Agenda packet — Costa Mesa City Council, October 21, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF COSTA MESA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended
City Council Chambers
77 Fair Drive
6:00 PMTuesday, October 21, 2025
*Note: All agency memberships are reflected in the title "Council Member" 4:00 P.M. Closed Session
Announcements:

The scheduled Public Hearing for 2301 Newport Blvd (Culture Cannabis Club) has been cancelled as the appeal has been withdrawn by the applicant.

Closed Session items have been added to the agenda.

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 12 ends

1 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 21, 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 exceed 11 inches by 18 inches in size and 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/85836874544?pwd=bgiCjbR6SJL20SiG9Abg2PBTwwvvbK.1 Or sign into Zoom.com and “Join a Meeting”
Enter Webinar ID: 858 3687 4544/ Password: 819081
• 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 12 ends

2 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 21, 2025
Participate via telephone: (For both 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. meetings) Call: 1 669 900 6833 Enter Webinar ID: 858 3687 4544/ Password: 819081 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 not be redacted in any way and will be posted online as submitted, including any personal contact information. All 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 12 ends

3 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 21, 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 12 ends

4 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 21, 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. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION - ONE CASE
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2), Potential Litigation.

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, USDC, Central District of CA, Case No. 8:19 cv 01710 DOC (KESx)

3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:20 cv 00504 JVS JDE

4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: Schaefer v. City of Costa Mesa
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022-01286737-CU-PO-CJC

5. 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-CU-OR-CJC

6. 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

Page 5 of 12 ends

5 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 21, 2025

7. 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

8. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6(a) Agency Designated Representative: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Interim City Manager Name of Employee Organization: Costa Mesa City Executive Unit

9. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6 (a) Agency Designated Representative: Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney.

Unrepresented Employee: City Manager

10. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.8
APN: 424-211-01; Property: 695 W. 19th Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Agency Negotiators: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Interim City Manager Negotiating Parties: Jamboree Housing
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

Page 6 of 12 ends

6 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 21, 2025

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY OCTOBER 21, 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 12 ends

7 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 21, 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 Marr

2. Council Member Reynolds

3. Council Member Pettis

4. Council Member Buley

5. Council Member Gameros

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
25-545
RECOMMENDATION:

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

2. ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION 25-529
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve Warrant Resolution No. 2742.

1. Summary Check Registration 9-26-2025Attachments:

Page 8 of 12 ends

8 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 21, 2025

3. MINUTES 25-547
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 16, 2025.

1. 09-16-2025 Draft MinutesAttachments:

4. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR UPGRADING THE
CITY’S PHONE SYSTEM
25-528
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Authorize the use of OMNIA Partners, Public Sector National Cooperative Agreement No. 01-125 with Merrill & Associates for the City ’s analog phone system upgrade.

2. Approve and authorize the Statement of Work (Attachment 1) to Merrill & Associates, an Avaya value-added reseller (VAR) (Attachment 4), for the upgrade of the City ’s analog phone system from v 6.0.1 to v 10.2 for an amount not to exceed (NTE) $275,754.

3. Approve and authorize a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $27,575 for unforeseen costs related to the project.

4. Approve and authorize an annual subscription and support services in an amount of $70,069 for a term of one year (Attachment 2). Subscription services will begin after the completion of installation and will be subject to price increase based on an increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim area, which would be determined using the November index for the current year and the November index for the preceding year.

5. Authorize the Interim City Manager, or designee, and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement (Attachment 3) for a total amount of $373,398 for implementation and one-year subscription, maintenance, and support.

1. Merrill Avaya SOW

2. Merrill Avaya Annual Subscription Quote

3. Merrill PSA

4. Merrill VAR Letter
Attachments:

Page 9 of 12 ends

9 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 21, 2025

5. ACCEPTANCE AND ALLOCATION OF THE 2025-26 OFFICE OF

TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT FOR THE SELECTIVE TRAFFIC

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
25-535
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve the proposed Resolution No. 2025-XX, which ratifies the application for a grant award from the State of California - Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) for the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) 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 $280,000, for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 OTS STEP Grant for a grant period from October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2026.

1. Grant Agreement

2. Resolution No. 2025-XX OTS STEP Grant
Attachments:

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

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

Page 10 of 12 ends

10 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 21, 2025
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Pursuant to Resolution No. 05-55, Public Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m.)

1. FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT

PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN - REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
25-442
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2025-XX to confirm Planning Commission recommendation for a Draft Preferred Land Use Plan for the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Specific Plan and scope of environmental study, without committing the City to a specific course of action on the Specific Plan.

2. Provide direction to staff regarding a feasibility analysis of potential land uses for Harbor Frontage
Agenda Report

1. Draft Resolution

2. Planning Commission Resolution

3. Planning Commission Report 08-25-25
Attachments:

OLD BUSINESS: NONE.

Page 11 of 12 ends

11 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 21, 2025
NEW BUSINESS:

1. AWARD OF THE KETCHUM-LIBOLT PARK EXPANSION AND
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 25-07, AND FINDING

OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
25-533
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Make a finding of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301.

2. Adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the Ketchum-Libolt Park Expansion and Improvement Project, City Project No. 25-07.

3. Award a Public Works Agreement (PWA) for construction to Elegant Construction, Inc ., 15375 Barranca Parkway, Suite J-103, Irvine, California 92618, in the amount of $2,527,737 (base bid only) and authorize a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $252,774 for unforeseen costs related to this project.

4. Authorize the Interim City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the PWA with Elegant Construction, Inc ., and future amendments to the agreement within Council authorized limits.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The action involves an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, the proposed action is exempt under section 15301 relating to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, and /or minor alteration of existing public facilities.

1. Bid Results

2. PWA
Attachments:

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL /BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND

SUGGESTIONS

ADJOURNMENT

Page 12 of 12 ends

12 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-545 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025
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

13 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-529 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025
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. 2742.

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. 25-20 On Cycle for $4,095,688.39, and City operating expenses for $1,361,341.34.

Page 1 of 1 ends

14 15
16 17
18 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

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-547 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025
TITLE:

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

City Council approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 16, 2025.

Page 1 of 1 ends

60 Minutes – Regular Meeting September 16, 2025 Page 1 of 11

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 - MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER – The Closed Session meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 4:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr (Via Zoom Webinar), Council Member Pettis, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: Council Member Reynolds.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – NONE.

CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) National Opioid Settlement: Purdue Pharma L.P.

USDC, Northern District of Ohio, MDL No. 2804
Rubris Reference Number: CL-1732251

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) National Opioids Settlements: Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, Zydus
USDC, Northern District of Ohio, MDL No. 2804
Rubris Reference Number: CL-1763034

3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: Schaefer v. City of Costa Mesa
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022-01286737-CU-PO-CJC

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-CU-OR-CJC 61 Minutes – Regular Meeting September 16, 2025 Page 2 of 11

5. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957(b)(1) Title: City Manager
City Council recessed at 4:02 p.m. for Closed Session.

Closed Session adjourned at 5:27 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER - The Regular City Council and Housing Authority meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 6:01 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 The Rev. Dr. George Okusi, St. John the Divine Episcopal Church.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr (Via Zoom Webinar, excused at 8:00 p.m.), Council Member Pettis, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: Council Member Reynolds.

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Ms. Hall Barlow reported that on Closed Session items 1 and 2 regarding the National Opioid Settlement: Purdue Pharma L.P. and National Opioids Settlements: Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, Zydus. The City Council took the following action:

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Buley/Mayor Pro Tem Chavez MOTION: To participate in the settlements of the cases, to ensure the citizens of Costa Mesa are reimbursed.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

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

Nays: None.

Absent: Council Member Reynolds.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 6-0
City Council provided direction on Closed Session items 3 and 4 regarding Schaefer v. City of Costa Mesa and City of Costa Mesa; People of State of Cal. v. D'Alessio Investments LLC, et al.

City Council gave direction to the City Attorney on Item 5 regarding the appointment of a City Manager, to negotiate and draft an agreement with Ms. Gallardo-Daly for the City Manager position.
62 Minutes – Regular Meeting September 16, 2025 Page 3 of 11 PRESENTATIONS:

The City Council recognized Anna Dolewski for receiving the Government Finance Officers Association’s 2025 Recognition for Outstanding Public Service and for her 36 years of service to Costa Mesa.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Wendy Simao, Costa Mesa, spoke on The 12 Gym holding a special event and using loudspeakers.

Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, requested a status update on the Fairview Park Master Plan and requested the Fairview Developmental Center hold a resident stakeholders meeting.

David Martinez, Costa Mesa, expressed support for the installation of metal detectors outside the Council Chambers. Commented on Consent Calendar Item No. 6 regarding the legislative platform, specifically advocating for the inclusion of complete streets and air quality measures.

Requested that the legislative platform be reviewed and updated annually, inquired about any potential conflicts with the League of Cities’ positions, and asked whether there is a defined order of prioritization within the platform.

Kim Hendricks, spoke on birds, western burrowing owls, sensitive habitats at Fairview Park, recommended the temporary airfield to be closed at Fairview Park, and spoke on preserving Fairview Park.

Speaker, Marine Veteran, spoke on providing resources for Veterans in the community, and spoke on creating a Veteran’s coalition.

Speaker, spoke on the Measure K workshops and the price of housing.

Flo Martin, Costa Mesa, spoke on the traffic collisions in August, and injuries to pedestrians and cyclists.

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS Council Member Buley spoke on having robust debates and civil discourse, spoke on public comments, and thanked the Police Department for the security measures at the City Council meetings.

Council Member Gameros spoke on being grateful for freedoms and First Amendment rights and thanked the Police Department for the security measures at the City Council meetings.

Council Member Marr spoke on the Art Venture event, spoke on Measure K sites and appreciates the pop-up workshops.

Council Member Pettis requested to adjourn the meeting in honor of Charlie Kirk, agreed with holding community townhalls regarding housing, and spoke on the Art Venture event. 63 Minutes – Regular Meeting September 16, 2025 Page 4 of 11 Mayor Pro Tem Chavez spoke on the Art Venture event, spoke on attending the Families Forward event, spoke on the students attending the City Council meetings and having their voice heard.

Mayor Stephens spoke on the Art Venture event, spoke on attending the Mayors Prayer Breakfast, spoke on Cla-Val business contributing to Families Forward, spoke on a Townhall on homeless issues on Wednesday, October 15 th at the Norma Hertzog Community Center, spoke on the new security features at the City Council meetings and thanked the Segerstrom Performing Arts Center for providing the metal detectors, and agreed on adjourning the meeting in memory of Charlie Kirk.

REPORT – CITY MANAGER – Ms. Gallardo-Daly reported that September is National Preparedness Month and Emergency Preparedness.

REPORT – CITY ATTORNEY – Ms. Hall Barlow, wished all a Happy Hispanic Heritage Month.

CONSENT CALENDAR
MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez/Mayor Stephens
MOTION: Approve the Consent Calendar except for Consent Calendar Item No. 6.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

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

Nays: None.

Absent: Council Member Reynolds.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 6-0

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: Blanco Amaro, Craig Marshall, Michael Porteous.

3. ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION
ACTION:

City Council approved Warrant Resolution No. 2740.
64 Minutes – Regular Meeting September 16, 2025 Page 5 of 11

4. MINUTES
ACTION:

City Council approved the minutes of the regular meeting of August 5, 2025.

5. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE FOR THE 2025 LEAGUE

OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE
ACTION:

City Council designated Council Member Mike Buley as Costa Mesa’s voting delegate and Deputy City Manager Alma Reyes as the alternate for the 2025 League of California Cities Annual Conference.

7. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE

CITY OF COSTA MESA FOR BRIDGE MAINTENANCE REPAIRS ON THE ADAMS

AVENUE BRIDGE OVER THE SANTA ANA RIVER AND GREENVILLE BANNING

CHANNEL
ACTION:

1. City Council approved the Cooperative Agreement between the County of Orange and the City of Costa Mesa for funding and maintenance of the Adams Avenue Bridge over the Santa Ana River and Greenville Banning Channel.

2. Authorized the Interim City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the Cooperative Agreement and future amendments thereto.

8. APPROVAL OF A SUMMARY VACATION OF EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 174 EAST 19TH STREET
ACTION:

City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-37 ordering the summary vacation of a portion of right-of-way at 174 East 19th Street and authorize the execution of the Quitclaim Deed by the Mayor and the City Clerk.

9. AWARD OF THE NORMA HERTZOG COMMUNITY CENTER ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 25-05
ACTION:

1. City Council awarded a Public Works Agreement (PWA) in the amount of $745,276 to C.I. Services, Inc. 1145 E. Stanford Court, Anaheim, CA, 92805 to remove and replace metal roofing panels.

2. Authorized a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $74,528 for unforeseen costs related to the project.

3. Authorized the Interim City Manager and City Clerk to execute the PWA and any future amendments to the agreement.
65 Minutes – Regular Meeting September 16, 2025 Page 6 of 11

4. Authorized a budget transfer of $191,206 in City Capital Improvement Program funds from the Lions Park Café Project (#800032) to the Norma Hertzog Community Center Roof Replacement Project (#210025).

ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

6. ADOPT LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AND UPDATES TO COUNCIL POLICY 000-8 Public Comments:

Speaker, spoke on funding for immigration defense and climate change.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Marr/Mayor Stephens
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

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

Nays: Council Member Buley and Council Member Pettis.

Absent: Council Member Reynolds.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 4-2
ACTION:

City Council adopted Legislative Platform and revisions to Council Policy 000-8 on Legislative Positions.
----------------------------------------END OF CONSENT CALENDAR----------------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Pursuant to Resolution No. 05-55, Public Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m.)

1. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 13 (PLANNING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT) OF

THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANNING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT)

TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL UPDATES AND CLARIFICATIONS (CODE AMENDMENT PCTY-25-0001) AND A RESOLUTION TO UPDATE THE PROCEDURE FOR

DETERMINING SHARED PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND FINDING OF

EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Presentation by Ms. Curley, Assistant Planner, Mr. Garcia, Assistant Planner, and Mr.

Inloes, Economic Development Administrator.

Public Comments:

Speaker, spoke on public comments, patios and open space, spoke on projects being under parked, and tandem parking.
66 Minutes – Regular Meeting September 16, 2025 Page 7 of 11 MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez/Council Member Marr
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, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: Council Member Reynolds.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 6-0
ACTION:

1. City Council found that the project is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15061(b)(3) (“Common Sense Exemption”); and

2. Introduced for first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 2025-07 approving Code Amendment PCTY-25-0001, amending Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Planning, Zoning, and Development) to modify the City’s Zoning Code to provide technical updates and clarifications.

3. Adopted Resolution No. 2025-39 amending the City of Costa Mesa Procedure for Determining Shared Parking Requirements table to reflect current parking trends.

OLD BUSINESS:

1. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER XVI (PROHIBITION ON SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF NITROUS OXIDE) TO TITLE 11 (OFFENSES—

MISCELLANEOUS) OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH

REGULATIONS PROHIBITING THE UNLAWFUL SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF

NITROUS OXIDE IN THE CITY
Presentation by Police Captain Chamness.

Public Comments: None.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez/Council Member Gameros 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, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: Council Member Reynolds.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 6-0
ACTION:

City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-06, adding Chapter XVI (Prohibition on Sale or Distribution of Nitrous Oxide) to Title 11 (Offenses-Miscellaneous) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to establish regulations prohibiting the unlawful sale or distribution of nitrous oxide in the City.
67 Minutes – Regular Meeting September 16, 2025 Page 8 of 11 NEW BUSINESS:

1. RESOLUTION FOR EXCEPTION TO THE 180-DAY WAIT PERIOD PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 7522.56 AND 21224, FOR THE REHIRE OF

BATTALION CHIEF WILLIAM KERSHAW
Presentation by Ms. Lee, Human Resources Manager.

Public Comments: None.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Gameros/Council Member Pettis 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, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: Council Member Reynolds.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 6-0
ACTION:

City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-38 exception to the 180-Day Wait Period pursuant to Government Code Sections 7522.56 and 21224 to retain the services of retired Battalion Chief William Kershaw.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE

CITY OF COSTA MESA (CITY) AND THE COSTA MESA POLICE ASSOCIATION (CMPA), THE COSTA MESA POLICE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (CMPMA),

THE COSTA MESA FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION (CMFA) AND THE COSTA

MESA FIRE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
Presentation by Ms. Lee, Human Resources Manager.

Public Comments: None.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Gameros/Mayor Stephens
MOTION: Approve the Consent Calendar.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

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

Nays: None.

Absent: Council Member Marr and Council Member Reynolds.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 5-0
ACTION:

1. City Council approved and adopted the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Costa Mesa and CMPA.
68 Minutes – Regular Meeting September 16, 2025 Page 9 of 11

2. Approved and adopted the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Costa Mesa and CMPMA.

3. Approved and adopted the revised Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Costa Mesa and CMFA.

4. Approved and adopted the revised Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Costa Mesa and CMFMA.

5. Authorized the Interim City Manager and members of the City’s Negotiation Team to execute the MOUs.

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
Presentation by Mr. Gruner, Parks and Community Services Director, and Mr. Dalton, Fairview Park Administrator.

Public Comments:

Shannon Wingfield, Tribal Council of the Juaneño Band of the Mission Indians Acjahemen Nation, spoke in support of the restoration project.

Aylea Willow spoke in support of the restoration project.

Sergio Gonzalez, Coastal Corridor Alliance, spoke in support of the restoration project.

Speaker, spoke in support of the restoration project.

Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the restoration project.

Melanie Schlotterbeck, spoke in support of the restoration project.

Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the restoration project.

Deborah Koken, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the restoration project.

Terry Koken spoke in support of the restoration project, spoke on the park needing care, delineating the vernal pools, and park rangers.

Speaker, spoke on the environment at Fairview Park.

Rick Huffman, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the restoration project. 69 Minutes – Regular Meeting September 16, 2025 Page 10 of 11 Priscilla Rocco, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the restoration project.

Hank Castignetti, Orange County Model Engineers, spoke in support of the restoration project.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/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 Pettis, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: Council Member Marr and Council Member Reynolds.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 5-0
ACTION:

1. City Council approved the Addendum to the 1997 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Fairview Park to address new information regarding biological resources pertinent to the project.

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

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

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

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL/BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND

SUGGESTIONS
Mayor Stephens spoke on appointing Ms. Gallardo-Daly as the new City Manager.

ADJOURNMENT – Mayor Stephens adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. in honor and memory of Charlie Kirk, Robert Redford, and Melissa and Mark Portman. 70 Minutes – Regular Meeting September 16, 2025 Page 11 of 11 Minutes adopted on this 21st day of October, 2025.
___________________________
John Stephens, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
71 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-528 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025
TITLE:

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR UPGRADING THE CITY’S PHONE SYSTEM DEPARTMENT: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
PRESENTED BY: STEVE ELY, DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: STEVE ELY, DIRECTOR (714) 754-4891 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Authorize the use of OMNIA Partners, Public Sector National Cooperative Agreement No. 01- 125 with Merrill & Associates for the City’s analog phone system upgrade.

2. Approve and authorize the Statement of Work (Attachment 1) to Merrill & Associates, an Avaya value-added reseller (VAR) (Attachment 4), for the upgrade of the City’sanalog phone system from v6.0.1 to v10.2 for an amount not to exceed (NTE) $275,754.

3. Approve and authorize a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $27,575 for unforeseen costs related to the project.

BACKGROUND:

A core objective of the City Council’sStrategic Plan is to achieve long-term fiscal sustainability while preserving and improving the condition of City-owned facilities, equipment, and technology systems.

To meet this goal, the City adopted an Information Technology Strategic Plan (ITSP) in 2020 to modernize operations and improve service delivery. The ITSP includes initiatives that address immediate business needs and the replacement of aging software and infrastructure. Modernizing the City’sexisting phone infrastructure is essential to maintain operations and is a key step to ensure

Page 1 of 4 ends

72 File #: 25-528 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025
responsive and reliable public service.

The City’scurrent Avaya phone system was last updated in August 2012. During Fiscal Year 2022- 23, Merrill & Associates informed the IT Department that v6.0.1 of the Avaya telephone system was at the end of its life and marked by Avaya for retirement from support on December 31, 2024. IT managed to secure a one-year extension, ending on December 31, 2025.

Since 2012, the Police Department had budgeted for annual subscriptions and hardware support for the phone system. In Fiscal Year 2023-24, responsibility for these costs was transferred to the IT Department.

Through the 2020 ITSP, $450,000 was allocated to upgrade the City’sanalog phone system to a modern Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) solution. To align with the current fiscal year’sbudget, the scope of the project has been adjusted. While the equipment portion has been deferred to a future phase, the existing infrastructure is sufficient to support the planned upgrade of the phone system software from version 6.0.1 to version 10.2, which enables VoIP functionality. The full VoIP system implementation will proceed once the CAT6 cabling infrastructure is completed.

ANALYSIS:

Procurement Approach
In June 2025, Avaya’sVAR, Merrill & Associates, informed the IT Department that extended support for the current phone system would expire on December 31, 2025. IT requested a quote from Merrill & Associates for the phone system upgrade, and an initial Statement of Work was received on August 10, 2025. The City will procure the services for the upgrade of the City’sanalog phone system to a VoIP solution through the OMNIA Partners Cooperative Agreement #01-125, which expires on July 31, 2026. This agreement confirms Merrill Avaya’s status as a qualified vendor offering competitive market pricing and supports their continued engagement. The use of 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 purchases.

Scope of Work: Upgrade current Avaya version 6 (Analog/Digital) to Avaya version 10 (VoIP) software
· Create back-ups of data and configurations
· Plan project management activities and change management coordination · Deploy nine (9) Avaya servers on VMWare environment at the City of Costa Mesa · Deploy and configure VoIP capable phone switches at all sites · Register and configure all servers, switches, and telephones for use on the new system · Provide on-site team for after-hours cutover to new system · Provide end-user documents (quick reference guides on voicemail) · Provide first day support (Technician on-site and remote Engineering) · Provide, after go live, project management, coordination, and installation support · Decommission and recycle all obsolete Avaya servers, cabinets, and switches

Page 2 of 4 ends

73 File #: 25-528 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025
· Provide staff training for use of the new software
Cost Overview
The cost of the proposal was created using the OMNIA Partners Cooperative Agreement, which includes the material list, project implementation services, annual subscription, support, and maintenance. The implementation cost is $103,635 and is performed by an Avaya authorized and certified reseller and installer. The total hardware and software cost for Year 1 is $159,740.

The recurring annual subscription, maintenance, and support, which includes periodic software patches and upgrades, is $70,069 for the first twelve (12) months after the upgrade. The subscription term is January 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026. The first year of the annual subscription will be covered by funds available in the Information Technology Replacement Fund (Fund 603). Funding for recurring subscription costs in the subsequent years will be requested during the annual budget development process.

Implementation Approach
The phone system upgrade project is scheduled to commence promptly following approval by the City Council. To mitigate risks, the project must be completed no later than December 31, 2025.

Merrill & Associates plans on implementing the upgrade solution in four (4) weeks. They plan to muster personnel and other resources as soon as authorization is granted. Merrill & Associates is prepared for the urgency of this upgrade and have internal resources necessary to execute. They plan on having two (2) technicians on premise to install equipment. In addition, there will be one (1) engineer and one (1) project manager who will develop a project plan with Telecommunications Bureau and IT Department teams.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council retains the discretion to decline approval of the proposed scope of work. However, such a decision may result in the City lacking a supported phone system as of January 1, 2026.

Alternatively, Council may direct the IT Department to initiate a Request for Proposal (RFP) process; however, this approach will not allow sufficient time to complete the necessary upgrades prior to December 31, 2025.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Funding for this agreement, inclusive of the contingency, in an amount of $373,398 is available in the Information Technology Replacement Fund (Fund 603). The funding for this project will be redirected from the $450,000 for the VoIP project, as outlined in the 2020 ITSP. The scope of work for these upgraded services encompasses hardware, software, installation, software maintenance, and software licensing. The allocated funding is sufficient to cover the full costs associated with this Avaya upgrade project.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’sOffice has reviewed this report and Statement of Work for Merrill & Associates and approves them as to form.

Page 3 of 4 ends

74 File #: 25-528 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the City Council’s Goals:
· Maintain and Enhance the City’s Facilities, Equipment, and Technology. · Achieve Long-term Fiscal Sustainability
CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Authorize the use of OMNIA Partners, Public Sector National Cooperative Agreement No. #01- 125 with Merrill & Associates for the City’s analog phone system upgrade.

2. Approve and authorize the Statement of Work (Attachment 1) to Merrill & Associates, and Avaya value-added reseller (VAR) (Attachment 4), for the upgrade of the City’sanalog phone system from v6.0.1 to v10.2 for an amount not to exceed (NTE) $275,754.

3. Approve and authorize a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $27,575 for unforeseen costs related to the project.

Page 4 of 4 ends

75 STATEMENT OF WORK
UUPPGGRRAADDEE SSOOFFTTWWAARREE FFRROOMM CCMM66 TTOO AAVVAAYYAA AAUURRAA CCMM 1100 WWIITTHH GG445500 GGAATTEEWWAAYYSS AANNDD VVOOIICCEE MMAAIILL MMEERRRRIILLLL // JJEENNNNEE OOMMNNII PPAARRTTNNEERR ## 0011--112255

PPRREEPPAARREEDD FFOORR
PPRREEPPAARREEDD BBYY::

MMIICCHHAAEELL DD.. CCAARRTTEERR

MMEERRRRIILLLL && AASSSSOOCCIIAATTEESS
PP..OO.. BBOOXX 227799,, BBRREEAA CCAA 9922882222
771144--338888--33227755
MMCCAARRTTEERR@@MMEERRRRIILLLLUUSSAA..CCOOMM
Attachment 1
76 Merrill & Associates City of Costa Mesa

This document is proprietary and not to be disclosed outside of the City of Costa Mesa and Merrill & Associates

PROJECT OVERVIEW
This document will serve as the preliminary Statement of Work (SOW), agreement between Merrill & Associates (hereafter referred to as Merrill) and the City of Costa Mesa (hereafter referred to as Client).

Merrill will design, implement, and project manage the successful implementation of the following:
• The City of Costa Mesa will provide all Virtual Servers (VMWare) resources for this project. • Merrill will Configure and Download software onto Customer (City of Costa Mesa) provided servers.
• Merrill to Configure Avaya Aura CM release 10 Software to mirror Costa Mesa’s existing Avaya Release 6 configuration.
• Merrill to upgrade existing Voice Mail to Avaya Mail
• Please Note:

Ensure all users have set up their mailboxes on the current Aura Messaging System. Their name, greeting, and any existing messages in their mailbox will be migrated to the new system.
• If they do not complete this setup, the new system—by default—does not include text-to- speech functionality. This means that if a user has not recorded at least their name in their current mailbox, callers sent to voicemail will hear:
“You have reached mailbox number XXXX” instead of the user’s name. • Merrill to replace the existing G650 Gateways with new G450 Gateways with Media Modules.
• Merrill to upgrade existing (3) Remote Location S8300 LSP processors to Avaya’s most current supported S8300E version.
• Merrill will move all existing Analog and Digital sets to the upgraded Platform (Gateways at the CORE).
• Merrill will move all existing City of Costa Mesa T1 Circuits, Analog Lines and Fax Lines in- service at the CORE to the upgraded Avaya Aura Platform. • Merrill will install and train City of Costa Mesa personal on a new Call Detail Recording (CDR) subscription software Package.
• City of Costa Mesa will now be able to execute up to a Five (5) year fixed rate Software Subscription agreement with CMR10 software.
• City of Costa Mesa will now be able to execute up to a Five (5) year fixed rate Hardware support agreement with the upgraded G450 Gateways and Media Modules.

77 Merrill & Associates City of Costa Mesa

This document is proprietary and not to be disclosed outside of the City of Costa Mesa and Merrill & Associates

MATERIAL LIST:

Application Quantity Product Description
CORE CDR SOFTWARE 1 MICROCALL CDR SUBSCRIPTION LICENSE YEAR 1 OF A 5 YEAR AGREEMENT CORE MESSAGING 550 AVAYA MESSAGING UPGRADE R8/R10
CORE GATEWAY POWER CORD 8 POWER CORD USA
CORE ANALOG MODULES 4 MM711 ANALOG MEDIA MODULE RHS
CORE ANALOG MODULES 7 MM716 ANALOG MEDIA MODULE 24 FXS RHS DIGITAL MEDIA MODULES 19 MM717 24 PORT DCP MEDIA MODULE RHS CORE BACKBOARD MATERIAL 1 120A CSU CABLE 50 FEET RHS
CORE T1 MEDIA MODULE 1 MM710B E1/T1 MEDIA MODULE
CORE GATEWAY 4 G450 MP160 MEDIA GATEWAY
REDUNDANT POWER SUPPLY 4 G450 R2 POWER SUPPLY
REMOTE LSP PROCESSOR 1 S8300E PRELOADED PROCESSOR
REMOTE LSP PROCESSOR 1 S8300E PRELOADED PROCESSOR
REMOTE LSP PROCESSOR 1 S8300E PRELOADED PROCESSOR

IMPLIMENTATION PLAN
• Civic Center (Core site)
o Upgrade current CM6 to CM10
o Download OVAs from Avaya website
o Deploy OVAs on VMware environment at the City of Costa Mesa o Configure the following servers:
▪ Build & implement CM-A & CM-B Servers on VMware platform ▪ Build & implement Session Manager Server on VMware platform ▪ Build & implement System Manager Server on VMware platform ▪ Build & implement AADS Server on VMware platform
▪ Build & implement Diagnostic Server on VMware platform ▪ Build & implement Avaya Messaging – Voice Server
▪ Build & implement Avaya Messaging – Consolidated Server o Integrate all servers with Avaya Communication Manager o Download CM translations (database)
o Modify database to accommodate the CM10 format
o Upload new database to the new CM10 processors
o Implement Avaya Messaging
o Stage and configure G450 gateways at Merrill Lab
o Upgrade the firmware on the gateways and medial modules o Rack G450 gateways at Civic Center
o Register gateways to new CM10 processor
o Upgrade firmware on existing remote gateways & media modules o Cutover to new CM10 after-hours
o Register all existing remote gateways to new CM10
o Provide end-user documents (quick reference guides on voicemail) o Provide first day support (Technician on site & remote Engineering) o Provide project management, coordination, and installation support o Decommission old CM6 servers & G650 cabinets & Avaya ERS switches

78 Merrill & Associates City of Costa Mesa

This document is proprietary and not to be disclosed outside of the City of Costa Mesa and Merrill & Associates

• Remote Access and VPN
o For remotely delivered Install Services, Customer will provide a VPN via high-speed Internet connection prior to the start of all Services activities o Customer will provide a system user ID and password, with appropriate permissions o For remotely delivered Maintenance Services, Customer will provide a VPN via high- speed Internet connection

• MG 2 – Fire Station 1
o Change MGC & register to new CM10 core
o Upgrade firmware on G430
o Upgrade firmware on media modules
o Status stations & trunks
o Test phones for inbound, outbound, & voicemail

• MG 3 – Fire Station 2
o Change MGC & register to new CM10 core
o Upgrade firmware on G430
o Upgrade firmware on media modules
o Status stations & trunks
o Test phones for inbound, outbound, & voicemail

• MG 4 – Downtown Recreation Center & Fire Station 3
o Change MGC & register to new CM10 core
o Upgrade firmware on G430
o Upgrade firmware on media modules
o Status stations & trunks
o Test phones for inbound, outbound, & voicemail

• MG 5 – Fire Station 4
o Change MGC & register to new CM10 core
o Upgrade firmware on G430
o Upgrade firmware on media modules
o Status stations & trunks
o Test phones for inbound, outbound, & voicemail

• MG 6 – Fire Station 6
o Change MGC & register to new CM10 core
o Upgrade firmware on G430
o Upgrade firmware on media modules
o Status stations & trunks
o Test phones for inbound, outbound, & voicemail

• MG 7 – Police Metro Sub Station
o Upgrade LSP to CM10
o Configure S8300E in lab & replace processor
79 Merrill & Associates City of Costa Mesa

This document is proprietary and not to be disclosed outside of the City of Costa Mesa and Merrill & Associates

o Register S8300 processor to new CM10 core
o Change MGC & register to new CM10 core
o Upgrade firmware on G430
o Upgrade firmware on media modules
o Status stations & trunks
o Test phones for inbound, outbound, & voicemail

• MG 8 – Balearic Community Center
o Upgrade LSP to CM10
o Configure S8300E in lab & replace processor
o Register S8300 processor to new CM10 core
o Change MGC & register to new CM10 core
o Upgrade firmware on G430
o Upgrade firmware on media modules
o Status stations & trunks
o Test phones for inbound, outbound, & voicemail

• MG 9 – Senior Center
o Upgrade LSP to CM10
o Configure S8300E in lab & replace processor
o Register S8300 processor to new CM10 core
o Change MGC & register to new CM10 core
o Upgrade firmware on G430
o Upgrade firmware on media modules
o Status stations & trunks
o Test phones for inbound, outbound, & voicemail

• MICROCALL CDR
o Provide remote Microcall installation via WebEx (or similar) access. Micro-Tel will install and configure the Microcall system remotely with the help of the local Merrill contact. o Configure / Assist with Company Directory Imports (if used). o Monitor and Test Data Collection – ensure data is being received from all platforms to confirm that it is collected and processed correctly.
o Configure Data Collection Alarms – notification/alerts if the connection between the CM and Microcall is down. The notifications will be sent out via email. o Configure, Test, & Schedule Automated Reports.
o Configure Toll Fraud Conditions / Call Alerts / Emergency 911 Alerts. o Verify that Automatic Backup is configured.
o Microcall Support Services Group will work with Merrill/City of Costa Mesa administrators as required to set up the reports/alerts/Dashboards. o Perform end-user training. We will train all the administrators of the Microcall system AND the managers that will be accessing reports. End-user training sessions will be scheduled and performed via WebEx (or similar).

80 Merrill & Associates City of Costa Mesa

This document is proprietary and not to be disclosed outside of the City of Costa Mesa and Merrill & Associates

• Virtual Server Specifications: Avaya Aura

Server OS
Minimum
vCPU Speed -
MHz
vCPUs
Reserved -
Q T Y
vCPU
Reservation - MHz
Virtual

RA M - G B
Memory
Reservation - MB
Storag e -
GB VNICs #
IPs
Mg mnt
VL A N
Voice
VL A N
#1
Voice
VL A N
#2*
E SXiProfile
S ystem Manager R ed Hat E nterprise Linux (Avaya Provided OVA) 2185 6 13110 12 12288 170 1 1 Y es - 8.0* 2 S ession Manager R ed Hat E nterprise Linux (Avaya Provided OVA) 2200 3 3300 5 5132 100 2 2 Y es Y es 8.0* 1 Communication Manager - A R ed Hat E nterprise Linux (Avaya Provided OVA) 2170 3 6510 5 5120 64 2 2 - Y es Y es 8.0* Duplex Communication Manager - B R ed Hat E nterprise Linux (Avaya Provided OVA) 2170 3 6510 5 5120 64 2 2 - Y es Y es 8.0* Duplex Avaya Aura Device S ervices R ed Hat E nterprise Linux (Avaya Provided OVA) 2100 6 6900 9 9216 250 1 1 Y es - - 8.0* 1 Avaya Messaging - Primary Voice S erver Windows S erver 2016, 2019 or 2022 (Customer Provided & Licensed)2200 8 8800 16 12888 500 1 1 - Y es - - Avaya Messaging - Consolidated S erverWindows S erver 2016, 2019 or 2022 (Customer Provided & Licensed)2200 8 8800 16 12888 500 1 1 - Y es - - Diagnostic S erver R ed Hat E nterprise Linux (Avaya Provided OVA) 2300 4 4000 8 8192 250 1 1 - Y es 8.0* - 41 57930 76 1898
Core

• Virtual Server Specifications: Microcall

81 Merrill & Associates City of Costa Mesa

This document is proprietary and not to be disclosed outside of the City of Costa Mesa and Merrill & Associates

• Price Quote
Description Qty Unit Cost Ext. Cost
Microcall Subscription Call Detail Recording (CDR) Software 1 $3,250.00 $3,250.00 Avaya G450 Gateway(s) & Media Modules 1 $151,260.72 $151,260.72 Avaya Tariff Recovery Fee 1 $5,229.10 $5,229.10
Hardware / Software Sub-Total $159,739.82
Installation Microcall Call Detail Recording (CDR) Software 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Installation Voice Message 1 $13,787.55 $13,787.55
Installation Avays G450 Gateway(s) & Upgrade R10 Software 1 $87,847.32 $87,847.32 Professional Services Installation Sub-Total $103,634.87 Sales Tax @ 7.75% $12,379.84
Project Upgrade Total $275,754.53

Note 1: Excludes CM10 Software Subscription Renewal. Existing 12 Month Subscription expires 12/25 Note 2: Excludes Hardware Maintenance Support. Existing 12 Month agreement expires 12/25

The U.S. Government has announced new tariffs that increase the cost of certain goods imported into the country. As a result, effective April 21, 2025, a new line item will appear on our invoices labeled “Duties Recovery Fee.” This fee will cover additional costs resulting from the tariffs. Please note that this fee will not be reflected in Merrill and Associates existing or future quotes – it will only be added when invoices are generated. This is similar to how Freight and Taxes are shown on your invoices today.

Importantly, this recovery fee will only be applied while the tariffs remain in effect. You should, however, expect a timing lag when tariffs are removed, to consume existing inventory which has been tariffed but not yet sold.

• Estimated Recovery Fee as of 9/13/2025

Qty Description Unit Recovery Fee Ext. Recovery Fee
8 Power Cord $1.53 $12.24
4 MM711 $157.92 $631.68
7 MM716 $126.90 $888.30
19 MM717 $147.82 $2,808.58
1 MM710B $126.90 $126.90
4 G450 R2 Power Supply $190.35 $761.40
$5,229.10Estimated Recovery Fee

82 Merrill & Associates City of Costa Mesa

This document is proprietary and not to be disclosed outside of the City of Costa Mesa and Merrill & Associates

Acceptance of Proposal for City of Costa Mesa dated ( ):

The signature of an Authorized City of Costa Mesa Representative is required for Merrill & Associates. to proceed with the ordering of the material and scheduling of the resources to complete the project.

____________________________________
Authorized Representative- Sign name
____________________________________
Authorized Representative- Print name
______________________________
Authorized Representative- Title
_____________
Date

83 City of Costa Mesa
Avaya Subscription Licensing Support Agreement
2026 Annual Subscription-12 Month
Quote SUS7047KRF

Page 1 of 1 ends

Various
Material
Codes Qty Product Descriptions Term in
months Coverage
Payment
Type:

Annual
Unit Price Total
77 Fair Dr (IT Department)
434845 795 UC Essentials License Fixed Subscription 12 Avya Remote 7x24 Prepaid $69.00 $54,855.00 230192 4 G450 Media Gateway Non-GSA 12 Avaya On-Site, 24x7 Prepaid $1,197.96 $4,791.84 1975 Balearic Drive
700476393 1 G430 Media Gateway Non-GSA 12 Avaya On-Site 24x7 Prepaid $1,006.20 $1,006.20 700463532 1 S8300D Server Non-GSA 12 Avaya On-Site 24x7 Prepaid $790.68 $790.68 1570 Adams Avenue
700476393 1 G430 Media Gateway Non-GSA 12 Avaya On-Site, 24x7 Prepaid $1,006.20 $1,006.20 800 Baker Street
700476393 1 G430 Media Gate Non-GSA 12 Avaya On-Site, 7x24 Prepaid $1,006.20 $1,006.20 1845 Park Avenue
700476393 1 G430 Media Gateway Non-GSA 12 Avaya On-Site, 7x24 Prepaid $1,006.20 $1,006.20 2300 Placentia Avenue
700476393 1 G430 Media Gateway Non-GSA 12 Avaya On-Site, 7x24 Prepaid $1,006.20 $1,006.20 3350 Sakioka Drive
700476393 1 G430 Media Gateway Non-GSA 12 Avaya On-Site, 7x24 Prepaid $1,006.20 $1,006.20 3333 Bear Street
700476393 1 G430 Media Gateway Non-GSA 12 Avaya On-Site, 7x24 Prepaid $1,006.20 $1,006.20 700463532 1 S8300D Server Non GSA 12 Avaya On-Site, 7x24 Prepaid $790.68 $790.69 695 West 19th Street
700476393 1 G430 Media Gateway Non-GSA 12 Avaya On-Site, 7x24 Prepaid $1,006.20 $1,006.20 700463532 1 S8300D Server Non-GSA 12 Avaya On-Site, 7x24 Prepaid $790.68 $790.68 $70,068.49
Customer Legal Entity: Vendor Legal Entity:

Merrill & Associates, Inc.

Address Address
79 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 1305 Pioneer St., Brea CA 92821 Name (Printed or Typed) Name (Printed or Typed)
Damion Merrill
Title Title
Vice President
Signature Signature
Date Date
Customer Contact:

Michael SteinkeLocations Listed Separately Below
Installation Date:

City State Zip Customer Contact Telephone Number:

Total
Customer Name:

Sold To/FL #:

Equipment Location Address:

City of Costa Mesa
Coverage Term: 12 Month Agreement:1/1/2026 to
1/31/2026, Prepaid.

Customer authorizes Avaya to release information related to inventory and billing for this customer location to the authorized Avaya BusinessPartner/Distributor. This information will enable the Avaya BusinessPartner/Distributor to accurately quote to Customer future Avaya products and services. Unless otherwise specified, this authorization shall remain in effect until the earlier of written notification by the Customer or the termination/expiration of maintenance by the original BusinessPartner whose name appears on this Order Form.

Costa Mesa CA 92626
The Maintenance service unit price associated with this agreement will remain fixed based on the number of units located at the site at commencement of Maintenance Services for that site. Such per unit charge will remain unchanged for the contracted term of maintenance support unless more licenses are added to the environment. *The Maintenance Services ordered hereunder and the associated billing may commence, in some cases, during the Avaya Product warranty period.
714-754-4879
City of Costa Mesa
Actual OR
Estimated
Attachment 2
84 1
Michael L. Merrill & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 1-2025

CITY OF COSTA MESA

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH MICHAEL L. MERRILL & ASSOCIATES, INC.

TH
IS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this 23rd day of October 2025 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation (“City”), and MICHAEL L. MERRILL & ASSOCIATES, a California corporation (“Consultant”).

RE
CITALS
A. C
ity proposes to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to provide Avaya phone system upgrade implementation services, as more fully described herein; and
B. C
onsultant represents that it has that degree of specialized expertise contemplated within California Government Code s ection 37103, and holds all necessary licenses to practice and perform the services herein contemplated; and
C. C
ity and Consultant desire to contract for the specific services described in Exhibit “A” and
desire to set forth their rights, duties and liabilities in connection with the services to be performed; and
D. No offi
cial or employee of City has a financial interest, within the provisions of sec
tions 1090-1092 of the California Government Code, in the subject matter of this Agreement.

N
OW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1.0. SERVICES PROVIDED BY CONSULTANT

1.1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall provide the professional services described in Consultant’s Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” both incorporated herein.

1.2. Professional Practices. All professional services to be provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by personnel experienced in their respective fields and in a manner consistent with the standards of care, diligence and skill ordinarily exercised by professional consultants in similar fields and circumstances in accordance with sound professional practices. Consultant also warrants that it is familiar with all laws that may affect its performance of this Agreement and shall advise City of any changes in any laws that may affect Consultant’s performance of this Agreement.

1.3. Performance to Satisfaction of City . Consultant agrees to perform all the work to the complete satisfaction of the City. Evaluations of the work will be done by the City Manager or his or her designee. If the quality of work is not satisfactory, City in its discretion has the right to:
(a
) Meet with Consultant to review the quality of the work and resolve the matters of concern;
Attachment 3
85 2
Michael L. Merrill & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 1-2025

(b) Require Consultant to repeat the work at no additional fee until it is satisfactory; and/or

1.4. Warranty. Consultant warrants that it shall perform the services required by this Agreement in compliance with all applicable Federal and California employment laws , including, but not limited to, those laws related to minimum hours and wages; occupational health and safety; fair employment and employment practices; workers’ compensation insurance and safety in employment; and all other Federal, State and local laws and ordinances applicable to the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City from and against all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings, and judgments of every nature and description including attorneys’ fees and costs, presented, brought, or recovered against City for, or on account of any liability under any of the above-mentioned laws, which may be incurred by reason of Consultant’s performance under this Agreement.

1.5. Non-Discrimination. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall not engage in, nor permit its agents to engage in, discrimination in employment of persons because of their race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military or veteran status, except as permitted pursuant to s ection 12940 of the Government Code.

1.6. Non-Exclusive Agreement. Consultant acknowledges that City may enter into agreements with other consultants for services similar to the services that are subject to this Agreement or may have its own employees perform services similar to those services contemplated by this Agreement.

1.7. Delegation and Assignment. This is a personal service contract, and the duties set forth herein shall not be delegated or assigned to any person or entity without the prior written consent of City. Consultant may engage a subcontractor(s) as permitted by law and may employ other personnel to perform services contemplated by this Agreement at Consultant’s sole cost and expense.

1.8. Confidentiality. Employees of Consultant in the course of their duties may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of private individuals and employees of City. Consultant covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant’s covenant under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

2.0. COMPENSATION AND BILLING

2.1. Compensation. Consultant shall be paid in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit “ A,” attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement. Consultant’s total compensation shall not exceed Three Hundred Forty -Five Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty - Three Dollars and no cents ($345,823.00), which includes the Project Upgrade Total of $275,754.53, and the annual subscription and support cost of $70,069 for periodic software 86 3
Michael L. Merrill & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 1-2025

patches and upgrades. The Subscription services will be subject to an increase (after completion of the installation) in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles - Long Beach-Anaheim area (CPI), which would be determined using the November index for the current year and the November index for the preceding year.

2.2. Additional Services. Consultant shall not receive compensation for any services provided outside the scope of services specified in the Consultant’s Proposal unless the City Manager or designee, prior to Consultant performing the additional services, approves such additional services in writing. It is specifically understood that oral requests and/or approvals of such additional services or additional compensation shall be barred and are unenforceable.

2.3. Method of Billing. Consultant may submit invoices to the City for approval on a progress basis, but no more often than two times a month. Said invoice shall be based on the total of all Consultant’s services which have been completed to City’s sole satisfaction. City shall pay Consultant’s invoice within forty-five (45) days from the date City receives said invoice. Each invoice shall describe in detail, the services performed, the date of performance, and the associated time for completion. Any additional services approved and performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be designated as “Additional Services” and shall identify the number of the authorized change order, where applicable, on all invoices.

2.4. Records and Audits. Records of Consultant’s services relating to this Agreement shall be maintained in accordance with generally recognized accounting principles and shall be made available to City or its Project Manager for inspection and/or audit at mutually convenient times from the Effective Date until three (3) years after termination of this Agreement.

3.0. TIME OF PERFORMANCE

3.1. Commencement and Completion of Work . Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties, the professional services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall commence within five (5) days from the Effective Date of this Agreement. Failure to commence work in a timely manner and/or diligently pursue work to completion may be grounds for termination of this Agreement.

3.2. Excusable Delays . Neither party shall be responsible for delays or lack of performance resulting from acts beyond the reasonable control of the party or parties. Such acts shall include, but not be limited to, acts of God, fire, strikes, pandemics (excluding COVID-19), material shortages, compliance with laws or regulations, riots, acts of war, or any other conditions beyond the reasonable control of a party (each, a “Force Majeure Event”). If a party experiences a Force Majeure Event, the party shall, within five (5) days of the occurrence of the Force Majeure Event, give written notice to the other party stating the nature of the Force Majeure Event, its anticipated duration and any action being taken to avoid or minimize its effect. Any suspension of performance shall be of no greater scope and of no longer duration than is reasonably required and the party experiencing the Force Majeure Event shall use best efforts without being obligated to incur any material expenditure to remedy its inability to perform; provided, however, if the suspension of performance continues for sixty (60) days after the date of the occurrence and such failure to perform would constitute a material breach of this Agreement in the absence of such Force Majeure Event, the p arties shall meet and discuss in good faith any amendments to this Agreement to permit the other party to exercise its rights under this Agreement. If the parties are not able to agree on such amendments within thirty (30) days and if suspension of performance continues, such other p arty may terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the 87 4
Michael L. Merrill & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 1-2025

party experiencing the Force Majeure Event, in which case neither party shall have any liability to the other except for those rights and liabilities that accrued prior to the date of termination.

4.0. TERM AND TERMINATION

4.1. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and continue for a period of twelve (12) months, ending on October 22, 2026, unless previously terminated as provided herein or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. This Agreement including renewal options for the Subscription Services, may be extended by [2] additional [1] year periods upon mutual written agreement of both parties.

4.2. Notice of Termination. The City reserves and has the right and privilege of canceling, suspending or abandoning the execution of all or any part of the work contemplated by this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time, by providing written notice to Consultant.

The term ination of this Agreement shall be deemed effective upon receipt of the notice of termination. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall immediately stop rendering services under this Agreement unless directed otherwise by the City.

4.3. Compensation. In the event of termination, City shall pay Consultant for reasonable costs incurred and professional services satisfactorily performed up to and including the date of City’s written notice of termination. Compensation for work in progress shall be prorated based on the percentage of work completed as of the effective date of termination in accordance with the fees set forth herein. In ascertaining the professional services actually rendered hereunder up to the effective date of termination of this Agreement, consideration shall be given to both completed work and work in progress, to complete and incomplete drawings, and to other documents pertaining to the services contemplated herein whether delivered to the City or in the possession of the Consultant.

4.4. Documents. In the event of termination of this Agreement, all documents prepared by Consultant in its performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to, finished or unfinished design, development and construction documents, data studies, drawings, maps and reports, shall be delivered to the City within ten (10) days of delivery of termination notice to Consultant, at no cost to City. Any use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization from Consultant shall be at City’s sole risk and without liability or legal expense to Consultant.

5.0. INSURANCE

5.1. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall obtain, maintain, and keep in full force and effect during the life of this Agreement all of the following minimum scope of insurance coverages with an insurance company admitted to do business in California, rated “A,” Class X, or better in the most recent A.M. Best’s Rating Guide, and approved by City:

(a) Commercial general liability, including premises -operations, products/completed operations, broad form property damage, blanket contractual liability, independent contractors, personal injury or bodily injury with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) general aggregate.

(b) Business a utomobile liability for owned vehicles, hired, and non-owned 88 5
Michael L. Merrill & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 1-2025

vehicles, with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

Consultant agrees to waive, and to obtain endorsements from its workers’ compensation insurer waiving subrogation rights under its workers’ compensation insurance policy against the City , its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers arising from work performed by Consultant for the City and to require each of its subcontractors, if any, to do likewise under their workers’ compensation insurance policies.

(d) Professional errors and omissions (“E&O”) liability insurance with policy limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence and aggregate. Architects’ and engineers’ coverage shall be endorsed to include contractual liability. If the policy is written as a “claims made” policy, the retro date shall be prior to the start of the contract work. Consultant shall obtain and maintain, said E&O liability insurance during the life of this Agreement and for three years after completion of the work hereunder.

5.2. Endorsements. The commercial general liability insurance policy and business automobile liability policy shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:

(a) Additional insureds: “The City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds with respect to: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant pursuant to its contract with the City; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Consultant.”

(b) Notice: “Said policy shall not terminate, be suspended, or voided, nor shall it be cancelled, nor the coverage or limits reduced, until thirty (30) days after written notice is given to City.”

(c) Other insurance: “ The Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. Any other insurance maintained by the City of Costa Mesa shall be excess and not contributing with the ins urance provided by this policy.”

(d) Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers.

(e) The Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.

89 6
Michael L. Merrill & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 1-2025

5.3. Deductible or Self-Insured Retention. If any of such policies provide for a deductible or self-insured retention to provide such coverage, the amount of such deductible or self-insured retention shall be approved in advance by City. No policy of insurance issued as to which the City is an addi tional insured shall contain a provision which requires that no insured except the named insured can satisfy any such deductible or self-insured retention.

5.4. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide to City certificates of insurance showing the insurance coverages and required endorsements described above, in a form and content approved by City, prior to performing any services under this Agreement.

5.5. Non-Limiting. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting in any way, the indemnification provision contained in this Agreement, or the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property.

6.0. GENERAL PROVISIONS

6.1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to any matter referenced herein and supersedes any and all other prior writings and oral negotiations. This Agreement may be modified only in writing, and signed by the parties in interest at the time of such modification. The terms of this Agreement shall prevail over any inconsistent provision in any other contract document appurtenant hereto, including exhibits to this Agreement.

6.2. Representatives. The C ity Manager or his or her designee shall be the representative of City for purposes of this Agreement and may issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of the City, called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement.

Consultant shall designate a representative for purposes of this Agreement who shall be authorized to issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of Consultant called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement.

6.3. Project Managers. City shall designate a Project Manager to work directly with Consultant in the performance of this Agreement.

Consultant shall designate a Project Manager who shall represent it and be its agent in all consultations with City during the term of this Agreement. Consultant or its Project Manager shall attend and assist in all coordination meetings called by City.

6.4. Notices. Any notices, documents, correspondence or other communications concerning this Agreement or the work hereunder may be provided by personal delivery or mail and shall be addressed as set forth below. Such communication shall be deemed served or delivered: (a) at the time of delivery if such communicati on is sent by personal delivery, and (b) 48 hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail as reflected by the official U.S. postmark if such communication is sent through regular United States mail.

IF TO CONSULTANT: IF TO CITY:

Merrill & Associates City of Costa Mesa
90 7
Michael L. Merrill & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 1-2025

P.O. Box 279
Brea, CA 92822
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: (714) 388-3275 Tel: (714) 754-4879
Attn: Michael D. Carter Attn: Michael Steinke

Courtesy copy to:

City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Attn: Finance Dept. | Purchasing

6.5. Drug-Free Workplace Policy . Consultant shall provide a drug-free workplace by complying with all provisions set forth in City’s Council Policy 100-5, attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein. Consultant’s failure to conform to the requirements set forth in Council Policy 100-5 shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and shall be cause for immediate termination of this Agreement by City.

6.6. Attorneys’ Fees . If litigation is brought by any party in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the opposing party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by the prevailing party in the exercise of any of its rights or remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions hereof.

6.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California without giving effect to that body of laws pertaining to conflict of laws. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the parties hereto agree that the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction located in Orange County, California.

6.8. Assignment. Consultant shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign, transfer, sublet or encumber all or any part of Consultant’ s interest in this Agreement without City’s prior written consent. Any attempted assignment, transfer, subletting or encumbrance shall be void and shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and cause for termination of this Agreement. Regardless of City ’s consent, no subletting or assignment shall r elease Consultant of Consultant’ s obligation to perform all other obl igations to be performed by Consultant hereunder for the term of this Agreement.

6.9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, hold free and harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees, at Consultant’s sole expense, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits or other legal proceedings brought against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees arising out of the performance of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, of the work undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. The defense obligation provided for hereunder shall apply without any advance showing of negligence or wrongdoing by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, but shall be required whenever any claim, action, complaint, or suit asserts as its basis the negligence, errors, omis sions or misconduct of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, and/or whenever any claim, action, complaint or suit asserts liability against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and 91 8
Michael L. Merrill & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 1-2025

employees based upon the work performed by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors under this Agreement, whether or not the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors are specifically named or otherwise asserted to be liable.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Consultant shall not be liable for the defense or indemnification of the City for claims, actions, complaints or suits arising out of the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. This provision shall supersede and replace all other indemnity provisions contained either in the City’s specifications or Consultant’s Proposal, which shall be of no force and effect.

6.10. Independent Contractor . Consultant is and shall be acting at all times as an independent contractor and not as an employee of City. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent.

Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant’s employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City. Consultant shall secure, at its sole expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of Income Tax, Social Security, State Disability Insurance Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, and other payroll deductions for Consultant and its officers, agents, and employees, and all business li censes, if any are required, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Consultant further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with the applicable worker’s compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this paragraph.

6.11 Conflicts with Independent Contractor. Contractor/consultant’s duties and services under this Agreement shall not include preparing or assisting the public entity with any portion of the public entity’s preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding a subsequent or additional contract with the public entity. The public entity entering into this Agreement shall at all times retain responsibility for public contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this project. Contractor/consultant’s participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of project plans or specifications shall be limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications. Contractor/consultant shall cooperate with the public entity to ensure that all bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this project have access to the same information, including all conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications prepared by contractor pursuant to this Agreement.

6.12. PERS Eligibility Indemnification. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of the City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City.

92 9
Michael L. Merrill & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 1-2025

Notwithstanding any other agency, state or federal policy, rule, regulation, law or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing service under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in PERS as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contribution and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.

6.13. Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant’s performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation which City might require.

6.14. Ownership of Documents. All findings, reports, documents, information and data including, but not limited to, computer tapes or discs, files and tapes furnished or prepared by Consultant or any of its subcontractors in the course of performance of this Agreement, shall be and remain the sole property of City. Consultant agrees that any such documents or information shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior consent of City. Any use of such documents for other proj ects not contemplated by this Agreement, and any use of incomplete documents, shall be at the sole risk of City and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. City shall indemnify and hold harmless Consultant from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from City’s use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement or use of incomplete documents furnished by Consultant. Consultant shall deliver to City any findings, r eports, documents, information, data, in any form, including but not limited to, computer tapes, discs, files audio tapes or any other Project related items as requested by City or its authorized representative, at no additional cost to the City.

6.15. Public Records Act Disclosure. Consultant has been advised and is aware that this Agreement and all reports, documents, information and data, including, but not limited to, computer tapes, discs or files furnished or prepared by Consultant, or any of its subcontractors, pursuant to this Agreement and provided to City may be subject to public disclosure as required by the California Public Records A ct (California Government Code s ection 7920.000 et seq.).

Exceptions to public disclosure may be those documents or information that qualify as trade secrets, as that term is defined in the California Government Code section 7924.510, and of which Consultant informs City of such trade secret. The City will endeavor to maintain as confidential all information obtained by it that is designated as a trade secret. The City shall not, in any way, be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any trade secret including, without limitation, those records so marked if disclosure is deemed to be required by law or by order of the Court.

6.16. Conflict of Interest. Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subconsultants, if any, will comply with all conflict of interest statutes of the State of California applicable to Consultant's services under this agreement, including, but not limited to, the Political Reform Act (Government Code s ections 81000, et seq.) and Government Code s ection 1090.

During the term of this Agreement, Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subconsultants shall not, without the prior written approval of the City Representative, perform work for another person or entity for whom Consultant is not currently performing work that would require Consultant or one of its officers, employees, associates or subconsultants to abstain from a decision under this Agreement pursuant to a conflict of interest statute.

6.17. Responsibility for Errors. Consultant shall be responsible for its work and results 93 10
Michael L. Merrill & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 1-2025

under this Agreement. Consultant, when requested, shall furnish clarification and/or explanation as may be required by the City’s representative, regarding any services rendered under this Agreement at no additional cost to City. In the event that an error or omission attributable to Consultant occurs, then Consultant shall, at no cost to City, provide all necessary design drawings, estimates and other Consultant professional services necessary to rectify and correct the matter to the sole satisfaction of City and to participate in any meeting required with regard to the correction.

6.18. Prohibited Employment. Consultant will not employ any regular employee of City while this Agreement is in effect.

6.19. Order of Precedence. In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement and any of the attached Exhibits, the terms set forth in this Agreement shall prevail . If, and to the extent this Agreement incorporates by reference any provision of any document, such provision shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. Nevertheless, if there is any conflict among the terms and conditions of this Agreement and those of any such provision or provisions so incorporated by reference, this Agreement shall govern over the document referenced.

6.20. Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees incurred in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement and in the performance of its obligations hereunder except as expressly provided herein.

6.21. Binding Effect. This Agreement binds and benefits the parties and their respective permitted successors and assigns.

6.22. No Third Party Beneficiary Rights . This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of City and Consultant and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this Agreement and no third party shall have any right in, under or to this Agreement.

6.23. Headings. Paragraphs and subparagraph headings contained in this Agreement are included solely for convenience and are not intended to modify, explain or to be a full or accurate description of the content thereof and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.

6.24. Construction. The parties have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement and have had an adequate opportunity to review each and every provision of the Agreement and submit the same to counsel or other consultants for review and comment. In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to this Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties and in accordance with its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement.

6.25. Amendments . Only a writing executed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and assigns may amend this Agreement.

6.26. Waiver. The delay or failure of either party at any time to require performance or compliance by the other of any of its obligations or agreements shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to require such performance or compliance. No waiver of any prov ision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative 94 11
Michael L. Merrill & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 1-2025

of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought. The waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any occurrence or event shall not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any other occurrence or event, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver.

6.27. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable in any circumstance, such determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or of the offending provision in any other circumstance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the value of this Agreement, based upon the substantial benefit of the bargain for any party , is materially impaired, which determination made by the presiding court or arbitrator of competent jurisdiction shall be binding, then both parties agree to substitute such provision(s) through good faith negotiations.

6.28. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one agreement.

6.29. Corporate Authority . The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by doing so the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement.

[Signatures appear on following page.]
95 12
Michael L. Merrill & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 1-2025

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their respective authorized officers, as of the date first above written.

CONSULTANT

__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Signature

__________________________________
Print Name and Title

CITY OF COSTA MESA

__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Cecilia Gallardo-Daly
City Manager

ATTEST:

__________________________________
Brenda Green
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Kimberly Hall Barlow
City Attorney

APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE:

__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Ruth Wang
Risk Management

96 13
Michael L. Merrill & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 1-2025

APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Michael Steinke
Project Manager

DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL:

__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Steve Ely
Information Technology Director

APPROVED AS TO PURCHASING:

__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Carol Molina
Finance Director

97 City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
To whom it may concern:

This letter serves to confirm that Merrill and Associates is recognized as a Platinum Partner in good standing with Avaya.

As a Platinum Partner, Merrill and Associates has demonstrated a high level of expertise, commitment, and performance in delivering Avaya solutions. The company is fully authorized to sell, install, and support Avaya products and services across a wide range of industries and customer environments.

Merrill and Associates continues to meet Avaya’s rigorous standards for technical proficiency, customer satisfaction, and business performance, and remains a trusted provider of Avaya’s innovative communication and collaboration technologies.

Should you require further verification or have any questions, please feel free to contact us directly.

Sincerely,
Jenny Otolinski
Avaya
Avaya LLC - Corporate Headquarters
350 Mt. Kemble Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07960 USA
www.avaya.com
September 24, 2025
Attachment 4
98 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-535 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025
TITLE:

ACCEPTANCE AND ALLOCATION OF THE 2025-26 OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT FOR

THE SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
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 $280,000, for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 OTS STEP Grant for a grant period from October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2026.

BACKGROUND:

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration distributes federal funding to California through the Office of Traffic Safety. The mission of the Office of Traffic Safety is to effectively administer traffic safety grants that deliver innovative programs and eliminate 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 OTS grants in the past, which have significantly assisted the objectives of the Traffic Safety Bureau and improved traffic safety for residents and visitors in Costa Mesa. Since 2005, the Office of Traffic Safety has awarded the Costa Mesa Police Department nineteen (19) traffic safety related grants. The funds associated with these grants were used to purchase specialized equipment and to fund the costs of personnel working targeted traffic operations. During each grant year, the Traffic Safety Bureau successfully accomplished grant operational objectives.

Traffic safety for vehicular traffic, bicycles and pedestrians is a vital concern as the city promotes a

Page 1 of 4 ends

99 File #: 25-535 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025
Traffic safety for vehicular traffic, bicycles and pedestrians is a vital concern as the city promotes a healthy, active lifestyle and sustainable transportation options, and OTS grants assist in addressing these worthy goals. Additionally, the Traffic Safety Bureau prioritizes public awareness campaigns and community events aimed at educating residents about the importance of mutual respect among all road users. By fostering a culture of safety, Costa Mesa strives to make its streets safer and more enjoyable for all residents and visitors.

ANALYSIS:

The Office of Traffic Safety assembles collision data rankings based on city population numbers. The most recent year of compiled statistics used by OTS was 2022. Costa Mesa was then ranked with 61 other cities with a population of 100,001-250,000. During 2022, Costa Mesa ranked 35th for total number of injury crashes. In the OTS rankings #1 would refer to the highest number of injury crashes in the comparative group of cities. The ranking of 35th means Costa Mesa is average among other cities of similar size for injury crashes. The OTS STEP grant provides funding for enforcement of violations that are the leading causes of collisions with the goal of improving the safety of all roadway users.

Along with reducing collisions, impaired driving enforcement has always been a top priority for the Police Department. The Department’scommitment to DUI enforcement is evident in the OTS data rankings. Costa Mesa had the top OTS ranking 61 of 61 other cities for DUI arrests (889 arrests) in 2022. This means the Police Department made more DUI arrests than any of the 60 other cities in our population group.

Historically, the Department staffed a full-time impaired driving enforcement team consisting of two (2) full-time officers to help address roadway safety. Over the years, the DUI team has been suspended due to staffing challenges within the department. As of September 2025, increased staffing has allowed for the full-time DUI team to commence once again. OTS grant funding helps to supplement DUI enforcement each year by funding DUI patrols on an overtime basis.

Since the 2014 addition of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) laws, CMPD has used grant funds to train new officers so they can actively enforce these new and highly technical laws.

The OTS STEP Grant also funds DUI checkpoints. These checkpoints are educational, highly visible, and provide a deterrent against impaired driving. Additionally, checkpoints require a significant number of personnel to operate effectively and thus costly. Without grant funding, the Department’s ability to address DUI drivers through enforcement operations and DUI checkpoints would be very limited.

The Police Department submitted applications and received tentative approval for the 2025-26 OTS STEP Grant. The grant will allow the Department to implement the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP). This program will provide a comprehensive approach to reducing violations, which commonly lead to collisions, while maintaining a focus on impaired and suspended/unlicensed drivers. Grant funds will be used to staff sobriety/driver license checkpoints and to staff targeted enforcement operations. In addition, funds will be used to purchase operation related equipment and support additional law enforcement training related to DUI investigations and enforcement activities.

This grant also emphasizes the importance of raising awareness and educating the public through press releases, social media, and highly visible operations. It requires a minimum of four (4) educational presentations to the community, focusing on topics such as bicycle and pedestrian

Page 2 of 4 ends

100
File #: 25-535 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025
educational presentations to the community, focusing on topics such as bicycle and pedestrian safety, seat belts, distracted driving, and child passenger safety. The grant objectives to implement public education, provide advanced officer training, and conduct high visibility enforcement operations, will support the Police Department’soverall goal of reducing injury collisions and saving lives.

The Department’scurrent grant expired on September 30, 2025. The 2025-2026 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 funding will allow the Department additional resources to combat impaired driving and enforce traffic laws aimed at saving lives. Objectives of the OTS grant includes DUI saturation patrols; traffic enforcement operations targeting red lights and excessive speed; distracted driving violations; traffic enforcement at high collision intersections; and sobriety/driver license checkpoints.

Currently there are 33 objectives outlined in the OTS grant agreement. A few of those specific project objectives include:
· Conduct four (4) Traffic Safety educational presentation(s) with an effort to reach community members. Note: Presentation(s) may include topics such as distracted driving, DUI, speed, bicycle and pedestrian safety, seat belts and child passenger safety. · Participate in National Pedestrian Safety Month, National Walk to School Day, National Teen Driver Safety Week, National Bicycle Safety Month, and several other national campaigns related to driving awareness.
· Conduct thirty-five (35) DUI saturation patrols.
· Conduct nine (9) special traffic safety enforcement operations targeting red light, excessive speed, and other violations at or near intersections with a disproportionate number of traffic collisions.
· Conduct ten (10) special enforcement operations targeting distracted driving violations. · Conduct two (2) special traffic safety enforcement operations targeting vehicles that pose a threat to bicyclists and pedestrians.
· Conduct four (4) DUI/DL checkpoints.
· Participate in two (2) highly visible collaborative Traffic Enforcement operations. · Provide advanced officer training in DUI enforcement to 14 officers.

OTS grant funding is based on the federal fiscal year, which begins on October 1, 2025, and ends on September 30, 2026. The Grant Agreement allocates $280,000, which will be utilized over the federal fiscal year 12-month period. OTS will reimburse the City for approved grant expenditures throughout the grant period.

Although the majority of OTS STEP 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 that we can fully realize this goal.

Therefore, in addition to the grant educational requirements, the Traffic Safety Bureau will continue to pursue additional educational efforts to improve roadway safety unrelated to this grant, including collaborating on a city service agreement to provide bicycle safety programming for students and the community at all Newport Mesa Unified School District schools in Costa Mesa. The Traffic Safety

Page 3 of 4 ends

101
File #: 25-535 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025
community at all Newport Mesa Unified School District schools in Costa Mesa. The Traffic Safety Bureau is committed to collaborating with the community for educational purposes related to bicycle and pedestrian safety.

The Traffic Safety Bureau will continue to work collaboratively with the City’sTransportation Services Office to identify hazards which can be mitigated through environmental design. Additionally, City departments will continue to promote traffic safety education utilizing 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 report.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Upon acceptance of the Fiscal Year 2025-26 OTS STEP Grant, revenue, and expense appropriations in the amount of $280,000 respectively will be established in the State Grant Fund (Fund 231). The grant period is from October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2026. The grant is estimated to cover the full expenditure of the program.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’sOffice has reviewed the 2025 OTS STEP 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.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

2. Approve revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $280,000 respectively, for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 OTS STEP Grant for a grant period from October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2026.

Page 4 of 4 ends

102
9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 1 of 20
State of California – Office of Traffic Safety

GRANT AGREEMENT

GRANT NUMBER
PT26108

1. GRANT TITLE
Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP)

2. NAME OF AGENCY 3. Grant Period
Costa Mesa From:

To:
10/01/2025
09/30/2026 4. AGENCY UNIT TO ADMINISTER GRANT
Costa Mesa Police Department

5. GRANT DESCRIPTION
Best practice strategies will be conducted to reduce the number of persons killed and injured in crashes involving alcohol and other primary crash factors. The funded strategies may include impaired driving enforcement, enforcement operations focusing on primary crash factors, distracted driving, night-time seat belt enforcement, special enforcement operations encouraging motorcycle safety, enforcement and public awareness in areas with a high number of bicycle and pedestrian crashes, and educational programs. These strategies are designed to earn media attention thus enhancing the overall deterrent effect. In addition, the department will participate in community collaboration and engagement activities to engage in conversations regarding traffic safety with community members.

6. Federal Funds Allocated Under This Agreement Shall Not Exceed:

Allocation is contingent upon availability of federal funds. $280,000.00

7. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following which are by this reference made a part of the Agreement:
 Schedule A – Problem Statement, Goals and Objectives and Method of Procedure  Schedule B – Detailed Budget Estimate and Sub-Budget Estimate (if applicable)  Schedule B-1 – Budget Narrative and Sub-Budget Narrative (if applicable)  Exhibit A – Certifications and Assurances
 Exhibit B* – OTS Grant Program Manual
 Exhibit C – Grant Electronic Management System (GEMS) Access *Items shown with an asterisk (*), are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement as if attached hereto. These documents can be viewed at the OTS home web page under Grants: www.ots.ca.gov.

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 Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto.

8. Approval Signatures
A. GRANT DIRECTOR B. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL
NAME:

TITLE:

EMAIL:

PHONE:

ADDRESS:

Nick Wilson
Sergeant
[email protected]
(714) 754-4963
99 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
NAME:

TITLE:

EMAIL:

PHONE:

ADDRESS:

Cecilia Gallardo Daly
City Manager
[email protected]
(714) 754-5099
99 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(Signature) (Date) (Signature) (Date)
C. FISCAL OFFICIAL D. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL OF OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY NAME:

TITLE:

EMAIL:

PHONE:

ADDRESS:

Carol Molina
Finance Director
[email protected]
(714) 754-5036
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
NAME:

TITLE:

EMAIL:

PHONE:

ADDRESS:

Stephanie Dougherty
Director
[email protected]
(916) 509-3030
2208 Kausen Drive, Suite 300
Elk Grove, CA 95758
(Signature) (Date) (Signature) (Date)
ATTACHMENT 1
103

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 2 of 20

10. PROJECTED EXPENDITURES
FUND CFDA ITEM/APPROPRIATION F.Y. CHAPTER STATUTE PROJECTED

EXPENDITURES
402PT-26 20.600 0521-0890-101 2025 04/25 BA/25 $60,000.00 1906-26 20.611 0521-0890-101 2025 04/25 BA/25 $2,000.00 164AL-26 20.608 0521-0890-101 2025 04/25 BA/25 $200,000.00 405e DDL-26 20.616 0521-0890-101 2025 04/25 BA/25 $18,000.00

AGREEMENT
TOTAL $280,000.00

AMOUNT ENCUMBERED BY THIS DOCUMENT
I CERTIFY upon my own personal knowledge that the budgeted funds for the current budget year are available for the period and purpose of the expenditure stated above.
$280,000.00

PRIOR AMOUNT ENCUMBERED FOR THIS

AGREEMENT
$ 0.00
OTS ACCOUNTING OFFICER’S SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED TOTAL AMOUNT ENCUMBERED TO DATE $280,000.00

E. ACCOUNTING OFFICER OF OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY 9. SAM INFORMATION NAME: Carolyn Vu

SAM #:

REGISTERED
ADDRESS:

CITY:

ZIP+4:

VLGSYJVFJ4M7

77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa
92626-6520
ADDRESS: 2208 Kausen Drive, Suite 300

Elk Grove, CA 95758

104

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 3 of 20

State of California – Office of Traffic Safety

GRANT AGREEMENT
Schedule A

GRANT NUMBER
PT26108

1. PROBLEM STATEMENT

Describe the city, county, or jurisdiction this grant will impact.

Costa Mesa, California, located in Orange County, is a vibrant city known for its rich cultural scene, diverse community, and proximity to Southern California’s attractions. Costa Mesa was incorporated in 1953, transforming from a semi-rural farming community into a bustling suburban city. Costa Mesa offers a blend of urban and suburban living, with a strong emphasis on arts, culture, and community engagement. Costa Mesa offers 28 parks, two municipal golf courses, 20 public schools and three libraries. Costa Mesa encompasses a total of 16 square miles and has a population of approximately 109,000 (US Census 2023).

State Highway 55 has its southern terminus, and State Highway 73 has its northern terminus within Costa Mesa. Interstate 405 also runs directly through the middle of the city. Costa Mesa has evolved from a semi- rural farming community of 15,000 to a city with a robust local economy.

The city is home to South Coast Plaza, one of the nation’s largest shopping centers. It attracts millions of visitors annually. Costa Mesa is also famous for the world-class Segerstrom Center for the Arts and South Coast Repertory Theatre. The city has a diverse dining scene and is home to The Lab and The Camp, two counter-culture retail developments, and the SoCo Collection, a cutting edge, environmentally friendly shopping center. Costa Mesa has a large tourist industry centering on the nearby beach and coastal area, the Orange County Fairgrounds, one of the largest fairs in California, drawing over a million visitors each year. The city has a vibrant arts scene, with numerous galleries, theaters, and public art facilities. The Pacific Amphitheatre, located at the OC Fair & Event Center, is a popular venue for concerts and events.

Also, there are hundreds of thousands of commuters daily during the summer months.

The City's location provides easy access to many of Southern California's major attractions, including beaches, mountain areas, high and low deserts, Disneyland, Knott's Berry Farm, Palm Springs and Los Angeles. Due to the increase in numbers of both locals and visitors, high traffic density in parts of Costa Mesa increases the risk of crashes. Pedestrians and cyclists are particularly vulnerable in busy corridors.

Limited traffic control measures in some neighborhoods contribute to unsafe conditions. We are committed to supporting everyone using our roadways.

Describe the problem(s) to be addressed, supported by current and relevant crash data. (most recent calendar year data/stats).

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.

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 105

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 4 of 20

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. OTS-funded DUI checkpoints and DUI saturation patrols resulted in 105 DUI arrests in 2024. There were 208 DUI traffic crashes in Costa Mesa in 2024.

Distracted Drivers:

Driving while using a cell phone is extremely dangerous and poses a significant risk to drivers, passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other roadway users. Looking at a phone screen takes your eyes off the road, increasing the likelihood of being involved in a crash. Holding or manipulating a phone reduces your ability to perceive and react to changing road conditions. Distracted drivers are more likely to run red lights, drift out of their lane, or fail to stop in time, leading to crashes. Distraction-related crashes are often more severe because drivers fail to react in time to reduce impact. Costa Mesa had 54 crashes in 2024 where drivers reported to be using their phones at the time of the crash. Drivers using their cellphones while driving continues to be a problem in Costa Mesa. There were 2138 citations issued in Costa Mesa in 2024 to drivers who were using their cell phones while driving.

Pedestrians and Bicyclists:

In 2024, four pedestrians tragically lost their lives, and 59 others were injured in Costa Mesa crashes. While no cyclist fatalities occurred, 114 cyclists sustained injuries in crashes. Pedestrian travel, including the use of bicycles and electric bicycles and scooters, continues to grow in popularity throughout the city, with many school-aged students relying on electric bicycles as their primary mode of transportation to and from school.

The Costa Mesa Police Department is dedicated to enhancing public awareness through community traffic safety education programs. These initiatives and bicycle safety workshops play a crucial role in educating the Costa Mesa community about potential street hazards and provide essential safety tips to vulnerable roadway users. While the exact number of lives impacted is difficult to quantify, these programs positively influence every participant. Despite challenges in measuring overall effectiveness, they consistently receive strong community support and active participation, making them a valuable and indispensable asset to the department.

Street Racing/Sideshows:

Costa Mesa stands out for its strong community involvement in policing, focusing on identifying and solving problems collaboratively. By maintaining ongoing partnerships with businesses, residents, community stakeholders, and the general public, the police department gains valuable insights into the community's diverse concerns. This proactive approach has helped spotlight emerging criminal trends such as street racing and sideshows, which have become significant issues on Orange County streets.

Street racing, sideshows, and drag racing have become growing concerns in Orange County, with a significant rise in incidents since the pandemic in 2020. The illegal activities, occurring multiple times a week, pose serious risks to public safety and often result in property damage to the local roadways.

Currently the department's partnership for countywide street racing enforcement is limited due to staffing constraints. However, with current funding from OTS, it has enabled increased collaboration with neighboring agencies, enhancing Costa Mesa’s Street racing enforcement capabilities. These collaborative efforts have proven highly effective by allowing agencies to share resources and knowledge, resulting in more efficient and impactful outcomes.

Define the target population the grant intends to serve and how they are affected by the problem(s).

The population in Costa Mesa affected by traffic issues is diverse and includes various groups within the community, such as families and students, commuters, business owners and patrons, pedestrians and cyclists, and others in the general public. Parents and students commuting to schools in the Newport-Mesa Unified School District face increased risks from congestion, speeding, and pedestrian safety concerns near school campuses. The growing use of electric bikes and scooters, particularly among school-aged children, exposes this group to safety risks due to inadequate infrastructure and driver inattention. Many residents 106

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 5 of 20

commute within Costa Mesa or to neighboring cities for work, relying heavily on cars due to limited public transportation. Congestion on major roads and freeways like the 55, 405, and 73 creates delays and frustration. Non-residents traveling through Costa Mesa for work or leisure also contribute to and are impacted by traffic issues.

Costa Mesa Police Department is committed to proactively working to create the safest possible driving experience for our residents, commuters and visitors. Our goal is to work diligently by conducting high visibility enforcements, providing education, and engaging in community collaboration and engagement events to help reduce traffic crashes and fatalities and keep everyone driving on our roadways safe.

2. PERFORMANCE MEASURES
A. Goals:

1. Reduce the number of persons killed in traffic crashes.

2. Reduce the number of persons injured in traffic crashes.

3. Reduce the number of pedestrians killed in traffic crashes.

4. Reduce the number of pedestrians injured in traffic crashes.

5. Reduce the number of bicyclists killed in traffic crashes.

6. Reduce the number of bicyclists injured in traffic crashes.

7. Reduce the number of persons killed in alcohol-involved crashes.

8. Reduce the number of persons injured in alcohol-involved crashes.

9. Reduce the number of persons killed in drug-involved crashes.

10. Reduce the number of persons injured in drug-involved crashes.

11. Reduce the number of persons killed in alcohol/drug combo-involved crashes.

12. Reduce the number of persons injured in alcohol/drug combo-involved crashes.

13. Reduce the number of motorcyclists killed in traffic crashes.

14. Reduce the number of motorcyclists injured in traffic crashes.

15. Reduce hit & run fatal crashes.

16. Reduce hit & run injury crashes.

17. Reduce nighttime (2100 - 0259 hours) fatal crashes.

18. Reduce nighttime (2100 - 0259 hours) injury crashes.

B. Objectives: Target Number

1. Issue a news release announcing the kick-off of the grant by December 31st. The kick-off news releases and media advisories, alerts, and materials must be emailed to the OTS Public Information Officer at [email protected], and copied to your OTS Coordinator, for approval 7 days prior to the issuance date of the release.
1 2. Participate and report data (as required) in the following campaigns; Quarter 1:

National Pedestrian Safety Month, National Walk to School Day, National Teen Driver Safety Week, NHTSA Winter Mobilization; Quarter 3: National Distracted Driving Awareness Month, National Motorcycle Safety Month, National Bicycle Safety Month, National Click it or Ticket Mobilization; Quarter 4: National Speed Prevention Campaigns, NHTSA Summer Mobilization, National Child Passenger Safety Week, and California's Pedestrian Safety Month.
12 3. Develop (by December 31) and/or maintain a “DUI BOLO” program to notify patrol and traffic officers to be on the lookout for identified repeat DUI offenders with a suspended or revoked license as a result of DUI convictions. Updated DUI BOLOs should be distributed to patrol and traffic officers monthly. 12 4. Send law enforcement personnel to the NHTSA Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) (minimum 16 hours) POST-certified training. 7 5. Send law enforcement personnel to the NHTSA Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) 16 hour POST-certified training. 5 6. Send law enforcement personnel to the DRE Recertification training. 2

7. Conduct DUI/DL Checkpoints. A minimum of 1 checkpoint should be conducted during the NHTSA Winter Mobilization and 1 during the Summer Mobilization. To enhance the overall deterrent effect and promote high visibility, it is recommended the grantee issue an advance press release and conduct social media activity for 4 107

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 6 of 20

each checkpoint. For combination DUI/DL checkpoints, departments should issue press releases that mention DL's will be checked at the DUI/DL checkpoint. Signs for DUI/DL checkpoints should read "DUI/Driver's License Checkpoint Ahead." OTS does not fund or support independent DL checkpoints. Only on an exception basis and with OTS pre-approval will OTS fund checkpoints that begin prior to 1800 hours. When possible, DUI/DL Checkpoint screeners should be DRE- or ARIDE-trained.

8. Conduct DUI Saturation Patrol operation(s). 35

9. Conduct Traffic Enforcement operation(s), including but not limited to, primary crash factor violations.
9 10. Conduct highly publicized Distracted Driving enforcement operation(s) targeting drivers using hand held cell phones and texting.
10 11. Conduct highly publicized Motorcycle Safety enforcement operation(s) in areas or during events with a high number of motorcycle incidents or crashes resulting from unsafe speed, DUI, following too closely, unsafe lane changes, improper turning, and other primary crash factor violations by motorcyclists and other drivers. 2 12. Conduct highly publicized pedestrian and/or bicycle enforcement operation(s) in areas or during events with a high number of pedestrian and/or bicycle crashes resulting from violations made by pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. 2 13. Conduct Traffic Safety educational presentation(s) with an effort to reach community members. Note: Presentation(s) may include topics such as distracted driving, DUI, speed, bicycle and pedestrian safety, seat belts and child passenger safety.
4 14. Participate in highly visible collaborative DUI Enforcement operations. 2

15. Participate in highly visible collaborative Traffic Enforcement operations. 1

16. Send law enforcement personnel to DUI Checkpoint Planning and Management training.
1 17. Conduct specialized enforcement operations focusing specifically on street racing and sideshow activities.
2 18. Participate in community collaboration and engagement activities to engage in conversations regarding traffic safety to both share information and receive input from the community members.
3 3. METHOD OF PROCEDURE
A. Phase 1 – Program Preparation (1st Quarter of Grant Year)  The department will develop operational plans to implement the “best practice” strategies outlined in the objectives section.
 Conduct all training needed to implement the program, in the first quarter.  Purchase all grant related supplies and materials to implement the program, in the first quarter.  Items with a unit cost of $5,000 more (including tax and shipping) must comply with Buy America.  In order to develop/maintain the “DUI BOLOs,” research will be conducted to identify the “worst of the worst” repeat DUI offenders with a suspended or revoked license as a result of DUI convictions. The DUI BOLO may include the driver’s name, last known address, DOB, description, current license status, and the number of times suspended or revoked for DUI. DUI BOLOs should be updated and distributed to traffic and patrol officers at least monthly.  Implementation of the STEP grant activities will be accomplished by deploying personnel at high crash locations.

Media Requirements
Issue a news release approved by the OTS PIO announcing the kick-off of the grant by December 31 and after the grant is signed and executed, but no sooner than October 1, the start of the grant year. The kick-off release must be approved by the OTS PIO. If you are unable to meet the December 31 deadline to issue a kick-off press release, communicate reasons to your OTS grant coordinator and OTS PIO.

B. Phase 2 – Program Operations (Throughout Grant Year) Media Requirements

The following requirements are for all grant-related activities:
108

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 7 of 20

 Send all media advisories, alerts, videos, graphics, artwork, posters, radio/PSA/video scripts, storyboards, digital and/or print educational materials for grant-related activities to the OTS PIO at [email protected] for approval and copy your OTS grant coordinator. Optimum lead time would be 7 days before the scheduled release but at least 3 business days prior to the scheduled release date for review and approval is appreciated.
 Send all PowerPoint presentations, online presentations and trainings for grant-related activities to the OTS PIO at [email protected] for approval and copy your OTS grant coordinator. Certified training courses are EXEMPT from the approval process.
 The OTS PIO is responsible for the approval of the design and content of materials. The agency understands OTS PIO approval is not authorizing approval of budget expenditure or cost. Any cost approvals must come from the OTS grant coordinator.  Pre-approval is not required when using any OTS-supplied template for media advisories, news releases, social media graphics, videos or posts, or any other OTS-supplied educational material.

However, copy the OTS PIO at [email protected] and your OTS grant coordinator when any material is distributed to the media and public, such as a news release, educational material, or link to social media post.
 If an OTS-supplied template, educational material, social media graphic, post or video is substantially changed, the changes shall be sent to the OTS PIO at [email protected] for approval and copy your OTS grant coordinator.
 News releases, social media posts and alerts on platforms such as NextDoor and Nixle reporting immediate and time-sensitive grant activities (e.g. enforcement operations, day of event highlights or announcements, event invites) are EXEMPT from the OTS PIO approval process.

The OTS PIO and your OTS grant coordinator should still be notified when the grant-related activity is happening (e.g. car seat checks, bicycle rodeos, community presentations, DUI checkpoints, etc.).
 Enforcement activities such as warrant and probation sweeps, court stings, etc. that are embargoed or could impact operations by publicizing in advance are EXEMPT from the PIO approval process. However, announcements and results of activities should still be copied to the OTS PIO at [email protected] and your OTS grant coordinator with the embargoed date and time or with “INTERNAL ONLY: DO NOT RELEASE” message in subject line of email.  Any earned or paid media campaigns for TV, radio, digital or social media that are part of a specific grant objective, using OTS grant funds, or designed and developed using contractual services by a subgrantee, requires prior approval.
 Social media posts highlighting state or national traffic safety campaigns (Distracted Driving Month, Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month, etc.), enforcement operations (DUI checkpoints, etc.), or any other grant-related activity such as Bicycle rodeos, presentations, or events, are highly encouraged but do not require prior approval.
 Submit a draft or rough-cut of all digital, printed, recorded or video material (brochures, posters, scripts, artwork, trailer graphics, digital graphics, social posts connected to an earned or paid media campaign grant objective) to the OTS PIO at [email protected] and copy your OTS grant coordinator for approval prior to the production or duplication.  Use the following standard language in all press, media, and printed materials, space permitting:

Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  Space permitting, include the OTS logo on all grant-funded print materials, graphics and paid or earned social media campaign grant objective; consult the OTS PIO and copy your OTS grant coordinator for specifics, format-appropriate logos, or if space does not permit the use of the OTS logo.
 Email the OTS PIO at [email protected] and copy your OTS grant coordinator at least 21 days in advance, or when first confirmed, a short description of any significant grant-related traffic safety event or program, particularly events that are highly publicized beforehand with anticipated media coverage so OTS has sufficient notice to arrange for attendance and/or participation in the event.

If unable to attend, email the OTS PIO and coordinator brief highlights and/or results, including any media coverage (broadcast, digital, print) of event within 7 days following significant grant- related event or program. Media and program highlights are to be reflected in QPRs. 109

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 8 of 20

 Any news releases, work plans, scripts, storyboards, artwork, graphics, videos or any educational or informational materials that received OTS PIO approval in a prior grant year needs to be resubmitted for approval in the current grant year.
 For additional guidance, refer to the OTS Grants Materials Approval Process Guidelines and OTS Grants Media Approval Process FAQs on the OTS website.  Contact the OTS PIO or your OTS grant coordinator for consultation when changes from any of the above requirements might be warranted.

C. Phase 3 – Data Collection & Reporting (Throughout Grant Year)

1. Prepare and submit grant claim invoices (due January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30)

2. Prepare and submit Quarterly Performance Reports (QPR) (due January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30)
 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.

4. 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.

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

110

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 9 of 20

State of California – Office of Traffic Safety

GRANT AGREEMENT
Schedule B

GRANT NUMBER
PT26108

FUND NUMBER CATALOG

NUMBER (CFDA)

FUND DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT
1906-26 20.611 Racial Profiling Prohibition Grants $2,000.00 405e DDL-26 20.616 Distracted Driving Laws $18,000.00
402PT-26 20.600 State and Community Highway
Safety
$60,000.00
164AL-26 20.608 Minimum Penalties for Repeat
Offenders for Driving While
Intoxicated
$200,000.00

COST CATEGORY FUND
NUMBER

UNIT COST OR
RATE

UNITS TOTAL COST TO
GRANT
A. PERSONNEL COSTS

Straight Time
$0.00
Overtime
DUI/DL Checkpoints 164AL-26 $14,000.00 4 $56,000.00
DUI Saturation Patrols 164AL-26 $2,600.00 35 $91,000.00 Collaborative DUI Enforcement 164AL-26 $2,600.00 2 $5,200.00 Benefits for 164AL OT @ 23.82% 164AL-26 $152,200.00 1 $36,254.00 Traffic Enforcement 402PT-26 $2,700.00 9 $24,300.00
Motorcycle Safety 402PT-26 $2,600.00 2 $5,200.00
Pedestrian and Bicycle Enforcement 402PT-26 $2,600.00 2 $5,200.00 Street Racing and Sideshow Enforcement
Operations
402PT-26 $2,600.00 2 $5,200.00
Collaborative Traffic Enforcement 402PT-26 $2,600.00 1 $2,600.00 Traffic Safety Educational Presentations 402PT-26 $490.00 4 $1,960.00 Benefits for 402PT OT @ 23.82% 402PT-26 $44,360.00 1 $10,567.00 Distracted Driving Enforcement 405e DDL-
26 $1,453.70 10 $14,537.00
Benefits for 405e DDL OT @ 23.82% 405e DDL-
26 $14,537.00 1 $3,463.00
Community Collaboration Engagement 1906-26 $538.30 3 $1,615.00 Benefits for 1906 OT @ 23.82% 1906-26 $1,615.00 1 $385.00 Category Sub-Total $263,481.00
B. TRAVEL EXPENSES
In State Travel 402PT-26 $4,173.00 1 $4,173.00
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $4,173.00
C. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
D. EQUIPMENT
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
E. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
DUI Checkpoint Supplies 164AL-26 $4,796.00 1 $4,796.00
Portable Light Tower 164AL-26 $6,750.00 1 $6,750.00
111

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 10 of 20

Computer or Tablet 402PT-26 $800.00 1 $800.00
Category Sub-Total $12,346.00
F. INDIRECT COSTS
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
GRANT TOTAL $280,000.00

112

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 11 of 20

State of California – Office of Traffic Safety

GRANT AGREEMENT
Schedule B-1

GRANT NUMBER
PT26108

BUDGET NARRATIVE

PERSONNEL COSTS
DUI/DL Checkpoints - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.

DUI Saturation Patrols - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.

Collaborative DUI Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded Collaborative DUI Enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel
Benefits for 164AL OT @ 23.82% - Claimed amounts must reflect actual benefit costs for overtime hours charged to the grant.

Total Benefits breakdown:

Medicare 1.45%
Unemployment .16%
Workers Comp 10.47%
Other Comp 11.74%
Traffic Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.

Motorcycle Safety - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.

Street Racing and Sideshow Enforcement Operations - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.

Collaborative Traffic Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded Collaborative Traffic Enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel
Traffic Safety Educational Presentations - Overtime for grant funded traffic safety educational presentations conducted by appropriate department personnel.

Benefits for 402PT OT @ 23.82% - Claimed amounts must reflect actual benefit costs for overtime hours charged to the grant.

Total Benefits breakdown:

Medicare 1.45%
Unemployment .16%
Workers Comp 10.47%
Other Comp 11.74%
Distracted Driving Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.

Benefits for 405e DDL OT @ 23.82% - Claimed amounts must reflect actual benefit costs for overtime hours charged to the grant.

Total Benefits breakdown:

Medicare 1.45%
Unemployment .16%
Workers Comp 10.47%
Other Comp 11.74%
Community Collaboration Engagement - Overtime for grant funded community collaborative engagement conducted by appropriate department personnel.

Benefits for 1906 OT @ 23.82% - Claimed amounts must reflect actual benefit costs for overtime hours charged to the grant.

Total Benefits breakdown:

Medicare 1.45%
113

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 12 of 20

Unemployment .16%
Workers Comp 10.47%
Other Comp 11.74%

TRAVEL EXPENSES
In State Travel - Costs are included for appropriate staff to attend conferences and training events supporting the grant goals and objectives and/or traffic safety. Local mileage for grant activities and meetings is included. Anticipated travel may include the OTS Traffic Safety Law Enforcement Forum. All conferences, seminars or training not specifically identified in the Budget Narrative must be approved by OTS. All travel claimed must be at the agency approved rate. Per Diem may not be claimed for meals provided at conferences when registration fees are paid with OTS grant funds.

CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
-

EQUIPMENT
-

OTHER DIRECT COSTS
DUI Checkpoint Supplies - On-scene supplies needed to conduct sobriety checkpoints. Costs may include 28" traffic cones, MUTCD compliant traffic signs, MUTCD compliant high visibility vests (maximum of 10), traffic counters (maximum of 2), generator, gas for generators, lighting, reflective banners, electronic flares, PAS Device Supplies, PAS Calibration Supplies, heater, propane for heaters, fan, anti-fatigue mats, and canopies. Additional items may be purchased if approved by OTS. The cost of food and beverages will not be reimbursed.

Portable Light Tower - High intensity light on a telescoping shaft and stabilized platform to illuminate a wide area for greater visibility during night time operations. Costs may include a generator, battery, cart, and accessories.

Computer or Tablet - For use in tracking or conducting grant activities and producing required reports. Costs may include a desktop computer, monitor, laptop, tablet, printer, software and accessories.

INDIRECT COSTS
-

STATEMENTS/DISCLAIMERS
There will be no program income generated from this grant.

Nothing in this “agreement” shall be interpreted as a requirement, formal or informal, that a particular law enforcement officer issue a specified or predetermined number of citations in pursuance of the goals and objectives here under.

The OTS grant funded activities must be separate from the CHP Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program activities and maintained under separate accounting/tracking/other codes (example: the same DUI checkpoint may not be funded by both the CHP and the OTS).

Benefits for personnel costs can only be applied to straight time or overtime hours charged to the grant.

114

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 13 of 20

Appendix A to Part 1300—Certifications and Assurances for Highway Safety Grants (23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 or Section 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Section 25024, Public Law 117- 58)

The officials named on the grant agreement, certify by way of signature on the grant agreement signature page, that the Grantee Agency complies with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and directives and State rules, guidelines, policies, and laws in effect with respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding.

Applicable provisions include, but are not limited to, the following:

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The State will comply with applicable statutes and regulations, including but not limited to:

 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4—Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended;  Sec. 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Sec. 25024, Public Law 117-58;  23 CFR part 1300—Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs;  2 CFR part 200—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards;
 2 CFR part 1201—Department of Transportation, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.

NONDISCRIMINATION
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

The State highway safety agency [and its subrecipients] will comply with all Federal statutes and implementing regulations relating to nondiscrimination (“Federal Nondiscrimination Authorities”). These include but are not limited to:

 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin);
 49 CFR part 21 (entitled Non-discrimination in Federally -Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964);  28 CFR 50.3 (U.S. Department of Justice Guidelines for Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964);
 The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal-aid programs and projects);
 Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. 324 et seq.), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683 and 1685-1686) (prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex);
 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability) and 49 CFR part 27;  The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of age);
 The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (Pub. L. 100-209), (broadens scope, coverage, and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms “programs or activities” to include all of the programs or activities of the
Federal aid recipients, subrecipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally- funded or not);
 Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12131-12189) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing) and 49 CFR parts 37 and 38

State of California – Office of Traffic Safety

GRANT AGREEMENT
Exhibit A

GRANT NUMBER
PT26108
115

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 14 of 20

The preceding statutory and regulatory cites hereinafter are referred to as the “Acts” and “Regulations,” respectively.

GENERAL ASSURANCES

In accordance with the Acts, the Regulations, and other pertinent directives, circulars, policy, memoranda, and/or guidance, the Recipient hereby gives assurance that it will promptly take any measures necessary to ensure that:

“No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity, for which the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance from DOT, including NHTSA.”

The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 clarified the original intent of Congress, with respect to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other non-discrimination requirements (the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), by restoring the broad, institutional-wide scope and coverage of these nondiscrimination statutes and requirements to include all programs and activities of the Recipient, so long as any portion of the program is Federally assisted.

SPECIFIC ASSURANCES

More specifically, and without limiting the above general Assurance, the Recipient agrees with and gives the following Assurances with respect to its Federally assisted Highway Safety Grant Program:

1. The Recipient agrees that each “activity,” “facility,” or “program,” as defined in 49 CFR part 21 will be (with regard to an “activity”) facilitated, or will be (with regard to a “facility”) operated, or will be (with regard to a “program”) conducted in compliance with all requirements imposed by, or pursuant to the Acts and the Regulations.

2. The Recipient will insert the following notification in all solicitations for bids, Requests For Proposals for work, or material subject to the Acts and the Regulations made in connection with all Highway Safety Grant Programs and, in adapted form, in all proposals for negotiated agreements regardless of funding source:
“The [name of Recipient], in accordance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C 2000d to 2000d-4) and the Regulations, hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that in any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises will be afforded full and fair opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for an award.”

3. The Recipient will insert the clauses of appendix A and E of this Assurance (also referred to as DOT order 1050.2A) [1] in every contract or agreement subject to the Acts and the Regulations.

4. The Recipient will insert the clauses of appendix B of DOT Order 1050.2A, as a covenant running with the land, in any deed from the United States effecting or recording a transfer of real property, structures, use, or improvements thereon or interest therein to a Recipient.

5. That where the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance to construct a facility, or part of a facility, the Assurance will extend to the entire facility and facilities operated in connection therewith.

6. That where the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance in the form of, or for the acquisition of, real property or an interest in real property, the Assurance will extend to rights to space on, over, or under such property.

7. That the Recipient will include the clauses set forth in appendix C and appendix D of this DOT Order 1050.2A, as a covenant running with the land, in any future deeds, leases, licenses, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the Recipient with other parties:
a. for the subsequent transfer of real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program; and
b. for the construction or use of, or access to, space on, over, or under real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program.

8. That this Assurance obligates the Recipient for the period during which Federal financial assistance is extended to the program, except where the Federal financial assistance is to provide, or is in the 116

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 15 of 20

form of, personal property, or real property, or interest therein, or structures or improvements thereon, in which case the Assurance obligates the Recipient, or any transferee for the longer of the following periods:
a. the period during which the property is used for a purpose for which the Federal financial assistance is extended, or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits; or
b. the period during which the Recipient retains ownership or possession of the property.

9. The Recipient will provide for such methods of administration for the program as are found by the Secretary of Transportation or the official to whom he/she delegates specific authority to give reasonable guarantee that it, other recipients, sub-recipients, sub- grantees, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, transferees, successors in interest, and other participants of Federal financial assistance under such program will comply with all requirements imposed or pursuant to the Acts, the Regulations, and this Assurance.

10. The Recipient agrees that the United States has a right to seek judicial enforcement with regard to any matter arising under the Acts, the Regulations, and this Assurance.

By signing this ASSURANCE, the State highway safety agency also agrees to comply (and require any sub- recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, successors, transferees, and/or assignees to comply) with all applicable provisions governing NHTSA's access to records, accounts, documents, information, facilities, and staff. You also recognize that you must comply with any program or compliance reviews, and/or complaint investigations conducted by NHTSA. You must keep records, reports, and submit the material for review upon request to NHTSA, or its designee in a timely, complete, and accurate way. Additionally, you must comply with all other reporting, data collection, and evaluation requirements, as prescribed by law or detailed in program guidance.

The State highway safety agency gives this ASSURANCE in consideration of and for obtaining any Federal grants, loans, contracts, agreements, property, and/or discounts, or other Federal-aid and Federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the recipients by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Highway Safety Grant Program. This ASSURANCE is binding on the State highway safety agency, other recipients, sub-recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, subcontractors and their subcontractors', transferees, successors in interest, and any other participants in the Highway Safety Grant Program. The person(s) signing below is/are authorized to sign this ASSURANCE on behalf of the Recipient.

THE DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ACT OF 1988 (41 U.S.C. 8103)

The Subgrantee will provide a drug-free workplace by:
a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace, and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; b. Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about:

1. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;

2. The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;

3. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs;

4. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug violations occurring in the workplace;

5. Making it a requirement that each employee engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a); c. Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will—

1. Abide by the terms of the statement;

2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five days after such conviction; d. Notifying the agency within ten days after receiving notice under subparagraph (c)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction; e. Taking one of the following actions, within 30 days of receiving notice under subparagraph (c)(2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted—

1. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination;

2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or 117

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 16 of 20

rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency;
f. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of all of the paragraphs above.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY (HATCH ACT)
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

The State will comply with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1501-1508), which limits the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING FEDERAL LOBBYING
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

CERTIFICATION FOR CONTRACTS, GRANTS, LOANS, AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:

1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement;

2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions;

3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub-awards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grant, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

RESTRICTION ON STATE LOBBYING
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

None of the funds under this program will 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 with NHTSA funds from engaging in direct communications with State or local legislative officials, in accordance with customary State practice, even if such communications urge legislative officials to favor or oppose the adoption of a specific pending legislative proposal.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PRIMARY TIER PARTICIPANT CERTIFICATION (STATES)

118

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 17 of 20

1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective primary tier participant is providing the certification set out below and agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.

2. The inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this covered transaction. The prospective primary tier participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in connection with the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, failure of the prospective primary tier participant to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such person from participation in this transaction.

3. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the prospective primary tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default or may pursue suspension or debarment.

4. The prospective primary tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the department or agency to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective primary tier participant learns its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.

5. The terms covered transaction, civil judgment, debarment, suspension, ineligible, participant, person, principal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200. You may contact the department or agency to which this proposal is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.

6. The prospective primary tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency entering into this transaction.

7. The prospective primary tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled “Instructions for Lower Tier Participant Certification” including the “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” provided by the department or agency entering into this covered transaction, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions and will require lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.

8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart

9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant is responsible for ensuring that its principals are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions. To verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as the eligibility of any prospective lower tier participants, each participant may, but is not required to, check the System for Award Management Exclusions website
( https://www.sam.gov/).

9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.

10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate the transaction for cause or default.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS—PRIMARY TIER

COVERED TRANSACTIONS

1. The prospective primary tier participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and 119

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 18 of 20

its principals:
a. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered transactions by any Federal department or agency;
b. Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; c. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certification; and d. Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default.

2. Where the prospective primary tier participant is unable to certify to any of the Statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR LOWER TIER PARTICIPANT CERTIFICATION

1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below and agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.

2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension or debarment.

3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.

4. The terms covered transaction, civil judgment, debarment, suspension, ineligible, participant, person, principal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200. You may contact the person to whom this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.

5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated.

6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled “Instructions for Lower Tier Participant Certification” including the “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions and will require lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.

7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart

8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of 120

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 19 of 20

records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.

9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension or debarment.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION—LOWER TIER

COVERED TRANSACTIONS

1. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered transactions by any Federal department or agency.

2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.

BUY AMERICA
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

The State and each subrecipient will comply with the Buy America requirement (23 U.S.C. 313) when purchasing items using Federal funds. Buy America requires a State, or subrecipient, to purchase with Federal funds only steel, iron and manufactured products produced in the United States, unless the Secretary of Transportation determines that such domestically produced items would be inconsistent with the public interest, that such materials are not reasonably available and of a satisfactory quality, or that inclusion of domestic materials will increase the cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent. In order to use Federal funds to purchase foreign produced items, the State must submit a waiver request that provides an adequate basis and justification for approval by the Secretary of Transportation.

CERTIFICATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
No employee, officer, or agent of a State or its subrecipient who is authorized in an official capacity to negotiate, make, accept, or approve, or to take part in negotiating, making, accepting, or approving any subaward, including contracts or subcontracts, in connection with this grant shall have, directly or indirectly, any financial or personal interest in any such subaward. Such a financial or personal interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or personal interest in or a tangible personal benefit from an entity considered for a subaward. Based on this policy:

1. The recipient shall maintain a written code or standards of conduct that provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of such standards by officers, employees, or agents. a. The code or standards shall provide that the recipient's officers, employees, or agents may neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from present or potential subawardees, including contractors or parties to subcontracts. b. The code or standards shall establish penalties, sanctions, or other disciplinary actions for violations, as permitted by State or local law or regulations.

2. The recipient shall maintain responsibility to enforce the requirements of the written code or standards of conduct.

DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

121

9/12/2025 8:35:43 AM Page 20 of 20

No State or its subrecipient, including its officers, employees, or agents, shall perform or continue to perform under a grant or cooperative agreement, whose objectivity may be impaired because of any related past, present, or currently planned interest, financial or otherwise, in organizations regulated by NHTSA or in organizations whose interests may be substantially affected by NHTSA activities. Based on this policy:

1. The recipient shall disclose any conflict of interest identified as soon as reasonably possible, making an immediate and full disclosure in writing to NHTSA. The disclosure shall include a description of the action which the recipient has taken or proposes to take to avoid or mitigate such conflict.

2. NHTSA will review the disclosure and may require additional relevant information from the recipient.

If a conflict of interest is found to exist, NHTSA may (a) terminate the award, or (b) determine that it is otherwise in the best interest of NHTSA to continue the award and include appropriate provisions to mitigate or avoid such conflict.

3. Conflicts of interest that require disclosure include all past, present, or currently planned organizational, financial, contractual, or other interest(s) with an organization regulated by NHTSA or with an organization whose interests may be substantially affected by NHTSA activities, and which are related to this award. The interest(s) that require disclosure include those of any recipient, affiliate, proposed consultant, proposed subcontractor, and key personnel of any of the above. Past interest shall be limited to within one year of the date of award. Key personnel shall include any person owning more than a 20 percent interest in a recipient, and the officers, employees or agents of a recipient who are responsible for making a decision or taking an action under an award where the decision or action can have an economic or other impact on the interests of a regulated or affected organization.

PROHIBITION ON USING GRANT FUNDS TO CHECK FOR HELMET USAGE (applies to subrecipients as well as States)

The State and each subrecipient will not use 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 grant funds for programs to check helmet usage or to create checkpoints that specifically target motorcyclists.

POLICY ON SEAT BELT USE

In accordance with Executive Order 13043, Increasing Seat Belt Use in the United States, dated April 16, 1997, the Grantee is encouraged to adopt and enforce on-the-job seat belt use policies and programs for its employees when operating company-owned, rented, or personally-owned vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for providing leadership and guidance in support of this Presidential initiative. For information and resources on traffic safety programs and policies for employers, please contact the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS), a public-private partnership dedicated to improving the traffic safety practices of employers and employees. You can download information on seat belt programs, costs of motor vehicle crashes to employers, and other traffic safety initiatives at www.trafficsafety.org. The NHTSA website ( www.nhtsa.gov) also provides information on statistics, campaigns, and program evaluations and references.

POLICY ON BANNING TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING

In accordance with Executive Order 13513, Federal Leadership On Reducing Text Messaging While Driving, and DOT Order 3902.10, Text Messaging While Driving, States are encouraged to adopt and enforce workplace safety policies to decrease crashes caused by distracted driving, including policies to ban text messaging while driving company-owned or rented vehicles, Government-owned, leased or rented vehicles, or privately-owned vehicles when on official Government business or when performing any work on or behalf of the Government. States are also encouraged to conduct workplace safety initiatives in a manner commensurate with the size of the business, such as establishment of new rules and programs or re- evaluation of existing programs to prohibit text messaging while driving, and education, awareness, and other outreach to employees about the safety risks associated with texting while driving.

122
Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-xx

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

CALIFORNIA, RATIFYING THE APPLICATION FOR A GRANT AWARD FROM THE

CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY (OTS) FOR THE SELECTIVE TRAFFIC

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (STEP) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR

HER DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ALL GRANT DOCUMENTS , AND ACCEPT AND

ADMINISTER THE GRANT

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

WHEREAS, the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) has established the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) grant with the objective of reducing the number of persons killed and injured in crashes involving alcohol and other primary collision factors; and
WHEREAS, OTS has allocated to the City of Costa Mesa $280,000 in grant funds for the period of October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa supports the Program goals and wishes to participate in the Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute all grant documents and accept and administer the grant.

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 ratifies the application for a STEP grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety and approves revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $280,000 respectively, for the 2025-26 OTS STEP Grant.

Section 3. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or her designee is to execute all grant documents, including the grant agreement, accept and administer the grant, and take all steps necessary to implement this authorization and STEP requirements and objectives.

ATTACHMENT 2
123

Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 2 of 2

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 2025.

_____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

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

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution 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 21st day of October, 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 21st day of October, 2025.

________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

124

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-442 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025
TITLE:

FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN - REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DEPARTMENT/PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: MELINDA DACEY, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, ANNA MCGILL,

PLANNING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, AND KAREN GULLEY / SUZANNE

SCHWAB, PLACEWORKS
CONTACT INFORMATION: MELINDA DACEY, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, (714) 754-5611 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

2. Provide direction to staff regarding a feasibility analysis of potential land uses for Harbor Frontage

Page 1 of 1 ends

125

Page 1 of 12 ends

City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report

77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Item #: 25-442 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025
TITLE: FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN – REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION

DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT / PLANNING

DIVISION

PRESENTED BY: MELINDA DACEY, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, ANNA MCGILL, PLANNING AND

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, AND KAREN GULLEY / SUZANNE SCHWAB,

PLACEWORKS

CONTACT INFORMATION: MELINDA DACEY, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, (714) 754-5611

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2025-XX to confirm Planning Commission recommendation for a Draft Preferred Land Use Plan for the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Specific Plan and scope of environmental study , without committing the City to a specific course of action on the Specific Plan; and

2. Provide direction to staff regarding a feasibility analysis of potential land uses for Harbor Frontage

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

The action being considered by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because the action is not a “project” pursuant to Section 1 5378(b)(5). The action involves an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

Moreover, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the Specific Plan in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. Direction on the preferred plan will be used to help define the project description that will be studied under the EIR.

126

Item #: 25-442 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025

Page 2 of 12 ends

BACKGROUND:

Site Description

The Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) is a 115-acre property located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard in the City of Costa Mesa. The property is owned by the State of California, and the site was historically developed and operated as a residential care facility for individuals with developmental disabilities.

Through extended negotiations, the State Department of General Services (DGS) will retain ownership of 20 acres for an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) , and the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) complex needs housing. This 20 -acre area of land will n ot be included in the FDC Specific Plan area. The proposed Specific Plan boundary encompasses approximately 95 acres. Of this, DDS will also retain 15 acres for affordable housing similar to the Harbor Village Apartments, leaving approximately 80 acres available for future development.

Figure 1: Site Location

EO
C
Legend

Project Boundary

DDS State Housing
127

Item #: 25-442 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025

Page 3 of 12 ends

City and State Contractual Obligations in the FDC Specific Plan Process

In June 2022, the State Legislature, through Senate Bill (SB) 188, approved Government Code Section 14670.31, which provides a framework for the reuse of the FDC property. The legislation codifies a partnership between the Department of General Services (DGS), the Department of Developmental Services (DDS), and the City of Costa Mesa, with defined roles for each entity.

To support this effort, the State allocated $3.5 million in State funding to the City to develop a Specific Plan, conduct necessary studies, and manage a community-based planning process. The Legislature’s intent for the redevelopment of the FDC site is to prioritize affordable housing to the greatest extent feasible, including a minimum of 200 units of permanent supportive housing, open space, and housing for individuals with developmental disabilities, and the City will create a Specific Plan for the FDC site that implements the provisions of Government Code Section 14670.31.

The City and the State executed an agreement on January 29, 2023, consistent with SB 188. As outlined in the agreement between the City and State, the final development plan must align with both the City’s adopted vision and the State’s interests. While the site is owned and controlled by the State (DGS), the agreement outlines the City’s responsibilities for leading the land use planning process. The agreement envisioned that the City’s planning work for FDC would be completed by December 2025 (recently extended to December 2026), and included the following deliverables:
• Robust Community Engagement Strategy (and implementation thereof); • Comprehensive Conditions Report on the property and its setting; • Economic Market Demand Report;
• Water Supply Assessment and coordination among Water Agencies; • Project Conceptual Alternatives & a Preferred Plan Framework; • Draft Specific Plan with Implementation Strategies;
• Public Draft Initial Study and Notice of Preparation, if required; • Public Draft Environmental Impact Report;
• Draft Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; • Final Draft Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report; and • Public hearings for EIR certification and Specific Plan adoption, including any General Plan and Zoning amendments identified as necessary for consistency.

In accordance with the FDC project agreement with the State, the planning process has progressed to establishing the Preferred Plan Framework for environmental review purposes. The preferred land use plan is required to commence the environmental review step anticipated in the City-State agreement, and for which the City approved a contract with a consultant to prepare. The purpose of environmental review is to evaluate a project description and identify significant impacts and corresponding mitigation measures to inform the decision-making for the eventual Specific Plan.

The Planning Commission provided input on components to include within a Preferred Plan at three public study sessions held on May 27, 2025, June 23, 2025, and August 25, 2025, as described in further detail below, to make a recommendation to City Council for their consideration.

128

Item #: 25-442 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025

Page 4 of 12 ends

Preliminary Public Participation

An initial round of public outreach and engagement efforts commenced in October 2023 and occurred throughout the rest of the 2024 calendar year. A total of 18 public outreach and engagement meetings have been held to date, and past outreach events are available on the project webpage linked here:
https://fdcplan.com/participate/. The outreach events have included in-person and virtual workshops, pop-up events, and study sessions. Materials for all workshop and pop-up events were provided both in English and Spanish, with Spanish interpreters available to assist attendees when needed. For in- person meetings, the City provided activities for children to enable parents to engage fully in outreach.

The feedback and findings expressed during public participation partially formed the basis to formulate three land use concepts that included priorities such as affordable housing, open space, mobility, and access. The land use alternatives were developed through coordination efforts with State agencies, feedback received through public engagement efforts (18 community outreach events), and the findings from the financial feasibility analysis to test housing unit thresholds, land use distribution, circulati on network, open space, and organization of the site. In general, the majority of respondents supported more open space, the secondary access road, and lower density concepts (but maintaining 920 affordable units).

Financial Feasibility Analysis
As required by the agreement with the State, the City oversaw preparation of a Financial Feasibility Analysis (“Analysis”) for the FDC site, using three land use concepts as test cases. The three land use concepts included different unit counts, at Concept 1/2,300 units, Concept 2/3,450 units, and Concept 3/4,000 units, along with land use components identified during public outreach. Incorporating market demand and pricing, the Analysis provides a detailed summary of the development cost at the FDC site, excluding the cost that affordable housing developers will pay to build and operate their projects.

The analysis also includes project -wide infrastructure costs, such as demolition, roads, water, and sewer, along with public safety and open space needs for the level of development. Feasibility alternatives (i.e., changes in the assumptions for each land use concept that would make each concept more feasible) were included to identify adjustments that could make the overall project financially feasible.

Financial feasibility analyses are prepared and analyzed from the perspective of potential developers and ask the question: do the concepts provide enough market rate housing units to offset the costs to support the affordable housing, the DDS housing, and other amenities, such as public safety and parks and recreation facilities. It can be used to predict the potential feasibility of a project with the most accurate information at hand at the time the analysis is conducted. While these analyses try to anticipate future market trends, unforeseen trends or market factors could adjust identified feasibility when the master developer is ready to construct. The Analysis is a ‘snapshot’ of the current market and its considerations. For FDC, the Analysis evaluated the three concepts to determine how and whether a developer could redevelop the site and achieve an industry standard internal rate of return for project feasibility (15%). The table below is a summary of the results of the financial feasibility analysis:

129

Item #: 25-442 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025

Page 5 of 12 ends

The financial feasibility analysis found that Concept 2 and Concept 3 were financially feasible; however, Concept 2 has a financing shortfall, commonly referred to as a “gap” in project financing. Based on the financial feasibility analysis, staff initially recommended a residential unit mix of 3,600 to 3,800 units for the preferred land use plan as a reasonably expected development range at the FDC site.

Planning Commission Discussions and Recommendation
On May 27, 2025, the Planning Commission received a report that outlined three different land use alternatives developed within a financial feasibility analysis for the FDC Specific Plan. The Planning Commission and the public requested additional informat ion on the Specific Plan process. Staff explained that the land use plan was intended to be more high-level, with designated land uses and key components of the plan. The land use map identifies potential areas for housing development but does not describe the maximum density or height at these locations, allowing flexibility for the master developer as part of the entitlement process. The Specific Plan would then evolve this land use plan further with additional details, requirements, and considerations.

The May 27, 2025, FDC Study Session Staff Report and materials are linked as follows:

Staff Report: https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7408827&GUID=E7162FB0- 6F1B-49C8-8A10-A2B71A59E397

Minutes: https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1309937&GUID=DF56F674-208A- 4037-A0EC-B38BB0E51F44

Video: https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/4262?view_id=14&redirect=true

130

Item #: 25-442 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025

Page 6 of 12 ends

On June 23, 2025, the Planning Commission received a report that provided a comprehensive background on the City and State roles in the FDC Specific Plan, components of a specific plan, community outreach and engagement activities, development realities with State housing law (Density Bonus), environmental review process, and further discussion around the financial feasibility analysis findings. As part of the City’s obligation to plan the FDC site to accommodate a reasonably expected level of development, the City had reached a critical point in the project to complete an initial draft of the Specific Plan based on the received input.

The Planning Commission requested clarification on types of affordable housing and expressed a challenge to reach Housing Element affordability thresholds (40% affordability with the very low- and low-income categories) with the development range. Additional discussion items included:

 The secondary access road and golf course impacts.
 Other alternative access locations.
 A perceived sense of isolation of the site with a desire to have better connection to Harbor Boulevard for open space, commercial and housing opportunities.

The Planning Commission did not make a recommendation at the meeting due to the additional discussion items. However, a majority of the Planning Commission indicated interest in exploring land use options for the “Harbor Frontage” area of the golf course, which separates the FDC site from Harbor Boulevard.

The June 23, 2025, FDC Study Session Staff Report and Materials are linked as follows:

Staff Report: https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7443281&GUID=794883F8- 79F0-429F-89AA-27A1037F3206

Minutes: https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1316545&GUID=737E02AB-73AD- 445B-B62B-FF9D2DDE7F59

Video: https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/4275?view_id=14&redirect=true

On August 25, 2025, the Planning Commission received a report summarizing prior Planning Commission study session concerns, public input received at the meetings, and focused discussions on finalizing the draft Preferred Plan for recommendation to City Cou ncil for environmental review purposes. In addition, staff informed the Planning Commission that a separate, but concurrent “Harbor Frontage” concept may be forthcoming to address concerns about the secondary access road impacts to the golf course and the Commission’s desire to create better connectivity to the site at Harbor Boulevard. The “Harbor Frontage” concept includes several land use options, including a potential land swap with the State for an identically sized area of land in between the two proposed access roads.

Staff further relayed that the City Council would need to provide direction to staff to continue to explore this concept further, since the land is City-owned land.

The Planning Commission recommended adoption of PC Resolution No. 2025-17, which outlines the draft Preferred Plan for City Council consideration, further discussed in the analysis section of this report, with modification to increase the maximum residenti al unit total to 4,000 from the staff recommended 3,800 units, and to study a third vehicular access path from Shelley Circle to Placentia Avenue (if needed) to alleviate the two proposed access points. These modifications are incorporated 131

Item #: 25-442 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025

Page 7 of 12 ends

in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-17, included as Attachment 2 to this report. The August 25, 2025, Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report and associated attachments are included as Attachment 3 to this report.

ANALYSIS:

Recommended Preferred Land Use Plan
Following community input and financial feasibility analysis, the City’s planning effort contemplated the development of land use alternatives and from those alternatives, a preferred land use plan. The consultant team developed potential land use alternatives as starting points for discussion. The goal in developing these alternatives was to incorporate components of the studied land use concepts that were desired by the community as well as incorporate aspects of good planning design with consideration of the results of the financial feasibility analysis.

These alternatives were vetted and discussed with City staff across multiple divisions/departments. All considered land use plans accommodated the staff recommended components of the preferred plan that was shared with the Planning Commission. These include housing target range, minimum amount of open space dispersed through the site, commercial space, grand promenade, and flexibility for a future master developer.

For the City to prepare a viable Specific Plan and conduct environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City is responsible for evaluating a land use concept that is both physically and financially viable and reasonably expected. The City can then ensure a Specific Plan that achieves a balance of community desires, key public benefits, such as affordable housing, open space, and community amenities, as well as plan for elements that are reasonably expected to be seen as part of a future project proposal based on feasibility.

At the August 25, 2025 public meeting, the Planning Commission made the following recommendation for City Council consideration for the 95-acre FDC project area:

 2,300 Dwelling Units Minimum (per Housing Element)
 4,000 Dwelling Units Maximum
 35,000 square foot Commercial maximum – flexible location – could be standalone or in mixed- use configuration in any building
 12 acres minimum dedicated publicly accessible open space (plus improvements and impact fees)
 2 access points from Harbor Boulevard
 (Off-site) Partial golf course reconfiguration due to secondary access road  Study possible third access point from Shelley Circle to Placentia Avenue at an existing maintenance path

132

Item #: 25-442 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025

Page 8 of 12 ends

Table 2 – Preferred Plan Land Use Designations and Affordable Housing

Land Use Development
Minimum
Development
Maximum
Total Residential Units1,4 2,300 units minimum 4,000 units maximum  Very Low Income 575 units2 -
 Low Income 345 units -
 Moderate Income 690 units -
 Above Moderate Income 690 units -
Commercial 10,000 sf minimum 35,000 sf maximum
Public Open Space3 12 acres minimum No maximum

Notes for Table 2:

1. The Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate-income categories is defined in the City’s Housing Element.

2. The very low-income units shall include 200 Permanent Supportive Housing Units in accordance with State Code Section 14670.31. Housing developed on-site by DDS may count towards meeting this requirement.

3. Public Open Space includes areas planned for possible use of the following, including but not limited to: public parks, trails, plazas, and other types of open spaces available to the general public. It does not include private and common open space that is considered an on-site amenity for housing and is primarily accessible by the residents of the housing development.

4. Total units include the residential development within the 15-acres of land retained by DDS.

5. The Plan also contemplates a secondary access at the southeast corner of the site through the golf course, requiring the reconfiguration of up to six holes.

Development Realities

State Density Bonus Law now allows additional density on all housing development projects that provide a certain level of affordable housing. Density bonuses can range from 5% to 80% of the number of base units. For example, a development with 100 base units can earn up to an 80% density bonus (180 units) if all the units are affordable (very-low, low, or moderate-income levels). In another example, a development with 100 base units can earn up to a 50% bonus (150 units) if 40% of the units are restricted to a very-low income level.

Studying the potential impact s of a maximum number more accurately prepares the City for the reasonable expectation that a master developer will pursue a financially feasible development scenario. This ensures that the City studies all developmentally feasible options and ensures tha t future projects meet the Specific Plan and adequately fulfill infrastructure and public service requirements to support the approximate level of development. These recommendations seek to strike a balance between the City planning for the reasonably expe ctable range of development, achieving City and State housing goals, and ensuring that development “pays its way.”

133

Item #: 25-442 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025

Page 9 of 12 ends

Conceptual Preferred Land Use Plan as of 8/23/2025
Specific Plan Designations:

Residential. The Residential land use category is intended to allow for a wide range of housing types, including two-and-three story walk-up townhomes, courtyard or motorcourt products, stacked flats, and buildings up to 12 stories in height. This category is also i ntended to satisfy the City’s 6 th Cycle RHNA obligation for the FDC property in terms of providing Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate-Income Housing.

The Residential category will also allow for a range of senior living options , including independent and assisted living. Public and private recreational uses, daycare, and community and neighborhood- serving amenities will also be allowed.

134

Item #: 25-442 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025

Page 10 of 12 ends

Commercial. The Commercial land use category is intended to allow for neighborhood-serving retail and service uses in either a stand -alone or mixed -use configuration, including restaurants, coffee shops, small grocery and retail stores, pharmacies, studio and fitness facilities, and small office uses, including medical office, in either a mixed-use or stand -alone configuration. Ancillary community supporting uses, such as day care, are also allowed.

Publicly Accessible Open Space . The Open Space category is intended for various parks and open space uses that are open to the general public, including neighborhood parks, recreation centers and cultural facilities, smaller pocket parks, and trails for pedestrians and bicyclists. Flexibility in the final location and configuration of publicly accessible open space is provided in the Specific Plan.

Minimum Specific Plan Provisions to Carry out the Preferred Land Use Plan:

 The Plan (italics represent items in addition to items in the heading parenthetical). o Land Use Plan (including permitted land use categories such as housing/affordable housing, commercial, community amenities, etc.)
 Allow community amenity uses (library, school, etc.)
o Mobility and Circulation (including roadway and network layout, street sections, bicycle, and pedestrian path and access requirements, etc.)
 Secondary access acquisition process (City -owned land), including community engagement, and type of access
 Construction phasing of “backbone” paths and streets
o Open Space (including minimum required open space, types of open space permitted and possible locations for open space, recreational amenities, dedications, fees to be paid, construction and maintenance responsibilities)
 Require State/General Plan designated amount of open space  Use Open Space requirements as a lever to achieve additional affordability or publicly-available amenities
 Accommodate active sports fields that are open to the public, with the uses to be determined by the City’s Park Master Plan
 Golf course reconfiguration and improvement requirements as a result of secondary access , including phasing ; coor dination with Golf Course operator and golf course design firm on a preferred course configuration  Pedestrian connection to Fairview Park
o Infrastructure (including infrastructure requirements for the plan , such as water, storm drain, sewer and drain utilit ies for both master development and individual project development)
 Construction phasing of “backbone” infrastructure
o Public Services (including additional requirements for public services such as police and fire facilities, as well as storm drainage to a ccommodate the need s of additional residents and services)
 Construction phasing to ensure public services are available to service future residents
 Administration and Implementation
o Review processes, including applications and decision bodies  Future development
 Specific Plan amendments
135

Item #: 25-442 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025

Page 11 of 12 ends

o Monitoring requirements
o Development impact fee provisions

Following receipt of City Council direction, staff intends to pursue separate but parallel tracks:

1) Continue with the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan and Environmental Review.

Following City Council direction on a project description, staff will proceed with the environmental review process. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) will be issued to initiate the environmental review.

The NOP will be circulated for 30 days pursuant to State CEQA guideline timeframes . The City will hold a public scoping meeting in November 2025 during the 30-day NOP circulation timeframe to obtain early feedback and input from the public regarding areas of concern in relation to environmental review topics (Biological Resources, Geology/Soils, Hydrology, Noise, Land Use, Population, Transportation, etc.). Following the NOP, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) will be prepared. During the DEIR public review period, the public will be able to evaluate and understand the environmental impacts and continue to provide input that will refine the preferred plan and the Specific Plan components.

Concurrently, staff will continue to refine proposed Specific Plan policies, development standards, and objective design guidelines. Community outreach will be conducted to present the draft specific plan and DEIR to the community for feedback. A follow-up study session with the Planning Commission and City Council will also be held on the draft Specific Plan, with additional opportunity for discussion and refinement. Once input is received and refinements are made, the City would create a final draft Specific Plan and initiate the formal public hearing process to consider adoption of the Specific Plan and associated project approvals.

2) Discussion about Harbor Frontage and Golf Course Improvements . Should City Council indicate interest in discussing land use concepts for the City -owned land between Harbor Boulevard and the FDC east boundary, including a possible land swap , staff would return at the earliest opportunity (anticipated in December 2025) with options that include alternative land use concepts. Since this City-owned area is currently occupied by a portion of the golf cours e, staff has engaged with a golf course designer to evaluate feasibility of several alternative golf course plans that result in an overall improvement to the City’s golf course resources, rather than simply reconfiguring the six holes affected by the seco ndary access road. This more holistic review ensures that the City’s golf course resources are not only retained but enhanced as a result of the FDC Specific Plan.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may modify the Planning Commission’s recommend ation or provide alternative direction to staff.

FISCAL REVIEW:
136

Item #: 25-442 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025

Page 12 of 12 ends

In 2022, SB 188 was adopted by the State legislature , which established Government Code Section 14670.31, setting forth a framework and establishing the need for an agreement between the State of California and the City to prepare and develop local planning documents identified as the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan and associated work. The City received State Grant funds (Fund 231) in the amount of $3.5 million from the State of California Department of Development Services in 2023, of which $1.7 million has been expended as of this Council Agend a date. Expenses related to environmental study would be funded from the remaining grant funds, which currently have a balance of approximately $1.8 million.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed this staff report , City Council resolution and has approved them as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

Creating a plan for the FDC supports the following City Council Goal:

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

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council provide direction regarding the preferred land use plan framework as recommended by the Planning Commission, so the draft specific plan document may be prepared and the environmental review process may commence. At this time, the City Council may direct staff to further pursue the “Harbor Frontage” concept to address the Planning Commission’s concerns with the potential disruption to the golf course due to the secondary access road, in addition to the site having a greater presence on Harbor Boulevard.

137
ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 1 of 9

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

COSTA MESA , CALIFORNIA PROVIDING DIRECTION FOR

THE FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN

DRAFT LAND USE CONCEPT, AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

FOR PURPOSES OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

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

Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 2 of 9

neighborhood design, vision and guiding principles, and identifying community priorities; and
WHEREAS, representatives from the City, DGS, and DDS have continued to meet regularly to coordinate planning efforts and ensure that the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan aligns with the intent of the enabling legislation and supports both State and City goals; and
WHEREAS, these goals include: the planning for the construction and operation of a California Office of Emergency Services Regional Emergency Operations Center; the development of DDS housing consistent with Government Code Sections 14670.36, 14670.31, and 14670.35(e), and the City’s adopted Housing Element objectives; and WHEREAS, it is essential that the Specific Plan include a land use framework and supporting policies that balance financial feasibility, State requirements —including provisions for affordable housing an d DDS housing—and community priorities such as open space and accessibility, in order to create a viable plan to guide future development; and
WHEREAS, in order to prepare a feasible Specific Plan and conduct environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City must evaluate a version of the project that is both physically and financially viable; and WHEREAS, the Financial Feasibility Analysis served as a critical step in this process by evaluating whether each land use concept could offset the costs of demolition, infrastructure, DDS and affordable housing site preparation, while still generating a return sufficient to attract private investment—thereby ensuring the plan’s feasibility and ability to deliver key public benefits such as affordable housing, open space, and community amenities; and
WHEREAS, the results of the Financial Feasibility Analysis informed staff’s recommendation for a Preferred Plan and serve as a foundational element in the drafting of the Specific Plan; and
139

Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 3 of 9

WHEREAS, on May 27, 2025, the City conducted a Planning Commission Study Session to provide the Commission and the public with a comprehensive update on the FDC Specific Plan project, and to offer an opportunity for the Commission to review and discuss land use concepts and key plan components prior to making a recommendation to the City Council on a preferred land use plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2025, the City conducted a second Planning Commission Study Session to provide a comprehensive recap of the City and State roles in the Fairview Development Center (FDC) Specific Plan process to date, the findings of the Financial Feasibility Study, components of a Specific Plan, development realities of State housing laws, and environmental review; and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2025, based on the updated recommendation and feedback provided by the public and City staff, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025- 17 recommending that the City Council affirm a recommended land use concept for the FDC Specific Plan for the purposes of environmental study; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the action being considered by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because the action is not a “project” pursuant to Section 15378(b)(5). The action involves an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment. Moreover, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the Specific Plan in accordance with the CEQA Gui delines.

Direction on the preferred plan is used to help define the project description that will be studied under the EIR.
140

Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 4 of 9

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Costa Mesa City Council hereby directs, based on the evidence in the record, that the project description, and draft preferred land use plan, included herein as Exhibit A, be used for the sole purpose of CEQA environmental review and that this direction does not commit the City to a specific course of action regarding the final Specific Plan.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly for the purpose of scoping environmental review, as described in the staff report and supporting materials referenced in Exhibit A, and in compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the document in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 2025.

_____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

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

141

Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 5 of 9

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 Resolution 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 _____, 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 _____, 2025.

___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

142

Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 6 of 9

EXHIBIT A

Recommendation on the environmental scope of study on the FDC Preferred Plan

95 Acre Property Boundary

• 2,300 Dwelling Units Minimum (per Housing Element)
• 4,000 Dwelling Units Maximum
• 35,000 square foot Commercial maximum – flexible location – could be standalone or in mixed-use configuration in any building • 12 acres minimum dedicated publicly accessible open space (plus improvements and impact fees)
• 2 access points from Harbor Boulevard
• (Off-site) Partial golf course reconfiguration due to secondary access road

Land Use Development Minimum Development
Maximum
Residential1
• Very Low Income 575 units2 -
• Low Income 345 units -
• Moderate Income 690 units -
• Above Moderate Income 690 units -
Total Units4 2,300 units minimum 4,000 units maximum
Commercial 10,000 sf minimum 35,000 sf maximum
Public Open Space3 12 acres minimum No maximum

NOTES:

1. The definition of Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate-income categories is defined in Section X of the City’s Housing Element.

2. Very Low=income units shall include 200 Permanent Supportive Housing Units in accordance with State Code Section 14670.31. Housing developed on-site by DDS may count towards meeting this requirement.

4. Total units include the residential development within the 15-acres of land retained by DDS.

5. The Project also includes the construction of a secondary access on the southeast corner of the site that would run through the golf course. This would require the reconfiguration of up to six holes.
143

Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 7 of 9

Conceptual Land Use as of 7/24/2025

Specific Plan Designations:

Residential. The Residential land use category is intended to allow for a wide range of housing types, including two-and-three story walk-up townhomes, courtyard or motorcourt products, stacked flats, and buildings up to 12 stories in height. This category is also intended to satisfy the City’s 6
th Cycle RHNA obligation for the FDC property in terms of providing Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate-Income Housing.

The Residential category will also allow for a range of senior living options including independent and assisted living. Public and private recreational uses, daycare, and community and neighborhood-serving amenities will also be allowed.

144

Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 8 of 9

Commercial. The Commercial land use category is intended to allow for neighborhood- serving retail and service uses in either a stand-alone or mixed-use configuration, including restaurants, coffee shops, small grocery and retail stores, pharmacies, studio and fitnes s facilities, and small office uses, including medical office, in either a mixed- use or stand- alone configuration. Ancillary community supporting uses, such as day care, are also allowed.

Publicly Accessible Open Space. The Open Space category is intended for various parks and open space uses that are open to the general public, including neighborhood parks, recreation centers and cultural facilities, smaller pocket parks, and trails for pedestrians and bicyclists. Flexibility in the final location and configuration of publicly accessible open space is provided in the Specific Plan.

Minimum Specific Plan Provisions to Carry out the Preferred Land Use Plan:

• The Plan (italics represent items in addition to items in the heading parenthetical). o Land Use Plan (including permitted land use categories such as housing/affordable housing, commercial, community amenities, etc.)  Allow community amenity uses (library, school, etc.)
o Mobility and Circulation (including roadway and network layout, street sections, bicycle, and pedestrian path and access requirements, etc.)  Secondary access acquisition process (City-owned land), including community engagement
 Construction phasing of “backbone” paths and streets
o Open Space (including minimum required open space, types of open space permitted and possible locations for open space, recreational amenities, dedications, fees to be paid, construction and maintenance responsibilities)  Require State/General Plan designated amount of open space  Use Open Space requirements as a lever to achieve additional affordability or publicly-available amenities
 Accommodate active sports fields that are open to the public, with the uses to be determined by the City’s Park Master Plan  Golf course reconfiguration and improvement requirements, including phasing
 Pedestrian connection to Fairview Park
145

Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 9 of 9

o Infrastructure (including infrastructure requirements for the plan such as water, storm drain, sewer and drain utilities for both master development and individual project development)
 Construction phasing of “backbone” infrastructure
o Public Services (including additional requirements for public services such as police and fire facilities, as well as storm drainage to accommodate the need of additional residents and services)
 Construction phasing to ensure public services are available to service future residents
• Administration and Implementation
o Review processes, including applications and decision bodies  Future development
 Specific Plan amendments
o Monitoring requirements
o Development impact fee provisions

146
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-17

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDATION

ON FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN

DRAFT LAND USE CONCEPT, AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

FOR PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW

THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the Fairview Developmental Center located at 2501 Harbor Bou(evard is owned by the State of California and was formerly used as a state-run residential facility For individuals with developmental disabilities; and WHEREAS, the residents of the Fairview Developmental Center main campus have been relocated; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of California's acute affordable housing crisis, the State has prioritized the development of affordable housing in the disposition of the Fairview Developmental Center property; and
WHEREAS, on June 30, 2022, the State enacted Senate Bill 188, codified in Government Code Section 14670.31, establishing the framework for the planning and disposition of the Fairview Developmental Center site; and WHEREAS, on December 29, 2022, pursuant to Government Code Section 14670.31, the Department of Developmental Services (DDS), Department of General Services (DGS), and the City of Costa Mesa entered into a formal agreement to plan for the future redevelopment of the Fairview Developmental Center; and WHEREAS, under this agreement, the City is responsible for managing the land use planning process, while the DGS is responsible for overseeing the property's eventual disposition; and
WHEREAS, in September 2023, the City initiated the land use planning process and has since conducted multiple community outreach events to gather input on ATTACHMENT 2
-1-
147
neighborhood design, vision and guiding principles, and identifying community priorities; and
WHEREAS, representatives from the City, DGS, and DDS have continued to meet regularly to coordinate planning efforts and ensure that the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan aligns with the intent of the enabling legislation and supports both State and City goals; and
WHEREAS, these goals include: the planning for the construction and operation of a California Office of Emergency Services Regional Emergency Operations Center; the development of DDS housing consistent with Government Code Sections 14670.36, 14670.31, and 1 4670.35(e); and the City's adopted Housing Element objectives; and WHEREAS, it is essential that the Specific Plan include a land use framework and supporting policies that balance financial Feasibility, State requirements-including provisions for affordable housing and DDS housing-and community priorities such as open space and accessibility, in order to create a viable plan to guide future development; and
WHEREAS, in order to prepare a feasible Specific Plan and conduct environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City must evaluate a version of the project that is both physically and financially viable; and WHEREAS, the Financial Feasibility Analysis served as a critical step in this process by evaluating whether each land use concept could offset the costs of demolition, infrastructure, DDS and affordable housing site preparation, while still generating a return sufficient to attract private investment-thereby ensuring the plan's feasibility and ability to deliver key public benefits such as affordable housing, open space, and community amenities; and
WHEREAS, the results of the Financial Feasibility Analysis informed staff's recommendation for a Preferred Plan and serve as a foundational element in the drafting of the Specific Plan; and
-2-
148
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2025, the City conducted a Planning Commission Study Session to provide the Commission and the public with a comprehensive update on the FDC Specific Plan project, and to offer an opportunity for the Commission to review and discuss land use concepts and key plan components prior to making a recommendation to the City Council on a preferred land use plan; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2025, the City conducted a second Planning Commission Study Session to provide a comprehensive recap of the City and State roles in the Fairview Development Center (FDC) Specific Plan process to date, the findings of the Financial Feasibility Study, components of a Specific Plan, development realities of State housing laws, and environmental review; and
WHEREAS, based on the feedback provided by the public and Planning Commission during the Study Session, City staff presented an updated recommendation to the Planning Commission on August 25, 2025; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on August 25, 2025 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the project in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, based on the direction received on the preferred land use plan and defined project description and draff preferred land use plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, based on the evidence in the record and the recommended project description, draft preferred land use plan, included in Exhibit A, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council considers its recommendation with respect to the property described above, with the clarification that this recommendation is for the purpose of environmental review only and does not commit the City to a specific course of action; and
-3-
149
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly for the purpose of scoping environmental review, as described in the staff report and supporting materials referenced in Exhibit A, and in compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of August, 2025. -4-
150

STATEOFCALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss

CITYOFCOSTAMESA )
I, Carrie Tai, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. PC-2025-17 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on August 25, 2025 by the following votes:

AYES: Harlan, Andrade, Dickson, Klepack, Martinez
NOES: Zich
ABSENT: Rojas
ABSTAIN: None
Carrie Tai77S-cting Secretary
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC-2025-17
-5-
151

EXHIBIT A
Recommendation on the environmental scope of study on the FDC Preferred Plan 95 A
cre Property Boundary
• 2,300
Dwelling Units Minimum (per Housing Element)
• 4,000 Dwelling Units Maximum
• 35,000 square foot Commercial maximum – flexible location – could be standalone or in mixed-use configuration in any building • 12 acres minimum dedicated publicly accessible open space (plus improvements and impact fees)
• 2 access points from Harbor Boulevard
• (Off-site) Partial golf course reconfiguration due to secondary access road Land Use Development
Minimum
Development
Maximum
Residential1
• Very Low Income 575 units2 -
• Low Income 345 units -
• Moderate Income 690 units -
• Above Moderate Income 690 units -
Total Units4 2,300 units minimum 4,000 units maximum
Commercial 10,000 sf minimum 35,000 sf maximum
Public Open Space3 12 acres minimum No maximum
NO
TES:

1. The definition of Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate-income categories is defined in Section X of the City’s Housing Element.

3. Public Open Space includes areas planned for possible use of the following, including b
ut not limited to: public parks, trails, plazas, and other types of open spaces available to the general public. It does not include private and common open space that is considered an on-site amenity for housing and is primarily accessible by the residents of the housing development.

4. Total units include the residential development within the 15-acres of land retained by DD
S.

5. T
he Project also includes the construction of a secondary access on the southeast corner of the site that would run through the golf course. This would require the reconfiguration of up to six holes.
-6-
152
Conceptual Land Use as of 7/24/2025
S
pecific Plan Designations:

R
esidential. The Residential land use category is intended to allow for a wide range of housing types, including two-and -three story walk -up townhomes, courtyard or motorcourt products, stacked flats, and buildings up to 12 stories in height. This category is also i ntended to satisfy the City’s 6 th Cycle RHNA obligation for the FDC property in terms of providing Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate-Income Housing.

Th
e Residential category will also allow for a range of senior living options including independent and assisted living. Public and private recreational uses, daycare, and community and neighborhood-serving amenities will also be allowed.

T
his category also includes approximately 15 -acres of property to be retained by the State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) for the development of housing for the developmentally disabled (Very Low Income), and housing for moderate and above moderate households.
-7-
153
Commercial. The Commercial land use category is intended to allow for neighborhood-serving retail and service uses in either a stand -alone or mixed -use configuration, including restaurants, coffee shops, small grocery and retail stores, pharmacies, studio and fitness facilities, and small office uses, including medical office, in either a mixed -use or stand -alone configuration. Ancillary community supporting uses, such as day care, are also allowed.

P
ublicly Accessible Open Space. The Open Space category is intended for various parks and open space uses that are open to the general public, including neighborhood parks, recreation centers and cultural facilities, smaller pocket parks, and trails for pedestrians and bicyclists. Fl exibility in the final location and configuration of publicly accessible open space is provided in the Specific Plan.

M
inimum Specific Plan Provisions to Carry out the Preferred Land Use Plan:
• The Plan (italics represent items in addition to items in the heading parenthetical).
o Land Use Plan (including permitted land use categories such as housing/affordable housing, commercial, community amenities, etc.)  Allow community amenity uses (library, school, etc.)
o Mobility and Circulation (including roadway and network layout, street sections, bicycle, and pedestrian path and access requirements, etc.)  Secondary access acquisition process (City-owned land), including community engagement
 Construction phasing of “backbone” paths and streets
o Open Space (including minimum required open space, types of open space permitted and possible locations for open space, recreational amenities, dedications, fees to be paid, construction and maintenance responsibilities)
 Require State/General Plan designated amount of open space  Use Open Space requirements as a lever to achieve additional affordability or publicly-available amenities
 Accommodate active sports fields that are open to the public, with the uses to be determined by the City’s Park Master Plan  Golf course reconfiguration and improvement requirements, including phasing
-8-
154
 Pedestrian connection to Fairview Park
o Infrastructure (including infrastructure requirements for the plan such as water, storm drain, sewer and drain utilities for both master development and individual project development)
 Construction phasing of “backbone” infrastructure
o Public Services (including additional requirements for public services such as police and fire facilities, as well as storm drainage to accommodate the need of additional residents and services)  Construction phasing to ensure public services are available to service future residents
• Administration and Implementation
o Review processes, including applications and decision bodies  Future development
 Specific Plan amendments
o Monitoring requirements
o Development impact fee provisions
-9-
155

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 25, 2025 ITEM NUMBER: PH-2 SUBJECT: FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN – REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
FROM: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT /

PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTATION BY: CARRIE TAI , ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DIRECTOR AND KAREN GULLEY / SUZANNE SCHWAB, PLACEWORKS

FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION
CONTACT:

MELINDA DACEY
(714) 754-5611
[email protected]
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff r
ecommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to recommend to the City Council a scop e of environmental study in the form of the Draft Preferred Land Use P lan for the F airview Developmental Center Specific Plan , without committing the City to a spec ific course of action on the Spe cific Plan. Planning Commission comments on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan will be forwarded to City Council for consideration.

APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT:

City
of Costa Mesa
BACKGROUND:

The Fa
irview Developmental Center (FDC) is a 115-acre property located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard in the City of Costa Mesa. Owned by the State of California, the site was historically developed and operated as a residential care facility for individuals with developmental disabilities. Th rough extended negotiations, the State will retain ownership of 20 acres for the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and Department of Developmental Services (DDS) complex needs housing, which will not be included in the Specific Plan area. T he proposed Specific Plan boundary encompasses ATTACHMENT 3
-1-
156
approximately 95 acres. Of this, DDS will retain 15 a cres for housing similar to Harbor Village Apartments, leaving approximately 80 acres available for future development.

To prepare a viable Specific Plan and conduct environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, the City is responsible for evaluat ing a land use concept that is both physically and financially viable and reasonably expected. The City can then ensure a Specific Plan that achieves a balance of community desires and key public benefits -such as affordable housing, open space, and community amenities- as well as plan elements that are reasonably expected to be seen as part of a future project proposal based on feasibility.

In accordance with the FDC project agreement with the State , the process has now progressed to the Preferred Plan Framework and environmental review.

This process
entails Planning Commission input on components to include on a Preferred Plan .

The purpose is to commence the environmental review step anticipated in the City- State agree ment, and for which the City approved a contract with an consultant to prepare. Th e purpose of environmental review is to evaluate a project d escription and identify significant impacts and corresponding mitigation measures to inform the decision-making for the eventual Specific Plan.

Planning Commission Discussion: Prior Study Sessions

The Planning Commission conducted two meetings on the Preferred Plan Framework on May 27, 2025 and June 23, 2025, with the following summaries of both P lanning Commission and public input. The May 27, 2025, FDC Study Session Staff Report and materials are included as Attachment 1 to this report. The June 23, 2025 FDC S tudy Session Staff Report and Materials are included as Attachment 2 to this report.

At its June 23, 2025 meeting, staff also presented and the Planning Commission discussed a comprehensive background on the City and State r oles in the Fairview Development Center (FDC) Specific Plan process to date, the findings of the Financial Feasibility Study, components of a Specific Plan, development realities of State housing laws, and environmental review.

Below is a summary of comments and input received from Planning Commissioners at both meetings:

a. Residential Development Range a
nd Affordability Targets

May 27, 2025: Input was received on target residential development ranges for the Specific Plan, with some acknowledgement that the community voiced support to stay closer to the Housing Element target (2,300 units), some input to increase the target to what is financially feasibl e but not go beyond this point and some input to study the maximum density for the purposes of the EIR (4,000 units) and provide a -2-
157
target range that is financially feasible in the Specific Plan. There seemed to be consensus amongst the Commission to encourage meeting the Housing Element’s target of 40% affordable units for the FDC site.

June 2 3, 2025: Commissioners discussed the challenge of meeting the 40% affordability targe ts, requested clarification on the types of a ffordable housing, and acknowledged that financial feasibility affected the development range.

Current Status: As previously mentioned, not accounting for a reasonably expected level of development would risk the City potentially inadequately planning for the infrastructure and public service requirements to support future development. Staff recommends setting a minimum residential development of 2,300 units and a maximum residential development of 3,800 units (i.e., the Planning Commission would recommend a number within this range to be set as the maximu m). The minimum residential development is to ensure that the FDC Specific Plan meets the affordability goals that were outlined in the City’s adopted Housing Element. The maximum range is to ensure that rea sonable expected development “p ays its way” if the Specific Plan ultimately allows for the maximum and it indeed occurs.

b. Development Pattern / Co
nnectivity / and Uses

May 27, 2025: The Commission requested additional information on the development patterns considered within the Specific plan, including permitted use types under each land use designation and some additional clarity about density, height, and other potential objective standards. Some Commissioners voiced support for including other community amenity type uses, such as a library or a community room. Some comment ed that the land use plan doesn’t feel “unique” or like a neighborhood at this stage and would like some additi onal information to help visualize what the Specific Plan will entail.

June 23, 2025: Commissioners expressed concerns about the relative isolation of the FDC site, leading to mention of connectivity of the site to Harbor Boulevard.

Current Status: A range of community amenity uses will be included as allowable uses in planning areas within the Specific Plan.

c. Circulation Network

May 27, 2025: The Planning Commission requested more detail on the components within the grand promenade, including size and look of sidewalks, planting areas and the adjacent development patterns (i.e. mixed -use development , housing or any commercial component). The Planning Commission acknowledged that while the promenade was supported during public outreach, further refinement was needed to -3-
158
enhance its connectivity, reinforce sense of place and promote walkability across the development.

June 23 , 2025: Several Com missioners discussed the secondary access road and proposed alternate secondary access points. Commissioners also discussed concerns about planning for public transit . In addition to requesting refinement on the g rand promenade, Commissioners also mentioned pedestrian connectivity and paseos were desired.

Current Status: Staff and the consultant team has refined the promenade concept for review ( discussed further below). Staff and the consultant team recounted pr ior discussions explaining the infeasibility of the alternate suggestions of secondary access points.

d. Open Space and Community Amenities

May 27 , 202 5: Planning Commission supported open space overall and questioned how the Specific Plan would incorporate the City’s General Plan open space goals citywide and for the FDC site.

June 23, 2025: Planning Commission received significant input from members of the public pertaining to the importance of retaining the golf course and the allocation of open space to accommodate for youth sports. Commissioners stressed the importance of open space, including providing required General Plan standards at 4.26 acres per 1,000 people, and supporting field space (includ ing increasing h ousing density into other planning areas). Discussions ranged from the demographics of golf course users and percentage of golf course users that are City residents, and implications for population underserved by public open space amenities.

Current Status: Staff will incorporate input about open space into the Specific P lan provisions to ensure a minimum of 12 acres of publicly accessible open spac e, but incorporate levers to increase open space amounts unless public amenities or affordable housing features are included. Furthermore, the City’s Public Works and Parks and Recreation Department have been continually engaged in potential impacts to the golf course from the secondary access road. Preliminary indications are that six holes would need to be configured, however City staff continue to evaluate to ensure that any greater impacts are also mitigated through requirements in the Specific Plan.

Since the secondary access road is located on City -owned land, staff will include a requirement in the Specific Plan that a negotiation process occur should the secondary access be desired by a future developer.

e. Co
mmercial Development

-4-
159
May 27, 2025: Staff received input regarding the commercial components of the plan and heard support for distribution of commercial space within the Specific Plan, as well as options for both mixed use configurations and standalone retail configurations.

June 23, 2025: Commissioners continued to express preference for commercial development to be in more flexible locations, including in mixed-use configurations.

Current Status: The draft ed working Preferred Lan d Use P lan reflects commercial planning areas distributed into the planning areas.

f. Harbor Fr
ontage (portion of golf course between Harbor Boulevard and FDC site)

May 27, 2025: Some commissioners queried the DDS letter dated June 28, 2024, included in the staff materials, and asked if there was still an opportunity to explore a land swap concept as part of the project . At the meeting, staff explained that this concept had previously been discussed with the Department of General Services (DGS), who did not express interest at the time in pursuing the concept.

June 23, 2025: Four Com missioners expr essed interest in pursuin g the Harbor Frontage concept for a variety of reasons, including open space, commercial, and housing. Several Commission ers also discussed the effects to the golf course as a result of the proposed secondary access.

Current status: Staff will forward Planning Commission’s sentiment to the City Council for di scussion. The Harbor Frontage land is City-owned and the City Council is the decision-maker on efforts involving Ci ty-owned land. However, if City Council elects to continue to explore this option, staff will continue to engage in discussions with the State about its viability and the potential steps (including the current deed restrictions on the use of the golf course land and potential legislation needed) to consider a land swap option. One additional consideration is that the golf course areas outside the FDC site were not included as part of the City’s Measure K process, which means a major land use designation change would require a vote of the people.

g. Community Engagement

May 27, 2025: Several Commissioners expressed concerns over the results of the community survey conducted when compared to the viable land use options under the financial feasibility analysis and suggested slowing down the process and conducting additional community outreach.

June 23, 2025: Commissioners discussed additional outreach opportunities with different segments of the communi ty and stressed coordination with public agencies like the school district, water district, and Orange County Transportation Authority.

-5-
160
Current S tatus: St aff reaffi rmed that there would be additional opportunities for public engagement on the Specific Plan as well as the environmental review.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:

Following community input and financial feasibility analysis , the City’s planning effort progressed to the development of land use alternatives and from those alternatives, a preferred land use plan. At the May 27, 2025 and June 23, 2025 m eetings, the Planning Commission provided guidance about various components in the preferred land use plan.

Working Draf
t FDC Preferred Land Use Concept Map

The revised working draft preferred plan incorporates the input from the Planning Commission from the past two meetings . The draft plan shown below could accommodate the following:

• 2,300 housing units minimum; 3,800 housing units maximum • Up to 35,000 square feet of commercial use (can be mi xed-use configuration with a flexible location)
• a grand promenade
• 12 acres minimum publicly-accessible open space
• pedestrian trails and a street network that can accommodate all modes of transportation (vehicles, bicycle lanes and pedestrian routes), • secondary access route from Harbor Boulevard.

In response to Planning Commission comments, staff also revised the working draft of the preferred plan to identify integration and additional locations for potential commercial and mixed-use development, along the grand promenade and dispersed throughout the plan. The draft plan also maintains flexibility to be memorialized into the Specific Plan to accommodate changing market conditions, evolving housing products and a range of potential housing developers depending on the State’s disposition process.
-6-
161

Working Draft FDC Preferred Land Use Concept Map

Circulation Network: Grand Promenade and Secondary Access Road

The revised land use concept map still includes a Grand Promenade or gran d entryway to create an identity for this project. This idea has received strong community support. Staff has provided some additional illustrations to further identify the types of uses that would be encouraged and allowed along the promenade including commercial uses, housing, mixed use development, open space, widened sidewalks and bicycle lanes (including in the illustrations provided within Attachment 3). Additionally, Attachment 5 provides a recommended street cross section for the potential Grand Promenade, as well as other internal roadway configurations being considered for the Specific Plan. The promenade is intended to serve as the site’s primary spine, enhancing connectivity, reinforcing a sense of place, and promoting walkability across the development.

Open Space: 12 acres (minimum) of Publicly Accessible Open Space

-7-
162
Staff proposes a minimum of 12 acres based on input from the Planning C ommission and the community. While this minimum does not meet the current General Plan policies for the City and FDC site, the developer would provide a combination of land, improvements to the parks and trails, and park impact fees consistent with the City’s Local Park Ordinance. A defined minimum amount of publicly accessible open space sets the minimum parameter to meet local and State parkland standards and provide accessible recreational opportunities for future residents and visitors. In addition, staff will include incentives in the Specific Plan that will further encourage the provision of publicly accessible open space beyond the minimum requirement.

In response to the discussion pertaining to the relationship between open space and the need to accommodate housing on the site, staff proposes in corporating requirements into the Spe cific Plan to requ ire the State and General Plan amounts of open space, and providing incentives to reduce the amounts if increased affordability or public amen ities are incorporated. However, for purposes of environmental review, staff would assume the minimum amount of open space as that represents the most conservative approach for evaluating environmental impacts.

Specific Plan Land Use Plan and Development Standards:

The Specific Plan will ensure that infrastructure and public services associated with future development of the FDC site are provided . The Plan will also provide flexibility to accommodate evolving housing products , as the market conditions change over time while maintaining community input and certainty around the plan. This includes adaptable land use designations (including a minimum of 10,000 and a maximum of 35,000 square feet of commercial and/or retail space) and phasing strategies while maintaining the plan’s core principles and community objectives.

FDC Specific Plan and its Components

During the June 23, 2025 Study Session , the P
lanning Commission and public
requested additional information on the Specific Plan process. Staff presented the outline and components of the Specific Plan would implement the land use plan by setting forth regul ations and requirements to ensure that the FDC site has adequate infrastructure and community benefits to support buildout levels.

The land use plan itself is intended to be more high -level, with designated land use type and key components of the plan. The land use map identifies potential areas for housing development but does not describe the maximum density or height at these locations. The Specific Plan will then evolve this land use plan further with specific land use types, maximum densities, heights, and additional details, requirements, and timing considerations.

-8-
163
The FDC Specific Plan will serve as the land use regulato ry (zoning) document for all future development applications on the site. Future developers will be required to comply with the adopted Specific Plan , but could utilize other permitted housing state legislation, including State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) provisions, as part of their project applications to the City.

The proposed FDC Specific Plan will include existing conditions, v isions and guiding principles, the main components of the plan and administration and implementation requirements for how future projects under the project will be processed. Specific Plans typically include the following Chapters:

• Introduction
• Existing Conditions and History of the FDC Site
• Vision and Guiding Principles
• The Plan (italics represents items to be included).
o Land Use Plan (including permitted land use categories such as housing/affordable housing, commercial, community amenities, etc.)  Allow community amenity uses (library, school, etc.)
o Mobility and Circulation (including roadway and network layout, street sections, bicycle, and pedestrian path and access requirements, etc.)  Secondary access acquisition process (City-owned land), including community engagement
 Construction phasing of “backbone” paths and streets
o Open Space (including minimum required open space, types of open space permitted and possible locations for open space, recreational amenities, dedications, fees to be paid, construction and maintenance responsibilities)
 Require State/General Plan designated amount of open space  Use Open Space requirements as a lever to achieve additional affordability or publicly-available amenities
 Accommodate active sports fields that are open to the public, with the uses to be determined by the City’s Park Master Plan -9-
164
 Golf course reconfiguration and improvement requirements, including phasing
 Pedestrian connection to Fairview Park
o Infrastructure (including infrastructure requirements for the plan such as water, storm drain, sewer and drain utilities for both master development and individual project development)
 Construction phasing of “backbone” infrastructure
o Public Services (including additional requirements for public services such as police and fire facilities, as well as storm drainage to accommodate the need of additional residents and services)  Construction phasing to ensure public services are available to service future residents
• Administration and Implementation
o Review processes, including applications and decision bodies  Future development
 Specific Plan amendments
o Monitoring requirements
o Development impact fee provisions
Public and Planning Commission/City Council input rec eived over the course of the Specific Plan process, as well as input received on the draft preferred plan , will be used to shape and memorialize the requirements in the Specific Plan. The FDC Specific Plan will serve as the regulatory and policy document guiding the site’s development over time. Therefore, the overall goal of the project description is to set maximum development parameters that can be studied and can anticipate possible environmental impacts. This process ensures transparency for the public during future City project review processes.

Project Description Considerations for Environmental Review The project d escription described herein will serv e as the basis for environmental review. Th e thresholds and parameters for the project description will be studied under the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This project description will be included in the -10-
165
Notice of Preparation (NOP) and used to initiate the environmental review, leading to the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).

It is commonplace for the project description, as studied under CEQA, to include maximum development capacity and thresholds, so that the City can accurately study and anticipate all possible environmental impacts. One example of this is studying up to 4,000 units as part of the EIR, even though the Specific Plan may set a maximum residential unit threshold lower than this number (e.g. 3,600-3,800 units). The higher threshold is chosen for CEQA purposes because it was shown in land use concepts and is therefore reasonably assumed that a future application may propose up that threshold. Studying this maximum threshold also ensures that the City accurately studies all potential environmental impacts and discloses them to the public. Another example of this threshold would be to study a maximum height threshold within the EIR project description, even though the Specific Plan may set different height maximums for varying parcels within the plan. Additionally, CEQA alternatives are used as a tool to study other potential scenarios under CEQA. Typically, these consist of a project alternative that would be seen to provide reduced environmental impacts (e.g., a smaller-scale or lower intensity project).

GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE:

The City’s 2021–2029 Housing Element identifies the site as a Housing Opportunity Site and allocates 2,300 residential units, with 40% of those units expected to be affordable to very low - and low -income households. To implement this vision, a General Plan Amendment will be required to reconcile the current MUC land use designation with the housing capacity and policy direction in the Housing Element.

The Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan will serve as the guiding p lanning document to implement these goals and provide a co mprehensive framework for future development.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

There is no public notice requirement for the Planning Commission Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Study Session. However, to encourage public engagement, the City provided the following announcements:

• Newspaper publication ad.
• The date and time of the study session were posted on the project website. • Information about the study session was shared via the City’s social media channels and distributed to the project email list and citywide email lists (which includes over 8,000 email addresses).

-11-
166
As of the date of this report, no written public comments have been received . Any public comments received prior to August 25, 2025, Planning Commission meeting will be forwarded separately to the Planning Commission.

NEXT STEPS:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to recommend to the City Council a scope of environmental study for the F airview Developmental Center Specific Plan, without committing the City to a specific course of action on the Specific Plan. Planning Commission comments on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan will be forwarded to City Council for consideration.

Following this meeting, staff will pursue two separate but parallel tracks:

1) Continued progress of the FDC Developmental Center Specific Plan. The City Council will consider the aforementioned materials, along with the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and provide direction on the Preferred Land Use Plan and project description at a future meeting (likely in September/October).

Following the City Council meeting, staff will proceed with the environmental review process. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) will be issued to initiate the environmental review, leading to the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). During the DEIR public review period, the public will be able to evaluate and understand the environmental impacts and continue to provide input that will refine the preferred plan and the Specific Plan components.

Concurrently, staff will continue to refine proposed Specific Plan policies, development standards, and objective design guidelines. Community outreach will be conducted to present the study plan and DEIR to the community for feedback. A follow -up study session with the Planning Commission and City Council will also be held on the draft Specific Plan, with additional opportunity for discussion and refinement. Once input is received and refinements are made, the City would create a final draft Specific Plan a nd initiate the formal public hearing process to consider adoption of the Specific Plan and associated project approvals.

Concurrently, following completion of the DEIR public review period, DGS anticipates releasing a request for proposals to identify a Master Developer.

2) Discussion about Harbor Frontage. Four members of the Planning Com mission indicated interest in discussing land use concepts for the City-owned land between Harbor Boulevard and the FDC east boundary , including a possible land swap. Since this City -owned area is currently o ccupied by a portion of the golf -12-
167
course, staff will present this discussion to the City Council as a sep arate-but- related item and receive direction from the City Council.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Resolution (including Preferred Land Use Concept / Project Description)

2. May 27, 2025, FDC Study Session Staff Report

3. June 23, 2025, FDC Study Session Staff Report

4. FDC Specific Plan Revised Street Sections (under separate cover)

-13-
168
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025- ##

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDATION

ON FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN

DRAFT LAND USE CONCEPT, AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

FOR PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
TH

E PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA , CALIFORNIA FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the Fairview Developmental Center located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard is owned by the State of California and was formerly used as a state-run residential facility for individuals with developmental disabilities; and
WHEREAS, the residents of the Fairview Developmental Center main campus have been relocated; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of California’s acute affordable housing crisis, the State has prioritized the development of affordable housing in the disposition of the Fairview Developmental Center property; and
WHEREAS, o n June 30, 2022, the State enacted Senate Bill 188, codified in Government Code Section 14670.31, establishing the framework for the planning and disposition of the Fairview Developmental Center site; and WHEREAS, on December 29 , 2022, pursuant to Government Code Section 14670.31, the Department of Developmental Services (DDS), Department of General Services (DGS), and the City of Costa Mesa entered into a formal agreement to plan for the future redevelopment of the Fairview Developmental Center; and WHEREAS, under this agreement , the City is responsible for managing the land use planning process, while the DGS is responsible for overseeing the property’s eventual disposition; and
WHEREAS, in September 2023, the City initiated the land use planning process and has since conducted multiple community outreach events to gather input on -14-
169
neighborhood design, vision and guiding principles, and identifying community priorities; and
WHEREAS, representatives from the City, DGS, and DDS have continued to meet regularly to coordinate planning efforts and ensure that the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan aligns with the intent of the enabling legislation and supports both State and City goals; and
WHEREAS, these goals include: the planning for the construction and operation of a California Office of Emergency Services Regional Emergency Operations Center; the development of DDS housing consistent with Government Code Sections 14670.36, 14670.31, and 14670.35(e); and the City’s adopted Housing Element objectives; and WHEREAS, it is essential that the Specific Plan include a land use framework and supporting policies that balance financial feasibility, State requirements —including provisions for affordable housing an d DDS housing—and community priorities such as open space and accessibility, in order to create a viable plan to guide future development; and
WHEREAS, in order to prepare a feasible Specific Plan and conduct environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City must evaluate a version of the project that is both physically and financially viable; and WHEREAS, the Financial Feasibility Analysis served as a critical step in this process by evaluating whether each land use concept could offset the costs of demolition, infrastructure, DDS and affordable housing site preparation, while still generating a return sufficient to attract private investment—thereby ensuring the plan’s feasibility and ability to deliver key public benefits such as affordable housing, open space, and community amenities; and
WHEREAS, the results of the Financial Feasibility Analysis informed staff’s recommendation for a Preferred Plan and serve as a foundational element in the drafting of the Specific Plan; and
-15-
170
WHEREAS, on M ay 27, 2025, the City conducted a Planning Commission Study Session to provide the Commission and the public with a comprehensive update on the FDC Specific Plan project, and to offer an opportunity for the Commission to review and discuss land use concepts and key plan components prior to making a recommendation to the City Council on a preferred land use plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2025, the City conducted a second Planning Commission Study Session to provide a comprehensive recap of the City and State roles in the Fairview Development Center (FDC) Specific Plan process to date, the findings of the Financial Feasibility Study, components of a Specific Plan, development realities of State housing laws, and environmental review; and
WHEREAS, based on the feedback provided by the public and Planning Commission during the Study Session, City staff presented an updated recommendation to the Planning Commission on August 25, 2025; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on August 25, 2025 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the project in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, based on the direction received on the preferred land use plan and defined project description and draft preferred land use plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, based on the evidence in the record and the recommended project description, draft preferred land use plan, included in Exhibit A, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council considers its recommendation with respect to the property described above, with the clarification that this recommendation is for the purpose of environmental review only and does not commit the City to a specific course of action; and
-16-
171
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly for the purpose of scoping environmental review, as described in the staff report and supporting materials referenced in Exhibit A, and in compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of August, 2025.

Jeffrey Harlan, Chair
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
-17-
172
STA

TE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, Car
rie Tai, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. PC-2025- __ was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on August 25, 2025 by the following votes:

AYES: C

OMMISSIONERS
NO
ES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT
: COMMISSIONERS
ABSTAI
N: COMMISSIONERS
Car rie Tai, Acting Secretary
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
Res
olution No. PC-2025-_
-18-
173

EXHIBIT A
Recommendation on the environmental scope of study on the FDC Preferred Plan 95 Ac
re Property Boundary
• 2,300 Dw
elling Units Minimum (per Housing Element)
• 3,800 Dwelling Units Maximum
• 35,000 square foot Commercial maximum – flexible location – could be standalone or in mixed-use configuration in any building • 12 acres minimum dedicated publicly accessible open space (plus improvements and impact fees)
• 2 access points from Harbor Boulevard
• (Off-site) Partial golf course reconfiguration due to secondary access road Land Use Development
Minimum
Development
Maximum
Residential1
• Very Low Income 575 units2 -
• Low Income 345 units -
• Moderate Income 690 units -
• Above Moderate Income 690 units -
Total Units4 2,300 units minimum 3,800 units maximum
Commercial 10,000 sf minimum 35,000 sf maximum
Public Open Space3 12 acres minimum No maximum
NOT
ES:

1. The definition of Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate-income categories is defined in Section X of the City’s Housing Element.

4. Total units include the residential development within the 15-acres of land retained by DDS.

Res
idential. The Residential land use category is intended to allow for a wide range of housing types, including two-and -three story walk -up townhomes, courtyard or motorcourt products, stacked flats, and buildings up to 12 stories in height. This category is also i ntended to satisfy the City’s 6 th Cycle RHNA obligation for the FDC property in terms of providing Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate-Income Housing.

The
Residential category will also allow for a range of senior living options including independent and assisted living. Public and private recreational uses, daycare, and community and neighborhood-serving amenities will also be allowed.

Th
is category also includes approximately 15 -acres of property to be retained by the State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) for the development of housing for the developmentally disabled (Very Low Income), and housing for moderate and above moderate households.
-20-
175
Commercial. The Commercial land use category is intended to allow for neighborhood-serving retail and service uses in either a stand -alone or mixed -use configuration, including restaurants, coffee shops, small grocery and retail stores, pharmacies, studio and fitness facilities, and small office uses, including medical office, in either a mixed -use or stand -alone configuration. Ancillary community supporting uses, such as day care, are also allowed.

Pu
blicly Accessible Open Space. The Open Space category is intended for various parks and open space uses that are open to the general public, including neighborhood parks, recreation centers and cultural facilities, smaller pocket parks, and trails for pedestrians and bicyclists. Fl exibility in the final location and configuration of publicly accessible open space is provided in the Specific Plan.

Mi
nimum Specific Plan Provisions to Carry out the Preferred Land Use Plan:
• The Plan (italics represent items in addition to items in the heading parenthetical).
o Land Use Plan (including permitted land use categories such as housing/affordable housing, commercial, community amenities, etc.)  Allow community amenity uses (library, school, etc.)
o Mobility and Circulation (including roadway and network layout, street sections, bicycle, and pedestrian path and access requirements, etc.)  Secondary access acquisition process (City-owned land), including community engagement
 Construction phasing of “backbone” paths and streets
o Open Space (including minimum required open space, types of open space permitted and possible locations for open space, recreational amenities, dedications, fees to be paid, construction and maintenance responsibilities)
 Require State/General Plan designated amount of open space  Use Open Space requirements as a lever to achieve additional affordability or publicly-available amenities
 Accommodate active sports fields that are open to the public, with the uses to be determined by the City’s Park Master Plan  Golf course reconfiguration and improvement requirements, including phasing
-21-
176
 Pedestrian connection to Fairview Park
o Infrastructure (including infrastructure requirements for the plan such as water, storm drain, sewer and drain utilities for both master development and individual project development)
 Construction phasing of “backbone” infrastructure
o Public Services (including additional requirements for public services such as police and fire facilities, as well as storm drainage to accommodate the need of additional residents and services)  Construction phasing to ensure public services are available to service future residents
• Administration and Implementation
o Review processes, including applications and decision bodies  Future development
 Specific Plan amendments
o Monitoring requirements
o Development impact fee provisions
-22-
177

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: MAY 27, 2025 ITEM NUMBER: NB-2 SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL

CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN
FROM: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT /

PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTATION BY: ANNA MCGILL, PLANNING AND SUSTAINABLE

DEVELEOPMENT MANAGER, PHAYVANH NANTHAVONGDOUANGSY,

PRINCIPAL PLANNER, KAREN GULLEY, PLACEWORKS, SUZANNE SCHWAB,

PLACEWORKS, STEVE GUNNELLS, PLACEWORKS

FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION
CONTACT:

PHAYVANH NANTHAVONGDOUANGSY
(714) 754-5611
[email protected]
RE
COMMENDATION:

Staf
f r ecommends the Planning Commission receive the staff presentation and provide feedback on community variables that will shape the land use plan for the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan.

APPL
ICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT:

Ci
ty of Costa Mesa
PU
RPOSE OF THE STUDY SESSION:

Th
e purpose of this study session is to provide the Planning Commission and the public with a comprehensive update on the progress of the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDC-SP) project . and offer an opportunity for the Planning Commission to review and discuss the land use concepts and key components of the plan prior to providing a recommendation on the preferred land use plan and its components to the City Council . The Cit y developed three land use concepts that were studied and presented to the public to solicit input (detailed later in the report).

The purpose of the land use concepts was to test housing unit thresholds and other -23-
178
plan components (such as circulation network, open space, commercial square footage, etc.).

Ove
r t he past several months, City staff —working in partnership with the State —has made pro gress on addressing State requirements and factors influencing the land use plan, while incorporating com munity input and preliminary findings of the financial feasibility analysis. This work has provided a perspective on the act ual feasibility of the conceptual land use plans and project components.

Th
e preferred plan is intended to comprise of the preferred components from all concepts studied , coupled wit h the likelihood that the plan is desirable from a development standpoint. At this stage, the information presented will also help define the scope of the project to initiate the environmental review process pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Addition al discussion is under the “Recommendations for the Preferred Land Use Plan” section of this report.

Th
is study session is intended to set the stage for a formal recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council in July 2025. While no formal action will be taken at this meeting , s taff respectfully requests feedback from the Planning Commission on the draft land use concepts and project components presented in this report. Input is particularly encouraged on the proposed land use distribution, open space framework, circulation network, and overall site organization. This feedback will inform the refinement of the project description, support the creation of a preferred land use plan, and shape the environmental analysis moving forward.

Follo
wing tonigh t’s study session, staff will return on June 9, 2025, with a refined Preferred Plan, updated project description, and a set of draft vision and guiding principles. The Planning Commission will be asked at that time to make a formal recommendation to the City Council, enabling the City to begin the CEQA process and continue advancing the FDC Specific Plan project.

Once
the City Council selects a preferred land use plan, staff will begin a formal environmental analysis in accordance with CEQA. The City will assess potential environmental impacts —such as traffic, noise, air quality, and biological resources — and identify feasible ways to avoid or minimize those impacts. Based on the findings of this analysis, the Preferred Plan may be refined to ensure that future development aligns with State environmental standards and community goals.

In
parallel with the CEQA process , staff will continue community outreach efforts to help shape and finalize the development standards and policie s that will be memorialized in the Specific Plan.
-24-
179
BACKGROUND:

The Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) is a 115 -acre property located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard in the City of Costa Mesa. Owned by the State of California, the site was historically developed and operated as a residential care facility for individuals with developmental disabilities. Today, the facility is largely unoccupied and in a “warm shutdown” phase, meaning it is no longer serving its original residential function. The State has reloca ted all remaining residents to community -based homes and has acknowledged that it does not intend to follow the traditional State surplus property process for this site.

Over
the years, the future of the FDC property has been the subject of considerable interest and discussion among local and state agencies. In 2020, the Costa Mesa City Council created an Ad Hoc Committee to advise staff and provide recommendations related to the FDC. That same year, the Council adopted a vision for the site supporting app roximately 1,500 mixed -use, mixed -income housing units —including workforce, veterans, and permanent supportive housing. The Council directed staff to collaborate with the State to preserve local input and influence over future development decisions and land use outcomes.

Th
e FDC site is one of the largest housing opportunity sites identified in the City’s Housing Elemen t, adopted on February 1, 2022. The Hous ing Element anticipated accommodating approximately 2,300 units on this site and includes a specifi c program directing the City to pursue a Specific Plan for residential development, in partnership with the State. The Housing Element plan for the site became Concept 1.

In J
une 2022, the State Legislature approved Government Code Section 14670.31, which provides a framework for the reuse of the FDC property. The legislation codifies a partnership between the Department of General Services (DGS), the Department of Developmental Services (DDS), and the City of Costa Mesa, with defined roles for each enti ty. While the site is owned and controlled by the State, under th is framework, the City is responsible for leading the land use planning process, which includes preparation of a Specific Plan, identifying and defining public benefits, amending the G eneral Plan, updating the zoning regulations, and conducting the CEQA review . Defining key components of the plan -such as affordable housing, open space, and community -serving amenities- is a key effort of the Specific Plan Process and will help ensure that redevelopment of the site aligns with local priorities and State policy goals. In parallel, the State —through DGS —will lead the property disposition process, as property owner, which will include either sale or lease of the land to a master developer, for the purposes of building a project in compliance with the City’s Specific Plan.

To
support this effort, the legislation allocated $3.5 million in State funding to the City to develop a Specific Plan, conduct necessary studies, and manage a community - -25-
180
based plann ing process. The law also expresses the Legislature’s intent that the property be redeveloped as a mixed -use project, prioritizing affordable housing to the greatest extent feasib le, including a minimum of 200 units of permanent supportive housing, open space, and housing for individuals with developmental disabilities.

Th
e FDC -SP project will implement the provisions of Government Code Section 14670.31. As outlined in the agreement between the City and State, the final development plan must align with bo th the City’s adopted vision and the State’s interests. While the City will guide the planning process with opportunities for community engagement and transparency, the ultimate di sposition of the property will be made by DGS, based on terms and conditions deemed to be in the best interests of the State.

HO
USING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION – HOUSING PROGRAM 3B
Th
e approved 6 th Cycle Housing Element identifies the property as a housing opportunity site that may accommodate 2,300 future residential units. Appro ximately 40% of the residential units projected for this site will meet a portion of the City ’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) shortfall for low - and very- low-income households. As such, the Housing Element Program 3B outlines the implementation objectives for the FDC site to accommodate future housing development. This project, which includes the development of a Specific Plan (SP), and the disposition of the FDC site, requires a coordinated planning effort with the State Department of General Services (DGS), Office of Emergency Services (OES), and Department of Developmental Services (DDS).
-26-
181
Figure 1: Site Location
In Au
gust 2023, the City retained PlaceWorks to complete the community outreach, land use planning and environmental review process for this project.

PR
OJECT PROGRESS:

This
section outlines the key milestones that informed the development of the land use concepts, which illustrate a range of site design, circulation, and housing scenarios that will shape a future neighborhood . The land use concepts were formulated utilizing feedback solicited from the community engagement events, public meetings held at City Council and Planning Commission, ongoing coordination meetings with state agencies, and input from housing developers and affordable housing advocates.

Com
munity Workshops
Launched in October 2023, the project’s community engagement program was -27-
182
designed to optimize public participation and encourage the public to provide input at critical stages of the plan development. The community engagement process will continue to be dynamic and improve as the project progresses forward. The project’s website, www.fdcplan.plan, is continually updated to share project information and encourage participation at upcoming events. The City has held 18 community outreach events thus far for this project.

The o
utreach events have included in-person and virtual workshops, pop-up events, and study sessions. Materials for all workshop and pop-up events were provided both in English and Spanish , with Spanish interpreters available to assist attendees when needed. For in-person meetings, the City’s Parks and Community Services Department provided activities for children to enable parents to engage more fully in the outreach process.

The
w orkshops focused on drafting the community vision and guiding principles , as well as gathering input on the conceptual plans. A summary of the workshops and all related outreach materials are available online a t: https://fdcplan.com/participate/.

The results of the fourth workshop is described i n the “Land Use Concepts Outreach” section of this report.

FDC P
roject Updates at City Council and Planning Commission
In
addition to the community outreach events, project updates for the FDC Specific Plan were presented to the City Council on December 12, 2023, and Planning Commission on March 25, 2024.
• The
City Council Meeting (December 12, 2023): Staff provided an overview of the planning process, the historic background of the FDC site, potential housing types (including both market -rate and affo rdable options), and considerations for future development. The staff report and attachments are available online at:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1141509&GUID=345AA 40A-863E-4705-8AC0-6F703488A2F9
• The
Planning Commission Meeting (March 25, 2024): In addition to the Council update, this presentation included a summary of the public workshops and outlined the upcoming steps in the planning process. The staff report and attachments are available online at:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6600445&GUID=BE5 C5BFB-7FF3-4EC5-B6A4-16240D272894
At bo
th meetings, staff and PlaceWorks presented detailed information on the economic and market considerations for affordable housing development. Topics included financing strategies, eligibility requirements, and the trade- offs needed to achieve feasibility. As part of the research and analysis, PlaceWorks conducted -28-
183
interviews with affordable and market-rate housing developers, advocacy groups, and industry experts familiar with the Orange County housing trends. These interviews explored preferences related to housing types, supportive services, private and public open space amenities, and neighborhood design. Insights gathered have directly informed the market demand and market feasibility analysis, the outcomes of which are included in this report to guide the development of a preferred land use plan.

Sta
te Agencies Coordination Meetings
Th
e City held weekly coordination meetings with the State DGS and DDS Representatives from April 2024 through August 2024 and has continued to meet on an as- needed basis thereafter. T hese meeti ngs focus on aligning future land use planning with State legislat ive requirements, DDS housing needs, and the development of the future Regional Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to ensure that the land use s are compatible and occur in a coordinated manner . Key State factors influencing the land use concepts include Senate Bill (SB) 82, SB 188, SB 138, and SB 166, along with the State agencies programmatic and operational requirements. A summary of these factors is provided as Attachment 1.

As a r
esult of the meetings, the original project boundary was modified to remove the plant operations area, the segment of Merrimac Way running through Harbor Village Apartments, and the Mark Lane residential development . These areas are owned, operated, and maintained by DDS and management company. T he revised Specific Plan boundary now encompasses approximately 95 acres. Of this, the State will retain ownership of 20 acres for the EOC and DDS complex needs housing which are not included in the Specific Plan area. D DS will reta in 15 acres for housing similar to Harbor Village Apartments, leaving approximately 80 acres available for the Master Developer, as shown in Figure 2.

Ea
ch of the land use concepts has been designed to meet the needs of DDS housing programs and the EOC operations. In accordance with SB 138, the existing 5 -acre plant operations site will be redeveloped for residential use serving adolescents and adults with complex needs. Additionally, approximately 15 acres shown in Figure 2 will be used for DDS State housing consistent with SB 82. DDS anticipates developing up to 480 residential units adjacent to the existing Harbor Village Apartments, with 20% of the units dedicated to individuals with developmental disabilities, similar to the Harbor Village model. This 15-acre portion of the property will be included in the Specific Plan area.

Whi
le t he land use concepts identify approximate planning areas for DDS housing , the final boundaries will be determined by the State, potentially through future legislation. The Specific Plan’s land use policies will ensure that future planning areas support the State’s DDS housing goals.
-29-
184
DDS also expressed opposition to the inclusion of large open space areas that could support a regional sports and recreation complex. In its letter dated June 28, 2024, submitted in response to the proposed land use concepts, DDS stated that the primary focus of the plan should be to maximize the provision of affordable housing, and that large open space areas are incompatible with this objective. The letter is included as Attachment 2.

Th
e State DGS is also moving forward with construction of the EOC . Additional information is available online at: https://buildcaloessreoc.turnersocal.com/.

Following the development of the land use concepts used and the launch of the summer workshop series, the State agreed to align Shelley Circle with the southeast corner of the project boundary. This revised alignment, shown as a dashed red line in Figure 2, will be incorporated in the preferred land use plan.

Figur
e 2 also identifies the location of the EOC Communication Tower, which stands approximately 120 feet tall. To ensure a clear line of sight with other State communication towers, height restrictions will appl y to development located directly north and east of EOC site. In these areas, buildings will be limited to approximately six to eight stories to preserve the operational effectiveness of the communication system.

Figu
re 2: FDC Remaining Area for City Process
LA
ND USE CONCEPTS:

Th
is report presents three land use concepts, each representing a distinct development scenario based on input from the community , while aligning with State requirements. The concepts explore variations in urban design, circulation networks, and distribution of open space recreational areas. The y were created to evaluate a range of residential densities and affordability levels. The conceptual illustrations and associated acreages in cluded in this section were originally prepared for the Plant Operations
(Complex Housing)
-30-
185
community outreach efforts and were developed prior to the State’s final decision to redevelop the plant operations area for the complex needs housing and before the final alignment of Shelley Circle was confirmed. This section includes the illustrations that were presented to the community in summer 2024 during outreach events. The feedback received from these outreach events have been incorporated into the draft preferred land use plan shown later in this staff report.

Sin
ce summer 2024, each concept has been analyzed for its market and development feasibility, traffic and circulation impacts, consistency with City and State goals, and potential funding sources and implementation timelines. The conceptual plan names are provided for ease of reference. The planning areas configuration are illustrative and intended to demonstrate different development patterns . The analysis provided in this report will help identify and prioritize trade -offs of various land use components that will shape the preferred land use plan and form the foundation for the Specific Plan. The Land Use Concepts are provided as Attachment 3.

Conc
ept 1: Fairview Promenade (Housing Element)
Conc
ept 1 reflects the Housing Element household income distribution assumptions for this site: 25% Very Low -Income, 15% Low -Income, 30% Moderate -Income, and 30% Above Moderate -Income. The land use configuration might feature a central grand boulevard or signature street that defines the char acter of the site and provides a strong visual and functional connection to the secondary road network.

The corridor could include a wide landscape d median with pedestrian pathways, integrated public art, or streetscape treatments that enhances the identity of the development along the sidewalks and pathways.
-31-
186
This concept would accommodate 2,300 residential units with an average density of 39 dwelling units per acre. H igher-density residential development would be concentrated toward the center of the si te, with lower -density areas positioned along the edges, particularly near H arbor Boulevard. Planning Areas 1 through 5, totaling 20 acres and located adjacent to the existing Harbor Village Apartments, are designated to accommodate 483 DDS units . This includes three ( 3) complex needs units, 99 very low-income units, and 384 moderate-income units.

Op
en space areas would be distributed throughout the project area, with individual park areas ranging from 1.6 to 3.5 acres. The open space network would include greenways and trails designed to connect residential neighborhoods to recreational areas. Park facilities may support a variety of active uses such as soccer and baseball fields, and other recreational uses. To reduce traffic circulation through the stie, open space and commercial uses would be strategically located near the Habor Boulevard - Fair Drive entrance.

Conc
ept 2: Fairview Fields
Con
cept 2 features a more formal grid street pattern, with slightly smaller blocks than Concept 1, which enhan ces walkability and connectivity throughout the site.

This scenario assumes that a future developer would utilize the S tate Density Bonus Law to increase the number of above moderate units to subsidize the affordable requirements.

Fo
r this scenario, the base residential capacity in the Specific Plan would be 1,725 units. However, by applying a 50% density bonus for both V ery Low- and Moderate- income units —as permi tted by State Density Bonus Law —100% total density bonus -32-
187
could be achieved, resulting in a m aximum of 3,450 residential units. This would include the base units and an assumed bonus of 1,725 units. Approximately 20 acres adjacent to Harbor Village Apartments would be reserved to meet DDS housing needs.

Th
ere would be two access roads, one at Fair Drive and another via a new roadway extension through the golf course, connecting to the Harbor Shopping Center. Open space would be concentrated into large, centralized neighborhood park designed to support various active recreational uses, including sports fields and other community amenities.

Conc
ept 3: Fairview Commons
Co
ncept 3 represents the highest reasonable level of residential development across the Planning Areas. All Planning Areas would be designated for high-density residential uses, with the exception of the southeast corner, which is envisioned for high-end townhomes. Th is concept would accommodate the income distribution projected in the Housing Element for Very Low, Low, and Moderate, which totals 1,610 units—or 40% of the total units—to meet the City’s affordability housing goals for this site. The remaining 2,390 units (60%) would be allocated to the Above Moderate category, which help subsidize affordable housing.

Th
is scenario assumes the City would enter into a Development Agreement with the master developer to secure the final housing mix. Concept 3 supports the highest residential yield a nd allows for a variety of housing types , including townhomes, apartments, and condo miniums. To accommodate the increased density and -33-
188
improve site circulation, this concept would also require a secondary access point to Harbor Boulevard.

FIN
ANCIAL FEASIBILITY:

As re
quired by the agreement with the State, a Financial F easibility Analysis was conducted for each land use concept and provides a detailed summary of the cost to develop each planning area —excluding the cost that affordable housing developers will pay to build and operate their projects. The analysis also include s project-wide infrastructure costs—demolition, roads, water, and sewer into the equation. Feasibility alternatives (i.e., changes in the assumptions for each land use alternative that would make each alternative more feasible) are included to identify adjustments that cou ld make the overall project financially feasible. The Financial Feasibility Analysis i s attached to the report as Attachment 6.

The
financial feasibility is prepared and analyzed from the perspective of a potential master developer : do the concepts provide for a sufficient number of market rate housing units to offset the costs to support the affordable housing, the DDS housing, and other amenities, such as parks and recreation facilities. The A nalysis is a ‘snapshot’ of t he current market and its considerations. It can be used to predict the potential feasibility of a project with the most accurate information at hand at the time the analysis is conducted. While these analyses try to anticipate future market trends, unforeseen trends or market factors could adjust identified feasibility when the master d eveloper is ready to construct. The Financial Feasibility Analysis evaluates the three concepts to determine whether a developer could redevelop the site, achieve a 15% inte rnal rate of return (an industry standard for determination of project feasibility) and potentially have enough surplus provide the public benefits the State is looking for and the benefits that the City and community may expect.

Th
e State intends to dispose of the site by turning the property over to a master developer, excluding certa in portions that will be retained by the State. The master developer would demolish the existing buildings, remediate any contamination, and construct the necessary infrastructure to support the ultimate buildout allowable under the specific plan.

A s
izeable number of the new housing units constructed would be restricted to households qualified as lower income. The master developer might develop this affordable housing, but they are more likely to turn the prepared land over to an affordable housing developer. Another sizeable number of housing units would be constructed separately for and under contract to the state’s DDS. However, the master developer would prepare the sit es for the DDS housing. The remainder of the housing units would be construct ed by the master developer to be rented or sold at market rates. The intent is that the specific plan would allow the number of market -34-
189
rate housing units that would generate sufficient profit to compensate for the demolition, the site preparation, and the infrastructure that will support the affordable housing units and the DDS housing units.

To
prepare a viable Specific Plan and conduct environmental review under CEQA, the City must evaluate a version of the project that is both physically and financially viable. The Financial Feasibility Analysis was a critical step in this process. It evaluated whether each land use concept could cover the costs of demolition, infrastructure, DDS and affordable housing site preparation, and still generate a sufficient return to attract private investment. This ensures the plan can be implemented and that key public benefits—such as affordable housing, open space, and community amenities — can be d elivered. The analysis informed staff’s recommendation on a Preferred Plan and provides a foundation for drafting the Specific Plan.

Infr
astructure and Site Development
Eac
h of the three land use concepts will require significant infrastructure upgrades, including new sewer, storm drain, water, and utility improvements. All concepts a lso involve site demolition and environmental remediation, with associated costs varying by concept.

The
cost estimates for each scenario are summarized in the table below and include site preparation, impact fees, soft costs (such as engineering, environmental review, and bonding), infrastructure improvements, and a standard contingency. It is important to note that higher development costs do not necessarily determine a concept’s financial feasibility. These considerations are incorporated and addressed in the financial feasibility analysis that follows.

Tab
le 3: Total Development Costs
Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3
Total Planning Area
Development Cost
$434,300,000 $776,100,000 $1,046,400,000
Project-wide site
Development Cost
$130,300,000 $174,600,000 $148,500,000
Offsite improvement Cost $13,420,000 $18,400,000 $18,400,000 Total project
development cost
$578,100,000 $959,100,000 $1,213,000,000
In
evaluating the three land use concepts, this analysis estimates whether or not the market rate development would generate a fifteen percent (15%) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for the equity investment needed for the project. This rate is an industry standard and is conside red the minimum return to entice outside investors to invest -35-
190
equity in a development project. The table below is a summary of the results of the financial feasibility analysis:

Table 1: Total Cash Flow and Annual Internal Rate of Return Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3
Cash Flow Sums with Financing and Cost/Revenue Escalation Total Cash Inflow $810,300,000 $2,148,000,000 $2,905,000,000 Total Cash Outflow -$962,700,000 -$1,779,000,000 -$2,235,000,000 Total Net Cash Flow -$152,360,000 $369,100,000 $669,8900,000 Financial Feasibility Metrics
Annual Internal Rate of Return
(IRR)
-20% 14.6% 16.7%
Feasibility Surplus/(Gap) ($233,000,000) ($5,020,000) $26,700,000 Not
e: The total cash inflow and outflow is a simple sum of the monthly estimates. The data are not discounted and thus do not reflect the tim e value of money. However, the IRR does account for the timing of inflows versus out-flows.

Base
d on the analysis above, Concept 1 would cost more to develop than it would generate in income. This concept would need additional funding of over $233 million to be feasible at a 15.0 percent IRR. Concept 2, which showing slightly less than the industry standard IRR of 1 5% would still be considered financially feasible as it is anticipated a developer could make minor adjustments to their own pro forma or to the project to bring it to the 15% rate that would make the project viable. Finally, Concept 3 is financially feasible, with an IRR of 16.7% and would generate $26.7 million in residual land value that could be used for additional public benefits.

Tr
affic and Mobility
All three land use concepts will require improvement to the intersection at Fair Drive and Harbor Boulevard. Concept 1 relies solely on the existing access point at this intersection, while Concepts 2 and 3 introduce a secondary access road through the golf course connecting to Harbor Boulevard. D ue to its higher housing capacity, Concept 3 is expected to generate the most traffic and may require additional offsite improvements such as added lanes and signal timing adjustments.

Whil
e Level of Service (LOS) is no longer required to be studied under CEQA for significance thresholds, the City continues to study LOS for public transparency and as part of its City requirements. The City has adopted Level of Service (LOS) D as the acceptable thr eshold for intersection performance. Each land use concept was analyzed for its impact on traffic, with LOS ratings ranging from LOS A (free -flowing -36-
191
conditions) to LOS F (significant delays requiring multiple signal cycles ). The table below summarizes projected daily trip generation and LOS for each concept.

Tab
le 4: Traffic and Level of Service
Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3
Access Points to Harbor
Boulevard
1 2 2
Daily Trip Generation 11,342 16,640 18,501
Morning Peak Hour Trips 842 1,229 1,407
Evening Peak Hour Trips 997 1,449 1,639
Level Of Service With No
Improvements:
• Morning Peak:

LOS C
• Evening Peak:

LOS D
With No
Improvements:
• Morning Peak:

LOS C
• Evening Peak:

LOS E
With No
Improvements
• Morning Peak:

LOS C
• Evening Peak:

LOS E
With
Improvements:
• Morning Peak:

LOS A
• Evening Peak:

LOS C
With
Improvements
• Morning Peak:

LOS B
• Evening Peak:

LOS D
With
Improvements:
• Morning Peak:

LOS B
• Evening Peak:

LOS D
If
a secondary roadway is constructed through the Mesa Linda Golf Course, it will result in operational impacts as future development phases are implemented. Based on the land use concepts and phasing assumptions, it is anticipated that this roadway may not be needed until residential development exceeds 2,300 units, which could ta ke approximately 10 to 12 years. While this connection may affect current golf course operations, it also presents an opportunity to improve the course layout and enhance the overall user experience.

To e
valuate this opportunity, the City engaged Todd Eckenrode Origins Golf Design, a local golf course architect firm, to evaluate potential design adjustments to the golf course in order to accommodate the secondary access route . Origins Golf Design developed preliminary concepts that reimagine the driving range and nearby areas in a way that maintains functionality and elevates the golfing experience. The associated costs for this design enhancement are included in the financial feasibility analysis, ensuring that long-term planning reflects both the infrastructure needs of the project and the ongoing success of the golf course as a valued community amenity. This information will be used to inform and memorialize the Specific Plan if the City Council proceeds with a maximum unit count above 2,300 units. It is anticipated that it may be further refined once a master developer submits to the City for entitlements. -37-
192
Additionally, each concept incorporates an interconnected network of pedestrian and bicycle paths. These facilities are designed to link residential areas with parks, community amenities, and key destinations within the project area and the broader City, promoting active transportation and reducing reliance on cars.

Park
s and Open Space
The three land use concepts offer different approaches to open space distribution.

Concept 1 features a linear park with open space dispersed throughout the site.

Concept 2 concentrates parkland into a larger, centralized area, while Concept 3 prioritizes housing and provides the least amount of park/open space.

Stat
e Government Code Section 66477, known as the Quimby Act, authorizes cities to require the dedication of parkland or payment of in- lieu fees from residential subdivisions to support the development of park and recreational facilities. The law sets a baseline requirement of up to 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents . It also allows jurisdictions to adopt higher local standards if supported by their General Plan and local ordinance.

In a
ccordance with this authority, the City has established a local parkland dedication standard of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents, as outlined in General Plan Policy OSR-1.18.

This requirement is implemented through the City’s Park and Recreation Dedi cations Ordinance (Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter XI, Article 5). Based on projected population levels, none of the land use concepts currently meet the 4.26 -acre standard.

Tab
le 2: Recreational/Open Space
Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3
Dedicated Recreational/Open
Space Areas (acres)

14.1 18 4.9
Population Projection1 5,744 7,816 10,232
Required Open Space based on
Policy OSR-1.18
~22 acres of
open space
~36 acres of
open space
~42 acres of
open space
NOTES:

1. Persons Per Household: 2.64, Source: American Community Survey 2022.

Includes estimated 480 DDS units for each concept (mix of 20% Very Low and 80% Moderate income). Assumes 1 person per household for Very Low and permanent supportive units.

Th
e current General Plan Land Use Designation for the Fairview Developmental Center site is Mixed -Use Center (MUC). The MUC designation —unique to this site —also includes an open space goal requiring that at least 25% of the site be preserved as open space. Based on the 80 acres available for development, this equates to a minimum of approximately 22 acres.
-38-
193
While none of the current land use concepts fully meet the open space goal of preserving 25% of the site as required under th e existing MUC designation, a component of the project is a General Plan Amendment to align the designation with the Specific Plan’s final land use and open space framework. This amendment will update the MUC land use designation to reflect the allowable uses and revised open space standards established through the Specific Plan.

As t
he planning process progresses, the Specific Plan will define a realistic and implementable open space goal—supported by future land dedication and developer- funded improvements—that will guide how open space is integrated into the site's long-term development. It is anticipated that the open space goal will be met during implementation through a combination of land dedication, in -lieu fees, development impacts fee and/or developer-funded improvements as part of the future development agreement.

ND USE CONCEPTS OUTREACH
Su
rvey Details and Structure
To g
ather community input on the three land use concepts, the City conducted public outreach throughout July and August 2024. Engagement activities included in-person and virtual workshops, pop-up events, and an online survey available from July 24 to August 30, 2024. All materials and events were offered in both English and Spanish, and paper surveys were made available at in-person events (see Attachment 4). In total, the City received 719 survey responses, along with 10 emails and 8 comment cards submitted during the outreach events.

To e
ncourage broad participation, the online survey did not require responses to every question, resulting in varying response rates. The survey was hosted on the Social Pinpoint platform and was designed to reflect the same information presented at public workshops, allowing participants who could not attend in person to access an equivalent level of detail. The survey featured the following informational tabs:
• Int
roduction – Included instructions for navigating the survey, explained the purpose and development of land use concepts for the FDC Specific Plan, and outlined the survey’s goals.
• Land Use Concepts – Provided detailed descriptions of each concept, results from traffic and infrastructure studies, and an interactive map. • Summary – Offered side -by-side comparisons of the concepts, including the results of the traffic and infrastructure studies. The summary also provided an overall comparison of the concepts int ended to inform participants about the various tradeoffs between each concept.
-39-
194
Survey Outreach
Th
e survey was promoted extensively during Workshop 4 open-house series and at pop-up events hosted by the City.
• We
dnesday, July 24, 2024 - Open House/Workshop Night 1 , 6-8 p.m., Norma Hertzog Community Center, 1845 Park Avenue
• Thursday, July 25, 2024 - Open House/Workshop Night 2, 6-8 p.m., Saint John Paul the Baptist Church, 1021 Baker Street
• Wednesday, July 31, 2024 - Virtual Open House/Workshop Night 3, 6-8 p.m., hosted via Zoom.

The
City publicized the survey through the following media and print forms:
• Dire
ct mailer to 40,000 households via USPS
• Social Media (Instagram and Facebook) –~1,000 average reach • City Manager’s Weekly Newsletter (Snapshot) – 12,000 subscribers • Costa Mesa Minute Video (broadcast on CMTV and social media) • Three pop-up events: Harbor Iglesia Church, Music in the Park, Northgate Mercado Gonzalez
• Announced at City Council meeting
• Project Website: fdcplan.com
• Flyers at City Facilities
Sur
vey Results
Th
e survey results are provided in Attachment 5. Below is a summary of key findings:
• A t
otal of 719 survey responses were received. Additional feedback included ten emails and eight comment cards submitted during in-person events. • The physical layout of Concept 1 was the most preferred among respondents. • Open Space configuration most influenced a participant’s preference when selecting a preferred layout.
• 52% of respondents support adding a secondary access road; 32% opposed it, and 16% indicated they need more information.
• 65% of respondents are supportive of 2,300 dwelling units in the plan. About 20% support 3,450 units, while 13.5% support a higher density of 4,000 units. -40-
195
• 66% of respondents believe the plan should maintain the 920 affordable dwelling units (Very low - and Low-income categories) designate d in the City’s Housing Element.
• A majority of the respondents were primarily unsupportive of reducing open space/park space for more housing.
• Over 315 open-ended comments were submitted , covering a wide range of topics including strong support of affordable housing, concerns about increased traffic, and importance of preserving open space.

Considerations for the Preferred Land Use Plan

The land use concepts analysis—including financial feasibility findings—identifies several considerations to inform the development of a preferred land use plan:

1. Ensuring Financial Viability

A sufficient number of market -rate housing units will be necessary to generate revenue to fund critical project components, including demolition, infrastructure, open space improvements, and the preparation of sites for DDS and affordable housing.

2. Balance Land Use Components
The preferred plan will need to strike an appropriate balance between affordable housing, market -rate housing, and open space to meet community goals, financial feasibility, and State expectations.

3. Support the Delivery of Affordable Housing

If there is a desire to increase the likelihood and shorten the time frame for developing affordable housing, a sufficient number of market rate units are needed to help pay the cost of structured parking.

4. Plan for Long-Term Flexibility

Incorporating residual land value into the planning approach will help maintain project feasibility in the face of potential changes in economic and market conditions over the anticipated 10- to 18-year buildout period.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN:

The land use concept analysis and the financial feasibility findings, staff recommends the following key elements and considerations for the preferred land use plan:

-41-
196

1. Residential Development range from 3,600-3,800 units

This range strikes a balance between market feasibility and achieving City and State housing goals. It also provides flexibility for detailed site planning, phasing, and housing mix adjustments as the project progresses.

2. Circulation Network: Grand Promenade

The plan includes a central Grand Promenade that has received strong community support. It should serve as the site’s primary spine, enhancing connectivity, reinforcing a sense of place, and promoting walkability across the development.

3. Open Space: Minimum Publicly Accessible Open space of 10-12 acres

A defined amount of minimum publicly accessible open space is essential to ensure a high quality of life, meet local and State parkland standards, and provide accessible recreational opportunities for future residents and visitors.

In addition, staff will look at including incentives into the Specific Plan that will further encourage the provision of publicly accessible open space.

4. Specific Plan Land Use Plan and Development Standards: Built-in flexibility for future Master Developer with certainty for the community

The Specific Plan should be designed with flexibility to accommodate changing market conditions and evolving housing products , while no t compromising on community decisions and certainty around the plan. This includes adaptable land use designations (including a maximum of 35,000 square feet of commercial and/or retail space) and phasing strategies while maintaining the plan’s core principles and community objectives.

5. Working Draft FDC Preferred Land Use Concept Map

Figure 3 illustrates the working draft preferred plan that incorporates the staff recommendations outlined in this section. The draft plan can accommodate a maximum unit ran ge of 3,600-3,800 units, a grand boulevard, minimum open space of at least 10 acres and pedestrian trails and a street network that can accommodate all modes of transportation (vehicles, bicycle lanes and pedestrian routes), including a secondary access route from Harbor Boulevard.

The draft plan also maintains flexibility to be memorialized into the Specific Plan to accommodate changing market conditions, evolving housing products and a range of potential housing developers depending on the State’s disposition process.

-42-
197

Figure 3: Working Draft FDC Preferred Land Use Concept Map

GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE:

The Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan will serve as the guiding planni ng document to implement these goals and provide a comprehensive framework for future development.

-43-
198
Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment and Environmental Review Process

The Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan is being prepared to establish detailed land use designations, development standards, infrastructure improvements, and design guidelines for the site. A Specific Plan is a planning tool authorized under California Government Code Sections 65450–65457 that allows cities to implement General P lan policies within a defined area. Once adopted, the Specific Plan will govern all future development proposals for the site, and any development must conform to its requirements.

Following Planning Commission and City Council input on the land use concepts presented in this report, staff will begin drafting the Specific Plan, along with the associated General Plan Amendment. While the City Council will not take formal action or select a final land use concept at this stage, their input —along with feedback from the Planning Commission and community —will help inform a preferred land use plan and define the scope of the environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Once the project description and land use plan is refined , a Notice of Preparation (NOP) will be issued to initiate the CEQA process. A Scoping Meeting will be held to gather public input on the scope of the Draft Environmental Impa ct Report (DEIR), which will be prepared and circulated for public review. The Specific Plan, General Plan Amendments, and DEIR will be prepared concurrently over the course of several months. The Planning Commission and City Council will consider these documents during future public hearings. Additional community meetings will also be held to share the draft plan and gather further input prior to formal consideration.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

• The date and time of the study session were posted on the project website. • Information about the study session was shared via the City’s social media channels and distributed to the project email list.

NEXT STEPS:

The redevelopment of the Fairview Developmental Center offers a unique opportunity to transform an underutilized site into a vibrant, mixed -use commun ity that reflects the City’s goals for sustainability, open space, and active tr ansportation. -44-
199
The Planning Commission’s feedback is a critical step in shaping the vision and structure of the Specific Plan.

Staff will present a summary of the Planning Commission’s input , including a refined preferred land use along, draft project description, draft vision statement, draft guiding principles and any additional information requested, back to the Planning Commission at their June 9, 2025, meeting for further review and a formal recommendation of the Preferred Plan to the City Council. Following this meeting, the City Council will consider the aforementioned materials, along with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and t o provide direction o n the preferred plan use project, project description, vision statement and guiding principles at their July 15, 2025, meeting.

Following input from the City Council, staff will proceed with the environmental review process. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) will be issue d to initiate the environmental review, leading to the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Concurrently, staff will continue to de velop proposed Specific Plan policies, development standards, and objective design guidelines. An outreach event will be held to present the proposed plan and DEIR to the community for feedback. A follow-up study session with the Planning Commission and City Council will be held on the draft Specific Plan, with additional opportunity for discussion and refinement .

Upon completion of the DEIR public review period, the City will initiate the formal public hearing process to consider adoption of the Specific Plan and associated project approvals. In addition, following completion of the DEIR public review period, DGS anticipates release a request for proposals for a Master Developer.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. State Factors

2. Department of Developmental Services (DDS) June 28, 2024 Letter

3. Land Use Concepts for Survey

4. Land Use Concepts Survey

5. Survey Results

6. Financial Feasibility Analysis
-45-
200

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 23, 2025 ITEM NUMBER: OB-1 SUBJECT: FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN – REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
FROM: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT /

PLANNING DIVISION

PRESENTATION BY: ANNA MCGILL, PLANNING & SUSTAINABILITY

DEVELEOPMENT MANAGER, KAREN GULLEY, PLACEWORKS, SUZANNE

SCHWAB, PLACEWORKS, STEVE GUNNELLS, PLACEWORKS

FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION
CONTACT:

ANNA MCGILL
(714) 754-5609
[email protected]

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive the staff presentation and provide feedback on community variables and plan components that will shape the land use plan for the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Specific Plan.

APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT:

City of Costa Mesa

BACKGROUND:

City and State Roles in the FDC Specific Plan Process

The 115-acre FDC site located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard in the City of Costa Mesa includes several interested entities, uses and state legislation. These factors create a n opportunity for a planning process to guide the future redevelopment of the land.

Extensive early coordination between the City and the State has resulted in this planning process being a collaboration. This section of the staff report outlines the state legislation that dictates the overall planning process and describes the City’s and State entities’ roles in guiding the development of the FDC site. -46-
201
In June 2022, the State Legislature through Senate Bill (SB) 188 approved Government Code Section 14670.31, which provides a framework for the reuse of the FDC property. The legislation codifies a partnership between the Department of General Services (DGS), the Department of Developmental Services (DDS), and the City of Costa Mesa, with defined roles for each entity.

To support this effort, the State allocated $3.5 million in State funding to the City to develop a Specific Plan, conduct necessary studies, and manage a community -based planning process. The Legislature’s intent is for the redevelopment of the FDC site to prioritize affordable housing to the greatest extent feasib le, including a minimum of 200 units of permanent supportive housing, open space, and housing for individuals with developmental disabilities. The City will create a Specific Plan for the FDC site that implements the provisions of Government Code Section 14670.31.

Agreement
: The City and the State executed an agreement in December 2022 consistent with SB 188. The agreement envisioned that the City’s planning work for FDC would be completed by December 2025 and include the following deliverables:

• Robust Community Engagement Strategy (and implementation thereof); • Comprehensive Conditions Report on the property and its setting; • Economic Market Demand Report;
• Water Supply Assessment and coordination among Water Agencies; • Project Conceptual Alternatives & a Preferred Plan Framework; • Draft Specific Plan with Implementation Strategies;
• Public Draft Initial Study and Notice of Preparation, if required; • Public Draft Environmental Impact Report;
• Draft Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
• Final Draft Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report; and • Public hearings for EIR certification and Specific Plan adoption, including any General Plan and Zoning amendments identified as necessary for consistency.

As outlined in the agreement between the City and State, the final development plan must align with both the City’s adopted vision and the State’s interests .

While the site
is owned and controlled by the State (DGS), the agreement outlines the City ’s responsibilities for leading the land use planning process.

City’s Role: The regulatory framework for this planning process includes preparation of a Specific Plan, identifying and defining public benefits, amending the G eneral Plan, updating the zoning regulations, and conducting the environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Although the City does not own the land, the City maintains zoning authority over the land. This is s ame authority by which the City regulates all land that is not public right-of-way (streets, etc).

In the case of FDC, the City has benefit of a working relationship with the State and -47-
202
understands the State intentions on securing a private master developer (as opposed to the State itself) to develop the site.

One unique element of the agreement requires the City to conduct an analysis to help determine project scenarios that will be financially feasible for a future master developer. Preparation of financial feasibility analyses is typically undertaken by the property owner or a developer to assess realistic development scenarios to pursue. This information, while used by developers to decide whether to pursue a project, is often not known to a jurisdiction (city or county) during planning efforts. In the case of FDC, the City benefits from understanding the financial feasibility analysis, which identifies the range for reasonable expected development. This information is also needed by DGS to inform their disposition process and select a master developer.

State’s (DGS) Role: T he State DGS, acting as the property owner, will lead the property disposition process, which will include either sale or lease of the land to a master developer, for the purposes of pursuing one or more projects in compliance with the City’s Specific Plan. As part of this process, the State will release a Request for Proposals (RFP) and select a master developer with a proposal that most closely reflects State and City goals and regulations for the site. DGS has expressed that they will likely start the disposition process and release the RFP after the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) public review period is complete. This ensures that the State’s disposition process can include with a clearly defined scope of development, Specific Plan regulations, and a detailed understanding of the environmental impacts associated with the site. Note that any project proposal would be processed through the applicable application types identified in the Specific Plan.

State (DDS) Role: DDS is the second state agency that has an active role in the FDC site planning process. DDS provides a wide variety of development disability services to Californians, which can include projects that build additional affordable and/or supportive housing. In accordance with SB 82, and demonstrated in the three developed land use concepts, DDS will retain 15 acres for housing that will be developed in a manner similar to the Harbor Village Apartments. DDS anticipates developing up to 480 residential units adjacent to the existing Harbor Village Apartments, with 20% of the units dedicated to individuals with developmental disabilities, like the Harbor Village model. Any units constructed by DDS as part of the FDC site will count towards the City’s fulfilling its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligation. This 15- acre portion of the property will be included in the Specific Plan area and studied under the EIR. DDS has committed to developing their portion of the site in accordance with the City’s Specific Plan, and continue to meet and collaborate with the City to ensure that the Specific Plan’s land use policies support the State’s DDS housing goals and interests.

State’s Role in Emergency Operations Center (EOC): DGS is also overseeing and responsible for the construction of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). -48-
203
Additional information is available online at:
https://buildcaloessreoc.turnersocal.com/. The May 27, 2025, staff report included additional information on decisions made between the City and State regarding this project, including the revised alignment of Shelley Circle and the identified location of the EOC community tower, which will impose height restrictions located directly north and east of the EOC site. These decisions will be reflected and memorialized in the Specific Plan.

City and State Coordination: The City and State entities (DGS, EOC development team and DDS) hold bi -weekly coordination meetings to discuss the progress of the Specific Plan, EOC project, anticipated DDS housing and DGS disposition process.

These continued meetings are critical in ensuring shared information, goals, and interests as they relate to the overall FDC site.

Community Outreach and Input

The City launched the c ommunity outreach component of the FDC Specific Plan process in 2023. The goal was to optimize public participation and encourage public input on the plan development. Many comments on the types and amount of housing, on the internal circulation and connectivity to the surrounding community, and parks and opens spaces were gathered and summarized. Outreach events have included in -person and virtual workshops, pop -up events, and study sessions.

Materials for all workshop and pop -up events were provided in both English and Spanish, with Spanish interpreters available to assist attendees as needed. For in - person meetings, the City’s Parks and Community Services Department provided activities and childcare resources to enable parents to attend and more fully engage in the outreach process.

Workshop 1 : The first workshop, which consisted of three workshop meetings, conducted in November 2023, focused on idea generation for the ingredients of great neighborhood which was used to inform a draft vision statement and set of guiding principles. The summary of the input received is available on the FDC website, through this link: https://fdcplan.com/wp-
content/uploads/2023/11/Workshop-1_Summary_DRAFT_Revised_11.28.23.pdf

Workshop 2: The second workshop was conducted in January 2024, consisting of three workshop meetings, and focused on the draft Vision and Guiding Principles, based on the feedback from the first workshop series. The summary of the input received is available on the FDC website, through this link: https://fdcplan.com/wp- content/uploads/Workshop-2_Summary_FINAL.pdf

Workshop 3: Held across 3 workshop meetings in February and March 2024, the third workshop series provided an open house format which gave the community opportunity to walk through various stations and learn more about a variety of topics -49-
204
related to the FDC Specific Plan. The summary of the input received is available on the FDC website, through this link: https://fdcplan.com/wp-content/uploads/Open- House-3_Summary_English.pdf

The first three workshop series were advertised across a range of media and print forms (detailed on each workshop summary) and documented input from 419 attendees.

Workshop 4: The input received on the first three workshops was used to inform and shape the three Project Conceptual Alternatives, which incorporated key community features identified by the public. Held across three workshop meetings in July and August, 2024, the fourth workshop focused on the draft Land Use Concepts . The summary of the input received is available on the FDC website, through this link:
https://fdcplan.com/wp-content/uploads/Open-House-4_Summary_ENGLISH.pdf

Throughout the fourth workshop outreach events , the City received 719 survey responses, along with 10 emails and 8 comment cards . A summary of the input received on the land use concepts was included as an attachment in the May 27, 2025, staff report.

Financial Feasibility Recap

As required by the agreement with the State, the City oversaw preparation of a Financial Feasibility Analysis (“Analysis”) for the FDC site, using three land use concepts as test cases. The three land use concepts included different unit counts, at 2,300 units, 3,450 units, and 4,000 units, along with land use components identified during public outreach. Incorporating market demand and pricing, t he Analysis provides a detailed summary of the development cost at the FDC site — excluding the cost that affordable housing developers will pay to build and operate their projects.

The analysis also includes project -wide infrastructure costs—demolition, roads, water, and sewer , along with public safety and open space needs for the level of development. Feasibility alternatives (i.e., changes in the assumptions for each land use concept that would make each concept more feasible) were included to identify adjustments that could make the overall project financially feasible. The Analysis was provided as an attachment to the May 27, 2025, staff report.

Financial feasibility analyses are prepared and analyzed from the perspective of potential developers and ask the question : do the concepts provide for a sufficient number of market rate housing units to offset the costs to support the affordable housing, the DDS housing, and other amenities, such as public safety and parks and recreation facilities. It can be used to predict the potential feasibility of a project with the most accurate information at hand at the time the analysis is conducted. While these analyses try to anticipate future market trends, unforeseen trends or market factors could adjust identified feasibility when the master developer is ready to -50-
205
construct. The Analysis is a ‘snapshot’ of the current market and its considerations.

For FDC, the Analysis evaluated the three concepts to determine how and whether a developer could redevelop the site and achieve an industry standard internal rate of return for project feasibility (15%).

In evaluating the three land use concepts, this analysis estimates the cost to develop several land use concepts along with an Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Th e industry standard deems 15% to be the minimum return that outside investors expect to invest equity in a development project. The table below is a summary of the results of the financial feasibility analysis:

Note: The total cash inflow and outflow is a simple sum of the monthly estimates. The data are not discounted and thus do not reflect the time value of money. However, the IRR does account for the timing of inflows versus out-flows.

Based on the analysis above, Concept 1 would cost more to develop than it would generate in income. This concept would need additional subsidy of over $233 million to be feasible at a 15.0 percent IRR. Absent a subsidy, it is highly unlikely that this development scenario would come to fruition. Concept 2, which showing slightly less than the industry standard IRR of 15% would still be considered financially feasible as it is anticipated a developer could make minor adjustments to their own pro forma or to the project to bring it to the 15% rate that would make the project viable. Finally, Concept 3 is financially feasible, with an IRR of 16.7%.

While normally unavailable to the City as part of a Specific Plan development process, the Financial Feasibility Analysis results are significant in that they provide an indication of what a master developer is likely to propose on the FDC site as the range of units. This allows the City to more clearly forecast estimated population growth and needs, along with infrastructure and public service needs to support development at the FDC site. The Analysis points to the reasonable expected development level to more clearly reflect Concept 3 than Concept 1 . To achieve an -51-
206
IRR at the industry standard of 15%, it is estimated that the unit range could be approximately 3,600 to 3,800 units.

To prepare a viable Specific Plan and conduct environmental review under CEQA, the City is responsible for evaluat ing a land use concept that is both physically and financially viable and reasonably expected. The City can then ensure a Specific Plan that achieves a balance of community desires and key public benefits -such as affordable housing, open space, and community amenities - as well as plan elements that are reasonably expected to be seen as part of a future project proposal based on feasibility.

In accordance with the FDC project agreement, the process has now progressed to the Preferred Plan Framework.

This process entails Planning Commission input on
components to include on a Preferred Plan . These components are based on input received from the community survey and the Vision and Guiding Principles for the Specific Plan. Collectively, the Planning Commission and public input will provide a foundation for components of the Specific Plan.

Planning Commission Input: May 27, 2025, Study Session

Based on the Financial Feasibility Analysis of the land use concepts , staff presented a Study Session on the Preferred Plan Framework to the Planning Commission at a study session item on May 27, 2025. The session included a comprehensive presentation covering land use concepts, varying residential densities — including affordable housing—commercial uses, circulation networks, and open space planning.

Commissioners also were provided with an overview of the community outreach and feedback, financial feasibility findings, and necessary site and infrastructure improvements. The purpose of the study session was to gather input from the Planning Commission to help refine the project description, shape the Preferred Plan Framework, and inform the scope of environmental review required under the CEQA. The May 27, 2025, FDC Study Session Staff Report and Materials are included as Attachment 1 to this report. Below is a high -level s ummary of comments and input received from the Planning Commission at this meeting:

a. Residential Development Range and Affordability Targets

A range of input was received on target residential development ranges for the Specific Plan, with some acknowledgement that the community voiced support to stay closer to the Housing Element target (2,300 units), some input to increase the target to what is financially feasible but not go beyond this point and some input to study the maximum density for the purposes of the EIR (4,000 units) and provide a target range that is financially feasible in the Specific Plan. A few Commissioners asked about a potential land swap concept (further discussed in other input received below) and the possibility of using City -owned land between Fair Drive and the -52-
207
proposed secondary access road adjacent to Harbor Boulevard to provide additional housing and/or open space. There seemed to be consensus amongst the Commission to encourage meeting the Housing Element’s target of 40% affordable units for the FDC site.

b. Development Pattern

The Commission requested additional information on the development patterns considered within the Specific plan, including permitted use types under each land use designation and some additional clarity about density, height, and other potential objective standards. Some Commissioners voiced support for including other community amenity type uses, such as a library or a community room. Some commented that the land use plan doesn’t feel “unique” or like a neighborhood at this stage and would like some additional information to help visual ize what the Specific Plan will entail.

c. Circulation Network

There was some input received on the grand promenade , mainly requesting more detail on the components within the promenade, including size and look of sidewalks, planting areas and the adjacent development patterns (i.e. mixed -use development, housing or any commercial component). The Planning Commission acknowledged that while the promenade was supported during public outreach, further refinement was needed to enhance its connectivity, reinforce sense of place and promote walkability across the development.

d. Open Space and Community Amenities

While the re was no specific Planning Commission direction on the minimum open space desired, they did support open space overall and questioned how the Specific Plan can incorporate the City’s General Plan open space goals citywide and for th e FDC site. While the staff recommended minimum open space for the Specific Plan that is lower than the Citywide or FDC specific goals in the General Plan, the amount suggested assumed that these goals would be met through dedication of land, the cost of improvements to the land and additional park impact fees that the master developer would pay in accordance with the City’s Local Park Ordinance . The components for meeting the open space requirements will be further discussed in the analysis of the staff report. Finally, staff received input regarding the commercial components of the plan and heard support for distribution of commercial space within the Specific Plan, as well as options for both mixed use configurations and standalone retail configurations.

e. Other Input Received

-53-
208
Additional input from the Planning Commission was received and is summarized below:
• Land Swap concept: Some commissioners queried the DDS letter dated June 28, 2024, included in the staff materials, and asked if there was still an opportunity to explore a land swap concept as part of the project . At the meeting, staff explained that this concept was further discussed with the Department of General Services (DGS), who did not express interest at the time in pursuing the concept. However, if a consensus is received amongst both the Planning Commission and City Council to continue to explore this option, staff will continue to engage in discussions with the state and assembly members about its viability as an option and the potential steps (including the current deed restrictions on the use of the golf course land and potential legislation needed) to consider a land swap option. One additional consideration is that the golf course areas outside the FDC site were not included as part of the City’s Measure K process, which means a major land use designation change would require a vote of the people.

• Further community outreach : some C ommissioners expressed concerns over the results of the community survey conducted when compared to the viable land use options under the financial feasibility analysis and suggested slowing down the process and conducting additional community outreach.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:

Recommendations for the Vision Statement and Guiding Principles

The Planning Commission requested a summary of the vision statement and guideline principles to evaluate conceptual land use plan framework. Th e draft vision statement and guiding principles have been included as Attachment 2.

A vision statement is an aspirational description of the desired future for a specific area. It reflects the community’s long -term goals and values and serves as a foundation for land use decisions, physical development, and policy direction. In a Specific Plan, the vision ensures that future growth aligns with local priorities while supporting broader city and state goals such as housing production, sustainability, and livability . Guiding principles are the core values that support the vision. They provide a decision -making framework and help shape the plan’s development by emphasizing priorities like connectivity, inclusivity, adaptability, and economic vitality.

For the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Specific Plan, the vision guides the planning process and unifies input from stakeholders and the community. Feedback from outreach events (Workshops 1 and 2) and study sessions informed the draft vision and guiding principles, which reflect both community perspectives and -54-
209
broader planning goals. These drafts will continue to evolve and will be included in the final Specific Plan to guide future development of the site.

FDC Specific Plan and its Components

A Specific Plan is a tool used by jurisdictions to implement the General Plan in a defined area within the City. The required content is established by Sections 65450 – 65457 of the California Government Code. A Specific Plan incorporates the elements of the community vision into a Preferred Land Use Plan, and planning control, detailed standards and design direction that may supplement and/or differ from a City’s traditional zoning regulations. In addition to establishing a land use plan and development regulations, a Specific Plan must also provide conceptual plans for circulation and infrastructure improvements needed to support the intended land uses. It must also address the phasing of development, financing, and how development applications will be processed.

The City’s responsibility and due diligence is to create a specific plan for the FDC site that ensures that future development provides all required infrastructure, public services, open space, public safety services, and appropriate development impact fees to fund services that cannot be constructed. Because specific plans, unlike the zoning ordinance, govern a defined geographic area, jurisdictions will establish a scope of development that is anticipated to evaluate infrastructure and land use needs. Understanding the needs guides the development requirements that are included in the specific plan. As such, it is important for a jurisdiction to identify the most realistically expectable level of development to ensure adequate requirements are in place to support that development and broader public needs.

The FDC Specific Plan will be the basis for all future development applications on the site. The developer(s) selected by the State will be required to comply with the adopted Specific Plan , but could utilize other permitted housing state legislation, including State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) provisions, as part of their entitlement requests and application to the City.

Key Chapters and Components of a Specific Plan will typically include existing conditions, visions and guiding principles, the main components of the plan and administration and implementation requirements for how future projects under the project will be processed. Specific Plans typically include the following Chapters:
• Introduction
• Existing Conditions and History of the FDC Site
• Vision and Guiding Principles
• The Plan
-55-
210
o Land Use Plan (including permitted uses under each land use category such as housing/affordable housing, commercial, community amenities, etc.)
o Mobility and Circulation (including roadway and network layout, street sections, bicycle, and pedestrian path and access requirements, etc.) o Open Space (including minimum required open space, types of open space permitted and possible locations for open space, recreational amenities, dedications, fees to be paid, construction and maintenance responsibilities)
o Infrastructure (including infrastructure requirements for the plan such as water, storm drain, sewer and drain utilities)
o Public Services (including additional requirements for public services such as police and fire facilities, as well as drainage to accommodate the need of additional residents and services)
• Administration and Implementation

More detailed examples of the components of the Specific Plan, including some visual representations of possible requirements, will be included in the staff presentation. While the Specific Plan will include clear standards to ensure that infrastructure and public needs are accommodated, it will also include flexibility to accommodate factors such as evolving housing products. The City’s goal is to ensure that development at the FDC site implements community infrastructure and public needs that are met by a developer as they pursue a reasonably expected development plan. To facilitate the City’s housing goals, the Specific Plan is not intended to predict development scenarios or overly dictate requirements.

The FDC Specific Plan will serve as the regulatory and policy document guiding the site’s transformation over time. It will also support the State’s future solicitation of a Master Developer to implement the vision in alignment with the City’s goals and community input. Therefore, the overall goal of the project description is to set maximum development parameters that can be studied and can anticipate possible environmental impacts. This process ensures transparency for the public and will help the master developer with a transparent and efficient entitlement process for future City review.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN:

Following community input and financial feasibility analysis , the City’s planning effort contemplated the development of land use alternatives and from those alternatives, a -56-
211
preferred land use plan. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission provide guidance about components that should be included in a preferred land use plan.

To assist in the Planning Commission efforts and public input, the consultant team developed potential land use alternatives as starting points for discussion. The goal in developing these alternatives was to incorporate components of the studied land use concepts that were desired by the community as well as incorporate aspects of good planning design with consideration of the results of the financial feasibility analysis.

These alternatives , shown below, were vetted, and discussed with City staff across multiple divisions/departments and used to formulate the preferred land use plan that was shown to the Planning Commission at the May 27, 2025, hearing. All land use plans considered can accommodate the staff recommended components of the preferred plan that was shared with the Planning Commission at the last study session (housing target range, minimum amount of open space dispersed through the site, commercial space, grand promenade, and flexibility for a future master developer).

All alternatives are within a development unit range that is considered reasonably expected, based on the financial feasibility analysis.

Staff recommends setting a
minimum residential development of 2,300 units and a maximum residential development of between 3,600 -3,800 units (i.e., the Planning Commission would recommend a number within this range to set as the maximum). The minimum residential development is to ensure that the FDC Specific Plan meets the affordability goals that were outlined in the City’s adopted Housing Element.

State Density Bonus Law now allows additional density on all housing development projects that provide a certain level of affordable housing. Density bonuses can range from 5% to 80% of the number of base units. For example, a development with 100 base units can earn up to an 80% density bonus (180 units) if all the units are affordable (very -low, low, or moderate -income levels). In another example, a development with 100 units base units can earn up to a 50% bonus (150 units) if 40% of the units are restricted to a very-low income level.

The reason for a maximum number is to accommodate for the reasonable expectation that a master developer will pursue a financially feasible development scenario. This ensure s that the City studies all developmentally feasible options and ensures that future projects meet the Specific Plan and adequately fulfill infrastructure and public service requirements to support the approximate level of development.

These recommendations seek to strike a balance between the City planning for the reasonably expectable range of development, achieving City and State housing goals, and ensuring that development “pays its way.”

Considered Land Use Plan Alternative 1

-57-
212
The first considered land use plan included dispersed open space, with large portions strategically place within eh communication tower height limitation area. The plan also included lower density development along the proposed promenade and a curved secondary road, though this feature was not preferred due to restricted turning radius for larger vehicles and that is created awkward shaped parcels that may be difficult to develop. Finally, commercial was placed near the secondary access to minimize neighborhood traffic and convenience, placed adjacent to open space to create opportunities for outdoor dining and other indoor/outdoor retail opportunities.

Figure 1: Considered Land Use Concept Map 1

-58-
213
Considered Land Use Plan Alternative 2

The second considered land use plan incorporated open space near Fair Drive to minimize traffic into the community and provide open space adjacent to the golf course. The plan also incorporated lower density development along the promenade and near the EOC site due to the communication tower height limitations. The secondary access road coming into the bottom of the Specific Plan was considered, but ultimately rejected as it did not meet EOC requirements.

Figure 2: Considered Land Use Concept Map 2

Considered Land Use Plan Alternative 3

-59-
214
Considered Land Use Plan 3 included the same open space near Fair Drive and lower density development along the promenade and adjacent to the EOC site. The plan adjusted the secondary access road to meet EOC requirements and adjacent to commercial space to accommodate convenient access and minimize neighborhood traffic. This considered land use concept most closely reflects the staff recommendation preferred land use plan that was shown to the Planning Commission at the May 27
th Study Session.

Figure 3: Considered Land Use Concept Map 3

-60-
215

During the May 27 th Study Session, the commission and public requested additional information on the Specific Plan process, which has been provided above and will be included in a more detailed visual form in the staff presentation. The land use plan is intended to be more high -level, with designated land use type and key components of the plan. The land use map identifies potential areas for housing development but does not describe the maximum density or height at these locations, allowing flexibility for the master developer as part of the entitlement process. The Specific Plan will then evolve this land use plan further with additional details, requirements, and considerations. As part of the City’s obligation to plan the FDC site to accommodate a reasonably expected level of development , staff has reached a critical point in the project to complete an initial draft the Specific Plan based on the received input. It could also be seen as a study plan that can continue to be refined once a draft Specific Plan is available for review but will be used to study the environmental impacts under CEQA before a final draft Specific Plan is realized . As mentioned above, not accounting for a reasonably expected level of development will result in the City in adequately planning for the infrastructure and public service requirements to support the development.

Key considerations for a preferred land use plan were included in the May 27 staff report including balancing land use components, supporting delivery of affordable housing, ensuring financial viability, and planning for long-term flexibility. Based on the feedback received from the Planning Commission , staff have made certain revision to the key elements below for continued Planning Commission considerations on the working draft preferred land use plan, as outlined below:

1. Residential Development range

Based on the input from the Planning Commission and public, as well as the need to adequately plan for a realistic development scenario, the Planning Commission could consider setting a minimum residential development of 2,300 units and a maximum residential development of between 3,600-3,800 units (i.e., the Planning Commission could recommend a number within this range to set as the maximum).

2. Circulation Network: Grand Promenade

The revised land use concept map still includes a Grand Promenade or grand entryway to create an identity for this project. This idea has received strong community support. Staff has provided some additional illustrati ons to further identify the types of uses that would be encouraged and allowed along the promenade including commercial uses, housing, mixed use development, open space, widened sidewalks and bicycle lanes (including in the illustrations -61-
216
provided within Attachment 3). Additionally, Attachment 4 provides street cross sections for the potential Grand Promenade, as well as other internal roadway configurations being considered for the Specific Plan. The promenade is intended to serve as the site’s primary spine, enhancing connectivity, reinforcing a sense of place, and promoting walkability across the development.

3. Open Space: 12 acres (minimum) of Publicly Accessible Open Space

While staff originally proposed a minimum open space of 10 -12 acres, the staff propose consideration of a minimum of 12 acres based on input from the commission and the community. While this minimum does not meet the current General Plan policies for the City and FDC site, the developer would provide a combination of land, improvements to the parks and trails, and park impact fees consistent with the City’s Local Park Ordinance. A defined minimum amount of publicly accessible open space sets the minimum parameter to meet local and State parkland standards and provide accessible recreational opportunities for future residents and visitors. In addition, staff will consider including incentives in the Specific Plan that will further encourage the provision of publicly accessible open space beyond the minimum requirement.

4. Specific Plan Land Use Plan and Development Standards: Built-in flexibility for future Master Developer with certainty for the community

The Specific Plan should be designed to ensure that infrastructure and public services associated with development of the FDC site are provided as part of future project. The Plan will also provide flexibility to accommodate evolving housing products , as the market conditions change over time while maintaining community input and certainty around the plan. This includes adaptable land use designations (including a minimum of 10,000 and a maximum of 35,000 square feet of commercial and/or retail space) and phasing strategies while maintaining the plan’s core principles and community objectives. Staff also revised the land use map figure, to identify additional locations for potential commercial and mixed -use development, along the grand promenade and dispersed throughout the plan.

5. Working Draft FDC Preferred Land Use Concept Map

Figure 4 illustrates the revised working draft preferred plan that incorporates the input from the Planning Commission. It is included in the staff report to provide something for the Planning Commission to react to and continue to provide input on. The draft plan shown below could accommodate a minimum unit range of 2,300 units and a range of housing units (up to 4,000 units ), a -62-
217
grand promenade, minimum open space of at least 1 2 acres and pedestrian trails and a street network that can accommodate all modes of transportation (vehicles, bicycle lanes and pedestrian routes), including a secondary access route from Harbor Boulevard. Commercial and mixed-use configurations have been added to the land use map, distributed across the site, with some focus on potential options along the grand promenade and within the interior of the plan. The draft plan also maintains flexibility to be memorialized into the Specific Plan to accommodate changing market conditions, evolving housing products and a range of potential housing developers depending on the State’s disposition process.

Figure 4: Working Draft FDC Preferred Land Use Concept Map

Project Description Considerations for CEQA
Public and Planning Commission/City Council input received over the course of the Specific Plan process, as well as input received on the draft preferred plan , will be used to shape and memorialize the requirements in the Specific Plan. It will also be used to set the thresholds and parameters for the project description that ultimately -63-
218
gets studied under the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This project description will be included in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and used to initiate the environmental review, leading to the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).

GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE:

The Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan will serve as the guiding planning document to implement these goals and provide a comprehensive framework for future development.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

-64-
219
As of the date of this report, no written public comments have been received . Any public comments received prior to the June 23, 2025, Planning Commission meeting will be forwarded separately to the Planning Commission.

NEXT STEPS:

Following this meeting, staff will return to the Planning Commission with a refined preferred land use plan and draft project description to a future Planning Commission meeting this summer for further review and a recommendation of the Preferred Plan to the City Council.

Following this, the City Council will consider the aforementioned materials, along with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and to provide direction o n the preferred plan use project, project description, vision statement and guiding principles at a future meeting (likely in August/September) . The goal is to receive direction on some of the main topic areas discussed.

Following direction from the City Council, staff will proceed with the environmental review process. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) will be issued to initiate the environmental review, leading to the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Concurrently, staff will continue to refine proposed Specific Plan policies, development standards, and objective design guidelines. Community outreach will be conducted to present the study plan and DEIR to the community for feedback. A follow -up study session with the Planning Commission and City Council will also be held on the draft Specific Plan, with additional opportunity for discussion and refinement. During the DEIR public review period, the public will be able to evaluate and understand the environmental impacts and continue to provide input that will refine the preferred plan and the Specific Plan components. Once input is received and refinements are made, the City would create a final draft Specific Plan and initiate the formal public hearing process to consider adoption of the Specific Plan and associated project approvals. Concurrently, following completion of the DEIR public review period, DGS anticipates releasing a request for proposals to select a Master Developer.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. May 27, 2025, FDC Study Session Staff Report

2. FDC Vision and Guiding Principles

3. Land Use Concept Illustrations

4. FDC Specific Plan Draft Street Sections

-65-
220

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

To: Planning Commission

From: Carrie Tai, AICP, Economic and Development Services Director

Date: August 21, 2025

Subject: August 25, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting - Agenda Item PH-2

The staff report for Agenda Item PH-2 for the Fairview Development Center Specific Plan indicated that Attachment 4 would be provided under separate cover.

Please see Attachment 4 to the staff report to Agenda Item PH-2. We will print hard copies for the Commissioners for distribution at the meeting. Thank you.

Attachment:

Agenda Item PH-2 Attachment 4 – Street Cross Sections
-66-
221
Promenade Option 1: (25 mph), Total Width: 110’
Vehicle
Lane
Shoulder 1-Way Class I
Bike Path
Vehicle
Lane
12’12’
ParkwayParkway Parkway
7’
1-Way Class I
Bike Path
7’
Sidewalk
8’ 8’
Parkway
8’8’ 5’5’ 8’
Shoulder
8’
Median
Street Width
14’
54’
ROW Width
110’
Sidewalk
-67-
222
Promenade Option 2: (25 mph), Total Width: 100’
Vehicle
Lane
Shoulder 1-Way Class I
Bike Path
Vehicle
Lane
11’11’
ParkwayParkway Parkway
7’
1-Way Class I
Bike Path
7’
Sidewalk
8’ 8’
Parkway
8’8’ 8’8’ 8’
Shoulder
8’
Street Width
38’
ROW Width
100’
Sidewalk
-68-
223
Fence
Vehicle
Lane
8’
Multi-use concrete path Golf Course
12’-16’
Sidewalk
8’
On-Street
Parking
Shoulder
On-Street
Parking
Shoulder
8’ 11’
Vehicle
Lane
11’
Street Width
38’
ROW Width
58’ - 62’
Shelley Circle (25 mph); Total Width: 58’ - 62’
-69-
224
Fence
Fence
Vehicle
Lane
12’12’ 5’ 12’
Vehicle
Lane
12’
Street Width
24’
ROW Width
58’
Class I
Multi-Use Path
Class I
Multi-Use PathParkway
Parkway
5’
Secondary Access through the Golf Course, Option 1: (25 mph); Total Width: 58’ Golf CourseGolf Course
-70-
225
Fence
Fence
Secondary Access through the Golf Course, Option 2: (25 mph); Total Width: 64’ Vehicle
Lane
12’12’ 5’6’ 12’
Vehicle
Lane
12’
Street Width
24’
ROW Width
64’
Class I
Multi-Use Path
Class I
Multi-Use PathParkwayDG Path
Parkway
5’
Golf CourseGolf Course
-71-
226
Vehicle
Lane
Sidewalk
8’
Sidewalk
8’12’
Vehicle
Lane
12’
Street Width
24’
ROW Width
40’
Local Road With Class III and No On-Street Parking (25 mph); Total Width: 40’ -72-
227
Vehicle
Lane
Sidewalk
8’
Sidewalk
8’
On-Street
Parking
Shoulder
On-Street
Parking
Shoulder
11’8’ 8’
Vehicle
Lane
11’
Street Width
38’
ROW Width
54’
Local Road With Class III and On-Street Parking (25 mph); Total Width: 54’ -73- 228

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-533 Meeting Date: 10/21/2025
TITLE:

AWARD OF THE KETCHUM-LIBOLT PARK EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 25-07, AND FINDING OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTED BY: RAJA SETHURAMAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: SEUNG YANG, P.E., CITY ENGINEER (714) 754-5335 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Make a finding of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301.

2. Adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the Ketchum-Libolt Park Expansion and Improvement Project, City Project No. 25-07.

3. Award a Public Works Agreement (PWA) for construction to Elegant Construction, Inc., 15375 Barranca Parkway, Suite J-103, Irvine, California 92618, in the amount of $2,527,737 (base bid only) and authorize a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $252,774 for unforeseen costs related to this project.

4. Authorize the Interim City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the PWA with Elegant Construction, Inc., and future amendments to the agreement within Council authorized limits.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The action involves an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, the proposed action is exempt under section 15301 relating to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, and/or minor alteration of existing public facilities.

BACKGROUND:

Ketchum-Libolt Park, located at 2150 Maple Street, was originally constructed in August 2005 as a tribute to fallen Costa Mesa Police Officers James “Dave”Ketchum and John “Mike”Libolt, whose lives were lost in a helicopter crash on March 10, 1987. Measuring less than half an acre, the current park includes a playground featuring elements for young children, a seating area and benches, turf, and a large concrete pad used by the City’s mobile recreation van.

Page 1 of 4 ends

Costa Mesa City CouncilOctober 21, 2025

Costa Mesa City Council
October 21, 2025