerships.
MARCH 11 FINANCE AND PENSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING. The meeting was called to order at 4:03 p.m. and adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m. All Committee members were present except Sean Healy and Quinn Callanan.
Also in attendance were City Manager Cecilia Gallardo‑Daly, Public Works Director Raja Sethuraman, Information Technology Director Steve Ely, City Clerk Brenda Green, and additional City Staff.
Council Liaisons John Stephens and Mike Buley were present; Manuel Chavez was absent.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Rick Huffman expressed frustration with the requirement to provide public comment before Staff presentations. He spoke about the need for improvements to the Costa Mesa Tennis Center, advocating for a conservative investment approach that preserves healthy reserves while still prioritizing upgrades to the facility. Huffman suggested pursuing grant funding to redesign and potentially expand the Tennis Center.
STAFF/LIAISON COMMENTS: City Manager Gallardo‑Daly introduced herself and informed the Committee of recent staffing changes within the Finance Department. Mark Khou, Budget Manager, will now serve as the Committee’s primary liaison and staff support, alongside Finance Manager Anna Acosta‑Reyes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes from January 14 were unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS: These items were moved ahead of Old Business on the Agenda.
a. FY 2024/25 Year End Audit Results. Finance Manager Acosta‑Reyes presented the City’s Fiscal Year 2024–2025 financial results and audit. The City received an unmodified (clean) audit opinion, with no material weaknesses or compliance issues identified. The City also maintained the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for the 27th consecutive year. This was a Receive and File item; no vote was taken.
b. Review and File FY 26/27 Capital Improvement Project Proposed Budget. Sethuraman and Staff presented an overview of the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) highlighting ongoing and new projects related to public works, parks, facilities, and transportation. This item was also Receive and File, and no action was taken.
OLD BUSINESS: Item c, Review and Approve the Annual Review of the City's Investment Policy, was heard out of order. After Staff confirmed that no substantive changes had been made since the prior review, a motion was made to approve the policy. The motion passed unanimously.
Item b, Review and Approve the Proposed 2026 FiPAC Calendar and Proposed Topics, was also taken out of order, before Old Business Item a. Chair Tom Arnold requested to postpone hearing this item until April 8, 2026. Committee Members were to submit any additional topics to the Chair.
Item a, Verbal Communication Regarding Ballot Measurers (FiPAC Subcommittee), was heard last. Committee Member Daniel Morgan provided an update related to the business license tax. He emphasized feedback from the business community expressing frustration with the City’s permitting process and the lack of clarity around how fees are used. Morgan expressed a desire to protect retail and sales‑tax‑generating businesses and stated that any fee increases should be modest and capped.
Ralph Taboada and Budget Manager Khou discussed the possibility of scheduling a special meeting on March 18 to further review temporary occupancy tax and business license topics. This item was Receive and File; no vote was taken.
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS: Morgan requested that Staff review the City’s cooperative bidding process to identify potential time savings, noting that Staff workload appears heavy and that simplification could provide meaningful benefits. He also described permit activity as an important economic development indicator and suggested creation of a dashboard to track key metrics.
Taboada thanked the Public Works team for their efforts and commented on forthcoming plans to address capitalization issues.
Chair Tom Arnold thanked staff for the high‑quality meeting minutes, noting the work involved, and highlighted the new standardized committee agenda format, modeled after the City Council agenda. The revised format will include designated opportunities for public comment on each Agenda item. Hooray!