Costa Mesa City Council
June 18, 2024

831

City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report

77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Item #: 24-252 Meeting Date: 6/18/2024
TITLE: PLANNING APPLICATION PDRC-23-0001 TO ADD THE “LEROY ANDERSON HOUSE” AT 208 MAGNOLIA STREET TO THE LOCAL HISTORIC REGISTER AND APPROVE A MILLS ACT

CONTRACT FOR THE PROPERTY

DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/PLANNING

DIVISION

PRESENTED BY: CAITLYN CURLEY, ASSISTANT PLANNER

CONTACT INFORMATION: CAITLYN CURLEY, ASSISTANT PLANNER, 714-754-5692

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Find that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (“Common Sense”) of the CEQA Guidelines.

2. Adopt City Council Resolution 2024 -XX to p lace the “Leroy Anderson House” at 208 Magnolia Street on the Local Register of Historic Places.

3. Approve a Mills Act contract between the City and the property owner to facilitate preservation of the subject property as a historic resource.

APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT:

The applicant and property owner is John Barnett.

BACKGROUND:

The property owner of 208 Magnolia Street (Assessor Parcel Number 425-402-02) has submitted an application to place his residence on the City’s Local Register of Historic Places and to enter into a Mills Act contract with the City of Costa Mesa . The subject property is located on the north side of Magnolia Street between Orange and Westminster Avenues.

Historic Designation

The subject property, also referred to as the “Leroy Anderson House”, is identified in the 1999 City of Costa Mesa Citywide Historic Resources Survey prepared by PCR Services Corporation as being eligible for local landmark designation and is also identified as a potential historical resource in the City’s General Plan Historical and Cultural Resources Element. Based on historic aerial photographs, the original house is estimated to have been constructed between 1927 and 1931. 832

Item #: 24-252 Meeting Date: 6/18/2024

The original house consisted of a one-story single-family residence facing Magnolia Street. The garage and second-story addition located at the rear of the property, was constructed in 1997. The home’s locally significant architecture, and association with an early prominent local citizen, Leroy Anderson, qualify the home as a potential historic resource.

Mills Act

The Mills Act is a State law allowing cities to enter into contracts with the owners of historic structures.

Such contracts allow for a limited reduction in property taxes in exchange for the continued preservation of an historic resource. The Mills Act law enables the City Council to enter into a 10-year contract with owners of historic properties. Under these contracts (“Mills Act contra cts”), owners agree to maintain and, if necessary, rehabilitate their historic structures with specific improvements during a 10 -year contract period, and subsequently maintain the property pursuant to local, State and federal historic laws. Mills Act contracts automatically extend annually for one year after the initial 10-year term.

The intention of the Mills Act contract tax benefit is to provide the historic property owners with greater means and motivation for historic property maintenance. The City does not control or set the assessed value of property and benefits permitted under the Mills Act contract. Instead, t his value and the ultimate property tax paid by the property owner is determined by the Orange County Assessor’s Office, using a formula that is established by the State Mills Act legislation. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 50281 (State Mills Act Legislation) , Mills Act contracts shall contain the following provisions:

a) The term of the contract shall be for a minimum period of 10 years , and all protections and incentives for the property owner and City will remain in effect following the 10-year contract period; and

b) Where applicable, the contract shall provide for the following:

1. Preservation of the historic resource, and conformance with rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the State Historical Building Code.

2. For an inspection of the interior and exterior of the premises by the City, prior to a new agreement, and every five years thereafter, to determine the owner's compliance with the contract.

3. For it to be binding upon and continue to benefit all successors in interest of the property.

Pursuant to State Code Section 50281, if the City Council designates the subject property on the City’s Historic Register and also approves a Mills Act contract, the contract would include the aforementioned provisions and a “Rehabilitation/Restoration/Maintenance Plan”. The City’s Historic Consultant and the applicant have worked together to prepare the proposed project “R ehabilitation, Restoration, Maintenance and Plan” (see Attachment 5.) The Plan includes an itemized future property maintenance schedule to be completed within the 10-year contract term. The schedule include s the specific work/task to be completed, the building features to be improved and the date in which the work/task will be completed within the 10-year contract.

833

Item #: 24-252 Meeting Date: 6/18/2024

Planning Commission Recommendation

On January 22, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the application to add the Leroy Anderson House to the Local Register of Historic Places, and that the City and property owner enter into a Mills Act contract for the long-term preservation of the subject property.

During the public hearing, the Commission inquired about, and staff responded to, the potential for an accessory dwelling unit on the site, future modifications to the structure, if the property could be removed from the Local Historic Register and the Mills Act contract at a later date, and the related City fiscal impacts of a Mills Act contract. On a vote of three to two, with two Commissioners being absent, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council designate the house as a local historic resource, and directed Planning staff to finalize a draft Mills Act contract for City Council consideration and approval. Planning Commissioners Zich and Vivar voted against the project, based on concerns regarding community benefit of the project and the structural integrity of the building . The Planning Commission Resolution is provided as Attachment 9 to this report. The Mills Act contract, Attachment 4, was prepared by GPA Consulting, the City’s Historic Resources consultant, reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office, and confirmed by the applicant.

A detailed description of the historic resource value of the property is included in the Historic Assessment Report (provided as Attachment 3 of this report) and provided in the January 22, 2024 Planning Commission staff report and its attachments, which are linked below and are also provided as Attachment 11:

https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6485514&GUID=3BDAE55A-1717-4B01- A836-C2BF3F1ACE83

The Planning Commission meeting minutes are provided as Attachment 10 to this report and the meeting video is linked below:

https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/4080?meta_id=310026

Historical Society Endorsement

The Costa Mesa Historical Society (Society) reviewed the application on March 20, 2024, and voted unanimously to endorse the project. The Society found that the information presented in the Historic Assessment Report is substantiated and supported by their research into historic archives. Specifically, the Historical Society found that architecture of the home is period-correct, and that Leroy Anderson was a person of prominence and made significant contributions to the Costa Mesa community. The Costa Mesa Historical Society’s Letter of Endorsement is provided as Attachment 7 to this report.

ANALYSIS:

Pursuant to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC), the City Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, may designate any building, structure, site, object, district, improvement, or natural feature that is over fifty (50) years of age on the City’s Local Register of Historic Places if it meets the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or one or more of the City’s local historic resource criteria as listed below:

834

Item #: 24-252 Meeting Date: 6/18/2024

a. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history;

b. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history;

c. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction;

d. Is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;

e. Represents the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect;

f. Contributes to the significance of an historic area, being a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of historic or scenic properties or thematically related grouping of properties which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan or physical development;

g. Has a unique location or singular physical characteristics or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or of the city;

h. Embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation;

i. Is similar to other distinctive properties, sites, areas, or objects based on a historic, cultural, or architectural motif;

j. Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular tra nsportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning;

k. Is a type of building or is associated with a business or use which was once common but is now rare; and/or

l. Yields, or may yield, information important in prehistory or history; and retains the integrity of those characteristics necessary to convey its significance.

The subject property was identified in the City of Costa Mesa Citywide Historic Resources Survey, and the Survey indicated that the property was “Not eligible for the National Register but is of local interest because the property is eligible for separate designation under an existing local ordinance.” As a result of the Citywide survey, a Building, Structure, and Object Record (Attachment 6) was filed with the State, outlining the features and historic value of the property. In order to determine if the property at 208 Magnolia Street is a cultural resource pursuant the CMMC, an updated historic survey evaluation has been prepared by GPA Consultin g (2023 - Historic Assessment Report ). The Report includes a comprehensive building conditions assessment that documents the current conditions of the historic building (see Attachment 3). The conclusions of the Historic Assessment Report indicate that the property is eligible for City Historic Register designation as a local landmark under local criteria.

835

Item #: 24-252 Meeting Date: 6/18/2024

The Report specifically indicate s that 208 Magnolia Street is eligible under CMMC criterion “a”, “because it reflects the transitional period of early residential development during which the former farming community of Harper evolved from an agricultural area to the more densely developed town of Costa Mesa, and is one of the earliest residences constructed in the Newport Heights Tract during that period. The period of significance under criterion “a” is 1927. Additionally, the Report indicates that the property is eligible under CMMC criterion “b” because the house was the long-term residence of Leroy P. Anderson, a prominent local attorney who was instrumental in the early development of Costa Mesa.

The period of significance under criterion “b” is 1936 to 1957, when Anderson resided at the property.

Lastly, the 2023 Assessment Report provides an analysis of the subject property’s “character-defining features” (criterion “c”) . According to the Report, “c haracter-defining features are the architectural components that contribute to a building's sense of time and place. Character-defining features can be generally grouped into three categories: (1) the overall visual character of a building, (2) the exterior materials and craftsmanship, and (3) the interior spaces, features, and finishes. The relative importance of character -defining fea tures depends on the level of craftsmanship, visibility, and integrity ”. The Report concludes that the residence located at 208 Magnolia Street retains integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association, and has sufficient physical integrity to convey its historical significance.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The project is e xempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (“Common Sense”) in that there is no possibility that t he addition of the Leroy Anderson House to the Local Register of Historic Places will have a significant impact on the environment. The maintenance/rehabilitation plan will ensure that the site’s historic characteristics are protected.

ALTERNATIVES:

As an alternative to the recommended action, the City Council may:

1. Deny the application to place the Leroy Anderson House on the Local Register of Historic Places and decline to enter into a Mills Act contract with the property owner.

2. Continue the application to a date certain and direct staff to return with additional information, changes and/or clarifications.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Pursuant to CMMC Section 13-200.11 (Preservation Incentives), the City Council may adopt a program of economic and other incentives to support the preservation, maintenance, and appropriate rehabilitation of the City’s cultural resources. The owner of 208 Magnolia Street is requesting that their property be designated on the City’s Local Register of Historic Places, and for the approval of a Mills Act contract with the City for the long-term preservation of the property.

The City’s Finance division reviewed the proposal and estimated an updated fiscal impact to the City for the requested Mills Act contract. Based on the County of Orange’s assessed value of $1.9 million for the subject property, the City’s current annual tax revenue for the property is approximately $2,825. 836

Item #: 24-252 Meeting Date: 6/18/2024

The Mills Act program provides a property tax reduction between 40% and 60%, annually, as detailed in Attachment 8. This tax reduction may increase or decrease each year in proportion to a property’s assessed value. At its current value, under the requested Mills Act contract, the subject property will generate between an estimated $1,130 and $1,695 in property tax revenue to the City.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed this report and approved it as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council Goals:

 Diversify, Stabilize and Increase Housing to Reflect Community Needs.

CONCLUSION:

The placement of the Leroy Anderson House on City's Local Register of Historic Places and approval of a Mills Act contract is consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance “Purpose” in that designating the property on the City’s Historic Registry will: (1) further safeguard the City’s heritage as embodied and reflected in the subject property, (2) encourage public knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the City’s past by fostering civic and neighborhood pride and a sense of identity based on the recognition of a cultural resource, (3) preserve a n architectural style that reflects the City’s history, and (4) enhance property values and increase ec onomic and financial benefits to the City by protecting a local neighborhood historical resource asset.

837
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2024-xx Page 1 of 2

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PDCR-23-0001 TO ADD THE LEROY ANDERSON HOUSE ON THE CITY’S LOCAL HISTORIC REGISTER AND AUTHORIZE APPROVAL OF A MILLS ACT CONTRACT AT 208 MAGNOLIA STREET

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, an application was filed by John Barnett w ith respect to the real property located at 208 Magnolia Street, req uesting placement of the Leroy Anderson House on the local historic register, and the establishment of a Mills Act contract between the property owner and the City of Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is exempt from the Cal ifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15061(b)(3) (“Common Sense”) based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:

BE IT RESOLVED tha t based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the City Council hereby approves Planning Application PDCR- 23-0001 with respect to the property described above.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of June, 2024.

_____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________ _____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney

838
Resolution No. 2024-xx Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS

A. Pursuant to CMM C Section 13 -200.9(2)(b) – “Findings”, in order to designate the subject property on the City’s Historic Register, the City Council must find that:

Finding: The site, building, structure, district, object, natural featu re or improvement has special historical, archaeological, cultura l, architectural, community value in the City, and that the purpose of the C ity’s Historic Preservation Ordinance is maintained by such designation.

Facts in Support of Finding : The 2023 GPA Historic Assessment Report indicates that the residence located at 208 Magnolia Street has special historical, architectural and community value in that the structure reflects the tran sitional period of early Costa Mesa residential development during whic h the former farming community of Harper evolved from an agricult ural area to the more densely developed town, and is one of the earliest res idences constructed in the Newport Heights Tract during that period. A dditionally, the Report indicates that the subject residence has community value in that the house was the long -term residence of Leroy P. Anderson, a prominent local attorney who was instrumental in the early deve lopment of Costa Mesa. Further, preservation of this historical residence is consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance “Purpose” in tha t designating the property on the City’s Historic Registry will: (1) further safeguard the City’s heritage as embodied and reflected in the subject property, (2) encourage publi c knowledge, u nderstanding, and appreciation of the City’s past by fostering civic and neighborhood pride and a sense of identity based on the recognition of a cultural resource , (3) preserve a diverse and harmonious architectural style that reflects the City’s history, and (4) enhance property values and increase economic and financ ial benefits to the City by protecting a local neighborhood historical resource asset.

839
ATTACHMENT 2
840

Historic Assessment Report
Date: April 7, 2023
For: Patrick Achis, Assistant Planner, Development Services Department, City of Costa Mesa Subject: 208 Magnolia Street, Costa Mesa
From: Audrey von Ahrens, Associate Architectural Historian , GPA Consulting

Introduction
The owner of 208 Magnolia Street (Assessor Parcel Number 425402 -02) is interested in applying for the Mills Act program and entering a Mills Act contract with t

he
City of Cost a Mesa (City). GPA Consulti ng (GPA), a
qualified historic preservation consultant

, was retained by the City to
assist with this process.

The Mills Act is a California state law

that was

enacted in 1972

, giving

participating local governments
the
authority to

enter
formal agreements , generally known as a Historical Property Contract,

with owners of
“qualified” historic properties

.

Under this contract agreement, the property owner agrees to protect, preserve, and maintain the property in accordance with specific historic preservation standards and other conditions

set
forth in the contract

in exchange for a property tax

reduction.

The California Government Code, Article 12,
Sections 50280

–
50290 and California Revenue and Taxation Code, Article 1.9, Sections 439 – 439.4 contain the relevant State regulations. A “qualified historical property” is one that is listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered district, or listed in any local official register (GOV, Article 12, Section 50280.1).

Figure 1: 208 Magnolia Street , view looking north . Source: GPA Consulting, February 202 3.

The property at 208 Magnolia Street is not currently listed on any federal, state, or local registers but was identified in the City of Costa Mesa Citywide Historic Resources Survey

prepared by PCR Services Corporation

in
1999 as eligible for local landmark designation. In order to be eligible for a Mills Act Historic Property Contract -1-
ATTACHMENT 3
841

Historic Assessment Report – 208 Magnolia Street , Costa Mesa, CA 2 as a “qualified historical property,” 208 Magnolia Street m ust be formally designated as a local landmark and placed on the City’s

Local Register of Historic Places ( Local Register). The purpose of this Historic Resource Assessment is to accompany the Mills Act Application Form and inform the City’s staff report to the Historic Preservation Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council for the proposed landmark designation of the property.

Audrey von Ahrens , Associate Architectural Hist orian, w as responsible for the preparation of this memo . She fulfills the qualifications of a historic preservation professional outlined in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 61. Her résumé is included as Attachment A.

Methodology
In preparing this report, GPA performed the following tasks:

1. Reviewed existing information provided by the City, including the

1999 Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) form set, and building permit records

.

2. Conducted a

site
inspection of the property to ascertain the general condition and physical integrity of the property. Digital photographs were taken during this field inspection.

3. Conducted research into the history of the property. Sources referenced included building pe rmit records, city directories, newspaper archives, genealogical databases, and historic maps.

4. Reviewed the

1999
City-

Wide Historic Resources Survey

to identify the appropriate contexts for the
evaluation.

5. Reviewed and analyzed ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical materials relating to federal, state, and local historic preservation designations, and assessment processes and programs to evaluate the property for significance as a City of Costa Mesa

landmark.

Brief Description and History of the Property
Architectural Description
208 Magnolia Street is located on the north side of Magnolia Street between Orange and Westminster avenues in the city of Costa Mesa

. The property

comprises
a one-story single-family residence

facing Magnolia

Street
with a two

-
story rear addition and garage facing the rear alley.

The original one
-story portion of the residence is
L-shaped in plan and has a steeply sloping cross

-
gable roof with front gable projection on the southwest corner and has a combination of flush and enclosed, shallow eaves. The roof is clad in composition shingles and the exterior walls are clad in smooth stucco. The elevations are asymmetrically arranged and fenestration consists of a combination of multi -light and

single

-
light casement and double-hung sash

windows in various groupings
and sizes.

They are

mostly
dual-pane, wood windows. Within the gable peaks are attic vents, each with three circular openings

containing
red clay vent tubes

.

Rectangular foundation ven ts with wire mesh are unevenly spaced across the building base.

The primary (south) elevation is characterized by a slightly recessed main entrance porch located at the center of the elevation and sheltered by the overhanging eave of the roof

(see Figure 2). The main entrance is located
on the west wall within the porch and consists of a replacement wood Dutch door with multi-light upper leaf and single-panel lower leaf. At the center of the porch is a secondary entrance with narrow, partially glazed door and sidelights

. The door and sidelights each have
four divided lights

above a

single wood panel. Opposite the main
entrance door, on the

east
wall of t

he porch, is a single window opening with multi
-light wood casement. The
porch opening

is
articulated by a

full width
standing seam awning with decorative metal fascia

and two metal
spear supports

.

The brick porch is slightly elevated and accessed from the

east
end via brick

steps
and a walkway
leading from the street. A large, multi-light window with half

-
round, metal standing seam awning and decorative
fascia trim is centered beneath the projecting gable on

the
west end of the elevation. At the

east
end of the
elevation are two multi-light windows, each with similar half-round awnings. The primary elevation overlooks a manicured lawn enclosed by a low wood picket fence. Plant beds line the base of the elevation and a small area -2-
842

Historic Assessment Report – 208 Magnolia Street , Costa Mesa, CA 3 paved with scored concrete, remnants of a former driveway from Magnolia Street, is located within the east portion of the front yard.

The east elevation overlooks a side patio that is enclosed by a high wood fence and sheltered beneath a wood pergola that connects to the elevation (see Figure 3). A secondary entrance is on the south end of the elevation with a multi-light wood panel door sheltered by a rectangular, standing seam metal awning with decorative metal fascia and accessed by wood steps. Window openings are evenly spaced across the remainder of the elevation and include a high tripartite window with single -light casements, and a single -light wood sliding sash window.

The remainder of the elevation consists of the two

-
story addition, which projects from the main wall plane of the original residence.

The rear (north) elevation consists of the two

-
story addition on the east end and four window openings on the west end (see Figure 4). The two smaller window openings immediate ly adjacent the addition are non -original wood casement sash with leaded stained glass. The two larger window openings on the

west
have one-over-one
double-hung sash. The elevation overlooks a rear yard that is enclosed by fencing on north and west, and the two

-
story addition and garage on the east.

The west elevation has a shallow setback from the adjacent property and has no entrance openings (see Figure 5). Six windows are asymmetrically arranged a cross the elevation. Four single -light casement windows are on the south end of the elevation, organized into groups of two. Toward the

north
end is a smaller single

-
light
casement and a one-over-one double-hung sash window.

Figure 2. Primary ( south) elevation, view looking north.

Source: GPA, February 2023.

Figure 3: East elevation, view looking west. Source: GPA, February 2023.

Figure 4: North elevation, view looking south. Source: GPA, February 2023.

Figure 5: West elevation, view looking east. Source: GPA, February 2023.

Construction and Ownership History
The original building permit for the construction of the single -family residence could not be found in the City’s records

.

According to

the
Orange County Assessor ’s records, the single -family residence

was originally
-3-
843

Historic Assessment Report – 208 Magnolia Street , Costa Mesa, CA 4 constructed in 1927 ;1 however, the property is not visible in historic aerials from August 1927,2 but may have been constructed after the photograph was taken. It is first depicted in a 1931 historic aerial photograph. 3 Therefore, the estimate date of construction is circa 1927-1931. The earliest known owners were

Maurice
and
Josephine Nash, owner of a live bait boat company , Prop Sunshine, who resided at the property from at least 1933 to 1934.4 In 1935, the property was owned by Everett T., an oil worker, and Florence M. Jones who resided there with tenants Ellard L. Jacka, a mechanic, and his wife

Eugenia M.5 In 1936, it was owned by retired U.S.

Army Master Sargent Joel W. Rowan and wife and Clara, who lived there with their son,

William S. Rowan
, and
tenanted by a student, William T. Brown.6 By October 193 6 , the property was purchased by Leroy P. Anderson, an attorney, and his wife, Lola F. Anderson, who worked as a secretary.7 The Andersons resided at the property until at least 1966.8

Figure 6. 1931 historic aerial photograph showing driveway and detached garage. Source: UCSB.

Figure 7: Circa 1950 historic photograph showing west
elevation. Source: Owner’s personal records.

No building permits exist for the property prior to the 1950s. A historic aerial photograph from 1931 depicts a long driveway to the south of the residence that leads from Magnolia Street to a

small, detached

garage to the
rear of the residence (see
Figure 6
). Also based on historic aerial photographs, b

etween 1938 and 1953

an alley
was constructed along the rear of lots fronting Magnolia Street

, including the subject property
, but driveway
acces

s remained at the front of the property from Magnolia Street

.9 The oldest building permit found dates to
1956 for re-roofing of the residence, still under the ownership of Anderson.10 Due to the lack of building permits available and other documentary evidence, such as historic photographs,

no
other alterations that

occurred
prior to 1956, if any, could be identified. However, it does not appear that many substantial changes were made to the exterior of the residence until the 1990s. In 1997, under the own

ership of

Christopher
Rigandi, a new
garage and two-story rear addition were constructed.11 It is unclear if the 1930s garage was demolished at this time or incorporated into the addition. In 2002, the residence was again re-roofed with composition shingles by new owner, Phil Dunn. 12 No other alterations are recorded in the building permit history. In 2022, the current owners replaced

all of the windows on the primary (
south) elevation

with new, dual
-pane wood windows as well

1 Orange County Assessor ’s Records , accessed via ParcelQuest. 2 Geospatial Collection, F light C -113 , Frame 1073 , Beginning Date August 1, 1927, UCSB Library, University of California, Santa Barbara

,
accessed via Frame Finder, https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/.

3 Geospatial Collection, F light C_159 0, Frame 32 , Beginning Date May 22, 1931 , UCSB Library, University of California, Santa Barbara

,
accessed via Frame Finder, https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. 4 Anaheim City Directory, 1933 and 1934.
5 Anaheim City Directory, 1935.
6 Anaheim City Directory, 1936.
7 “Costa Mesa,” Santa Ana Register, October 9, 1936, 20 . 8 California, U.S., Voter Registrations, 1900 - 1968, Ancestry.com, accessed March 2023, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/61066/images/orangecounty_57-00918

.

9 UCSB historic aerial photographs, 1938 and 1953.
10 City of Costa Mesa Building Permit No. 4119 , December 21, 1956. 11 Building Permit No. M083981 and B083979, July 30, 1997. 12 Building Permit No. B02 -00355, March 13, 2002.
-4-
844

Historic Assessment Report – 208 Magnolia Street , Costa Mesa, CA 5 as all of the doors within original openings .13 Addition alterations, listed below, were identified by observations made during the site visit by GPA in February 2023. As such, the exact dates of these alterations are unknown. • Installation of wood bench a long west edge of main entrance porch and modification of metal spear supports for porch awning to anchor to the bench, rather than the porch floor. • Demolition of majority of original driveway and curb-cut along Magnolia Street.

• Erection of perimeter fencing along the front and rear of the property. • Construction of a pergola addition on the east elevation. • Installation of front brick walkway leading from Magnolia Street to the entrance porch. • Replacement of all original wood panel interior doors. • Replacement or original wood flooring with new.
• Kitchen and bathroom remodels.

Local Landmark Eligibility and Significance Summary
The City ’s Historic Preservation Ordinance is codified in Title 13, Chapter IX , Article 14 of the Municipal Code.

It establishes the City’s Local Register and designation criteria for local landmarks. The city council, upon recommendation of the planning commission, may designate any building, structure, site object, district, improvement, or natural feature that

is over fifty (50) years of age, or in special circumstances less than fifty (50) years of age, if it meets the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or one (1) or more of the criteria listed below:

a. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or nature history; or
b. Is identified with persons or events sig

nificant in local, state, or national history; or

c. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction; or d. Is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or e. Represents the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect; or f. Contributes to the significance of an historic area, being a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of historic or scenic properties or thematically related grouping of properties which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan or physical development; or g. Has a unique location or singular physical characteristics or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or of the city; or h. Embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation; or i. Is similar to other distinctive properties, sites, areas, or objects based on a historic, cultural, or architectural motif; or
j. Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning; or
k. Is a type of building or is associated with a business or use which was once common but is now rare; or
l. Yields, or may yield, information important in prehistory or history; and retains the integrity of those characteristics necessary to convey its significance.

13 2002 MLS photographs and current owner records.
-5-
845

Historic Assessment Report – 208 Magnolia Street , Costa Mesa, CA 6 Previous Determinations and Evaluation Update
208 Magnolia Street was identified in the

City
of Costa Mesa Citywide Historic Resources Survey

prepared by
PCR Services Corporation in 1999. The property was recorded and evaluated on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Forms and assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code 14 of 5S1, which the 1999 survey used to denote “Not eligible for the National Register but of local interest because the property is eligible for separate designation under an existing local ordinance.”15 The Status Codes have since been revised by the

California
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) , and the most applicable current Status Code is 5S3, which denotes

“A
ppears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.”16 The 1999 evaluation found the property “locally significant for its architecture and its association with an early prominent local citizen, LeRoy Anderson …a prominent local attorney who was instrumental in the early development of Costa Mesa ,” and further explains that “the bungalow is one of only a dozen which reflect the Period Revival style in residentials design within the City of Costa Mesa… the dwelling reflects the size, scale, massing, plan, and architectural style of its generation in Costa Mesa

and is a good example of its property
type.”17 The period of significance was identified as 1927 , the date of construction. The 1999 DPR form set is included in Attachment B.

Evaluation Update
GPA reviewed the 1999 survey of the property and updated the evaluation to clarify the local criteria under which it is eligible for designation, to elaborate on the areas of significance, and to identify accurate periods of significance under each applicable criterion, as well as provide an analysis of integrity given the substantial length of time since the property was last surveyed and evaluated in 1999, over twenty years ago. Based on the findings from the 1999 survey and additional research conducted as part of this report, the property appears to be eligible for designation as a local landmark under local criteria a and b. The significance of the property under each of these criteria are discussed separately, below.

Criterion a
To be eligible under local criterion a, a property must e xemplif y or reflect special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natur al history. The context considered under local criterion a is early residential development in unincorporated Costa Mesa.

The present-day City of Costa Mesa generally formed from the early com munities of Fairview on the northwest

,
Paularino on the northeast

, and Harper
on the south

.18 208 Magnolia Street is located in the Newport Heights Tract within the vicinity of the early town of Harper, southeast of Newport Boulevard. The tract was recorded in 1906 as one of the earliest housing tracts

in the area
(see Figure 8). The early development of Harper and the Newport Heights tract is de

scribed in the below ex
cerpt from the Citywide Historic Resources Survey

:

In January 1906, the

Huntington Beach News
announced that 'one of the largest realty deals
ever made in Orange County was consummated last week when seventeen hundred acres of the San Joaquin Ranch (owned by James Irvine) were sold to an Investment Company and will immediately be cut up into 5 -acre tracts and placed on the market." Following this announcement, a water distribution system was installed in the mesa.

Parallel with the land development the area experienced its first oil boom which served to promote and expand population. Three oil wells went up in 1906 just south of the present

14 The evaluation instructions and classification system prescribed by the State California Office of Historic Preservation (SOHP)

in its
Instructions for Recording Historical Resources

(1995)

provide a Status Code for use in classifying potential
historical resources.
15 PCR Services Corporation, City of Costa Mesa Citywide Historic Resources Survey (City of Costa Mesa, July 1999), 29. 16 “California Historical Resources Status Codes, Current as of 3/1/2020,” accessed April 2023, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/Resource-Status-Codes.pdf 17 PCR Services Corporation, “Department of Parks and Recreation Form Set, 208 Magnolia Street, ” June 1, 1999. 18 Costa Mesa Historical Society, Images of America: Early Costa Mesa (San Francisco, CA: Arcadia Publishing, 2009), 2. -6-
846

Historic Assessment Report – 208 Magnolia Street , Costa Mesa, CA 7 Newport Beach Harbor High School location. In the latter pa rt of 1907, several more wells were installed on the northern end of the Newport Heights Tract. The oil boom was short -lived. The oil that had been found turned out to be a thick, sticky substance and thus, very difficult to pump. Within two or three years the old derricks were abandoned.

The growth and
development of Harper fell back upon land development.19 In April 1907, the Newport Mesa Tract was filed, just west of

the
Newport Heights Tract. Over 200 five-acre parcels were sold in the first year. 20 At this time, most of the population was centered between Newport Boulevard on the west and Orange Avenue on the east and Seventeenth on the south and Nineteenth Streets o

n
the north. The period from 1906 to 1912 continued to attract new settlers as well as establish potential business opportunities

.

In
1913, the Fairview Farms Tract was opened, just north of the Newport Heights Tract, and its publicity led to a further increase in population and development activity.

The farming community of
Harper was renamed in 1920 to Costa Mesa

and b

etween 1920
and 1940

,
the population of Costa Mesa grew from approximately
200 to 4,692

.21
Although the Newport Heights Tract was establish ed in 1906, a s depicted in historical aerial photographs, the

area

remained
relatively sparsely developed through

1927, when the residence at
208 Magnolia may have been constructed

(see Figure 9).

Following the Great Depression in 1929, minimal development of new housing

occurred in the vicinity of the
Newport Heights Tract (see Figure 10).22

Figure 9. 1927 historic aerial photograph showing the vicinity of the Newport Heights Tract. Source: UCSB.

Figure 10 : 1931 historic aerial photograph showing the vicinity of the Newport Heights Tract. Source: UCSB.

As with 208 Magnolia Street, the vast majority of early residences in Costa Mesa were not architect-designed or the work of a developer. Instead, they were vernacular buildings constructed by a local builder/contractor or the homeowner. Typically small, one-story wood frame buildings, they were either clad in

clapboard
or (later)
sheathed in stucco (like 208 Magnolia Street) and had hip or gable roofs and front porches with varying

configurations and designs

.

Though a common type of

single

-
family residence found throughout Southern
California from

the
1900

s
through 1940 , they s till posses sed

some individuality

and were the homes of
generations of working- and middle-class

citizens.23 In Costa Mesa, the earliest residences were constructed by

19 PCR Services Corporation, City of Costa Mesa Citywide Historic Resources Survey (City of Costa Mesa, July 1999), 10. 20 Ibid, 10.
21 Ibid ., 11.
22 Ibid., 12.
23 Ibid. , 17.

Figure 8. Present-day and early towns of Costa
Mesa. Source: Costa Mesa Historical Society .
-7-
847

Historic Assessment Report – 208 Magnolia Street , Costa Mesa, CA 8 farmers on 5- to 10-acre lots, clad in wood and reflected earlier Victorian and Arts and Crafts styles. Residences constructed later in this period, when the farms and orchards began being subdivided to smaller lots for housing development, reflected Period Revival styles. 208 Magnolia Street was constructed as part of this early wave of development, just before the onset of the Great Depression.

The Great Depression continued unabated throughout 1933 and 1934, during which time the branch line of the Southern Pacific Railroad, which ran from Santa Ana to

Newport Beach along Newport Boulevard throughout
the heart of town, was abandoned. 24 Growth resumed in 1940 but Costa Mesa retained the atmosphere of a small town until World War II accelerated growth. 25 Construction of t he United States Air Corps Replacement Training Center

began in 1941 and opened in 1942

as
the Santa Ana Army Air Base (SAAAB)

, and

eventually
reached the size of 1,283 acres

west from Newport Boulevard to Harbor Boulevard, south from

Warehouse Road
to the present Vanguard University .26 SAAAB brought an incre ase in population in Costa Mesa and continued residential development in the Newport Heights Tract , which was largely built out by 1947 (see Figure 11). A few years later, with an area of 3.5 square miles and a population of 16,185, the City of Costa Mesa incorporated on June 29, 1953

.27 By the end of the 1950s, Newport Heights as well as the other oldest housing tracts were fully developed (see Figure 12); thus, the City expanded outward with new housing tracts developed throughout the postwar period.

Figure 11 : 1947 historic aerial photograph showing the vicinity of the Newport Heights Tract. Source: UCSB.

Figure 12 : 1958 historic aerial photograph showing the vicinity of the Newport Heights Tract. Source: UCSB.
208 Magnolia reflects the transitional period of early residential development which began in the 1920s as the former farming community of Harper evolved from an agricultural area developed with 5 - and 10-acre farmsteads to a more densely developed town of Costa Mesa. 208 Magnolia is one of the earliest residences constructed in the Newport Heights Tract from this period. At such, it is eligible for listing as a landmark under local criterion a.

Criterion b
To be eligible under local criterion b, a property must be identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history. 208 Magnolia Street underwent frequent changes in ownership in the first decade after it was constructed

with at least three different owners between 1933 and 1936 28 (see Construction and Ownership History starting on page 3 for more detail). However, the fourth known owners, Leroy P. and Lola F.

Anderson resided at the property for a substantial

period, during which time Leroy was a particularly influential member of the community.

24 Ibid., 13.
25 Ibid .
26 Ibid .
27 Ibid., 15.
28 Anaheim City Directory, various dates.
-8-
848

Historic Assessment Report – 208 Magnolia Street , Costa Mesa, CA 9 Leroy Plummer Anderson (1989 - 1957) was born in 1898 to farmers Joseph and Mary J. and grew up working on the family farm in Richland, Kansas

.29 Anderson served in World War I in 1919 and in 1920 , at the age of 21, lived with his sister, Bessie, and her husband John Reed, in Portland

,
Oregon30 where he attended the University
of Oregon and received his

degree of
Bachelor of Law in 1922. 31 In 1926, he married Lola Fern Chenoweth (1898

-
1983) from Walla Walla, Washington.32 They relocated to the vicinity of Costa Mesa by 1927 when they purchased a homesite.33 Despite having purchased land, the Andersons rented a home at 859 Fairview Avenue in Newport Beach in 1930 while Anderson established his own law firm and

Lola worked as a stenographer at
City Hall. 34 They moved into the property at 208 Magnolia Street in 1936 where they resided together until Anderson passed away in August of 1957,35 after which Lola retained ownership of the property and lived there until at least 1966. 36 The Andersons, both Leroy and Lola, were active in the community of Costa Mesa as members of the Costa Mesa Lions Club throughout their

residency
. In addition,

Leroy Anderson
was an active
member of the board of the Newport Beach Exchange Club

.

He became director of the Costa Mesa Chamber of
Commerce

and harbor district attorney by 1930.37

Figure 13 . 1927 photograph showing the Lions Club members .

Source: Early Costa Mesa .

Figure 14 : 1928 Chamber of Commerce, Anderson at
bottom right . Source: Early Costa Mesa.

In his first few years in Costa Mesa, Anderson was a key leader of the Newport Beach and Costa Mesa communities in the

ir
fight to secede from the Santa Ana high school district.38 After losing the suit at the superior court in 1928, Anderson represented the chamber of commerce and Costa Mesa district, of which he was a part, at the higher court proceedings in Sacramento in the attempt gain state legislation to separate the elementary school districts from the city high school districts for Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. As a result of Anderson’s efforts, the Newport Harbor-Costa Mesa high school bill permit ted the organization of a

Harbor
high school
district, separate from the Santa Ana high school district in 1929

.39 By the e nd of that year, a site for the

29 1900 United States Federal Census , Ancestry.com, accessed March 2023, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/7602/images/4120145_00481. 30 1920 United States Federal Census , Ancestry.com, accessed March 2023, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/6061/images/4384923_00314. 31 The University of Oregon, Catalogue, 1922·1923, Announcements, 1923 - 1924, (Eugene, OR: The University Press, 1924), 207, accessed online March 2023,

file:///C:/Users/audrey/Down
loads/UOCAT_1923-24_Anno.pdf.
32 California, U.S., Death Index, 1940 - 1997, Place: Orange; Date: 13 Sep 1983; Social Security: 568244126 , Ancestry.com, accessed March 2023.

1930

United States Federal Census
.
33 “Realty Sales at Costa Mesa Total $50,000,” Sant a Ana Register, January 31, 1927, 15. 34 1930 United States Federal Census .
35 California, U.S., Death Index, 1940 - 1997 , Place: Orange; Date: 19 Aug 1957; Social Security: 571229151 , Ancestry.com, accessed March 2023.

36 “Costa Mesa,” Santa Ana Register, October 9, 1936, 20. California, U.S., Voter Registrations, 1900 - 1968 . 37 “Plan Meeting of Mesa, Beach Organizations,” Santa Ana Register, Jun e 11, 1930, 8. 38 “Newport Fails in Fight for High School,” Santa Ana Register, March 4, 1928 , 6 . 39 “Rural School Merger Bill Meets Defeat,” Santa Ana Register, March 21, 1929, 3. -9-
849

Historic Assessment Report – 208 Magnolia Street , Costa Mesa, CA 10 construction of the new Newport Harbor Union High School was identified and the need for a new high school board was established.40 Anderson was elected as the first president and chairman of the new high school board in 193

0.41 In January of 1931, he announced the completion of the Newport Harbor Union High School at the dedication ceremony as president of the high school board and trustees

.42 Anderson did not run for re-election
in 1932 but remained a charter member of the

school board. 43 In 1932, Anderson became president of the Harbor Service Club.44 He was also a member of American Legion Post No. 455 by 193745 and helped establish the Costa Mesa Improvement Association and served as charter member of the newly formed organization in 1938.46 He was appointed chairman of the advisory board of Newport Beach Selective Service Board 171 in 1941.47
As an unincorporate d community, Costa Mesa was governed by county supervisors, headquartered in Santa Ana. Much-needed local leadership emerged through special districts and organizations such as school boards, water boards, the Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce, Women’s Club, and Lions Club. While organizations such as these were common across Southern California at the time, they were particularly important in the history of Costa Mesa, which was formed much later than other neighboring cities and remained unincorporated until the 1950s. As such, these organizations and the individuals, such as Leroy P. Anderson , that helped establish and lead them, where particularly influential in forming the identi ty of Costa Mesa , developing a tradition of local governance and ultimately

laying the gr
oundwork for home rule and future incorporation.48
For all of the reasons detailed above, Leroy P. Anderson would be considered a significant individual in the history of Costa Mesa and 208 Magnolia, as the long

-
term residence of the Anderson’s, is eligible for listing as a landmark under local criterion b.

Summary
208 Magnolia Street appears to be eligible for landmark designation under local criterion a because it reflects the transitional period of early residential development during which the former farming community of Harper evolved from an agricultural area to a more densely developed town of Costa Mesa

and is one of the earliest
residences constructed in the Newport Heights Tract during that period. The period of significance under criterion a is 1927, the date of construction. The property also appears to be eligible under criterion b as the long-term residence

of

Leroy P. Anderson , a prominent loc

al attorney who was instrumental in the early
development of Costa Mesa.

The period of significance under criterion b is 1936 to 1957, encompassing the period of time during which Anderson resided at the property.

Character-Defining Features
Character-def ining features are the architectural components that contribute to a building's sense of time and place. Character-defining features can be generally grouped into three categories: the overall visual character of a building, the exterior materials and craftsmanship, and the interior spaces, features, and finishes. The relative importance of character-defining features depends on the level of craftsmanship, visibility, and integrity.

In addition, some character -defining features are more important than other s in conveying the significance of the building. The character -defining features identified below are considered the most important elements contributing to the significance of the property, and generally include features that date from the period of significance, directly relate to the original use, type, and style, display craftmanship, are highly visible, and retain integrity.

40 “Exchange Club Wants Large School Plant,” Santa Ana Register, September 26, 1929 , 16. 41 “Plan Meeting of Mesa, Beach Organizations,” Santa Ana Register, Jun e 11, 1930, 8. 42 “J.P. Greeley is Chairman of Ceremony,” Santa Ana Register, January 11, 1931, 3. 43 “5 Candidates File in Mesa School Race,” Santa Ana Register, Mar 17 , 1932, 9 . 44 “Attorn ey Talks on Olympic Games,” Santa Ana Register, June 23, 1932, 15. 45 “Post No. 455 Installs Offices,” Santa Ana Register, Jul 17, 1937, 7 . 46 “100 Sign Up for New Costa Mesa Improvement Association,” Santa Ana Journal , v ol. 4, no. 165, November 9 , 1938, 4. 47 “Daily Happenings,” Santa Ana Register, August 29, 1941 , 3. 48 Costa Mesa Historical Society , 8.
-10-
850

Historic Assessment Report – 208 Magnolia Street , Costa Mesa, CA 11 Overall Visual Character Materials and Craftsmanship
• Location within the Newport Heights Tract
• Front yard (south) setback from Magnolia Street
• One-story building height
• L-shape floor plan
• Cross

-

gabled roof

• Flush eaves
• Asymmetrically arranged elevations
• Trabeated (flat-headed) window and door openings

• Recessed main entrance

porch centered
on
primary (west) elevation
• S tucco cladding with smooth texture finish
• Terracotta attic tube vents
• Multi-light wood windows and doors
• Metal standing seam window awnings with
decorative fascia
• Metal standing seam awning with decorative
fascia and spear supports over main entrance
porch

• Plaster interior walls and ceilings
• Interior arched openings
• Coved ceilings
• Brick fireplace mantel and hearth
Integrity Analysis
It is standard practice to assess a property’s integrity as part of a historic evaluation. Integrity is a property’s ability to convey its historic significance through its physical features. National Register Bulletin #15 defines seven aspects of integrity: Location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In order to convey significance, a property must retain some combination of these aspects of integrity from its period of significance. The aspects of integrity that are essential vary depending on the significance of the resource.

Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.

The property retains integrity of location as the property has not been moved since it was constructed in 19

27 .

Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property.

The property retains integrity of design. Despite the demolition of the original detached garage and construction of the two

-
story rear addition, the design of the original portion of the residence remains evident. Design features of the building, including its original

roof
form, scale, horizontal massing, and
L-shaped plan are all intact, such as the cross

-
gabled roof, asymmetrical elevations, flush eaves smooth stucco cladding with red clay tube vents at the gable peaks. Although many of the original windows and doors have been replaced, the ori ginal openings remain and the replacement doors and windows are generally compatible wood replacements. Thus, the property retains sufficient integrity of design overall. It is likely that the metal awnings on the primary elevation were added in the 1950s

within the
period of significance identified under criterion b, when Leroy P. Anderson resided at the property.

Thus, this design alteration has gained significance in its own right under criterion b and contributes to its integrity of design.

Setting: The physical environment of a historic property.

The integrity of setting has been retained. Although few of the surrounding lots were developed with single-family residences when the 208 Magnolia Street was initially constructed in 1927, subsequent development has not diminished its integrity of setting, particular because the property is significant as an early example of the transition from an agricultural area to the densely developed residential neighborhood that exists today. The surrounding properties are mostly one and two

-
story single-family
residences constructed in the 1930s to 1940s. Some contemporary infill development has occurred along the street but it is compatible in scale and does not negatively affect the integrity of broad setting.

The immediate setting has been diminished by the loss of the detached garage and driveway entrance from Magnolia Street, and construction of the rear addition , but retains sufficient integrity overall to convey its significance.
-11-
851

Historic Assessment Report – 208 Magnolia Street , Costa Mesa, CA 12 Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

Integrity of materials has been diminished by the replacement of original materials over time, such as original woo

d windows and doors and roof cladding.

As a simple, vernacular residence, integrity of
materials is not particularly important in conveying its significance as it was not identified as significant for its architecture.

Workmanship: The physical evidence o r the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.

Similar to the analysis of integrity of materials, above,

as a simple, vernacular residence, the property
does not

possess

examples of fine craftmanship and t hus integrity of workmanship is not particularly important in conveying its significance.

Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

The property retains integrity of feeling through the combination of its intact location, design, setting, and materials that evoke the sense of a late 1920s, vernacular single-family residence.

Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

The integrity of association is intact, as the property retains sufficient physical integrity to convey its significance under criteria a and b.

Conclusions
208 Magnolia Street appears to be eligible for l andmark designation under local criteria a and b for its ability to reflect the historical trend of

early
residential development in Costa Mesa and for its association with a locally significant individual,

Leroy P.

Anderson

. The period of significance under

c
riterion a is 1927, the date of
construction. Under criterion b, the period of significance is 1936 to 1957, encompassing the period of time during which Anderson resided at the property. 208 Magnolia retains int egrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association, and therefore has sufficient physical integrity to convey its historical significance.

As
such, 208 Magnolia Street is eligible for inclusion in the Costa Mesa Register as local landmark as it is over 50 years of age, meets

c
riteria a and b, and retains integrity to convey its significance.

Sources
“100 Sign Up for New Costa Mesa Improvement Association.” Santa Ana Journal . V ol. 4 . No. 165. November 9, 1938.

Anaheim City Directory. Various Dates

.

Ancestry.com. Various Digital Collections.

California State Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks & Recreation. “Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historic Resources Inventory Directory.” Accessed March 2023. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/tab8.pdf.

City of Costa Mesa. Building Permits. Various Dates.

Costa Mesa Historical Society. Images of America: Early Costa Mesa. San Francisco, CA: Arcadia Publishing, 2009.
“National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” National Park Service, Cultural Resources. Edited by Patrick Andrus and Rebecca Shrimpton. Accessed March 2023. https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/.

Orange County Assessor’s Records.

-12-
852

Historic Assessment Report – 208 Magnolia Street , Costa Mesa, CA 13 PCR Services Corporation. City of Costa Mesa Citywide Historic Resources Survey . City of Costa Mesa, July 1999.

PCR Services Corporation. “Department of Parks and Recreation Form Set, 208 Magnolia Street

.
” June 1,
1999.

Santa Ana Register. Various Dates.

The University of Oregon, Catalogue, 1922·1923, Announcements, 1923

-

1924

.

Eugene, OR: The University
Press, 1924. Accessed Online March 2023

.

file:///C:/Users/audrey/Downloads/UOCAT_1923-
24_Anno.pdf
.

Attachments
Attachment A: Résumés
Attachment B: DPR Form Set

-13-
853

Historic Assessment Report – 208 Magnolia Street , Costa Mesa, CA Attachment A

Attachment A: Résumés

-14-
854

Historic Assessment Report – 208 Magnolia Street , Costa Mesa, CA Attachment A

AUDREY VON AHRENS

Audrey von Ahrens is an Associate Architectural Historian at GPA. She has been involved in the field of historic preservation since 2013.

Audrey graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a Master of Science in Historic Preservation and City Planning where she focused on preservation planning and community economic development. She has since worked in private historic preservation consulting in California. Audrey joined GPA in 2017 and her experience has included the preparation of environmental compliance documents in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; historic context statements; Secretary of the Interior’s Standards analysis; large -scale historic resources surveys; and evaluations of eligibility for a wide variety of projects and property types throughout Southern California.

Audrey is also experienced in coordinating with property owners and local governments in the preparation and review of Mills Act Property Contract applications and the inspection and reporting of properties applying for or with existing contracts.

Educational Background: Selected Projects:
• M.S., Historic Preservation, University of
Pennsylvania, 2016

• Master of City Planning, University of
Pennsylvania, 2016
• B.A., Architectural Studies and B.A., Urban
Studies University of Pittsburgh, 2013
• 328 N. Oakhurst Drive, Beverly Hills, CEQA
Historical Resources Report, 2020
• 1360 Vine Street, City of Los Angeles, CEQA
Historical Resources Technical Report, 2020-2021
• 1475 E. El Segundo Boulevard, El Segundo, CEQA
Historical Resources Report, 2020
• 4080 Lafayette Place, Culver City, CEQA Historical
Resources Technical Report, 2020
• Architecture & Engineering Context, Los Angeles
Citywide Historic Context Statement, 2019
• Casa de Rosas, Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit,
2017

-
2022
• CF Braun & Company Plant, Alhambra, CEQA
Historical Resource Report, 2018
• Los Angeles Mills Act Program, Pre-contract
Services and Periodic Inspections, 2017-2023
• Laguna Beach Mills Act Program, Application
Reports, 2017-2022
• North Beach Historic District, San Clemente,
National Register Nomination, 2021
• WM Keck Science Center, Scripps College,
Claremont, Secretary of the Interior's Standards
Compliance, 2018

-
2020
• West Covina Historic Resources Survey and
Context Statement Update, 2018-2019
• Whittier Public Library, Construction Monitoring,
2021

-
2023
Professional Experience:

• GPA Consulting, Associate Architectural
Historian, 2017-Present
• Heritage Consulting, Inc., Intern, 2015 - 2016
• Tacony Community Development Corp., Intern,
2014
• Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation,
Intern, 2013
• University of Pittsburgh, Teaching Assistant,
2012

-
2013
• Pittsburgh Planning Department, Intern, 2012
• Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership, Intern,
2011
Qualifications:
• Meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards for history
and architectural history pursuant to the Code
of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61,
Appendix A.

Professional Activities:
• Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council,
Planning and Land Use Committee, 2018-
present
-15-
855

Historic Assessment Report – 208 Magnolia Street , Costa Mesa, CA Attachment B

Attachment B: DPR Form Set

-16-
856
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # '
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

PRIMARY RECORD
1 Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 5S1
Other Listings
Review Code _ Reviewer Date
Page of Resource Name or #: ( Assigned by recorder) 208 Magnolia Street , Pi. Other Identifier. Leroy Anderson' s House
P2. Location: — Not for Publication Unrestricted a. County Orange County ' and ( P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) b. USGS 7. 5' Ouad Date T ; R 114 of 114 of Sec
c. Address: 208 Magnolia Street City Costa Mesa Zip '
d. UTM: ( Give more than one for large and/ linear resources) mEl mN e.:; ther Location, Data (Enter Parcel #, leg -1description directions to resource. elevation, etc., as appropr__ie) Parcel No. 425- 402- 02 '
P3. Description( Desoberem" arid tsmajcrdarritstrridedesgki.em is mrtiturlalEratiorsSize. seeing, and bardaes) A steep, cross - gable roof and stuccoedexterior identify the PeriodRevival (English) influence in thedesignof this ' one- storybungalow. The residencehas a L-shapedplan with a frontfacinggable wing projectingout fromthe westside of theprimary (south) elevation. Beneath the frontgableare a pairof large, multi - pane casementwindows and threecircular vent openings. Smaller, mufti - pane windowspunctuatethe easthalf of theprimaryelevation. Canvas awnings hang over all thewindowopenings. the propertylot is lushlylandscapedand is enclosedby a whitepicketfence. ' I P3b.

ResourceAttributes: ( List attributesand codes) HP2 - Single Family Property ' P4.

ResourcesPresent ! Budding _ Structure _ Object _ Site _ District _ Element of District - Other ( Isolates, etc.) PSa.

Photographor Priming (Photographrepu` led for b0dngs. structures. and objects) --- PSb. DesaipCotdptcb:(Vilw, d&-- atnessiorit)' view towardnorth). Photo No: 10. 8. 7/ M P11.

ReportCitation: (Crte surveyreport and othersources, or enter -none) Attachments NONE Continuation Sheet Location
tdap '.: Building, Structure, and OtreRecord Sketch
Map ArcriaeobgzalRecord District
Record Linear
Feature Record Milling
StationRecord 50
P6.

DateConstructed/Age and Sources:' Prehistoric
Historic Both 7927
P7.

Ownerand AddressPrivate
1 P8.

Recordedbv- tName,at5iiatiortardaddess) PCR
ServicesCorporation. 233 Wilshire8tvd . S 130.

Santattonica. CA P9.

Date Recorded: 7/ 1/ 99P10.

SurveyType: ( Describe) Orr -
wideSurveyRock
An RecordOther: ( List) ' Artifact
Record Photograph
Record ' I. -. __..__.
-17-
857
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECRE1, 7ION BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD HRI #
Page of NRHP SStatus Code 5S1
Resource Name or #: ( Assigned by recorder) 208 Magnolia Street t
B1. Historic Name: Leroy Anderson's House
B2. Common Name: Leroy Anderson's House
B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: Residential B5. Architectural Style: Period Revival ( English)
B6. Construction History: ( Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Built: 1927
B7. Moved? No Yes = Unknown Date : Original Location:

B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Development Area: Costa Mesa Period of Significance: 1927 Property Type: Residential Applicable Criteria: N/ A I
I
1 Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) This property appears ineligible for the National Register. The bungalow is one of only a dozen which reflect the Period Revival style in residentials design within the City of Costa Mesa. The building is locally significant for its architecture and its association with an early prominent local citizen, LeRoy Anderson. The dwelling reflects the size, scale, massing, plan, and architectural style of its generation in Costa Mesa and is a good example of its property type. This house was built in 1927, for LeRoy Anderson, a prominent local attorney who was instrumental in the early development of Costa Mesa, B11. Additional Resource Attributes( List attributes and codes) HP2 - B12. References:

A Slice of Orange: Costa Mesa City Directories; Sanborn Maps,' Orange County Assessor's Records: Costa Mesa Historical Society, Los Angeles Public Library
B13. Remarks:
t
I
B14. Evaluator: Jan Ostashay
Date of Evaluation: 711199
This space reserved for official comments.)
Single Family Property
Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
-18-
858

j

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

Costa Mesa City Hall
Attn: Economic and Development Services
Department
77 Fair Drive, 2nd Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE IS FOR RECORDER'S USE)
Exempt from SB2 fee per Government Code 27388.1(a)(1)(2)(D)) HISTORICAL PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT (Mills Act Contract)

BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,

A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND
(PRINT NAME OF EACH OWNER AS LISTED ON TITLE)

FOR THE PRESERVATION AND BENEFIT OF THE

HISTORIC PROPERTY LOCATED AT
(ADDRESS)
THIS HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of this ______ day of ______, ______ (herein referred to as the “Effective Date”), by and between by the CITY OF COSTA MESA (“City”), and ____________________________________ ______ (referred to herein as the “Owner"). City and Owner are each a “party” and collectively the “parties” to this Agreement.

RECITALS
(i) WHEREAS, the Mills Act (Government Code Section 50280 et seq.) authorize cities to enter into Agreements with the owners of Qualified Historical Properties to provide for the use, maintenance and restoration of such historical properties so as to retain their characteristics as properties of historical significance; and
(ii) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa (hereinafter “City Council”) has approved by resolution the use of such Agreements as an incentive to support the preservation, maintenance, and appropriate rehabilitation of the City's cultural resources; and (iii) WHEREAS, the property that is subject to this Agreement satisfies the requirements under Government Code Section 50280.1 as a Qualified Historical Property in that it is privately owned property which is not exempt from property taxation and is either: ind ividually designated or within a designated district which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, or on the Local Register of Historic Places;
ATTACHMENT 4
-1-
859

a. Owner possesses fee title in and to that certain real property, together with associated structures and improvements thereon, commonly known as the ______________________ and located at the street address _______________________________________, Costa Mesa, California ______________ (hereinafter such property shall be referred to as the "Property"), and recorded with the Orange County Clerk -Recorder with the following legal description:______________________________________________________________ b. On ___________________________, ______: (a) the City Council declared the Property a designated cultural resource pursuant to Title 13, Chapter IX, Article 14 of the City’s Municipal Code and is thus listed in the Local Register of Historic Places. (iv) WHEREAS, City and Owner, for their mutual benefits, now desire to enter into this Agreement to prevent inappropriate alterations, to protect , preserve, and maintain the characteristics of historical significance of the Property in an exemplary manner, and to carry out the purposes of California Government Code, Chapter 1, Part 5 of Division 1 of Title 5, Article 12, Sec. 50280 et seq., and to qualify for an assessment of valuation pursuant to Article 1.9, Sec. 439 et seq., Chapter 3, Part 2 of Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, based on the above recitals and the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 50280 50290.

This Agreement is made pursuant to California Government Code Sections 50280 through 50290 and Article 1.9 (commencing with Section 439) of Chapter 3, Part 2 of Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code and is subject to all of the provisions of those statutes. To the extent any of the provisions in this Agreement are inconsistent with the pertinent provisions of the Government and Revenue and Taxation Code, they are superseded by those Code Sections.

2. ASSESSMENT OF VALUATION.

Property tax relief afforded to Owner pursuant to Chapter 3, Part 2 of Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code will be determined solely by the Orange County Assessor. City makes no representations regarding the actual tax savings any person may realize by entering into this Agreement.

3. COMMENCEMENT, TERM AND RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT .

A. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Agreement shall be effective and commence on the date it is recorded as first above written (hereinafter referred to as the "Effective Date").

B. TERM. The Agreement shall remain in effect for a term ten (10) years from the effective date unless canceled as provided in Section 8 of this Agreement.

C. AUTOMATIC RENEWAL. On the ten year anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement hereinafter referred to as the "Renewal Date") , and e ach year thereafter, one year shall be added to the term of this Agreement such that the initial term shall automatically be extended for one additional year after the initial 10-year term unless written notice of nonrenewal is given as provided in Section 9 of this Agreement.

4. CONDITIONS, REQUIREMENTS AND AGREEMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY.

During the term of this Agreement, the Property shall be subject to the following conditions, requirements and agreements.
-2-
860

a. Owner agrees to preserve and maintain the Property and its character defining features.

Character defining features include, but are not necessarily limited to, the general architectural form, style, materials, design, scale, details, mass, roof line and o ther aspects of the appearance of the exterior of the Property.
b. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (the “Secretary’s Standards”) (Exhibit A) and City's minimum maintenance standards (Exhibit B), both attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the minimum standards and conditions for preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation of the Property, and shall apply to the Property throughout the term of this Agreement. Owner shall, where necessary, restore and rehabilitate the Property to conform to the current rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the Secretary’s Standards, and the City’s minimum maintenance standards. Owner shall utilize the State Historical Building Code when rehabilitating the Property.
c. As consideration for the City to enter into this Agreement, the Owner agrees, at its own cost and expense, to complete, or cause to be completed, the work or improvements described in with the Rehabilitation/Restoration/Maintenance Plan for the Property (Exhibit C), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, within the times established in Exhibit C. The Owner shall secure any and all permits which may be required by the City or any other governmental agency affected by the construction of the wo rk or improvements. The Owner accepts responsibility for and shall be responsible for identification of and compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to the construction and installation of the work or improvements described on Exhibit C and the contract or contracts pertaining thereto. The Owner will neither seek to hold nor hold the City liable for, and will hold the City harmless with respect to, any consequences of any failure by the Owner to correctly determine the applicability of any such requirements to any contract he/she/they enter into.

5. PERIODIC EXAMINATION OF PROPERTY.

Owner agrees to allow the periodic examination, by prior appointment, of the interior and exterior of the premises of the Property by representatives of the City, the Orange County Assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Board of Equalization, or their designees, as necessary to determine Owner’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Refusal to allow such inspection shall be grounds for cancellation of this Agreement.

6. PAYMENT OF FEES.

Owner agrees to pay any such fees associated with the administration of the Agreement to be established by the City and may be revised from time to time, so long as the fee does not exceed the City’s and County’s reasonable cost of providing the service pu rsuant to this article for which the fee is charged. Fees may include but are not limited to an inspection fee for each required inspection of the Property for the purpose of covering the reasonable cost of performing required periodic inspections.

7. FURNISHING OF INFORMATION OF COMPLIANCE.

Owner hereby agrees to furnish the City with any and all information requested by the City which may be necessary or advisable to determine Owner’s compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement.

8. CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT.

A. CANCELATION BY CITY. City may cancel and/or terminate this Agreement if City determines Owner has breached any of the terms, conditions and/or covenants of this Agreement or has allowed the Property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a Qualified Historical Property per Government Code Section 50280.1 or if the City determines that the Owner has failed -3-
861

to maintain, restore or rehabilitate the Property in accordance with the terms, standards and conditions set forth in Exhibit C or any other manner specified in this Agreement. i. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION. This Agreement cannot be canceled until after the City has given notice and has held a public hearing as required by Government Code Section 50285. City shall serve written notice of proposed cancellation on Owner stating the grounds for cancellation and setting a public hearing date on the matter. Notice of the hearing shall also be sent by registered or certified mail to the address stated in this Agreement, the last known address of each owner of the Qualified Historical Property and shall be published pursuant to Government Code Section 6061.

9. NOTICE AND EFFECT OF NONRENEWAL.

If Owner or City desires in any year not to renew this Agreement, such party shall serve written notice of nonrenewal on the other party in advance of the annual renewal date.

A. If served by Owner, notice of nonrenewal must be served on City at least ninety (90) days prior to the annual renewal date. If served by City, notice of renewal must be served on Owner at least sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date. Failure to m eet the notice deadlines above will result in one year being automatically added to the term of this Agreement.

B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the City’s notice of nonrenewal, Owner may make a written protest to the City. Upon timely receipt of such protest, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the matter prior to the annual renewal date. At such hearing, Owner may present any information which Owner deems relevant. Based on Owner’s protest and the information presented at the hearing, the City Council may withdraw the City’s notice of nonrenewal at any time prior to the annual renewal date.

C. Any notice of nonrenewal which has not been withdrawn prior to the next annual renewal date, shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder. Unless this Agreement is otherwise canceled as provided h erein, after notice of nonrenewal has been served and not withdrawn, this Agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then remaining, either from its original execution or from the last renewal of the Agreement, whichever may apply.

10. BINDING EFFECT OF AGREEMENT.

The Owner hereby voluntarily subjects the Property hereto to the conditions, requirements and agreements as set forth in this Agreement. City and Owner hereby declare their specific intent that the conditions, requirements and agreements as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the Owner's successors and assigns in title or interest to the Property. Each and every contract, deed or other instrument hereinafter executed, cove ring or conveying t he Property, or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered and accepted subject to the conditions, requirements and agreements expressed in this Agreement whether or not such conditions, requirements and agreements are set forth in any other contract, deed or other instrument.

City and Owner hereby declare their understanding and intent that the conditions, requirements and agreements set forth herein may burden the Property that the Owner holds legal interest and may therefore render the land less valuable. The City and Owner hereby further declare their understanding and intent that the benefit of such conditions, requirements and agreements touch and concern the land by enhancing and maintaining the historic characteristics and significance of the Property for the benefit of the public and Owner.

A. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. This Agreement is binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of all successors in interest of the Owner. A successor in interest shall have the same rights and obligations under this Agreement as the original owner who entered into this Agreement. -4-
862

B. REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO TRANSFER OF PROPERTY. In the event of any sale, transfer, assignment or conveyance of the Property (herein referred to as a "Transfer"), the Owner agrees that, at least thirty (30) days prior to such Transfer, it shall give written notice to the City of such proposed Transfer, including the name(s) of the transferee(s). In addition, the Owner and the proposed transferee(s) shall enter into and deliver to the City through the escrow for the Transfer of the Property an assignment and assumption agreement in a form satisfactory to the City's Attorney or such other evidence as may be satisfactory to the City that the transferee(s) has (have) assumed the Owner's obligations set forth in this Agreement. Upon the Transfer of the Property and the assumption of the obligations hereunder by the transferee(s), the Owner's liability for performance shall be terminated as to any obligation to be performed hereunder after the date of such Transfer.

C. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT.

In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel the Agreement as referenced herein, City may institute an action at law or equity to seek specific performance of the terms of this Agreement, or to cure, correct or remedy any breach of the terms of this Agreement, to recover damages for any breach, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. In the event of a default under the provisions of this Agreement by Owner, City shall give written notice to Owner specifying the alleged grounds for the default. Said notice shall be given by registered or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this Agreement and to the last known address of the Owner of the Qualified Historic Property. If such violation(s) is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the City within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the notice of violation, or within such longer period of time as specified or agreed to by City, or within such reasonable time a s may be required to cure the bre ach or default as determined by the City , provided that acts to cure, correct or remedy such breach or default are commenced within thirty (30) days and thereafter diligently pursued to completion, then the City may, without further notice, institute legal action.

Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the City are cumulative, and the exercise by the City of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the Owner. Any failure or delay by the City in asserting any of its right and remedies as to a breach of any of the conditions, requirements or agreements set forth herein shall not ope rate as a waiver of such breach or of any such rights or remedies, or deprive the City of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce such rights or remedies. A waiver by the City of a breach shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or other conditions, requirements or agreements set f orth in this Agreement.

11. NOTICE.

Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be provided at the address of the respective parties as specified below or at any other address as may be later specified by the parties hereto in writing.

TO CITY: City of Costa Mesa
Economic and Development Services Department
77 Fair Drive, 2nd Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Attn:____________

TO OWNER: Name _____________________________________________ Address _____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
-5-
863

12. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

A. NON-PARTNERSHIP. None of the terms, provisions or conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors or assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions or conditions cause them to be considered joint venturers or members of any joint enterprise.

B. DEFENSE, INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS. Owner agrees to and shall hold City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and/or agents harmless from any and all liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect use or operations of Owner or those of its contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee and/or other person acting on Owners behalf which relate to the use, operation and maint enance of the Property. Owner hereby agrees to and shall defend, with the attorneys of City’s choosing, the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and /or agents with respect to any and all actions for damages caused by, or alleged to have been caused by, reason of Owner's activities in connection with the Property. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of the operations referred to in this A greement whether or not the City prepared, supplied or approved the plans, specifications or other documents for the Property.

In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations or restrictions contained herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court.

C. REMEDY IF AGREEMENT HELD NOT ENFORCEABLE. All of the conditions, requirements or agreements contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the Property, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever.

In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions thereof, shall not be affected thereby.

D. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same Agreement with the same effect as if all parties had signed the same signature page.

E. NO COMPENSATION. Owner shall not receive any payment from the City in consideration of the obligations imposed under this Agreement. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that the consideration for the execution of this Agreement is the substantial public benefit to be derived therefrom and the advantage that will accrue to Owner as a result of the effect upon the assessed value of the Property on account of the restrictions on the use and preservation o f the Property.

F. INDEPENDENT ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. The parties hereto and each of them, represent and declare that in executing this Agreement they rely solely on their own belief, knowledge and judgment, and the advice and recommendations of their own independently selected legal counsel, concerning the nature, duration and extent of their rights and or claims, and that they have not been influenced to any extent whatsoever in executing this Agreement by any of the parties hereto or by any person representing them, of any of them.

G. This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in Orange County, California. -6-
864

H. Owner understands that it is Owner’s responsibility to apply for the reassessment of valuation afforded by this Agreement pursuant to Chapter 3, Part 2, of Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

13. RECORDATION OF AGREEMENT.

The City shall record this Agreement with the Orange County Recorder within twenty (20) days of its execution by both parties.

14. ENTIRE AGREEMENT.

This Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede all prior discussions, negotiations, and agreements whether oral or written.

15. AMENDMENTS.

This Agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written and recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto.

16. ADMINISTRATION.

This Agreement shall be administered by the City's Director of Economic and Development Services (hereinafter “Director” including his/her designee) following approval of this Agreement by the City. The City shall maintain authority of this Agreement through the Director. The Director shall have the authority to issue interpretations, waive provisions and enter into amendments of this Agreement on behalf of the City so long as such actions do not change the uses permitted on the Property or the purpose of this Agreement, and such amendments may include extensions of time speci fied in Exhibit C. All other waivers or amendments shall require the written approval and consent of the City Council.

(REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK; SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE)

-7-
865

17. AUTHORITY TO ENTER AGREEMENT.

This Each person executing this Agreement warrants that they have the authority to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the party for whom they sign.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Owner have caused this contract to be duly executed.

“OWNER”

Dated: _____, 20___ By: ______________________________________________________ Owner Signature*

______________________________________________________
Print Name

Dated: _____, 20___ By: ______________________________________________________ Owner Signature*

______________________________________________________
Print Name

“CITY”
CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation

Dated: _____, 20___ By: ______________________________________________________ Mayor
ATTEST:

________________________________________
City Clerk City

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________________
City Attorney

*Approved Recording Signature Method: The contract signature(s) and printed names(s) above MUST BE IDENTICAL to the printed names(s) on the first page of the contract and the Notary Acknowledgement Form. If not, the contract will be rejected by the County Recorder.
-8-
866
Exhibit A

Secretary’s Standards
-9-
867
387
National Park Service, Interior § 67.1
DC 20240, under the following cir-
cumstances:

Where the applicant—
(1) Disagrees with the initial decision
of NPS that the property is not likely
to meet the criteria of the National
Historic Landmarks Program and will
not be submitted to the Advisory
Board; or
(2) Disagrees with the decision of the
Secretary that the property does not
meet the criteria of the National His-
toric Landmarks Program.
(b) The Director will respond to the
appellant within 60 days. After review-
ing the appeal the Director may:
(1) Deny the appeal;
(2) Direct that a National Historic
Landmark nomination be prepared and
processed according to the regulations
if this has not yet occurred; or
(3) Resubmit the nomination to the
Secretary for reconsideration and final
decision.
(c) Any person or organization which
supports or opposes the consideration
of a property for National Historic
Landmark designation may submit an
appeal to the Director, NPS, during the
designation process either supporting
or opposing the designation. Such ap-
peals received by the Director before
the study of the property or before its
submission to the National Park Sys-
tem Advisory Board will be considered
by the Director, the Advisory Board
and the Secretary, as appropriate, in
the designation process.
(d) No person shall be considered to
have exhausted administrative rem-
edies with respect to failure to des-
ignate a property a National Historic
Landmark until he or she has complied
with the procedures set forth in this
section.

PART 67—HISTORIC PRESERVATION

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER THE IN-

TERNAL REVENUE CODE
Sec.

67.1 Program authority and function.

67.2 Definitions.

67.3 Introduction to certifications of signifi-
cance and rehabilitation and information
collection.

67.4 Certifications of historic significance.

67.5 Standards for evaluating significance
within registered historic districts.

67.6 Certifications of rehabilitation.

67.7 Standards for rehabilitation.

67.8 Certifications of statutes.

67.9 Certifications of State or local historic
districts.

67.10 Appeals.

67.11 Fees for processing certification re-
quests.

A
UTHORITY: 16 U.S.C. 470a(a)(1)(A); 26
U.S.C. 47 and 170(h).

EDITORIAL NOTE: Nomenclature changes to
part 67 appear at 76 FR 30541, May 26, 2011.

SOURCE: 54 FR 6771, Feb. 26, 1990, unless
otherwise noted.
§ 67.1 Program authority and function.
(a) Section 47 of the Internal Revenue
Code designates the Secretary as the
authority for the issuance of certifi-
cations of historic district statutes and
of State and local historic districts,
certifications of significance, and cer-
tifications of rehabilitation in connec-
tion with certain tax incentives involv-
ing historic preservation. These certifi-
cation responsibilities have been dele-
gated to the National Park Service
(NPS); the following office issues those
certifications: National Park Service,
Washington Area Service Office, Tech-
nical Preservation Services, Heritage
Preservation Services (WASO), 1849 C
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240.
(b) NPS WASO establishes program
direction and considers appeals of cer-
tification denials. It is the responsi-
bility of owners wishing certifications
to provide sufficient documentation to
the Secretary to make certification de-
cisions. These procedures, upon their
effective date, are applicable to future
and pending certification requests, ex-
cept as otherwise provided herein.
(c) States receiving Historic Preser-
vation Fund grants from the Depart-
ment participate in the review of re-
quests for certification, through rec-
ommendations to the Secretary by the
State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO). The SHPO acts on behalf of
the State in this capacity and, there-
fore, the NPS is not responsible for any
actions, errors or omissions of the
SHPO.
(1) Requests for certifications and ap-
provals of proposed rehabilitation work
are sent by an owner first to the appro-
priate SHPO for review. State com-
ments are recorded on National Park
Service Review Sheets (NPS Forms 10–
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00397 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -10- 868
388
36 CFR Ch. I (7–1–13 Edition) § 67.2
168 (d) and (e)) and are carefully consid-
ered by the Secretary before a certifi-
cation decision is made. Recommenda-
tions of States with approved State
programs are generally followed, but
by law, all certification decisions are
made by the Secretary, based upon pro-
fessional review of the application and
related information. The decision of
the Secretary may differ from the rec-
ommendation of the SHPO.
(2) A State may choose not to par-
ticipate in the review of certification
requests. States not wishing to partici-
pate in the comment process should no-
tify the Secretary in writing of this
fact. Owners from such nonpartici-
pating States may request certifi-
cations by sending their applications
directly to the appropriate NPS WASO
listed above. In all other situations,
certification requests are sent first to
the appropriate SHPO.
(d) The Internal Revenue Service is
responsible for all procedures, legal de-
terminations, and rules and regula-
tions concerning the tax consequences
of the historic preservation provisions
described in this part. Any certifi-
cation made by the Secretary pursuant
to this part shall not be considered as
binding upon the Internal Revenue
Service or the Secretary of the Treas-
ury with respect to tax consequences
under the Internal Revenue Code. For
example, certifications made by the
Secretary do not constitute determina-
tions that a structure is of the type
subject to the allowance for deprecia-
tion under section 167 of the Code.
[54 FR 6771, Feb. 26, 1990, as amended at 76
FR 30541, May 26, 2011]
§ 67.2 Definitions.

As used in these regulations:

Certified Historic Structure means a
building (and its structural compo-
nents) which is of a character subject
to the allowance for depreciation pro-
vided in section 167 of the Internal Rev-
enue Code of 1986 which is either:
(a) Individually listed in the National
Register; or
(b) Located in a registered historic
district and certified by the Secretary
as being of historic significance to the
district.

Portions of larger buildings, such as
single condominium apartment units,
are no independently considered cer-
tified historic structures. Rowhouses,
even with abutting or party walls, are
considered as separate buildings. For
purposes of the certification decisions
set forth in this part, a certified his-
toric structure encompasses the his-
toric building and its site, landscape
features, and environment, generally
referred to herein as a ‘‘property’’ as
defined below. The NPS decision on
listing a property in the National Reg-
ister of Historic Places, including
boundary determinations, does not
limit the scope of review of the reha-
bilitation project for tax certification
purposes. Such review will include the
entire historic property as it existed
prior to rehabilitation and any related
new construction. For purposes of the
charitable contribution provisions
only, a certified historic structure need
not be depreciable to qualify; may be a
structure other than a building; and
may also be a remnant of a building
such as a facade, if that is all that re-
mains. For purposes of the other reha-
bilitation tax credits under section 47
of the Internal Revenue Code, any
property located in a registered his-
toric district is considered a certified
historic structure so that other reha-
bilitation tax credits are not available;
exemption from this provision can gen-
erally occur only if the Secretary has
determined, prior to the rehabilitation
of the property, that it is not of his-
toric significance to the district.

Certified Rehabilitation means any re-
habilitation of a certified historic
structure which the Secretary has cer-
tified to the Secretary of the Treasury
as being consistent with the historic
character of the certified historic
structure and, where applicable, with
the district in which such structure is
located.

Duly Authorized Representative means
a State or locality’s Chief Elected Offi-
cial or his or her representative who is
authorized to apply for certification of
State/local statutes and historic dis-
tricts.

Historic District means a geographi-
cally definable area, urban or rural,
that possesses a significant concentra-
tion, linkage or continuity of sites,
buildings, structures or objects united
historically or aesthetically by plan or
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00398 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -11- 869
389
National Park Service, Interior § 67.3
physical development. A district may
also comprise individual elements sep-
arated geographically during the pe-
riod of significance but linked by asso-
ciation or function.

Inspection means a visit by an au-
thorized representative of the Sec-
retary or a SHPO to a certified historic
structure for the purposes of reviewing
and evaluating the significance of the
structure and the ongoing or completed
rehabilitation work.

National Register of Historic Places
means the National Register of dis-
tricts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects significant in American his-
tory, architecture, archeology, engi-
neering, and culture that the Secretary
is authorized to expand and maintain
pursuant to section 101(a)(1) of the Na-
tional Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended. The procedures of the
National Register appear in 36 CFR
part 60 et seq.

Owner means a person, partnership,
corporation, or public agency holding a
fee-simple interest in a property or any
other person or entity recognized by
the Internal Revenue Code for purposes
of the applicable tax benefits.

Property means a building and its site
and landscape features.

Registered Historic District means any
district listed in the National Register
or any district which is:
(a) Designated under a State or local
statute which has been certified by the
Secretary as containing criteria which
will substantially achieve the purpose
of preserving and rehabilitating build-
ings of significance to the district, and
(b) Certified by the Secretary as
meeting substantially all of the re-
quirements for the listing of districts
in the National Register.

Rehabilitation means the process of
returning a building or buildings to a
state of utility, through repair or al-
teration, which makes possible an effi-
cient use while preserving those por-
tions and features of the building and
its site and environment which are sig-
nificant to its historic, architectural,
and cultural values as determined by
the Secretary.

Standards for Rehabilitation means the
Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilita-
tion set forth in section 67.7 hereof.

State Historic Preservation Officer
means the official within each State
designated by the Governor or a State
statute to act as liaison for purposes of
administering historic preservation
programs within that State.

State or Local Statute means a law of
a State or local government desig-
nating, or providing a method for the
designation of, a historic district or
districts.
[54 FR 6771, Feb. 26, 1990, as amended at 62
FR 30235, June 3, 1997]
§ 67.3 Introduction to certifications of
significance and rehabilitation and
information collection.
(a) Who may apply:
(1) Ordinarily, only the fee simple
owner of the property in question may
apply for the certifications described in
§§ 67.4 and 67.6 hereof. If an application
for an evaluation of significance or re-
habilitation project is made by some-
one other than the fee simple owner,
however, the application must be ac-
companied by a written statement
from the fee simple owner indicating
that he or she is aware of the applica-
tion and has no objection to the re-
quest for certification.
(2) Upon request of a SHPO the Sec-
retary may determine whether or not a
particular property located within a
registered historic district qualifies as
a certified historic structure. The Sec-
retary shall do so, however, only after
notifying the fee simple owner of
record of the request, informing such
owner of the possible tax consequences
of such a decision, and permitting the
property owner a 30-day time period to
submit written comments to the Sec-
retary prior to decision. Such time pe-
riod for comment may be waived by the
fee simple owner.
(3) The Secretary may undertake the
certifications described in §§ 67.4 and

67.6 on his own initiative after noti-
fying the fee simple owner and the
SHPO and allowing a comment period
as specified in § 67.3(a)(2).
(4) Owners of properties which appear
to meet National Register criteria but
are yet listed in the National Register
or which are located within potential
historic districts may request prelimi-
nary determinations from the Sec-
retary as to whether such properties
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00399 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -12- 870
390
36 CFR Ch. I (7–1–13 Edition) § 67.3
may qualify as certified historic struc-
tures when and if the properties or the
potential historic districts in which
they are located are listed in the Na-
tional Register. Preliminary deter-
minations may also be requested for
properties outside the period or area of
significance of registered historic dis-
tricts as specified in § 67.5(c). Proce-
dures for obtaining these determina-
tions shall be the same as those de-
scribed in § 67.4. Such determinations
are preliminary only and are not bind-
ing on the Secretary. Preliminary de-
terminations of significance will be-
come final as of the date of the listing
of the individual property or district in
the National Register. For properties
outside the period or area of signifi-
cance of a registered historic district,
preliminary determinations of signifi-
cance will become final, except as pro-
vided below, when the district docu-
mentation on file with the NPS is for-
mally amended. If during review of a
request for certification of rehabilita-
tion, it is determined that the property
does not contribute to the significance
of the district because of changes
which occurred after the preliminary
determination of significance was
made, certified historic structure des-
ignation will be denied.
(5) Owners of properties not yet des-
ignated certified historic structures
may obtain determinations from the
Secretary on whether or not rehabilita-
tion proposals meet the Secretary’s
Standards for Rehabilitation. Such de-
terminations will be made only when
the owner has requested a preliminary
determination of the significance of
the property as described in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section and such request
for determination has been acted upon
by the NPS. Final certifications of re-
habilitation will be issued only to own-
ers of certified historic structures. Pro-
cedures for obtaining these determina-
tions shall be the same as those de-
scribed in sec. 67.6.
(b) How to apply:
(1) Requests for certifications of his-
toric significance and of rehabilitation
shall be made on Historic Preservation
Certification Applications (NPS Form
No. 10–168). Normally, two copies of the
application are required; one to be re-
tained by the SHPO and the other to be
forwarded to the NPS. The information
collection requirements contained in
the application and in this part have
been approved by the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3507
and assigned clearance number 1024–
0009. Part 1 of the application shall be
used in requesting a certification of
historic significance or nonsignificance
and preliminary determinations, while
part 2 of the application shall be used
in requesting an evaluation of a pro-
posed rehabilitation project or, in con-
junction with a Request for Certifi-
cation of Completed Work, a certifi-
cation of a completed rehabilitation
project. Information contained in the
application is required to obtain a ben-
efit. Public reporting burden for this
form is estimated to average 2.5 hours
per response including the time for re-
viewing instructions, gathering and
maintaining data, and completing and
reviewing the form. Direct comments
regarding this burden estimate or any
aspect of this form may be made to the
Chief, Administrative Services Divi-
sion, National Park Service, P.O. Box
37127, Washington, DC 20013–7127 and to
the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project Number
1024–0009, Washington, DC 20503.
(2) Application forms are available
from NPS WASO or the SHPOs.
(3) Requests for certifications, pre-
liminary determinations, and approv-
als of proposed rehabilitation projects
shall be sent to the SHPO in partici-
pating States. Requests in nonpartici-
pating States shall be sent directly to
the appropriate NPS WASO.
(4) Generally reviews of certification
requests are concluded within 60 days
of receipt of a complete, adequately
documented application, as defined
§ 67.4 and § 67.6 (30 days at the State
level and 30 days at the Federal level).

Where a State has chosen not to par-
ticipate in the review process, review
by the NPS generally is concluded
within 60 days of receipt of a complete,
adequately documented application.

Where adequate documentation is not
provided, the owner will be notified of
the additional information needed to
undertake or complete review. The
time periods in this part are based on
the receipt of a complete application;
they will be adhered to as closely as
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00400 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -13- 871
391
National Park Service, Interior § 67.4
possible and are defined as calendar
days. They are not, however, consid-
ered to be mandatory, and the failure
to complete review within the des-
ignated periods does not waive or alter
any certification requirement.
(5) Approval of applications and
amendments to applications is con-
veyed only in writing by duly author-
ized officials of the NPS acting on be-
half of the Secretary. Decisions with
respect to certifications are made on
the basis of the descriptions contained
in the application form and other
available information. In the event of
any discrepancy between the applica-
tion form and other, supplementary
material submitted with it (such as ar-
chitectural plans, drawings, specifica-
tions, etc.), the applicant shall be re-
quested to resolve the discrepancy in
writing. In the event the discrepancy is
not resolved, the description in the ap-
plication form shall take precedence.

Falsification of factual representations
in the application is subject to crimi-
nal sanctions of up to $10,000 in fines or
imprisonment for up to five years pur-
suant to 18 U.S.C. 1001.
(6) It is the owner’s responsibility to
notify the Secretary if application re-
views are not completed within the
time periods specified above. The Sec-
retary in turn will consult with the ap-
propriate office to ensure that the re-
view is completed in as timely manner
as possible in the circumstances.
(7) Although certifications of signifi-
cance and rehabilitation are discussed
separately below, owners must submit
part 1 of the Historic Preservation Cer-
tification Application prior to, or with,
part 2. Part 2 of the application will
not be processed until an adequately
documented part 1 is on file and acted
upon unless the property is already a
certified historic structure. Reviews of
rehabilitation projects will also not be
undertaken if the owner has objected
to the listing of the property in the Na-
tional Register.
§ 67.4 Certifications of historic signifi-
cance.
(a) Requests for certifications of his-
toric significance should be made by
the owner to determine—
(1) That a property located within a
registered historic district is of his-
toric significance to such district; or
(2) That a property located within a
registered historic district is not of
historic significance to such district;
or
(3) That a property not yet on the
National Register appears to meet Na-
tional Register criteria; or
(4) That a property located within a
potential historic district appears to
contribute to the significance of such
district.
(b) To determine whether or not a
property is individually listed or is
part of a district in the National Reg-
ister, the owner may consult the list-
ing of National Register properties in
the F
EDERAL REGISTER (found in most
large libraries), or contact the appro-
priate SHPO for current information.
(c) If a property is located within the
boundaries of a registered historic dis-
trict and the owner wishes the Sec-
retary to certify whether the property
contributes or does not contribute to
the historic significance of the district
or if the owner is requesting a prelimi-
nary determination of significance in
accordance with § 67.3(a)(4), the owner
must complete part 1 of the Historic
Preservation Certification Application
according to instructions accom-
panying the application. Such docu-
mentation includes but is not limited
to:
(1) Name and mailing address of
owner;
(2) Name and address of property;
(3) Name of historic district;
(4) Current photographs of property;
photographs of the building and its site
and landscape features prior to alter-
ation if rehabilitation has been com-
pleted; photograph(s) showing the prop-
erty along with adjacent properties and
structures on the street; and photo-
graphs of interior features and spaces
adequate to document significance;
(5) Brief description of appearance in-
cluding alterations, distinctive fea-
tures and spaces, and date(s) of con-
struction;
(6) Brief statement of significance
summarizing how the property does or
does not reflect the values that give
the district its distinctive historical
and visual character, and explaining
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00401 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -14- 872
392
36 CFR Ch. I (7–1–13 Edition) § 67.4
any significance attached to the prop-
erty itself (i.e., unusual building tech-
niques, important event that took
place there, etc.).
(7) Sketch map clearly delineating
property’s location within the district;
and
(8) Signature of fee simple owner re-
questing or concurring in a request for
evaluation.
(d) If a property is individually listed
in the National Register, it is generally
considered a certified historic struc-
ture and no further certification is re-
quired. More specific considerations in
this regard are as follows:
(1) If the property is individually list-
ed in the National Register and the
owner believes it has lost the charac-
teristics which caused it to be nomi-
nated and therefore wishes it delisted,
the owner should refer to the delisting
procedures outlined in 36 CFR part 60.
(2) Some properties individually list-
ed in the National Register include
more than one building. In such cases,
the owner must submit a single part 1
application, as described in paragraph
(c) of this section, which includes de-
scriptions of all the buildings within
the listing. The Secretary will utilize
the Standards for Evaluating Signifi-
cance within Registered Historic Dis-
tricts (§ 67.5) for the purpose of deter-
mining which of the buildings included
within the listing are of historic sig-
nificance to the property. The require-
ments of this paragraph are applicable
to certification requests received by
the SHPOs (and the NPS WASO in the
case of nonparticipating States only)
upon the effective date of these regula-
tions.
(e) Properties containing more than
one building where the buildings are
judged by the Secretary to have been
functionally related historically to
serve an overall purpose, such as a mill
complex or a residence and carriage
house, will be treated as a single cer-
tified historic structure, whether the
property is individually listed in the
National Register or is located within
a registered historic district, when re-
habilitated as part of an overall
project. Buildings that are functionally
related historically are those which
have functioned together to serve an
overall purpose during the property’s
period of significance. In the case of a
property within a registered historic
district which contains more than one
building where the buildings are judged
to be functionally related historically,
an evaluation will be made to deter-
mine whether the component buildings
contribute to the historic significance
of the property and whether the prop-
erty contributes to the significance of
the historic district as in § 67.4(i). For
questions concerning demolition of
separate structures as part of an over-
all rehabilitation project, see §

67.6. (f) Applications for preliminary de-
terminations for individual listing
must show how the property individ-
ually meets the National Register Cri-
teria for Evaluation. An application for
a property located in a potential his-
toric district must document how the
district meets the criteria and how the
property contributes to the signifi-
cance of that district. An application
for a preliminary determination for a
property in a registered historic dis-
trict which is outside the period or
area of significance in the district doc-
umentation on file with the NPS must
document and justify the expanded sig-
nificance of the district and how the
property contributes to the signifi-
cance of the district or document the
individual significance of the property.

Applications must contain substan-
tially the same level of documentation
as National Register nominations, as
specified in 36 CFR part 60 and Na-
tional Register Bulletin 16, ‘‘Guidelines
for Completing National Register of
Historic Places Forms’’ (available from
SHPOs and NPS WASO). Applications
must also include written assurance
from the SHPO that the district nomi-
nation is being revised to expand its
significance or, for certified districts,
written assurance from the duly au-
thorized representative that the dis-
trict documentation is being revised to
expand its significance, or that the
SHPO is planning to nominate the
property or the district. Owners should
understand that confirmation of intent
to nominate by a SHPO does not con-
stitute listing in the National Register,
nor does it constitute a certification of
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00402 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -15- 873
393
National Park Service, Interior § 67.4
significance as required by law for Fed-
eral tax incentives. Owners should fur-
ther understand that they are pro-
ceeding at their own risk. If the prop-
erty or district is not listed in the Na-
tional Register for procedural, sub-
stantive or other reasons; if the dis-
trict documentation is not formally
amended; or if the significance of the
property has been lost as a result of al-
terations or damage, these preliminary
determinations of significance will not
become final. The SHPO must nomi-
nate the property or the district or the
SHPO for National Register districts
and the duly authorized representative
in the case of certified districts must
submit documentation and have it ap-
proved by the NPS to amend the Na-
tional Register nomination or certified
district or the property or district
must be listed before the preliminary
certification of significance can be-
come final.
(g) For purposes of the other rehabili-
tation tax credits under section 47 of
the Internal Revenue Code, properties
within registered historic districts are
presumed to contribute to the signifi-
cance of such districts unless certified
as nonsignificant by the Secretary.

Owners of non-historic properties with-
in registered historic districts, there-
fore, must obtain a certification of
nonsignificance in order to qualify for
those investment tax credits. If an
owner begins or completes a substan-
tial rehabilitation (as defined by the
Internal Revenue Service) of a property
in a registered historic district without
knowledge of requirements for certifi-
cation of nonsignificance, he or she
may request certification that the
property was not of historic signifi-
cance to the district prior to substan-
tial rehabilitation in the same manner
as stated in paragraph (c) of this sec-
tion. The owner should be aware, how-
ever, that the taxpayer must certify to
the Secretary of the Treasury that, at
the beginning of such substantial reha-
bilitation, he or she in good faith was
not aware of the certification require-
ment by the Secretary of the Interior.
(h) The Secretary discourages the
moving of historic buildings from their
original sites. However, if a building is
to be moved as part of a rehabilitation
for which certification is sought, the
owner must follow different procedures
depending on whether the building is
individually listed in the National Reg-
ister or is within a registered historic
district. When a building is moved,
every effort should be made to re-es-
tablish its historic orientation, imme-
diate setting, and general environment.

Moving a building may result in re-
moval of the property from the Na-
tional Register or, for buildings within
a registered historic district, denial or
revocation of a certification of signifi-
cance; consequently, a moved building
may, in certain circumstances, be in-
eligible for rehabilitation certification.
(1) Documentation must be sub-
mitted that demonstrates:
(i) The effect of the move on the
building’s integrity and appearance
(any proposed demolition, proposed
changes in foundations, etc.);
(ii) Photographs of the site and gen-
eral environment of the proposed site;
(iii) Evidence that the proposed site
does not possess historical significance
that would be adversely affected by the
moved building;
(iv) The effect of the move on the dis-
tinctive historical and visual character
of the district, where applicable; and
(v)
The method to be used for moving
the building.
(2) For buildings individually listed
in the National Register, the proce-
dures contained in 36 CFR part 60 must
be followed prior to the move, or the
building will be removed from the Na-
tional Register, will not be considered
a certified historic structure, and will
have to be renominated for listing. The
owner may submit a part 1 application
in order to receive a preliminary deter-
mination from the NPS of whether a
move will cause the property to be re-
moved from the National Register.

However, preliminary approval of such
a part 1 application does not satisfy
the requirements of 36 CFR part 60. The
SHPO must follow the remaining pro-
cedures in that regulation so that the
NPS can determine that the moved
building will remain listed in the Na-
tional Register and retain its status as
a certified historic structure.
(3) If an owner moves (or proposes to
move) a building into a registered his-
toric district or moves (or proposes to
move) a building elsewhere within a
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00403 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -16- 874
394
36 CFR Ch. I (7–1–13 Edition) § 67.5
registered historic district, a part 1 ap-
plication containing the required infor-
mation described in paragraph (h)(1) of
this section must be submitted. The
building to be moved will be evaluated
to determine if it contributes to the
historic significance of the district
both before and after the move as in
§ 67.4(i).
(i) Properties within registered his-
toric districts will be evaluated to de-
termine if they contribute to the his-
toric significance of the district by ap-
plication of the Secretary’s Standards
for Evaluating Significance within
Registered Historic Districts as set
forth in § 67.5.
(j) Once the significance of a prop-
erty located within a registered his-
toric district or a potential historic
district has been determined by the
Secretary, written notification will be
sent to the owner and the SHPO in the
form of a certification of significance
or nonsignificance.
(k) Owners shall report to the Sec-
retary through the SHPO any substan-
tial damage, alteration or changes to a
property that occurs after issuance of a
certification of significance and prior
to a final certification of rehabilita-
tion. The Secretary may withdraw a
certification of significance, upon thir-
ty days notice to the owner, if a prop-
erty has been damaged, altered or
changed effective as of the date of the
occurrence. The property may also be
removed from the National Register, in
accordance with the procedures in 36
CFR part 60. A revocation of certifi-
cation of significance pursuant to this
part may be appealed under § 67.10. For
damage, alteration or changes caused
by unacceptable rehabilitation work,
see § 67.6(f).
[54 FR 6771, Feb. 26, 1990, as amended at 76
FR 30541, May 26, 2011]
§ 67.5 Standards for evaluating signifi-
cance within registered historic dis-
tricts.
(a) Properties located within reg-
istered historic districts are reviewed
by the Secretary to determine if they
contribute to the historic significance
of the district by applying the fol-
lowing Standards for Evaluating Sig-
nificance within Registered Historic
Districts.
(1) A building contributing to the his-
toric significance of a district is one
which by location, design, setting, ma-
terials, workmanship, feeling and asso-
ciation adds to the district’s sense of
time and place and historical develop-
ment.
(2) A building not contributing to the
historic significance of a district is one
which does not add to the district’s
sense of time and place and historical
development; or one where the loca-
tion, design, setting, materials, work-
manship, feeling and association have
been so altered or have so deteriorated
that the overall integrity of the build-
ing has been irretrievably lost.
(3) Ordinarily buildings that have
been built within the past 50 years
shall not be considered to contribute to
the significance of a district unless a
strong justification concerning their
historical or architectural merit is
given or the historical attributes of the
district are considered to be less than
50 years old.
(b) A condemnation order may be
presented as evidence of physical dete-
rioration of a building but will not of
itself be considered sufficient evidence
to warrant certification of nonsignifi-
cance for loss of integrity. In certain
cases it may be necessary for the owner
to submit a structural engineer’s re-
port to help substantiate physical dete-
rioration and/or structural damage.

Guidance on preparing a structural en-
gineer’s report is available from the
appropriate SHPO or NPS WASO.
(c) Some properties listed in the Na-
tional Register, primarily districts, are
resources whose concentration or con-
tinuity possesses greater historical sig-
nificance than many of their individual
component buildings and structures.

These usually are documented as a
group rather than individually. Accord-
ingly, this type of National Register
documentation is not conclusive for
the purposes of this part and must be
supplemented with information on the
significance of the specific property.

Certifications of significance and non-
significance will be made on the basis
of the application documentation, ex-
isting National Register documenta-
tion, and other available information
as needed. The Keeper may amend the
National Register documentation by
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00404 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -17- 875
395
National Park Service, Interior § 67.6
issuing a supplementary record if the
application material warrants such an
amendment. If a certification request
is received for a property which is not
yet listed on the National Register or
which is outside a district’s established
period or area of significance, a pre-
liminary determination of significance
will be issued only if the request in-
cludes adequate documentation and if
there is written assurance from the
SHPO that the SHPO plans to nomi-
nate the property or district or that
the district nomination in question is
being revised to expand its significance
or for certified districts, written assur-
ance from the duly authorized rep-
resentative that the district docu-
mentation is being revised to expand
the significance. Certifications will be-
come final when the property or dis-
trict is listed or when the district doc-
umentation is officially amended un-
less the significance of the property
has been lost as a result of alteration
or damage. For procedures on amend-
ing listings to the National Register
and additional information on the use
of National Register documentation
and the supplementary record which is
contained in National Register Bul-
letin 19, ‘‘Policies and Procedures for
Processing National Register Nomina-
tions,’’ consult the appropriate SHPO
or NPS WASO.
(d) Where rehabilitation credits are
sought, certifications of significance
will be made on the appearance and
condition of the property before reha-
bilitation was begun.
(e) If a nonhistoric surface material
obscures a facade, it may be necessary
for the owner to remove a portion of
the surface material prior to request-
ing certification so that a determina-
tion of significance or nonsignificance
can be made. After the material has
been removed, if the obscured facade
has retained substantial historic integ-
rity and the property otherwise con-
tributes to the historic district, it will
be determined to be a certified historic
structure. However, if the obscuring
material remains when a determina-
tion of nonsignificance is requested
under § 67.4(a)(2), the property will be
presumed to contribute to the historic
significance of the district, if otherwise
qualified, and, therefore, not eligible
for the other tax credits under section
47 of the Internal Revenue Code.
(f) Additional guidance on certifi-
cations of historic significance is avail-
able from SHPOs and NPS WASO.
§ 67.6 Certifications of rehabilitation.
(a) Owners who want rehabilitation
projects for certified historic struc-
tures to be certified by the Secretary
as being consistent with the historic
character of the structure, and, where
applicable, the district in which the
structure is located, thus qualifying as
a certified rehabilitation, shall comply
with the procedures listed below. A fee,
as described in § 67.11, for reviewing all
proposed, ongoing, or completed reha-
bilitation work is charged by the Sec-
retary. No certification decisions will
be issued on any application until the
appropriate remittance is received.
(1) To initiate review of a rehabilita-
tion project for certification purposes,
an owner must complete part 2 of the
Historic Preservation Certification Ap-
plication according to instructions ac-
companying the application. These in-
structions explain in detail the docu-
mentation required for certification of
a rehabilitation project. The applica-
tion may describe a proposed rehabili-
tation project, a project in progress, or
a completed project. In all cases, docu-
mentation, including photographs ade-
quate to document the appearance of
the structure(s), both on the exterior
and on the interior, and its site and en-
vironment prior to rehabilitation must
accompany the application. The social
security or taxpayer identification
number(s) of all owners must be pro-
vided in the application. Other docu-
mentation, such as window surveys or
cleaning specifications, may be re-
quired by reviewing officials to evalu-
ate certain rehabilitation projects.

Plans for any attached, adjacent, or re-
lated new construction must also ac-
company the application. Where nec-
essary documentation is not provided,
review and evaluation may not be com-
pleted and a denial of certification will
be issued on the basis of lack of infor-
mation. Owners are strongly encour-
aged to submit part 2 of the application
prior to undertaking any rehabilitation
work. Owners who undertake rehabili-
tation projects without prior approval
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00405 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -18- 876
396
36 CFR Ch. I (7–1–13 Edition) § 67.6
from the Secretary do so strictly at
their own risk. Because the cir-
cumstances of each rehabilitation
project are unique to the particular
certified historic structure involved,
certifications that may have been
granted to other rehabilitations are
not specifically applicable and may not
be relied on by owners as applicable to
other projects.
(2) A project does not become a cer-
tified rehabilitation until it is com-
pleted and so designated by the NPS. A
determination that the completed re-
habilitation of a property not yet des-
ignated a certified historic structure
meets the Secretary’s Standards for
Rehabilitation does not constitute a
certification of rehabilitation. When
requesting certification of a completed
rehabilitation project, the owner shall
submit a Request for Certification of
Completed Work (NPS Form 10–168c)
and provide the project completion
date and a signed statement that the
completed rehabilitation project meets
the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabili-
tation and is consistent with the work
described in part 2 of the Historic Pres-
ervation Certification Application.

Also required in requesting certifi-
cation of a completed rehabilitation
project are costs attributed to the re-
habilitation, photographs adequate to
document the completed rehabilita-
tion, and the social security or tax-
payer identification number(s) of all
owners.
(b) A rehabilitation project for cer-
tification purposes encompasses all
work on the interior and exterior of
the certified historic structure(s) and
its site and environment, as deter-
mined by the Secretary, as well as re-
lated demolition, new construction or
rehabilitation work which may affect
the historic qualities, integrity or site,
landscape features, and environment of
the certified historic structure(s). More
specific considerations in this regard
are as follows:
(1) All elements of the rehabilitation
project must meet the Secretary’s ten
Standards for Rehabilitation (§ 67.7);
portions of the rehabilitation project
not in conformance with the Standards
may not be exempted. In general, an
owner undertaking a rehabilitation
project will not be held responsible for
prior rehabilitation work not part of
the current project, or rehabilitation
work that was undertaken by previous
owners or third parties.
(2) However, if the Secretary con-
siders or has reason to consider that a
project submitted for certification does
not include the entire rehabilitation
project subject to review hereunder,
the Secretary may choose to deny a re-
habilitation certification or to with-
hold a decision on such a certification
until such time as the Internal Rev-
enue Service, through a private letter
ruling, has determined, pursuant to
these regulations and applicable provi-
sions of the Internal Revenue Code and
income tax regulations, the proper
scope of the rehabilitation project to
be reviewed by the Secretary. Factors
to be taken into account by the Sec-
retary and the Internal Revenue Serv-
ice in this regard include, but are not
limited to, the facts and circumstance
of each application and (i) whether pre-
vious demolition, construction or reha-
bilitation work irrespective of owner-
ship or control at the time was in fact
undertaken as part of the rehabilita-
tion project for which certification is
sought, and (ii) whether property con-
veyances, reconfigurations, ostensible
ownership transfers or other trans-
actions were transactions which pur-
portedly limit the scope of a rehabili-
tation project for the purpose of review
by the Secretary without substantially
altering beneficial ownership or con-
trol of the property. The fact that a
property may still qualify as a cer-
tified historic structure after having
undergone inappropriate rehabilita-
tion, construction or demolition work
does not preclude the Secretary or the
Internal Revenue Service from deter-
mining that such inappropriate work is
part of the rehabilitation project to be
reviewed by the Secretary.
(3) Conformance to the Standards
will be determined on the basis of the
application documentation and other
available information by evaluating
the property as it existed prior to the
commencement of the rehabilitation
project, regardless of when the prop-
erty becomes or became a certified his-
toric structure.
(4) For rehabilitation projects involv-
ing more than one certified historic
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00406 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -19- 877
397
National Park Service, Interior § 67.6
structure where the structures are
judged by the Secretary to have been
functionally related historically to
serve an overall purpose, such as a mill
complex or a residence and carriage
house, rehabilitation certification will
be issued on the merits of the overall
project rather than for each structure
or individual component. For rehabili-
tation projects where there is no his-
toric functional relationship among
the structures, the certification deci-
sion will be made for each separate cer-
tified historic structure regardless of
how they are grouped for ownership or
development purposes.
(5) Demolition of a building as part of
a rehabilitation project involving mul-
tiple buildings may result in denial of
certification of the rehabilitation. In
projects where there is no historic
functional relationship among the
structures being rehabilitated, related
new construction which physically ex-
pands one certified historic structure
undergoing rehabilitation and, there-
fore, directly causes the demolition of
an adjacent structure will generally re-
sult in denial of certification of the re-
habilitation unless a determination has
been made that the building to be de-
molished is not a certified historic
structure as in § 67.4(a). In rehabilita-
tion projects where the structures have
been determined to be functionally re-
lated historically, demolition of a com-
ponent may be approved, in limited cir-
cumstances, when:
(i) The component is outside the pe-
riod of significance of the property, or
(ii) The component is so deteriorated
or altered that its integrity has been
irretrievably lost; or
(iii) The component is a secondary
one that generally lacks historic, engi-
neering, or architectural significance
or does not occupy a major portion of
the site and persuasive evidence is
present to show that retention of the
component is not technically or eco-
nomically feasible.
(6) In situations involving rehabilita-
tion of a certified historic structure in
a historic district, the Secretary will
review the rehabilitation project first
as it affects the certified historic
structure and second as it affects the
district and make a certification deci-
sion accordingly.
(7) In the event that an owner of a
portion of a certified historic structure
requests certification for a rehabilita-
tion project related only to that por-
tion, but there is or was a larger re-
lated rehabilitation project(s) occur-
ring with respect to the certified his-
toric structure, the Secretary’s deci-
sion on the requested certification will
be based on review of the overall reha-
bilitation project(s) for the certified
historic structure.
(8) For rehabilitation projects which
are to be completed in phases over the
alternate 60-month period allowed in
section 47 of the Internal Revenue
Code, the initial part 2 application and
supporting architectural plans and
specifications should identify the
project as a 60-month phased project
and describe the number and order of
the phases and the general scope of the
overall rehabilitation project. If the
initial part 2 application clearly identi-
fies the project as a phased rehabilita-
tion, the NPS will consider the project
in all its phases as a single rehabilita-
tion. If complete information on the re-
habilitation work of the later phases is
not described in the initial part 2 appli-
cation, it may be submitted at a later
date but must be clearly identified as a
later phase of a 60-month phased
project that was previously submitted
for review. Owners are cautioned that
work undertaken in a later phase of a
60-month phased project that does not
meet the Standards for Rehabilitation,
whether or not submitted for review,
will result in a denial of certification
of the entire rehabilitation with the
tax consequences of such a denial to be
determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury. Separate certifications for
portions of phased rehabilitation
projects will not be issued. Rather the
owner will be directed to comply with
Internal Revenue Service regulations
governing late certifications contained
in 26 CFR 1.48–12.
(c) Upon receipt of the complete ap-
plication describing the rehabilitation
project, the Secretary shall determine
if the project is consistent with the
Standards for Rehabilitation. If the
project does not meet the Standards
for Rehabilitation, the owner shall be
advised of that fact in writing and,
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00407 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -20- 878
398
36 CFR Ch. I (7–1–13 Edition) § 67.7
where possible, will be advised of nec-
essary revisions to meet such Stand-
ards. For additional procedures regard-
ing rehabilitation projects determined
not to meet the Standards for Rehabili-
tation, see § 67.6(f).
(d) Once a proposed or ongoing
project has been approved, substantive
changes in the work as described in the
application must be brought promptly
to the attention of the Secretary by
written statement through the SHPO
to ensure continued conformance to
the Standards; such changes should be
made using a Historic Preservation
Certification Application Continu-
ation/Amendment Sheet (NPS Form 10–
168b). The Secretary will notify the
owner and the SHPO in writing wheth-
er the revised project continues to
meet the Standards. Oral approvals of
revisions are not authorized or valid.
(e) Completed projects may be in-
spected by an authorized representa-
tive of the Secretary to determine if
the work meets the Standards for Re-
habilitation. The Secretary reserves
the right to make inspections at any
time up to five years after completion
of the rehabilitation and to revoke a
certification, after giving the owner 30
days to comment on the matter, if it is
determined that the rehabilitation
project was not undertaken as rep-
resented by the owner in his or her ap-
plication and supporting documenta-
tion, or the owner, upon obtaining cer-
tification, undertook further unap-
proved project work inconsistent with
the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabili-
tation. The tax consequences of a rev-
ocation of certification will be deter-
mined by the Secretary of the Treas-
ury.
(f) If a proposed, ongoing, or com-
pleted rehabilitation project does not
meet the Standards for Rehabilitation,
an explanatory letter will be sent to
the owner with a copy to the SHPO. A
rehabilitated property not in conform-
ance with the Standards for Rehabili-
tation and which is determined to have
lost those qualities which caused it to
be nominated to the National Register,
will be removed from the National Reg-
ister in accord with Department of the
Interior regulations 36 CFR part 60.

Similarly, if a property has lost those
qualities which caused it to be des-
ignated a certified historic structure,
it will be certified as noncontributing
(see § 67.4 and § 67.5). In either case, the
delisting or certification of nonsignifi-
cance is considered effective as of the
date of issue and is not considered to
be retroactive. In these situations, the
Internal Revenue Service will be noti-
fied of the substantial alterations. The
tax consequences of a denial of certifi-
cation will be determined by the Sec-
retary of the Treasury.
§ 67.7 Standards for rehabilitation.
(a) The following Standards for Reha-
bilitation are the criteria used to de-
termine if a rehabilitation project
qualifies as a certified rehabilitation.

The intent of the Standards is to assist
the long-term preservation of a prop-
erty’s significance through the preser-
vation of historic materials and fea-
tures. The Standards pertain to his-
toric buildings of all materials, con-
struction types, sizes, and occupancy
and encompass the exterior and the in-
terior of historic buildings. The Stand-
ards also encompass related landscape
features and the building’s site and en-
vironment, as well as attached, adja-
cent, or related new construction. To
be certified, a rehabilitation project
must be determined by the Secretary
to be consistent with the historic char-
acter of the structure(s) and, where ap-
plicable, the district in which it is lo-
cated.
(b) The following Standards are to be
applied to specific rehabilitation
projects in a reasonable manner, tak-
ing into consideration economic and
technical feasibility. (The application
of these Standards to rehabilitation
projects is to be the same as under the
previous version so that a project pre-
viously acceptable would continue to
be acceptable under these Standards.)
(1) A property shall be used for its
historic purpose or be placed in a new
use that requires minimal change to
the defining characteristics of the
building and its site and environment.
(2) The historic character of a prop-
erty shall be retained and preserved.

The removal of historic materials or
alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property shall be avoid-
ed.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00408 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -21- 879
399
National Park Service, Interior § 67.7
(3) Each property shall be recognized
as a physical record of its time, place,
and use. Changes that create a false
sense of historical development, such
as adding conjectural features or archi-
tectural elements from other buildings,
shall not be undertaken.
(4) Most properties change over time;
those changes that have acquired his-
toric significance in their own right
shall be retained and preserved.
(5) Distinctive features, finishes, and
construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a his-
toric property shall be preserved.
(6) Deteriorated historic features
shall be repaired rather than replaced.

Where the severity of deterioration re-
quires replacement of a distinctive fea-
ture, the new feature shall match the
old in design, color, texture, and other
visual qualities and, where possible,
materials. Replacement of missing fea-
tures shall be substantiated by docu-
mentary, physical, or pictorial evi-
dence.
(7) Chemical or physical treatments,
such as sandblasting, that cause dam-
age to historic materials shall not be
used. The surface cleaning of struc-
tures, if appropriate, shall be under-
taken using the gentlest means pos-
sible.
(8) Significant archeological re-
sources affected by a project shall be
protected and preserved. If such re-
sources must be disturbed, mitigation
measures shall be undertaken.
(9) New additions, exterior alter-
ations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials
that characterize the property. The
new work shall be differentiated from
the old and shall be compatible with
the massing, size, scale, and architec-
tural features to protect the historic
integrity of the property and its envi-
ronment.
(10) New additions and adjacent or re-
lated new construction shall be under-
taken in such a manner that if re-
moved in the future, the essential form
and integrity of the historic property
and its environment would be
unimpaired.
(c) The quality of materials and
craftsmanship used in a rehabilitation
project must be commensurate with
the quality of materials and craftsman-
ship of the historic building in ques-
tion. Certain treatments, if improperly
applied, or certain materials by their
physical properties, may cause or ac-
celerate physical deterioration of his-
toric buildings. Inappropriate physical
treatments include, but are not limited
to: improper repointing techniques; im-
proper exterior masonry cleaning
methods; or improper introduction of
insulation where damage to historic
fabric would result. In almost all situa-
tions, use of these materials and treat-
ments will result in denial of certifi-
cation. Similarly, exterior additions
that duplicate the form, material, and
detailing of the structure to the extent
that they compromise the historic
character of the structure will result in
denial of certification. For further in-
formation on appropriate and inappro-
priate rehabilitation treatments, own-
ers are to consult the Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings pub-
lished by the NPS. ‘‘Preservation
Briefs’’ and additional technical infor-
mation to help property owners formu-
late plans for the rehabilitation, pres-
ervation, and continued use of historic
properties consistent with the intent of
the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabili-
tation are available from the SHPOs
and NPS WASO. Owners are respon-
sible for procuring this material as
part of property planning for a cer-
tified rehabilitation.
(d) In certain limited cases, it may be
necessary to dismantle and rebuild por-
tions of a certified historic structure to
stabilize and repair weakened struc-
tural members and systems. In such
cases, the Secretary will consider such
extreme intervention as part of a cer-
tified rehabilitation if:
(1) The necessity for dismantling is
justified in supporting documentation;
(2) Significant architectural features
and overall design are retained; and
(3) Adequate historic materials are
retained to maintain the architectural
and historic integrity of the overall
structure.

Section 47 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 exempts certified historic
structures from meeting the physical
test for retention of external walls and
internal structural framework speci-
fied therein for other rehabilitated
buildings. Nevertheless, owners are
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00409 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -22- 880
400
36 CFR Ch. I (7–1–13 Edition) § 67.8
cautioned that the Standards for Reha-
bilitation require retention of distin-
guishing historic materials of external
and internal walls as well as structural
systems. In limited instances, rehabili-
tations involving removal of existing
external walls, i.e., external walls that
detract from the historic character of
the structure such as in the case of a
nonsignificant later addition or walls
that have lost their structural integ-
rity due to deterioration, may be cer-
tified as meeting the Standards for Re-
habilitation.
(e) Prior approval of a project by
Federal, State, and local agencies and
organizations does not ensure certifi-
cation by the Secretary for Federal tax
purposes. The Secretary’s Standards
for Rehabilitation take precedence
over other regulations and codes in de-
termining whether the rehabilitation
project is consistent with the historic
character of the property and, where
applicable, the district in which it is
located.
(f) The qualities of a property and its
environment which qualify it as a cer-
tified historic structure are determined
taking into account all available infor-
mation, including information derived
from the physical and architectural at-
tributes of the building; such deter-
minations are not limited to informa-
tion contained in National Register or
related documentation.
§ 67.8 Certifications of statutes.
(a) State or local statutes which will
be certified by the Secretary. For the
purpose of this regulation, a State or
local statute is a law of the State or
local government designating, or pro-
viding a method for the designation of,
a historic district or districts. This in-
cludes any by-laws or ordinances that
contain information necessary for the
certification of the statute. A statute
must contain criteria which will sub-
stantially achieve the purpose of pre-
serving and rehabilitating properties of
historic significance to the district. To
be certified by the Secretary, the stat-
ute generally must provide for a duly
designated review body, such as a re-
view board or commission, with power
to review proposed alterations to struc-
tures of historic significance within
the boundaries of the district or dis-
tricts designated under the statute ex-
cept those owned by governmental en-
tities which, by law, are not under the
jurisdiction of the review body.
(b) When the certification of State
statutes will have an impact on dis-
tricts in specific localities, the Sec-
retary encourages State governments
to notify and consult with appropriate
local officials prior to submitting a re-
quest for certification of the statute.
(c) State enabling legislation which
authorizes local governments to des-
ignate, or provides local governments
with a method to designate, a historic
district or districts will not be cer-
tified unless accompanied by local
statutes that implement the purposes
of the State law. Adequate State stat-
utes which designate specific historic
districts and do not require specific im-
plementing local statutes will be cer-
tified. If the State enabling legislation
contains provisions which do not meet
the intent of the law, local statutes
designated under the authority of the
enabling legislation will not be cer-
tified. When State enabling legislation
exists, it must be certified before any
local statutes enacted under its au-
thority can be certified.
(d) Who may apply. Requests for cer-
tification of State or local statutes
may be made only by the Chief Elected
Official of the government which en-
acted the statute or his or her author-
ized representative. The applicant shall
certify in writing that he or she is au-
thorized by the appropriate State or
local governing body to apply for cer-
tification.
(e) Statute certification process. Re-
quests for certification of State or
local statutes shall be made as follows:
(1) The request shall be made in writ-
ing from the duly authorized represent-
ative certifying that he or she is au-
thorized to apply for certification. The
request should include the name or
title of a person to contact for further
information and his or her address and
telephone number. The authorized rep-
resentative is responsible for providing
historic district documentation for re-
view and certification prior to the first
certification of significance in a dis-
trict unless another responsible person
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00410 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -23- 881
401
National Park Service, Interior § 67.9
is indicated including his or her ad-
dress and telephone number. The re-
quest shall also include a copy of the
statute(s) for which certification is re-
quested, including any by-laws or ordi-
nances that contain information nec-
essary for the certification of the stat-
ute. Local governments shall also sub-
mit a copy of the State enabling legis-
lation, if any, authorizing the designa-
tion of historic districts.
(2) Requests shall be sent to the
SHPO in participating States and di-
rectly to appropriate NPS WASO in
nonparticipating States.
(3) The Secretary shall review the
statute(s) and assess whether the stat-
ute(s) and any by-laws or ordinances
that contain information necessary for
the certification of the statute contain
criteria which will substantially
achieve the purposes of preserving and
rehabilitating properties of historic
significance to the district(s) based
upon the standards set out above in
§ 67.8(a). The SHPO shall be given a 30-
day opportunity to comment upon the
request. Comments received from the
SHPO within this time period will be
considered by the Secretary in the re-
view process. If the statute(s) contain
such provisions and if this and other
provisions in the statute will substan-
tially achieve the purpose of preserving
and rehabilitating properties of his-
toric significance to the district, the
Secretary will certify the statute(s).
(4) The Secretary generally provides
written notification within 30 days of
receipt by the NPS to the duly author-
ized representative and to the SHPO
when certification of the statute is
given or denied. If certification is de-
nied, the notification will provide an
explanation of the reason(s) for such
denial.
(f) Amendment or repeal of stat-
ute(s). State or local governments, as
appropriate, must notify the Secretary
in the event that certified statutes are
repealed, whereupon the certification
of the statute (and any districts des-
ignated thereunder) will be withdrawn
by the Secretary. If a certified statute
is amended, the duly authorized rep-
resentative shall submit the amend-
ment(s) to the Secretary, with a copy
to the SHPO, for review in accordance
with the procedures outlined above.

Written notification of the Secretary’s
decision as to whether the amended
statute continues to meet these cri-
teria will be sent to the duly author-
ized representative and the SHPO with-
in 60 days of receipt.
(g) The Secretary may withdraw cer-
tification of a statute (and any dis-
tricts designated thereunder) on his
own initiative if it is repeal or amend-
ed to be inconsistent with certification
requirements after providing the duly
authorized representative and the
SHPO 30 days in which to comment
prior to the withdrawal of certifi-
cation.
§ 67.9 Certifications of State or local
historic districts.
(a) The particular State or local his-
toric district must also be certified by
the Secretary as substantially meeting
National Register criteria, thereby
qualifying it as a registered historic
district, before the Secretary will proc-
ess requests for certification of indi-
vidual properties within a district or
districts established under a certified
statute.
(b) The provision described herein
will not apply to properties within a
State or local district until the district
has been certified, even if the statute
creating the district has been certified
by the Secretary.
(c) The Secretary considers the duly
authorized representative requesting
certification of a statute to be the offi-
cial responsible for submitting district
documentation for certification. If an-
other person is to assume responsi-
bility for the district documentation,
the letter requesting statute certifi-
cation shall indicate that person’s
name, address, and telephone number.

The Secretary considers the author-
izing statement of the duly authorized
representative to indicate that the ju-
risdiction involved wishes not only
that the statute in question be cer-
tified but also wishes all historic dis-
tricts designated by the statute to be
certified unless otherwise indicated.
(d) Requests shall be sent to the
SHPO in participating States and di-
rectly to the appropriate NPS WASO in
nonparticipating States. The SHPO
shall be given a 30-day opportunity to
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00411 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -24- 882
402
36 CFR Ch. I (7–1–13 Edition) § 67.10
comment upon an adequately docu-
mented request. Comments received
from the SHPO within this time period
will be considered by the Secretary in
the review process. The guidelines in
National Register Bulletin 16, ‘‘Guide-
lines for Completing National Register
of Historic Places Forms,’’ provide in-
formation on how to document historic
districts for the National Register.

Each request should include the fol-
lowing documentation:
(1) A description of the general phys-
ical or historical qualities which make
this a district; and explanation for the
choice of boundaries for the district;
descriptions of typical architectural
styles and types of buildings in the dis-
trict.
(2) A concise statement of why the
district has significance, including an
explanation of the areas and periods of
significance, and why it meets Na-
tional Register criteria for listing (see
36 CFR part 60); the relevant criteria
should be identified (A, B, C, and D).
(3) A definition of what types of prop-
erties contribute and do not contribute
to the significance of the district as
well as an estimate of the percentage
of properties within the district that
do not contribute to its significance.
(4) A map showing all district prop-
erties with, if possible, identification
of contributing and noncontributing
properties; the map should clearly
show the district’s boundaries.
(5) Photographs of typical areas in
the district as well as major types of
contributing and noncontributing prop-
erties; all photographs should be keyed
to the map.
(e) Districts designated by certified
State or local statutes shall be evalu-
ated using the National Register cri-
teria (36 CFR part 60) within 30 days of
the receipt of the required documenta-
tion by the Secretary. Written notifi-
cation of the Secretary’s decision will
be sent to the duly authorized rep-
resentative or to the person designated
as responsible for the district docu-
mentation.
(f) Certification of statutes and dis-
tricts does not constitute certification
of significance of individual properties
within the district or of rehabilitation
projects by the Secretary.
(g) Districts certified by the Sec-
retary as substantially meeting the re-
quirements for listing will be deter-
mined eligible for listing in the Na-
tional Register at the time of certifi-
cation and will be published as such in
the F
EDERAL REGISTER.
(h) Documentation on additional dis-
tricts designated under a State or local
statute the has been certified by the
Secretary should be submitted to the
Secretary for certification following
the same procedures and including the
same information outlined in the sec-
tion above.
(i) State or local governments, as ap-
propriate, shall notify the Secretary if
a certified district designation is
amended (including boundary changes)
or repealed. If a certified district des-
ignation is amended, the duly author-
ized representative shall submit docu-
mentation describing the change(s)
and, if the district has been increased
in size, information on the new areas
as outlined in § 67.9. A revised state-
ment of significance for the district as
a whole shall also be included to reflect
any changes in overall significance as a
result of the addition or deletion of
areas. Review procedures shall follow
those outlined in § 67.9 (d) and (e). The
Secretary will withdraw certification
of repealed or inappropriately amended
certified district designations, thereby
disqualifying them as registered his-
toric districts.
(j) The Secretary may withdraw cer-
tification of a district on his own ini-
tiative if it ceases to meet the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation after
providing the duly authorized rep-
resentative and the SHPO 30 days in
which to comment prior to withdrawal
of certification.
(k) The Secretary urges State and
local review boards of commissions to
become familiar with the Standards
used by the Secretary of the Interior
for certifying the rehabilitation of his-
toric properties and to consider their
adoption for local design review.
§ 67.10 Appeals.
(a) The owner or a duly authorized
representative may appeal any of the
certifications or denials of certifi-
cation made under this part or any de-
cisions made under § 67.6(f).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00412 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -25- 883
403
National Park Service, Interior Pt. 68
(1) Appeals must:
(i) Be in writing; e.g. letter, fax, or e-
mail;
(ii) Be addressed to the Chief Appeals
Officer, Cultural Resources, National
Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Wash-
ington, DC 20240;
(iii) Be received by NPS within 30
days of receipt by the owner or a duly
authorized representative of the deci-
sion which is the subject of the appeal;
and
(iv) Include all information the
owner wishes the Chief Appeals Officer
to consider in deciding the appeal.
(2) The appellant may request a
meeting to discuss the appeal.
(3) NPS will notify the SHPO that an
appeal is pending.
(4) The Chief Appeals Officer will
consider the record of the decision in
question, any further written submis-
sions by the owner, and other available
information and will provide the appel-
lant a written decision as promptly as
circumstances permit.
(5) Appeals under this section con-
stitute an administrative review of the
decision appealed from and are not
conducted as an adjudicative pro-
ceeding.
(b) The denial of a preliminary deter-
mination of significance for an indi-
vidual property may not be appealed by
the owner because the denial itself does
not exhaust the administrative remedy
that is available. The owner instead
must seek recourse by undertaking the
usual nomination process (36 CFR part
60).
(c) In considering such appeals or ad-
ministrative reviews, the Chief Appeals
Officer shall take in account alleged
errors in professional judgment or al-
leged prejudicial procedural errors by
NPS officials. The Chief Appeals Offi-
cer’s decision may:
(1) Reverse the appealed decision;
(2) Affirm the appealed decision;
(3) Resubmit the matter to WASO for
further consideration; or
(4) Where appropriate, withhold a de-
cision until issuance of a ruling from
the Internal Revenue Service pursuant
to § 67.6(b)(2).

The Chief Appeals Officer may base his
decision in whole or part on matters or
factors not discussed in the decision
appealed from. The Chief Appeals Offi-
cer is authorized to issue the certifi-
cations discussed in this part only if he
considers that the requested certifi-
cation meets the applicable statutory
standard upon application of the
Standards set forth herein or he con-
siders that prejudicial procedural error
by a Federal official legally compels
issuance of the requested certification.
(d) The decision of the Chief Appeals
Officer shall be the final administra-
tive decision on the appeal. No person
shall be considered to have exhausted
his or her administrative remedies
with respect to the certifications or de-
cisions described in this part until the
Chief Appeals Officer has issued a final
administrative decision pursuant to
this section.
[54 FR 6771, Feb. 26, 1990, as amended at 76
FR 30541, May 26, 2011]
§ 67.11 Fees for processing certifi-
cation requests.
(a) Fees are charged for reviewing
certification requests according to the
schedule and instructions provided in
public notices in the F

EDERAL REG-
ISTER by NPS.
(b) No payment should be made until
requested by the NPS. A certification
decision will not be issued on an appli-
cation until the appropriate remit-
tance is received.
(c) Fees are nonrefundable.
[76 FR 30541, May 26, 2011]
PART 68—THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE

TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROP-
ERTIES
Sec.

68.1 Intent.

68.2 Definitions.

68.3 Standards.

A
UTHORITY: The National Historic Preser-
vation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470
et seq.); sec. 2124 of the Tax Reform Act of
1976, 90 Stat. 1918; EO 11593, 3 CFR part 75
(1971); sec. 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1950 (64 Stat. 1262).

S
OURCE: 60 FR 35843, July 12, 1995, unless
otherwise noted.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Aug 05, 2013 Jkt 229140 PO 00000 Frm 00413 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150 -26- 884
Exhibit B

City of Costa Mesa Minimum Maintenance Standards
-27-
885
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
a.
b.
c.

City of Costa Mesa, CA
Friday, May 17, 2024
Title 13. Planning, Zoning and Development
Chapter IX. SPECIAL LAND USE REGULATIONS
Article 14. Historic Preservation
§ 13-200.10. Maintenance, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation, alteration, development and demolition of cultural resources through the certificate of appropriateness process.

Maintenance. Every person in control and every owner of a cultural resource placed on the local Register of Historic Places and any appurtenant premises shall maintain and keep in good repair the exterior of such designated resources, all of the interior portions thereof when subject to regulation as specified in the designation resolution, and all interior portions whose maintenance is necessary to prevent deterioration or decay of any exterior architectural feature. This article shall be enforced by the city's Development Services Department.

Application of the State Historic Building Code. Pursuant to the State of California Health and Safety Code, the development services director may apply the State Historical Building Code in permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, moving, or continued use of a designated historic building.

Certificate of appropriateness required. No person, owner, or other entity shall restore, rehabilitate, alter, develop, construct, demolish, remove or change the appearance of any cultural resource on the local Register of Historic Places without first having applied for and been granted a certificate of appropriateness to do so by the planning commission (or other commission/committee designated by the city council). The requirements of this article are in addition to any and all other city permit requirements. When the planning commission (or other commission/committee designated by the city council) or the city council has prepared and adopted a plan or specific design criteria or guidelines for the preservation of a landmark or historic district which sets forth particular development standards, an application for a certificate of appropriateness to do work consistent with the adopted plan development standards may be approved by the planning division. If the application is not approved by staff it shall be processed as set forth in this article.

Application. The certificate of appropriateness application shall be made and processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter III, Planning Applications.

Submittal requirements. Applications for certificates of appropriateness shall include:

Plans and specifications showing the proposed exterior appearance, type, and texture of materials and the proposed architectural design of the exterior of the building.

Where appropriate and required by the planning division, applications shall also show the relationship of the proposed work to the surrounding environs.

Such relevant information as to how the new improvement relates to the existing architectural style, scale, massing, site and streetscape, landscaping, and signage. The 5/17/24, 2:22 PM City of Costa Mesa, CA Maintenance, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation, alteration, development and demolition of cultural reso… https://ecode360.com/print/CO4918?guid=42618484 1/3
-28-886
(3)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
(4)
a.
b.
c.
applicant shall submit any other information the planning division determines necessary to evaluate the application.

Criteria. The planning commission (or other commission/committee designated by the city council) shall consider the following criteria when reviewing applications for certificates of appropriateness:

The anticipated use for the property remains that for which it was originally intended or requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment for the proposed reuse.

The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be compromised. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible.

All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time.

Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to recreate an earlier appearance shall be discouraged.

Certain alterations which may have taken place in the course of time may be potentially significant to understanding the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These historic alterations may have acquired significance in their own right and this significance shall be recognized and respected.

Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be retained.

Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities.

Repair and replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historical, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures.

Surface cleaning of historic buildings and structures shall be undertaken with methods that will avoid damage to the historic materials.

Contemporary design for alterations and additions shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not compromise significant historical, architectural, or cultural material; and when such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, massing, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.

Whenever possible, new additions or alterations to the building or structure shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic building would be unimpaired.

Findings. The planning commission (or other commission/committee designated by the city council), shall make the following findings, as applicable, in determining whether to grant or deny a certificate of appropriateness:

The proposed undertaking is consistent or compatible with the architectural period and the character-defining features of the historic building or structure; The proposed undertaking is compatible with existing adjacent or nearby landmark properties and/or historic district properties and their character-defining features; The colors, textures, materials, fenestration, decorative features and details, height, scale, massing, and methods of construction proposed are consistent with the period and/or are compatible with adjacent buildings; and
5/17/24, 2:22 PM City of Costa Mesa, CA Maintenance, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation, alteration, development and demolition of cultural reso… https://ecode360.com/print/CO4918?guid=42618484 2/3
-29-887
d.
(5)
a.
b.

The proposed change does not destroy or adversely affect an important architectural, historical, cultural, or archaeological feature(s) or site(s).

Review of substantial adverse changes. When the application is for an action that may cause a substantial adverse change to a designated cultural resource, the application shall be reviewed pursuant to adopted city procedures to determine if the proposed change would have a significant adverse environmental effect as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Such activities are not categorically exempt from CEQA if the action may cause a significant adverse effect. Accordingly, no approval of any work which may cause a substantial adverse change to a cultural resource may be granted unless:

It is determined by the city council through the CEQA process that taking into account the value of all available incentives and costs of rehabilitation and adaptive reuse alternatives, the property retains no substantial remaining market value or reasonable use. Costs of alterations made in violation of this article and thus without the benefit of an approved certificate of appropriateness, or by failure to maintain the property required by the article, shall not be included in the calculation of rehabilitation costs; or It is determined pursuant to adopted city and state processes, that an immediate safety hazard exists and that demolition of the building is the only feasible means to secure the public safety.
(Ord. No. 99-17, § 2, 11-15-99)
5/17/24, 2:22 PM City of Costa Mesa, CA Maintenance, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation, alteration, development and demolition of cultural reso… https://ecode360.com/print/CO4918?guid=42618484 3/3
-30-888
EXHIBIT C. REHABILITATION/RESTORATION/MAINTENANCE PLAN
Property Address: 208 Magnolia Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 This form outlines the rehabilitation, restoration, and maintenance plan for the property, beginning with recently completed work (as applicable), followed by proposed work to complete within the next ten years. Work items are arranged chronologically by proposed date of completion and in order of priority.

HISTORICAL PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT Exhibit C City of Costa Mesa

ITIEM NO. 1
Building Feature: Front Yard Fence
Description of work: Replace damaged wood picket fence in front yard with new.

Estimate Cost (rounded to nearest dollar): $6,000
Contract Year of Completion (proposed): 2024
Completed Proposed
ITIEM NO. 2
Building Feature: Windows and Doors
Description of work: Repair or, where severely deteriorated beyond repair, replace in kind wood windows and doors within original openings.

Estimate Cost (rounded to nearest dollar): $65,000
Contract Year of Completion (proposed): 2024
Completed Proposed
ITIEM NO. 3
Building Feature: Gutters and Downspouts
Description of work: Install new, aesthetically appropriate, gutters and downspouts.

Estimate Cost (rounded to nearest dollar): $5,000
Contract Year of Completion (proposed): 2024
Completed Proposed
ITIEM NO. 4
Building Feature: Exterior Walls and Trim
Description of work: Repaint exterior wall and trim throughout.

Estimate Cost (rounded to nearest dollar): $30,000
Contract Year of Completion (proposed): 2024
Completed Proposed

ATTACHMENT 5
889
EXHIBIT C. REHABILITATION/RESTORATION/MAINTENANCE PLAN
Property Address: 208 Magnolia Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 This form outlines the rehabilitation, restoration, and maintenance plan for the property, beginning with recently completed work (as applicable), followed by proposed work to complete within the next ten years. Work items are arranged chronologically by proposed date of completion and in order of priority.

HISTORICAL PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT Exhibit C City of Costa Mesa

ITIEM NO. 5
Building Feature: Roof
Description of work: Tear off existing non-original composition shingles, repair/replace any damaged wood framing, install new sheathing and re -roof with new shingles that are compatible with the historic character of the residence in terms of color and materials.

Estimate Cost (rounded to nearest dollar): $50,000
Contract Year of Completion (proposed): 2026
Completed Proposed
ITIEM NO. 6
Building Feature: Terra Cotta Tube Vents
Description of work: Install mesh screening where missing within attic tube vents at gable peaks. Gently scrape paint from terra cotta to restore historic appearance of red clay finish.

Estimate Cost (rounded to nearest dollar): $2,500
Contract Year of Completion (proposed): 2028
Completed Proposed
ITIEM NO. 7
Building Feature: Main Porch Light Fixture
Description of work: Replace existing incompatible plastic floodlight ceiling fixture within main entrance porch with option that is compatible with the historic character of the residence in terms of style and materials.

Estimate Cost (rounded to nearest dollar): $500
Contract Year of Completion (proposed): 2028
Completed Proposed
ITIEM NO. 8
Building Feature: Foundation
Description of work: Engage a qualified structural engineer experienced in working with historic properties to inspect the foundation and make recommendations for any work to upgrade and seismically retrofit the foundation with an implementation plan. If applicable, execute any recommended work in a sensitive manner to avoid causing damage to historic fabric or visually impacting the historic character of the property.

Estimate Cost (rounded to nearest dollar): $3,000 - $15,000 Contract Year of Completion (proposed): 2028
Completed Proposed
890
EXHIBIT C. REHABILITATION/RESTORATION/MAINTENANCE PLAN
Property Address: 208 Magnolia Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 This form outlines the rehabilitation, restoration, and maintenance plan for the property, beginning with recently completed work (as applicable), followed by proposed work to complete within the next ten years. Work items are arranged chronologically by proposed date of completion and in order of priority.

HISTORICAL PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT Exhibit C City of Costa Mesa

ITIEM NO. 9
Building Feature: Garage Door
Description of work: Replace existing incompatible contemporary metal garage door with option that is compatible with the historic character of the residence in terms of style and materials.

Estimate Cost (rounded to nearest dollar): $10,000
Contract Year of Completion (proposed): 2029
Completed Proposed
ITIEM NO. 10
Building Feature: Exterior Wood (trim, windows, doors)
Description of work: Gently scrape paint, make any necessary repairs to wood and repaint.

Estimate Cost (rounded to nearest dollar): $3,500
Contract Year of Completion (proposed): 2029
Completed Proposed
ITIEM NO. 11
Building Feature: Windows and Doors
Description of work: Inspect wood windows and doors for proper operation and seal and make any necessary repairs to ensure wood is protected and windows and doors are weathertight.

Estimate Cost (rounded to nearest dollar): $4,500
Contract Year of Completion (proposed): 2029
Completed Proposed
ITIEM NO. 12
Building Feature: Gutters and Downspouts
Description of work: Inspect gutters and downspouts for damage or deterioration and make any necessary repairs to ensure water sufficiently drains away from the building.

Estimate Cost (rounded to nearest dollar): $1,000
Contract Year of Completion (proposed): 2029
Completed Proposed

891
EXHIBIT C. REHABILITATION/RESTORATION/MAINTENANCE PLAN
Property Address: 208 Magnolia Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 This form outlines the rehabilitation, restoration, and maintenance plan for the property, beginning with recently completed work (as applicable), followed by proposed work to complete within the next ten years. Work items are arranged chronologically by proposed date of completion and in order of priority.

HISTORICAL PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT Exhibit C City of Costa Mesa

ITIEM NO. 13
Building Feature: Metal Awnings
Description of work: Gently scrape paint, clean of corrosion and make any necessary repairs to metal awnings and repaint in historically appropriate colors.

Estimate Cost (rounded to nearest dollar): $10,000
Contract Year of Completion (proposed): 2029
Completed Proposed

892
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # '
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

PRIMARY RECORD
1 Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 5S1
Other Listings
Review Code _ Reviewer Date
Page of Resource Name or #: ( Assigned by recorder) 208 Magnolia Street , Pi. Other Identifier. Leroy Anderson' s House
P2. Location: — Not for Publication Unrestricted a. County Orange County ' and ( P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) b. USGS 7. 5' Ouad Date T ; R 114 of 114 of Sec
c. Address: 208 Magnolia Street City Costa Mesa Zip '
d. UTM: ( Give more than one for large and/ linear resources) mEl mN e.:; ther Location, Data (Enter Parcel #, leg -1description directions to resource. elevation, etc., as appropr__ie) Parcel No. 425- 402- 02 '
P3. Description( Desoberem" arid tsmajcrdarritstrridedesgki.em is mrtiturlalEratiorsSize. seeing, and bardaes) A steep, cross - gable roof and stuccoedexterior identify the PeriodRevival (English) influence in thedesignof this ' one- storybungalow. The residencehas a L-shapedplan with a frontfacinggable wing projectingout fromthe westside of theprimary (south) elevation. Beneath the frontgableare a pairof large, multi - pane casementwindows and threecircular vent openings. Smaller, mufti - pane windowspunctuatethe easthalf of theprimaryelevation. Canvas awnings hang over all thewindowopenings. the propertylot is lushlylandscapedand is enclosedby a whitepicketfence. ' I P3b.

ResourceAttributes: ( List attributesand codes) HP2 - Single Family Property ' P4.

ResourcesPresent ! Budding _ Structure _ Object _ Site _ District _ Element of District - Other ( Isolates, etc.) PSa.

Photographor Priming (Photographrepu` led for b0dngs. structures. and objects) --- PSb. DesaipCotdptcb:(Vilw, d&-- atnessiorit)' view towardnorth). Photo No: 10. 8. 7/ M P11.

ReportCitation: (Crte surveyreport and othersources, or enter -none) Attachments NONE Continuation Sheet Location
tdap '.: Building, Structure, and OtreRecord Sketch
Map ArcriaeobgzalRecord District
Record Linear
Feature Record Milling
StationRecord 50
P6.

DateConstructed/Age and Sources:' Prehistoric
Historic Both 7927
P7.

Ownerand AddressPrivate
1 P8.

Recordedbv- tName,at5iiatiortardaddess) PCR
ServicesCorporation. 233 Wilshire8tvd . S 130.

Santattonica. CA P9.

Date Recorded: 7/ 1/ 99P10.

SurveyType: ( Describe) Orr -
wideSurveyRock
An RecordOther: ( List) ' Artifact
Record Photograph
Record ' I. -. __..__.
-1-
ATTACHMENT 6
893
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECRE1, 7ION BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD HRI #
Page of NRHP SStatus Code 5S1
Resource Name or #: ( Assigned by recorder) 208 Magnolia Street t
B1. Historic Name: Leroy Anderson's House
B2. Common Name: Leroy Anderson's House
B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: Residential B5. Architectural Style: Period Revival ( English)
B6. Construction History: ( Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Built: 1927
B7. Moved? No Yes = Unknown Date : Original Location:

B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Development Area: Costa Mesa Period of Significance: 1927 Property Type: Residential Applicable Criteria: N/ A I
I
1 Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) This property appears ineligible for the National Register. The bungalow is one of only a dozen which reflect the Period Revival style in residentials design within the City of Costa Mesa. The building is locally significant for its architecture and its association with an early prominent local citizen, LeRoy Anderson. The dwelling reflects the size, scale, massing, plan, and architectural style of its generation in Costa Mesa and is a good example of its property type. This house was built in 1927, for LeRoy Anderson, a prominent local attorney who was instrumental in the early development of Costa Mesa, B11. Additional Resource Attributes( List attributes and codes) HP2 - B12. References:

A Slice of Orange: Costa Mesa City Directories; Sanborn Maps,' Orange County Assessor's Records: Costa Mesa Historical Society, Los Angeles Public Library
B13. Remarks:
t
I
B14. Evaluator: Jan Ostashay
Date of Evaluation: 711199
This space reserved for official comments.)
Single Family Property
Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
-2-
894

Mailing Address: www.costamesahistory.org Location:

P.O. Box 1764 [email protected] 1879 Anaheim Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92628 949-631-5918 Costa Mesa, CA

March 21, 2024

To Whom It May Concern,

The Costa Mesa Historical Society held their monthly board meeting last night. At that meeting, the city presented a project for the “Leroy Anderson House” located at 208 Magnolia Street, Costa Mesa, California.

This project requests that the home be placed on the city’s local historic registry and be approved for a Mills Act Contract.

The Costa Mesa Historical Society unanimously supports this effort. The information that the city presented is substantiated and supported by our research of our archives.

The home was built in 1927. The architectural features are period correct.

It was owned by Leroy Anderson a person of prominence that made significant impact on the community.

Finding a home that has retained as much original features as 208 Magnolia is a rare find. Preserving and protecting it and other homes in the area should be encouraged.

We support this project.

Regards,
The Costa Mesa Historical Society

Promoting and preserving Costa Mesa history is our mission.

Costa Mesa Historical Society, a non-profit 501(c)(3) ID #95-6138342 Your contribution to our 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization is tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

ATTACHMENT 7
895
Technical Assistance Series
California Office of Historic Preservation
Department of Parks & Recreation
1416 9th St,
Rm 1442-7
Sacramento CA 95814
PO Box 942896
Sacramento CA
94296-0001
phone:
(916) 653-6624
fax:
(916) 653-9824
email:
[email protected]
website:
ohp.parks.ca.gov
12 Mills Act
Property Tax
Abatement
Program
ATTACHMENT 8
-1-
896

This publication has been financed in part with Feder
al funds from the National
Park Service, Department of the Interior, under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, or handicap in its federally-assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to Office for Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Box 37127, Washington DC 20013-7127.

-2-
897

Table of Contents

Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program .................................................................... 1

Purpose of the Mills Act Program ................................................................................ 1

Benefits to Local Governments.................................................................................... 1

Benefits to Owners ...................................................................................................... 1

Qualified Historic Property ........................................................................................... 2

OHP’s Role.................................................................................................................. 2

For Additional Information............................................................................................ 2

California State Codes Relating to Mills Act Program ..................................................... 3

California Government Code, Article 12, Sections 50280 - 50290............................... 3

California Revenue and Taxation Code, Article 1.9, Sections 439 – 439.4.................. 6

-3-
898

Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program

Purpose of the Mills Act Program
Economic incentives foster the preservation of residential neighborhoods and the revitalization of downtown commercial districts. The Mills Act is the single most important economic incentive program in California for the restoration and preservation of qualified historic buildings by private property owners.

Enacted in 1972, the Mills Act legislation grants participating local governments (cities and counties) authority to enter into contracts with owners of qualified historic properties who actively participate in the restoration and maintenance of their historic properties while receiving property tax relief.

Benefits to Local Governments
The Mills Act allows local governments to design preservation programs to accommodate specific community needs and priorities for rehabilitating entire neighborhoods, encouraging seismic safety programs, contributing to affordable housing, promoting heritage tourism, or fostering pride of ownership. Local governments have adopted the Mills Act because they recognize the economic benefits of conserving resources and reinvestment as well as the important role historic preservation can play in revitalizing older areas, creating cultural tourism, building civic pride, and retaining the sense of place and continuity with the community’s past.

A formal agreement, generally known as a Mills Act or Historical Property Contract, is executed between the local government and the property owner for a minimum ten-year term. Contracts are automatically renewed each year and are transferred to new owners when the property is sold. Property owners agree to restore, maintain, and protect the property in accordance with specific historic preservation standards and conditions identified in the contract. Periodic inspections by city or county officials ensure proper maintenance of the property. Local authorities may impose penalties for breach of contract or failure to protect the historic property. The contract is binding to all owners during the contract period.

Benefits to Owners
Owners of historic buildings may qualify for property tax relief if they pledge to rehabilitate and maintain the historical and architectural character of their properties for at least a ten-year period. The Mills Act program is especially beneficial for recent buyers of historic properties and for current owners of historic buildings who have made major improvements to their properties.

Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program 1
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #12

-4-
899

Mills Act participants may realize substantial property tax savings of between 40% and 60% each year for newly improved or purchased older properties because valuations of Mills Act properties are determined by the Income Approach to Value rather than by the standard Market Approach to Value. The income approach, divided by a capitalization rate, determines the assessed value of the property. In general, the income of an owner-occupied property is based on comparable rents for similar properties in the area, while the income amount on a commercial property is based on actual rent received. Because rental values vary from area to area, actual property savings vary from county to county. In addition, as County Assessors are required to assess all properties annually, Mills Act properties may realize slight increases in property taxes each year.

Qualified Historic Property
A qualified historic property is a property listed on any federal, state, county, or city register, including the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, State Points of Historical Interest, and locally designated landmarks. Owner-occupied family residences and income- producing commercial properties may qualify for the Mills Act program.

OHP’s Role
OHP provides technical assistance and guidance to local governments and property owners. OHP maintains a current list of communities participating in the Mills Act program and copies of Mills Act ordinances, resolutions, and contracts that have been adopted. OHP does not participate in the negations of the agreement and is not a signatory to the contract.

For Additional Information
Contact the planning department of the city or county within which the historic property is located.

California’s four largest cities (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose) as well as more than 75 other city and county governments have instituted Mills Act programs. A list of communities participating in the Mills Act Program is available online at http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=21412 .

For additional information on the Mills Act, please contact Maryln Lortie in the Office of Historic Preservation, PO Box 942896, Sacramento CA 94296-0001, (916) 653-8911, [email protected].

Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program 2
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #12

-5-
900
California State Codes Relating to Mills Act Program

California Government Code, Article 12, Sections 50280 - 50290

50280. Restriction of property use.

Upon the application of an owner or the agent of an owner of any qualified historical property, as defined in Section 50280.1, the legislative body of a city, county, or city and county may contract with the owner or agent to restrict the use of the property in a manner which the legislative body deems reasonable to carry out the purposes of this article and of Article 1.9 (commencing with Section 439) of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The contract shall meet the requirements of Sections 50281 and 50282.

50280.1. Qualified historic property.
"Qualified historical property" for purposes of this article, means privately owned property which is not exempt from property taxation and which meets either of the following:
(a) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic district, as defined in Section 1.191-2(b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (b) Listed in any state, city, county, or city and county official register of historical or architecturally significant sites, places, or landmarks.

50281. Required contract provision.

Any contract entered into under this article shall contain the following provisions:
(a) The term of the contract shall be for a minimum period of 10 years. (b) Where applicable, the contract shall provide the following:
(1) For the preservation of the qualified historical property and, when necessary, to restore and rehabilitate the property to conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the State Historical Building Code.
(2) For the periodic examinations of the interior and exterior of the premises by the assessor, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Board of Equalization as may be necessary to determine the owner's compliance with the contract. (3) For it to be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, all successors in interest of the owner. A successor in interest shall have the same rights and obligations under the contract as the original owner who entered into the contract. (c) The owner or agent of an owner shall provide written notice of the contract to the Office of Historic Preservation within six months of entering into the contract.

Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program 3
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #12

-6-
901
50281.1. Fees.

The legislative body entering into a contract described in this article may require that the property owner, as a condition to entering into the contract, pay a fee not to exceed the reasonable cost of administering this program.

50282. Renewal.
(a) Each contract shall provide that on the anniversary date of the contract or such other annual date as is specified in the contract, a year shall be added automatically to the initial term of the contract unless notice of nonrenewal is given as provided in this section. If the property owner or the legislative body desires in any year not to renew the contract, that party shall serve written notice of nonrenewal of the contract on the other party in advance of the annual renewal date of the contract. Unless the notice is served by the owner at least 90 days prior to the renewal date or by the legislative body at least 60 days prior to the renewal date, one year shall automatically be added to the term of the contract.
(b) Upon receipt by the owner of a notice from the legislative body of nonrenewal, the owner may make a written protest of the notice of nonrenewal. The legislative body may, at any time prior to the renewal date, withdraw the notice of nonrenewal. (c) If the legislative body or the owner serves notice of intent in any year not to renew the contract, the existing contract shall remain in effect for the balance of the period remaining since the original execution or the last renewal of the contract, as the case may be.
(d) The owner shall furnish the legislative body with any information the legislative body shall require in order to enable it to determine the eligibility of the property involved.
(e) No later than 20 days after a city or county enters into a contract with an owner pursuant to this article, the clerk of the legislative body shall record with the county recorder a copy of the contract, which shall describe the property subject thereto. From and after the time of the recordation, this contract shall impart a notice thereof to all persons as is afforded by the recording laws of this state.

50284. Cancellation.

The legislative body may cancel a contract if it determines that the owner has breached any of the conditions of the contract provided for in this article or has allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified historical property. The legislative body may also cancel a contract if it determines that the owner has failed to restore or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in the contract.

50285. Consultation with state commission.

No contract shall be canceled under Section 50284 until after the legislative body has given notice of, and has held, a public hearing on the matter. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the last known address of each owner of property within the historic zone and shall be published pursuant to Section 6061.

Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program 4
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #12

50286. Cancellation.
-7-
902
(a) If a contract is canceled under Section 50284, the owner shall pay a cancellation fee equal to 121/2 percent of the current fair market value of the property, as determined by the county assessor as though the property were free of the contractual restriction.
(b) The cancellation fee shall be paid to the county auditor, at the time and in the manner that the county auditor shall prescribe, and shall be allocated by the county auditor to each jurisdiction in the tax rate area in which the property is located in the same manner as the auditor allocates the annual tax increment in that tax rate area in that fiscal year.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, revenue received by a school district pursuant to this section shall be considered property tax revenue for the purposes of Section 42238 of the Education Code, and revenue received by a county superintendent of schools pursuant to this section shall be considered property tax revenue for the purposes of Article 3 (commencing with Section 2550) of Chapter 12 of Part 2 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code.

50287. Action to enforce contract.

As an alternative to cancellation of the contract for breach of any condition, the county, city, or any landowner may bring any action in court necessary to enforce a contract including, but not limited to, an action to enforce the contract by specific performance or injunction.

50288. Eminent domain.

In the event that property subject to contract under this article is acquired in whole or in part by eminent domain or other acquisition by any entity authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain, and the acquisition is determined by the legislative body to frustrate the purpose of the contract, such contract shall be canceled and no fee shall be imposed under Section 50286. Such contract shall be deemed null and void for all purposes of determining the value of the property so acquired.

50289. Annexation by city.

In the event that property restricted by a contract with a county under this article is annexed to a city, the city shall succeed to all rights, duties, and powers of the county under such contract.

50290. Consultation with state commission.

Local agencies and owners of qualified historical properties may consult with the State Historical Resources Commission for its advice and counsel on matters relevant to historical property contracts.

Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program 5
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #12

-8-
903

California Revenue and Taxation Code, Article 1.9, Sections 439 – 439.4

439. Historical Property Restrictions; enforceably restricted property.

For the purposes of this article and within the meaning of Section 8 of Article XIII of the Constitution, property is "enforceably restricted" if it is subject to an historical property contract executed pursuant to Article 12 (commencing with Section 50280) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code.

439.1. Historical Property; definitions.

For purposes of this article "restricted historical property" means qualified historical property, as defined in Section 50280.1 of the Government Code, that is subject to a historical property contract executed pursuant to Article 12 (commencing with Section 50280) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code. For purposes of this section, "qualified historical property" includes qualified historical improvements and any land on which the qualified historical improvements are situated, as specified in the historical property contract. If the historical property contract does not specify the land that is to be included, "qualified historical property" includes only that area of reasonable size that is used as a site for the historical improvements.

439.2. Historical Property; valuation.

When valuing enforceably restricted historical property, the county assessor shall not consider sales data on similar property, whether or not enforceably restricted, and shall value that restricted historical property by the capitalization of income method in the following manner:
(a) The annual income to be capitalized shall be determined as follows:
(1) Where sufficient rental information is available, the income shall be the fair rent that can be imputed to the restricted historical property being valued based upon rent actually received for the property by the owner and upon typical rentals received in the area for similar property in similar use where the owner pays the property tax. When the restricted historical property being valued is actually encumbered by a lease, any cash rent or its equivalent considered in determining the fair rent of the property shall be the amount for which the property would be expected to rent were the rental payment to be renegotiated in the light of current conditions, including applicable provisions under which the property is enforceably restricted.
(2) Where sufficient rental information is not available, the income shall be that which the restricted historical property being valued reasonably can be expected to yield under prudent management and subject to applicable provisions under which the property is enforceably restricted.
(3) If the parties to an instrument that enforceably restricts the property stipulate therein an amount that constitutes the minimum annual income to be capitalized, then the income to be capitalized shall not be less than the amount so stipulated. For purposes of this section, income shall be determined in accordance with rules and Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program 6
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #12

-9-
904
Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program 7
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #12

regulations issued by the board and with this section and shall be the difference between revenue and expenditures. Revenue shall be the amount of money or money's worth, including any cash rent or its equivalent, that the property can be expect ed to
yield to an owner-operator annually on the average from any use of the property permitted under the terms by which the property is enforceably restricted. Expenditures shall be any outlay or average annual allocation of money or money's worth that can be fairly charged against the revenue expected to be received during the period used in computing the revenue. Those expenditures to be charged against revenue shall be only those which are ordinary and necessary in the production and maintenance of the revenue for that period. Expenditures shall not include depletion charges, debt retirement, interest on funds invested in the property, property taxes, corporation income taxes, or corporation franchise taxes based on income. (b) The capitalization rate to be used in valuing owner-occupied s ingle family dwellings pursuant to this article shall not be derived from sales data and shall be the sum of the following components:
(1) An interest component to be determined by the board and announced n o later than September 1 of the year preceding the assessment year and that was the yield rate equal to the effective rate on conventional mortgages as determined by the Federal Housing Finance Board, rounded to the nearest 1/4 percent. (2) A historical property risk component of 4 percent.
(3) A component for property taxes that shall be a percentage equal to the estimated total tax rate applic
able to the property for the assessment year times the assessment ratio.
(4) A component for amortization of the i mprovements that shall be a percentage equivalent to the reciprocal of the remaining life.
(c) The capitalization rate to be used in valuing all other restricted historical property pursuant to this article shall not be derived from sales dat a and shall be the sum of the
following components:
(1) An interest component to be determined by the board and announced no later than September 1 of the year preceding the assessment year and that w as the yield rate
equal to the effective rate on conventional mortgages as determined by the Federal Housing Finance Board, rounded to the nearest 1/4 percent. (2) A historical property risk component of 2 percent.
(3) A component for property taxes that shall be a percentage equal to the estimated total tax rate applic
able to the property for the assessment year times the assessment ratio.
(4) A component for amortization of the i
mprovements that shall be a percentage
equivalent to the reciprocal of the remaining life.
(d) Unless a party to an instrument that creates an enf orceable restriction expressly prohibits the valuation, the valuation resulting from the capitalization of income method described in this section shall not exceed the lesser of either the valuation that would have resulted by calculation under Section 110, or the valuation that would have resulted by calculation under Section 110.1, as though the property was not subject to an enforceable restriction in the base year.
-10-
905
Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program 8
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #12

(e) The value of the restricted historical property shall be the quotient of the i ncome determined as provided in subdivision (a) divided by the capitalization rate determined as provided in subdivision (b) or (c).
(f) The ratio prescribed in Section 401 shall be applied to the value of the property determined in subdivis
ion (d) to obtain its assessed value.

439.3. Historical Property; notice of nonrenewal.

Notwithstanding any provision of Section 439.2 to the contrary, if either the county or city or the owner of restricted historical property subject to contract has served notice of nonrenewal as provided in Section 50282
of the Government Code, the county
assessor shall value that restricted historical property as provided in this section. (a) Following the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 50285 of the Government Code, subdivision (b) shall apply until t
he termination of the period for which the
restricted historical property is enforceably restricted. (b) The board or assessor in each year until the termi nation of the period for which the property is enforceably restricted shall do all of the following:
(1) Determine the full cash value of the property pursuant to Section 110.1. If the property is not subject to Section 110.1 when the restriction expires, the value shall be determined pursuant to Section 110 as if
the property were free of contractual
restriction. If the property will be subject to a use for which this chapter provides a special restricted assessment, the value of the property shall be determined as if it were subject to the new restriction.
(2) Determine the value of the property by the capitalization of income method as provided in Section 439.2 and without regard to the fact that a notice of nonrenewal or cancellation has occurred.
(3) Subtract the value determined in paragraph (2) of this subdivision by cap italization of income from the full cash value determined in paragraph (1). (4) Using the rate announced by the board pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivis ion (b) of Section 439.2, discount the amount obtained in paragraph (3) for the number of years remaining until the termination of the period for which the property is enforceably restricted.
(5) Determine the value of the property by adding the value determined by the capitalization of income method as provided in paragraph (2) and the value obtained in paragraph (4).
(6) Apply the ratios prescribed in Section 401 to the value of the property determined in paragraph (5) to obtain its assessed value.

439.4. Historical Property; recordation.

No property shall be valued pursuant to this article unless an enforceable restriction meeting the requirements of Section 439 is signed, acc
epted and recorded on or before
the lien date for the fiscal year in which the valuation would apply.

-11-
906
ATTACHMENT 9
-1-
907
-2-
908
-3-
909
ATTACHMENT 10
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
-1-

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 22, 2024 ITEM NUMBER: PH-1
SUBJECT: LOCAL HISTORIC REGISTER FOR THE “LEROY ANDERSON HOUSE” (208 MAGNOLIA STREET)
FROM: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/

PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTATION BY: CAITLYN CURLEY, ASSISTANT PLANNER

FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION
CONTACT:

CAITLYN CURLEY
714-754-5692
[email protected]
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution to:

1. Recommend that the City Council designate the property on the City's local Historic Register by adoption of a City Council resolution; and

2. Recommend the City Council direct Planning staff to finalize a draft Mills Act Contract for City Council consideration and approval.

APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT:

The property owner, John Barnett, is processing this request.

BACKGROUND:

The property owner at 208 Magnolia Street (Assessor Parcel Number 425-402-02) has submitted an application for placement of his residence on the City’s local Historic Register, and approval of a Mills Act Contract. The subject property, also referred to as the “Leroy Anderson House”, is not currently listed on any federal, State, or local historic registers. However, this property is identified in the 1999 City of Costa Mesa Citywide Historic Resources Survey prepared by PCR Services Corporation as eligible for local landmark designation, and is also identified as a potential historical resource in the City’s General Plan Historical and Cultural Resources Element . Specifically, the “Leroy Anderson House” was included as a potential historic resource in the 1999 Survey based on its locally significant historic architecture, and its association with an early prominent local citizen, Leroy Anderson.

ATTACHMENT 11
919
-2-
The subject property is located on the north side of Magnolia Street between Orange and Westminster Avenues. The property consists of a one-story single-family residence facing Magnolia Street, with a two-story rear addition and garage facing the rear alley. Based on historic aerial photographs, the original house is estimated to have been constructed between 1927 and 1931 (no original permits are on record). However, the existing garage and second-story addition, located at the rear of the property, was constructed in 1997.

The original one-story portion of the residence is “L” shaped and has a steeply sloping cross-gable roof with front gable projection on the southwest corner, and has a combination of flush and enclosed, shallow eaves. The roof is clad in composition shingles and the exterior walls are clad in smooth stucco. The elevations are asymmetrically arranged and fenestrations consist of a combination of multi-light and single-light wood casement and double-hung sash windows in various groupings and sizes. Within the gable peaks are attic vents, each with three circular openings containing red clay vent tubes. Rectangular foundation vents with wire mesh are unevenly spaced across the building base. (See Exhibits A and B below for historic and current property photographs.)
Exhibit A – 1950 historic photo of 208 Magnolia Street
Exhibit B – Current photo of 208 Magnolia Street
920
-3-
Pursuant to the City’s General Plan, “Costa Mesa is home to 31 historical properties, built environments, and landmarks that have been determined eligible for listing in the City’s Local Register of Historic Places. Five of these historical properties have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and in the California Register of Historical Resources”. In 2008, the City Council approved the City’s first and only property to be designated on the Costa Mesa local Historic Registry, and also approved the City’s first Mills Act Contract at 546 Bernard Street (“the Huscroft House”).

ANALYSIS:

Pursuant to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC), the City Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, may designate any building, structure, site, object, district, improvement, or natural feature that is over fifty (50) years of age on the City’s local historic register if it meets the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or one or more of the City’s local historic resource criteria as listed below:
a. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history; b. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; c. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction;
d. Is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; e. Represents the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect; f. Contributes to the significance of an historic area, being a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of historic or scenic properties or thematically related grouping of properties which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan or physical development;
g. Has a unique location or singular physical characteristics or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or of the city;
h. Embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation; i. Is similar to other distinctive properties, sites, areas, or objects based on a historic, cultural, or architectural motif;
j. Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning;
k. Is a type of building or is associated with a business or use which was once common but is now rare; and/or
l. Yields, or may yield, information important in prehistory or history; and retains the integrity of those characteristics necessary to convey its significance. 921
-4-
As previously indicated, in 1999, the subject property was identified in the City of Costa Mesa Citywide Historic Resources Survey , and the Survey indicated that the property was “Not eligible for the National Register but of local interest because the property is eligible for separate designation under an existing local ordinance.” In order to determine if the property at 208 Magnolia Street is a cultural resource pursuant the CMMC, an updated historic survey evaluation has been prepared by GPA Consulting (2023 - Historic Assessment Report ). The Report includes a comprehensive building conditions assessment that documents the current conditions of the historic building (see Attachment 5). The conclusions of the Historic Report indicate that the property is eligible for City Historic Register designation as a local landmark under local criteria.

The Report specifically indicates that 208 Magnolia Street is eligible under CMMC criterion “a”, “because it reflects the transitional period of early residential development during which the former farming community of Harper evolved from an agricultural area to the more densely developed town of Costa Mesa, and is one of the earliest residences constructed in the Newport Heights Tract during that period. The period of significance under criterion “a” is 1927. Additionally, the Report indicates that the property is eligible under CMMC criterion “b” because the house was the long-term residence of Leroy P.

Anderson, a prominent local attorney who was instrumental in the early development of Costa Mesa. The period of significance under criterion “b” is 1936 to 1957, when Anderson resided at the property.

Lastly, the 2023 Report provides an analysis of the subject property’s “character-defining features”. According to the Report, “character-defining features are the architectural components that contribute to a building's sense of time and place. Character-defining features can be generally grouped into three categories: (1) the overall visual character of a building, (2) the exterior materials and craftsmanship, and (3) the interior spaces, features, and finishes. The relative importance of character-defining features depends on the level of craftsmanship, visibility, and integrity”. The Report concludes that the residence located at 208 Magnolia Street retains integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association, and has sufficient physical integrity to convey its historical significance.

MILLS ACT CONTRACT AND FISCAL REVIEW
Mills Act Contract
Pursuant to CMMC Section 13-200.11 (Preservation Incentives), the City Council may adopt a program of economic and other incentives to support the preservation, maintenance, and appropriate rehabilitation of the City’s cultural resources. The owner of 208 Magnolia Street is requesting local historic register designation and also approval of a Mills Act contract.

The Mills Act is a State law allowing cities to enter into contracts with the owners of historic structures. Such contracts allow for a reduction of property taxes in exchange for the continued preservation of an historic resource. The Mills Act law enables the City Council to enter into a 10-year contract with owners of historic properties. Under these contracts 922
-5-
(“Mills Act contracts”), owners agree to maintain and if necessary rehabilitate their historic structures with specific improvements during a 10-year contract period, and subsequently maintain the property pursuant to local, State and federal historic laws. Mills Act Contracts automatically extend annually for one-year after the initial 10-year term.

The intention of the Mills Act Contract tax benefit is to provide the historic property owners with greater means and motivation for historic property maintenance, which can be especially beneficial for underutilized or undermaintained properties. The City does not control or set the assessed value of property and benefits under the Mills Act Contract.

This value and the ultimate property tax paid by the property owner is determined by the Orange County Assessor’s Office, using a formula that is established by the State Mills Act legislation. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 50281 (State Mills Act Legislation), Mills Act Contracts shall contain the following provisions:
a) The term of the contract shall be for a minimum period of 10 years, and all protections and incentives for the property owner and City will remain in effect following the 10-year contract period; and
b) Where applicable, the contract shall provide the following:

1. Preservation of the historic resource, and conformance with rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the State Historical Building Code.

2. For an inspection of the interior and exterior of the premises by the City, prior to a new agreement, and every five years thereafter, to determine the owner's compliance with the contract.

3. For it to be binding upon, and continue to benefit all successors in interest of the property.

Pursuant to State Code Section 50281, if the City Council designates the subject property on the City’s Historic Register and also approves a Mills Act Contract, the contract would include the aforementioned provisions and a “Rehabilitation / Restoration / Maintenance Plan”. The City’s Historic Consultant and the applicant have worked together to prepare the proposed project Rehabilitation / Restoration / Maintenance Plan (see Attachment 7.) The Plan includes an itemized future property maintenance schedule to be completed within a 10-year contract term. The schedule includes the specific work/task to be completed, the building features to be improved and the date in which the work/task will be completed within the 10-year contract.

Fiscal Review
The City’s Finance division recently reviewed the proposal and estimated the proposed Mills Act Contract fiscal impact to the City. Based on the County of Orange’s assessed value of $1.9 million for the subject property, the City’s estimated property tax revenue reduction following adoption of the Mills Act contract is $2,825 annually. This tax reduction may increase or decrease each year in proportion to its assessed property value. 923
-6-
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE:

The Costa Mesa General Plan establishes the long‐range planning and policy direction that guides change and preserves the qualities that define the community. The 2015-2035 General Plan sets forth the vision for Costa Mesa. This vision focuses on protecting and enhancing Costa Mesa’s diverse residential neighborhoods, accommodating an array of businesses that serve local needs and attract regional and international spending, and provide cultural, educational, social, and recreational amenities that contribute to the quality of life in the community. Over the long term, General Plan implementation will ensure that development decisions and improvements to public and private infrastructure are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies contained in this Plan. The project is consistent with the following applicable General Plan Historical and Cultural Resources (HCR) Element policies:

Policy HCR-1.1: Encourage protection and enhancement of the diverse range of historical sites and resources in the City for the benefit of current and future residents and visitors.

Consistency: Designating the “Leroy Anderson House” on the City's Local Historic Register will allow a City historic resource to be protected, consistent with the purpose of the Historical and Cultural Resources Element of the City's General Plan.

Policy HCR-1.2: Encourage the preservation of significant historical resources by developing and implementing incentives such as building and planning application permit fee waivers, Mills Act contracts, grants and loans, and implementing other incentives identified in the Historical Preservation Ordinance.

Consistency: Adding the “Leroy Anderson House” to the local Historic Register and approving a Mills Act contact for the property will result in continued preservation of a significant Costa Mesa historic resource, and is consistent with General Plan Goal HCR-1.2.

FINDINGS
Pursuant to CMMC Section 13-200.9(2)(b) – “Findings”, in order to designate the subject property on the City’s Historic Register, the City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission must find that:
 The site, building, structure, district, object, natural feature or improvement has special historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural, community value in the City, and that the purpose of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance is maintained by such designation.

The 2023 GPA Historic Assessment Report indicates that the residence located at 208 Magnolia Street has special historical, architectural and community value in that the structure reflects the transitional period of early Costa Mesa residential 924
-7-
development during which the former farming community of Harper evolved from an agricultural area to the more densely developed town, and is one of the earliest residences constructed in the Newport Heights Tract during that period. Additionally, the Report indicates that the subject residence has community value in that the house was the long-term residence of Leroy P. Anderson, a prominent local attorney who was instrumental in the early development of Costa Mesa (see the below Exhibit D).

Exhibit D - 1928 Chamber of Commerce, Anderson at bottom right. Source: Early Costa Mesa.

Further, preservation of this historical residence is consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance “Purpose” in that designating the property on the City’s Historic Registry will: (1) further safeguard the City’s heritage as embodied and reflected in the subject property, (2) encourage public knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the City’s past by fostering civic and neighborhood pride and a sense of identity based on the recognition of a cultural resource, (3) preserve a diverse and harmonious architectural style that reflects the City’s history, and (4) enhance property values and increase economic and financial benefits to the City by protecting a local neighborhood historical resource asset. 925
-8-

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (“General Rule”) in that there is no possibility that the addition of the Leroy Anderson House to the Local Register will have a significant impact on the environment.

ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available to Planning Commission:

1. Recommend approval to City Council of the designation of the “Leroy Anderson House” on the City's local Historic Register, and City Council implement a Mills Act Contract at 208 Magnolia Street; or

2. Recommend denial to City Council of the placement of the Leroy Anderson House on the City's Local Register and not approve a Mills Act Contract.

LEGAL REVIEW
This report has been approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office.

CONCLUSION
The placement of the of the Leroy Anderson House on City's local Historic Register will provide protection to ensure that a City historic resource is maintained and that no substantial modifications can be made without prior City approval. Future implementation of the Mills Act Contract would allow the property owner to receive tax benefits as long as the house remains on the Local Register and in Mills Act contract compliance.

Attachments: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution

2. Applicant Letter

3. Vicinity Map

4. Zoning Map

5. Historical Assessment Report

6. Mills Act Contract

7. Rehabilitation / Restoration / Maintenance Plan

8. State Inventory Form
926

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 24-254 Meeting Date: 6/18/2024
TITLE:

ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA-20-02), REZONE (R-20-01), AND SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-20-01), AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING

CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE ONE METRO WEST PROJECT LOCATED AT 1683 SUNFLOWER AVENUE
DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DEPARTMENT/PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: AMBER GREGG, CONTRACT PLANNER
CONTACT INFORMATION: AMBER GREGG, CONTRACT PLANNER, (714) 754-5617 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Find that the proposed amendments are in substantial conformance with the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the One Metro West project (State Clearing House No. 2019050014), including a mitigation monitoring program and statement of overriding considerations, which was certified by the City Council on May 4, 2021, and that no further environmental review under CEQA is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

2. Give second reading to and adopt, by title only, Ordinance No. 2024-05 approving Development Agreement 20-02, modifying payment of impact fees and community benefits funding from one year to five years and clarifying the Agreement’s effective date.

3. Give second reading to and adopt, by title only, Ordinance No. 2024-06 approving Rezone 20-

01. 4. Give second reading to and adopt, by title only, Ordinance No. 2024-07 approving Specific Plan 20-01.

927

City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report

77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA
92626
Item #: 24-254 Meeting Date: 06/18/2024

TITLE: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA -20-02), REZONE (R-20-01), AND SPECIFIC PLAN (SP -20-01) FOR THE ONE METRO WEST PROJECT LOCATED AT 1683 SUNFLOWER AVENUE

DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/PLANNING

DIVISION

PRESENTED BY: AMBER GREGG, CONTRACT PLANNER

CONTACT INFORMATION: AMBER GREGG, CONTRACT PLANNER, (714) 754-5617

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Find that the proposed amendments are in substantial conformance with the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the One Metro West project ( State Clearing House No. 2019050014 ), including a mitigation monitoring program and statement of overriding consideration s, which was certified by the City Council on May 4, 2021, and that no further environmental review under CEQA is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

2. Give second reading to and adopt, by title only, Ordinance No. 2024 -05 approving Development Agreement 20-02, modifying payment of impact fees and community benefits funding from one year to five years and clarifying the Agreement’s effective date.

3. Give second reading to and adopt, by title only, Ordinance No. 2024-06 approving Rezone 20-01.

4. Give second reading to and adopt, by title only, Ordinance No. 2024-07 approving Specific Plan 20-01.

BACKGROUND:

At the June 4, 2024, City Council meeting, the Council considered the modifications recommended to be approved by the Planning Commission to the above noted Ordinances, heard public comment, and introduced the Ordinances for first reading by title only, waiving further reading, by a 6 -0 vote (Councilmember Harper was absent). The City Council’s motion included a minor modification to the recommended fee language in the Development Agreement (described further below), and clarification of the project ownership in the project approval documents. In addition, the City Council motion also included approval of a resolution revising conditions of approval pertaining to public art and vertical landscaping.
928

Item #: 24-254 Meeting Date: 06/18/2024

The June 4, 2024, City Council report and video are linked below:

June 4, 2024, City Council Agenda Report (also provided as Attachment 4):
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6712589&GUID=2578B2B2-9272-438B- 8567-A8901D031C84

June 4, 2024, City Council Video:
https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/4137?view_id=14&redirect=true

ANALYSIS:

At the June 4, 2024 , City Council Meeting, the Council directed staff to revise the language in the Development Agreement in regard to the timing of project fee payments. Specifically, the City Council motion included the following modification to the Development Agreement (changes are shown in strike through for text deletion and in underline for added text):

Development Impact Fees (DIF):
 Two Payment Installments plus 3% interest rate commencing on the Effective Date of the Development Agreement. First payment received with the issuance of the first building permit (Year 1), second and final payment received in Year 5 no later than the earlier of either five years from the date of the first issuance of building permit “Construction Date”, or final inspection approval for the project’s last residential unit, whichever occurs first. 
Funding for Economic Recovery and Community Enhancement:

One Payment received in Year 5 plus 3% interest rate commencing on the Effective Date of the Development Agreement, received either no later than the earlier of five years from the date of the first issuance of building permit “Construction Date” , or final inspection approval for the project’s last residential unit.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project was reviewed and found to be consistent with the One Metro West Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2019050014), which was certified on May 4, 2021, by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa (Resolution No. 2021-54). Pursuant to Section 15162 of the Guidelines, no subsequent environmental review is warranted for the project because there are no substantial changes to the project in that there are no modifications to the approved project plans , or required mitigation measures that would relate to the mitigation of a project environmental effect, and no new information of previously unknown environmental effects.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may adopt the Ordinances as proposed, modify the Ordinances, or not adopt the Ordinances. If the City Council chooses to make substantive modifications to the Ordinances after introduction, the modified Ordinances would need to be brought back at a future meeting for adoption. 929

Item #: 24-254 Meeting Date: 06/18/2024

FISCAL REVIEW:

The City’s Finance Department has reviewed the applicant’s requested payment modifications and determined that the requested five-year payment plan with a three percent (3%) annual interest rate, in the amount of $1,348,685, retains the fund's “net present value” by recovering the potential interest and/or inflation monetary reductions that may result by the requested payment delays.

The result is a total payment of $17,881,474 at the end of the five -year term compared to the current Development Agreement of $16,532,789, which requires all fees to be paid in Phase I - at the time of issuance of the first building permit.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The draft ordinances and staff report have been prepared in conjunction with and reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of the proposed ordinances was published once in the newspaper no less than five days prior to the June 18, 2024, second reading. A summary of the adopted ordinances will also be published in the newspaper within 15 days after adoption.

Public comments received prior to the June 18, 2024, City Council meeting may be viewed at this link:

CITY OF COSTA MESA - Calendar (legistar.com)

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the City Council's Goal to Diversify, stabilize, and increase housing to reflect the community needs in that the project contributes to helping the City meet its City’s 6th Cycle RHNA allocations, including affordable housing allocation. The project includes 1,057 units within a mixe d- use multi-family residential development. The project provides 10 percent of the project dwelling units (minimum of 106 units) as affordable units to low- and very-low-income households.

CONCLUSION:

The proposed amended ordinances do not modify the development plans; rather, they modify the timing of implementing the project while ensuring the City receives the agreed -upon public benefits.

The amendments to the Development Agreement from a single fee payment to a two -payment plan over five years with a 3% annual interest rate, is intended to assist the applicant in meeting the financial commitments to the City while ensuring the City retains the full value of the development fees. Lastly, the applicant proposed language mod ifications to the ordinances is consistent with Article 22 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code.

930
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 1 of 35

ORDINANCE NO. 20 24-05

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA-20-02 BETWEEN THE

CITY OF COSTA MESA AND COSTA MESA SUNFLOWER, LLC

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA , CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, public hearings were held on April 13, 2020 and May 11, 2020 before the Planning Commission pursuant to the Procedures and Requirements for Consideration of Development Agreements set forth in City Council Resolution No. 88 -53, regarding the proposed Development Agreement DA-20-02, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (hereinafter, the “Agreement”), at which time the Planning Commission considered testimony presented by the public and applicant and the then property owner International Asset Management Holding Group, LLC, predecessor in interest to Costa Mesa Sunflower, LLC (hereinafter, “Developer”) and thereafter made recommendations to the City Council; WHEREAS, a public hearing was subsequently held before the City Council on June 15, 2021 pursuant to the requirements of Resolution No. 88 -53, at which time the City Council considered testimony presented by the public and the Developer and the recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the proposed Agreement; and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2021, the City Council approved the first reading by a 5 -1 vote (Councilmember Harper voting no and Councilmember Harlan recusing); WHEREAS, on July 20, 2021, the City Council approved the second reading by a 5- 1 vote (Councilmember Harper voting no and Councilmember Harlan recusing); WHEREAS, at the time of City Council approval, the project was subject to a vote of the electorate pursuant to Measure Y, “An Ordinance to give the People of Costa Mesa Control of Their Future ” codified in Article 22, Chapter IX of the Zoning Code , such that Ordinance 2021-11 stated that the “Ordinance shall become effective following approval of the Project by the electorate at the regular municipal election or at a special election funded by the applicant”;
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2022, “ Measure K” was adopted by the Costa Mesa electorate, which amended Article 22 to allow for the development of housing in specific commercial and industrial areas without a vote by the electorate while keeping residential neighborhoods intact and revitalizing commercial corridors; 931
Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 2 of 32

WHEREAS, the subject project is located at 1683 Sunf lower Avenue which is located within the Measure K boundaries and accordingly no longer requires approval by the electorate;
WHEREAS, the applicant and then property owner , International Asset Management Holding Group, LLC, by their authorized agent Brent Stoll with Rose Equities, requested to amend the Ordinances to be consistent with Costa Mesa Zoning Code, Article 22, eliminating the electoral vote requirement;
WHEREAS, Rose Equities also requested amending the timing of payment of impact fees and community benefits fund;
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission, after taking public testimony, recommended that the City Council approve the requested amendments;
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on June 4, 2024, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; WHEREAS, on June 4, 2024, the City Council approved the first reading by a 6-0-1 vote (Councilmember Harper absent) gave first reading to the Ordinance; WHEREAS, on June 18, 2024, the City Council voted X-X to adopt Ordinance 2024- 05;
WHEREAS, the Agreement is:
(a) Consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and with the General Plan as a whole and the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan;
(b) Compatible with the uses authorized in, and the existing land use regulations prescribed for, the zoning district in which the real property is and will be located; and
(c) Is in conformity with and will promote public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice.

WHEREAS, the Agreement will not:
(a) Be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare; or (b) Adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values.
932
Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 3 of 32

WHEREAS, The Agreement will promote and encourage the development of the proposed project and will ensure the public benefits promised therein, by providing stability and certainty to Developer;
WHEREAS, the approved project include d General Plan Amendment GP -20-01, Rezone R-20-01, Specific Plan SP-20-01, Master Plan PA-19-19 and Tentative Tract Map No. 19015 (T-19-01) (the “Project”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared by the City in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and certified by the City Council on May 4, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-54;
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 the proposed amendments are in substantial conformance with the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the One Metro project (State Clearing House No. 2019050014), including a mitigation monitoring program and statement o f overriding considerations, which was certified by the City Council on May 4, 2021, and that no further environmental review under CEQA is required.

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

Now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA , CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Findings and Declarations. The above stated findings and declarations are true and correct.

Section 2: Approval. The City Council hereby approves, adopts and enters into the Agreement in the form attached hereto and incorporates the Agreement herein by this reference.

Section 3: Recordation. Upon execution of the Agreement by all parties, the City Clerk is directed to record the Amendment pursuant to Resolution No. 88-53.

Section 4: Environmental Compliance. Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and State CEQA guidelines, a Final EIR, State Clearing House No. 2019050014, including a mitigation monitoring program and statement of overriding consideration, was certified for the Project on May 4, 2021, and the City has determined that this Ordinance itself is not a separate "project" and further, that it is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to 933
Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 4 of 32

CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (because it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of this Ordinance its elf will not have an effect on the environment) such that no further environmental review under CEQA is required; and Section 5: Inconsistencies. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and or further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to affect the provisions of this ordinance.

Section 6: Severability. If any chapter, article, section, subsecti on, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall no t affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

No portion of this Ordina nce shall supersede any local, State, or Federal law, regulation, or codes dealing with life safety factors.

Section 7: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on the 31st day after adoption.

Section 8: Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner as required by law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________ 2024.

__________________________
John Stephens
Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa

934
Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 5 of 32

ATTEST:

___________________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________
Kimberly Hall Barlow
City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 2024-05 was duly introduced for first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of June, 2024, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18th day of June, 2024, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this ___ day of ___________, 2024.

__________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

935

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 6 of 32

EXHIBIT A – Revised Development Agreement 20-02

936

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 6 of 32

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 20-02

A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN

CITY OF COSTA MESA
and

COSTA MESA SUNFLOWER, LLC

Approved June 18, 2024, by Ordinance No. 2024-05

937

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 8 of 32

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 20-02
This Development Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) is entered into as of this ___ day of _______, 202_ by and between the City of Costa Mesa, California (hereinafter “CITY”), and Costa Mesa Sunflower, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (hereinafter “OWNER”):

RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY is authorized to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property, pursuant to Section 65864, et seq. of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, This Agreem ent constitutes a current exercise of CITY’s police powers to provide predictability to OWNER in the development approval process by vesting the permitted uses, density, intensity of use, and timing and phasing of development consistent with the Development Plan in exchange for OWNER’s commitment to provide significant public benefits to CITY as set forth in Section 4, below.

WHEREAS, OWNER has requested CITY to enter into a development agreement and proceedings have been taken in accordance with the rules and regulations of CITY; and WHEREAS, the best interests of the citizens of the CITY and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that this Agreement is of major significance because it will enable the development of a mixed -use project with residential, commercial, creative office and open space uses and provide the CITY with additional funds that could be used for CITY facilities and will therefore implement numerous general plan and other public policies of the CITY; and WHEREAS, the provision by OWNER of these aforementioned public benefits allows the CITY to realize significant economic, and social benefits; and WHEREAS, the physical effects, if any , of the Project and this Agreement have been analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Res. Code section 21000 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, this Agreement and the Project are consistent with the Costa Mesa General Plan, as amended, and any specific plan, as amended, applicable thereto; and WHEREAS, all actions taken and approvals given by CITY have been duly taken or approved in accordance with all applicable legal requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes, and other procedural matters; and
WHEREAS, development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide substantial benefits to CITY and will further important policies and goals of CITY; and WHEREAS, this Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly development of the Property, ensure progressive installation of necessary improvements, provide for public services appropriate to the development of the Project, and generally serve the purposes for which development agreements under Section 65864, et seq. of the Government Code are intended.

938

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 9 of 32

COVENANTS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and a dequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS.

1.1 Definitions. The following terms when used in this Agreement shall be defined as follows:

1.1.1 “Agreement” means this Development Agreement.

1.1.2 “CITY” means the City of Costa Mesa, a California municipal corporation.

1.1.3 “City Council” means the duly elected city council of the City of Costa Mesa.

1.1.4 “Commencement Date” means the date the Term of this Agreement commences.

1.1.5 “Construction Date” means the date the first building permit is issued.

1.1.6 “Development” means the improvement of the Property for the purposes of completing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project including, but not limited to:
grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of buildings and structures; and the installation of landscaping. “Development” does not include the maintenance, repair, reconstruction or redevelopment of any building, structure, improvement or facility after the construction and completion thereof.

1.1.7 “Development Approvals” means all permits and other entitlements for use subject to approval or issuance by CITY in connection with development of the Property including, but not limited to:
(a) general plan, general plan amendments, specific plans and specific plan amendments;
(b) tentative and final subdivision and parcel maps;
(c) conditional use permits and master plans;
(d) zoning, zoning map amendments, and zoning text amendments; and, (e) grading and building permits.

1.1.8 “Development Exaction” means any requirement of CITY in connection with or pursuant to any Land Use Regulation or Development Approval for the dedication of land, the construction of improvements or public facilities, or the payment of fees in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of development on the environment or other public interests.

1.1.9 “Development Impact Fee” a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment, whether established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general applicability or imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis, that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project, but does not include park “in lieu” fees specified in 939

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 10 of 32

Government Code Section 66477, fees for processing appl ications for governmental regulatory actions or approvals, or fees collected under development agreements adopted pursuant to Article 2.5 of the Government Code (commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 4.

1.1.10 “Development Plan” means the plan for development of the Property as set forth in the vested entitlements listed in Exhibit “C”.
(a) “Director” means the Director of the City’s Development Services Department, including his or her designee.

1.1.11 “Effective Date ” means the date the ordinance approving and authoriz ing this Agreement becomes effective.

1.1.12 "Interest Charge” means the interest payment applied to deferred Development Exaction and Development Impact Fees.

1.1.13 “Interest Rate” means the rate of interest, three percent (3%) per year, compounded annually, used to calculate the Interest Charge.

1.1.14 “Land Use Regulations” means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of CITY governing the development and use of land, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicabl e to th e development of the Property. “ Land Use Regulations” does not include any CITY ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy, governing:
(a) the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; (b) taxes (special or general) and assessments;
(c) the control and abatement of nuisances;
(d) the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests that provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; (e) the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

1.1.15 “OWNER” means the p ersons and entities listed as OWNER on page 1 of this Agreement and their successors in interest to all or any part of the Property.

1.1.16 “Mortgagee” means a mortgagee of a mortgage, a beneficiary under a deed of trust or any other security-device lender, and their successors and assigns.

1.1.17 “Project” means the development of the Property contemplated by the Development Plan as such Plan may be further defined, enhanced or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.

1.1.18 “Property” means the real property described on Exhibit “A” and shown on Exhibit “B” to this Agreement.
940

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 11 of 32

1.1.19 “Public Benefit” refers to those benefits provided to the CITY and the community by OWNER pursuant to Section 4 below.

1.1.20 “Reservation of Rights” means the rights and authority excepted from the assurances and rights provided to OWNER under this Agreement and reserved to CITY under Section 3.3 of this Agreement.

1.2 Exhibits. The following documents are attache d to, and by this reference made a part of, this Agreement:

Exhibit “A” – Legal Description of the Property.

Exhibit “B” – Map showing Property and its location.

Exhibit “C” – Development Plan.

Exhibit “D” – Development Impact Fees

2. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

2.1 Binding Effect of Agreement . The Property is hereby made subject to this Agreement.

Development of the Property is hereby fully vested and authorized and shall be carried out in substantial accordance with the terms of the Development Plan and this Agreement.

2.2 Ownership of Property. OWNER represents and covenants that it is the owner of the fee simple title to, or has an equitable interest in, the Property or a portion thereof.

2.3 City Council Findings. The City Council finds that:

2.3.1 This Agreement is consistent with the CITY’s General Plan, as amended.

2.3.2 This Agreement ensures a desirable and functional community environment, provides effective and efficient development of public facilities, infrastructure, and services appropriate for the development of the Project and enhances effective utilization of resources within the CITY.

2.3.3 This Agreement provides public benefits to the City.

2.3.4 This Agreement strengthens the public planning process, encourages private participation in comprehensive planning and reduces costs of development and government.

2.3.5 The best interests of the citizens of the CITY and the public health, safety, and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement.

2.4 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date (the “Commencement Date”) that is the Effective Date, and shall continue for a period of twenty five (25) years thereafter, unless this term is modified or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. Thereafter, the OWNER shall have no vested right under this Agreement , regardless of whether or not OWNER has paid any Development Impact Fee.
941

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 12 of 32

2.5 Assignment.

2.5.1 Right to Assign . OWNER shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign the Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the Subdi vision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et seq.) to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such sale, transfer or assignment shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties and obligations arising under or from this Agreement and be made in strict compliance with the following conditions precedent:
(a) No sale, transfer or assignment of any right or interest under this Agreement shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer or assignment of all or a part of the Property. (b) Concurrent with any such sale, transfer or assignment, OWNER shall notify CITY, in writing, of such sale, transfer or assignment and shall provide CITY with an executed agreement (“Assignment and Assumption Agreement”), in a form reasonably acceptable to CITY, by the purchaser, transferee or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser, transferee or assignee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the duties, obligations, agreements, covenants, waivers of OWNER under this Agreement, including, without limitation, the covenants not to sue and waivers contained in Sections

7.2 and 8.4 hereof.

Any sale, transfer or assignment not made in strict compliance with the foregoing conditions shall constitute a default by OWNER under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the failure of any purchaser, transferee or assignee to execute the agreement required b y Paragraph (b) of this Subsection 2.5.1, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon such purchaser, transferee or assignee, but the benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to such purchaser, transferee or assignee until and unless such agreement is executed.

2.5.2 Release of Transferring Owner. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer or assignment, a transferring OWNER shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement with respect to the transferred Property or any transferred portion thereof, unless such transferring OWNER is given a release in writing by CITY, which release shall be provided by CITY upon the full satisfaction by such transferring OWNER of the following conditions:
(a) OWNER no longer has a legal or equitable interest in all or any part of the Property subject to the transfer.
(b) OWNER is not then in default under this Agreement.
(c) OWNER has provided CITY with the notice and executed agreement required under Paragraph (b) of Subsection 2.5.1 above. (d) The purchaser, transferee or assignee provides CITY with security equivalent to any security previously provided by OWNER to secure performance of its obligations hereunder.

2.5.3 Subsequent Assignment. Any subsequent sale, transfer or assignment after an initial sale, transfer or assignment shall be made only in accordance with and subject to t he terms and conditions of this Section.

2.5.4 Utilities. The Project shall be connected to all utilities necessary to provide adequate water, sewer, gas, electric, and other utility service to the Project, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the Project. 942

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 13 of 32

2.5.5 Sale to Public and Completion of Construction. The provisions of Subsection 2.5.1 shall not apply to the sale or leas e (for a period longer than one year) of any lot or condominium that has been finally subdivided and is individually (and not in "bulk") sold or leased to a member of the public or other ultimate user. This Agreement shall terminate with respect to any lo t/condominium and such lot/condominium shall be released and no longer be subject to this Agreement without the execution or recordation of any further document upon satisfaction of both of the following conditions:
(a) The lot/condominium has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in "bulk") sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the public or other ultimate user; and
(b) A certificate of occupancy has been issued for a building on the lot/condominium, and the fees for such lot set forth in this Agreement have been paid.

2.6 Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by written consent of all parties in the manner provided for in G overnment Code Section 65868 . This p rovision shall not limit any remedy of CITY or OWNER as provided by this Agreement.

2.7 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events:
(a) Expiration of the stated term of this Agreement as set forth in Section 2.4. (b) Entry of a final judgment setting aside, voiding or annulling the adoption of the ordinance approving this Agreement.
(c) Completion of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement including issuance of all required occupancy permits and acceptance by CITY or applicable public agency of all required dedications.

Termination of this Agreement shall not constitute termination of any other land use entitlements approved for the Property. Upon the termination of this Agreement, no party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder except with respect to any obligation to have been performed prior to such termination or with respect to any default in the performance of the provis ions of this Agreement that has occurred prior to such termination or with respect to any obligations that are specifically set forth as surviving this Agreement. Upon such termination, any Development Impact Fees paid by OWNER to CITY for residential units on which construction has not yet begun shall be refunded to OWNER by CITY.

2.8 Notices.
(a) As used in this Agreement, "notice" includes, but is not limited to, the communication of notice, request, demand, approval, statement, report, acceptance, consent, waiver, appointment or other communication required or permitted hereunder. (b) All notices shall be in writing and shall be considered given either: (i) when delivered in person to the recipient named below; or (ii) on the date of delivery shown on the return receipt, after deposit in the United States mail in a sealed envelope as either registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, and postage and postal charges prepaid, and addressed to the recipient named below; or (iii) on the date of delivery shown in the records of the telegraph company after transmission by telegraph to the recipient named below. All notices shall be addressed as follows:
943

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 14 of 32

If to CITY:

City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
(714) 754-5245
Attn: City Manager
Copy to:

Jones & Mayer
3777 N Harbor Blvd.

Fullerton, CA
(714) 446-1400
Attn: Kimberly Hall Barlow
If to OWNER:

Rose Equities, as agent for Costa Mesa Sunflower, LLC
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 632
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Attn: Brent Stoll
Telephone: (323) 782-4300
Copy to:

Rutan & Tucker, LLP
611 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400
Costa Mesa, CA 92694
Attn: John A. Ramirez
Telephone: (714) 662-4610
(c) Either party may, by notice given at any time, require subsequent notices to be given to another person or entity, whether a party or an officer or representative of a party, or to a different address, or both. Notices given before actual receipt of notice of change shall not be invalidated by the change.

3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.

3.1 Rights to Develop . Subject to the terms of this Agreement including the Reservation of Rights, OWNER shall have a vested right to develop the Property in accordance with, and to the extent of, this Agreement. Except as expressly provided otherwise herein, the Project shall remain subject to all Land Use Regulations and Development Approvals in effect on the Effective Date that are required to complete the Project as contemplated by the Development Plan. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the permitted uses of the Property, the dens ity and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth in the Land Use Regulations and Development Approvals in effect on the Effective Date or, if consented to by OWNER, those subsequently adopted or amended . OWNER shall comply with all mitigation measures required to be undertaken pursuant to any document prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to the Project. 944

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 15 of 32

3.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations . Except as otherwise provided under the terms of this Agreement including the Reservation of Rights, the rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses of the Property, the de nsity and intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to development of the Property shall be the Land Use Regulations and Development Approvals in effect on the Effective Date . In connection with any subsequently adopted Development Approvals and except as specifically provided otherwise herein, CITY may exercise its discretion in accordance with the Land Use Regulations then in ef fect, as provided by this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the Reservation of Rights. CITY shall accept for processing, review and action all applications for subsequent development approvals, and such applications shall be processed expeditiously.

3.3 Reservation of Rights.

3.3.1 Limitations, Reservations and Exceptions . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the following regulations shall apply to the development of the Property:
(a) Processing fees and charges of every kind and nature imposed by CITY to cover the estimated actual costs to CITY of processing applications for Development Approvals or for monitoring compliance with any Development Approvals granted or issued. (b) Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matter of procedure. (c) Regulations, policies and rules governing engineering and construction standards and specifications applicable to public and private improvements, including, without limitation, all uniform codes adopted by the City and any local amendments to those codes adopted by the CITY, including, without limitation, the CITY's Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, and Grading Ordinance.
(d) Regulations imposing Development Exactions; provided, however, that no such subsequently adopted Development Exaction shall be applicable to development of the Property unless such Development Exaction is applied uniformly to development, either throughout the CITY or within a defined area of benefit which includes the Property. No such subsequently adopted Development Exaction shall apply if its application to the Property would physically prevent development of the Property for the uses and to the density or intensity of development set forth in the Development Plan. In the event any such subsequently adopted Development Exaction fulfills the same purposes, in whole or in part, as the fees set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, CITY shall allow a credit against such subsequently adopted Development Exaction for the fees paid under Section 4 of this Agreement to the extent such fees fulfill the same purposes.
(e) Regulations that may be in material conflict with this Agreement but that are reasonably necessary to protect the residents of the project or the immediate community from a condition perilous to their health or safety. To the extent possible, any such regulations shall be applied and construed so as to provide OWNER with the rights and assurances provided under this Agreement. (f) Regulations that are not in material conflict with this Agreement or the Development Plan. Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of development of the Property shall be deemed to materially conflict with the Development Plan and shall therefore not be applicable to the development of the Property. 945

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 16 of 32

(g) Regulations that are in material conflict with the Development Plan; provided OWNER has given written consent to the application of such regulations to development of that Property in which the OWNER has a legal or equitable interest. (h) Regulations that impose, levy, alter or amend fees, charges, or Land Use Regulations relating to consumers or end users, including, without limitation, trash can placement, service charges and limitations on vehicle parking.
(i) Regulations of other public agencies, including Development Impact Fees adopted or imposed by such other public agencies, although collected by CITY.

3.3.2 Subsequent Development Approvals. This Agreement shall not prevent CITY, in acting on subsequent development approvals and to the same extent it would otherwise be authorized to do so absent this Agreement, from applying subsequently adopted or amended Land Use Regulations that do not materially conflict with this Agreement and do not impose increased costs on OWNER.

3.3.3 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law . In the event that State, County or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreem ent, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations; provided, however, that this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce.

3.4 Regulation by Other Public A gencies. It is acknowledged by the parties that other public agencies not within the control of CITY may possess authority to regulate aspects of the development of the Property separately from or jointly with CITY and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies.

3.5 Timing of Development . Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties in that case to provide for the timing of devel opment resulted in a later -adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over the parties’ agreement, it is the specific intent of the Parties to provide for the timing of the Project in this Agreement. To do so, the Parties acknowle dge and provide that Owner shall have the right, but not the obligation, to complete the Project in such order, at such rate, at such times, and in as many development phases and sub-phases as Owner deems appropriate in its sole subjective business judgment.

3.6 Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions. Owner shall have the ability to reserve and record such covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) against the Property as Owner deems appropriate, in its sole and absolute discretion. Such CC&Rs may not co nflict with this Agreement or the General Plan.

Before recording any CC&Rs, Owner shall provide a copy of the CC&Rs to the City for review and approval by the City Attorney. The City Attorney’s review shall be limited to determining if the CC&Rs substantially comply with this Agreement. Within thirty (30) days after receiving a copy of the proposed CC&Rs from Owner, the City Attorney shall provide Owner with either (i) a statement that the CC&Rs comply with this Agreement (“CC&R Approval”) or (ii) written comments identifying each aspect of the CC&Rs which the City Attorney believes not to be in compliance with this Agreement (a “Statement of Non-Compliance”). If the City Attorney fails to provide Owner with either CC&R Approval or a Statement of Non-Compliance within thirty (30) days following a written request by Owner, City shall be deemed to have approved the CC&Rs and Owner may record the CC&Rs against the Property. If the City Attorney provides a Statement of Non -Compliance, Owner shall have thirty (3 0) days in which to respond to the 946

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 17 of 32

Statement of Non-Compliance. Upon submittal of Owner’s response, the procedure described above for the initial submittal and City Attorney review of proposed CC&Rs shall again be followed. This procedure shall be followed until Owner either (1) receives CC&R Approval, (2) submits the compliance issues to binding arbitration pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association, (3) files an action for declaratory relief in Orange County Superior Court seeking a ju dicial determination of the compliance of the proposed CC&Rs, or (4) an agreement is otherwise reached between the Parties allowing for the recording of the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs may run with the land and bind Owner’s successors and assigns.

Except as provided above, any dispute between the Parties regarding the City’s approval or rejection of the CC&Rs shall be subject to immediate and binding arbitration pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association.

4. PROJECT BENEFITS & COMMITMENTS

4.1 Public Benefits. The Project will serve to redevelop an industrial site, will provide on -site infrastructure upgrades; and will provide additional housing opportunities to residents of the City. In addition, the Project will improve the City’s open space and recrea tional facilities by providing the following:

4.1.1 Public Open Space . The Project will include the construction, ongoing maintenance and management of a 1.5-acre passive open space area that will be made available to the general public through dedication of a perpetual public access easement to the CITY, which easement shall run with the land in perpetuity and be recorded against the Property in a form and manner approved by the CITY;

4.1.2 Community Center . The Project will also include construction, ongoing maintenance and management of a 1,500-square-foot community room located in Building B that will be made available for use to the CITY at no cost and to the general public subject to the same cost and schedule availability applicable to Project residents (subje ct to commercially reasonable rules regarding access, insurance requirements, security, etc.,);

4.1.3 Sunflower Avenue Improvements. The Project will include off-site improvements to Sunflower Avenue that would include, but not be limited to, wider pedestrian sidewalks, street furniture, lighting, wayfinding and public art, pedestrian signal, pedestrian and bike crossings, improved bicycle lanes (beyond the Class II facilities required along the Project frontage) with identification and separation from vehicles, new landscaped street median pockets, and striped on-street parking along the south side of Sunflower Avenue;

4.1.4 Maintenance of Off-Site Improvements. The CITY will maintain pavement, curb and gutter; the OWNER is to maintain offsite landscaping, irrigation and other features;

4.1.5 Advancement of Development Impact Fees . OWNER shall pay all development impact fees identified in Section 4.3 to the CITY, fees shall be paid in two installments with deferred fees subject to a three percent (3%) interest rate, commencing on the Effective Date of this Agreement. The first payment shall be received with the issuance of the first building permit (Year 1), the second and final payment received no later than the earlier of either five years from the date of the first issuance of building permit (“Construction Date”) or final inspection approval for the project’s last residential unit;

4.1.6 Funding for Public Safety. prior to issuance of first building permit OWNER shall pay to CITY the sum of two million dollar s ($2,000,000.00) to be used, in the City’s sole and absolute discretion, to enhance the operations of the CITY’s Police and Fire departments, including, but not limited 947

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 18 of 32

to updates to the firing range, replacement Fire apparatus, and other public safety re lated projects and/or expenses;

4.1.7 Funding for Community Infrastructure Improvements . Prior to issuance of first building permit OWNER shall pay to CITY the sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) to be used, in the City’s sole and absolute discretion, to be used toward City-wide roadway and trail improvements (e.g.

Adams Avenue improvements and Citywide bike trail improvements);

4.1.8 Economic Recovery and Community Enhancement Fund. No later than the earlier of either five years from the date of the first issuance building permit (“Construction Date” ) or final inspection approval for the project’s last residential unit, the OWNER shall pay to CITY the sum of three million dollars ($3,000,000.00) plus t he Interest Charge, being a three percent (3%) interest rate commencing on the Effective Date of this Agreement , to be used by the City, in its sole and absolute discretion, to assist community enhancement programs and projects related to economic sustainability and recovery, and/or to support essential governmental functions impacted during states of emergency and/or recovery therefrom, and/or other community enhancement efforts such as park and open space acquisition, rehabilitation, refurbishment or enha ncement (e.g. Shalimar Community Center, Ketchum -Libolt park improvements, etc.).

4.1.9 Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue Bridge . OWNER agrees to support CITY’s objections to and actions to remove the planned Gisler/Garfield Avenue Santa Ana River crossing from the OCTA’s Master Plan of Arterial Highways (“OCMPAH”).

4.2 Affordable Housing. It is the intent of CITY to consider and adopt a citywide affordable housing program to require the inclusion of affordable housing, or fees in-lieu thereof, in conjunction with all new residential development. The Project shall provide one hundred six (106) of its units at rates that are affordable to lower-income families; of the total units, sixty-seven (67) units shall be reserved for very low-income and thirty-nine (39) units for low-income tenants. The Project shall not satisfy this requirement by payment of fees in-lieu thereof. The provisions of this Section 4.2 shall continue to apply in the event of a condominium conversion.

Affordable units shall be deed restricted in a form approved by the Director and maintained in for a period of not less than forty (40) years from the date of the last certificate of occupancy of the Project at the affordability levels described in this section. Such units shall be evenly distributed throughout the Project and shall be identical to all other similarly sized units at the Project in terms of design, construction, access and OWNER provided amenities. Construction of affordable units will be proportional throughout the development of the Project, such that a proportional share of affordable units will be included in each phase of development, i.e., if the first phase of the Project is 25% of the total residential units, then approximately 25% of the total affordable units must be completed in that first phase, etc. In addition, the sizes of the affordable units shall be proportionate to the sizes of all other units within the Project, i.e., if the Project is comprised of 40% one -bedroom, 50% two -bedroom and 10% three -bedroom, then the bedroom count for the affordable units shall be similarly allocated.

If OWNER determines to record a Final Tract Map and convert the apartment units to condominium units, and notwithstanding any provision of Section 2.5.5 of this Agreement to the contrary, Owne r shall either: maintain the residential rental units as rental units at the then current income and affordability levels described in this section; market for sale and thereafter sell the units based on the then current income and affordability levels des cribed in this section; or, if applicable, relocate any and all tenants residing in affordable units under the terms imposed by applicable law and/or the citywide affordable housing program in existence at the time of relocation and sell the former rental units at the then current income and affordability levels described in this section.
948

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 19 of 32

4.3 Development Impact Fees. Unless specified below, the OWNER shall pay all development impact fees identified in this section, and further detailed in Exhibit D, to the CITY. Fees shall be paid in two installments, Year 1 and by the end of Year 5, with deferred fees subject to a 3% interest rate from the Effective Date hereof . The first payment shall be received with the issuance of the first building permit (Year 1), the second and final payment received no later than the earlier of five years from the date of the first issuance building permit “Construction Date” or final inspection approval for the project’s last residential unit, whichever first occurs.

4.3.1 Parkland Impact Fee. Project will be subject to the park impact fee for apartment units at $5,000.00 per unit . The project includes a subdivision for condominium purposes that OWNER indicates may or may not be exercised. Should the OWNER determine to record a Final Tract M ap and convert the apartment units to condominium units, OWNER shall pay the difference in fees between the initial $5,000.00 per unit park impact fee and the fee in place at the time of Map recordation for condominium units. The Tentative Tract Map shall remain valid for the term of this agreement and expire coterminous with this agreement if not exercised.

4.3.2 Traffic Impact Fee . The Project will be subject to the traffic impact fee for all additional vehicle trips generated by the Project at the rate in place at the time of approval of the Project (currently two hundred thirty-five dollars ($235.00) per additional vehicle trip). The Project will generate a total net increase of six thousand eight hundred (6,800) vehicle trips.

4.3.3 Open Space and Public Park Impact Fee (Measure Z). The Project is subject to the Open Space and Public Park Impact Fee (also known as Measure Z) at the fee established by Resolution of the City Council at the time of issuance of the first building permit up to $1.50 per square foot.

4.3.4 Fire Protection System Development Impact Fee. The intent of the parties is that the Project shall be subject to the most current Fire Protection System Development Impact Fee.

Accordingly, the Project is subject to a Fire Protection System Developm ent Impact fee in an amount calculated to be the equivalent of the North Costa Mesa Fire Fee study; provided, however, that if a new citywide Fire Protection System Development Impact Fee study is adopted after issuance of first building permit, the Project shall then be subject to this new fee.

4.3.5 Time of Payment. All Development Impact Fees required shall be paid to CITY in accordance with the terms of the implementing ordinance(s), as detailed in Exhibit D, and according to the following schedule:
(i) for Building A, prior to the issuance of the first building permit; (ii) for Building B, Building C and the Office Building, the earlier of the end of Year 5, plus the three percent (3%) Interest Charge commencing on the Effective Date of this Agreement, following the Construction Date, or approval for the project’s last residential unit.

4.4 Dedication of On-Site Easements and Rights of Way. OWNER shall dedicate to CITY all on-site rights of way and easements deemed necessary for public improvements, in CITY's sole discretion, within 15 days of receipt of written demand from CITY.

5. FINANCING OF IMPROVEMENTS. If deemed appropriate by CITY, CITY and OWNER shall cooperate in the formation of any special assessment district, community facilities district or alternate financing mechanism to pay for the construction and/or maintenance and operation of public or private improvements required as part of the Development Plan and/or payment of any Development Impact Fees.

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, for the purposes of this paragraph, included within the 949

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 20 of 32

definition of public improvements are street improvements, sewer improvements, drainage improvements, water improvements, other utility improvements, park improvements, trail improvements, pedestrian or bicycle improvements and open space. To the extent any such district or other financing entity is formed and sells bonds in order to finance s uch reimbursements, OWNER may be reimbursed to the extent that OWNER spends funds or dedicates land for the establishment of public improvements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is acknowledged and agreed by the parties that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring CITY or the City Council to form any such district or to issue and sell bonds.

6. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE.

6.1 Periodic Review . The CITY may review this Agreement annually, on or before the anniversary of the Effective Date, in order to ascertain the compliance by OWNER with the terms of the Agreement. OWNER shall submit an Annual Monitoring Report, in a form acceptable to the Director, within thirty (3 0) days after written notice from the CITY. The Annual Monitoring Report shall be accompanied by an annual review and administration fee sufficient to defray the estimated costs of review and administration of the Agreement during the succeeding year. The amount of the annual review and administration fee shall be set annually by resolution of the City Council.

6.2 Special Review. The City Council may order a special review of compliance with this Agreement at any time. The Director, or his or her designee, shall conduct such special reviews.

6.3 Procedure.
(a) During either a periodic review or a special review, OWNER shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on OWNER.
(b) Upon completion of a periodic review or a special review, the Director, or his or her designee, may submit a report to the Planning Commission setting forth the evidence concerning good faith compliance by OWNER with the terms of this Agreement and his or her recommended finding on that issue.
(c) If the Planning Commission finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence that OWNER has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the review shall be concluded.
(d) If the Planning Commission finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Commission may recommend to the City Council modification or termination of this Agreement.

Notice of default as provided under Section 7.3 of this Agreement shall be given to OWNER prior to or concurrent with proceedings under Section 6.4 and Section 6.5.

6.4 Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If, upon a finding under Section 6.3, CITY determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement, CITY shall give written notice to OWNER of its intention so to do. The notice shall be given at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing and shall contain:
(a) The time and place of the hearing;
(b) A statement as to whether or not CITY proposes to terminate or to modify the Agreement; and,
950

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 21 of 32

(c) Such other information that the CITY considers necessary to inform OWNER of the nature of the proceeding.

6.5 Hearing on Modification or Termination . At the time and place set for the hearing on modification or termination, OWNER shall be given an opportunity to be heard. OWNER shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on OWNER. If the City Council finds, based upon substantia l evidence, that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the Agreement, the City Council may terminate this Agreement or modify this Agreement and impose such conditions as are reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the CITY. The decision of the City Council shall be final.

6.6 Certificate of Agreement Compliance. If, at the conclusion of a Periodic or Special Review, OWNER is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, CITY shall, upon request by OWNER, issue a Certificate of Agreement Compliance (“Certificate”) to OWNER stating that after the most recent Periodic or Special Review and based upon the information known or made known to the Director and City Council that: (1) this Agreement remains in effect ; and (2) OWNER is not in default. The Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, shall state whether the Certificate is issued after a Periodic or Spe cial Review and shall state the anticipated date of commencement of the next Periodic Review. OWNER may record the Certificate with the County Recorder.

Whether or not the Certificate is relied upon by assignees or other transferees or OWNER, CITY shall not be bound by a Certificate if a default existed at the time of the Periodic or Special Review, but was concealed from or otherwise not known to the Director or City Council.

7. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES.

7.1 Remedies in General . It is acknowledged by the P arties that neither CITY nor OWNER would have entered into this Agreement if either were to be liable in damages under this Agreement, or with respect to this Agreement or the application thereof. In general, each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, except damages.

7.2 Release. Except for non -monetary remedies, OWNER, for itself, its successors and assignees, hereby releases CITY, its officers, agents and employees from any and all cl aims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever, upon CITY because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms of this Agr eement. OWNER hereby acknowledges that it has read and is familiar with the provisions of California Civil Code Section 1542, which is set forth below:
“A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE

CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HI S OR HER FAVOR

AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR

HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.”
By initialing below, OWNER hereby waives the provisions of Section 1542 in connection with the matters that are the subject of the foregoing waivers and releases. 951

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 22 of 32

_______________
Owner’s Initials

7.3 Termination or Modification of Agreement for Default of OWNER . CITY may terminate or modify this Agreement for any failure of OWNER to perform any material duty or obligation of OWNER under this Agreement, or to comply in good faith with the terms of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "default"); provided, however, CITY may terminate or modify this Agreement pursuant to this Section only after providing wr itten notice to OWNER of default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by OWNER to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, OWNER has failed to take such actions and cure such default within sixty (60) days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such sixty (60) day period but can be cured within a longer time, has as determined by the Director failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such sixty (60) day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default.

7.4 Termination of Agreement for Default of CITY . OWNER may terminate this Agreement only in the event of a default by CITY in the performance of a material term of this Agreement and only after providing written notice to CITY of default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by CITY to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, CITY has failed to take such actions and cure such default within sixty (60) days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such sixty (60) day period but can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such sixty (60) day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default.

8. LITIGATION.

8.1 Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreement . OWNER shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against CITY, its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement, or the approval of any pe rmit granted pursuant to this Agreement.

CITY shall promptly notify OWNER of any claim, action, proceeding or determination included within this Section 8.1, and CITY shall cooperate in the defense. If CITY fails to promptly notify OWNER of any such claim, action, proceeding or determination, or if CITY fails to cooperate in the defense, OWNER shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless CITY. CITY may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action, proceeding or determination.

8.2 Environmental Assurances. OWNER shall indemnify and hold CITY, its officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from any liability, based or asserted, upon any act or omission of OWNER, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors, predecessors in interest, successors, assigns and independent contractors for any violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to industrial hygiene or to environmental conditions on, under or about the Property, including, but not limited to, soil and groundwater conditions, and OWNER shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys’ fees, CITY, its officers, agents and employees in any action based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission. CITY may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such action.

8.3 Reservation of Rights. With respect to Section 8.1 and Section 8.2 herein, CITY reserves, the right to either (1) approve the attorney(s) that the indemnifying party selects, hires or otherwise engages to defend the indemnified party hereunder, which approval sh all not be unreasonably withheld, or (2) conduct its own defense; provided, however, that the indemnifying party shall reimburse the indemnified party forthwith for any and all reasonable expenses incurred for such defense, including attorneys ’ fees, upon billing and accounting therefor.
952

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 23 of 32

8.4 Challenge to Existing Land Use Approvals . By accepting the benefits of this Agreement, OWNER, on behalf of itself and its successors in interest, hereby expressly agrees and covenants not to sue or otherwise challenge any land use approval affecting the Property and in effect as of the Effective Date.

Such agreement and covenant includes, without limitation, the covenant against any direct suit by OWNER or its successor in interest, or any participation, encouragement or involvement whatsoever that is adverse to CITY by OWNER or its successor in interest, other than as part of required response to lawful orders of a court or other body of competent jurisdiction. OWNER hereby expressly waives, on behalf of itself and its successors in interest, any claim or challenge to any land use approval affecting the Property and in effect as of the Effective Date. In the event of any breach of the covenant or waiver contained herein, CITY shall, in addition to any other remedies provided for at law or in equity, be entitled to:
(a) impose and recover (at any time, including after sale to a member of the public or other ultimate user) from the party breaching such covenant or waiver, the full amount of Development Impact Fees that the breaching party would have been required to pay in the absence of this Development Agreement; and
(b) impose any subsequently adopted land use regulation on those land use approvals for which the breaching party had not, as of the time of such breach, obtained a building permit.

OWNER hereby acknowledges that it has read and is familiar with the provisions of California Civil Code Section 1542, which is set forth below:
“A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE

CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR

AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR

HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.”
By initialing below, OWNER hereby waives the provisions of Section 1542 in connection with the matters that are the subject of the foregoing waivers and releases. _______________
Owner’s Initials

8.5 Survival. The provisions of Sections 8.1 through 8.4, inclusive, shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

9. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION.

The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit OWNER, in any manner, at OWNER's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financin g with respect to the Property. CITY acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with OWNER and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification.

CITY will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement.

Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
953

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 24 of 32

(a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law.
(b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, which Mortgagee, has submitted a request in writing to the CITY in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from CITY of any default by OWNER in the performance of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement. (c) If CITY timely receives a request from a mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to OWNER under the terms of this Agreement, CITY shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to OWNER. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such party under this Agreement.
(d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of OWNER's obligations or other affirmative covenants of OWNER hereunder, or to guarantee such performance; provided, however, that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by OWNER is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by CITY, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to CITY's performance hereunder, and further provided that any sale, transfer or assignment by any Mortgagee in possession shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.5 of this Agreement.

10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

10.1 Recordation of Agreement . This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation thereof shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder by the Clerk of the City Council within ten (10) days after the City enters into the Agreement, in accordance with Section 65868.5 of the Government Code. If the parties to this Agreement or their successors in interest amend or cancel this Agreement, or if the CITY terminates or modifies this Agreement as provided herein for failure of the OWNER to comply in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City Clerk shall have notice of such action recorded with the Orange County Recorder.

10.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and con tains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements that are not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement.

10.3 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of thi s Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agr eement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provision of the Project Benefits & Commitments set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, including the payment of the Development Impact Fees set forth therein, are essential elements of this Agreement and CITY would not have entered into this Agreement but for such provisions, and therefore in the event any such provision is determined to be invalid, void or unenforceable, this entire Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever. 954

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 25 of 32

10.4 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof.

10.5 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement.

10.6 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural.

10.7 Joint and Several Obligations. If at any time during the Term of this Agreement the Property is owned, in whole or in part, by more than one OWNER, all obligations of such OWNERS under this Agreement shall be joint and several, and the default of any such OWNER shall be the default of all such OWNERS. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no OWNER of a single lot that has been finally subdivided and sold to such OWNER as a member of the general public or ot herwise as an ultimate user shall have any obligation under this Agreement except as expressly provided for herein.

10.8 Time of Essence . Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element.

10.9 Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter.

10.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries . This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement.

10.11 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond the party's control, (including the party's employment force), government regulations, court actions and pending litigation (such as lawsuits seeking to overturn the project approvals, restraining orders or injunctions), or other causes beyond the party's control. If any such events shall occur, the Term of this Agreement and the time for performance by either party of any of its obl igations hereunder may be extended by the written agreement of the parties for the period of time that such events prevented such performance, provided that the Term of this Agreement shall not be extended under any circumstances for more than five (5) years.

10.12 Mutual Covenants . The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent p erformance by the party benefit ed thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefited party.

10.13 Successors in Interest . The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property; (b) runs with 955

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 26 of 32

the Property and each portion thereof; and (c) is binding upon each party and each successor in interest during ownership of the Property or any portion thereof.

10.14 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had executed the same instrument.

10.15 Jurisdiction and Venue . Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by a party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, c onstruing or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for the filing, removal or change of venue to any other court.

10.16 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the development of the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between CITY and OWNER is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such property.

10.17 Further Actions and Instruments . Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon the r equest of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

10.18 Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or restrict the exercise by CITY of its power of eminent domain.

10.19 Agent for Service of Process . In the event OWNER is not a resident of the State of California or it is an association, partnership or joint venture without a member, partner or joint venturer resident of the State of California, or it is a foreign corporation, then in any such event, OWNER shall file with the Director and the City Clerk, upon its execution of this Agreement, a designation of a natural person residing in the State of California, giving his or her name, residence and business addresses, as its agent for the purpose of service of process in any court action arising out of or based upon this Agreement, and the delivery to such agent of a copy of any process in any such action shall constitute valid service upon OWNER. If for any reason service o f such process upon such agent is not feasible, then in such event OWNER may be personally served with such process and such service shall constitute valid service upon OWNER. OWNER is amenable to the process so served, submits to the jurisdiction of the Court so obtained and waives any and all objections and protests thereto.

10.20 Authority to Execute . The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of OWNER warrants and represents that he or she/they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his or her/their corporation, partnership or business entity and warrants and represents that he or she/they has/have the authority to bind OWNER to the performance of its obligations hereunder.

956

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 27 of 32

[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

957

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 28 of 32

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Development Agreement on the last day and year set forth below.

OWNER

Rose Equities, as authorized signatory for Costa
Mesa Sunflower, LLC

____________________________________ Dated: _______________ Rose Equities
By: Brent Stoll, Partner

CITY

CITY OF COSTA MESA, a California municipal
corporation

_________________________________ Dated: _______________ John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST

_________________________________ Dated: _______________ Brenda Green, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM

_________________________________ Dated: _______________ Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney

958

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 29 of 32

EXHIBIT “A”

(Legal Description of the Property)

Parcel 1, in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on map filed in Book 73, Pages 11 and 12 of Parcels Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. APN: 13-031-62 and 139-651-14
959

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 30 of 32

EXHIBIT “B”

(Map of the Property)

960

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 31 of 32

EXHIBIT “C”

(Development Plan)

General Plan Amendment No. 20-01
Specific Plan No. 2024-07
Zone Change No. 2024-06
Tract Map No. 19015
Master Plan No. 19-19
961

Ordinance No. 2024-05 Page 32 of 32

EXHIBIT “D”

(Development Impact Fees)

CITY OF COSTA MESA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Fee Type Fee Amount Time of Payment
Park Impact Fee $5,000 per unit Condominium Project: Prior to Final Tract Map approval, payment for the
difference in fees between the initial
$5,000.00 per unit park impact fee
and the fee in place at the time of
Map recordation for condominium
units
Apartment Project: shall be paid in
two installments with deferred fees
subject to a 3% interest rate as stated
below

Traffic Impact Fee $235 for additional trips
The project will generate a total of
6,800 additional vehicle trips
Development Fees shall be paid in
two installments with deferred fees
subject to a 3% interest rate from the
Effective Date. The first payment
shall be received with the issuance of
the first building permit (Year 1), the
second and final payment received by
no later than the earlier of either five
years from the date of the first
issuance building permit
(“Construction Date”) or final
inspection approval for the project’s
last residential unit.

Open Space and Public
Park Impact Fee (Measure
Z)
$1.50 per SF per City Council
Resolution 17-19
Fire Protection System
Development Impact Fee
Equivalent to North Costa Mesa
Specific Plan ($0.28 per square
foot of new development and
$469.35 per new residential unit)
or fee in effect as a result of a new
citywide fire fee study
Drainage Fees Fees effective at the time of
building permit issuance (currently
$5,026.00 per acre)

OTHER AGENCY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Newport-Mesa Unified
School District
Fees effective at the time of building
permit issuance (currently 1.84 per SF)
Payment of non-city fees are
required prior to building
permit issuance or as
otherwise required by the
implementing agency.

Costa Mesa Sanitary
District
Plan check and permit fees effective at
the time of building permit issuance
Mesa Water District Plan check and permit fees effective at the time of building permit issuance
San Joaquin Hills
Transportation
Corridor Fees
Fees effective at the time of building
permit issuance (currently $2,664 for
multi-family)

962

Ordinance No. 2024-06 Page 1 of 7

ORDINANCE NO. 2024-06

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING REZONE 20 -01 TO REZONE A 15.23 -ACRE SITE TO PLANNED

DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL-HIGH DENSITY (PDR-HD) AND ESTABLISH A SITE- SPECIFIC DENSITY OF 80 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND MAXIMUM 1,057 UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1683 SUNFLOWER AVENUE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA , CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, an application was filed by Brent Stoll of Rose Equities, representing the property owners, requesting approval of certain land use entitlements; WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearing s were held by the Planning Commission on April 13, and May 11, 2020 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal;
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 11, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended that City Cou ncil approve the project by a 6 -1 vote (Commissioner Zich voting No);
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on June 15, 2021 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; WHEREAS, on June 15, 2021, the City Council approved the first reading by a 5- 1 vote (Councilmember Harper voting no and Councilmember Harlan recusing); WHEREAS, the City Council took the following actions by separate resolution;

1. CERTIFY the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2019050014) including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program , Finding of Facts and Statement of Overriding Consideration;

2. APPROVE General Plan Amendment GP-20-01 to change the land use designation of the project site from Industrial Park (IP) to High Density Residential (HDR) with a site -specific density of 80 du/acre and maximum of 1,057 units;

3. APPROVE Master Plan PA-19-19 for a mi xed use development with 1,057 residential units, 6 ,000 square feet of commercial space and 25,000 square feet of office development;
ATTACHMENT 2

963
Ordinance No. 2024-06 Page 2 of 7

4. APPROVE Tentative Tract Map No. 19105 (T -19-01) for future subdivision of the subject property including establishing the right to a future airspace subdivision for condominium purposes;

5. APPROVE Development Agreement DA-20-02 by adopting a separate ordinance; and,

6. APPROVE Specific Plan SP-20-01 by adopting a separate ordinance; WHEREAS, on July 20, 2021, the City Council approved the second reading by a 5-1 vote (Councilmember Harper voting no and Councilmember Harlan recusing); WHEREAS, on July 20, 2021, the proposed project required the approval by the electorate and the effect ive date of Ordinance 2021 -12 stated that the “Ordinance shall become effective following approval of the Project by the electorate at the regular municipal election or at a special election funded by the applicant”; WHEREAS, on November 8, 2022, “ Measure K” was passed by the Costa Mesa voters, amending Article 22, of the Costa Mesa Zoning Code, modifying regulations to allow for the development of housing in specific commercial and industrial areas while keeping residential neighborhoods intact and revita lizing commercial corridors without a vote by the electorate;
WHEREAS, the subject project is located at 1683 Sunflower Avenue which is located within the Measure K boundaries and no longer requires approval by the electorate;
WHEREAS, the applicant and property owner, Costa Mesa Sunflower , LLC, by their authorized agent Brent Stoll with Rose Equities, requested to amend the Ordinances to be consistent with Costa Mesa Zoning Code, Article 22, eliminating the electoral vote requirement;
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission, after taking public testimony, recommended that the City Council approve the requested amendment;
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on June 4, 2024, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; WHEREAS, on June 4, 2024, the City Council approved the first reading by a 6-0- 1 vote (Councilmember Harper absent) gave first reading to the Ordinance; 964
Ordinance No. 2024-06 Page 3 of 7

WHEREAS, on June 18, 2024, the City Council voted X -X to adopt Ordinance 2024-06;
WHEREAS, t he previously approved general plan amendment re-designated the land use from Industrial Park to High Density Residential in order to allow residential use with a site-specific density and building height. To ensure consistency between the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map, the property is rezoned from Industrial Park (MP) to Planned Development Residential – High Density (PDR-HD); WHEREAS, PDR-HD districts are intended for multi-family residential developments and complementary non -residential uses within a planned development. As such, the proposed zoning district would allow a mix of residential and non-residential uses; WHEREAS, the project includes a specific plan adopted with a separate ordinance to allow site-specific development standards (density, building setbacks, open space, land use matrix, parking). The Specific Plan would act as the project’s zoning regulations. Future development on-site and off -site improvements would be required to comply with the Specific Plan development standards and design guidelines – thus, the rezone would be consistent with the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Specific Plan; WHEREAS, rezone is a legislative action subject to the discretionary approval of the final decision body, City Council. The One Metro West Specific Plan establishes the development’s land use p lan, development standards, regulations, design guidelines, infrastructure systems, and implementation strategies on which subsequent, project-related development activities would be founded. Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, subsequent project-specific architectural plans, detailed site plans, grading and building permits, and any other actions requiring either ministerial or discretionary approvals would be required to demonstrate consistency with the Specific Plan;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared by the City in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and certified by the City Council on May 4, 2021 by Resolution No. 2021-54;
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 the proposed amendments are in substantial conformance with the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the One Metro project ( State Clearing House No. 2019050014 ), including a 965
Ordinance No. 2024-06 Page 4 of 7

mitigation monitoring program and statement of overriding consideration s, which was certified by the City Council on May 4, 2021, and that no further environmental review under CEQA is required; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

Now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA , CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Rezone. The City of Costa Mesa Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows:

1. The proposed rezone to Planned Development Residential -High Density (PDR - HD) with a site-specific density of 80 dwelling units per acre and maximum 1,057 units consistent with the General Plan as amended by General Plan Amendment 20-02 and adopted by Resolution No. 2021-55.

2. There is hereby placed and included in the Planned Development Residential - High Density (PDR-HD) zoning district a 15.23-acre parcel, situated in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California.

3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 13 -22 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the Official Zoning Map of the City of Costa Mesa is hereby amended by the change of zone described in Subsections Number 1 and Number 2 above. A copy of the Official Zoning Map and Zoning Code is on file in the office of the Planning Division.

Section 2: Inconsistencies. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and or further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to affect the provisions of this ordinance.

Section 3: Severability. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses or applications of this ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provision, clause or application; and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable.
966
Ordinance No. 2024-06 Page 5 of 7

Section 4: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on the 31st day after adoption.

Section 5: Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________ 2024.

__________________________
John Stephens
Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa

ATTEST:

___________________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________
Kimberly Hall Barlow
City Attorney

967
Ordinance No. 2024-06 Page 6 of 7

EXHIBIT A

REZONE R-20-01

Amendment to the Zoning Map

Change the zoning district designation of the 15.23-acre site at 1683 Sunflower Avenue from Industrial Park (MP) to Planned Development Residential - High Density (PDR-HD)

968
Ordinance No. 2024-06 Page 7 of 7

EXHIBIT B
Amendment to Table 13-58
Update Table 13-58 to note the site-specific density for the One Metro West project (text changes shown in bold font below)

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD PDR-LD PDR-MD PDR-HD PDR-

NCM PDC PDI
Maximum Density
per section 13-59

MAXIMUM

DENSITY
CRITERIA.
(dwelling units per
acre)
8 12
20 Note: See North Costa
Mesa Specific Plan for
exceptions.

Note: The maximum
density for 125 East
Baker Street is 58
dwelling units per acre
(C0-13-02).

Note: The maximum
density for 2277 Harbor
Boulevard is 54
dwelling units per acre
(C0-14-02).

Note: The maximum
density for 1683
Sunflower Avenue is
80 dwelling units per
acre (R-20-01) and
maximum 1,057 units
35 20
Note: The maximum
density for 1901
Newport Boulevard is
40 dwelling units per
acre. See North Costa
Mesa Specific Plan for
exceptions. Note: No
residential
development is
permitted within the

23.4-acre project site
generally addressed
as 1375 Sunflower
Ave. and 3370 Harbor
Blvd.

969
Ordinance No. 2024-07 Page 1 of 5

ORDINANCE NO. 2024-07

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN 20-01 APPLYING ZONING STANDARDS TO A 15.23 -

ACRE PROPERTY REZONED TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL -HIGH DENSITY (PDR-HD) WITH A SITE-SPECIFIC DENSITY OF 80 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1683 SUNFLOWER AVENUE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA , CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, an application was filed by Brent Stoll of Rose Equities, representing the property owners, Costa Mesa Sunflower, LLC, requesting approval of certain land use entitlements;
WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearing s were held by the Planning Commission on April 13, 2020 and May 11, 2020 with all persons h aving the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal;
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 11, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that City Cou ncil approve the project by a 6 -1 vote (Commissioner Zich voting No);
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on June 15, 2021 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; WHEREAS, on June 15, 2021, the City Council approved the first reading by a 5- 1 vote (Councilmember Harper voting no and Councilmember Harlan recusing); WHEREAS, on July 20, 2021, the City Council approved the second reading by a 5-1 vote (Councilmember Harper voting no and Councilmember Harlan recusing); and WHEREAS, the City Council took or will take the following actions by separate resolution;

1. CERTIFY the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2019050014) including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;

2. APPROVE General Plan Amendment GP-20-01 to change the land use designation of the project site from Industrial Park (IP) to High Density Residential (HDR) with a site -specific density of 80 du/acre with maximum 1,057 units;
ATTACHMENT 3
970
Ordinance No. 2024-07 Page 2 of 5

3. APPROVE Master Plan PA-19-19 for a mixed -use development with 1,057 residential units, 6 ,000 square feet of commercial space and 25,000 square feet of office development;

4. APPROVE Tentative Tract Map No. 19105 (T-19-01) for future subdivision of the subject property including establishing the right to a future airspace subdivision for condominium purposes;

5. APPROVE Development Agreement DA-20-02 by introduction of a separate ordinance;

6. APPROVE Rezone R-20-01 by introduction of a separate ordinance; and

7. APPROVE Specific Plan 20-01 by introduction of a separate ordinance.

WHEREAS, on July 20, 2021, the proposed project required the approval by the electorate and the effective date of Ordinance 2021 -12 stated that the “Ordinance shall become effective following app roval of the Project by the electorate at the regular municipal election or at a special election funded by the applicant.” WHEREAS, on November 8, 2022, “ Measure K” was passed by the Costa Mesa voters, amending Article 22, of the Costa Mesa Zoning Code, modifying regulations to allow for the development of housing in specific commercial and industrial areas while keeping residential neighborhoods intact and revitalizing commercial corridors without a vote by the electorate.

WHEREAS, the subject project is located at 1683 Sunflower Avenue which is located within the Measure K boundaries and no longer requires approval by the electorate.

WHEREAS, the then-applicant and property owner , International Asset Management Holding Group, LLC, predecessor in interest to Costa Mesa Sunflower, LLC, by their authorized agent Brent Stoll with Rose Equities , requested to amend the Ordinances to be consistent with Costa Mesa Zoning Code, Article 22, eliminating the electoral vote requirement;
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission, after taking public testimony, recommended that the City Council approve the requested amendment;
971
Ordinance No. 2024-07 Page 3 of 5

WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on June 4, 2024, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; WHEREAS, on June 4, 2024, the City Council approved the first reading by a 6-0- 1 vote (Councilmember Harper absent) gave first reading to the Ordinance; WHEREAS, on June 18, 2024, the City Council voted X -X to adopt Ordinance 2024-07;
WHEREAS, t he previously approved general plan amendment re-designated the land use from Industrial Park to High Density Residential in order to allow residential use with a site-specific density and building height. To ensure consistency between the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map, the property is rezoned from Industrial Park (MP) to Planned Development Residential – High Density (PDR-HD); WHEREAS, PDR-HD districts are intended for multi-family residential developments and complementary non -residential uses within a planned development. As such, the proposed zoning district would allow a mix of residential and non-residential uses; WHEREAS, the project includes a specific plan to allow site -specific development standards (e.g., density, building setbacks, open space, land use matrix, parking); WHEREAS, the Specific Plan would act as the project’s zoning regulations. Future development on-site and off -site improvements would be required to comply with the Specific Plan development standards and design guidelines – thus, the rezone would be consistent with the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Specific Plan; WHEREAS, adoption of a Specific Plan is considered a legislative action subject to the discretionary approval of the City Council;
WHEREAS, the One Metro West Specific Plan establishes the development’s land use plan, development standards, zoning regulations and permitted uses, design guidelines, infrastructure systems, and implementation strategies on which subsequent, project-related development activities would be founded. Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, subsequent project-specific architectural plans, detailed site plans, grading and building permits, and any other actions requiring either ministerial or discretionary approvals would be required to demonstrate consistency with the Specific Plan;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared by the City in accordance with the 972
Ordinance No. 2024-07 Page 4 of 5

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and certified by the City Council on May 4, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-54;

WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 the proposed amendments are in substantial conformance with the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the One Metro project ( State Clearing House No. 2019050014 ), including a mitigation monitoring program and statement of overriding consideration s, which was certified by the City Council on May 4, 2021, and that no further environmental review under CEQA is required; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

Now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA , CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Specific Plan. The City of Costa Mesa by an ordinance adopts Specific Plan 20-01 for the project area that would be applied as the Zoning document for the area. The One Metro West Specific Plan establishes the development’s land use plan, development standards, zoning regulations and permitted uses, design guidelines, infrastructure systems, and implementation strategies on which subsequent, project-related development activities would be founded.

Section 2: Inconsistencies. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and or further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to affect the provisions of this ordinance.

Section 3: Severability. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses or applications of this ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provision, clause or application; and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable.

Section 4: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on the 31st day after adoption. 973
Ordinance No. 2024-07 Page 5 of 5

Section 5: Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________ 2024.

__________________________
John Stephens
Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa

ATTEST:

___________________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________
Kimberly Hall Barlow
City Attorney

974