March 2026 Costa Mesa City Hall Update Part Two—If you blinked, you might’ve missed a lot
- Cynthia McDonald
- 6 minutes ago
- 34 min read
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 17 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. At this meeting, the items acted on were:
Continuation of First Reading of an Ordinance Costa Mesa Municipal Code re Drainage and Adoption of Development Impact Fees for Storm Drainage as Part of Storm Drain System Master Plan
Ordinance Repealing, Replacing, and Amending Title 9 (Licenses And Business Regulations) of Municipal Code, Chapter II (Regulation of Certain Businesses), and Article 24 (Just Cause Residential Tenant Protections)
Resolution to Amend Sixth Cycle Housing Element in Conjunction with Housing Element Sites Rezoning and Find Project Exempt from CEQA
Zoning Code Amendments to Implement the Housing Element and Measure K
Request For Direction on Potential Citywide Rental Registry Program and Network for Renters’ Solutions
Approval of $1.5 Million in HOME Investment Partnerships Program Funding for Two Affordable Housing Projects
Request by Jamboree Housing Corporation for Additional Funding for the Costa Mesa Senior Project
And that was after two items (the Active Transportation Committee’s Annual Report and a contract for the Fairview Park West Bluff Restoration Project) were removed from the Agenda! The Agenda was too large and the meeting ran too long--nearly seven hours! All Councilmembers were present.
City Attorney Closed Session Report. Kimberly Hall Barlow stated there was no reportable action taken during Closed Session.
Presentation: John Stephens (Mayor) opened the meeting by reading a proclamation recognizing Women’s History Month. He honored Linda Sadeghi, associated with the LAB anti‑mall, and Jennifer Friend, CEO of Project Hope Alliance, for their contributions to the community.
Public Comment. Five members of the public addressed the City Council. Major themes included ethics and transparency, housing growth, park impacts, use of City funds, and neighborhood health and safety concerns.
Ethics Policy, Housing Growth, and Parks - Jay Humphrey requested an update on the City’s ethics policy, specifically seeking clearer rules regarding conflicts of interest related to campaign contributions. He commended recent housing outreach efforts as an improvement but urged continued progress in meaningful public engagement. Humphrey also expressed concern that meeting current RHNA requirements could require adding approximately 38,000 housing units. He warned that such growth would further strain the City’s already limited park space and urged the City to realistically plan to preserve open space and overall quality of life.
Use of Funds for Families Affected by ICE Raids - Brooke Gray and Rachel (last name not provided) spoke regarding a $100,000 City donation, including $50,000 designated for aid, intended to support families impacted by ICE raids. Citing City meeting minutes and a March 4 LAist article, they alleged the funds were not used as intended and were instead applied to general soup kitchen operations. They requested the City formally ask for the $50,000 plus interest to be returned and redirected to the impacted families, such as through food assistance. Both emphasized the importance of accountability, restoring public trust, and addressing the serious harms faced by affected residents.
Agenda Management, Transparency, and Ethics – I raised concerns about the meeting agenda being overly packed and structured in a way that limited meaningful public participation. I also noted missing or incomplete agenda information and objected to the removal of an ethics policy item from the agenda. Referencing practices from prior City leadership, I underscored the need for clear ethical standards and requested the release of an investigator’s report paid for by taxpayers. I further objected to staged photographs being included in outreach records and asked that surveys involving councilmembers or planning commissioners be excluded to preserve the integrity of public input.
Neighborhood Conditions and Public Health Concerns - Juana Trejo raised long‑standing concerns about trash accumulation, rat infestations, and unsafe parking conditions near apartment complexes at 980 Valencia. She asked the City to engage with the property owner to improve cleanliness and management. Trejo also spoke about the emotional and mental health impacts on residents, including a recent eviction involving an individual experiencing apparent mental health issues. She emphasized the persistent nature of these problems and their detrimental effect on the neighborhood.
Councilmember Comments. Mike Buley (District 1) noted his attendance at a recent Finance and Pension Advisory Committee meeting and praised the meaningful work contributed by its volunteer members.
Loren Gameros (District 2) reminded residents to take precautions during hot weather and to watch for signs of heat stroke. He noted that cooling centers are available, including one at the Senior Center, and directed residents to the City’s website for additional locations.
Andrea Marr (District 3) announced that Costa Mesa has formally entered into a contract with the Immigrant Defenders Law Center to provide immigration‑related legal services, particularly for deportation proceedings. She also shared insights from attending the Civic Well Policymaking Forum, including potential opportunities for regional funding through SoCalREN for facility upgrades such as HVAC and chiller systems. Marr additionally flagged new information related to wildfire risk planning within the urban–wildland interface and said staff would follow up regarding affected areas of Costa Mesa. Finally, she raised environmental concerns about OC Public Works’ spraying and
maintenance practices in local waterways and requested coordination with the County to ensure alignment with the City’s Organics First policy and efforts to reduce pollutants entering the ocean.
Arlis Reynolds (District 5) expressed concerns about City Council Agenda management, noting that agenda reports are often lengthy, provided on short timelines, and sometimes supplemented with new information during meetings. She stated that late changes disadvantage both Councilmembers and the public and requested more advance notice of agenda items, including a rolling three‑month outlook. Reynolds also asked that decision‑related materials be provided to the Council whenever possible before meetings.
Jeff Pettis (District 6) reinforced comments about the seriousness of heat‑related illness and reviewed its medical warning signs. He emphasized the importance of public engagement, noting that he has recently received input from a broader range of residents rather than the same small group, and encouraged continued participation, stressing that community input meaningfully informs his decisions.
Manuel Chavez (District 4) acknowledged concerns regarding agenda management, accepted personal responsibility, and apologized for not identifying the issues earlier due to work commitments. He explained that while he typically receives a draft Agenda weekly, he did not fully review this one and stated his commitment to preventing similar issues in the future.
Stephens concluded by noting the individuals in whose memory the meeting would be closed, including Huy Pham, a City employee who passed away on that day in 2011.
City Manager Comments. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly did not give a report.
City Attorney Comments. Hall Barlow also did not give a report.
CONSENT CALENDAR. One item—the minutes of the March 3, 2026 City Council meeting—was pulled by Reynolds. Reynolds moved approval of the remaining Consent Calendar items, which was seconded by Chavez. The motion to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 7–0.
Reynolds then proposed a correction to the March 3 minutes to reflect that a letter regarding a transportation bill was requested to be sent to the appropriate transportation legislative committee. There was no public comment on the item. A motion to approve the minutes with Reynolds’s amendment passed 7–0.
NEW BUSINESS: It was 6:55 p.m., so the public hearings could not begin. New Business Item 2 was advanced in the Agenda and heard out of order.
2. Audited Financial Statements and Housing Successor Annual Report For The Period Ending June 30, 2025. Staff requested that the City Council receive and file several key financial reports, including:
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report: Summarizes the City’s financial transactions for Fiscal Year 2024-2025.
Air Quality Improvement Fund Compliance Report: Accounts for funds received under Assembly Bill 2766 to reduce air pollution.
Audit Communication Letter: Confirms no significant difficulties or disagreements with management during the audit.
Independent Accountant's Report on Agreed-Upon Procedures Applied to Appropriation Limit Worksheets: Auditor's confirmation that the City correctly calculated the Gann Limit, which sets the maximum amount of special tax revenues allowed for spending.
A presentation was given by Anna Acosta-Reyes, Finance Manager. There were no questions from the Councilmembers and no public comments. Marr moved to receive and file the report, which was seconded by Pettis. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: The meeting then returned to the scheduled order.
1. Continuation of First Reading of an Ordinance re Drainage and Adoption of Development Impact Fees for Storm Drainage as Part of Storm Drain System Master Plan. Staff requested that the City Council open the public hearing, keep the hearing open, and continue the item to the April 7, 2026 City Council meeting.
Stephens moved to continue the item, and Marr seconded the motion. Because the public notice for the item had already been published in the newspaper, the Council was required to formally open the public hearing before continuing it. Staff noted that interested parties would receive a second notice before the continued hearing.
In moving the item quickly, Stephens did not call for public comment, and therefore none was taken. The motion to continue the item passed 7–0.
2. Proposed Revision of Business Regulations of Municipal Code, Chapter II (Regulation of Certain Businesses), and Article 24 (Just Cause Residential Tenant Protections). Nate Robbins, Neighborhood Improvement Manager, gave a presentation. The proposed amendments to the City’s Tenant Protection Ordinance would require landlords to report at‑fault evictions to the City within 72 hours of filing an unlawful detainer (UD) lawsuit for an at‑fault eviction—not when issuing a three‑day notice. The change is intended to give the city better insight into eviction activity and allow staff to provide education, mediation, and compliance support. It does not prevent or delay landlords from pursuing legal evictions.
The proposal builds on existing state law (AB 1482) and the City’s 2023 ordinance, which already requires landlord notice and relocation assistance for no‑fault evictions.
Noncompliance would result only in administrative civil citations ($150 for the first violation, $300 for the second, and $500 for subsequent violations). Unlike violations related to no‑fault evictions, failure to report would not invalidate an eviction. Staff stressed that the City’s role is to serve both tenants and landlords through education, mediation, eviction guidance, and proactive outreach to prevent unlawful evictions.
Staff recommended a 12‑month grace period with no enforcement to allow time for outreach, website updates, mailings to affected property owners, public notices, and direct assistance. Staff requested that the Council introduce the ordinance and conduct a first reading.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Chavez asked detailed questions about the UD process, how it interacts with the proposed ordinance, and how court records are released. He walked through several hypothetical scenarios to better understand the mechanics of the UD process.
Marr noted that a section of the proposed ordinance was confusing and requested that the City Attorney revise the language for clarity.
Stephens asked about tenant privacy and data protection.
Reynolds asked how landlords would submit the required information. Robbins responded that reporting would be done through the City’s TESSA system. Reynolds also asked how Staff responds to tenant requests, and Robbins provided a detailed explanation of current procedures.
Public Comment. Twenty‑two members of the public addressed the Council, revealing a clear divide between tenant advocates and renters who supported expanded eviction tracking and landlords and industry representatives who opposed it.
Arguments in Support of Expanded Eviction Tracking: Tenant advocates, community organizations, and residents argued that comprehensive eviction data is essential in a city where more than 60 percent of residents are renters. Key points included:
Evictions are destabilizing events that can lead to homelessness, family separation, and long‑term displacement.
Many tenants self‑evict after receiving notices (such as three‑day notices to pay or quit) due to fear, misinformation, immigration enforcement concerns, or lack of legal resources—events not currently captured by City tracking.
At‑fault evictions often stem from short‑term financial hardship, clerical errors, or misunderstandings that could be resolved through mediation or limited rental assistance if identified early.
Collecting data would allow the City to:
Determine whether just‑cause protections are being applied correctly;
Identify patterns of displacement and disproportionate impacts on women, Latino families, seniors, and low‑income households;
Monitor compliance with tenant protection and relocation assistance requirements; and
Inform future housing and homelessness‑prevention policies.
Several speakers emphasized that data collection does not regulate rents or prohibit evictions, but supports evidence‑based policymaking and accountability.
Some speakers also called for greater renter outreach and education, noting that landlords and trade groups are frequently consulted while renters are not.
Arguments Opposing Expanded Eviction Tracking: Landlords, small property owners, real estate professionals, and apartment association representatives largely opposed the proposal, citing:
Concerns that the existing eviction reporting program has low compliance and should be fixed before expanding requirements;
Potential increased costs for the City and taxpayers, including staffing and enforcement, during a constrained budget cycle;
A disproportionate burden on small “mom‑and‑pop” landlords that could discourage investment and reduce housing supply;
The belief that eviction data already exists through courts and nonprofits, making City‑level reporting duplicative;
Privacy concerns for tenants and the risk of creating records that could negatively affect future housing opportunities;
The argument that eviction filings typically occur only after extensive attempts to work with tenants and are governed by state law and courts;
Warnings that expanded tracking could be a precursor to additional regulation or rent control without addressing root causes, such as housing affordability and supply.
Opponents urged the City to prioritize housing production, affordability, mediation, and streamlined permitting instead of expanded data collection.
Shared Acknowledgments: Despite differences, speakers across perspectives generally agreed that:
Housing costs in Costa Mesa are unsustainable for many residents;
Evictions are undesirable for both tenants and landlords;
There are both responsible and irresponsible actors on all sides; and
Preventing displacement and maintaining community stability are important goals.
Motions and Vote. Stephens moved to receive and file the item. The motion initially lacked a second, but Chavez seconded it for purposes of discussion.
Chavez then made a substitute motion directing staff to work with the courts to obtain eviction data in a manner that protects tenant privacy and not proceed with an ordinance amendment at this time.
Stephens seconded the substitute motion. In support, Chavez stated that the proposed ordinance would create “an undue burden on landlords and Staff,” raised privacy concerns for tenants, questioned its legality under state law, and said he did not see a clear community benefit.
Marr expressed concern that court‑provided data could take too long to obtain, potentially arriving after harm to tenants had already occurred.
Gameros expressed confusion regarding which motion was under consideration. Reynolds asked Chavez what would happen if the data took a year to obtain; Chavez responded that he wanted to give Staff an opportunity to attempt to secure it first.
The substitute motion failed, 3–4, with Pettis, Reynolds, Marr, and Buley voting “No.” The Council then voted on the original motion to receive and file the item. That motion passed 5–2, with Reynolds and Marr voting “No.”
NEW BUSINESS: Again, the Agenda was reordered, this time to hear New Business Item 1.
1. Request For Direction on Potential Citywide Rental Registry Program and Network for Renters’ Solutions. Staff sought direction on whether to proceed with establishing a citywide rental registry program and the establishment of a Network for Renters’ Solutions (NRS). This item is intended to complement the proposed Just Cause Residential Tenant Protections ordinance (Public Hearing Item 2 above).
Nate Robbins, Neighborhood Improvement Manager, presented the item. Staff explained that the NRS would serve as a centralized framework for tenant and landlord education, mediation, outreach, and compliance support. As presented, the proposal included consideration of a rental registry component that would collect basic information about rental units to improve enforcement of existing tenant protections and inform policy decisions.
Robbins explained that the proposal builds on existing state law (AB 1482) and the City’s 2023 tenant protection ordinance, which already requires notice and relocation assistance for no‑fault evictions. Under the related eviction‑reporting proposal, landlords would be required to notify the City within 72 hours of filing an unlawful detainer (UD) for an at‑fault eviction—not at the three‑day notice stage. Staff emphasized that the goal is improved visibility into eviction activity in order to provide early education, mediation, and compliance assistance, not to delay or prevent lawful evictions.
Failure to comply would result only in administrative civil citations ($150 for a first violation, $300 for a second, and $500 for subsequent violations). Unlike violations involving no‑fault evictions, failure to report would not invalidate an eviction. Staff emphasized that the City’s role would remain balanced—supporting both landlords and tenants through education, guidance, and proactive outreach.
Staff recommended a 12‑month grace period with no enforcement while conducting outreach, updating the City website, mailing information to affected property owners, posting notices in public facilities, and providing direct assistance. Staff requested direction to move forward with introducing the ordinance and conducting a first reading.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Stephens asked about program costs and staffing impacts, though staff did not provide information beyond what was included in the report.
Pettis questioned whether the program would solve problems the City is currently unable to address. Robbins responded that the primary benefit would be data collection, which could identify vacant units and improve transparency for the public.
Reynolds asked how many units would be affected and whether the program could impact the City’s homelessness count. Robbins said it could. Reynolds also asked what staff had learned from no‑fault eviction reporting; Robbins indicated that many reported evictions were found to be illegal.
Marr sought confirmation that the proposal did not constitute rent control. Robbins confirmed that it was not.
Stephens asked about departmental staffing. Robbins explained that the Neighborhood Improvement Division consists of 10 staff members, including himself, and that implementation would not require new positions but would involve reallocating existing staff responsibilities.
Public Comment. Twenty-two members of the public also spoke on this item, including housing providers, apartment associations, small “mom-and-pop” landlords, renters, students, community advocates, nonprofit representatives, and residents. Opinions were sharply divided, with frequent references to experiences in other California cities, costs, data needs, tenant protections, and concerns about rent control.
Key Arguments Opposing a Rental Registry: Those opposing argued that:
1. Cost and Fiscal Risk: Speakers cited startup estimates of approximately $213,000 and examples from other cities where costs increased significantly over time. They warned the program could divert resources from parks, infrastructure, or direct rental assistance, and that costs would ultimately be passed on to tenants through higher rents.
2. Duplication of Existing Data: Some argued that rental data already exists through private platforms or the City’s Housing Element, suggesting the City could purchase existing datasets instead of creating a new program.
3. Concerns About Rent Control: Many speakers warned that rental registries often precede rent control, citing other jurisdictions and research suggesting rent control reduces housing supply and raises rents long‑term.
4. Administrative and Privacy Burden: Small landlords described the registry as an additional regulatory burden and raised concerns about cybersecurity, data privacy, and the public posting of ownership or vacancy information.
5. Impact on Small Landlords: “Mom‑and‑pop” landlords emphasized rising insurance, maintenance, and compliance costs, arguing that additional requirements would discourage reinvestment and strain tenant relationships.
Key Arguments Supporting a Rental Registry: Supporters argued that:
1. Data Enables Better Governance: Advocates stressed that a registry is a data tool—not rent control—and would help the City understand rental conditions, ownership patterns, evictions, and housing stability in a majority‑renter city.
2. Accountability and Tenant Protection: Renters described unsafe living conditions and fear of retaliation. Supporters argued that a registry would help identify problem properties and patterns rather than relying on individual complaints.
3. Enforcement of Existing Laws: Speakers said a registry would improve compliance with existing tenant protection laws and emphasized that no tenant personal data was proposed for collection.
4. Transparency and Equity: With over 60 percent of Costa Mesa residents renting, supporters argued tenants should know who owns their housing, especially when properties are held by LLCs.
5. Preventive Investment: Some city registry fees only amounted to a few dollars per month per unit, and it was argued that prevention costs are less than homelessness, emergency services, or displacement.
6. Examples of Cities Without Rent Control: Speakers referenced cities such as Palo Alto and Irvine, where rental data collection has not led to rent control.
7. Community Stability: Students, young families, and longtime residents described housing instability and framed the registry as an investment in public health and stability.
Points of Agreement: Across perspectives, speakers generally agreed that:
Housing affordability is a serious problem in Costa Mesa;
Evictions are undesirable for both tenants and landlords;
There are responsible and irresponsible actors on all sides; and
Preventing displacement is an important community goal.
Motion. Stephens moved to receive and file the item, seconded by Buley. In speaking to the motion, Stephens stated that he opposed the proposal, citing cost, added burden on landlords, concerns that costs would be passed on to tenants, budget constraints, and the perception that a registry could be a step toward rent control.
Buley added that he believed the program could suppress housing development.
Marr responded that the purpose of the item was to give staff direction to return with more detailed cost and staffing information—not to preemptively reject the concept. She objected to framing the issue around rent control, which she said has not been proposed by this Council, and emphasized that she represents voters, not industry groups. She said she was confused about where this Council had taken a “sharp right turn.”
Marr attempted to introduce a substitute motion, but confusion arose regarding whether it had been formally stated or seconded.
Reynolds indicated she attempted to second but experienced technical issues. Reynolds spoke in support of gathering more information, noting the City’s success in preventing homelessness and stating that a one‑time investment for prevention could be worthwhile.
Chavez asked for clarification of the motion. Marr then clarified that her motion was to direct staff to return with detailed information on costs and staffing related to both the NRS and a rental registry. Chavez stated that he opposed a rental registry due to privacy concerns and fear of targeting immigrant communities.
Pettis, who seems to wear his heart on his sleeve, objected to Marr’s characterization of the Council’s direction, defended his focus on taxpayer interests, and argued for allowing market‑based solutions; he did not propose an alternative.
Marr then amended her motion to limit it solely to exploring a Network for Renters’ Solutions, explicitly excluding a rental registry. Stephens confirmed the registry was not part of the amended motion.
Vote: The substituted motion—to direct staff to explore a Network for Renters’ Solutions without a rental registry—passed 5–2, with Pettis and Buley voting “No.”
PUBLIC HEARINGS: After a short break, the City Council returned to work at 10:45 p.m. Returning to the Public Hearings, next up with Item 3. Are you confused about the order of the items? So were we!
3. Resolution to Amend Sixth Cycle Housing Element in Conjunction with Housing Element Sites Rezoning. The City Council considered a resolution to amend the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element in conjunction with Housing Element Sites rezoning and to find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed amendments would add two Housing Element Opportunity Sites and remove seventeen sites from Appendix B (Housing Element Sites Inventory).
Michelle Halligan, Senior Planner, provided a brief presentation outlining the proposed changes.
Sites to Be Added:
Site 209: 2000 Harbor Blvd. — a largely vacant commercial property adjacent to the 420 Central dispensary.
Site 210: APN 418‑181‑11 — an undeveloped parcel near the intersection of Bristol Street and Bear Street (address to be assigned).
Sites to Be Removed: Seventeen sites are proposed for removal, including:
The Costa Mesa Women’s Club at 610 W. 18th Street.
Several properties owned by C.J. Segerstrom & Sons, including 685 Sunflower Avenue.
The property now occupied by the new Trader Joe’s at 2180 Harbor Boulevard.
Staff noted that while some of these sites will continue to be designated as Measure K sites, they will no longer count toward the Housing Element inventory.
Impact on Housing Capacity: The proposed amendments would result in a net loss of 15 sites and 5,431 housing units from the Housing Element Sites Inventory, broken down as follows:
843 very low‑income units
455 low‑income units
869 moderate‑income units
3,264 above‑moderate‑income units
Under state law, the City is required to complete a “No Net Loss” analysis within 180 days to identify replacement sites sufficient to meet the City’s RHNA obligations and maintain the required buffer.
Legal and Policy Context: A recent court decision, New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, clarified that residential overlays on Housing Element sites must require:
At least 50% residential use, and
A minimum density of 20 units per acre, in order to count toward RHNA capacity.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Reynolds asked if it was possible to add sites to the inventory at a later date. Halligan said that could be done if the property owner requests. Staff is also looking at adding Measure K sites to make up the lost capacity.
Public Comment. Five members of the public spoke, addressing topics including economic development impacts, housing equity, procedural notice, and preservation of community‑serving and historic properties.
Representatives from C.J. Segerstrom & Sons and Anduril Industries expressed appreciation for the City’s long‑standing collaboration and emphasized that inclusion of their properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory resulted from state housing mandates, not local policy decisions.
The speaker for Anduril Industries raised concerns that continued inclusion of its leased site at 3333 Susan Street (The Hive) would (i) restrict future non-residential development, as Anduril is not in the business of housing development, and (ii) limit flexibility for job-generating uses during the City’s forthcoming Housing Element amendment process. Anduril requested either a continuance or an explicit exemption from the MUOD provisions while amendments are processed, while maintaining that the site should ultimately be removed from the inventory before final certification.
Several speakers raised procedural concerns, including:
Lack of awareness among some property owners and long‑term lessees that their properties were listed in the inventory.
Prior noticing which occurred several years ago and may not have reached the current property owners.
Potential due‑process or Brown Act concerns if proceeding without updated notice.
Requests to delay Council action to allow for additional outreach and engagement.
Housing advocates opposed removing large sites from the inventory, arguing that doing so reduces future housing opportunity, including affordable housing. Some stated that large employers should share responsibility for addressing housing shortages and that retaining such sites supports equitable distribution of housing obligations.
A representative of the Costa Mesa Women’s Club requested removal of its site, citing concerns that Housing Element designation could jeopardize ongoing operations and preservation of the property’s historic character.
Further Councilmember Questions and Comments. Stephens asked Carrie Tai, Director of Economic and Development Services, about postponing the item, noting that it would also be addressed in the next item to be heard. Tai indicated there would be adverse impacts, as a delay would require re-noticing of the item and requiring the changes to be returned to the Planning Commission. She assured Stephens that the matter would be addressed in the next item to be heard. Stephens objected to the lack of transparency by Staff in that it submitted a supplemental memo on the day of the hearing. Tai pushed forward, claiming that there is urgency due to the demands of the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Buley commented that he wanted assurance from Staff that there would not be another landowner requesting removal, forcing this item to be reopened and reheard. Pettis echoed that concern.
City Attorney Hall Barlow stated that conversations with Anduril the prior evening resulted in a solution, and the language submitted was supported by Anduril, and it was no longer requesting a continuance. The Anduril site would be excluded as part of the code amendments considered in Public Hearing Item 4.
Motion. Chavez moved to approve the staff recommendation, and Stephens seconded the motion.
A member of the audience requested additional comment, prompting Stephens to reopen the public hearing. Anduril’s counsel confirmed that the company was comfortable proceeding, provided it receives assurance that its site will be removed during the next amendment. Counsel also stated that prior notifications had gone to the former property owner, and the current owner was notified only shortly before the hearing. Segerstrom’s counsel also spoke in support of moving forward.
Staff clarified that property owners may pursue a General Plan Amendment if they wish to formally request rezoning.
Vote: The motion passed unanimously.
4. Zoning Code Amendments to Implement the Housing Element and Measure K. This item encompassed several related actions necessary to implement the City’s Housing Element and Measure K, including:
A Zoning Code Amendment to rezone Housing Element sites and implement Housing Element programs;
A Conforming Amendment to the Municipal Code;
A Resolution to Amend the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan; and
A discussion item regarding a future resolution to adopt fees associated with new development review processes.
Because of last‑minute revisions that were not included in the published Agenda Report, Staff needed to load a revised presentation, which caused technical difficulties. Following a brief recess, staff proceeded with the presentation.
The presentation was delivered by Michelle Halligan, Senior Planner; Anna McGill, Advance Planning Manager; and Cathy Tang Saez, a consultant with Dudek.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Buley asked about the maximum allowable residential densities in the Housing Element, which range from 40 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) to 90 du/ac, depending on location. He also asked about penalties imposed by the HCD on jurisdictions with noncompliant housing elements. McGill explained that having a certified Housing Element restores eligibility for a wide range of state grants and makes projects eligible for affordable housing tax‑credit financing.
Reynolds raised questions about open space requirements, particularly access to different types of open space within developments. She referenced a suggestion by Planning Commissioner David Martinez to reduce required private open space in favor of increased common or publicly accessible open space. McGill stated that such changes would need to return to both the Planning Commission and City Council at a future hearing because the concept had not been noticed to the public. She indicated it could be recommended at a later date.
Reynolds also asked whether eliminating side and front setbacks could facilitate more publicly accessible open space. McGill responded that this would be an option under the proposed new design standards. Saez added that setbacks remain important in certain contexts—particularly along high‑traffic corridors such as Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard—to ensure pedestrian comfort and safety.
Public Comment. Four members of the public addressed the Council.
David Martinez urged the City to further amend the MUOD to reduce regulatory barriers to housing production. He recommended eliminating minimum parking requirements entirely, noting that state law already preempts parking minimums on many sites and that structured parking significantly increases construction costs and rents. He also advocated reducing setback requirements (e.g., to five feet), while preserving trees and walkable streetscapes, and increasing flexibility in open‑space standards by allowing private open‑space requirements to be met through common or publicly accessible open space. Martinez argued these changes would lower costs, improve walkability, and support more housing production, and urged the Council to amend the MUOD accordingly prior to adoption.
An attorney representing Anduril Industries reiterated that both Anduril and the property owner had requested good‑faith removal of the site from the Housing Element Sites Inventory. The attorney stated that Anduril agreed to withdraw its earlier continuance request based on staff’s proposal to amend the MUOD to allow non‑residential development on the site in the near term. The speaker emphasized that consensus had been reached after extensive communication and requested Council adoption of the MUOD with the proposed amendment to preserve flexibility for a future non‑residential project.
Several commenters expressed concern about late‑distributed materials and memoranda that were not included in the agenda packet. They argued that providing site‑specific relief to a single property owner, without extending similar opportunities to others, could raise fairness and Brown Act concerns. Questions were raised about whether the proposed amendments had been vetted with HCD, and warnings were issued that the City could later be required to revise or undo its actions.
Other speakers voiced frustration with what they described as a recurring pattern of late changes, procedural shortcuts, and delays that contributed to the City’s current Housing Element non‑compliance. Some noted that continued non‑compliance has already resulted in lost grant funding and financial impacts.
Additional concerns were raised that allowing individual property owners to opt out of Housing Element sites could undermine the City’s broader housing strategy and set a precedent for future challenges to site viability. Speakers also cited unresolved issues related to parks, traffic circulation, and infrastructure planning, which they argued could be exacerbated by piecemeal amendments or removals.
Motion. Reynolds moved to approve the staff recommendation with two amendments:
1. Allow private open space requirements to be satisfied through common residential open space or publicly accessible open space, and allow usable common residential open space to be provided as publicly accessible space; and
2. Eliminate off‑street parking requirements for Housing Element sites.
The motion was seconded by Chavez.
Stephens advised Reynolds to include a clarification—via a friendly amendment—that the Anduril site would be removed and that any sites removed would not be subject to the ordinance. Staff indicated that the exception language, along with adoption of the revised zoning maps and the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan maps, would address the Anduril issue outlined in the supplemental memo distributed earlier that day.
That memo was posted on the website right before meeting. Was that posting compliant with the Brown Act? Yeah, but was it transparent and ethical? Ehh…not so much. And then there was the fact that Reynolds added to her motion the changes to open space and off-street parking WHICH HAD NOT BEEN NOTICED, HAD NOT BEEN COMMENTED ON BY THE PUBLIC, AND THEREFORE WERE YET ANOTHER BROWN ACT VIOLATION BY THIS CITY COUNCIL.
The City Attorney had to read the title of the ordinance into the record, because it wasn’t included in the Agenda Report. Gosh, can this get any sloppier?
There was more discussion, but the Council finally got around to voting on this item at about 12:15 a.m.
Vote: The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS: None. We should have seen the ethics policy at this meeting, but it wasn’t on the Agenda.
NEW BUSINESS: Again, we changed direction in the Agenda. There were two remaining new business items.
4. Approval of $1.5 Million in HOME Investment Partnerships Program Funding for Two Affordable Housing Projects. Staff requested approval of a $1.5 million funding allocation from the HOME Investment Partnerships Program to support two affordable housing developments in Costa Mesa. The funding would be provided as loans in the following amounts:
$750,000 to Jamboree Housing Corporation (JHC) for the Costa Mesa Senior Housing Project, and
$750,000 to American Family Housing (AFH) for the Avon River Apartments at 1400 Bristol Avenue.
Staff noted that the City has already made significant financial commitments to both projects:
Costa Mesa Senior Housing:
$10.5 million in contributed land value.
$700,000 loan to cover deferred permitting and inspection fees.
Avon River Apartments
$3 million in prior City funding
Carrie Tai, Director of Economic and Development Services, presented the item and explained that the requested HOME funds are intended to fill unanticipated construction‑related funding gaps that emerged as the projects moved forward.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Councilmembers asked about the sources of the funding gaps and the terms of the proposed loans, including interest rates and repayment conditions. Tai explained that details of the loan terms were not yet available because the promissory notes had not been drafted.
Public Comment. Four members of the public spoke. Comments reflected strong support for the affordable senior housing project at the Senior Center, while also expressing frustration with Costa Mesa’s historical and current approach to affordable housing development.
Some speakers raised concerns that past City Council and staff decisions contributed to funding, timing, and reputational challenges affecting these projects.
Andy, representing AFH, provided additional project-specific details. He stated that some units at the Avon River Apartments will be reserved for Costa Mesa residents or individuals at risk of homelessness, including 10 units designated for veterans. The targeted completion date for the project is June.
Motion and Vote. Chavez moved to approve the staff recommendation; however, the motion did not receive a second.
Marr then made a substitute motion to:
Allocate $1.15 million to Jamboree Housing Corporation, and $350,000 to American Family Housing, and
Set the interest rate for both loans at 3 percent.
The substitute motion was seconded by Stephens and passed unanimously.
5. Request by Jamboree Housing Corporation for Additional Funding for the Costa Mesa Senior Project. The City Council considered a request from Jamboree Housing Corporation (JHC) for additional City funding for the Costa Mesa Senior Project, along with authorization for the City Manager to execute a funding commitment letter with JHC.
Hadassah Jakher, Assistant to the City Manager, had been scheduled to present the item but instead provided a brief overview due to the late hour. The following summary is drawn from the Agenda Report and discussion.
Funding Issue: The project lost eligibility for 2024 Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) dollars because the City’s Housing Element was not certified by the State within the required timeframe. As a result, JHC is now facing a significant funding shortfall.
To remain competitive in the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) process, JHC must demonstrate full project financing by April 7, 2026. To meet that requirement, JHC requested $3.25 million in additional City funding.
Funding Request Breakdown: The requested $3.25 million would be structured as long‑term loans from the following sources:
$750,000 from the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds (approved under New Business Item 4 above).
$2.5 million from other sources, including:
$2.1 million from the City’s Housing Trust Fund; and
$1 million from the One Metro West Project’s Economic Recovery and Community Enhancement Fund, which is intended to support community enhancement projects, economic sustainability, and essential government functions.
The developer of One Metro West indicated it is willing to provide a portion of the needed funding to JHC by the required deadline.
Loan Terms: JHC proposed a 55-year loan with a 3% annual interest rate.
Fiscal Impact: Staff indicated that the funding request could be partially covered through the HOME Program Fund ($750,000), the Housing Trust Fund ($2.1 million), and the One Metro West Project contribution ($1 million).
Following Jakher’s overview, City Attorney Hall Barlow clarified that the One Metro West developer’s payment would not require an amendment to the Development Agreement.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Councilmembers asked whether additional funding from the County of Orange could reduce the amount requested from the City. JHC’s representative stated that county grants or other funding may still be secured.
Questions were also raised about prioritizing Costa Mesa residents for the new housing units. Staff explained that county funding restrictions limit local residency preferences, but that preference may be given to non‑voucher units.
Councilmembers also discussed accelerated repayment options, and staff indicated that the loan documents would allow for early repayment.
Public Comment. Three members of the public spoke:
Elizabeth Hansberg, representing People for Housing, strongly urged the Council to approve the funding request. She emphasized that housing policy decisions affect residents at their most vulnerable and referenced earlier testimony from tenants and landlords struggling with basic living costs. Hansberg argued that this project represents an immediate, tangible action the City can take because it is located on City‑owned land. She highlighted benefits for working families and seniors—particularly grandparents and low‑income seniors living near City Hall and the Senior Center—and called on the Council to act decisively rather than delay.
I requested postponement of the item, citing insufficient information and financial risk. I noted that key documents referenced in earlier Council actions— including a missing exhibit—were not included in the packet, limiting both public and Council understanding of previously approved terms. I raised concerns about committing more than $3 million in funds tied to the Metro West development without a written financial commitment. I also objected to replacing lost federal grant funding with money from the City’s Housing Trust Fund, which I stated was intended to support first‑time homebuyers. I questioned the loan structure, interest rate, repayment priority, and the absence of a formal review by the Finance Department. Given the City’s non‑compliant Housing Element and broader economic uncertainty, I urged postponement to allow for full documentation and analysis.
Kathy Esfahani expressed strong support for the project and echoed Hansberg’s comments. She emphasized that the City owns the land and has a clear opportunity to act. She urged the Council not to delay and to approve the funding so the project can move forward for low‑income seniors.
Motion and Vote. Marr made a motion to:
Provide $2.1 million to JHC from the City’s Housing Trust Fund;
Require JHC to give preference to Costa Mesa residents for non‑voucher units;
Set a 3 percent interest rate on the loan; and
Require JHC to use best efforts to secure additional funding prior to closing, with any additional funds received to be repaid to the City.
The motion was seconded by Chavez.
Buley requested a friendly amendment to clarify that any additional funds received after closing would also be returned to the City. JHC responded that repayment could occur prior to closing or at refinancing, but not afterward. It was not clearly stated whether the friendly amendment was accepted.
The motion passed unanimously. The meeting ended at 12:55 a.m., nearly 7 hours after it began.
MARCH 18 SPECIAL MEETING OF FINANCE AND PENSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE. The meeting was called to order at 4:01 p.m. and concluded at about 7:00 p.m. All Committee members were present, with the exception of Sean Healey.
Also in attendance were Mark Khou, Budget and Purchasing Manager, Anna Acosta-Reyes, Finance Manager, Paige Appel, Senior Budget Analyst, and Paulette Lombardi-Fries, Travel Costa Mesa President. No City Council Liaisons were present.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss potential ballot measures related to increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and the Business License Tax.
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX: Staff and Travel Costa Mesa provided presentations on current TOT rates, revenue trends, and comparisons with peer cities. The Committee discussed the possibility of recommending a ballot measure allowing up to a three‑percentage‑point increase in the TOT and/or Business Improvement Area (BIA) rates. Such a measure would allow the City Council to determine how any increase would be allocated between TOT and BIA.
It was noted that any increase to BIA rates must be initiated by the BIA itself. Committee discussion reflected a preference for offering general policy guidance rather than endorsing a specific tax rate, with an emphasis on maintaining market competitiveness and coordinating any changes with BIA adjustments. Staff noted that the Finance Department would independently develop recommendations for the City Council, with the Committee’s input serving as a catalyst for further consideration.
Public Comment. Four members of the public provided comment:
Kelly Brown, a City Council candidate, asked about current tourism trends and how Costa Mesa differentiates itself from neighboring cities.
Jim Fitzpatrick requested that background materials be shared with the public before committee meetings to support transparency and informed participation. He alleged that this project has gone “sideways” because someone told him the proposed changes would work. He expressed frustration with the City’s fiscal direction, described the City as structurally deficit, and argued that the Committee’s input is not being adequately considered by Staff. His comments escalated when he started making baiting comments to the Chair, which spiraled downward into a confrontation, requiring a five‑minute recess.
After public comment resumed, Rick Huffman said the presentation was informative and suggested that Costa Mesa consider a TOT increase, noting the City’s rate appears lower than many comparable jurisdictions. He emphasized that FiPAC’s role is advisory and that Council should weigh the Committee’s input alongside stakeholder feedback, including from the hotel industry.
I expressed support for structuring any recommendation with a clear cap and flexibility between potential TOT and BIA increases, cautioning against setting one component disproportionately higher than the other.
Note: Of the 429 cities surveyed, approximately 83 percent have a higher TOT rate than Costa Mesa.
Motion and Vote: Ralph Taboada moved to recommend that the City Council place a ballot measure on the November election allowing an increase to the TOT or a combined TOT/BIA, with a maximum increase of up to three percent. The motion was seconded by Lisa Buchanan.
Following discussion, Committee members agreed the language should be softened to reflect a preliminary and flexible recommendation, emphasizing the need for additional analysis, stakeholder engagement, and staff findings before advancing an actual ballot measure.
Taboada amended his motion to recommend that the City Council consider, with input from Travel Costa Mesa, City consultants, and staff, initiating a potential ballot measure for November 2026 to increase TOT and/or BIA, with a maximum combined increase of up to 3 percent. The amendment was accepted by the seconder.
The revised motion passed 4–1, with Daniel Morgan voting “No” and Sean Healey absent.
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX BALLOT MEASURE. The Committee then discussed the possibility of a Business License Tax ballot measure, focusing on protecting sales‑tax‑generating businesses, maintaining competitiveness, and addressing longstanding concerns from the business community. Key points included:
The business license tax has not been increased in approximately 40 years, while the TOT has not been raised in roughly 16 years.
Staff clarified the distinction between taxes (which require voter approval) and fees (which are limited to cost recovery).
Committee members discussed restructuring options, such as tiered systems based on revenue or business type, with an emphasis on fairness and protecting lower‑margin businesses.
There was discussion that emphasized the importance of accurate data, benchmarking with peer cities, and surveying local businesses before advancing any proposal.
Public Comment. Fitzpatrick, having calmed after the earlier recess, urged reliance on accurate data prior to policymaking. He stated his belief that Costa Mesa is no longer viewed as business‑friendly, criticized reliance on consultants, and warned that higher costs could discourage hiring and harm the local economy.
I countered that, in my experience, business fees rarely drive relocation decisions. I expressed support for potential increases and recommended surveying businesses to better understand their needs.
Huffman noted that business license fees have remained low and unchanged for decades. He supported updating them to reflect inflation, benchmarking against peer cities, and ensuring that businesses contribute fairly.
Committee members discussed potential restructuring concepts but expressed differing views on the tax’s purpose, its impact on various business sectors, and the appropriate level of specificity for any future recommendation. Several members stated they did not yet have enough information to support specific rate proposals.
Staff provided an overview of timelines for a potential ballot measure and noted that a consultant would assist with polling once a framework is defined.
Given the complexity of the issue and the lack of sufficient data, the Committee agreed that additional analysis and information are needed before making a recommendation. The Committee agreed to continue the business license tax discussion to its next meeting on April 8, 2026, for further analysis and possible action.
MARCH 23 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. This meeting did not take place because the City failure to issue the Agenda timely.
MARCH 24 AND MARCH 26 FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER WORKSHOPS 1 AND 2. We’ve already reported on these meetings here: https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/the-final-workshop-on-the-fairview-developmental-center-specific-plan-what-we-learned-and-what-stil What I didn’t report on was our review and comment on the Specific Plan Document. You can read our letter here: https://www.costamesa1st.com/_files/ugd/9a7fe2_4ff246b0d31c4862bc281957bf4f01fb.pdf
MARCH 31 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION. All Councilmembers were present. The Study Session focused on a single topic: the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2026–27, including a preview of the five‑year CIP.
Presentation. Raja Sethuramen, Public Works Director, led the presentation, joined by Seung Yang, City Engineer; Rob Ryan, Maintenance Services Manager; and Patrick Bower, Deputy Director of Public Works. Staff sought Council direction on project priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. Final adoption of the CIP must occur by June 30, 2026.
The Public Works Department consists of 75 full‑time employees across five divisions: administration, engineering, general services, transportation, and maintenance.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Overview. Staff explained that the CIP is funded through a mix of federal, state, county, and local sources, many of which carry restrictions and audit requirements. Projects exceeding $30,000 are included in the CIP, while smaller work is classified as routine maintenance.
CIP funding is multi‑year in nature; projects often require lengthy planning, environmental review, design, bidding, and construction. Funds do not expire at the end of a fiscal year. Staff emphasized ongoing oversight, interdepartmental coordination, and compliance with grant conditions.
2025–26 Accomplishments. Projects completed or nearing completion included:
Annual citywide street improvements supporting a pavement condition index (PCI) goal of 85 or higher.
Interior renovations at the Police Department.
Roof replacement at the Norma Hertzog Community Center.
Brentwood Park playground redevelopment (new equipment, lighting, paths, shade, and accessibility upgrades).
Fairview Road active transportation improvements, including separated bike facilities, new signals, a bus boarding island, and landscaping.
Design work was also completed for major future projects, including Fire Station No. 2, Skate Park expansion, Ketcham‑Leibold Park, Shalimar Park, and citywide traffic signal modernization.
Budget Constraints and Adjustments. Staff noted ongoing budget constraints, requiring some projects to be deferred or reduced. A partial waiver of the City’s Capital Asset Needs (CAN) ordinance was requested due to project deferrals and funding limitations.
While progress has been made in advancing dormant projects, some remain in early stages. Staff emphasized prioritizing projects already underway or tied to funding deadlines.
2026–27 Proposed CIP. For FY 2026–27, staff proposed approximately 39 projects totaling $33.4 million, including future bond financing for Fire Station No. 2. Project selection was guided by:
City Council goals;
Community feedback;
Departmental needs; and
Recent assessments of facilities, parks, and tree canopy
Funding sources include bonds, grants, the General Fund, Measure M2, gas tax, traffic impact fees, and other revenues. The project list remains preliminary pending final revenue projections.
Highlighted 2026-2027 Proposed Projects. Key proposed projects include:
Continued citywide alley reconstruction (nearing completion).
Replacement of aging HVAC chillers at City Hall and the Police Department.
Major renovation of the 911 call center.
Expanded tree maintenance and planting.
Harper Park playground improvements.
Moon Park conceptual design and community engagement.
Skate Park expansion, with additional contingency funding.
Adams Avenue multipurpose trail, supported by new grant funding.
Mesa del Mar multimodal improvements, including protected bike lanes and a raised intersection.
Staff stated the CIP balances infrastructure needs, community priorities, and fiscal constraints.
Staff also reported on feedback received from the Parks and Community Services (PACS) Commission regarding the parks portion of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). While the commission generally supported the proposed one‑year and five‑year CIP, they offered several additional recommendations, including requesting that Marina View Park and Wilson Park be prioritized in the current year to address issues identified in the park assessment study.
Parks and Community Services (PACS) Commission Feedback. Staff reported that PACS generally supported the proposed one‑year and five‑year CIP but offered additional recommendations.
Kelly Brown (Chair) and Shayanne Wright (Vice Chair) addressed the Council and highlighted key priorities based on the recent parks assessment:
Priority Recommendations:
Immediate priorities: Marina View Park and Wilson Park, due to C ratings, park‑desert locations, nearby high‑density housing, and manageable scopes.
Community gardens: Unanimous support, citing long waitlists, educational benefits, and revenue potential; suggested a modest allocation to study opportunities.
Westside Park development: Strongly recommend reinstating funding that has repeatedly been deferred, consistent with the Open Space Master Plan.
Commissioners also:
Urged reducing City contributions to Fairview Park and the Skate Park through scope adjustments or private funding.
Recommended removing parks in good condition from the five‑year CIP.
Wright raised concerns about what she described as “slush funds,” advocating for more project‑specific budgeting to avoid reactive spending and better align with assessment findings.
Five‑Year CIP and CAN Overview. Staff clarified that the five‑year CIP identifies deferred and future projects and is primarily a planning document; years two through five are unfunded but help position the City for future grants.
A new comparison table was added to show alignment with prior projections. For example, Shalimar Park bids came in lower than expected, allowing the next phase to proceed within existing funds.
Staff reviewed the CAN repayment schedule, noting deferred amounts from prior years but expressing confidence that required payments could be met.
Councilmember Questions and Comments. Councilmembers raised questions about:
Gisler Park conditions and improvements (Gameros).
Westside Park development fees being used to fund land acquisition near Shalimar Park (Chavez).
Skate Park cost increases and grant deadlines (Marr).
Reopening Wilson Park restrooms, which staff said would require minimal work.
Classification of alleged “slush funds,” clarified as ongoing low‑cost repair allocations.
Marr focused on CAN repayment, stating a preference to prioritize deferred maintenance even if it meant not fully funding CAN requirements. Here is the proposed repayment schedule:
Stephens asked about amending or repealing the CAN ordinance. The City Attorney explained it would need to occur quickly, limiting public and advisory committee input, so it will not be pursued this budget cycle.
Buley asked about deferred projects from prior budgets and whether additional deferrals would require a supermajority or emergency finding. Staff did not provide a definitive answer.
Fire Station No. 2 Bond Financing Update. Staff reported progress with bond counsel and a municipal advisor. Next steps include:
Financial analysis (20‑ vs. 30‑year term).
Identifying collateral.
Securing a AA credit rating.
Staff plans to return to the City Council on June 16 for bond issuance approval, with funding anticipated by mid‑July. A proposal includes setting aside an additional $1 million for bond reserves.
Public Comments. Public comment was limited to two minutes per speaker. Most speakers supported Moon Park improvements, particularly residents from the State Streets neighborhood.
Key themes included:
Safety: Lack of fencing near bike trails, poor sightlines, lighting concerns.
Community engagement: Grassroots organizing and 160+ signatures supporting improvements.
Underutilization: Families avoid the park due to safety concerns
Inclusivity: Requests for multigenerational amenities; strong support for preserving the moon structure.
Equity concerns: One speaker questioned disproportionate spending at Fairview Park.
Speakers urged Council to prioritize Moon Park and advance the conceptual design phase.
Councilmember Closing Comments. Councilmembers broadly:
Praised staff and commission efforts.
Expressed strong support for Moon Park improvements.
Emphasized equitable park investment, especially in park deserts.
Discussed creative funding strategies, including public‑private and public‑public partnerships.
Stressed aligning CIP decisions with assessment data and long‑term needs.
Overall, Council expressed optimism about the proposed direction while emphasizing disciplined prioritization, transparency, and data‑driven planning.
March was a busy month—and April has been just as full. We’ll aim to get the April update out a bit sooner.