Agenda packet — Costa Mesa City Council, August 5, 2025 (part 1 of 5)

CITY OF COSTA MESA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda
City Council Chambers
77 Fair Drive
6:00 PMTuesday, August 5, 2025
*Note: All agency memberships are reflected in the title "Council Member" 4:00 P.M. Closed Session
Council Member Buley will be attending the meeting via Zoom Webinar from:
556 Maquam Shore rd, st.

Albans Vermont
The City Council meetings are presented in a hybrid format, both in-person at City Hall and as a courtesy virtually via Zoom Webinar. If the Zoom feature is having technical difficulties or experiencing any other critical issues, and unless required by the Brown Act, the meeting will continue in person.

TRANSLATION SERVICES AVAILABLE / SERVICIOS DE TRADUCCIÓN DISPONIBLE Please contact the City Clerk at (714) 754-5225 to request language interpreting services for City meetings. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make arrangements.

Favor de comunicarse con la Secretaria Municipal al (714) 754-5225 para solicitar servicios de interpretación de idioma para las juntas de la Ciudad. Se pide notificación por lo mínimo 48 horas de anticipación, esto permite que la Ciudad haga los arreglos necesarios.

Members of the public can view the City Council meetings live on COSTA MESA TV (SPECTRUM CHANNEL 3 AND AT&T U-VERSE CHANNEL 99) or
http://costamesa.granicus.com/player/camera/2?publish_id=10&redirect=true and online at youtube.com/costamesatv.

Closed Captioning is available via the Zoom option in English and Spanish.

Page 1 of 16 ends

1 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda August 5, 2025
Members of the public are welcome to speak during the meeting when the Mayor opens the floor for public comment. There is no need to register in advance or complete a comment card. When it's time to comment, line up at one of the two podiums in the room and wait for your turn. Each speaker will have up to 3 minutes (or as directed) to address the City Council.

To maintain a respectful and orderly atmosphere during the meeting, attendees shall refrain from using horns or amplified speakers. Signs and props may be brought into the Chamber, provided they do not hinder the visibility of other attendees. The possession of poles, sticks, or stakes is strictly prohibited.

All attendees must remain seated while in the chamber until instructed by the Presiding Officer to approach and line up for public comment. To ensure safety and maintain order during the proceedings, standing or congregating in the aisles or foyer is strictly prohibited.

Further information regarding the City's regulations on addressing the City Council and expected conduct during meetings are available at the following links.

Title 2: Administration
§ 2-61: Conduct while addressing the council.
https://ecode360.com/42609578
Title 2: Administration
§ 2-64: Disorderliness by members of the audience.
https://ecode360.com/42609598
As a courtesy, the public may participate via the Zoom option.

Zoom Webinar: (For both 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. meetings) Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89982812676?pwd=oX6BGzSScr92QUVyg1m0SN8HSTnoqj.1 Or sign into Zoom.com and “Join a Meeting”
Enter Webinar ID: 899 8281 2676/ Password: 772583
• If Zoom is not already installed on your computer, click “Download & Run Zoom” on the launch page and press “Run” when prompted by your browser. If Zoom has previously been installed on your computer, please allow a few moments for the application to launch automatically.
• Select “Join Audio via Computer.”
• The virtual conference room will open. If you receive a message reading, “Please wait for the host to start this meeting,” simply remain in the room until the meeting begins.
• During the Public Comment Period, use the “raise hand” feature located in the participants’ window and wait for city staff to announce your name and unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

Page 2 of 16 ends

2 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda August 5, 2025
Participate via telephone: (For both 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. meetings) Call: 1 669 900 6833 Enter Webinar ID: 899 8281 2676/ Password: 772583 During the Public Comment Period, press *9 to add yourself to the queue and wait for city staff to announce your name/phone number and press *6 to unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

Note, if you have installed a zoom update, please restart your computer before participating in the meeting.

Additionally, members of the public who wish to make a written comment on a specific agenda item, may submit a written comment via email to the City Clerk at [email protected].

Any written communications, photos, or other materials for copying and distribution to the City Council that are 10 pages or less, can be e-mailed to [email protected], submitted to the City Clerk’s Office on a flash drive, or mailed to the City Clerk’s Office. Kindly submit materials to the City Clerk AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE, BUT NO LATER THAN 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.

Comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be provided to the City Council, made available to the public, and will be part of the meeting record.

Please know that it is important for the City to allow public participation at this meeting. If you are unable to participate in the meeting via the processes set forth above, please contact the City Clerk at (714) 754-5225 or [email protected] and staff will attempt to accommodate you. While the City does not expect there to be any changes to the above process for participating in this meeting, if there is a change, the City will post the information as soon as possible to the City’s website.

Note that records submitted by the public will be posted online, including any personal contact information. Records submitted including lettes, emails, pictures, PowerPoints, and videos submitted for display at a public meeting must be previously reviewed by staff to verify appropriateness for general audiences. This includes items submitted for the overhead screen during the meeting. Items submitted for the overhead screen should be 1 page and provided to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. No links to YouTube videos or other streaming services will be accepted, a direct video file will need to be emailed to staff prior to each meeting in order to minimize complications and to play the video without delay. The video must be one of the following formats, .mp4, .mov or .wmv. Only one file may be included per speaker for public comments, for both videos and pictures. Please e-mail to the City Clerk at [email protected] NO LATER THAN 12:00 Noon on the date of the meeting. If you do not receive confirmation from the city prior to the meeting, please call the City Clerks office at 714-754-5225.

Page 3 of 16 ends

3 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda August 5, 2025
Note regarding agenda-related documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council agenda packet (GC §54957.5): Any related documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council Agenda Packets will be made available for public inspection. Such documents will be posted on the city’s website and will be available at the City Clerk's office, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626.

All cell phones and other electronic devices are to be turned off or set to vibrate. Members of the audience are requested to step outside the Council Chambers to conduct a phone conversation.

Free Wi-Fi is available in the Council Chambers during the meetings. The network username available is: CM_Council. The password is: cmcouncil1953.

As a LEED Gold Certified City, Costa Mesa is fully committed to environmental sustainability.

A minimum number of hard copies of the agenda will be available in the Council Chambers.

For your convenience, a binder of the entire agenda packet will be at the table in the foyer of the Council Chambers for viewing. Agendas and reports can be viewed on the City website at https://costamesa.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx. Las agendas y los informes se pueden ver en español en el sitio web de la Ciudad en
https://www.costamesaca.gov/trending/current-agendas/spanish-city-council-agendas.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Assistive Listening headphones are available and can be checked out from the City Clerk. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (714) 754-5225. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].

En conformidad con la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades (ADA), aparatos de asistencia están disponibles y podrán ser prestados notificando a la Secretaria Municipal. Si necesita asistencia especial para participar en esta junta, comuníquese con la oficina de la Secretaria Municipal al (714) 754-5225. Se pide dar notificación a la Ciudad por lo mínimo 48 horas de anticipación para garantizar accesibilidad razonable a la junta. [28 CFR

35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].

Page 4 of 16 ends

4 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda August 5, 2025
CLOSED SESSION - 4:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENTS Members of the public are welcome to address the City Council only on those items on the Closed Session agenda. Each member of the public will be given a total of three minutes to speak on all items on the Closed Session agenda.

CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957(b)(1) Title: City Manager

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: RDK Group Holdings, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30 2025 0149581 CU WM WJC

3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio; 1963 Wallace Ave.

Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30 2020 01133479

4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: City of Costa Mesa; People of State of Cal. v. D'Alessio Investments LLC, et al.
440 Fair Dr. and 1779 Newport Blvd.

Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30 2020 01170520

5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: D'Alessio Investments LLC v. City of Costa Mesa Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30 2020 01132646

6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: D’Alessio v. City of Costa Mesa, et al.,
United States District Court, Central District of CA, Case No. 8:25 cv 00679 DOC DFM

Page 5 of 16 ends

5 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda August 5, 2025

7. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: Farrell Harrison v. City of Costa Mesa, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2025-01495293-CU-WM-CJC

Page 6 of 16 ends

6 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda August 5, 2025

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY AUGUST 5, 2025 – 6:00 P.M.

JOHN STEPHENS
Mayor

MANUEL CHAVEZ ANDREA MARR Mayor Pro Tem - District 4 Council Member - District 3

ARLIS REYNOLDS LOREN GAMEROS Council Member - District 5 Council Member - District 2

JEFF PETTIS MIKE BULEY Council Member - District 6 Council Member - District 1

KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW CECILIA GALLARDO-DALY City Attorney Interim City Manager

CALL TO ORDER

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION
[Per Council Policy 000-12, these presentations are made by community volunteers stating their own views. The City Council disclaims any intent to endorse or sponsor the views of any speaker.]

ROLL CALL

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
PRESENTATIONS: NONE.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Comments on Presentations and Consent Calendar items may also be heard at this time. Comments are limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

Page 7 of 16 ends

7 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda August 5, 2025

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS Each council member is limited to 3 minutes. Additional comments will be heard at the end of the meeting.

1. Council Member Reynolds

2. Council Member Pettis

3. Council Member Buley

4. Council Member Gameros

5. Council Member Marr

6. Mayor Pro Tem Chavez

7. Mayor Stephens
REPORT – CITY MANAGER
REPORT – CITY ATTORNEY

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City Council, staff, or the public request specific items to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ALL

ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
25-392
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council and Housing Authority approve the reading by title only and waive further reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

2. READING FOLDER 25-393
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council receive and file Claims received by the City Clerk and authorize staff to reject any and all Claims: Carolyn Hanson, Tommy Hart, Marcos Cabrera.

Page 8 of 16 ends

8 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda August 5, 2025

3. ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION 25-380
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve Warrant Resolution No. 2738.

1. Summary Check Registration 6-26-2025

2. Summary Check Registration 7-2-2025

3. Summary Check Registration 7-11-2025

4. Summary Check Registration 7-17-2025
Attachments:

4. MINUTES 25-391
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 15, 2025.

1. 07-15-2025 Draft MinutesAttachments:

5. RESPONSE TO ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT- LONG

TERM SOLUTIONS TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS
25-382
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council approve the draft letter to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court (Attachment 1) with responses to Findings 1, 2, 3, and 12, and Recommendations 1, 2, and 9 in the Orange County Grand Jury Report titled, “Long Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals.”

1. 2025 OC Grand Jury Response to Short Term Rentals Draft

2. OC Grand Jury Report Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
Attachments:

Page 9 of 16 ends

9 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda August 5, 2025

6. ACCEPTANCE AND ALLOCATION OF CANNABIS TAX FUND GRANT

PROGRAM TO ENHANCE TRAFFIC SAFETY
25-378
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve the proposed Resolution No. 2025-XX, which ratifies and accepts a grant award from the State of California - California Highway Patrol (CHP) for the Cannabis Tax Fund Program (CTFGP) and authorize the Interim City Manager or designee to execute the grant documents, including the Grant Agreement, and accept and administer the grant.

2. Approve revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $225,472 respectively, for the FY 2025-26 CHP CTFGP Grant.

1. FY25-26 CTFGP Grant Agreement - Costa Mesa PD.pdf

2. CM-PD Resolution No. 25-XX Cannabis Tax Fund Grant
Program 07102025
Attachments:

7. ACCEPTANCE OF THE ADAMS AVENUE AND PINECREEK DRIVE
INTERSECTION PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 23-11, FEDERAL
PROJECT NO. CML-5312(104)
25-387
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Accept the work performed by Gentry General Engineering, Inc ., 320 West Tropica Rancho Road, Colton, California 92324, for the Adams Avenue and Pinecreek Drive Intersection Project, City Project No. 23-11, Federal Project No. CML-5312( 104), and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.

2. Authorize the Interim City Manager to release the retention monies thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion filing date; release the Labor and Material Bond seven (7) months after the filing date; and release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after the filing date.

1. Cost Analysis

2. Photos
Attachments:

Page 10 of 16 ends

10 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda August 5, 2025

8. RESOLUTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ALONG NEWPORT BOULEVARD (SR- 55) IN THE CITY OF COSTA
MESA
25-395
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution ( 2025-xx) requesting the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to implement safety improvements along Newport Boulevard (State Route (SR) - 55) in the City of Costa Mesa.

1. Draft ResolutionAttachments:

9. AUTHORIZE THE USE OF OMNIA PARTNERS PUBLIC SECTOR

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH GAME TIME

PLAYGROUND SOLUTIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF

PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR BRENTWOOD PARK
25-383
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Authorize the use of OMNIA Partners, Public Sector National Cooperative Agreement No. 2017001134 with Game Time Playground Solutions for the purchase of playground equipment for Brentwood Park in the amount of $314,399.

2. Authorize the Interim City Manager and City Clerk to execute any agreements for the purchase of the playground equipment.

1. Proposed Conceptual Design

2. Playground Equipment Quote
Attachments:

AT THIS TIME COUNCIL WILL ADDRESS ANY ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT

CALENDAR
------------------------------END OF CONSENT CALENDAR-------------------------------

Page 11 of 16 ends

11 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda August 5, 2025
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Pursuant to Resolution No. 05-55, Public Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m.)

1. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2024060115),

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONE, SPECIFIC PLAN

AMENDMENT, MASTER PLAN, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP,

DENSITY BONUS, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR HIVE
LIVE, A THREE-PHASED, 1,050-UNIT, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH 3,692-SQUARE-FOOT RETAIL COMPONENT AT 3333 SUSAN
STREET
25-398
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council continue the open public hearing to the September 2, 2025, City Council meeting.

1. Continuation RequestAttachments:

Page 12 of 16 ends

12 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda August 5, 2025

2. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT (PGPA- 24-0002), REZONE, DESIGN REVIEW,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19334, AND DENSITY BONUS
AGREEMENT, FOR A 142-UNIT, OWNERSHIP RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT AT 3150 BEAR STREET (MERITAGE HOMES)
25-377
RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Commission recommends the City Council:

1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 2) to approve the General Plan Amendment, Design Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus, and

3. Give first reading to the Ordinance for the Rezone (Attachment 3).

Agenda Report
Exhibit A to Attachment 1 - Draft ISMND
Exhibit B to Attachment 1 - Final ISMND

2. Draft Resolution (Project)
Exhibit B to Attachment 2 - Engineering Conditions of Approval Exhibit C to Attachment 2 - Plans
Exhibit D to Attachment 2 - Tentative Tract Map

3. Draft Ordinance (Rezone)

4. Applicant Letter

5. Density Bonus Letter

6. Vicinity and Zoning Map

7. Site Photos

8. Fiscal Analysis

9. Trip Generation Memo

10. Arborist Report

11. Draft CC&Rs

12. Planning Commission Public Comments

13. Planning Commission Resolution
Attachments:

Page 13 of 16 ends

13 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda August 5, 2025
OLD BUSINESS:

1. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE

APPROVING A REZONE TO APPLY THE RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVE

OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING DESIGNATION TO THE PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT 220, 222, 234, AND 236 VICTORIA STREET
(“VICTORIA PLACE”)
25-374
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council give second reading to and adopt the following for the properties located at 220, 222, 234, and 236 Victoria Street:

Ordinance No. 2025-04 to approve rezone to apply the Residential Incentive Overlay District zoning designation to the project site.

Agenda Report

1. Draft Ordinance (Rezone)
Attachments:

NEW BUSINESS:

1. RESOLUTIONS AFFIRMING THE CITY ’S CORE VALUES AND
SUPPORT FOR SENATE BILL 805, NO VIGILANTES ACT
25-396
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council consideration of the following:

1. Adoption of Proposed Resolution No. 2025-XX affirming the City ’s Core Values.

2. Adoption of Proposed Resolution No. 2025-XX supporting California Senate Bill 805 (Perez), “No Vigilantes Act.”

3. Approval of the proposed Letter of Support for SB 805, the “No Vigilantes Act.”

1. Resolution Affirming the City's Core Values and Support for Senate Bill 805

2. SB 805 (Perez) Resolution in Support

3. SB 805 (Pérez) Letter of Support
Attachments:

Page 14 of 16 ends

14 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda August 5, 2025

2. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A NEW ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) SYSTEM.
25-354
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve and authorize the Master Services Agreement and Statement of Work, to Denovo Ventures, LLC, for Oracle ERP implementation services for $2.9 million, for a five-year term, effective August 5, 2025 - August 4, 2030; a Managed Services Service Order for a Managed Services Post Go-Live for $0.2 million per term, with an additional term; if needed.

2. Approve and authorize the Ordering Document with Denovo Ventures, LLC for Oracle Cloud ERP subscription licensing, $285,000 annually per year, for $1.4 million, for a five-year term, effective August 5, 2025 - August 4, 2030, with option two (2) one-year renewals.

3. Approve and authorize the Cloud Services Agreement with Oracle America, Inc.

4. Authorize a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $310,000 for unforeseen costs related to the project.

5. Authorize the Interim City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the PSA and within budget limits any future amendments to the agreement.

1. City of Costa Mesa CA - Denovo MSA

2. City of Costa Mesa - Ordering Document

3. City of Costa Mesa - Statement of Work

4. City of Costa Mesa Managed Services Order

5. Oracle Cloud Services Agreement

6. City of Costa Mesa RFP ERP

7. ERP Phase Breakdown
Attachments:

Page 15 of 16 ends

15 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda August 5, 2025

3. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ENDEMIC
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC. FOR THE FAIRVIEW PARK MESA
RESTORATION PROJECT AND ADDENDUM TO THE 1997 INITIAL

STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR FAIRVIEW
PARK
25-135
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve the Addendum (Attachment 2) to the 1997 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for Fairview Park to address new information regarding biological resources pertinent to the project.

2. Award a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Endemic Environmental Services Inc ., 110 E Wilshire Avenue, Suite 305, Fullerton, CA 92832, for a term of 7 years for professional habitat restoration and monitoring services for the Fairview Park Mesa Restoration Project in an amount not-to-exceed $1,311,062.

3. Authorize a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $131,106 for any unforeseen costs that may arise.

4. Authorize the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement and future amendments to the agreement within City Council-authorized limits.

1. Mesa Restoration Project Location Map

2. Fairview Park Mesa Restoration
Addendum-Revised-2025-06-04

3. PSA Endemic Environmental Inc Mesa Restoration

4. Bid Results
Attachments:

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL /BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND

SUGGESTIONS

ADJOURNMENT

Page 16 of 16 ends

16 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-392 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
TITLE:

PROCEDURAL WAIVER: WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND

RESOLUTIONS
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council and Housing Authority approve the reading by title only and waive further reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

Page 1 of 1 ends

17 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-393 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
TITLE:

READING FOLDER
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office/City Clerk’s Division RECOMMENDATION:

City Council receive and file Claims received by the City Clerk and authorize staff to reject any and all Claims: Carolyn Hanson, Tommy Hart, Marcos Cabrera.

Page 1 of 1 ends

18 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-380 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
TITLE:

ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION
DEPARTMENT: FINANCE DEPARTMENT
PRESENTED BY: CAROL MOLINA, FINANCE DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: CAROL MOLINA, FINANCE DIRECTOR AT (714) 754-5243 RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve Warrant Resolution No. 2738.

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with Section 37202 of the California Government Code, the Director of Finance or their designated representative hereby certify to the accuracy of the following demands and to the availability of funds for payment thereof.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Funding Payroll Register No. 25-13 “A” Off Cycle for -$948.43 and 25-14 On Cycle for $3,914,312.49, and City operating expenses for $10,196,730.27.

Page 1 of 1 ends

19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-391 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
TITLE:

MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: City Manger’s Office/City Clerk’s Division
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 15, 2025.

Page 1 of 1 ends

144
Minutes – Regular Meeting July 15, 2025 Page 1 of 13

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
JULY 15, 2025 - 6:00 PM - MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER – The Closed Session meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 4:01 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros (arrived at 4:08 p.m.), Council Member Marr (arrived at 4:08 p.m.), Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds (arrived at 4:08 p.m.), Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. D’Alessio spoke on the closed session items.

CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: Jeanie O’Keefe v. City of Costa Mesa
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024-01443154-CU-PO-CJC

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio; 1963 Wallace Ave.

Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30 2020 01133479

3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: City of Costa Mesa; People of State of Cal. v. D'Alessio Investments LLC, et al.
440 Fair Dr. and 1779 Newport Blvd.

Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2020-01170520

4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: D'Alessio Investments LLC v. City of Costa Mesa Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2020-01132646
145
Minutes – Regular Meeting July 15, 2025 Page 2 of 13

5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: D’Alessio v. City of Costa Mesa, et al.,
United States District Court, Central District of CA, Case No. 8:25-cv-00679-DOC-DFM

6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: Farrell Harrison v. City of Costa Mesa, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2025-01495293-CU-WM-CJC

7. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957(b)(1) Title: City Manager
City Council recessed at 4:06 p.m. for Closed Session.

Closed Session adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER - The Regular City Council and Housing Authority meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 6:00 p.m.

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – A video was played of the National Anthem and the Mayor led the Pledge of Allegiance.

MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION – Led by Pastor Matthew Hambrick, Costa Mesa First United Methodist Church.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros (Left at 11:24 p.m.), Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT – No reportable action.

PRESENTATIONS:

The City Council recognized the Orange County Model Engineers' 40th Anniversary.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Flo Martin, Costa Mesa, spoke on residents living in fear and requested increased police presence to protect residents.

Speaker, voiced opposition to ICE’s tactics, requested a resolution prohibiting assistance to ICE, and advocated for federal immigration agents to identify themselves, refrain from wearing masks, and have body cameras turned on, and spoke in support of public comments via zoom. 146
Minutes – Regular Meeting July 15, 2025 Page 3 of 13
Dennis Okholm, Costa Mesa, voiced opposition to ICE’s tactics, requested a resolution prohibiting assistance to ICE, and advocated for federal immigration agents to identify themselves and refrain from wearing masks, and spoke on the movie “A Day Without a Mexican”.

Nancy Young, Costa Mesa, voiced opposition to ICE’s tactics, spoke on residents living in fear, and spoke against racial profiling.

Abril Turner, Costa Mesa, voiced opposition to ICE’s tactics, requested a resolution prohibiting assistance to ICE, and advocated for federal immigration agents to identify themselves and refrain from wearing masks.

Debra Marsteller, Costa Mesa, voiced opposition to ICE’s tactics, requested a resolution prohibiting assistance to ICE, and advocated for federal immigration agents to identify themselves and refrain from wearing masks.

Speaker, voiced opposition to ICE’s tactics, requested a resolution prohibiting assistance to ICE, and advocated for federal immigration agents to identify themselves and refrain from wearing masks.

Speaker, voiced opposition to ICE’s tactics.

Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa, congratulated the Orange County Model Engineers, spoke on the Brown Act, requested the Farrell Harrison complaint be referred to the District Attorney’s Office and the records be disclosed publicly, and requested a resolution prohibiting assistance to ICE, and advocated for federal immigration agents to identify themselves and refrain from wearing masks, and for the Police Department to be at all community activities.

Speaker, spoke on protecting the community from ICE’s tactics.

Speaker, spoke on protecting the community from ICE’s tactics, requested a resolution prohibiting assistance to ICE, and advocated for federal immigration agents to identify themselves and refrain from wearing masks.

Shawn Drexler, Costa Mesa, volunteers with the Orange County Rapid Response Network, spoke on protecting the community from ICE’s tactics, requested a resolution prohibiting assistance to ICE, and advocated for federal immigration agents to identify themselves and refrain from wearing masks, requested advanced notice of ICE activity in the community, and to implement a legal defense fund.

Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, spoke on allowing public speakers, good governance, and transparency, and spoke on ensuring the community remains the top priority.

Speaker, voiced opposition to ICE’s tactics.

Nicholas Taurus spoke on Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment, spoke on illegal immigration, and in support of ICE’s activities.
147
Minutes – Regular Meeting July 15, 2025 Page 4 of 13
City Council recessed into a break at 6:55 p.m.

City Council reconvened at 6:58 p.m.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, voiced opposition to ICE’s tactics, requested a resolution prohibiting assistance to ICE, and advocated for federal immigration agents to identify themselves and refrain from wearing masks.

Speaker, expressed support for ICE and voiced opposition to illegal immigration.

Nately Foley, Costa Mesa, voiced opposition to ICE’s tactics.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, voiced concerns regarding meeting decorum, ongoing parking challenges and permit parking, vehicles left stationary for extended periods, and persistent littering.

Speaker, voiced opposition to ICE’s tactics, spoke on residents living in fear and the struggle to make ends meet.

Patricia Calderilla, spoke on residents living in fear and voiced opposition to ICE’s tactics.

Speaker, spoke on incidents involving federal officers facing violence and voiced opposition to illegal immigration.

Speaker, spoke on racism, using mobile alerts to warn residents about immigration activity and spoke on residents living in fear.

Speaker, voiced opposition to ICE’s tactics and acknowledging when something is wrong.

Speaker, spoke on national overcrowding, rising housing costs, and foreign investment in real estate.

Dianne Russell, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition of hate and racism, spoke on residents living in fear, and is against masked agents in unmarked cars.

Speaker, voiced opposition to ICE’s tactics, spoke on spreading love, spoke on racial profiling, and spoke on residents living in fear.
148
Minutes – Regular Meeting July 15, 2025 Page 5 of 13
Evan Hernandez, former Vanguard University student, voiced opposition to ICE’s tactics, supports the Sanctuary State laws, spoke on caring for all community members, and is opposed to collaboration with federal immigration agents.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke on open immigration and against deportations.

Speaker, spoke on offering a conduit to help illegal immigrants to become legal, and spoke on banning fireworks in the city.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke on protecting all residents, and requiring federal immigration agents to identify themselves and refrain from wearing masks.

Speaker, spoke on supporting the Council to protect residents, and spoke on working together against hatred.

Speaker, spoke on federal government policies causing fear in the community.

Sue Lester, thanked the Costa Mesa Police Department for their presence, urged the City Council to actively support efforts that make residents feel heard and secure, requested the Farrell Harrison complaint be referred to the District Attorney’s office, spoke on adopting an ethics code, spoke on equal rights and equal treatment, and spoke on free speech.

Juana Trejo, thanked the people who voiced opposition to ICE’s tactics and thanked the community who contributed food and donations, thanked the Costa Mesa Police Department, spoke on the fight against racism, and requested the City Council to take action.

Roberto Herrera, Resilience Orange County, thanked previous speakers who are in support of peace, spoke on having a constructive dialogue on due process and human rights, spoke on evictions taking place in Costa Mesa and requested an emergency ordinance for an eviction moratorium, spoke on tracking evictions due to immigration actions, and requested additional rental assistance funds.

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS Council Member Marr thanked everyone who spoke and thanked the Police Department, addressed the importance of due process and the need to document unlawful detentions by ICE, spoke on contacting the Orange County Rapid Response Network or call 911, spoke on local businesses are not obligated to allow ICE agents without a warrant, requested to place on the August 5th agenda a resolution to support SB 805 and opposition to face masks, spoke on updating the City’s website on legal rights as well as information on food donations and financial assistance, recognized Redemption Church for their work to assist those who need help, congratulated Battalion Chief Steve Airy on his promotion, requested to agendize the possibility of increasing business license fees and placing on the 2026 ballot, requested the ethics and code of conduct be brought back as soon as possible, and spoke on providing opportunities for participation and requested to end meetings earlier. 149
Minutes – Regular Meeting July 15, 2025 Page 6 of 13
Council Member Reynolds spoke on the Caltrans agenda report and why she requested it to be moved to the August 5th agenda, highlighted on August 7th is an e-bike rodeo and workshop at Estancia High School, and on August 14 th is a workshop by the Fair Housing Foundation, spoke on the Costa Mesa community being kind and caring to neighbors, spoke on the Mexican Repatriation and read a portion from the California Apology, spoke on racial profiling, due process rights, spoke on inhumane treatment and deaths to those who have been detained, spoke in support of Council Member Marr’s requests, and providing legal aid, requested additional ways for people to participate in the meeting, and supports rental assistance and supports rental protections.

Council Member Pettis spoke on the July 3rd event, the Fairview Park plaque replacement, and spoke on the Arts Commission.

Council Member Buley thanked Police Chief LaPointe and Interim City Manager Gallardo-Daly for the opportunity to meet with law enforcement officers and the discussion on installing cameras on city owned buildings, spoke on meeting with Mr. Robbins on homeless issues, requested staff to research the licensing of sober living homes and the potential of paying the transient occupancy tax, and the importance of ensuring people are returned home once their insurance coverage at the sober living home ends, spoke on touring a Mesa Water facility, spoke on free speech and on a pathway to citizenship, finding a humane and compassionate way to address immigration, and expressed that SB 54 is counterintuitive and restricts communication.

Council Member Gameros spoke on free speech, spoke on people living in fear, stated that being an undocumented resident is not a crime, thanked Police Officer Dehuff for maintaining decorum, and spoke on the July 3rd event.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavez spoke on immigration, thanked the Costa Mesa Police Department for maintaining decorum, quoted “I’d rather die on my feet then die on my knees”, expressed pride in his Mexican American heritage and the experience of growing up in Costa Mesa when being Mexican wasn’t always accepted, spoke on people living in fear, and a decline of Latino participation, thanked everyone who spoke during public comments, spoke in support of discussing a resolution, spoke on SB 627, spoke on exploring options for legal aid and working with nonprofits, requested a Study Session for at fault evictions and for staff to start tracking the issue, and informed there is free lunch available for kids 18 and under at the library.

Mayor Stephens thanked everyone who spoke, thanked staff who helped with the July 3rd event, informed the Orange County Fair begins on July 18 th, and on July 31st is the motorhome madness event, on July 30th he will participate in a race with other city mayors, spoke on attending the Mayors conference and meeting with Mike Johnston the Mayor of Denver and how Denver can serve as a model for protecting the Latino community, spoke on the First Amendment, read a statement that he and Mayor Pro Tem Chavez released, and spoke on the history of immigration in the United States.

REPORT – CITY MANAGER – Ms. Gallardo-Daly spoke on resources available on the Costa Mesa Cares website, welcomed the eleven new members to the Police Department, and by the end of 2025 should be at maximum staffing levels in the Police Department, and spoke on the open house on Wednesday, July 30th on the citywide zoning efforts to implement Measure K, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Norma Hertzog Community Center. 150
Minutes – Regular Meeting July 15, 2025 Page 7 of 13
REPORT – CITY ATTORNEY – NONE.

City Council recessed into a break at 9:04 p.m.

City Council reconvened at 9:20 p.m.

CONSENT CALENDAR
MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Reynolds/Council Member Marr MOTION: Approve the Consent Calendar.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: Council Member Gameros recused himself on item 3 the Warrant Resolution due to his wife working at Priceless Pets, and Mayor Stephens recused himself on item 3 the Warrant Resolution due to campaign contributions received from Ware Disposal.

Motion carried: 7-0

1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND

RESOLUTIONS
ACTION:

City Council and Housing Authority approved the reading by title only and waived further reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

2. READING FOLDER
ACTION:

City Council received and filed Claims received by the City Clerk and authorized staff to reject any and all Claims: Theodore Luna, Jezzee Stewart.

3. ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION
Council Member Gameros recused himself on the item due to his wife working at Priceless Pets.

Mayor Stephens recused himself on the item due to campaign contributions received from Ware Disposal.

ACTION:

City Council approved Warrant Resolution No. 2737.
151
Minutes – Regular Meeting July 15, 2025 Page 8 of 13

4. MINUTES
ACTION:

City Council approved the minutes of the regular meetings of June 3, 2025 and June 17, 2025.

5. AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER AND

WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT
ACTION:

1. City Council awarded a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to WSP USA, Inc., 3560 Hyland Avenue, Suite 100, Costa Mesa, California for three (3) years with two (2) one-year renewal periods in an amount not to exceed $164,800 annually, for professional services to provide stormwater and water quality administration support for compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Program.

2. Authorized the Interim City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the PSA and any future amendments to the agreement.

6. FINAL MAP FOR TRACT NO. 19244 LOCATED AT 1711-1719 POMONA AVENUE,

COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
ACTION:

City Council approved the Final Map for Tract No. 19244 and authorized signing of the Map by the City Engineer and the City Clerk.

7. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH THE 32ND DISTRICT

AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION
ACTION:

1. City Council approved the 2025 agreement between the City and the 32nd District Agricultural Association for traffic management services for the Orange County Fair.

2. Approved the 2025 agreement between the City and the 32nd District Agricultural Association for traffic management services for all designated year-round events at the Orange County Fair and Event Center (“OCFEC”).

3. Authorized the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the agreements.

4. Authorized the City Manager, or their designee, to execute any amendments to the agreements, including but not limited to, amendments increasing the maximum compensation to be paid to the City.

AT THIS TIME COUNCIL WILL ADDRESS ANY ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT

CALENDAR
---------------------------------------END OF CONSENT CALENDAR---------------------------------------- 152
Minutes – Regular Meeting July 15, 2025 Page 9 of 13
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Pursuant to Resolution No. 05-55, Public Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m.)

1. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2024060115), GENERAL

PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONE, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, MASTER PLAN,

VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, DENSITY BONUS, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR HIVE LIVE, A THREE-PHASED, 1,050-UNIT, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH 3,692-SQUARE-FOOT RETAIL COMPONENT AT 3333

SUSAN STREET
Public Comments: None.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/Mayor Pro Tem Chavez
MOTION: Continue the item to the August 5th City Council meeting.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

City Council opened the public hearing, and continued the project to the August 5, 2025 City Council meeting.

2. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (PGPA-24-0001), REZONE, MASTER PLAN (PMAP-24-0002), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19351 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 40 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS LOCATED AT 220, 222, 234, AND 236 VICTORIA STREET (“VICTORIA PLACE”)
Ex-Parte Communications: Mayor Stephens spoke with Don Lamm (Consultant) and Fred Cornwall (Civil Engineer).

Presentation by Mr. Mendez, Senior Planner.

Mr. Lamm presented on behalf of the applicant.

Public Comments:

Marc Vukcevich spoke in opposition of the project.

Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition of the project.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/ Council Member Gameros
MOTION: Approve the project with the findings set forth in the staff report on pages 26 through 28.
153
Minutes – Regular Meeting July 15, 2025 Page 10 of 13
Council Member Gameros requested a friendly amendment concerning the frontage area – install a barrier wall, not rocks or bollards.

Mayor Stephens (1st) and the applicant agreed to the change.

Council Member Reynolds clarified the friendly amendment is a condition to create physical protection by separating the vehicle aisle from the sidewalk and park area.

Council Member Reynolds requested a friendly amendment to change the orientation of the buildings so the view from the street is not a sidewall.

Mayor Stephens (1 st), Council Member Gameros (2 nd), and the applicant agreed to the change.

Director Tai clarified that the motion encompasses all of the actions associated with the approval, specifically the CEQA action.

Mayor Stephens (1 st) confirmed all actions needed to approve the project are included in the motion. Council Member Gameros (2nd) confirmed.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/ Council Member Gameros
MOTION: Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment (PGPA-24-0001), first reading of an ordinance approving the rezone, Master Plan (PMAP-24-0002), and Tentative Tract Map No. 19351 for the Development of 40 residential units located at 220, 222, 234, and 236 Victoria Street (“Victoria Place”), include a condition to create physical protection to separate the vehicle aisle from the sidewalk and park area, and change the orientations of the buildings so the view from the street is not a sidewall.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

1. City Council approved the General Plan Amendment (PGPA-24-0001), Rezone, Master Plan (PMAP-24-0002), and Tentative Tract Map No. 19351 located at 220, 222, 234, and 236 Victoria Street (“Victoria Place”).

2. Included a condition to create physical protection by separating the vehicle aisle from the sidewalk and park area by installing a barrier wall.

3. Directed the applicant to change the orientations of the buildings so the view from the street is not a sidewall.
154
Minutes – Regular Meeting July 15, 2025 Page 11 of 13
OLD BUSINESS: NONE.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM - CABRILLO STREET BETWEEN

ORANGE AVENUE AND SANTA ANA AVENUE
Presentation by Paul Martin, Transportation Services Manager.

Public Comments:

Steve Brahs, business owner on Cabrillo Street near Newport Boulevard, requested the following: to allow for commercial businesses to buy permit parking passes, let commercial businesses paint 2-hour parking areas, do not approve the automatic extension of 1000 ft. radius towards Newport Blvd., and roll out the shared parking program.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Marr/Mayor Pro Tem Chavez
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-31, approving the implementation of a Residential Permit Parking (RPP) only restriction on Cabrillo Street between Orange Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue, and authorizing the Transportation Services Manager to extend the restriction within a 1,000-foot radius as needed, based on a qualifying petition from affected residents and Council-adopted guidelines.

2. RANDALL PRESERVE DISCUSSION
Council Member Reynolds spoke on the item and provided background information on the Randall Preserve. In addition Council Member Reynolds spoke on the relevant issues for Costa Mesa: site management, fire concerns, fire prevention, access, vehicle volume and traffic concerns, access by walking and biking, wayfinding signage, shuttle drop offs, transportation connections, collaborations with other government agencies and tribal organizations, and grants.

Public Comments:

Dr. Ken Smith shared a PowerPoint regarding Randall Preserve and submitted a petition.
155
Minutes – Regular Meeting July 15, 2025 Page 12 of 13
David Martinez spoke on access for bikes and coordination with other agencies.

Matt Garcia, President of Harbor Soaring Society, spoke on the Harbor Soaring Society flying planes over the Banning Ranch area and providing photos, and spoke in support of keeping the area open and protected, and that accessibility and coordination is appreciated.

Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the information provided to the public, spoke on the burrowing owls being discovered by Cindy Black.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Marr/Council Member Reynolds MOTION: Receive and file.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: Council Member Gameros,
Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 6-0
ACTION:

The City Council received and filed the report.

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL/BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS – NONE.

ADJOURNMENT - Mayor Stephens adjourned the meeting at 11:41 p.m. 156
Minutes – Regular Meeting July 15, 2025 Page 13 of 13
Minutes adopted on this 5th day of August, 2025.
___________________________
John Stephens, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
157

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-382 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
TITLE:

RESPONSE TO ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT- LONG TERM SOLUTIONS TO

SHORT-TERM RENTALS
DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
PRESENTED BY: JAY BARKMAN, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MANAGER
CONTACT INFORMATION: JAY BARKMAN, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MANAGER, 714-754- 5347
RECOMMENDATION:

On May 16, 2025, the City received a copy of the 2024-2025 OC Grand Jury Report titled “LongTerm Solutions to Short-Term Rentals” (Attachment 2). The report outlines the status and obstacles for Cities in responding to the growth in Short-Term Rentals (STRs) and seeks to identify best practices that City Councils and Planning Departments may implement to manage STRs with Findings and Recommendations. The Grand Jury report was released to the public on May 22, 2025 and a response is due by the August 20, 2025 to the Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court.

The Grand Jury report provides an overview of strategies used by cities to permit STRs, collect fees, and code enforcement tools. Of the 34 cities in Orange County, the report states that 19 cities have a policy to ban STRs, including Costa Mesa, and 15 have a policy to allow them in some form. In fact, Costa Mesa allows “home-sharing,”which requires the owner of the residence to be on site during the term of the rental. It is unclear how the grand jury defined a policy as banning STRs.

The City of Costa Mesa adopted an interim ordinance on November 10, 2020, to address the impacts of STRs on housing availability that worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. A permanent ordinance was adopted on November 2, 2021, with a minor revision to allow for home-sharing.

ANALYSIS:

City staff have prepared the below draft responses to the findings and recommendations that were directed by the Grand Jury to the City of Costa Mesa.

Page 1 of 4 ends

158
File #: 25-382 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
Findings
F1. Despite the increasing media coverage of Online Booking Agencies (OBAs), STRs are not a new phenomenon in Orange County.

City Response: The City agrees. Issues related to STRs date back to before the COVID-19 pandemic, when cities reacted to complaints focused on curfew and noise violations in residential neighborhoods. In 2020, federal and state pandemic restrictions on travel and social gatherings led to a growth in STRs as an alternative to restrictions enforced at hotels or other public spaces. That same year, Costa Mesa adopted its interim urgency ordinance in response to increasing complaints over noise, vandalism, gun-related incidents, parking violations, and disturbing the peace violations connected to STRs.

F2. The steady growth of STR usage in the last decade raises concerns of potential public nuisance.

City Response: The City agrees. As stated in the City Council resolution adopting the interim ordinance on STRs, “theCity has also begun experiencing an increase in the number of complaints related to these operations, which complaints have included noise, vandalism, gun-related incidents, including a drive-by shooting, parking violations, and disturbing the peace.” These concerns led to the adoption of both the interim and permanent ordinance.

F3. Even with robust Code Enforcement, a city’sstatutory ban on STRs is not enough to keep STRs from operating.

City Response: The City agrees. Robust code enforcement cannot achieve 100% compliance or prevention on issues of public nuisance. The City relies on multiple strategies to educate the public and provide quality alternatives for accommodations or hosting events besides seeking out a short- term rental. This includes promoting hotels and other spaces that can meet the various needs of conferences, business travelers, or family vacations. This is promoted through our travel and visitor partners at Travel Costa Mesa (<https://www.travelcostamesa.com>).

Additionally, local economic development groups such as the South Coast Metro Alliance and the Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce encourage visitors to use local hotels for their stays or other events.

F12. City leaders have no regular communication with each other concerning STR issues, limiting opportunities to develop strategies and expertise to improve service.

City Response: The City disagrees. The League of California Cities, Association of California Cities- Orange County (ACC-OC), and city leaders have been engaged in conversations at various levels on the impacts of STRs. In 2018, the ACC-OC convened a dedicated STR Working Group to explore best practices and potential policy approaches. The 2024 League of California Cities conference included an education session on code enforcement issues, including STRs. Also, the League of California Cities is sponsoring SB 346 to improve city enforcement of local ordinances related to STRs.

Page 2 of 4 ends

159
File #: 25-382 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
Lastly, earlier this year, the City considered the impacts of our ordinance on options for victims of the tragic Palisades and Alta-Dena fires. Fortunately, the City and Travel Costa Mesa were successful in directing residents from those affected areas to local hotels that provided rooms at a reduced rate to victims.

Recommendations
R1. Cities should review and begin to update ordinances to keep up with the rapidly changing nature of court findings and legislation related to STRs, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every three years thereafter.

City Response: The City reviews and tracks changes with federal and state laws or regulations to ensure all ordinances are compliant. This was evident in our 2021 update of the City’s STR ordinance in response to Senate Bill 60 (Chapter 307, Statutes of 2021). The City is actively tracking legislation this year for impacts to the ordinance that may require revisions if signed into law.

R2. Cities should consider developing a plan for upcoming major events that are expected to create a surge in demand for STRs and its associated Transient Occupancy Tax, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every two years thereafter.

City Response: The City is actively engaged in planning for upcoming major events by coordinating with Travel Costa Mesa and local business groups. The City is experienced in preparing for visitors attending large events such as the annual Orange County Fair, NFL pre-season training camps, and conferences.

R9. City leaders should have regular discussions with each other to share STR management strategies on a biannual basis commencing no later than January 1, 2026.

City Response: The City agrees and is participating in those conversations currently with League of California Cities, Association of California Cities-Orange County, and other city partners.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may decline to approve the proposed responses. However, failure to provide responses by the August 20, 2025, deadline will result in violation of California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05. Staff does not recommend this option. The City Council could propose modifications to the responses. Staff will incorporate City Council recommendations in the City’sresponse to the OC Grand Jury Report.

FISCAL REVIEW:

This item has no fiscal impact.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the draft responses and approves them as to form.

Page 3 of 4 ends

160
File #: 25-382 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council Goals:
· Strengthen the public’s safety and improve the quality of life. · Diversify, stabilize and increase housing to reflect community needs.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council approve the draft letter to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court with responses to Findings 1, 2, 3, and 12, and Recommendations 1, 2, and 9 in the Orange County Grand Jury Report titled, “Long Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals.”

Page 4 of 4 ends

161

CITY OF COSTA MESA
P.O. BOX 1200, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92628-1200

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
August 5, 2025
The Honorable Maria Hernandez
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dear Judge Hernandez,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the findings of the 2024-2025 Grand Jury Report, published on May 22, 2025 , titled, “ Long-Term Solutions to Short -Term Rentals .” Over the past several years the City of Costa Mesa has sought tools to address our housing crisis by adopting policies to encourage new and affordable housing. This includes adopting an interim ordinance on November 10, 2020, to address the impacts of short-term rentals (STRs) on housing availability that worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. The ordinance was made permanent on November 2, 2021, with a minor revision to allow for home sharing.

Please see the City’s responses directly below each of the Findings:

F1. Despite the increasing media coverage of Online Booking Agencies (OBAs), STRs are not a new phenomenon in Orange County.

City Response: The City agrees. Issues related to STRs date back to before the COVID -19 pandemic when cities reacted to complaints focused on curfew and noise violations in residential neighborhoods. In 2020 , federal and state pandemic restrictions on travel and social gatherings led to a growth in STRs as an alternative to restrictions enforced at hotels or other public spaces . That same year Costa Mesa adopted its i nterim urgency ordinance in response to increasing complaints over noise, vandalism, gun -related incidents , parking violations and disturbing the peace violations connected to STRs.

F2. The steady growth of STR usage in the last decade raises concerns of potential public nuisance.

City Response: The City agrees . As stated in the City Council resolution adopting the interim ordinance on STRs, “the City has also begun experiencing an increase in the number of complaints related to these operations, which complains have included noise, vandalism, gun-related incidents including a drive -by shooting, parking violations, and disturbing the peace.”
These concerns led to the adoption of both the interim and permanent ordinance.

Attachment 1
162
The Honorable Maria Hernandez
August 5, 2025

Page 2 ends

77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626
(714) 754-5099 • FAX: (714) 754-5330 • TDD: (714) 754-5244 • www.costamesaca.gov F3. Even with robust Code Enforcement, a city’s statutory ban on STRs is not enough to keep STRs from operating.

City Response: The City agrees. Robust code enforcement cannot achieve 100% compliance or prevention on issues of public nuisance . The City relies on multiple strategies to educate the public and provide quality alternatives for accommodations or hosting events besides seeking out a short-term rental. This includes promoting hotels and other spaces that can meet the various needs of conferences, business travelers, or family vacation s. This is promoted through our travel and visitor partners at Travel Costa Mesa (https://www.travelcostamesa.com).

Additionally, local economic development groups such as the South Coast Metro Alliance and the Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce encourage visitors to use local hotels for their stays or other events.

F12. City leaders have no regular communication with each other concerning STR issues, limiting opportunities to develop strategies and expertise to improve service.

City Response: The City disagrees. The League of California Cities , Association of California Cities -Orange County (ACC-OC), and city leaders have been engaged in conversations at various levels on the impacts of STRs. In 2018, the ACC-OC convened a dedicated STR Working Group to explore best practices and potential policy approaches. The 2024 League of California Cities conference included an education session on code enforcement issues including STRs. Lastly, the League of California Cities is sponsoring SB 346 to improve city enforcement of local ordinances related to STRs.

Lastly, e arlier this year the City considered the impact s of our ordinance on options for victims of the tragic Palisades and Alta -Dena fires. Fortunately, the City and Travel Costa Mesa were successful in directing residents from those affected areas to local hotels that provided rooms at a reduced rate to victims.

Please see the City’s responses directly below each of the Recommendations:

R1. Cities should review and begin to update ordinances to keep up with the rapidly changing nature of court findings and legislation related to STRs, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every three years thereafter.

City Response: The City reviews and track s changes with federal and state laws or regulations to ensure all ordinances are compliant. This was evident in our 2021 update of the City’s STR ordinance in response to Senate Bill 60 (Chapter 307, Statutes of 2021). The City is actively tracking legislation this year for impacts to the ordinance that may require revisions if signed into law.

163
The Honorable Maria Hernandez
August 5, 2025

Page 3 ends

77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626
(714) 754-5099 • FAX: (714) 754-5330 • TDD: (714) 754-5244 • www.costamesaca.gov R2. Cities should consider developing a plan for upcoming major events that are expected to create a surge in demand for STRs and its associated Transient Occupancy Tax, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every two years thereafter.

City Response: The City is actively engaged in planning for upcoming major events by coordinating with Travel Costa Mesa and local business groups . The City is experienced in preparing for visitors attending large events such as the annual Orange County Fair, NFL pre- season training camps, and conferences.

R9. City leaders should have regular discussions with each other to share STR management strategies on a biannual basis commencing no later than January 1, 2026.

City Response: The City agrees and is participating in those conversations currently with League of California Cities, Association of California Cities -Orange County, and other city partners.

The City of Costa Mesa will continue to review and respond to issues of concern related to STRs in our community. Thank you for the opportunity to respond and if you should need further information, please do not hesitate to contact Carrie Tai, Economic and Development Services Director at 714-754-5270.

Sincerely,

Mayor John Stephens
City of Costa Mesa

C: Costa Mesa City Council
Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Interim City Manager
Carrie Tai, Economic and Development Services Director
164
2024-2025 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT
Long-Term Solutions to
Short-Term Rentals
Grand Jury
Attachment 2
165
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................. 3 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 4 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 4 REASON FOR THE STUDY ...................................................................................................... 5 METHOD OF STUDY ................................................................................................................. 5 INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................................................ 6 How Cities Manage STRs ......................................................................................................... 7 Code Enforcement’s Role ......................................................................................................... 8 STR Policies Vary in Orange County ...................................................................................... 8 Cities With an STR Ban ........................................................................................................... 8 Cities Without a Specific STR Ordinance ................................................................................ 9 How Cities Collect Complaints ................................................................................................ 9 Issues with STR Code Enforcement ........................................................................................ 9 Tools That Help Code Enforcement Accomplish Their Goals ............................................ 10 Legal Cases Uncover Gaps in STR Ordinances ................................................................... 10 Managing Permit Scarcity ...................................................................................................... 11 Collecting TOT Revenue ........................................................................................................ 12 Major Events Fuel Demand for STRs ................................................................................... 13 STR Impact on Affordable Housing ...................................................................................... 13 STRs Can be Good Neighbors ................................................................................................ 14 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................... 15 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 16 RESPONSES ............................................................................................................................... 17 Responses Required ................................................................................................................ 18 Findings ................................................................................................................................. 19 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 19 Requested Responses............................................................................................................... 19 Findings ................................................................................................................................. 19 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 19 166
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 3

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 20 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................ 21

TABLES
Table 1: STR policies by city.......................................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Models of short-term rentals ............................................................................................. 7 Table 3: Recent selected legal findings related to STRs ............................................................... 11 Table 4: STR permit limits and affordable housing needed (Housing Element) .......................... 14

FIGURES
Figure 1: A single residence may appear on multiple websites. ..................................................... 7

ACRONYMS
ADU Accessory Dwelling Units
CCC California Coastal Commission
CE Code Enforcement
GIS Geographic Information System
HOA Homeowners Association
LI Low Income
OBA Online Booking Agency
STR Short-Term Rental
TOT Transient Occupancy Tax
VLI Very Low Income

167
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 4

SUMMARY
Short-term rental (STR) is defined as occupancy of a residence such as a home or an apartment for fewer than 30 days.

Some Orange County residents complain that the growth of STRs impinges on their quality of life and adds costs to city government for additional code enforcement. The 2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) investigation revealed that:
• Cities with a growing number of STRs did not always receive higher complaint volumes. • Some cities employ effective strategies to manage complaints and other cities can learn from their success.
• When cities ban STRs, this often leads to a never-ending game of “whack-a-mole”—as soon as one unpermitted STR is shut down, another opens. • Code Enforcement (CE) errs on the side of leniency.
• Some cities rarely pursue fines for STR violations or collect the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) on unreported STR income.
• Some cities rely on the “honor system” for STR owners to report and pay the correct TOT.
• The commonly held belief that STRs negatively impact affordable housing is not evident in cities with STRs.

This report identifies best practices that city councils and their planning departments can use to more efficiently and effectively manage their STRs. This includes modifying STR ordinances, and for some cities, utilizing third-party digital tools for better code enforcement and data tracking to collect unreported TOT.

BACKGROUND
For many years, Orange County has been an international destination, with its forty-two miles of scenic coastline, Disneyland, Knotts Berry Farm, Angel Stadium, Honda Center, and other attractions. Vacation rental properties in Orange County’s beach communities go back many decades; for instance, in the 1920s, Crystal Cove State Park offered camping sites to the public, and in the 1940s it offered trailers.

For some, STRs are business opportunities. To others, STRs are a nuisance and impinge on neighbors’ quality of life. In response to these conflicting priorities, some cities in Orange County have banned STRs, some have limited their number, and some have no limits. 168
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 5

Table 1: STR policies by city
Policy Choice Cities with the Policy
Banned (19)

Aliso Viejo, Brea, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fountain
Valley, Garden Grove, Irvine, La Habra, Laguna Hills,
Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Los Alamitos, Rancho
Santa Margarita, Santa Ana, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, Yorba Linda

Allowed (15) Anaheim, Buena Park, Dana Point, Fullerton, Huntington Beach, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Lake
Forest, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange,
Placentia, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Seal
Beach

The advent of online booking agencies (OBAs) has made it even easier for homeowners (and apartment lessees) to supplement their income by renting out their home or room and advertising to millions around the world. As a result, STRs’ visibility has increased, creating tension between STR operators and neighbors.

REASON FOR THE STUDY
Short-term rentals are a heated topic in Orange County cities. Various news reports have covered the impact of STRs on local communities, and this motivated the Grand Jury to investigate how effectively Orange County cities are managing STRs.

The scope of this study includes the thirty-four cities in Orange County, with a focus on cities with the largest number of STRs and cities with bans on STRs, as well as coastal cities.

The Grand Jury studied STR permits and the effectiveness of STR bans. Finally, the Grand Jury examined strategies to improve the quality of life for residents and to provide city planning departments a compilation of tools that will assist in effectively balancing the expectations of the residents and the business owners operating STRs.

METHOD OF STUDY
The Grand Jury conducted the following:
• Research on STR management and business models
o Survey of national publications with articles on STRs 169
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 6

o Review of websites, interviews, testimonials, and other materials produced by companies serving the STR and hospitality markets or from contractors with products for cities managing STRs
o Review of academic papers on STRs and their history
o Review of non-governmental agency white papers on STRs • In-person interviews of city personnel
• Review of:
o City meeting minutes and recordings of residents’ concerns o Various cities’ STR complaint processes
o City ordinances as well as state statutes
o California Coastal Commission guidance
o Third-party STR surveillance software used by cities
o Various cities’ STR complaints from June 2022 through June 2024 o Relevant legal rulings
• Analysis of TOT

INVESTIGATION
The Grand Jury learned that in most cases, STR operators are required to obtain a business license, register with their city for a permit, submit reports, pass an inspection, and pay TOT.

This is a city-level tax levied on any temporary lodging that is occupied for fewer than thirty days. All hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts must remit this tax. Short-term rentals permitting and other policies vary by city. A short-term rental’s TOT is paid either monthly, quarterly, or annually. Most cities allowing STRs require a twenty-four-hour, in-person contact to address complaints, within either thirty or sixty minutes.

Short-term rental operators often use one of the numerous OBAs, such as VRBO (from the phrase Vacation Rentals by Owner), Airbnb, Zumper, and HomeAway. In addition, some operators may advertise via direct booking sites (a website for their specific property) or through local rental agents. Multiple OBAs mean that a unique property may have as many as a dozen listings.

170
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 7

Figure 1: A single residence may appear on multiple websites.

How Cities Manage STRs
In nearly every city, short-term rentals are regulated by ordinances that define operational rules, establish fees for licensing and violations, and outline the appeals process. Often these rules include disclosure to neighbors, a “Good Neighbor Policy” brochure for the renter, parking and garbage policies, and quiet hours for the neighborhood. An emergency contact who would be readily available to respond to a complaint is typically required. City ordinances may define who can own and operate an STR. Cities may limit operation to the primary homeowner or renter, or they may allow investors who own multiple STR properties.

The Grand Jury observed the following STR models:

Table 2: Models of short-term rentals
Hosted/Shared Housing Owner must be on the property/in
house
Primary Housing Rentals of an owner’s primary
residence are permitted
Unrestricted No restrictions on ownership (income-
producing property)

The Hosted/Shared model is when a homeowner or renter with an extra room rents it out for fewer than thirty days. The host stays at the property during the guests’ stay, either in the house or in an on-property Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The Primary Housing model is when the host rents out their principal home but is not present on the property. Unrestricted STRs are income-producing properties, often owned by corporations and managed by property management companies.
123 Your Street
VRBO.com
airbnb.com
Zumper.com
HomeAway.com
Booking.com
holidayhomes.com
vacasa.com
evolve.com
avantstay.com
agoda.com
ﬂipkey.com
casamundo.com
9ﬂats.com
oneﬁnestay.com
171
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 8

Regardless of the model, neighbors have the expectation that STR businesses will be operated in a responsible and respectful manner. Owner-occupied models make it easier for a neighbor with a complaint to get resolution. In cities that use this model, formal complaints are fewer because neighbors can quickly resolve issues between themselves.

Code Enforcement’s Role
Code Enforcement (CE) responsibilities include initial and ongoing inspections of STRs to assure adherence to building codes, noise and parking requirements, along with monitoring city complaint portals and searching for nonpermitted STRs. Code Enforcement officers also investigate citizen complaints to substantiate claims and issue citations.

Revenue staff work in tandem with CE to process permits and licenses and to collect TOT and other fees. In at least one city that has a waiting list for STR permits, revenue staff rather than CE staff manage the list, which may delay or limit CE’s ability to find unpermitted STRs.

Several cities employ third-party platforms offering an array of services, including STR registration portals, a complaints hotline and/or online portal, and tax payment portals. These platforms offer efficient and potentially cost-effective options to aid staff monitoring STRs.

Cities may also select a third-party platform option that identifies both permitted and unpermitted STRs advertising on OBAs.

STR Policies Vary in Orange County
Each of the thirty-four cities in Orange County has its own policies. As of this writing, nineteen of the cities had a ban on all STRs and fifteen allowed STRs (see Table 1). Unincorporated areas of the county (e.g., Rossmoor, North Tustin) are covered by County of Orange policy through the OC Public Works department, which issues permits; however, the Grand Jury did not observe STR volumes in unincorporated areas warranting analysis.

Cities With an STR Ban
The Grand Jury learned that it is difficult for cities to enforce a ban. Cities report that after they enacted a ban, the volume of STRs saw a notable decline; however, some unpermitted STRs still continued to operate. Cities may use a rental identification database and a complaint portal to improve compliance, often through third-party software. These databases can often identify the address of an unpermitted STR and allow follow-up with the property owner. At least one city with technologically savvy CE staff has performed this task without help from a third-party platform.

All cities in the coastal zone have permits for STRs, and this is linked to mandates from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) which issued a 2016 memo with guidance that coastal cities provide “lower cost visitor…facilities” and beach access via STRs. 172
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 9

Cities Without a Specific STR Ordinance
Some cities without an STR ordinance have operated on the assumption that because STRs are not defined by an ordinance, they are banned. However, when an STR operator challenges a citation, these cities have often discovered that the subsequent court ruling goes against the city, as evidenced by recent cases described below. Cities often respond to these losses by drafting new ordinances and amendments, but sometimes a new STR operator will find another legal gap, and the “whack-a-mole” game continues.

Multi-unit apartment complexes may also host unpermitted STRs in cities that have bans. Photos used in online advertising often make complexes easy to find, but identifying specific units may be difficult. Property managers are more familiar with the units and can sometimes help CE track these down.

Some properties without permits are advertised on foreign-language websites. Image searches may uncover these host sites, but the Grand Jury did not identify any solution yet for this challenge.

How Cities Collect Complaints
Many Orange County cities provide an online complaint portal as well as a telephone hotline; these services are staffed by a third-party platform or by city staff. In cities that allow STRs, Code Enforcement will reach out to the STR emergency contact to initiate complaint resolution.

Issues with STR Code Enforcement
Most STR operators want to avoid citations and fines. Neighbor complaints can lead to notices of violation, fines, and ultimately revocation of the STR operating permit. With effective enforcement, STRs that violate city codes receive a citation and/or fine. This can result in improved behavior on the part of the STR operator.

In the fifteen cities that allow STRs, neighbors face hurdles in complaint resolution. This, along with laxity in enforcement, may explain why fewer than ten percent of STRs record a complaint in a given year, a number that fails to reflect the frustration of STR neighbors.

Tracking and confirmation of complaints is often difficult. In order to enforce STR ordinance rules, code or law enforcement must first substantiate that the source is an STR. In some cities that permit STRs, Code Enforcement works only during regular business hours. Nuisance reports often occur in the evening or early morning, when CE may not be on duty. Therefore, residents or other complainants do not receive a timely response and the problem is not resolved at the time of the actual nuisance, if ever.
173
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 10

Most ordinances require an emergency contact for each STR, but a review of hundreds of complaints between 2022 and 2024 shows that in a number of cases the contact does not respond either in the thirty- or sixty-minute required time frame.

Warnings and citations may take up to a week to issue and are recorded in an STR complaint log.

The STR operator may appeal the citation. Initial appeals are made through a city official or a third-party administrative officer. This can take some time, during which the STR may continue to operate. An ordinance without an appeals procedure may be challenged in the courts.

The Grand Jury learned that in most cities, CE investigates complaints with a fair bit of leniency.

First, the CE officer will visit the property and confirm the violation. The most common complaint is noise, and this violation must be observed and verified by the CE officer. Other complaints may involve vehicle parking, trash, and exceeding permitted occupancy. The CE officer often works through the emergency contact to resolve problems and often will issue a warning rather than a citation.

Tools That Help Code Enforcement Accomplish Their Goals Cities that allow STRs would benefit from a system that geographically integrates STR owner contact information, permit, and business license numbers. Having this information readily available would enable CE to respond to complaints more effectively. Some of the third-party platforms offer these tools, but using a third-party platform requires a degree of technical knowledge and an investment in Code Enforcement training. Some cities accomplish this work with internal tools and staff.

Beyond responding to complaints, CE in some cities proactively inspect permitted STRs and/or confirm the emergency contacts. These inspections confirm occupancy limits, ensure that safety equipment is onsite, and validate that no unpermitted construction has been done on the property.

Legal Cases Uncover Gaps in STR Ordinances
Recent cases up and down the state have established firm guidance for cities as they deal with STR issues. The Grand Jury identified a few cases that clarified areas of ambiguity in existing STR ordinances:

174
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 11

Table 3: Recent selected legal findings related to STRs Case Decision
People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71
Cal. App. 5th 715, 732-34 (2021)
Specificity in zoning language is necessary.

Length of occupancy was not specified in
code and therefore STR usage would be
permitted.

Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, 77
Cal. App. 5th 142 (2022)
The term “residence” alone is not effective in
banning STRs. A specific STR ordinance is
necessary.

Coastal Protection Alliance Inc. v.

Airbnb, Inc., 95 Cal. App. 5th 207,
270 (2023)
Operation of STRs in coastal zones does not
in and of itself constitute an increase in
density or intensity requiring changes in
zoning.

Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara, 63
Cal. App. 5th 1089 (2021)
Coastal cities need to secure and comply with
Coastal Commission rulings before drafting
any limiting ordinances pertaining to STRs.

These rulings highlight gaps in city ordinances and may provide grounds for appeal of STR citations. In light of these rulings, the cities of Anaheim and Santa Ana amended their codes to incorporate language that plugs the gaps, resulting in more effective STR enforcement.

Managing Permit Scarcity
Limits on the number of STR permits create a quasi-monopoly. In some cities, the permit limit was set at a point in time when no limit existed. The cities selected a number slightly greater than the inventory then in existence. Once the limit was set, these cities saw an acceleration in applications up to the limit.

In some cities, STRs are excluded only in certain zones. Single family home (R1) zones and Homeowner Associations (HOAs) often have exclusions. Other cities permit unlimited STRs in a “vacation home zone” near the beach or an attraction. Still others allow one STR in a fixed radius (typically 300 feet), which effectively limits permits.

At least three cities (Newport Beach, Dana Point, and Orange) have created waiting lists in response to having more applications than available permits. However, STR operators rarely voluntarily relinquish their permits. If an STR has been converted to a long-term rental, then it is no longer subject to TOT. Unless the STR operator informs the city of the conversion, a city that only collects TOT annually (as at least one city does) will not know for a year that the unit is no longer operating as an STR. At that point, as they have not received any TOT from the unit, the 175
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 12

city can initiate proceedings to rescind the STR permit and pass it on to the next applicant on the waiting list. However, the STR operator can appeal, and this can extend the process even longer.

Some cities allow permit holders to transfer their permit to a family member or to the new owner of their property, thus circumventing the waiting list altogether. A system where permits expire after a certain time would afford those on the waiting list an opportunity to be placed ahead of renewals, thus creating a more equitable process. One city, Dana Point, has set a limit on investor-owned properties, allowing more Hosted STRs to have priority in getting permits.

Collecting TOT Revenue
The fifteen cities that allow STRs (see Table 1) collect TOT on STR revenue, plus any fees charged to the renter. Operators report TOT to cities either annually, quarterly, or monthly.

Monthly reporting of TOT has several advantages: cities receive TOT sooner, the STR owner has a smoother and more predictable cash flow, and cities can quickly identify non-revenue- producing STRs.

In cities like Dana Point and Anaheim, TOT represents a substantial percentage of city revenue; however, nearly all of this comes from hotels. Short-term rental TOT in Newport Beach represents thirty percent of total TOT collections, contributing two percent of city revenues.

Newport Beach has the greatest share of TOT revenue from STRs (with 1,550 units) and the greatest number of STRs of all Orange County cities. Transient Occupancy Tax rates vary by city from eight to seventeen percent. Despite the limited amounts, each city that collects short- term rental TOT increases their general fund.

Each city handles TOT collection differently. Newport Beach collects quarterly from agents who operate STRs and annually from STR homeowners, using paper-based forms. This system does not allow for easy tracking of short-term rental TOT by permit number because multiple units at the same address (with separate permits) may be combined on the form. A digital submission by unique permit number, such as is used by the City of Orange, is easy and provides greater detail to the city.

The City of Anaheim has agreements called Voluntary Collection Agreements (VCAs) with a number of Online Booking Agency platforms that enable monthly TOT remittance from short- term rental advertising on the OBA
. In most cases, OBAs share a spreadsheet with totals only; however, at least one platform remits with detailed addresses with amounts by address. It is possible for an OBA to send more detailed data and for the city to integrate it into its information systems, but as yet no city appears to have negotiated with an OBA to implement this direct reporting. Requiring an OBA to report more detail ensures that all STR tax from Online Booking Agency is reported, collected, and remitted to the city, whether the STR is permitted or not.

However, this system still would not capture STRs booked directly with the operator, which may be up to 30-60% of gross rental revenue.
176
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 13

At least one city (Orange) requires that TOT reporting include the number of days the STR is available for rent and number of days rented each month. Capturing these statistics facilitates desk auditing.

A “desk audit” is a remote review of the STR operators’ reported information to ensure compliance with TOT reporting requirements. This is in contrast to a “business-level audit,” which is performed by the city on site and involves verification of the reported information against third-party records, such as bank statements.

The Grand Jury’s review of a subset of Orange County cities did not identify any that did more than desk audits on short-term rental TOT receipts. Put simply, these cities currently rely on the “honor system.” Conducting business-level audits would allow cities to discover and collect additional funds. However, a city should consider the cost of enforcement versus the financial benefit of STR business audits, especially in smaller cities with limited short-term rental TOT.

Major Events Fuel Demand for STRs
Reports from the 2024 Olympic games indicate that the average price per night of STRs in and around Paris more than doubled during the Olympics, and total inventory grew by nearly fifty percent. With the coming 2026 Los Angeles World Cup and the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, these surges are likely to be seen in Orange County, especially with the Honda Center and Trestles Beach—both in Orange County—being used as Olympic venues. Orange County cities have not yet dedicated resources to plan around STRs for these major events.

STR Impact on Affordable Housing
Some housing advocates argue that STRs reduce the inventory of much needed and mandated affordable housing. The Grand Jury found that STRs have a negligible effect on affordable housing in cities that currently allow STRs. The Southern California Association of Governments, acting under the direction of the State Housing Element Law, sets a mandated volume of new units by city for Very Low Income (VLI) and Low Income (LI) units, and this analysis uses it as the estimate of needed affordable units.

The Grand Jury’s analysis of inland cites suggests that if their existing STR units were converted to affordable housing, they would contribute at most about eight percent (125/1,671 from Table 4) of the affordable units required (in the city of Orange), and a much smaller percentage in other inland cities.

On the other hand, in coastal cities, the STR volumes appear to meet a sizable portion of affordable unit goals. However, coastal cities must comply with State law enforced through the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The CCC weighs in on all coastal development and changes, and any modification of a city’s zoning rules or limits on STRs would be subject to the CCC’s approval. The CCC’s stated goal is to preserve access to public beaches and low-cost 177
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 14

short-term housing, which includes STRs. It is therefore unrealistic to expect that coastal STRs would be converted to long-term affordable housing in any sizeable number.

Table 4: STR permit limits and affordable housing needed (Housing Element) Housing Element 6th Series Unit Goals
Inland Cities
Limit on
STR Permits
Very Low
Income
(VLI)
Low
Income
(LI)
VLI+LI Unit
Goal
Anaheim 277 3,767 2,397 6,164
Buena Park 11 2,119 1,343 3,462
Fullerton 100 3,198 1,989 5,187
Orange 125 1,067 604 1,671
Coastal Cities*
Dana Point 115 147 84 231
Laguna Beach 300 118 80 198
Newport Beach 1,550 1,456 930 2,386
San Clemente 225 282 164 446
Seal Beach 33 258 201 459

*Subject to CCC legal requirements
Equally important is the fact that there is rarely a one-to-one relationship between STRs and long-term housing. In many areas of the County, STRs are luxury or large-scale homes. It is extremely unlikely that such homes could or would be easily converted into affordable housing or demolished to create multiple affordable dwellings. Aside from the complications of such an endeavor, the likelihood that neighbors would acquiesce to these changes is negligible.

Based on the above factors, the Grand Jury concludes that, contrary to widely held belief, STRs should not be considered a significant factor in the availability of affordable housing in Orange County cities with STRs.

STRs Can be Good Neighbors
The burden of getting STR operators to function in a community friendly way should be on the operator and government, not the neighborhood residents. Best practices include the following:
• Updated ordinances that limit how STRs can advertise and specifically exclude STRs from banned cities
• Concise city permitting guidance
178
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 15

• An easy-to-use complaint system for residents
• Diligent code enforcement
• Requiring an in-person contact
• Permit numbers in all advertising
• Monthly electronic collection of TOT
Several Orange County cities, such as Seal Beach, Dana Point, and Orange, have clear permitting procedures that explicitly outline Good Neighbor policies, yielding low complaint rates.

Anaheim and Santa Ana have made ordinance revisions that improve the odds that their cities will prevail in appeals to STR citations. Newport Beach, Dana Point, and Anaheim perform regular inspections on new and existing STRs to ensure units are safe and code compliant.

Incorporating the above elements in a city’s ordinances and practicing effective code enforcement would enhance the relationship between STR business operators and their neighbors. Moreover, better communication among cities to share these best practices would greatly improve the management of STRs.

FINDINGS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2024-2025 Grand Jury requires (or as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

Based on its investigation “Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals,” the 2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at twelve findings, as follows:

F1: Despite the increasing media coverage of Online Booking Agencies (OBAs), STRs are not a new phenomenon in Orange County.

F2: The steady growth of STR usage in the last decade raises concerns of potential public nuisance.

F3: Even with robust Code Enforcement, a city’s statutory ban on STRs is not enough to keep STRs from operating.

F4: Anaheim’s ordinance requires OBAs to report Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) directly to the city. This has led to the favorable consequence that unpermitted STR income is reported to the city.
179
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 16

F5: Proactive home inspections of new and renewing STRs, which have been implemented in some Orange County cities, improve code enforcement and STR compliance with city ordinances.

F6: Direct remittance of taxes by OBAs does not capture all TOT for an STR because of direct booking practices.

F7: Some cities in Orange County have outdated systems for tracking short-term rental TOT making the process less effective and more difficult for staff.

F8: In some cases, STRs are improperly recharacterized as long-term rentals to circumvent the collection of TOT and any applicable penalties.

F9: Online Booking Agencies in foreign languages are outside the current capabilities of Code Enforcement to monitor and track unpermitted STRs.

F10: Cities that fail to routinely review their STR waiting lists potentially lose TOT revenue and contribute to a greater prevalence of unpermitted STRs.

F11: Locations that have hosted major events have reported an outsized increase in demand and pricing of STRs, a situation Orange County is likely to experience with the upcoming 2026 Los Angeles World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.

F12: City leaders have no regular communication with each other concerning STR issues, limiting opportunities to develop strategies and expertise to improve service.

RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2024-2025 Grand Jury requires (or, as indicated, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

Based on its investigation described herein, the 2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following nine recommendations:

R1: Cities should review and begin to update ordinances to keep up with the rapidly changing nature of court findings and legislation related to STRs, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every three years thereafter. (F4, F12) R2: Cities should consider developing a plan for upcoming major events that are expected to create a surge in demand for STRs and its associated Transient Occupancy Tax, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every two years thereafter. (F11) 180
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 17

R3: Cities that allow STRs should evaluate the benefit of ordinances facilitating Voluntary Collection Agreements requiring OBAs to submit TOT directly, by June 30, 2026. (F4, F12) R4: Cities that allow STRs should evaluate the benefit of collecting TOT on a monthly basis by individual property, by June 30, 2026. (F7, F8)
R5: Cities should require STRs to include the number of days rented per month per permit to facilitate short-term rental TOT desk audits by November 30, 2025. (F7, F8) R6: Cities with a permit waiting list should implement strategies to remove non-revenue- generating licenses to allow for fair access by December 31, 2025, and annually thereafter. (F7, F10)
R7: Cities that allow STRs should consider allocating resources to update their short-term rental TOT tracking systems by September 30, 2026. (F7, F8, F10) R8: Cities that allow STRs should consider random multi-year audits to confirm TOT by June 30,2026, and annually thereafter. (F6, F7, F8)
R9: City leaders should have regular discussions with each other to share STR management strategies on a biannual basis commencing no later than January 1, 2026. (F12)

RESPONSES
The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report:

Penal Code Section 933:
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years.
181
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 18

Penal Code Section 933.05:
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
(d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.

Responses Required
Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code Section 933.05 are required within 90 days of the date of the publication of this report from:
182
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 19

Findings
City Councils of the following cities:

Dana Point, Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Seal Beach

F1, F2, F5, F6, F7,
F8, F9, F10, F11, F12
Costa Mesa, Irvine, Santa Ana

F1, F2, F3, F12

Anaheim F1, F2, F4, F5, F6,
F7, F8, F9, F11, F12

Recommendations
City Councils of the following cities:

Anaheim, Dana Point, Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Orange, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Seal Beach

R1, R2, R3, R4, R5,
R6, R7, R8, R9
Costa Mesa, Irvine, Santa Ana

R1, R2, R9

Requested Responses
Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code Section 933.05 are requested within 90 days of the date of the publication of this report from:

Findings
City Councils of the following cities:

Buena Park, La Palma, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Placentia

F1, F2, F5, F6, F7,
F8, F9, F10, F11, F12

Aliso Viejo, Brea, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, La Habra, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Los Alamitos, Rancho Santa Margarita, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, Yorba Linda
F1, F2, F3, F12

Recommendations
City Councils of the following cities:

Buena Park, La Palma, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Placentia

R1, R2, R3, R4, R5,
R6, R7, R8, R9

183
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 20

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Better Neighbors LA. "BNLA Annual Report 2022." February 24, 2023. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fc9845732f65217775cb3a5/t/63f8e87357c81b1848 48b95b/1677256830192/BNLA_Annual+Report_2022-web.pdf.

California Coastal Commission. "Short Term Vacation Rental Memo to Coastal Planning and Development Directors." December 6,
2016. https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/la/Short_Term_Vacation_Rental_to_Coastal_Plan ning_&_Devt_Directors_120616.pdf.

California Coastal Commission. "Recent LCP Policy Examples for Lower Cost Overnight Accommodations." 2023. https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/lower-cost-coastal- lodging/LCOA-Doc2.pdf.

Costar. "Summer Olympics Drove Paris Room Rates to All-Time Highs." CoStar, August 11, 2024. https://www.costar.com/article/54408592/summer-olympics-drove-paris-room-rates-to-all- time-highs.

Dubetz, Alissa, Matt Horton, and Charlotte Kesteven. "Staying Power: The Effects of Short- Term Rentals on California’s Tourism Economy and Housing Affordability." Milken Institute, June 1, 2022. https://milkeninstitute.org/content-hub/research-and-reports/reports/staying-power- effects-short-term-rentals-californias-tourism-economy-and-housing-affordability Humphreys, Lucy. "Regulating Short-Term Rentals in California's Coastal Cities: Harmonizing Local Ordinances with the California Coastal Act." Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 52 (2019): 309.

Jin, Ginger Zhe, Liad Wagman, and Mengyi Zhong. "The Effects of Short-term Rental Regulation: Insights from Chicago." November 19, 2023.

SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4638022 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4638022.

Reinhard, D., and J.J. Roth. "Renting Trouble? An Analysis of Crime and Calls to Police at Addresses with Different Rental Types." Crime Science 13, no. 35 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-024-00232-8.
184
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 21

Safely. "The Best Alternatives to Airbnb and VRBO: The Rise of the Niche Platforms." Safely, February 17, 2025. https://safely.com/articles/the-best-alternatives-to-airbnb-and-vrbo-the-rise- of-the-niche-platforms/.

Thompson, Robert. "Affordable Twenty-Four Hour Coastal Access: Can We Save a Working Stiff's Place in Paradise?" Ocean and Coastal Law Journal 12, no. 1 (2006). https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/oclj/vol12/iss1/5/.

Urevich, Robin. "Is My Short-Term Los Angeles Rental Legal?" ProPublica, September 3, 2024. https://www.propublica.org/article/is-my-short-term-los-angeles-rental-legal.

Wachsmuth, David, and Danielle Kerrigan. "Short-Term Rentals in Los Angeles: 2022 Report." Urban Politics and Governance Research Group, McGill University, 2022. https://upgo.lab.mcgill.ca/publication/strs-in-los-angeles-2022/Wachsmuth_LA_2022.pdf.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Airbnb. “Vacation Rentals, Homes, Experiences & Places.” Airbnb.com. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://www.airbnb.com.

Leading booking platform for STRs.

AirDNA. “Short-Term Rental Data & Analytics.” AirDNA.co. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://www.airdna.co.

Platform that tracks the STR market, claiming listings of ten million properties that are then linked to partner data to detect reservations and calculate market performance. Market-level volumes are reported with projections. Subscriptions allow for detailed searching and market reports.

Booking.com. “Booking.com: Hotels, Apartments, Villas, Hostels & More.” Booking.com.

Accessed January 6, 2025. https://www.booking.com.

Leading booking platform includes hotels and STRs.

Deckard. “Deckard Technologies.” Deckard.com. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://www.deckard.com.

Owner of Rentalscape product, a third-party platform working with cities, offering STR detection with address identification, complaint platform (call-center, web reporting), and tax collection.

Granicus. “Host Compliance.” Granicus.com. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://granicus.com/product/host-compliance/.

Third-party platform working with cities offering STR detection, a complaint platform and tax collection. Host Compliance product recently integrated into Granicus. 185
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals

2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 22

Rabbu. “Short-Term Rental Property Management.” Rabbu.com. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://rabbu.com.

One of several investment platforms that does market analysis for STR buyers.

STR. “Hotel Industry Data & Benchmarking.” STR.com. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://www.str.com.

Part of the Costar Group of real estate data companies; tracks data on hospitality markets with a primary focus on hotels, but STR data such as prices and volumes are also tracked.

Vacasa. “Vacation Rentals.” Vacasa.com. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://www.vacasa.com.

Vacation rental management and booking site. Provides services to owners and customers.

VRBO. “Vacation Rentals by Owner.” VRBO.com. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://www.vrbo.com.

Leading booking platform, part of Expedia travel group. Integrated Home Away in 2019.

Zumper. “Apartments for Rent.” Zumper.com. Accessed January 6, 2025. http://zumper.com.

One of many aggregating sites for rentals across platforms. Limits searches to strict city boundaries when searching.

186

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-378 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
TITLE:

ACCEPTANCE AND ALLOCATION OF CANNABIS TAX FUND GRANT PROGRAM TO ENHANCE

TRAFFIC SAFETY
DEPARTMENT: POLICE DEPARTMENT
PRESENTED BY: NICK WILSON, SERGEANT
CONTACT INFORMATION: NICK WILSON (714) 754-4963
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

2. Approve revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $225,472 respectively, for the FY 2025-26 CHP CTFGP Grant.

BACKGROUND:

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) distributes state funding to California law enforcement agencies through the California State Controller’sOffice. The mission of the California Highway Patrol is to effectively administer traffic safety grants that deliver innovative programs to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries on California roadways. Grants are used to mitigate traffic safety program deficiencies, expand ongoing programs, and/or to develop new programs. Grant funding cannot replace existing program expenditures, nor can traffic safety funds be used for program maintenance, research, rehabilitation, and/or construction.

The Police Department has been awarded similar grants in the past, which have significantly assisted the objectives of the Traffic Safety Bureau and improved traffic safety for residents and visitors. Traffic safety for vehicular traffic, bicycles and pedestrians is a vital concern as the City promotes a healthy, active lifestyle and active transportation. The Traffic Safety Bureau utilizes enforcement efforts, public awareness campaigns and community events aimed to educate roadway users about traffic safety laws.

By prioritizing traffic safety, Costa Mesa strives to make its streets safer and more enjoyable for all residents and visitors.

Page 1 of 3 ends

187
File #: 25-378 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
ANALYSIS:

The Police Department has been approved for a $225,472 traffic safety grant. This is the first Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program (CTFGP) grant awarded to the Costa Mesa Police Department. The funds associated with the grant will be used to purchase specialized equipment and will fund personnel overtime related to targeted traffic operations. The Traffic Safety Bureau will administer this grant and will strategically use funds to create safer roadway environments and reduce fatal and injury traffic collisions.

This will be accomplished by meeting the Grant objectives, which include highly visible targeted enforcement operations and public awareness focused on driving under the influence education and enforcement.

Driving under the influence (DUI) continues to be a leading cause of traffic-related injuries and fatalities, posing a serious threat to the public’ssafety. To mitigate the prevalence of DUI, a combination of prevention, enforcement, and education is crucial and will be a goal of this grant. Grant funding will be utilized for saturation patrol operations, which will allow officers to specifically and proactively conduct DUI enforcement and to remove DUI drivers from our communities’roadways before they cause a collision.

To assist with these efforts, the grant will fund a DUI enforcement truck that will expand the Police Department’savailable fleet of emergency vehicles. The grant will also fund a roadway messaging board that will be utilized for public education and messaging about traffic safety. The funded truck will also be utilized for deploying the messaging board trailer.

Additionally, the grant will fund educational programs in the community. Specifically, the grant funds personnel costs for the “Knowyour Limit”program. For this program, police personnel will coordinate with local bars and will engage the community and utilize mobile breath devices so they can be educated on their blood alcohol level and whether they are within the legal limit to drive.

The FY 2025-26 CHP CTFGP Grant will enable the Police Department to build upon successes achieved to date, while providing new objectives for increasing traffic safety throughout the City.

The specific objectives outlined in the FY 2025-26 CHP CTFGP Grant agreement include:
· Conduct eight (8) community educational events “Know Your Limit” campaigns, increasing awareness of driving under the influence.
· Conduct 40 DUI saturation patrols too reduce DUI/DUID deaths or bodily injury, which will improve roadway safety in the community.
· Purchase one DUI enforcement vehicle/tow vehicle.
· Purchase one message board for DUI Checkpoints and Educational messaging.

FY 2025-26 CHP CTFGP Grant funding is based on the state and local fiscal year, which begins on July 1, 2025, and ends on June 30, 2026. The Grant Agreement allocates $225,472, which will be utilized over the fiscal year. FY 2025-26 CHP CTFGP Grant will reimburse the City for approved grant expenditures throughout the grant period.

Although the majority of the FY 2025-26 CHP CTFGP Grant is designed to support enforcement efforts with the goal of reducing injury traffic collisions, the Traffic Safety Bureau recognizes that it is only through enforcement and education combined that we can fully realize this goal.

Page 2 of 3 ends

188
File #: 25-378 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
The Traffic Safety Bureau will continue to work collaboratively with the City’sTransportation Services Division to identify hazards which can be mitigated through environmental design. Additionally, City departments will continue to promote traffic safety education through public service announcements and social media.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may elect not to accept the grant; however, the Department would not be able to pursue the specific goals outlined in the grant.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Upon acceptance of the FY 2025-26 CHP CTFGP Grant, revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $225,472 respectively will be established in the State Grant Fund (Fund 231).

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’sOffice has reviewed the FY 2025-26 CHP CTFGP Grant Agreement, proposed resolution, and this report, and has approved them as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the City Council Goal:
· Strengthen the public’s safety and improve the quality of life. · Maintain and enhance the City’s facilities, equipment and technology.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

2. Approve revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $225,472 respectively, for the FY 2025-26 CHP CTFGP Grant.

Page 3 of 3 ends

189

State of California

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
GRANT AGREEMENT - Page 1
Award Number
23311
________________________________________________________________

1. GRANT TITLE
FY25/26 CTFGP Law Enforcement - Costa Mesa Police Department

2. NAME OF ORGANIZATION/AGENCY
Costa Mesa Police Department

3. ORGANIZATION/AGENCY SECTION TO ADMINISTER GRANT
Costa Mesa Police Department Traffic Safety Bureau

4. PROJECT PERFORMANCE PERIOD
From: 07/01/2025 To: 06/30/2026

5. PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER

6. GRANT OPPORTUNITY INFORMATION DESCRIPTION
Law Enforcement grants provide financial assistance to allied agencies for the education, prevention, and the enforcement of laws related to driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including cannabis and cannabis products.

The intent of the program is to educate the public regarding the dangers of impaired driving, enforce impaired driving laws on the roadway, and improve the Organization/Agency’s effectiveness through training and development of new strategies.

7. FUNDS ALLOCATED UNDER THIS GRANT AGREEMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED $225,472.00

8. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The Grantee agrees to complete the Project, as described in the Project Description. The Grantee’s Grant Application, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 2, Chapter 13, Sections 1890.00- 1890.27, are hereby incorporated into this Grant Agreement by reference.

The parties hereto agree to comply with the Terms and Conditions of the following attachments:
• Schedule A – Project Description, Problem Statement, Goals and Objectives, and Method of Procedure • Schedule B – Detailed Budget Estimate
• Schedule B-1 – Budget Narrative
We, the officials named below, hereby swear, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that we are duly authorized to legally bind the Grant recipient to the above-described Grant Terms and Conditions.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Grant Agreement is executed by the parties hereto.

9. APPROVAL SIGNATURES
A. AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL OF ORGANIZATION/AGENCY
Name: Cecilia Gallardo Daly
Title: City Manager
Phone: (714) 754-5099
A
ddress: 77 Fair Drive
C
osta Mesa, CA 92626
E-Mail: [email protected]
__
_________________________ _______________
(Signature) (Date)
B. AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL OF CHP
Name: Andrew Beasley Phone: (916) 843-4360
Title: Captain Fax: (916) 322-3169
A
ddress: 601 North 7th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
E-Mail: [email protected]
__
_________________________ _______________
(Signature) (Date)
C. ACCOUNTING OFFICER OF CHP
Name: M. V. Fojas Phone: (916) 843-3531
Title: Commander Fax: (916) 322-3159
A
ddress: 601 North 7th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
E-Ma
il: [email protected]
__
_________________________ _______________
(Signature) (Date)

10. AUT HORIZED FINANCIAL CONTACT TO RECEIVE
R

EIMBURSEMENT PAYMENTS
N
ame: Carol Molina
Title: Finance Director
Phone: (714) 754-5328
A
ddress: 77 Fair Drive
C
osta Mesa, CA 92626
Attachment 1
190

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Grantee shall comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 2, Chapter 13 Section 1890, et seq. and all other Terms and Conditions noted in this Grant Agreement. Failure by the Grantee to comply may result in the termination of this Grant Agreement by the California Highway Patrol (hereafter referred to as State). The State will have no obligation to reimburse the Grantee for any additional costs once the Grant Agreement has been terminated.

A. EXECUTION

1. The State (the California Highway Patrol) hereby awards, to the Grantee, the sum of money stated on page one of this Grant Agreement. This funding is awarded to the Grantee to carry out the Project set forth in the Project Description and the terms and conditions set forth in this Grant Agreement.

2. The funding for this Grant Agreement is allocated pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 34019(f)(3)(B). The Grantee agrees that the State’s obligation to pay any sum under this Grant Agreement is contingent upon availability of funds disbursed from the Californi a C
annabis Tax Fund to the State. If there is insufficient funding, the State shall have the option to ei
ther: 1) terminate this Grant Agreement; whereby, no party shall have any further obligations or liabilities under this Grant Agreement, or 2) negotiate a Grant Agreement Amendment t o r
educe the grant award and scope of work to be provided under this Grant Agree ment.

3. The Grantee is not to commence or proceed with any work in advance of receiving notice that the G
rant Agreement is approved. Any work performed by the Grantee in advance of the date of approval by the State shall be deemed volunteer work and will not be reimbursed by the State.

4. The Grantee agrees to provide any additional funding, beyond what the State has agreed t o pr
ovide, pursuant to this Grant Agreement, and necessary to complete or carry out the Project, as described in this Grant Agreement. Any modification or alteration of this Grant Agreement, as set forth in the Grant Application submitted by the Grantee and on file with the State, must be submitted in writing thirty (30) calendar days in advance to the State for approval.

5. The Grantee agrees to complete the Project within the timeframe indicated in the Project Performance Period, which is on page one of this Grant Agreement.

B. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

1. The Grantee shall submit all reimbursements, progress, performance, and/or other requir ed r
eports concerning the status of work performed in furtherance of this Grant Agreement on a quarterly basis, or as requested by the State.

2. The Grantee shall provide the State with a final report showing all Project expenditures, which includes all State and any other Project funding expended, within sixty (60) calendar days after completion of this Grant Agreement.

3. The Grantee shall ensure all equipment which is purchased, maintained, operated, and/or developed is available for inspection by the State.

4. Equipment purchased through this Grant Agreement shall be used for the education, prevention, and enforcement of impaired driving laws, unless the Grantee is funding a portion of th e pur
chased price not dedicated to impaired driving and that portion is not part of the Project costs.

Equipment purchased under this Grant Agreement must only be used for approved Project- related purposes, unless otherwise approved by the State in writing.

5. Prior to disposition of equipment acquired under this Grant Agreement, the Grantee shall notify the State via e- mail, and by telephone, by calling the California Highway Patrol, Impaired Driving Section, Cannabis Grants Unit at (916) 843-4360. 191

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

C. PROJECT TERMINATION

1. Grantee or the State may terminate this Grant Agreement at any time prior to the commencement of the Project. Once the Project has commenced, this Grant Agreement may only be terminated if the party withdrawing provides thirty (30) calendar days written notice of their intent to withdraw.

a. If by reason of force majeure the performance hereunder is delayed or prevented, then the term end date may be extended by mutual consent for the same amount of time of such delay or prevention. The term “force majeure” shall mean any fire, flood, earthquake, or public disaster, strike, labor dispute or unrest, embargo, riot, war, insurrection or civil unrest, any act of God, any act of legally constituted authority, or any other cause beyond the Grantee’s control which would excuse the Grantee’s performance as a matter of law.

b. Grantee agrees to provide written notice of an event of force majeure under this Grant Agreement within ten (10) calendar days of the commencement of such event, and within ten (10) calendar days after the termination of such event, unless the force majeure prohibits Grantee from reasonably giving notice within this period. Grantee will give such notice at the earliest possible time following the event of force majeure.

2. Any violations of law committed by the Grantee, misrepresentations of Project information by the Grantee to the State, submission of falsified documents by the Grantee to the State, or failure to provide records by the Grantee to the State when requested for audit or site visit purposes may be cause for termination. If the Project is terminated for the reasons described in this paragraph, the State will have no obligation to reimburse the Grantee for any additional costs once the Grant Agreement has been terminated.

3. The State may terminate this Grant Agreement and be relieved of any payments should the Grantee fail to perform the requirements of this Grant Agreement at the time and in the manner herein provided. Furthermore, the Grantee, upon termination, shall return grant funds not expended by the Grantee as of the date of termination.

4. If this Grant Agreement is terminated, the State may choose to exclude the Grantee from future Grant Opportunities.

D. FINANCIAL RECORDS

1. The Grantee agrees the State, or their designated representative, shall have the right to review and to copy all records and supporting documentation pertaining to the performance of this Grant Agreement. Grantee agrees to maintain such records for possible audit for a minimum of five (5) years after final payment, unless a longer period of records retention is stipulated or required by law. Grantee agrees to allow the auditor(s) access to such records during normal business hours and to allow interviews of any employees who might reasonably have information related to such records. Furthermore, the Grantee agrees to include a similar right for the State to audit all records and interview staff in any subcontract related to performance of this Grant Agreement.

E. HOLD HARMLESS

1. The Grantee agrees to indemnify, defend, and save harmless the State, its officials, agents and employees from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any and all Grantee’s staff, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this Grant Agreement, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, agency, firm, corporation who may be injured or damaged by the Grantee in performance of this Grant Agreement.
192

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
F. NONDISCRIMINATION

1. The Grantee agrees to comply with State and federal laws outlawing discrimination, including, but not limited to, those prohibiting discrimination because of sex, race, color, ancestry, religion, creed, national origin, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medica l c
ondition (including cancer or genetic characteristics), sexual orientation, political affiliation, position in a labor dispute, age, marital status, and denial of statutorily-required employment- related leave. (GC 12990 [a-f] and CCR, Title 2, Section 8103.) G. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

1. The Grantee assures the State it complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations an d gui
delines issued pursuant to the ADA. (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) H. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE

1. The Grantee shall comply with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 and will pr
ovide a drug-free workplace by taking the following actions:
a. Publish a statement notifying employees that unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying ac
tions to be taken against employees for violations.
b. Establish a Drug-Free Awareness Program to inform employees about:
i. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace.
ii. The person's or Organization/Agency's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace. iii. Any available counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs. iv. Penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations. c. Every employee who works on the Project will:
i. Receive a copy of the company's drug-free workplace policy statement. ii. Agree to abide by the terms of the company's statement as a condition of emp
loyment on the Grant Agreement.

2. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under this Grant Agreement, or termination of this Grant Agreement, or both, and Grantee may be ineligible for award of any future Grant Agreements if the department determines that any of the following has occurred:
a. The Grantee has made false certification or violated the certification by failing to carry out the r
equirements, as noted above. (GC 8350 et seq.)
I. LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

1. All law enforcement Organization/Agency/Agency Grantees shall comply with California law regarding racial profiling. Specifically, law enforcement Organization/Agency/Agency Grantees shall not engage in the act of racial profiling, as defined in California Penal Code Section 1351

9.4. 193

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

J. LABOR CODE/WORKERS' COMPENSATION

1. The Grantee is advised and made aware of the provisions which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions, and Grantee affirms to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Grant Agreement, (refer to Labor Code Section 3700).

K. GRANT APPLICATION INCORPORATION

1. The Grantee agrees the Grant Application and any subsequent changes or additions approved or required by the State is hereby incorporated into this Grant Agreement.

L. STATE LOBBYING

1. The Grantee is advised that none of the funds provided under this Grant Agreement may be used for any activity specifically designed to urge or influence a state or local legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific legislative proposal pending before any state or local legislative body. Such activities include both direct and indirect (e.g., “grassroots”) lobbying activities, with one exception. This does not preclude a state official, whose salary is supported by this Grant Agreement, from engaging in direct communications with the state or local legislative officials, in accordance with customary state and/or local practice.

M. REPRESENTATION AND WARRANTIES

1. The Grantee represents and warrants that:

a. It is validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of California, has, or will have the requisite power, authority, licenses, permits, and the like necessary to carry on its business as it is now being conducted and as contemplated in this Grant Agreement, and will, at all times, lawfully conduct its business in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and rules.

b. It is not a party to any Grant Agreement, written or oral, creating obligations that would prevent it from entering into this Grant Agreement or satisfying the terms herein.

c. If the Grantee is a Nonprofit Organization/Agency, it will maintain its “Active” status with the California Secretary of State, maintain its “Current” status with the California Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts, and maintain its federal and State of California tax - exempt status. If the Grantee subcontracts with a Nonprofit as part of this Grant Agreement, the Grantee shall ensure the Nonprofit will maintain its “Active” status with the California Secretary of State, maintain its “Current” status with the California Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts, and maintain its federal and State of California tax-exempt status.

d. All of the information in its Grant Application and all materials submitted are true and accurate.

N. AIR OR WATER POLLUTION VIOLATION

1. Under the state laws, the Grantee shall not be: (1) in violation of any order or resolution not subject to review promulgated by the State Air Resources Board or an air pollution control district; (2) subject to cease and desist order not subject to review issued pursuant to Section 13301 of the Water Code for violation of waste discharge requirements or discharge prohibitions; or (3) finally determined to be in violation of provisions of federal law relating to air or water pollution. 194

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
O. GRANTEE NAME CHANGE

1. Grantee agrees to immediately inform the State, in writing, of any changes to the name of the person within the Organization/Agency/Agency with delegated signing authority.

2. An Amendment is required to change the Grantee's name, as listed on this Grant Agreement. Upon receipt of legal documentation of the name change, the State will process the Amendment. Payment of invoices presented with a new name cannot be paid prior t o appr
oval of said Amendment.

P. RESOLUTION

1. A county, city, district, or other local public body shall provide the State with a copy of a r
esolution, order, motion, or ordinance of the local governing body, which by law, has authority to enter into a Grant Agreement, authorizing execution of the Grant Agreement.

Q. PAYEE DATA RECORD FORM STD. 204

1. This form shall be completed by all non-governmental Grantees.

R. FINANCIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT AGENCY TAXPAYER ID FORM

1. This form shall be completed by all Grantees.

S. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

1. This section serves to make the Grantee aware of specific provisions related to current or former state employees. If Grantee has any questions regarding the status of any person rendering se
rvices or involved with the Grant Agreement, the Grantee shall contact the State (California Highway Patrol, Impaired Driving Section, Cannabis Grants Unit) immediately for clarification.

2. Current State Employees:
a. No officer or employee shall engage in any employment, activity, or enterprise, from which the officer or employee receives compensation or has a financial interest, and which is sponsored or funded by any state agency, unless the employment, activity, or enterprise is required, as a condition of regular state employment.
b. No officer or employee shall contract on their own behalf, as an independent Grantee, with any state agency to provide goods or services.

3. Former State Employees:
a. For the two-year period from the date they left state employment, no former state officer or employee may enter into a contract in which they engaged in any of the negotiations, transactions, planning, arrangements, or any part of the decision-making process relevant t o
t
his Grant Agreement while employed in any capacity by any state agency. b. For the 12-month period from the date they left state employment, no former state officer or employee may enter into a contract with any state agency if they were employed by that state agenc
y in a policy-making position in the same general subject area as the proposed Grant Agreement within the 12-month period prior to their leaving state service.

4. The authorized representative of the Grantee Organization/Agency, named within this Grant Agreement, warrants their Organization/Agency and its employees have no personal or financial interest and no present or past employment or activity, which would be incompatible with 195

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

participating in any activity related to this Grant Agreement. For the duration of this Grant Agreement, the Organization/Agency and its employees will not accept any gift, benefit, gratuity or consideration, or begin a personal or financial interest in a party who is associated with this Grant Agreement.

5. The Grantee Organization/Agency and its employees shall not disclose any financial, statistical, personal, technical, media-related, and/or other information or data derived from this Grant Agreement, made available for use by the State, for the purposes of providing services to the State, in conjunction with this Grant Agreement, except as otherwise required by law or explicitly permitted by the State in writing. The Grantee shall immediately advise the State of any person(s) who has access to confidential Project information and intends to disclose that information in violation of this Grant Agreement.

6. The Grantee will not enter into any Grant Agreement or discussions with third parties concerning materials described in paragraph five (5) prior to receiving written confirmation from the State that such third party has a Grant Agreement with the State, similar in nature to this one.

7. The Grantee warrants that only those employees who are authorized and required to use the materials described in paragraph 5 will have access to them.

8. If the Grantee violates any provisions in the above paragraphs, such action by the Grantee shall render this Grant Agreement void.

T. EQUIPMENT-USE TERMS

1. The Grantee agrees any equipment purchased under this Grant Agreement shall be used for impaired driving efforts.

2. Law Enforcement Projects:

a. Oral Fluid Drug Screening Devices and Cannabis/Marijuana Breath Testing Equipment - The Grantee agrees to ensure all personnel using road-side drug testing equipment, including oral fluid drug testing devices and/or cannabis/marijuana breath testing devices, purchased with grant funds from this Grant Agreement, are trained to recognize alcohol and drug impairment.

At a minimum, personnel using these devices should receive Standardized Field Sobriety Testing training. These personnel are also encouraged to attend Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement and Drug Recognition Evaluator training. Prior to using these devices, the Grantee agrees to obtain permission from their local prosecutor’s office, establish a policy ensuring appropriate use, and require the staff using these devices to receive appropriate training, which may include training from the manufacturer. This will help ensure the equipment is used appropriately. The Grantee shall advise the State (California Highway Patrol, Impaired Driving Section, Cannabis Grants Unit) of any legal challenges or other items of significance that may affect the use or legal acceptance of these devices.

Additionally, the State may request additional information about the performance of these devices, including information about their use, accuracy, and feedback from personnel using the devices.

b. Law Enforcement Vehicles – The Grantee agrees any law enforcement vehicles purchased with Grant funds, from this Grant Agreement, will be primarily used for the enforcement of driving under the influence laws and/or providing public education, related to the dangers of driving under the influence. Additionally, any vehicle purchased using funds from this Grant Agreement shall comply with all California Vehicle Code and California Code of Regulation requirements. The State may require the Grantee to mark these vehicles with a decal and/or emblem, indicating the vehicle is used for driving under the influence enforcement. 196
Schedule A

Costa Mesa Police Department

All grant awards, including any adjustments to requested funding, were made by the Cannabis Grants Unit based on the merits of the Grant Application, scale of operation, and in accordance with the Request for Application (RFA) requirements and associated regulations. As a result, not all Project activities and items detailed in Schedule A are applicable. Refer to Schedule B - Detailed Budget Estimate for approved Budget line items and Project activities. Project activities and items that are not clearly identified/specified in the Grant Agreement must be submitted to and approved by CGU prior to purchase.

Project Description
The proposed project to combat DUI and impaired driving combines targeted enforcement and public education to reduce traffic collisions and enhance safety. It includes increased DUI saturation patrols along with a collaborative effort between local businesses and public safety. Public awareness campaigns will educate drivers about the dangers of impaired driving, focusing on both alcohol and drug use, while promoting responsible behaviors and alternative transportation options. Additionally, the project wil l leverage data analysis to identify high-risk areas and adjust enforcement strategies accordingly. By integrating both enforcement and education, the project aims to deter impaired driving and foster a safer driving environment.

Problem Statement & Proposed Solution
Traffic Enforcement Staffing:

Staffing reductions attributed to retirements and subsequent recruitment challenges have significantly decreased the number of officers available for traffic law enforcement. Currently, the Costa Mesa Police Department's Traffic Safety Bureau is staffed with only eight officers. Full staffing for the Traffic Safety Bureau is budgeted for ten full-time officers, responsible for enforcing traffic laws across the entire city, including a full-time, two-person DUI team. While the department provides traffic enforcement coverage seven days a week, the limited number of officers results in minimal daily staffing. The loss of the full -time DUI team has limited our ability for directed enforcement of impaired drivers. Traffic officers must also divide their time between critical duties, including crash investigations and other pressing law enforcement responsibilities, leaving little capacity for proactive traffic enforcement. Funding from the Cannabis Tax Fund Grant is instrumental in addressing this gap by enabling officers to dedicate time specifically to impaired driver enforcement, and broader traffic safety initiatives.

DUI Enforcement:

Costa Mesa has historically had a serious DUI problem due to numerous ABC establishments located within the city boundaries, a highly traveled freeway terminating in our city, and our roadways being used to access nearby tourist cities such as Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. To mitigate our DUI issue in Costa Mesa, a combination of prevention, enforcement, and education is crucial. Strengthening partnerships with local businesses, increasing DUI saturation patrols, and continuing public outreach efforts can help reduce the frequency and impact of DUI incidents. The Traffic Safety Bureau had a year-round, two-person DUI enforcement team in 2021 and 2022. During that time there were 1093 DUI arrests in 2021 and 941 DUI arrests in 2022. Due to loss of personnel, the DUI enforcement team was suspended in October 2023, and there were only 851 DUI arrests department-wide that year. The Traffic Safety Bureau was not able to staff a full-time DUI enforcement team in 2024, and DUI arrests dropped to 518 that year. There were 208 DUI traffic collisions in Costa Mesa in 2024. Additional Cannabis Tax Fun Grant saturation patrol funding will allow more officers to have dedicated time for proactive DUI enforcement and reduce the number of DUI collisions in Costa Mesa.

197
Schedule A

Traffic Enforcement Vehicles:

Like many other agencies, the city of Costa Mesa has faced challenges in maintaining a fully operational fleet of patrol vehicles. Issues such as on-duty crashes, mechanical failures, aging equipment, and manufacturing limitations have led to a shortage of operable patrol vehicles. This shortage has been problematic during DUI saturation patrols, which are typically conducted at night. Given the increased risks associated with riding motorcycles during nighttime hours when impaired drivers are more prevalent, officers often rely on patrol vehicles for these enforcement efforts. However, the already limited patrol vehicle fleet significantly impacts the department's day-to-day patrol operations. For DUI checkpoints, the Costa Mesa Police Department Traffic Safety Bureau currently uses older civilian police pickup trucks to transport our OTS -funded DUI checkpoint trailer, DUI message boards, and other DUI checkpoint equipment. Recognizing the need for an enforcement-specific vehicle with towing and storage capabilities, the Traffic Safety Bureau has observed other local agencies successfully utilizing DUI-specific enforcement vehicles funded through grants.

Traffic Enforcement/Education:

Driving under the influence (DUI) continues to be a leading cause of traffic-related injuries and fatalities, posing a serious threat to public safety. Despite existing laws and enforcement efforts, many drivers remain unaware of the full risks and legal consequences of impaired driving. Public education is a crucial component in preventing DUI incidents by increasing awareness, changing behaviors, and promoting responsible decision-making. However, our agency often lack the necessary funding to implement comprehensive DUI prevention programs. Cannabis Tax fund grant for public education on DUI prevention would allow us to develop and distribute educational materials, host community workshops, and launch awareness campaigns targeting at-risk populations. By utilizing community partnerships, agencies can effectively educate the public on the dangers of impaired driving, alternative transportation options, and the legal repercussions of DUI offenses. Strengthening public education efforts will contribute to safer roadways, reduce impaired driving incidents, and foster stronger relationships between law enforcement and the communities we serve.

DUI Related Traffic Collisions
• 2022
o Fatal 1
o Caused Injury 80
o Injured 119
• 2023
o Fatal 1
o Causing Injury 46
o Injured 63
• 2024
o Fatal 0
o Caused Injury 59
o Injured 90

Solution
Equity:

The Costa Mesa Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. The Costa Mesa Police Department will provide law enforcement services and enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively, and without discrimination toward any individual or group.

198
Schedule A

Strategies:

Due to the recession of 2008, Costa Mesa Police Department staffing levels have not recovered to full strength, resulting in the inability to staff our DUI and Traffic Enforcement Operations sufficiently. To deter the rise of injury traffic collisions, there is a need to supplement traffic and DUI enforcement operations using personnel on an overtime basis, strategically deploying them to have the largest impact and visibility to the public. The Costa Mesa Police Department Traffic Safety Bureau has slowly been increasing staffing levels, and as of 2021, it implemented a permanent DUI enforcement team until November 2023 when staffing levels dropped again and it was no longer possible to fill those positions. The increase in drivers who are displaying signs and symptoms of both alcohol and drugs, specifically marijuana, has grown exponentially. The Costa Mesa Police Department has experienced an increase in the refusals of the chemical test requirement associated with driving under the influence arrests. As a result, both traffic and patrol officers are spending a significant amount of time during the booking process requesting “McNeely” warrants to obtain the chemical test (blood draw).

Additionally the Cannabis Tax Funding Grant will allow officers dedicated time for DUI saturation patrols, without having to split their enforcement time with crash investigations and other police matters. With funding from Cannabis Tax Funding Grant, the department plans to purchase a heavy-duty, tow-capable enforcement vehicle, featuring distinct "DUI Enforcement" markings as well as acknowledgement of sponsorship by Cannabis Tax Funding Grant. This vehicle will be utilized not only for DUI checkpoints and DUI saturation enforcement operations but also for traffic education displays and publicity campaigns, including social media posts. Driving this vehicle throughout the city will serve as a visible, constant reminder of the dangers of impaired driving and reinforce the department's commitment to traffic safety.

The legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for operating a motor vehicle in California is widely known to be below 0.08%. However, many individuals may not fully understand how much or how little alcohol it takes to reach or exceed this limit. To address this, the Costa Mesa Police Department is seeking the Cannabis Tax Fund Grant to support the Know Your Limit campaign. As part of this initiative, officers patrol Costa Mesa’s entertainment districts on foot, engaging with patrons outside bars and clubs. Volunteers are asked to estimate their current BAC and assess whether they believe they are safe to drive. They then use a breathalyzer in front of their peers to compare their perceived and actual levels of impairment. This interactive approach serves as an educational tool, reinforcing the importance of responsible decision- making and encouraging the use of designated sober drivers within the Costa Mesa community.

Performance Measures/Scope of Work
40 DUI Saturation Patrols (Q1=10, Q2=10, Q3=10, Q4=10): Aim to reduce DUI/DUID deaths or bodily injury, which will improve roadway safety measures in the community.

1 Message Board for DUI Checkpoints and Educational Messaging (Q1= Purchase, Q2- Q4 Receive and use to complete DUI Checkpoints and Education. We will utilize the Message Boards to notify the public of an approaching DUI Checkpoint. In between DUI Checkpoints, we will display educational messaging against driving under the influence. This will notify the public and allow motorists to slow down and prepare for a driver’s license and DUI Checkpoint. This will reduce public safety risk and allow safety of the employees of the Costa Mesa Police Department. Based on awareness of a DUI checkpoint message board will allow the measurement to reduce the amount of traffic collisions or unsafe driving behaviors by 10%.

1 DUI/Traffic Enforcement vehicle / Checkpoint Tow Vehicle (Q1= Purchase, Q2- 4 Receive and upfit of the vehicle capable of towing trailer and supplies for DUI Checkpoint: We will utilize the vehicle to conduct DUI/DUID and traffic enforcement. It will also give us the capabilities to tow our DUI trailer to DUI checkpoints. Having a vehicle available to work DUI saturation patrols will aim to reduce DUI/DUID deaths by 10%, which will improve roadway safety in the community. Also having a vehicle capable of towing a DUI trailer will assist us in conducting DUI Checkpoints reducing another 10% of crashes due to impaired driving.

8 Know your limit campaigns (Q1=2, Q2=2, Q3=2, Q4=2: Aim to contact patrons attending entertainment venues in the City of Costa Mesa and increase awareness of driving under the influence. This interactive approached serves as an educational tool. We aim to contact at least 50 citizens each quarter to increase awareness of driving under the influence. The officers will educate the public on the implications of impaired driving.

199
Schedule A

Project Performance Evaluation
• Prepare and submit grant claim invoices (due each quarter) • Prepare and submit Quarterly Performance Reports (QPR) • Collect and report quarterly, appropriate data that supports the progress of goals and objectives. • Provide a brief list of activity conducted, procurement of grant-funded items, and significant media activities.
• Include status of grant-funded personnel, status of contracts, challenges, or special accomplishments.
• Provide a brief summary of quarterly accomplishments and explanations for objectives not completed or plans for upcoming activities.
• Collect, analyze and report statistical data relating to the grant goals and objectives.

Method of Evaluation:

Using the data compiled during the grant, the Grant Director will complete the “Final Evaluation” section in the fourth/final Quarterly Performance Report (QPR). The Final Evaluation should provide a brief summary of the grant’s accomplishments, challenges and significant activities. This narrative should also include whether goals and objectives were met, exceeded, or an explanation of why objectives were not completed.

Administrative Support:

This program has full administrative support, and every effort will be made to continue the grant activities after grant conclusion.

Program Sustainability
To prioritize recruitment and hiring efforts, a phased approach will be implemented to restore full -time positions within the Traffic Safety Bureau. This initiative will allow for dedicated DUID enforcement without full reliance on grant-funded overtime operations. Current projections indicate that staffing levels are improving.

In the short term, a financial assessment will identify essential grant-funded programs, and budget reallocation will prioritize critical expenditures. Over the mid-term, revenue diversification strategies and efficiency improvements will be pursued to optimize resources. Additionally, advocacy efforts will focus on securing stable funding through local and state allocations.

In the long term, self-sustaining initiatives, including grant funds, will be established to create continuous revenue streams. A grant contingency plan will also be developed to mitigate financial risks and ensure uninterrupted operations. Through this strategic approach, the organization will gradually reduce dependency on grants while maintaining essential public services and achieving long-term financial sustainability.

Administrative Support
Administrative Support: This program has full administrative support, and every effort will be made to continue the grant activities after grant conclusion.
200
Schedule B
Detailed Budget Estimate
Award Number Organization/Agency Total Amount
23311 Costa Mesa Police Department $225,472.00
Cost Category Line Item Name Total Cost to Grant
Other Direct Costs
DUI/DUID Vehicle - Outfitting $20,000.00
Category Sub-Total $20,000.00
Personnel
Education/Outreach $22,032.00
DUI Saturation Patrol $73,440.00
Category Sub-Total $95,472.00
Equipment
DUI Patrol Vehicle $80,000.00
Message Board $30,000.00
Category Sub-Total $110,000.00
Grant Total $225,472.00
201
Schedule B-1
Budget Narrative

Costa Mesa Police Department

Prior to engaging in grant-funded Saturation Patrols, DUI Checkpoints, or other enforcement activities in areas where the grantee does not have primary traffic jurisdiction, the grantee should consult with the agency having primary traffic jurisdiction.

Other Direct Costs

DUI/DUID Vehicle - Outfitting
$20,000.00

Install standardized Code 3 equipment, radios, storage organizers, back seat inmate transportation, weapon security = $20,000

1 DUI/Traffic Enforcement vehicle / Checkpoint Tow Vehicle outfitting. (Q1= Purchase, Q2- 4 Receive and upfit of the vehicle capable of towing trailer and supplies for DUI Checkpoint: We will utilize the vehicle to conduct DUI/DUID and traffic enforcement. It will also give us the capabilities to tow our DUI trailer to DUI checkpoints. Having a vehicle available to work DUI saturation patrols will aim to reduce DUI/DUID deaths by 10%, which will improve roadway safety in the community. Also having a vehicle capable of towing a DUI trailer will assist us in conducting DUI Checkpoints reducing another 10% of crashes due to impaired driving.

Ballistic Panels:

Labor for Front Doors install: $500
IIIA doors:$ 874.80
Shipping: $285
Total $2708.94

Window Tint: $135

DMS Full Graphics
Graphics: $840.00
Install: $330
Artwork: $150.00
Total: 1,385.10

All estimates are attached.

Personnel

DUI Saturation Patrol
$73,440.00
40 DUI Saturation Patrols = $153 / hour (Overtime), 6 hour shifts, 2 officers = $1,836 40 operations $73,440

Education/Outreach
$22,032.00
8 "Know Your Limit" operations = $153 / hour (Overtime), 6 hour shifts , 3 officers = $2,754 operations $22,032

202
Schedule B-1
Budget Narrative

Costa Mesa Police Department

Equipment

Message Board
$30,000.00

1 Message Board for DUI Checkpoints and Educational Messaging (Q1= Purchase, Q2-Q4 Receive and use to complete DUI Checkpoints and Education. We will utilize the Message Boards to notify the public of an approaching DUI Checkpoint. In between DUI Checkpoints, we will display educational messaging against driving under the influence. This will notify the public and allow motorists to slow down and prepare for a driver’s license and DUI Checkpoint. This will reduce public safety risk and allow safety of the employees of the Costa Mesa Po lice Department. Based on awareness of a DUI checkpoint message board will allow the measurement to reduce the amount of traffic collisions or unsafe driving behaviors by 10%.

DUI Patrol Vehicle
$80,000.00

Chevrolet Silverado capabilities to tow DUI Trailer. Outfit vehicle same as fleet. Marked and primarily used for Driving under the influence enforcement.

203

Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 1 of 3

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDS AND THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT FROM THE FY2025 -26 STATE OF

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY PATROL (CHP) CANNABIS TAX GRANT PROGRAM.

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

WHEREAS, the State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP), has awarded grant funding from its Cannabis Tax Grant Program (“Grant”); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa desires to accept the grant funds for the education, prevention, and the enforcement of laws related to driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including cannabis; and WHEREAS, the CHP Cannabis Tax Grant Program (“CTFGP”) has awarded grant funding to the City in the amount of $225,472.00 to create safer roadway environments and reduce fatal and injury producing collisions by funding patrol operations, which will allow officers to specifically and proactively conduct DUI enforcement and to remove DUI drivers from our communities’ roadways before they cause a collision. Specifically, the funds will cover costs for the purchase of specialized equipment , including one DUI enforcement vehicle and one message board for DUI checkpoints and the grant will also fund personnel overtime related to targeted traffic operations; and WHEREAS, in addition, the grant will fund educational programs in the City, specifically, for the “Know your Limit” program, which will involve utilizing police personnel who will coordinate with local bars and will engage the community with the utilization of mobile breath devices so they can be educated on their blood alcohol level and whether they are within the legal limit to safely operate a vehicle; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that acceptance of the grant funds from the State of California, CHP Cannabis Tax Grant Program could provide a benefit to the safety of the residents of Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

ATTACHMENT 2
204

Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 2 of 3

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa as follows:

Section 1. That the recitals contained in this Resolution are true and correct and incorporated herein.

Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the acceptance of the grant funds from the State of California, CHP Cannabis Tax Grant Program in the amount of $225,472.00 for the reimbursement to the City’s General Fund for the purchase of specialized equipment and for the funding of personnel overtime related to targeted traffic operations.

Section 3.

The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa authorizes the Interim City Manager, or designee, to execute and deliver the grant documents, including the Grant Agreement and accept and administer the grant.

Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and shall enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _________, 2025.

_____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

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

205

Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 3 of 3

THIS PAGE IS RESERVED FOR THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE.

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 is the original of Ordinance No. 2025-xx and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the __ day of August, 2025, 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 August, 2025.

___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

206

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-387 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
TITLE:

ACCEPTANCE OF THE ADAMS AVENUE AND PINECREEK DRIVE INTERSECTION PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 23-11, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. CML-5312(104) DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: RAJA SETHURAMAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: PAUL MARTIN, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MANAGER, (714) 754-5343
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Accept the work performed by Gentry General Engineering, Inc., 320 West Tropica Rancho Road, Colton, California 92324, for the Adams Avenue and Pinecreek Drive Intersection Project, City Project No. 23-11, Federal Project No. CML-5312(104), and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.

BACKGROUND:

On February 20, 2024, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Gentry General Engineering, Inc., for the Adams Avenue and Pinecreek Drive Intersection Project (Project).

The Project implemented innovative pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements at the primary entrance to Orange Coast College (OCC), one of the City’sbusiest bicycle and pedestrian crossings.

The Project removed two high-speed free-right turn slip lanes to allow for bicycle and pedestrian mobility improvements including, new Class I multi-use paths at the southwest and northeast corners of the intersection, Class II buffered bike lanes, a new signalized crosswalk on the west leg of the intersection, new sidewalks, ADA pedestrian curb ramps, bicycle ramps, pedestrian and bicyclist pavement markings, and traffic signal modifications such as new accessible push signals, bicycle video detection, and Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI). Green bicycle pavement was installed throughout the project which provides enhanced visibility of dedicated bicycle spaces to allow the safe mobility in and around the intersection. The new Class I multi-use pathway is the first in Orange County to use continuous green painted pavement to separate the bicycle path from the pedestrian

Page 1 of 4 ends

207
File #: 25-387 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
path.

The Project recently won two (2) awards: one from the American Society of Civil Engineers, (ASCE) Orange County Branch for 2025 Outstanding Bikeways and Trails Project, and the other from the Association of California Cities - Orange County (ACC-OC) Golden Hub Award for the 2025 Transportation Innovation and Mobility Solutions Award.

ANALYSIS:

Project construction is now complete. The work required by the contract documents was completed on May 2, 2025, to the satisfaction of the Transportation Services Manager and the City Engineer.

The final contract cost amounted to $2,968,640.96. A report of the final costs is included as Attachment 1.

A summary of the costs is as follows:

Original Contract Amount: $ 2,877,242.00
Total Cost of Change Orders: $ 195,773.01
Final Quantity Adjustments: $ (104,374.05)
Final Contract Cost: $ 2,968,640.96
The final contract cost reflects a 3.2% increase to the original contract amount as a result of final quantity and cost adjustments.

As of this date, no stop notices have been filed against the monies due to Gentry General Engineering, Inc.

Before

Page 2 of 4 ends

208
File #: 25-387 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
After
Additional photos of the Project are provided in Attachment 2.

ALTERNATIVES:

This item is administrative in nature and there are no alternatives to be considered.

FISCAL REVIEW:

This Project was financed using numerous funding sources such as the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Bicycle Corridor Improvement Program (BCIP) Federal Grant, Contributions from OCC, Traffic Impact Fee Fund (214), Measure M2 Fairshare Fund (416), and Capital Improvement Program Funds (401).

LEGAL REVIEW:

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

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This project worked toward achieving the following City Council goals:
· Maintain and Enhance the City’s Facilities, Equipment and Technology · Strengthen the Public’s Safety and Improve the Quality of Life · Advance Environmental Sustainability and Climate Resiliency

Page 3 of 4 ends

209
File #: 25-387 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Accept the work performed by Gentry General Engineering, Inc., 320 West Tropica Rancho Road, Colton, California 92324, for the Adams Avenue and Pinecreek Drive Intersection Project, City Project No. 23-11, Federal Project No. CML-5312(104), and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.

Page 4 of 4 ends

210
ATTACHMENT 1
CONTRACTOR GENTRY GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC.
320 West Tropica Rancho Road, Colton, CA 92324

PROJECT ADAMS AVENUE AND PINECREEK DRIVE INTERSECTION PROJECT CITY PROJECT 23-11, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. CML-5312(104)
1 1 LS $48,000.00Clearing and Grubbing 1 $48,000.00
2 1 LS $60,000.00Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)1 $27,435.00 3 2,010 C.Y. $146.00Unclassified Excavation* (F) 1909.5 $278,787.00 4 11 EA $2,000.00Tree Removal 19 $38,000.00
5 450 TON $281.00Construct 2" AC Surface Course "Type C" 424 $119,144.00 6 670 TON $269.00Construct 3" AC Base Course "Type B" 470.99 $126,696.31 7 1,110 TON $83.00Construct 5" CMB Under AC Pavement 818.56 $67,940.48 8 100 ELT $1,250.00Apply Crack Seal and Type II Slurry Seal 100 $125,000.00 9 1,500 LF $60.00Construct 8" Median Curb, Type "A" 1500 $90,000.00 10 272 LF $48.00Construct 8" Parabolic Median Curb Transition266 $12,768.00 11 92 LF $84.00 CONSTRUCT VARIABLE HEIGHT RETAINING CURB (8"-14") OVER 4" 50 $4,200.00
12 250 LF $67.00 Construct Variable Height Retaining Curb (0” to 8”), Type “A”, Over 4” CMB 230 $15,410.00
13 17 LF $69.00 Construct Variable Height Curb (0” to 8”), Type “A”, Over 4” CMB 17 $1,173.00
14 265 LF $158.00Construct 8” Curb & Gutter, Type “C”, Over 6” CMB 265 $41,870.00 15 650 LF $139.00 Construct Modified 6” Curb & Gutter, Type “C”, Over 6” CMB 655 $91,045.00
16 260 SF $23.00 Construct Median 4” Stamped, Sand Colored PCC Over 4” Sand Over Compacted Subgrade 260 $5,980.00
17 3,250 SF $19.00Construct 4” PCC Sidewalk Over 4” CMB 3032 $57,608.00 18 14,250 SF $19.00 Construct 4” PCC Sidewalk (Bicycle/Pedestrian Pathway) Over 4” CMB) 0
19 3 EA $17,000.00 Construct 4” Concrete Curb Ramp (Case A) Over 4” CMB 3 $51,000.00
20 1 EA $16,000.00 Construct 4” Concrete Curb Ramp (Case B) Over 4” CMB 1 $16,000.00
ACTUAL

QUANTITYCONTRACT PRICEUNIT PRICEITEM
NO. DESCRIPTIONBID QUANTITY
211
ATTACHMENT 1
CONTRACTOR GENTRY GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC.
320 West Tropica Rancho Road, Colton, CA 92324

PROJECT ADAMS AVENUE AND PINECREEK DRIVE INTERSECTION PROJECT CITY PROJECT 23-11, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. CML-5312(104)
ACTUAL

QUANTITYCONTRACT PRICEUNIT PRICEITEM
NO. DESCRIPTIONBID QUANTITY
21 1 EA $15,000.00 Construct Modified 4” Concrete Curb Ramp (Case F) over 4” CMB 1 $15,000.00
22 500 SF $53.00Construct 8” PCC Spandrel Over 8” CMB 500 $26,500.00 23 225 LF $53.00Install 2” X 8” Redwood Header 225 $11,925.00 24 1 LS $30,000.00
Regrade Existing Landscaping Area Behind PCC
Sidewalk. Adjust Impacted Irrigation and Appurtenances
As Needed
1 $30,000.00
25 1 LS $42,000.00
Fill and Grade with Native Soil and Compact to 95%
Relative Compaction. Furnish and Install 3” Organic
Mulch. Adjust, Replace or Modify Irrigation and
Appurtenances As Needed
1 $42,000.00
26 1 LS $12,600.00 Modify Irrigation as Necessary to Ensure Proper Head to Head Coverage of Irrigation 1 $12,600.00
27 1 LS $34,000.00 Adjust, Replace or Modify Median Irrigation and Appurtenances As Needed 1 $34,000.00
28 1 EA $63,000.00 Construct Case “A” Curb Opening Catch Basin (W=21’) 1 $63,000.00 29 1 EA $49,000.00 Construct Case “B” Curb Opening Catch Basin (W=14’) 1 $49,000.00 30 1 EA $25,000.00Install Type V Inlet 1 $25,000.00
31 300 SF $46.00Construct Local Depression 300 $13,800.00 32 2 EA $5,300.00Construct Concrete Collar for RCB 0 $0.00 33 1 EA $41,000.00Construct Junction Structure-Pipe to Pipe 0 $0.00 34 20 LF $814.00Furnish and Install 18” RCP, D-1500 20 $16,280.00 35 3 EA $3,200.00Reset Survey Monument 3 $9,600.00
36 1 EA $1,800.00Relocate Existing Bus Bench and Debris Receptacle1 $1,800.00 37 11 EA $1,000.00Relocate Existing Irrigation Control Valves 11 $11,000.00 212
ATTACHMENT 1
CONTRACTOR GENTRY GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC.
320 West Tropica Rancho Road, Colton, CA 92324

PROJECT ADAMS AVENUE AND PINECREEK DRIVE INTERSECTION PROJECT CITY PROJECT 23-11, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. CML-5312(104)
ACTUAL

QUANTITYCONTRACT PRICEUNIT PRICEITEM
NO. DESCRIPTIONBID QUANTITY
38 3 EA $5,600.00
Remove Existing Catch Basin Structure and Protect
Existing Connector Pipe in Place. Fill and Compact
Removal with Native Soil
2 $11,200.00
39 1 LS $141,000.00Signing and Striping* 1 $141,000.00
40 1 LS $583,000.00 Traffic Signal Modification, Interconnect and Full Functionality with the City’s Traffic Management Center*1 $583,000.00 41 1 LS $120,000.00Install Street Lighting Conduit 1 $120,000.00 42 1 EA $1,650.00Adjust Existing Sewer Manhole to Grade 1 $1,650.00 43 1 FA $100,000.00Additional Work Items 1 $100,000.00
44A 360 TON $315.00 Construct 4” AC Surface Course,
“Type C” (Bicycle/Pedestrian Pathway) 367 $115,605.00
45A 360 TON $126.00 Construct 4” CMB Under AC Pavement
(Bicycle/Pedestrian Pathway) 423.66 $53,381.16
CCO1 Change Order 1 1 $108,354.31
CCO2 Change Order 2 1 $154,888.70
$2,968,640.96TOTAL
213
ATTACHMENT 2
Adams Avenue and Pinecreek Drive IntersecƟon MulƟmodal
Improvements Project Photos

214

215

216

217

218

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-395 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
TITLE:

RESOLUTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ALONG NEWPORT BOULEVARD (SR-55) IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTED BY: RAJA SETHURAMAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: PAUL MARTIN, P.E., TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MANAGER (714) 754-5343
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution (2025-xx) requesting the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to implement safety improvements along Newport Boulevard (State Route (SR) -55) in the City of Costa Mesa.

BACKGROUND:

Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) currently terminates at 19th Street and continues south through Downtown Costa Mesa as Newport Boulevard. This major arterial, under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, while providing for regional transportation needs for vehicular traffic, creates significant barriers and safety challenges for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, resulting in a concentration of injuries and fatalities. Crashes along Newport Boulevard often involve vulnerable roadways users such as people walking and bicycling. Between 2021 and 2024, there have been five pedestrian fatalities along Newport Boulevard between the limits of 19th Street and Industrial Way. Since 2009, more than half of pedestrian fatalities within the City of Costa Mesa occurred on Newport Boulevard, between 19th Street and Industrial Way.

ANALYSIS:

Caltrans recently initiated a project (12-OR32UR) with plans to construct improvements along SR-55 between SR-1 (Pacific Coast Highway) in Newport Beach and SR-91 in Anaheim. In January 2023, Caltrans facilitated a public meeting with invitations sent to members of the Costa Mesa community regarding this project. During the meeting, the community requested Caltrans recognize the concentration of crashes, injuries, and fatalities on Newport Boulevard, prioritize safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, and incorporate effective treatments for improving safety along Newport Boulevard. Following this meeting, Caltrans conducted a feasibility analysis and determined that separated bicycle lanes were infeasible and did not include them in the design plans. The Caltrans project included limited improvements for Newport Boulevard (SR-55) within the City of Costa Mesa including the following:
· New pedestrian accessible curb ramps along Newport Boulevard intersections at 17th Street,

Page 1 of 3 ends

219
File #: 25-395 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
· New pedestrian accessible curb ramps along Newport Boulevard intersections at 17th Street, Harbor Boulevard, 19th Street, Baker Street, and Paularino Avenue. · Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) and pedestrian countdown signals at signalized intersections.
· Battery backup systems to maintain operations during power outages.

Caltrans has initiated the project implementation and indicated that the project construction schedule is June 2025 to 2027.

The current Caltrans project excluded several safety features desired by the City of Costa Mesa staff and community including:
· Provision of a new crosswalk at the Newport Boulevard/Rochester Street-18th Street intersection north leg.
· Provision of a new crosswalk at the Newport Boulevard/Harbor Boulevard intersection south leg.
· Installation of additional lighting along corridor and at crosswalks for improved pedestrian visibility. Upgrade all existing high pressure sodium lighting fixtures to brighter LED fixtures. · Reduction of travel lane widths to reduce pedestrian exposure in crosswalks, manage speeding behavior, and facilitate other safety improvements such as bulb-outs. · Installation of Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) with supplemental No Right-Turn blank-out signs.
· Inclusion of advance stop bars at crosswalks.
· Provision of quick build (striping) or permanent (concrete) curb extensions where feasible to reduce pedestrian crosswalk crossing distances across Newport Boulevard or across cross- streets.
· Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) features to reduce potential conflicts (e.g., extended yellow for dilemma zone issues, delayed green for unfinished pedestrian crossings, “rest-on- red” at selected intersections during off-peak hours to discourage excessive speeding during low traffic conditions, and video monitoring systems and analytics to detect near-miss incidents for proactive safety management, etc.).

The items above are consistent with SB-960 (2024), the Transportation: Planning: Complete Streets Facilities: Transit Priority Facilities Bill, which mandates Caltrans to “incorporate Complete Streets (CS) elements, like pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, into asset management plans, setting specific performance targets for these features.”
The Costa Mesa City Council, through the attached resolution (Attachment 1), requests Caltrans to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle safety in Downtown Costa Mesa. The resolution also requests that Caltrans take immediate steps to incorporate measures to address pedestrian and bicycle safety along this major corridor as part of the current project. The resolution further requests that Caltrans engage with the City on a routine basis to review and address traffic safety concerns of pedestrians

Page 2 of 3 ends

220
File #: 25-395 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
engage with the City on a routine basis to review and address traffic safety concerns of pedestrians and bicyclists in Downtown Costa Mesa.

ALTERNATIVES:

No alternatives were considered since this item is administrative in nature.

FISCAL REVIEW:

There are no fiscal impacts to the City for the approval of the recommended action.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’sOffice has reviewed this agenda report and resolution and approves them both as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This project supports the following City Council goals:
· Strengthen the Public’s Safety and Improve the Quality of Life. · Maintain and enhance the City’s facilities, equipment, and technology. · Advance environmental sustainability and climate resiliency.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution (2025-xx) requesting the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to implement safety improvements along Newport Boulevard (State Route (SR) -55) in the City of Costa Mesa.

Page 3 of 3 ends

221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-383 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
TITLE:

AUTHORIZE THE USE OF OMNIA PARTNERS PUBLIC SECTOR NATIONAL COOPERATIVE

AGREEMENT WITH GAME TIME PLAYGROUND SOLUTIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF

PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR BRENTWOOD PARK
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/MAINTENANCE SERVICES DIVISION PRESENTED BY: RAJA SETHURAMAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: ROBERT RYAN, MAINTENANCE SERVICES MANAGER (714) 327-7499
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

2. Authorize the Interim City Manager and City Clerk to execute any agreements for the purchase of the playground equipment.

BACKGROUND:

Brentwood Park, originally constructed in 1978 as a 1.5-acre park, was expanded to 2.6 acres after the City acquired additional space following the closing of Park Private Day School in 2007. The playground equipment currently in use was installed in 1995, making it one of the longest serving playgrounds in the City. Although the playground equipment and rubberized surface remain safe for use, the playground has become outdated and unsightly due to its age, with significant fading and deterioration of metal components and paint, resulting in increased maintenance time and costs to maintain playability.

The Park presently features a single playground structure intended for children ages 5-12, a sand volleyball court, a reservable picnic shelter, lighting and a large turf area. Brentwood Park is an integral part of the Eastside community in serving the nearby residents with recreational amenities.

The proposed improvements will enhance the playground equipment, add swings, and provide seating options.

In April of 2025, staff were notified of a potential grant opportunity offered through a partnership between Game Time Playground Solutions, a playground equipment design and manufacturing company, and the California Park and Recreation Society (CPRS). The grant would fund half of the

Page 1 of 3 ends

229
File #: 25-383 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
cost for qualifying equipment including the design.

Game Time provided a qualifying conceptual design based on feedback obtained directly from staff, Brentwood Park community group, as well as through the review of public comments from several Council and PACS Commission meetings held on the matter (Attachment 1). A survey provided by the community group, as well as comments from the public at regularly scheduled Council and Commission meetings, prioritized the need for separate, age-appropriate play areas for children ages 2-5 years and 5-12 years, slides and a rock-climbing wall. The survey highlighted additional facility needs such as shade, benches, pathways and picnic tables.

In order to obtain additional community feedback, a City-sponsored online opinion survey was commissioned to obtain additional input. Signs were posted at Brentwood Park to notify the community of the survey. Notices of the online survey and scheduled Commission meeting and design presentation were sent out to neighboring residents in the surrounding area. In addition, staff walked the surrounding area to serve direct notices to residents.

Staff also conducted three separate pop-up community feedback events at Brentwood Park. The events were held on June 3rd, 4th and 5th at various times to capture a diverse range of park user feedback. The events were promoted through social media and courtesy emails were emailed to the distribution list gathered from the survey responses.

The design by Game Time Playground Solutions was presented to the Parks and Community Services Commission at the June 12, 2025, meeting. The proposed design includes the amenities most requested by the community and offers a large variety of play and interactive equipment that fits within the existing footprint of the current playground area and sand volleyball courts. It also provides a significant amount of shade covering over the equipment, which is extremely desirable to keep the play equipment cool to the touch during hot, summer months. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the design from Game Time Playground Solutions.

ANALYSIS:

The City’s adopted FY 2022-23 Capital Improvement Projects list included $250,000 for the replacement and installation of the equipment and surfacing at Brentwood Park. An additional $400,000 from the Park Development Fees Fund was added in the FY 2023-24 budget.

The total cost of the play equipment as currently proposed in the conceptual layout is $314,399 (Attachment 2). If the City is approved for the grant, it would cover up to half of the cost of certain qualifying equipment. The amount of the grant would be approximately $50,000. The installation of the playground, surfacing, shade structure, lighting and access improvements will be bid separately as a public project pursuant to Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 2-175.

Purchase of the equipment from Game Time Playground Solutions through OMNIA Partners Public Sector contracting meets all requirements set forth in the City of Costa Mesa’sPurchasing Policy and all requirements set forth by the State of California in regard to regional cooperative purchasing agreements. OMNIA Partners established an approved vendor list following a nationwide competitive bid process. This assures that the City receives the lowest available pricing and meets the competitive bid process requirements. The City has utilized cooperative purchasing agreements successfully for several previous related purchases.

Page 2 of 3 ends

230
File #: 25-383 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could choose not to authorize the use of OMNIA Partners national cooperative agreement with Game Time. This will require staff to initiate a formal bidding process, which will take significantly more time to complete. In addition, formal bidding may not result in lower prices than the proposed OMNIA Partners pricing.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Funding for this project includes $250,000 from the Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 401) as adopted in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget, as well as $400,000 from the Park Development Fees Fund (Fund 208) as adopted in the Fiscal Year 2023-24 budget.

LEGAL REVIEW:

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

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council Goal:
· Strengthen the Public’s Safety and Improve the Quality of Life.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

2. Authorize the Interim City Manager and City Clerk to execute any agreements for the purchase of the playground equipment.

Page 3 of 3 ends

231
Total Elevated Play Components
Total Different Types Of Ground Level Components
Total Accessible Ground Level Components Shown
Total Elevated Components Accessible By Transfer
Total Elevated Play Components Accessible By Ramp
Representative
This play
equipment is
recommended
for children ages
Required
Required
Required
Required
This drawing can be
scaled only when in
an 18" x 24" format
Minimum Area Required:

Scale:

Drawing Name:

Date:

Drawn By: This Unit includes play events and
routes or travel specifically designed
for special needs users. It is the
opinion of the manufacturer that
these play events and routes of
travel conform to the accessibility
requirements of the ADA (Americans
with Disabilities Act)
IMPORTANT: Soft resilient surfacing
should be placed in the use zones of all
equipment, as specified for each type of
equipment, and at depths to meet the
critical fall heights as specified by the U.S.
consumer Product Safety Commission,
ASTM standard F 1487 and Canadian
Standard CAN/CSA-Z-614

C E R T I F I E D
150 PlayCore Drive SE
Fort Payne, AL 35967
www.gametime.com
1 4 0 0 1

CERTIFIED
City of Costa Mesa
Brentwood Park Playground Opt6
Costa Mesa, CA
Great Western Recreation
KD
6/4/2025
109981-01-Opt 6
2-5/5-12
-
-
--
--
--
--

SALES REP
KJ LeCESNE
619-876-6623
[email protected]
New Sidewalk Extension from Playground Pit
to Street Sidewalk
318 SF Concrete
166 LF Edge
Existing Sidewalk
Demo and Replace with New Sidewalk
97 SF Concrete
Center Lines
6'-0"
6'-0"

NEW CONCRETE CONNECTING PATH
6' WIDE
74 SF
43 LF
5-12 PLAYGROUND PIT

PIP SURFACING

AGAINST CONCRETE
1676 SF
190 LF
803 LF EWF @ 12" COMPACTED DEPT
435 SF NEW CONCRETE SEATING PAD
55 LF PIP TURNDOWN INTO EWF
9' LF CONCRETE AGAINST EWF
29' LF CONCRETE AGAINST PIP

NEW CONCRETE BORDER
107 SF
6" WIDE
2-5 Play CountsTOTAL REQ'D
ELEVATED3-

ELEVATED BY RAMP--
ELEVATED BY TRANSFER32

ACCESSIBLE GROUND LEVEL SHOWN
31 ACCESSIBLE GROUND LEVEL TYPES 21
5-12 Play CountsTOTAL REQ'D
ELEVATED12 -

ELEVATED BY RAMP--
ELEVATED BY TRANSFER12
6 ACCESSIBLE GROUND LEVEL SHOWN 65
ACCESSIBLE GROUND LEVEL TYPES 43

SWINGS / PLAYHOUSE EWF
1166 SF @ 12" COMPACTED DEPTH
2-5 STRUCUTRE / SWINGS PIP SURFACING
1479 SF
8' CFH

PIP SURFACING AGAINST CONCRETE
22 LF INTERIOR ARC
193 LF TOTAL ARC + PERIMETER

NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK EXTENSION IN PIT
108 SF
68'-1"
64' LF PIP TURNDOWN INTO EWF

NEW CONCRETE HALF-ROUND

SEATING PAD
80 SF
40'-5"
20'-10"
19'-11"
14'-4"
79'-1015
16"
47'-10"
78'-8"78'-0"
16'-8"
7'-10"
4'-4"
ATTACHMENT 1
232
City of Costa Mesa
Attn: Christina Fabian
260 Brentwood St.

Costa Mesa, CA 92627
United States
Phone: 949.439.9171
Ship to Zip 92627
Qty Part # Description List $ Selling $ Ext. Selling $
1 178749 GameTime - Owner's Kit $92.08 $92.08 $92.08
5-12 Play Structure
1 RDU GameTime - Custom Playground Ages 5-12-
Reference Drawing 109981-01-Opt6
$143,816.00 $109,427.12 $109,427.12
1 5179 GameTime - Welcome Sign (5-12) $774.00 $727.56 $727.56 1 14927 GameTime - NDS Play On Sign Package
4 4118RP GameTime - Clubhouse Gable $1,936.00 $1,936.00 $7,744.00 1 4752RP GameTime - Square Gable Roof w Smoke Stack $13,012.00 $13,012.00 $13,012.00 1 6229RP GameTime - Lemon Tree Shadow Play Topper $14,540.00 $14,540.00 $14,540.00 5-12 Playground Pit Freestanding & Site Amenities
1 6263 GameTime - Inclusive Whirl - Natural $16,933.00 $16,425.01 $16,425.01 1 6299 GameTime - Inclusive Seesaw $9,633.00 $9,633.00 $9,633.00 1 QRI433 GT-Shade - HYU101008IG HYPERBOLIC UMB 10X10X8 $4,516.00 $4,380.52 $4,380.52 2 S611 GT-Site - 6'S600 BNCH w/BCK,PC $2,088.00 $1,900.08 $3,800.16 2-5 Playground Structure
1 RDU GameTime - Custom Playground Ages 2-5-
Reference Drawing 109981-01-Opt6
$19,824.00 $15,186.30 $15,186.30
1 5178 GameTime - Welcome Sign (2-5) $774.00 $727.56 $727.56 2-5 Playground Pit Freestanding & Site Amenities
1 38115 GameTime - Tree Swing $10,393.00 $9,769.42 $9,769.42 1 39024I GameTime - Bingo's Playhouse $9,299.00 $9,299.00 $9,299.00 2 5145 GameTime - Expression Swing 5" X 8' $2,017.00 $1,694.28 $3,388.56 1 5192 GT-Shade - Double Bay Swing Shade $14,072.00 $13,649.84 $13,649.84 2 8696 GameTime - Encl Seat 3 1/2"(8696) $495.00 $415.80 $831.60 2 8918 GameTime - Belt Seat Pkg 5"Od(8918) $402.00 $337.68 $675.36 2 QRI433 GT-Shade - HYU101008IG HYPERBOLIC UMB 10X10X8 $4,516.00 $4,380.52 $8,761.04 3 S612 GT-Site - 8'S600 BNCH w/BCK,PC $2,272.00 $2,067.52 $6,202.56 3 12022 GameTime - 3 1/2" Uprt Ass'Y Alum 7' $352.00 $267.52 $802.56 1 18881 GameTime - Flower Spinner Panel (Below Deck) $1,810.00 $1,375.60 $1,375.60 1 18924 GameTime - Nature Sensory Panel (Below Deck) $2,408.00 $1,830.08 $1,830.08 1 FFEIG Freenotes Harmony - Freenotes Flowers Ensemble IG $6,127.00 $6,127.00 $6,127.00 GameTime C/O Great Western Recreation
P.O. Box 680121
Fort Payne, AL 35967
Office: 435-245-5055 Fax: 435-245-5057
www.gwpark.com
06/05/2025
Quote #
109981-01-06
Brentwood Park Playground Option 6A

Page 1 of 5 ends

ATTACHMENT 2
233
Qty Part # Description List $ Selling $ Ext. Selling $
Contract: OMNIA #2017001134 Sub Total $258,407.93
Material Surcharge $9,068.55
GT-Shade Freight $5,330.66
GT-Site Freight $1,319.04
Freenotes Harmony Freight $375.00
GameTime OMNIA Freight $19,168.17
Tax $20,729.43
Total $314,398.78
Comments
Your Sales Rep is KJ LeCesne. Please reach out to KJ at 619-876-6623 if you should have any questions regarding this quote.

Due to the volatility of freight costs, the freight pricing is subject to change at the time of order.

Pricing is subject to change. Request updated pricing when purchasing from quotes more than 30 days old.

Shipping to Site Address:

Brentwood Park
260 Brentwood St
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Owners Kit Ship to address:

Brentwood Park
260 Brentwood St
Costa Mesa, CA 92627

Shipping Contact:

KJ LeCesne
619-876-6623
*Freight charges are based on listed zip code and are subject to change if shipping information changes. *Deposit may be required.

Customer is responsible for offloading.

Permitting not included, unless otherwise noted
Installation not included.
**Material Surcharge reflects raw material price increase. Subject to change at time of order.**

OMNIA Contract Number: 4001667
GameTime C/O Great Western Recreation
P.O. Box 680121
Fort Payne, AL 35967
Office: 435-245-5055 Fax: 435-245-5057
www.gwpark.com
06/05/2025
Quote #
109981-01-06
Brentwood Park Playground Option 6A

Page 2 of 5 ends

234

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-398 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
TITLE:

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2024060115), GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT, REZONE, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, MASTER PLAN, VESTING TENTATIVE

PARCEL MAP, DENSITY BONUS, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR HIVE LIVE, A THREE -PHASED, 1,050-UNIT, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH 3,692-SQUARE-FOOT RETAIL COMPONENT AT 3333 SUSAN STREET
DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DEPARTMENT/PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: CHRIS YEAGER, SENIOR PLANNER
CONTACT INFORMATION: CHRIS YEAGER, 714-754-4883
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council continue the open public hearing to the September 2, 2025, City Council meeting.

BACKGROUND:

The project was noticed for a public hearing on July 15, 2025. Following the notice, the applicant requested to continue the item to the August 5, 2025, City Council meeting. The applicant has subsequently requested that the project be continued to the September 2, 2025, City Council meeting. (Attachment 1)
ANALYSIS:

The applicants request that the project be continued to a date certain to the September 2, 2025, City Council meeting. Staff will return to present the Planning Commission recommendation at that time. If the project is continued to a future uncertain date, the City would need to republish and send out new noticing.

ALTERNATIVES:

There are no recommended alternatives at this time.

FISCAL REVIEW:

The fiscal review will be included as part of the September 2, 2025 agenda packet.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The legal review will be included as part of the September 2, 2025 agenda packet.

Page 1 of 2 ends

235
File #: 25-398 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

The analysis of City Council goals and priorities will be included as part of the September 2, 2025 agenda packet.

CONCLUSION:

The proposed project will be presented at the next City Council meeting on September 2, 2025.

Page 2 of 2 ends

236
From: Tim O"Brien
To: YEAGER, CHRISTOPHER; Benjamin Mount
Cc: Pam Sapetto; Matsler, Sean
Subject: Re: Hive Live Status
Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 1:52:50 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Thank you Chris for reaching out to us. We will need the item to be postponed to the September 2nd, 2025, meeting date.

Please let me know if you have any other
questions.

Best Regards, Tim
Get
Outlook for iOS
From: YEAGER, CHRISTOPHER <[email protected]> Sent:

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 8:09 AM
To:

Tim O'Brien <[email protected]>; Benjamin Mount <[email protected]>
Cc:

Pam Sapetto <[email protected]>
Subject:

Hive Live Status
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of LEGACY PARTNERS . Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Hi All,
I am reaching out to see if the item will need to be pushed to the next City Council meeting – Sept 2. Please let me know if you wish to have the item heard on the upcoming Aug 5 meeting.

Chris Yeager
Senior Planner
Economic & Development Services Department
77 Fair Drive

Costa Mesa

CA 92626 | (714) 754-4883
♻ Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you! “The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant community.”
City Hall is open to the public 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and alternating Fridays, except specified holidays. Appointments can be made online at www.costamesaca.gov/appointments.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

Attachment 1
237

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-377 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
TITLE:

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (PGPA-24-0002), REZONE, DESIGN REVIEW, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19334, AND DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT, FOR A 142-UNIT, OWNERSHIP RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 3150 BEAR

STREET (MERITAGE HOMES)
DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DEPARTMENT/PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: CHRIS YEAGER, SENIOR PLANNER
CONTACT INFORMATION: CHRIS YEAGER, 714-754-4883,
[email protected]
RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Commission recommends the City Council:

1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 2) to approve the General Plan Amendment, Design Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus, and

3. Give first reading to the Ordinance for the Rezone (Attachment 3).

Page 1 of 1 ends

238

Page 1 of 29 ends

City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report

77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Item #: 25-377 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025
TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (PGPA-24-0002), REZONE, DESIGN REVIEW, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19334, AND DENSITY BONUS, FOR A 142-UNIT, OWNERSHIP RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 3150 BEAR STREET (MERITAGE HOMES)

DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/PLANNING

DIVISION

PRESENTED BY: CHRIS YEAGER, SENIOR PLANNER

CONTACT INFORMATION: CHRIS YEAGER, 714-754-4883,
[email protected]
RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Commission recommends the City Council:

1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 2) to approve the General Plan Amendment, Design Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus, and

3. Give first reading to the Ordinance for the Rezone (Attachment 3).

APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT:

The authorized agent is Vanessa Scheidel representing Meritage Homes.

239

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 2 of 29 ends

PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY

Location: 3150 Bear Street Application Number: MND (SCH No. 2025050135); PGPA-24-0002
Request: The proposed project would redevelop the 6.12-acre subject property with up to 142 residential ownership units (including a minimum of 7 very-low-income units) with 20 single family dwellings and 122 townhomes, and 93,500 square feet of on-site open space. The request includes a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation of the subject property from General Commercial to High Density Residential, Rezone to change the site’s zoning designation from Administrative Profess ional (AP) to Multiple Family Residential (R3), Design Review to provide site plan and architectural details, and a Tentative Tract Map to allow for individual ownership of the units.

SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY:

Zone: Current: Administrative and
Professional (AP)

Proposed: R3
North
(across the
405 freeway):

PDC (Planned Development Commercial)
developed with South Coast Plaza
General Plan: Current: General Commercial

Proposed: High Density
Residential
South: PDR-LD (Planned Development Residential
– Low Density) developed with single family
residences and CL (Commercial Limited)
developed with an office building
Lot Dimensions: Irregular - Approximately 469 feet
by 600 feet
East:

R1 (Single Family Residential) developed
with single-family residences
Lot Area: 6.12 acres West (across
Bear Street):

I&R (Institutional and Recreational)
developed with Shiffer Park
Existing
Development:

Office building and event center that was formerly occupied by Trinity Broadcasting Network.

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPARISON

Development Standard Requirement Proposed/Provided Compliance Base Dwelling Units per Acre 20 20 Yes
Front Setback 20 feet From 7.29 feet to 45
feet
No -Density Bonus Waiver
Requested
Side Setback (L/R) (10 ft/5 ft) (45 ft/15.75 ft) Yes
Rear Setback 15 ft 15.5 ft Yes
Distance Between Buildings 10 Feet for main buildings 10 Feet Yes Driveway Width 16 feet 26 feet Yes
Individual Dwelling Unit
Minimum Lot Area
3,000 square feet with an
overall average of 3,500
square feet
2,017 square feet with
an overall average of
2,395 square feet
No – Density Bonus
Concession Requested
Maximum Building Height 2 stories
27 FT Maximum
4 stories
52 feet
No – Density Bonus Waiver
Requested
Minimum Open Space 40% 35% No -Density Bonus Waiver
Requested
Individual Dwelling Unit Lot 40% of induvial lot with
minimum 400 square feet
and no dimension less than
15 feet
Approx 50% with
minimum of
approximately 500
square feet and min
dimensions of 15.5 feet
Yes
240

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 3 of 29 ends

Townhome Private Open
Space
An adjoining patio required
with no dimension less than
10 feet.

Units include minimum
55 square foot
balconies
No -Density Bonus Waiver
Requested
Combined Parkway Width 10 feet 0 feet No – Density Bonus Waiver Requested
Storage 200 cubic feet for
townhomes
Minimum 200 cubic feet Yes – Condition of Approval
Parking
Residential (Density Bonus) 236 319 Yes
CEQA Status Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2025050135) Final Action Body City Council

BACKGROUND:

The project site, located at 3150 Bear Street, was used for agricultural purposes until the late 1970’s when the existing development was constructed. The site was occupied by Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), as their international headquarters for over 20 years. TBN ceased operations in 2017. The site was then occupied as an office space and event center.

Figure 1 Project Location

241

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 4 of 29 ends

As shown in Figure 1 above, the project site is located at 3150 Bear Street and is bound by the 405 Freeway to the north, single-family residences to the east and south, a two-story office-building to the south, and across Bear Street, to the west, is Shiffer Park. The site has a Gene ral Plan Land Use Designation of “General Commercial” and is zoned “Institutional and Recreational” (I&R).

The project site is entirely within the Airport Planning Area for John Wayne Airport, as defined by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County. Consequently, any proposed amendments to the General Plan must be referred to the ALUC for a consistency determination prior to adoption by the City Council. Following a recommendation from the Planning Commission, ALUC consistency must be confirmed before City Council action. This requirement aligns with Section 21676(b) of the California Public Utilities Code, which mandates that local agencies submit such proposals to the ALUC to ensure compatibility with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The project was heard by ALUC at its regular meeting on July 17, 2025, finding that the project is compatible with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP).

The project site also resides within a “Measure K” corridor. This measure, approved by Costa Mesa voters on November 8, 2022, seeks to reinvigorate commercial corridors by promoting new housing in commercial and industrial areas while preserving the character of adjacent residential neighborhoods. The measure allows for land use changes within identified corridors, including general plan amendments, rezoning, and specific plan amendments without a vote of the people.

General Plan Amendment Screening

City Council Policy 500 -2 establishes a procedure for processing privately -initiated General Plan Amendments. This procedure involves a City Council sc reening of these requests prior to their acceptance for formal processing. The General Plan Screening is not a public hearing but requires a majority vote by the City Council in order for the application to proceed and be evaluated under the City’s entitlement process.

On September 3, 2024 , the City Council conducted a General Plan Screening for the proposed development. At that meeting, the City Council on a 7-0 vote directed staff to allow for the submittal of a land use application for a General Plan Amendment. The City Council staff rep ort, minutes, and video of the General Plan Screening are available at these links:

September 3, 2024 City Council staff report:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6845949&GUID=403DA47F-9344-43A8- 9509-1941A24CED2E

Minutes from September 3, 2024 City Council meeting:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1213770&GUID=368AD39B-871F-4F01-95A1- 02496FFA4FD2

Video from September 3, 2024 City Council meeting:
https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/4167?view_id=14&redirect=true

Based on the feedback provided in the screening, modifications to the project include reorienting the townhomes along the main entry street to have their front entrances face the street and the inclusion of sidewalks along all private streets.
242

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 5 of 29 ends

Planning Commission Hearing

The project was presented to the Planning Commission during its regularly scheduled July 14, 2025, meeting. Public comments received regarded concerns that the proposed pedestrian gate on the eastern boundary of the project connecting the adjacent neighborhood at Olympic Avenue could allow future project residents to park on nearby public streets, reducing the availability of on-street parking for the existing residents. (The gate is further described in the Analysis section below).

The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the project on a 5-0 vote (Zich and Dickson absent). In making a motion to recommend approval, the Planning Commission noted that the project would provide additional ownership opportunities to very low -income families. In addition, the majority of the proposed units are approxima tely 1,000 square feet , which is more affordable for first-time buyers. The links below provide additional details.

July 14, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report and attachments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7477374&GUID=B3C08CAF-7B2B-406E- 8F90-9853962FA194

Video from the July 14, 2025 Planning Commission meeting:
https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/4280?view_id=14&redirect=true

Following the Planning Commission meeting, a community meeting occurred on July 25, 2025 with members of the public and City representatives. During the meeting, several community members expressed their opposition to the pedestrian gate and the potential parking impacts that would have on the adjacent neighborhood.

ANALYSIS:

The project proposes to demolish the existing development and construct a residential common interest development (RCID) consisting of 20 two-story, detached, single-family dwellings along the southern and eastern project limits, and 122 stacked townhomes within eight, four -story buildings, including a minimum of 7 very-low-income units. The project also proposes to include 93,500 square feet of onsite open space. (i.e., common recreation area, passive recreation areas, decorative plantings, and private balconies). An additional 13,278 square feet of passive recreation area is proposed within the public right-of-way, which is maintained by the property owner through an existing maintenance agreement.

All proposed infrastructure improvements would be located on-site with lateral connections located in the public right-of-way.

Vehicular access is provided by a new drive approach and traffic signal in the same general location as the existing driveway. An existing emergency access gate will be reconstructed at the project intersection with Olympic Avenue. Pedestrian access is provided by sidewalks accessing the public right of way and the proposed pedestrian gate accessing Olympic Avenue. The pedestrian gate would be locked outside of the operating hours of Shiffer Park.

The proposed development requires the following planning applications:
 General Plan Amendment
o Existing Land Use Designation: General Commercial
o Proposed Land Use Designation: High Density Residential 243

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 6 of 29 ends

 Zone Change
o Existing Zoning District: Administrative Professional. o Proposed Zoning District: R3 – Multiple Family Residential.

 Design Review – Required for construction, which results in three or m ore dwelling units on residential zones except for planned development.

 Tentative Tract Map – Proposed to establish easements and allow for individual ownership of the units.
 Density Bonus– Request to provide 122 units, with 5% affordable income units at the very low income level (7 units proposed) for a 20% density bonus. The request includes waivers to deviate from development standards related to maximum height, front setback, open space, parkways, individual unit lot size, and side-by-side units. A concession is requested to deviate from the residential design guidelines. The project also proposes to utilize density bonus parking ratios.

 Mitigated Negative Declaration – Environmental analysis stating that the project will not have significant environmental impacts after specific mitigation measures are implemented pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

Proposed Land Use

As shown in Figure 2 below, the project site has a current General Plan land use designation of “General Commercial” which is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses that serve both local and regional needs. The overall City-wide land area dedicated to “General Commercial” is 614.44 acres (this proposed site accounts for approximately one percent of the City’s “General Commercial” land use area).

To allow for the development of the project, an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan is proposed. The amendment would change portions of the text, graphics, and tables within the Land Use Element; all other General Plan elements would remain the same. The Land Use Element would be amended to change the site’s existing General Commercial land use designation to High Density Residential. High -Density Residential land use designations are inte nded for residential development with a density of up to 20 units to the acre.

According to the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, areas designated as High-Density Residential are intended for residential development with a density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre, with some exceptions. The proposed base density for the project complies with a proposed 20 units per acre.

These exceptions include “density bonuses” or density as permitted through approved Specific Plans or Master Plans. The General Plan includes a policy that “High-Density Residential areas should be in proximity to transportation routes, especially those served by public transit, and also within convenient distances to shopping and employment centers. Although proximity to transportation routes can result in a residential development being subject to impacts, High -Density Residential development can be less susceptible to impacts when visual and acoustical shielding techniques are incorporated into the project.”

244

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 7 of 29 ends

Figure 2 General Plan Amendment

The site is generally consistent with this policy in that it is in proximity to major streets and transportation routes, including Bear Street, Bristol Street, Baker Street, and South Coast Drive. The project site is also easily accessible to the I-405 freeway and the 77 freeway. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) operates the 55 bus route nearby with two bus stops located approximately a half mile away on Baker Street. There are also on-street Class 2 bike lanes on Bear Street, which connects to the City’s bicycle infrastructure. The project site is surrounded primarily by residential uses with the exception of an existing office building to the south of the project site. To the north of the project, across from the 405 is a variety of commercial and retail uses, including South Coast Plaza and Metro Pointe.

Additional resident serving retail and restaurants exist in the area along Bristol Street, Baker Street, and Paularino Avenue.

Commercial Uses and Employment

As shown in Figure 3 below, the proposed rezone would replace the site’s current AP zoning district with R3 to allow residential uses. Pursuant to Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) Section 13 -20, Zoning Districts, R3 districts are intended to promote the development of multi-family rental as well as ownership dwelling units.

The proposed project would reduce the land area zoned for commercial uses, which would incrementally reduce the City’s revenue stream from commercial land uses. The Land Use change may result in fewer employment opportunities in the commercial sector. However, the project would replace the commercial with different jobs, such as remote positions. Given the housing shortage in the State 245

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 8 of 29 ends

and the City’s RHNA number, the addition of ownership housing with affordable units would increase the City’s housing stock and improve the City’s jobs/housing balance. Providing housing in proximity to major employment areas such as the commercial corridors along Bristol Street, Paularino Avenue, Baker Street and the areas north of the I -405 Freeway is encouraged as a means to reduce vehicle miles traveled and encourage a more integrated horizontal mixed-use land use strategy.

Figure 3 Rezone

Traffic, Vehicular Circulation, and Parking

Vehicular traffic to the site is provided from Bear Street through the one driveway at the southwest corner of the property. Private two-way streets are proposed throughout the site. Raised crosswalks are provided adjacent to the common open space areas, which double as a speed table to reduce traffic speed. Bicycle access to the site is available on the driveway, sidewalks, and through the pedestrian gate on Olympic Avenue and bicycle storage may be located within the units or garages.

A trip generation assessment was prepared to compare the trip generation of the existing site use with the proposed project. The findings of the assessment are below in Table 1. City of Costa Mesa guidelines require a Level of Service (LOS) based traffic study for development projects that generate 50 or more vehicle trip ends during a peak-hour. The proposed project is anticipated to generate fewer than 50 net new peak-hour trips in either peak-hour, which falls below the City’s threshold. As such, no further analysis is required beyond what was analyzed in the project -specific Trip Generation Memorandum.

246

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 9 of 29 ends

Table 1 Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
In Out Total In Out Total
Existing TBN Building 90 7 97 8 79 87 530
Residential Use 16 47 63 51 30 81 1,000
Net Change in Trips -74 40 -34 43 -49 -6 470

The project is subject to the City’s traffic impact fees based on the project’s net trips at $235 per net increase in trips. Payment of traffic impact fees is required by the CMMC and is also included as a condition of approval.

Traffic Signal

In coordination with the Public Works and Parks and Community Services Departments, the project proposes to install a new traffic signal at the intersection of Bear Street and the project entrance. The new signal will allow for signalized turning in and out of the project and a new crosswalk for pedestrians to cross Bear Street to access Shiffer Park. The new signal will result in one vehicular entrance to Shiffer Park being closed. The closed driveway will be replaced by landscaping. The new signal will still allow for unobstructed circulation for the office building to the south of the project.

Design Review

The proposed site plan is shown as Figure 4 below. The project includes eight four -story buildings, including 122 dwelling units and an additional 20 single family dwellings along the south and west property lines for a total of 142 units. Pedestrian circu lation is provided by sidewalks and pathways throughout the project site. Raised crosswalks are included near the central amenity area, which will act as a walkway across the street and a speed bump for vehicles. The project includes the reconstruction of the vehicular entrance on Bear Street and the emergency access gate accessing Olympic Avenue.

Within the project site, easement access is provided for various utility agencies.

Figure 4 Overall Site Plan
247

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 10 of 29 ends

Detached Units

As shown in Figure 5 below, the 20 detached units consist of two specific plan types. All units are proposed to include an attached two-car garage with ground floor living space. Each proposed detached unit would have its own private open space in the form of private backyards. Each unit will include stucco, stone veneer, wood-like siding, flat roof tiles, and traditional fenestration patterns. Each unit is proposed to be 2 stories with a maximum height of 27 feet, which complies with the maximum permitted height.

Figure 5 Detached Units
248

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 11 of 29 ends

Plan 1 proposes to include three bedrooms on the second floor as well as a laundry room and two bathrooms. Plan 1 is proposed with a modern farmhouse architectural element. It includes elements such as board-and-batten siding, a steep gable roof, and a welcoming front porch with simple columns.

Plan 2 proposes to include one bedroom on the first floor and three additional bedrooms on the second floor. Plan 2 includes Contemporary Craftsman architectural elements. It has a more streamlined appearance with stucco and vertical siding, a modest front porch entry, and decorative elements like the over-garage trellis.

Attached Units

122 of the units are proposed to be spread across eight, four-story buildings with a maximum height of 52 feet. As proposed, and d iscussed further below, the project requests a waiver to allow for the maximum building height to exceed the CMMC standard. Specifically, the townhome portion of the project would have a maximum height of four stories/52-feet (two stories and 25 feet above the CMMC maximum height). The townhome component has been located as far as possible (greater than 120 feet) from the established residential units to reduce any privacy or shade impacts.

As shown in Figure 6 below, the townhomes include modern craftsme n architectural styles. Key architectural elements include the varied gabled rooflines with dormer accents, which reference modern craftsmen and farmhouse forms. The buildings feature a combination of vertical board-and-batten siding and horizontal lap siding that creates visual interest and breaks up the massing, typical of contemporary craftsmen and farmhouse aesthetics. The project will feature a mix of neutral earth tones (grays, whites, and natural wood-like finishes), which results in a clean, modern appearance while maintaining warmth.

The repeated rectangular windows with simple trim and awnings provide a modern, functional feel. The use of wooden trellis-style structures and integrated balconies contributes to a pedestrian-friendly and layered facade.

Figure 6 Attached Unit Architecture
249

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 12 of 29 ends

As shown in Figure 7 below, each unit is accessed via a ground-floor entry and is proposed to include an attached, tandem, two-car garage. Units 1 and 2 include an entry on the first-floor with the remainder of the living space being located on the second -floor. Plan 1 (green) includes two bedrooms, two bathrooms, an open main living space, and a private balcony. Plan 2 (pink) includes three bedrooms, two full bathrooms, one half bathroom, open living space, and a private balcony. Plan 3 (blue) and 4 (orange) include an attached, tandem, two-car garage and ground floor entry. The main living space for the units is located on the third and fourth floors and includes an open living area and multiple balconies.

Plan 3 proposes to have three bedrooms and three bathrooms, and Plan 4 proposes to have four bedrooms and three bathrooms.

Figure 7 Attached Unit Floor Plans
250

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 13 of 29 ends

As proposed, the project is consistent with the City of Costa Mesa residential design guidelines (“Guidelines”). The Guidelines are intended to promote design excellence in new residential construction. The Guidelines encourage architectural diversity that considers the existing neighborhood character and anticipated trends and development. It recognizes that there will be instances when these guidelines may yield an unsatisfactory design and that an applicant may propose a design that meets the intent of these design guidelines but not the specific criteria. In these instances, overriding consideration will be given to meeting the intent of the Residential Design Guidelines and promoting design excellence.

The proposed design of the detached and attached units meets the intent of the City’s Residential Design Guidelines including:

 Second-Story Design: Two story structures shall be designed with articulation and off-sets on all elevations to avoid a boxy appearance from the street and neighboring views.

 Building Mass: The Guidelines establish that long, unbroken facades should be avoided.

Variety should be accomplished through variation in building heights and forms.

 Second Story Side Setbacks: Two-story unit construction with less than 2,700 square feet of living space are exempt from the second story side setback requirement.

 Elevation Treatments: The project incorporates architectural projections, stepped forms to soften and provide transitions, emphasis on street facing elevations, and the incorporation of multiple building planes and offsets. In addition, the front elevations of Buildings 1 and 8 both face Bear Street and provide additional detailing as discussed above. Building 7 is located on the main entry to the project site and faces the private street with the enhanced front elevation.  Roof Form: The project provides variation in roof form, orientation, and pitch to provide visual interest.
251

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 14 of 29 ends

 Window Placement: Consideration was given to the effect of proposed development on the privacy of adjacent properties. The sight line visibility study indicates that any privacy impacts of the 4-story townhomes would be reduced due to the fact that the two story detached units are located between the townhomes and the existing neighborhoods. Additionally, new trees will be planted in the rear yards of the detached units to provide additional privacy to the existing neighborhood.

 Site Planning Considerations: The location and orientation of all buildings are designed and arranged to preserve natural features by minimizing the disturbance to the natural environment.

The existing Bear Street slope is proposed to be maintained in a natural state by the development.

 Consistency in Architectural Design: The proposed design includes contemporary craftsmen and modern farmhouse architectural features that consist of materials and finishes of stucco, wood-like siding, and accents, which are durable and require minimal maintenance. In addition, the facades feature a variety of overhangs, materials, and roof forms, which provide visual interest and façade articulation. The top floor has been incorporated into the roof, which reduces the perceived height of the structures.

Unit Breakdown

The proposed unit mix includes detached units and attached units. A summary of the unit type and unit breakdown is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 2 Proposed Unit Breakdown
Unit Type Bedrooms Baths Unit SF Private Open Space Unit Count Detached 1 3 2.5 1,442 SF Approx. 600 SF 13 (9%)
Detached 2 4 3 1,946 SF Approx. 600 SF 7 (5%)
Attached 1 2 2 1,062 SF 55 SF 45 (32%)
Attached 2 3 2.5 1,436 SF 74 SF 16 (11%)
Attached 3 3 3 1,832 SF 159 SF 45 (32%)
Attached 4 4 3 2,364 SF 194 SF 16 (11%)

Open Space

The proposed project includes a total of 93,500 square feet of public and private open space located on the subject property. Each unit is afforded a minimum 55 square foot balcony or private back yard space.

An additional 13,278-square-feet of open space is proposed within the public right of way located along the east side of Bear Street where an existing maintenance agreement is in place. The maintenance agreement allows the property owner to utilize the space while maintaining and accepting liability for any use of the area.

The project includes various amenities , including an approximately 10,000 square foot tot lot and shaded BBQ area, and an approximately 12,000 square foot passive recreation turf area. 252

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 15 of 29 ends

The project is not providing dedicated parkland and therefore is required to pay parkland impact fees for all new units. In addition to the required parkland impact fees, the applicant proposes to include a one-time payment of $250,000 to the City for the purposes of improving Shiffer Park.

Landscaping

Landscaping is proposed to be included throughout the project site, including within the front setback, along all roads and sidewalks, between garage doors, and within the open space areas. The project is proposed to include a combination of street trees, shade trees, specimen trees, flowering trees, and screening trees in addition to a variety of shrubs and ground covers.

The project site includes an existing hedge of mature Ficus trees along the southern property line. The trees are overgrown and poorly maintained and are therefore proposed to be removed as part of the project. A new hedge of either Carolina Cherry Laurel or Yew Pine is proposed to be planted along the property line, which will provide screening between the project site and neighboring properties. The existing east property line includes a variety of trees and shrubs that will also be removed. New screening trees will be strategically placed in the rear yard of the single-family dwellings to block direct views into the neighboring properties. In addition to the backyard screening trees, the project proposes to include 186 additional trees throughout the project site (178 required). An arborist report was submitted with the project outlining the feasibility of retaining on -site trees. The report found that the project would require the removal of 138 existing trees throughout the property because they cannot safely coexist with the required site redevelopment footprint. Twenty-nine trees will be protected in place and preserved in their current location on the undisturbed slope adjacent to Bear Street.

Parking

Density Bonus projects are permitted to utilize reduced parking standards consistent with the State Law.

Two- and three-bedroom units are required to provide 1.5 parking spaces per unit, and four-bedroom units are required to provide 2.5 parking space s per unit. In addition, tandem parking is permitted.

Therefore, the project is required to provide a minimum of 236 parking spaces. The project exceeds the requirement by proposing 319 parking spaces, including 284 tandem garage spaces (two per unit) and 35 open parking spaces (0.25 per unit). Use of these parking standards is not considered an incentive or concession and must be allowed for projects proposing density bonuses.

Tentative Tract Map

A tentative tract map (TTM) is a preliminary subdivision map. The TTM outlines the proposed division of land subject to review and approval by the local agency before final mapping and development. The project’s TTM proposes to allow for individual ownership of each unit as a condominium. The TTM would establish the required common lot in which all units would be constructed upon. In addition, the Tract Map establishes easements located throughout the property for utilities, access, and for public pedestrian access to pass through the lot from Olympic Avenue to Bear Street. A draft Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) have been provided as part of the application submittal. Prior to issuance of permits, the CC&Rs will be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office and the Planning Division to ensure compliance with all required laws and conditions of approval.

Density Bonus

253

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 16 of 29 ends

California’s Density Bonus Law allows a developer to increase the maximum number of dwelling units permitted on a property if the project meets certain criteria. In exchange for the increased density, a certain number of the new affordable dwelling units must be provided. As shown in Table 3 below, the base density of the project site would allow for 122 dwelling units. By providing 5 percent of the units at a very-low-income level, the applicant is entitled to a 20 percent density bonus, which would allow for a total of 147 dwelling units. The law also allows for reductions in required development standards, known as incentives, concessions, or waivers. Greater benefits are available for projects that reach higher percentages of affordability. Under Density Bonus Law, an ownership af fordable unit maintains its affordability for 55 years through a recorded density bonus agreement or resale restriction. This agreement is recorded against the property and ensures that the unit is sold only to income -qualified buyers at an affordable price, with restrictions on resale value and buyer eligibility enforced by the City or designated monitoring entity throughout the 55-year term.

Table 3 Density Bonus Calculations
Category Value
Base Project Units (20 du/acre) 122 Units
Affordable Units Provided 7 units (5% of base units, very low-income) Applicable Density Bonus 20% (Per CA Gov. Code §65915) Bonus Units Allowed 25
Total Units Allowed 147
Total Units Proposed 142

Besides granting rights to housing developments to increase density, the law provides three provisions that require local governments to grant qualifying projects:

1) Incentives or concessions which result in identifiable and actual cost reductions; 2) Waivers of development standards that would physically preclude the development of a project at the density permitted and with the incentives granted; and, 3) Reductions in parking requirements.

The applicant is requesting one concession to deviate from the design guidelines for the detached units which would result in an identifiable and actual cost reduction.

1. Detached Unit Second Story Design . The applicant requests a concession of the City’s Residential Design Guidelines that require articulation and offsets on all building elevations to avoid a boxy appearance and mandate consistent architectural treatment on all sides of the structure. The requested waiver applies to detached Units Plan 1 and Plan 2. While both plans incorporate articulation on the front elevations—such as a stepped-back second story (Plan 1), a front porch and wrapping band feature (Plan 2)—the side and rear elevations do not include the same level of articulation or material treatment, as required by the guidelines. However, these elevations are largely screened by landscaping. Strict compliance with these design standards would reduce the interior square footage of the units, which are already modest in size, thereby reducing their functionality and affordability. Furthermore, requiri ng offsets on all elevations would increase design complexity, construction costs, and potentially result in a reduction in the number of units achievable on the site. As such, the enforcement of the standard would physically preclude the applicant from co nstructing the density bonus units permitted under state law.

Therefore, the requested concession is necessary to physically accommodate the density, including the affordable units.
254

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 17 of 29 ends

The applicant is requesting five waivers, or a reduction of a development standard, including a waiver to increase the maximum height for the townhomes, to reduce the front setback, to not include landscaped parkways, to include reduced common and private open space, to allow for a reduced individual lot size for the detached units and deviate from the requirements for side-by-side units. The waivers are requested because the development standards have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the proposed project at its permitted de nsity. The City is not permitted to apply any development standard which physically precludes the construction of the project at its permitted density.

The City is not required to waive or reduce development standards that would cause a public health or safety problem, cause an environmental problem, harm historical property, or would be contrary to law.

Below is a summary of the waiver requests:

1. Maximum Building Height. The R3 zoning district allow for buildings to be constructed up to 2 stories and 27 feet. The project proposes 20 compliant single-family dwellings. The townhomes are proposed to be four stories and 52 feet. The waiver from the maximum height would allow additional units to be constructed within the townhome portion of the project and therefore would allow the project to be constructed at the proposed density.

2. Front Setback. The R3 zoning district requires a front setback of 20 feet. As shown in Figure 12 below, the property is uniquely shaped, which results in a varying front setback of approximately 45 feet near the project driveway down to 7.29 feet. While the actual proposed setback is less than 20 feet for a portion of the project, the visible setback from Bear Street is 70 feet for the townhomes. If the 20-foot setback was maintained along the entirety of the front property line, it would result in a reduction of the buildable lot and would reduce the allowable number of dwelling units.

Figure 8 Front Setback

3. Landscape Parkways. In all residential zones, except R -1, landscape parkways with a combined width of 10 feet, but not less than three feet on one side, are required to be provided along the sides of interior private streets and/or common driveways. After the City Council 255

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 18 of 29 ends

screening, the applicant modified the plans to include sidewalks along all interior streets to allow for safe interior pedestrian circulation. The intent of the parkway requirement is to provide lush and attractive public spaces. While the project does not include the parkways at all streets, the intent is accomplished with the inclusion of enhanced landscaping and shade trees throughout the project site. If a 10-foot combined parkway was installed with the sidewalks, the developable lot would reduce, and it would result in a reduction of units.

4. Open Space. The R3 zoning designation requires that 40% of the total lot area be provided as open space. This would result in a requirement of 106,722 square feet of open space. The project proposed 93,500 square feet (35%) of on-site open space including tot lot, BBQ area, passive recreation, and decorative plantings and landscaping. The project includes 13,278 square feet of additional off-site passive recreation area within the public right of way adjacent to Bear Street.

This landscape area is already maintained by the subject property through a maintenance agreement. The inclusion of the off-site open space would provide 106,778 square feet of open space which is six square feet more than the requirement. If 40% open space was provided on- site, it would reduce the size of the developable lot, which would result in a reduction of units.

The required open space can be provided with the inclusion of the open space in the maintenance agreement area. The application also requests a waiver for individual unit open space requirements for the townhome component of the project. The CMMC requires that the townhome units be provided a patio with no dimension less than 10 feet. The requirement is meant to allow townhomes to have a ground level outdoor space. The proposed townhome units are stacked to allow for the project to develop the number of units allowed pursuant to the Density Bonus Law. The stacked units do not allow for adjoining patio areas. Instead of a ground floor patio, balconies have been included with each individual unit. The square footage of balconies per unit ranges from 55 square feet to 194 square feet. If the adjoining patio was provided, the buildable lot area would be reduced which would reduce the allowable units on site.

5. Individual Dwelling Unit Minimum Lot Area. Individual units on residential common interest developments are required to be located on a minimum 3,000 square foot lot with an average lot area of 3,500 across the project. The project includes a range of lot areas from 2,017 square feet to 2,608 square feet with an average individual lot area of 2,395 square feet. While the lots are smaller than required, they still include the conforming private open space. The project proposed to include 20 single-family dwellings along the permitter of the project site to buffer any impacts of the project to the neighboring single-family dwellings. The lot sizes are reduced to allow for the number of units allowed pursuant to the density bonus law.

6. Side by Side Units. Residential Common Interest Developments should not have more than six dwelling units attached side by side to avoid long row effects. In addition, dwellings with side-by- side units shall include breaks in the façade by having an offset in the front building line of at least four feet for every two dwelling units within the structure. The CMMC indicates that the final review authority may allow for alternative designs that accomplish the same purpose. The project proposes up to 16 units in a row within the townhome buildings. As discussed above, the project meets the intent of the requirements by providing offsets on the end two units on each side of the building project out 4 feet 6 inches. In addition, every two units for the interior units includes a 1- foot 6-inch offset in the buildings. The project also includes balconies, additional insets above the first floor, and multiple cladding materials, which further help to avoid a long, row-like effect. If the project included a maximum of six units in side-by-side configuration, the buildable area of the lot would be reduced, which would reduce the allowable units on the site. 256

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 19 of 29 ends

Staff has reviewed the waiver requests and found that the proposed waivers will not create any unsafe conditions. The waivers increase the square footage dedicated to dwelling units which allows for the project to provide the number of units permitted by Density Bonus Law. The final Density Bonus Agreement is subject to the terms within this report, will be drafted by the applicant, and reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office and Development Services division. The agreement shall be recorded prior to issuance of any building permits.

General Plan Conformance

The following analysis evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with specific goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan including the Land Use, Housing, Circulation, and Open Space Elements.

Policy LU-1.3: Strongly encourage the development of residential uses and owner -occupied housing (single-family detached residences, condominiums, townhouses) where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities.

Consistent. Table HOU-12 in the City’s General Plan Housing Element indicates that 43 percent of Costa Mesa households are owners while 57 percent are renters. The proposed development would provide 142 additional ownership housing units that will reduce the gap between ownership and rental housing in the City.

Policy LU-6.1: Encourage a mix of land uses that maintain and improve the City’s long-term fiscal health.

Consistent. The conducted fiscal analysis found that once the project is fully occupied, it would generate approximately $78,058 of net new revenue for the City.

Policy LU-7.1: Endeavor to create mixture of employment opportunities for all economic levels of residents and businesses.

Inconsistent. The project will modify the land use, removing approximately 6.12 acres of land from the General Commercial land use designation , which could result in a reduction of employment opportunities. However, in keeping with this policy, the City will need to retain a sustainable level of commercial land uses to create a mixture of employment opportunities for all economic levels of residents and businesses. Although there will be fewer employment opportunities with the residential proposal in comparison with the current Administrative and Professional use, considering the State and regional objective to increase housing supply, housing units may be considered a higher local/regional priority at the Council’s discretion. In addition, employment patterns have changed over the past five years, where more employees are telecommuting, reducing the necessity for office space.

Policy HOU‐2.1: Facilitate the development of housing that meets the needs of all segments of the population including affordable housing and households with specialized needs.

Consistent. The project proposes to include 142 residential units, including 7 very low-income units.

The project will be required to meet all building code requirements including the provision of accessible units.

257

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 20 of 29 ends

Policy HOU‐3.2: Encourage the development of well ‐planned and designed residential or mixed ‐use projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public uses within a single project, neighborhood, or geographic area within the City.

Consistent. The project is subject to the development standards of the R3 zone. The project proposes a mixture of single -family and multiple -family dwelling units. As proposed, the project places the smaller, detached single-family units adjacent to the existing established neighborhoods to reduce any impacts. The design elements proposed are high quality and internally consistent and complementary to the surrounding area.

Policy HOU‐3.4: Consider the potential impact of new housing opportunities and their impacts on existing residential neighborhoods when reviewing development applications affecting residential properties.

Consistent. As proposed, the project places the smaller, detached units adjacent to th e existing established neighborhoods to reduce massing impacts. The design elements, as proposed, are high quality and internally consistent and complementary to the surrounding area. The project incorporates public realms including the active and passive recreation areas. Additionally, new screening trees are proposed along the south and east property lines, which further reduces the aesthetic impacts of the project on the existing neighborhoods.

Policy OSR-1.18: Provide a minimum of 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

Consistent. Parkland requirements may be met with land dedication or by paying in -lieu fees. The applicant proposes to pay the in-lieu fees. In addition, the construction of a new intersection will allow for better pedestrian connectivity. The project applicant is also submitting a one-time public benefit payment of $250,000 for the City’s sole use of improving Shiffer Park.

Policy CD-9.5: Promote new types of urban housing that could be target-marketed to people seeking alternative housing choices in proximity to a major commercial area.

Consistent. The project proposes a mix of single-family and multiple-family units. The unique mix is intended to be starter homes. In addition, the project is also in close proximity to major commercial corridors and retail centers, including South Coast Plaza, Metro Pointe, and commercial corridors along Baker Street, Bristol Street, and Paularino Avenue.

Policy C ‐1.10: Encourage non-motorized transportation in residential areas by providing sidewalks, implementing pedestrian and bicycle friendly design of local streets, and incorporating street trees in new projects wherever feasible.

Finding: The project includes pedestrian connectivity into and throughout using a pedestrian gate and sidewalks, which encourage active transportation. The project also encourages bicycling by providing traffic calming measures throughout the project and providing access to the Class II bike lanes on Bristol Street. Street trees are proposed throughout the project site. The new signalized intersection allows for safe pedestrian and bicycle access to Shiffer Park. This reduces reliance on motor vehicles for short trips, encourages walking as a primary travel mode, and supports the City’s goals of creating pedestrian-friendly environments.

258

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 21 of 29 ends

Objective C-9B: Integrate bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements during planning, design and implementation of transportation projects.

Finding: The project includes pedestrian improvements including sidewalks and traffic calming measures throughout the site that promotes bicycle and pedestrian mobility as part of the overall project design.

FINDINGS

Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(g), Findings, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, in order to approve the project, the City Council must find that the evidence presented in the administrative record substantially meets specified findings as follows.

General Plan Amendment

There are no specifically required findings for a General Plan Amendment. However, amendments must be internally consistent and not conflict with other regulatory documents. Such amendments are considered legislative actions and ar e subject to the discretion of the City Council. In this case, the proposed General Plan Amendment seeks to modify the Land Use Element's maps, figures, text, and tables to apply High Density Residential land use designation to the subject property. The justification in support of the proposed General Plan amendment is below:

 The proposed project would contribute to the City meeting its City’s 6th cycle RHNA allocations.

The City of Costa Mesa's 6th Cycle (2021 –2029) Housing Element identifies specific sites to meet the State -mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 11,760 units. The proposed project site is not designated as a housing opportunity site but would still contribute to the City’s required RHNA allocation. Specifically, the project will provide seven very low-income units and 135 above moderate-income units.

 The proposed base density at 20 du/acre is appropriate given the property’s location, site size, and design of the project.

The project location and design foster a pedestrian-friendly environment, allowing residents to access nearby amenities and commercial corridors. The location is appropriate because of the proximity to South Coast Plaza, Metro Pointe, and other commercial corridors along Baker Street, Bristol Street, and Paularino Avenue. The project provides options to walk or bike to retail centers, coffee shops, and entertainment uses because the internal sidewalk network connects to the existing sidewalks on Bear Street. The higher density townhome component of the project is located away from existing established neighborhoods to reduce massing impacts. In addition, the site was identified as an area for development since it was included in the Measure K zone.

Rezone

259

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 22 of 29 ends

Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(11), Findings, of the CMMC, in order to approve the project, the City Council must find that the evidence presented in the administrative record substantially meets the following applicable required Rezone findings:

 The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

Consistent. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code, the proposed General Plan amendment, and applicable planning documents. Specifically, the applicant is requesting to rezone the project site by applying the R3 zoning district. This rezone would allow for the development of the 142 dwelling unit project pursuant to the provisions of Article 1 (Residential Districts) of Chapter V of the Zoning Code.

To facilitate this rezoning, a General Plan Amendment is also proposed to formally apply the zoning districts to the site. The General Plan Amendment would modify the Land Use Element maps, figures, text, and tables to reflect the new High-Density Residential land use designation.

Per Table LU-19: General Plan and Zoning Consistency of the General Plan Land Use Element, the zoning districts are considered consistent with the High -Density Residential land use designation. Therefore, the proposed rezone and General Plan Amendment align with the City’s land use framework and are necessary to support the proposed residential development.

Tentative Tract Map No. 19334

Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(13), Findings, of the CMMC, in order to approve the project, the City Council must find that the evidence presented in the administrative record substantially meets the following applicable required Tentative Tract Map findings:

 The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, and this Zoning Code.

Consistent. The creation of the subdivision aligns with the amendment land use designation of the General Plan by promoting residential ownership. Additionally, the subdivision complies with the local Zoning Code, amended zoning district, and State laws by conforming to established development regulations. The proposed map will allow for each individual unit t o be sold separately.

 The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the General Plan.

Consistent. The proposed development aligns with the General Plan by addressing the critical need for housing options within the community. Located near commercial corridors, this development promotes the City's goals of increasing residential density while enhancing accessibility to essential services and transportation.

 The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of development, and will not result in substantial environmental damage nor public health problems, based on compliance with the Zoning Code and general plan, and consideration of appropriate environmental information.

260

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 23 of 29 ends

Consistent. The proposed project is an in-fill development and is located in an urbanized area.

The site meets the minimum lot size requirement that can accommodate the density and necessary utilities. There are no wildlife habitats or bodies of water on the site or nearby, further ensuring that the development will not result in substantial environmental damage. This strategic location allows for the efficient use of already developed land, minimizing the need for additional site disturbance, and preserving green spaces elsewhere in the community.

 The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by State Government Code section 66473.1.

Consistent. The design of the proposed development thoughtfully considers the orientation of the lot, aligning in a manner that maximizes solar exposure, ensuring natural passive heating during colder months. Each townhome unit has operable windows and doors on each side of the building, which will allow for airflow through the units , allowing for natural heating and cooling opportunities. All buildings are spaced a minimum of 10 feet apart , which allows for airflow between buildings throughout the project site. Additional ly, the layout incorporates various outdoor amenity areas at the center of the development and green spaces to promote natural airflow and cooling, minimizing the need for artificial heating or air conditioning. This approach reflects the principles outlined in State Government Code section 66473.1.

 The division and development will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the tract.

Consistent. The proposed development has been designed to ensure that all existing public entity and utility rights -of-way and easements within the subdivision remain accessible and unobstructed. Coordination with utility providers and the City will be maintained throughout the development process to avoid any disruptions and ensure that essential services can continue to operate efficiently.

 The discharge of sewage from this land division into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with State Water Code section 13000).

Consistent. The discharge of sewage from this infill project into the existing public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 of the State Water Code (commencing with Section 13000), as the project site is currently served by existing utilities with adequate capacity, and the proposed development will not exceed the design limitations of the existing sewer infrastructure or treatment facilities.

In addition, pursuant to Section 66474 of the California Subdivision Map Act, a proposed subdivision must be denied if one or more of the below findings are made:

1. “That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451;

2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans;
261

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 24 of 29 ends

3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development;

4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development;

5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;

6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems; and

7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.”

None of the above findings of Section 66474 can be made or associated with the proposed subdivision.

Design Review

Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(14), Findings, of the CMMC, in order to approve the project, the City Council must find that the evidence presented in the administrative record substantially meets the following applicable required Design Review findings:

 The project complies with the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code and meets the purpose and intent of the residential design guidelines, which are intended to promote design excellence in new residential construction, with consideration being given to c ompatibility with the established residential community. This design review includes site planning, preservation of overall open space, landscaping, appearance, mass and scale of structures, location of windows, varied roof forms and roof plane breaks, and any other applicable design features.

Consistent. The proposed project complies with the Zoning Code and meets the purpose and intent of the residential design guidelines. The proposed development has been designed with modern craftsmen features including varied roof forms, horizontal and vertical articulation, and the scale has been kept as low as possible by incorporating the fourth floor into the roof. The placement of the attached units has been kept as far as possible from the existing established single-family dwellings and privacy and light impacts have been considered.

 The visual prominence associated with the construction of a two -story house or addition in a predominantly single-story neighborhood has bee n reduced through appropriate transitions between the first and second floors and the provision of second floor offsets to avoid unrelieved two-story walls.

Consistent. Although the project exceeds 2 -stories (waiver requested), the project provides appropriate transitions to reduce visual prominence. The project includes construction of a 262

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 25 of 29 ends

multiple-family neighborhood with attached townhomes and detached single -family units. The neighborhood will be constructed with two-story homes and four-story townhomes. The proposed two-story detached dwellings have been designed with traditional architectural elements including stucco and wood siding, a variety roof forms, and articulation in the form of entries.

Plan 1 includes a second floor which is stepped back from the first floor at the front elevation.

Plan 2 includes a front porch on the first floor, which provides relief on the front elevation. The plan also includes other architectural elements which provide transitions between the first and second floor, including a trellis above the garage and a band wrapping the home. While the rear elevations of the units do not offer second story offsets, landscaping is used to soften the appearance of the structures and to screen the development from the established neighborhoods to the east and south of the project site. In addition, the units are modestly sized with the rear and side walls not exceeding 30 feet in width. The units feature gable roofs which range from 27 feet in height to 20 feet in height, which also reduces the build of the structures. A concession is requested and discussed further below in the Density Bonus section to deviate from the design guidelines. The detached units buffer the existing neighborhoods from the attached units.

 As applicable to affordable multi -family housing developments, the project complies with the maximum density standards allowed pursuant to the General Plan and provides affordable housing to low or very -low income households, as defined by the Califo rnia Department of Housing and Community Development. The project includes long-term affordability covenants in compliance with state law.

Consistent. The proposed development includes 142 residential ownership units including seven very low-income units for no less than 55 years. The project complies with the maximum density standards allowed pursuant to the proposed General Plan in that the base density is 20 dwelling units per acre which is permitted. The inclusion of the affordable units provides the project a 20 percent density bonus, which would allow for 147 dwelling units on the property. The project proposes four less than the maximum allowed and therefore complies with density standards.

Density Bonus

Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(3), Findings, of the CMMC, in order to approve the project, the City Council must find that the evidence presented in the administrative record substantially meets the following applicable required Density Bonus findings:

 The request is consistent with State Government Code section 65915, et. seq. regarding density bonuses and other incentives, the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and Chapter IX special regulations, Article 4 density bonuses and other incentives.

Consistent. The requested density bonus is consistent in that the applicants are requesting a 20 percent density bonus with the inclusion of 5 percent very-low-income units (7 units). Pursuant to the Government Code, the request allows the developer to request one concession and unlimited waivers. The request also allows the developer to utilize reduced parking ratios as established by the government code. The request is consistent with General Plan Land Use Land Use Policies LU-1.3, 6.1, 7.1, and Housing Element Policies HOU-2.1, 3.2, 3.4.

263

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 26 of 29 ends

 The requested density bonus and incentive or concession constitute the minimum amount necessary to provide housing at the target rents or sale prices and/or a childcare facility.

Consistent. The requested density bonus would allow the project to develop up to 147 dwelling units with the 20 percent density bonus. The project proposed 142 units while still including the 5 percent units dedicated to very low-income units. The requested concession is a request to deviate from the design guidelines. The concession request constitutes the minimum deviation necessary to allow for the project to provide seven affordable units at the very low-income level.

 The granting of the incentive or concession is required in order to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 50052.5 or for rents for the targeted units.

Consistent. The requested concession is related to the residential desi gn guidelines. Strict compliance with these design standards would reduce the interior square footage of the units, which are already modest in size, thereby reducing their functionality and increasing the costs of the development. Furthermore, requiring o ffsets on all elevations would increase design complexity, construction costs, and potentially result in a reduction in the number of units achievable on the site. As such, the enforcement of the standard would physically preclude the applicant from constructing the density bonus units permitted under state law because the market rate units subsidize the affordable units. Therefore, the requested concession is necessary to physically accommodate the density, including the affordable units.

 The granting of the incentive or concession and/or the waiver or reduction of development standards does not have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code section 65589.5 upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact.

Consistent. The requested waivers are for maximum building height, front setback, landscaped parkways, open space, individual unit lot area, and side-by-side units. The requested concession is related to design guidelines related to second-story design. The requested waivers are minimal in that they will not impact the circulation or safety of the proposed development. The waivers are necessary to increase the number of units on the site to meet the density afforded per the density bonus. The buildings will be required to be constructed in compliance with the Building Code. Therefore, granting the waivers will have no negative impacts on the health, safety, or physical environment of the project site.

 The granting of the incentive or concession and/or the waiver or reduction of development standards does not have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.

Consistent. The proposed project is not located in proximity to real property listed in the California Register of Historic Resources and will therefore have no impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared in accordance with the California 264

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 27 of 29 ends

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND is an information document that examines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and focuses on the changes to the existing environment that would result from the proposed project. The MND examines all stages of the project, including construction and operation.

The MND evaluated the proposed project’s potential impacts on various environmental factors (e.g., air quality, aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, land use, etc.) and identified specific mitigation measures to lessen environmental impacts whenever feasible. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, the Draft MND was made available for a public comment period beginning on May 1, 2025, and ending at 5:00 p.m. on May 31, 2025. Copies of the Initial Study, the proposed MND, and supporting materials were available for public review at City Hall, Mesa Verd e Library, and Donald Dungan Library. The MND was also posted online and was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH NO. 2025050135).

MND Including Response to Comments

A total of two comments were received from public agencies, one from the California Department of Transportation and the other from the Department of Toxic Substances Control. An additional comment was provided by a resident. Copies of all comments receive d and responses to the comments are provided under Exhibit B to Attachment 1 of this staff report. The Final MND consists of the response to public comments received during the public review period of the Draft MND, errata, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The errata makes minor changes to the Draft MND that do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. The MMRP is a comprehensive list of all mitigation measures identified in the Draft MND. The mitigation measur es have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval within Exhibit A3 of Attachment 2.

Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The MMRP lists the mitigation measures required based on each environmental topic to reduce the project's potentially significant impacts. The MMRP also specifies which City department is responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with the mitigations. The MMRP also includes timing of when the mitigation measure applies e.g. , prior to issuance of building permits, during ground disturbance activities, etc. The MMRP includes mitigation measures for environmental impacts that were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated for the following environmental factors identified in the Draft MND:

• Geology and Soils
• Cultural Resources
• Transportation
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Tribal Cultural Resources

For additional details, the MMRP and details of the mitigation measures can be found under Exhibit B to Attachment 1.

ALTERNATIVES:

City Council alternatives include the following:
265

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 28 of 29 ends

1. Approve the project. The City Council may recommend approval of the project as recommended by the Planning Commission, subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution.

2. Approve the project with modifications. The City Council may suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate concerns. If any of the additional requested changes are substantial, the hearing could be continued to a future meeting to allow a redesign or additional analysis. In the event of significant modifications to the proposal, staff will return with a revised Resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. (If the City Council direction includes a reduction in the proposed project density, the below specified Government Code Section 65589.5 provisions are applicable.)

a. Approve the project without the pedestrian gate. The City Council may approve the project without the proposed pedestrian gate, subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution including the removal of Conditions of Approval 29 and 92, and removal of subsection J of Condition of Approval 87.

3. Denial of the project. If the City Council believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, the City Council should deny the application, provide facts in support of denial, and direct staff to incorporate the findings into a Resolution for City Council denial. If the project is denied, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months from the City Council’s decision for denial. However, because this project is subject to the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5), if the City Council denies or directs a reduction in the proposed density of the housing project, an d the development is determined to be consistent with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, the City Council must make the following written findings:

 The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density; and
 There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.)

FISCAL REVIEW:

Due to the change of land uses of the proposed project , including a General Plan Amendment and Rezone, staff evaluated the project’s fiscal impact on the City. A fiscal impact analysis is attached and was prepared by Zimmerman Group and reviewed by the City’s Finance Department. The analysis projects the expenditure and revenue that directly impact the City because of the proposed project. If a project has a net fiscal surplus, then the use itself has a fiscal benefit to the City on its own. Zimmerman Group projected the new fiscal impacts generated by the proposed project and found that once it is fully operational, the project would result in an estimated $78,058 in annual net rev enue to the City.

Zimmerman Group determined that the property tax and sales tax revenue would exceed the projected annual city expenditures related to public services.
266

Item #: 25-350 Meeting Date: 08/05/2025

Page 29 of 29 ends

LEGAL REVIEW:

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

PUBLIC NOTICE:

Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13 -29(d), of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, three types of public notification have been completed no less than 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing:

1. Mailed notice. A public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500- foot radius of the project site on Monday, July 22, 2025. The required notice radius is measured from the external boundaries of the property.

2. On-site posting. A public notice was posted on each street frontage of the project site on Monday, July 22, 2025.

3. Newspaper publication. A public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper on Saturday, July 19, 2025.

Any public comments received for the August 5, 2025 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:
 Diversify, stabilize and increase housing to reflect community needs.

CONCLUSION:

The proposed residential ownership project would redevelop an existing office building into a high quality, 142 dwelling unit project, including 7 very low-income units. Planning Commission recommends that City Council conduct a public hearing and approve the project, subject to conditions of approval.

267
Bear Street Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California
PREPARED FOR:

City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714.754.5000
Contact: Chris Yeager, Associate Planner
PREPARED BY:

FirstCarbon Solutions
250 Commerce, Suite 210
Irvine, CA 92602
714.508.4100
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Cecilia So, Senior Project Manager
January 10, 2025

EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 1
268

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
269
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations vii
Section 1: Introduction 1

1.1 - Purpose 1

1.2 - Project Location 1

1.3 - Environmental Setting 1

1.3.1 - Land Uses and Zoning 1

1.3.2 - Surrounding Land Uses 2

1.4 - Project Description 2

1.4.1 - Parking and Circulation 3

1.4.2 - Open Space and Landscaping 3

1.4.3 - Off-site Improvements 3

1.4.4 - Infrastructure and Utilities 4

1.4.5 - Construction 4

1.5 - Required Discretionary Approvals 4

1.6 - Intended Uses of This Document 4
Section 2: Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation 19

2.1 Aesthetics 20

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources 24

2.3 Air Quality 27

2.4 Biological Resources 45

2.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources 51

2.6 Energy 58

2.7 Geology and Soils 63

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 71

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 79

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality 85

2.11 Land Use and Planning 91

2.12 Mineral Resources 93

2.13 Noise 95

2.14 Population and Housing 107

2.15 Public Services 109

2.16 Recreation 112

2.17 Transportation 115

2.18 Utilities and Service Systems 118

2.19 Wildfire 124
270

2.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance 127
Section 3: List of Preparers 131

Appendix A: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information Appendix B: Biological Resources Supporting Information Appendix C: Cultural Resources Supporting Information
C.1 - Pedestrian Photolog
C.2 - Native American Heritage Commission Correspondence C.3 - Non-confidential South Central Coast Information Center Record Search Results C.4 - Historic Built Environment Assessment
Appendix D: Supplemental Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration and Due Diligence Study
Appendix E: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix F: Hydrology and Water Quality Supporting Information F.1 - Preliminary Hydrology Report
F.2 - Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix G: Noise Supporting Information
Appendix H: Traffic Supporting Information
H.1 - Trip Generation Assessment
H.2 - Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis

Tables
Table 1: Unmitigated Construction—Maximum Daily Regional Emissions by Year 30 Table 2: Maximum Daily Operational Regional Pollutants 32 Table 3: Construction Localized Significance Screening Analysis 34 Table 4: Operational Localized Screening Significance Analysis 35 Table 5: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction (Unmitigated) 38
Table 6: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction (Mitigated) 39
Table 7: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources 40 Table 8: Proposed Project Construction GHG Emissions 71 Table 9: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Unmitigated 73 Table 10: Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan 74
271
Table 11: Existing Ambient Noise Levels on the Project Site 95 Table 12: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix 96
Table 13: Trip Generation Comparison 114
Table 14: City of Costa Mesa Baseline VMT Per Service Population 115 Table 15: City of Costa Mesa Baseline VMT Per Service Population 116 Table 16: Project Generated VMT 116
Table 17: Calculation Variables and Formula 118
Table 18: Boundary VMT 120

Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map 5
Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map 7
Exhibit 3: General Plan Land Use Map 9
Exhibit 4: Zoning Map 11
Exhibit 5: Site Plan 13
Exhibit 6: Landscape Plan 15

272

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
273

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius (Centigrade)
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
ACM asbestos-containing material
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AELUP Airport Environs Land Use Plan
AERMOD American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AP Administrative and Professional
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
AST aboveground storage tank
BERD California Built Environment Resource Directory
BMP Best Management Practice
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Buildings Standard
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CBC California Building Standards Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCS c arbon capture and storage
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDR Carbon Dioxide Removal
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CMFD Coast Mesa Fire Department
CMPD Costa Mesa Police Department
CMSD Costa Mesa Sanitary District
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
274
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNPSEI California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CONCCP/HCP County of Orange Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CVC California Vehicle Code
DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DBL Density Bonus Law
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substance Control
du/acre dwelling unit per acre
EMFAC Emissions Factors
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EV electric vehicle
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Safety Zone
FIRM Floor Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farm Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GAMAQI Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GC General Commercial
GHG greenhouse gas
GPA General Plan Amendment
GPCD gallons per capita per day
GPD gallons per day
GWP Global Warming Potential
HARP2 Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program
275
HBEA Historic Built Environment Assessment
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HI Hazard Index
HOA Homeowner’s Association
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
In/sec inches per second
IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
kWh kilowatt hours
Ldn day/night average noise level
LDV light-duty vehicle
LEED® Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq equivalent sound level
Lmin minimum noise/sound level
LOS Level of Service
LST localized significance threshold
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MDV medium-duty vehicle
MEIR Maximally Exposed Individual Receptor
MET Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
mph miles per hour
MS4 Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System
MT metric tons
MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County
MWS Modular Wetland Systems
NAHC California Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NCRS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NFHL National Flood Hazard Layer
NMUSD Newport-Mesa Unified School District
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOX Nitrogen Oxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
276
NRCS National Resources Conservation
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OC San Orange County Sanitary District
OCFCD Orange County Flood Control District
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OCTAM Orange County Transportation Analysis Model
OCWD Orange County Water District
OD Origin/Destination
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OGV Ocean-going Vessel
PM10 particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter ppm parts per million
PRC Public Resources Code
PV photovoltaic
R-3 Multiple-Family Residential
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RNG renewable natural gas
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SA GEO SA Geotechnical, Inc.

SC Standard Condition
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SDG significant data gap
SED socioeconomic data
SNA John Wayne Airport
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCAB South Coast Air Basin
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SSRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element
SWIS Solid Waste Information System
SWP State Water Project
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
277
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TCR Tribal Cultural Resources
TSI thermal systems insulation
TTM Tentative Tract Map
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UST underground storage tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WSS Web Soil Survey
ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicle

278

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
279
1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Purpose
The purpose of this Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND) is to identify any potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Bear Street Residential Project (proposed project) in the City of Costa Mesa, California. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15367, City of Costa Mesa has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this IS/MND and any additional environmental documentation required for the proposed project.

The remainder of this section provides a brief description of the project location and the primary project characteristics. Section 2 includes an environmental checklist that provides an overview of the potential impacts that may result from project implementation, elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist, and provides justification for each checklist response.

Feasible mitigations are analyzed to reduce all impacts to below a level of significance. Section 3 contains the List of Preparers.

1.2 - Project Location
The project site is located at 3150 Bear Street in the City of Costa Mesa (City), in Orange County, California (Exhibit 1). The approximately 6.12-acre project site consists of two parcels, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 141-521-48 and -49. As shown in Exhibit 1, the project site is in the northern portion of the City. Regional access to the project site is from Interstate 405 (I-405) via the Bristol Street exit, State Route (SR) 73 via the Bear Street exit, and SR-55 via the Baker Street exit.

1.3 - Environmental Setting

1.3.1 - Land Uses and Zoning
The project site was formerly occupied by the Trinity Broadcasting Network and is now occupied by The Palazzo by Koshbin which is a European-style event venue. The flat project site is mostly paved or covered by structures (Exhibit 2). The proposed project would include demolition of the existing buildings and improvements.

The General Plan currently designates the project site as General Commercial (Exhibit 3). 1 The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the General Plan land use designation from General Commercial to High-Density Residential. 1 City of Costa Mesa. 2016. City of Costa Mesa General Plan, Land Use Element, Land Use Policy Map, Figure LU-3.

Website: http://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/34692/637601318822270000. Accessed September 18, 2024.
280
The project site is currently zoned Administrative and Professional (AP) (Exhibit 4) The proposed project would require a rezone to change the zoning designation from AP to Multiple-family Residential (R-3). The R-3 zoning district is intended to promote the development of multi-family rental as well as ownership dwelling units. The required minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet in the R-3 zone. The maximum density allowed is 2,178 square feet per dwelling unit, which equals 20 dwelling units per gross acre.2

1.3.2 - Surrounding Land Uses
North I- 405 is located immediately north of the project site. South Coast Plaza shopping mall is located beyond I-405.

South Single-family homes and an office building.

East Olympic Avenue, Canadian Drive, and single-family homes.

West Bear Street is located immediately west of the project site. Shiffer Park and single-family homes are located beyond Bear Street.

1.4 - Project Description
MLC Holdings, LLC (applicant) proposes to develop a new residential infill community consisting of a total of 142 for-sale townhomes within eight separate buildings. The townhomes would range in size from approximately 1,060 to 2,218 square feet with 2-story detached homes and 4-story attached homes (Exhibit 5).

The proposed project would provide private roadways and parking, pedestrian walkways, common space and amenity areas, landscaping, and a recreational amenity area within the project site.

The project applicant proposes to deed restrict 5 percent of the units as very low affordable homes (up to seven homes). Pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), the proposed project would be allowed a 20 percent increase in density. Parking and landscaping associated with the proposed project would be consistent with requirements of the SDBL and applicable local regulations.

1.4.1 - Parking and Circulation
Vehicles would access the project site via the existing driveway on Bear Street. This access point would be signalized, and no gate is proposed. An internal private roadway system would provide two- way access to each unit’s parking garage as well as guest parking spaces that would be distributed throughout the site. Pedestrians would circulate within the proposed project via internal pedestrian walkways and sidewalks located throughout the site.
2 City of Costa Mesa. 2024. City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Website: https://ecode360.com/42616637. Accessed September 18, 2024.
281
An emergency vehicle access exists at the east edge of the property near the terminus of Olympic Avenue. This gated access will remain, providing access for emergency vehicles. It will be redesigned with a new Knox box and a pedestrian gate on a timer to accommodate pedestrian access into the project site during park hours, allowing existing neighbors to the east a more direct walking path to Shiffer Park. This new pedestrian connection would be accompanied by a new signalized crosswalk at the community’s Bear Street entrance.

Pursuant to the parking requirements set forth in the SDBL, the proposed project has been designed to meet the Reduced Parking Ratios set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13.85. 3 The
proposed project would have 321 on-site parking spaces, consisting of 284 spaces within garages (2 per unit) and 37 guest spaces (0.26 per unit). The proposed parking spaces would meet the parking ratio code requirement of 238 parking spaces.

1.4.2 - Open Space and Landscaping
The proposed project incorporates amenities including a tot lot, barbecues, seating, open lawn areas, and landscaping (Exhibit 5 and 6).

The proposed project would provide 22,735 square feet of common open space; 35,502 square feet of Homeowner’s Association (HOA) maintained landscaped areas; 18,293 square feet of fenced yards; and 3,637 square feet of other decorative planting areas, for a total of 80,167 square feet of open space area. As noted above, pursuant to the SDBL, the applicant seeks a waiver for a reduction in open space requirements.

1.4.3 - Off-site Improvements
Off-site improvements associated with the proposed project include a new pedestrian connection would be accompanied by a new signalized crosswalk at the community’s Bear Street entrance, as described above, as well as 13,278 square feet of off-site common open space recreation areas. For purposes of this analysis, “project site” refers to both the proposed development and off -site improvements.

1.4.4 - Infrastructure and Utilities
Water service is currently provided by Mesa Water District. The proposed project would connect to an existing 6-inch domestic water line within Olympic Avenue and an existing 12-inch water line within Bear Street. Existing hydrants to remain are located adjacent to the project site on Olympic Avenue as well as diagonally across Bear Street near the existing entrance of Shiffer Park.

Sewer service is provided by Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD). The proposed project would reroute existing sewer mains within the site and connect to the existing 8-inch sewer in Olympic Avenue. An existing Orange County Sanitation District sewer trunk line main crosses the northern portion of the property and will be protected in place. 3 City of Costa Mesa. 2024. Code of Ordinances. Website: https:// ecode360.com/CO4918. Accessed September 23, 2024. 282
The proposed project would connect to an existing storm drain to the northwest of the project site.

1.4.5 - Construction
The applicant anticipates that construction of the proposed project would begin approximately 8 months to 1 year following entitlement approval. Construction activities would consist of three consecutive phases: (1) demolition of the existing paved surfaces and structures, clearing, and site preparation (2 months); (2) site development, including grading, utility installation, and roadway construction (7 months); (3) vertical construction and landscaping installation (18 months).

Considering the site is relatively flat, the design grading is anticipated to consist of cuts and fills on the order of 1 to 5 feet to reach pad grades and provide proper site drainage.

1.5 - Required Discretionary Approvals
As mentioned previously, the City of Costa Mesa has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the CEQA Lead Agency for the preparation of this Draft IS/MND. In order to implement the proposed project, the City would need to secure the following permits/approvals:
• General Plan Amendment to c hange the land use designation from General Commercial to High-Density Residential.
• Rezone to change the zoning from AP to R-3 z one.
• Tentative Tract Map (TTM) for construction of 142 for-sale residential homes.

1.6 - Intended Uses of This Document
This Draft IS/MND has been prepared to determine the appropriate scope and level of detail required in completing the environmental analysis for the proposed project. This document will also serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from members of the public and public agencies regarding the proposed project.

The Draft IS/MND will be circulated for a minimum of 30 days, during which comments concerning the analysis contained in the Draft IS/MND should be sent to:

Chris Yeager, Associate Planner
City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: 714.754.4883
Email: [email protected]
283
!

·|}þ91
·|}þ83
·|}þ57
·|}þ241
·|}þ261
!"#$405
Orange C
ounty
RiversideCounty
%&'(710
%&'(5
%&'(405
%&'(5
·|}þ1
1 ·|}þ71
Chino
Yorba Linda
Brea
Villa Park
Lemon Heights
Tustin
Modjeska
El Toro
Newport CoastBalboa Island
Emerald Bay
Aliso Viejo
Laguna Beach
Laguna Woods
Mission Viejo
Las Flores
Cleveland
National
Forest
Chino Hills
Fullerton
Irvine
Huntington
Beach
Costa Mesa
Santa Ana
Midway CityNaples
Orange County
Los Angeles County
Prado Flood
Control Basin
Santiago Reservoir
E x h i b i t 1
R e g i o n a l L o c a t i o n M a p 5 0 52.5
Miles
!
Text
Project Site
S o ur c e : C e n s us 2 0 0 0 D a t a , T h e C a li fo r n i a S pa t i a l I n fo r m a t i o n L i b r a r y ( C a S I L ) .

I
4 9 4 0 0 0 6 0 " 1 0 / 2 0 2 4 | 1 _ r e g i o n a l. m x d Project Site
C I T Y O F C O S T A M E S A
B E A R S T R E E T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N Legend
City of Costa Mesa

Pacific Ocean
·|}þ73 ·|}þ133
·|}þ241
·|}þ74
284

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
285
4 9 4 0 0 0 6 0 " 0 9 / 2 0 2 4 | 2 _ lo c a l_ vi c i n i t y . m xd E xh i b i t 2
L o c a l V i c i n i t y M a p
S o ur c e : B i n g A e r i a l I m a g e r y . X E n g i n e e r i n g & C o n sult i n g , I n c . , S e pt e m b e r 2 0 2 4 . C I T Y O F C O S T A M E S A
B E A R S T R E E T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N I
1 , 0 0 0 0 1 , 0 0 05 0 0
F e e t
Legend
Project Site
Off-site Improvement Area
%&'(405
Bear St
Shiffer Park
Paularino Park
Saint John the
Baptist Catholic
School
Paularino
Elementary
School
Sonora
Elementary
School
Wakeham Park
286

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
287
4 9 4 0 0 0 6 0 " 1 0 / 2 0 2 4 | 3 _ G P L U . m xd E xh ib it 3
G e n e r a l P l a n L a n d U s e M a p S our c e : B in g A e r ia l I m a g e r y . X E n g in e e r in g & C on sul t in g , I n c . , S e pt e m b e r 2 0 2 4 . C I T Y O F C O S T A M E S A
B E A R S T R E E T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N I
2 5 0 0 2 5 01 2 5
F e e t
Legend
Project Site
Off-site Improvement Area
General Plan Land Use Designations
GC - General Commercial
LDR - Low Density Residential
NC - Neighborhood Commercial
P - Public/Institutional
RC - Regional Commercial
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
GC
NC
P
RC RC
288

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
289
4 9 4 0 0 0 6 0 " 1 0 / 2 0 2 4 | 4 _ z on in g . m xd E xh ib it 4
Z on in g M a p
S our c e : B in g A e r ia l I m a g e r y . X E n g in e e r in g & C on s ul t in g , I n c . , S e pt e m b e r 2 0 2 4 . C I T Y O F C O S T A M E S A
B E A R S T R E E T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N I
2 5 0 0 2 5 01 2 5
F e e t
Legend
Project Site
Off-site Improvement Area
Zoning Designations
AP - Administrative & Professional
CL - Commercial Limited
IR - Institutional & Recreational
PDC - Planned Development Commercial
PDR-LD - Planned Development Residential Low Density
SFR - Single Family Residential
PDR-LD
SFR
SFR
SFR
SFR
SFR
SFR
SFR
SFR
SFR
SFR
CL
APIR

PDC PDC
290

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
291
49400060 • 01/2025 | 5_site_plan.cdr
Exhibit 5
Site Plan

CITY OF COSTA MESA

BEAR STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Source: X Engineering & Consulting, Inc. 12/11/24.
292

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
293
49400060 • 01/2025 | 6_landscape_plan.cdr
Exhibit 6
Landscape Plan

CITY OF COSTA MESA

BEAR STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Source: MLC Holdings, Inc. 12/06/2024.
294

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
295
2 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources and Tribal
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Utilities and Services
Systems
Wildfire
Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NE
GATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wi
ll not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENV
IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially si
gnificant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, becaus
e all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Date: Signed:
296
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.1 Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic building within
a State Scenic Highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The General Plan Conservation Element specifies that the Santa Ana River, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park are considered the City’s primary natural resources. 4 Additional scenic amenities, such as golf courses, also provide visual relief from the built environment and are important visual amenities and landmarks. According to the General Plan EIR, scenic locations near the City include the Pacific Ocean, Santa Ana River, and Santa Ana Mountains.5 4 City of Costa Mesa. 2015. 2015-2035 General Plan, Conservation Element. Website:
http://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/34698/636740022567130000. Accessed October 2, 2024. 5 City of Costa Mesa. 2016. Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2015-2035 General Plan. Website:
http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/generalplan2015-2035/Final-EIR.pdf. Accessed November 18, 2024. 297
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No impact. The City does not designate any specific scenic vistas; however, it identifies the Santa Ana River, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park as primary natural resources in the City. The project site is in the northeastern portion of the City, approximately 2.8 miles east of the Santa Ana River, 2.93 miles northeast of Fairview Park, and 4.12 miles northeast of Talbert Regional Park.

Additionally, the project site is located over 5 miles from the Pacific Ocean.

Because of the distance and the intervening development and topography, the project site cannot be seen from the Santa Ana River, Fairview Park, or the Pacific Ocean. Nor would the development of the proposed project impede or change views of the City’s identified natural resources from publicly accessible areas. General Plan Conservation Element Goal CON-1 aims to preserve natural resources in the City, including land, water, wildlife, and vegetation, and to protect areas of unique natural beauty. The project site is flat and is developed with commercial uses. Surrounding uses include commercial and residential development. Because of intervening development, there are no scenic views of the Santa Ana River, Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park or the surrounding areas.

Therefore, the proposed project would not affect public views of these scenic resources. No impact would occur.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a State Scenic Highway? No impact. The nearest eligible scenic highway is SR-1, approximately 5.63 miles southwest of the project site, and the nearest designated Scenic Highway is SR-91, approximately 11.58 miles northeast of the project site.6
Because of the distance and intervening development, the project site is not visible from SR -1 or SR-

91. The project site is developed with commercial uses, and there are no scenic resources such as trees of significance, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings on-site. Additionally, unique visual resources or historic structures do not characterize the project site and surrounding area; therefore, no impact would occur to scenic or historic resources.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than significant impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area. As such, this discussion focuses on zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The General Plan and 6 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2024. State Scenic Highway Map. Website:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed October 2, 2024.
298
Zoning Ordinance define the permitted land uses and the corresponding development standards within the City. The General Plan currently designates the project site as General Commercial. The proposed project would require a GPA to change the General Plan land use designation from General Commercial to High-Density Residential. The High-Density Residential land use designation is intended to provide residential development with a density of up to 20 du/acre.

The project site is currently zoned AP. The proposed project would require a rezone to change the zoning designation from AP to R-3. The R-3 zoning district is intended to promote the development of multi-family rental as well as ownership dwelling units. In conjunction with the proposed GPA to High- Density Residential, the proposed project would be subject to R-2 zoning development standards.

The proposed project would comply with all applicable Costa Mesa Code of Ordinances requirements related to scenic quality as part of the development review process to ensure the project design is consistent with adopted design guidelines. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations pertaining to scenic quality, and no impacts would occur. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than significant impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area with existing light sources, which include streetlights, lighting on the interiors and exteriors of existing and surrounding buildings, as well as vehicle headlights and traffic signals. No nighttime construction is proposed, and construction activities would be subject to Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 279, which restricts construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 7 Therefore, the proposed project would not require construction lighting, except security and safety lighting.

The proposed project would generate lighting from two primary sources: lighting from the building interiors that would pass through windows and lighting from exterior sources (e.g., street lighting, parking area lighting, building illumination, security lighting, vehicle headlights, and landscape lighting). This proposed lighting is typical of residential developments. The proposed development would replace current existing sources of light and glare with new high-quality development and lighting.

The City’s Planning and Building Department would review any proposed lighting to ensure conformance with the California Building Standards Code (CBC), Title 24, as well as the California Green Building Standard Code (CALGreen) (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24, Part 11), such that only the minimum amount of lighting is used, and no light spillage occurs. Although the proposed project would replace existing structures with new buildings that would introduce new light sources, the surrounding area is urban and already illuminated, and the proposed lighting conditions would be similar to existing uses on-site and surrounding the project site. Furthermore, lighting would 7 City of Costa Mesa. 2024. Municipal Code, Chapter XIII Noise Control. Website:
https://ecode360.com/42619140?highlight=construction,construction%20hours,hours&searchId=8627775032158158.

Accessed October 2, 2024.
299
be required to adhere to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, CBC, and CALGreen. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause adverse effects. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass or other reflective materials can cause reflected light (glare). Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle commonly cause adverse glare. All proposed glass materials to be used would be required to be approved by the City prior to project construction to ensure that the proposed project would not result in glare for adjacent residents or passersby. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
300
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to nonagricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
301
Environmental Evaluation
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Setting
The project site is currently zoned AP (Exhibit 4). The proposed project would require a rezone to change the zoning designation from AP to R-3. The R-3 zoning district is intended to promote the development of multi-family rental as well as ownership dwelling units.

The project site is located in a developed and urbanized area. The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) designates the project site as Urban and Built-Up Land, which is defined as land occupied with a building density of at least one dwelling unit per 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel.8 Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? No impact. As described above, the site is located on land designated as Urban and Built-Up Land.

There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance on the project site or in its vicinity. In addition, the proposed project would not convert any farmland to nonagricultural use. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? No impact. The project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract and is not zoned for agricultural uses.9 As noted in the General Plan EIR, no Willamson Act contract lands exist within the City.10 As 8 California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/#:~:text=State%20of%20California.%20Search%20this%20site. Accessed November 12, 2024.
9 California Department of Conservation. 2024. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/index.html#:~:text=ArcGIS%20Web%20Application%20- %20California. Accessed November 12, 2024.
10 City of Costa Mesa. 2016. Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2015–2035 General Plan. Website:
http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/generalplan2015-2035/Final-EIR.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2024. 302
previously discussed, the project site is currently zoned AP and would be rezoned to R-3. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No impact. The City of Costa Mesa does not contain any land that is zoned for forest land or timberland. The project site is within the AP Zone and is currently occupied with commercial uses.

The proposed project would require a rezone of the site to R-3. Therefore, there would be no impact to land zoned for forest or timberland.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No impact. As discussed above, the project site consists primarily of paved and developed surfaces and does not contain forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for production. The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses.

Therefore, there would be no impact.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No impact. The project site and surrounding area do not contain Farmland or forest land. Therefore, project implementation would not result in the conversion of Farmland or forest land from agricultural or timberland uses to nonagricultural or non-forest land uses. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
303
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is nonattainment under
an applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors or) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Environmental Evaluation
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Setting
The proposed project site is located in the City of Costa Mesa, in Orange County, which is within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). The SoCAB includes all of Orange County, Los Angeles County (except for the Antelope Valley), the non-desert portion of western San Bernardino County, and the western and Coachella Valley portions of Riverside County. The San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains bound the SoCAB on the north and east while the Pacific Ocean lies to the west of the SoCAB. The southern limit of the SoCAB is the San Diego County line. The SoCAB is under the jurisdiction of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 11 11 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2022. Air Quality Management Plan. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan. Accessed November 19, 2024. 304
The air pollutants for which national and State standards have been promulgated and that are most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in the SoCAB include ozone, nitrogen oxide (NO X), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5). In addition, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are of concern in the SoCAB. Each of these pollutants is briefly described below. Other pollutants that are regulated but not considered an issue in the project area are sulfur dioxide (SO2), vinyl chloride, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and lead; the proposed project would not emit substantial quantities of those pollutants, so they are not discussed further in this section.

Construction and operation of the proposed project would be subject to applicable SCAQMD rules and requirements. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook was developed to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality.
12 Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant impact. A potentially significant impact would occur if the proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is responsible for preparing air quality attainment plans to be transmitted to the ARB and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for incorporation into the State Implementation Plan. SCAQMD has designated this area as extreme nonattainment for ozone and serious nonattainment for PM

2.5.13 To evaluate whether
a project conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan (2022 Air Quality Management Plan [AQMP] for SoCAB), the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that there are two key indicators. These indicators are identified by the criteria discussed below. • Indicator: Whet her the proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
• Indicator: Ac cording to Chapter 12 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the General Plan consistency findings is to determine whether a proposed project is inconsistent with the growth assumptions incorporated into the air quality plan and, thus, whether it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and California air quality standards.
12 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Available at SCAQMD, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
13 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Air Quality Management Plan. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-management-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan. Accessed November 19, 2024. 305
The development of emission burdens used in AQMPs to demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality standards is based, in part, on land use patterns contained within local general plans.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that if a project is consistent with the applicable general plan land use designation, and the general plan was adopted prior to the applicable AQMP, then the growth of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and/or population generated by said project would be consistent with growth in VMT and population assumed within the AQMP.

The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance defines the permitted land uses and the corresponding development standards within the City. The General Plan currently designates the project site as General Commercial. The proposed project would require a GPA to amend the General Plan land use designation from General Commercial to High-Density Residential. The High-Density Residential land use designation is intended to provide residential development with a density of up to 20 du/ac re.

Therefore, the proposed project’s VMT and sources of air pollutants would have been analyzed in the 2022 AQMP under a lower density than the proposed project. As such, further analysis is required to determine whether the proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Considering the recommended criteria in the SCAQMD’s 1993 Handbook, this analysis uses the following criteria to address this potential impact:
• Criterion 1: Pr oposed project’s contribution to air quality violations; and • Criterion 2: Co mpliance with applicable emission control measures in the AQMPs.

Cri
terion 1: Project’s Contribution to Air Quality Violations According to the SCAQMD, the proposed project is consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
14 If a project’s emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOC), NOX, CO, sulfur oxides (SOX), PM10, or PM2.5, it follows that the project’s emissions would not exceed the allowable limit for each project in order for the region to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards, which is the primary goal of air quality plans. As shown in Impact 2.3(b), the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds of 14 S outh Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Handbook. Available at SCAQMD, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
306
significance during either construction or operation. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP under this criterion.

Criterion 2: Control Measures
The AQMP contains several control measures which are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. The proposed project would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. Because of the nature of the proposed project, which includes earthmoving activity during construction, SCAQMD Rule 403 applies. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site. Compliance with this rule is achieved through the application of standard Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs include application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils; covering haul vehicles; restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph); sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways; cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph; and establishing a permanent ground cover on finished sites. Because the proposed project does not otherwise include dust control BMPs incorporated, Standard Condition (SC) AIR-1 is required. SC AIR-1 requires the implementation of best available dust control measures during activities capable of generating fugitive dust, consistent with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403. The proposed project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113, which serves to limit the VOC content of architectural coatings used on projects in the SCAQMD. As outlined in SC AIR-2, all coatings used by the proposed project must meet or exceed the VOC content limits established by SCAQMD Rule 1113. The proposed project’s compliance with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations would result in consistency with the applicable AQMP control measures.

Summary
In summary, the proposed project would not result in a regional exceedance of criteria air pollutants and would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations with incorporation of SC AIR-1 and SC AIR-2. As such, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.

Furthermore, the proposed project would not interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and California air quality standards. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Less than significant impact. This impact is related to the cumulative effect of a project’s criteria pollutant emissions. By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact resulting from emissions generated over a large geographic region. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants results from past and present development within the air basin, and this regional impact is a cumulative impact.

Therefore, new development projects (such as the proposed project) within the SoCAB would contribute 307
to this impact only on a cumulative basis. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when evaluated in combination with past, present, and future development projects.

Potential regional impacts could result in exceedances of State or federal standards for NO X, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), or CO. NOX emissions are of concern because of potential health impacts from exposure to NOX emissions during both construction and operation and as a precursor in the formation of airborne ozone. PM10 and PM2.5 are of concern during construction because of the potential to emit exhaust emissions from the operation of off-road construction equipment and fugitive dust during earth-disturbing activities (construction fugitive dust). CO emissions are of concern during project operation because operational CO hotspots are related to increases in on -road vehicle congestion and resulting health effects.

VOC emissions are also important because of their participation in the formation of ground level ozone. Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and that can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, elderly, and young children.

The cumulative analysis focuses on whether a specific project would result in cumulatively considerable emissions. According to Section 15064(h)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone does not constitute substantial evidence that the project’s incremental effects would be cumulatively considerable.

Rather, the determination of cumulative air quality impacts for construction and operational emissions is based on whether the proposed project would result in regional emissions that exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for construction and operations on a project level.

Projects that generate emissions below the SCAQMD significance thresholds would be considered consistent with regional air quality planning efforts and would not generate cumulatively considerable emissions.

The proposed project’s regional construction and operational emissions are evaluated separately below. Construction and operational emissions from the proposed project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1. The complete CalEEMod output files are included as part of Appendix A.

Construction Emissions
Construction emissions are described as “short-term” or temporary in duration; however, they have the potential to represent a significant impact with respect to air quality. Construction of the proposed project would result in the temporary generation of VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities such as site preparation, grading, building construction (home construction), architectural coating, and paving. Fugitive dust emissions are primarily associated with 308
earth disturbance and grading activities and vary as a function of soil silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage of disturbance area, and miles traveled by construction vehicles on- site and off-site.

Construction-related NOX emissions are primarily generated by exhaust emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment, material and haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. VOC emissions are mainly generated by exhaust emissions from construction vehicles, off-gas emissions associated with architectural coatings, and asphalt paving.

For the purpose of this analysis, construction of the proposed project was estimated to begin in December 2025 and conclude in September 2028 and was modeled based on an applicant-provided preliminary schedule; see Appendix A. Note that construction emissions would likely decrease if the construction schedule were deferred to later years because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as the State CEQA Guidelines require.

The calculations of pollutant emissions from the construction equipment account for the type of equipment, horsepower and load factors of the equipment, and the duration of equipment use. Table 1 presents the proposed project’s maximum daily construction emissions during the entire construction duration using the worst-case summer or winter daily construction-related criteria pollutant emissions for each phase of construction. The PM 10 and PM2.5 emissions reflect the
combined exhaust and fugitive dust emissions after incorporation of SC AIR-1, which requires the implementation of best available dust control measures outlined in SCAQMD Rule 403. Complete CalEEMod output files are included as part of Appendix A.

Table 1: Unmitigated Construction—Maximum Daily Regional Emissions by Year Construction Year
Regional Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
VOCs NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily from Project
Construction (2025) 1.64 19.75 15.68 0.05 5.68 1.52
Maximum Daily from Project
Construction (2026) 3.20 29.39 29.68 0.05 9.20 5.15
Maximum Daily from Project
Construction (2027) 0.89 5.70 14.29 0.02 2.71 0.76
Maximum Daily from Project
Construction (2028) 24.43 5.42 13.81 0.02 2.70 0.74
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions1 24.43 29.39 29.68 0.05 9.20 5.15 SCAQMD Significance
Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
309
Construction Year
Regional Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
VOCs NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions reflect the combined exhaust and mitigated fugitive dust emissions in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and incorporated into the proposed project assumptions through SC AIR-1.

Source of Emissions: Appendix A.

As s
hown above in Table 1, the proposed project’s construction emissions (with the incorporation of SC AIR-1) would not exceed the applicable significance threshold for any of the pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to regional air quality during project construction.

Operational Emissions
Long-term operational emissions would be generated, resulting from daily operations at the proposed townhomes. Operational emissions for residential land use development projects are typically distinguished as mobile-, area-, and energy-source emissions. Mobile source emissions are those associated with automobiles that would travel to and from the project site. Assumptions used to estimate mobile source emissions that would be generated by the proposed project were consistent with those presented in the project-specific Trip Generation Memorandum. The existing site generates 530 daily trips. The proposed project would generate 1,024 daily trips (under the 146-unit scenario), resulting in a net increase of 494 daily trips compared to the existing use. 15 Under the 142-
unit scenario, the proposed project would generate 997 daily trips, resulting in a net increase of 467 daily trips compared to the existing use. Area-source emissions are those associated with natural gas combustion for space and water heating, landscape maintenance activities, and periodic architectural coatings. Energy-source emissions are those associated with electricity consumption and are mor e pertinent for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than air quality pollutants. Because the proposed project would demolish and replace existing structures, the proposed project’s incremental increase in air pollutant emissions would be lower than those estimated and presented below. Table 2 presents the proposed project’s estimated maximum daily operational emissions. 15 Urban Crossroads. August 8. 3150 Bear Street Due Diligence Trip Generation Assessment. 2024. 310
Table 2: Maximum Daily Operational Regional Pollutants
Operational Activity
Regional Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)1

VOC NOX CO SOX
PM10
(Total)
PM2.5
(Total)
Area 7.09 0.00 15.32 0.00 0.02 0.01
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile (Automobiles) 2.94 2.13 22.70 0.06 5.67 1.46
Overall Maximum Daily1 10.03 2.13 38.02 0.06 5.69 1.47
SCAQMD Significance
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOC = volatile organic compounds
1 Emissions shown represent the maximum daily emissions from summer and winter seasons for each operational emission source and pollutant. Therefore, total daily operational emissions represent the maximum daily emissions that could occur throughout the year.

Source of Table: Appendix A.

As s
hown in Table 2, the proposed project’s regional daily operational emissions would not exceed any of the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to regional air quality during project operation. Furthermore, as previously noted, the proposed project would replace existing structures with new residential buildings. The existing uses are currently generating air pollutant emissions that would no longer occur once the existing structures are demolished. Thus, the proposed project’s net increase in air pollutant emissions from project operations would be even lower than what are shown in Table 2. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact after incorporation of mitigation. This impact evaluates the potential for the proposed project’s construction and operational emissions to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration. Sensitive receptors are defined as those individuals who are sensitive to air pollution, including children, the elderly, and persons with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. For purposes of CEQA, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24 hours, such as residences, hospitals, or 311
convalescent facilities.16 Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition because employees do not typically remain on-site for 24 hours. However, when assessing the impact of pollutants with 1-hour or 8-hour standards (such as nitrogen dioxide [NO2] and CO), commercial and/or industrial facilities would be considered sensitive receptors.

To result in a less than significant impact, the following criteria must be true:
• Criterion 1: Localized significance threshold (LST) assessment: emissions and air quality impacts during project construction or operation must be below the applicable LSTs to screen out of needing to provide a more detailed air quality analysis. If the proposed project exceeds any applicable LST when the mass rate lookup tables are used as a screening analysis, then project-specific air quality modeling may be performed to determine significance. • Criterion 2: A CO hotspot assessment must demonstrate that the proposed project would not result in the development of a CO hotspot that would result in an exceedance of the CO ambient air quality standards.
• Criterion 3: TAC analysis must demonstrate that TAC emissions from construction and operations of the proposed project would not result in significant health risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.

Criterion 1: Localized Significance Threshold Analysis—Criteria Pollutants The localized construction and operational analyses use thresholds (i.e., LSTs) that represent maximum emissions for a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.17 If the proposed project’s construction or operational emissions are under those thresholds, it follows that the proposed project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the standard and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Localized Construction Analysis
The LST Methodology only applies to on-site emissions and states that “off-site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only on-site emissions were compared with the applicable LSTs.

Utilizing the construction equipment list and associated acreages per 8-hour day provided in the SCAQMD “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds,” the appropriate thresholds were selected based on the maximum number of acres disturbed in a day. To ensure a conservative analysis, the proposed project emissions have been compared to the 2 acre per day 16 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2003. Revised 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Revised July 2008. Website: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized- significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf. Accessed November 19, 2024. 17 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2003. Revised 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Revised July 2008. Website: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized- significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf. Accessed November 19, 2024. 312
LST. A complete list of construction equipment, as well as the calculation sheet to determine the maximum area disturbed are included in Appendix A.

Table 3 presents the proposed project’s maximum daily on-site emissions compared with the applicable LSTs. The closest sensitive receptor is within approximately 20 feet from the project site, which is approximately 6.1 meters. 18 Receptors 25 meters or less use the 25-meter LSTs. The LSTs for the project site were obtained from the LST Methodology for a 2-acre project site located in Source Receptor Area 18–North Coastal Orange County, with sensitive receptors within 25 meters.

As noted in Table 3, emission estimates account for implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 (incorporated into the proposed project through SC AIR-1), and the construction vehicle trip lengths were adjusted to 0.5 mile to represent localized emissions.

Table 3: Construction Localized Significance Screening Analysis Activity
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily from Project Construction (2025) 14.95 13.33 4.27 1.09 Maximum Daily from Project Construction (2026) 29.21 28.99 8.94 5.09 Maximum Daily from Project Construction (2027) 4.26 7.16 0.22 0.15 Maximum Daily from Project Construction (2027) 4.03 7.08 0.20 0.13 Maximum Daily On-site Construction Emissions1 29.21 28.99 8.94 5.09 Construction Localized Significance Threshold
(Source Receptor Area 18, 2 acres disturbed, 25
meters)
131 962 7 5
Exceed Screening Threshold? No No Yes Yes
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
1 Assumes overlap of construction activities based on construction schedule shown in Appendix A.

Source of emissions: Appendix A.

Source of thresholds: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Mass Rate Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Lookup Table for Source Receptor Area 18, 2 acres disturbed, within nearest sensitive receptor within 25 meters from the project site.
18 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2003. Revised 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Revised July 2008. Website: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized- significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf. Accessed November 19, 2024. 313
As shown in Table 3, the proposed project’s maximum daily on-site emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for NOX or CO; therefore, localized construction impacts related to these air pollutants would be less than significant. However, the proposed project’s maximum daily on-site emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for PM10 or PM2.5. As previously discussed, the LSTs are screening criteria developed by the SCAQMD to provide lead agencies and project applicants with a conservative indication of whether the proposed project could result in a potentially significant air quality impact. If a project exceeds an applicable LST, then the SCAQMD recommends that project-specific air quality modeling be performed to determine localized impacts. To determine localized impacts related to construction-generated PM (including both PM10 and PM2.5), a project- specific construction Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was performed. As detailed within the HRA addressed in Criterion 3 below, localized impacts from the proposed project’s generation of particulate matter during construction would be less than significant after incorporation of mitigation.

The proposed project would be required to comply with SC AIR-1 (consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403) and would be required to implement Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-1. Incorporation of SC AIR-1 and MM AIR-1 would ensure that the project-generated emissions of PM 10 and PM2.5 would be
controlled during the construction period. In addition, SC AIR-2 would ensure that all architectural coatings used on-site would meet the VOC content requirements of SCAQMD Rule 1113. Accordingly, with adherence to standard conditions and incorporation of mitigation, the proposed project’s on- site construction-related criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor concentrations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be less than significant .

Localized Operational Analysis
Similar to the construction LST analysis above, the applicable operational LSTs were obtained for a project located in Source Receptor Area 18 with the nearest sensitive receptor being within 25 meters. Long-term operations would occur for the proposed project on the approximately 6.12- acre project site, and LSTs were obtained for a 5-acre site (the largest option).

As described above, the LST Methodology recommends that only on-site emissions are evaluated using LSTs. Because most of the proposed project’s mobile source emissions would occur on the local and regional roadway network away from the project site, a trip length of 0.5 mile was used in the modeling input assumptions to account for on-site emissions and from mobile sources. The 0.5- mile on-site trip length is a conservative estimate that takes into account the maximum project site distance a vehicle could travel, not the most likely or fastest route, to ensure all potential impacts are considered. On-site area-, energy-, and mobile source emissions were included in this analysis. Table 4 presents the proposed project’s maximum daily on-site emissions compared with the appropriate LSTs.

Table 4: Operational Localized Screening Significance Analysis Emissions Source
Pounds per Day
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area 0.14 15.32 0.02 0.01
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
314
Emissions Source
Pounds per Day
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Mobile (Automobiles) 0.70 6.17 0.36 0.10
Maximum Daily On-site Operational
Emissions 0.84 21.49 0.38 0.11
Localized Significance Thresholds (Source
Receptor Area 18, 5-acre site, 25 meters) 200 2,349 13 5 Exceeds Screening Threshold? No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter The highest daily emissions of NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 were in the summer season.

Source of Emissions: Appendix A.

Source of thresholds: SCAQMD Mass Rate Lookup Tables for a 5-acre site in Source Receptor Area 18 for sensitive receptors located within 25 meters of the project site.

As shown in Table 4, the proposed project’s maximum daily on-site operational emissions would not exceed any applicable SCAQMD LSTs. Therefore, the proposed project’s operational activities would not cause or contribute substantially to an existing or future ambient air quality standard violation.

Accordingly, the proposed project’s operational criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor concentrations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact would be less than significant.

Criterion 2: Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Analysis
A CO hotspot represents a condition wherein high concentrations of CO may be produced by motor vehicles accessing a congested traffic intersection under heavy traffic volume conditions. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at intersections. Accordingly, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly more stringent to help remedy this impact.

The CO hotspot analysis contained in the SCAQMD 1992 CO Plan is used to determine potential CO hotspot impacts from the proposed project, because by using the 1992 CO Plan as a worst -case scenario, the proposed project can measure CO impacts against intersections that experienced significantly more vehicle traffic than adjacent to the proposed project. The 1992 CO Plan is used as a worst-case scenario because it included a CO hot spot analysis for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood); Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue (Westwood); Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue (Hollywood); and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood). The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. 315
Subsequently, the CO Plan determined that no CO hotspot would occur even with 100,000 vehicles per day at this one intersection.

According to the transportation analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads,19 the existing peak-hour trips for the current land use operations are 97 AM peak-hour trips and 87 PM peak-hour trips along the segment of Bear Street adjacent to the project site. However, the proposed project would only generate 64 AM peak-hour trips and 83 PM peak-hour trips under the 146-unit scenario (which would be slightly lower under the 142-unit scenario). Thus, the proposed project is expected to generate a net reduction of 33 AM trips and 4 fewer PM peak-hour trips as compared to the trips generated by the existing land use. Furthermore, based on the project-specific Trip Generation Memorandum, the proposed project was estimated to generate 1,024 daily vehicle trips under the 146-unit scenario and 997 trips under the 142-unit scenario and would not result in traffic volumes exceeding 100,000 vehicles per day at any of the intersections evaluated near the project site. 20 Additionally, project- generated trips would be distributed throughout the day and would not impact all local roadways at one time, further reducing the potential impacts to CO. As a result, none of the intersections near the proposed project site would have peak-hour traffic volumes exceeding those at the intersections analyzed in the 1992 CO Plan. Additionally, the adjacent roadways are not located in an area where vertical or horizontal atmospheric mixing is substantially limited, such as a tunnel or overpass.

Furthermore, there are no factors unique to the local meteorology to conclude that this intersect ion would yield higher CO concentrations if modeled in detail. Therefore, the operational CO impact would be less than significant.

Criterion 3: Project-Specific Operational Toxic Air Pollutants An assessment was made of the potential health impacts on surrounding sensitive receptors resulting from TAC emissions during construction.

The SCAQMD has defined health risk significance thresholds. These thresholds are represented as a cancer risk to the public and a non-cancer hazard from exposures to TACs. Cancer risk represents the probability (in terms of risk per million individuals) that an individual would contract cancer resulting from exposure to TACs continuously over a period of several years. The principal TAC emission analyzed in this assessment was diesel particulate matter (DPM) from operation of off -road equipment and diesel-powered delivery and worker vehicles during construction. DPM has been identified by the ARB as a carcinogenic substance. For purposes of this analysis, DPM is represented as exhaust emissions of PM

10. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has developed guidance for estimating cancer risks that considers the increased sensitivity of infants and adults to TAC emissions, different breathing rates, and time spent at home. This guidance was applied in estimating cancer risks from the construction and operation of the prop osed project. To assess impacts to off-site sensitive receptors, the American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) air dispersion model was used to estimate the concentrations from PM
10 and PM2.5 exhaust at nearby sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site. The 19 Urban Crossroads. August 8. 3150 Bear Street Due Diligence Trip Generation Assessment. 2024. 20 Ibid.
316
Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) software was used to identify the cancer risks associated with DPM generated during construction activities.

Toxic Air Contaminant Construction Analysis
Major sources of DPM during construction include off-road construction equipment and heavy-duty delivery truck activities. The results of the HRA prepared for project construction for cancer risk and long-term chronic cancer risk are summarized below. Detailed parameters, a description of methodology, and complete calculations are contained in Appendix A.

The estimated health and hazard impacts at the Maximally Exposed Individual Receptor (MEIR) from the proposed project’s construction emissions, prior to incorporation of mitigation, are provided in Table 5.

Table 5: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction (Unmitigated)
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Maximally Exposed Individual Receptor1 24.49 0.014
Significance Threshold 10 1
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? Yes No
Notes:

HI = hazard index
1 The location of the construction MEIR was determined to be an existing single-family residence within approximately 20 feet east of the project boundary, at 33°41'12.1"N 117°53'25.1"W.

Source: Appendix A.

As noted in Table 5, above, the proposed project’s construction emissions would exceed the cancer ri
sk significance threshold without the use of cleaner than average construction equipment.

Accordingly, MM AIR-1 is recommended, which would require the use of Tier 3 engines with Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDEC) filters for all construction equipment equal to or greater than 50 horsepower. Equipment meeting Tier 4 standards achieves the required reductions and specifications in MM AIR-1 without VDECs.21
As noted in Table 6, below, the proposed project’s construction emissions would not exceed any applicable SCAQMD significance threshold for health risk impacts after incorporation of MM AIR-1.

Therefore, project construction would not result in significant health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors after incorporation of mitigation.
21 The Tier 4 scenario is modeled as Tier 4 Interim equipment and is included as part of Appendix A. 317
Table 6: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction (Mitigated) Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Mitigated Construction–Tier 3 with Level 3 Filters Scenario Maximally Exposed Individual Receptor1 5.03 0.003
Significance Threshold 10 1
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No
Notes:

Source: Appendix A.

Criterion 3: Project-Specific Operational Toxic Air Pollutants The proposed project is a residential project and would not have stationary sources or on- site sources of TACs during operation. Traffic generated by the residential project would consist of mostly light- duty gasoline-powered vehicles, which are not a significant source of TAC and air pollutant emissions.

Thus, the proposed project would not generate a significant amount of DPM or other TAC emissions during operation and would not result in significant health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during operation.

Cumulative Toxic Air Contaminant Analysis
As previously discussed, projects that exceed project-specific significance thresholds are considered cumulatively considerable by the SCAQMD. Conversely, projects that do not exceed project-specific thresholds are generally not considered cumulatively significant. As discussed in Criteria 1 through 3 above, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Since the proposed project would not exceed project-specific thresholds it would not be considered to result in cumulatively significant impacts.

The Proposed Project as a Receptor
The proposed project would locate new sensitive receptors (residents) that could be subject to existing sources of TACs at the project site. However, as demonstrated above, the proposed project would comply with all existing regulations and would not exacerbate environmental hazards or conditions that already exist. Accordingly, no further analysis is required. The California Supreme Court concluded in California Building Industry Association v. BAAQMD that CEQA generally does not require an analysis of the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents. 318
d) Result in other emission (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant impact. Odors can cause a variety of responses. The impact of an odor is dependent on interacting factors such as frequency (how often), intensity (strength), duration (in time), offensiveness (unpleasantness), location, and sensory perception. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies.

The SCAQMD does not provide a suggested screening distance for a variety of odor-generating land uses and operations. However, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) does have a screening distance for odor sources. These screening distances by type of odor generator are listed below in Table 7.

Table 7: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Odor Generator Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shop) 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
Source: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). March 19. Website:
https://valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2024.

Construction-Related Odors
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include exhaust from diesel construction equipment. However, because of the temporary nature of these emissions, the intermittent nature of construction activities, and the highly diffusive properties of DPM exhaust, nearby receptors would not be affected by diesel exhaust odors associated with project construction. Odors from these sources would be localized and generally confined to the immediate area surrounding the proposed 319
project site. The proposed project would utilize typical construction techniques and the odors would be typical of most construction sites for a typical residential subdivision. As such, the proposed project would not cause odors that adversely affect a substantial number of people during the construction period; potential impacts during construction would be less than significant.

Operational-Related Odors
The proposed project includes the construction and development of a new residential infill community consisting of a total of up to 142 for-sale townhomes and associated amenities, landscaping, paving, and off-site improvements. Operations of the proposed project could lead to odors from associated vehicle exhaust and outdoor cooking. However, such odors generated by project operation would be small in quantity and duration and would not pose an objectionable odor impact to nearby receptors.

Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, composting facilities, feedlots, coffee roasters, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants. The proposed residential project would not produce any offensive odor emitting end uses such as coffee roasting, composting, feed lots, refining, sewage treatment, or solid waste management and would not be considered an odor generator as identified in Table 7.

Summary
The proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people from construction or operations. Therefore, approval of the proposed project would not result in any significant effects relating to other emissions (such as odors), and impacts would be less than significant.

Standard Conditions
SC AIR-1 SCAQMD Rule 403 requires the implementation of best available dust control measures during activities capable of generating fugitive dust. The proposed project must follow the standard SCAQMD rules and requirements with regard to fugitive dust control, which include, but are not limited to the following:

1. All active construction areas shall be watered two times daily.

2. Speed on unpaved roads shall be reduced to less than 15 miles per hour (mph).

3. Any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway shall be swept or washed at the site access points within 30 minutes.

4. Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be covered or watered twice daily.

5. All operations on any unpaved surface shall be suspended if winds exceed 15 mph.

6. Access points shall be washed or swept daily.

7. Construction sites shall be sandbagged for erosion control.

8. Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more).
320

9. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, and maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard space in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114.

10. Pave or gravel construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road and use gravel aprons at truck exits.

11. Replace the ground cover of disturbed areas as quickly possible.

SC AI
R-2 All interior and exterior architectural coatings used on-site during project construction must meet or exceed the VOC content limits established by SCAQMD Rule 1113.The project sponsor shall include in any construction contracts and/or subcontracts a requirement that all interior and exterior architectural coatings used in project construction meet the VOC content limits established by SCAQMD Rule 1113.

Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-1 Use of Clean Construction Equipment to Minimize DPM All off-road equipment equal to or greater than 50 horsepower shall meet either United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 3 standards with Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDEC) filters.22 The project applicant shall submit a construction management plan to the Costa Mesa's Planning Division, for review and approval prior to issuance of any grading and building permits. The construction management plan shall demonstrate that the off-road equipment used on-site to construct the proposed project would comply with these specified off-road emission standards. Off- road equipment descriptions and information included in the construction management plan may include but are not limited to equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. 22 Equipment meeting Tier 4 standards achieves the required reductions and specifications in MM AIR-1 without VDECs. 321
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or United States Fish and
Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or State Habitat
Conservation Plan?

322
Environmental Evaluation
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on a field survey and desktop survey conducted by FirstCarbon Solution (FCS). Desktop survey results are included in Appendix B.

Setting
Methods
The biological resources evaluation included a review of existing environmental documentation for the project site and vicinity, including literature pertaining to the habitat requirements of special-status species with the potential to occur in the project vicinity; and federal register listings, protocols, and species data provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). FirstCarbon Solutions also reviewed topographic maps, aerial photographs and published soil surveys, and queried special-status species databases, including the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation database, 23 the California Natural
Diversity Database,24 and the California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.25
The biological resources evaluation included a visit to the project site on September 26, 2024, to ascertain general site conditions and identify whether existing vegetation communities provide suitable habitat for special-status plant or wildlife species.

Results
An FCS Biologist conducted a general biological survey of the project site on September 26, 2024, between approximately 11:00 a.m. and 12:20 p.m. Weather conditions during the field surveys were sunny, with an average temperature around 69–72°F (degrees Fahrenheit) and wind speeds between 0 and 2 miles per hour (mph). The literature and database reviews were conducted on September 13, 2024.

Environmental Setting
The project site is developed and is surrounded by Bear Street to the west, I-405 to the north, and residential development to the east and south. The project site is mostly paved or covered by structures and is generally flat. Ornamental trees are located along the boundaries and adjacent to the site on all sides, including a hedgerow of Indian laurel fig (Ficus nitida) along the southern boundary and camphor (Cinnamomum camphora) and pine (Pinus spp.) trees to the west. 23 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Website:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed November 12, 2024. 24 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024. CNDDB RareFind 5 California Natural Diversity Database Query for Special-Status Species. Website: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed September 13, 2024.
25 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024. California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory.

Website: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed November 12, 2024. 323
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project site is developed and is mostly paved or covered by structures and contains ornamental trees located along the site boundaries and near the buildings. There are no natural vegetation communities on- site and the site is completely surrounded by development and urbanization. According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, 57 special-status plant species have been recorded within 10 miles of the project site or within the area encompassed by the Newport Beach, California USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map and the eight surrounding quadrangles (Appendix B). The potential for occurrence of a species was based on presence of suitable habitat (natural vegetation communities, soil types) and the recency, proximity, and number of occurrences recorded in the CNPSEI and CNDDB. Based on the lack of suitable habitat due to the developed nature of the project site and its history of surface disturbances, as well as its situation in an urbanized area, all special-status plants that occur in the region were assessed as having no potential for occurrence on-site (Appendix B, Table 1). Thus, special-status plants are not expected to occur on the project site and are not discussed or analyzed further. The proposed project is not expected to impact special-status plant species.

Fifty-three special-status wildlife species have been recorded within 10 miles of the project site in the CNDDB for or as identified in the USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) database. Because of the urbanized/developed nature of the project site and vicinity, all special- status wildlife species identified in the database reviews were determined to have no or low potential for occurrence on the project site. However, the project site contains trees and vegetation that could provide suitable nesting habitat for Cooper’s hawk, a California Species of Special Concern. With the implementation of MM BIO-1a and MM BIO-1b, which requires a pre-construction survey and avoidance of active nests, potential impacts to nesting Cooper’s hawks would be reduced to a less than significant level.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
No impact. No riparian or other sensitive natural communities were recorded on or adjacent to the project site; therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
324
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No impact. There were no waters or wetland features detected on the project site that would be considered potentially jurisdictional by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), nor any features that would be considered potentially jurisdictional by State regulatory agencies including the RWQCB and CDFW. Additionally, the project site does not contain vernal pools or features indicative of the historic presence of vernal pools. According to the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS) (2024),26 one soil type is mapped on the project site, Omni clay.

These soils are not known to support vernal pools. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts to State or federally protected wetlands, including vernal pools. No impacts would occur.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project site is developed and is surrounded by urbanized areas, roads, and highways on all sides that limit wildlife movement through the project site. The project site itself does not serve as a wildlife movement corridor.

The project site contains vegetation that could provide suitable nesting habitat for bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Fish and Game Code. These species include Cooper’s hawk and other native avian species. If ground-disturbing or vegetation-removing construction activities are initiated during the nesting season, they could disturb nesting and breeding birds on the ground surface, in trees and shrubs, and on structures on and adjacent to the project site, which would be considered significant. Potential construction-related project impacts on special- status and migratory birds include destruction of eggs or occupied nests, mortality of young, and causing parental abandonment of nests with eggs or pre-fledged young birds. With the implementation of MM BIO-1a and MM BIO-1b, potential project impacts to nesting Cooper’s hawks and other native and migratory birds would be reduced to a less than significant level. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than significant impact. City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Chapter 15-V provides for the preservation of landmark trees, defined as a tree or stand of trees which is of historical significance, is of a rare species and is unusual because of size, color, and blossoms, has unique characteristics of form or shape that contribute to the community skyline, or are intended to become of future visual, cultural and/or historical significance. There are no trees on-site that meet the definition of a landmark 26 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. Web Soil Survey (WSS). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Website: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed November 12, 2024.
325
tree. Additionally, this chapter states that no person shall begin any construction or excavation without first providing sufficient protection for trees on public property, such as a fence, guard or frame within a five foot minimum distance of the tree trunk. The proposed project will be required to comply with this ordinance if there are any trees on public property that would be impacted.

The City’s Municipal Code Chapter 13-VII states that trees shall not be destroyed or removed by the property owner without prior City approval. As part of complying with this ordinance, the applicant shall submit site plans to the Planning Division that identify existing and replacement trees with a written request and justification for their removal. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan?
No impact. The project site is located within the boundaries of the County of Orange Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (CONCCP/HCP), a Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan authorized by the CDFW through the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Act (California Fish and Game Code Section 2800) and Sections 2081 and 2084 of CESA, and by the USFWS through Sections 7 and 10 of the Endangered Species Act.

The project site does not contain Covered Habitats or suitable habitat for Identified Species covered under the CONCCP/HCP and does not have any conservation requirements under the plan.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan.

No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1a Nesting Bird Pre-construction Surveys
If ground-disturbing or vegetation-removing construction activities or tree removal is proposed during the breeding/nesting season for migratory birds (typically February 1 through September 15), a qualified Biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for special-status birds and other migratory birds within the construction area, including a 300-foot survey buffer, no more than 3 days prior to the start of ground- disturbing activities in the construction area.

MM BIO-1b Avoidance of Active Avian Nests
If an active nest is located during pre-construction surveys or at any point during the construction phase of the proposed project, a qualified Biologist shall establish a buffer around the nest using flagging tape or other barrier. The buffer shall be 326
established a minimum radius of 300 feet around an active raptor nest and a 50- foot radius around an active migratory bird nest. Furthermore, construction activities and personnel shall be restricted from entering the buffer area to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned, or a qualified Biologist deems disturbance potential to be minimal. Additional restrictions may include alteration of the construction schedule to avoid the active nesting season.
327
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
pursuant to Section 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
d) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or

e) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American Tribe.

328
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
This section describes the existing cultural resources setting and potential effects from the proposed project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information provided by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historic Landmarks list, California Points of Historical Interest list, California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), the California Historical Resources Inventory, and a Historic Built Environment Assessment report prepared by South Environmental. Non-confidential records search results, NAHC correspondence, and the Historic Built Environment Assessment report are included in Appendix C.

South Central Coastal Information Center
A records search and literature review were conducted on October 2, 2024, at the SCCIC, located at California State University, Fullerton, for the project site and a 0.50-mile radius surrounding it. The purpose of this review was to access existing cultural resource survey reports, archaeological site records, historic aerial photographs, and historic maps to evaluate whether any previously documented pre-contact or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, cultural landscapes, or other resources exist within or near the project site.

The results from the SCCIC indicate that there are no recorded archaeological or historic resources located within the project site. There are 13 recorded historic built environment resources located within the 0.5-mile radius of the proposed project boundaries. In addition, there are 13 area-specific survey reports on file with the SCCIC for the 0.5-mile search radius, one of which (OR-04172) addresses the project site entirely, indicating that the project site has been previously surveyed for archaeological or historical resources. A records search map identifying the proposed project boundaries and a 0.5-mile search radius along with relevant non-confidential records search results are included in Appendix C.

Native American Heritage Commission
On September 24, 2024, FCS contacted the NAHC to determine whether any sacred sites were located within the site or proposed project vicinity. A response was received on October 9, 2024, indicating that the Sacred Lands File search was positive for the presence of Native American cultural resources within the project site. The NAHC included a list of 20 Tribal representatives available for consultation. To ensure that all Native American knowledge and concerns over potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) that may be affected by the implementation of the proposed project are addressed, a letter containing proposed project information was sent to each Tribal representative on November 8, 2024. Three responses were received on November 12, 2024. A response from the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians deferred comments to Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians cultural resource department. Another response was received from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation requesting Lead Agency contact information. The final response was received from the 329
Cahuilla Band of Indians stating that the Tribe is unaware of any cultural resources at/or near the project area. The Tribe deferred to the Kizh Nation for further information regarding the proposed project. No additional responses have been received to date. NAHC correspondence can be found in Appendix C.

Pedestrian Survey and Buried Site Potential
On October 30, 2024, an FCS Archaeologist conducted a pedestrian survey for unrecorded cultural resources within the project site. At the center of the property is a 3-story commercial property (The Palazzo), a courtyard that extends to the south of the building and a detached maintenance building.

The property is surrounded by landscape features and is bordered by parking lots on the southern, western and eastern perimeters, with auto access road to the north. Overview shots of the project area were taken from the northeast, northwest, southeast and southwest corners, which showcase the property, the courtyard, and the surrounding landscape and hardscape features. Visibility of the exposed soil was non-existent since the entirety of the project site is landscaped and/or hardscaped; thus, inspection of the soil for cultural resources was not possible. Survey conditions were documented using digital photographs and field notes. No pre-contact or historic resources were found over the course of the pedestrian survey.

In addition to the pedestrian survey, the potential for unidentified cultural resources in the project vicinity was reviewed against geologic and topographic geographic information system data for the general area and information from other nearby projects. The proposed project was evaluated against a set of criteria originally identified by a geoarchaeological overview of the Central Valley that was prepared for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Districts 6 and 9. 27 This study
mapped the “archaeological sensitivity,” or potential to support the presence of buried prehistoric archaeological deposits throughout the Bay Area based on geology and environmental parameters, including distance to water and landform slope. The methodology used in the study is applicable to other parts of California and generally concluded that sites consisting of flat, Holocene- era deposits in close proximity to water resources had a moderate to high probability of containing subsurface archaeological deposits when compared to earlier Pleistocene deposits situated on slopes or further away from drainages, lakes, and rivers.

The project site is situated on flat terrain. According to the geological map of Jennings et al., 28 the
surface of the project site consists entirely of early Holocene alluvium lake, playa, and terrace deposits (Q). Applying the criteria set forth above, all Holocene-era deposits have the potential to contain archaeological deposits, which increases with the ease of the slope and proximity to water resources. Although the NAHC TCR search yielded a positive result, the project site is situated 2.80 miles east of the Santa Ana River and the SCCIC records search results did not yield any known 27 Meyer, J., D. Craig Young, and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal. 2010. Volume I: A Geoarchaeological Overview and Assessment of Caltrans District 6 and 9, Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 6/9 Rural Conventional Highways. Submitted to Central California Department of Transportation, District 6. 28 Jennings, C.W., C. Guitierrez, W. Bryant, G. Saucedo and C. Willis. 2010. Geologic Map of California. California Geologic Society.
330
archaeological resources recorded within the project boundaries, would suggest a low potential for unanticipated buried cultural resources to be impacted by project construction.

Historic Built Environment Assessment
On October 3, 2024, South Environmental Architectural Historian Marlena Krcelich, BA, and Principal Architectural Historian Sarah Corder, MFA, prepared a Historic Built Environment Assessment (HBEA) report of the project site, which consist of one main building that serves as offices and one maintenance building that was constructed in 1978. South Environmental determined, through archival research and literature review of the BERD, Costa Mesa Historical Society, City of Costa Mesa City Clerk, historical newspapers, Sanborn fire insurance maps, and historical aerial photographs, that the buildings have not been formally assessed for historical significance. An intensive built environment survey was completed to document the exterior of the existing buildings and structures with notes and photographs.

In compliance with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5 for historical resources, the property was recorded and evaluated for historical significance on the appropriate set of State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Series 523 Forms in consideration of CRHR and City designation criteria and integrity requirements. The buildings were found not eligible under all State and local designation criteria due to a lack of significant historical associations and architectural merit. Thus, no historical resources were identified within the project site as a result of this study. The HBEA and DPR Forms can be found in Appendix C.

Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than significant impact. The record search conducted at the SCCIC for the proposed project determined that 13 historic built environment resources are recorded within the 0.5-mile search radius of the project boundary, none of which are within the project site. Additionally, an HBEA for the project site was conducted by South Environmental on October 3, 2024, which evaluated the buildings within the subject property for historical significance and integrity. The HBEA determined that the buildings are not eligible under all State and local designation criteria due to a lack of significant historical associations and architectural merit. No additional historic built environment resources were encountered during the pedestrian field survey. Therefore, the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on historic built environment resources and no mitigation measures are required.

Impacts to historical resources would be less than significant. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Results from the SCCIC indicate that no pre- contact or historic archaeological resources are recorded within the project site. However, there are 331
13 historic built environment resources recorded within the 0.5-mile radius search radius. No archaeological resources were observed over the course of the pedestrian field survey; however, soil visibility was non-existent due to the entirety of the project site being landscaped and/or hardscaped.

As described above, the project site is situated on flat terrain and consists entirely of early Holocene alluvium lake, playa, and terrace deposits. The soil composition, proximity to the Santa Ana River, SCCIC record search results, and the disturbed condition of the site indicates that the potential impact to unidentified archaeological resource is considered low. However, it is possible that earthmoving activities associated with project construction could encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources. Archaeological resources can include but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths and structural elements. Damage or destruction of these resources would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. While no formal cemeteries or areas containing human remains are known to be within the project vicinity, the potential for the disturbance of any human remains is considered low. However, there is always the possibility that subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project, such as grading or trenching, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 must be followed. MM CUL-3 further specifies the procedures to follow in the event human remains are uncovered. Along with compliance with these guidelines and statutes, implementation of this mitigation would reduce potential impacts related to human remains to a less than significant level.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
d) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. A review of the CRHR, local registers of historic resources, and a records search conducted at the SCCIC failed to identify any listed TCRs that may be adversely affected by the proposed project. The NAHC Sacred Lands File search results were positive for the presence of TCRs within the project area, and Tribal outreach to obtain additional information pertaining to TCRs within the project produced negative results. Should any undiscovered TCRs be encountered during project construction, implementation of MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, and MM CUL-3 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. 332
e) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

TBD. Tribal consultation efforts conducted by the City of Costa Mesa pursuant to AB52 to identify additional significant TCRs meeting the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 have yet to be determined.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, all construction personnel conducting ground disturbance at the site shall be provided a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) cultural resources “tailgate” training. The training shall include visual aids, a discussion of applicable laws and statutes relating to archaeological resources, types of resources that may be found within the proposed project site, and procedures to be followed in the event such resources are encountered. The training shall be conducted by an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology. A qualified Archaeological Monitor, reporting to an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, be present to conduct “spot-checks” monitoring during the clearing, grubbing, trenching, and grading phases of project-related ground disturbance to check for the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains. Over the course of the proposed project, should the Archaeologist determine that the probability of inadvertent discovery is low, they may make a recommendation to the Lead Agency that monitoring may cease altogether.

MM CUL-2 In the event that buried cultural resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop within a 100-foot radius of the find and a qualified Archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified Archaeologist shall make recommendations to the Lead Agency on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project area should be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA Guidelines.

If the resources are determined to be unique historic resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures 333
for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Lead Agency where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.

MM CUL-3 If during the course of project construction, there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site where human remains are discovered and/or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, or

2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD, or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. • The MLD identified fails to make a recommendation.
• The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

334
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.6 Energy
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
Energy use, especially through fossil fuel consumption and combustion, relates directly to environmental quality since it can adversely affect air quality and generate GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. Electrical power is generated through a variety of sources, including fossil fuel combustion, hydropower, wind, solar, biofuels, and others. Natural gas is widely used to heat buildings, prepare food in restaurants and residences, and fuel vehicles, among other uses. Fuel use for transportation is related to the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks, and public transportation; choice of different travel modes such as auto, carpool, and public transit; and miles traveled by these modes, and generally based on petroleum-based fuels such as diesel and gasoline. Electric vehicles (EVs) may not have any direct emissions but do have indirect emissions via the source of electricity generated to power the vehicle. Construction and routine operation and maintenance of transportation infrastructure also consume energy. Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity and natural gas services within the City of Costa Mesa. SCE provides electricity and natural gas as customers request their services.

The proposed project may have an impact on the environment if it would:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than significant impact. A discussion of the proposed project’s anticipated energy usage is presented below. Energy use consumed by the proposed project was estimated and includes natural 335
gas, electricity, and fuel consumption for project construction and operation. Energy calculations are included as part of Appendix A.

Short-term Construction Impacts
For the purpose of this analysis, construction of the proposed project was estimated to begin in December 2025 and conclude in September 2028 and was modeled based on based on an applicant - provided preliminary schedule; see Appendix A. If the construction schedule moves to later years, construction emissions would likely decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements as older, less efficient equipment is replaced by newer and cleaner equipment. The proposed project would require demolition, site preparation, grading, utility installation, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. The construction phase would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site (e.g., site clearing, and grading), and the actual construction of the buildings. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks.

The types of on-site equipment used during construction of the proposed project could include gasoline- and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment, including trucks, front-end loaders, forklifts, and cranes. On-site, off-road construction equipment is estimated to consume a total of approximately 42,842 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction duration (Appendix A).

Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the proposed project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul truck trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to and from the project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the proposed project would generate during construction, (2) average trip distances by trip type, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB Emissions Factors (EMFAC) model mobile source emission model. In total, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 1,765,502 VMT and a combined 96,720 gallons of combined gasoline and diesel for vehicle travel during construction.

Other equipment could include construction lighting, field services (office trailers), and electrically driven equipment such as pumps and other tools. Section 13-279 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code restricts construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 29 As on-site
construction activities would be restricted to these hours, it is anticipated that the use of construction lighting would be minimal.

The overall construction processes are already designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully due to the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for future efficiency gains during construction are limited. Therefore, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and 29 City of Costa Mesa. 2024. Municipal Code, Chapter XIII Noise Control. Website:
https://ecode360.com/42619140?highlight=construction,construction%20hours,hours&searchId=8627775032158158.

Accessed October 2, 2024.
336
unnecessary consumption of energy. Construction-related energy impacts would be less than significant.

Long-term Operational Impacts
The proposed project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Operation of the proposed project would consume an estimated 646,733 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity. Energy consumption values were estimated without taking any reductions for the existing land uses or reductions from on-site renewable energy. The proposed project would include demolition of the 65,652-square-foot former Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) building, the demolition an existing 1,000-square-foot maintenance building, and removal of outside lighting. Thus, the proposed project’s incremental increase in electricity consumption would be estimated lower than 646,733 kWh because the existing land use currently consumes electricity. In addition, 646,733 kWh represents the amount of electricity that would be used by the proposed project on an annual basis and not the amount that would need to be sourced from the energy grid. The proposed residential buildings would be built all-electric, and the proposed project would install solar photovoltaic (PV) systems that would generate renewable energy to offset the building's energy consumption. The proposed project’s buildings (including townhomes) would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the State’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, specifically the 2022 update, set forth comprehensive requirements for energy efficiency in residential buildings, including townhomes. These standards are designed to ensure that buildings meet specific energy performance criteria to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. The Title 24 standards include requirements related to the building envelope, mechanical systems (such as requiring high- efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] and water heating systems), indoor and outdoor lighting, and renewable energy. The Title 24 standards are widely regarded as the most advanced Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the proposed project’s compliance with these standards would ensure that building energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Consistent with the project-specific trip generation rates presented in the Trip Generation Memorandum, the proposed project was estimated to generate approximately 997 daily vehicle trips for the 142-unit project.
30 Project-related vehicle trips would consume an estimated 100,010 gallons of gasoline and diesel annually and would involve activities and travel routes typical of a residential project. In addition, energy consumption values, including fuel consumption values, were estimated without taking any reductions for the existing land uses. Specifically, the existing site generates 530 daily trips that were not subtracted out when considering the proposed project’s estimated consumption of fuel. Thus, the proposed project’s net increase in fuel consumption would be lower than the annual estimate of 100,010 gallons of gasoline and diesel.

As detailed in Section 2.17–Transportation, development of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on VMT. Furthermore, the 2022 Title 24 standards applicable to the 30 Urban Crossroads. August 8. 3150 Bear Street Due Diligence Trip Generation Assessment. 2024. 337
proposed project also include provisions for EV charging infrastructure in townhomes with private garages. This requirement would encourage the use of EVs by future residents. Because the proposed project’s operations would involve activities and travel routes typical of a residential project, coupled with the finding that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in regard to VMT, transportation fuel consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would be evaluated with existing State energy standards and with energy conservation policies included in the General Plan.

The proposed project would be served with electricity provided by SCE. In 2022, SCE obtained 33.2 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources. SCE also offers a Green Rate 50 percent option that sources 66.7 percent of its power mix from eligible renewable energy sources and a Green Rate 100 percent option that sources 100 percent of its power mix from eligible renewable energy sources.
31 It is expected that SCE would be required to meet the future objective of 60 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030. Additionally, the proposed project is planned to be an all-electric design and would therefore utilize more renewable energy sources during project operation compared to existing development.

The proposed residential project would be designed in accordance with Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for residential buildings. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., HVAC and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting. CALGreen require all new garages for the proposed homes to install electrical panels of adequate size to support the installation of electric vehicle charging systems. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project would be designed and built to minimize transportation energy through the promotion of the use of electric-powered vehicles and it is anticipated that existing and planned capacity and supplies of transportation fuels would be suffi cient to support the proposed project’s demand. The proposed project would install solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in compliance with Title 24, Part 6, California’s Energy Code.

The City of Costa Mesa 2015–2035 General Plan Conservation Element contains the following policies related to energy conservation.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Policy CON-2.A.1 Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure, and equipment.
31 Southern California Edison (SCE). 2022 Power Content Label. Website: https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/custom- files/PDF_Files/SCE_2022_Power_Content_Label_B%26W.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2024. 338
Policy CON-2.A.2 Consult with regional agencies and utility companies to pursue energy efficiency goals. Expand renewable energy strategies to reach zero-net-energy for both residential and commercial new construction.

Policy CON-2.A.3 Continue to develop partnerships with participating jurisdictions to promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy resource development by leveraging the abilities of local governments to strengthen and reinforce the capacity of energy efficiency efforts.

Policy CON-2.A.4 Encourage new development to take advantage of Costa Mesa’s optimal climate in the warming and cooling of buildings, including use of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems.

Green Building Sustainable Development Practices
Policy CON-2.A.5 Promote environmentally sustainable development principles for buildings, master planned communities, neighborhoods, and infrastructure.

Policy CON-2.A.6 Encourage construction and building development practices that reduce resource expenditures throughout the lifecycle of a structure.

Policy CON-2.A.7 Continue to require all City facilities and services to incorporate energy and resource conservation standards and practices and require that new municipal facilities be built within the LEED® Gold standards or equivalent.

Policy CON-2.A.8 Continue City green initiatives in purchases of equipment, and agreements that favor sustainable products and practices.

Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling
Policy CON-2.A.9 Encourage waste management programs that promote waste reduction and recycling to minimize materials sent to landfills. Maintain robust programs encourage residents and businesses to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost.

Policy CON-2.A.10 Support waste management practices that provide recycling programs. Promote organic recycling, landfill diversion, zero-waste goals, proper hazardous waste collections, composting, and the continuance of recycling centers.

Policy CON-2.A.11 Continue construction and demolition programs that require recycling and minimize waste in haul trips.

While several of these policies are requirements at City level or voluntary, compliance with Title 24 standards and other applicable regulations would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with any of the energy conservation policies related to the proposed project’s building, mechanical systems, and indoor and outdoor lighting.
339
The proposed project would comply with existing State energy standards and with energy conservation policies contained in the General Plan. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with State or local renewable or energy efficiency objectives. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
340
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?

341
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?

Environmental Evaluation
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the project-specific Supplemental Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration and Due Diligence Study (Geotechnical Exploration), prepared by SA Geotechnical, Inc. (SA GEO), dated February 14, 2024, included in Appendix D.

Setting
Geology
Geologic mapping indicates that the project site is mapped within Holocene- to late Pleistocene-age young alluvial fan deposits. These deposits are described as unconsolidated to moderately consolidated silt, sand, pebbly cobbly sand, and boulders in alluvial fan deposits.32,33 In general, Holocene-age sedimentary deposits have a low potential to contain significant paleontological resources at the surface, and the potential increases the potential increases with increased depth into the subsurface; the deeper layers of these deposits have a high potential to contain significant paleontological resources. In general, Pleistocene-age sedimentary deposits have a high potential to contain significant paleontological resources.

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals, including vertebrates (animals with backbones; fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, etc.), invertebrates (animals without backbones; starfish, clams, coral, etc.), microscopic plants and animals (microfossils), and trace fossils/ichnofossils (i.e., footprints, burrows, etc.). They are valuable, nonrenewable, scientific resources used to document the existence of extinct life forms and to reconstruct the environments in which they lived. Fossils can be used to determine the relative ages of the depositional layers in which they occur and of the geologic events that created those deposits. The age, abundance, and distribution of fossils depend on the geologic formation in which they occur and the topography of the 32 Morton, D.M., and F.K. Miller. 2006. Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California. Open-File Report OF-2006-1217. United States Geological Survey. Map. Scale 1:100,000. 33 Ibid.
342
area in which they are exposed. Most fossils are not large. Pleistocene fossils of small fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are usually found by screening sediment samples.

The entire project site has surface deposits composed of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived broadly as alluvial fan deposits from the Santa Ana Mountains to the east via the Santa Ana River that currently flows just to the west. These deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers, but they are usually underlain by older Quaternary deposits that frequently do contain significant vertebrate fossils. The closest vertebrate fossil locality from these deposits is LACM 4219, south-southwest of the project site, in a roadcut for the Newport Freeway near Santa Isabel Avenue, which produced fossil sea turtle, Cheloniidae, and camel, Camelidae, bones in coarse, poorly sorted friable sands about 30 feet below the grade of Newport Boulevard. The University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) at UC Berkeley also has a locality there (V- 93124). It produced fossils of 41 species of marine fish, as well as pond turtle, four bird species, rabbit, sea otter, two kinds of sea lion, horse, camel, and bison. 34 Further to the southwest of the site,
near the intersection of 19th Street and Anaheim Avenue, locality LACM 3267 produced a fossil specimen of undetermined elephant, Proboscidea. West-southwest of the site, along Adams Avenue near the top of the mesa bluffs east of the Santa Ana River, locality LACM 1339, produced fossil specimens of mammoth, Mammuthus, and camel, Camelidae, bones in sand approximately 15 feet below the top of the mesa that is overlain by shell bearing silts and sands. A very important site dug for a water reservoir 2.4 miles south of the project site produced rare records of Pleistocene plants including Cupressus macrocarpa, Pinus radiata, Pinus muricata, Pinus remorata, and Quercus macdonaldii.
35 There are also a large number of localities from the marine and terrestrial late Pleistocene terrace deposits on the east side of Upper Newport Bay about 3.25 miles south- southeast of the project site. Those localities have produced an extensive composite fauna.

Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than significant impact. The project site is in Southern California, which is a seismically active area. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting the project site are dependent on the distance to the causative fault and the intensity and magnitude of the seismic event. The seismic 34 Long, D. J. 1993. Preliminary list of the marine fishes and other vertebrate remains from the late Pleistocene Palos Verdes Sand Formation at Costa Mesa, Orange County. Paleobios 15:9-13. 35 Axelrod, D. I., and F. Govean. 1996. An Early Pleistocene Closed-Cone Pine Forest at Costa Mesa, Southern California.

International Journal of Plant Sciences. 157:323-329.

343
hazards may be primary, such as surface rupture and/or ground shaking, or secondary, such as liquefaction and/or ground lurching.

The project site is not within a fault rupture hazard zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Act. In addition, State maps indicate that there are no active faults at the site and no geologic maps exhibit active faults crossing the project site. The nearest known active fault is the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone, which is located over 5 miles southwest of the site.36 As such, impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The City, along with all of Southern California, are subject to strong ground shaking. Seismic activity can be either Primary (directly related to energy release of the earthquake) or Secondary (related to the effect of earthquake energy on the physical world).

The City and project site have the primary risk of strong ground shaking, but very low risk of ground rupture, as described above.37 The City requires that all construction meet the latest standards of the CBC for construction which considers proximity to potential seismic sources and the maximum anticipated ground shaking possible. The Geotechnical Exploration for the proposed project includes recommendations for final design parameters for the proposed site, which are referenced under MM GEO-1. The seismic design parameters are developed in accordance with ASCE 7-16 and 2022 CBC. Compliance with these building safety design standards under MM GEO-1 would ensure impacts associated with ground shaking effects are less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength or stiffness due to a buildup of pore-water pressure during a seismic event and is associated primarily with relatively loose, saturated fine- to medium grained unconsolidated soils. Seismic ground shaking of relatively loose, granular soils that are saturated or submerged can cause the soils to liquefy and temporarily behave as a dense fluid. According to the California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Zone Map and the Geotechnical Report, the project site is located in an area with the potential for liquefaction.38 Thus, in the event of a large earthquake with a high acceleration of seismic shaking, the potential for liquefaction exists. Given this potential, if liquefiable soils are not taken into consideration in the design of proposed structure and during construction site preparation activities, 36 California Department of Conservation. 2024. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed November 18, 2024. 37 SA Geotechnical, Inc. (SA GEO) 2024 Supplemental Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration and Due Diligence Study for the Proposed Residential Development, 3150 Bear Street, City of Costa Mesa, California. February 14. 38 California Department of Conservation. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed November 18, 2024 344
liquefiable soils could have the potential to impact the structural components of the proposed project.

As such, the proposed project would be required to implement MM GEO-1, which would require implementation of the recommendations of the Geotechnical Exploration, such as specific foundation design features, to further support proposed structures in the event of liquefaction. With the implementation of MM GEO-1, impacts due to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. iv) Landslides?
No impact. Landslides can occur if ground shaking and/or heavy rainfall disturb areas of steep slopes consisting of unstable soils. Generally, these types of failures consist of rock falls, landslides, and debris flows. Areas having the potential for earthquake-induced landslides generally occur in areas of previous landslide movement, or where topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements .

The project site is surrounded by existing development on all sides and is not within a landslide zone according to the California Department of Conservation and as stated above, is not near any sloping or free facing ground.39 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The Geotechnical Exploration indicates that the project site is underlain by thick Quaternary-age native alluvium that generally consists of interlayered clays, silty/sandy clays, clayey sands, and silty sands. The Geotechnical Exploration also noted the presence of undocumented fill material and weathered/unsuitable alluvium in the upper 5 feet below existing grades and determined that this material would need to be removed and replaced as compacted fill. The proposed project would be required to implement the site- specific recommendations referenced in MM GEO-1, which include remedial grading consisting of removal of undocumented fill materials in their entirety as well as removal of any weathered/unsuitable alluvium.

During construction, the proposed project would be required to comply with erosion and siltation control measures outlined in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Chapter 5-1.4: Adoption of the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code. Costa Mesa Municipal Code Chapter 5-1.4 adopts Codified Ordinance of the County of Orange, including the Grading Manual, in its entirety. Adherence to the City’s Municipal code would reduce to a minimum the hazards and damage to public and private property. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009DWQ, and all subsequent amendments) (Construction General Permit). The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan, which 39 California Department of Conservation. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed November 18, 2024. 345
must include erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction- related pollutants.

Following compliance with the established regulatory framework including the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and Construction General Permit, and with implementation of MM GEO -1, potential impacts concerning soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As described above, the project site is located in an area subject to seismically induced liquefaction. The proposed project would not be located near any sloping ground or free face, and due to the relatively flat grades of the site, the likelihood of lateral spreading and landslides is considered to be low.

Subsidence occurs when the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas vertically displaces a large portion of land. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content. The project site is underlain by thick Quaternary-age native alluvium that generally consists of interlayered clays, silty/sandy clays, clayey sands, and silty sands. The Geotechnical Exploration evaluated site conditions and recommended disposal of unsuitable soils and fill materials generally to a depth of 5 feet, recompaction, and placement of additional engineered fill where appropriate.

Earthwork would be required to meet compaction standards and import soils must be approved by a Geotechnical Consultant. Compliance with these recommendations would be required by implementation of MM GEO-1 and would reduce potential impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Furthermore, the Costa Mesa Planning Division would review construction plans to verify compliance with standard engineering practices, the Municipal Code, the CBC, and the site- specific recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Exploration as referenced in MM GEO-1. Following compliance with standard engineering practices, the established regulatory framework, and MM GEO-1, the proposed project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that would become unstable. Therefore, with implementation of MM GEO-1, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The Geotechnical Exploration anticipated that the expansion potential would range from "high" to "very high.” As such, the proposed project would be required to implement MM GEO-1 which would require the proposed project to implement the recommendations in Geotechnical Exploration, such as site-specific design parameters for foundations and slab-on-grade and flatwork improvements to ensure that proposed buildings are not affected by expansion. With the implementation of MM GEO-1, impacts related to being located on expansive soils would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 346
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No impact. Sewers are available for disposal of the proposed project’s wastewater. The proposed project would connect to the existing sanitary sewer system for wastewater disposal and would not include the use of septic tanks. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Surface grading or very shallow excavations in the younger Quaternary Alluvium exposed throughout the proposed project area would not uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains. Deeper excavations that extend down into older Quaternary deposits (2+ feet in depth), however, may well encounter significant fossil vertebrate specimens. Any substantial excavations in the proposed project area in previously undisturbed surface deposits , therefore, shall be monitored closely to quickly and professionally recover any fossil remains discovered while not impeding development. Also, sediment samples in previously undisturbed surface deposits would be collected and processed to determine the small fossil potential in the proposed project area. Any fossils recovered during mitigation would be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations, as required by MM GEO-2. With adherence to the requirements of MM GEO-2 during construction, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Owner/Developer shall implement the recommendations provided in Section 3, Conclusion and Preliminary Recommendations, in the Geotechnical Exploration prepared by SA Geotechnical, Inc. (SA GEO). The Exploration, included in Appendix F, is incorporated herein by reference as fully set forth in this mitigation measure.

MM GEO-2 Paleontological monitoring of excavations in previously undisturbed surface deposits by a qualified monitor shall be required. Sediment samples from deeper excavations, borings, trenching, or grading shall be wet screened if they cannot be dry screened.

The concentrate from the screening activities shall be sorted with the aid of a 10x microscope. These mitigation efforts shall be consistent with the mitigation guidelines published by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). In the event that earth- disturbing construction-related activities uncover any paleontological resources (i.e., bones or teeth) when a monitor is not present, those activities shall be diverted at least 15 feet away from the discovery until a qualified Paleontologist is brought on- site to assess the find for possible salvage. Construction workers shall not attempt to remove such finds. The Paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines 347
Section 15064.5. The Paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction activities are allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the qualified Paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of construction activities on the discovery. The plan shall be submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division for review and approval prior to implementation. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations in the approved plan. Any significant fossils, as determined by the qualified Paleontologist, recovered shall be documented in a final report and offered to an appropriate facility for curation. 348
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The project site is within the SoCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD formed a working group to identify GHG emissions thresholds for land use projects that could be used by local lead agencies in the air basin in 2008. The working group developed several different options that are contained in the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document-Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold (Interim GHG Thresholds) that could be applied by lead agencies. The working group has not provided additional guidance since the release of the interim guidance in 2008. In 2010, the SCAQMD Tier 3 threshold was expanded to include non-industrial projects, as explained in the minutes from the most recent working group meeting.
40 The SCAQMD Board has not approved the
thresholds; however, the Guidance Document provides substantial evidence supporting the approaches to significance of GHG emissions that can be considered by the Lead Agency in adopting its own threshold.

In summary, the SCAQMD’s draft threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap CO2 concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm), thus stabilizing global climate.

To determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact with respect to the generation of GHG emissions, the appropriate tier for this project is Tier 3, which states that if GHG emissions are less than 3,000 metric tons (MT) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2e) per year, project- level and cumulative GHG emissions would be less than significant. However, this threshold was 40 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting No. 15. September 28.
349
developed to meet the 2020 GHG emissions goals. To be consistent with State goals detailed in Senate Bill (SB) 32, Executive Order B-30-15, and Executive Order S-3-05 to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, a scaled screening GHG threshold can be developed for an assumed opening year of 2027. Though the SCAQMD has not published a quantified threshold beyond 2020, a threshold of 2,160 MT CO
2e per year would be appropriate. 41 Therefore, this analysis utilizes 2,160 MT CO2e per year for a quantitative threshold of significance for GHG emissions and ARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for consistency with an applicable GHG emissions reduction plan.

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than significant impact. Both construction and operational activities have the potential to generate GHG emissions. The following is a discussion of the proposed project’s contribution to GHG emissions during both the construction and operation phases.

Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during construction activities, resulting from emission sources such as construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles.

Although these emissions would be temporary and short-term in nature, they could represent a substantial contribution of GHG emissions. Construction emissions were modeled using CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Table 8, below, shows the annual construction GHG emissions.

Table 8: Proposed Project Construction GHG Emissions
Construction Year
Total GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e per year)
Project Construction–2025 56
Project Construction–2026 416
Project Construction–2027 547
Project Construction–2028 276
Total Construction Emissions 1,295
Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years1 43
41 The 2,160 MT CO2e per year threshold for opening year of 2027 is calculated by reducing the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold (developed to meet the 2020 GHG emissions goals) by 40 percent, then interpolating to obtain the scaled GHG emissions threshold for 2027. Based on a starting threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year in 2020 and a threshold of 1,800 MT CO2e per year in 2030, the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold would be reduced by 120 MT CO2e per year through 2030.
350
Construction Year
Total GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e per year)
Notes:

GHG = greenhouse gas
MT CO2e = metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
1 Construction GHG emissions are amortized over the 30-year lifetime of the proposed project.

Source: Appendix A.

As shown above, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,295 MT CO2e during construction. Over 30 years the construction GHG emissions would be amortized to approximately 43 MT CO2e per year. Since SCAQMD has not established a construction GHG threshold, total construction emissions were amortized over 30 years and included in the emissions inventory to account for the short-term, one-time GHG emissions from the construction phase of the proposed project.

Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational, or long-term, emissions are those emissions that occur over the life of the project.

Project operations were modeled for the 2027 operational year. To present a conservative estimate of emissions, the baseline for the analysis was assumed to be zero. Because the proposed project would demolish and replace existing structures, the proposed project’s incremental increase in GHG emissions would be lower than what was estimated and presented below. Sources for operational GHG emissions are summarized below:
• Motor Vehicles: These emissions refer to GHG emissions contained in the exhaust from the cars and other on-road vehicles that would travel to and from the project site. Based on the project-specific trip generation rates presented in the Trip Generation Memorandum, the proposed project was estimated to generate 997 daily vehicle trips for the 142-unit project.42 The existing site generates 530 daily trips, with the proposed project resulting in a net increase of 467 daily trips; however, for the purposes of presenting a conservative estimate of emissions and a full accounting of ongoing operational GHG emissions, the analysis used the gross daily trips (997 daily trips).
• Natural Gas: These emissions refer to the GHG emissions that occur when natural gas is burned on the project site. The proposed project would be built all-electric and would, therefore, not result in any GHG emissions from natural gas use.
• Indirect Electricity: These emissions refer to those generated by off-site power plants to supply electricity required for the proposed project. The proposed project would install photovoltaic (PV) solar panels, consistent with Title 24, Part 6, California’s Energy Code. The inclusion of solar panels would provide on-site renewable energy that would reduce the proposed project’s consumption of electricity generated at off-site power plants. 42 Urban Crossroads. August 8. 3150 Bear Street Due Diligence Trip Generation Assessment. 2024. 351
• Area Sources: These emissions refer to those produced during activities such as landscape maintenance.
• Water Transport: These emissions refer to those generated by the electricity required to transport and treat the water to be used on the project site. • Waste: These emissions refer to the GHG emissions produced by decomposing waste generated by the proposed project.

Table 9 presents the estimated annual GHG emissions from the proposed project’s operational activities. As shown in Table 9, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,110 MT CO2e per year after the inclusion of 43 MT CO2e per year from project construction.

Table 9: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Unmitigated GHG Emissions Source GHG Emissions (MT CO2e per year)
Area 11
Energy 102
Mobile (Automobiles) 905
Waste 35
Water 14
Refrigerants 0
Amortized Construction 43
Total Annual Project Emissions 1,110
Applicable Threshold1 2,160
Exceed Applicable Threshold? No
Notes:

MT CO2e = metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
1 The 2,160 MT CO2e per year threshold for opening year of 2027 is calculated by reducing the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold (developed to meet the 2020 GHG emissions goals) by 40 percent, then interpolating to obtain the scaled GHG emissions threshold for 2027.

Source: Appendix A.

As shown in Table 9, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would not exceed the applicable threshold of significance. In addition, the emissions shown in Table 9 were estimated without taking any reductions for the existing land uses. The proposed project would replace existing structures with new residential buildings. The existing uses are currently generating GHG emissions that would no longer occur once the existing structures are demolished. Thus, the proposed project’s net increase in GHG emissions would be even lower than what is shown in Table 9. In summary, construction and operational GHG emissions would result in a less than significant impact on the environment. 352
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies additional GHG reduction actions and strategies necessary to achieve Assembly Bill (AB) 1279 target of 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. These actions and strategies build upon those identified in the first update to the Scoping Plan (2013) and in the second update to the Scoping Plan (2017). Although a number of these measures are currently established as statewide regulations, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected that these measures or similar actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted as required to achieve statewide GHG emissions targets. An evaluation of applicable reduction actions/strategies by emissions source category was conducted to determine how the proposed project would be consistent with reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan. The proposed project’s consistency with those measures is provided below in Table 10.

Table 10: Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan
AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector and
Scoping Plan Action Project Consistency
GHG Emissions Reductions Relative to the SB 32 Target
40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Consistent. As demonstrated in Impact 2.8(a) above, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would not
exceed the applicable threshold of significance and
would, therefore, not conflict with the State’s ability to achieve GHG emission reduction targets. SB 1020
requires that by end of 2035, 90 percent of electricity and by end of 2045 that 100 percent of electricity is
generated from renewable and zero-carbon resources.

As such, the proposed project would not conflict with
this strategy.

Smart Growth/Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
VMT per capita reduced 25 percent below 2019
levels by 2030 and 22 percent below 2019 levels by
2045.

Consistent. As detailed in Section 2.17–Transportation, development of the proposed project would have a less
than significant impact on VMT.

Light-Duty Vehicle (LDV) Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs)
100 percent of LDV sales are ZEV by 2035. Not Applicable. Executive Order N-79-20 requires all new LDVs sold in California to be zero-emission by the
year 2035. The proposed project would not include any
vehicle sales activities.

Truck ZEVs
100 percent of medium-duty (MDV)/heavy-duty
commercial sales are ZEV by 2040 (AB 74 University
of California Institute of Transportation Studies
report).

Not Applicable. Executive Order N-79-20 requires all
new LDVs sold in California to be zero-emission by the
year 2045. The proposed project would not include any
truck sales activities.
353
AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector and
Scoping Plan Action Project Consistency
Aviation
10 percent of aviation fuel demand is met by
electricity (batteries) or hydrogen (fuel cells) in 2045.

Sustainable aviation fuel meets most or the rest of
the aviation fuel demand that has not already
transitioned to hydrogen or batteries.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not utilize
any aviation fuel.

Ocean-going Vessels (OGV)
2020 OGV At-Berth regulation fully implemented, with
most OGVs utilizing shore power by 2027.
25 percent of OGVs utilize hydrogen fuel cell electric
technology by 2045.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not utilize
any OGVs.

Port Operations
100 percent of cargo handling equipment is zero-
emission by 2037.
100 percent of drayage trucks are zero-emission by
2035.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not impact
any operations at any ports.

Freight and Passenger Rail
100 percent of passenger and other locomotive sales
are ZEV by 2030.
100 percent of line haul locomotive sales are ZEV by
2035.

Line haul and passenger rail rely primarily on
hydrogen fuel cell technology, and others primarily
utilize electricity.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not impact
any freight or passenger rail operations.

Oil and Gas Extraction
Phase out oil and gas extraction operations by 2045. Not Applicable. The proposed project would not impact any oil and gas extraction activities.

Petroleum Refining
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) on majority of
petroleum refining operations by 2030.

Production reduced in line with petroleum demand.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not impact
any petroleum refining activities.

Electricity Generation
Electric sector GHG target of 38 MMT CO2e in 2030
and 31 MMT CO2e in 2045.

Retail sales load coverage
Consistent. Senate Bill 1020 requires that 100 percent
of retail sales of electricity be generated by renewable or zero-carbon source of electricity by December 1,
2045. As such, the proposed project would not conflict
with this strategy. 354
AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector and
Scoping Plan Action Project Consistency
New Residential and Commercial Buildings
All electric appliances beginning 2026 (residential)
and 2029 (commercial).

Consistent. The proposed project would be an all-
electric development and would not include any natural
gas hookups.

Existing Residential Buildings
80 percent of appliance sales are electric by 2030
and 100 percent of appliance sales are electric by
2035.

Appliances are replaced at end of life.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not
include the operations of any existing residential
buildings. The proposed project would replace existing
structures with new residential buildings.

Existing Commercial Buildings
80 percent of appliance sales are electric by 2030,
and 100 percent of appliance sales are electric by
2045.

Appliances are replaced at end of life.

Not Applicable. At project buildout, the proposed
project would not include any existing commercial
buildings.

Food Products

7.5 percent of energy demand electrified directly
and/or indirectly by 2030; 75 percent by 2045.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not
include any commercial food production activities.

Construction Equipment
25 percent of energy demand electrified by 2030 and
75 percent electrified by 2045.

No Conflict. Executive Order N-79-20 requires all off-
road vehicles and equipment to transition to 100
percent zero-emission equipment, where feasible, by
2035. All construction equipment fleets utilized during construction of the proposed project are required to be registered with ARB and meet ARB’s current emission
reductions regulations, which are anticipated to be
updated to meet Executive Order N-79-20
requirements. As such, the proposed project would not
conflict with this strategy.

Chemicals and Allied Products; Pulp and Paper
Electrify 100 percent of boilers by 2045.

Hydrogen for 25 percent of process heat by 2035 and
100 percent by 2045.

Electrify 100 percent of other energy demand by
2045.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not
include any pulp and paper production activities.

Stone, Clay, Glass, and Cement
CCS on 40 percent of operations by 2035 and on all
facilities by 2045.

Process emissions reduced through alternative
materials and CCS.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not
include any stone, clay, glass and cement production
activities.
355
AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector and
Scoping Plan Action Project Consistency
Other Industrial Manufacturing
0 percent energy demand electrified by 2030 and 50
percent by 2045.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not
include any other industrial manufacturing activities.

Combined Heat and Power
Facilities retire by 2040. Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include any existing combined heat and power facilities.

Agriculture Energy Use
25 percent energy demand electrified by 2030 and 75
percent by 2045.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not
include any commercial agriculture activities.

Low Carbon Fuels for Transportation
Biomass supply is used to produce conventional and
advanced biofuels, as well as hydrogen.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not
include any production of fuels for transportation.

Low Carbon Fuels for Buildings and Industry
In 2030s, renewable natural gas (RNG) blended in
pipeline. Renewable hydrogen blended in natural gas
pipeline at 7 percent energy (approximately 20
percent by volume), ramping up between 2030 and
2040.

In 2030s, dedicated hydrogen pipelines constructed
to serve certain industrial clusters.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not
include any production of fuels for buildings and
industry.

Non-combustion Methane Emissions
Increase landfill and dairy digester methane capture.

Some alternative manure management deployed for
smaller dairies.

Moderate adoption of enteric strategies by 2030.

Divert 75 percent of organic waste from landfills by
2025.

Oil and gas fugitive methane emissions reduced 50
percent by 2030 and further reductions as
infrastructure components retire in line with reduced
fossil gas demand.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not
include the operation of any landfill or dairy.

High Global Warming Potential (GWP) Emissions
Low GWP refrigerants introduced as building
electrification increases, mitigating hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not
include the manufacturing of appliances that use low
GWP refrigerants.

Compensate for Remaining Emissions
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) demonstration
projects deployed by 2030.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not
include any CDR demonstration projects.
356
AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector and
Scoping Plan Action Project Consistency
CDR scaled to compensate for remaining GHG
emissions in 2045
Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality.

As demonstrated in Table 10, while most of the measures are not applicable, the proposed project would be consistent with the appliable measures outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2022 ARB Scoping Plan and potential impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
357
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?

f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?

358
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) prepared by Hillmann Consulting LLC, on January 5, 2024. The Phase I ESA is included in Appendix E of this document.

No Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs), Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs), or significant data gaps (SDGs) were identified on the project site. No RECs, CRECs, HRECs, or SDGs were identified on the project site. The following de minimis conditions are described below:

The project site currently manages a 500-gallon diesel aboveground storage tank (AST) that is attached to an emergency backup generator located within the auxiliary maintenance building. No staining was observed in the proximity of the AST enclosure. Additionally, the project site formerly utilized a 250-gallon diesel underground storage tank (UST) that served as the backup power generator. Local fire department permit records and prior environmental reports document that the 250-gallon UST was removed in June 1996 with no indication of a petroleum release having been encountered. The prior environmental reports included a Limited Phase II with soil sampling in 2016, and a geophysical survey for abandoned USTs in 2018. Based on the prior investigations as well as the regulatory records reviewed, the former 250-gallon diesel UST is not considered to be a REC in connection with the project site.

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than significant impact. Construction of the proposed project would include the transport, use, and disposal of limited quantities of hazardous materials necessary for construction, including fuel and solvents. The use of these hazardous materials necessary would be typical of construction projects, would be short-term, and would be handled in accordance with standard construction practices, as well as with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. Regulatory requirements 359
would include California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 4.5, for appropriate management of hazardous materials, as well as the requirements of the EPA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

The proposed project would include residential development, which does not typically use or store large quantities of hazardous materials. During the operational phase of the proposed project, hazardous materials may be handled on the project site. Hazardous materials that would likely be used during operation would likely be limited to fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, solvents, household cleaning agents, and similar materials used for maintenance and operation of the apartments, apartment building facilities, amenities, and landscaping. These types of materials are common and represent a low risk to people and the environment when used as intended. The proposed project would also be required to adhere to State and federal regulatory requirements as discussed above.

Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the Phase I ESA did not identify site any RECs, HRECs, or CRECs. As previously discussed above under Impact 2.9(a), the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable local, State, and federal laws and regulations pert aining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous waste during the construction phase to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit. Proper handling of the use and disposal of hazardous materials associated with residential uses would reduce the potential for exposure. During site reconnaissance associated with the Phase I ESA, Hillman conducted a cursory visual screening of accessed portions of the building built prior to 1990 for suspect asbestos - containing materials (ACM). Suspected ACM noted within the accessed building areas included exterior stucco finishes, interior drywall, acoustic ceilings, multiple vinyl floorings, flooring mastic, and thermal systems insulation (TSI).

The proposed project would develop residential uses; accordingly, operation of the proposed project would not involve the transport, use, or disposal of large quantities of hazardous materials. The use of hazardous materials on the project site postconstruction would consist of those commonly used in a residential setting for routine maintenance and cleaning associated with typical residential development and would not be of a significant quantity to create a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No impact. There are no schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. The nearest schools are Paularino Elementary School (1060 Paularino Avenue), 0.61 mile southwest of the project site; and Sonora Elementary School (966 Sonora Road), 0.73 mile southwest of the project site. As discussed 360
in Impact 2.9(a), construction of the proposed project would include the limited use of hazardous materials, such as fuel and solvents. However, use of these hazardous materials would be in compliance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations. During operation of the proposed project, limited use of hazardous materials would likely be used for building maintenance. Similarly, these hazardous materials would be stored, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Thus, the proposed project would not include any uses that could potentially generate hazardous materials in significant quantities that would have an impact on surrounding schools.

Therefore, there would be no impact.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less than significant impact. Government Code Section 65962.5 refers to the Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List, commonly known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List contains hazardous waste and substance sites with known USTs having a reportable release; and solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration. The Cortese List also includes hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action; historic Cortese Sites; and sites with known toxic materials identified through the abandoned site assessment program. The proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a hazardous materials site list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5.
43 The closest site recognized by the Cortese List is
approximately 1.58 miles southwest of the project site and is an active Voluntary Cleanup Site at 1170 Baker Road. The proposed development is not close enough to the activity occurring at this site for the proposed project to have an impact. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Less than significant impact. The Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) is the comprehensive land use plan adopted and administered by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County, as required by Section 21675 of the California Public Utilities Code. The AELUP establishes land use guidelines based on noise and safety impacts for areas surrounding airports. The most current AELUP for John Wayne Airport (SNA) was approved in April 2008. The project site is located approximately 1.37 miles west of SNA, and thus is within the Airport Planning Area of SNA according to the ALUC. Land uses within the planning area boundaries of the AELUP must conform to the following safety and height restriction standards. The project site is located more than 7,000 feet west of SNA. In accordance with Federal Regulation Part 77, any construction or alteration occurring within 43 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese).

Website: https:// www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=38330005. Accessed November 13, 2024. 361
20,000 feet of a public airport (i.e., an airport with a runway of more than 3,200 feet in length such as SNA) which exceeds a100 foot horizontal by 1 foot in vertical height must notify the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Furthermore, buildings greater than 70 feet must notify the FAA. Because the proposed buildings would not exceed 50 feet in height, the proposed project would be consistent with the height restriction standards.

The proposed project would be reviewed by the ALUC to determine whether any structure would be inconsistent with the AELUP. Since the proposed project is located within the vicinity of SNA’s Planning Area, it is subject to the safety restrictions of the AELUP. The proposed project’s building height would not “interfere with the established, or planned, airport flight procedures, patterns, or navigational systems” since it would meet the development standards specified in the Costa Mesa General Plan. In addition, the proposed project would not threaten, endanger, or interfere with aeronautical operations due to the proposed project’s exterior lighting, when it would be clearly visible during hours of twilight or darkness. Additionally, although the proposed project is within the vicinity of SNA’s Airport Planning Area, it is not within the vicinity of the SNA Safety Zone.44 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. Impacts would be less than significant. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than significant impact. The Costa Mesa Disaster Plan serves as the community’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which provides guidance during emergency situations and natural disasters.

Evacuation operations would be conducted by law enforcement agencies, highway/road/street departments, and public and private transportation providers. 45 The project site is located along a designated emergency evacuation route along Bear Street and adjacent to I-405. The proposed project would be constructed completely within the project site and construction equipment would access the project site via Bear Street, which is the main access point to the project site. If any road closures to Bear Street are required, the project applicant and construction crew would be required to coordinate with the City of Costa Mesa Public Works Department to ensure that emergency access routes are maintained during construction. During operation, the proposed project does not include any uses or design features that would result in interference with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The design of the proposed project would provide adequate emergency access consistent with City requirements, including the required number and design of access points and safety features. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to emergency access during construction and/or operation. The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant. 44 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Airport Environs. 2008. Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. Website: https:// files.ocair.com/media/2021-02/JWA_AELUP-April-17-2008.pdf? VersionId=cB0byJjdad9OuY5im7Oaj5aWaT1FS.vD.

Accessed November 13, 2024.
45 City of Costa Mesa. Costa Mesa General Plan. Safety Element. 362
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No impact. The project site is in an urbanized, flat area and does not contain slopes that could contribute to wildfire. The project site is not located along an urban-wildfire interface. CAL FIRE has mapped fire threat potential throughout California and ranks fire threats on a scale of no fire threat, moderate, high, and very high fire severity. According to the CAL FIRE Hazards Severity Zone Map Viewer, the project site is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). 46 Additionally, the City’s
Safety Element indicated that no part of Costa Mesa is listed as a State Responsibility Area (SRA) for fire hazard or located within a Very High FHSZ.47 Thus, urban and grassland fires within open space areas, such as Talbert Regional Park, represent the only fire risks within the City.48 Further, the project site is in a developed, built-up urban area that is not adjacent to any Very High FHSZ or large areas of open space. Therefore, the proposed project is not likely to expose people or structures to wildland fire hazards. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
46 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Website: https:// calfire-
forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008. Accessed November 14, 2024.
47 City of Costa Mesa. 2015. Costa Mesa General Plan, Chapter 8: Safety Element. Website: https;// ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/generalplan2015-2035/adopted/08_FinalDraft_SafetyElement.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2024.
48 Ibid.
363
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:

(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;

(ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-
site;

(iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or

(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

364
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The following analysis is based, in part, on the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and the Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared by prepared by X Engineering and Consulting Inc., both included as Appendix F.

The proposed project is located within the Santa Ana Watershed. In general, drainage flows from south to north. Peak flow originates as sheet flow in the south which then transitions into piped flow for conveyance at the off-site discharge point at the northwest corner of the property.

The project site discharges to the existing Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) 72- inch public storm drain that lies at the northwest corner of the site at node 110. This storm drain known as OCFCD D03S03 Gisler Storm Channel, flows into the Greenville Banning Channel, connecting to the Santa Ana River Channel, which ultimately discharges to the Pacific Ocean.

The existing on-site drainage is collected by area drains and conveyed by on-site storm drains that eventually join with the existing 27-inch and 72-inch public storm drains to the southwest and northwest corner of the site, respectively.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) of the area, the project site is within an area with 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depth less than 1 foot or with drainage areas of less than 1 square mile (Zone X).
49 Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less than significant impact. Construction activities would include demolition of the existing paved surfaces and structures, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coatings, and paving. The City of Costa Mesa is in the jurisdictional area of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB). The Santa Ana RWQCB requirements are further clarified by the County of Orange Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) which requires the preparation and implementation of WQMP’s for development projects. Consistent with the DAMP, the project applicant would be required to submit a SWPPP prior to project grading and construction for City review along with a Preliminary Project WQMP and a Hydrology Report. 49 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2024. FEMA’s national Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. Website:
https:// hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd&extent=- 117.91077285913687,33.67623138861032,-117.86923080591424,33.69408627053917. Accessed November 14, 2024. 365
As described in the proposed project’s Hydrology Report, drainage flows from south to north. Peak flow originates as sheet flow in the south which then transitions into piped flow for conveyance at the off-site discharge point at the northwest corner of the property. The overall proposed condition drainage would ultimately retain the existing condition flow drainage in the south to north direction.

The existing condition topography previously discussed has an overall grade tilting from southeast to northwest. However, the proposed condition will be graded from southwest to northeast. The subsurface storm drain network would retain the overall existing drainage pattern, maintaining the off- site discharge to storm drain facilities northwest of the site. The proposed project would also include proprietary vegetated biotreatment systems as a biotreatment BMPs and BMPs to ensure that the ongoing operation and maintenance of the proposed project is consistent with the DAMP.

Compliance with these regulations would ensure that impacts to water quality during construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. In addition, as described in the Hydrology Report, runoff from the project site is directed to the Modular Wetland Systems (MWS) unit and a proprietary biotreatment BMP for water quality treatment. Treated stormwater then exits the project site on Bear Street through the 72-inch public storm drain to enter the Gisler Storm Channel, flowing into the Greenville Banning Channel, connecting to the Santa Ana River Channel, which ultimately discharges to the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than significant impact. As discussed in the Geotechnical Report prepared by SA GEO, groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 18.3 to 20.7 feet. Historic high groundwater is mapped between 10 and 30 feet below grade. The project site has been developed with impervious surfaces for over 40 years and is not used as a groundwater recharge location. As impervious surfaces under the proposed project would be similar to those under existing conditions, development of the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge. As such, the proposed project would not impede sustainable groundwater management of a basin. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would not substantially increase impervious surfaces at the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would not alter the course of a river or stream, as the site is developed and located in an urban and developed area. As such, the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern at the project site in a manner which would result in on- or off-site erosion or siltation. Additionally, the proposed project would 366
implement the provisions provided in the WQMP prepared for the proposed project, which includes ongoing operation and management of BMPs at the project site. Further, adherence to the WQMP would ensure compliance with County NPDES Stormwater Program. The impact would be less than significant.
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern at the project site through the increase of impervious surfaces at the project site, or by altering the course of a river or stream. The proposed project would be designed consistent with the approved drainage plan provided in the Hydrology Report and would not result in increased surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern at the project site through the increase of impervious surfaces at the project site, or by altering the course of a river or stream. The proposed project would connect existing water and sanitary sewer lines and would include the installation of stormwater management systems on-site. Stormwater from the proposed development will be intercepted by downspouts and new area drains that convey stormwater into two separate MWS (proprietary biofiltration BMPs) to meet water quality objectives as required by the Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) Permit. Stormwater flows then enter the public storm drain. The proposed project would be designed consistent with the approved drainage plan provided in the Hydrology Report and would not exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system. Additionally, the proposed project would implement the provisions provided in the WQMP prepared for the proposed project—which includes ongoing operation and management of BMPs at the project site. Further, adherence to the WQMP would ensure compliance with County NPDES Stormwater Program. Compliance with the WQMP would address potential additional sources of polluted runoff from the project site. The impact would be less than significant.
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than significant impact. The project site is within an area with 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depth less than 1 foot or with drainage areas of less than 1 square mile (Zone X); however, the proposed project would be designed consistent with the approved drainage plan provided in the Hydrology Report and would not cause flood flows to be impeded or redirected. Any potential flooding on-site would be treated via two MWS and then be directed to the public storm drain. As such, the impact would be less than significant. 367
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than significant impact. The project site is approximately 5.53 miles from the Pacific Ocean and is not near any other large body of water; therefore, the project site is not at risk of inundation from a tsunami or seiche. As discussed above, the project site is within an area with 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depth less than 1- foot or with drainage areas of less than 1 square mile; however, it would not include the storage of hazardous materials that could be released into the environment due to inundation from a flood other than small quantities of typical household cleaners. As such, the impact would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than significant impact. The project site is within the Santa Ana River watershed and the Water Quality Control Plan for Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan) would be applicable to the proposed project. The Basin Plan includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the RWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards as well as water quality goals and policies that govern the Santa Ana River Basin. 50 The proposed project would be required to comply with the goals and policies outlined in the Basin Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

Impacts would be less than significant.

The project site is also located within the Orange County Water District (OCWD), which includes a Groundwater Management Plan that was last updated in June 2015. As discussed in the Groundwater Management Plan, groundwater basin management goals include (1) to protect and enhance groundwater quality, (2) to protect and increase the sustainable yield of the groundwater basin in a cost-effective manner, and (3) to increase the efficiency of OCWD operations. 51 As
discussed above, the project applicant would be required to submit a SWPPP prior to project grading and construction. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that impacts to water quality during construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. In addition, as described in the Hydrology Report, runoff from the project site is directed to the MWS unit and proprietary biotreatment BMPs for water quality treatment. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
50 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB). 2024. Santa Ana River Basin Plan. Website:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/index.html. Accessed November 14, 2024. 51 Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2015. Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update. Website: https:// www.ocwd.com/wp-content/uploads/groundwatermanagementplan2015update_20150624.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2024. 368
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?

b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The General Plan currently designates the project site as General Commercial. The proposed project would require a GPA to amend the General Plan land use designation from General Commercial to High-Density Residential. The High-Density Residential land use designation is intended to provide residential development with a density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac re).

The project site is currently zoned AP. The proposed project would require a rezone to change the zoning designation from AP to R-3. The R-3 zoning district is intended to promote the development of multi-family rental as well as ownership dwelling units. The required minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet in the R-3 zone. The maximum density allowed is 2,178 square feet per dwelling unit, which equals 20 dwelling units per gross acre.

Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less than significant impact. The project site is in a highly developed and urbanized area. The surrounding area contains commercial and residential uses, similar to the project site. The proposed project would not be designed in a way that would create a physical barrier within an established community. A typical example of such a barrier would be a project that involved a continuous right-of- way, such as a roadway, which would divide a community and impede access between parts of the community. The proposed project does not include these types of features but would rather improve connectivity in the surrounding area by providing an extension of the existing Olympic Avenue connecting to the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not disrupt the 369
surrounding land uses or divide the physical arrangement of the established communities to the north and east of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would include a GPA to change the General Plan land use designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential . Surrounding land uses are designated as Regional Commercial to the north, Public/Institutional and Low Density Residential to the east, Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential to the south, and Low Density Residential to the west. The proposed project would comply with applicable General Plan policies and Costa Mesa Municipal Code requirements adopted to avoid or reduce environmental impacts. For example, as discussed above, the proposed project would comply with Municipal Code Chapter 13-VII by submitting site plans to the Planning Division that identify existing and replacement trees with a written request and justification for their removal. Similarly, the proposed project would be consistent with Municipal Code Section 13.279 regarding noise standards for construction activities and equipment. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the SDBL. Therefore, with the implementation of the GPA, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. Impacts are therefore considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
370
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the State?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The project site is zoned General Commercial (GC) and is located in an urbanized area in the City of Costa Mesa, and no known mineral resources are present on-site.

Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
No impact. According to the General Plan EIR, mineral resources present in the City’s planning area are oil, peat, and aggregate. According to the Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Thermal Resources, there are 15 active oil wells in the planning area. The Newport West Oil Field is located entirely outside of the City. Peat is restricted to areas adjacent to the Santa Ana River.52 The project site is located in the northeastern portion if the City and is not located in an area near any mineral resources; therefore, project implementation would not affect any known mineral deposits.

Additionally, the entire project site would be within the R-3 zoning district; therefore, project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. Thus, no impacts would occur.
52 City of Costa Mesa. 2016. Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2015-2035 General Plan. Mineral Resources.

Website: http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/generalplan2015-2035/Final-EIR.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2024. 371
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. The existing General Plan does not identify any locally important mineral resources. No other City planning documents identify any locally important mineral resources. 53 As such, no impacts to locally important resources would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
53 City of Costa Mesa. 2016. Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2015-2035 General Plan. Mineral Resources.

Website: http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/generalplan2015-2035/Final-EIR.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2024. 372
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.13 Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The proposed project site is located within the City of Costa Mesa, in Orange County, California. The site is surrounded by residential uses to the east and south while I-405 is located immediately north and Bear Street bounds the west side of the project site.

Existing Conditions
Ambient Noise
The dominant noise sources in the project vicinity include traffic on local roadways, primarily from traffic on I-405 which runs along the northern boundary of the project site.

An ambient noise monitoring effort was conducted to document daytime ambient noise levels on the project site. Short-term noise monitoring was conducted by FCS on October 29, 2024, between 12:06 p.m. and 1:22 p.m. The noise measurements were taken during the midday hours, as the midday hours typically have the highest daytime noise levels in urban environments. It should be noted that 373
peak noise hours often vary slightly from peak traffic hours, as peak noise hours more closely align with high volume traffic that is still free flowing; while peak traffic hours often result in slower vehicle speeds due to the volume of traffic on the roadway. The short-term existing noise measurement results are summarized in Table 12. The noise monitoring data sheets are included in Appendix G.

Table 11: Existing Ambient Noise Levels on the Project Site Site ID # Description Leq Lmin Lmax
ST-1 On southeast corner of the project site 60 57.3 64.2 ST-2 On northeast corner of the project site 73.1 69.2 77.3 ST-3 On northwest corner of the project site 73.9 70.7 83.4 Notes:

Leq = equivalent sound level
Lmin = minimum noise/sound level
Lmax = maximum noise level
Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). 2024.

Characteristics of Noise
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Most of the sounds that we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound. Noise is typically generated by transportation, specific land uses, and ongoing human activity.

The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. A change of 3 dB is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. While a change of 5 dBA is considered to be the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments.

Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) was derived to relate noise to the sensitivity of humans, it gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the basis for a number of various sound level metrics, including the day/night sound level (L dn) and the
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), both of which represent how humans are more sensitive to sound at night. In addition, the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the average sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period and the Lmax is the maximum instantaneous noise level occurring over a sample period.

Regulatory Framework
The project site is located within the City of Costa Mesa, in Orange County. The City of Costa Mesa addresses noise in the Noise Element of the General Plan and the Municipal Code. 374
City of Costa Mesa General Plan
The City of Costa Mesa addresses noise in the City’s 2015-2035 General Plan. The objectives of the General Plan’s Noise Element are to identify noise sources in Costa Mesa and define strategies for reducing the negative impact of noise on the community. The Noise Element identifies baseline and projected noise levels so that this information can guide future land use decisions in a manner that limit noises and its effect on the community.

The following General Plan noise policies are applicable to the Costa Mesa Bear Street multi-family residential project:

Table N-3 (Table 12 below): Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix presents the guidelines promulgated by federal and State agencies, modified to meet local conditions and Costa Mesa’s needs. This table represents the primary tool the City will use to ensure integrated planning compatibility between land uses and outdoor noise.

Table 12: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix
Table N-3: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure
Ldn or CNEL, dBA
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptabl
e
Clearly
Unacceptabl
e
Residential: Low Density 50-60 60-70 70-75 ≥75
Residential: Multiple-Family 50-65 65-70 70-75 ≥75
Mixed use 50-65 65-70 70-75 ≥75
Transient Lodging-Motel, Hotels 50-65 65-70 70-80 ≥80
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes
50-60 60-65 65-80 ≥80
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50-70 NA ≥80 Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50-75 NA ≥80 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50-67.5 NA 67.5-75 ≥75
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water
Recreation, Cemeteries
50-70 NA 70-80 ≥80
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and
Professional
50-67.5 67.5-77.5 77.5-85 ≥85 unless
appropriately
insulated
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50-70 70-80 80-85 NA 375
Table N-3: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure
Ldn or CNEL, dBA
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptabl
e
Clearly
Unacceptabl
e
Normally Acceptable. Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable. New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.

Normally Unacceptable. New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Clearly Unacceptable. New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

NA: Not Applicable
Source: Modified from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Guidelines and State of California Standards.

Source: City of Costa Mesa 2015-2035 General Plan Noise Element.

Goals, Objectives, and Policies
Goal N-1: Noise Hazards and Conditions
The City of Costa Mesa aims to protect residents, local workers, and property from injury, damage, or destruction from noise hazards and to work toward improved noise abatement.

Objective N-1A Control noise levels within the City for the protection of residential areas, park areas, and other sensitive land uses from excessive and unhealthful noise.

Policy N-1.1 Enforce the maximum acceptable exterior noise levels for residential areas at 65 CNEL.

Goal N-2 Noise and Land Use Compatibility. Integrate the known impacts of excessive noise on aspects of land use planning and siting of residential and nonresidential projects.

Objective N-2A Plan for the reduction in noise impacts on sensitive receptors and land uses.

Policy N-2.2 Require, as a part of the environmental review process, that full consideration be given to the existing and projected noise environment.
376
Policy N-2.4 Require that all proposed projects are compatible with adopted noise/land use compatibility criteria
Policy N-2.5 Enforce applicable interior and exterior noise standards.

Policy N-2.6 Allow a higher exterior noise level standard for infill projects in existing residential areas adjacent to major arterials if it can be shown that there are no feasible mechanisms to meet the exterior noise levels. The interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL shall be enforced for any new residential project.

City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code
The City of Costa Mesa has established noise performance standards and permissible hours for construction activities in the Municipal Code. These provisions are summarized below:
13-279–Exceptions for Construction. Construction equipment, vehicles, or work between the following approved hours, is allowed provided that all required permits for such construction, repair, or remodeling have been obtained from the appropriate City departments: 7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. Saturday. Construction activities on Sundays and the following specified federal holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day are prohibited all hours. 13-280–Exterior Noise Standards.
(a) The following noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property within the City:

Residential Exterior Noise Standards
Noise Level T
ime Period
55 dB(A) 7:00 a.m. through 11:00 p.m.
50 dB(A) 11:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m.

In the event the alleged offensive noise consists entirely of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or any combination thereof, each of the above noise levels shall be reduced by 5 dBA.
(b) It is unlawful for any person at any location within the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, when the foregoing causes the noise level, when measured on any other residential property, either within or outside the City, to exceed:
(1) The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour; (2) The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour;
(3) The noise standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour;
377
(4) The noise standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour; or
(5) The noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time. (c) In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.
(d) The exterior noise standards shown in subsection (a) shall not apply to the following exterior areas of multi-family residential development or live/work units located within a mixed-use overlay district where the base zoning district is nonresidential, approved pursuant to a master plan, and subject to the land use regulations of an urban plan:
(1) Private balconies or patios regardless of size;
(2) Private or community roof decks/roof terraces;
(3) Internal courtyards and landscaped walkways that do not include resident-serving, active recreational uses such as community pool, spa, tennis courts, barbeque, and picnic areas.
(e) In high-rise residential developments in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, the exterior noise standards shown in subsection (a) shall only apply to the common outdoor recreational amenity areas located on the ground level. Recreational amenity areas located above the ground level and private balconies and patios shall be exempt from this standard .

13-281. Interior Noise Standards.
(a) The following noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property within the City:

Residential Interior Noise Standards
Noise Level T
ime Period
55 dBA 7:00 a.m. through 11:00 p.m.
45 dBA 11:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m.

13.283–Loud, Unnecessary Noise: It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary and unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area, regardless of whether the noise level exceeds the standards specified in Section 13-280. The standard which may be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists may include, but not be limited to the following:
a. The level of the noise;
b. Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual; c. Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural; d. The level and intensity of the background noise, if any; e. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; f. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; g. The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; h. The time of the day and night the noise occurs;
i. The duration of the noise;
j. Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant; or k. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity .

a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Short-term Construction Impacts
Less than significant impact. For purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if construction activities would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in excess of the City’s established standards applicable to construction noise.

The Municipal Code Section 13.279 establishes allowable hours and noise standards for construction activities and equipment. Construction activities, including the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, are restricted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. Saturday. Construction activities on Sundays and the following specified federal holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day are prohibited all hours. 379
While the City does not establish noise level thresholds for construction activities, this analysis uses this analysis uses the noise limits established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to identify the potential for impacts due to substantial temporary construction noise. The FTA identifies construction noise limits in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 19 During
daytime hours, a significant temporary increase would be an increase in excess of the 8- hour average noise level of 80 dBA Leq as measured at a receiving residential land use.

Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities.

Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction- related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. Impact equipment such as pile drivers is not being used during construction of the proposed project.

The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment.

Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery and compacting equipment, such as bulldozers, draglines, backhoes, front loaders, roller compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

Construction of the proposed project would require the use of graders, excavators, bulldozers, front - end loaders, and backhoes. The maximum noise level generated by each bulldozer, excavator, and grader is assumed to be 85 dBA L
max at 50 feet from this equipment. A characteristic of sound is that each doubling of sound sources with equal strength increases a sound level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, a reasonable worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 90 dBA L max
at a distance of 50 feet from the acoustic center of a construction area. This would result in a reasonable worst-case hourly average of 86 dBA Leq.

The façade of the nearest residence would be located approximately 25 feet from the acoustic center of construction activity where multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment would potentially operate simultaneously during site preparation of the proposed project site.

At this distance and assuming minimal shielding from the existing 6-foot concrete wall on the east and south side of the project site, relative worst-case single-hour average construction noise levels would attenuate to 84 dBA Leq(1-hour) at this nearest sensitive receptor. When averaged over an 8-hour work 380
day, conservative worst-case average construction noise levels during the loudest phase of construction could range up to 78 dBA Leq(8-hour) as measured at the nearest sensitive receptor. The calculation sheet is provided in Appendix G.

These reasonable worst-case construction noise levels would only occur periodically throughout the day as construction equipment operates along the nearest project boundaries. Additionally, these noise levels would drop off at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance as the equipment moves over the project site.

These calculated conservative worst-case construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA’s 8- hour average daily threshold of 80 dBA Leq as measured at the nearest residential receptors. In addition, the proposed project would comply with the City of Costa Mesa’s permissible hours for construction (7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m.

Saturday), which would ensure that construction noise would not result in any substantial increase in nighttime noise levels in the project vicinity. Therefore, construction noise impacts on sensitive receptors in the project vicinity would be to less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

Operational/Stationary Source Noise Impacts
Less than significant impact. A significant impact will occur if the project results in an exceedance of the City’s noise performance standards for stationary noise sources. A significant impact would occur if operational noise levels generated by stationary noise sources at the proposed project site would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of any of the noise performance thresholds established by the City. According to Section 13-280 of the Municipal Code, the maximum permissible noise performance threshold for residential zones is 55 dBA L eq during the
daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.) and 50 dBA Leq during nighttime hours (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).

Implementation of the proposed project would include operation of new mechanical ventilation equipment. Noise levels for residential-grade mechanical ventilation equipment systems range up to approximately 70 dBA Leq at a distance of 3 feet. The proposed project would have residential-grade mechanical ventilation equipment for each proposed residential unit. The proposed mechanical ventilation equipment could be located as close as 25 feet from off-site receptors. At this distance, with minimal shielding from a 6-foot concrete wall, worst-case resulting noise levels could range up to approximately 25 dBA L
eq. The noise calculation sheet is provided in Appendix G.

These operational noise levels would not exceed the City’s noise performance thresholds of 50 dBA L
eq during nighttime hours as measured at the nearest residential property. Therefore, rooftop mechanical ventilation system operational noise levels would not result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels in excess of established standards. The impact of mechanical ventilation equipment operational noise levels on sensitive off-site receptors would be less than significant. 381
Operational/Mobile Source Noise Impacts
Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if project-generated traffic would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels compared with those that would exist without the proposed project. Typically, a doubling of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) hourly volumes on a roadway segment is required in order to result in an increase of 3 dBA in traffic noise levels, which, as discussed in the characteristics of noise discussion above, is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, a doubling of the existing ADT volumes would result in a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels.

According to the transportation analysis prepared Urban Crossroads, 54 the existing PM peak-hour trips
on Bear Street adjacent to the project site are 97 AM peak-hour trips and 87 PM peak-hour trips.

However, the proposed project would only generate 64 AM peak-hour trips and 83 PM peak-hour trips. Thus, the proposed project is expected to generate a net reduction of 33 AM peak-hour trips and 4 fewer PM peak-hour trips as compared to the trips generated by the existing land use.

Therefore, net new proposed project trips would not double existing traffic trips on any roadway segment in the project vicinity. Furthermore, this increase in trips would result in a less than 1 dBA increase in traffic noise levels along any roadway segment in the project vicinity. This increase is below a level that would be a perceptible increase and well below a level that would be considered a substantial increase in traffic noise levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not double average daily trips on Camden Avenue and Singletree Way adjacent to the project site and would not generate 3 dBA increase in traffic noise levels. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels from project-generated traffic trips, and mobile source operational noise impacts would be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would generate groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels in excess of established standards. The City of Costa Mesa has not adopted criteria for groundborne vibration impacts. The City has not established requirements regarding construction vibration impacts, therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the FTA guidelines for vibration impacts are used to determine potential significant construction and operational-related vibration impacts. 55 This section analyzes both construction and operational groundborne vibration and noise impacts.

Groundborne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. Groundborne noise is generated when vibrating building components radiate sound, or noise, generated by groundborne vibration. In general, if groundborne vibration levels do not exceed levels considered to be perceptible, then 54 Urban Crossroads. August 8. 3150 Bear Street Due Diligence Trip Generation Assessment. 2024. 55 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September. 382
groundborne noise levels would not be perceptible in most interior environments. Therefore, this analysis focuses on determining exceedances of groundborne vibration levels.

Short-term Construction Vibration Impacts
Of the variety of equipment that would be used during construction, small vibratory rollers would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. Impact equipment such as pile drivers would not be used during construction of this project. Small vibratory rollers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.101 inch per second (in/sec) PPV at 25 feet from the operating equipment.

The nearest off-site receptor to the project construction footprint where vibratory rollers would operate are the residential land uses on Tara Street, south of the project site. The closest structure to this site is the pool located approximately 25 feet from the nearest construction footprint where the small vibratory rollers would potentially operate. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels would range up to 0.1 in/sec PPV from operation of the types of equipment that would produce the highest vibration levels. This is well below the FTA’s Construction Vibration Impact Criteria of 0.5 in/sec PPV for this type of structure, which is a pool constructed of reinforced concrete. Accordingly, construction activities would not adversely impact this structure.

The nearest residential structure is located approximately 25 feet from the nearest construction footprint where small vibratory rollers would potentially operate. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels would range up to 0.1 in/sec PPV from operation of the types of equipment that would produce the highest vibration levels. This is below the FTA’s construction vibration damage criteria of

0.2 in/sec PPV for this type of structure, a building of nonengineered timber and masonr y construction. As a result, construction of the proposed project would not expose nearby buildings to groundborne vibration levels in excess of their applicable FTA damage criteria, and this impact would be less than significant.

Operational Vibration Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would not include any new permanent sources that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments at any existing sensitive land use in the project vicinity. Additionally, there are no active sources of groundborne vibration in the project vicinity that would produce vibration levels that would be perceptible without instruments within the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact related to operational groundborne vibration.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less than significant impact. The airport nearest to the project site is John Wayne International Airport, located approximately 1.31 miles southeast of the project site. While aircraft noise is occasionally audible at the project site, due to the distance from the airport and the orientation of runways and flight patterns, the project site does not lie within the established noise contours of John 383
Wayne International Airport and is not close enough to any other airports to be affected by aviation noise. Therefore, impacts of aviation noise would be less than significant. Because of the distance to the airport and the orientation of the runways, the project site lies outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours of the airport. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons residing or working in the project vicinity to noise levels from airport activity that would exceed normally acceptable standards for the proposed land use development, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
384
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element projected that the City would reach a population of 113,900 persons by 2020.56 However, according to the California Department of Finance, the City only has a population of 109,423 persons as of January 1, 2024. 57 Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than significant. As described above, the City had a provisional population of 109,423 persons as of January 1, 2024.58 According to the California Department of Finance the City has an average of 56 City of Costa Mesa. 2021. Housing Element, Community Profile. Website:
https://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/planningcommission/agenda/2021/2021-12-13/PH-1-SuppMemo-3.pdf.

Accessed November 12, 2024.
57 California Department of Finance. 2024. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2024. Website:
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fdof.ca.gov%2Fwp- content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F352%2FForecasting%2FDemographics%2FDocuments%2FE- 5_2024_InternetVersion.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK. Accessed November 12, 2024. 58 Ibid.
385

2.52 persons per household.59 The proposed project would include the construction of 142 for-sale townhomes, which would increase the City’s population by up to 358 persons based on the average household size.60 This is approximately 0.3 percent of the City’s existing population, which is a negligible increase. The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element projected that the City would reach a population of 113,900 persons by 2020.61 Because the City has not yet reached the projected population by the start of 2025, and the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of this projection, the population growth resulting from the proposed project can be considered planned growth. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No impact. There are no existing residences on-site. This precludes the possibility that the proposed project would displace people or housing. As such, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
59 California Department of Finance. 2024. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2024. Website:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the- state-2020-2024/. Accessed November 12, 2024.
60 2.52 persons per residential unit * 142 residential units = 357.84 persons 61 City of Costa Mesa. 2021. Housing Element, Community Profile. Website:
https://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/planningcommission/agenda/2021/2021-12-13/PH-1-SuppMemo-3.pdf.

Accessed November 12, 2024.
386
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.15 Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The information in this section is based, in part, on correspondence with City of Costa Mesa public service providers, included as Appendix H of this report.

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
Less than significant impact. Costa Mesa Fire Department (CMFD) provides fire protection services to the project site. Costa Mesa Fire and Rescue is a full-service organization designed to provide essential public safety and emergency services to the community and its visitors .

Fire stations are strategically located in the City of Costa Mesa to ensure efficient demand response to all risk hazards and to maintain recommendations for response times. The project site is currently serviced by the CMFD via the existing infrastructure. Additionally, both automatic and mutual aid agreements exist with surrounding jurisdictions. The nearest station to the project site is Fire Station No. 2, located 0.43 mile south of the project site at 800 Baker Street. The proposed project would be 387
required to comply with all currently adopted codes and standards at the time of plan submittal , including the CBC and California Fire Code. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to include the provision of smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and fire sprinklers in proposed buildings, and would be required to pay Fire Department development fees. In addition, the design of the proposed project would be submitted to CMFD for review and approval. Finally, the project applicant would be required to pay fire development fees for future fire facilities and equipment. Because the proposed project would comply with required codes and standards and would pay required fees and the project site is currently serviced by CMFD, impacts associated with fire protection services would be less than significant.
b) Police protection?
Less than significant impact. The Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD) provides law enforcement and crime prevention services to the Citty. Officers operate out of the Costa Mesa Police Station, approximately 1.6 miles southwest of the project site located at 99 Fair Drive. CMPD also operates out of two substations located at South Coast Plaza and 567 West 18th Street. CMPD contracts with the Huntington Beach Police Department for airborne law enforcement patrols and related services.62 CMPD operates under several divisions, including Administration, Field Operations, and support services. Decisions are further broken down into specialty areas such as Emergency Management, Patrol, Traffic Safety, Air Support, Crime Scene Unit, and others. 63 The proposed project would add up to 368 residents to the City, potentially increasing the need for police protection. The existing project site is served by CMPD. The proposed project would include safety measures including nighttime security lighting at proposed units and fencing around detached townhomes to deter crime in at the project site. Furthermore, the proposed project would be reviewed by CMPD to ensure that safety measures are put in place to the satisfaction of the department. With the implementation of proposed safety measures, impacts related to police protection would be less than significant.
c) Schools?
Less than significant impact. The City of Costa Mesa is served by Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD). The District has four zones that it serves: the Corona Del Mar Zone, the Costa Mesa Zone, the Estancia Zone, and the Newport Harbor Zone. The project site is located within the Costa Mesa Zone, which contains four elementary schools (College Park Elementary, Killybrooke Elementary, Paularino Elementary, and Sonora Elementary), and Costa Mesa Middle/High School.

Davis Magnet School and Monte Vista Independent School are also within the Costa Mesa Zone but have districtwide attendance boundaries.
64 NMUSD requires the payment of developer fees of $1.84 62 City of Costa Mesa. Costa Mesa General Plan. Safety Element. 63 City of Costa Mesa. Costa Mesa Police Department. Website: https://www.costamesaca.gov/government/departments- and-divisions/police. Accessed November 21, 2024.
64 Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD). 2023. Feeder School Flow Chart. Website:
https://web.nmusd.us/schools. Accessed November 21, 2024. 388
per square foot for residential development. The project applicant would be required to pay such fees to reduce potential impacts to school facilities resulting from the proposed project. With the payment of fees, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Parks?
Less than significant impact. The City of Costa Mesa contains 25 neighborhood parks and seven community parks. In addition to these parks, the City is home to Talbert Regional Park, a regional nature preserve. The City strives to meet its minimum parkland ratio of 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As of 2015, the City had approximately 3.66 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. 65 The nearest park to the project site is Schiffer Park, located immediately west of the site across Bear Street. While the proposed project would include lawn areas, barbeque and picnic areas, and play equipment within the site, there is potential for increased use of Schiffer Park and other parks within the City as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project would be required to pay park development fees to offset any impacts resulting from the new residential development. These fees would be used to maintain existing parks within the City. With the payment of fees, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Other public facilities?
Less than significant impact. Other public facilities within the City include libraries. Libraries within the City include the Donald Dungan Library, and Mesa Verde Library, located approximately 3.53 miles southwest and 2.11 miles southwest of the project site. Population increase resulting from the proposed project would result in an increase in library usage of facilities within the City. The proposed project would be required to pay a library impact fee, as required by the City, to offset potential impacts to local libraries. With the payment of fees, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
65 City of Costa Mesa. Costa Mesa General Plan. Open Space and Recreation Element. 389
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.16 Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The City of Costa Mesa owns and operates approximately 415 acres of developed neighborhood and community parks. The City maintains a park dedication standard of 4.26 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents.66 Pursuant to State law (State Government Code Section 66477), the City may collect up to 3.0 acres of parkland or in lieu fees from new residential subdivisions for every 1,000 residents. Accordingly, the City adopted a Local Park Ordinance to implement its park and recreational land dedication requirements (Title 13, Chapter XI, Article 5–Park and Recreation Dedications). However, to reach the goal of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents, the City must pursue alternative funding sources for the additional park acreage and/or park improvements that exceed the State standard. Alternative funding sources include general fund revenues, development impact fees, federal and State grants, user group contributions, and school district joint-use contributions. 67 66 City of Costa Mesa. 2015. General Plan, Open Space and Recreation Element. Website:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/34706/636740022584770000. Accessed November 12, 2024.
67 Ibid.
390
The nearest park to the proposed project is Shiffer Park, located at 3143 Bear Street, which is 0.07 mile west of the project site. Shiffer Park is 6.72 acres and includes recreational amenities such as picnic tables, barbecues, playgrounds, and volleyball and basketball courts. 68 a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would develop up to 146 townhomes . The City has an estimated population of 109,423 as of January 1, 2024. As discussed previously in Section

2.14, Population and Housing, given the proposed project would develop up to 146 dwelling units, the proposed project would generate up to 368 new residents, which could increase the demand on existing neighborhood and regional parks.

The proposed project would provide 78,392 square feet in total open space area which is less than the 111,784 square feet of required open space. However, because 5 percent of the total units proposed would be Affordable Housing units, the proposed project is requesting a waiver related to the required amount of open space. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with the City’s Park Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires developers to pay park and recreation fees in conjunction with the establishment of new residential units.
69 Therefore, with the construction of proposed park
improvements and payment of the park impact fees, impacts would be less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would result in up to 146 new residential units and up to 368 new residents, which would place additional demand on the existing parks, including the nearest parks, Shiffer Park and Paularino Park. The proposed project would provide open space and amenity areas throughout the project site. However, the proposed project does not include the construction or expansion of public recreational facilities. As described above, the proposed project would be required to pay park and recreation fees in accordance with the City’s Park Impact Fee Ordinance. With the payment of park fees, the proposed project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with such facilities, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
68 City of Costa Mesa. 2024. Shiffer Park. Website: https://www.costamesaca.gov/government/departments-and- divisions/parks-and-community-services/map-of-city-parks-facilities/map-of-city-parks/shiffer-park. Accessed November 12, 2024.
69 City of Costa Mesa. 2024. Municipal Code. Website:
https://ecode360.com/42619108?highlight=development,fee,park,park%20fee&searchId=8724191438789860. Accessed November 12, 2024.
391
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.17 Transportation
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy of the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?

b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Environmental Evaluation
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the project-specific Trip Generation Assessment70 and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis71 prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. included in Appendix H.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less than significant impact. A Trip Generation Assessment was prepared to compare the trip generation of the existing site use with the proposed project. The existing site generates 530 daily two-way trips including 97 AM peak-hour trips and 87 PM peak-hour trips. The proposed project would generate 1,024 two-way trips including 64 AM peak-hour trips and 83 PM peak-hour trips. As shown on Table 13 below, the proposed project would result in a net increase of 494 two-way trips compared to the existing use.
70 The Trip Generation Assessment assumed construction of 146 units. 71 The Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis assumed the construction of 146 units. 392
Table 13: Trip Generation Comparison

AM Peak-hour PM Peak-hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Former Use: TBN Building 90 7 97 8 79 87 530
Proposed Use: Multi-
family/Affordable Housing
16 48 64 52 31 83 1,024
Net Change in Trips -74 41 -33 44 -48 -4 494
Note: Negative value represents a reduction in comparison to the former use.

City of Costa Mesa traffic guidelines require a Level of Service (LOS) based traffic study for development projects that generate 50 or more vehicle trip ends during a peak-hour.72 As shown on Table 13 above, the proposed project is anticipated to generate fewer than 50 net new peak-hour trips in either peak-hour, which falls below the City’s threshold. As such, no further analysis is required beyond what was analyzed in the project-specific Trip Generation Memorandum.

The proposed project would support City programs, plans, and ordinances related to pedestrian facilities through the provision of internal sidewalks and pedestrian pathways throughout the site, as well as through the provision of a pedestrian gate connecting to Olympic Avenue to allow neighbors to the east with a more direct walking path to Schiffer Park. In addition, a signalized intersection at the southwest corner of the site is proposed, along with a continental style crosswalk to provide improved pedestrian access to Schiffer Park. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the City of Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan, as well as policies related to pedestrian access found in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy of the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than significant impact. City Guidelines identifies the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) as the appropriate tool for conducting VMT forecasting and analysis for land use projects in the City of Costa Mesa, as it considers interaction between different land uses based on socioeconomic data, such as population, households, and employment. The current version of OCTAM was last released in March 2019 and represents the most current sub-regional transportation 72 The applicable thresholds under CEQA for evaluating potential impacts related to traffic and transportation, provide that traffic impacts are to be evaluated on the basis of the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) that are generated by traffic serving or accessing a project. The use of VMT as the metric for evaluating traffic impacts under CEQA replaces the earlier practice of evaluating traffic primarily on the basis of vehicle delay, as reflected in traffic Level of Service (LOS) standards. Under the requirements of CEQA, vehicle delay as measured by LOS cannot be considered a significant impact on the environment (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21099(b)(2); State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b)(2). 393
model for Orange County. Consistent with City Guidelines, VMT has been estimated using the Origin/Destination (OD) method and Boundary method. For both methods, VMT is presented as total VMT and VMT per Service Population. Total VMT is an estimate of total vehicle travel and considers all vehicle trips and trip purposes; whereas VMT per service population is an efficiency metric that represents VMT generated on a typical weekday per person who lives and/or works in the City of Costa Mesa or in the case of the proposed project, per person who resides within the project. Total VMT provides an estimate of the total vehicle travel, while VMT per service population measures the efficiency of travel. Consistent with City Guidelines, the efficiency metric VMT per service population has been adopted by the City of Costa Mesa for transportation impact analysis.

Origin/Destination (OD) VMT
The OD method for calculating VMT sums all weekday VMT generated by trips with at least one trip end in the study area (i.e., project boundary) and tracks those trips to their estimated origins/destinations. Origins are all vehicle trips that start in a specific Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) and destinations are all trips that end in a specific TAZ. Boundary VMT City Guidelines also acknowledge that the VMT analysis should also contain an evaluation of a project’s effect on VMT, which can be performed using the boundary method of calculating VMT. The boundary method is the sum of all weekday VMT on the roadway network within a designated boundary (i.e., City boundary). The boundary method estimates VMT by multiplying vehicle trips on each roadway segment within the boundary by that segment’s length. This approach consists of all trips, including those trips that do not begin or end in the designated boundary. Consistent with City Guidelines, the County of Orange was used as the boundary for this assessment.

VMT Metric and Significance Threshold
According to City Guidelines, the proposed project’s effect on VMT would be considered significant if it resulted in either of the following conditions to be satisfied:

1. The baseline link-level citywide VMT per service population increases under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition, or

2. The cumulative link-level citywide VMT per service population increases under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition.

City of Costa Mesa baseline VMT per service population value has been calculated using OCTAM.

Table 14 presents the resulting City of Costa Mesa VMT per service population threshold of 22.0.

Table 14: City of Costa Mesa Baseline VMT Per Service Population Service Population Baseline
Service Population 257,088
VMT 6,661,448
394
Service Population Baseline
VMT per Service Population 25.9
Threshold 85% of City VMT per SP 22.0
Source: Urban Crossroads, 2024.

Project-generated VMT was evaluated by converting the proposed project’s projected dwelling units into an OCTAM compatible data set. The OCTAM model utilizes socioeconomic data (SED) (e.g., population) for the purposes of vehicle trip estimation. Table 15 presents the SED inputs added to the proposed project’s TAZ to represent the project in OCTAM.

Table 15: City of Costa Mesa Baseline VMT Per Service Population Land Use Dwelling Units Conversion Factor1 Population
Service Population 146 2.18 persons per
household
318
1 Person per household was maintained using data contained in Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM).

Source: Urban Crossroads, 2024.

Project Generated VMT
Table 16 shows project-generated OD VMT and the resulting OD VMT per service population for baseline and cumulative conditions. As shown in Table 3, the proposed project would generate OD VMT per service population above the City’s threshold under baseline conditions.

Table 16: Project Generated VMT
Service Population Baseline Cumulative
Service Population 318 318
VMT 7,712 6,729
VMT per Service Population 24.3 21.2
Threshold 85% of City VMT per Service
Population

22.0 22.0
Yes No
Source: Urban Crossroads, 2024.

395
As shown in Table 16, the proposed project would exceed the threshold under the baseline condition.

Therefore, the proposed project would be required to provide measures to mitigate his impact to a level below the City’s threshold. A minimum reduction of 10.5 percent would be required.

VMT Mitigation Measures
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (Handbook) was utilized to determine trip reduction measures that may be applicable to the proposed project. The Handbook describes methods to quantify reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and in the case of Transportation measures, the associated reductions to VMT. This evaluation focuses on a review of the Handbook’s Transportation measures that are determined to be applicable to the proposed project.

To determine which transportation measures should be considered from the Handbook, land use type, scale, and locational context are each identified as key factors for determining an individual measure’s applicability to a project. The Handbook contains a factsheet for each measure that describes the measure, locational context, scale of application, implementation requirements, and other considerations that should be reviewed to determine a measure’s applicability.

Project Type
Project type is an important consideration when determining which measures are applicable for consideration. For example, measures associated with neighborhood design are not applicable to an office project, whereas trip reduction programs intended to reduce employee commute VMT would not be applicable to a residential project.

Scale
The Handbook identifies that measures can be applied at different scales or geographic levels, however, “some measures may only be applicable at the project-level, whereas others may be more appropriate within a broader planning context such as for a general plan or climate action plan.” The geographic levels considered in the Handbook include Project/Site and Plan/Community. Project/Site applies to measures that can reduce VMT at the scale of an individual development project or employer. Plan/Community refers to measures that reduce VMT at the scale of a specific plan, general plan, or climate action plan. Transportation measures can be quantified at either the Project/Site scale or the Plan/Community scale but never both.

Locational Context
The Handbook describes locational context as “used to identify trip reduction measures within the transportation sector that are appropriate in certain types of neighborhoods differentiated by transportation characteristics and level of development (e.g., rural, suburban, and urban).” More specifically, rural, suburban, and urban are defined as follows:
396
Rural: An area characterized by little development. Compared to urban and suburban areas, rural areas have a lower density of residences, higher numbers of single-family residences, and higher numbers of vehicle-dependent land use patterns. Where applicable, the Handbook provides three land use distinctions within the rural locational context category—Ra, Rb, and Rc. Ra refers to rural areas within a master planned community. These rural areas often include a broad offering of amenities and services, which may be accessed by walking or other alternative forms of transportation. Rb refers to rural areas adjacent to a commuter rail station with convenient rail service to a major employment center. As the name implies, these rural areas have greater access to commuter rail as an alternative mode of transportation. R c refers to rural areas with transit service
and that are near jobs/services.

Suburban: An area characterized by dispersed, low-density, single-use, automobile dependent land use patterns, usually outside of the central city. Also known as a suburb.

Urban: An area located within the central city with higher density land uses than in the suburbs. Often characterized by multi-family housing, tall office buildings, and dense retail.

The proposed project’s locational contest is determined to be suburban.

Project Design Features–VMT Reduction
T-1 Increase Residential Density
The VMT Analysis notes that an increase in density is considered to be a project design feature that generally results in VMT reductions. Increased density would reduce VMT associated with the proposed project because it would place residents in proximity to several public transportation options, services and amenities. This accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of dwelling units compared to the average residential density in the U.S. Increased densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. Increasing residential density results in shorter and fewer trips by single- occupancy vehicles and thus a reduction in VMT. Table 17 below shows the calculation variables and formula used to calculate VMT reduction.

Table 17: Calculation Variables and Formula
ID Variable Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions
from project VMT in study area
0-30.0 percent Calculated
User Inputs
B Residential density of project
development
— Du/acre User input
397
ID Variable Unit Source
Output
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Residential density of typical
development

9.1 Du/acre Ewing et al. 2007
D Elasticity of VMT with respect to
residential density
-0.22 unitless Ewing et al. 2007
Source: Urban Crossroads, 2024.

The following formula is used:

Project TAZ 1246 in the horizon year model is approximately 212 acres and contains assumed households totaling 1,757 dwelling units, which does not include the proposed project. As calculated, Project TAZ 1246 results in a density of 8.3 du/acre. In order to provide a conservative estimate of VMT reduction, the higher national typical residential unit density documented in the Handbook of 9.1 du/acre was used,
The proposed project, as contemplated, would develop 142 dwelling units on approximately 6.2 acres, resulting in 23.5 du/acre.

As calculated above, the proposed project as designed is expected to reduce its VMT per service population by 33.4 percent. However, the Handbook has placed a reduction cap of 30 percent to limit the influence of any single built environmental factor (such as density). Projects that implement multiple land use strategies (e.g., density, design, diversity of uses) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single built environment factor. The proposed project as designed is expected to reduce its VMT impact by 30 percent, which exceeds the required 10.5 percent VMT reduction to be below the City’s impact threshold.

Cumulative VMT Impacts
The proposed project’s effect on VMT was calculated using the boundary method. Land use information representing the proposed land use changes contemplated by the proposed project were coded into the project TAZ to represent the “With Project” condition. Table 18 summarizes the 398
boundary VMT under the No Project and With Project scenarios for both baseline and cumulative conditions.

Table 18: Boundary VMT
Scenario
Baseline Cumulative
No Project With Project No Project With Project
Service Population 219,336 219,411 236,264 236,339
Boundary VMT 3,326,733 3,326,428 3,412,324 3,412,096
VMT per Service Population 15.2 15.2 14.4 14.4
Change in VMT per Service Population 0.0 0.0

The boundary VMT was found to increase under the With Project scenario for both the baseline and cumulative conditions, as expected when increases in development are added to the model.

However, to measure the efficiency of a land use project or land use plan, the boundary VMT was divided by the service population to frame an efficiency metric. The resulting VMT per service population was found to remain the same in the With Project scenario under both conditions.

Although the proposed project was not screened out from the City’s screening criteria because it was initially found to generate VMT per service population exceeding the City’s threshold, with the implementation of project design features through the inclusion of an increased residential density, the proposed project’s VMT per service population would be reduced below the City’s impact threshold. As such, impacts related to VMT would be less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would develop 142 for-sale 2- and 4-story townhomes on an existing developed site. The proposed project would connect to existing Olympic Avenue and provide improved connectivity to Bear Street. The proposed project does not include sharp curves or dangerous intersections. As such, impacts would be less than significant. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than significant impact. Signalized access to the project site would be provided via an existing driveway on Bear Street. An internal private roadway system would provide two-way access to each units’ parking garage as well as guest parking spaces distributed throughout the site. A secondary emergency vehicle access exists at the east edge of the property near the terminus of Olympic Avenue. This gated access will remain to provide access for emergency vehicles. The access will be redesigned with a new Knox box gate and a pedestrian gate on a timer to accommodate pedestrian access into the project site during park hours, allowing existing neighbors to the east to utilize a more 399
direct walking path to Shiffer Park. As such, the proposed project would provide adequate emergency access to the site. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
400
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?

e) Comply with federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
According to the Mesa Water District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City relies on Mesa Water meets all water demands through a combination of local groundwater, recycled water and, if needed, imported water. Mesa Water works together with two primary agencies, Municipal 401
Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and OCWD, to ensure a safe and reliable water supply that will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage. The sources of imported water supplies include water from the Colorado River and the California State Water Project (SWP) provided by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) and delivered through MWDOC.

As discussed in Section 1.4, Project Description, water services for the proposed project would be provided by Mesa Water District. The proposed project would connect to an existing 6-inch domestic water line within Olympic Avenue and an existing 12-inch water line within Bear Street. The proposed project would connect to an existing storm rain to the northwest of the project site and an existing 8- inch sanitary sewer lines within Olympic Avenue. An existing hydrant is located adjacent to the project site on Olympic Avenue as well as diagonally across Bear Street near the entrance of Shiffer Park.

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would be served by six new transformers.

Electrical service is currently available in the project area and would be provided by SCE. Natural gas would be provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) and communication systems would be provided by AT&T and Comcast Cable. The project site is currently developed, and the proposed project would connect to existing electrical, natural gas, and communication systems . The proposed project would connect to existing water lines and would be served by the Mesa Water District. Additionally, the proposed project would connect to existing sanitary sewer lines and would be served by the CMSD.

All existing storm drains within the project site would be removed and replaced. Additionally, the proposed project would connect to existing storm drains within Bear Steet. Stormwater from the proposed development would be intercepted by downspouts and new area drains that convey stormwater into two separate proprietary biofiltration BMPs to meet water quality objectives as required by the MS4 Permit. Stormwater flows would then enter the public storm drain.

Overall surface drainage would maintain the existing flow from south to north. The existing condition topography previously discussed has an overall grade tilting from southeast to northwest. However, the proposed condition will be graded from southwest to northeast. The subsurface storm drain network would retain the overall existing drainage pattern, maintaining the off-site discharge to storm drain facilities at the northwest corner of the site.

As the proposed storm drain system would be designed consistent with the WQMP, the addition of the new storm drain would not cause significant environmental effects. Further, the new transformers would connect to the existing underground vault and would not cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant.
402
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would connect to existing water lines and system. The 2020 UWMP includes a supply and demand assessment for projected years between 2025 and 2045 for normal year, single dry year, and multiple years. For each scenario the UWMP indicates that the City would be able to meet the projected water demand based on the available supply. The demands are expected to be met through a combination of local groundwater, recycled water and, if needed, imported water. Mesa Water works together with two primary agencies, MWDOC and OCWD, to ensure a safe and reliable water supply that will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage.
73 The UWMP accounts for projected water demand
based on water consumption by single- and multi-family residences, commercial, and institutional/government customers. The UWMP also accounts for projected land use, population, economic growth, and future conservation.74
As noted in the UWMP, the City would have sufficient water supply for normal year, single dry year, and multiple years. According to the California Department of Finance the City has an average of 2.52 persons per household.75 The proposed project would include the construction of up to 146 for-sale townhomes, which would increase the City’s population by up to 368 persons based on the average household size.
76 Based on Mesa Water District’s 2020 target consumption of 143 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), estimated water generation for a multi-family development is estimated to be 360.4 gallons per day (GPD) per unit. For the 146 units under the proposed project, this would result in 52,618.4 gallons or 0.16 acre-feet of water. As noted in the UWMP, the projected water use in 2025 is 16,354 acre-feet. Therefore, the small projected water use of the proposed project can be reasonably considered a part of the existing demand projections in the UWMP. As such, the proposed project would not significantly impact water supplies. Impacts would be less than significant . c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would connect to existing sanitary sewer lines. The CMSD is responsible for maintenance of the City’s sewer and storm drain lines. CMSD maintains 224 miles of gravity sewer mains ranging from 8-inches to 30-inches in diameter. There are approximately 5,650 sewer manholes within the system, which are used as access points for cleaning and inspection purposes. As of 2019, CMSD's wastewater system contains a total of 47,471 connections to single-family residences, multi-family residences, commercial 73 Mesa Water District. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June. 74 Ibid.
75 Ibid.
76 2.52 persons per residential unit * 146 residential units = 367.92 persons 403
properties, and industrial properties. 77 CMSD's wastewater collection system collects and transports wastewater from homes and businesses to the Orange County Sanitation District ( OC San), where it is treated and recycled.78
A Municipal Service Review was prepared for OC San in 2020.79 The purpose of the review was—in part—to review and study future growth in the service area and to determine whether OC San can efficiently, equitably, and reliably provide services. At the time of the review OC San was providing service to approximately 2.6 million people, and it was projected that by 2040 the OC San service area would include 2.8 million residents and 940,653 housing units. The review determined that OC San existing and planned operations and infrastructure are able to meet current and future service demands.80 Utilizing OC San’s average wastewater generation rate of 75 GPCD, the proposed project would result in approximately 189 gallons per unit per day or up to 27,594 total gallons of wastewater per day. Based on the Municipal Service Review conclusions, OC San would have adequate capacity to serve the wastewater demands of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than significant impact. The CMSD is an independent special district formed in 1944 under the Sanitary District Act of 1923. CMSD is responsible for residential solid waste collection and its transmittal to recycling facilities for sorting, recycling, and disposal for the City of Costa Mesa and small portions of Newport Beach and unincorporated Orange County, serving a population of approximately 118,000.81 Solid waste is disposed of in Orange County landfills. Currently, there are three active landfills that are owned and operated by the County, including Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine, Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea, and Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano.

To ensure that the maximum permitted daily tonnage at a particular landfill is not exceeded, refuse trucks may have to transport material among one another. The majority of this waste is taken to the Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is the closest facility to the project site and would likely be the solid waste facility most often receiving waste from the project site. 82 According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), the Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill has a maximum daily throughput of 77 Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD). 2024. Sewer System Information. Website: https:// www.cmsdca.gov/sewer/sewer_system_information/index.php. Accessed November 12, 2024. 78 Ibid.
79 Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (Orange County LAFCo). 2020. Municipal Service Review for the Orange County Sanitation District. Final Report. September 9, 2020. 80 Ibid.
81 Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD). 2024. About Us. Website: https:// www.cmsdca.gov/who_we_are/about_us.php.

Accessed November 12, 2024.
82 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2024. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Olinda Alpha Landfill. Website: https:// www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2757?siteID=2093.

Accessed November 12, 2024.
404
8,000 tons per day and a remaining capacity of 17,500,000 cubic yards as of October 2020.83 Prima Deshecha Landfill has a maximum daily throughput of 4,000 tons per day and a remaining capacity of 128,800,000 cubic yards as of September 2023.84 Frank R. Bowerman Landfill has a maximum daily throughput of 11,500 tons per day and a remaining capacity of 205,000,000 cubic yards as of February 2008.85
CalRecycle provides a solid waste generation factor to estimate the amount of solid waste generated by residential projects.86 Using the generation rate of 12.23 pounds (lbs) per household per day for residential development, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,785.58 pounds per day of solid waste, or approximately 0.89 tons per day (based on 146 residential units)—which is well within the maximum daily capacity and remaining capacity of the three landfills. Therefore, Orange County landfills would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project and solid waste generated during construction and operations would represent a negligible increase compared to the daily permitted tonnage. Additionally, the proposed project would also include recycling programs to reduce solid waste and comply with all applicable regulations for solid waste. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than significant impact. The City complies with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Regulations specifically applicable to the proposed project include the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), SB 2202, SB 1016, 2019 CALGreen Section 4.408, and AB 341, which requires multiple-family residential development and commercial uses to implement recycling programs.

In 1989, the Legislature adopted the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), in order to “reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible.” AB 939 established a waste management hierarchy and required that each county prepare a new Integrated Waste Management Plan and each City prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) by July 1, 1991. The SRRE is required to identify how each jurisdiction would meet the mandatory State waste diversion goal of 50 percent by and after the year 2000. 83 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2024. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Olinda Alpha Landfill. Website: https:// www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2757?siteID=2093.

Accessed November 12, 2024.
84 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2024. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Prima Deshecha Landfill. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2750?siteID=2085.

Costa Mesa City CouncilAugust 5, 2025

Costa Mesa City Council
August 5, 2025