FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER
PUBLIC COMMENTS
From: GREEN, BRENDA
To: TERAN, STACY; BARLOW, KIMBERLY HALL
Subject: FW: Costa Mesa Golf Course - Meeting and Letters to the Planning Commission Date: Thursday, September 3, 2026 10:11:49 AM
Attachments: FDC_PCStudySessionLetter_SGrady_7_26_26.pdf 8_10_26PCMeeting_FDC_MerrimacWay.pdf
image001.png
Brenda Green
City Clerk, City of Costa Mesa
(714)754-5221
77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
From:
STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 9:49 AM
To: TAI, CARRIE <[email protected]>; GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]> Cc: ESCOBAR, SERGIO <[email protected]>; GALLARDO DALY, CECILIA <[email protected]>; TORRES, IVIS <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Costa Mesa Golf Course - Meeting and Letters to the Planning Commission
Carrie:
These are some good documents regarding the impacts to the golf course and options.
I’ll be reading these carefully and meeting with Scott before the September 15 meeting.
Brenda:
Please make sure these are shared with the council in our next agenda package.
Thanks!!!
From: Scott Grady <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 5:22 PM
To: STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>
Subject: Costa Mesa Golf Course - Meeting and Letters to the Planning Commission
Hello Mayor Stephens,
I hope you've been doing well.
I've been working with the Southern California Golf Association (SCGA), the Costa Mesa Golf Club (of which I'm a member), and local high schools and colleges to raise awareness about the FDC Specific Plan and its impacts on Mesa Linda.
We had a good turnout at the last Planning Commission meeting, and I'm expecting even more residents — along with some of the high school golf teams — at the September 15 City Council meeting.
I've written to you on this topic before and appreciated your response. I wanted to make sure you're aware of two additional letters (see attached) I've since sent to the Planning Commission, one of which grew out of documents I received through a Public Records Act request on the secondary access road.
There are many unanswered questions
about the impacts to the golf course, traffic study, requirements and timing of the secondary access road and potential use of Merrimac Way that simply have not been answered.
I fully support housing on the site, but I believe that goal can be achieved without sacrificing Mesa Linda. After extensive discussion with the SCGA, I'm convinced the secondary access road would mean the effective demise of the City-owned course — certainly the back nine.
I know you're very busy, but if you have a few minutes, I'd welcome the chance to speak or meet with you before the upcoming meeting. I'd also be glad to bring along the SCGA if that would be helpful.
Thank you,
Scott Grady
949-500-6192
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
August 10, 2026
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
c/o Community Development Department
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re: Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan — Secondary Access Road / Merrimac Way
Dear Chair and Commissioners:
My name is Scott Grady, I am a Costa Mesa property owner with 25 years of experience in commercial real estate. I am writing regarding the proposed secondary access road for the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Specific Plan, and specifically to raise concerns about the City's conclusion that Merrimac Way cannot serve as that access route.
The City's Fact Sheet on the Specific Plan states that after studying Merrimac Way as a possible access point, staff concluded the road "must remain private and can only be used for emergency access," because it is part of a land lease with the Harbor Village operator.
After reviewing that characterization, I submitted a Public Records Act request and obtained a copy of the ground lease between the State of California and the Harbor Village operator, along with its eleven amendments. That review raises two issues I believe warrant formal legal and historical analysis before the Commission relies on the "private street" conclusion in the Fact Sheet.
First, the State of California owns both parcels. The FDC site is State-owned, and the land underneath Harbor Village is also State-owned — it is ground leased to the operator. A restriction on Merrimac Way that originates in a lease between the State and its own ground lease tenant is not a barrier between two independent property owners. That distinction matters: it means the road's "private" status may be a matter of the State's discretion as landowner, not a legal impossibility, and it should be examined as such rather than treated as a closed question.
Second, the historical record indicates that Merrimac Way's alignment predates the lease that now governs it. A 1965 USGS topographic survey of this area — sixteen years before the original 1981 ground lease was signed, and decades before Harbor Village Apartments existed — shows the Fairview State Hospital campus already built, with a road already running from Harbor Boulevard along the same route the 1981 lease exhibit later labels "Merrimac Way." I have enclosed a side-by-side comparison of the 1965 survey and the 1981 lease's Exhibit B plat map for the Commission's reference. The lease did not create this road or dedicate it for the first time — it documented an access route that had already served this site, in this location, for at least sixteen years.
I have since obtained additional records through my Public Records Act request that I believe further support this request, including internal notes from a March 20, 2024 coordination call between City staff and the State Department of Developmental Services (DDS), and an email from the City's planning consultant describing how the "private road" conclusion in the Fact Sheet was reached.
Two points from these records stand out. First, the March 20, 2024 DDS call notes state plainly that "DDS thinks there is a public easement over the road (to be confirmed)." In other words, the State agency that co-owns this question has itself acknowledged that whether a public easement exists over Merrimac Way was, as of that date, an open and unresolved question — not a settled legal conclusion. Second, the City's planning consultant's correspondence indicates that the "private road" determination reflected in the Fact Sheet was reached through stakeholder interviews and conversations with the Harbor Village operator and the State, rather than through a formal legal opinion or title review. I do not believe a matter of this consequence to the City's road network should rest on an unconfirmed assumption raised in a phone call and never resolved.
There is also a timing issue the Commission should weigh before treating a golf-course road as the only path forward. The City's own Fact Sheet states that a secondary access road is not needed until traffic thresholds are met, and that this may not occur until the mid-term (5 to 10 years) or long-term (10 to 20 years) of the Specific Plan's build-out. Yet I have not seen a specific, codified unit-count or traffic threshold in the record that would actually trigger construction of a secondary access road — only informal references to a figure that appears to conflate a Housing Element allocation with an engineering threshold. Before any alignment decision is made, the Planning Commission should direct the City's traffic engineers to identify, publish, and formally codify into the Specific Plan the precise threshold that would require a secondary access road, so that a road is only built once it is actually shown to be necessary.
That timing question matters even more in light of the underlying lease term. The Harbor Village ground lease expires December 31, 2036 — just over ten years from now, and squarely within the mid-to-long-term window the City itself has identified for the secondary access trigger. This means the lease may well come up for renewal or renegotiation before the secondary access road is ever actually triggered by traffic. That presents a natural, low-cost opportunity for the State to resolve the Merrimac Way access question — including the public easement issue DDS itself has flagged as unconfirmed — as part of any lease renewal or extension, potentially eliminating the need to route a road through the golf course at all.
Given these points, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission direct the City Attorney, and outside counsel if necessary, to:
1. Research the full chain of access rights affecting Merrimac Way, including the original 1981 lease, its eleven amendments, and any documents governing the State's ownership and use of both the FDC site and the land beneath Harbor Village;
2. Evaluate whether the State's common ownership of both parcels affects the "private street" conclusion in the Fact Sheet, and specifically resolve the public easement question DDS itself has flagged as unconfirmed;
3. Determine what legal or title analysis, if any, has been performed to date on the "private road" conclusion, given that the record I have reviewed indicates it originated in stakeholder conversations rather than formal legal review;
4. Direct the City's traffic engineers to identify, publish, and formally codify into the Specific Plan the precise unit count or traffic threshold that would require construction of a secondary access road;
5. Track the timeline for any renewal or renegotiation of the Harbor Village ground lease, which expires December 31, 2036, against the projected secondary access traffic trigger, so the lease renewal process can be used as an opportunity to resolve the Merrimac Way access question before any road through the golf course is considered; and
6. Report these findings back to the Planning Commission and the City Council before any final decision is made on the secondary access road, including any decision to route that road through the Costa Mesa Golf Course.
The Costa Mesa Golf Course is a significant community and recreational asset. Before the City commits to routing a new road through it, I believe the Commission and the public deserve a complete, legally grounded understanding of whether existing infrastructure — infrastructure that has served this site since at least 1965 — can meet the same need.
I intend to speak on this matter at the upcoming Planning Commission hearing and will bring the enclosed exhibits for the Commission's review. I am glad to provide the underlying lease documents, survey materials, and records referenced above to staff or counsel directly upon request.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
_____________________________
Scott Grady
[email protected]
Enclosures:
1. USGS Topographic Survey (1965) and Harbor Village Lease Exhibit (1981) — comparison exhibit
2. City of Costa Mesa Fact Sheet, "Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan – Secondary Access Road"
3. DDS Coordination Call Notes, March 20, 2024
4. Email correspondence from the City's planning consultant re: FDC Secondary Access Road Fact Sheet/FAQ
EXHIBIT 1
USGS Topographic Survey (1965) vs. Harbor Village Lease Exhibit (1981)
EXHIBIT 2
City of Costa Mesa Fact Sheet — FDC Specific Plan Secondary Access Road
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
Fact Sheet | Secondary Access Road
Background
In 2022, the City of Costa Mesa began working with the State Department of General Services (DGS) and the State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) to create a Specific Plan for the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) site.
State laws require the City to prepare a plan that allows the site to be redeveloped in a financially feasible way that supports a mixed -use community with homes for people at different income levels . The City also wants to create a new neighborhood that meets its housing goals. According to the City’s Housing Element, the site would include 920 affordable homes for low and very-low income households (includes 200 permanent supportive housing units as outlined in Senate Bill 188), plus 690 homes for moderate income households. To meet these goals, the City has drafted a Specific Plan that could allow a neighborhood of up to 4,000 homes along with 35,000 square feet of commercial space. A future Master Developer would pay for expected development costs. These include cleaning up the site (about $30 million), as well as design, permitting and construction costs for grading, utilities, and roads (about $427 million). These costs (See Concept 3 in the Financial Feasibility Analysis ), along with the need to reduce funding gaps for affordable housing, helped shape the plan to allow up to 4,000 housing units.
What is the secondary access road?
Right now, the FDC site can only be reached by one road, which connects to Fair Drive and Harbor Boulevard. Figure 1 shows the current road and the planned secondary
access road.
Why is the secondary access road needed?
A traffic study for the Specific Plan showed that a second access road is needed to serve the proposed FDC Specific Plan from a mobility and public safety standpoint . A
secondary access road will help ease access to and from the future neighborhood.
What criteria were considered when determining
the secondary access road location?
The secondary access road must help keep traffic at or
above the City’s standards . City staff found that
connecting the road to an existing intersection made the most sense. The closest signalized intersection is at the Harbor Village Shopping Center. This location is far enough from other traffic signals to give cars room to line up, and helps prevent congestion that could happen if a new signal was placed too close to an existing one.
How wide is the secondary access road?
The Specific Plan shows that the road will be between 58 and 64 feet wide. This is similar to the paved width of Mesa Verde Drive. This road width allows for all modes of travel including walking , bi king and driving. It also provides access for fire and emergency vehicles and is adequate to serve the future neighborhood.
Fair Dr.
Harbor Blvd.
Figure 1 - Draft Secondary Access Road Location
Planned Road
Current Road
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Did the City study alternative locations for the
secondary access road?
Yes, the City reviewed several possible locations for the road (See Figure 2). These included:
• Access from Shelley Circle, south.
• Access through Merrimac Way.
Why were the alternative locations for the
secondary access road not selected?
• Access via Shelley Circle, south. The State will continue to own the land at the Southern Regional Emergency
Operations Center (SREOC), which would have been the
connection point to the golf course maintenance road.
Shelley Circle runs along the western edge of the SREOC.
This connection would only allow limited, gated access for the SREOC. In addition , building a road on the golf course maintenance road would have greater disruptions
to both City-owned golf courses, and affect operations at the City’s corporate yard and Fire & Rescue’s training
center at Station 4.
• Access through Merrimac Way. Because Merrimac Way
is a through-road today, it was first assumed it could serve as an access point. However, Merrimac Way runs
between the Harbor Village Apartments, and the State
owns the land. During discussions with State agencies,
the City learned that the road is part of a land lease with the Harbor Village operator . This means Merrimac Way
must remain private and can only be used for emergency
access.
After these options were ruled out, the City began studying secondary access road options through the Mesa Linda
Golf Course.
How is the City addressing the secondary access
road as it relates to the Mesa Linda Golf Course?
The golf course is an important community asset, both as a recreational space and as a resource valued by residents .
The City is not redesigning the golf course as part of the Specific Plan. However, the City must make sure any
impacts from the secondary access road are properly
addressed. Because the proposed road passes through the golf course, there is also an opportunity to improve the course for players in the future.
In 2024, the City hired Todd Eckenrode Origins Golf Design (“Origins”) to study how the secondary access road might affect the Mesa Linda Golf Course. Their work helps the City understand possible impacts and identify any off-site
improvements the need to be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
What will happen to the golf course?
Based on the secondary access road layout, Origins found that holes 6, 7, 10, 11, and 13 would be directly affected.
They also noted that holes 5, 8, 9, 12, and 14 may become part of future redesign plans. For reference, Figure 3 shows the existing golf course hole alignments. In addition, Origins noted that holes 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 , and 13 are very close together compared to modern safety standards . Origins recommended that the City try to keep these areas as safe and complete as possible during any future redesign to the extent feasible.
Who is going to be responsible for constructing the
secondary access road and the future redesign of
the golf course?
The Master Developer will be responsible for designing and building the secondary access road . They will also pay for redesigning and adjusting the holes at the Mesa Linda Golf Course that are affected by the road. Origins suggested that a full renovation of the course might be possible. This could include more strategic bunker placement, improved greens with more variety for pin positions, and green surrounds that offer different types of approach shots . The City believes that a full renovation would benefit golfers and help ensure the course remains a valuable and long-lasting community resource.
Access Road Alignment
SREOC
Access via Shelley
Circle, south
Figure 2 - Studied Secondary Access Road Alternatives
Access through
Merrimac Way
Gated/Restricted
Access Points
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
What criteria is anticipated to be utilized for a future redesign of the golf course?
A future redesign of the golf course will focus on keeping golfers and drivers safe and maintaining playability. It will also consider yardage, par, how to reroute holes, protect open space and the environment, and update older
features like bunkers, greens, and irrigation. The goal is to improve the course for the community while managing
impacts from the secondary access road.
What is the timing of the potential reconfiguration
of the golf course?
The secondary access road is still conceptual and must meet all City code requirements. These will be reviewed during the application/entitlement and permit process. The Specific Plan has an expected build out period of 15 to 20 years. Based on the Specific Plans phasing schedule, the secondary access road will not be needed until future
housing is approved and traffic levels show the road is necessary. This could occur in the mid-term (5 to 10 years) or long -term (10 to 20 years) . The City would continue to update the golf course operator on the status of the
secondary access road and will require the Master
Developer to communicate with the community about any
future redesign of the golf course.
Will the golf course stay open during construction?
The City will work with the golf course operator and the Master Developer to keep as much of the course open as
possible during construction. Some areas may need
temporary closures for safety, but the goal is to limit disruptions and keep players informed ahead of time.
How will safety for golfers be maintained during and
after construction?
Safety will be a top priority. During construction, the City and the Master Developer will put measures in place such as clear signage, fencing, and safe detours. After the road and any course adjustments are complete, the redesigned areas will follow modern safety standards to protect players and visitors.
Will the secondary access road change traffic patterns
in nearby neighborhoods?
The secondary access road is planned to distribute traffic from the future development, which should reduce
pressure on surrounding neighborhoods. Traffic engineers will study how cars might move through the area and ensure design to keep neighborhood streets safe and functional.
How can the public provide input on the golf course
redesign?
If a redesign moves forward, the City will require the Master Developer to reach out to golfers, neighbors, and
community members. This could include public meetings,
online updates, and opportunities to review early design ideas.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SREOC
Figure 3 - Existing Mesa Linda Golf Course Hole Alignments N
EXHIBIT 3
DDS Coordination Call Notes, March 20, 2024
DDS Call 3/20/2024
DDS Call 3/20/2024
NOTES:
Mark Lane and the adjacent parking lot have been annexed into the Harbor Village Lease. – Highlighted in yellow with black hatch.
Merrimac Way is and will remain private, with only emergency access. Turn radius improvements will be made at Merrimac and Shelly but anticipate that it will be gated. DDS thinks there is a public easement over the road (to be confirmed).
Fair and Harbor room to improve the intersection possibly to add additional turn lanes/ overall ROW.
Harbor Village lease expires December 31st 2026, expected to be extended- legislation already paved the way.
SB82 (Sec. 14670.36 of the State Code) - Mixed-Income State Housing (Shannon’s Mountain) - 2015
240-325 units, possibly in 5, 3-story buildings on up to 20 acres, with surface parking (parking at City ratios)
Approximately 70 of the units (or possibly 25%) would be ground level for developmentally disabled (which also qualify as Very Low Income), DDS has their own standards these are not ADA units
Remaining units would be market rate
Anticipate same model as Harbor Village “Reverse Integration”- leased land vs. sale to developer
DDS considering retail and oƯice use on the site as well SB138 (Sec. 14670.35e) – Complex Needs Housing - 2023
6 structures, 3 homes and 3 support buildings on up to 5 acres Property will be fenced
Moving quickly, $10M has been allocated in the general fund budget this year due to immediate need and closure of existing Palm Desert homes Other Housing
Additionally, DDS would like to plan for an additional 150 units on the FDC Maintenance Yard site if it is not used for the Complex Needs homes in .35e. Operational issue with selecting the Maintenance Yard site for complex needs because the FDC is still in warm shut down and must be maintained until oƯicially closed- date is TBD.
SB188 (Sec. 14670.31) approved closure of the FDC/ disposition of the property - 2022 Section 14670.31 is added to the Government Code, to read:
DDS Call 3/20/2024
14670.31.
(a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1) The Fairview Developmental Center is located in the City of Costa Mesa, in the County of Orange, and is composed of a developed campus covering approximately 102 acres adjacent to Costa Mesa Country Club.
(2) The Fairview Developmental Center opened in 1959 and is a state-run residential care facility dedicated to serving individuals with developmental disabilities. (3) The State Department of Developmental Services announced the warm shutdown of the facility and acknowledged that it was not the intent of the state to follow the traditional state surplus property process.
(4) The State Department of Developmental Services is relocating all Fairview Developmental Center residents to homes in the community, and may use former active units for short-term needs. (5) California is experiencing an acute aƯordable housing crisis. The cost of land significantly limits the development of aƯordable housing. It is the intent of the Legislature that priority be given to aƯordable housing in the disposition of the Fairview Developmental Center state real property. (6) It is the intent of the Legislature to establish a partnership among the Department of General Services, the State Department of Developmental Services, and the City of Costa Mesa that provides for an expedited land use planning process. During this process, the City of Costa Mesa will manage the planning process. The planning and disposition process is expected to be less than three years in duration.
(7) It is the intent of the Legislature that the Fairview Developmental Center property be utilized for a mixed-use development, including mixed-income housing. The development would include and prioritize aƯordable housing, including at least 200 units of permanent supportive housing, and open space.
(8) It is further the intent of the Legislature that priority be given to redevelopment concepts that include housing that is deed restricted to provide housing for individuals with developmental disabilities. (b) The following definitions apply for purposes of this section:
(1) “Agreement” means the formal agreement between the State Department of Developmental Services and the City of Costa Mesa to implement a disposition and land use planning process. (2) “City” means the City of Costa Mesa.
(3) “Council” means the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa. (4) “Director” means the Director of the Department of General Services. (5) “Department” means the State Department of Developmental Services. (6) “Property” means all state-owned real property comprising the Fairview Developmental Center, less any acreage transferred to other state agencies by the Department of General Services.
DDS Call 3/20/2024
(7) “Specific plan” means a comprehensive planning and zoning document for the Fairview Developmental Center property.
(c) (1) The department, upon those terms and conditions that it deems to be in the best interests of the state, may enter into an agreement with the city for the city to develop a specific plan for the property, and to manage the land use planning process integrated with a disposition process for the property, to be carried out by the Department of General Services. The disposition may include the sale or lease of the property, or property interest, the director deems to be in the best interests of the state. From funds appropriated by the Legislature for this purpose, the department shall allocate three million five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000) to the city to facilitate the disposition of the property by amending the general plan of the city and any appropriate planning documents and zoning ordinances, completing any environmental review, and addressing the economic feasibility of future development for the purposes intended by the Legislature.
(2) In carrying out the land use planning and disposition process pursuant to the agreement, the department, the director, and the city shall provide for the expeditious planning of future land uses for the site and an opportunity for community input, with the intent to provide certainty for the community and a potential developer, expedite marketing, and maximize interested third-party potential purchasers.
(3) The disposition of the property or property interests shall provide for aƯordable housing to the greatest extent feasible, and shall be upon terms and conditions the director deems to be in the best interests of the state.
(4) The agreement shall require that housing be a priority in the planning process and that any housing proposal determined to be appropriate for the property shall include aƯordable housing. The agreement and the development plan shall provide for housing and aƯordable housing at a level consistent with the January 2020 council-adopted strategy of 1,500 units and the housing assessment in the Department of General Services’ 2021 Infrastructure Assessment of up to 2,500 units for the site. (d) (1) The department may enter into any additional agreements, upon terms and conditions that the department determines to be in the best interests of the state, to provide for the management, operations, and maintenance of the property.
(2) The intent of the Legislature is for expeditious planning and disposition for aƯordable and permanent supportive housing at the property. The agreement, any necessary land use approvals, including modifying the general plan, rezoning the property, approving a specific plan or plans, and any other action necessary for the implementation of the development plan or the disposition of the property, following CEQA review, shall only be subject to approval by the director and the council. Should the director determine that the transfer, sale, or final disposition of the property has been unduly delayed, the director may dispose of the property as deemed to be in the best interests of the state. (e) The city shall provide quarterly reports to the department that shall include expenditures, contracts, and an update describing the progress of the expedited planning process.
DDS Call 3/20/2024
EXHIBIT 4
PlaceWorks Email Correspondence re: FDC Secondary Access Road Fact Sheet/FAQ
NGUYEN, DAVID
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Suzanne Schwab <[email protected]>
Thursday, April 23, 202612:48 PM
DACEY, MELINDA; kgulley
RE: FDC Secondary Access Road Fact Sheet/FAQ
Hi MeLinda-
Here is the history regarding additional access to FDC:
@ AccesstotheSouth.TheDEIRTortheEOCconsideredaconnectionthroughthegoLfcoursefrom SheLLey Circle to the City Yard to the south. This was not supported by the City and Like the heLipad removed from the project by the FinaL EIR. The road wouLd have onLy been to support the EOC given the Location and restricted access for the site. * AccessingusingMerrimacWay.Sinceitisathroughroadtoday,whentheprojectfirstkickedoff it was assumed that Merrimac was an access point for the site, however, through our stakeholder interviews we Learned that it is a private road and is part of the Land lease with the Harbor ViLLage operator and through those discussions the operator and State (still owns the Land) informed us that it would remain private and that future access to the FDC site would be for emergency use only.
@ AccesswithanExistinglntersection.KnowingthattheothertwowerenotoptionsandthatFehr and Peers determined there was a threshoLd for capacity for Fair Drive we explored an alignment to the existingintersection to the HarborVillage Shopping Center. Through working meetings and screen shares that has been Looked at a few different ways marginally moving it 5- to 1 0-feet, with a curve/ without a curve, etc. There was talk about a right in lane as weLL but that had greater impact to the golf course so that was not drawn up/ studied in detaiL. ALso wanted to note here that the road may continue to be refined through implementation of the Specific Plan, ultimate reconfiguration of the golf course, etc.
Feel free to give me a call if you have any questions.
Thanks-
Suzanne
SUZANNE SCHWAB, AICP
Associate Principal
714.966.9220 x2323 l cell: 619.318.5908
Celebrating 50 years of creating great places!
From: DACEY, MELINDA <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2026 8:58 AM
To: Suzanne Schwab <[email protected]>; Karen Gulley <[email protected]> Subject: FDC Secondary Access Road Fact Sheet/FAQ
Suzanne and Karen,
Are there any representative figures or graphics that depict aLl of the different road iterations that were considered for FDC? If not, do you think that is a graphic that can be created easily? Right now the draft document notes the following:
1 "Did the City study alternative Locations for the secondary access road? Yes! The City Looked at several aLternative locations for the road alignment, incLuding Merrimac Way, and Shelley Circle to access the golf course maintenance road (southwestern corner ofthe Emergency Operations Center (EOC) site connecting to either Placentia Avenue, orJoann Street)." There may be more, but as you noted I was not here at the time those were being looked at, so if there are other could you please also describe them?
Thanks!
Melinda Dacey
Principal Plannerl Advanced Planning
City of Costa Mesai Economic and Development Services Department Office: (714) 754-5611 Cell: (714) 925-7248
77 Fair Drive l Costa Mesa I CA 92626
"The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant community."
9!!0[7
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL. THANK YOU.
CAUTION: Thi-s-em- ail originated from o-utside of-the organizffiio-n. Do not c}ick link-s or-open attac-hin-ents'- unless you recognize the sender and kno_w th_e content is safe_. R_eport any suspiciqus activitjes to the' I_nf_orm,at_ion T e____chn__o_logy__D_ep:giep_t.i
eA-U"I'-IO-Nl-This-em-a-il-or-i-g-in-ate-d-from out-side 6f-th- e organiz- at4o-n-.-D-o-no-t-cli-ck -link-s-o-r-op- en-attachmen_t_s; unless you recognize the sender and ki'iow t_hp__c_o_nten_t js safe. _Report any sus_picious activities to theJ -- - Inf_ornn__at_ion_T_e_chn__ ology__De_part__m__ent.'
2 From: GREEN, BRENDA
To: TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Fairview Dev Center and the Costa Mesa Golf Course Date: Thursday, September 3, 2026 1:14:19 PM
Attachments: image001.wmz
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
TitleReport_Maps.pdf
Harbor Village Lease and Amendments.pdf
TitleReport.PDF
image001.png
Brenda Green
City Clerk, City of Costa Mesa
(714)754-5221
77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
From:
STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 12:34 PM
To: TAI, CARRIE <[email protected]>; BARLOW, KIMBERLY HALL <[email protected]> Cc: GALLARDO DALY, CECILIA <[email protected]>; REYES, ALMA <[email protected]>; GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Fairview Dev Center and the Costa Mesa Golf Course
See Scott’s email and attachments regarding the possibility of using Merrimac as an access road.
Brenda, please make sure this is in our council packet (including the attachments).
From: Scott Grady <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 11:55 AM
To: STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Fairview Dev Center and the Costa Mesa Golf Course
Mayor Stephens,
I wanted to send along this correspondence below with staff dating back to April which I think you will find interesting.
Melinda states that Merrimac is privately maintained.
My
reading of the Harbor Village lease (attached), which in fairness is not specific to Merrimac, insinuates that the State of California (not Harbor Village) maintains Merrimac Way.
The
attached 1985 Tract Map designates Merrimac as a private street, although per my previously sent letter that street has served the FDC since the mid 1960's.
I think it is worth confirming if the State of CA maintains Merrimac.
If that is the case, doesn't the State ALREADY have the right of way they need to serve the FDC site, this isn't something they need to go and negotiate with the Harbor Village operator.
I went so far as to have a title report pulled for the site, which I have also attached.
It would be worth having the City attorney review this.
I have put a tremendous amount of time into thinking through this issue and I just want you to have the benefit of my research.
I am just trying to find a good solution.
Thanks again for listening.
Best,
Scott Grady
----- Forwarded Message -----
From:
DACEY, MELINDA <[email protected]>
To: Scott Grady <[email protected]>
Cc: MCGILL, ANNA <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 at 05:27:59 PM PDT
Subject: RE: Fairview Dev Center and the Costa Mesa Golf Course
Hi Scott,
Please see responses below in blue text. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Melinda Dacey
Principal Planner | Advanced Planning
City of Costa Mesa
|
Economic and Development Services Department
Office: (714) 754-5611
Cell: (714) 925-7248
77 Fair Drive
|
Costa Mesa
|
CA 92626
“The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant community.”
Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you.
From: Scott Grady <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 9:10 AM
To: Kerry Tebbe <[email protected]>; MCGILL, ANNA <[email protected]>; DACEY, MELINDA <[email protected]>
Subject: Fairview Dev Center and the Costa Mesa Golf Course
Dear Melinda,
Thank you for the information provided below. While I appreciate the response, the data points shared raise significant concerns regarding the transparency and technical justification of the current Specific Plan.
Please see my initial comments and inquiries below. I will be submitting a formal, comprehensive letter for the record tomorrow, prior to the public comment deadline.
I
would appreciate a response from you today.
1. Procedural Oversight: Omission of Technical Studies It has come to my attention that the City has engaged a professional golf course architect to evaluate the impacts of the proposed road layouts on the Costa Mesa Country Club. However, neither the identity of this consultant nor any of their findings, safety analyses, or proposed mitigations were included in the Draft Specific Plan or presented during public workshops. While not included in the scope identified in the legislation that provided the City the grant and set up process for developing Specific Plan,
the City secured a golf course architect to understand what off-site impacts may occur for CEQA purposes if the secondary access road were built through the golf course
(i.e. number of holes impacted and general understand of where they might be relocated). The City is not redesigning the golf course, as that will be the responsibility of the master developer during the entitlement process. We will be preparing a “fact sheet” relating to the secondary access road in the near future. In addition, the CEQA document will be released within the next month or so and will be available for public comment for at least 45 days. Please let me know if you would like to sign up for project notifications.
Without access to this vital technical analysis, the public cannot provide meaningful or informed comments on the Plan’s feasibility or its impact on existing recreational resources.
Request: I request that the comment period be formally extended and that additional community workshops be held once this study is made public to properly explain the impacts.
2. Traffic Mitigation & Secondary Access Requirements A representative from Fehr & Peers previously indicated that a secondary access road through the golf course would only be triggered if the unit count exceeds 2,300.
Can you formally confirm if this remains the City’s position? I understand from the Fehr & Peers traffic analysis, and concurrence from the Fire Department, that the secondary access road is required if development exceeds 2,300 residential units.
What specific assumptions were utilized regarding the use of Merrimac Way in this evaluation? If Merrimac Way provides viable access, the justification for a new arterial through recreational land is significantly weakened. Merrimac Way is a privately maintained road that is owned by the State which includes gated access points that they close or keep open. Merrimac Way also had speed bumps that would not be allowed on public streets and do not facilitate emergency access.
The City has emergency ingress/egress access to this private road. Because it is privately maintained, and was not dedicated to the City for street purposes at the time of development, the City cannot rely on the private road for secondary access purposes.
3. Fiscal Transparency & Density Drivers There is a glaring discrepancy between the $30 million abatement cost you’ve confirmed and previous staff claims. At the community meeting, high density was justified as necessary to clear a $300 million "hurdle" for environmental abatement costs.
With costs at $30 million, that argument
is no longer valid.
Residual Land Value: Using a conservative entitled land value of $250,000 per door at 2,300 units ($6 million per acre), the residual land value is estimated at
$575 million, a massive windfall for the State.
If abatement costs are only $30 million, why is the City pushing for a density that yields a half-billion-dollar windfall for the State while destroying a $4 million/year revenue-generating asset for the City?
If abatement costs are not the primary driver, what is the specific nexus for exceeding 2,300 units? The abatement costs combined with the gap financing to achieve the affordable unit ratios identified in the Housing Element are components necessitating the increase to the total residential unit count.
Is this density purely to satisfy the State’s RHNA allocation? The density helps the City satisfy only a portion of the City’s RHNA.
How many units are currently assigned to the FDC in the City’s Housing Element, and is there a strategy to shift "lost" units from the Anduril site to the FDC to alleviate pressure on this specific location? The Housing Element identifies 575 very low-income units, 345 low-income units, 690 moderate-income units, and 690 market rate (above moderate) income units for the FDC site. The affordable housing units identified for the site where the Hive Live project was proposed cannot be accommodated at the FDC site as it would further increase gap financing needs which would subsequently require an even greater amount of total residential units to off-set the costs of the affordable housing units currently identified in the Housing Element.
4. Analysis of Feasible Alternatives (CEQA Compliance) The City has a duty to evaluate less impactful alternatives. The proposed road through the golf course constitutes a "taking" of recreational value and municipal revenue. The following must be evaluated:
Option 1: Use of Merrimac Way as the primary secondary access point.
Option 2 (See attached): Utilization of the maintenance road from the Placentia Fire Station. This path follows existing disturbed areas and avoids the catastrophic disruption of the course.
5. Fiscal and Community Impact The Mesa Linda course is the backbone of junior and collegiate golf in this region (serving Vanguard, Estancia, Edison, Newport Harbor, and OCC). The fiscal impact to the City is undeniable; golf operations generate over $4 million annually. Running a major road through six holes will render the course unplayable and decimate this revenue stream.
The proposed secondary access through the golf course is a non-starter and should be removed from the Specific Plan. I look forward to your timely response.
Best regards,
Scott Grady - Property Owner (933 Dogwood St)
949-500-6192
On Monday, April 6, 2026 at 12:59:49 PM PDT, DACEY, MELINDA <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Kerry,
Could you please let me know when the next Men’s Club meeting is anticipated to take place (date, time, location)?
Hi Scott,
The financial feasibility analysis was presented to the Planning Commission on May 27, 2025. Here is a link to the agenda where you can find the analysis as Attachment 6: https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=1309937&GUID=DF56F674-208A-4037-A0EC-B38BB0E51F44, which refers to $30 million in abatement alone, not including any infrastructure improvements that are needed to accommodate residential housing at the site which is estimated at ~$50 million. As I’m sure you are aware, costs for construction continue to increase over time so these estimates are a snapshot of when the analysis was being completed.
For some added context to the abatement costs, the State Department of General Services was completing their due diligence of the Fairview Developmental Center and prepared a comprehensive site assessment of the facility in 2021. This was done so the State could dispose of their property in a more streamlined manner and discloses abatement needs. Since the State has launched their disposition process for the site (State Commercial Opportunities Portal), this report, and others, is readily available to the public here: RESD-State-Commercial-Opportunities - Public - DDS Fairview Developmental Center, Costa Mesa - All Documents – See FDC Site Assessment folder, in addition to the Environmental Assessments that were completed for the site.
Finally, the REOC site show’s road access via Shelley Circle for their internal circulation needs, which will include a manned/gated entry/exit.
They will not be allowing public access to or through their property unless it is for official business with the State. This further necessitated finding an alternative secondary access road. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Thanks,
Melinda Dacey
Principal Planner | Advanced Planning
City of Costa Mesa
|
Economic and Development Services Department
Office: (714) 754-5611
Cell: (714) 925-7248
77 Fair Drive
|
Costa Mesa
|
CA 92626
“The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant community.”
Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you.
From: Scott Grady <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2026 10:14 AM
To: Kerry Tebbe <[email protected]>; MCGILL, ANNA <[email protected]> Cc: DACEY, MELINDA <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Fairview Dev Center and the Costa Mesa Golf Course
Anna,
Kerry Tebbe (copied) is on the Board of the Men's Club.
He would be the best person to talk to about a presentation to the Men's Club.
Kerry's cell number is 949 554
4116.
If the State is driving the Specific Plan, they should show more flexibility.
I dont understand the reasoning, the plan below (excerpted from the Specific Plan) shows Shelley Circle continue around the edges of the
Regional Emergency Ops Center.
How does this impact their operation when there is already a ring road planned?
This does a much better job of distributing traffic off Harbor and allows easier access to Westside Costa Mesa and coastal access.
A hard No doesn't seem acceptable, especially with such a massive impact to the Community, not the least of which is the $4 million or so in profit the golf course provides to the City.
Is the City Attorney involved with the State on this matter?
The use of the maintenance road is a MUCH more eloquent and less impactful solution.
Last, do you have any additional information about the $300+ million in environmental cleanup costs which you mentioned is driving infeasiblity if the project is below a certain unit count.
This is an astronomical figure which sounds more like a superfund site!
I would like to see the budget.
Are the Phase 2 reports and associated
cleanup plans available?
Who is the governing authority (DTSC?).
Thanks, Scott Grady
On Friday, April 3, 2026 at 03:59:42 PM PDT, MCGILL, ANNA < [email protected]> wrote:
Hi Scott,
Thank you for reaching out. In response to your question, we are still working on an appropriate plan/timeline to make this information publicly available- we need to have some additional internal conversations before I can share more information.
In the meant, can you let me know when the Costa Mesa Men's League next meets? We were hoping to connect with our golf course architect and present some of this information at your next week. It is okay if it extends past the public review comment period, we will stay take in any comments following our meeting with you.
We have spoken with the Costa Mesa Women's League and have planned to attend their May 1st meeting.
The maintenance road connecting the Placentia Fire Station and FDC was contemplated, considered and discussed at length. Ultimately, the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), which is being constructed by the Department
of General Services (DGS- State Entity) would not allow the Gate to the EOC site and road to remain open.
I will be out of the office next week with limited access to email, but I am including Melinda Dacey, Principal Planner and project manager for the FDC. She will follow up with you next week if there is any additional information we can share and to coordinate a time to present to the Men's League.
Thanks,
Anna McGill, AICP
Planning Manager- Advance Planning & Housing
Economic & Development Services Department
77 Fair Drive
|
Costa Mesa
|
CA 92626 |
Cell: (949) 922-6964 Direct: (714) 754-5609
“The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant community.”
City Hall is open to the public 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and alternating Fridays, except specified holidays. Appointments can be made online at www.costamesaca.gov/appointments.
From:
Scott Grady <[email protected]>
Sent:
Friday, April 3, 2026 3:34 PM
To:
MCGILL, ANNA <[email protected]>; Kerry Tebbe <[email protected]> Subject:
Fairview Dev Center and the Costa Mesa Golf Course
Anna,
We met at the first workshop, Kerry and I play in the Costa Mesa Mens League.
Can you provide an update on the golf course studies?
Can you share any of that
information now.
If not, will that be available before the comment period ends on April 15th?
How do you plan to distribute this information which seems vital to assessing the Specific Plan draft?
Also I have looked at it closely and I don't see why the maintenance road connecting the Placentia Fire Station to the FDC couldn't be used?
It would require very
limited reconfiguration of the parking lot and maybe one tee box and there is already a new signalized intersection on Placentia.
This seems like a far superior option!
Was there any serious study completed of this alternative?
Thanks,
Scott Grady
949-500-6192
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Prelim Number:
4400 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
Issuing Policies of Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company Order No.: 932608146
TO:
TRC Retail
4695 MacArthur Court, suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Attn: Scott Grady
Ref No.:
Title Officer: David Noble
Email: [email protected]
Phone No.: 17142893379
Fax No.: 714-289-7111
Escrow Office:
Escrow Officer:
Email:
Address:
Phone No.:
Fax No.:
Loan No.:
Property: 6 and 2476 Mark Lane, 2515 Merrimac Building 1, 2556 Santa Barbara Lane, 2579 San Clementa Drive,, 2500 Merrimac WA and 2503 Christopher Lane, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-6702 In response to the application for a policy of title insurance referenced herein, Commonwealth Land Title Company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a policy or policies of title insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of a defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an exception herein or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Exclusions from Coverage, and Conditions of said policy forms.
With respect to any contemplated owner's policy, the printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said policy or policies are set forth in Attachment One. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the CLTA/ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance, which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Attachment One. Copies of the policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report.
Please read the exceptions shown or referred to herein and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Attachment One of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered.
It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land.
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a binder or commitment should be requested.
Countersigned By:
Authorized Officer or Agent
Ron Howarth
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
Effective date: August 11, 2026 at 07:30 AM
The form of Policy or Policies of Title Insurance contemplated by this Report is:
ALTA Owner's Policy 2021
ALTA Loan Policy 2021
1. The estate or interest in the Land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this Report is:
A FEE
2. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3. The Land referred to in this Report is described as follows:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
For APN/Parcel ID(s): 420-012-16, 420-041-01, 420-041-02, 420-041-03, 420-041-04, 420-041-05, 420-051-01, 420-051-02, 420-051-03, 420-061-02, 420-061-03 and 420-071-01
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL A:
A PORTION OF LAND LYING WITHIN LOT “A” OF THE BANNING TRACT, IN THE RANCHO SANTIAGO DE SANTA ANA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF SAID TRACT FILED IN ACTION NO. 6385 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, BEING AN ACTION FOR PARTITION ENTITLED HANCOCK BANNING, ET AL VS. MARY A. BANNING, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF FAIRVIEW FARMS, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE(S) 71 AND 72, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD (80 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, RECORDED AUGUST 29, 1941 IN BOOK 1105, PAGE 511, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID FAIRVIEW FARMS TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT “A”, SAID POINT BEING IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID RANCHO SANTIAGO DE SANTA ANA; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINES OF SAID LOT “A” AND OF SAID RANCHO TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT “A”; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT “A” TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID HARBOR BOULEVARD; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THEREFROM PARCELS A THROUGH I INCLUSIVE OF RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGE(S) 34 THROUGH 36, INCLUSIVE OF RECORDS OF SURVEY.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED MARCH 19, 1980 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 21801, IN BOOK 13540, PAGE 864, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE QUITCLAIM DEED TO THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECORDED FEBRUARY 9, 1966 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 6557, IN BOOK 7836, PAGE 68, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF LOT “A” OF THE BANNING TRACT, AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF SAID TRACT FILED IN THE CASE OF HANCOCK BANNING AND OTHERS VS. MARY H. BANNING, FOR PARTITION AND BEING CASE NO. 6385 UPON THE REGISTER OF ACTIONS OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF FAIRVIEW FARMS, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE(S) 71 AND 72, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, WITH THE CENTER LINE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD (80 FEET WIDE), FORMERLY FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE RECORDED AUGUST 29, 1941 IN BOOK 1105, PAGE 511, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID FAIRVIEW FARMS TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID HARBOR BOULEVARD; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID
WESTERLY LINE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT “A” OF THE BANNING TRACT; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT “A” TO THE CENTER LINE OF SAID HARBOR BOULEVARD; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTER LINE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN TRACT NO. 12055, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 534, PAGES 33 THROUGH 36, INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN OF TRACT NO. 12594, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 560, PAGES 42 THROUGH 46, INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN OF TRACT NO. 12558, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 594, PAGES 23 THROUGH 28, INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN OF TRACT NO. 13348, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 623, PAGES 7, 8 AND 9, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION AS CONVEYED TO RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION BY GRANT DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 2006 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2006000090554, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
APN: 420-012-16, APN: 420-041-02, APN: 420-041-03
PARCEL B:
LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 12055, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 534, PAGES 33 THROUGH 36, INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
APN: 420-041-01
PARCEL C:
LOTS 1, 2 AND LETTERED LOT A OF TRACT NO. 12594, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 560, PAGES 42 THROUGH 46, INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
APN: 420-041-04, APN: 420-041-05, APN: 420-051-01, APN: 420-051-02 PARCEL D:
LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF TRACT NO. 12558, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 594, PAGES 23 THROUGH 28, INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
APN: 420-051-03, APN: 420-061-02, APN: 420-061-03
PARCEL E:
LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 13348, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 623, PAGES 7, 8 AND 9, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
APN: 420-071-01
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
EXCEPTIONS
At the date hereof, items to be considered and exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions in said policy form would be as follows:
Section A:
The following exceptions will appear in policies when providing standard coverage as outlined below:
1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the Public Records.
6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the Public Records.
Section B:
A. Property taxes, which are a lien not yet due and payable, including any assessments collected with taxes to be levied for the fiscal year 2026-2027.
B. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, are as follows:
Tax Identification No.: 420-041-01
Fiscal Year: 2025-2026
1st Installment: $17,933.10 DELINQUENT (Delinquent after December 10) Penalty: $1,793.31
2nd Installment: $17,933.10 DELINQUENT (Delinquent after April 10) Penalty and Cost: $1,816.31
Homeowners Exemption: $17,040,209.00 (All Other)
Code Area: 15-160
Affects: Parcel B
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
C. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, are as follows:
Tax Identification No.: 420-041-04
Fiscal Year: 2025-2026
1st Installment: $3,348.41 DELINQUENT (Delinquent after December 10) Penalty: $334.84
2nd Installment: $3,348.41 DELINQUENT (Delinquent after April 10) Penalty and Cost: $357.84
Homeowners Exemption: $2,372,404.00 (All Other)
Code Area: 15-160
Affects: Lot 1 of Parcel C
D. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, are as follows:
Tax Identification No.: 420-051-03
Fiscal Year: 2025-2026
1st Installment: $116.17 DELINQUENT (Delinquent after December 10) Penalty: $11.61
2nd Installment: $116.17 DELINQUENT (Delinquent after April 10) Penalty and Cost: $34.61
Homeowners Exemption: $1,942,047.00 (All Other)
Code Area: 15-160
Affects: Lot 1 of Parcel D
E. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, are as follows:
Tax Identification No.: 420-061-02
Fiscal Year: 2025-2026
1st Installment: $15,595.96 DELINQUENT (Delinquent after December 10) Penalty: $1,559.59
2nd Installment: $15,595.96 DELINQUENT (Delinquent after April 10) Penalty and Cost: $1,582.59
Homeowners Exemption: $15,606,983.00 (All Other)
Code Area: 15-160
Affects: Lot 3 of Parcel D
F. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, are as follows:
Tax Identification No.: 420-061-03
Fiscal Year: 2025-2026
1st Installment: $9,022.75 DELINQUENT (Delinquent after December 10) Penalty: $902.27
2nd Installment: $9,022.75 DELINQUENT (Delinquent after April 10) Penalty and Cost: $925.27
Homeowners Exemption: $19,766,122.00 (All Other)
Code Area: 15-160
Affects: Lot 2 of Parcel D
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
G. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, are as follows:
Tax Identification No.: 420-071-01
Fiscal Year: 2025-2026
1st Installment: $4,324.26 DELINQUENT (Delinquent after December 10) Penalty: $432.42
2nd Installment: $4,324.26 DELINQUENT (Delinquent after April 10) Penalty and Cost: $455.42
Homeowners Exemption: $10,405,693.00 (All Other)
Code Area: 15-160
Affects: Parcel E
H. The lien of supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any, made pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 75) or Part 2, Chapter 3, Articles 3 and 4, respectively, of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California as a result of the transfer of title to the vestee named in Schedule A or as a result of changes in ownership or new construction occurring prior to Date of Policy.
1. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not disclosed by the public records.
2. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: The Irvine Company
Purpose: Pipe lines
Recording Date: April 24, 1941
Recording No.:
Book 1089, Page 405, of Official Records
Affects: Parcels A and C more particularly described therein
3. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Final Order and Decree of Condemnation
Recording Date: August 29, 1950
Recording No.:
Book 2063, Page 534, of Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
4. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document:
Purpose: Ingress and egress
Recording Date: August 29, 1950
Recording No:
Book 2063, Page 534, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel A more particularly described therein
5. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: The City of Costa Mesa, a municipal corporation Purpose: Storm drain pipeline and ditch
Recording Date: June 17, 1959
Recording No.:
Book 4761, Page 550, of Official Records
Affects: Parcels C and E more particularly described therein COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
6. An unrecorded lease with certain terms, covenants, conditions and provisions set forth therein as disclosed by the document
Entitled: Lease
Lessor: State of California
Lessee: City of Costa Mesa
Recording Date: May 6, 1966
Recording No.:
Book 7924, Page 340, of Official Records
The present ownership of the leasehold created by said lease and other matters affecting the interest of the lessee are not shown herein.
Affects: Parcel A
7. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Southern California Edison
Purpose: Underground electric lines and communications
Recording Date: September 26, 1968
Recording No.:
Book 8734, Page 11, of Official Records
Affects: Parcels A and C more particularly described therein
8. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Costa Mesa Sanitary District
Purpose: Sanitary sewer
Recording Date: September 27, 1972
Recording No.:
Book 10345, Page 925, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel A more particularly described therein
and Recording Date: September 27, 1972
and Recording No.:
Book 10345, Page 931, of Official Records
9. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Southern California Edison Company
Recording Date: June 22, 1976
Recording No.:
Book 11782, Page 1850, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel A more particularly described therein
10. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Southern California Edison Company, a corporation Purpose: Electrical systems and communication systems
Recording Date: February 21, 1980
Recording No.:
Book 13509, Page 1145, of Official Records
The exact location and extent of said easement is not disclosed of record.
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
11. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: City of Costa Mesa
Purpose: Right of way for traffic signal installation, maintenance, operation and repair purposes
Recording Date: November 27, 1984
Recording No.: 84-494315, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel D more particularly described therein
12. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as delineated on or as offered for dedication on
Map/Plat: Tract No. 12055
Recording Date: December 10, 1984
Recording No.:
Book 534, Pages 33 through 36, inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps Purpose: Ingress and egress for emergency and security vehicle purposes Affects: As shown on Tract No. 12055
13. An unrecorded lease with certain terms, covenants, conditions and provisions set forth therein as disclosed by the document
Entitled: Memorandum of Lease
Lessor: State of California
Lessee: Fairview Management Company, a California general partnership Recording Date: December 18, 1984
Recording No.: 84-520739, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel B
14. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Southern California Edison Company
Purpose: Public utilities
Recording Date: August 30, 1985
Recording No.: 85-328614, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel B more particularly described therein
15. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Southern California Gas Company
Purpose: Public utilities
Recording Date: October 4, 1985
Recording No.: 85-380634, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel B more particularly described therein
16. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Pacific Bell
Purpose: Aerial, underground communication facilities
Recording Date: November 8, 1985
Recording No.: 85-432997, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel D more particularly described therein
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
17. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Pacific Bell
Purpose: Aerial and underground communication facilities Recording Date: November 8, 1985
Recording No.: 85-432997, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel E more particularly described therein
18. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Orange County Water District
Purpose: Underground water pipeline and appurtenant equipment Recording Date: February 18, 1986
Recording No.: 86-64888, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel C more particularly described therein
19. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as delineated on or as offered for dedication on
Map/Plat: Tract No. 12594
Recording Date: June 24, 1986
Recording No.:
Book 560, Pages 42 through 46, inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps Purpose: Bike trail purposes, ingress and egress for emergency and security vehicle purposes Affects: As shown on Tract No. 12594
20. The ownership of said Land does not include rights of access to or from the street, highway, or freeway abutting said Land, such rights having been relinquished by said Tract No. 12594.
Affects: Harbor Boulevard from Lot 2, except at street intersections
21. An unrecorded lease with certain terms, covenants, conditions and provisions set forth therein as disclosed by the document
Entitled: Memorandum of Lease
Lessor: State of California
Lessee: Fairview Management Company, a California general partnership Recording Date: June 30, 1986
Recording No.: 86-276924, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel C
22. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Pacific Bell
Purpose: Communication facilities
Recording Date: March 6, 1987
Recording No.: 87-122300, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel B more particularly described therein
23. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: City of Costa Mesa
Purpose: Public road
Recording Date: July 15, 1987
Recording No.: 87-401656, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel A more particularly described therein
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
Affects: Parcel A more particularly described therein
24. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: City of Costa Mesa
Purpose: Public bike trail
Recording Date: July 15, 1987
Recording No.: 87-401657, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel A more particularly described therein
25. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, Amount: $6,400,000.00
Dated: September 24, 1987
Trustor/Grantor Fairview Management Company, a California general partnership Trustee: California General Mortgage Service, Inc., a corporation Beneficiary: Great American First Savings Bank, a California corporation Loan No.: 001-242314-3 42 jm
Recording Date: October 15, 1987
Recording No.: 87-578018, of Official Records
Affects: The leasehold interest of Parcel C
26. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as delineated on or as offered for dedication on
Map/Plat: Tract No. 12558
Recording Date: January 29, 1988
Recording No.:
Book 594, Pages 23 through 28, inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps Purpose: Bike trail purposes, ingress and egress for emergency and security vehicle purposes
Affects:
As shown on Tract No. 12558
27. The ownership of said Land does not include rights of access to or from the street, highway, or freeway abutting said Land, such rights having been relinquished by said Tract No. 12558 Affects: Harbor Boulevard, except at street intersections and approved driveway locations
28. An unrecorded lease with certain terms, covenants, conditions and provisions set forth therein as disclosed by the document
Entitled: Memorandum of Lease
Lessor: State of California
Lessee: Fairview Management Company, a California general partnership Recording Date: March 2, 1988
Recording No.: 88-094657, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel D
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
29. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as delineated on or as offered for dedication on
Map/Plat: Tract No. 13348
Recording Date: January 4, 1989
Recording No.: Book 623, Pages 7 through 9, inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps Purpose: Ingress and egress for emergency and security vehicle purposes Affects: As shown on Tract No. 13348
30. An unrecorded lease with certain terms, covenants, conditions and provisions set forth therein as disclosed by the document
Entitled: Memorandum of Lease
Lessor: State of California
Lessee: Fairview Management Company, a California general partnership Recording Date: January 31, 1989
Recording No.: 89-055789, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel E
31. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Southern California Edison Company, a corporation Purpose: Underground electrical system
Recording Date: March 7, 1989
Recording No.: 89-117589, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel C more particularly described therein
32. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Southern California Edison Company
Purpose: Underground electric supply system
Recording Date: June 27, 1990
Recording No.: 90-340217, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel D more particularly described therein
33. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Pacific Bell
Purpose: Underground communication systems
Recording Date: November 1, 1990
Recording No.: 90-579400, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel D more particularly described therein
34. An unrecorded lease with certain terms, covenants, conditions and provisions set forth therein as disclosed by the document
Entitled: Memorandum of Lease
Lessor: State of California
Lessee: Fairview Management Company, a general partnership Recording Date: June 5, 1990
Recording No.: 90-299373, of Official Records
Affects: Parcels B through E
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
35. An unrecorded lease with certain terms, covenants, conditions and provisions set forth therein as disclosed by the document
Entitled: Memorandum of Lease
Lessor: State of California
Lessee: Fairview Management Company, a general partnership Recording Date: June 5, 1990
Recording No.: 90-299374, of Official Records
36. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: City of Costa Mesa
Purpose: To locate, relocate, construct, reconstruct, alter, use, maintain, inspect, repair, replace and remove a public roadway and appurtenances
Recording Date: December 11, 1990
Recording No.: 90-649862, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel A more particularly described therein
37. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Mesa Consolidated Water District, a County Water District Purpose: Underground water supply system
Recording Date: December 18, 1990
Recording No.: 90-661285, of Official Records
Affects: Parcels A through E more particularly described therein
38. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: City of Costa Mesa
Purpose: Public roadway
Recording Date: January 8, 1991
Recording No.: 91-008640, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel A more particularly described therein
39. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Southern California Edison Company
Purpose: Underground electric supply system
Recording Date: February 11, 1991
Recording No.: 91-063523, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel E more particularly described therein
40. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Southern California Gas Company
Purpose: Underground natural gas pipeline
Recording Date: February 15, 1991
Recording No.: 91-071510, of Official Records
Affects: Parcels C and E more particularly described therein
41. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Agreement of Federal Right to Recover
Executed by: Fairview Developmental Center
Recording Date: September 8, 1993
Recording No.: 93-0604538, of Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
42. An unrecorded lease with certain terms, covenants, conditions and provisions set forth therein as disclosed by the document
Entitled: Memorandum of Lease
Lessor: Village Investments
Lessee: Reliable Company
Recording Date: November 18, 1994
Recording No.: 94-0669634, of Official Records
The present ownership of the leasehold created by said lease and other matters affecting the interest of the lessee are not shown herein.
Note: The above memorandum of lease recites, among other things, the following: “Lessor hereby leases to lessee the laundry room(s) situated on lessor’s real property, consisting of 144 rental units, located at 1550 Luckup Lane, Costa Mesa, California 92626”.
43. An unrecorded lease with certain terms, covenants, conditions and provisions set forth therein as disclosed by the document
Entitled: Memorandum of Lease
Lessor: Village Investments
Lessee: Reliable Company
Recording Date: November 18, 1994
Recording No.: 94-0669635, of Official Records
The present ownership of the leasehold created by said lease and other matters affecting the interest of the lessee are not shown herein.
Note: The above memorandum of lease recites, among other things, the following: “Lessor hereby leases to lessee the laundry room(s) situate on lessor’s real property, consisting of 118 rental units, located at 2579 San Clemente Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626”.
44. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Right of Access Agreement
Executed by: Fairview Management Company and TVMax Telecommunications, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Optel, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Recording Date: November 27, 1995
Recording No.: 19950520638, of Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
Affects: Parcels C and D
45. Cable Television easement and service agreement created by Document entitled: Grant of Easement
Recording Date: October 30, 1997
Recording No.: 19970548090, of Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
The exact location and extent of said easement is not disclosed of record.
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
46. An unrecorded sublease with certain terms, covenants, conditions and provisions set forth therein as disclosed by the document
Entitled: Memorandum of Lease
Sublessor: Fairview Management Company, a general partnership Sublessee: Web Service Company, Inc.
Recording Date: August 26, 1998
Recording No.: 19980564970, of Official Records
The present ownership of the leasehold created by said lease and other matters affecting the interest of the lessee are not shown herein.
Affects: Parcels B through E
47. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Easement Agreement Between Landowners (Entryway, Landscaping and Cable Television) (Fair Drive and Triangular Parcel Access Easement) Dated: February 7, 2006
Executed by: State of California and Richmond American Homes of California, Inc., a Colorado corporation
Recording Date: February 8, 2006
Recording No.: 2006000090555, of Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
48. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Easement Agreement Between Landowners (Storm Drain) Dated: February 7, 2006
Executed by: State of California and Richmond American Homes of California, Inc., a Colorado corporation
Recording Date: February 8, 2006
Recording No.: 2006000090556, of Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
49. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Easement Agreement Between Landowners (Slope) Dated: February 7, 2006
Executed by: State of California and Richmond American Homes of California, Inc., a Colorado corporation
Recording Date: February 8, 2006
Recording No.: 2006000090557, of Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
50. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Agreement and Grant of Easement Underground Water Supply Easement Dated: May 25, 2006
Executed by: State of California and Mesa Consolidated Water District, a County water district Recording Date: June 26, 2006
Recording No.: 2006000426494, of Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
51. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Easement and Memorandum of Agreement
Dated: November 10, 2006
Executed by: Fairview Management Company and C-Native Exchange I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, through its Los Angeles South Division, d/b/a Time Warner Cable Recording Date: January 8, 2007
Recording No.: 2007000012089, of Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
52. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Agreement and Grant of Easement Fair Drive Traffic Signal Easement Executed by: State of California and City of Costa Mesa Recording Date: June 20, 2007
Recording No.: 2007000391860, of Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
53. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Agreement and Grant of Easement Bike Trail Easement Executed by: State of California and City of Costa Mesa Recording Date: June 20, 2007
Recording No.: 2007000391861, of Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
Affects: Parcel A
54. An unrecorded sublease with certain terms, covenants, conditions and provisions set forth therein as disclosed by the document
Entitled: Memorandum of Lease
Sublessor: Fairview management Company, a California general partnership Sublessee: Web Service Company, Inc.
Recording Date: June 22, 2007
Recording No.: 2007000398032, of Official Records
The present ownership of the leasehold created by said lease and other matters affecting the interest of the lessee are not shown herein.
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
55. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Agreement and Grant of Easement Underground Natural Gas Supply Easement Dated: August 31, 2007
Executed by: State of California and Southern California Gas Company, a California corporation Recording Date: September 24, 2007
Recording No.: 2007000578150, of Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
Affects: Parcel A
56. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Time Warner Cable Pacific West LLC, d/b/a Time Warner Cable Purpose: Video, entertainment, high-speed data, phone and phone replacement and other services
Recording Date: October 2, 2013
Recording No.: 2013000565946, of Official Records
The exact location and extent of said easement is not disclosed of record.
57. An unrecorded sublease with certain terms, covenants, conditions and provisions set forth therein as disclosed by the document
Entitled: Memorandum of Lease
Sublessor: Fairview Management Company, a California general partnership Sublessee: Wash Multifamily Laundry Systems, LLC
Recording Date: August 30, 2016
Recording No.: 2016000413350, of Official Records
The present ownership of the leasehold created by said lease and other matters affecting the interest of the lessee are not shown herein.
58. Cable Television easement and service agreement created by Document entitled: Grant of Easement
Recording Date: July 29, 2020
Recording No.: 2020000366616, of Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
The exact location and extent of said easement is not disclosed of record.
59. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, Amount: $15,000,000.00
Dated: September 24, 1987
Trustor/Grantor Fairview Management Company, a California general partnership, which acquired title as Fairview Management Company, a general partnership Trustee: Old Republic Title Company
Beneficiary: Pacific Western Bank, a California state-chartered bank Loan No: 40000281718-1
Recording Date: August 13, 2021
Recording No.: 2021000511245, of Official Records
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
Affects: Leasehold interest as described therein
60. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Agreement and Grant of Easement Electric and Communications Facilities Dated: August 3, 2021
Executed by: State of California and Southern California Gas Company, a California corporation Recording Date: August 19, 2021
Recording No.: 2021000524581, of Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
Affects: Portion of Parcels A and D more particularly described therein
61. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other matters shown on Map: Record of Survey No. 2020-1080
Recording Date: March 24, 2022
Recording No.: Book 325, Pages 5 - 7, inclusive of Record of Surveys
62. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Mesa Water District
Purpose: Underground pipeline(s)
Recording Date: March 31, 2026
Recording No.: 2026000091763, of Official Records
Affects: Parcels A and D as described therein
63. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Mesa Water District
Purpose: Underground pipeline(s)
Recording Date: March 31, 2026
Recording No.: 2026000091764, of Official Records
Affects: Parcels A and D as described therein
64. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Mesa Water District
Purpose: Underground pipeline(s)
Recording Date: April 2, 2026
Recording No.: 2026000095179, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel A as described therein
65. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Southern California Edison Company, a corporation Purpose: Public utilities
Recording Date: June 30, 2026
Recording No.: 2026000187973, of Official Records
Affects: Parcel A as described therein
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
66. Any rights of the parties in possession of a portion of, or all of, said Land, which rights are not disclosed by the public records.
The Company will require, for review, a full and complete copy of any unrecorded agreement, contract, license and/or lease, together with all supplements, assignments and amendments thereto, before issuing any policy of title insurance without excepting this item from coverage.
The Company reserves the right to except additional items and/or make additional requirements after reviewing said documents.
67. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other matters which a correct survey would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
68. Any easements not disclosed by the public records as to matters affecting title to real property, whether or not said easements are visible and apparent.
69. Matters which may be disclosed by an inspection and/or by a correct ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey of said Land that is satisfactory to the Company, and/or by inquiry of the parties in possession thereof.
END OF EXCEPTIONS
PLEASE REFER TO THE "INFORMATIONAL NOTES" AND "REQUIREMENTS" SECTIONS WHICH FOLLOW FOR INFORMATION NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THIS TRANSACTION.
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
REQUIREMENTS
1. Prior to the close of escrow, the Company requires a Statement of Information to be completed by the following party(s),
Party(s): All Parties
The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after review of the requested Statement of Information.
2. This Company will require evidence of compliance with the statutory limitations incident to the governmental agency named below, with reference to any conveyance of an interest in the Land this Company will be asked to record and/or rely upon in the issuance of any form of title insurance.
Governmental agency: State of California
3. If the entity named below does NOT operate under the Uniform Partnership Act, the Company will require the following documents for review prior to the issuance of any title insurance predicated upon a conveyance or encumbrance from:
Name: Fairview Management Company, a general partnership a. A complete copy of the partnership agreement and all amendments thereto. b. If less than all partners are executing documents, furnish evidence of the signing partners’ authority, unless the authority is granted in the agreements referred to above.
The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after review of the requested documentation.
4. Unrecorded matters which may be disclosed by an Owner’s Affidavit or Declaration. A form of the Owner’s Affidavit/Declaration is attached to this Preliminary Report/Commitment. This Affidavit/Declaration is to be completed by the record owner of the land and submitted for review prior to the closing of this transaction. Your prompt attention to this requirement will help avoid delays in the closing of this transaction. Thank you.
The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after review of the requested Affidavit/Declaration.
5. This transaction requires high liability approval prior to close of escrow together with an inspection of the subject property.
Please advise title department with an estimated date that your transaction will close so we can schedule the necessary approvals and inspections.
6. Prior to the close of escrow and the issuance of an ALTA Coverage Policy, an inspection of the property will be required.
END OF REQUIREMENTS
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
INFORMATIONAL NOTES
1. Note: The policy of title insurance will include an arbitration provision. The Company or the insured may demand arbitration. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the insured arising out of or relating to this policy, any service of the Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision or other obligation. Please ask your escrow or title officer for a sample copy of the policy to be issued if you wish to review the arbitration provisions and any other provisions pertaining to your Title Insurance coverage.
2. Notice: Please be aware that due to the conflict between federal and state laws concerning the cultivation, distribution, manufacture or sale of marijuana, the Company is not able to close or insure any transaction involving Land that is associated with these activities.
3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 27388.1, as amended and effective as of 1-1-2018, a Documentary Transfer Tax (DTT) Affidavit may be required to be completed and submitted with each document when DTT is being paid or when an exemption is being claimed from paying the tax. If a governmental agency is a party to the document, the form will not be required. DTT Affidavits may be available at a Tax Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder.
4. Note: There are NO conveyances affecting said Land recorded within 24 months of the date of this report.
5. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, are paid. For proration purposes the amounts were:
Tax Identification No.: 420-012-16
Fiscal Year: 2025-2026
1st Installment: $2,448.67
2nd Installment $2,448.67
Exemption: $21,237,173.00 (All Other)
Code Area: 15-160
Affects: Portion of Parcel A
6. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, are paid. For proration purposes the amounts were:
Tax Identification No.: 420-041-02
Fiscal Year: 2025-2026
1st Installment: $46.46
2nd Installment $46.46
Exemption: $27,118.00 (All Other)
Code Area: 15-160
Affects: Portion of Parcel A
7. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, are paid. For proration purposes the amounts were:
Tax Identification No.: 420-041-03
Fiscal Year: 2025-2026
1st Installment: $748.63
2nd Installment $748.63
Exemption: $351,994.00 (All Other)
Code Area: 15-160
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
Affects: Portion of Parcel A
8. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, are paid. For proration purposes the amounts were:
Tax Identification No.: 420-041-05
Fiscal Year: 2025-2026
1st Installment: $0.00 NO TAXES DUE
2nd Installment $0.00 NO TAXES DUE
Exemption: $0.00
Code Area: 15-160
Affects: A portion of Lot A of Parcel C
9. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, are paid. For proration purposes the amounts were:
Tax Identification No.: 420-051-01
Fiscal Year: 2025-2026
1st Installment: $10,517.16
2nd Installment $10,517.16
Exemption: $3,401,948.00 (All Other)
Code Area: 15-160
Affects: Lot 2 of Parcel C
10. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, are paid. For proration purposes the amounts were:
Tax Identification No.: 420-051-02
Fiscal Year: 2025-2026
1st Installment: $0.00 NO TAXES DUE
2nd Installment $0.00 NO TAXES DUE
Exemption: $0.00
Code Area: 15-160
Affects: A portion of Lot A of Parcel C
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY PRELIM NO. 932608146
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02/03/2023) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM
11. The following Exclusion(s) are added to preliminary reports, commitments and will be included as an endorsement in the following policies:
A. 2006 ALTA Owner’s Policy (06-17-06).
6. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, notices, or other matters not appearing in the Public Records but that would be disclosed by an examination of any records maintained by or on behalf of a Tribe or on behalf of its members.
B. 2006 ALTA Loan Policy (06-17-06)
8. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, notices, or other matters not appearing in the Public Records but that would be disclosed by an examination of any records maintained by or on behalf of a Tribe or on behalf of its members.
9. Any claim of invalidity, unenforceability, or lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage based on the application of a Tribe’s law resulting from the failure of the Insured Mortgage to specify State law as the governing law with respect to the lien of the Insured Mortgage.
C. ALTA Homeowner’s Policy of Title Insurance (12-02-13) and CLTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance (12-02-13).
10. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, notices, or other matters not appearing in the Public Records but that would be disclosed by an examination of any records maintained by or on behalf of a Tribe or on behalf of its members.
D. ALTA Expanded Coverage Residential Loan Policy - Assessments Priority (04-02-15).
12. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, notices, or other matters not appearing in the Public Records but that would be disclosed by an examination of any records maintained by or on behalf of a Tribe or on behalf of its members.
13. Any claim of invalidity, unenforceability, or lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage based on the application of a Tribe’s law resulting from the failure of the Insured Mortgage to specify State law as the governing law with respect to the lien of the Insured Mortgage.
E. CLTA Standard Coverage Policy 1990 (11-09-18).
7. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, notices, or other matters not appearing in the public records but that would be disclosed by an examination of any records maintained by or on behalf of a tribe or on behalf of its members.
8. Any claim of invalidity, unenforceability, or lack of priority of the lien of the insured mortgage based on the application of a tribe’s law resulting from the failure of the insured mortgage to specify state law as the governing law with respect to the lien of the insured mortgage.
END OF INFORMATIONAL NOTES
Wire Fraud Alert Page 25
Original Effective Date: 5/11/2017
Current Version Date: 5/11/2017 932608146 - WIRE0016 (DSI Rev. 12/07/17) TM and © Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and/or an affiliate. All rights reserved
WIRE FRAUD ALERT
This Notice is not intended to provide legal or professional advice.
If you have any questions, please consult with a lawyer.
All parties to a real estate transaction are targets for wire fraud and many have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars because they simply relied on the wire instructions received via email, without further verification. If funds are to be wired in conjunction with this real estate transaction, we strongly recommend verbal verification of wire instructions through a known, trusted phone number prior to sending funds.
In addition, the following non-exclusive self-protection strategies are recommended to minimize exposure to possible wire fraud.
NEVER RELY on emails purporting to change wire instructions. Parties to a transaction rarely change wire instructions in the course of a transaction.
ALWAYS VERIFY wire instructions, specifically the ABA routing number and account number, by calling the party who sent the instructions to you. DO NOT use the phone number provided in the email containing the instructions, use phone numbers you have called before or can otherwise verify. Obtain the number of relevant parties to the transaction as soon as an escrow account is opened. DO NOT send an email to verify as the email address may be incorrect or the email may be intercepted by the fraudster. USE COMPLEX EMAIL PASSWORDS that employ a combination of mixed case, numbers, and symbols. Make your passwords greater than eight (8) characters. Also, change your password often and do NOT reuse the same password for other online accounts.
USE MULTI-FACTOR AUTHENTICATION for email accounts. Your email provider or IT staff may have specific instructions on how to implement this feature.
For more information on wire-fraud scams or to report an incident, please refer to the following links:
Federal Bureau of Investigation: Internet Crime Complaint Center:
http://www.fbi.gov
http://www.ic3.gov
Copyright © 2026. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Statement Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM by
SCA0003004.doc Page 26 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146
FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL
PRIVACY NOTICE
Effective January 1, 2026
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and its majority-owned subsidiary companies (collectively, "FNF," "our," or "we") respect and are committed to protecting your privacy. This Privacy Notice explains how we collect, use, and protect personal information, when and to whom we disclose such information, and the choices you have about the use and disclosure of that information.
A limited number of FNF subsidiaries have their own privacy notices. If a subsidiary has its own privacy notice, the privacy notice will be available on the subsidiary's website and this Privacy Notice does not apply.
Collection of Personal Information
FNF may collect the following categories of Personal Information:
contact information (e.g., name, address, phone number, email address); demographic information (e.g., date of birth, gender, marital status); identity information (e.g., Social Security Number, driver's license, passport, or other government ID number); financial account information (e.g., loan or bank account information); biometric data (e.g., fingerprints, retina or iris scans, voiceprints, or other unique biological characteristics; and other personal information necessary to provide products or services to you.
We may collect Personal Information about you from:
information we receive from you or your agent;
information about your transactions with FNF, our affiliates, or others; and information we receive from consumer reporting agencies and/or governmental entities, either directly from these entities or through others.
Collection of Device and Browsing Information
FNF automatically collects the following categories of Browsing Information when you access an FNF website, online service, or application (each an "FNF Website") from your Internet browser, computer, and/or device:
Internet Protocol (IP) address and operating system;
browser information, such as version, language, and type; device type and operating system;
domain name system requests; and
browsing history on the FNF Website, such as date and time of your visit to the FNF Website and visits to the pages within the FNF Website.
Like most websites, our servers automatically log each visitor to the FNF Website and may collect the Browsing Information described above. We use Browsing Information for system administration, troubleshooting, fraud investigation, and to improve our websites. Browsing Information generally does not reveal anything personal about you, though if you have created a user account for an FNF Website and are logged into that account, the FNF Website may be able to link certain browsing activity to your user account.
Other Online Specifics
Website Analytics. We use Google Analytics to understand how visitors interact with FNF Websites. Google Analytics may collect information such as your IP address, device type, and pages visited to help us analyze site traffic and to personalize your browsing experience on our site. If you don't want Google Analytics to be used in your browser, you can install the Google Analytics browser add-on, which Google makes available online.
Cookies
. When you visit an FNF Website, a "cookie" may be sent to your computer. A cookie is a small piece of data that is sent to your Internet browser from a web server and stored on your computer's hard drive. Information gathered using cookies helps us improve your user experience. For example, a cookie can help the website load properly or can customize the display page based on your browser type and user preferences. You can choose whether or not to accept cookies by changing your Internet browser settings. Be aware that doing so may impair or limit some functionality of the FNF Website.
Web Beacons
. We use web beacons to determine when and how many times a page has been viewed. This information is used to improve our websites.
Do Not Track. Currently our FNF Websites do not respond to "Do Not Track" features enabled through your browser.
Copyright © 2026. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Statement Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM by
SCA0003004.doc Page 27 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146 Do Not Track. Currently our FNF Websites do not respond to "Do Not Track" features enabled through your browser.
Links to Other Sites . FNF Websites may contain links to unaffiliated third-party websites. FNF is not responsible for the privacy practices or content of those websites. We recommend that you read the privacy policy of every website you visit.
Use of Personal Information
FNF uses Personal Information for these main purposes:
To provide products and services to you or in connection with a transaction involving you. To improve our products and services.
To prevent and detect fraud;
To maintain the security of our systems, tools, accounts, and applications; To verify and authenticate identities and credentials; To communicate with you about our, and our affiliates' services, jointly or independently; To provide reviews and testimonials about our services, with your consent.
When Information Is Disclosed
We may disclose the categories of Personal Information and Browsing Information listed above for the following purposes:
to enable us to detect or prevent criminal activity, fraud, material misrepresentation, or nondisclosure; to affiliated or nonaffiliated service providers who provide or perform services or functions on our behalf and who agree to use the information only to provide such services or functions; to affiliated or nonaffiliated third parties with whom we perform joint marketing, pursuant to an agreement with them to jointly market financial products or services to you;
to law enforcement or authorities in connection with an investigation, or in response to a subpoena or court order; or in the good-faith belief that such disclosure is necessary to comply with legal process or applicable laws, or to protect the rights, property, or safety of FNF, its customers, or the public.
The law does not require your prior authorization and does not allow you to restrict the disclosures described above.
Additionally, we may disclose your information to third parties for whom you have given us authorization or consent to make such disclosure. We do not otherwise share your Personal Information or Browsing Information with nonaffiliated third parties, except as required or permitted by law.
We reserve the right to transfer your Personal Information, Browsing Information, and any other information, in connection with the sale or other disposition of all or part of the FNF business and/or assets, or in the event of bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency, receivership, or an assignment for the benefit of creditors. By submitting Personal Information and/or Browsing Information to FNF, you expressly agree and consent to the use and/or transfer of the foregoing information in connection with any of the above described proceedings.
Security of Your Information
We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards to protect your Personal Information.
Choices With Your Information
Whether you submit Personal Information or Browsing Information to FNF is entirely up to you. If you decide not to submit Personal Information or Browsing Information, FNF may not be able to provide certain services or products to you.
State-Specific Consumer Privacy Information:
For additional information about your state-specific consumer privacy rights, to make a consumer privacy request, or to appeal a previous privacy request, please follow the link Privacy Request , or email [email protected], or call (888) 714-2710.
Certain state privacy laws require that FNF disclose the categories of third parties to which FNF may disclose the Personal Information and Browsing Information listed above. Those categories are:
FNF affiliates and subsidiaries;
Non-affiliated third parties, with your consent;
Businesses in connection with the sale or other disposition of all or part of the FNF business and/or assets; Service providers;
Law enforcement or authorities in connection with an investigation, or in response to a subpoena or court order.
For California Residents : We will not share your Personal Information or Browsing Information with nonaffiliated third parties, except as permitted by California law. For additional information about your California privacy rights, please visit the "California Privacy" link on our website (fnf.com/california-privacy) or call (888) 413-1748.
Copyright © 2026. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Statement Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM by
SCA0003004.doc Page 28 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146 the "California Privacy" link on our website (fnf.com/california-privacy) or call (888) 413-1748.
For Nevada Residents: We are providing this notice pursuant to state law. You may be placed on our internal Do Not Call List by calling FNF Privacy at (888) 714-2710 or by contacting us via the information set forth at the end of this Privacy Notice. For further information concerning Nevada's telephone solicitation law, you may contact: Bureau of Consumer Protection, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, 555 E. Washington St., Suite 3900, Las Vegas, NV 89101; Phone number: (702) 486-3132; email: [email protected] .
For Oregon Residents: We will not share your Personal Information or Browsing Information with nonaffiliated third parties for marketing purposes, except after you have been informed by us of such sharing and had an opportunity to indicate that you do not want a disclosure made for marketing purposes. For additional information about your Oregon consumer privacy rights, or to make a consumer privacy request, or appeal a previous privacy request, please email [email protected]
or call (888) 714-2710
FNF is the controller of the following businesses registered with the Secretary of State in Oregon:
Chicago Title Company of Oregon, Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon, Lawyers Title of Oregon, LoanCare, Ticor, Title Company of Oregon, Western Title & Escrow Company, Chicago Title Company, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Liberty Title & Escrow, Novare National Settlement Service, Ticor Title Company of California, Exos Valuations, Fidelity & Guaranty Life, Insurance Agency, Fidelity National Home Warranty Company, Fidelity National Management Services, Fidelity Residential Solutions, FNF Insurance Services, FNTG National Record Centers, IPEX, Mission Servicing Residential, National Residential Nominee Services, National Safe Harbor Exchanges, National Title Insurance of New York, NationalLink Valuations, NexAce Corp., ServiceLink Auction, ServiceLink Management Company, ServiceLink Services, ServiceLink Title Company of Oregon, ServiceLink Valuation Solutions, Western Title & Escrow Company For Vermont Residents
: We will not disclose information about your creditworthiness to our affiliates and will not disclose your personal information, financial information, credit report, or health information to nonaffiliated third parties to market to you, other than as permitted by Vermont law, unless you authorize us to make those disclosures.
Information From Children
The FNF Websites are not intended or designed to attract persons under the age of eighteen (18). We do not collect Personal Information from any person that we know to be under the age of thirteen (13) without permission from a parent or guardian.
International Users
FNF's headquarters is located within the United States. If you reside outside the United States and choose to provide Personal Information or Browsing Information to us, please note that we may transfer that information outside of your country of residence. By providing FNF with your Personal Information and/or Browsing Information, you consent to our collection, transfer, and use of such information in accordance with this Privacy Notice.
FNF Website Services for Mortgage Loans
Certain FNF companies provide services to mortgage loan servicers, including hosting websites that collect customer information on behalf of mortgage loan servicers (the "Service Websites"). The Service Websites may contain links to both this Privacy Notice and the mortgage loan servicer or lender's privacy notice. The sections of this Privacy Notice titled When Information is Disclosed, Choices with Your Information, and Accessing and Correcting Information do not apply to the Service Websites. The mortgage loan servicer or lender's privacy notice governs use, disclosure, and access to your Personal Information. FNF does not share Personal Information collected through the Service Websites, except as required or authorized by contract with the mortgage loan servicer or lender, or as required by law or in the good-faith belief that such disclosure is necessary: to comply with a legal process or applicable law, to enforce this Privacy Notice, or to protect the rights, property, or safety of FNF or the public.
Your Consent to this Privacy Notice; Notice Changes
By submitting Personal Information and/or Browsing Information to FNF, you consent to the collection and use of the information in accordance with this Privacy Notice. We may change this Privacy Notice at any time. The Privacy Notice's effective date will show the last date changes were made. If you provide information to us following any change of the Privacy Notice, that signifies your assent to and acceptance of the changes to the Privacy Notice.
Copyright © 2026. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Statement Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM by
SCA0003004.doc Page 29 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146 Privacy Notice, that signifies your assent to and acceptance of the changes to the Privacy Notice.
Accessing and Correcting Information; Contact Us
If you have questions or would like to correct your Personal Information, visit FNF's Privacy Request website or contact us by phone at (888) 714-2710, by email at [email protected], or by mail to:
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.
601 Riverside Avenue,
Jacksonville, Florida 32204
Attn: Chief Privacy Officer
ATTACHMENT ONE
Attachment One (11/04/22)
CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY - 1990 (11-09-18)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building or zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien, or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the estate or interest insured by this policy.
4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated.
5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law.
6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws.
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE - SCHEDULE B, PART I
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of:
1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records.
Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the public records.
4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records.
6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material unless such lien is shown by the public records at Date of Policy.
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE - SCHEDULE B, PART II
(Variable exceptions such as taxes, easements, CC&R’s, etc., are inserted here )
ATTACHMENT ONE
(CONTINUED)
Attachment One (11/04/22)
CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
STANDARD COVERAGE OWNER'S POLICY (02-04-22)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys’ fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:
1. a. any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) that restricts, regulates, prohibits, or relates to:
i. the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
ii. the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement on the Land; iii. the subdivision of land; or
iv. environmental remediation or protection.
b. any governmental forfeiture, police, regulatory, or national security power. c. the effect of a violation or enforcement of any matter excluded under Exclusion 1.a. or 1.b.
Exclusion 1 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5 or 6.
2. Any power of eminent domain. Exclusion 2 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7.
3. Any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter:
a. created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; b. not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at the Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; c. resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; d. attaching or created subsequent to the Date of Policy (Exclusion 3.d. does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 or 10); or
e. resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if consideration sufficient to qualify the Insured named in Schedule A as a bona fide purchaser had been given for the Title at the Date of Policy.
4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights law, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A is a:
a. fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer;
b. voidable transfer under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act; or c. preferential transfer:
i. to the extent the instrument of transfer vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A is not a transfer made as a contemporaneous exchange for new value; or
ii. for any other reason not stated in Covered Risk 9.b.
5. Any claim of a PACA-PSA Trust. Exclusion 5 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 8.
6. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed or collected by a governmental authority that becomes due and payable after the Date of Policy.
Exclusion 6 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 2.b. 7 Any discrepancy in the quantity of the area, square footage, or acreage of the Land or of any improvement to the Land.
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
Some historical land records contain Discriminatory Covenants that are illegal and unenforceable by law. This policy treats any Discriminatory Covenant in a document referenced in Schedule B as if each Discriminatory Covenant is redacted, repudiated, removed, and not republished or recirculated. Only the remaining provisions of the document are excepted from coverage.
This policy does not insure against loss or damage and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys’ fees, or expenses resulting from the terms and conditions of any lease or easement identified in Schedule A, and the following matters:
PART I
1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy but that could be (a) ascertained by an inspection of the Land, or (b) asserted by persons or parties in possession of the Land.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.
4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, easement, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.
6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor, material or equipment unless such lien is shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.
7. Any claim to (a) ownership of or rights to minerals and similar substances, including but not limited to ores, metals, coal, lignite, oil, gas, uranium, clay, rock, sand, and gravel located in, on, or under the Land or produced from the Land, whether such ownership or rights arise by lease, grant, exception, conveyance, reservation, or otherwise; and (b) any rights, privileges, immunities, rights of way, and easements associated therewith or appurtenant thereto, whether or not the interests or rights excepted in (a) or (b) appear in the Public Records or are shown in Schedule B.
PART II
(Variable exceptions such as taxes, easements, CC&R’s, etc., are inserted here )
ATTACHMENT ONE
(CONTINUED)
Attachment One (11/04/22)
CLTA/ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (7-01-21)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are excluded from the coverage of this policy and We will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:
1. a. any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) that restricts, regulates, prohibits, or relates to:
i. the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
ii. the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement on the Land; iii. the subdivision of land; or
iv. environmental remediation or protection.
b. any governmental forfeiture, police, or regulatory, or national security power. c. the effect of a violation or enforcement of any matter excluded under Exclusion 1.a. or 1.b.
Exclusion 1 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 8.a., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, or 27.
2. Any power to take the Land by condemnation. Exclusion 2 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 17.
3. Any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter:
a. created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by You;
b. not Known to Us, not recorded in the Public Records at the Date of Policy, but Known to You and not disclosed in writing to Us by You prior to the date You became an Insured under this policy;
c. resulting in no loss or damage to You;
d. attaching or created subsequent to the Date of Policy (Exclusion 3.d. does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5,
8.f., 25, 26, 27, 28, or 32); or
e. resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if You paid consideration sufficient to qualify You as a bona fide purchaser of the Title at the Date of Policy.
4. Lack of a right:
a. to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in Item 3 of Schedule A; and b. in any street, road, avenue, alley, lane, right-of-way, body of water, or waterway that abut the Land.
Exclusion 4 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11 or 21.
5. The failure of Your existing structures, or any portion of Your existing structures, to have been constructed before, on, or after the Date of Policy in accordance with applicable building codes. Exclusion 5 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 14 or 15.
6. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights law, that the transfer of the Title to You is a:
a. fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer;
b. voidable transfer under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act; or c. preferential transfer:
i. to the extent the instrument of transfer vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A is not a transfer made as a contemporaneous exchange for new value; or
ii. for any other reason not stated in Covered Risk 30.
7. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence.
8. Negligence by a person or an entity exercising a right to extract or develop oil, gas, minerals, groundwater, or any other subsurface substance.
9. Any lien on Your Title for real estate taxes or assessments, imposed or collected by a governmental authority that becomes due and payable after the Date of Policy. Exclusion 9 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 8.a or 27.
10. Any discrepancy in the quantity of the area, square footage, or acreage of the Land or of any improvement to the Land.
LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS
Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limited on the Owner’s Coverage Statement as follows:
• For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 and 21 Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A.
The deductible amounts and maximum dollar limits shown on Schedule A are as follows:
Your Deductible Amount
Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability
Covered Risk 16: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500.00 (whichever is less)
$ 10,000.00
Covered Risk 18: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000.00 (whichever is less)
$ 25,000.00
Covered Risk 19: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000.00 (whichever is less)
$ 25,000.00
Covered Risk 21: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500.00 (whichever is less)
$ 5,000.00
ATTACHMENT ONE
(CONTINUED)
Attachment One (11/04/22)
CLTA/ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (12-02-13)
EXCLUSIONS
In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from:
1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of those portions of any law or government regulation concerning:
a. building;
b. zoning;
c. land use;
d. improvements on the Land;
e. land division; and
f. environmental protection.
This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 8.a., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 or 27.
2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14 or 15.
3. The right to take the Land by condemning it. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 17.
4. Risks:
a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they are recorded in the Public Records; b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they are recorded in the Public Records at the Policy Date; c. that result in no loss to You; or
d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.e., 25, 26, 27 or 28.
5. Failure to pay value for Your Title.
6. Lack of a right:
a. to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land.
This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 21.
7. The transfer of the Title to You is invalid as a preferential transfer or as a fraudulent transfer or conveyance under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws.
8. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake or subsidence.
9. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances.
LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS
Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limited on the Owner’s Coverage Statement as follows:
• For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 and 21, Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A.
The deductible amounts and maximum dollar limits shown on Schedule A are as follows:
Your Deductible Amount
Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability
Covered Risk 16: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500.00 (whichever is less)
$ 10,000.00
Covered Risk 18: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000.00 (whichever is less)
$ 25,000.00
Covered Risk 19: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000.00 (whichever is less)
$ 25,000.00
Covered Risk 21: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500.00 (whichever is less)
$ 5,000.00
ATTACHMENT ONE
(CONTINUED)
Attachment One (11/04/22)
ALTA OWNER’S POLICY (07-01-2021)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:
1. a. any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) that restricts, regulates, prohibits, or relates to:
i. the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
ii. the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement on the Land; iii. the subdivision of land; or
iv. environmental remediation or protection.
b. any governmental forfeiture, police, regulatory, or national security power. c. the effect of a violation or enforcement of any matter excluded under Exclusion 1.a. or 1.b.
Exclusion 1 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5 or 6.
2. Any power of eminent domain. Exclusion 2 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7.
3. Any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter:
a. created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; b. not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at the Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; c. resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; d. attaching or created subsequent to the Date of Policy (Exclusion 3.d. does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 or 10); or
e. resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if consideration sufficient to qualify the Insured named in Schedule A as a bona fide purchaser had been given for the Title at the Date of Policy.
4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights law, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A is a:
a. fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer;
b. voidable transfer under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act; or c. preferential transfer:
i. to the extent the instrument of transfer vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A is not a transfer made as a contemporaneous exchange for new value; or
ii. for any other reason not stated in Covered Risk 9.b.
5. Any claim of a PACA-PSA Trust. Exclusion 5 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 8.
6. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments, imposed or collected by a governmental authority that becomes due and payable after the Date of Policy. Exclusion 6 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 2.b.
7. Any discrepancy in the quantity of the area, square footage, or acreage of the Land or of any improvement to the Land.
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
Some historical land records contain Discriminatory Covenants that are illegal and unenforceable by law. This policy treats any Discriminatory Covenant in a document referenced in Schedule B as if each Discriminatory Covenant is redacted, repudiated, removed, and not republished or recirculated. Only the remaining provisions of the document are excepted from coverage.
This policy does not insure against loss or damage and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses resulting from the terms and conditions of any lease or easement identified in Schedule A, and the following matters:
NOTE: The 2021 ALTA Owner’s Policy may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to variable exceptions such as taxes, easements, CC&R’s, etc., the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the Western Regional Standard Coverage Exceptions listed as 1 through 7 below:
1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy but that could be (a) ascertained by an inspection of the Land or (b) asserted by persons or parties in possession of the Land.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.
4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, easement, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.
6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor, material or equipment unless such lien is shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.
7. Any claim to (a) ownership of or rights to minerals and similar substances, including but not limited to ores, metals, coal, lignite, oil, gas, uranium, clay, rock, sand, and gravel located in, on, or under the Land or produced from the Land, whether such ownership or rights arise by lease, grant, exception, conveyance, reservation, or otherwise; and (b) any rights, privileges, immunities, rights of way, and easements associated therewith or appurtenant thereto, whether or not the interests or rights excepted in (a) or (b) appear in the Public Records or are shown in Schedule B.
ATTACHMENT ONE
(CONTINUED)
Attachment One (11/04/22)
2006 ALTA OWNER’S POLICY (06-17-06)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.
2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title.
4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy.
5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A.
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys’ fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:
NOTE: The 2006 ALTA Owner’s Policy may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to variable exceptions such as taxes, easements, CC&R’s, etc., the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the Western Regional Standard Coverage Exceptions listed below as 1 through 7 below:
1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy but that could be (a) ascertained by an inspection of the Land, or (b) asserted by persons or parties in possession of the Land.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.
4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, easement, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.
6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor, material or equipment unless such lien is shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.]
7. Any claim to (a) ownership of or rights to minerals and similar substances, including but not limited to ores, metals, coal, lignite, oil, gas, uranium, clay, rock, sand, and gravel located in, on, or under the Land or produced from the Land, whether such ownership or rights arise by lease, grant, exception, conveyance, reservation, or otherwise; and (b) any rights, privileges, immunities, rights of way, and easements associated therewith or appurtenant thereto, whether or not the interests or rights excepted in (a) or (b) appear in the Public Records or are shown in Schedule B.
Notice of Available Discounts
Notice of Available Discounts Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM SCA0003004.doc / Updated: 03.30.26 Page 36 of 37 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146 Pursuant to Section 2355.3 in Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("FNF") must deliver a notice of each discount available under our current rate filing along with the delivery of escrow instructions, a preliminary report or commitment. Please be aware that the provision of this notice does not constitute a waiver of the consumer's right to be charged the filed rate. As such, your transaction may not qualify for the below discounts.
You are encouraged to discuss the applicability of one or more of the below discounts with a Company representative.
These discounts are generally described below; consult the rate manual for a full description of the terms, conditions and requirements for such discount. These discounts only apply to transactions involving services rendered by the FNF Family of Companies. This notice only applies to transactions involving property improved with a one-to-four family residential dwelling.
Not all discounts are offered by every FNF Company. The discount will only be applicable to the FNF Company as indicated by the named discount.
FNF Underwritten Title Companies
Underwritten by FNF Underwriters
CTC - Chicago Title Company CTIC - Chicago Title Insurance Company CLTC - Commonwealth Land Title Company CLTIC - Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.
FNTC - Fidelity National Title Company FNTIC - Fidelity National Title Insurance Co.
FNTCCA - Fidelity National Title Company of California NTINY - National Title Insurance of New York TICOR - Ticor Title Company of California
LTC - Lawyer's Title Company
SLTC - ServiceLink Title Company
Available Discounts
CHURCHES OR CHARITABLE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS (CTIC, CLTIC, FNTIC, NTINY) On properties used as a church or for charitable purposes within the scope of the normal activities of such entities, provided said charge is normally the church's obligation the charge for an owner's policy shall be fifty percent (50%) to seventy percent (70%) of the appropriate title insurance rate, depending on the type of coverage selected. The charge for a lender's policy shall be forty percent (40%) to fifty percent (50%) of the appropriate title insurance rate, depending on the type of coverage selected.
DISASTER AREA TRANSACTIONS (CTIC, CLTIC, FNTIC, NTINY)
This rate is available for individuals or entities that were victims of a national or state disaster. The rate can be used for a Lender's Policy (Standard or Extended), or an Owner's Policy (Standard or Homeowners coverage). To qualify for this rate, the applicant must, prior to the closing of the applicable transaction, make a written request, including a statement meeting the following criteria:
A. The subject property is in a disaster area declared by the government of the United States or the State of California.
B. The subject property was substantially or totally destroyed in the declared disaster.
C. The subject property ownership has not changed since the time of the disaster.
The rate will be fifty percent (50%) of the applicable rate, and the transaction must be completed within sixty (60) months of the date of the declaration of the disaster.
DISASTER AREA ESCROWS (CTC, CLTC, FNTC, TICOR, LTC)
This rate is available for individuals or entities that were victims of a national or state disaster. The rate can be used for a loan or a sale escrow transaction. To qualify for this rate, the applicant must, prior to the closing of the applicable transaction, make a written request, including a statement meeting the following criteria:
A. The subject property is in a disaster area declared by the government of the United States or the State of California.
B. The subject property was substantially or totally destroyed in the declared disaster.
C. The subject property ownership has not changed since the time of the disaster.
Notice of Available Discounts
(continued)
Notice of Available Discounts Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:21 AM SCA0003004.doc / Updated: 03.30.26 Page 37 of 37 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146 C. The subject property ownership has not changed since the time of the disaster.
The rate will be fifty percent (50%) of the applicable rate, and the transaction must be completed within sixty (60) months of the date of the declaration of the disaster. Standard minimum charge applies based upon property type. No other discounts or special rates, or combination of discounts or special rates, shall be applicable. Applies to a single transaction per property.
This rate is applicable to the following Zones/Counties:
Zone 1.A: Orange County
Zone 1.B: Riverside and San Bernardino Counties
Zone 2: Los Angeles County
Zone 3: Ventura County
Zone 10: San Diego County
Zone 12: Imperial County
If used for a sale transaction, the application of this rate assumes the charge for the Residential Sale Escrow Services (RSES) fee will be split evenly between buyer and seller. As such and regardless of how the calculated applicable RSES will be split between the disaster victim and the other principal, the rate will be applied only to one half (1/2) of the calculated applicable RSES fee, regardless of whether the disaster victim is paying half (1/2) of the RSES fee (as is customary) or paying the entire fee. The rate under this provision will be fifty percent (50%) of disaster victims' one half (1/2) portion only and shall not apply to any portion paid by non-disaster victim. Additional services will be charged at the normal rates.
MILITARY DISCOUNT RATE (CTIC, CLTIC, FNTIC)
Upon the Company being advised in writing and prior to the closing of the transaction that an active duty, honorably separated, or retired member of the United States Military or Military Reserves or National Guard is acquiring or selling an owner occupied one-to-four family property, the selling owner or acquiring buyer, as applicable, will be entitled to a discount equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the otherwise applicable rates such party would be charged for title insurance policies. Minimum charge: Four Hundred Twenty-Five And No/100 Dollars ($425.00) The Company may require proof of eligibility from the parties to the transaction verifying they are entitled to the discount as described. No other discounts or special rates, or combination of discounts or special rates, shall be applicable.
Wire Fraud Alert Page 1
Original Effective Date: 5/11/2017
Current Version Date: 5/11/2017 932608146
TM and © Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and/or an affiliate. All rights reserved
WIRE FRAUD ALERT
This Notice is not intended to provide legal or professional advice.
If you have any questions, please consult with a lawyer.
All parties to a real estate transaction are targets for wire fraud and many have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars because they simply relied on the wire instructions received via email, without further verification. If funds are to be wired in conjunction with this real estate transaction, we strongly recommend verbal verification of wire instructions through a known, trusted phone number prior to sending funds.
In addition, the following non-exclusive self-protection strategies are recommended to minimize exposure to possible wire fraud.
NEVER RELY on emails purporting to change wire instructions. Parties to a transaction rarely change wire instructions in the course of a transaction.
ALWAYS VERIFY wire instructions, specifically the ABA routing number and account number, by calling the party who sent the instructions to you. DO NOT use the phone number provided in the email containing the instructions, use phone numbers you have called before or can otherwise verify. Obtain the number of relevant parties to the transaction as soon as an escrow account is opened. DO NOT send an email to verify as the email address may be incorrect or the email may be intercepted by the fraudster. USE COMPLEX EMAIL PASSWORDS that employ a combination of mixed case, numbers, and symbols. Make your passwords greater than eight (8) characters. Also, change your password often and do NOT reuse the same password for other online accounts.
USE MULTI-FACTOR AUTHENTICATION for email accounts. Your email provider or IT staff may have specific instructions on how to implement this feature.
For more information on wire-fraud scams or to report an incident, please refer to the following links:
Federal Bureau of Investigation: Internet Crime Complaint Center:
http://www.fbi.gov
http://www.ic3.gov
Notice of Available Discounts
Notice of Available Discounts Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:22 AM by SCA0001736.doc / Updated: 12.12.24 Page 1 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146 Pursuant to Section 2355.3 in Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("FNF") must deliver a notice of each discount available under our current rate filing along with the delivery of escrow instructions, a preliminary report or commitment. Please be aware that the provision of this notice does not constitute a waiver of the consumer's right to be charged the filed rate. As such, your transaction may not qualify for the below discounts.
You are encouraged to discuss the applicability of one or more of the below discounts with a Company representative. These discounts are generally described below; consult the rate manual for a full description of the terms, conditions and requirements for such discount. These discounts only apply to transactions involving services rendered by the FNF Family of Companies. This notice only applies to transactions involving property improved with a one-to-four family residential dwelling.
Not all discounts are offered by every FNF Company. The discount will only be applicable to the FNF Company as indicated by the named discount.
FNF Underwritten Title Companies
Underwritten by FNF Underwriters
CTC - Chicago Title Company CTIC - Chicago Title Insurance Company CLTC - Commonwealth Land Title Company CLTIC - Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.
FNTC - Fidelity National Title Company FNTIC - Fidelity National Title Insurance Co.
FNTCCA - Fidelity National Title Company of California NTINY - National Title Insurance of New York TICOR - Ticor Title Company of California
LTC - Lawyer's Title Company
SLTC - ServiceLink Title Company
Available Discounts
CHURCHES OR CHARITABLE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS (CTIC, CLTIC, FNTIC, NTINY) On properties used as a church or for charitable purposes within the scope of the normal activities of such entities, provided said charge is normally the church's obligation the charge for an owner's policy shall be fifty percent (50%) to seventy percent (70%) of the appropriate title insurance rate, depending on the type of coverage selected. The charge for a lender's policy shall be forty percent (40%) to fifty percent (50%) of the appropriate title insurance rate, depending on the type of coverage selected.
DISASTER AREA TRANSACTIONS (CTIC, CLTIC, FNTIC, NTINY)
This rate is available for individuals or entities that were victims of a national or state disaster. The rate can be used for a Lender's Policy (Standard or Extended), or an Owner's Policy (Standard or Homeowners coverage).
To qualify for this rate, the applicant must, prior to the closing of the applicable transaction, make a written request, including a statement meeting the following criteria:
A. The subject property is in a disaster area declared by the government of the United States or the State of California.
B. The subject property was substantially or totally destroyed in the declared disaster.
C. The subject property ownership has not changed since the time of the disaster.
The rate will be fifty percent (50%) of the applicable rate, and the transaction must be completed within sixty (60) months of the date of the declaration of the disaster.
Notice of Available Discounts
(continued)
Notice of Available Discounts Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:22 AM by SCA0001736.doc / Updated: 12.12.24 Page 2 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146 months of the date of the declaration of the disaster.
DISASTER AREA ESCROWS (CTC, CLTC, FNTC, TICOR, LTC)
This rate is available for individuals or entities that were victims of a national or state disaster. The rate can be used for a loan or a sale escrow transaction. To qualify for this rate, the applicant must, prior to the closing of the applicable transaction, make a written request, including a statement meeting the following criteria:
A. The subject property is in a disaster area declared by the government of the United States or the State of California.
B. The subject property was substantially or totally destroyed in the declared disaster.
C. The subject property ownership has not changed since the time of the disaster.
The rate will be fifty percent (50%) of the applicable rate, and the transaction must be completed within sixty (60) months of the date of the declaration of the disaster. Standard minimum charge applies based upon property type. No other discounts or special rates, or combination of discounts or special rates, shall be applicable.
Applies to a single transaction per property.
This rate is applicable to the following Zones/Counties:
Zone 1.A: Orange County
Zone 1.B: Riverside and San Bernardino Counties
Zone 2: Los Angeles County
Zone 3: Ventura County
Zone 10: San Diego County
Zone 12: Imperial County
If used for a sale transaction, the application of this rate assumes the charge for the Residential Sale Escrow Services (RSES) fee will be split evenly between buyer and seller. As such and regardless of how the calculated applicable RSES will be split between the disaster victim and the other principal, the rate will be applied only to one half (1/2) of the calculated applicable RSES fee, regardless of whether the disaster victim is paying half (1/2) of the RSES fee (as is customary) or paying the entire fee. The rate under this provision will be fifty percent (50%) of disaster victims' one half (1/2) portion only and shall not apply to any portion paid by non-disaster victim.
Additional services will be charged at the normal rates.
MILITARY DISCOUNT RATE (CTIC, CLTIC, FNTIC)
Upon the Company being advised in writing and prior to the closing of the transaction that an active duty, honorably separated, or retired member of the United States Military or Military Reserves or National Guard is acquiring or selling an owner occupied one-to-four family property, the selling owner or acquiring buyer, as applicable, will be entitled to a discount equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the otherwise applicable rates such party would be charged for title insurance policies. Minimum charge: Four Hundred Twenty-Five And No/100 Dollars ($425.00)
The Company may require proof of eligibility from the parties to the transaction verifying they are entitled to the discount as described. No other discounts or special rates, or combination of discounts or special rates, shall be applicable.
Copyright © 2026. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Statement Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:22 AM by
SSCORPD0911.doc Page 1 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146
FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL
PRIVACY NOTICE
Effective January 1, 2026
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and its majority-owned subsidiary companies (collectively, "FNF," "our," or "we") respect and are committed to protecting your privacy. This Privacy Notice explains how we collect, use, and protect personal information, when and to whom we disclose such information, and the choices you have about the use and disclosure of that information.
A limited number of FNF subsidiaries have their own privacy notices. If a subsidiary has its own privacy notice, the privacy notice will be available on the subsidiary's website and this Privacy Notice does not apply.
Collection of Personal Information
FNF may collect the following categories of Personal Information:
contact information (e.g., name, address, phone number, email address); demographic information (e.g., date of birth, gender, marital status); identity information (e.g., Social Security Number, driver's license, passport, or other government ID number); financial account information (e.g., loan or bank account information); biometric data (e.g., fingerprints, retina or iris scans, voiceprints, or other unique biological characteristics; and other personal information necessary to provide products or services to you.
We may collect Personal Information about you from:
information we receive from you or your agent;
information about your transactions with FNF, our affiliates, or others; and information we receive from consumer reporting agencies and/or governmental entities, either directly from these entities or through others.
Collection of Device and Browsing Information
FNF automatically collects the following categories of Browsing Information when you access an FNF website, online service, or application (each an "FNF Website") from your Internet browser, computer, and/or device:
Internet Protocol (IP) address and operating system;
browser information, such as version, language, and type; device type and operating system;
domain name system requests; and
browsing history on the FNF Website, such as date and time of your visit to the FNF Website and visits to the pages within the FNF Website.
Like most websites, our servers automatically log each visitor to the FNF Website and may collect the Browsing Information described above. We use Browsing Information for system administration, troubleshooting, fraud investigation, and to improve our websites. Browsing Information generally does not reveal anything personal about you, though if you have created a user account for an FNF Website and are logged into that account, the FNF Website may be able to link certain browsing activity to your user account.
Other Online Specifics
Website Analytics. We use Google Analytics to understand how visitors interact with FNF Websites. Google Analytics may collect information such as your IP address, device type, and pages visited to help us analyze site traffic and to personalize your browsing experience on our site. If you don't want Google Analytics to be used in your browser, you can install the Google Analytics browser add-on, which Google makes available online.
Cookies
. When you visit an FNF Website, a "cookie" may be sent to your computer. A cookie is a small piece of data that is sent to your Internet browser from a web server and stored on your computer's hard drive. Information gathered using cookies helps us improve your user experience. For example, a cookie can help the website load properly or can customize the display page based on your browser type and user preferences. You can choose whether or not to accept cookies by changing your Internet browser settings. Be aware that doing so may impair or limit some functionality of the FNF Website.
Copyright © 2026. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Statement Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:22 AM by
SSCORPD0911.doc Page 2 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146 or limit some functionality of the FNF Website.
Web Beacons. We use web beacons to determine when and how many times a page has been viewed. This information is used to improve our websites.
Do Not Track . Currently our FNF Websites do not respond to "Do Not Track" features enabled through your browser.
Links to Other Sites. FNF Websites may contain links to unaffiliated third-party websites. FNF is not responsible for the privacy practices or content of those websites. We recommend that you read the privacy policy of every website you visit.
Use of Personal Information
FNF uses Personal Information for these main purposes:
To provide products and services to you or in connection with a transaction involving you. To improve our products and services.
To prevent and detect fraud;
To maintain the security of our systems, tools, accounts, and applications; To verify and authenticate identities and credentials; To communicate with you about our, and our affiliates' services, jointly or independently; To provide reviews and testimonials about our services, with your consent.
When Information Is Disclosed
We may disclose the categories of Personal Information and Browsing Information listed above for the following purposes:
to enable us to detect or prevent criminal activity, fraud, material misrepresentation, or nondisclosure; to affiliated or nonaffiliated service providers who provide or perform services or functions on our behalf and who agree to use the information only to provide such services or functions; to affiliated or nonaffiliated third parties with whom we perform joint marketing, pursuant to an agreement with them to jointly market financial products or services to you; to law enforcement or authorities in connection with an investigation, or in response to a subpoena or court order; or
in the good-faith belief that such disclosure is necessary to comply with legal process or applicable laws, or to protect the rights, property, or safety of FNF, its customers, or the public.
The law does not require your prior authorization and does not allow you to restrict the disclosures described above. Additionally, we may disclose your information to third parties for whom you have given us authorization or consent to make such disclosure. We do not otherwise share your Personal Information or Browsing Information with nonaffiliated third parties, except as required or permitted by law.
We reserve the right to transfer your Personal Information, Browsing Information, and any other information, in connection with the sale or other disposition of all or part of the FNF business and/or assets, or in the event of bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency, receivership, or an assignment for the benefit of creditors. By submitting Personal Information and/or Browsing Information to FNF, you expressly agree and consent to the use and/or transfer of the foregoing information in connection with any of the above described proceedings.
Security of Your Information
We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards to protect your Personal Information.
Choices With Your Information
Whether you submit Personal Information or Browsing Information to FNF is entirely up to you. If you decide not to submit Personal Information or Browsing Information, FNF may not be able to provide certain services or products to you.
State-Specific Consumer Privacy Information
:
For additional information about your state-specific consumer privacy rights, to make a consumer privacy request, or to appeal a previous privacy request, please follow the link Privacy Request, or email [email protected], or call (888) 714-2710.
Copyright © 2026. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Statement Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:22 AM by
SSCORPD0911.doc Page 3 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146 (888) 714-2710.
Certain state privacy laws require that FNF disclose the categories of third parties to which FNF may disclose the Personal Information and Browsing Information listed above. Those categories are:
FNF affiliates and subsidiaries;
Non-affiliated third parties, with your consent;
Businesses in connection with the sale or other disposition of all or part of the FNF business and/or assets; Service providers;
Law enforcement or authorities in connection with an investigation, or in response to a subpoena or court order.
For California Residents: We will not share your Personal Information or Browsing Information with nonaffiliated third parties, except as permitted by California law. For additional information about your California privacy rights, please visit the "California Privacy" link on our website (fnf.com/california-privacy ) or call (888) 413-1748.
For Nevada Residents: We are providing this notice pursuant to state law. You may be placed on our internal Do Not Call List by calling FNF Privacy at (888) 714-2710 or by contacting us via the information set forth at the end of this Privacy Notice. For further information concerning Nevada's telephone solicitation law, you may contact:
Bureau of Consumer Protection, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, 555 E. Washington St., Suite 3900, Las Vegas, NV 89101; Phone number: (702) 486-3132; email: [email protected] .
For Oregon Residents : We will not share your Personal Information or Browsing Information with nonaffiliated third parties for marketing purposes, except after you have been informed by us of such sharing and had an opportunity to indicate that you do not want a disclosure made for marketing purposes. For additional information about your Oregon consumer privacy rights, or to make a consumer privacy request, or appeal a previous privacy request, please email [email protected]
or call (888) 714-2710
FNF is the controller of the following businesses registered with the Secretary of State in Oregon:
Chicago Title Company of Oregon, Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon, Lawyers Title of Oregon, LoanCare, Ticor, Title Company of Oregon, Western Title & Escrow Company, Chicago Title Company, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Liberty Title & Escrow, Novare National Settlement Service, Ticor Title Company of California, Exos Valuations, Fidelity & Guaranty Life, Insurance Agency, Fidelity National Home Warranty Company, Fidelity National Management Services, Fidelity Residential Solutions, FNF Insurance Services, FNTG National Record Centers, IPEX, Mission Servicing Residential, National Residential Nominee Services, National Safe Harbor Exchanges, National Title Insurance of New York, NationalLink Valuations, NexAce Corp., ServiceLink Auction, ServiceLink Management Company, ServiceLink Services, ServiceLink Title Company of Oregon, ServiceLink Valuation Solutions, Western Title & Escrow Company
For Vermont Residents
: We will not disclose information about your creditworthiness to our affiliates and will not disclose your personal information, financial information, credit report, or health information to nonaffiliated third parties to market to you, other than as permitted by Vermont law, unless you authorize us to make those disclosures.
Information From Children
The FNF Websites are not intended or designed to attract persons under the age of eighteen (18). We do not collect Personal Information from any person that we know to be under the age of thirteen (13) without permission from a parent or guardian.
International Users
FNF's headquarters is located within the United States. If you reside outside the United States and choose to provide Personal Information or Browsing Information to us, please note that we may transfer that information outside of your country of residence. By providing FNF with your Personal Information and/or Browsing Information, you consent to our collection, transfer, and use of such information in accordance with this Privacy Notice.
FNF Website Services for Mortgage Loans
Certain FNF companies provide services to mortgage loan servicers, including hosting websites that collect customer information on behalf of mortgage loan servicers (the "Service Websites"). The Service Websites may contain links to both this Privacy Notice and the mortgage loan servicer or lender's privacy notice. The sections of this Privacy Notice titled When Information is Disclosed, Choices with Your Information, and Accessing and Copyright © 2026. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Statement Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:22 AM by
SSCORPD0911.doc Page 4 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146 this Privacy Notice titled When Information is Disclosed, Choices with Your Information, and Accessing and Correcting Information do not apply to the Service Websites. The mortgage loan servicer or lender's privacy notice governs use, disclosure, and access to your Personal Information. FNF does not share Personal Information collected through the Service Websites, except as required or authorized by contract with the mortgage loan servicer or lender, or as required by law or in the good-faith belief that such disclosure is necessary: to comply with a legal process or applicable law, to enforce this Privacy Notice, or to protect the rights, property, or safety of FNF or the public.
Your Consent to this Privacy Notice; Notice Changes
By submitting Personal Information and/or Browsing Information to FNF, you consent to the collection and use of the information in accordance with this Privacy Notice. We may change this Privacy Notice at any time. The Privacy Notice's effective date will show the last date changes were made. If you provide information to us following any change of the Privacy Notice, that signifies your assent to and acceptance of the changes to the Privacy Notice.
Accessing and Correcting Information; Contact Us
If you have questions or would like to correct your Personal Information, visit FNF's Privacy Request website or contact us by phone at (888) 714-2710, by email at [email protected], or by mail to:
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.
601 Riverside Avenue,
Jacksonville, Florida 32204
Attn: Chief Privacy Officer
ATTACHMENT ONE
Attachment One (11/04/22)
CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY - 1990 (11-09-18)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building or zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien, or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the estate or interest insured by this policy.
4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated.
5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law.
6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws.
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE - SCHEDULE B, PART I
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of:
1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records.
Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the public records.
4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records.
6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material unless such lien is shown by the public records at Date of Policy.
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE - SCHEDULE B, PART II
(Variable exceptions such as taxes, easements, CC&R’s, etc., are inserted here )
ATTACHMENT ONE
(CONTINUED)
Attachment One (11/04/22)
CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
STANDARD COVERAGE OWNER'S POLICY (02-04-22)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys’ fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:
1. a. any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) that restricts, regulates, prohibits, or relates to:
i. the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
ii. the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement on the Land; iii. the subdivision of land; or
iv. environmental remediation or protection.
b. any governmental forfeiture, police, regulatory, or national security power. c. the effect of a violation or enforcement of any matter excluded under Exclusion 1.a. or 1.b.
Exclusion 1 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5 or 6.
2. Any power of eminent domain. Exclusion 2 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7.
3. Any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter:
a. created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; b. not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at the Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; c. resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; d. attaching or created subsequent to the Date of Policy (Exclusion 3.d. does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 or 10); or
e. resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if consideration sufficient to qualify the Insured named in Schedule A as a bona fide purchaser had been given for the Title at the Date of Policy.
4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights law, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A is a:
a. fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer;
b. voidable transfer under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act; or c. preferential transfer:
i. to the extent the instrument of transfer vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A is not a transfer made as a contemporaneous exchange for new value; or
ii. for any other reason not stated in Covered Risk 9.b.
5. Any claim of a PACA-PSA Trust. Exclusion 5 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 8.
6. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed or collected by a governmental authority that becomes due and payable after the Date of Policy.
Exclusion 6 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 2.b. 7 Any discrepancy in the quantity of the area, square footage, or acreage of the Land or of any improvement to the Land.
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
Some historical land records contain Discriminatory Covenants that are illegal and unenforceable by law. This policy treats any Discriminatory Covenant in a document referenced in Schedule B as if each Discriminatory Covenant is redacted, repudiated, removed, and not republished or recirculated. Only the remaining provisions of the document are excepted from coverage.
This policy does not insure against loss or damage and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys’ fees, or expenses resulting from the terms and conditions of any lease or easement identified in Schedule A, and the following matters:
PART I
1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy but that could be (a) ascertained by an inspection of the Land, or (b) asserted by persons or parties in possession of the Land.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.
4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, easement, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.
6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor, material or equipment unless such lien is shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.
7. Any claim to (a) ownership of or rights to minerals and similar substances, including but not limited to ores, metals, coal, lignite, oil, gas, uranium, clay, rock, sand, and gravel located in, on, or under the Land or produced from the Land, whether such ownership or rights arise by lease, grant, exception, conveyance, reservation, or otherwise; and (b) any rights, privileges, immunities, rights of way, and easements associated therewith or appurtenant thereto, whether or not the interests or rights excepted in (a) or (b) appear in the Public Records or are shown in Schedule B.
PART II
(Variable exceptions such as taxes, easements, CC&R’s, etc., are inserted here )
ATTACHMENT ONE
(CONTINUED)
Attachment One (11/04/22)
CLTA/ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (7-01-21)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are excluded from the coverage of this policy and We will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:
1. a. any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) that restricts, regulates, prohibits, or relates to:
i. the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
ii. the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement on the Land; iii. the subdivision of land; or
iv. environmental remediation or protection.
b. any governmental forfeiture, police, or regulatory, or national security power. c. the effect of a violation or enforcement of any matter excluded under Exclusion 1.a. or 1.b.
Exclusion 1 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 8.a., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, or 27.
2. Any power to take the Land by condemnation. Exclusion 2 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 17.
3. Any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter:
a. created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by You;
b. not Known to Us, not recorded in the Public Records at the Date of Policy, but Known to You and not disclosed in writing to Us by You prior to the date You became an Insured under this policy;
c. resulting in no loss or damage to You;
d. attaching or created subsequent to the Date of Policy (Exclusion 3.d. does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5,
8.f., 25, 26, 27, 28, or 32); or
e. resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if You paid consideration sufficient to qualify You as a bona fide purchaser of the Title at the Date of Policy.
4. Lack of a right:
a. to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in Item 3 of Schedule A; and b. in any street, road, avenue, alley, lane, right-of-way, body of water, or waterway that abut the Land.
Exclusion 4 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11 or 21.
5. The failure of Your existing structures, or any portion of Your existing structures, to have been constructed before, on, or after the Date of Policy in accordance with applicable building codes. Exclusion 5 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 14 or 15.
6. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights law, that the transfer of the Title to You is a:
a. fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer;
b. voidable transfer under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act; or c. preferential transfer:
i. to the extent the instrument of transfer vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A is not a transfer made as a contemporaneous exchange for new value; or
ii. for any other reason not stated in Covered Risk 30.
7. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence.
8. Negligence by a person or an entity exercising a right to extract or develop oil, gas, minerals, groundwater, or any other subsurface substance.
9. Any lien on Your Title for real estate taxes or assessments, imposed or collected by a governmental authority that becomes due and payable after the Date of Policy. Exclusion 9 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 8.a or 27.
10. Any discrepancy in the quantity of the area, square footage, or acreage of the Land or of any improvement to the Land.
LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS
Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limited on the Owner’s Coverage Statement as follows:
• For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 and 21 Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A.
The deductible amounts and maximum dollar limits shown on Schedule A are as follows:
Your Deductible Amount
Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability
Covered Risk 16: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500.00 (whichever is less)
$ 10,000.00
Covered Risk 18: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000.00 (whichever is less)
$ 25,000.00
Covered Risk 19: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000.00 (whichever is less)
$ 25,000.00
Covered Risk 21: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500.00 (whichever is less)
$ 5,000.00
ATTACHMENT ONE
(CONTINUED)
Attachment One (11/04/22)
CLTA/ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (12-02-13)
EXCLUSIONS
In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from:
1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of those portions of any law or government regulation concerning:
a. building;
b. zoning;
c. land use;
d. improvements on the Land;
e. land division; and
f. environmental protection.
This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 8.a., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 or 27.
2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14 or 15.
3. The right to take the Land by condemning it. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 17.
4. Risks:
a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they are recorded in the Public Records; b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they are recorded in the Public Records at the Policy Date; c. that result in no loss to You; or
d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.e., 25, 26, 27 or 28.
5. Failure to pay value for Your Title.
6. Lack of a right:
a. to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land.
This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 21.
7. The transfer of the Title to You is invalid as a preferential transfer or as a fraudulent transfer or conveyance under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws.
8. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake or subsidence.
9. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances.
LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS
Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limited on the Owner’s Coverage Statement as follows:
• For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 and 21, Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A.
The deductible amounts and maximum dollar limits shown on Schedule A are as follows:
Your Deductible Amount
Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability
Covered Risk 16: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500.00 (whichever is less)
$ 10,000.00
Covered Risk 18: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000.00 (whichever is less)
$ 25,000.00
Covered Risk 19: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000.00 (whichever is less)
$ 25,000.00
Covered Risk 21: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500.00 (whichever is less)
$ 5,000.00
ATTACHMENT ONE
(CONTINUED)
Attachment One (11/04/22)
ALTA OWNER’S POLICY (07-01-2021)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:
1. a. any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) that restricts, regulates, prohibits, or relates to:
i. the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
ii. the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement on the Land; iii. the subdivision of land; or
iv. environmental remediation or protection.
b. any governmental forfeiture, police, regulatory, or national security power. c. the effect of a violation or enforcement of any matter excluded under Exclusion 1.a. or 1.b.
Exclusion 1 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5 or 6.
2. Any power of eminent domain. Exclusion 2 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7.
3. Any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter:
a. created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; b. not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at the Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; c. resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; d. attaching or created subsequent to the Date of Policy (Exclusion 3.d. does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 or 10); or
e. resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if consideration sufficient to qualify the Insured named in Schedule A as a bona fide purchaser had been given for the Title at the Date of Policy.
4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights law, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A is a:
a. fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer;
b. voidable transfer under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act; or c. preferential transfer:
i. to the extent the instrument of transfer vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A is not a transfer made as a contemporaneous exchange for new value; or
ii. for any other reason not stated in Covered Risk 9.b.
5. Any claim of a PACA-PSA Trust. Exclusion 5 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 8.
6. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments, imposed or collected by a governmental authority that becomes due and payable after the Date of Policy. Exclusion 6 does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 2.b.
7. Any discrepancy in the quantity of the area, square footage, or acreage of the Land or of any improvement to the Land.
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
Some historical land records contain Discriminatory Covenants that are illegal and unenforceable by law. This policy treats any Discriminatory Covenant in a document referenced in Schedule B as if each Discriminatory Covenant is redacted, repudiated, removed, and not republished or recirculated. Only the remaining provisions of the document are excepted from coverage.
This policy does not insure against loss or damage and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses resulting from the terms and conditions of any lease or easement identified in Schedule A, and the following matters:
NOTE: The 2021 ALTA Owner’s Policy may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to variable exceptions such as taxes, easements, CC&R’s, etc., the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the Western Regional Standard Coverage Exceptions listed as 1 through 7 below:
1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy but that could be (a) ascertained by an inspection of the Land or (b) asserted by persons or parties in possession of the Land.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.
4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, easement, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.
6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor, material or equipment unless such lien is shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.
7. Any claim to (a) ownership of or rights to minerals and similar substances, including but not limited to ores, metals, coal, lignite, oil, gas, uranium, clay, rock, sand, and gravel located in, on, or under the Land or produced from the Land, whether such ownership or rights arise by lease, grant, exception, conveyance, reservation, or otherwise; and (b) any rights, privileges, immunities, rights of way, and easements associated therewith or appurtenant thereto, whether or not the interests or rights excepted in (a) or (b) appear in the Public Records or are shown in Schedule B.
ATTACHMENT ONE
(CONTINUED)
Attachment One (11/04/22)
2006 ALTA OWNER’S POLICY (06-17-06)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.
2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title.
4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy.
5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A.
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys’ fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:
NOTE: The 2006 ALTA Owner’s Policy may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to variable exceptions such as taxes, easements, CC&R’s, etc., the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the Western Regional Standard Coverage Exceptions listed below as 1 through 7 below:
1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy but that could be (a) ascertained by an inspection of the Land, or (b) asserted by persons or parties in possession of the Land.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.
4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, easement, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.
6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor, material or equipment unless such lien is shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.]
7. Any claim to (a) ownership of or rights to minerals and similar substances, including but not limited to ores, metals, coal, lignite, oil, gas, uranium, clay, rock, sand, and gravel located in, on, or under the Land or produced from the Land, whether such ownership or rights arise by lease, grant, exception, conveyance, reservation, or otherwise; and (b) any rights, privileges, immunities, rights of way, and easements associated therewith or appurtenant thereto, whether or not the interests or rights excepted in (a) or (b) appear in the Public Records or are shown in Schedule B.
OWNER'S DECLARATION
Owner's Declaration Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:22 AM by
SCA0002873.doc / Updated: 07.18.24 Page 1 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146 Escrow No.: 932608146
Property: 6 and 2476 Mark Lane, 2515 Merrimac Building 1, 2556 Santa Barbara Lane, 2579 San Clementa Drive,, 2500 Merrimac WA and 2503 Christopher Lane, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-6702 The undersigned hereby declares as follows:
1. (Fill in the applicable paragraph and strike the other) A. Declarant ("Owner") is the owner or lessee, as the case may be, of certain premises located at 6 and 2476 Mark Lane, 2515 Merrimac Building 1, 2556 Santa Barbara Lane, 2579 San Clementa Drive,, 2500 Merrimac WA and 2503 Christopher Lane, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-6702, further described as follows:
See Preliminary Report/Commitment No. 932608146 for full legal description (the "Land").
B. Declarant is the __________________________ of ________________________________ ("Owner"), which is the owner or lessee, as the case may be, of certain premises located at 6 and 2476 Mark Lane, 2515 Merrimac Building 1, 2556 Santa Barbara Lane, 2579 San Clementa Drive,, 2500 Merrimac WA and 2503 Christopher Lane, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-6702, further described as follows: See Preliminary Report/Commitment No. 932608146 for full legal description (the "Land").
2. (Fill in the applicable paragraph and strike the other) A. During the period of six (6) months immediately preceding the date of this declaration no work has been done, no surveys or architectural or engineering plans have been prepared, and no materials have been furnished in connection with the erection, equipment, repair, protection or removal of any building or other structure on the Land or in connection with the improvement of the Land in any manner whatsoever.
B. During the period of six (6) months immediately preceding the date of this declaration certain work has been done and materials furnished in connection with _________________________ upon the Land in the approximate total sum of $____________________, but no work whatsoever remains to be done and no materials remain to be furnished to complete the construction in full compliance with the plans and specifications, nor are there any unpaid bills incurred for labor and materials used in making such improvements or repairs upon the Land, or for the services of architects, surveyors or engineers, except as follows: ________________________________________. Owner, by the undersigned Declarant, agrees to and does hereby indemnify and hold harmless Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company against any and all claims arising therefrom.
3. Owner has not previously conveyed the Land; is not a debtor in bankruptcy (and if a partnership, the general partner thereof is not a debtor in bankruptcy); and has not received notice of any pending court action affecting the title to the Land.
4. Except as shown in the above referenced Preliminary Report/Commitment, there are no unpaid or unsatisfied mortgages, deeds of trust, Uniform Commercial Code financing statements, regular assessments, special assessments, periodic assessments or any assessment from any source, claims of lien, special assessments, or taxes that constitute a lien against the Land or that affect the Land but have not been recorded in the public records. There are no violations of the covenants, conditions and restrictions as shown in the above referenced Preliminary Report/Commitment.
5. The Land is currently in use as ______________________________; ______________________________ occupy/occupies the Land; and the following are all of the leases or other occupancy rights affecting the Land:
6. There are no other persons or entities that assert an ownership interest in the Land, nor are there unrecorded easements, claims of easement, or boundary disputes that affect the Land.
7. There are no outstanding options to purchase or rights of first refusal affecting the Land.
OWNER'S DECLARATION
(continued)
Owner's Declaration Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:22 AM by
SCA0002873.doc / Updated: 07.18.24 Page 2 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146
7. There are no outstanding options to purchase or rights of first refusal affecting the Land.
8. Between the most recent Effective Date of the above referenced Preliminary Report/Commitment and the date of recording of the Insured Instrument(s), Owner has not taken or allowed, and will not take or allow, any action or inaction to encumber or otherwise affect title to the Land.
9. That the undersigned has not received any written notice of violation of any covenants, conditions or restrictions, if any, affecting the Land.
10. That there are no outstanding unpaid sellers or suppliers of PACA/PASA commodities or products incurred by the Lessee, except:
11. That no notices of claim or notices of intent to preserve claim rights have been received by the Company from PACA/PASA sellers or suppliers of the Lessee, except:
This declaration is made with the intention that Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (the "Company") and its policy issuing agents will rely upon it in issuing their title insurance policies and endorsements. Owner, by the undersigned Declarant, agrees to indemnify the Company against loss or damage (including attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs) incurred by the Company as a result of any untrue statement made herein. Additionally, Owner, by the undersigned Declarant, agrees to indemnify and hold the Company harmless during the gap period between the last title examination of the Land that was conducted by, for and/or on behalf of the Company, and the time when the deed, assignments and any other documents creating priority of title are recorded in connection with the sale and/or transfer of the Land.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on August 25, 2026 at 10:22 AM.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BY:________________________________
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
FOR YOUR PROTECTION
Statement of Information (UE-34 (Rev. 06-08)) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:22 AM by SCA0000279.doc / Updated: 02.14.25 Page 1 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146 Escrow No.: 932608146
Completion of this statement expedites your application for title insurance, as it assists in establishing identity, eliminating matters affecting persons with similar names and avoiding the use of fraudulent or forged documents. Complete all blanks (please print) or indicate "none" or "N/A." If more space is needed for any item(s), use the reverse side of the form. Each party (and spouse/domestic partner, if applicable) to the transaction should personally sign this form.
NAME AND PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date of Birth
First Name Middle Name Last Name Maiden Name
(If none, indicate)
Home Phone Business Phone Birthplace
Cell Phone Fax Email
Social Security No. Driver's License No.
List any other name you have used or been known by
State of residence I have lived continuously in the U.S.A. since Are you currently married? Yes No Are you currently a registered domestic partner? Yes No If yes, complete the following information:
Date and place of marriage
Spouse/Domestic Partner Date of Birth
First Name Middle Name Last Name Maiden Name
(If none, indicate)
Home Phone Business Phone Birthplace
Cell Phone Fax Email
Social Security No. Driver's License No.
List any other name you have used or been known by
State of residence I have lived continuously in the U.S.A. since
CHILDREN
Child Name: Date of Birth: Child Name: Date of Birth:
Child Name: Date of Birth: Child Name: Date of Birth:
(if more space is required, use reverse side of form)
RESIDENCES (LAST 10 YEARS)
Number & Street City From (date) to (date)
Number & Street City From (date) to (date)
(if more space is required, use reverse side of form)
OCCUPATIONS/BUSINESSES (LAST 10 YEARS)
Firm or Business Name Address From (date) to (date)
Firm or Business Name Address From (date) to (date)
(if more space is required, use reverse side of form)
SPOUSE'S/DOMESTIC PARTNER'S OCCUPATIONS/BUSINESSES (LAST 10 YEARS) Firm or Business Name Address From (date) to (date)
Firm or Business Name Address From (date) to (date)
(if more space is required, use reverse side of form)
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FOR YOUR PROTECTION
(continued)
Statement of Information (UE-34 (Rev. 06-08)) Printed: 08.25.26 @ 10:22 AM by SCA0000279.doc / Updated: 02.14.25 Page 2 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146 PRIOR MARRIAGE(S) and PRIOR DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP(S)
Any prior marriages or domestic partnerships for either person? If yes, complete the following:
Prior spouse's (Party A) name: Prior Spouse of Party A:
Marriage ended by: Death Divorce/Dissolution Nullification Date of Death/Divorce:
Prior spouse's (Party B) name: Prior Spouse of Party B: Spouse Marriage ended by: Death Divorce/Dissolution Nullification Date of Death/Divorce:
(if more space is required, use reverse side of form)
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPERTY
Buyer intends to reside on the property in this transaction: Yes No Owner to complete the following items
Street Address of Property in this transaction:
The land is unimproved; or improved with a structure of the following type: A Single or 1-4 Family Condo Unit Other Improvements, remodeling or repairs to this property have been made within the past six (6) months: Yes No If yes, have all costs for labor and materials arising in connection therewith been paid in full? Yes No Any current loans on property? If yes, complete the following:
Lender Loan Amount Loan Account No.
Lender Loan Amount Loan Account No.
The undersigned declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this document on the date(s) set forth below.
Signature Date
Print Name
Signature Date
Print Name
(Note: If applicable, both spouses/domestic partners must sign.) THANK YOU.
Exhibit Page for Plat Image Printed: 08.25.26 @ 08:58 AM by SCA0002944.doc / Updated: 03.06.23 Page 1 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146
Exhibit Page for Plat Image Printed: 08.25.26 @ 08:58 AM by SCA0002944.doc / Updated: 03.06.23 Page 2 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146
Exhibit Page for Plat Image Printed: 08.25.26 @ 08:58 AM by SCA0002944.doc / Updated: 03.06.23 Page 3 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146
Exhibit Page for Plat Image Printed: 08.25.26 @ 08:58 AM by SCA0002944.doc / Updated: 03.06.23 Page 4 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146
Exhibit Page for Plat Image Printed: 08.25.26 @ 08:58 AM by SCA0002944.doc / Updated: 03.06.23 Page 5 CA-CW-FXFC-02620.208042-932608146
Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County. peopleforhousing.org
September 8, 2026
Honorable John Stephens
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re: SUPPORT for the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Dear Mayor Stephens and Members of the City Council:
People for Housing OC strongly supports the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan and urges the Council to approve it at the unit count that delivers the most homes. This is one of the most consequential housing decisions the region will make this year.
The Housing Need in Orange County and Costa Mesa
Orange County faces a deep and well-documented housing shortage. In the June 2026 UCI-OC Poll, housing ranked as the region's top issue, and roughly nine in ten residents said buying a home is harder for them than it was for their parents' generation. Costa Mesa feels this acutely.
As a jobs-rich city, it relies on a workforce, including teachers, healthcare and service workers, and the staff of the restaurants and shops residents count on, that increasingly cannot afford to live in the city it serves. Throughout the outreach for this project, residents said as much: they qualify for these homes, they work in Costa Mesa, and they cannot find a place to live here.
Housing the local workforce close to jobs eases traffic, strengthens the local economy, and benefits the whole community.
A Plan That Reflects Commitments the City Already Made
The unit counts and affordability targets in this plan originated with the City, not with any developer. When Costa Mesa adopted its Housing Element, it assigned a significant share of its 1 state housing obligation to this site. The minimum of 2,300 homes, and the requirement that roughly 40 percent be affordable to lower-income households and about 70 percent affordable through moderate income, are the City's own commitments. Across Orange County, city after city has taken hard and often controversial votes to rezone land and satisfy these Housing Element obligations. Costa Mesa did that work here, and the Planning Commission affirmed it by recommending the 4,000-unit plan. Approving the Specific Plan simply keeps a promise the City has already made.
Housing at Every Income Level Is a Community Benefit
Parks and open space are widely understood as community benefits. Homes that people can actually afford are a community benefit too, and at present the most urgent one Costa Mesa can deliver. The plan does not come at the expense of open space. It preserves roughly 14 acres of public open space, adds further open space within each new development, and reconfigures the golf course rather than removing it in order to provide a second access point the site requires. It is worth being candid about whose voices tend to dominate these hearings. Many of those urging the City to trade homes for additional amenities already enjoy secure housing. Open space and recreation matter, but they are additions to a life that already includes a home. For thousands of Costa Mesa workers and families, this plan is about the home itself. Where land is limited, a place to live must come first.
A Rare Opportunity for Homeownership
The plan is also written to maximize homeownership, not rental alone. Ownership is how families build stability and lasting wealth, and it is precisely what younger residents feel slipping out of reach. Both the market and the law are moving in this direction. Pending state legislation to reform condominium construction-defect liability would remove a longstanding barrier to building for-sale condominiums and stacked flats. The shift is already visible: Anaheim recently approved for-sale stacked-flat projects that would have been difficult to finance only a few years ago. By the time a master developer delivers homes on this site, for-sale product at a range of price points should be well within reach, and the plan's flexibility allows a developer to respond to that market.
Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County. peopleforhousing.org 2
The Next Housing Element Cycle: Regional Targets Are Not Shrinking The next Housing Element cycle is already on the horizon, and regional housing targets are not expected to decline. Approving fewer homes on this site would not reduce the obligation; it would only shift it elsewhere in Costa Mesa, on a tighter timeline and with fewer viable sites remaining. This site has already absorbed a great deal. The developable area shrank from about 110 acres to roughly 80 after the State reserved land for an emergency operations center and for housing built by the Department of Developmental Services, yet the housing expectations held steady. That DDS housing, which includes approximately 200 supportive units, counts toward the City's regional obligation. The plan carries real weight on constrained land, and approving it at its full count is the responsible course.
A Strong Foundation for the Master Developer and Affordable Housing Partners Finally, the Specific Plan provides a strong and flexible foundation for the master developer and the affordable housing partners who will build here. It sets clear minimums and maximums, relies on a single residential category rather than a tangle of density rules, and gives a developer room to make the numbers work while delivering the affordable homes the City requires. It is financially tested: the State required a feasibility analysis before funding the plan, and the plan met that test. Orange County is the birthplace of the master-planned community, and the region's most capable developers are based here. A clean, flexible, financially sound plan is exactly what draws those quality builders.
For these reasons, People for Housing OC respectfully urges the Council to approve the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan at the count that delivers the most homes. Doing so allows Costa Mesa to meet its obligation, house its workforce, and build a community the city will be proud of for generations. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Hansburg
Cofounder & Director
Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County. peopleforhousing.org 3
Elizabeth Hansburg
1 3740 Cahuenga Blvd.
Studio City CA 91604
www.scga.org
September 8, 2026
Mayor Stephens and Members of Council
Costa Mesa City Hall
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa CA 92626
SUBJECT: A Fairview Developmental Specific Plan Consistent with the Council’s Desire to Retain as Much of the Integrity of the Costa Mesa Country Club as Possible within the Constraints of a Final Plan of Development that May Require Some diminution Thereof
Dear Mayor Stephens and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council:
The California Alliance for Golf (CAG), a California nonprofit corporation, is a consortium of the state’s leading nonprofit golf associations and organizations that speaks on behalf of the $15.1 billion California golf community, its roughly 3.5 million devotees, and its one thousand golf facilities. It is governed by the following associations/organizations: Northern California Golf Association, Southern California Golf Association, Northern California PGA Section, Southern California PGA Section, California Golf Course Owners Association, California Chapter Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, San Francisco Public Golf Alliance, and Latina Golfers Association.
The Southern California Golf Association (SCGA) is a 127 year old non-charitable nonprofit organization incorporated under the laws of the State of California to provide certain public benefits to 1,500 golf clubs, 220,000 members, and roughly 460 golf facilities, including Costa Mesa Country Club.
# # # # # # # # # # #
To be 100% clear, this letter is NOT an effort to dissuade the City of Costa Mesa from approving a specific plan of development that would allow for housing on state-owned land almost entirely surrounded by the city’s 36-hole Costa Mesa Country Club.
2 As its subject line indicates, this letter is an effort to offer golf industry insights as to how the city may pursue its pledge to maintain the integrity of its municipal golf complex while moving forward with a Fairview Developmental Specific Plan that gives the city its best chance to protect its interest in maintaining as much of that “integrity” as feasible.
We use the qualifier, “as much of that integrity as feasible, ” because while we appreciate the city’s commitment to maintaining the Costa Mesa Country Club as a 36-hole golf complex, we know too much about the feasibility of some of the conclusions that have been thrown around about Mesa Linda’s ability to remain an 18-hole golf course were it to be bisected as the Specific Plan prescribes to take those conclusions seriously. We also understand that to accommodate the housing envisaged in the Specific Plan it just may be impossible to end up with two (2) 18-hole golf courses; however, it is eminently possible to reimagine that much larger portion of Mesa Linda that would be south of the currently envisaged second access road as something less than 18 holes but still of great value to the Costa Mesa golf community, particularly to those high school teams and junior golf programs that depend on Mesa Linda today.
It is important to remember that the National Golf Foundation (NGF) identifies Los Angeles and Orange Counties as the most golf starved regions of the nation – that is, more golfers chasing fewer golf holes than anywhere else in the Continental United States. And Orange County offers far fewer affordable/accessible public golf courses than Los Angeles County does, making Costa Mesa CC and its handful of similarly situated affordable/accessible cousins in Orange County just that much more important for the continued viability of the school and junior golf programs that serve the region’s youth population.
Any “reimagination” would need to be designed by a credible golf course architect with significant input from Costa Mesa residents and local golf constituencies as to the nature of that reimagination. While the costs of such a “reimagination” would be miniscule compared to the costs of redesigning Mesa Linda to accommodate a highly traveled general access road running through it, there would still be significant costs – costs that Council may want to find a way to include or offset as part of its approval of a Specific Plan that envisages a “developer and development plan to be named later. ”
Given the City Council’s clearly stated desire to maintain as much of the integrity of its municipal golf jewel as possible, these are the kinds of questions that could and should have been part of the process of bringing the matter of a Specific Plan to final resolution. Yes, the city retained a very reputable and accomplished golf course architecture firm in Origins Golf Design, but nowhere in the record can we find that the firm was asked to provide the city with answers to those questions most relevant to drawing conclusions about what may and/or may not be possible should the golf complex be bisected by a heavily traveled access road in the location identified by Staff. All we can discern is that the city hired an excellent architectural firm, as if the mere hiring is enough in itself to conclude that in approving this Specific Plan, the pledges issued by Mayor and Council about the Plan not upsetting the 36-hole integrity of the Costa Mesa Country Club can be kept.
Securing clear and definitive answers to these questions can be made co-terminus with moving forward with a Specific Developmental Plan by simply including them as part of Council’s approval thereof – putting a little meat on the bones of those pledges as it were. Again, we don’t define those 3 pledges as necessarily the 36-hole status quo. We define them only as making a best faith effort to retain that amount of the Costa Mesa Country Club’s integrity as feasible within constraints posed by the city’s need to permit additional housing and the fact that the State of California owns the property upon which that housing is envisaged. And while it would have been better had these factors been considered before now, later is better than never.
The City’s “Fact Sheet” states that a second access road, one that would necessarily bisect the Mesa Linda Golf Course, is not necessary until traffic thresholds are met, which the Fact Sheet indicates may not occur until the mid-term (5 to10 years) or long-term (10 to 20 years) of the Specific Plan's build-out. The operating threshold in all of the materials the city has produced on this aspect of the Specific Plan is 2,300 housing units, albeit the source for arriving at that number is not so much cited as assumed. For the purposes of this communication, we stipulate to that assumption, although the City Council may want to request documentation as part of its due diligence.
Given this time lag and the fact that it is possible that the “developer to be named later” may end up proposing less than 2,300 units, Council may want to include in this Specific Plan a condition that until such time as the entitlements for 2,300 units are approved, no second access road that would upset the current footprint of the Mesa Linda Golf Course be approved by the city. When questioned by the Planning Commission about the timing of such a second access road, Staff rather nonchalantly stated that were the envisaged “developer to be named later” to propose constructing a second access road before proceeding to construct its first phase of what is almost certain to be a phased plan, Staff would approve it. A second access road where the current Specific Plan envisages it would necessarily upset the “integrity” of the golf course that is heavily used by local high school golf teams and junior developmental programs. Delaying that interruption as long as possible strikes us as consistent with this Council’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of the Costa Mesa Country Club. And if a final plan of development ends up being something less than 2,300 units, this condition would be a nullity.
We do not take a position on the questions, both legal and practical, that have been raised about the status of Merrimac Road as a viable alternative for a second access road if and when such a road becomes necessary, but we do suggest that enough questions have been raised about that subject that ought to be answered before proceeding to repose that conclusion in the Specific Plan.
If indeed Merrimac Road is a viable alternative, the upset to the extant golf property would be greatly reduced.
We genuinely appreciate this city’s enthusiastic commitment to maintaining the integrity of the Costa Mesa Country Club that has brought so much community and recreational value to Costa Mesa residents for decades and ask only that in moving forward with a Fairview Developmental Specific Plan you do so by keeping the city’s options open and pursuing the due diligence required to maintain as much of that “integrity” as may be doable within constraints posed by factors beyond the city’s capacity to control, with the understanding that there are factors involving the land the city does own that are within its capacity to at least influence if not control. 4 On behalf of the constituencies of the California Alliance for Golf and the roughly 220,000 members of the Southern California Golf Association, particularly those who live, work, and golf in Costa Mesa, we thank you for taking the time to consider our views.
Respectfully Submitted,
Craig Kessler Kevin Fitzgerald
Executive Director Director, Public Affairs
California Alliance for Golf Southern California Golf Association 3740 Cahuenga Blvd., Studio City, CA 91604 3740 Cahuenga Blvd., Studio City, CA 91604 [email protected] / (310) 941-4803 kfi[email protected] / (951) 212-4464
From: Guybrain2000
To: CITY CLERK; CONSTITUENT SERVICES; CITY COUNCIL; STEPHENS, JOHN; MARR, ANDREA Subject: Fairview development
Date: Friday, September 4, 2026 3:58:56 PM
Council woman Andrea, Mayor John:
As a homeowner in district 3 Costa Mesa for almost forty years, I am adamantly opposed to the Fairview development plan to add 2500-4000 homes. I live near Fairview and Harbor. The traffic is terrible and debilitating now. During the Fair, it's actually an emergency hazard, cars are backed up on Fairview, Harbor, Fair Dr and Newport Blvd.
Currently the traffic along Harbor, Harbor and 19th st, Victoria and Placentia, Harbor and 405 freeway, Newport Blvd and 19th st. are terrible. I take residential side roads to avoid all of these, which should not be the answer to the current traffic crisis. Just imagine when more of our residents start flooding residential side streets also!
I am strongly urging that the Mayor and city council solve Costa Mesa's current traffic problems, before you add 2000-4000 more homes (which equals cars) with one access road onto Harbor and Fair. Please vote no on Fairview Dev September 15.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sandy Clark
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: Stephanie Culler
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: 9/15/26 Comment - Vote on Fairview Developmental Center Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 6:15:46 PM
To whom it may concern:
I do not support the 4,000 unit housing plan at the Fairview Developmental Center. I support some housing at Fairview, including the affordable and supportive housing units state law requires. This many new units at this location, however, will change the character of Costa Mesa and I feel a lower-density, better-planned alternative is a needed here. I am concerned about safety (my neighborhood is a few blocks from this site and we already have too many cars going too fast down our street and the City has done nothing to improve that as it is — I have requested multiple speed surveys over the years but nothing changes. More people means more cars and that is a serious safety concern for our area that is already experiencing safety issues with regards to speeding cars and children outside playing).
My husband and I have two young daughters. I understand this development will not take place until 18-20 years from now but we have a very important responsibility to ensure this plan is good for the city no matter when it occurs.
Fairview Park is such a beautiful place and our community deserves to enjoy open parkland with wide open views of the sky and mountains (please do not permit high rise buildings here as this would detract from the gift of being out in nature at Fairview Park). Ensuring Costa Mesa is a safe city that protects the surrounding open space and open views of the sky is very important to me, a homeowner in westside Costa Mesa. I feel it is our duty to ensure that our city maintains as much public open green space as possible for future generations to come and this plan falls short of the City's own parkland standards. Open space is so important for mental, physical and emotional health and this includes maintaining unobstructed views of the mountains and skyline, without the noise of 4,000 people and cars, along with light pollution from 4,000 more homes pouring into Fairview Park. It is really disheartening that this City Council may allow this many new homes in this area given its proximity to one of our largest and most desirable park spaces that belongs to everyone in Costa Mesa. Please do not squeeze the maximum number of homes in the wrong area simply because the land is available and the state is mandating more affordable homes. Please consider the permanent impact of this decision. I urge you to find other locations for some of these homes to better spread out the additional population, cars, noise, etc across the city instead of bottlenecking it all in one place near the park.
I believe Costa Mesa can meet its housing obligations without maxing out density on a site with many unresolved safety and parkland impacts. I strongly urge the City Council to find other places for these additional homes that would not compromise our community’s access to and enjoyment of this large open park space. My vote for Council member/mayoral election will go to those who understand and support this.
Thank you,
Stephanie Culler
860 Governor St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
V
ia Email
S
eptember 14, 2026
John Stephens, Mayor
Manuel Chavez, Mayor Pro Tem
Jeff Pettis, Councilmember
Andrea Marr, Councilmember
Loren Gameros, Councilmember
Mikey Buley, Councilmember
Arlis Reynolds, Councilmember
City Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Melinda Dacey, Principal Planner
Advanced Planning and Housing Division
Economic and Development Services
Department
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]
R
e: Comment on Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (SCH 2025101405), City Council Meeting of September 15, 2026 Dear Mayor Stephens, Mayor Pro Tem, Honorable Councilmembers, and Ms. Dacey:
This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) prepared for the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (SCH 2025101405), which proposes the development of a specific plan consisting of 2,300 residential units, with the potential for up to 4,000 units and up to 35,000 square feet of commercial space on 95 acres of the Fairview Developmental Center at 2501 Harbor Boulevard in the City of Costa Mesa (“Project”). The Project is scheduled to be considered by the City Council at its September 15, 2026 meeting.
September 14, 2026
SAFER’s comments are supported by expert biologist, Scott Cashen, M.S., whose analysis of the FEIR and the Project’s biological impacts and CV is attached as Exhibit A.1
As discussed below, the EIR should be revised and recirculated to address the Project’s significant impacts on biological resources.
LEGAL STANDARD
I. CEQA and Environmental Impact Report
CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 CCR § 15002(a)(1).) “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v.
Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring “environmentally superior” alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (14 CCR § 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also Berkeley Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4 th
1349,1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.)
CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) except in certain limited circumstances. (See, e.g., Pub. Resources Code, § 21100.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652. The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004), 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1220.) The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.)
The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” (14 CCR § 15002(a)(2).) Critical to this purpose, the EIR must contain an “accurate and stable project description.” (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 at 192-93 (“An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.”) The project description must contain (a) the precise location and boundaries of the proposed
1 References to the literature cited in Mr. Cashen’s comments can be downloaded here:
https://1drv.ms/f/c/A17A95B2404F86CD/IgAhb3u1dGZeS67sOJOHVDyuAXqExrcy1ZVh- 5gr5v9rAhU?e=tjhsLS
September 14, 2026
project, (b) a statement of the project objectives, and (c) a general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics. (14 CCR § 15124.)
CEQA prohibits a lead agency from approving a project with significant environmental effects if there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects. (PRC §21002; Mountain Lion Found. v. Fish & Game Comm’n (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134; Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 403 [“The chief goal of CEQA is mitigation or avoidance of environmental harm”].) CEQA defines “feasible” as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” (PRC §21061.1; 14 CCR §15364.) “The core of an EIR is the mitigation and alternatives sections.” (Goleta II, 52 Cal.3d at 564.) When an EIR concludes that a project will have significant impacts, the lead agency has two duties: to meaningfully consider feasible mitigation measures and alternatives, and to identify mitigation measures and alternatives rejected as infeasible. (See, Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1353.)
II. Standard of Review
The California Supreme Court has emphasized that:
When reviewing whether a discussion is sufficient to satisfy CEQA, a court must be satisfied that the EIR (1) includes sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises [citation omitted]....
(Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510 (2018) [citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at 405].) The Court in Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno also emphasized that another primary consideration of sufficiency is whether the EIR “makes a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” (Id. at 510.) “Whether or not the alleged inadequacy is the complete omission of a required discussion or a patently inadequate one-paragraph discussion devoid of analysis, the reviewing court must decide whether the EIR serves its purpose as an informational document.” (Id. at 516.)
Although an agency has discretion to decide the manner of discussing potentially significant effects in an EIR, “a reviewing court must determine whether the discussion of a potentially significant effect is sufficient or insufficient, i.e., whether the EIR comports with its intended function of including ‘detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’” (Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 516 [citing Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1197].) “The determination whether a discussion is sufficient is not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s factual conclusions.” (Id. at 516.) As the Court emphasized:
September 14, 2026
[W]hether a descriptio n of an environmental impact is insufficient because it lacks analysis or omits the magnitude of the impact is not a substantial evidence question. A conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can be determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial evidence.
(Id. at 514.) Additionally, “in preparing an EIR, the agency must consider and resolve every fair argument that can be made about the possible significant environmental effects of a project.” (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109.)
The EIR must accurately characterize the existing environmental setting including the site’s ability to provide habitat to rare, special-status species. Every CEQA document must start from a “baseline” assumption. The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. (Communities for a Better Envt. v. So. Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321.) Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR, § 15125(a)) states in pertinent part that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:
“…must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant.”
(See, Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124- 125.) As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. (Save Our Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 121-123.)
DISCUSSION
I. The FEIR’s Analysis of the Project’s Impacts on Biological Resources is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.
Mr. Cashen reviewed and analyzed the FEIR’s analysis and conclusions along with the Biological Technical Report (“BTR”) for the Project regarding its impacts on biological resources and found that the FEIR fails to (1) adequately characterize the environmental setting of the Project Site; (2) adequately analyze and mitigate potentially significant impacts on special status species; (3) adequately analyze the Project’s cumulative impacts; and (4) mitigate significant impacts on special status species; and (3) adopt all feasible mitigation measures.
A. The FEIR fails to adequately characterize the environmental setting of the Project Site.
September 14, 2026
After reviewing the BTR, Mr. Cashen concluded that “the City does not have the survey data needed to establish the environmental setting and understand the severity of the Project’s impacts on various special-status species.” (Ex. A, p. 10.) The City failed to conduct numerous wildlife surveys necessary to adequately assess the environmental setting, including surveys for the monarch butterfly, Crotch’s bumblebee, burrowing owl, and nesting birds. (Ex. A, p. 9.)
Additionally, Mr. Cashen identified inconsistences in the BTR’s findings and FEIR’s conclusions regarding the environmental setting. For example, the BTR determined that no special status plant species occur on the site based on its presumption that the site lacks the habitat type, including valley and foothill grassland, necessary for the special status plant species to occur. However, the BTR identifies Annual Biome Grassland within the Project Site – a type of valley and foothill grassland, making the BTR’s characterization of the site inconsistent with the conditions reported. (Ex. A, pp. 2-3.) As another example, the FEIR concludes that wildlife nursey sites do not have the potential to occur on the Project Site, and thus no impacts would occur to such sites. However, the BTR reports that “there is potential for the buildings and trees observed [at the Project Site] to serve as bat maternity roost sites during the bat maternity season,” and that “[m]aternity roosts are considered protected as native wildlife nursery sites under CEQA.” (Ex. A, pp. 3-4.)
Given Mr. Cashen’s conclusion that the FEIR fails to accurately characterize the environmental setting, it cannot be relied upon to adequately assess the significance of the Project’s impacts on biological resources. As a result, the Project’s analysis of the Project’s impacts on biological resources is not supported by substantial evidence. In addition, the inconsistencies make it impossible to determine the baseline conditions and impacts, rendering the EIR inadequate as an informational document.
B. The FEIR fails to adequately analyze potentially significant impacts on special status species.
Mr. Cashen found that the FEIR fails to adequately analyze potentially significant impacts on the vermilion flycatcher and Crotch’s bumblebee. (Ex. A, p. 4.)
The BTR notes that the vermilion flycatcher, a California Species of Special Concern, was detected during a reconnaissance survey of the Project Site. Yet, the FEIR “fails to disclose the presence of vermilion flycatchers in the Project area, and it provides no analysis of the Project impacts on the species.” (Ex. A, p. 2.) This failure to analyze the Project’s impact on the species is particularly important because “open water is probably an essential habitat element for the species and the Project “may result in removal of an open-water feature (pond) in the off-site improvement area”, which is “one of the only two open-water features near the area where [the City’s biologist] detected vermilion flycatchers. (Ex. A, pp. 2, 4.) Because the “removal of the pond could impact an important component of vermilion flycatcher habitat,” the Project may significantly impact the species. (Ex. A, p. 4.)
September 14, 2026
Mr. Cashen also found the FEIR’s analysis of the Project’s impacts on Crotch’s bumblebee inadequate and conclusory. (Ex. A, p. 4.) Mr. Cashen notes that “Crotch’s bumblebees can be impacted by removal of, or disturbance to, foraging habitat (floral resources), nesting habitat, or overwintering habitat.” (Ex. A, p. 4.) However, the FEIR fails to analyze how the Project may impact the species through these habitat disturbing activities, but instead merely concludes that “[c]onstruction of the [P]roject [S]ite may impact suitable habitat for the Crotch’s bumblebee.” (Ex. A, p, 4.) It fails to disclose the extent or types of impacts, rendering the EIR inadequate as an informational document.
The FEIR’s conclusions regarding the Project’s impacts on these special status species is not supported by substantial evidence.
C. The FEIR’s cumulative impact analysis is inadequate.
Mr. Cashen found that that the FEIR “does not sufficiently disclose the methodology” used to in its cumulative impacts analysis. To satisfy CEQA’s cumulative impact analysis requirement, an EIR must incorporate a discussion of either of the following:
(A) A list of past, present, and probable future project producing related or cumulative impacts, including if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect.
(14 CCR § 15130(b)(1).) While the FEIR states that it used a combination of “Method A” and “Method B” described above to analyze the Project’s cumulative impacts, Mr. Cashen notes that “it is unclear whether the City applied Method A to certain resource areas and Method B to others; whether one method constituted the primary cumulative impact analysis and the other was used to supplement it; or whether some other methodology was employed.” (Ex. A, p. 5.) This lack of information makes it “impossible to substantiate the City’s conclusion that the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts on biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable.” (Ex. A, p. 5.)
Additionally, the EIR is unable to meet either criteria for Method A or Method B, independently. (Ex. A, pp. 6-7.) As Mr. Cashen explains:
The EIR states that the area considered for cumulative impacts to biological resources is the Orange County NCCP/HCP boundaries.
2 The Orange County NCCP/HCP
boundaries encompass 208,000 acres across 16 cities and unincorporated portions of central Orange County (R.J. Meade Consulting 1996). However, the EIR’s list of cumulative projects is limited to seven present and probable future projects in Costa Mesa; it does not list all past, present, and probable future projects within the boundaries of the Orange County NCCP/HCP.
2 DEIR, p. 3.3-35.
September 14, 2026
(Ex. A, p. 6.) Not only is the EIR’s list inconsistent with the purported geographic scope of the analysis, it is also misleading because it identifies only a fraction of the projected producing related or cumulative impacts within the NCCP/HCP boundaries.
In addition, the EIR does not disclose which plan or planning document it is relying on for “Method B.” When the summary of projections approach is employed, the planning or environmental document used must be identified in the EIR. (14 Cal Code Regs §15130(b)(1)(B).) Failure to provide this information violates CEQA and renders the EIR inadequate as an informational document.
For these reasons, the FEIR’s cumulative impacts analysis is deficient and not supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, the EIR’s failure to provide a complete list of cumulative projects and failure to identify the planning document it relied on for Method B violates CEQA’s substantive requirements and render the EIR inadequate as an informational document.
D. The FEIR fails to mitigate significant impacts on special status species.
The FEIR determined that the Project may have potentially significant impacts on the Monarch butterfly, Crotch’s bumblebee, western burrowing owl, Cooper’s hawk, white- tailed kits, and western yellow bat. To mitigate these potentially significant impacts the FEIR proposes measures “comprised almost exclusively of measures to avoid or minimize direct and indirect impacts to individual animals” (Ex. A, p. 8.) However, “the primary threat to the taxa addressed in the [F]EIR is habitat loss.” (Ex. A, pp. 8-9.) As Mr. Cashen explains, “[a]side from some vague references to unenforceable habitat mitigation that might be implemented for impacts to the Monarch butterfly and western yellow bat, the [F]EIR does not require mitigation for habitat loss caused by the Project.” (Ex. A, p. 9.)
Furthermore, the FEIR improperly “defers the specific details of the mitigation while also failing to establish fundamental components of the ‘plans’ that would allegedly ensure impacts on special status species are less than significant.” (Ex. A, p. 9.) Under CEQA, deferring mitigation until after project approval is appropriate only “when it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project’s environmental review (14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); see also POET, LLC v. State Air Res. Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 736.) In the limited circumstances where deferring mitigation is justified, the EIR must (1) commit itself to the mitigation, (2) adopt specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, and (3) identify the types of potential actions that can feasibly achieve that performance standard. (14 CCR § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B).) The FEIR does none of this.
By failing to mitigate the primary threat the Project poses to these special status species and improperly deferring mitigation, the FEIR cannot substantiate its claim that Project impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
E. The FEIR fails to adopt all feasible mitigation measures for impacts on aquatic resources.
September 14, 2026
The FEIR determined that if the reconfiguration of the golf course occurs in the off- site improvement area, then the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to a freshwater pond identified in the area even with mitigation incorporated. However, as Mr. Cashen explains:
Based on the information provided in the BTR, the potentially impacted pond does not possess ecological properties that are impossible to mitigate through the actions specified in MM BIO-2 (i.e., payment of an in-lieu fee, participation in a mitigation banking program, or some form of on- site or off-site restoration). If the City believes the compensatory mitigation required in the regulatory permits would be insufficient to mitigate the impacts to less -than-significant levels, the EIR could mandate compensatory mitigation (with performance standards) for any Project impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources. This would ensure Project impacts are reduced to less-than-significant levels.
(Ex. A, p. 22.) The FEIR must include all feasible mitigation measures before it can determine that Project impacts will be significant and unavoidable, and before it can adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Until, the City incorporates such measures into the FEIR, it remains inadequate and unsupported by substantial evidence.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council deny approval of the Project until the FEIR is revised and recirculated to address these deficiencies.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Davis
Lozeau Drury LLP
EXHIBIT A
Scott Cashen, M.S.—Independent Biological Resources Consultant
1 September 9, 2026
Rebecca Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Impact Report for the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Project
Dear Ms. Davis:
This letter contains my comments on the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared by the City of Costa Mesa (“City”) for the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Project (“Project”). The proposed Project is a specific plan intended to facilitate the development of a mixed-use community on a 95-acre site located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard in Costa Mesa. The mixed-use community would be comprised of 4,000 dwelling units, 35,000 square feet of commercial space, and 14 acres of publicly accessible open space.
I am an environmental biologist with 32 years of professional experience in wildlife biology and natural resources management. I have served as a biological resources expert for over 250 projects, the majority of which have been development projects in California. My experience and scope of work in this regard has included assisting various clients with evaluations of biological resource issues; preparation and peer review of environmental compliance documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”); and preparation of written comments that address deficiencies with CEQA and NEPA documents. My work has included written and oral testimony for the California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, and Federal courts. My educational background includes a B.S. in Resource Management from the University of California at Berkeley, and a M.S. in Wildlife and Fisheries Science from the Pennsylvania State University.
A copy of my current curriculum vitae is attached hereto.
The comments herein are based on my review of the environmental documents prepared for the Project, a review of scientific literature pertaining to biological resources known to occur in the Project area, my work on other projects in Orange County, and the knowledge and experience I have acquired during my 32-year career in the field of natural resources management.
2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Vermilion Flycatcher
The vermilion flycatcher is a California Species of Special Concern. Once considered fairly common, the breeding population in California has been declining since the 1940s; it is now restricted to the lower Colorado River valley and very small, isolated patches of habitat scattered across southern California (Myers 2008).
Vermilion flycatchers are associated with a variety of open habitats, including arid scrub, farmlands, savanna, agricultural areas, and riparian woodland. At some sites in California, vermilion flycatchers inhabit golf courses, residential areas, and parks (Myers 2008). Because vermilion flycatchers frequently feed on flying insects just above the water surface, open water is probably an essential habitat element for the species (CDFW 2008).
According to the Biological Technical Report (“BTR”) that was prepared for the Project, ECORP biologists detected two vermilion flycatchers during their reconnaissance survey of the Project site.1 One flycatcher was detected along the eastern edge of the Project site, and the other flycatcher was detected in the off-site improvement area (also called the golf course reconfiguration area).2 Although ECORP’s reconnaissance survey was not conducted during the avian breeding season, the presence of vermilion flycatcher fledglings and juvenile birds at Fairview Park demonstrates that vermilion flycatchers breed in the area (Lithgow 2026, Nguyen 2026). The EIR fails to disclose presence of vermilion flycatchers in the Project area, and it provides no analysis of Project impacts on the species.
Special-status Plants
ECORP assessed the potential for 38 special-status plant species to occur at the Project site.
Based on that assessment, ECORP presumed absence of all 38 species due to a lack of suitable habitat and the high level of anthropogenic disturbance within the Project Site.3 The EIR incorporates ECORP’s presumption that no special-status plant species occur at the Project site.4
Appendix D in the BTR identifies the habitat types associated with the 38 special-status plant species, and it provides ECORP’s rationale for presuming absence of each species. Of the 38 species, 10 are associated with “valley and foothill grassland” (among other habitat types).
ECORP’s rationale for presuming absence of these 10 species was that no valley and foothill grassland was present within the Project site.5 This rationale is contradicted by ECORP’s own vegetation mapping, which identifies Annual Brome Grassland within the Project site.6 Annual
1 DEIR, Appendix C.1 (Biological Technical Report), Figure 5 and Appendix C. 2 Ibid, Figure 5.
3 Ibid, p. 23.
4 DEIR, p. 3.3-26.
5 DEIR, Appendix C.1 (Biological Technical Report), Appendix D. 6 Ibid, Figure 4.
3 Brome Grassland is a type of valley and foothill grassland.7 Thus, ECORP’s conclusion that valley and foothill grassland is absent is factually inconsistent with ECORP’s own characterization of existing site conditions. The EIR does not reconcile this inconsistency.
In addition to the purported absence of valley and foothill grassland within the Project site, the high level of anthropogenic disturbance within the Project Site cannot be used as a basis for presuming absence of all 38 special-status plant species, some of which are known to occur in anthropogenically disturbed settings. For example, of the 10 species associated with valley and foothill grassland:
I. Coulter’s saltbush (Atriplex coulteri) has been found at numerous disturbed sites. It has been found along roadways, railroad tracks, and trails; in disturbed grassland communities dominated by exotic plants; and amongst ruderal vegetation (CNDDB 2026). The species has also been found on heavily compacted soil, and on Myford sandy loam (the predominate soil type at the Project site).8
II. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) reports that southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) is “often in disturbed sites,” and there are numerous records of this tarplant subspecies occurring in disturbed grasslands and amongst ruderal vegetation (CNDDB 2026). The species has been documented along roads, trails, and rail lines; within and along ditches; on “waste lands;” and in a graded/ripped field (CNDDB 2026). Southern tarplant is known to occur along disturbed margins of trails at Fairview Park, and at least one site with southern tarplant contains Myford sandy loam (the predominate soil type at the Project site; CNDDB 2026).
III. In the Biological Technical Report for the Pepper Clinic LLC Development Project, ECORP reported that San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum) is “often found in disturbed areas” (ECORP 2024). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) identifies “disturbed areas” as a micro habitat associated San Bernardino aster, and the California Natural Diversity Database (“CNDDB”) has records of the species occurring along and in drainage ditches, along the weedy edge of a dirt road, on road bank, and in a weedy pasture (CNDDB 2026).
The CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities states that it is appropriate to conduct a botanical field survey when natural or naturalized vegetation occurs in an area that may be directly or indirectly affected by a project, and it is unknown whether or not special-status plants or sensitive natural communities occur in the project area (CDFW 2018). The Project site contains semi-natural (or naturalized) vegetation.9 Contrary to CDFW guidelines, ECORP did not conduct a botanical field survey, and its general reconnaissance survey was not conducted during the blooming period for special-status plants (i.e., when special-status plants would have
7 The “habitat requirements” identified in Appendix D of the BTR were derived from the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory [online database]. The habitat descriptions provided in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory follow those outlined in Holland (1986). See https://rareplants.cnps.org/Glossary#_Toc72398849. The Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance (MCV classification) corresponds to Valley and foothill grassland, Non-native grassland (Holland classification). See https://vegetation.cnps.org/alliance/535. 8 DEIR, Appendix C.1 (Biological Technical Report), Figure 3. 9 Ibid, p. 21.
4 been evident and identifiable).10 As a result, and because the rationale for presuming absence of special-status plants is inconsistent with site conditions and scientific data, the EIR fails to adequately establish the Project’s environmental setting, and the determination that no special- status plants would be impacted by the Project is not supported by scientific evidence.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Vermilion Flycatcher
The Project may result in removal of an open-water feature (pond) in the off-site improvement area.11 The pond appears to be one of only two open-water features near the area where ECORP detected vermilion flycatchers.12 Vermilion flycatchers frequently feed on flying insects above open water surfaces (Ehrlich et al. 1998; CDFW 2008). As a result, removal of the pond could impact an important component of vermilion flycatcher habitat. This impact is potentially significant, and it would not be mitigated by any of the EIR’s proposed mitigation measures.
Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Crotch’s bumble bees can be impacted by removal of, or disturbance to, foraging habitat (floral resources), nesting habitat, or overwintering habitat (CDFW 2026). The EIR fails to analyze the Project’s impacts on these three types of habitat resources; it merely states: “[c]onstruction of the project site may impact suitable habitat for the Crotch's bumble bee.”13 This deficiency precludes the ability to evaluate the sufficiency of the proposed mitigation (MM BIO-1b) in reducing Project impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Wildlife Nursery Sites
One of the CEQA significance thresholds adopted in the EIR is whether the Project would impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.14 The EIR makes the following determination in this regard: “the project site was not determined to be a location of a potential wildlife nursery site, thus, no impacts would occur.”15 The EIR’s determination not supported by evidence and it is inconsistent with the information provided in the BTR. The BTR states:
I. “impacts to bat maternity colonies, which are considered native wildlife nursery sites, could be considered significant under CEQA.”16
II. “Although ECORP did not conduct a focused bat habitat assessment during the biological reconnaissance survey … there is potential for the buildings and trees observed [at the Project site] to serve as bat maternity roost sites during the bat maternity season (March 1
10 Ibid, p. 16.
11 DEIR, p. 3.3-32.
12 The other pond is located approximately 2,000 feet west of the flycatcher locations. 13 DEIR, p. 3.3-27.
14 DEIR, p. 3.3-23.
15 DEIR, p. 3.3-34.
16 DEIR, Appendix C.1 (Biological Technical Report), p. 9.
5 through August 31). Maternity roosts are considered protected as native wildlife nursery sites under CEQA.”17
Thus, bat maternity roosts are considered wildlife nursery sites, ECORP concluded there was potential for maternity roosts in the buildings and trees at the Project site, but ECORP did not conduct the studies needed to determine presence or absence of roosts. As a result, the EIR’s determination that the Project site does not contain a potential wildlife nursery site is unsupported and contradicts the determination in the BTR.
Cumulative Impacts
Methods Used to Analyze Cumulative Impacts
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1) state: “[t]he following elements are necessary to an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts:
(1) Either:
(A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or
(B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect...”
According to the EIR: “[t]he cumulative impact analyses in this EIR use a combination of Method A and B. Table 3-1, Cumulative Projects, provides a list of cumulative projects considered in the EIR.”18 The EIR does not explain how this “combination” approach was implemented. Therefore, it is unclear whether the City applied Method A to certain resource areas and Method B to others; whether one method constituted the primary cumulative-impact analysis and the other was used to supplement it; or whether some other methodology was employed. This lack of disclosure renders the EIR inadequate as an informational document.
Merely stating that the City used a “combination of Method A and B” does not sufficiently disclose the analytical methodology, and thereby precludes the public’s ability to understand, evaluate, and meaningfully participate in the cumulative-impact analyses. Furthermore, without knowledge of how the City constructed the cumulative scenario, it is impossible to substantiate the City’s conclusion that the Project's incremental contribution to cumulative impacts on biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable.
An EIR is allowed to incorporate a combination of Method A and Method B, particularly when different resource areas are analyzed using different approaches. However, an EIR cannot use a hybrid approach that fails to satisfy either method independently. As described in the subsequent sections, the EIR fails to demonstrate that the City’s analysis of cumulative impacts to biological resources actually employed either of the methods required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1).
17 Ibid, p. 32.
18 Ibid.
6 Method A (List Approach)
The EIR states that the area considered for cumulative impacts to biological resources is the Orange County NCCP/HCP boundaries.19 The Orange County NCCP/HCP boundaries encompass 208,000 acres across 16 cities and unincorporated portions of central Orange County (R.J. Meade Consulting 1996). However, the EIR’s list of cumulative projects is limited to seven present and probable future projects in Costa Mesa; it does not list all past, present, and probable future projects within the boundaries of the Orange County NCCP/HCP.20 Thus, the EIR’s list of cumulative projects is inconsistent with the geographic scope of analysis, and the list is deceptive because it only identifies a fraction of the projects producing related or cumulative impacts.
Method B (Summary of Projections Approach)
As reported in the EIR, when Method B is used “[a]ny such document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.”21 The EIR fails to identify the planning document used for Method B.
Presumably, the City’s 2015-2035 General Plan may have been the planning document used for the cumulative impacts analyses. The Final EIR for the City’s 2015-2035 General Plan concluded that the General Plan’s contribution to the future loss of biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable.22 The Final EIR provided the following rationale for this conclusion:
1. “Except for the burrowing owl and some migratory birds, no special status species have a reasonable potential to occupy lands that are subject to the proposed general plan land use changes.”23
2. “To address the long-term, cumulative loss of sensitive habitat and associated species in the planning area, the City would continue to implement existing federal and State mandates related to species and habitat protection and conservation.”24
3. “If [burrowing owl] habitat is found, the landowner would have to mitigate any loss of habitat in accordance with requirements of the California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife.”25 More specifically, “[o]wl surveys and approaches to mitigation shall be in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife on March 7, 2012 (CDFW 2012).”26
There are several reasons why the City cannot use the projections in the 2015-2035 General Plan to analyze the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts. First, the 2015-2035 General Plan
19 DEIR, p. 3.3-35.
20 DEIR, Table 3-1.
21 DEIR, p. 3-4.
22 City of Costa Mesa. 2016 Jun 26. Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2015-2035 General Plan. p. 6.0-3. 23 Ibid. p. 4.4-16.
24 Ibid, p. 6.0-3.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid, p. 4.4-19.
7 Final EIR is outdated and did not analyze impacts to the monarch butterfly, Crotch’s bumble bee, or western yellow bat—all of which could be significantly impacted by the Project.27
Second, the assertion that the cumulative loss of sensitive habitat and associated species would not be cumulatively considerable because “the City would continue to implement existing federal and State mandates related to species and habitat protection and conservation” is inconsistent with the City’s actions. In its letter to the City regarding the Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update, CDFW stated that the City’s compensatory mitigation obligations “continue to languish and remain incomplete” (CDFW 2025). The letter further noted that the City had: (a) violated Fish and Game Code (section 1602) by filling Little Canyon with soil stockpiles; and (b) failed to obtain a Routine Maintenance Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement for clearing of vegetation in and around the artificial pond complex. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) commented that the City: (a) has allowed activities that impact federally listed and sensitive biological resources at Fairview Park; (b) may have caused unauthorized take of San Diego fairy shrimp (a federally endangered species) during construction and subsequent removal of a trail; and (c) has failed to fully implement USFWS’s recommended measures for mitigating impacts (USFWS 2014, 2025). Indeed, during a 2025 meeting held by the City’s Parks and Community Services Commission, the City’s own consultant stated there is a “history of violations by the City” (with respect to biological resource regulations).28
Third, the determination that the General Plan’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable is contingent on implementation of its mitigation measures, including the mitigation measure requiring mitigation for any loss of burrowing owl habitat in accordance with CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (“Staff Report”). The Staff Report states: “the current scientific literature supports the conclusion that mitigation for permanent habitat loss necessitates replacement with an equivalent or greater habitat area for breeding, foraging, wintering, dispersal, presence of burrows, burrow surrogates, presence of fossorial mammal dens, well drained soils, and abundant and available prey within close proximity to the burrow” (CDFG 2012). Although the Project may result in the loss of burrowing owl habitat,29 the EIR does not require any habitat mitigation for the impact.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis
The EIR provides the following analysis of cumulative impacts to biological resources:
“Similar to the proposed project, each cumulative project would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for its impact on biological resources and would be expected to comply with existing regulations and local and regional plans, ordinances, and policies protecting biological resources. Additionally, similar to the proposed project, each related project would be expected to implement mitigation measures, which would reduce each project's impact. Thus, the proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a potentially significant
27 DEIR, pp. 3.3-26 and -27.
28 See https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/fairview-park-master-plan-update-what-you-need-to-know-about-the- october-30-parks-and-community-ser
29 DEIR, pp. 3.3-17 and -27.
8 cumulative biological resources impact. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with biological resources would be less than significant.”30 The EIR’s reasoning is flawed and fails to satisfy CEQA’s requirement for meaningful cumulative impacts analysis.
The statement that other projects “would be expected to comply with existing regulations and local and regional plans, ordinances, and policies protecting biological resources” is a generalized assertion—not evidence that the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. The EIR does not identify the specific “plans, ordinances, and policies” for which compliance is expected, nor does it explain how compliance with those plans, ordinances, and policies ensures that impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.
The statement that “similar to the proposed project, each related project would be expected to implement mitigation measures, which would reduce each project’s impact” does not establish that cumulative impacts would be less than significant. By definition, if a project would have less-than-significant impacts, it would have residual impacts. Under CEQA, cumulative impacts may arise when the incremental effects of multiple projects combine, even when each individual project’s impacts are less than significant. Therefore, the relevant question is not whether the Project’s individual impacts are significant after mitigation, but whether the Project’s residual impacts, when added to the residual impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would be cumulatively considerable. Because the EIR provides no substantive analysis of that question, and because the Project would result in residual impacts even after mitigation, the analysis in the EIR does not support the conclusion that the Project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
The EIR does not require habitat compensation as mitigation for the Project’s impacts to habitat.
Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation is a primary threat to conservation of the special- status species that could be impacted by the Project (Pandolfino 2018; Hatfield and Jensen 2021; Bloom 2023; USFWS 2016, 2024). By allowing incremental habitat losses to occur without compensation, the EIR fails to demonstrate that the Project’s contribution to the ongoing, cumulative loss of habitat would be less than cumulatively considerable.
MITIGATION ISSUES
The EIR analyzed impacts to the monarch butterfly, Crotch’s bumble bee, western burrowing owl, Cooper's hawk, white-tailed kite, and western yellow bat. It then made the determination that: “[c]onstruction of the proposed project has the potential to adversely impact suitable habitat for special status wildlife species. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant.”31
The mitigation proposed in the EIR is comprised almost exclusively of measures to avoid or minimize direct and indirect impacts to individual animals. Whereas mitigation designed to avoid impacts to individual animals is worthwhile, the primary threat to the taxa addressed in the
30 DEIR, p. 3.3-36.
31 DEIR, p. 3.3-27.
9 EIR is habitat loss (except for the Cooper’s hawk). Aside from some vague references to unenforceable habitat mitigation that might be implemented for impacts to the monarch butterfly and western yellow bat, the EIR does not require mitigation for habitat loss caused by the Project. Because the proposed mitigation measures do not address the potentially significant impact identified in the EIR (i.e., an impact to habitat for special-status species), there is no evidentiary support for the determination that implementation of the EIR’s mitigation measures would render the Project’s impacts less than significant.32
The EIR’s failure to incorporate mitigation that addresses impacts to habitat is exacerbated by the EIR’s failure to analyze direct and indirect impacts to individual animals. There is no discussion of Project activities that could kill or injure animals, cause reproductive failure, heighten predation rates, or otherwise result in direct or indirect impacts on special-status species. These deficiencies make it impossible for the public to understand whether the Project’s direct and indirect impacts on individual animals are potentially significant, and whether the avoidance and minimization measures proposed in the EIR would sufficiently mitigate those impacts.
Approach to Mitigation
Surveys designed to determine presence of special-status species on the Project site were not conducted.33 Instead, the EIR acknowledges special-status species could occur on the Project site, and as “mitigation”34 the EIR requires a habitat assessment for bats, and pre-construction surveys for the Crotch’s bumble bee, monarch butterfly, burrowing owl, and nesting birds.
If the Crotch’s bumble bee, monarch butterfly, or bat roosting habitat is identified during the pre- construction survey (or bat habitat assessment), the Applicant would need to prepare a “plan” for mitigating the Project’s significant impacts. If the burrowing owl or a nesting bird is detected during the pre-construction survey, the Applicant would need to implement avoidance or minimization measures. The EIR determined this approach to mitigation would reduce Project impacts to less-than-significant levels.
There are two fundamental flaws with the EIR’s proposed approach. First, the EIR defers the specific details of the mitigation while also failing to establish fundamental components of the “plans” that would allegedly ensure impacts on special-status species are less than significant.
This includes: (1) performance standards (or success criteria) for the mitigation; (2) the monitoring and reporting requirements; (3) contingency measures; and (4) a financial security or other enforcement mechanism. The requirement to formulate avoidance measures or a “plan” with no performance standards is not mitigation.
Deferring fundamental aspects of the mitigation measures until after completion of the CEQA review process—as proposed in the EIR—precludes the ability to evaluate the sufficiency of the proposed measures, and thus, whether they would mitigate the Project’s significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. It also effectively robs the public, resource agencies, and scientific
32 See DEIR, p. 3.3-31.
33 DEIR, Appendix C.1 (Biological Technical Report), pp. 14 through 16. 34 A survey is not mitigation as defined in the CEQA statutes.
10 community from being able to submit informed comments pertaining to the adequacy of the mitigation measures, and from having those comments vetted during the environmental review process.
CEQA specifically prohibits deferral of mitigation measures. However, the specific details of a mitigation measure may be developed after project approval if the lead agency: (1) commits itself to the mitigation, (2) adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, (3) identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard and that will be considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the mitigation measure, and (4) demonstrates in the record that a detailed description of the mitigation measure(s) was impractical or infeasible during the Project’s environmental review phase.35 The EIR fails to satisfy these requirements for the following reasons:
1) The EIR fails to adopt performance standards (or success criteria) for the mitigation. 2) The EIR fails to identify feasible actions that could be implemented to reduce the Project’s impacts to less-than-significant levels. For example, MM BIO-1a requires A Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat Management Plan containing Project- specific protection measures, and management, enhancement, and restoration elements.
The EIR fails to identify feasible actions that could be implemented to protect, manage, enhance, and restore monarch overwintering habitat at the Project site, especially given the proposed development plan.36
3) The EIR fails to demonstrate that a detailed description of the mitigation measure was (or is) impractical or infeasible during the Project’s environmental review phase.
Second, although the City does not have the survey data needed to establish the environmental setting and understand the severity of the Project’s impacts on various special-status species, the City has made the determination that irrespective of the actual impacts, those impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through implementation of the EIR’s mitigation measures. That determination relies on the assumption that implementation of the EIR’s mitigation measures would be feasible, and that all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels—irrespective of the environmental setting. As discussed in the subsequent sections, neither assumption is supported by evidence.
Feasibility
Mitigation Measure Bio-1a (monarch surveys and habitat management plan) provides an example of the mitigation feasibility issue. Monarchs exhibit a strong preference for specific overwintering sites, as well as for specific trees within those sites (Ibsen et al. 2026). Because monarchs have very specific overwintering habitat requirements, only some of which are understood (Pelton et al. 2016), it has proven difficult to conserve monarch overwintering sites through habitat management, restoration, and enhancement activities (Xerces Society 2017;
35 Cal Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15126.4.
36 Almost all of the Project site is proposed for development. The “open space” areas would consist of developed parks and recreational facilities, which are incompatible with restoration or enhancement of monarch overwintering habitat. See PlaceWorks 2026 Aug 4. Fairview Development Center Specific Plan. Public Hearing Draft. https://fdcplan.com/
11 Ibsen et al. 2026). Despite implementation of grove management plans at no fewer than 24 overwintering sites in California, there is not good evidence that the suite of associated management actions has, in general, reversed population declines at those individual sites (USFWS 2024). This does not mean that grove management is unimportant, but rather, that the relationship between particular habitat-management actions and successful conservation of overwintering monarch populations is complex and uncertain (Pelton et al. 2016).
Monarchs are especially vulnerable during the overwintering stage because numerous butterflies are concentrated in only a few locations (Xerces Society 2017). Consequently, impacts to a single overwintering site can have a drastic effect on the population. Although monarchs were detected during ECORP’s reconnaissance survey,37 surveys to determine presence of an overwintering site were not conducted. As a result, it is unknown whether the Project site contains a monarch overwintering site, and if an overwintering site is indeed present, whether it would be feasible to avoid impacts to the overwintering site.
The EIR assumes, without substantial evidence, that implementation of unspecified habitat protection, management, enhancement, and restoration measures would reduce the Project’s impacts to overwintering monarchs to less-than-significant levels. The EIR does not provide evidence demonstrating that those measures, individually or collectively, are reasonably likely to succeed as mitigation for Project impacts to monarch habitat. To the contrary, existing evidence demonstrates that it may not be possible (feasible) to offset a project’s impacts on overwintering habitat by implementing habitat protection, management, restoration, and enhancement measures (Pelton 2020; USFWS 2024). As a result, the EIR’s conclusion that the Project’s impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels is unsupported.
Ability of Mitigation to Reduce Project Impacts to Less-than-significant Levels
The burrowing owl provides an example of flaws with the assumption that all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels irrespective of the environmental setting (pre-construction survey results). The EIR determined that the Project site provides breeding, foraging, and wintering habitat for the burrowing owl.38 The EIR further determined that there is high potential for the species to occur at the site.39 These determinations are extremely significant given the status of the burrowing owl population in Orange County.
Although the species was once abundant in Orange County, the breeding population now appears to be extirpated, and the wintering population has dwindled to individual birds at a few locations in Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach (Bloom 2023; CBD et al. 2024; eBird 2026). Therefore, if a breeding pair of burrowing owls is discovered at the Project site during the pre-construction surveys, it would be extremely significant (ecologically) because the owls would serve as the only known source population for recovery (or re-establishment) of the breeding population in Orange County.
For migratory burrowing owls, conservation of breeding populations depends on maintaining suitable habitat during migration and the nonbreeding season. In places such as Orange County
37 DEIR, Appendix C.1 (Biological Technical Report), p. 26. 38 DEIR, p. 3.3-17.
39 DEIR, p. 3.3-26.
12 where wintering habitat is limited, loss of an occupied wintering site can reduce the availability of habitat necessary for survival of migratory individuals and may therefore contribute to population-level effects. Even if only one wintering owl is discovered at the Project site during the pre-construction survey, it would be ecologically significant given the rarity of occupied wintering sites in Orange County, and the low abundance of owls at those sites (1 or 2 birds).
As discussed further below, Mitigation Measure BIO-1d would not reduce Project impacts on the burrowing owl to less-than-significant levels because it does not require habitat compensation (among other reasons). However, even if the mitigation measure is strengthened, Project impacts would most likely be significant and unavoidable. If a wintering burrowing owl occurs in the offsite improvement area, it may be possible to incorporate avoidance and minimization measures to reduce Project impacts to less-than-significant levels. However, given the status of the species in Orange County, there is almost no other scenario in which a burrowing owl is detected at the Project site, but impacts on that owl could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. That is, if the Project would eliminate the only breeding site remaining in Orange County, or one of the last wintering sites in Orange County, the resulting ecological impact would be very significant, and there would be no way to mitigate that impact.
MM BIO-1a (Monarch Butterfly)
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a states:
“If the project site is determined to support an overwintering monarch colony … a qualified biologist shall prepare a long-term Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat Management Plan in consultation with a qualified monarch biologist. At a minimum, the Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat Management Plan shall include project-specific protection measures, management, enhancement, and restoration elements; restrictions for pesticide use; and restrictions for future plantings of tropical milkweed to reduce pathogens.”40
As discussed previously, preparation of a “plan” for which no performance standards have been established is not mitigation as defined in the CEQA statutes. This issue is compounded by numerous additional flaws with the mitigation measure. First, the mitigation measure does not contain any substantive requirements for habitat protection, management, enhancement, and restoration. The mitigation measure allows the Applicant to remove trees containing an overwintering monarch colony, as long as a biologist prepares a plan with unspecified protection, management, enhancement, and restoration elements. Consequently, the biologist could prepare a plan containing minor or ineffective habitat mitigation measures, while still satisfying the literal language of MM BIO-1a. This issue is compounded by the absence of an oversight mechanism (e.g., approval by the natural resource agencies) ensuring that the plan actually contains and implements the mitigation necessary to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Second, the mitigation measure requires preparation of a long-term Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat Management Plan but fails to define “long-term.” As a result, there is no
40 DEIR, p. 3.3-28.
13 enforceable endpoint or assurance that the plan would be implemented for the time period necessary to successfully mitigate the Project’s impacts.
Third, the proposed mitigation pertaining to pesticide use and plantings of tropical milkweed is vague and unenforceable because MM BIO-1a does not identify the specific “restrictions” that would be implemented, or how compliance with those restrictions would be monitored and enforced. Importantly, the mitigation measure does not prohibit plantings of tropical milkweed, nor does it prohibit insecticides (which kill monarchs).
Fourth, MM BIO-1a lacks an enforcement mechanism, and there are no monitoring and reporting requirements. As a result, and because there are no performance standards, there are no assurances the mitigation would be implemented, and that it would be effective in reducing impacts on the monarch to less-than-significant levels.
Fifth, MM BIO-1a fails to establish a timeline for implementation of the Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat Management Plan and for achieving the Plan’s objectives (e.g., habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration).
For these reasons, Project impacts on the monarch butterfly remain potentially significant.
MM BIO-1b (Crotch’s Bumble Bee)
Mitigation Measure BIO-1b requires focused Crotch’s bumble bee (“CBB”) surveys within areas identified as potential CBB nectaring and nesting habitat. The surveys would be conducted during the colony active period (April through August) the season prior to Project implementation.41
According to the BTR: “[s]uitable habitat for CBB is present throughout the Project Site.”42 However, Mitigation Measure BIO-1b indicates the CBB surveys would be confined to “areas identified as potential CBB nectaring and nesting habitat.” The EIR does not identify the areas identified as potential CBB nectaring and nesting habitat, nor does establish how those areas were identified (or will be identified). As a result, it is unclear where CBB surveys would be conducted, and thus, whether the surveys would provide the data needed to successfully avoid impacts to the CBB.
A single season of CBB surveys is inadequate to assume impact avoidance, especially for multi- year projects. CDFW guidance states:
“Bumble bees move nests sites each year; therefore, surveys should be conducted each year that project activities will occur. Even if surveys from a particular project site failed to detect bumble bees one year, project proponents should perform a full round of surveys each year that project activities will occur or assume presence” (CDFW 2023).
41 Ibid.
42 DEIR, Appendix C.1 (Biological Technical Report), p. 34.
14 Mitigation Measure BIO-1b prescribes the following additional mitigation if a CBB is detected during the surveys:
“Detection of CBB shall be reported to CDFW prior to start of construction, and, if avoidance cannot be achieved, a CBB Avoidance Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist, and an application for an Incidental Take Permit would be necessary.”43
The trigger for mitigation (i.e., preparation of a CBB Avoidance Plan) is vague because MM BIO-1b fails to establish what constitutes adequate “avoidance,” which variable(s) would be avoided (i.e., potential CBB habitat, occupied habitat resources, or individual bees), how avoidance could be achieved, and who would determine that avoidance is infeasible. Therefore, the measure lacks assurances that appropriate mitigation would be implemented if a CBB is detected at the Project site.
The Project developer would be required to prepare a CBB Avoidance Plan if avoidance cannot be achieved. It is unclear how preparation of an avoidance plan would mitigate impacts for which avoidance cannot be achieved. Furthermore, preparation of a CBB Avoidance Plan after CBB is detected and avoidance is determined to be infeasible constitutes deferred mitigation.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1b does not establish performance standards for the CBB Avoidance Plan, it does not identify actions that would (or could) be taken to “avoid” impacts to the CBB, and it does not identify actions that would (or could) be taken to offset unavoidable impacts.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1b states that “an application for an Incidental Take Permit would be necessary” if avoidance cannot be achieved. Preparation of an Incidental Take Permit (“ITP”) application is not mitigation.44 Furthermore, the mitigation measure does not identify the party that would determine whether an ITP is necessary, and ultimately, the mitigation measure does not require issuance of an ITP before implementation of construction activities capable of taking CBB. Although CDFW can advise the Project developer on the law and the Project’s potential to cause take of a listed species, CDFW does not have the authority to require the Project developer to obtain an ITP (CDFW 2026); the Project developer is legally entitled to proceed (at their own risk) with Project construction activities without an ITP.
Although surveys adhering to the methods recommended by CDFW increase the probability of detecting bumble bees, surveys may nevertheless fail to detect bumble bees that occur at a site (CDFW 2023). It is extremely difficult to locate bumble bee nests and overwintering queens. As a result, negative results during the proposed pre-construction surveys do not provide definitive evidence of CBB absence. As discussed by CDFW (2026), excavation or vegetation removal during the construction phase has the potential to expose a previously undiscovered nest or overwintering queen. Mitigation Measure BIO-1b fails to incorporate the contingency measures recommended by CDFW (2026).
In summary, the EIR relies on a deferred mitigation plan and the incidental take permitting process to support the conclusion that Project impacts to Crotch's bumble bee would be less than
43 DEIR, p. 3.3-28.
44 An ITP would most likely contain mandatory mitigation. However, preparing an application for an ITP is not equivalent to obtaining an ITP.
15 significant.45 However, preparation of a plan and an incidental take application does not establish that take would be avoided and that impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1b lacks performance standards and does not establish substantive and enforceable measures for: (a) avoiding significant impacts to the CBB; or (b) offsetting impacts that cannot be avoided. Consequently, Mitigation Measure BIO-1b does not ensure impacts on the Crotch’s bumble bee would be less than significant.
MM BIO-1d (Burrowing Owl)
Mitigation Measure BIO-1d begins by stating:
“Prior to the start of construction, four breeding season surveys for western burrowing owl shall be conducted within areas identified as potential western burrowing owl habitat (the annual brome grassland habitat in the southern portion of the project site).”46
ECORP classified 13.35 acres of the Project site as “disturbed” because: “[d]uring the survey, the southeastern corner of the FDC was part of an active construction site, where much of the ground had been cleared of vegetation and graded; as such, ECORP classified this area as disturbed.”47 ECORP’s land cover mapping does not accurately reflect the Project site’s environmental setting because only a portion of the area classified as “disturbed” was actually cleared of vegetation and graded; other portions of the “disturbed” area contained grassland and a grove of trees (Figure 1). Based on Google Earth imagery, the ungraded portions of the “disturbed” area contained burrows capable of supporting burrowing owls (Figure 2).
Consequently, burrowing owl surveys that are confined to the portion of the Project site classified as grassland would not be sufficient to identify all burrowing owls that could be impacted by the Project.
45 See DEIR, p. 3.3-31: “Compliance with the CDFW regulations … would ensure that impacts associated with candidate, sensitive, or special status species identified as having a potential to occur on the project site are less than significant.”
46 DEIR, p. 3.3-29.
47 DEIR, Appendix C.1 (Biological Technical Report), p. 21.
16 Figure 1. Aerial imagery (dated July 29, 2026) depicting site conditions in the southeastern corner of the Project site approximately 8 months after ECORP’s reconnaissance survey.48 The area classified as “disturbed” (in black) contained grassland (in red) and trees (in green).
48 The survey was conducted on November 19, 2025. See DEIR, Appendix C.1 (Biological Technical Report), p. 16.
17 Figure 2. Grassland and burrows (green circles) east of Eugenia Way in the area classified as “disturbed.”
Mitigation Measure BIO-1d continues:
“If unavoidable impacts to the species will occur from the project, additional avoidance and minimization measures may need to be implemented, such as seasonal restrictions to work activities, and the appropriate permission from CDFW may need to be obtained prior to the start of project activities.”49
The proposed mitigation measure is insufficient for several reasons. First, the mitigation measure is vague because it does not establish what constitutes “unavoidable impacts to the species.” The impacts analysis in the EIR merely states “[c]onstruction of the project site may impact suitable habitat for the … western burrowing owl.”50 As a result, it is unclear what types of impacts would be considered “unavoidable,” and whether the Project’s indirect impacts (e.g., noise, night lighting, human activity) would be considered. Second, the trigger for additional mitigation is confusing because, by definition, if the impacts are unavoidable, the implementation of “additional avoidance measures” would not mitigate the impacts. Most importantly, there are no performance standards for the mitigation.
49 DEIR, p. 3.3-30.
50 DEIR, p. 3.3-27.
18 The EIR only identifies one tangible measure for unavoidable impacts to the species: seasonal restrictions for work activities. However, the EIR fails to establish: (a) the specific restrictions that would be implemented; (b) where seasonal restrictions would be implemented (e.g., around all potential habitat or only occupied burrows); (c) when seasonal restrictions would be enacted and subsequently lifted (or the process for making those determinations); and (d) a mechanism for ensuring compliance with the seasonal restrictions. Furthermore, because burrowing owls exhibit substantial site fidelity and are year-round residents at many locations in the state (Gervais et al. 2008), it may not be feasible to implement seasonal restrictions, while also allowing construction of the Project.
Obtaining “the appropriate permission from CDFW” is not a mitigation measure, nor does CDFW have the authority to dictate construction activities or otherwise impose additional mitigation upon the Project (unless an ITP is issued).
Habitat loss is a primary threat to persistence of burrowing owls in California (Gervais et al. 2008). As reported in CDFW’s (2012) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation: “the current scientific literature supports the conclusion that mitigation for permanent habitat loss necessitates replacement with an equivalent or greater habitat area for breeding, foraging, wintering, dispersal, presence of burrows, burrow surrogates, presence of fossorial mammal dens, well drained soils, and abundant and available prey within close proximity to the burrow.”
The EIR determined that the Project would have a potentially significant impact on burrowing owl habitat.51 None of the mitigation measures proposed in the EIR address that impact.
Although seasonal restrictions might enable the Applicant to avoid direct impacts to individual owls, the subsequent elimination of all suitable habitat at the site would permanently extirpate any owls that occur at the site, and given the scarcity of burrowing owls in Orange County (Bloom 2023; CBD et al. 2024), it would have a substantial effect on conservation of the species.
As a result, Project impacts on the burrowing owl remain potentially significant.
MM BIO-1e (Bat Habitat Assessment and Bat Management Plan)
Mitigation Measure BIO-1e begins by stating:
“Prior to the start of construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a bat habitat assessment for suitable bat roosting habitat prior to any building demolition or tree-removal activities. The habitat assessment shall be conducted at least one year prior to the initiation of removal/demolition activities. If no suitable roosting habitat is identified, no further measures shall be necessary.”52
According to the BTR, ECORP conducted a habitat assessment and determined the Project site provides potential habitat for the western yellow bat (a special-status species).53 If ECORP did not conduct a bat habitat assessment, there is no scientific support for the EIR’s determination that only one special-status bat has the potential to occur at the Project site.54
51 Ibid.
52 DEIR, p. 3.3-30.
53 DEIR, Appendix C.1 (Biological Technical Report), pp. 15 and 29. 54 DEIR, p. 3.3-26.
19 The EIR fails to incorporate scientific standards for the bat habitat assessment. Furthermore, because the EIR does not incorporate an oversight mechanism that ensures adequacy of the bat habitat assessment, Mitigation Measure BIO-1e enables the Project developer to falsely claim “no suitable roosting habitat,” thereby circumventing the need for bat mitigation.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1e proceeds by stating:
“If suitable roosting habitat and/or signs of bat use are identified during the assessment, the roosting habitat shall be avoided and consultation with CDFW shall be initiated prior to the commencement of construction activities. A Bat Management Plan shall be prepared and include specific avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to roosting bats.” The trigger for additional is arbitrary and vague because the mitigation measure does not define “suitable roosting habitat.” According to the BTR: “[a]lthough the biologists noted no evidence of bat roosting during the biological reconnaissance survey, there is potential for the buildings and trees observed to serve as bat maternity roost sites during the bat maternity season.”55 Based on this information, the buildings and trees at the Project site provide “suitable roosting habitat,” thereby triggering the requirement for additional mitigation measures (e.g., consultation with CDFW).
The mitigation measure states the following regarding the Bat Management Plan:
“The Project-specific Bat Management Plan may include any of the following, as necessary and appropriate to the findings of the habitat assessment: emergence and/or pre-construction surveys for roosting bats including acoustic monitoring, roost removal timing and methodology, no-disturbance buffers, passive exclusion of bats, and/or species-specific replacement mitigation habitat. If trees scheduled for removal/modification (i.e., trimming) or structures (i.e., culverts) are determined to be suitable for bat roosting, or if work is expected to occur within 100 feet of these areas, these activities shall be scheduled outside of the bat maternity season (generally April 1 through August 31) to the greatest extent feasible.”56
Use of the terms “may include” and “as necessary and appropriate” cause uncertainty as to what measures would actually be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to bats. This issue is compounded by the following:
• The EIR fails to establish how bat survey data would affect the mitigation requirements, especially given that throughout MM BIO-1e, the trigger for supplemental mitigation is presence of suitable habitat—not presence of bats.
• The mitigation measure fails to explain how “roost removal timing and methodology” would be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the “roost removal timing and methodology” that might be included in the Bat
55 DEIR, Appendix C.1 (Biological Technical Report), p. 32. 56 DEIR, pp. 3.3-30 and -31.
20 Management Plan would trump the two-step tree removal process subsequently described in MM BIO-1e.
• The two-step tree removal process described in MM BIO-1e involves removing small branches and small limbs on Day 1, followed by complete removal of the tree on Day 2.
Whereas this technique might be appropriate for bats that roost in standard trees, it is inapplicable to bats that roost in palms (i.e., because palms don’t have branches and limbs).
• The mitigation measure fails to establish minimum size thresholds for “no-disturbance buffers,” and it does not identify the variables that would be analyzed to determine the appropriate buffer size.
• The mitigation measure fails to identify the methods and materials that would be used for passive exclusion of bats. Traditional exclusion devices that contain a one-way door would not work for the western yellow bat, which roosts beneath the dead fronds (“skirts”) of palm trees (Pierson and Rainey 1998, Miner and Stokes 2005). Johnston et al. (2019) recommend acoustic deterrents as an exclusion method for bats in general, but given the limited range and power supply requirements of acoustic deterrents, it is unclear if it is feasible to install them in palm trees.57 • The mitigation measure fails to identify what circumstances would trigger the need for “species-specific replacement mitigation habitat.” Furthermore, there are no performance standards for the replacement habitat, nor does the mitigation measure establish critical details essential to its probability of success (e.g., type of replacement habitat, location, monitoring and adaptive management measures, protection mechanism). Less than five percent of bat species have been documented using artificial roosts (e.g., bat boxes), and as a result, the ability of artificial roosts to mitigate impacts to occupied roosts has had limited success (Mering and Chambers 2014; Johnston et al. 2019).
Mitigation Measure BIO-1e appears to apply only to roost removal during the maternity season, thus ignoring potentially significant impacts to bats during other times of year. Some western yellow bats are year-round residents in southern California (Pierson and Rainey 1998). These bats may use palms at the Project site as day roosts, night roosts, or maternity roosts.58 Consequently, western yellow bats may occur in palms at the Project site at any time of day (or night), on any day of the year.
Western yellow bats are deep sleepers and, even when awake, typically remain within the palm canopy rather than flushing in response to disturbance (Tatarian 2018; Austin Bat Refuge 2025).
Consequently, western yellow bats are frequently killed or injured during palm removal.
Even when bats escape a falling tree, mortality may remain high. As a prey species with few behavioral defenses against diurnal predators, western yellow bats depend on concealment within roost sites to avoid predation. Individuals displaced during palm removal are abruptly exposed
57 See https://binaryacoustictech.com/batpages_files/bd100.htm 58 Day roosts are used during the day for sleep and protection from predators and heat exposure. Night roosts are used at night to rest, digest food, conserve energy, and avoid predators. Maternity roosts are used to give birth and raise young.
21 during daylight, when they are vulnerable to predation, injury, and environmental exposure.
Thus, palm removal has the potential to cause mortality not only through direct crushing or injury, but also through the loss of secure roost sites and the subsequent inability of displaced bats to survive.
Protection of Maternity Roosts
Mitigation Measure BIO-1e states:
“If tree removal/modification or work within 100 feet of suitable trees or suitable structures must occur during the maternity season, a qualified bat biologist shall conduct a focused emergence survey(s) of the tree(s) within 48 hours of scheduled work. If a maternity roost is located, whether solitary or colonial, that roost shall remain undisturbed until after the maternity season or a qualified biological monitor has determined that the roost is no longer active.”59
A single emergence survey is inadequate to determine presence of a maternity roost. Bats exit roosts sporadically, are very quick, and are easy to miss (Johnston et al. 2019). Yellow bats can be especially easy to miss because they are generally solitary roosters. Consequently, the failure to detect a bat during an emergence survey demonstrates only that no bat was observed emerging during the particular survey period; it does not necessarily establish absence of a roost.
This issue is compounded by the failure to establish standards for the emergence survey, including the survey time and duration, permissible weather conditions, number of observers, and survey techniques.
For these reasons, Project impacts on the western yellow bat, and potentially other special-status bat species, remain potentially significant.
Impacts to Aquatic Resources
The EIR states that a freshwater pond was identified in the off-site improvement area and that it has yet to be determined whether the pond would be impacted by reconfiguration of the golf course.60 However, a formal aquatic resources delineation to determine the jurisdictional status of the pond was not conducted.
MM BIO-2 requires a formal aquatic resources delineation if reconfiguration of the golf course would affect the pond. MM BIO-2 then states:
“If there are any planned project-related impacts to potential jurisdictional aquatic features, coordination with the agencies (USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW) by the permittee shall be initiated. Depending on the nature of project activities, authorization for project impacts may be required, including USACE Section 404, RWQCB Section 401, and/or CDFW Section 1600 permitting. Regulatory agencies may require compensatory mitigation for project impacts through the permit process. Mitigation could take the form of payment of an in-lieu fee,
59 DEIR, p. 3.3-31.
60 DEIR, pp. 3.3-32 and -33.
22 participation in a mitigation banking program, or some form of on-site or off-site restoration. The exact details of mitigation, such as type, location, and mitigation ratio, shall be determined through consultation with the regulatory agencies during the permitting process.”61
The BTR concluded that implementation of the mitigation incorporated in MM BIO-2 would reduce the Project’s impacts to a less-than-significant level.62 The EIR, however, makes the determination that if a jurisdictional aquatic resource is impacted by changes to the golf course, the Project’s impact would be significant and unavoidable.63 The EIR fails to disclose the rationale for that determination.
The federal government and State of California have various laws, regulations, and policies that prevent degradation and destruction of wetlands and other jurisdictional aquatic resources.64 If avoiding impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources is not possible, the regulatory agencies require compensatory mitigation to offset the impacts.
Based on the information provided in the BTR,65 the potentially impacted pond does not possess ecological properties that are impossible to mitigate through the actions specified in MM BIO-2 (i.e., payment of an in-lieu fee, participation in a mitigation banking program, or some form of on-site or off-site restoration). If the City believes the compensatory mitigation required in the regulatory permits would be insufficient to mitigate the impacts to less-than-significant levels, the EIR could mandate compensatory mitigation (with performance standards) for any Project impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources. This would ensure Project impacts are reduced to less-than-significant levels.
Recommended Mitigation
A complete and accurate assessment of the Project’s environmental setting is needed to properly analyze Project-related impacts to biological resources, to formulate appropriate mitigation measures, and to demonstrate that the mitigation measures would be both feasible and effective at reducing Project impacts to less-than-significant levels. Given the lack of adequate survey data, my ability to recommend feasible mitigation measures that should be adopted in the EIR is relatively limited. At a minimum, the following mitigation measures should be incorporated into the EIR:
Monarch Butterfly
• The Project proponent shall implement the Xerces Society’s Management Guidelines for Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat (Xerces Society 2017). • The monarch surveys required in MM BIO-1a shall include the Project site, off- site improvement area, and all potential monarch habitat within a 100-meter buffer.
61 DEIR, p. 3.3-33.
62 DEIR, Appendix C.1 (Biological Technical Report), p. 36. 63 Ibid.
64 See https://mywaterquality.ca.gov/wetland-monitoring/wetland-protection.html 65 DEIR, Appendix C.1 (Biological Technical Report), p. 17.
23 • If the Project site, off-site improvement area, or 100-meter buffer zone supports overwintering monarchs, the Project proponent shall prepare a Monarch Overwintering Grove Management Plan using the template issued by the Xerces Society.66
• The Monarch Overwintering Grove Management Plan shall be approved by the USFWS or by a local expert recommended by the Xerces Society.
Crotch’s Bumble Bee
• The Project proponent shall implement the impact avoidance and minimization measures described in CDFW’s Considerations for Conserving Crotch’s Bumble Bee (Bombus crotchii), Franklin’s Bumble Bee (Bombus franklini), Western Bumble Bee (Bombus occidentalis), and Suckley’s Cuckoo Bumble Bee (Bombus suckleyi) (CDFW 2026).
• If a Crotch’s bumble bee is detected at the Project site, no ground-disturbance activities shall occur until the Project proponent has prepared a CBB Mitigation Plan that has been approved by CDFW.
Burrowing Owl
• In addition to the breeding season and pre-construction surveys required in MM BIO-1d, the Project proponent shall conduct at least 4 non-breeding season surveys for burrowing owls. The surveys shall adhere to the methods outlined in CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). • The burrowing owl surveys shall encompass all portions of the Project site and off-site improvement area containing burrows or burrow surrogates (e.g., pipes, rubble piles), irrespective of the land cover type. The surveys shall also include all off-site areas located within 200 meters of the Project site. • If a burrowing owl is detected either incidentally, or during the surveys, no ground-disturbance activities shall occur until the Project proponent has obtained an Incidental Take Permit and developed a compensatory mitigation package that has been approved by CDFW.
Bats
• The Project proponent shall adhere to the bat mitigation guidelines described in Johnston et al. (2019), including the guidelines for habitat assessments and surveys.
• The habitat assessment and surveys shall encompass all areas that may be directly or indirectly impacted by the Project, including all of the offsite improvement area (golf course reconfiguration area).
• The habitat assessment and surveys shall be comprehensive and shall not be limited to the preconceived assumption that the Project site only has the potential to support western yellow bats.
66 See https://westernmonarchcount.org/overwintering-site-management-and-protection/
24 • The Project proponent shall conduct acoustic monitoring to determine the potential presence of roosting bats. Acoustic monitoring surveys shall be conducted during both the winter and maternity seasons. • Acoustic monitoring surveys shall be supplemented by visual surveys at palms and other trees that could support roosting bats. Visual surveys, using high-quality night vision goggles (Generation 3+), shall start 20 minutes prior to sunset and continue for at least 75 minutes after sunset. At least 2 visual surveys shall be conducted at each tree prior to its removal.
• The Project proponent shall submit the results of the bat habitat assessment and surveys to CDFW. No tree removal or other ground-disturbance activities shall occur until CDFW has approved the adequacy of the habitat assessment and surveys.
• The Bat Management Plan required under MM BIO-1e shall be approved by CDFW prior to initiating any construction activities that could impact bat roosts.
All Taxa
• The Project proponent shall prepare a survey report for each taxon requiring pre- construction surveys (i.e., monarch butterfly, Crotch’s bumble bee, burrowing owl, nesting birds, bats). Each survey report shall be submitted to, and approved by, USFWS (for monarch butterfly) or CDFW (for all other taxa) prior to initiation of any construction activities.
• All mitigation plans shall be approved by USFWS (for monarch butterfly) or CDFW (for all other taxa) prior to initiation of any construction activities. • All survey reports and mitigation plans shall be posted online and made available to the public.
• The City shall develop a mechanism for ensuring compliance with the Project’s mitigation measures. Documents demonstrating compliance with the mitigation measures shall be posted online and made available to the public.
Aquatic Resources
• If the Project or reconfiguration of the golf course would impact any jurisdictional aquatic resources, the City shall submit a compensatory mitigation proposal to the relevant agencies (CDFW, USACE, and/or RWQCB, depending on the jurisdictional status of the resource) for approval prior to any impacts to the aquatic resource(s). Compensatory mitigation shall be implemented within the same watershed and shall incorporate a mitigation ratio of at least 1:1.
This concludes my comments.
Sincerely,
Scott Cashen, M.S.
Senior Biologist
25 Literature cited
Austin Bat Refuge. 2025. Bats & palm trees [webpage]. [Accessed 26 July 2026]. https://austinbatrefuge.org/ourwork/palm-trees/
Bloom P. 2023. Extirpation of Orange County, California, Breeding Burrowing Owl Population:
The Convergence of Philopatry, Habitat Fragmentation, and Allee Effects. Journal of Raptor Research 57(3):475–484.
[CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife, CWHR Program Staff. 2008. Life History Account for Vermilion Flycatcher.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=1959&inline=1
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. https://share.google/lNpGqfW1QSToiVSHz
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. 14 p.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025 Nov 13. Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update. Comment letter submitted by G. Lubcke, CDFW, to B. Green, City of Costa Mesa. 11 p.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2026. Considerations for Conserving Crotch’s Bumble Bee (Bombus crotchii), Franklin’s Bumble Bee (Bombus franklini), Western Bumble Bee (Bombus occidentalis), and Suckley’s Cuckoo Bumble Bee (Bombus suckleyi). 41 p.
[CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database. 2026. RareFind 5 [Internet]. California Department of Fish and Wildlife [Aug 30, 2026].
[CBD] Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Burrowing Owl Preservation Society, and four others. 2024. Petition to List California Populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species Act. 220 p.
eBird. 2026. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. [eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York]. [accessed 2025 Sep 4]. http://www.ebird.org.
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2024 Oct. Biological Technical Report for the Pepper Clinic LLC Development Project, San Bernardino County, California. p. D-15.
26 Ehrlich P, Dobkin DS, Wheye D. 1998. Birder's Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster.
Gervais JA, Rosenberg DK, Comrack LA. 2008. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). In:
Shuford WD, Gardali T, editors. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Hatfield RG, Jensen S. 2021. A conservation conundrum: protecting bumble bees under the California Endangered Species Act. California Fish and Wildlife Special CESA Issue: 98-106.
Ibsen PC, Ancona ZH, Pelton E, Little S, Diffendorfer JE. 2026. Density dependence and habitat selection affect overwintering abundance of monarch butterflies at regional and site scales in California. Conservation Science and Practice 8(4):e70253.
Johnston DS, Briones K, Pincetich C. 2019. California Bat Mitigation: A guide to developing feasible and effective solutions. Sacramento (CA): California Department of Transportation, Office of Biological Studies.
Lithgow D. 2021 eBird Checklist: https://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S36954356. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. [accessed 2026 Sep 4]. http://www.ebird.org.
Mering ED, Chambers CL. 2014. Thinking Outside the Box: A Review of Artificial Roosts for Bats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38(4):741-751.
Miner KL, Stokes DC. 2005. Bats in the South Coast Ecoregion: Status, Conservation Issues, and Research Needs. In: Kus BE, Beyers JL, technical coordinators. Planning for Biodiversity:
Bringing Research and Management Together. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-195. Albany, CA:
Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture. pp. 211-227.
Myers SJ. 2008. Vermilion Flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus). In: Shuford WD, Gardali T, editors. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Nguyen P. 2026. eBird Checklist: https://ebird.org/checklist/S356204319. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. [accessed 2026 Sep 4]. http://www.ebird.org.
Pandolfino ER. 2018. Continuing Decline of the White-tailed Kite in California’s Central Valley and Possible Exacerbating Effects of the Recent Drought. CV Bird Club Bulletin 21:98-107.
27 Pelton E, Jepson S, Schultz C, Fallon C, Black SH. 2016. State of the Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in California. Portland (OR): The Xerces Society.
Pelton E. 2020. Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Site Management Plan for Pismo State Beach. 36 p.
Pierson ED, Rainey WE. 1998. Western yellow bat, Lasiurus xanthinus. In: Bolster BC, ed.
Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California. pp. 50-51. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=84523&inline
R.J. Meade Consulting, Inc. 1996. County of Orange, Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan / Habitat Conservation Plan. https://planningandsustainability.uci.edu/environmental/conservation-plan.php
Tatarian G. 2018. Conserving California’s Bats Through Environmental Review and Permitting.
CDFW Conservation Lecture Series Archive. [Accessed 26 July 2026]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFXLRa5mClI
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014 Jul 24. Restoration, Management, and Protection of Vernal Pools within Fairview Park, City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California. Letter from K. Goebel, USFWS, to B. Mejia, City of Costa Mesa.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016 Apr 13. Biological and Conference Opinion on the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona. [Accessed 26 July 2026]. https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/plan_documents/bobs/bobs_1435.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024. Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) Species Status Assessment Report. Version 2.3. Midwest Regional Office.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2025 Jan 27. Email communication from C. Medak, USFWS, to K. Dalton, City of Costa Mesa. Available at: https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/fairview-park- master-plan-update-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-october-30-parks-and-community-ser
Xerces Society. 2017. Protecting California’s Butterfly Groves: Management Guidelines for Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat. Portland (OR): The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 1
Scott Cashen, M.S.
Senior Wildlife Biologist
Scott Cashen has 32 years of professional experience in natural resources management. During that time he has worked as a field biologist, forester, environmental consultant, and instructor of Wildlife Management. Mr. Cashen focuses on CEQA/NEPA compliance issues, endangered species, scientific field studies, and other topics that require a high level of scientific expertise.
Mr. Cashen has knowledge and experience with numerous taxa, ecoregions, biological resource issues, and environmental regulations. As a biological resources expert, Mr.
Cashen is knowledgeable of the various agency-promulgated guidelines for field surveys, impact assessments, and mitigation. Mr. Cashen has led field investigations on several special-status species, including ones focusing on the yellow-legged frog, red-legged frog, desert tortoise, steelhead, burrowing owl, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, willow flycatcher, Peninsular bighorn sheep, red panda, and various forest carnivores.
Mr. Cashen is a recognized expert on the environmental impacts of renewable energy development. He has been involved in the environmental review process of over 100 solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal energy projects. Mr. Cashen’s role in this capacity has encompassed all stages of the environmental review process, from initial document review through litigation support. Mr. Cashen provided expert witness testimony on several of the Department of the Interior’s “fast-tracked” renewable energy projects. His testimony on those projects helped lead agencies develop project alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts associated with the projects.
Mr. Cashen was a member of the independent scientific review panel for the Quincy Library Group project, the largest community forestry project in the United States. As a member of the panel, Mr. Cashen was responsible for advising the U.S. Forest Service on its scientific monitoring program, and for preparing a final report to Congress describing the effectiveness of the Herger-Feinstein Forest Recovery Act of 1998.
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• CEQA, NEPA, and Endangered Species Act compliance issues • Comprehensive biological resource assessments
• Endangered species management
• Renewable energy development
• Scientific field studies, grant writing and technical editing
EDUCATION
M.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Science - The Pennsylvania State University (1998) Thesis: Avian Use of Restored Wetlands in Pennsylvania
B.S. Resource Management - The University of California, Berkeley (1992) Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 2
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Litigation Support / Expert Witness
Mr. Cashen has served as a biological resources expert for over 125 projects subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and/or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As a biological resources expert, Mr.
Cashen reviews CEQA/NEPA documents and provides his clients with an assessment of biological resource issues. He then submits formal comments on the scientific and legal adequacy of the project’s environmental documents (e.g., Environmental Impact Report).
If needed, Mr. Cashen conducts field studies to generate evidence for legal testimony, or he can obtain supplemental testimony from his deep network of species-specific experts.
Mr. Cashen has provided written and oral testimony to the California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, and U.S. district courts. His clients have included law firms, non-profit organizations, and citizen groups.
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Solar Energy Geothermal Energy
• Abengoa Mojave Solar Project • Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Project • Avenal Energy Power Plant • East Brawley Geothermal • Development • Beacon Solar Energy Project • Mammoth Pacific 1 Replacement Facility • Blythe Solar Power Project • Orni 21 Geothermal Project • ff
• Steamfield
• Calico Solar Project • Western GeoPower Plant
• California Flats Solar Project Wind Energy
• Calipatria Solar Farm II • Catalina Renewable Energy
Project • Carrizo Energy Solar Farm • Ocotillo Wind Energy Project • Catalina Renewable Energy
Project
• SD County Wind Energy
Ordinance • Fink Road Solar Farm • Searchlight Wind Project • Genesis Solar Energy Project • Shu’luuk Wind Project
• Heber Solar Energy Facility • Tres Vaqueros Repowering Project • Imperial Valley Solar Project • Tule Wind Project
• Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating
System
• Vasco Winds Relicensing Project
• Maricopa Sun Solar Complex Biomass Facilities
• McCoy Solar Project • CA Ethanol Project
• • Mt. Signal and Calexico Solar
Projects
• Colusa Biomass Project
• Panoche Valley Solar • Tracy Green Energy Project
• • San Joaquin Solar I & II Other Development Projects • San Luis Solar Project • Cal-Am Desalination Project
• Stateline Solar Project • Carnegie SVRA Expansion Project • Solar Gen II Projects • Lakeview Substation Project
• SR Solis Oro Loma • Monterey Bay Shores Ecoresort
• Vestal Solar Facilities • Phillips 66 Rail Spur
•
•
• Victorville 2 Power Project • Valero Benecia Crude By Rail • Willow Springs Solar • Pacheco Dam Expansion Project
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 3
Project Management
Mr. Cashen has managed several large-scale wildlife, forestry, and natural resource management projects. Many of the projects have required hiring and training field crews, coordinating with other professionals, and communicating with project stakeholders. Mr.
Cashen’s experience in study design, data collection, and scientific writing make him an effective project manager, and his background in several different natural resource disciplines enable him to address the many facets of contemporary land management in a cost-effective manner.
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Wildlife Studies
• Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Resource Use and Behavior Study: (CA State Parks) • “KV” Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk Inventory: (USFS, Plumas NF) • Amphibian Inventory Project: (USFS, Plumas NF)
• San Mateo Creek Steelhead Restoration Project: (Trout Unlimited and CA Coastal Conservancy, Orange County)
• Delta Meadows State Park Special-Status Species Inventory: (CA State Parks, Locke)
Natural Resources Management
• Mather Lake Resource Management Study and Plan – (Sacramento County) • Placer County Vernal Pool Study – (Placer County)
• Weidemann Ranch Mitigation Project – (Toll Brothers, Inc., San Ramon) • Ion Communities Biological Resource Assessments – (Ion Communities, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties)
• Del Rio Hills Biological Resource Assessment – (The Wyro Company, Rio Vista)
Forestry
• Forest Health Improvement Projects – (CalFire, SD and Riverside Counties) • San Diego Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project – (SDG&E, San Diego Co.) • San Diego Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project – (San Diego County/NRCS) • Hillslope Monitoring Project – (CalFire, throughout California)
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 4
Biological Resources
Mr. Cashen has a diverse background with biological resources. He has conducted comprehensive biological resource assessments, habitat evaluations, species inventories, and scientific peer review. Mr. Cashen has led investigations on several special-status species, including ones focusing on the foothill yellow-legged frog, mountain yellow- legged frog, desert tortoise, steelhead, burrowing owl, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, willow flycatcher, Peninsular bighorn sheep, red panda, and forest carnivores.
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Biological Assessments/Biological Evaluations (“BA/BE”) • Aquatic Species BA/BE – Reliable Power Project (SFPUC) • Terrestrial Species BA/BE – Reliable Power Project (SFPUC) • Management Indicator Species Report – Reliable Power Project (SFPUC) • Migratory Bird Report – Reliable Power Project (SFPUC) • Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BA – Lower Cherry Aqueduct (SFPUC) • Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BE – Lower Cherry Aqueduct (SFPUC) • Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BA/BE – Public Lands Lease Application (Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep)
• Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BA/BE – Simon Newman Ranch (The Nature Conservancy)
• Draft EIR (Vegetation and Special-Status Plants) - Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District)
Avian
• Study design and Lead Investigator - Delta Meadows State Park Special-Status Species Inventory (CA State Parks: Locke)
• Study design and lead bird surveyor - Placer County Vernal Pool Study (Placer County: throughout Placer County)
• Surveyor - Willow flycatcher habitat mapping (USFS: Plumas NF) • Surveyor - Tolay Creek, Cullinan Ranch, and Guadacanal Village restoration projects (Ducks Unlimited/USGS: San Pablo Bay)
• Study design and Lead Investigator - Bird use of restored wetlands research (Pennsylvania Game Commission: throughout Pennsylvania) • Study design and surveyor - Baseline inventory of bird species at a 400-acre site in Napa County (HCV Associates: Napa)
• Surveyor - Baseline inventory of bird abundance following diesel spill (LFR Levine-Fricke: Suisun Bay)
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 5
• Study design and lead bird surveyor - Green Valley Creek Riparian Restoration Site (City of Fairfield: Fairfield, CA)
• Surveyor - Burrowing owl relocation and monitoring (US Navy: Dixon, CA) • Surveyor - Pre-construction burrowing owl surveys (various clients: Livermore, San Ramon, Rio Vista, Napa, Victorville, Imperial County, San Diego County) • Surveyor - Backcountry bird inventory (National Park Service: Eagle, Alaska) • Lead surveyor - Tidal salt marsh bird surveys (Point Reyes Bird Observatory:
throughout Bay Area)
• Surveyor – Pre-construction surveys for nesting birds (various clients and locations)
Amphibian
• Crew Leader - Red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, and mountain yellow-legged frog surveys (USFS: Plumas NF)
• Surveyor - Foothill yellow-legged frog surveys (PG&E: North Fork Feather River)
• Surveyor - Mountain yellow-legged frog surveys (El Dorado Irrigation District:
Desolation Wilderness)
• Crew Leader - Bullfrog eradication (Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) Fish and Aquatic Resources
• Surveyor - Hardhead minnow and other fish surveys (USFS: Plumas NF) • Surveyor - Weber Creek aquatic habitat mapping (El Dorado Irrigation District:
Placerville, CA)
• Surveyor - Green Valley Creek aquatic habitat mapping (City of Fairfield:
Fairfield, CA)
• GPS Specialist - Salmonid spawning habitat mapping (CDFG: Sacramento River) • Surveyor - Fish composition and abundance study (PG&E: Upper North Fork Feather River and Lake Almanor)
• Crew Leader - Surveys of steelhead abundance and habitat use (CA Coastal Conservancy: Gualala River estuary)
• Crew Leader - Exotic species identification and eradication (Trout Unlimited:
Cleveland NF)
Mammals
• Principal Investigator – Peninsular bighorn sheep resource use and behavior study (California State Parks: Freeman Properties)
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 6
• Scientific Advisor –Study on red panda occupancy and abundance in eastern Nepal (The Red Panda Network: CA and Nepal)
• Surveyor - Forest carnivore surveys (University of CA: Tahoe NF) • Surveyor - Relocation and monitoring of salt marsh harvest mice and other small mammals (US Navy: Skagg’s Island, CA)
• Surveyor – Surveys for Monterey dusky-footed woodrat. Relocation of woodrat houses (Touré Associates: Prunedale)
Natural Resource Investigations / Multiple Species Studies • Scientific Review Team Member – Member of the scientific review team assessing the effectiveness of the US Forest Service’s implementation of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Act.
• Lead Consultant - Baseline biological resource assessments and habitat mapping for CDF management units (CDF: San Diego, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties)
• Biological Resources Expert – Peer review of CEQA/NEPA documents (various law firms, non-profit organizations, and citizen groups) • Lead Consultant - Pre- and post-harvest biological resource assessments of tree removal sites (SDG&E: San Diego County)
• Crew Leader - T&E species habitat evaluations for Biological Assessment in support of a steelhead restoration plan (Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) • Lead Investigator - Resource Management Study and Plan for Mather Lake Regional Park (County of Sacramento: Sacramento, CA)
• Lead Investigator - Biological Resources Assessment for 1,070-acre Alfaro Ranch property (Yuba County, CA)
• Lead Investigator - Wildlife Strike Hazard Management Plan (HCV Associates:
Napa)
• Lead Investigator - Del Rio Hills Biological Resource Assessment (The Wyro Company: Rio Vista, CA)
• Lead Investigator – Ion Communities project sites (Ion Communities: Riverside and San Bernardino Counties)
• Surveyor – Tahoe Pilot Project: Validation of California’s Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Model (University of California: Tahoe NF)
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 7
Forestry
Mr. Cashen has five years of experience working as a consulting forester on projects throughout California. Mr. Cashen has consulted with landowners and timber operators on forest management practices; and he has worked on a variety of forestry tasks including selective tree marking, forest inventory, harvest layout, erosion control, and supervision of logging operations. Mr. Cashen’s experience with many different natural resources enable him to provide a holistic approach to forest management, rather than just management of timber resources.
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
• Lead Consultant - CalFire fuels treatment projects (SD and Riverside Counties) • Lead Consultant and supervisor of harvest activities – San Diego Gas and Electric Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project (San Diego)
• Crew Leader - Hillslope Monitoring Program (CalFire: throughout California) • Consulting Forester – Forest inventories and timber harvest projects (various clients throughout California)
PERMITS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit for the Peninsular bighorn sheep
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Instructor: Wildlife Management - The Pennsylvania State University, 1998 Teaching Assistant: Ornithology - The Pennsylvania State University, 1996-1997
PUBLICATIONS
Gutiérrez RJ, AS Cheng, DR Becker, S Cashen, et al. 2015. Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict: a case study of the Quincy Library group in California, USA.
Chapter 19 in: Redpath SR, et al. (eds). Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards Solutions. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.
Cheng AS, Gutiérrez RJ, Cashen S, et al. 2016. Is There a Place for Legislating Place- Based Collaborative Forestry Proposals?: Examining the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Pilot Project. Journal of Forestry 114(4):494-504
From: Tj Rz
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Against the current Fairview plan
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 11:44:13 AM
I am a Costa Mesa resident.
The current plan for the Fairview developmental center is flawed.
It provides no new soccer or sports fields, impacts traffic terribly and will result in higher demands on public services and even more in the future.
Vote NO and ask for more studies of the law enforcement, public services, traffic, schools and financial impact on the city.
Tom Reitz
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
April 16, 2026
Mayor John Stephens and Councilmember Arlis Reynolds
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Subject: Opposition to Any Encroachment on Costa Mesa Golf Course Dear Mayor Stephens and Councilmember Reynolds,
I am writing as a resident of Costa Mesa to express my strong opposition to any proposed incursion, encroachment, or reduction of the Costa Mesa Golf Course as part of development plans related to the Fairview Development Center.
The Costa Mesa Golf Course is not simply a recreational facility-it is a longstanding community asset and a defining feature of our city. It provides accessible outdoor space for residents of all ages, supports local tourism and small business activity, and contributes significantly to the character and livability of Costa Mesa. In a region where open space is increasingly limited, preserving this resource should be a top priority.
Any effort to repurpose, reduce, or otherwise compromise the integrity of the golf course would be a mistake. Once land like this is lost to development, it is rarely recovered. The long-term value of maintaining open, usable green space far outweighs any short-term gains from development.
We respectfully urge you and the City Council to take a firm position in protecting the Costa Mesa Golf Course in its entirety. Rather than viewing it as an opportunity for expansion or encroachment, it should be recognized as a community treasure that deserves continued investment, maintenance, and support.
Please prioritize preservation over expansion and ensure that any plans involving the Fairview Development Center do not come at the expense of this vital public asset.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Charles Oliver Angela A. Oliver
From: Tim Cromwell
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: STEPHENS, JOHN; BULEY, MIKE
Subject: Fairview Development Center
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 1:10:38 AM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
My name is Tim Cromwell and I live on Swan Drive. My wife and I are Costa Mesa residents and attended the recent Planning Commission hearings, most neighborhood awareness meetings and most other meetings that were held over the last several months regarding the Fairview Developmental Center.
We are 100% against the density that has been discussed and what the Planning Commission appeared to simply “rubber stamp” for your approval.
Despite what several attendees were claiming at these meetings, this is not an issue of low income housing not being wanted - most folks understand that a percentage of low income housing is almost always going to be a part of a new residential projects in the state of California - it’s about the crazy density that you seem to be getting ready to approve. It wouldn’t matter if this housing was for millionaires only - the density that you are considering is ridiculous.
This project does not address the huge impact it would cause in increased traffic to Harbor Blvd, College Park & the MesaVerde neighborhoods, nor does it address the impact it would have on our local schools or our police and fire departments.
And you’re going to remove several holes of our successful & very popular City owned golf course while doing this?!! That’s very bad idea.
Please bring in professional consultants that are experienced in the development and proper land planning for multi- family, mixed use and senior housing developments and let’s create something that’s good for Costa Mesa and something that all our residents would always be proud of.
Thank you,
Tim & Mary Cromwell
2029 Swan Drive
Costa Mesa
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: Priscilla Rocco
To: CITY CLERK; STEPHENS, JOHN; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; MARR, ANDREA; BULEY, MIKE; GAMEROS, LOREN; PETTIS, JEFF; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 9:57:04 AM
11,760 new housing units, required by the State, will remake Costa Mesa, but in whose image? "Neighborhoods where we all belong" is a deceptive marketing trick, and in truth should read, "Developers make the rules; Residents' requests are ignored."
The April 4, 2024 council meeting was a packed house. From the staff reports, survey results, statistics, and staff and council members - all women - relaying that developers had acknowledged to them that stronger requirements including affordable units in each build was acceptable.
Residents gave testimonials on the dire need for affordable housing, with some working two or more jobs and others having to rely on charities to eat after they paid their rent.
Andrea Marr made a motion, saying she couldn't live with herself if she didn't fulfill her campaign promises and require 15% low or 10% very low income units in builds over 60 units per acre. Arlis Reynolds seconded the motion. Then the men on the dais dug their heels in and gutted the Inclusionary/Affordable Housing Ordinance so very few projects would require affordable housing. Councilmember Arlis Reynold pointed out that it's laughable that billionaires won't build in Costa Mesa when they're building in Santa Ana, which has a more restrictive IHO.
The council majority gave even more options to developers by setting in-lieu fees so low that they can pay pennies to buy their way out of providing affordable housing, and new parks. New parks, also highly requested by residents who don't have a park within walking distance.
The council consistently spends hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars in outreach meetings, only to ignore our wishes.
Costa Mesa is redlining the poor into concrete tenements at the Fairview Developmental Center. The residents wanted closer to 3,500 units, to give them the green open space sorely lacking in the city. Yet about 4,000 units are being pushed to make it more attractive to developers.
The State requires 40% of this housing to be affordable, but the number of affordable units stays the same as the number of units in total rises at the Fairview Developmental Center. This is your last chance to choose: Will you give record profits to the developer and concrete tenements for the poor. Will you vote for your constituents, or do the bidding of billionaires? Priscilla Rocco
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department. 1 3740 Cahuenga Blvd.
Studio City CA 91604
www.scga.org
September 8, 2026
Mayor Stephens and Members of Council
Costa Mesa City Hall
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa CA 92626
SUBJECT: A Fairview Developmental Specific Plan Consistent with the Council’s Desire to Retain as Much of the Integrity of the Costa Mesa Country Club as Possible within the Constraints of a Final Plan of Development that May Require Some diminution Thereof. [Item # 3 – Public Hearings – City Council Agenda – September 15, 2026]
Dear Mayor Stephens and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council:
The California Alliance for Golf (CAG), a California nonprofit corporation, is a consortium of the state’s leading nonprofit golf associations and organizations that speaks on behalf of the $15.1 billion California golf community, its roughly 3.5 million devotees, and its one thousand golf facilities. It is governed by the following associations/organizations: Northern California Golf Association, Southern California Golf Association, Northern California PGA Section, Southern California PGA Section, California Golf Course Owners Association, California Chapter Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, San Francisco Public Golf Alliance, and Latina Golfers Association.
The Southern California Golf Association (SCGA) is a 127 year old non-charitable nonprofit organization incorporated under the laws of the State of California to provide certain public benefits to 1,500 golf clubs, 220,000 members, and roughly 460 golf facilities, including Costa Mesa Country Club.
# # # # # # # # # # #
To be 100% clear, this letter is NOT an effort to dissuade the City of Costa Mesa from approving a specific plan of development that would allow for housing on state-owned land almost entirely surrounded by the city’s 36-hole Costa Mesa Country Club.
2 As its subject line indicates, this letter is an effort to offer golf industry insights as to how the city may pursue its pledge to maintain the integrity of its municipal golf complex while moving forward with a Fairview Developmental Specific Plan that gives the city its best chance to protect its interest in maintaining as much of that “integrity” as feasible.
We use the qualifier, “as much of that integrity as feasible, ” because while we appreciate the city’s commitment to maintaining the Costa Mesa Country Club as a 36-hole golf complex, we know too much about the feasibility of some of the conclusions that have been thrown around about Mesa Linda’s ability to remain an 18-hole golf course were it to be bisected as the Specific Plan prescribes to take those conclusions seriously. We also understand that to accommodate the housing envisaged in the Specific Plan it just may be impossible to end up with two (2) 18-hole golf courses; however, it is eminently possible to reimagine that much larger portion of Mesa Linda that would be south of the currently envisaged second access road as something less than 18 holes but still of great value to the Costa Mesa golf community, particularly to those high school teams and junior golf programs that depend on Mesa Linda today.
It is important to remember that the National Golf Foundation (NGF) identifies Los Angeles and Orange Counties as the most golf starved regions of the nation – that is, more golfers chasing fewer golf holes than anywhere else in the Continental United States. And Orange County offers far fewer affordable/accessible public golf courses than Los Angeles County does, making Costa Mesa CC and its handful of similarly situated affordable/accessible cousins in Orange County just that much more important for the continued viability of the school and junior golf programs that serve the region’s youth population.
Any “reimagination” would need to be designed by a credible golf course architect with significant input from Costa Mesa residents and local golf constituencies as to the nature of that reimagination. While the costs of such a “reimagination” would be miniscule compared to the costs of redesigning Mesa Linda to accommodate a highly traveled general access road running through it, there would still be significant costs – costs that Council may want to find a way to include or offset as part of its approval of a Specific Plan that envisages a “developer and development plan to be named later. ”
Given the City Council’s clearly stated desire to maintain as much of the integrity of its municipal golf jewel as possible, these are the kinds of questions that could and should have been part of the process of bringing the matter of a Specific Plan to final resolution. Yes, the city retained a very reputable and accomplished golf course architecture firm in Origins Golf Design, but nowhere in the record can we find that the firm was asked to provide the city with answers to those questions most relevant to drawing conclusions about what may and/or may not be possible should the golf complex be bisected by a heavily traveled access road in the location identified by Staff. All we can discern is that the city hired an excellent architectural firm, as if the mere hiring is enough in itself to conclude that in approving this Specific Plan, the pledges issued by Mayor and Council about the Plan not upsetting the 36-hole integrity of the Costa Mesa Country Club can be kept.
Securing clear and definitive answers to these questions can be made co-terminus with moving forward with a Specific Developmental Plan by simply including them as part of Council’s approval thereof – putting a little meat on the bones of those pledges as it were. Again, we don’t define those 3 pledges as necessarily the 36-hole status quo. We define them only as making a best faith effort to retain that amount of the Costa Mesa Country Club’s integrity as feasible within constraints posed by the city’s need to permit additional housing and the fact that the State of California owns the property upon which that housing is envisaged. And while it would have been better had these factors been considered before now, later is better than never.
The City’s “Fact Sheet” states that a second access road, one that would necessarily bisect the Mesa Linda Golf Course, is not necessary until traffic thresholds are met, which the Fact Sheet indicates may not occur until the mid-term (5 to10 years) or long-term (10 to 20 years) of the Specific Plan's build-out. The operating threshold in all of the materials the city has produced on this aspect of the Specific Plan is 2,300 housing units, albeit the source for arriving at that number is not so much cited as assumed. For the purposes of this communication, we stipulate to that assumption, although the City Council may want to request documentation as part of its due diligence.
Given this time lag and the fact that it is possible that the “developer to be named later” may end up proposing less than 2,300 units, Council may want to include in this Specific Plan a condition that until such time as the entitlements for 2,300 units are approved, no second access road that would upset the current footprint of the Mesa Linda Golf Course be approved by the city. When questioned by the Planning Commission about the timing of such a second access road, Staff rather nonchalantly stated that were the envisaged “developer to be named later” to propose constructing a second access road before proceeding to construct its first phase of what is almost certain to be a phased plan, Staff would approve it. A second access road where the current Specific Plan envisages it would necessarily upset the “integrity” of the golf course that is heavily used by local high school golf teams and junior developmental programs. Delaying that interruption as long as possible strikes us as consistent with this Council’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of the Costa Mesa Country Club. And if a final plan of development ends up being something less than 2,300 units, this condition would be a nullity.
We do not take a position on the questions, both legal and practical, that have been raised about the status of Merrimac Road as a viable alternative for a second access road if and when such a road becomes necessary, but we do suggest that enough questions have been raised about that subject that ought to be answered before proceeding to repose that conclusion in the Specific Plan.
If indeed Merrimac Road is a viable alternative, the upset to the extant golf property would be greatly reduced.
We genuinely appreciate this city’s enthusiastic commitment to maintaining the integrity of the Costa Mesa Country Club that has brought so much community and recreational value to Costa Mesa residents for decades and ask only that in moving forward with a Fairview Developmental Specific Plan you do so by keeping the city’s options open and pursuing the due diligence required to maintain as much of that “integrity” as may be doable within constraints posed by factors beyond the city’s capacity to control, with the understanding that there are factors involving the land the city does own that are within its capacity to at least influence if not control. 4 On behalf of the constituencies of the California Alliance for Golf and the roughly 220,000 members of the Southern California Golf Association, particularly those who live, work, and golf in Costa Mesa, we thank you for taking the time to consider our views.
Respectfully Submitted,
Craig Kessler Kevin Fitzgerald
Executive Director Director, Public Affairs
California Alliance for Golf Southern California Golf Association 3740 Cahuenga Blvd., Studio City, CA 91604 3740 Cahuenga Blvd., Studio City, CA 91604 [email protected] / (310) 941-4803 [email protected] / (951) 212-4464
September 14, 2026 Mayor John Stephens City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Support for Housing in the City of Costa Mesa – Fairview Development Center Specific Plan Dear Mayor Stephens, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Members of the Council, On behalf of the Orange County Chapter of the Building Industry Association of Southern California (BIAOC), representing thousands of homebuilders, trade partners, and suppliers across the region, we are pleased to express our support for advancing additional housing opportunities in the City of Costa Mesa.We commend the City for their work on the Fairview Development Center Specific Plan and urge the Council to approve this proposal. At a time when housing supply continues to fall short of demand, it is essential that cities take a proactive approach to their planning and development. The Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan presents a significant opportunity to transform the 95-acre site into a vibrant and thriving community that directly advances the City’s housing and long-term planning goals. The Plan establishes a framework for a minimum of 2,300 and up to 4,000 housing units, lower-income and moderate-income units. These units will help address critical housing needs while creating housing opportunities for residents helping to sustain a diverse, vibrant, and economically resilient community. In addition to addressing critical housing needs, the Specific Plan provides significant public benefits through a minimum of 14 acres of public open space and opportunities for non-residential and commercial uses. The Plan also establishes objective development and design standards that promote an inclusive, walkable, and bikeable environment, helping create a connected community where residents can live, work, and access open space and amenities. Taken together, these elements create a thoughtful framework for a diverse and sustainable community that not only responds to the City’s housing needs, but also provides meaningful public benefits and supports the City’s broader vision for the future of the Fairview Developmental Center site. Approving this Plan will not only address critical shortages but also align with the City’s adopted plans and long-term vision.
BUILDING INDUSTRY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER
We look forward to working collaboratively with the City of Costa Mesa to address these pressing housing needs, strengthen the local economy, and expand opportunities for current and future residents. BIAOC stands ready to provide input, expertise, and support throughout this process to help advance meaningful housing solutions. If we can be of any assistance, please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or (949) 777-3856. Sincerely, Ana Gromis Vice President of Government Affairs Building Industry Association of Southern California Outlook
Re: Fairview Developmental Center project
FromNatalee King <[email protected]>
Date Tue 9/15/2026 10:30 AM
To STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>
Cc TORRES, IVIS <[email protected]>; ESCOBAR, SERGIO <[email protected]> 2 attachments (13 MB)
IMG_6003.png; IMG_6002.png;
Hello John,
I wasn’t able to make the community meeting due to back to school night at Davis. I will make tonight’s meeting.
I have been attending the meetings since the beginning and have watched the number of units increase from 1,500 to 4,000. My recommendations for this space are based on our community’s needs and what we can handle not for me personally.
I do want to mention first, that carving a road into the Costa Mesa Golf Course will change the playability of 6 to 7 holes. I believe this is just the start and we will eventually see a public course destroyed. The Costa Mesa Golf Course is used by many, including Costa Mesa residents, high school golf teams( Costa Mesa and Newport), retired residents, and even Mesa Verde Country club members.
Losing this would be devastating for our community.
Second, I want to talk about the exits for FDC. At this time there is one exit off Harbor Blvd and Fair Drive which you are aware of. The second exit will be carved into the Costa Mesa Golf Course like I mentioned above (harbor center drive. Both of these exits will be 0.3 miles from each other and both will exit onto an already busy Harbor Blvd. With this secondary road the plans are calling for 4,000 units which means 8,000 plus residents exiting onto Harbor Boulevard only. Also, right outside of the FDC we already have a housing track consisting of 32 homes, and the Cornerstone neighborhood consisting of 37 homes. All will need to exit the Fair Drive exit. Adding an additional 4,000 homes to this will be a safety and traffic issue.
I want to highlight four neighborhoods below and touch on how many units are in each neighborhood with their many exits to major roads. I think this will help shine light on the 4,000 unit FDC community plan with only two exits.
Halecrest
700 homes and 80 townhomes in french quarters behind Killybrooke elementary Halecrest swim park and tennis ( member only) waitlist 100+ (5 acres) Exits;
Gisler/harbor
Baker street exits equal to 8
Fairview exits equal to 3
Paularino
860 homes with mixed apartments and duplexes
Exits:
Fairview 2 exits
Baker 3 exits
College Park
1,790 homes
Princeton/Harbor exit 1 exit to Harbor
Fair drive 7 exits
Fairview exits 3
Wilson exits 7
Mesa Del Mar
2,630 units.single family homes along with small apartment complexes and duplexes. And now ADU’s are being built on the green spaces of the duplexes increasing density 5 exits from the community:
bear exit1 leads to bristol or baker
adams/fairview 1 exit
presidio/newport blvd 1 exit
junipero/arlington 1 exit
Mendoza/baker exit 1
Please use these breakdown of neighborhoods above to help guide you and the councils decision.
Lastly, I want to address recreational space. We are in dire need of recreational space for our community right now!!
If we add 8-10,000 residents without building soccer fields, baseball fields, softballl fields, tennis courts, pickleball courts, basketball courts where are the children going to play. Currently, Newport- Mesa locks gates and we cannot hold practices or use the fields for recreation at these sites. Currently, Zeta club and Slammers club soccer leagues are playing on some of these school fields i.e. Sonora and Davis Elementary. Many Slammers leagues are now having parents drive their kids to Irvine Great Park to practice because we have no fields in Costa Mesa. This is a huge issue in all sports not only soccer. Flag football-Matt Leinart had to drop 90 teams from the Costa Mesa League because they don’t have enough field space or parking. Jack Hammett has hit it’s limit! No bathrooms for the crowds either or parking. Also, OCC was not okay with flag football using their parking lots last season either. Jack Hammett is also used by AYSO and I can tell you the fields are full.
I do want to mention many of the fields have no lights i.e Balearic Park, Davis, Paularino, Killybrooke, Adams, Sonora, CMHS. When the time changes we lose fields to darkness. Last Spring, I watched parents use their headlights to shine lights on their kids little league practice at California Elementary.
They also set up camping lights on tripods for the bases(see pictures attached). Last week, there were 4 teams practicing flag football and a soccer practice at Estancia Park. The players were dodging trees and couldn’t throw or kick the ball because this park has trees planted every 10 feet. It’s a park not a sportsfield, which I understand but we have no where else to practice with these children.
With all that said, we desperately need a sports complex for this already growing community! I’ll end with this, I know that your term will be ending soon and it seems like there is not much you can do, but I want you to know there is so much you can do. I’m asking that you table this FDC decision until the new council members come in. Let the new members decide this one. I know you live here and soon, if not already, you will have grandkids and family living here. We need FDC to be planned out carefully and we need the State to understand that we care about our residents and the future of this city.
We need to make Costa Mesa a community we can all thrive in! Your decision matters. Thanks for your time and I will see you tonight!
Please pictures attached
Thanks,
Natalee King
On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 5:19 PM STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]> wrote:
Natalee:
Attached is the flyer for the September 3 event.
In the meantime, you are welcome to send me an email with your thoughts on FDC. I’ll read it and city staff will pass it along to the other councilmembers.
From: Natalee King <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 3:42 PM
To: STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>
Cc: MUNOZ, SANDY <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Fairview Developmental Center project
Yes. Can you send me time and location?
On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 9:18 AM STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]> wrote:
Natalie:
I’m having a community discussion on September 3 regarding the FDC project.
Would it be alright if we talked then?
It’s going to be difficult for me to get around to everyone individually to discuss FDC.
Thanks.
From: Natalee King <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 8:43 AM
To: STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>; MUNOZ, SANDY <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Fairview Developmental Center project
Hello,
Folowing up again. Do you have time this week to discuss. Fairview developmental center?
Thanks,
Natalee King
On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 5:20 PM Natalee King <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
Following up on this email I sent last week. Do you have time over the next week to discuss the fairview developmental center plans?
Thank you,
On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:06 AM Natalee King <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
Hope all is well. I wanted to see if we can set up a time to meet to discuss the Fairview Developmental Center project. Do you have any availability in the next few weeks? We can meet for coffee or at your office. This is going to be an important topic at the upcoming September city council meeting since it passed 4-2 in planning commission.
Thank you,
Costa Mesa resident
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Against the proposed zoning at Fairview Development Center Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 7:46:13 AM
Attachments: Outlook-bkvkeed5.png
Outlook-v05smqhz.png
Outlook-wwm1beez.png
Outlook-qztvslnv.png
Outlook-vwjoj531.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Sharon Glenn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 6:30 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Against the proposed zoning at Fairview Development Center
I have been a homeowner in College Park since 1985. With the new proposed zoning of a minimum of 2,300 homes, and the developers are pushing to increase that number to 4,000 homes, I am concerned about the traffic load this will create around my neighborhood.
Please keep College Park quiet and safe.
Thank you,
Sharon K. Glenn .
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: ATTENTION - NO to FDC DEVELOPMENT
Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 8:20:09 AM
Attachments: Outlook-3uqgurnn.png
Outlook-xbm41ce0.png
Outlook-kouo0ygy.png
Outlook-eon1mixo.png
Outlook-d5jsfgb3.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: David J. Poh, EA, CTFA <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2026 10:15 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: ATTENTION - NO to FDC DEVELOPMENT
Dear City Council,
Moving forward with development of the Fairview Development Center (FDC) plan is completely unacceptable. The traffic congestion in the vicinity of the neighboring area and access to both the 405 Freeway and 55 Freeway at peak times does not support the proposed plan. Those of us true residents of Costa Mesa that commute in the area know this to be true, when you have to wait multiple lights already…
1. To get thru the traffic light at Wilson and Harbor,
2. To get thru traffic lights heading North on Harbor to the 405 on-ramps in both directions,
3. At the traffic light off-ramp exiting the 405 North at Harbor Blvd.,
4. At the traffic light off-ramp exiting the 405 North at Fairview,
5. To get thru traffic lights on Fair near the Fair Grounds to get on the 55 North, And all of that is just morning and evening peak traffic times. That does not factor in the traffic on the Freeways, the horrific traffic increases already related to the OC Fair (which we tolerate for what it has to offer), or other large events like the LA Chargers practices. If you have not personally tried to do so at 7:30am or 5:30pm, I implore you to personally drive these spots during those times and tell me that 1,000+ more cars on the roads will not backup our city streets, cause frustration for the current residents, cause a decrease in current property owner values, and cause issues for emergency services.
The existing infrastructure is not setup to handle this, even with imminent domain and taking away green space, you would not be able to widen the roads and smooth the flow of additional traffic. Further, any road work in this area to do so would cause further congestion. We live in Costa Mesa for all it has to offer, but moving forward as proposed would damage that, and your names would forever be linked to the project and as a pure money grab.
Vocal OPPONENT of Proposed FDC Development
David J. Poh, EA, CTFA
3rd Generation OC Native
North College Park Property Owner Since 2010
2515 Vassar Place, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Thank you,
Please do not send me files via email.
To send me a file securely: CLICK HERE
David J. Poh, EA, CTFA
Tax - Senior Manager
E: [email protected]
P: 949-535-0885
dk.cpa
Signature.jpg
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: DO NOT BUILD IN FAIRVIEW DEV PARK
Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 11:44:01 AM
Attachments: Outlook-5d2yfdgq.png
Outlook-wmrczqgm.png
Outlook-vykapsc2.png
Outlook-udys3jvd.png
Outlook-kfkrfbor.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Joseph Miner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 11:30 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: DO NOT BUILD IN FAIRVIEW DEV PARK
PLEASE READ INTO THE RECORD THIS EVENING
My name is Joseph Miner I am a certified general appraiser and broker for more than 30 years.i value property such as the Morongo Casino.
You will LOWER PROPERTY VALUE and dilute the value of every home in College Park building 4000 cookie cutter homes in Fairview center.
Why not 100 $3,000,000 5,000 sf homes? Bring quality people to CM. We do not need 4000 homes and 40,000 cars on Harbor blvd. Are you crazy?
What about open space for the city as it is?
Cites do not have to expand. Cities do not have to grow. Sometimes the size they achieve is good enough. you need no more tax revenue. You need no flock cameras. You do not need new computer systems. You do not need to pave your streets so often.
Quit hurting your own people.
--
Best regards, Joseph Miner
Joseph A. Miner
Real Estate Broker
DRE LIC# 01214541
ALL CITIES REALTY®
Corporate Officer
DRE LIC# 01272464
Certified General Appraiser
OREA LIC# AG018937
www.allcitiesrealty.com
www.allcitiesappraisal.com
www.allcitiesrealtybaja.com
All Cities Realty, Inc.
Brokers and Appraisers
800-RE-VALUE
800-738-2583
949-646-4466
SERVICES4SERVICERS
www.services4servicers.com
REALTY MIRACLES
www.realtymiracles.org
www.facebook.com/realtymiracles
833-915-2800
NOTICE PROS
www.noticepros.com
REAL ESTATE LITIGATION SUPPORT
www.realestatelitigationsupport.com
Professional litigation support
SUPPORT A WARRIOR
www.abcorganization.org
www.cartsforwarriors.org
www.donateyourparts.org
Legal disclaimer:
This e-mail transmission is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed. It is privileged and confidential, and may be exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It may not be disclosed, copied, forwarded or redistributed without consent from the author.
If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail please notify the sender at address below and then delete it.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Fairview Development Center
Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 8:19:16 AM
Attachments: Outlook-34q43yyd.png
Outlook-3suv2mee.png
Outlook-pdff5dgu.png
Outlook-tmzxqpnk.png
Outlook-oaua50qi.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Evelyn Colley <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2026 3:21 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Fairview Development Center
Dear Costa Mesa City Council Members,
I am a resident and homeowner in College Park. I purchased my home in 2009 after a 2 year search for the perfect community/neighborhood. I am against the development of the Fairview Development Center. My home is located on Princeton Drive and I refuse to use the Harbor Boulevard exit due to CURRENT traffic congestion.
I have already noticed limited parking in some of the neighboring shopping centers due to the 3- story condominiums, ADU’s and multi-story residential development that was approved and built.
The addition of more vehicles due to the development of FDC would be a total nightmare especially since Princeton Drive is already used as a thoroughfare.
As members of the City Council, please take my views into consideration.
Thank you,
Evelyn Colley
323 Princeton Drive
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Fairview Development Center
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 7:46:44 AM
Attachments: Outlook-vkbupk1k.png
Outlook-5eoypwpt.png
Outlook-4a1ivdxl.png
Outlook-uyjymrru.png
Outlook-mh2jgkxz.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: ruth wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 7:14 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Fairview Development Center
Hi
I am a resident of Costa Mesa for 50 years. We reside on the westside by Victoria. I have watched with great concern all the buildings / condos going up with no concern to Traffic. Victoria cannot handle anymore and our neighborhoods cannot handle anymore traffic. That is the only outlet to Huntington Beach with exception of Adam’s. We need people representing Costa Mesa that are thinking of the residents that live here. I and my neighbors and friends are totally opposed.
Thank you
Ruth Wilson
714 7136859
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Fairview Development Center
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 7:46:51 AM
Attachments: Outlook-wsbjrsjs.png
Outlook-aa5153lh.png
Outlook-ask4qjng.png
Outlook-32ddbre0.png
Outlook-lcdoqc5k.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: emily sigrist <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 7:49 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Fairview Development Center
To Whom It May Concern,
I’m writing to oppose the current plan at Fairview Development Center. It seems the public in general has raised many concerns at meetings that seem to be silenced. Rather than re-list all the reasons to oppose such a development (traffic, losing part of a punks golf course, impact on schools, high density housing nightmare), my vote for each one of your re-elections will depend on how you vote for this disastrous plan.
Sincerely,
Emily Sigrist
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Fairview Development center
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 7:47:20 AM
Attachments: Outlook-4cnfku5p.png
Outlook-e24jzvpr.png
Outlook-xtqdkhy0.png
Outlook-mcclsvnn.png
Outlook-pcr03qqr.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Jenny Randall <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 6:24 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Fairview Development center
Please do not develop the area known as Fairview development center. Costa Mesa is already overbuilt and overcrowded. The city needs to stop its approval of any building projects and especially density housing.
Jenni RANDALL
(310) 408-4381
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: COLGAN, JULIE
To: DACEY, MELINDA; CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Fairview Development Center Plan
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 7:27:14 AM
Attachments: Outlook-fsazrldb
Julie Colgan
Executive Assistant
City of Costa Mesa
| Community Development Department (formerly known as the Economic & Development Services Department)
(714) 754-5270
77 Fair Drive
|
Costa Mesa
|
CA 92626
“The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant community.” From: Maribel Trepas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 6:40 PM
To: PC Public Comments <[email protected]>; GAMEROS, LOREN <[email protected]>; STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>; REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]> Subject: Fairview Development Center Plan
Hello,
I emailed this to the planning commissioners. Please delay this unsafe, unhealthy, high dense mini city/community project within our Costa Mesa community. Make it right for all persons!
Good evening Planning commissioners,
Your comment (Angely) about "Slow our streets down";...is your solution by increasing traffic and the population?
This is your solution to slow our streets down?
Or, ride your bike and use our buses to get around....you expect the people of Costa Mesa to use this means of transportation to get their kids to school, people on time to work, shop, or after school activities?
This means less time at home together so people can be on the bus or bike to get to their destination on time! Costa Mesa or the surrounding cities does not have the infrastructure to support quicker bus rides to destinations. (Bring back free bus rides to and from school in every Costa Mesa neighborhood for all students; this will help reduce cars on the road during the school hours.) I am a registered nurse, Hispanic, have lived in Costa Mesa for 29 years, raised 3 children who are now young adults, and they attended our public schools. When I bought my house, I could barely afford it, but we made sacrifices; no vacations, bed sheets as curtains, hand me down furniture, used cars, no upgrades/remodeling or updating my home, coupons, etc.
For the commissioners who support affordable housing, you are agreeing to lower building, parking and environmental standards for the low income community! I am for affordable housing, and I would love for my children to afford in Costa mesa, but NOT by lowering the standards of living in costa mesa due to the DENSITY bonus law.
Bonus for who, the developer so they can profit on the affordable housing movement.
Please, if you are speaking for the people who need affordable housing, first time home buyers, affordable rent, etc (David and Angely), then help them by speaking up against lower standards of living!
Maintain high standards for all, i
ncluding our affordable housing people!
Why are you ok to lower the building or development standards for low income persons?
Our affordable housing people deserve the best of Costa Mesa, and this plan of 4000 plus units, high rise buildings, is not it! Reduce the housing units to no more than 2,000 homes.
Also, Costa Mesa has to build like 11, 760 new residential units between 2021 to 2029. There have been several new housing units during this time. Can someone tell me how many housing units we have built thus far in Costa Mesa since 2021? Is this information public? If yes, where? If not, please make it public. For the record, 11, 760 units is insane.
Please have a backbone and delay this Fairview Development Project until there is a better plan for the people who live and want to live in Costa Mesa.
Delay it until Gavin Newsom is
out of office, too!
It is comical, we have a Governor that supports climate change, environmental impacts, green house gases, environmental safety, affordable housing, but all this is unimportant and out the door for our low income community and forces them to live in dense communities!
"Ultimate goal is to improve quality of life in our community" said by Angely Andrade Vallarta.
Then stand up against this ridiculous Fairview Development plan to meet the feasibility of the Developer!
Our l
ow income community and people who would qualify for affordable housing, like my children and/or grandchildren, are humans that should not have to tolerate reductions in development standards.
The impression you give is this is the best we can do for you, take it!
Do better!
Sincerely,
Maribel Trepas
Maribel
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Fairview Development Center proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 7:47:01 AM
Attachments: Outlook-xtkob2dp.png
Outlook-euvxja1x.png
Outlook-eswfvz5u.png
Outlook-qzvgleee.png
Outlook-jo255jy3.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Donna Thompson-Becker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 9:35 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Fairview Development Center proposal
Dear Costa Mesa City Council: Mayor
John Stephens, Andrea Marr, Manuel Chavez, Mike Buley, Loren Gameros, Jeff Pettis, Arlis Reynolds
It is our understanding that the future of the Fairview Developmental Center will be a major topic of discussion at Tuesday's upcoming city council meeting. We want to take this opportunity to provide feedback. We hope you will give this email due diligence. We know it is somewhat lengthy, but would appreciate your reading it all the way through. We have not been aware of any meaningful outreach from the council to obtain input from residents of Costa Mesa, particularly the neighborhoods that will be seriously impacted by the proposed 2300 to 4000 units. It would have been beneficial to have invited residents of these neighborhoods to a town hall meeting. Perhaps efforts were made and we missed hearing about them and therefore, participating. This brings us to the purpose of this email. We feel it's incumbent upon us to contribute now, at this late juncture, to ask questions & express our feelings and concerns.
How does the the members of the council believe this proposal will benefit Costa Mesa other than the possibility of the city gaining tax revenue? Are there any conflicts of interest between council members and the property being developed? Perhaps these questions have been already been asked and answered. In that case, we have some catching up to do.
We're hopeful that people have raised concerns about the tremendous increase in traffic on Harbor Boulevard, Fair Drive, and residential streets within the College Park neighborhoods that the proposed development will bring. We do not know the statistics however, living in the area we are aware of the many accidents and driving negligence that currently occurs on Harbor Boulevard. We are concerned that this new development will bring a tremendous increase in traffic. This will then bring more injuries and loss of life for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.Keep in mind additional traffic added to current county fair, Pacific Amphitheater, OC college, & CM High School events. Additionally, Fairview Road has been reduced to two lanes because of the addition of the bike lane.
Living in a state that's supposed to lead the nation in environmental concerns and regulations, the increase in air and noise pollution will be substantial! This obviously will negatively affect our current quality of life.
We don't know where any of the council members live and how many of you are running for re-election or not. Maybe you don't have "a horse in this race," especially if you don't live anywhere around here and are not concerned with the well-being of the residents that will be significantly impacted by this proposed development. It is incumbent upon you as representatives of all the citizens of Costa Mesa to gauge public opinion and take it into consideration before giving the "green light" on future of a Fairview Developmental center.
It may or may not matter to any of you, but we are long-time residents of Costa Mesa who have seen many changes over the years. We have lived here well before the 55 freeway extension and before the existence of triangle square. Neighborhoods have definitely changed with some close-knit ones disappearing, especially with the addition of all the high density housing that has been built within the past 5 years. Traffic on Newport Boulevard for a small distance of just three blocks became a nightmare. Emergency vehicles stopped or delayed as a result of the traffic congestion. Ambulances or paramedica are delayed from providing life- saving measures. It becomes a matter of life and death for our loved ones.
When the shopping center that is now occupied by Home Depot and a multitude of satellite stores was in in the planning stages, Most of the city council members listened wholeheartedly to residents' concerns. Issues were brought to the developer. Negotiations and compromises were reached. The outcomes were positive for neighboring residents and the community as a whole. We hope this can happen in this situation as well.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
With much appreciation for your representation and service to the Costa Mesa Community, Donna & William Becker
298 Joann Street
Marie Teglas
286 Joann Street
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Fairview Development Center
Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 8:20:00 AM
Attachments: Outlook-vweiig5x.png
Outlook-ok40l0rf.png
Outlook-bjphibt2.png
Outlook-fxzfgzgy.png
Outlook-sibsfn42.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: clark taylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2026 9:57 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Fairview Development Center
STRONGLY oppose this ridiculous plan to destroy the quality of life in Costa Mesa! The congestion in traffic this absurd plan of yours would create would be catastrophic! If you approve this thing voters will remember!
Clark Taylor
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Fairview development plan
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 10:13:24 AM
Attachments: Outlook-0pq1xhww.png
Outlook-yl0j4swx.png
Outlook-k0hlo5y0.png
Outlook-bkhbdzgu.png
Outlook-acguawfa.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: M Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 9:41 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Fairview development plan
Hello council members,
I am a resident of Costa Mesa, 25 years, plus grew up in Newport Beach. I'm almost 75 and I have seen this entire area, like all of California, change radically. We chose this neighborhood with foresight, I knew that this quiet neighborhood with excellent access to beach, stores and transportation would become very favorable in the future. We sold both homes we owned in Newport to retire here. We are now seeing gentrification, which is welcome because Canyon Park is an ideal neighborhood to live in and raise a family, or retire into for the quiet streets and general area. In the past I am aware of the lack of care the council has put into the Westside, as Eastside is so "Newport Beach...almost". It has been a primary focus on what was considered the "good part" of Costa Mesa. Until you live on one of the through streets and realize that people are driving through your hood too fast! I don't find that attractive at all! I feel like this part of town has been shortchanged for decades.
Moving on to the subject at hand. We do need brakes on this density to preserve the traffic flow on Harbor because I am not aware of any other access streets proposed.
We all know it is not practical or even possible to park every car that will be in the proposed neighborhood off of the street. We know that you have basically abandoned that requirement for ADU's in our neighborhood. It is important to help ease the impact of new families in our part of Costa Mesa, you cannot meet the state requirements by stuffing all of the needed housing units on the Fairview site. We don't even have adequate Jr. High School access right now. We need a new Jr. High at least to ease the overflow at Tewinkle. I have taught there, it is a zoo. Kids from our side of town have to arrange transportation to this campus and it negates any feeling of community with kids in that school who live in our area. Remember this when you try to add more density. We need another Jr. High. Maybe even a new Elementary school. Are you listening"
With gentrification esp. in this neighborhood we see more young families coming in.
Victoria Elementary will continue on and we really need a Jr. High. Perhaps the Waldorf school site could be used. They can pay to relocate somewhere else in favor of the general public need for a school here. It is property owned by the school district and should not be used by a private school when this need is so prevalent.
Consider adding this requirement to your plan, where will the new students go to school?
I have met with council members who think like I do. I hope most of you appreciate what I am saying. Please keep this project down to a minimum to preserve our present traffic flows. Focus on what you will do with the people this project adds to our community. Don't make this a convenient way to please the state. Find a few other sites to put in new homes to please the state.
Thank you, (for your attention to this matter)
Meridee Thompson
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Fairview Development
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 11:53:57 AM
Attachments: Outlook-uryzih42.png
Outlook-ktjcw3hj.png
Outlook-mcmm5w0l.png
Outlook-lkz40zca.png
Outlook-zxtwivre.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Lee Kix <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 11:39 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Fairview Development
Definitely against Hgh Density Development for Fairview. With little or no public transportation the traffic gridlock will be devastating thus leading to more pollution and thereby increasing global warming. Also a mistake to destroy one of few public golf courses. - Rybacek Family
994 Grove
Costa Mesa
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Application No.: PCTY-25-0003 Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 7:46:30 AM
Attachments: Outlook-kqqwjhd0.png
Outlook-kqzgloeo.png
Outlook-2kl0tmcq.png
Outlook-zdwf2kt2.png
Outlook-luwpd01i.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Alicia Nofts <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 6:58 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Application No.: PCTY-25-0003
Dear Mayor Stephens and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed zoning changes for the Fairview Development Center that could allow between 2,300 and 4,000 new housing units.
As a Costa Mesa resident of 56 years, I am deeply concerned about the impact this development will have on our community. Harbor Boulevard and surrounding streets are already heavily congested. Adding thousands of new homes and an estimated 20,000 additional vehicle trips will significantly worsen traffic conditions, increase commute times, and reduce the quality of life for current residents.
Beyond the traffic impacts, this proposal raises concerns about the city's infrastructure and ability to support such a large increase in population. Roads, public services, schools, and emergency response resources are already under pressure. It is difficult to understand how the city plans to accommodate this level of growth without substantial negative consequences.
I am also concerned about the potential loss of valuable open space and recreational resources, including one of our public golf courses. Community amenities such as these contribute to the character and livability of Costa Mesa and should not be sacrificed without careful consideration of the long-term impacts.
Many residents feel that their concerns are not being adequately heard. The people who live, work, and raise families in Costa Mesa deserve meaningful input on decisions that will permanently affect the future of our city.
I urge the City Council to reject the proposed high-density zoning plan and pursue alternatives that balance housing needs with responsible growth, traffic management, infrastructure capacity, and preservation of community assets.
Please listen to the residents who will be directly impacted by this decision.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ali Nofts
Costa Mesa Resident
Get Outlook for Android
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Feedback on Future Development of Fair-view Development Center Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 10:20:01 AM
Attachments: Outlook-p5kfyk0b.png
Outlook-df2vzjpg.png
Outlook-p21ve25o.png
Outlook-gwan2vue.png
Outlook-cpskztlr.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Carl Glasgow <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 8:48 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Feedback on Future Development of Fair-view Development Center
Thank you for requesting feedback on FDC redeveolpment. My wife and I oppose the 4,000-home development because it will cause huge disruption to Costa Mesa's transportation and lead to overcrowding. We are not opposed to a reduced amount of neighborhood size that has a smaller impact on traffic and services. Without efficient ingress and exit from the development we believe a significant traffic problem will be created. There will be a negative impact on all city services: sewer, power, water, police and fire protection. Rash development without properly enhanced systems and services will significantly and negatively impact Costa Mesa as a whole, especially our College Park neighborhood. Please vote no to this redevelopment and plan for other solutions to the housing issue.
Carl and Joyce Glasgow
2395 Fordham Drive.
Costa Mesa, Ca 92626
714-263-5086
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Future of the Fairview Development Center
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 7:46:25 AM
Attachments: Outlook-zlajfuo0.png
Outlook-325axmep.png
Outlook-cae0ml4m.png
Outlook-qb5tsxqy.png
Outlook-filqe3jt.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Clay Glenn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 6:39 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Future of the Fairview Development Center
I have been a homeowner in College Park since 1985. I understand there is a proposal to build 2,300 to 4,000 new high-density homes at the FDC. I would like to understand what problem this is solving.
If the population of Costa Mesa has decreased over the last decade, and the number of housing units has increased, why do we need even more homes to be added? If the trend is for people to leave not only Costa Mesa, but all of California, this seems like a bad time to build thousands more homes.
I am concerned about how much additional traffic these homes will add to the already-congested roads around (and through) College Park: Harbor, Wilson and Fair. This seems likely to make a bad traffic situation far worse.
Please justify the need for this much additional housing, and convince me that the traffic load can be managed effectively without negatively impacting our relatively safe and quiet neighborhood.
Thank you,
Clayton M. Glenn
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Housing Element/FDC
Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 8:19:38 AM
Attachments: Outlook-ip3vbu2a.png
Outlook-olawawhn.png
Outlook-aarjph0j.png
Outlook-j4r04z5q.png
Outlook-ltahsfnk.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Melissa Lippand <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2026 12:50 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element/FDC
The total number of residential units for the FDC need to be kept to the minimum in order not to have too many negative affects on the surrounding infrastructure, traffic, existing residential neighborhoods, police and fire. The Housing Element should not not have different code requirements for the FDC related to low, medium and high density development than requirements for the other residential areas in Costa Mesa.
Harbor Blvd should not
be the only access to the FDC residential area. Adding an additional access point from Harbor is not a solution. Alternatives are available even if the State's desires need to be modified.
Please listen to the Costa Mesa residents who have been communicating with you and attending these planning meetings. If appears the residents are being ignored which results in frustration and general apathy toward the projects and city government.
Thank you.
Melissa Lippoand, 714/342-1996
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Impact of FDC Development on College Park Families Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 7:47:12 AM
Attachments: Outlook-wtwnmucg.png
Outlook-f0uoldog.png
Outlook-2u355cq5.png
Outlook-jykduclx.png
Outlook-a5amuxdh.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: David McN <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 10:13 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Impact of FDC Development on College Park Families
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I live in College Park and am the parent of an 9-month-old. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed FDC development.
Harbor Boulevard and Fair Drive are already extremely loud and polluted from traffic, and it does not feel like a welcoming or safe environment. The volume and speed of vehicles, combined with the difficulty of crossing the boulevard, make something as simple as taking a stroller for a walk stressful.
Adding thousands of new residents and significantly more traffic would make these existing problems worse and make College Park even less livable for families.
I hope the City will focus on regenerating the commercial areas we already have. There are existing malls, empty retail spaces and underutilized businesses that could be transformed into vibrant neighborhood destinations. I would much rather see incentives for converting vacant spaces into useful retail shops, cafés, family businesses and community & culture spaces.
We need more places for families to walk, cycle, gather and spend time together, not simply more cars and housing. I understand that the current plans include additional retail amenities, but I question whether those benefits justify the significant trade-off for existing residents:
more traffic, noise, air pollution and increased pressure on already difficult pedestrian conditions.
For these reasons, I oppose the proposed FDC development in its current form and urge the Council to reconsider whether its scale and impact on College Park and surrounding neighborhoods are truly in the best interests of our community.
If Costa Mesa is going to grow, let’s invest in creating the walkable, green and family-friendly community that existing and future residents actually want to live in.
Thank you for considering the perspective of a College Park parent.
Sincerely,
David McNally
College Park Resident
Costa Mesa, CA
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: NO TO EXTREME BUILDING of FDC
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 7:46:03 AM
Attachments: Outlook-iv5q5jlf.png
Outlook-phx3kigg.png
Outlook-br4mix5z.png
Outlook-ihjblnnt.png
Outlook-xynvcflk.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Jeanette Moris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 6:12 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: NO TO EXTREME BUILDING of FDC
Hello,
I am a 26 yr. College Park resident...
Respectfully I am so so so disappointed in Costa Mesa City government! How can you even consider this? Is it another 'developer payout' ?????
It doesn't take a math genius to understand that the 2300 homes (let alone the 4,000 home push) is WAY TOO MUCH for our local neighborhoods to absorb.
If this goes through, it will be the 'last straw' for me to stay in California.
Seriously! I'm doing everything I can to hope/believe that staying in the OC (and in California) is "worth it".
It would definitely send me 'over the line' and I'll begin to work on my 'development' out of Costa Mesa if this goes thru!
Please 'do the right thing' and protect our local neighborhoods.
We will be 'watching' which of you votes for this ~ and be assured, we will remember.
Jeanette Moris
College Park Resident
949.887.0844
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Please Listen to the Costa Mesa Residents and Save Mesa Linda Golf Course Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 4:28:24 PM
Attachments: Outlook-renvdtlt.png
Outlook-gfu5coop.png
Outlook-dpjiuds0.png
Outlook-lm2lierh.png
Outlook-yky3eika.png
Good afternoon,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Cheryl Hirtler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 4:15 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Please Listen to the Costa Mesa Residents and Save Mesa Linda Golf Course
Dear Mayor and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council,
I am writing because I am extremely disappointed and concerned about the recent decision to move forward with the redevelopment of the Fairview Development Center and the prospect of allowing up to 4,000 housing units on this property.
This is not simply a development project affecting one neighborhood. It will affect the entire City of Costa Mesa.
I understand that additional access may be necessary if the development reaches a certain level of density. What I cannot understand is why the proposed solution would be to put a 60-foot road directly through the middle of Mesa Linda Golf Course, effectively cutting the course in half.
This is an enormous and potentially irreversible decision. There have to be other options that should be fully studied before the City sacrifices one of our community’s valuable public recreational assets.
For example, residents have proposed using Merrimac Way for secondary access, including pursuing an easement across the State-owned Harbor Village property. Another possibility is evaluating the Placentia maintenance road option, using existing golf-course maintenance access to create a narrower emergency connector with less impact on the course. At a minimum, the City should require a clear traffic analysis showing the exact number of housing units that would trigger the need for a secondary road in the first place.
Why aren’t these alternatives being thoroughly evaluated before taking a road through the golf course?
My husband and I are retired Costa Mesa residents. We have worked hard and reached a point in our lives where we can finally enjoy some of the amenities our community has to offer. Mesa Linda is one of those amenities. Having a public golf course where residents can enjoy recreation, stay active, and spend time with friends is an important part of the quality of life in our community.
It is incredibly frustrating to think that we could lose or fundamentally damage one of the best public golf courses in the area in order to accommodate a development of this scale.
And the traffic impact cannot be ignored. Thousands of additional housing units could mean approximately 20,000 additional vehicle trips on Harbor Boulevard. Our streets are already congested. Adding this level of density near existing neighborhoods will have consequences for traffic, infrastructure and the quality of life throughout Costa Mesa.
At what point do the needs and quality of life of the residents who already live in Costa Mesa become part of the equation?
My husband and I chose to remain in Costa Mesa because we love this community. We should not have to wonder whether the city we have lived in and supported for years will continue to be a place where we can enjoy our retirement.
I am asking the City Council to slow down and fully evaluate every reasonable alternative before approving a 60-foot road through Mesa Linda Golf Course. Please do not make an irreversible decision when other options appear to exist.
I also ask that the City require an independent review of any proposed design that would affect the golf course, including input from qualified golf-course architects and industry professionals. The impact on the course should be carefully evaluated before any plan is approved.
Please listen to the residents of Costa Mesa. We are not asking you to ignore the need for housing or responsible development. We are asking you to find a solution that does not unnecessarily sacrifice one of our community’s recreational treasures and burden our existing neighborhoods with avoidable traffic.
There has to be a better solution than putting a 60-foot road through the middle of Mesa Linda Golf Course. Please take the time to find it.
I strongly urge you to reconsider the current proposal and protect Mesa Linda Golf Course for the residents of Costa Mesa and for future generations.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Hirtler
Costa Mesa Resident Since 1962
562-833-0267
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: REZONING Fairview Development Cent
Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 1:36:47 PM
Attachments: Outlook-bsphqywi.png
Outlook-mlcz0wyf.png
Outlook-v115wjx0.png
Outlook-hwgodjdh.png
Outlook-lzf5dspx.png
Good afternoon,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Roxann Bailey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 12:58 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: REZONING Fairview Development Cent
I am AGAINST rezoning the Fairview Development Center. Proposed development will create mass density that will be negative for the current residents of Costa Mesa. Don't be swayed by greed and short sightedness!!! The City has been challenged for years with lack of street parking due to unenforced apartment rental limits. The City Council has ignored the pleas of homeowners and turned a blind eye to increased trash and vandalism in neighborhoods like College Park due to the overcrowded density in apartments. Adding 2,300 to 4,000 dwellings to an already overcrowded City is unconscionable. The job of the Costa Mesa City Council is to represent the citizens of the City, not grovel at the feet of greedy developers. Listen to the residents of the City!!! NO REZONING !!! R.E. Bailey
An Angry, Concerned Homeowner in Costa Mesa. I have lived in Costa Mesa for 32 years.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: STOP Development of FDC
Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 8:30:08 AM
Attachments: Outlook-rybczygn.png
Outlook-1pteht22.png
Outlook-lifgaxu4.png
Outlook-vsj4eq1k.png
Outlook-52ks0jml.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Roland Figueroa <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2026 7:12 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: STOP Development of FDC
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed development at the FDC location.
As a long-time resident of the College Park neighborhood since 1999, I have serious concerns regarding this project. Specifically, I am worried about the excessive increase in traffic and the negative environmental impacts that would ultimately disrupt our community.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter.
Sincerely,
Roland Figueroa
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Strong Opposition to Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Development - Traffic Concerns Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 1:36:58 PM
Attachments: Outlook-nugdg4iw.png
Outlook-fw3zvoht.png
Outlook-5ufx3wef.png
Outlook-wbviysd4.png
Outlook-dm04vzqi.png
Good afternoon,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Jonathan Steers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 12:44 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Cc: STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>; MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>; BULEY, MIKE <[email protected]>; GAMEROS, LOREN <[email protected]>; PETTIS, JEFF <[email protected]>; REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]>
Subject: Strong Opposition to Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Development - Traffic Concerns
Dear Mayor Stephens and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) development. I am extremely concerned about the severe traffic impacts this project will bring to our community.
Having reviewed the reports and analyses, dumping thousands of additional vehicle trips onto Harbor Boulevard and having them funnel through Wilson Street, Fair Drive, and Harbor Boulevard is completely unworkable. These corridors already suffer from substantial congestion during peak hours, and neither the existing infrastructure nor the surrounding neighborhoods can absorb an influx of this magnitude.
Many residents in our surrounding neighborhoods share these deep concerns. This is an extreme, overly dense development with far too many residential units for the area to handle.
Please be aware that this is a single-topic voting issue for many of us in the community. We will be paying close attention to how each council member votes on this project, and we will make our voices heard at the ballot box. Anyone who votes to approve this development will not have our votes in future elections.
I urge you to listen to your constituents, protect our neighborhoods, and reject this proposal.
Jonathan Steers
Costa Mesa Resident
229 Princeton Dr.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Vote on Fairview Development Center (FDC)
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 7:45:46 AM
Attachments: Outlook-dfbj0jhu.png
Outlook-kbuvnqdt.png
Outlook-v3202zop.png
Outlook-z3cu3fkk.png
Outlook-lucibkdp.png
Good morning,
Forwarding for Public Comment.
Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Beatrice Volper <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 5:25 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote on Fairview Development Center (FDC)
Dear Council Members,
I am alarmed that the plan proposal calls for between 2,300 and 4,000 homes in FDC generating 20,000 additional vehicle trips per day onto Harbor Boulevard. Harbor is already a mess at rush hours, not to mention seasonal traffic and the marathons and half marathons that come through our city.
My home in College Park will be directly impacted by the 2 exits coming out of FDC. Why do we want to degrade the quality of our city? I don't want Costa Mesa to morph from the City of the Arts to the City of Horrendous Traffic.
Please do not support the existing proposal.
Sincerely,
Bea Volper
396 Washington St. Suite 307, Wellesley, MA 02481 | [email protected]
REQUEST FOR CITY SUPPORT AND COORDINATION
Fairview Community Resilience Center
September 8, 2026
To: City of Costa Mesa
Economic & Development Services Department
Planning Division
From: Givinga Foundation, Fiscal Sponsor
RE: Community Resilience Center at the Fairview Developmental Center Givinga Foundation, as fiscal sponsor for Homeowners For Clean Air LLC, respectfully requests the City's consideration and support for a proposed Community Resilience Center (CRC) within the future Fairview Developmental Center redevelopment.
The proposed project would seek approximately five acres within the appropriate development area of the Fairview Specific Plan for development of a nonprofit community resilience facility serving older adults and other vulnerable residents.
The Center would operate as a community facility during normal conditions and as an emergency shelter and resilience hub during earthquakes, wildfires, extreme heat, hazardous-air-quality events, power outages, and other emergencies.
The facility would incorporate emergency power, resilient construction, clean-air capabilities, accessible emergency accommodations, emergency supplies, communications infrastructure, and other appropriate disaster-response features.
We believe the project is potentially complementary to the City's stated objectives for Fairview, including affordable and senior housing, neighborhood-serving amenities, recreational opportunities, publicly accessible open space, and public-safety infrastructure.
We respectfully request the City's assistance in identifying whether a five-acre site for such a facility could be accommodated within the Specific Plan and, if so, the most appropriate location and land-use designation.
We would also appreciate an opportunity to discuss whether the CRC could be incorporated into the future development framework as a community-serving and public-safety component.
We understand that the California Department of General Services (DGS) controls disposition of the State property and that the City does not itself control the property. Our request is therefore intended to Givinga Foundation is an independent 501(c)(3) public charity, EIN 47-4172718 396 Washington St. Suite 307, Wellesley, MA 02481 | [email protected] establish coordination between the City, DGS, Givinga Foundation, and local partners while the Fairview redevelopment framework is being finalized.
We respectfully request a meeting with appropriate City planning staff to present the CRC concept and discuss its potential compatibility with the Fairview Specific Plan.
Respectfully,
Kylie Lahey
Implementation Director
Givinga Foundation
Givinga Foundation is an independent 501(c)(3) public charity, EIN 47-4172718 From: Marianne Plunkett
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: No on Fairview Developmemt Plan
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 11:55:38 AM
I have been a Costa Mesa Resident for 26 years.
I am AGAINST the Costa mesa Planning commission's recommendation for Fairview Development Center.
I encourage ALL to vote No.
Marianne P
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: Joshua Tinkess
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Opposition to FDC
Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 2:40:58 PM
Dear Mayor and Members of City Council,
I am writing as a College Park resident to express my strong opposition to the current development plan being presented for the Fairview Developmental Center property.
As someone who lives in the neighborhood directly adjacent to this site, I am very concerned about the scale and density of the proposed development and the impact it would have on College Park and the surrounding Costa Mesa community.
The Fairview property represents an incredibly important opportunity for Costa Mesa, and I understand that some level of development and additional housing is likely part of its future. However, that does not mean the City should accept a plan that overwhelms the surrounding neighborhoods or fundamentally changes the character and livability of this part of Costa Mesa.
College Park residents already experience the traffic and congestion associated with Harbor Boulevard, Fair Drive, the 55 freeway, Orange Coast College, the Fairgrounds, and other nearby uses. Adding development of this magnitude raises serious concerns about additional traffic, infrastructure, public safety, schools, parking, and the overall quality of life for existing residents.
I strongly urge the City Council to listen to the residents who will be most directly affected by this project and push for a more responsible plan with substantially less density, appropriate open space, adequate infrastructure, and meaningful protections for the surrounding neighborhoods.
Please know that I, as a College Park resident, am strongly opposed to the current plan and ask that you advocate for a significantly more balanced approach.
Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of the residents who live immediately surrounding the Fairview property.
Sincerely,
Josh Tinkess
College Park Resident
Costa Mesa, CA
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: Robert Johnson
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Tonights vote on Faiview Development Center
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 10:47:54 AM
Dear Honorable Council Members,
As a 35 year resident of Costa Mesa, I urge you to please VOTE NO on the residential/commercial development of the Fairview Developmental Center.
Don't ignore the facts:
According to the Final Program Environmental Impact Report, It has been "... determined that the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts related to the following environmental topics: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. In addition, the Draft EIR describes and evaluates project alternatives that may reduce or avoid any identified significant adverse impacts of the project. Topics that could not be mitigated to less than significant include air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and greenhouse gas emissions." PLEASE VOTE NO.
Thank you,
Robert Johnson
253 Westminster Ave,
Costa Mesa, CA
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: CorPlug, Inc.
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Tonight"s vote on the Fairview Developmental Center Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 9:39:54 AM
Attachments: image.png
Dear Honorable Council Members,
Please VOTE NO on the residential/commercial development of the Fairview Developmental Center!!
Don't ignore the facts:
It has been "determined that the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts related to the following environmental topics: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. In addition, the Draft EIR describes and evaluates project alternatives that may reduce or avoid any identified significant adverse impacts of the project. Topics that could not be mitigated to less than significant include air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and greenhouse gas emissions."
PLEASE VOTE NO.
Thank you,
Jacquie Gray
V.P. Operations
714 432-1995 office
714 493-4414 cell
www.corplug.com
**PLEASE NOTE: BEGINNING MAY 1, 2026 UPS WILL PICK UP TUESDAYS AND THURSDAYS. PLEASE PLAN ORDERS ACCORDINGLY**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.