Newport Beach City Council
November 4, 2025

JOE STAPLETON, Mayor
LAUREN KLEIMAN, Mayor Pro Tem
MICHELLE BARTO, Councilmember
ROBYN GRANT, Councilmember
NOAH BLOM, Councilmember
SARA J. WEBER, Councilmember
ERIK WEIGAND, Councilmember
GRACE LEUNG, City Manager
AARON C. HARP, City Attorney
LEILANI BROWN , City Clerk

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 STUDY SESSION - 4:00 P.M. (PUBLIC WELCOME)

REGULAR MEETING FOLLOWS STUDY SESSION
NOVEMBER 4, 2025

NOTICE REGARDING PRESENTATIONS REQUIRING USE OF CITY EQUIPMENT Any presentation requiring the use of the City of Newport Beach ’s equipment must be submitted to the City Clerk 24 hours prior to the scheduled City Council meeting.

LEVINE ACT
Under the Levine Act, Section 84308 of the Government Code, a party to a proceeding before the City involving a contract (other than competitively bid, labor, or personal employment contracts ), franchise, license, permit, or other entitlement for use, is required to disclose on the record of the proceeding any contribution in an amount of more than five hundred dollars ($500) made within the preceding 12 months by the party or the party ’s agent to any elected or appointed officer of the City. If you have made a qualifying contribution, please ensure to make this disclosure on the record.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
If in the future, you wish to challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the City at or before the hearing.

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
Any times listed in this agenda are provided as a courtesy and the actual item may be heard before or after the time given.

This agenda was prepared by the City Clerk. Copies of the staff reports and supporting materials are on file with the City Clerk and are available for public inspection and copying at the City Clerk ’s Office or online at newportbeachca.gov/agendas. For questions or to request copies of any staff reports or other documentation related to items on this agenda, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 949-644-3005.

The City of Newport Beach ’s goal is to fully comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, we will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner .

Please contact City Clerk staff prior to the meeting at 949-644-3005 or cityclerk@newportbeachca .gov so that reasonable accommodations can be made.
1 November 4, 2025

City Council Meeting
I. ROLL CALL - 4:00 p.m.

II. PRESENTATIONS
Newport History Hiding in Plain Sight by Bill Lobdell1.

III STUDY SESSION
Presentation on the Results of the Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study

2. Receive the presentation and provide direction regarding possible implementation of recommendations identified in the CdM Study.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Draft Study Session Presentation
Attachment B - Corridor Atlas
Attachment C - Open House Outreach Summary
IV. INVOCATION
Reverend Dr. George Okusi, St. John the Divine Episcopal Church V. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The City Council of Newport Beach welcomes and encourages community participation. Public comments are invited on items listed on the agenda and non-agenda items. Speakers must limit comments to three minutes per person to allow everyone to speak. Written comments are encouraged as well. The City Council has the discretion to extend or shorten the time limit on agenda or non-agenda items.

Written Communications / Public Comments Received
Written Communications - Public Comments Received
VII. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL

ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
2 November 4, 2025

City Council Meeting
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time in which Councilmembers may pull items from the CONSENT CALENDAR for discussion (ITEMS 1 - 9). Public comments are also invited on Consent Calendar items. Speakers must limit comments to three minutes. Before speaking, please state your name for the record. If any item is removed from the Consent Calendar by a Councilmember, members of the public are invited to speak on each item for up to three minutes per item.

All matters listed under CONSENT CALENDAR are considered to be routine and will all be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. Councilmembers have received detailed staff reports on each of the items recommending an action. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time the City Council votes on the motion unless members of the City Council request specific items to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.

XIV. CONSENT CALENDAR

READING OF MINUTES AND ORDINANCES
Reading of Ordinances3.

Waive reading in full of all ordinances under consideration and direct the City Clerk to read by title only.
3 November 4, 2025

City Council Meeting

RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION
Water Well Permit and Encroachment Agreement with the City of Fountain Valley; and Resolution No. 2025-76: Declaration of Intent to Issue Tax-Exempt Obligations (Bonds)

4. a) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In -Fill Exemption) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (14 CCR § 15332) (Class 32 exemptions are for projects of certain criteria on a development site of five acres or less) of the CEQA Guidelines, because this project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment;
b) Approve a Water Well Permit and Encroachment Agreement with the City of Fountain Valley and Laguna Beach County Water District for the construction, operation and maintenance of a new municipal water well facility at 17902 Bushard Street; and
c) Adopt Resolution No. 2025-76, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Regarding Its Intention to Issue Tax -Exempt Obligations, if needed.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Water Well Permit & Encroachment Agreement Attachment B - City of Fountain Valley Staff Report
Attachment C - Resolution No. 2025-76
Attachment D - Environmental Analysis
Resolution No. 2025-77: Initiating an Amendment to Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan Related to the Minimum Percentage of Inclusionary For-Sale Housing within the Residential Overlay (PA2025-0196)

5. a) Determine this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; and b) Adopt Resolution No. 2025-77, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Initiating an Amendment to Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan (PC-11) Related to the Minimum Percentage of Inclusionary For-Sale Housing Within the Residential Overlay (PA2025-0196).

Staff Report
Attachment A - Resolution No. 2025-77
Attachment B - Initiation Request Letter

CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
4 November 4, 2025

City Council Meeting
Approval of Amendment No. Two to Maintenance & Repair Services Agreement with Merchants Landscape Services, Inc. (Contract No. 8772-1) for Athletic Field Re-Sodding at Buffalo Hills Park.

6. a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly;
b) Approve Budget Amendment No. 26-038 appropriating $189,000 in increased expenditures in Account No. 0108031-851030 from the General Fund unappropriated fund balance; and
c) Approve Amendment No. Two to Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement with Merchants Landscape Services, Inc. for Landscape Services for Parks & Facilities to increase the on -call not to exceed amount by $189,000 for a total on -call not to exceed amount of $4,489,000 and a total overall contract NTE of $14,639,000, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the amendment Staff Report
Attachment A - Budget Amendment
Attachment B - Amendment No. 2
Attachment C - Location Map
Irrigation Controller Replacement Phase 3 - Award of Contract No. 9924-17. a) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because this project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment;
b) Award Contract No. 9924-1 to Superb for the total bid price of $670,004 for the Irrigation Controller Replacement Phase 3 project, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement; and
c) Establish a contingency of $33,500 (approximately 5% of the total bid) to cover the cost of unforeseen work not included in the original contract.

Staff Report
Approval of Amended and Restated Property Maintenance Agreement with Newport Coast Community Association

8. a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and,
b) Approve Amended and Restated Property Maintenance Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Newport Coast Community Association.

Staff Report
Attachment A – Amended and Restated Property Maintenance Agreement 5 November 4, 2025

City Council Meeting

MISCELLANEOUS
Year-End Budget Results and Surplus Allocation9.
a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly;
b) Approve the one -time waiver of policy elements C and D of City Council Policy F-5 - General Fund Surplus Utilization;
c) Approve Budget Amendment No. 25-088, authorizing the transfer of $2,789,008.85 from the Water Fund reserves to the General Liability Internal Service Fund (ISF); and
d) Approve Budget Amendment No. 26-037, allocating the unrestricted operating surplus for Fiscal Year 2024-25.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Budget Amendment No. 25-088
Attachment B - Budget Amendment No. 26-037
ACTION: MOVE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR, EXCEPT FOR

THOSE ITEMS REMOVED
X. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
XI. CURRENT BUSINESS
Ordinance No. 2025-35 and Resolution No. 2025-78: Adding Provisions Related to Bicycle and Electric Bicycle Activity in the Public Right-of-Way

10. a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly;
b) Introduce Ordinance No. 2025-35, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Repealing and Replacing Chapter 12.56 (Bicycles - Registration and Regulations) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and pass to second reading on November 18, 2025; and
c) Adopt Resolution No. 2025-78, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Designating Sidewalks for Riding Bicycles and Electric Bicycles Pursuant to Section 12.56.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Rescinding Resolution No. 82-148.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Ordinance No. 2025-35
Attachment B – Resolution No. 2025-78
Attachment C - Chapter 12.56 Redline
6 November 4, 2025

City Council Meeting
Confirmation of Appointments to the Newport Beach Police Headquarters Assessment Committee

11. a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and
b) Confirm Mayor Joe Stapleton ’s appointments of Councilmembers Michelle Barto, Noah Blom, and Sara J. Weber to the Newport Beach Police Headquarters Assessment Committee.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Resolution No. 2025-65
XII. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
A motion to reconsider the vote on any action taken by the City Council at either this meeting or the previous meeting may be made only by one of the Councilmembers who voted with the prevailing side.

XIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION
XIV. CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS12.
(Government Code § 54956.8): 2 matters.

A. Property: 12 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660, APN 442-271-12.

City Negotiators : Seimone Jurjis, Assistant City Manager, and Lauren Wooding Whitlinger, Real Property Administrator.

Negotiating Parties: Junkins 12 Corporate Plaza, LLC.

Under Negotiation : Instruction to City Negotiators regarding price and terms of payment.

B. Property: 1201 Dove Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660, APN 427-221-06.

City Negotiators : Seimone Jurjis, Assistant City Manager, and Lauren Wooding Whitlinger, Real Property Administrator.

Negotiating Parties: Junkins 12 Corporate Plaza, LLC.

Under Negotiation : Instruction to City Negotiators regarding price and terms of payment.

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Government Code § 54957.6): 1 matter.

13. Agency Designated Representative: Grace Leung, City Manager and Jonathan Holtzman, Esq., Negotiators.

Employee Organization: Newport Beach City Employees Association.

XV. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
XVI. ADJOURNMENT IN MEMORY OF TOM LEGAULT
7 November 4, 2025

City Council Meeting
Testimony given before the City Council is recorded.

The timer light will turn yellow when the speaker has one minute remaining.

The timer light will turn red when the speaker has 10 seconds remaining.

PLEASE TURN CELL PHONES OFF OR SET IN SILENT MODE.
8 2-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

November 4, 2025
Agenda Item No. 2
ABSTRACT:

On September 26, 2023, the City Council held a study session to discuss planning efforts for Corona del Mar’s commercial corridor, with a focus on exploring potential zoning changes to reduce constraints for business owners and making infrastructure improvements to enhance the overall walkability and vibrancy. Following the discussion, the City Council directed staff to study the commercial corridor and develop recommendations with the support of a consultant. City staff has been working alongside the identified consultant, Dudek, since June 2024 to prepare the Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study (CdM Study).

The results of the CdM Study, including proposed recommendations, are being presented for City Council review and direction.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the presentation and provide direction regarding possible implementation of recommendations identified in the CdM Study.

DISCUSSION:

At the August 22, 2023, City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Lauren Kleiman requested that a study of land use and parking within the commercial corridor of Corona del Mar (CdM) be placed on a future agenda , pursuant to Council Policy A -1. The City Council unanimously voted in favor of staff returning with an item.

On September 26, 2023, staff returned to the City Council to discuss a possible study for CdM and to seek input on its content. The City Council expressed an interest in exploring opportunities to create an environment that invites more walkability and connectivi ty to other villages while balancing the parking needs of businesses, visitors and others so that residents are not unfairly burdened.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Seimone Jurjis, Assistant City Manager - 949-644-3001, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Liz Westmoreland, AICP, Principal Planner - 949-644-3234, [email protected]

Joselyn Perez, Senior Planner - 949-644-3312,
[email protected]
TITLE: Presentation on the Results of the Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
9 Presentation on the Results of the Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study November 4, 2025

2-2
Based on th is direction, staff released a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking submissions from qualified firms interested in assisting the City with the CdM Study and preparation of a “community plan” or other appropriate planning document for the CdM commercial corridor (Project Area). Through the RFP process, Dudek emerged as the highest-ranked consultant and the firm mos t likely to achieve the City’s objectives. The City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with Dudek for the CdM Study on June 11, 2024.

Staff will provide a presentation on the work with Dudek using the slide deck included in draft form as Attachment A to this report; however, the following sections serve to provide a summary of the CdM Study’s objectives, approach and recommendations.

Overview of Study and Objectives

The Project Area spans approximately

1.27 miles, from Avocado Avenue to
Hazel Drive (Figure 1 right). The CdM
Study aims to provide recommendations
for zoning, parking and infrastructure to
support the implementation of a
successful, vibrant, walkable and
connected “main street” destination. It
further intends to address the limited
private investment within the corridor,
which has been hindered by outdated
land use regulations, limitations with
development standards, and high
parking requirements. The following five
topics represent the CdM Study’s core
objectives:

1) Develop zoning regulations
unique to CdM;
2) Remove barriers to investment;
3) Implement parking solutions that
balance all users;
4) Enhance walkability & safety;
and
5) Determine feasibility of redevelopment opportunities.

Existing Conditions
To better understand activity within the Project Area, Dudek worked with staff to evaluate existing conditions, including data related to business mix and visitation to inform the study. While not exhaustive, some of the key takeaways of th is analysis are highlighted below:
 The Project Area receives 2.9 million annual visitors who stay 30 minutes or more;  40% of visitors are Newport Beach locals, coming from less than five miles away; Figure 1, CdM Study Project Boundaries
10 Presentation on the Results of the Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study November 4, 2025

2-3
 Visitors come to the Project Area year-round, primarily during daytime hours, with similar visitation levels on both weekdays and weekends;  The Project Area features small parcel sizes and building footprints;  Existing development is not reaching development potential;  Building façade activation varies within the Project Area, with most façade characterized by dull and/or inactive features;
 Outdoor dining along the Project Area is present, but not widespread;  Some instances of existing sidewalk dining create conflicts within the Project Area due to limited sidewalk space; and
 The City’s parking requirements are higher than typical main streets.

The full analysis of existing conditions is provided in Attachment B (Draft Corridor Atlas).

Case Studies

The CdM Study evaluated three case studies of successful “main streets” in Southern California to understand what features, regulations or other conditions contribute to a successful corridor. Belmont Shore 2nd Street in Long Beach, the Main Street in Santa Monica, and Coast Highway (HIP District) in Laguna Beach were selected because they share key similar characteristics to the Project Area, including their location along Coast Highway, length (no more than one mil e long), building height (no more than three stories), and their context within the Coastal Zone. The case studies concluded the following are key attributes to a successful main street corridor:

 Unique local businesses create a distinctive identity;  Active uses like restaurants and entertainment encourage longer stays;  Evening uses such as restaurants and tasting rooms increase foot traffic along the corridor and are essential to the success of main streets;  Local business support through a Chamber of Commerce or Business Improvement District is vital;
 Streetscape improvements create a better pedestrian environment;  Land use regulations should be specific to the area and encourage designs that are pedestrian oriented; and
 A suite of parking and mobility strategies are critical including options to access the corridor without a personal vehicle.

Outreach
Throughout the process of analyzing existing conditions and reviewing case studies, staff conducted substant ial outreach to the CdM community to share the background information and learn what may be working well in the Project Area, what problems exist, and how it could be improved . Outreach occurred at several stages and included commercial business and property owners as well as residents. The following provides a brief overview of the outreach that was conducted:
11 Presentation on the Results of the Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study November 4, 2025

2-4
 December 5, 2024 : Business canvassing along the corridor was conducted and engaged a total of 42 business owners, managers, and property owners. 19 businesses were interviewed.
 February 24 and 26, 2025 : Business roundtable discussions were conducted engaging 14 commercial businesses.
 July 17, 2025: An overview of the CdM Study was presented to the Corona del Mar Residents’ Association.
 July 29, 2025: A follow-up roundtable with business and property owners/operators from the corridor was conducted.
 August 12, 2025: A Community Open House was hosted to share a snapshot of the corridor research and CdM Study findings, and to solicit feedback on the draft goals and actions developed for the Project Area. 77 individuals attended the open house and m ore than 50 participants provided feedb ack on the draft goals and actions. A summary of the event is included as Attachment C.  October 7, 2025 : A follow-up community meeting was hosted to share updated recommendations that had been revised based on feedback received at the community open house. Approximately 40 individuals attended this meeting.

Draft Corridor Atlas and Recommendations
Dudek prepared a key de liverable for the project called the Corridor Atlas , included as Attachment B. The Corridor Atlas contains the goals, strategies and actions for the project that could be implemented over time. The Atlas documents the existing conditions analysis, case studies and process for the study. A preliminary draft was shared at the Follow Up Community Meeting.

Based on an evaluation of existing conditions, background research, review of case studies, and engagement with the business community, staff worked with Dudek to develop initial draft recommendations to accomplish the objectives and goals of the CdM Study. These were shared and later refined based on further input from the business community and from residential community members who attended the Community Open House or Follow Up Community Meeting.

Proposed recommendations are discussed in Table 1, below, and detailed further in the draft presentation and the Corridor Atlas included as Attachments A and B to the staff report. The recommendations are structured as actions that will achieve the project’s four goals. Key recommendations are indicated in bold.

12 Presentation on the Results of the Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study November 4, 2025

2-5
Table 1, Draft Goals and Recommended Actions
Goals Actions
Goal #1: Promote a
pedestrian friendly
and vibrant corridor
that supports high
quality development
and investment

1. Adjust zoning requirements to promote preferred land uses, including outdoor dining on private property.

2. Create tailored development standards unique to CdM
that modify parking requirements for preferred land
uses and incentivize lot consolidation.

3. Establish objective design standards for new development or significant remodels to enhance the pedestrian
experience.

4. Prohibit future development of land uses that are not compatible with an active, pedestrian-oriented corridor including drive-thru facilities, vehicle/equipment
repair, and automobile washing/detailing, while
allowing existing businesses to continue operating.

Goal #2: Increase
parking availability
and accessibility
along the corridor,
and enhance
corridor navigability

5. Select technologies and wayfinding signage to
increase access to both private and public parking
facilities including CdM State Beach parking.

6. Lease private parking lots to increase public parking supply.

7. Expand existing local trolley/local circulator to provide access year-round with new stops along Coast Highway to serve the CdM corridor.

8. Institute an employee shuttle and/or employee parking program to ensure that preferred parking along the corridor is reserved for visitors and residents.

9. Implement a valet program for private or public
property.

Goal #3: Ensure
safe, accessible,
and efficient mobility
for all users --
regardless of mode -
-- along the corridor

10. Implement intersection improvements, including at
MacArthur/Coast Highway and Orchid/Coast Highway.

11. Install infrastructure that supports pedestrian activity and safety along the corridor including bulb-outs and additional markings for crosswalks.

12. Add bike infrastructure on/near Fifth Avenue to
redirect cyclists and E-bikes from sidewalks and Coast
Highway to a safer more convenient route along Fifth
Avenue.

Goal #4: Develop a
clear identity for the
corridor and create
a sense of place

13. Map locations within the corridor that can accommodate outdoor dining on public property and identify areas that can accommodate sidewalk extensions for outdoor dining, parklets or other similar uses through a future Public
Works initiative.

14. Establish a wayfinding and signage program for the public realm.

13 Presentation on the Results of the Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study November 4, 2025

2-6
Summary
The key recommendations include changes to land use permitting requirement s to streamline review of restaurants; prohibit uses that are not compatible with a pedestrian or residential environment; waive parking requirements for restaurants to remove existing barriers to investment; implement a suite of parking solutions to provide better access to and management of the existing parking supply within the corridor ; improve bicycle infrastructure; and design infrastructure on Coast Highway to promote pedestrian and vehicle safety.

Council Direction
Based on the recommendations listed above, staff is seeking input from the City Council on the development of potential code amendments to implem ent the recommendations.

Additionally, staff is seeking guidance from the City Council on any infrastructure improvements that the Public Works Department should evaluate further for technical feasibility.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to this study session item. Any future code amendments or infrastructure proposals brought forward to implement the recommendations of the CdM Study would be evaluated individually for potential fiscal impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, bec ause it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.

NOTICING:

The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). Additionally, notices of the study session were sent to the project interest list and announced via the City’s Newsplash.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Draft Study Session Presentation
Attachment B – Draft Corridor Atlas
Attachment C – Open House Outreach Summary
14 Attachment A
Draft Study Session Presentation
2-7
15 RESULTS OF THE CORONA DEL MAR

COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR STUDY
Community Development Department
November 4, 2025
2-8
16 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF STUDY
2 Identified Concerns from the Community:
• Planning and zoning framework for CdM is outdated
• Barriers resulting in limited private investment
• Parking concerns for residents and businesses
August 22, 2023, A-1 Item to discuss CdM Commercial Corridor September 26, 2023, Study Session to discuss possible study and its content Summer 2024, City launched comprehensive land use and mobility study to identify opportunities to enhance and improve the CdM commercial corridor 2-9
17 PROJECT AREA AND OBJECTIVES
3 • Develop zoning regulations unique to
CdM
• Reduce barriers to investment
• Implement parking solutions that
balance all users
• Enhance walkability & safety
• Determine feasibility of other
development opportunities
Marguerite Ave.

Poppy Ave.

Goldenrod Ave.

Avocado
Ave.

Marigold Ave.

MacArthur Blvd.

Iris Ave.
2-10
18 STUDY PROCESS
4 Kick Off
• Project
Webpage
Launch
• Interest list
started
Background
Research &
Business
Engagement
• Extensive
background
research
• Case studies
• Mailers
• Door-to-Door
Engagement
Public
Engagement
• Roundtable
Interviews with
business
community
• Business
outreach follow-
up
• Public Open
House August
12th, 2025
• Follow up
Community
Meeting
October 7, 2025
Public Hearings
• Study Session
with City
Council
• Draft Zoning
Code updates
• Planning
Commission
Hearing
• City Council
Hearing
Implementation
• City to begin
implementing
the various
recommendations
from the Study
We Are Here
Summer
2024
Fall 2025 –
Winter 2026 Winter 2026Fall 2024-
Spring 2025
Spring – Fall
2025
2-11
19 EXISTING CONDITIONS:

WHO VISITS THE CDM CORRIDOR?
5 2-12 20
EXISTING CONDITIONS:

CDM CORRIDOR BUSINESS MIX
6 2-13 21
7 CASE STUDIES
Key Takeaways:
• CdM has a much lower percentage of food and beverage uses • Active uses like restaurants and entertainment encourage longer stays • Streetscape improvements foster a pedestrian environment • Land use regulations should be specific to the area and be pedestrian oriented • Suite of parking and mobility strategies is critical
Main Street Santa Monica
Coast Hwy. Laguna Beach
Belmont Shore Long Beach
2-14
22 8
GOAL 1: LAND USE AND DESIGN
Action 1:
• Streamline preferred land uses (inc. outdoor dining)
• Consider residential opportunities
Action 2:
•Waive parking for preferred land uses (restaurants/retail) •Incentivize lot consolidation
Action 3:
• Establish design guidelines to set minimum standard (not style) Action 4:
• Prohibit uses that are not compatible with pedestrians or residential
o Carwashes, vehicle repair, drive-thru’s
2-15
23 9
ACTION DETAILS FOR GOAL 1
Existing Zoning Proposed
Offices - Business, Medical,
Dental Permitted Permitted
Retail Sales Permitted Permitted
Automobile Uses –
Rental, Washing, Repair, Drive
Thru
Permitted/Minor Use
Permit Not Permitted*
Animal Services – Veterinary
Services
Conditional Use
Permit
Minor Use
Permit
Animal Services – Animal
Boarding/Kennels
Conditional Use
Permit Not Permitted
Service-Oriented Business
Personal Services (Nail
salons, barber/beauty shop)
Permitted/Minor Use
Permit
Permitted/Minor
Use Permit
Fitness Facility (under 2,000
SF) Permitted Permitted
2-16 24
10 ACTION DETAILS FOR GOAL 1
Existing Zoning Proposed
Food and Beverage
Wine Tasting Room Not Allowed Minor Use Permit
Bar, Lounges, Nightclubs Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit
Restaurant (no late hours) Permitted/Minor Use
Permit Director Level
Fast Casual Restaurant (no
alcohol) Minor Use Permit Director Level
Restaurant (w/late hours/live
entertainment/dancing) Conditional Use Permit Minor Use Permit Outdoor Dining
Use Permit
Amendment/Admin
Permit
Director Level
Residential Uses (2nd/3rd Floor) Not Allowed Permitted
2-17 25
11 GOAL 2: PARKING AND ACCESS TO CORRIDOR
Action 1:
• Leverage technology to access available parking
Action 2:
• Lease private parking lots
Action 3:
• Expand local trolley/circulator to CdM year round
Action 4:
• Employee parking/shuttle
Action 5:
• Valet program for public or private property
2-18
26 ACTION DETAILS FOR GOAL 2
Action 2: Lease Private Parking Lots
• Target banks and office buildings
• Unused during peak hours
• City typically pays for cleaning and
insurance
• Can be for public or employees
• Free or paid
• Reduces red tape for businesses
Action 5: Valet
• Valet can be offered by the City or
permitted through the City
• Queue on side streets
• Allows use of less desirable lots
• Double stacking of cars
2-19
27 GOAL 3: SAFETY AND MOBILITY
Action 1:
• Intersection safety improvements
o MacArthur Boulevard/PCH and Orchid Avenue/PCH
Action 2:
• Bulbouts and crosswalk markings
Action 3:
• Bike Infrastructure
• Get cyclists and E-Bikes off sidewalks and Coast Highway 2-20
28 GOAL 4: CORRIDOR IDENTITY AND SENSE OF PLACE
Action 1:
• Map locations where outdoor dining is allowed
and find new areas for sidewalk extensions
Action 2:
• Wayfinding signage
2-21
29 OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
December 5, 2024, Business canvassing
February 24, 2025, Business roundtable
February 26, 2025, Business roundtable
July 17, 2025, CdM Residents’ Association presentation
July 29, 2025, Follow-up business roundtable
August 12, 2025, Community Open House
October 7, 2025, Follow-up community meeting
2-22
30 RESULTS OF OUTREACH
Business Feedback:
• Parking is challenging for employees and customers
• Desire to streamline proposals and support food and beverage • Pedestrian safety
• Love the location and community events
• Concerns with limiting certain uses
Broader Community Feedback:
• Interest in outdoor dining and restaurants if compatible • Not supportive of housing on upper floors
• Afraid of losing existing businesses like tire shop/personal services • Reduce/prohibit drive-thrus and real estate offices
• Want potential parking impacts to residential addressed • Unsure about valet but really like private lot lease idea • Like bike infrastructure and pedestrian improvements
2-23
31 CORRIDOR ATLAS
• Atlas is a master plan for the commercial
corridor
• Includes:
oBackground research
oCase studies
oOutreach
oRecommendations
oHow to implement
• Implement recommendations over time
oCode amendments
oDesigning infrastructure
improvements
17 2-24 32

COUNCIL DIRECTION
SHOULD STAFF PURSUE:

Code Amendments

1. Change land use
permissions

2. Allow residential

3. Waive parking for
preferred uses

4. Incentives for lot
consolidation

5. Design guidelines

6. Valet ordinance for public
ROW
Programs

1. Private parking lot
leases

2. Signage and
technology solutions

3. Expansion of
trolley/local circulator
Public Improvements

1. Improving intersections
and crosswalks

2. Sidewalk extensions
and bulbouts

3. Designing bike
infrastructure to/along
5th Avenue
18 2-25 33

THANK YOU
Liz Westmoreland, AICP, Principal Planner
Email: [email protected]
19 Joselyn Perez, Senior Planner
Email: [email protected]
Seimone Jurjis, Assistant City Manager
Email: [email protected]
2-26
34 Attachment B
Draft Corridor Atlas
2-27
35 CORONA DEL MAR

COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR STUDY
DRAFT
October 2025
Corridor Atlas
2-28
36 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The City of Newport Beach acknowledges the collaboration and leadership of Mayor Pro Tem Kleiman, Assistant City Manager Seimone Jurjis, and Deputy Director of Public Works Jim Houlihan in the development of the Corona del Mar Land Use and Mobility Study. The City also extends its appreciation to the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce, the Corona del Mar Residents’ Association, the corridor’s businesses, property owners, and Corona del Mar residents, whose input and engagement in the planning process informed the Corridor Atlas and the associated actions for supporting a more walkable and vibrant corridor. 2-29
37 Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. KEY FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY 12

3. OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT 28

4. GOALS, STRATEGIES, ACTIONS 34

5. HOW TO USE THIS ATLAS 54
2-30
38 1

INTRODUCTION
2-31
39 This section provides an overview of the
Study, including its purpose, objectives,
and planning process.
2-32
40 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
6 ABOUT THE STUDY

STUDY BACKGROUND
Over the past two decades, several efforts and studies have shaped the CdM corridor into its current condition, such as:
2004 East Coast Highway was relinquished from Caltrans and the CdM BID developed the Vision Plan 2004 for the corridor, setting the foundation for physical improvements to the corridor.
2006 Many elements of the Vision Plan were implemented, including the landscaped medians, sidewalk landscaping, streetscape furniture, and the addition of the town center and clock tower.
2021 The CdM BID was disestablished. Responsibility for maintaining landscaping along the corridor was transferred to the City’s Public Works Department. In addition, a separate parking study was initiated to explore opportunities and strategies for implementing parking policies for CdM.
2024 This current Study was initiated to address the limited private investment within the corridor, which has been hindered by outdated land use regulations, limitations with development standards, and high parking requirements.

In Summer 2024, the City launched a comprehensive Land Use and Mobility Study (Study) to identify opportunities to enhance and improve the Corona del Mar (CdM) commercial corridor. The CdM commercial corridor (Project Area) spans approximately 1.27 miles from Avocado Avenue to Hazel Avenue. The culmination of the Study is this Corridor Atlas which provides zoning, parking, and infrastructure recommendations for implementation to support a successful, vibrant, lively, walkable and connected “main street” destination.

The Study takes a targeted approach, addressing challenges identified along the corridor based on key findings from the analyses and community outreach, while building on what is already working successfully along the corridor.
1997 The CdM Business Improvement District (BID) was established to fund activities and programs benefiting member businesses located and operating within the area.
2-33
41 7Corridor Atlas - Introduction
Figure 1: Project Area
Marguerite Ave.

Poppy Ave.

Goldenrod Ave.

Avocado Ave.

Marigold Ave.

MacArthur Blvd.

Iris Ave.
2-34
42 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
8 Develop zoning
regulations unique
to CdM.

The City will develop tailored land
use regulations and development
standards specific to the Project
Area, supporting a vibrant corridor
with high quality development.
1 STUDY OBJECTIVES
Remove barriers
to investment.

The City will identify regulatory
barriers that limit development
and reinvestment, with the goal
of attracting businesses with
active uses and helping existing
businesses thrive.

2 Implement parking
solutions that balance
all users.

The City will identify parking
strategies that balance the needs
of visitors, employees, business
owners, and residents while
reducing the burden on individual
businesses. The Study will
consider opportunities to enhance
access to existing parking lots,
identify potential sites for new
parking facilities, and explore new
technologies that can assist in
parking management.
3 Enhance walkability
& safety.

The City will identify opportunities
to promote walkability and
cycling. Enhancement would focus
on improving safety, encouraging
foot traffic, and supporting a more
connected and accessible corridor.
4 Determine feasibility
of redevelopment
opportunities.

The City will study the feasibility
of integrating new uses and other
development, while preserving
existing character of CdM. This
includes exploring various
types of development and
expanding outdoor dining areas
that contribute to a lively and
engaging main street.
5 2-35
43 9
2-3644

RESEARCH AND

ANALYSIS

VISIONING

PLAN N IN G &REGULA TIO N S A D O PTION
Visioning and strategy
sessions conducted with City
staff and Mayor Pro Tem
Kleiman to provide input and
direction on the development
of the draft recommendations.

City Council Study Session
to review the draft Corridor
Altas and provide direction
on the draft actions.Corridor Discovery included a
comprehensive analysis of existing
conditions across several key areas,
including land use and regulations, built
form, the public realm, transportation, safety,
and parking, as well as case study research.

Finalize the Corridor Atlas, Zoning
Code updates, and list of projects
to be included in the CIP per City
Council’s direction.

Outreach occurred at key stages
throughout the Study process to
identify strengths, challenges, and
opportunities for improvement.

Stakeholder and community feedback
was also used to shape and refine the
draft and final recommendations.

Recommendations to be
implemented over time by various
City departments, as well as by local
property owners, and business
owners, contributing to the
long-term vibrancy of the corridor.

OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
Business and
Property
Roundtables
Community
Open
House and
Follow Up
Community
Meeting
Public
Review
Draft
Business and
Property
Owner
Canvassing
Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
10 11

STUDY PROCESS DIAGRAM
Corridor Atlas - Introduction
2-37 45
2 KEY FINDINGS

FROM THE STUDY
2-38
46 This section provides key findings
from the corridor discovery phase,
which evaluated existing conditions
including observations and
opportunities for the corridor that
set the stage for recommendations.
2-39
47 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
14 2.1 CORRIDOR VISITORS
What We Studied
Corridor visitation patterns, including number
of visitors, frequency, and their socio-
economic make-up, including income and
age. In addition, existing business mix was
analyzed.
• Corridor visitors include 2.9 million
annual visitors who stay 30 minutes or
more.
• Most visitors are from Corona del
Mar, Newport Beach, nearby coastal
or adjacent cities, and the broader
Orange County area. 40% of visitors
are Newport Beach locals, less than 5
miles away.
• Average household income of the
captured market is $153,100 and
median age is 38 years.
• Visitors come to the corridor year-
round, primarily during the daytime
hours with weekday and weekend
visits at a similar rate. CdM attracts
visitors year-round with roughly half
of visitors (49%) coming during the
weekdays and the remaining half (51%)
during the weekends. Visitors primarily
use the corridor during the daytime
(10am-5pm) (55%).
• The majority of food and beverage
businesses along the corridor are
independently owned. Roughly 70%
of food and beverage businesses along
the corridor are independent, versus
chain operated business, which provides
unique character and creates a sense of
place.

KEY FINDINGS

CORRIDOR STUDY
2-40
48 Corridor Atlas - Key Findings From the Study
15 Most visitors to the corridor are locals from
Corona del Mar and Newport Beach
Visitors primarily use the corridor during
the daytime hours (10 am-5 pm)
Over half of business types along the corridor
are neighborhood goods and service, which
includes offices, salons, and gyms
The corridor has visitors year-round, with a
slight increase during the summer months
2-41
49 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
16 2.2 REGULATORY SETTING
What We Studied
A high-level review of the regulatory context for the Project Area based on the City’s General Plan Land Use Element and Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the City’s Municipal Code. This regulatory review was conducted to better understand existing land use permissions and development regulations for properties along the corridor. • General Plan Context. The Project Area
is part of the Village of Corona del Mar,
which is one of several villages within
Newport Beach, each with their own
distinct residential and commercial
character.
• General Plan Land Use Designations.

Most of the Project Area is designated
as Corridor Commercial (CC). Land
uses within the CC designation
are intended to provide a range of
neighborhood-serving retail and
service uses along street frontages
that are located and designed to foster
pedestrian activity. Limited parcels
in the Project Area are designated as
Private Institution, Public Facility, Two-
Unit Residential, Single-Unit Residential,
and Parks and Recreation.
• Regulated Intensity. Maximum
intensity for the CC designation is a
floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75.
• Zoning Designations. Most of
the Project Area is designated as
Commercial Corridor (CC). Limited
parcels are designated as Private
Institution, Public Facility, Two-Unit
Residential, Single-Unit Residential, and
Planned Community. A wide variety
of land uses are permitted in the CC
zone, including retail uses, service
uses, recreation, education, and public
assembly uses, and vehicle service uses.
• Lack of Design Standards. The CC
zoning district does not include design
standards for development which
help to shape building character and
features.
• Building Height. Regulated building
height in the Project Area is 32 feet (flat
roof)/37 feet (sloped roof) outside of
the Shoreline Height Limit Zone and
26 feet (flat roof)/31 feet (sloped roof)
within the Shoreline Height Limit Zone,
which correlated with the Coastal Zone
Boundary.
• Parking Requirements. Minimum
parking requirements are established on
a citywide basis by land use. Minimum
requirements for commercial retail uses
are largely burdensome given the lot
sizes and shapes in the Project Area.

KEY FINDINGS
2-42
50 Corridor Atlas - Key Findings From the Study
17 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Most of the Project Area is designated
as Commercial Corridor per the City’s
General Plan intended to provide a range of
neighborhood-serving retail and service uses
Most of the Project Area is designated as
Commercial Corridor which is a zoning
designation that is also applied to Old
Newport Boulevard
A wide variety of land uses are permitted in the CC zone, including retail uses, service uses, recreation, education, and public assembly uses, and vehicle service uses 2-43
51 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
18 2.3 BUILT ENVIRONMENT
What We Studied
Existing physical conditions that were analyzed along the corridor included development patterns, observed building height, parcel characteristics, observed ground floor uses, and building façade activation.
• Small parcel sizes and building
footprints are the most prevalent
development patterns along the
corridor, which supports smaller format
users.
• Continuous building edges are
present along various segments of
Coast Highway; however, several areas
with surface parking lots fronting the
corridor disrupt the building edge.
• Two City-owned parking lots are
available along the corridor – Old
School Park Lot and Bayside Drive
Lot – which are located to the rear of
parcels which front Coast Highway.
• Existing development is not reaching
development potential. Most existing
buildings along the corridor are a single
story, with some instances of two-
story and three-story buildings (e.g.,
the Port Plaza and New Port Theater).

However, there is opportunity to build
approximately up to three stories north
of Coast Highway and two stories south
of Coast Highway.
• Average parcel sizes along the
corridor are small and many are
irregular in shape, both of which can
make redevelopment challenging.
• Existing ground floor uses are
predominately commercial, with a
focus on neighborhood goods and
services (e.g. banks, salons, fitness, etc.)
(54%). While these services support the
needs of CdM residents, they do not
encourage longer stays and draw larger
audiences. Food and beverage use
types that can activate the area beyond
9-5 make up the lowest percentage of
retail uses (26%).
• Building façade activation varies
along the corridor, with most
facades characterized by dull and/or
inactive features, such as little to no
transparency and uniform facades with
little to no detail.

KEY FINDINGS
2-44
52 Corridor Atlas - Key Findings From the Study
19 •
•
•
•
•
•
Small parcel sizes and building footprints
are the most prevalent development
patterns along the corridor
The most common observed ground
floor use is commercial, with a focus on
neighborhood goods & services
Building facade activation varies along the corridor, with some vibrant facades characterized by lots of character, high transparency and facade details, however most facades are characterized by dull and/or inactive features 2-45
53 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
20 2.4 PUBLIC REALM
What We Studied
Public realm elements that were analyzed along the corridor included outdoor dining, benches, public art, plazas, lighting, and landscaping, as well as community programming within the public realm.
• Existing CdM street branding
elements include bicycle racks,
benches, and trash cans that use a
green color palette representing the
CdM brand. There is an opportunity to
increase the street branding for CdM
and assist people walking through
pedestrian wayfinding elements, such
as at bookend entrances and at main
intersections, such as Marguerite/Coast
Highway.
• Outdoor dining along the corridor
is present, but not widespread.

Outdoor dining is configured as patio
dining within private property, dining
within private property setbacks, and
dining along the sidewalk. There is
opportunity to increase the presence of
outdoor dining which adds vibrancy to
a corridor.
• Some instances of existing sidewalk
dining create conflicts along the
corridor due to limited sidewalk space
availability. Some existing sidewalk
dining is either not permitted or out of
compliance with the Citywide Sidewalk
Café Standards. There is opportunity
to explore enforcing the Citywide
Sidewalk Café Standards encroachment
permit program to ensure safe,
pedestrian through traffic within an
organized environment.
• Recurring community programming
along the corridor includes events
hosted by the City and local
organizations. Examples include CdM
Farmers Market within the surface
parking lot at the intersection of Coast
Highway and Marguerite Avenue,
Monthly 3rd Thursdays, and the CdM
Fall Fest hosted by the Corona del Mar
Chamber of Commerce.
• Pedestrian entrance to the corridor
lacks wayfinding elements and
art. There is opportunity to work
with property owners and City Arts
Commission to facilitate more artistic
elements, including sculptures, utility
box art and murals along the corridor.
• Centennial Bench, one of CdM’s public
art pieces, and the clock tower frames
the corner plaza. There is opportunity
to activate plaza with a pop-up vendor
or rotating art.
• The Port (New Port) Theater serves
as a local destination for public
screenings and private events. There
is opportunity to integrate food and
beverage uses on the ground floor of
the theater or surrounding the theater
to serve evening users.

KEY FINDINGS
2-46
54 Corridor Atlas - Key Findings From the Study
21 Outdoor dining along the corridor is configured as patio dining within private property and dining along the sidewalk, as shown above
Existing CdM street branding elements
include bicycle racks, benches, and trash
cans that use a green color palette
Centennial Bench and the clock tower
frames the corner plaza at Marguerite
Avenue and Coast Highway
2-47
55 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
22 2.5 MOBILITY, SAFETY AND

PARKING
What We Studied
Existing mobility and safety conditions
along the corridor, including pedestrian
and bike infrastructure, transit routes,
pedestrian facilities and parking supply and
demand. Collision analyses were conducted
at each intersection along the corridor to
better understand collision factors at key
intersections and identify opportunities for
safety improvements. In addition, strategies
to promote non-vehicular trips to and
from the corridor were studied to identify
opportunities for a holistic approach to
mobility.
• Pedestrian Facilities. The corridor
has 12 marked crossings with the
longest distance being a ¼ gap or
a 5-mile walk between MacArthur
Boulevard and Goldenrod Avenue
and limited midblock crossings.

There is an opportunity to improve
existing crossings by adding high
visibility markings, and exploring the
opportunities for new high visibility
crosswalks, advanced stop bars or
decorative bulb-outs to increase
pedestrian visibility and safety.
• Bicycle Facilities. Coast Highway
includes an existing Class III which
includes sharrow markings, which
converts to a Class II bike lane near
MacArthur Boulevard. Opportunities
for upgrading existing bike facilities
on Avocado Avenue, Marguerite
Avenue, and Bayside Drive were
identified to support non-vehicular
trips to the corridor.
• Traffic Safety Improvements. Over
a quarter of collisions are due to
unsafe speeds, followed by vehicle
right-of-way violations, improper
turning, driving/bicycling under the
influence, and unsafe lane changes.

Opportunities to incorporate solutions
for different intersections, including
protected left-turn phasing and LED
“left turns yield to pedestrians” signs,
based on collision types.
• Public Transit. The corridor is served
by OCTA Route 1, providing service
from 6 AM to 10 PM on weekdays and
7 AM to 9 PM on weekends, with an
average of 1-hour headways. There are
opportunities to provide both public
trolley service and employee shuttle
program along the corridor to address
parking demand along the corridor.
• Neighborhood Electric Vehicles
(NEVs). Existing slow speed streets
of 35 miles an hour or less such
as Goldenrod, Avenue, Marguerite
Avenue, or Bayside Drive can support
Neighborhood Electric Vehicles
(NEVs). On-street NEV parking allows
for more vehicles and additional space
for other micro-mobility vehicles.
• Suite of Parking Strategies.

According to a Parking Study
conducted as a separate effort to
this CdM Study, there are a total of
522 on-street parking spaces, 970
private, off-street parking spaces,
and 134 spaces available in public
City lots. There is an opportunity to
better manage the existing parking
supply for the corridor through a
variety of strategies, such as signage
and technologies, and parking
management, such as leasing private
parking lots to increase public parking
supply.

KEY FINDINGS
2-48
56 Corridor Atlas - Key Findings From the Study
23 Existing Class III bicycle facility with sharrow pavement markings along Coast Highway Existing standard crosswalk at the
intersection of Goldenrod Avenue and
Coast Highway
OCTA Route 1 bus stop located at the
corner of Orchid and Coast Highway
2-49
57 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
24 2.7 CASE STUDIES
What We Studied
Three successful main streets were selected
as case studies, based on their success
factors across four broad categories -
Land Use Mix and Tenanting, Economic
Development, Mobility and Parking,
and Public Realm and Programming. To
ensure applicability to this Study, the case

KEY FINDINGS
• Unique and independent businesses
create a distinctive identity that attract
both local and regional visitors by
creating authentic experiences. These
businesses also respond quickly to local
trends and consumer demands, keeping
the district dynamic and relevant.
• Importance of active uses, like
restaurants and entertainment to
support extended dwell time and
pedestrian activity. These uses
generate vibrancy by encouraging
visitors to stay longer on the corridor
while also meeting everyday needs.

Active frontages also enhance
streetscape activity, foster social
interaction, and strengthen the identity
of a district.
• Evening uses, such as restaurants,
wine bars, and tasting rooms increase
foot traffic along the corridor and are
essential to the success of main streets
as they extend operating hours in the
area and create a vibrant atmosphere.

By attracting more visitors in the
evenings between 6 PM to 10 PM, these
uses increase foot traffic, which benefits
nearby businesses.
• Local business support through a
Chamber of Commerce or Business
Improvement District (BID) plays a vital
role in the success of shopping and
entertainment districts by providing
marketing, programming, and funding.
• Place-based land use and zoning
regulations to promote active, local-
serving pedestrian-oriented corridors.

Design and development standards that
support human-scale design including
street facing façades, outdoor dining,
and parking, Floor Area Ratio (FAR),
and other incentives to support context
specific development.
• Enhanced pedestrian experience
through improved safety and
streetscape improvements, including
outdoor dining, wayfinding, branding,
landscaping, etc., is key to creating a
walkable corridor while also reinforcing
corridor branding.
• A suite of parking and mobility
strategies to address parking demand
and supply challenges, including
integrating technology to offer real-time
parking availability, demand pricing, and
enforcement to ensure the efficient use
of available parking spaces. In addition,
providing safe and active transportation
connections and free trolley services
along corridors further reduces reliance
on private vehicle trips to the corridor.
studies shared similar characteristics to
the corridor, including within Southern
California and the Coastal Zone, no more
than a mile in length, and generally under
three stories in building height.

The case studies included 2nd Street in
Belmont Shore of Long Beach, the Main
Street in Santa Monica, and the Coast
Highway in Laguna Beach.
2-50
58 Corridor Atlas - Key Findings From the Study
25 2nd Street in Belmont Shore is home to several local restaurants, cafes, and retailers Main Street in Santa Monica is managed
by the Main Street Business Improvement
Association (MSBIA), which is responsible
for promoting and marketing the corridor,
along with fostering partnerships with
among businesses, city governmental, and
neighborhood associations
In addition to a free trolley service that
operates along Coast Highway, the City of
Laguna Beach offers a free parking app
that provides real-time parking availability
and mobile payment options
2-51
59 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
26 2.8 DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY
What We Studied
A development feasibility analysis for
potential new development opportunities
along the corridor. The development
feasibility studies applied existing
regulations for the CC zone, such as
parking, building height, and Floor Area

KEY FINDINGS
• Non-standard lots are prevalent in the
Project Area, making conventional
building typologies not feasible.

Lots in the Project Area are either
irregular in shape (non-rectilinear) or
shallow in depth. These non-standard
lot conditions disallow conventional
building typologies to adequately
fit on a site, such as podium or
subterranean parking alongside
commercial at the ground level. These
challenges can be overcome by lot
consolidation to increase overall site
area and dimensions and/or use of
non-conventional building typologies,
such as angled parking or half-bays
of standard parking. While the use of
non-conventional building typologies is
possible, it decreases space efficiencies
which may increase development costs.
• Parking minimums are high, further
restricting development feasibility.

Coupled with site irregularity, existing
parking minimums further constrain
the use of available land. Project Area
sites are generally unable to achieve
existing parking requirements. This
challenge may be overcome by relaxing
parking minimums in the Project
Area and exploring creative parking
management strategies, such as
shared parking, managed valet
parking, and others.
• Structured parking is not feasible
for low scale developement along
the corridor. In order to meet
the City’s parking requirements,
structured parking would be the
most physically efficient due to the
lot sizes along the corridor. However,
structured parking is most financially
feasible for development projects
of a higher intensity, which is not
appropriate for the existing built
environment.
• Mixed-use development is more
challenging from a financial
feasibility standpoint. Given the
high value of existing commercial
development, along with smaller
irregular sized parcels, it will be
difficult to redevelop mixed-
use housing along the corridor,
particularly due to height restrictions
and the related limits on overall
development capacity.

Ratio (FAR) to three test sites to uncover
physical and regulatory barriers that impact
financial feasibility for future development.

The analysis applied a variety of common
commercial and mixed-use building
typologies that can physically fit on the
sites and are appropriate for a main street.
2-52
60 Corridor Atlas - Key Findings From the Study
27 2-5361
3 OUTREACH AND

ENGAGEMENT
2-54
62 This section highlights the touch
points with business and property
owners along the corridor, as well
as the broader community.
[WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY]
2-55
63 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
30 Outreach was conducted at multiple
stages of the planning process to better
understand the corridor’s existing
strengths, challenges, and opportunities
for improvement. The feedback gathered
helped inform, review, and refine the draft
recommendations to ensure they reflect
the needs and priorities of the business and
property owners along the corridor, as well
as the broader community.

3.1 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY OWNER

CANVASSING
Business canvassing along the corridor
was conducted on December 5th, 2024,
and engaged a total of 42 business
owners, managers, and property
owners.19 businesses were interviewed
and provided input on the corridor’s
strengths, challenges and opportunities for
improvement.

Businesses highlighted the corridor’s
location as its key strength, noting that its
visibility and proximity to CdM residents
help to attract local customers. Existing
challenges identified by businesses
included a perceived shortage of
parking, such as limited street parking for
employees and short time limits, as well
as traffic-related safety concerns, such
as speeding vehicles and blind corners
that compromise pedestrian safety and
contribute to traffic accidents.

Business expressed interest in developing
an employee-designated parking program,
introducing a trolley service for the
corridor, as well as street beautification
elements and pedestrian safety elements,
including additional landscaping, bike
racks, more crosswalks, better signage and
signal timing. There was also strong interest
in revisiting zoning regulations to expand
outdoor dining opportunities.

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY

OWNER ROUNDTABLES
Roundtable discussions were conducted
on February 24, 2025 and February 26,
Summer 2024 Fall 2024 —
Spring 2025
Spring 2025 —
Summer 2025
Fall 2025 —
Winter 2025 Winter 2026
Kick-off
• Project webpage
launched
• Interest list
started
Background
Research and
Business
Engagement
• Extensive
background
research
• Case studies
• Mailers
• Door-to-Door
engagement
Public Hearings
• Follow-up
Roundtable with
public
• Study Session
with City Council
• Draft Zoning
Code updates
• Planning
Commission
Hearing
• City Council
Hearing
Public
Engagement
• Roundtable
interviews with
business
community
• Business
outreach
follow-up
• Public Open
House
Implementation
• City to begin
implementing the
various
recommendations
from the Study

OVERVIEW OF THE PLANNING AND OUTREACH PROCESS
2-56
64 Corridor Atlas - Outreach and Engagement
31 2025, engaging 14 commercial business
and property owners/operators from
the corridor. The roundtable discussions
provided an opportunity for participants to
share their perspectives on the corridor’s
current strengths, challenges, and areas of
opportunity along the corridor.

Participants highlighted the corridor’s
unique identity, strong local customer base,
and existing walkability. They also raised
concerns about ongoing challenges such
as limited parking availability, traffic and
pedestrian safety issues, and regulatory
barriers, such as lengthy permitting
processes for new businesses or uses.

Several opportunities were identified to
enhance the corridor, such as improving
connectivity through increased wayfinding
and signage, street lighting, landscaping,
seating, and the integration of pedestrian-
only areas. Businesses also emphasized
the importance of uplifting the corridor’s
identity through thoughtful building design
and enhancements to the streetscape.

A follow-up roundtable with business
and property owners/operators from the
corridor was conducted on July 29, 2025.

The purpose was to share key insights from
the February roundtables and to present
draft recommendations from the Study
for feedback and refinement ahead of the
CdM Community Open House. A total of 15
business and property owners/operators
from the corridor attended. Attendees
received a feedback form to provide
input on the actions. Based on this input,
the goals and actions for the Study were
revised and refined for the CdM Community
Open House.

Business and property owners participate in a roundtable discussion on February 24th, 2024 Business and property roundtable in July
2025 to present draft recommendations for
the corridor
2-57
65 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
32 3.2 COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE
The City hosted a community open
house on August 12th, 2025 with a total
of 77 Corona del Mar residents, as well
as business and property owners from
the along the corridor in attendance. The
purpose of the open house was to share
a snapshot of the corridor background
research and Study findings, and to solicit
feedback on the draft goals and actions
developed for the corridor. More than 50
participants provided feedback on the draft
goals and actions to enhance and improve
the corridor, including their level of support
for each action.

Participants expressed support for:

Zoning Changes: Adjusting zoning
requirements to promote preferred land
uses, such as active uses that support
pedestrian activity and longer stays on
the corridor, and establishing specific
standards for new development to enhance
the pedestrian experience and promote
investment along the corridor.

Increasing Parking Availability: Expanding
the City’s trolley program to the corridor,
dynamic wayfinding and signage to
increase access to public and private
parking facilities, an employee shuttle
program, and leasing private parking lots to
increase public parking supply.

Improved Safety and Corridor
Accessibility: Installing infrastructure
to promote pedestrian activity and
safety along the corridor, and targeted
improvements at key intersections.

Enhancing Identity: Creating opportunities
outdoor dining and corridor branding,
City staff and consultant presenting on the corridor study snapshot for community participants 2-58
66 Corridor Atlas - Outreach and Engagement
33 such as wayfinding and signage, as well
as advertising for corridor events and
programming.

Participants also expressed concerns
related to pedestrian safety, loss of certain
services they enjoy along the corridor, and
overall change.

The City conducted a follow-up meeting
on October 7th, 2025 to share refined
actions based on feedback received
during the August 12th community open
house. In addition, the City presented next
steps for the Study, including the Council
Study Session.

The community expressed support for additional corridor branding to build upon existing unique corridor features, such as the dolphin topiaries in Coast Highway’s median along the corridor
2-59
67 4
GOALS,

STRATEGIES,

ACTIONS
2-60
68 This section outlines current and
future actions to meet goals for
the corridor.
2-61
69 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
36 SUMMARY OF GOALS
Promote a Pedestrian Friendly and Vibrant
Corridor that Supports High Quality
Development and Investment.

Enhance the corridor with active uses to complement existing legacy businesses and support high quality building design.

Incentivize active land uses and consider increasing development potential.

Goal
1 Increase Parking Availability and
Accessibility Along the Corridor, and
Enhance Corridor Navigability
Improve parking supply and provide greater access and wayfinding to parking along the corridor.

Goal
2 2-62
70 Corridor Atlas - Goals, Strategies, Actions
37 Goal
3 Ensure Safe, Accessible, and Efficient
Mobility for All Users — Regardless of
Mode — Along the Corridor
Facilitate safer connections and travel options for all modes along Pacific Coast Highway and to/from the corridor.

Goal
4 Develop a Clear Identity for the Corridor
and Create a Sense of Place
Promote an active and well managed sidewalk environment; consider facilitating opportunities for wider sidewalks; encourage visitors and residents to come to the corridor; encourage reuse of historical features and signage.
2-63
71 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
38 GOAL #1: Promote a Pedestrian Friendly and Vibrant Corridor that Supports High Quality Development and Investment
STRATEGY: Enhance the corridor with active uses to complement existing legacy businesses and support high quality building design. Incentivize active land uses and consider increasing development potential.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Action 1: Adjust zoning requirements to promote preferred land uses, including outdoor dining on private property. 1 Preserve existing land use permissions along the corridor for businesses that support an active main street and support the CdM community. Opportunities to attract more residents and visitors can be achieved through promoting preferred land uses which encourage pedestrian foot traffic throughout the day, such as restaurants, cafes, tasting rooms, and uses with operations extending between 6 PM to 10 PM.

Regulatory barriers to these preferred uses can be removed through reducing permitting requirements, making it easier to open a business. For example, fast casual restaurants with no alcohol sales and restaurants with no late hours should be permitted without Planning Commission review. In addition, tasting rooms can be permitted as an accessory use to retail, subject to required standards. Outdoor dining on private property can also be permitted for those uses that operate during daytime hours or subject to Director Level approval for those uses that operate in evenings.

An excerpt of the recommended land use table is provided as part of this Atlas.

Action 2: Create tailored development standards unique to CdM that modify parking requirements for preferred land uses and incentivize lot consolidation.
2 Promote new development and investment along the corridor through zoning code updates to help sites reach their development potential. Updates may include reduced parking requirements for preferred land uses and/or smaller infill development projects. Encourage consolidation of lots through incentives, such as increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to promote the assemblage of smaller lots into larger lots that can be developed more efficiently.
2-64
72 Corridor Atlas - Goals, Strategies, Actions
39 Action 1: A mix of ground floor uses
that generate pedestrian traffic
Action 1: Preferred land uses, such as restaurant and cafes Action 1: Existing CdM outdoor
dining on private property
Action 2: Reduced parking
requirements for restaurants may help
to promote more investment in CdM
Action 1: Tasting room with outdoor
dining on private property
2-65
73 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
40 Action 3: Establish objective design standards for new development or significant remodels to enhance the
pedestrian experience.

Create design standards that aim to enhance the pedestrian experience and facilitate well-designed buildings along the corridor, regardless of their land use. Requirements will provide a minimum standard of design while allowing for design flexibility and creativity; examples may include transparent ground floors, entries from the sidewalk, and pedestrian lighting. Standards will be objective to provide clear and consistent requirements for new development or existing buildings that would like to undergo significant remodels.

Action 4: Prohibit future development of land uses that are not compatible with an active, pedestrian-oriented corridor while allowing existing businesses to continue operating.

Land uses that are currently permitted along the corridor but are not appropriate for a walkable main street are those that are auto-centric, such as drive-thru facilities, vehicle/equipment repair, and automobile washing/detailing. These uses create safety concerns, such as fragmented sidewalks that can cause potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians as well as noise and emissions that creates incompatibility for outdoor dining. Permissions should be revisited to restrict future development or expansion of these non-compatible uses while allowing existing uses to continue operating.

GOAL #1: Promote a Pedestrian Friendly and Vibrant Corridor that Supports High Quality Development and Investment
STRATEGY: Enhance the corridor with active uses to complement existing legacy businesses and support high quality building design. Incentivize active land uses and consider increasing development potential.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
3 4
2-66
74 Corridor Atlas - Goals, Strategies, Actions
41 Action 3: Existing CdM development
with entry from the sidewalk
Action 3: Transparent ground floor with entries from the sidewalk Action 3: Pedestrian-oriented lighting on buildings
Action 3: Existing CdM development
with transparent ground floor
2-67
75 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study Corridor Atlas - Goals, Strategies, Actions 42 43

LAND USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

EXISTING PROPOSED
Offices - Business, Medical, Dental Permitted Permitted Retail Sales Permitted Permitted
Automobile Uses - Rental, Washing, Repair, Drive Thru Permitted/Minor Use Permit Not Permitted* Animal Services - Veterinary Services Conditional Use Permit Minor Use Permit Animal Services - Animal Boarding/Kennels Conditional Use Permit Not Permitted Service-Oriented Businesses
Personal Services (Nail Salons, Barber/Beauty Shop) Permitted/Minor Use Permit Permitted/Minor Use Permit Fitness Facility (under 2,000 SF) Permitted Permitted
Alcohol Sales
Wine Tasting Room (Accessory to Retail) Not Allowed Minor Use Permit Eating and Drink Establishments
Bars, Lounges, and Nightclubs Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Restaurant (No Late Hours) Permitted/Minor Use Permit Director Level Review Fast Casual Restaurant (No Drive-Thru, No Alcohol) Permitted/Minor Use Permit Director Level Review Restaurant (with Late Hours, Live Entertainment, or Dancing) Conditional Use Permit Minor Use Permit Outdoor Dining
Use Permit Amendment/Administrative
Permit
Director Level Review
Residential Uses (Second or Third Floor) Not Allowed Permitted *Existing uses can remain (e.g. tire shop), but new businesses would be prohibited.

EXCERPT OF RECOMMENDED LAND USE TABLE
2-68
76 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
44 GOAL #2: Increase Parking Availability and Accessibility Along the Corridor, and Enhance Corridor Navigability
STRATEGY: Improve parking supply and provide greater access and wayfinding to parking along the corridor.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Action 1: Select technologies and wayfinding signage
to increase access to both private and public parking
facilities including CdM State Beach parking.
1 Address challenges associated with visitors finding parking along the corridor by leveraging smart parking systems that provide real time information on available spaces. These systems can be accessed through mobile apps or digital signage at key locations along the corridor to guide visitors to open parking spots and reduce congestion. In addition, wayfinding signage for existing off corridor beach parking facilities can encourage the use of these lots while alleviating parking demand on the corridor.

Action 2: Lease private parking lots to increase public parking supply. 2
Unlock existing underutilized private parking lots along the corridor to increase public parking supply. Underutilized lots may include those that are not used during evenings or weekends, such as offices or banks. Candidate private lots can be identified based on location, capacity, and willingness from the property owner. The City can then explore partnership agreements with property owners, such as lease terms (hours, rates, liability, signage, maintenance) and payment. Once established, lots can be added to smart parking systems and can include wayfinding signage to indicate public parking hours/rules.
2-69
77 Corridor Atlas - Goals, Strategies, Actions
45 Action 1: Wayfinding signage with
real-time parking availability
Action 1: Smart parking systems can
include a mobile app with digital displays
Action 1: Beach parking signage
Action 2: Private parking lots can increase parking supply 2-70
78 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
46 Action 3: Expand existing Citywide local trolley/local circulator to provide access year-round with new stops
along Coast Highway to serve the CdM corridor.

Provide an alternate mode of travel within CdM that connects CdM to other villages and key destinations within Newport Beach to reduce demand on parking facilities.

Stop locations, route, frequency, and schedule should be identified. In addition, real time tracking through mobile apps or digital displays to encourage ridership can be explored.

Action 4: Institute an employee shuttle and/or employee parking program to ensure that preferred parking along
the corridor is reserved for visitors and residents.

Manage parking availability along the corridor to prioritize spots for visitors and support corridor employees through an established employee shuttle and/or parking program. A designated parking lot can be identified on or off the corridor that can be accessed via an employee shuttle. In addition, an employee parking program can establish parking permits to require employees to park in certain areas, such as employee-only lots.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
3 4
GOAL #2: Increase Parking Availability and Accessibility Along the Corridor, and Enhance Corridor Navigability
STRATEGY: Improve parking supply and provide greater access and wayfinding to parking along the corridor.
2-71
79 Corridor Atlas - Goals, Strategies, Actions
47 Action 3: Citywide local trolley with new stops along Coast Highway to serve CdM Action 4: Employee shuttle and parking program
2-72
80 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
48 Action 5: Implement a valet parking program for
private or public property.

Increase parking availability along the corridor through a managed valet parking program to reduce parking challenges for businesses and visitors, increasing convenience and overall experience. Potential strategic on-street and off-street valet staging locations can be identified with private property and business owners. On- street locations could include limited areas on adjacent streets to Coast Highway.

Off-street valet staging and storage locations could include public parking facilities and private surface parking lots fronting Coast Highway and in CdM. As a next step, further explore implementation of the valet parking program, including stakeholder outreach, potential operators, and regulations.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
5 GOAL #2: Increase Parking Availability and Accessibility Along the Corridor, and Enhance Corridor Navigability
STRATEGY: Improve parking supply and provide greater access and wayfinding to parking along the corridor.

Existing uses can
remain (e.g. tire shop),
but new businesses
would be prohibited.
2-73
81 Corridor Atlas - Goals, Strategies, Actions
49 Action 5: On-street valet staging for valet parking program Action 5: Off-street valet staging for valet parking program Existing uses can
remain (e.g. tire shop),
but new businesses
would be prohibited.
2-74
82 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
50 GOAL #3: Ensure Safe, Accessible, and Efficient Mobility for All Users — Regardless of Mode — Along the Corridor
STRATEGY: Facilitate safer connections and travel options for all modes along Pacific Coast Highway and to/from the corridor.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Action 1: Implement intersection improvements, including at MacArthur/Coast Highway and Orchid/Coast Highway. 1
Pedestrian safety at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Coast Highway can be improved by tightening the corner radii to/from MacArthur to slow vehicle turning speeds and adding a Leading Pedestrian Interval to give pedestrians additional time to cross safely. At Orchid Avenue and Coast Highway, explore improvements such as a high-visibility crosswalk, an advance stop bar - a pavement marking set several feet before the crosswalk to improve pedestrian visibility - and bulbouts to shorten crossing distances and enhance safety.

Action 2: Install infrastructure that supports pedestrian activity and safety along the corridor including bulbouts and additional markings for crosswalks.
2 To support pedestrian activity and enhance safety along the corridor, existing crosswalks can be upgraded to include high-visibility markings. Additional improvements, such as the installation of new high-visibility or thematic crosswalks that reflect the CdM brand, as well as advance stop bars and bulb outs at strategic locations, can be explored to increase pedestrian visibility.

Action 3: Add bike infrastructure on/near Fifth Avenue
to redirect cyclists and E-bikes from sidewalks and Coast Highway to a safer, more convenient route along Fifth
Avenue.
3 Further study opportunities for adding bicycle facilities and improvements along Fifth Avenue or other lower volume streets connecting to Coast Highway, such as bike boulevards that are low stress routes for cyclists and signage to support non- vehicular trips to the corridor.
2-75
83 Corridor Atlas - Goals, Strategies, Actions
51 Action 1: Intersection Improvements
Action 2: Curb extensions and
crosswalks
Action 2: High-visible and thematic
crosswalk markings
Action 3: Bicycle boulevard with
signage
Action 2: Mid block crosswalk
2-76
84 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
52 GOAL #4: Develop a Clear Identity for the Corridor and Create a Sense of Place
STRATEGY: Promote an active and well managed sidewalk environment; consider facilitating opportunities for wider sidewalks; encourage visitors and residents to come to the corridor; encourage reuse of historical features and signage.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Action 1: Map locations within the corridor that can
accommodate outdoor dining on public property and
identify areas that can accommodate sidewalk extensions for outdoor dining, parklets, or other similar uses through a future Public Works initiative.
1 Consider documenting existing sidewalk widths and Americans with Disabilities (ADA) requirements to ensure a minimum clearance of 4 feet for pedestrians to support compliance with the Citywide Sidewalk Cafe Development Standards.

Locations that can accommodate outdoor sidewalk dining adjacent to buildings must meet the minimum clearance requirements and have sufficient space for dining areas.

Identify locations along the corridor where additional street right-of-way is available while accounting for the potential loss of street parking to accommodate sidewalk extensions. Sidewalk extensions can help to reduce vehicular speeds while increasing pedestrian safety and providing amenities.

Action 2: Establish a wayfinding and signage program for the public realm. 2
Identify pedestrian-oriented directional signage that is uniquely designed to highlight nearby destinations. Signage can be either be static or digital with opportunities for dynamic updates. Potential signage elements could include CdM gateway signage, wayfinding pylons or kiosks, and branded light pole banners that are consistent with the corridor’s existing brand and identity, as well as City signage standards. Signage should be placed in locations to support pedestrian activity and other public realm improvements.
2-77
85 Corridor Atlas - Goals, Strategies, Actions
53 Action 1: Sidewalk extensions can
serve as traffic calming measures
Action 1: Sidewalk extensions can
create space for outdoor dining and
landscaping
Action 1: Outdoor dining adjacent to sidewalk
Action 2: Wayfinding pylon to
highlight nearby key destinations
Action 2: Branded light pole banners to
enhance corridor identity
2-78
86 5

HOW TO USE

THIS ATLAS
2-79
87 Corridor Atlas - How to Use This Atlas
55 This section of the Corridor Atlas
is intended to help guide and
prioritize the implementation of
the goals, strategies, and actions
outlined in Section 4.
2-80
88 Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
56 The goals, strategies, and actions included in Section 4 of this Corridor Atlas will be implemented over time through the adoption of updated zoning regulations for CdM as part of this Study, public sector improvements and programs funded through the City, and private sector investment in the corridor. Implementation will also be guided by funding availability. As such, potential funding sources are outlined in this section to assist the City with implementation.

As corridor enhancements will be implemented over time, this Corridor Atlas is intended to document the overall vision for the future of CdM which can be referenced by the community, local CdM organizations, businesses, and the City to guide improvements and programming.

5.1 PARTNERSHIPS
Successful implementation of the Corridor
Atlas relies on strong partnerships, as
the responsibility for carrying out its
actions extends across multiple entities.

Collaboration ensures that resources
and expertise are aligned to move
initiatives and projects forward effectively.

Within the City of Newport Beach, the
City’s Planning Division and Public
Works Department will serve as lead
partners – guiding land use and zoning
changes to encourage development and
investment and advancing infrastructure
improvements to the public realm and
right-of-way along Coast Highway.

Beyond City departments, business and
property owners along the corridor will
play a direct role in shaping activity and
vibrancy through private redevelopment
and investment. Non-profit organizations,
like the existing Chamber of Commerce
provide important connections to the
business community and can support
corridor identity through events and
programming. By working together,
these partners form the foundation for
coordinated and impactful implementation.

PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CORRIDOR ATLAS

IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS
• City Departments: Community
Development, Planning Division,
Community Development, Code
Enforcement, Public Works Department,
Recreation & Senior Services
Department
• Private Sector: Business Owners,
Property Owners
• Non-Profit Sector: Chamber of Commerce

5.2 FUNDING
Funding to support the implementation of
the goals, strategies, and actions included
in this Corridor Atlas can come from
existing citywide methods, outside grants,
and private investment. A high-level
overview of potential funding mechanisms
is summarized below and on the following
pages.

GENERAL FUND
Primary fund of the City that is used to
account for all general revenues of the
City not specifically levied or collected
for other City funds and for expenditures
related to the rendering of general
services by the City. The adopted budget is
2-81
89 Corridor Atlas - How to Use This Atlas
57 2-8290
Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
58 OTHER FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
• Grants: The City can also apply for
grant funding through regional, state,
and federal sources, such as Caltrans
Active Transportation Program (ATP)
funding which is intended to encourage
increased use of active modes of
transportation, such as biking and
walking.
• County Measures: The Orange County
Transit Authority (OCTA) is responsible
for programming local, federal, and
state-sourced funds towards projects
that will improve transportation in
Orange County, including Measure
M, which is a half-cent sales tax for
transportation.
• Benefit Districts: Benefit districts
collect revenue within a designated
geographical area to pay for district-
based public improvements and
services. A parking benefit district,
for example, would collect funds from
parking meters or fees to be used to
pay for projects such as street repairs,
public art, green spaces, and transit
improvements.
intended to be a reflection of City policies,
goals and priorities. It communicates to
citizens and staff what program allocation
decisions have been approved by the City
Council. Neighborhood Enhancement
Fund is funded via surplus General Funds
and can be used for projects that enhance
neighborhood aesthetics and functionality.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The City of Newport Beach Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) serves as
a plan for public improvements, special
projects, on-going maintenance programs,
and the implementation of the City’s
Master Plans. Projects and programs in
the CIP include improvements and major
maintenance on arterial highways, local
streets, and alleys; storm drain and water
quality improvements; harbor, pier, and
beach improvements; park and facility
improvements; water and wastewater
system improvements; transportation
safety, reliability, and traffic signal
improvements; and planning programs and
studies.

The City appropriates annual capital funds
by department and project category
through the CIP. Projects are programmed
by long-range master plans and as directed
by City Council priorities and community
input. Projects are programmed as short-,
medium-, or long-term. The CIP budget
is submitted annually to the City Council
as a separate budget document in order
to provide more detailed descriptions of
CIP projects scheduled to take place over
the course of the 5-year lifetime of the
document.
2-83
91 Corridor Atlas - How to Use This Atlas
59 2-8492
Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
60 GOALS ACTION
GOAL #1
Promote a Pedestrian
Friendly and Vibrant
Corridor that Supports
High Quality Development
and Investment
Action 1: Adjust zoning requirements to
promote preferred land uses, including outdoor
dining on private property.

Action 2: Create tailored development
standards unique to CdM that modify parking
requirements for preferred land uses and
incentivize lot consolidation.

Action 3: Establish objective design standards
for new development or significant remodels
to enhance the pedestrian experience.

Action 4: Prohibit future development of land
uses that are not compatible with an active,
pedestrian-oriented corridor while allowing
existing businesses to continue operating.

GOAL #2
Increase Parking
Availability and
Accessibility Along the
Corridor, and Enhance
Corridor Navigability
Action 1: Select technologies and wayfinding
signage to increase access to both private and
public parking facilities including Cdm State
Beach parking.

Action 2: Lease private parking lots to increase
public parking supply.

Action 3: Expand existing local trolley/local
circulator to provide access year-round with
new stops along Coast Highway to serve the
CdM corridor.

GOALS AND ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE
2-85
93 Corridor Atlas - How to Use This Atlas
61 GOALS AND ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE

GOAL ACTION
GOAL #2
Increase Parking
Availability and
Accessibility Along the
Corridor, and Enhance
Corridor Navigability
Action 4: Institute an employee shuttle and/
or employee parking program to ensure
that preferred parking along the corridor is
reserved for visitors and residents.

Action 5: Implement a valet program for
private or public property.

GOAL #3
Ensure Safe, Accessible,
and Efficient Mobility for
All Users — Regardless of
Mode — Along the Corridor
Action 1: Implement intersection
improvements, including at MacArthur/Coast
Highway and Orchid/Coast Highway.

Action 2: Install infrastructure that supports
pedestrian activity and safety along the
corridor, including bulbouts and additional
markings for crosswalks.

Action 3: Add bike infrastructure on/near Fifth
Avenue to redirect cyclists and E-bikes from
sidewalks and Coast Highway to a safer, more
convenient route along Fifth Avenue.

GOAL #4
Develop a Clear Identity for
the Corridor and Create a
Sense of Place
Action 1: Map locations within the corridor
that can accommodate outdoor dining on
public property and identify areas that can
accommodate sidewalk extensions for outdoor
dining, parklets, or other similar uses through a
future Public Works initiative.

Action 2: Establish a wayfinding and signage
program for the public realm.

GOALS AND ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE
2-86
94 2-87
95 2-88
96 Attachment C
Open House Outreach Summary
2-89
97 I 1
City of Newport Beach, Corona del Mar Implementation Overlay Zone Commercial Corridor Study Engagement
Resident, Business Owner, and Property Owner Open House Summary For Public Review
Introduction
The City of Newport Beach (City) is conducting a comprehensive Land Use and Mobility Study (Study) to consider ways to enhance and improve the Corona del Mar (CdM) commercial corridor. The Study will identify strategies and provide recommendations to help create a vibrant, walkable, and connected “main street” destination. The final recommendations will be used to create a Corridor Atlas, a guiding document on proposed actions for the commercial corridor. An open house was hosted to engage CdM residents, business owners, and property owners in reviewing the draft goals, actions, and recommendations from the Study and solicit their input. This summary includes the objectives, notification process, open house schedule and format, and key themes from participant input.

Objectives
The engagement objectives were to:

• Share a snapshot of corridor research and study findings, as of July 2025, with corridor business owners, property owners, and residents.
• Recap business engagement from the corridor canvassing, roundtable discussions, and business outreach.
• Solicit input and feedback on the recommendations for the draft Corridor Atlas.

Notification Process
The open house event was advertised using various notification methods. Invitations were sent over three weeks, beginning the week of July 25th and concluding on the day of the open house, August 12th. Below is a list of the notification methods used by the City:

• Social Media Posts on Instagram and Facebook
• Newport Beach City Managers' Friday Newsletter
• Printed Flyer, distributed to local businesses and the CdM Residents Association • Presentation at the CdM Residents Association
• Email Blasts to CdM residents, project interest list, and business engagement participants

In addition, a registration webpage on Eventbrite was launched on Monday, July 25th, to encourage participants to RSVP in advance of the open house. If participants did not register in advance, they could still register at check-in.

Open House Schedule and Format
The open house for the CdM Study was hosted on Tuesday, August 12th, 2025, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., at the Oasis Senior Center on Narcissus Avenue in Corona del Mar. The two-part agenda included a presentation and self-guided activities. In partnership with the City and the technical consultant team from Dudek, Kearns & West facilitated the meeting. The open house was attended by 77 residents, business owners, and property owners.

2-90
98 I 2
Upon arrival at the Oasis Senior Center, participants were invited to sign in, make a name tag, and receive a clipboard, pen, and feedback sheet for the self-guided activities portion of the evening. The project team invited participants to take a seat near the projector and screen, in preparation for the presentation.

The open house presentation began with the agenda, meeting objectives, and introductions from the project team. Following introductions, City staff provided an overview of the Study, including objectives, corridor map boundaries, and timeline (see Appendix A for the presentation slides). Next, the Dudek team and City staff presented a snapshot of corridor research and analysis. They shared information on patterns of visits, business mixes, existing zoning, and permitted land uses. Lastly, they highlighted the four goals and accompanying actions that have been drafted based on business engagement (see below in the next section). After the presentation, the facilitator thanked the open house participants for their time and provided instructions for navigating the self-guided activities.

City staff and the Dudek team are presenting on the corridor study snapshot for community participants.

Each of the four draft recommendations, along with its related goal and actions, was printed on poster boards and placed at the back of the room. Participants were invited to review each recommendation at their own pace and provide feedback using a structured feedback sheet. The feedback sheets included a 5-point scale for each action, ranging from "Less Supportive" to "More Supportive," with a "Neutral" option (see Figure 1). Participants were also invited to provide written feedback for each action. See Appendix B for the blank feedback sheet. In addition, the project team and City staff were available at each poster to answer questions and take notes of verbal comments.

2-91
99 I 3
Figure 1. Snapshot of Supportive Scale and Tell Us More on the Feedback Sheet Open House Input and Key Themes
During the open house, 43 residents, business owners, and property owners used the feedback sheets to provide comments and input on the draft goals and actions proposed by the Study project team. Seven additional completed feedback sheets were submitted to City staff in the Planning Division a week after the open house.

For each goal, input from the feedback sheets is summarized below with detailed comments presented in Appendix C. This includes key themes from written and verbal comments, as well as the average scale response for each action. Feedback from emails and comment cards follows the goal synopsis. The order of key themes does not reflect prioritization.

Goal 1: Promote A Pedestrian -Friendly and Vibrant Corridor that Supports High- Quality Development and Investment
Feedback on Goal 1 included interest in outdoor dining and casual dining options, maintaining the character of CdM, and limiting certain business types (e.g., real estate, banks). Participants expressed mixed views on adding housing to the second floors of buildings, with some noting concerns about the impact on parking, which is already a concern for many residents.

Action Average Scale Response
Adjust zoning requirements to promote preferred land uses, including outdoor dining on private property.

Somewhat Supportive
Offer incentives to encourage lot consolidation and new development, including the integration of new preferred land uses.

Neutral
Establish objective development and design standards for new development or large expansions to enhance the pedestrian experience and promote investment in CdM.

Somewhat Supportive
Prohibit land uses that are not compatible with an active, pedestrian- oriented corridor.

Neutral
Goal 2: Increase Parking Availability and Accessibility Along the Corridor, and Enhance Corridor Navigability
Participant feedback focused on the cost of parking and the effectiveness of solutions such as neighborhood parking permits, in-lieu parking, valet parking, and employee shuttles. Some expressed 2-92
100

I 4
interest in an expanded trolley program, consideration for the pedestrian experience, and how existing lots might be repurposed for other uses.

Action Average Scale Response
Select technologies and wayfinding signage to increase access to both public and private parking facilities.

Somewhat Supportive
Incorporate beach parking signage and availability within the public right-of-way as part of the CdM signage program.

Somewhat Supportive
Expand existing local trolley/local circulator to provide access year- round with new stops along Coast Highway to serve the CdM corridor.

Somewhat Supportive
Implement a valet program for private or public property. Neutral Lease private parking lots to increase public parking supply. More Supportive Institute an employee shuttle and/or employee parking program. Somewhat Supportive Establish an in-lieu parking fee program. Somewhat Unsupportive

Goal 3: Ensure Safe, Accessible, and Efficient Mobility for All Users — Regardless of Mode — Along the Corridor
Participants expressed a range of feedback on Goal 3, including mixed comments about possible physical improvements (e.g., bulb-outs) and changes to bike routes. Other suggestions included improving walking safety, enforcing speed limits, and adding signs for drivers.

Action Average Scale Response
Implement intersection improvements, including at MacArthur and Coast Highway.

Somewhat Supportive
Install infrastructure that supports pedestrian activity and safety along the corridor.

Somewhat Supportive
Reduce speed limit on PCH from 35 mph to 30 mph. Neutral Implement buffered bike lanes on Avocado. Neutral
Add bike infrastructure on Coast Highway and/or bike boulevards to move cyclists from Fifth Avenue bike path to businesses.

Netural

Goal 4: Develop a Clear Identity for the Corridor and Create a Sense of Place For Goal 4, feedback centered on updates for wayfinding consistent with CdM character, improvements to landscaping, and coordination with the CdM Chamber of Commerce. Some participants expressed interest in outdoor dining.

2-93
101

I 5

Action Average Scale Response
Map locations within the corridor that can accommodate outdoor dining on public property and enforce the Citywide Sidewalk Encroachment Permit Program.

Somewhat Supportive
Identify areas along the corridor that can accommodate sidewalk extensions through a future Public Works initiative.

Somewhat Supportive
Establish a wayfinding and signage program for the public realm. Somewhat Supportive Update zoning code to facilitate private property signage that identifies new or updated requirements to enhance corridor identity.

Neutral
Create a calendar of recurring and ongoing events along the corridor. Somewhat Supportive Email and Comment Card Feedback
Feedback from emails and comment cards touched on a variety of topics, including suggestions for coordinating with residents and real estate brokers, better understanding traffic conditions in the CdM corridor, and creating a commercial tenant directory. Other feedback mentioned specific businesses to consider when updating permitting and zoning codes, as well as maintaining the charm and character of CdM.

Next Steps
The input received from the open house will be incorporated into the draft recommendations for the Corridor Atlas. The project timeline below outlines the proposed review and implementation process with the City Council. For more information on the CdM Commercial Corridor Study, including project resources, visit: www.newportbeachca.gov/cdmstudy

• Open House Summary – Summer 2025
o Residents, Business Owners, and Property Owners
• Study Session – Fall 2025
o Feedback from City Council
• Updated Implementation Overlay Zone – Fall 2025
o Incorporate feedback from open house and study session • Public Hearings – Winter 2025
o Planning Commission
o City Council - Adoption

2-94
102

I 6
Appendix A – Open House PowerPoint Slide Deck

2-95
103

I 7
2-96 104
I 8
2-97 105

I 9
2-98 106

I 10
2-99 107

I 11
2-100 108
I 12
2-101 109

I 13
2-102 110

I 14
2-103 111

I 15
2-104 112

I 16
2-105 113

I 17
2-106 114

I 18
2-107 115

I 19
2-108 116

I 20

2-109
117

I 21
Appendix B – Feedback Sheets
2-110
118

I 22

2-111
119

Appendix C – Transcribed Feedback
The comments added directly to the feedback sheet are specific to each goal and action. The project team is reviewing the comments during the next phase of the project. The comments are transcribed below, organized by the related goal. They have been edited for spelling and grammar and categorized for clarity. The order does not reflect prioritization.

Goal 1: Promote A Pedestrian -Friendly and Vibrant Corridor that Supports High- Quality Development and Investment
• Interest in outdoor dining as it creates community spirit, with the suggestion to consider noise for residents and limit late hours
• Mixed sentiments on adding housing to the second floors, with some in favor of the option, while others expressed concerns about parking impacts.
• Focus on casual dining, retail, personal services, and limit business types such as real estate, banks, rugs, and lighting.
• Maintain the character of CdM with new and current businesses, such as upgraded facades. • Focus on quality objective designs and continuity between facades, colors, awnings, signage, etc.
• Clarify land uses that encourage vs prohibit certain types of uses.

Goal 2: Increase Parking Availability and Accessibility Along the Corridor, and Enhance Corridor Navigability
• Implement parking permits for the neighborhoods that border the CdM corridor. • Think of the pedestrian experience.
• Interest in the trolley – with considerations to the stops, where users would park to pick up the trolley, and where it would extend outside of CdM.
• Concerns about where funding would come from to run the valet program and where the valet would park the vehicles.
• Interest in repurposed private lots for after-hours use, but suggestions to keep them free or low cost.
• Some participants suggested an employee shuttle may only be effective if the employer mandates it and if parking in neighborhoods is restricted to permits. • Concerns about the effectiveness of in-lieu parking; more information on implementation and burden on business owners is requested.
• One comment suggested the City should consider buying/leasing the building where Rite Aid was to add retail on the ground floor and parking on the upper levels.

Goal 3: Ensure Safe, Accessible, and Efficient Mobility for All Users — Regardless of Mode — Along the Corridor
• Walking safety is an ongoing concern for drivers and pedestrians. • Suggested including improved signal timing and adding signs for drivers that a crosswalk is ahead.
• Mixed thoughts on sidewalk extension or bulb outs, concerns on whether it would help with pedestrian safety issues.
• If the speed limit was reduced, a few comments suggested the police need stricter enforcement. Currently, drivers ignore the posted speed limit. 2-112
120
• Mixed interest in changes to bike route; some participants encouraged the protected bike path and reroute to avoid PCH, while others expressed frustration with cyclists taking over the road, and a disinterest in them moving into the neighborhoods.

Goal 4: Develop a Clear Identity for the Corridor and Create a Sense of Place • Participants expressed an overall interest in outdoor dining, with suggestions for a QR code for the Map, considerations on keeping space between walkers and diners, and an invitation to the permitting process to encourage rather than prohibit. • Support for wayfinding signage only if it aligns with design standards conducive to the CdM character.
• Support for updated landscaping, such as gates for tree wells and frequent maintenance. • Coordinate the calendar with the CdM Chamber of Commerce calendar and include road work or construction for public awareness.

Email and Comment Card Feedback
• Some participants expressed a desire that residents would have been involved earlier in the process to provide feedback before draft goals were provided. • A comment suggested creating a commercial tenant directory website to market/brand the commercial corridor businesses.
• A few comments suggested including coordinating with the top brokers in the region on the trends they are seeing, such as residential uses among retail/restaurants. • Participants expressed a desire to keep the tire shop and dog groomer as they are vital services for the residents; consider this when updating the permitting and zoning codes. • An emphasis on maintaining the charm and character of CdM. • Suggestion to conduct a traffic study and review road conditions to understand traffic flow, such as on MacArthur Avenue and Avocado Avenue, to provide safe and reliable access to residents and visitors.
2-113
121

On the Agenda: November 4 City Council Meeting
The next meeting of the Newport Beach City Council will be on Tuesday, November 4 at 4 p.m. The full agenda is available here.

Agenda items include:
• A Study Session on the Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study. The study, initiated in June 2024, provides recommendations on zoning, parking and infrastructure changes to support the implementation of a successful, vibrant, walkable and connected “main street” destination. Staff will present the results of the study, including feedback from various outreach events, and receive input regarding potential implementation of the study’s recommendations. The public will have an opportunity to provide feedback on recommendations identified in the study. For more information on the CdM Commercial Corridor Study visit: www.newportbeachca.gov/cdmstudy.

• A water well permit and encroachment agreement with the City of Fountain Valley and a declaration of intent to issue tax-exempt bonds. The agreement would approve permits for the construction and maintenance of a new municipal water well at 17902 Bushard Street in Fountain Valley in partnership with the Laguna Beach County Water District. Under a cooperative agreement approved in 2024, Newport Beach is leading the project’s planning, design and construction in coordination with Laguna Beach. The new well would help strengthen both cities' long-term water reliability and reduce dependence on imported water supplies from Northern California and the Colorado River. The City Council will also decide whether to allow early project costs to be reimbursed through bond financing if needed. Once complete, the well is expected to enhance local water supply security, provide cost savings and ensure greater local control over water resources.

• An ordinance and resolution designed to increase the safe operation of bicycles and electric bicycles in public rights-of-way, address the growing use of electric bicycles and improve safety for all riders. The ordinance would update the City’s bicycle regulations to include electric bicycles, require helmets for all riders under 18, outline unsafe riding behaviors and allow bicycle impoundment or safety training programs for minors who violate the rules. A companion resolution would expand the number of streets where sidewalk cycling is permitted to help less-experienced riders travel safely along busy corridors.

VIEW THE FULL AGENDA >>

122
From: jim mains
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Questions for City Council consideration by sending them to the City Clerk Date: November 03, 2025 3:05:57 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

Hi
I have two questions:
1) What time periods do the cameras on the light poles on MacArthur near Birch record? (Background: I was hit by two cars - one was a hit and run. The NBPD said the camera would have caught it but when I call the NBPD front desk, the person said they don't really know. I called again and the person said said I think only if a chase. So I went to the PD station and that person didn't know.)
Why isn't this a simple answer?
2) So I asked for emails of the officer that took my statement and his boss. No answer after 2 emails. Then, I asked for the bosses boss and the chief. No answer.

A total of 4 emails sent over
3 weeks and no answer.

What's the use of giving out emails and not getting a response.

I plan to come to the mtg tomorrow too.

Thanks
Jim Mains
29 Harcourt
Newport Coast, 92657
Received After Agenda Printed
November 4, 2025
Non - Agenda Item
123
From: Trisha Sanchez.

To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Fwd: CdM CC Letter 11-3-25.pdf
Date: November 03, 2025 3:46:47 PM
Attachments: CdM CC Letter 11-3-25.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

Hello, please and to the public record for tomorrow’s meeting regarding the 11/04/2025 City Council Meeting
Study Session begins at 4:00 p.m.

Regular Meeting follows Study Session
Thank you, Trisha Sanchez
From: "Trisha Sanchez." <[email protected]>
Date: November 3, 2025 at 3:36:14 PM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: CdM CC Letter 11-3-25.pdf

Trisha L. Sanchez
Character Counts!
Received After Agenda Printed
November 4, 2025
Agenda Item No. 2
124
Corona del Mar (CdM) Commercial Corridor Study
November 3, 2025
Dear City Leaders,
The City of Newport Beach is conducting a comprehensive study to enhance the vibrancy of the Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor. This study proposes the integration of mixed-use residential housing development and zoning exemptions.

During recent community meetings with City staff, residents expressed concerns regarding the lack of early stakeholder input in the proposed changes to the Commercial Corridor within the CdM Village. Specifically, residents expressed dissatisfaction with the following:

Stakeholder Participation and Input
Residents did not have the opportunity to contribute to the development of the presented goals and actions within the Commercial Corridor Study.

They also did not have the chance to shape the types of future businesses that would be permitted or declined as outlined in the study and presented to the public in recent forums.

The rating category options on all feedback survey questions did not provide for dissenting responses. The categories available were either more supportive, neutral, or less supportive, resulting in all options being categorized as supportive. There were no divergent options to disagree or strongly disagree with the rating categories presented.

Individual survey questions regarding goals and actions were merged with other questions, causing ambiguity and difficulty in agreeing with one and disagreeing with the other.

The survey did not explicitly address zoning changes to support mixed-use residential housing, which is a significant concern for residents. I hope that the City will recognize the significance of engaging resident stakeholders throughout the development and decision-making process.

Accuracy of Data Regarding Impacts of Zoning Changes
The proposed re-zoning to allow new second-floor residential housing above commercial buildings, coupled with the reduction of parking requirements, does not accurately reflect the current daily experiences of residents. Furthermore, it does not appear to be an accurate reflection of ongoing parking, traffic, and safety concerns along the corridor and surrounding neighborhoods.

The City invested significant time and effort in creatively and comprehensively addressing the State Housing Mandates, fulfilling the anticipated requirements. However, incorporating additional non-mandatory zoning changes for new mixed-use residential housing into an excessively dense commercial and residential area along PCH is not favored by residents and numerous businesses. Such modifications will have 125
detrimental consequences for the Village safety, quality of life, charm, and character.

Negative Impacts on Quality of Life
Residents residing outside the CdM Village do not experience the constant 24/7 traffic and safety issues. Modifications to building density, inadequate parking, and limited space to accommodate the existing population and infrastructure will only deteriorate the area and not enhance it.

Individuals residing near the commercial corridor on either side of PCH encounter persistent traffic and parking challenges, hindering their ability to park their vehicles or host guests during the spring, summer, and fall. Regrettably, this situation has become the norm annually on weekdays due to the presence of workers, visitors, construction vehicles, long-term parking, mobile car washes, and delivery drivers.

The proposed business upgrades to align CdM with its character, including traffic safety and parking alternative suggestions such as trolley systems, employee shuttles, and increased parking lot sharing, are commendable and have been well-received. However, the introduction of mixed-use residential housing poses a significant challenge by increasing the number of individuals parking on residential streets. This exacerbates traffic congestion, parking shortages, and heightened safety concerns, potentially leading to overpopulation and a decline in the overall quality of life within the neighborhood.

Given the existing strained local infrastructure, which has contributed to challenges such as traffic congestion, parking shortages, and heightened safety concerns, it is prudent to exercise caution before implementing additional measures. Continued collaboration and support from City staff are essential to address these challenges and ensure that CdM remains a safe and vibrant community for future generations.

To ensure transparency and direct stakeholder engagement, it is recommended to extend the decision-making process until all CdM residents are informed through direct mailers. This will provide an opportunity for residents to discuss these critical proposed changes in greater detail or decline the re-zoning mixed use residential option.

Sincerely,
Trisha Sanchez
CdM Resident
126
From: Lisa Sutton
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk"s Office; Jurjis, Seimone; Westmoreland, Liz; Perez, Joselyn Subject: Corona Del Mar Commercial Corridor Study - Study session resident feedback and comments Date: November 03, 2025 4:55:07 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

Subject: Opposition to a number of the numerous Core recommendations and presented findings in staff presentation/recommendations to Newport Beach City Council 11/4/25 re: The Corona Del Mar Commercial Corridor Dear Members of the City Council and City staff,
I am writing to you as a concerned resident of the Corona Del Mar village in the City of Newport Beach. I am strongly opposed to a number of the staff recommendations (including the mixed use/residential housing inclusion, rezoning of the corridor and land use designation proposed changes in the recommended land use table and permit requirements). I am also opposed to some of the high level parking solutions such as leveraging the Oasis/Grant Howard City parking lot) in the proposed CDM corridor plan. More cars driving to off street parking will only add to existing traffic circulation issues at peak seasonal times of the year or on weekends. Of particular concern are staff comments that extensive community outreach has been conducted. The weak residential community attendance of the outreach meetings (and attendance of 40-70 people per session at Oasis meetings) for a CDM residential community of 12,000+ is a “sad” outcome. The sample size of survey respondents or attendants is questionable and reflects of poor community involvement, outreach/residential neighborhood engagement given the scope and scale of the potential impact of the proposal on the entire community. Of the 10+ business and 60+ resident’s I talked with directly (since first learning about this project in August), it is clear that outreach has been a limited, closely contained and lacking in full disclosure and inclusion of all community members for input early in the project development phase. Staff and outside consultant recommendations appear “Baked In” before any residential public disclosure presentations were made to the residential public on this project. It is my opinion that the core components of the proposal (related to land use and re-zoning) were developed not in the best interest of the residential community (or anyone that travels up and down PCH through CDM), but with the intent to help benefit existing commercial land property owners enhance development potential, and in turn 127
increasing the underlying land value of their commercial property land value once these zoning recommendation changes move thought the Planning Commission and City Council approval process.

The proposed project raises significant concerns regarding its potential negative impacts on our community's quality of life and public safety. My primary objections are based on the following specific issues:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->
· <!--[endif]-->Concern # 1. Traffic
Congestion/circulation, parking during the peak summer months. The staff recommendations do not address current traffic circulation elements, noise and safety risks in our residential neighborhoods – especially during the peak seasonal times (May through September). Traffic focus was on PCH and offsite parking. It is unimaginable that any supporting traffic study did not include a peak season residential neighborhood circulation element study component. The City has not demonstrated an ability to manage the huge influx of visitors and parking/noise issues in CDM during the peak summer and shoulder months. Despite numerous resident complaints of multiple traffic and parking violation reports, problems continue to exist and have gotten worse every year. During high season months, the Flower streets on the ocean side of PCH have become packed with visitors vying for parking and vendors (Door dash/Uber eats) committing multiple moving and traffic/noise violations racing down our streets and now alleys. Unattended vehicles are left in the middle of streets while vendor deliveries are made. The increased zoning capacity development implemented in CDM over the years (and lack of parking enforcement or garage use for parking) has already added to neighborhood parking problems. Too many new homes/higher density/adu’s added to our CDM neighborhoods (which are already congested) has exacerbated daily traffic issues – especially during May through September. Employees from businesses on PCH already park in our neighborhoods, construction vendors clog our available parking spots, and delivery vendors waiting for food deliveries are waiting in cars in parking spots or neighborhood areas to pick up food. Service/construction vendors and residents illegally park in our alleys blocking accessibility. All of this makes our streets and community less safe for pedestrians and drivers. The 2016 Cal Tran traffic study for PCH and Corona Del Mar is outdated. A current traffic data study that includes a circulation study of residential streets that connect with PCH ( during peak month timeframe) is recommended before any final council decisions. <!--[if !supportLists]-->
· <!--[endif]-->Concern # 2. Environmental and quality of life Impact: Noise is a huge problem in Corona Del Mar, and further development 128
along the corridor including any potential for building 2nd and third floor residential housing, or rooftop use of any new building will destroy the neighborhoods along the corridor in CDM. Roof top dining, extended hours for restaurants next to neighborhoods is not something CDM residents want. Making these decisions at a “Director Level” land used decision vs. the existing land permit process is only good for the land honors and NOT GOOD for the local residents or property owners that are within blocks of the CDM commercial corridor. The summer traffic generates added traffic, dirt, debris, airborne pollutants throughout CDM. Dining outdoors on a side walk next to PCH in the summer months with exhaust, debris and noise is a questionable recommendation and liability issues with sidewalks and traffic safety on PCH should be further addressed and researched.
“Cars, trucks and
motorcycles zoom by, spewing a steady stream of pollutants — carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide. These aren't just bad smells, they're chemicals that have been shown to trigger asthma, decrease lung function, and raise the risk of heart and respiratory diseases over time.” Noise from emergency vehicles traveling out of the local CDM fire station has increased dramatically and has continued to negative community impact quality of life as has noise from helicopters, other emergency vehicles, and loud cars that revved their engines and race on PCH and out CDM streets at all hours of the night. Corona Del Mar has a huge pest problem – rats and roaches. More outdoor dining will only bring more pests which carry disease and pose other health safety risks to neighborhoods and outdoor diners.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->
· <!--[endif]-->Infrastructure Strain. City staff resources appear currently strained .response times and are less then desirable for certain types of calls for service from residents (public safety, peace officer, parking enforcement, code enforcement, etc) We have problems with Car wash vendors that do nothing but use our city streets as their place of business. Some ongoing problems such as loud noise vehicles do not seem to be something the City is capable of resolving. This is especially evident during summer months and on weekends. Moreover, outdoor dining could lead to more thefts and pose safety risks for children unless restaurant barriers are solid. Increasing the density of restaurant type businesses with potential for any extra-extended hours would require an increase in need for police officer presence in the CDM village. Valet service for restaurants on PCH isn’t solving any of the noise or traffic issues – it will just move cars around the city and in fact create a new set of circulation and noise issues for some residents. An example would be if Grant Howard park were to be used for valet service parking and the result being valet drivers racing up and down CDM our 129
streets to get to and from for delivering cars to drivers. In addition, to parking constraint issues, trash collection in evening hours or added collection scheduling for residential waste disposal on top of commercial 1st level will add more noise and strains on city with logistics management of these added state waste management requirements. (3 trash cans for each residential until or 30 trash cans for 10 new residential units – coupled with multiple different trucks for waste and recycle) If we can’t provide space for parking now – where are all these trash cans going to go in addition to the potential of alleyway obstructions? If the city allows for more restaurant without reasonable parking requirements including pickup and delivery, business will have to designate specific spots for more pick-up and delivery vehicles - - especially if City considering lowering the parking requirements for new restaurants.. More outdoor dining (especially if allowed into City sidewalk right of way) will put demands on more required outdoor lighting for safety purposes and other sewer and water delivery related services. Existing infrastructure may not be capable of addressing the potential added needs due to any larger scale development along the corridor. The city took on the expense of PCH and coast highway along the corridor based on pressure and desire from the business in the Corridor years ago.

The City has the ongoing liability and the cost for PCH as a result of this decision years ago at the request of the CDM Business Improvement District. <!--[if !supportLists]-->
· <!--[endif]-->Aesthetic community impact. 2 and 3 level buildings (including potential for residential above commercial) will impact all adjacent residents and neighbors on the CDM commercial corridor. Proposed building's height and design will most likely not be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding residential area and may cause homes within blocks of these proposed changes to lose value due to added noise, residential disclosure requirements and activity during any potential extended hours of operation. In addition, if the City leases some parking lots from entities such as banks, added lighting/insurance requirements for these uses may create added neighborhood light not compatible with neighbor hoods and city costs..

I urge the City Council to carefully consider these concerns and the overall safety, quality of life and well-being of our community. I respectfully request that you conduct further study and expanded residential and business community engagement for this project. Please explore alternative options, such as purchasing some of the commercial area on the corridor to accommodate more parking, NO on mixed use, so the resulting efforts are better aligned with the residential community's needs and desires.
130
Thank you for your time and public service. I hope for an open and transparent process that allows for further community participation in decision-making.

Sincerely,
Lisa Sutton
Corona Del Mar Resident
131
From: Mikayla Cook
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Public Comment on City Council Meeting Agenda
Date: November 03, 2025 3:43:28 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

Dear City Clerk,
My name is Mikayla and I am a student at UCI Law. In advance of tomorrow’s City Council meeting, I
would like to comment on item number #5 on the consent calendar, which is to amend the Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan. This resolution specifically aims to cut the required minimum affordable for-sale housing percentage in half, from 15% to 7.5%, within the zone called the Residential Overlay.

This amendment is part of the overall 6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation Program, which was
adopted in 2022 to help the city meet its regional housing needs by allocating almost 5,000 new housing units with varying affordability levels. The program originally required that 30% of the new housing development within the Residential Overlay area would be affordable to lower-income households. “Lower-income households” includes households that make under 50% of the area median income (very low-income households) or between 50% and 80% of the area median income (low- income households). The area median income, per the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is $136,600.

In 2023, the Council adopted an amendment to halve the minimum affordable housing percentage from 30% to 15%, where it currently stands. The minimum affordability percentage was ostensibly dropped because of burdensome governmental constraints that rendered projects financially infeasible. For this amendment, the developer requests the adoption of the reduced rate to mitigate “potential governmental constraints” and to facilitate construction of market-rate housing. Newport Beach should carefully consider whether it really needs more market-rate housing, or whether it needs to provide for the many residents who contribute meaningfully to its community but cannot afford to buy a home at market rate.

I respectfully request that the Council consider: (1) pulling this item from the consent calendar to allow residents to more fully understand and respond to the proposed changes, and (2) seeking to improve, not remove, opportunities for more affordable housing in Newport Beach.

Sincerely,
Mikayla Cook (she/her/hers)
J.D. Candidate, 2028
University of California, Irvine School of Law
[email protected]
Received After Agenda Printed
November 4, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5
132
From: Christian Pederson
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Public Comment for November 4th City Council Meeting on Ordinance No. 2025-35 Date: November 03, 2025 1:03:13 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

Dear Mayor Stapleton and City Council Members,
Please accept the following public comment regarding Ordinance No. 2025-35 on bicycle and e-bike regulations. I urge the Council to focus on improving street design and infrastructure rather than increasing enforcement, as unsafe behavior is a product of unsafe streets. My full statement is included below.

I am writing to provide public comment on Ordinance No. 2025-35. While I appreciate the City’s concern for public safety, I believe this ordinance focuses too heavily on enforcement and not enough on design. Unsafe behavior is a product of unsafe streets.

Every person who uses our public roads, whether driving, biking, or walking, makes a personal risk assessment. Some people are more risk averse than others, but that is not a moral failing; it is a natural response to the environment around them.

A fifteen-year-old on an e-bike traveling over twenty miles per hour and weaving in and out of the bike lane is not doing it because they are reckless by nature. They are doing it because they do not fully understand the risks, and the design of the road allows them to do it. The same principle applies to drivers who routinely exceed the speed limit. When roads have wide lanes, long straight stretches, and few physical cues that suggest danger, people naturally go faster. The problem is not poor character. It is poor road design that prioritizes speed over safety.

I live on the Peninsula along West Balboa near PCH, and I hear speeding cars every day and night. The road design encourages that behavior. The same forgiving design that allows drivers to speed also allows young cyclists to take risks. Criminalizing these actions will not make anyone safer; it only punishes people for reacting to unsafe and poor road design.

Painted bike lanes are not real bike infrastructure. They are painted gutters placed inches from fast-moving traffic. These lanes often run through door zones, next to parked cars, and alongside vehicles traveling at 35 to 60 miles per hour. Drivers regularly swerve into bike lanes, block them while parking, or cross them to reach driveways.

Expecting bikes to share space with cars moving at high speeds is inherently unsafe.

Received After Agenda Printed
November 4, 2025
Agenda Item No. 10
133
Cyclists, including e-bike riders, are vulnerable road users just as much as pedestrians, and the infrastructure should reflect that reality.

Allowing cyclists to ride on sidewalks is not a real solution either. It shifts the conflict to pedestrians and sends the message that cyclists do not belong on the street. Bikes and cars should never mix at vehicle speeds above 20 miles per hour, and bikes and pedestrians should not be forced to share space either. Each mode needs its own protected and clearly defined space.

Right now, Newport Beach’s bike network is fragmented, inconsistent, and often unsafe, forcing cyclists to improvise—sometimes in dangerous ways. The city should instead focus on building a safe, continuous network of protected bike lanes that physically separate cyclists from both cars and pedestrians, connecting schools, parks, and major points of interest across the city. A connected and predictable network will make cycling safer for everyone and reduce the kind of unsafe behavior this ordinance is trying to address.

I ride frequently along Seashore Drive, the boardwalk, and the Santa Ana River Trail. On Seashore Drive, the painted bike lane runs counterflow to traffic, squeezed behind homes with garages that open directly into it. Cars pull out blindly, and pedestrians walk in the bike lane because the sidewalk is too narrow. The boardwalk, while free of cars, is a crowded mixed-use path where many people are distracted and unaware of others. By contrast, the Santa Ana River Trail is completely separated from car traffic and provides enough space for both cyclists and pedestrians. It is no coincidence that I rarely see unsafe cycling behavior there. When people are given safe, well-designed space, they ride predictably and responsibly.

Regarding the proposed diversion program, it is my understanding that the Newport- Mesa Unified School District already provides bicycle safety education. If unsafe youth behavior remains an issue despite existing programs, then education alone is not enough. Good design, not more lectures or citations, is what produces lasting safety.

If Newport Beach truly wants safer streets, the city must invest in infrastructure that protects and respects everyone who uses it. Only then will enforcement be fair, effective. Until that happens, ordinances like this will continue to treat symptoms rather than causes.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Chris Pederson
134
Newport Beach Resident

135
November 4, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:

Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 2. Presentation on the Results of the Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study
I do not live in, or even near, Corona de Mar, but I have these somewhat random comments:
● The stated objective is to create a “successful, vibrant, walkable and connected “main street” destination.”
○ Newport Beach has been described (rightly or wrongly) as a collection of “villages.” ○ Do any of the other villages have more successful or vibrant “main streets”? ○ If so, what can be learned from them?
○ If not, do they need equal help?
● Of the case studies we might emulate from other cities:
○ Coast Highway, through the CdM Commercial Corridor, is believed to have Average Daily Traffic of 48,500. How does that compare to the other “main streets” reviewed?
○ What is evidence that the “"Historic and Interesting Places" (HIP) District of Laguna Beach (a stretch of Coast Highway between Thalia Street and Bluebird Canyon Drive, south of the main city center) is more successful or vibrant than the CdM Corridor? Doesn’t Laguna Beach have other more vibrant and walkable districts? ○ The Main Street district in the Ocean Park neighborhood of Santa Monica seems quiet different, being on a secondary street parallel to a wider one, and with the sidewalks amply buffered from the two remaining lanes of traffic. It also seems to have many more shade trees. Could PCH through CdM be similarly reconfigured? ● Getting responses to outreach is difficult. The staff report says that "a total of 42 business owners, managers, and property owners” were “engaged,” and, apparently included in that number, “19 businesses were interviewed.” What fraction of all the business owners, managers, and property owners along the corridor does this represent? ● Much emphasis is placed on outdoor, and especially sidewalk, dining. Apparently it attracts business, but I have never understood the charm of eating on a sidewalk adjacent to lanes of either congested or high-speed traffic.
● It is not clear to me how improving bicycle infrastructure on Fifth Avenue (Goal 3, Action 12) will help to revitalize the Commercial Corridor. It seems quite distant, especially from the eastern end.

Item 4. Water Well Permit and Encroachment Agreement with the City of Fountain Valley; and Resolution No. 2025-76: Declaration of Intent to Issue Tax-Exempt Obligations (Bonds)
Attachment C, the proposed resolution of intention to issue tax-exempt bonds is a bit difficult to read. Section 6 on page 4-22 seems to say the City has no reasonable expectation of paying any of the project costs with anything other than the bonds. Doesn’t this contradict the staff report which suggests the resolution is being proposed only to leave open the door to issuing bonds? Received After Agenda Printed
November 4, 2025
Written Comments
136
November 4, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Regarding Attachment D, the CEQA analysis, a great deal of this is devoted to a Noise Impact Analysis

starting

on

page

4-55.

It

is

not

obvious

how

it

reaches

its

conclusion

at

the

bottom

of

page

4-78

that

the

pumping

operation,

when

complete,

will

not

impact

neighboring

residences.

The

numbers

that

say

they

are

quoted

from

Figure

14 (which

is

on

page

4-88),

“
between

36 and

49 dBA

Leq

at

first

floor

levels

of

nearby

residential

properties

and

between

46 and

56 dBA

Leq

at

second

story

levels
,”

do

not

quite

match

Figure

14,

which

appears

to

show

36-45

dB

on

first

floors

and

47-55

dB

on

second

floors.

The

numbers

in

excess

of

50 dB

would

seem

to

exceed

the

nighttime

external

residential

noise

standard

cited

on

page

4-72.

While

it

is

true

that

the

short-term

measurements

in

Table

1 on

page

4-69

show

the

daytime

levels

from

traffic

noise

at

these

locations

exceed

the

daytime

standard,

the

long-term

measurements

of

Table

2 on

page

4-70

show

the

existing

noise

is

below

50 dB

during

all

but

two

of

the

nighttime

hours.

Is

the

pump

station

noise

constant?

If

so,

how

could

55 dB

late

at

night

not

be

in

excess

of

the

50 dB

standard

and

limit?

rItem 5. Resolution No. 2025-77: Initiating an Amendment to Newport Place

Planned

Community

Development

Plan

Related

to

the

Minimum

Percentage

of

Inclusionary

For-Sale

Housing

within

the

Residential

Overlay

(PA2025-0196)
The City’s continuing abandonment of the affordable housing promises made in our certified Housing

Element

is

disturbing.

The staff report, on page 5-2, says “ Representatives of Intracorp Homes are requesting that the City

consider

lowering

the

required

inclusionary

percentage

applicable

to

for-sale

housing,

as

the

approved

project

is

no

longer

financially

viable

to

implement

(Attachment

B)
.”

However,

I

am

unable

to

find

in

Attachment

B

the

statement

highlighted

in

bold.

Intracorp’s

president

does

indeed

request

a

reduction

in

the

affordability

requirement

from

15%

to

8%

(in

his

subject

line)

or

7.5%

(in

the

body

of

his

letter),

and

he

says

it

would

“facilitate”

the

project.

But

he

does

not

say

building

the

project

as

approved

is

infeasible.

Item 6. Approval of Amendment No. Two to Maintenance & Repair Services

Agreement

with

Merchants

Landscape

Services,

Inc.

(Contract

No.

8772-1)

for

Athletic

Field

Re-Sodding

at

Buffalo

Hills

Park
The proposal to replace the sod rather than using chemical weed treatment is an interesting one, but

why

are

staff

and

the

Council

bypassing

the

City’s

Parks,

Beaches

and

Recreation
Commission, which the people of Newport Beach, through City Charter Section 709, require to “ Act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in all matters pertaining to parks, beaches, recreation, parkways

and

street

trees
.”
Where is their advice on this? Regarding the Council’s three-member Integrated Pest Management Ad Hoc Review Committee, it is

good

to

hear

they

met

with

members

of

the

public

and

not

just

staff.

However,

according

to
Section 2 of Resolution No. 2025-16 creating it, “ The sole purpose and responsibility of the Committee shall be to review the City's Integrated Pest Management program and make recommendations

to

the

entire

City

Council

regarding

revisions

thereto
.”

137
November 4, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Rather than a recommended revision to the IPM program (which seems to be a 23-page policy document), this seems to be a proposal for a park project and a kind of experiment in weed management (likely duplicating similar experiments conducted elsewhere). As to the ad hoc committee’s “sole” responsibility, to recommend revisions to the IPM program to the

full

Council

by

December

31,

2026,

how

does

this

inform

the

policy

revisions?

It

would

seem

the

results

of

this

proposed

three-year

experiment

will

not

be

known

before

that

deadline.

Item 8. Approval of Amended and Restated Property Maintenance Agreement

with

Newport

Coast

Community

Association
The staff report presents this as a document that is part of the settlement of a lawsuit regarding which,

although

not

mentioned

in

the

staff

report,

the

Council

appears

to

have

met

in

closed
session at least once (October 28, 2025, Item XIV.B). It is rare for the settlement documents to be presented for approval at an open, public meeting.

While

the

transparency

of

the

approval

in

this

case

is

commendable,

the

staff

report

does

not

explain

what

effect

any

change

to

the

presented

language

would

have

on

the

lawsuit.

Adding to that uncertainty, under “Fiscal Impact” on page 8-3, the staff report mentions “ the separate

Settlement

Agreement
.”

Is

that

referring

to

Attachment

A,

or

to

something

different?

If

there

is

a

separate

Settlement

Agreement,

why

would

it

not

be

provided

for

public

inspection?

Item 10. Ordinance No. 2025-35 and Resolution No. 2025-78: Adding Provisions

Related

to

Bicycle

and

Electric

Bicycle

Activity

in

the

Public

Right-of-Way
As someone who prefers using a bicycle for most daily local transportation needs, this is an item of considerable

interest

to

me.

Unlike Item 7, above, which involves a recommendation from a formally-constituted three-member Council

committee

(albeit

arguably

outside

the

scope

of

what

they

were

appointed

for),

it

is

a

bit

disturbing

here,

to

see

extensive

revisions

to

our

Municipal

Code

being

presented

fully-baked

by

a

three-member

“working

group”

that

was

not,

as

best

I

can

tell,

publicly

appointed.

The

the

longstanding

concerns

about

e-bikes,

it

seems

a

subject

that

would

have

merited

more

extensive

public

discussion

before

specific

revisions

to

the

Municipal

Code

were

proposed.

From the staff report, it is unclear if the “informal working group” even met with the Police Department,

which

will

be

tasked

with

enforcing

the

new

rules.

Regarding sidewalk cycling, the proposed replacement of existing Resolution No. 82-148, which lists the segments and sides of streets on which riding is allowed, with Resolution No. 2025-078, which is proposed to provide only a map, does not seem adequate to me. At least as posted, it is not

evident

from

the

proposed

map

if

riding

is

allowed

on

both

sides,

or

only

one.

And

since

no

context

of

other

streets

is

provided,

it

is

impossible

to

tell

where

many

of

the

segments

start

or

end.

For

example,

near

the

bottom,

there

is

a

floating

segment

of

“Coast

Hwy

East.”

I

do

not

know

where

it

starts

or

ends.

And

from

a

policy

perspective,

the

choices

are

not

always

explicable.

For

example,

above

“Bison

Ave,”

the

short

street

“La

Felicidad”

is

shown

as

another

floating

segment.

Why

would

sidewalk

cycling

be

allowed

there

and

on

Bison

and

Jamboree,

but

not

on

Camelback

Street

(which

connects

all

three)?

138
November 4, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 To many residents, I suspect there will be more concern about the absence of any distinction between

conventional

bicycles

and

e-bikes

on

sidewalks,

and

the

absence

of

clearer

rules

for

operating

in

the

presence

of

pedestrians

on

the

same

sidewalks.

And

I

would

think

allowing

e-bikes

(or

even

bikes

in

general)

on

all

sidewalks

fronting

residential

dwellings,

as

is

being

proposed

in

the

new

Subsection

12.56.030.B.4,

would

not

be

met

with

universal

acclaim,

not

to

mention

the

visual

clutter

and

the

burden

it

will

place

on

the

City

Traffic

Engineer

to

post

each

and

every

residential

sidewalk.

Overall, I think this a matter of enough public interest and complexity that it would benefit from a much

better

advertised

public

workshop

or

Council

study

session

before

any

set

of

new

regulations

is

proposed

for

adoption.

If the Council proceeds without that, on what I would hope would be a non-controversial matter, in the

definition

of

“
Motorized

wheeled

conveyance
”

on

page

10-7,

I

think

“
combustible
”

is

definitely
not the intended word. Possibly a “combustion-powered” vehicle, but not a “combustible” (= “flammable”) one. Similarly, I am pretty sure that the start of line 2 of proposed Subsection

12.56.080

on

page

10-10

was

intended

to

read

“
assessed

to

a

minor

…”

Item 11. Confirmation of Appointments to the Newport Beach Police Headquarters

Assessment

Committee
I have no objection to the appointments, but I continue to think this should be committee whose meetings

and

deliberations

take

place

in

public.

139

4-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

November 4, 2025
Agenda Item No. 4
ABSTRACT:

On September 24, 2024, the City of Newport Beach (Newport Beach) entered into a cooperative Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Laguna Beach County Water District (Laguna Beach) to develop a new water well. The proposed water well site is at 17902 Bushard Street in the City of Fountain Valley (Fountain Valley). As part of the MOU, Newport Beach’s role was to lead the project planning, design and construction efforts.

For the City Council ’s consideration is a water well permit and a n encroachment agreement with Fountain Valley to secure compliance with the local permitting authority and a Resolution of Intention, which will allow early project costs to be reimbursable via bond financing if pursued by the Newport Beach.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In -Fill Exemption) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (14 CCR § 15332 ) ( Class 32 exemptions are for projects of certain criteria on a development site of five acres or less) of the CEQA Guidelines, because this project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; b) Approve a Water Well Permit and Encroachment Agreement with the City of Fountain Valley and Laguna Beach County Water District for the construction, operation and maintenance of a new municipal water well facility at 17902 Bushard Street; and c) Adopt Resolution No. 2025-76, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Regarding Its Intention to Issue Tax -Exempt Obligations, if needed.

DISCUSSION:

An additional water well for the City’s water system has been a long-term goal to improve water reliability, redundancy and local control over the C ity’s water needs. The 2019 Water Master Plan reinforced the need and incorporated it into the 30 -year plan. Water supply reliability and local control are key tenets of a well-run water system.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Mark Vukojevic, Utilities Director - 949-644-3011, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Mark Vukojevic, Utilities Director
TITLE: Water Well Permit and Encroachment Agreement with the City of Fountain Valley; and Resolution No. 2025-76: Declaration of Intent to Issue Tax-Exempt Obligations (Bonds)
140
Water Well Permit and Encroachment Agreement with the City of Fountain Valley; and Resolution No. 2025-76: Declaration of Intent to Issue Tax-Exempt Obligations (Bonds) November 4, 2025

4-2
Newport Beach is a member of the Orange County groundwater basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). The groundwater basin is strategically managed to maximize local water resources, enhance water reliability, ensure high-quality water, prevent seawater intrusion and protect Orange County’s water rights.

The region’s imported water supplies - from Northern California and the Colorado River - have become less available and more restricted. For the foreseeable future, groundwater is the best path toward ensuring the City’s water reliability.

On September 24, 2024, the City Council approved an MOU with Laguna Beach and a technical memorandum prepared by the Utilities Department regarding a new water well site at 17902 Bushard Street in Fountain Valley. Newport Beach and Laguna Beach staff believe the Bushard Street site is a viable groundwater location and will significantly improve both agencies’ groundwater capacity, even in a shared configuration. The Bushard Street site is situated in a highly productive location within the groundwater basin and is approximately 1,700 feet away from Newport Beach’s main 36 -inch water transmission line, two key factors for a viable site.

Staff from both agencies developed an MOU outlining the roles and responsibilities of each agency. In general, the MOU states that each agency is interested in a partnership and will work on separate project tasks, ultimately moving toward a formal partnership.

With Newport Beach’s long history and experience in the development and operation of the existing water wells, our r esponsibility was to lead the preliminary design, land use entitlements, and environmental efforts.

Over the last year, Public Works and Utilities Department staff prepared the preliminary project design and have secured the final project entitlements. The key components of the entitlements are the environmental review, (which is explained in the Environmental Review section of the staff report) and the permit/agreement with Fountain Valley. Per Fountain Valley Municipal Code (FVMC) Section 14.16.040, a we ll that is intended to transport water outside their city limits must be in the public interest and requires a City Council approved agreement. Cooperatively, staff from all agencies developed the attached Water Well Permit and Encroachment Agreement (Agreement) (Attachment A); which satisfies the F ountain Valley’s Municipal Code requirements. It also preserves Fountain Valley’s primary rights-of-way, assigns all maintenance to Newport Beach, and secures public benefit/mitigation payments and in-kind improvements.

The Agreement provides the following public interest benefits to Fountain Valley: $82,000 one-time mitigation payment for lost permit revenue ; a $10,000 annual public benefit payment for property tax loss ; a $45,000 one-time payment towards all encroachment and inspection fees; $100,000 one-time public benefit payment toward Fountain Valley public safety or future water/well projects; a system interconnect stub -out for a future Fountain Valley-built interconnection; and a Newport Beach constructed, Fountain Valley owned and operated water main from La Amapola Circle to Bushard Street with an easement. Newport Beach and Laguna Beach staff believed these shared costs to be reasonable in securing the project entitlement and permits. Further details are available in the Fountain Valley Staff report (Attachment B).
141
Water Well Permit and Encroachment Agreement with the City of Fountain Valley; and Resolution No. 2025-76: Declaration of Intent to Issue Tax-Exempt Obligations (Bonds) November 4, 2025

4-3
With the entitlement approved, staff will continue to complete the final designs and move towards construction. Staff estimates the overall project completion (i.e. produced water) will be in 2028. Similar to the previous 1990’s well (s) project, staff is designing and will build the project in three phases : drilling the well , expected to start in late 2026 ; pump house and site development, expected to start in 2027 ; and the water transmission pipeline, expected to start in 2027 . Also, in first quarter of 2026, staff will return with the formal Laguna Beach partnership agreement. This agreement will formalize the ownership, the well production capacity rights, the operation of the well and all funding.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The adopted budget includes sufficient funding for this agreement and the ongoing project development. Funding will be provided from the Water Enterprise Fund and expensed to the Public Works Department Capital Improvement Prog ram, Project 24W13, which has a current budget allocation of $1.5 million. The preliminary cost estimate for the overall project is approximately $30 million, of which Newport Beach’s share is expected to be $20 million.

The value of groundwater is signif icant compared to imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District ($711 per acre -foot versus $1,395 per acre -foot). Even after accounting for maintenance, pumping, electricity, treatment, and asset depreciation, water produced from this well is expected to generate annual cost savings.

Staff is preparing a comprehensive multi-source funding plan, which will be presented to the City Council in 2026. The plan will include a combination of set -aside water capital funds (pay-as-you-go funding derived from water rates), use of Water Fund reserves, and payments from the City of Laguna Beach. It will also include consideration of a low - interest loan from the OCWD and/or a debt financing issuance.

OCWD has established a low-interest loan program to i ncentivize local water producers to develop new wells, and City staff has submitted a Notice of Intent to participate. If the program remains available at the time of construction, staff will continue to pursue this financing opportunity. Staff also believes bond financing to be a viable alternative and has prepared a Resolution of Intention (Attachment C). Adoption of this resolution does not commit the Newport Beach to debt financing; however, it preserves Newport Beach’s ability to reimburse early project costs should bond financing ultimately be pursued.

Although grant funding for this type of project is uncommon, staff has actively pursued such opportunities with limited success. Other potential funding options include deferring existing Water Capital Improvement Program projects or increasing water rates; however, these alternatives are not recommended at this time.

142
Water Well Permit and Encroachment Agreement with the City of Fountain Valley; and Resolution No. 2025-76: Declaration of Intent to Issue Tax-Exempt Obligations (Bonds) November 4, 2025

4-4
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff recommends the City Council find this project exempt from the Califor nia Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In -Fill Exemption) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (14 CCR § 15332) because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 15332 (Class 32, In -Fill Exemption) of Title 1 4 of the California Code of Regulations (14 CCR § 15332) – Class 32 exemptions are for projects that are proposed on a development site of five acres or less. To qualify for this exemption, the project must be consistent with the general plan and zoning; shall be on a project site that is five acres or less within an incorporated city; the site does not contain habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Staff prepared a full analysis of the project’s compliance with the Class 32 CEQA exemption (Attachment D) and found that the project meets the qualifications for the exemption. Furthermore, the project does not meet any of the exceptions outlined in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines that would disqualify the exemption.

Section 21080(b) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC § 21080(b)) and C EQA Guideline Sections 15268 and 15300.1 (14 CCR § 15268 and 14 CCR § 15300.1) – These sections provide statutory and categorical exemption for ministerial projects. Fountain Valley regulates water well permits through Chapter 8.12 (Construction and Abandonment of Wells) of the Municipal Code. Section 8.12.045 (Permit issuance/denial) provides that the well permit shall be issued if it meets the criteria provided in that section.

Likewise, permits are issued for the related work in the public right -of-way provided the work complies with code. Inasmuch as the Fountain Valley does not exercise discretion when issuing these permits, the project is classified as ministerial and qualifies for the statutory and categorical exemption for ministerial project.

NOTICING:

The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Water Well Permit and Encroachment Agreement with the City of Fountain Valley
Attachment B – City of Fountain Valley Staff Report Regarding the Agreement Attachment C – Resolution No. 2025-76: Intention to Issue Tax-Exempt Obligations Attachment D – Environmental Analysis

143

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

Attn:City Clerk’s Office
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
WITH A COPY TO:

Attn:City Clerk
City of Fountain Valley
10200 Slater Avenue
Fountain Valley,CA 92708
AND A COPY TO:

Attn:General Manager
Laguna Beach County Water District
306 Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PER GOV. CODE SECTION 6103
Space above this lineforRecorder's use only.

WATER WELL PERMIT AND ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
(Water Well Permit Number
This WATER WELL PERMIT AND ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
day of(“Agreement”) is made and entered into this
between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Californiamunicipal corporation and charter city,organized and existingunder and by virtueof itsCharter and the Constitution, and the laws of the State of California(“Newport Beach”), the CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY, a Californiamunicipal corporation,organized and existingunder and by virtueof the laws of the State of California(“Fountain Valley”),and the LAGUNA BEACH COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, an incorporated County Water Districtand Special Districtunder the CaliforniaWater Code Section 30000 et. seq. (“LBCWD”). Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, and LBCWD are sometimes hereinafterindividuallyreferred to as “Party” and hereinaftercollectivelyreferredto as “Parties.”
, 2025, by and

RECITALS
WHEREAS, LBCWD is the vested owner of property located at 17902 Bushard Street, in the City of Fountain Valley, California,as legallydescribed in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Property”),and Newport Beach intends to become a jointproperty owner via a separate agreement and transaction;

ATTACHMENT A
4-5
144
WHEREAS, LBCWD and Newport Beach have entered intoa separate standalone Memorandum of Understanding establishinga framework for collaboration on the use of the Property fora new water wellfacilitythatwould supply groundwater from the Orange County Ground Water Basin (“Basin”)to the LBCWD’s and Newport Beach’s water customers:

WHEREAS, Newport Beach desires to construct certain standard Improvements as furtherdescribed inSection 2 of thisAgreement (“Improvements”) on the Property and withinthe Bushard Streetand TalbertAvenue rights-of-way(“Rights-of-Way”); WHEREAS, the Property and Rights-of-Way are located within the jurisdictional boundary of Fountain Valley:

WHEREAS, the Basin is an unadjudicated groundwater basin that serves communities in north and centralOrange County:

WHEREAS, CaliforniaGovernment Code Section 53091(e) exempts facilitiesfor production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water from the zoning ordinances of any county or city:

WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA’) Guideline Section 15051(a), Newport Beach is designated the lead agency for CEQA purposes: and
WHEREAS, the partieshereto desire to enter into thisAgreement providing for fulfillmentof the conditions required by Fountain Valley to permit Newport Beach to construct,operate, and maintain Improvements associated with the Improvements.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Recitals.Allpartiesacknowledge that the above Recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference intothisAgreement.

Improvements. The approved Improvements shallinclude:

Two water wells,includingallrelatedappurtenances, to be constructed to approximate depths of 700 feet and 300 feet.

A 15-foottall,2,400-square-foot water well housing structure.

An 8-foot-tallconcrete masonry block wall to be constructed along the property boundaries, which willinclude two 20-foot-wide slidinggates to provide access to the Property from Bushard Street.

Prior to the issuance of any construction permits, Newport Beach shall submit a report prepared by a licensed engineer, demonstrating that the proposed 18-inch reinforced concrete storm drain to connect the Property to the existing Fountain Valley storm drain infrastructurein the Talbert

2. a.
b.
c.
d.

4-6
145
Avenue right-of-wayhas adequate residualcapacity to sustain flows under the City’s25-year design storm standards. The storm drain will connect from a catch basin on the Property, extending south within the Bushard Street right-of-way,to the existingFountain Valley storm drains within the Talbert Avenue right-of-way.Ifthe City Engineer determines thatthe existingstorm drain system lacks the required capacity, Newport Beach shall, at itssole cost and expense, design and construct whatever Improvements the engineer deems necessary to accommodate the required flow.

A 24-inch water main to connect the new water wells to the existingNewport Beach water main within Talbert Channel. The water mains shall extend from the Property south, withinthe Bushard Street right-of-way,then west withinthe Talbert Avenue right-of-way,connecting to the existingNewport Beach water main in Talbert Channel. The Improvements described in Sections 2(d) and 2(e) are collectivelyreferredto herein as “Right-Of-Way Improvements.”
e.
f. Other Property and Right-of-Way Improvements deemed necessary by Newport Beach to construct, operate, and maintain the water wells. This may include,but isnot limitedto,a concrete transformer pad, an emergency generator, landscaping, water treatment facilities,and parking and driveway Improvements.

3. Cooperative Work. Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, and LBCWD desire to work cooperatively together so that the Improvements can be completed in a manner that minimizes the cost to and impact on the public while allowing the Partiesto accomplish theirrespectivemissions. The specificterms and conditionsgoverning the elements of thisAgreement are set forthhereinafter.

Fountain Valiev Municipal Code. This Agreement satisfiesall requirements of Fountain Valley Municipal Code Section 14.16.040, which requires an agreement approved by the Fountain Valley City Council for the development of any well or facilitiesintended forthe purpose of transportingor conveying water outside of the city.

Newport Beach’s Specific Obligations.

4. 5.

Newport Beach shallconstruct allImprovements on the Property and inthe Rights-of-Way.

Newport Beach shall(and shallcause itsagents and contractorsto)comply with allapplicable laws, regulations, and ordinances in connection with performing the work.

Newport Beach shallprepare and submit plans and specificationsfor the design and construction of the Improvements to Fountain Valley for review, comment, and to ensure the plans and specificationsare in substantial conformance with allapplicable laws, regulations,and ordinances. a.
b.
c.

4-7
146
d. Newport Beach shall secure all necessary approvals (e.g. permits, encroachments, etc.)from the Cityof Fountain Valley to install and maintain the Improvements.

Newport Beach shall ensure the Improvements are compliant with CEQA and shalltake allnecessary actions as required by CEQA. e.
f. Newport Beach shall maintain all Improvements in accordance with generally prevailing standards of maintenance and pay all costs and expenses incurred indoing so. However, nothing herein shall be construed to require Newport Beach to maintain, replace, or repairany Fountain Valley owned pipeline, conduit, or cable located in or under said Permitted Improvements, except as otherwise provided herein.

IfFountain Valley or other publicfacilitiesor Improvements are damaged by the installationor presence of Right-of-Way Improvements, Newport Beach shallbe responsible for the cost of repairsand restorationof these public facilitiesor Right-of-Way Improvements to theirconditionatthe time of entry into thisAgreement.

Newport Beach agrees to pay the following public benefitand mitigation fees to Fountain Valley;
$82,000 one-time payment formitigationof potentiallost revenue in permits, plan checks, and fees;
An annual public benefitpayment of $10,000 for loss of potential property tax revenue. This payment shallbe automaticallyadjusted and compounded by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”):
g-
h.
(i)
(ii)
(iii) $45,000 one-time payment forencroachment intothe rights-of-way to include the placement of the water main, storm drain,and allcurb, gutter,and sidewalk Improvements.
$100,000 one-time publicbenefitpayment foruse towards Fountain Valley’s Public Safety use or projects,or towards future Fountain Valley water or well system improvements or rehabilitations.

As a benefitto Fountain Valley,Newport Beach shall,at itssole cost,design and constructa pipelinestub out fora futureSystem Interconnect adjacent to the groundwater production facilityat the Bushard Street site. Newport Beach agrees to cooperatively work with Fountain Valley and allow a connection and water use of the future System Interconnect ifrequested by Fountain Valley. A System Interconnection would be designed and constructed by Fountain Valley,permittingFountain Valley access to water produced by Newport Beach wells in the event of an emergency that disrupts Fountain Valley's water service. Newport Beach shall cooperate (iv)

4-8
147
with Fountain Valley relativeto the design and constructionof the System Interconnectand any relatedequipment necessary to Fountain Valley'suse of thesystem inthe event ofan emergency. Water from the Newport Beach system willnot be disinfected,and itwillbe Fountain Valley'sresponsibility to provide the appropriatelevelof disinfectionforany water taken from the Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project.The Public Works Directorsfrom Newport Beach and Fountain Valley shalladopt standard operatingprocedures thatwillcontrolthe use ofthe System Interconnect in case of an emergency.

Newport Beach shalldesign and construct,at itssole cost, an 8-inch C900 water main that ties the 8-inch Asbestos Cement water main on La Amapola Circle to the 8-inch Asbestos Cement water main on Bushard Street with isolatinggate valves ateach end ofthe tie-in.Newport Beach shall dedicate an easement for the pipelineand shall cooperate with Fountain Valley relativeto the design and construction of the water main extension. The new pipeline and connections improve Fountain Valley’s water quality circulationand neighborhood redundancy. The estimated value of this improvement and easement is$200,000.

The payments described in Section 5(h) shallbe made by Newport Beach to Fountain Valley as follows:

The $82,000 one-time payment for mitigation of potential lost revenue shallbe paid withinthirty(30) days of the Effective Date of thisAgreement.

The annual publicbenefitpayment of $10,000 for loss of potential property tax revenue, as adjusted annually by CPI shallbe due on the anniversary of the EffectiveDate, with the firstpayment due withinthirty(30) days of the EffectiveDate of thisAgreement.

The $45,000 one-time payment forencroachment intothe rights-of- way shallbe paid priorto the issuance of any constructionpermit issued by Fountain Valley.

The $100,000 one-time public benefit payment for use towards Fountain Valley’sPublic Safety use or projects,or towards future Fountain Valleywater or wellsystem improvements or rehabilitations shall be paid within thirty(30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement.

J-
k.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Fountain Valiev’s Specific Obliqations.6.

Fountain Valley permits Newport Beach to construct,reconstruct, install, maintain, use, operate, repair, and replace said Right-of-Way Improvements and appurtenances incidentalthereto, within a portion of Right-Of-Way, , in a locationthat is in substantialconformance with the a.

4-9
148
plans and specificationson filewith Fountain Valley. Fountain Valley permits Newport Beach to take all reasonable measures necessary or convenient inaccomplishing the aforesaid activities.
b. Fountain Valley shall issue allrequired permits to construct, reconstruct, install,maintain, use, operate, repair,and replace all Improvements that meet applicablebuildingcode requirements, the approval of which shall not be unreasonably withheld,conditioned,or delayed.

Unless specified herein. Fountain Valley shall not charge an in-lieu, application,plan check, permit issuance, encroachment, inspection,impact, or any other fee for any work related to the construction,reconstruction, modification, alteration,installation,maintenance, use, operation, or repair of the Improvements.

Fountain Valley shall not connect, modify, alter,or otherwise utilizeany infrastructureconnected to the Right-of-Way Improvements, except as provided below:

Should Fountain Valley be required to exercise itsprimary rights associated with said Rights-of-Way, including but not limited to, the maintenance, removal, repair,renewal, replacement, or enlargement of existingor future publicfacilitiesor Improvements, Fountain Valley may modify or alterportionsof permitted Improvements, as required, and in such event:
c.
d.
(i)
(ii) Fountain Valley shall notify Newport Beach at least 30 days in advance of its intention to accomplish such work, unless an emergency situationexists,in which case Newport Beach shall be notifiedas soon as possible, but no later than 72 hours after commencement of the emergency work.

Newport Beach, at itssole cost and expense, shall be responsible for arranging for any renewal, replacement, or restoration of permitted Right-of-Way Improvements to the conditions that existed immediately before Fountain Valley commenced work in the rights- of-way.

Fountain Valley agrees to bear allcosts of work on City-owned facilities.Newport Beach agrees to bear allcosts to remove, alter, and replace the permitted Right-of-way Improvements affected by such work.
(iii)
(iv)
LBCWD’s Specific Obligations.7.

LBCWD shall provide any required authorization required by Fountain Valley for issuance of permits forthe Improvements.
a.

4-10
149
LBCWD shall provide required access to Newport Beach to construct, operate, and maintain the Improvements.

Term. This Agreement willbe in fullforceand effectuntilthe Parties mutually agree to terminate thisAgreement inwriting.

Notices. Allnotices or other communications required or permitted herein shallbe in writingand willbe personallydeliveredor sent by registeredor certifiedmail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, delivered or sent by electronic transmission to the following;
To Newport Beach:
b.

8. 9.

City of Newport Beach
Attn:City Manager
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Email: [email protected]
Phone; 949-644-3001
City of Fountain Valley
Attn:City Manager
10200 Slater Avenue
Fountain Vailey,CA 92708
Email; [email protected]
Phone; 714-593-4402
To Fountain Valley:

Laguna Beach County Water District
Attn:General Manager
306 3^d Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 949-494-1041
To LBCWD :

Indemnification.Newport Beach and LBCWD shaii defend, indemnify and hold harmless Fountain Valley, its City Council, Board of Directors, boards and commissions, officersand employees from and against any and allloss,damage, liability,claims, suits,costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys'fees (when outsideattorneys are so utilized),regardless of the merit or outcome of any such claim or suitarisingfrom or in any manner connected with the design, construction,maintenance, or continued existence of the Right-of-Way Improvements.

Insurance: Newport Beach and LBCWD shall maintain commercial liability insurance with coverage limitsof no iessthan Two MillionDollars($2,000,000) per occurrence and Four MillionDollars($4,000,000) aggregate. The City of Fountain Valley shallbe named as an AdditionalInsured with respect to the construction and/or operations in Fountain Valiey’s public rights-of-way.

10. 11.

4-11
150
No Attorneys’ Fees. In the event of any dispute or legalaction arisingunder this Agreement, the prevailingparty shalln^ be entitledto attorneys’fees.

Standalone Agreements. This Agreement shall not be construed to nullify, override,modify, change, or otherwise alterany standalone agreement between any of the Parties.Allother standalone agreements shall remain in effect and full force as dictated by those agreements.

Cessation of Operations. Ifthe Improvements cease operations for a continuous period of twenty-four(24) months, the Parties agree to meet and confer in good faithto renegotiate thisAgreement.

Ten-Year Evaluation. The Parties agree to meet and confer in good faithto evaluate the terms of thisAgreement ten (10) years after the Effective Date. This evaluation shall include, but is not limited to, review of the impacts of the Improvements, including the annual in-lieuproperty tax payment, the Annual MitigationConsideration methodology, insurance requirements, and the condition of any right-of-wayImprovements. Any modificationto thisAgreement shallrequire mutual written consent of all Parties.

12. 13.

14. 15.

Force Maieure. Except for the payment of money, no Party willbe liable forany delays or other non-performance resultingfrom circumstances or causes beyond itsreasonable control,includingwithout limitation,fireor other casualty, act ofGod, strikeor labordispute,war or other violence, actsof thirdparties,or any law, order, or requirement of any governmental agency or authority.

Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shallgovern thisAgreement and allmatters relatingto it,and any actionbrought relatingto thisAgreement shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdictionin the County of Orange, California.

16. 17.

Waiver. A waiver by eitherparty ofany breach, of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.

18. Modification. Alteration,change, or modificationof thisAgreement willbe in the form of a writtenamendment, which willbe signed by all Parties.

Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the Parties and supersedes allprevious negotiations and agreements between the Partiespertainingto the subject matter hereof.

Severability.Ifany term or portionof thisAgreement isheld to be invalid,illegal,or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction,the remaining provisionsof thisAgreement shallcontinue in fullforce and effect.

19. 20.

21.

4-12
151
Agreement Execution and Authorization. Each of the undersigned represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute and deliverthisAgreement and that such execution is binding upon the entityon whose behalf he or she is executing thisAgreement.

Counterparts Deemed Original:This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts (includingby e-mail,other electronictransmission, and/or facsimile), allparties need not be signatoriesto the same documents, and allcounterpart signed documents shallbe deemed to be one and the same originalinstrument.

22. 23.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]

4-13
152
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the partieshereto have caused thisAgreement to be executed on the dates written below.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
a Californiamunicipal corporation
Date;
By;
Grace K. Leung
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
ATTEST:

Date: Date:

IBy: By:>
Aaron CFHarp
City Attorney
Lena Shumway
City Clerk

CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY,
a Californiamunicipal corporation
Date:

By:

Ted Bui
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ATTORNEYS FOR THE CITY
ATTEST:

Date: September 23, 2025 Date:
1/1
By:

By:

Vanessa Lassooy
Attorney forthe City
Rick Miller
City Clerk

4-14
153

LAGUNA BEACH COUNTY WATER DISTRICT,
a CaliforniaSpecial District
Date:

By;
Keith Van Der Maaten
General Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

GENERAL COUNSEL
ATTEST:

Date: Date;
By:By:

General Counsel
[END OF SIGNATURES]
ATTACHMENTS: ExhibitA — Legal Description

4-15
154

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
All that certain real property situated in the County of Orange, State of California, described as follows:

THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 95, PAGES 41 TO 42 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OR SAID COUNTY, SHOWN AND DESCRIBED AS " NOT A PART' OF THE MAP OF TRACT 16434, IN THE CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 851, PAGES 22 TO 23,

INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
4-16
155

CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY

CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
To: Honorable Mayor and Agenda Date: November 4, 2025 Members of the City Council
SUBJ
ECT: Water Well Permit and Encroachment Agreement between the City of Fountain Valley, the City of Newport Beach, and the Laguna Beach County Water District for the construction, operation, and maintenance of two municipal production wells and associated facilities at 17902 Bushard Street.

Three-Year Strategic Goals
☒ E
nhance the culture and environment of “A Nice Place to Live” ☒ Achieve fiscal stability by evaluating processes, and attract and retain revenue producing businesses/opportunities
☐ Attract and retain quality staff through best practices and trends ☒ Maintain, build, and modernize infrastructure to support growth and future needs of the City
☐ Not applicable
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The C
ity of Newport Beach (Newport Beach) and Laguna Beach County Water District (LBCWD) plan to develop a groundwater production facility at LBCWD-owned property located at 17902 Bushard Street in the City of Fountain Valley (Fountain Valley).

LB
CWD and Newport Beach have entered into a separate, standalone Memorandum of Understanding establishing a framework for collaboration on the use of the property for a new water well facility that would supply groundwater from the Orange County Ground Water Basin to LBCWD’s and Newport Beach’s water customers. LBCWD owns the property, and Newport Beach will construct and operate the well sites and has taken the lead on the agreement with Fountain Valley.

Pe
r Fountain Valley Municipal Code (FVMC) Section 14.16.040 , a well that is intended to transport water outside city limits must be in the public interest and requires a City Council approved agreement. The Water W ell Permit and E ncroachment Agreement (Agreement) satisfies the FVMC requirements, as it preserves Fountain Valley’s primary right s-of-way, assigns all maintenance to Newport Beach, and secures public benefit/mitigation payments and in-kind improvements. The Agreement provides the following public interest benefits to Fountain Valley:

ATTACHMENT B
4-17
156

1. $82,
000 one-time mitigation payment;

2. $10,000 annual public benefit payment ( CPI adjusted and compounded annually);

3. $45,000 one-time payment towards encroachment and inspection fees;

4. $100,000 one-time public benefit payment toward Fountain Valley public safety or future water/well projects;

5. A System Interconnect stub-out for a future Fountain Valley-built interconnection; and

6. A Newport Beach constructed, Fountain Valley owned and operated 8-inch C900 main from La Amapola Circle to Bushard Street with easement.

DISCUSSION:

The proposed Agreement lets Newport Beach and LBCWD drill two groundwater wells at the LBCWD owned property located at 17902 Bushard Street in Fountain Valley. It allows water lines in Bushard Street and Talbert Avenue to run in Fountain Valley’s rights-of-way. Because the wells will send water outside of Fountain Valley, F VMC Section 14.16.040 requires a City Council approved agreement and that the project is in the interest of the public.

Fountain Valley keeps full authority to work on and in the streets. If Fountain Valley needs to work on or in the streets, it may do so . Newport Beach must restore everything to its prior condition and is responsible for the maint enance of the property. Newport Beach will build, operate, and maintain the wells, pipelines, walls, and storm drain, and LBCWD, as the owner of the property, will provide access for the same. Fountain Valley will not pay for maintenance.

The Agreement requires Newport Beach and LBCWD to carry $2,000,000 per occurrence and $4,000,000 aggregate in liability insurance, and also requires Newport Beach and LBCWD to fully indemnify Fountain Valley and name the City of Fountain Valley as an Additional Insured under the policy.

Before permits are issued, Newport Beach must submit a stormwater flow sufficiency report and if the City Engineer determines that the Bushard/Talbert lines need upsizing to handle the project’s flow, Newport Beach will build those upgrades at its sole cost and expense. This ensures that Fountain Valley will not incur any costs for storm drain upgrades.

Staff recommends the Council find that this Agreement is in the public interest per the standards set in FVMC Section 14.16.040. It preserves the Fountain Valley ’s rights-of-way, places all construction and liability on Newport Beach, and secures the following benefits to Fountain Valley:

1. $82,000 one-time payment for mitigation of potential lost revenue in permits, plan checks, and fees;

2. $10,000 annual public benefit payment (CPI adjusted and compounded annually) for the loss of potential property tax revenue;

3. $45,000 one- time payment towards encroachment into the rights -of-way to include the placement of the water main, storm drain, and all curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements;
4-18
157

4. $10
0,000 one-time public benefit payment toward Fountain Valley public safety or future water/well projects;

5. A System Interconnect stub-out for a future Fountain Valley-built interconnection for emergency use; and

6. A Newport Beach constructed, Fountain Valley owned, 8-inch C900 main from La Amapola Circle to Bushard Street with easement, at no cost to Fountain Valley, for the Fountain Valley water system to improve water quality and system redundancy.

FISCAL REVIEW:

The Agreement yields a net positive fiscal impact for Fountain Valley. It secures a one-time revenue of $82,000 mitigation payment, a one-time $45,000 payment towards encroachment and inspection fees, and a one-time $100,000 public benefit payment, plus an annual $10,000 public benefit payment (CPI adjusted and compounded annually). In addition, Newport Beach will construct an 8-inch C900 main (La Amapola to Bushard) and grant an easement (in kind improvements), and will provide a System Interconnect emergency stub out for a future Fountain Valley built tie in.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Notification was made through the regular agenda process.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW:

Under the California Environmental Qualification Act (“CEQA”), Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for the physical construction of the two wells and related facilities. Newport Beach will circulate and adopt appropriate CEQA documents prior to issuing a construction notice to proceed.

ATTORNEY REVIEW:

The Attorneys for the City have reviewed and approved the Agreement.

ALTERNATIVES:

Alternative No. 1: Approve the Water Well Permit and Encroachment Agreement between the City of Fountain Valley, the City of Newport Beach, and the Laguna Beach County Water District for the construction, operation, and maintenance of two municipal production wells and associated facilities at 17902 Bushard Street.

Alternative No. 2: Do not approve the Water Well Permit and Encroachment Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION:

4-19
158
S
taff is requesting City Council approval of Alternative No. 1 to approve the Water Well Permit and Encroachment Agreement between the City of Fountain Valley, the City of Newport Beach, and the Laguna Beach County Water District for the construction, operation, and maintenance of two municipal production wells and associated facilities at 17902 Bushard Street.

Prepared by: Vanessa Lassooy, Attorneys for the City

Reviewed by: Omar Dadhabhoy, Community Development Director

Reviewed by: Scott Smith, Director of Public Works

Fiscal review by: Ryan Smith, Finance Director

Approved by: Maggie Le, City Manager

Attachments: Water Well Permit and Encroachment Agreement

4-20
159

ATTACHMENT C
76 4-21
160
4-22
161
4-23
162
4-24
163
City of Newport Beach
Clas
s 32 Exemption Checklist

BUSHARD STREET WATER WELL
17902 Bushard Street
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Case Nu
mber: PA2024-0166
Prepar
ed By:

City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Nove
mber 2025

ATTACHMENT D
4-25
164

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRO

NMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION

INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
CASE NUMBER: PA2024
-0166 – Bushard Streete Water Well
PROJECT ADDRESS: 17902 Bushard Street
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
APN(s): 167-271-34
PROJECT APPLICANT: City o
f Newport Beach, Utilities Department
Mark Vukojevic, Utilities Director
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
[email protected]
PROPERTY OWNER: Lagu
na Beach County Water District
306 3rd Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
LAND USE DESIGNATION: Low
Density Residential
ZONING: R-1 S
ingle Family Residential
INTRODUCTION:

Article 1
9 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300 to Section 15333) includes a list of classes of projects that have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment and as a result, are exempt from re view under CEQA. These are referred to as “categorical exemptions.” The categorical exemptions include an urban infill exemption designed to streamline development in already -developed urban areas. This report is intended to determine if the Proposed Project meets the provisions to be categorically exempt from CEQA per State CEQA Guidelines 15332 (Class 32 – In- fill Development Projects).

The foll
owing criteria must be met for a project to be characterized as in-fill development:
a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and 4-26
165
all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
b. The project is in the City on a site less than five acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c. The Project Site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

This evaluation was prepared to determine whether the Proposed Project qualifies for the class 32 in- fill development exemption. This evaluation is supported by the attached technical appendices.

SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING:

The Proposed Project would be constructed on a 31,929 square foot site at 17902 Bushard Street (APN 167-271-34) in the City of Fountain Valley (City), Orange County, California (see Figure 1 – Regional Vicinity Map). The Project Site is located on the east side of Bushard Street, approximately 280 feet north of Talbert Avenue.

The Project Site is currently vacant but was previously improved with a single-family house and small commercial landscape nursery. Surrounding use includes single- family residences on the north, east, and south sides of the site ( Figure 2 – Site Location – Aerial View Map). Further north, beyond the single-family residences, is Fountain Valley High School. West of the project site, across Bushard Street, is a multi-family senior apartment development and the Fountain Valley Senior Center.

The Project Site has a Fountain Valley General Plan (FVGP) land use designation of Low Density Residential and is zoned R- 1 Single Family Residential (see Figure 3 – General Plan Land Use Designation Map and Figure 4 – Zoning District Map).

The Project Site is located within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2022 Newport Beach, California 7.5-minute, 24000 topographic quadrangle. The Project Site is also located within FEMA Flood Plain Panel 06059C0254J and is designated within Zone X, which is described as an “area with reduced flood risk due to levee”

1. The Project Site is not located within any fire hazard severity zones (see Figure 5 –Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map).
1 FEMA Flood Map Service Center Map, FEMA Flood Map Service Center | Search By Address, accessed October 23, 2025.
4-27
166

Figure 1. Regional Vicinity Map

Figure 2. Site Location – Aerial View Map
4-28
167

Figure 3. General Plan Land Use Designation Map

Figure 4. Zoning District Map
4-29
168

Figure 5. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The Proposed Project consists of the construction two water wells to an approximate depth of 700 feet and 300 feet. Once completed, the water wells will be connected to the City of Newport’s existing water mains located in the Talbert Channel. Specifically, the Proposed Project will include the following:

• Construction of the two water wells, one to an approximate depth of 700 feet and the other to an approximate depth of 300 feet. The wells are approximately 75 feet apart and will be drilled consecutively.

• Upon completion of each well, the well will be connected to a turbine pump and related appurtenances. This will include pipeline stub out for a future system interconnect adjacent to the groundwater production facility. The system interconnection would allow Fountain Valley access to water produced by the Newport Beach wells in the event of an emergency that disrupts Fountain Valley's water service.

• Both wells and related equipment will be housed within a 2,400 square foot structure that is 15 feet tall. The building is proposed to be located near the western portion of the site, setback 20 feet from the Bushard Street right -of- way. The building will also be setback 45.58 feet from the north property line,

48.41 feet from the south property line, 78.55 feet from the east property line, and 64 feet from the La Amapola Circle right-of-way.

4-30
169
• A new 24-inch water main will be provided to connect the two wells to the existing Newport Beach water main that is located within the Talbert Channel. The new 24-inch water main will traverse from the site, south within the Bushard Street right-of-way, thence west in the Talbert Avenue right -of- way, finally connecting to the existing water main within the Talbert Channel.

• An 8 -foot-tall concrete masonry block wall to be constructed along the property boundaries, which will include two 20 -foot-wide sliding gates to provide access to the Property from Bushard Street.

• Approximately 5,368 square feet of landscaping will be provided along the north, south, and east property lines. The remainder of the site will be improved with asphalt paving.

• An 18-inch reinforced concrete storm drain will connect from a drain box adjacent to each of the water well, through the Bushard Street right-of-way, to the existing storm drain in Talbert Avenue.

• An 8-inch C900 water main that connects the 8-inch Asbestos Cement water main on La Amapola Circle to the 8 -inch Asbestos Cement water main on Bushard Street with isolating gate valves at each end of the tie-in will be provided. This water main will not connect to the wells, but rather will provide a loop connection for the City of Fountain Valley’s water supply system.

• The site will be connected to electrical power through an underground connection from the nearest utility pole on Bushard Street. A transformer will be located near the northeast corner of site. An emergency generator will be located on the east side of the building.

• In the unlikely event per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs) are found in the groundwater , additional filtration and treatment equipment will be located on the east side of the water well housing structure.

Construction is expected to take 18 months. Once the construction is complete, the water wells will operate 24-hours a day. The operation of water wells chiefly is unmanned but will require a maintenance crew visit twice a week. A copy of the proposed site plan is in Appendix A.

Standard Regulatory Requirements
The Applicant is required to follow all existing standard regulations during construction. These include but are not limited to the following:

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712) Compliance.

The MBTA of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703- 712), which was last updated in 2004 protects individuals as well as any part, nest, or eggs of any bird listed as 4-31
170
migratory. In practice, federal permits issued for activities that potentially impact migratory birds typically have conditions have require pre- disturbance surveys for nesting birds. In the event nesting is observed, a buffer area with a specified radius must be established, within which no disturbance or intrusion is allowed until the young have fledged and left the nest, or it has been determined that the nest has failed. If not otherwise specified in the permit, the size of the buffer area varies with species and local circumstances (e.g., busy roads, intervening topography, etc.) and is based on the professional judgement of a monitoring biologist. A list of migratory bird species protected under the MBTA is published by USFWS.

State of California Fish and Game Code Section 3500, et. seq., Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Activities that result in the abandonment of an active bird of prey nest may also be considered in violation of this code. In addition, California Fish and Game Code, Section 3511 prohibits the taking of any bird listed as fully protected, and California Fish and Game Code, Section 3515 states that is it unlawful to take any non-game migratory bird protected under the MBTA.

California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 4308 (14 CCR § 4308) (Accommodation for Unanticipated Cultural/Paleontological Resources).

No person shall remove, injure, disfigure, deface, or destroy any object of archaeological or historical interest or value.

California Health and Safety Code, and Public Resources Code (Human Remains). In the event that human remains are discovered, there shall be no disposition of such human remains, other than in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Sect ion 5097.98. These code provisions require notification of the County Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission, who in turn must notify those persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American for appropriate disposition of the remains. Excavation or disturbance may continue in other areas of the Project Site that are not reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains or archaeological resources.

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Because the site is greater than one acre, the applicant is required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address water quality and runoff during construction to comply with the State of California General Construction Permit. The SWPPP will outline the source control and/or treatment control Best Management 4-32
171
Practices (BMPs) to avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the construction site to the “maximum extent practicable.” All recommendations in the Plan shall be implemented during area grading and construction. The Project shall comply with each of the recommendations detailed in the Plan, and other such measure(s) as the City deems necessary to mitigate potential stormwater runoff impacts.

INFORMATION DEMONSTRATING THAT THE PROJECT SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 15332 OF TITLE 14 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS:

Section 15332 of CEQA Guidelines states that “Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions” described below:

a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a Project Site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. c. The Project Site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
d. Approval of the project would not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The following analysis discusses the Proposed Project in relation to each condition as listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332:

1. Is the project consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations?

The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential and is zoned R1. Pursuant to Government Code 53091, zoning and building codes do not apply to facilities for the generation of water, therefore the Project would be a permi tted use in all zones. Nevertheless, the Project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies:

Policy LU-1.1 Land use compatibility and viability. The Project is in the immediate vicinity of other public facilities. Specifically, Fountain Valley High School is within 250 feet from the Property. Additionally, the proposed well housing would have a residential design and be smaller size than other residences in the area. Landscape setbacks would be provided adjacent to La Amapola Avenue to further blend the 4-33
172
site into the residential neighborhood. Along Bushard, a block wall will be provided to match the height of other blocks walls in the area. Access to the site would be Bushard, a secondary arterial, further limiting impacts to the adjoining neighborhoods.

Policy LU-3.2 Scale and character. The single- story well housing would have a residential design and be in scale with other single-story homes in the area. In fact, the Project is more consistent in scale and character with the residences under La Amapola when compared to the residential densities available through Senate Bill 9 and the various state law amendments authorizing accessory dwelling units. The City of Fountain Valley’s municipal code requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet, minimum lot width of 60 feet (45 feet for cul-de-sac lots), and lot depth of 90 feet. Based on its size and shape, the 22,172 square foot parcel could be subdivided into three parcels. Utilizing either ADU law and SB 9, or combination thereof, each of the subsequent parcels could build up to four dwelling units. This would result in twelve units being built on the site. In comparison to other uses, the Project will maintain a residential design and is in scale and character with the area.

Policy PFS-1.1 Water supply and distribution. According to the Orange County Water District Engineer’s Report
2, water Conservation, recharge basins, and recent
wet periods (2005-06, 2011-12, 2018-19, and 2022-23) has resulted in an increase in groundwater supplies. The proposed water wells will not create a significant drawdown of the water basin and will not impact supply for the City of Fountain Valley.

2. Is the proposed development located within the city limits on a Project Site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses?

The Project Site is located within the City of Fountain Valley city limits . The Project limits include work on the Project Site and within the Bushard and Talbert rights-of- way. As noted in the following table, the total area within the project boundaries is 4.704 acres.

Component Size
Project Site 0.733 acre
Bushard Street Right-of-Way 0.883 acre
Talbert Avenue Right-of-Way 3.088 acres
Total 4.704 acres

All surrounding uses are urban uses, which include commercial and residential land uses.

2 https://www.ocwd.com/wp-content/uploads/2022-23-Engineers-Report-Final.pdf 4-34
173

3. Does the Project Site have value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species?

The Project Site is currently vacant but was previously improved with a single-family residence and commercial landscape nursery . Only ground cover (primarily weeds and grasses) remains on the site. It is located within a developed urban setting as surrounding uses are developed with commercial and residential uses.

According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC viewer3, there are no critical habitats on the Project Site. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2023 City of Fountain Valley General Plan update 4, states the only portion of the City that contain habitat is the region around Mile Square Park. The Project Site is over one mile from Mile Square Park and development of the water wells would not impact any habitat within the park.

The Proposed Project would adhere to all applicable regulatory requirements.

Landscape would be removed in accordance with the Migratory Bird Act and the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, the Project Site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

4. Would approval of the project result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality?

Traffic:
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
The City uses the Foutain Valley General Plan Mobility Element 5 to discuss the City’s
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

The Circulation Element establishes goals and policies that guide the City’s mobility system, including streets, transit facilities, and pedestrian facilities. Access to the Project Site will be limited to Bushard Street, which is classified by the General Plan as a Secondary Arterial. Secondary Arterials are intended to distribute traffic between local streets and arterials, and can typically accommodate 25,000 average daily vehicle trips . Bushard is also listed on the Circulation Element Trails Plan Map as a Class II bike path . A Class II bike lane is provided on both sides of the street.

The Proposed Project will not impact the roadway operations or bicycle access.

The entry access gate will be setback from the sidewalk to allow maintenance 3 https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/index
4 https://www.fountainvalley.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19301/GPU-EIR 5 https://www.fountainvalley.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19654/Fountain_Valley_2045_General_Pla n
4-35
174
vehicles to stop to allow the gate to open without blocking the travel lanes.

Additionally, the site will be chiefly unmanned and will not generate any significant number of vehicle trips to the roadway network.

b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 discusses that transportation impacts of projects are, in general, best measured by evaluating the Proposed Project ’s VMT. T o analyze traffic impacts, the City has adopted The City of Fountain Valley Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Land Use Projects in CEQA and for General Plan Consistency (Guidelines)

6. All traffic impact analyses for CEQA are required to follow the City’s TIA Guidelines.

There are three types of VMT project screening that lead agencies can apply to effectively screen projects from project-level assessment. These are: Type 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening; Low VMT Area Screening; and lastly, Project Type Screening. Importantly, the Project only needs to fulfill one of these screening types to qualify for screening.

Of the aforementioned types of screening, the Project screens out based on Project Type Screening. Specifically, the Guidelines state, “Local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.” Furthermore, the Guidelines provide a list of projects that can be presumed to have a less than significant impact. Among the list includes projects that generate less than 110 net new daily vehicle trips. The Project is unmanned and will only generate a few vehicle trips per week for maintenance crews, far less than the 110 trips per day.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).

c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The Proposed Project does not involve any design features that would increase traffic hazards due to geometric design or incompatible uses. Access to the Project Site is proposed via driveway s along Bushard Street with no access proposed on La Amapola Circle. The drive approaches will comply the City of Fountain Valley’s Public Works standards.

6 https://www.fountainvalley.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13730/VMT- Guidenliens_City-of- Fountain-Valley
4-36
175
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The Proposed Project is required to located two water wells within a 2,400 square foot structure. Two access points are provided on Bushard Street to allow emergency ingress and egress. The building is within 150 feet of the right-of-way to allow the Fire Department to pull hoses onto the site without the need for on- site fire hydrants. As a result, the Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Noise:

A Noise Impact Analysis dated August 8, 2025 by Ganddini Group (Appendix B) was prepared for the Proposed Project to analyze the Proposed Project’s potential noise impacts. As discussed below, approval of the Proposed Project would not result in any significant effects relating to noise.

a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Construction Noise – The construction activities for the Proposed Project are anticipated to include preparation and grading of the site, drilling of the water wells, construction of the water well housing structure, site improvements, and installation of the water main and stormwater main in the right-of-way. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project Site is the single-family residences located on the adjoining properties.

Section 6.28.070 of the City’s Municipal Code exempts construction noise that occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. from the stationary noise standard of 55 dB at the nearby residential property lines. Nighttime well drilling will be subject to the noise standards presented below in Sections 6.28.050 and 6.28.060.

Specifically, drill noise will be considered significant if it exceeds an exterior noise level of 55 dBA Leq at the adjacent residential properties of if it is expected to exceed 45 dBA Leq inside any nearby residences.

Construction noise levels will range between range between 44 and 57 dBA Leq at first floor levels of nearby residential properties and between 50 and 57 dBA Leq at second story levels of nearby residential properties (see Figure 6 – Construction Noise). As an added measure, a temporary noise barrier will be included to further reduce nighttime noise levels (see Figure 7 – Noise Barrier) 4-37
176

Figure 6. Construction Noise

4-38
177

Figure 7. Noise Barrier

4-39
178
Operational Noise

Noise generated from the operation of the wells is primarily derived from the well pumps. These pumps are contained in the well-housing building, which will include acoustic paneling on the interior walls. Operational noise levels will range between 36 and 49 dBA Leq at first floor levels of nearby residential properties and between 46 and 56 dBA Leq at second story levels of nearby residential properties (see Figure 8 – Operational Noise).

Figure 8. Operational Noise

4-40
179
Roadway Vehicular Noise

Vehicular noise is a combination of noise produced by engine, exhaust, and tires.

The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. The Proposed Project does not propose a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips to or from the site. No impact from roadway vehicular noise is anticipated.

b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Vibration is oscillatory motion through a solid medium, like the ground . Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed as either peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal in inches per second. The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal in vibration decibels (VdB), ref one micro - inch per second. Vibration can impact adjoining uses if it exceeds 85 VdB.

Vibration impacts from construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would typically be created from the operation of heavy off -road equipment and drilling of water wells. Proposed well sites are no closer than 58 feet from the project site property line and groundborne vibration associated with well drilling is expected to be approximately 0.025 at that distance. Therefore, well drilling would not result in significant impacts related to groundborne vibration.

Operations-related vibration impacts – Operation of the water wells is not anticipated to generate vibration. The only potential for impact is from vehicles and trucks driving on the site. Loaded trucks generally have a VdB of 85.6 at a distance of 25 feet the VdB decreases over distance, therefore based on the distance to the nearest residential structure, vibration levels will not exceed the 85 VdB threshold and no impact is expected.

c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport, located in Santa Ana, California, which is approximately 5.5 miles from the Project Site. The Project Site is not located within the airport’s land use plan area. Furthermore, the Proposed Project is not expected to expose people residing or working in the Proposed Project area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on exposing people residing or working in the area to excessive airplane noise.

4-41
180
Air Quality:
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The Project Site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) which is characterized by relatively poor air quality and is a Federal- and State- designated nonattainment area for O3, PM10 and PM2.5 (US EPA 2012). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has established significance thresholds for both construction and operational activities relative to these criteria pollutants. The Project Site is located within the Coastal general forecasting area and Central Orange County air monitoring area (SRA-17). The nearest air monitoring station to the Project Site is located in Anaheim near Interstate 5 and Ball Road (ARB #30031).

Air monitoring areas and stations provide air pollutant data to comprise a “background” for the project location and the existing local air quality.

As discussed below under threshold b and threshold c, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts relative to the daily significance thresholds for criteria air pollutant construction emissions established by SCAQMD. By complying with the thresholds of significance, the Proposed Project would be incompliance with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and the federal and state air quality standards.

b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Construction

The construction activities can generate criteria pollutants through the operation of construction equipment and from fugitive dust. Current requirements of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) require construction fleets to utilize low emission vehicles and ensure all vehicles in use are properly maintained to minimize impacts.
7 California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off -road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet’s usage and emissions. In addition to the fleet requirements, fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403 will be utilized. This includes:

• Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. • Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities. • Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks 7 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/off-roaddiesel/froa-1.pdf 4-42
181
hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.

As a result of the implementation of existing regulations, the Proposed Project ’s short-term construction impact on regional or localized air resources would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions

Operation of the Proposed Project is not anticipated to create any air quality emissions or criteria pollutants. The water well pumps are powered electrically and connected to the existing power grid. Furthermore, the site is unmanned only generating a few vehicle trips a week for maintenance. These minimal number of vehicle trips would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. By complying with the SCAQMD standards, the Proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Therefore, the Proposed Project ’s long-term regional and local air quality impacts will be less than significant.

c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Sensitive receptors are the single-family residences that are adjacent to the Project Site. The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant (TACs) emissions would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the Proposed Project . According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk”. “Individual cancer r isk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70- year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk - assessment methodology.

Given the relatively limited number of heavy -duty construction equipment, the varying distances that the construction equipment would operate to the nearby sensitive receptors, and the short -term construction schedule, the Proposed Project would not result in a long -term (i.e., 30 or 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding “ individual cancer risk ”. In addition, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off -road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and currently no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 0, Tier 1 or Tier 2 equipment. In 4-43
182
addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023. By January, 2026, 75 percent or more of all contractors’ equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher and by January, 2029, 100 percent of all equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher. Therefore, no significant short -term DPM impacts would occur during construction of the Proposed Project.

d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Land uses that commonly receive odor complaints include agricultural uses (farming and livestock), chemical plants, composting operations, dairies, fiberglass molding facilities, food processing plants, landfills, refineries, rail yards, and wastewater treatment plants. The Proposed Project is not anticipated to generate odors.

Water Quality:
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Construction Impacts

Construction-related runoff pollutants are typically generated from waste and hazardous materials handling or storage areas, outdoor work areas, material storage areas, and general maintenance areas (e.g., vehicle or equipment fueling and maintenance, including washing). Construction projects that disturb one acre or more of soil, including the Proposed Project, are regulated under the Construction General Permit (CGP, Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Projects obtain coverage under the CGP by developing and implementing a stormwater prevention pollution plan (SWPPP), estimating sediment risk from construction activities to receiving waters, and specifying best management practices that would be implemented as a part of the Proposed Project’s construction phase to minimize pollution of stormwater prior to and during grading and construction.

The contractor would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP and associated BMPs in compliance with the CGP during grading and construction.

The SWPPP would specify BMPs that would be implemented for the Proposed Project to protect the water quality of receiving waters . Other construction BMPs that may be incorporated into the Proposed Project ’s SWPPP and implemented during the construction phase include but are not limited to:

• Installation of perimeter silt fences and perimeter sandbags and/or gravel bags
4-44
183
• Stabilized construction exits with rumble strip(s)/plate(s) • Installation of storm drain inlet protection on affected roadways • Installation of silt fences around stockpile and covering of stockpiles • Stabilization of disturbed areas where construction ceases for a determined period of time (e.g., one week) with erosion controls
• Installation of temporary sanitary facilities and dumpsters

Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, minimize, and/or treat pollutants and prevent degradation of downstream receiving waters; reduce or avoid contamination of urban runoff with sediment; and reduce or avoid contamination with other pollutants such as trash and debris, oil, grease, fuels, and other toxic chemicals.

b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The Proposed Project is intended to pump groundwater from the aquifer. These two water wells would allow Newport Beach to extract 5,000 -6,000-acre feet of water per year, which would not impact the aquifer. According to the Orange County Water District (OCWD), the Orange County Groundwater Basin holds over 40 million acre-feet with a current operational capacity of 500,000 acre-feet. 8 Total
water demands within OCWD for the 2022-2023 water year was 351,719 acre-feet, which was the lowest in 50 years, 9 despite an increase in development within the County. Increasing the demand by extracting an additional 6,000 acre-feet would not impact the aquifer and not result in a substantial decrease in the groundwater supply.

c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows?
The existing Project Site is currently vacant. In the existing condition, drainage of the site generally surface flows towards Bushard Street, thence south to a curb inlet catch basins near Talbert Avenue. The Proposed Project would install multiple drainage catch basins on site, which will connect to a new storm drain that will connect to the existing off -site storm drain system. This will result in improved 8 https://www.ocwd.com/wp-content/uploads/GWRS-TechnicalBrochure_WEB.pdf 9 https://www.ocwd.com/wp-content/uploads/2022-23-Engineers-Report-Final.pdf 4-45
184
drainage patterns and prevent uncontrolled surface drainage from the site.

d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The Project Site is located within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2022 Newport Beach, California 7.5-minute, 24000 topographic quadrangle. The Project Site is also located within FEMA Flood Plain Panel 06059C0254J and is designated within Zone X, which is described as an “area with reduced flood risk due to levee” The Project Site is located outside of the 100 -year flood plain, and would not impede or redirect flood flows. Furthermore, onsite storm drain catch basins would be designed to prevent pollutants from entering to the storm drain system.

Seiches are surface waves created when a body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake activity. Seiches are of concern relative to development near large water bodies and water storage facilities, because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water. Due to the distance from any body of water, seiches are not anticipated to impact the project site.

e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? The Proposed Project involves the construction of two water wells and its associated infrastructure. The Project will incorporate storm water and urban runoff pollution prevention controls, and b est management practices (BMPs) on construction sites in accordance with the Orange County MS4 Permit . Therefore, the Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

At full operation, the two water wells are expected to extract 5,000-6,000-acre feet of water per year from the aquifer. According to the Orange County Water District (OCWD), the Orange County Groundwater Basin holds over 40 million acre-feet with a curren t operational capacity of 500,000 acre -feet per year. Current extraction rates are approximately 350,0009 acre- feet per year. The additional extraction from these two wells will not impact sustainable management of the ground water supply or exceed operational capacity of groundwater extraction.

5. Can the Project Site be adequately served by all required utilities and public services?

a. Fire Protection:

According to CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) M ap, the Project Site is not designated in a Very High, High, or Moderate FHSZ for either the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) or State Responsibility Area (SRA). The Proposed Project 4-46
185
does not introduce any features that would require additional fire services beyond what is already serviced to the City. Fire services are provided to the City by the Fountain Valley Fire Department. The nearest Fire Station is Fountain Valley Fire Station 1, which is located at 17737 Bushard Steet. This Fire Station is less than 1,000 feet from the Project Site.

b. Police Protection:

Police Protection for the Project Site would be provided by the Fountain Valley Police Department. The Proposed Project will be unmanned and is not anticipated to generate growth or new employment. Calls for Police Services are not anticipated to increase beyond those required for the existing vacant site.

Therefore, no impact is expected.

Installation of new water wells would provide the City of Newport Beach with additional water supply, which could spur growth in Newport. Notwithstanding this, new development in Newport Beach is limited to what was previously analyzed under the City’s General Plan buildout scenario.
10 This buildout scenario already
considers needed growth in Police Services. Therefore, the project will not impact police protection.

c. Schools:

Since the Proposed Project will be unmanned and is not anticipated to generate growth or new employment, impacts to Fountain Valley schools will not occur.

Nevertheless, the additional water supply for the City of Newport Beach could induce growth. Impacts on schools resulting from this additional growth was previously analyzed in the City of Newport Beach General Plan buildout scenario.

Further, school enrollment for the Newport-Mesa Unified School District 11 has been
trending down year to year, providing sufficient capacity for any minimal indirect increase in school enrollments resulting from the project.

d. Parks:

Since the Proposed Project will be unmanned and is not anticipated to generate growth or new employment, impacts to Fountain Valley parks will not occur.

Nevertheless, the additional water supply for the City of Newport Beach could induce growth. Impacts on parks resulting from this additional growth was previously analyzed in the City of Newport Beach General Plan buildout scenario.

10 https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/community- development/planning-division/general-plan-codes-and-regulations/general-plan 11 https://www.ed-data.org/district/Orange/Newport--Mesa-Unified/ps_Mzg2NzA%5E 4-47
186
e. Other Public Facilities:

Other public facilities , such as library services will not be impacted since the Proposed Project will be unmanned and is not anticipated to generate growth or new employment in Fountain Valley. Any impacts resulting in growth in the City of Newport Beach were previously analyzed in the City of Newport Beach General Plan buildout scenario.

f. Wastewater/Sewer:

The water wells will not generate wastewater. No impacts will occur.

g. Storm Water Drainage:

The proposal includes constructing an 18-inch reinforced concrete storm drain that will connect from a drain box adjacent to each of the water wells, through Bushard Street right -of-way, to the existing storm drain in Talbert Avenue. The Talbert Avenue storm drain flows into the Talbert Channel, which ultimately drains into the Pacific Ocean near Brookhurst Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The new storm drain is proposed to accommodate flushing of the wells and onsite drainage. Tin 2022 the City of Fountai n Valley prepared an Infrastructure Technical Report 12 as
part of the General Plan Update. This technical report did not find any deficiencies in the existing storm drain system.

h. Water Supplies:

The proposed project will increase water supplies for the City of Newport Beach.

As noted in Section 4.e. of this analysis, operations of the water wells will not impact ground water supplies for other communities.

i. Solid Waste Disposal:

The water wells will not generate solid waste. No impacts will occur.

j. Electricity: k. Natural Gas: l. Telephone Service: m. Television Service:

The Project Site is in a built-out, urban setting. The Project Site and the surrounding properties are fully served by various utility service providers, including:

• Electric: Southern California Edison (SCE)
• Natural Gas: Southern California Gas (SoCalGas)
• Telecommunications: AT&T, Frontier, Verizon, T-Mobile, Spectrum 12 https://www.fountainvalley.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17436/Appendix_513-1_- Existing- Conditions-Infrastructure-Report?bidId=
4-48
187
EXCEPTIONS:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 outlines exceptions, such as if a project results in a cumulatively significant impact, that would render a project inapplicable for a Categorical Exemption. As discussed in the analysis above, the Proposed Project would not result in any significant impact or cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not result in damage to scenic resources or a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The Project Site is located on a site that is developed with a commercial office building and surface parking. The Proposed Project would consist of infill development on a site that is not listed on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

The following analysis discusses the Proposed Project in relation to CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 – Exceptions.

a. Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant.

Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.

The Proposed Project does not qualify for the Class 3, 4, 5, 6, or 11 categorical exemptions. Therefore, exception A of Section 15300.2 is not applicable to the Proposed Project.

b. Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

As discussed above under threshold questions three through five, the Proposed Project would not have a cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. The Proposed Project would consist of a new auto dealership development and does not propose to redevelop the site with successive projects of the same type over time.

c. Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

As discussed above under threshold questions three through five, the Proposed Project would not have any significant effect related to traffic, noise, air quality, water quality, and biological and cultural resources. The Proposed Project falls below regulatory thresholds and would adhere to all applicable regulations, such 4-49
188
as the City’s Municipal Code.

d. Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages the State Scenic Highway Program and provides a State Scenic Highway Map tool on the Caltrans website. According to the Caltrans State Scenic Highway Map tool 13, there are no
scenic highways on or adjacent to the Project Site. The closest scenic highway is Pacific Coast Highway, which at its nearest point is located approximately 4 miles southwest of the Project Site.

e. Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

According to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the Department of Toxic Control Substances (DTSC)’s Cortese List (Section 65962.5 of the Government Code) The Project Site is not located on the Cortese List or on any database of hazardous substance release sites, such as the EnviroStor database.

Therefore, exception E is not applicable to the Proposed Project.

f. Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

According to the California Register of Historic Resources 14 and the National
Register of Historic Places15, the Project Site is not designated as a historic place or resource. The City of Fountain Valley does not have a historic resource ordinance or list. Therefore, exception F is not applicable to the Proposed Project.

CONCLUSION:

Based on the analysis above, the Proposed Project is classified as a Class 32 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15300 and is categorically exempt from CEQA.
13 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aaca a
14 https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=30 15 https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466 4-50
189
DETERMINATION:

I find that the analysis adequately supports each question and that the effects of the Proposed Project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 32 – Infill Development Projects) characterized as in- fill development meeting the conditions of Section 15332 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. The Proposed Project would not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Mark Vukojevic Oc tober 28, 2028
Signature of Lead Agency Date

Mark Vukojevic, Utilities Director (714) 718-3401_______ Printed Name, Title Phone Number

4-51
190
Appendix A

Site Plan

4-52
191
S
W
W W
S

ELECTRICALELECTRICAL

BUSHARD STREET

20.00'

16.00'
ENTRY

13.00'10.00'

20.00'

16.00'
ENTRY

24.00'

6.00'

10.00'

10.00'
1 3 4 5
10699
8 2 12 11
14 9 9
10 6
13 8
77 LA AMAPOLA CIRCLE

92.00'
(N) 18" RCP SD(N) 18" RCP SD (N) SLIDING GATE
(E) 16.38'

20.00'
(N) DRIVEWAY WIDTH
(N)SLIDING GATE
(E) DRIVEWAY TO BE REPLACED

WITH CONCRETE SIDEWALK

20.00'
(N) DRIVEWAY WIDTH
(E) POWER POLE

PROTECT IN PLACE
C/L
(E) STREET SIGN TO

BE RELOCATED
9540 LA AMAPOLA CIR
APN: 167-271-33
9533 ACKLAY CIR
APN: 167-271-22
9525 ACKLAY CIR
APN 167-271-23
9529 LA AMAPOLA CIR
APN: 167-271-31
179011 BUSHARD ST
APN: 167-271-34
2 2

6.00'

4.83'

8.47'

8.00' 26.69'

SEE SHEET C-XX FOR

SD PIPE CONNECTION

SEE SHEET C-XX FOR

WATER PIPE CONNECTION
15 15
16 16

5.00'5.00'

20.00'

45.58'

48.41'
18 6.00'

PROTECT IN PLACE
(E) BLOCK WALL
17 19

PROTECT IN PLACE
(E) BLOCK WALL

PROTECT IN PLACE
(E) BLOCK WALL
17 16
16 50.00'
10' 10'

19.00'
(N) 24" WATER
(N) 16" WATER (N) 12" WATER

CONSTRUCTION NOTES

DEEP WELL VERTICAL TURBINE PUMP AND FABRICATED STEEL DISCHARGE HEAD WITH 3/4 EXTRA HEAVY HALF COUPLING FOR PRE-LUBE PER SPEC

SECTION XX
3" AIR RELEASE AND VACCUMM VALVE PER DETAIL X ON SHEET M-XX 16" DIA FLANGED RATE OF FLOW CONTROL VALVE, CLA-VAL MODEL 40-01 OR

APPROVED EQUAL PER SPEC SECTION XX
16" DIA FLANGED PROPELLER METER PER SPEC SECTION XX
16" DIA FLANGED GATE VALVE (CL 150) WITH HANDWHEEL AND POSITION

INDICATOR PER SPEC SECTION XX
8" DIA FLANGED SURGE ANTICIPATOR VALVE, CLA VAL MODEL 52G-03BKC D/S WITH CRA30-300 AND CRL20-200 RANGE PER SPEC SECTION XX
8" DIA FLANGED BUTTERFLY VALVE (CL 150) WITH HANDWHEEL AND POSITION

INDICATOR
8" DIA FLANGED DEEP WELL PUMP CONTROL VALVE, CLA-VAL MODEL 61-02 4'X4' PRECAST DRAIN BOX WITH ALUMINUM GRATE AND FRAME
8" DIA FLAGED RESILIENT WEDGE GATE VALVE WITH HANDWHEEL OPERATOR

SHALLOW WELL VERTICAL TURBINE PUMP AND FABRICATED STEEL DISCHARGE HEAD WITH 3/4 EXTRA HEAVY HALF COUPLING FOR PRE-LUBE PER

PROJECT PER SPEC SECTION XX
12" DIA FLANGED RATE OF FLOW CONTROL VALVE, CLA-VAL MODEL 40-01 OR

APPROVED EQUAL
12" DIA FLANGED PROPELLER METER PER SPEC SECTION XX
12" DIA FLANGED GATE VALVE (CL 150) WITH HANDWHEEL AND POSITION

INDICATOR

EXHAUST FAN PER DETAIL X ON SHEET M-XX

LOUVERD WALL VENT PER DETAIL X ON SHEET M-XX
8' HIGH CMU BLOCK WALL, PER DETAIL X ON SHEET C-XX
8'X6' CONCRETE TRANSFORMER PAD, PER DETAIL X ON SHEET C-XX 10'X20' CONCRETE PAD FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR, PER DETAIL X ON

SHEET C-XX
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 1
PA OH
--- 3/7/2025

W-XXXX-X
00 10' 20'
1" = 10'

SHEET XOF

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTNO. DATE DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONS APPR.

DESIGNED:

CHECKED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

XREFS: G-BD-CNB - C-SV-AERIAL - C-SV-RW - C-UP-EX - C-LP - C-CNOTES IMAGES: G-IM-MKN.png - Mike's Signature.png - DWG: N:\Newport Beach\Newport Beach-2023-002 Well Siting Study\300 Engineering\301 CAD\Plansets\C-SITE PLAN.dwg Layout Name: SITE PLAN - Plotted by: Oscar Hernandez Date: 3/17/2025 - 2:40 PM Know what'sbelow.
before you dig.Call
R

NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED WELLS
17911 BUSHARD ST FOUNTAIN VALLEY
REVIEWED:

DATE:

MICHAEL SINACORI, P.E.

ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER

C-XXXX-X
16310 BAKE PARKWAY
IRVINE, CA 92618 (949) 637-3999 S
D
SL
W
SYMBOL

FOR PRELIMINARY USE ONLY

NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION
DATE: MARCH 2025
4-53
192
Appendix B

Noise Impact Study, Ganddini Group
4-54
193
/0 /1 /2/3/4/5 /6 /7 /8 /9 /7 /10 /10 /1 /9 /7 /8 /5 /11 /5 /0 /1 /2 /7 /12 /13 /14 /1 /15 /2 /16 /14 /7 /5 /17 /18 /2 /7 /7 /9 /7 /8 /5 /11 /5 /17 /2 /1 /19 /9 /7 /8 /5 /11 /5 /20 /14 /9 /12 /10 /5 /21 /5 /22 /9 /23 /1 /2 /16 /14 /7 /24 /9 /1 /5/25/26/2 /18 /9 /15 /27 /5 /11 /5 /28 /18 /14 /23 /2 /18 /5 /29 /18 /9/30/2/15 /10 /5 /29 /31 /2 /7 /8 /10 /5 /11 /5 /32 /10 /2 /18 /15 /31 /5 /33 /9 /12 /19 /5 /24 /12 /12 /10 /12 /12/30/10/7 /15 /34 /35 /36/37/38/39/40/36/41 /39 /42 /42/41/43 /38/41 /42/39/43 /42/44/44/45/39/46/47/42 /48 /41 /49/46/50/36/42/50/51/45/38 /48/41/38/49/38/44 /52 /36 /50 /36 /53 /54 /55/56/57/58 /59 /57 /60 /61 /55 /62 /54/61/63/62 /64 /64 /65 /56 /66 /60 /67 /60 /68 /55 /69 /70 /71 /72 /71 /73
4-55
194
<UNHIDDEN>

BUSHARD STREET WATER WELL PROJECT

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
City of Fountain Valley
August 8, 2025
prepared by
Roma Stromberg, INCE, MS
Catherine Howe, MS

GANDDINI GROUP INC.
555 Park Center Drive, Suite 225
Santa Ana, California 92705
(714) 795-3100 | ganddini.com Project No. 19786
4-56
195
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
i 19786

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. III

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. NOISE AND VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS .................................................................................................. 4 Noise Fundamentals ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Vibration Fundamentals ................................................................................................................................................. 4

3. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................... 8 Existing Land Uses and Sensitive Receptors ............................................................................................................ 8 Ambient Noise Measurements ..................................................................................................................................... 8

4. REGULATORY SETTING .................................................................................................................................... 12 City of Fountain Valley General Plan ...................................................................................................................... 12 City of Fountain Valley Municipal Ordinance ....................................................................................................... 12 Construction Noise ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Operational Noise ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Federal Transit Administration .................................................................................................................................. 13

5. ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY AND MODEL PARAMETERS................................................................ 17 Well Drilling Noise Modeling ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Well Operation Noise Modeling ............................................................................................................................... 17 Groundborne Vibration Modeling ............................................................................................................................ 17

6. NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACTS ................................................................................................................ 18 Noise Impacts ................................................................................................................................................................ 18 Construction Noise ........................................................................................................................................... 18 Operational Noise ............................................................................................................................................. 18 Groundborne Vibration Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 19 Construction-Related Vibration Impacts..................................................................................................... 19 Operation-Related Vibration Impacts .......................................................................................................... 19 Air Traffic Impacts ........................................................................................................................................................ 19

7. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 29

APPENDICES
Appendix A List of Acronyms
Appendix B Glossary
Appendix C Noise Measurement Field Worksheets
Appendix D Soundplan Construction Noise Modeling

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Short-Term Noise Measurement Summary (dBA)....................................................................................... 9 Table 2. Long-Term Noise Measurement Summary (dBA) .................................................................................... 10 Table 3. FTA Construction Noise Criteria .................................................................................................................. 15 Table 4. FTA Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ........................................................................................... 16

4-57
196
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
ii 19786

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location Map .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Site Plan .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. A-Weighted Comparative Sound Levels ........................................................................................................ 6 Figure 4. Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration ...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5. Noise Measurement Location Map .............................................................................................................. 11 Figure 6. Construction Noise Levels – North Well .................................................................................................... 20 Figure 7. Construction Noise Level Contours – North Well ................................................................................... 21 Figure 8. Construction Noise Levels – South Well .................................................................................................... 22 Figure 9. Construction Noise Level Contours – South Well ................................................................................... 23 Figure 10. Construction Noise Levels With Recommendations – North Well ..................................................... 24 Figure 11. Construction Noise Level Contours With Recommendations – North Well .................................... 25 Figure 12. Construction Noise Levels With Recommendations – South Well ..................................................... 26 Figure 13. Construction Noise Level Contours With Recommendations – South Well .................................... 27 Figure 14. Operational Noise Levels – Both Wells ...................................................................................................... 28 4-58
197
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
iii 19786

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Proposed Project

The proposed project involves the drilling of two water wells: one to a depth of 300 feet and the other to a depth of 700 feet. The drilling will occur 24 hours per day for several weeks. Once complete, the two well heads will be contained in a 2,400 square foot structure. Maintenance workers will visit the site every few days, but no other activity is expected.

Existing Noise Environment

The proposed project is located in a built-out suburban area with single-family land uses to the north, south and east and Bushard Avenue and multiple family land uses to the west. Existing noise levels in the project vicinity range between 40.0 and 69.5 dBA L eq. The dominant noise source in the project vicinity was vehicle traffic. Secondary noise sources included residential ambiance, pedestrians, bird song, and occasional aircraft overflight.

Construction Noise

Construction noise levels will range between range between 44 and 57 dBA L eq at first floor levels of nearby residential properties and between 50 and 57 dBA L eq at second story levels of nearby residential properties without the use of noise barriers during construction; therefore, noise levels at several of the affected receptors would exceed the City’s nighttime standard of 50 dBA without the use of noise barriers during construction. The following noise reduction measure is recommended during construction to ensure the project does not exceed applicable nighttime noise standards:

Recommendation #1
Prior to commencement of well drilling, the project shall install temporary noise barriers with an STC rating of at least 20 dB around each well drill as illustrated on Figure 10 and Figure 12. The temporary noise barriers should measure 8 feet high along the south, east, and west sides and 12 feet high along the north side of the well drills, and shall remain in place through completion of all well drilling activity.

No mitigation measures would be required with implementation of Recommendation #1 into the project construction plans.

Operational Noise

Operational noise levels will range between range between 36 and 49 dBA L eq at first floor levels of nearby residential properties and between 46 and 56 dBA Leq at second story levels of nearby residential properties.

The modeling that was conducted to arrive at these sound levels assumes installation of the eight-foot concrete wall shown as shown in on the proposed site plan; and installation of metal acoustical paneling on interior walls of the proposed building similar to what is provided inside of the building at 17399 Magnolia Street. Operational noise impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Groundborne Vibration Impacts

The proposed well sites are no closer than 58 feet from the project site property line and groundborne vibration associated with well drilling is expected to be approximately 0.025 at that distance. Therefore, well drilling would not result in significant impacts related to groundborne vibration. No mitigation is required.

4-59
198
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
iv 19786
The most substantial sources of groundborne vibration during post-construction project operations will include the movement of passenger vehicles and trucks on paved and generally smooth surfaces. Loaded trucks generally have a VdB of 85.6 at a distance of 25 feet (Caltrans 2020), As stated previously, the nearest structure is 50 feet from the proposed alignment. Therefore, groundborne vibration levels generated by project operation would not exceed the City groundborne vibration standard for land uses of 85 VdB at a sensitive receptor. Groundborne vibration impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Air Traffic

As the proposed well site is located approximately 5.6 miles northwest of the nearest airport (John Wayne Airport) and is not located within an airport noise contour. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airports; impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required.

4-60
199
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
1 19786

1. INTRODUCTION

This section describes the purpose of this study and the proposed project.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this report is to provide an assessment of potential noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project and incorporate any needed noise reduction measures into the project design. The noise issues related to the proposed land use and development have been evaluated considering applicable Federal, State, and local policies, including those of the City of Fountain Valley.

Although this is a technical report, effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. A list of acronyms and a glossary are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B of this report to assist the reader with technical terms related to noise analysis.

PROJECT LOCATION

The project site is located at 17902 Bushard in the City of Fountain Valley, California . Existing single family residential land uses border the project site on the north, south and east; and Bushard Street borders project site on the west. A vicinity map showing the project location is provided on Figure 1.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project involves the drilling of two water wells: one to a depth of 300 feet and the other to a depth of 700 feet. The drilling will occur 24 hours per day for several weeks. Once complete, the two well heads will be contained in a 2,400 square foot structure. Maintenance workers will visit the site every few days, but no other activity is expected. The proposed site plan is provided in Figure 2.

4-61
200
Figure 1
Project Location Map
Bushard Water Wells
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
N
Site
BU
SH
ARD
ST

TALBERT AVE
4-62
201
Figure 2
Site Plan
Bushard Water Wells
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
N
S
S

BUSHARD STREET

20.00'

16.00'
ENTRY

13.00' 10.00'

20.00'

16.00'
ENTRY

24.00'

6.00'

10.00'

10.00'
1345
10 6 9 9
8 21211
14 99
106
13 8
7 7

LA AMAPOLA CIRCLE

92.00'
(N) 18" RCP SD (N) 18" RCP SD(N) SLIDING GATE
(E) 16.38'

20.00'
(N) DRIVEWAY WIDTH
(N)SLIDING GATE
(E) DRIVEWAY TO BE REPLACED

WITH CONCRETE SIDEWALK

20.00'
(N) DRIVEWAYWIDTH
(E) POWER POLE

PROTECT IN PLACE
C/L
(E) STREET SIGN TO

BE RELOCATED
9540 LA AMAPOLA CIR
APN: 167-271-33
9533 ACKLAY CIR
APN: 167-271-22
9525 ACKLAY CIR
APN 167-271-23
9529 LA AMAPOLA CIR
APN: 167-271-31
179011 BUSHARD ST
APN: 167-271-34
22 6.00'

4.83'

8.47'

8.00'26.69'

SEE SHEET C-XX FOR

SD PIPE CONNECTION

SEE SHEET C-XX FOR

WATER PIPE CONNECTION
15 15
16 16

5.00' 5.00'

20.00'

48.41'
18 PROTECT IN PLACE
(E) BLOCK WALL
17 19

PROTECT IN PLACE
(E) BLOCK WALL

PROTECT IN PLACE
(E) BLOCK WALL
17 16
16 19.00'
(N) 24" WATER
(N) 16" WATER(N) 12" WATER
4-63
202
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
4 19786

2. NOISE AND VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS

This section provides an overview of key noise and vibration concepts.

NOISE FUNDAMENTALS

Sound is a pressure wave created by a moving or vibrating source that travels through an elastic medium such as air. Noise is defined as unwanted or objectionable sound. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and in extreme circumstances, hearing impairment.

Commonly used noise terms are presented in Appendix B. The unit of measurement used to describe a noise level is the decibel (dB). The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum.

Therefore, the “A-weighted” noise scale, which weights the frequencies to which humans are sensitive, is used for measurements. Noise levels using A-weighted measurements are written dB(A) or dBA.

From the noise source to the receiver, noise changes both in level and frequency spectrum. The most obvious is the decrease in noise as the distance from the source increases. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on whether the source is a point or line source as well as ground absorption, atmospheric effects and refraction, and shielding by natural and manmade features. Sound from point sources, such as air conditioning condensers, radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern.

The noise drop-off rate associated with this geometric spreading is 6 dBA per each doubling of the distance (dBA/DD). Transportation noise sources such as roadways are typically analyzed as line sources, since at any given moment the receiver may be impacted by noise from multiple vehicles at various locations along the roadway. Because of the geometry of a line source, the noise drop-off rate associated with the geometric spreading of a line source is 3 dBA/DD.

Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, which quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used for earthquake magnitudes. Thus, a doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as a doubled traffic volume, would increase the noise levels by 3 dBA; halving of the energy would result in a 3 dBA decrease. Figure 3 shows the relationship of various noise levels to commonly experienced noise events.

Average noise levels over a period of minutes or hours are usually expressed as dBA L eq, or the equivalent noise level for that period of time. For example, L eq(3) would represent a 3-hour average. When no period is specified, a one-hour average is assumed.

Noise standards for land use compatibility are stated in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the Day-Night Average Noise Level (DNL). CNEL is a 24-hour weighted average measure of community noise. CNEL is obtained by adding five decibels to sound levels in the evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM), and by adding ten decibels to sound levels at night (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). This weighting accounts for the increased human sensitivity to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. DNL is a very similar 24- hour average measure that weights only the nighttime hours.

It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA; that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible, and that an increase (decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud. This definition is recommended by the California Department of Transportation’s Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (2013).

VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS

The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. Propagation of earthborn vibrations is complicated and difficult to predict because of the endless variations in the soil through which waves travel. There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression and shear waves. 4-64
203
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
5 19786
Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground’s surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water.

Compression waves, or P-waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a “push-pull” fashion). P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. Shear waves, or S-waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse or “side-to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation”.

As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever-increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with the distance from the energy source. This geometric spreading loss is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Wave energy is also reduced with distance as a result of material damping in the form of internal friction, soil layering, and void spaces. The amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with soil type and condition as well as the frequency of the wave.

Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed as either peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal in inches per second. The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal in vibration decibels (VdB), ref one micro-inch per second. The Federal Railroad Administration uses the abbreviation “VdB” for vibration decibels to reduce the potential for confusion with sound decibel.

PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential of building damage. Decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required in measuring vibration. Similar to the noise descriptors, Leq and Lmax can be used to describe the average vibration and the maximum vibration level observed during a single vibration measurement interval. Figure 4 illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural responses to ground-borne vibration.
4-65
204
Figure 3
A-Weighted Comparative Sound Levels
Bushard Water Wells
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
© Ganddini Group, Inc.

Based on Policy & Guidance from Federal Aviation Administration 4-66
205
Figure 4
Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration
Bushard Water Wells
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
Source: FRA, 2012. Federal Railroad Administration High-Speed G round Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Office of Railroad Policy Development, Washington, D.C. DOT/FRA/ORD-12/15. September. 4-67
206
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
8 19786

3. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT

This section describes the existing noise setting in the project vicinity.

EXISTING LAND USES AND SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

The project site is bound by existing single family residential land uses on the north, south and east. Bushard Avenue borders the street to the west. There are multiple family residential units located west of Bushard Avenue. All of the above-mentioned residential land uses are considered to be sensitive receptors that may be affected by project generated noise.

AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS

An American National Standards Institute (ANSI Section SI.4 2014, Class 1) Larson Davis model LxT sound level meter was used to document existing ambient noise levels. In order to document existing ambient noise levels in the project area, one (1) long term (24-hours) and four (4) 15-minute daytime noise measurements were taken using a Type I Larson Davis Noise Meter. Figure 5 shows the noise measurement location map.

Field worksheets and noise measurement worksheets are provided in Appendix C.

As shown on Figure 5, existing ambient noise measurements were taken at the following locations:

 LTNM1: represents the existing noise environment of the project site as well as the nighttime noise levels associated with STNMs 1-3, all single-family residences.  STNM1: represents the existing noise environment of the residential uses in the vicinity of 9529 La Amapola Avenue adjacent to the project site to the north.  STNM2: represents the existing noise environment of the residential uses located in the vicinity of 9525 Acklay Circle adjacent to the project site to the south.  STNM3: represents the existing noise environment of the residential uses located in the vicinity of 9540 La Amapola Avenue, adjacent to the project site to the east.  STNM4: represents the existing noise environment of the residential uses located in the vicinity of 17697 Bushard Street west of the project site and west of Bushard Avenue.

Table 1 provides a summary of the short-term ambient noise measurements which ranged between 55.1 and

69.5 dBA Leq; and Table 2 provides a summary of the long-term ambient noise measurements which ranged between 40.0 and 63.4 dBA L eq. The dominant noise source in the project vicinity was vehicle traffic.

Secondary noise sources included residential ambiance, pedestrians, bird song, and occasional aircraft overflight.
4-68
207
Site Location Time Started Leq Lmax L(2) L(8) L(25) L(50) STNM1 2:18 PM 59.2 70.5 65.6 63.4 60.5 56.9
STNM2 2:41 PM 58.6 68.3 64.6 62.7 60.1 56.8
STNM3 3:06 PM 55.1 63.4 60.9 59.5 56.4 52.8
STNM4 3:39 PM 69.5 84.7 77.0 73.9 70.8 65.5
(1) See Figure 5 for noise measurement locations. Each noise measurement was performed over a 15-minute duration. (2) Noise measurements performed on July 15-16, 2025.

Notes:

Table 1
Short-Term Noise Measurement Summary (dBA)
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
4-69
208
Leq Lmax Lmin L(2) L(8) L(25) L(50)
6:00 PM 56.4 91.5 28.4 61.1 58.0 54.2 49.9
6:00 PM 55.5 66.2 42.3 61.7 59.6 56.5 53.4
7:00 PM 55.6 69.5 41.7 62.5 59.9 56.3 52.8
8:00 PM 54.9 78.3 41.4 60.5 58.3 55.1 51.4
9:00 PM 52.9 71.5 38.2 60.4 57.0 52.8 48.2
10:00 PM 63.4 90.8 33.7 60.7 56.1 49.7 44.4
11:00 PM 48.3 70.8 31.6 56.4 52.9 46.5 41.9
12:00 AM 45.1 65.1 32.7 55.0 49.6 41.3 37.9
1:00 AM 44.0 67.4 29.0 53.3 45.9 38.3 35.3
2:00 AM 40.0 58.5 29.4 50.5 41.8 36.7 34.3
3:00 AM 41.8 60.4 28.4 52.0 44.3 37.4 34.8
4:00 AM 45.0 61.6 31.3 55.1 50.1 41.2 37.6
5:00 AM 49.4 65.3 35.4 58.1 54.5 48.2 43.3
6:00 AM 52.3 70.5 37.8 59.9 56.8 52.6 47.1
7:00 AM 53.9 80.9 38.7 59.1 57.2 53.9 49.8
8:00 AM 57.3 73.3 39.6 67.4 60.4 55.8 52.7
9:00 AM 59.1 81.6 39.7 68.2 59.4 55.8 52.4
10:00 AM 61.5 91.5 41.8 61.5 58.5 55.3 52.5
11:00 AM 58.5 86.6 41.4 59.8 57.7 55.3 52.8
12:00 PM 54.1 68.9 42.9 59.6 57.6 54.9 52.4
1:00 PM 60.2 90.2 43.4 60.4 58.0 55.3 52.6
2:00 PM 54.5 69.1 42.7 60.5 58.4 55.5 52.6
3:00 PM 55.5 72.3 44.4 61.8 59.2 56.2 53.4
4:00 PM 56.5 76.6 45.4 61.9 60.0 57.1 54.0
5:00 PM 56.8 70.9 46.4 62.4 60.6 57.7 54.6
Notes:
(1)
(2)
Overall Summary
Table 2
Long-Term Noise Measurement Summary (LTNM1)
24-Hour Ambient Noise (dBA)1,2
Hourly
Measurements Time Started
23 12
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 18
19 20
21 22
13 14
15 16
17 CNEL 63.5
See Figure 5 for noise measurement locations. Noise measurement was performed over a 24-hour duration.

Noise measurement performed from December 5, 2023 to December 6, 2023. 24 Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
4-70
209
Figure 5
Noise Measurement Location Map
Bushard Water Wells
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
N
Site
BU
SH
ARD
ST

TALBERT AVE
Noise Measurement Location
Legend
NM 1
Short-Term Noise MeasurementST NM
Long-Term Noise MeasurementLT NM
ST NM 2
ST NM 1
LT NM 1
ST NM 3
ST NM 4
4-71
210
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
12 19786

4. REGULATORY SETTING

This section documents the regulatory framework and applicable noise standards.

CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY GENERAL PLAN

Goal PFS-5 Protect public health and welfare by eliminating existing noise problems and preventing significant degradation of the acoustic environment.

Policy PFS-5.1 Land use compatibility. Approve development and require mitigation measures to ensure existing and future land use compatibility as shown in the City’s Noise Control Ordinance and state interior and exterior noise standards.

Policy PFS-5.3 New nonresidential. When new nonresidential development is proposed adjacent to land designated for residential uses, require the developer to assess the potential noise impacts and fund feasible noise-related mitigation measures.

CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE

Construction Noise

Section 6.28.070 Special Provisions
Noise sources associated with the construction, repair, remodeling or grading of any real property, provided said activities take place between the hours of seven a.m. and eight p.m. Monday through Friday, nine a.m. through eight p.m. on Saturday and at no time on Sunday or any legal holiday are exempt from the noise standards presented in Sections 6.28.050 and 6.28.060. For purposes of this exception the use of saws, buffers, sanders, drills, and sprayers shall be included, as shall similar activity. Nighttime well drilling will be subject to the noise standards presented below in Sections 6.28.050 and 6.28.060. Specifically, drill noise will be considered significant if it exceeds an exterior noise level of 55 dBA L eq at the adjacent residential properties of if it is expected to exceed 45 dBA Leq inside any nearby residences.

Operational Noise

Section 6.28.050. Exterior noise standards.
(a) The following noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property within a designated noise zone:

Noise Zone Noise Level (dBA) Time Period
1 55 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM
50 10:00 PM – 7:00 AM
In the event the alleged offensive noise consists entirely of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or any combination thereof, each of the above noise levels shall be reduced by 5 dB(A).

(b) It is unlawful for any person at any location within the city to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, when the foregoing causes the noise level, when measured on any other residential property, either incorporated or unincorporated, to exceed:

(1) The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; or 4-72
211
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
13 19786
(2) The noise standard plus five dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; or
(3) The noise standard plus ten dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or (4) The noise standard plus fifteen dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or (5) The noise standard plus twenty dB(A) for any period of time.

(c) In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories set forth in subsection (b) of this section, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.

For noise sources that are generally constant or otherwise last for several hours, i.e. HVAC, fans, and pumps, it is industry practice to evaluate noise impacts in light of the 30-minute Leq as it is the most conservative.

6.28.060. Interior noise standards.

(a) The following interior noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property within a designated noise zone:

Noise Zone Noise Level (dBA) Time Period
1 55 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM
45 10:00 PM – 7:00 AM
In the event the alleged offensive noise consists entirely of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or any combination thereof, each of the above noise levels shall be reduced by five dB(A).

(b) It is unlawful for any person at any location within the city to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, when the foregoing causes the noise level when measured within any other dwelling unit on any residential property, either incorporated or unincorporated, to exceed:

(1) The interior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or (2) The interior noise standard plus five dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
(3) The interior noise standard plus ten dB(A) for any period of time.

(c) In the event the ambient noise level exceeds either of the first two noise limit categories set forth in subsection (b) of this section, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the third noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published reasonable criteria for assessing construction and groundborne vibration impacts (FTA 2018) that is appropriate to supplement lead agency criteria or to use as the primary criteria when appropriate. FTA construction noise criteria is presented in

The FTA construction noise criteria is based on the potential for adverse community reaction. As shown in Table 3, the daytime noise threshold for residential land uses is 80 dBA L eq averaged over an 8-hour period (Leq (8-hr); and the nighttime noise threshold is 70 dBA Leq (8-hr). 4-73
212
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
14 19786

The FTA has adopted vibration standards that are used to evaluate potential building damage impacts related to construction activities. As shown in Table 4, the threshold at which there is a risk to “architectural” damage to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings is a peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.2 inches/second at engineered concrete and masonry buildings a PPV of 0.3, and at reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber buildings a PPV of 0.5 inches/second.
4-74
213
Day Night
Residential 80 70
Commercial 85 85
Industrial 90 90
Table 3
FTA Construction Noise Criteria
Land Use
Leq equipment (8 hour), dBA
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018).

Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
4-75
214
Building/Structural Category PPV, in/sec Approximate Lv 1 I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremelly susceptible to vibration damage 0.1 90 Table 4
(1) RMS velocity in decibels, VdB re 1 micro-in/sec.

FTA Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018).

Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
4-76
215
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
17 19786

5. ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY AND MODEL PARAMETERS

This section discusses the analysis methodologies used to assess noise impacts.

WELL DRILLING NOISE MODELING

The project will require the drilling of two water wells: one to a depth of 300 feet and the other to a depth of 700 feet. The drilling will occur 24 hours per day for several weeks. The wells will be drilled consecutively, not concurrently. The SoundPLAN model was used to model well drilling at nearby sensitive receptors. A noise reference level of 84 dB at a distance of 50 feet was used to represent the drill rig. SoundPLAN input and output is provided in Appendix D.

WELL OPERATION NOISE MODELING

Noise levels associated with a worst-case scenario were estimated at the property line of the project site using the SoundPLAN noise model. The intention of the modeling effort was to determine how much noise reduction is necessary i.e., mufflers, concrete walls, acoustical paneling, etc. would be required in order to ensure that well noise will not violate applicable City standards.

As stated in the project description, drilling will occur 24 hours a day for several weeks; and the wells will be drilled consecutively, not concurrently. A noise measurement was conducted at a similar facility with the same size pump and was used for modeling purposes (86.6 dB at 3 feet). Noise measurements were also taken outside of the pump house to evaluate how typical building methods work together to attenuate noise associated with the pump One noise measurement was taken outside of each side of the pump house. And although concrete masonry walls are expected to provide approximately 40 dB of sound reduction, there were elements in the wall assemblies that lowered this number as was apparent during noise measurements. For example, the northern wall which was approximately ten-feet from the pump included a closed double door but a few inches of daylight entering from the bottom of the door was noticed. The northern wall had no other readily noticeable openings. It is estimated that the northern wall provides a sound reduction of 18 dB.

The western wall had large circulation fans and provided sound reduction of approximately 14 dB; and the eastern wall, which had louvered vents provided a noise reduction of 21 dB. Since only the northern pump was in operation, the sound reduction of the southern wall is irrelevant. The estimated sound reductions calculated for the representative well house were applied to the proposed well house as appropriate in the SoundPLAN noise model. The proposed SoundPLAN input and output is provided in Appendix D.

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION MODELING

Per the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) drilling has a vibration impact of

0.089 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet which is perceptible but below any risk to architectural damage.

The fundamental equation used to calculate vibration propagation through average soil conditions and distance is as follows:

PPVequipment = PPVref (25/Drec)n

Where: PPVref = reference PPV at 25ft
Drec = distance from equipment to receiver in ft
n = 1.5 (the value related to the attenuation rate through ground)

4-77
216
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
18 19786

6. NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACTS

This section analyzes the significance of project-related noise and groundborne vibration impacts relative to standards established by the City of Fountain Valley and other applicable agencies in the context of CEQA.

Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations) includes an environmental checklist that identifies issues upon which findings of significance should be made.

NOISE IMPACTS

Would the project result in:

a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Construction Noise

Finding: Less Than Significant (With Recommendation #1)

As shown on Figure 6 through Figure 9, construction noise levels will range between range between 44 and 57 dBA L eq at first floor levels of nearby residential properties and between 50 and 57 dBA L eq at second story levels of nearby residential properties; therefore, noise levels at several of the affected receptors would exceed the City’s nighttime standard of 50 dBA without the use of noise barriers during construction. The following noise reduction measure is recommended during construction to ensure the project does not exceed applicable nighttime noise standards:

Recommendation #1
Prior to commencement of well drilling, the project shall install temporary noise barriers with an STC rating of at least 20 dB around each well drill as illustrated on Figure 10 and Figure 12. The temporary noise barriers should measure 8 feet high along the south, east, and west sides and 12 feet high along the north side of the well drills, and shall remain in place through completion of all well drilling activity.

Newer residential structures provide approximately 20 dB of exterior to interior noise reduction. Therefore, unmitigated interior noise levels will range between 22 and 37 dBA Leq and will not exceed the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA Leq.

No mitigation measures would be required with implementation of Recommendation #1 into the project construction plans.

Operational Noise

Finding: Less Than Significant

As shown on Figure 14, operational noise levels will range between range between 36 and 49 dBA Leq at first floor levels of nearby residential properties and between 46 and 56 dBA L eq at second story levels of nearby residential properties. the project site property lines shared with existing single family land uses, The modeling that was conducted to arrive at these sound levels assumes installation of the eight-foot concrete wall shown as shown in Figure 2; and installation of metal acoustical paneling on interior walls of the proposed building similar to what is provided inside of the building at 17399 Magnolia Street. Representative noise data and 4-78
217
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
19 19786
photos showing the existing metal acoustical paneling are provided in Appendix C. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

As stated above, newer residential structures provide approximately 20 dB of exterior to interior noise reduction. Therefore, unmitigated interior noise levels during project operation will range between 16 and 29 dBA Leq at first floor receptors; and between 26 and 36 dBA Leq at second floor receptors; and will not exceed the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA Leq. No mitigation is required.

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION IMPACTS

Would the project result in:

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Finding: Less Than Significant

In relation to the Environmental Checklist noise issue “b”, the City of Fountain Valley has not adopted numerical criteria for groundborne vibration impacts. Therefore, in the absence of City-established thresholds, groundborne vibration impacts are based on guidance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA, September 2018) (see Regulatory Setting section).

Accordingly, the project may result in a significant impact if it causes groundborne vibration to exceed 0.2 PPV inches/second at nearby offsite structures.

Construction-Related Vibration Impacts

Proposed well sites are no closer than 58 feet from the project site property line and groundborne vibration associated with well drilling is expected to be approximately 0.025 at that distance. Therefore, well drilling would not result in significant impacts related to groundborne vibration. No mitigation is required.

Operation-Related Vibration Impacts

The most substantial sources of groundborne vibration during post-construction project operations will include the movement of passenger vehicles and trucks on paved and generally smooth surfaces. Loaded trucks generally have a VdB of 85.6 at a distance of 25 feet (Caltrans 2020), As stated previously, the nearest structure is 50 feet from the proposed alignment. Therefore, groundborne vibration levels generated by project operation would not exceed the City groundborne vibration standard for land uses of 85 VdB at a sensitive receptor. This impact would not be significant. No mitigation is required.

AIR TRAFFIC IMPACTS

Would the project result in:

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels?

Finding: No Impact

As the proposed well site is located approximately 5.6 miles northwest of the nearest airport (John Wayne Airport) and is not located within an airport noise contour. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airports; impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required.

4-79
218
Figure 6
Construction Noise Levels – North Well
Bushard Water Wells
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
4-80
219
Figure 7
Construction Noise Level Contours – North Well
Bushard Water Wells
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
4-81
220
Figure 8
Construction Noise Levels – South Well
Bushard Water Wells
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
4-82
221
Figure 9
Construction Noise Level Contours – South Well
Bushard Water Wells
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
4-83
222
Bushard Water Wells
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
Figure 10
Construction Noise Levels With Recommendations - North Well 4-84
223
Bushard Water Wells
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
Figure 11
Construction Noise Level Contours With Recommendations - North Well 4-85
224
Bushard Water Wells
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
Figure 12
Construction Noise Levels With Recommendations - South Well 4-86
225
Bushard Water Wells
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
Figure 13
Construction Noise Level Contours With Recommendations - South Well 4-87
226
Figure 14
Operational Noise Levels - Both Wells
Bushard Water Wells
Noise Impact Analysis
19786
48 36
47 38
54 42
55 45
46 44
4-88
227
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
29 19786

7. REFERENCES

California, State of, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2020 Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Emissions.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
2006 Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide January.

Fountain Valley, City of
2021 General Plan (PlanRC). December.

Municipal Code (Updated through April 2, 2025)

4-89
228
Bushard Street Water Well Project
Noise Impact Analysis
30 19786

APPENDICES

Appendix A List of Acronyms
Appendix B Glossary
Appendix C Noise Measurement Field Worksheets
Appendix D Soundplan Construction Noise Modeling
4-90
229

APPENDIX A

LIST OF ACRONYMS
4-91
230

Term Definition
ADT
ANSI
CEQA
CNEL
D/E/N
dB
dBA or dB(A)
dBA/DD
dBA Leq
EPA
FHWA
L02,L08,L50,L90

DNL
Leq(x)
Leq
Lmax
Lmin
LOS C
OPR
PPV
RCNM
REMEL
RMS
Average Daily Traffic
American National Standard Institute
California Environmental Quality Act
Community Noise Equivalent Level
Day / Evening / Night
Decibel
Decibel "A-Weighted"
Decibel per Double Distance
Average Noise Level over a Period of Time
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Highway Administration
A-weighted Noise Levels at 2 percent, 8 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent, respectively, of the time period
Day-Night Average Noise Level
Equivalent Noise Level for '"x" period of time
Equivalent Noise Level
Maximum Level of Noise (measured using a sound level meter) Minimum Level of Noise (measured using a sound level meter) Level of Service C
California Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Peak Particle Velocities
Road Construction Noise Model
Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
Root Mean Square
4-92
231

APPENDIX B

GLOSSARY
4-93
232

Term Definition
Ambient Noise
Level
The all-encompassing noise environment associated with a given environment, at a specified time, usually a composite of sound from many sources, at many directions, near and far, in which usually no particular sound is dominant.

A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The sound level obtained by use of A-weighting. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear.

CNEL
Community Noise Equivalent Level. CNEL is a weighted 24-hour noise level that is obtained by adding five decibels to sound levels in the evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM), and by adding ten decibels to sound levels at night (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). This weighting accounts for the increased human sensitivity to noise during the evening and nighttime hours.

Decibel, dB
A logarithmic unit of noise level measurement that relates the energy of a noise source to that of a constant reference level; the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio.

DNL, Ldn
Day Night Level. The DNL, or Ldn is a weighted 24-hour noise level that is obtained by adding ten decibels to sound levels at night (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). This weighting accounts for the increased human sensitivity to noise during the nighttime hours.

Equivalent
Continuous Noise
Level, Leq
A level of steady state sound that in a stated time period, and a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound.

Fast/Slow Meter
Response
The fast and slow meter responses are different settings on a sound level meter. The fast response setting takes a measurement every 100 milliseconds, while a slow setting takes one every second.

Frequency, Hertz In a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in one second (i.e., the number of cycles per second).

L02, L08, L50, L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound level, 2 percent, 8 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of a stated time period, respectively.

Lmax, Lmin
Lmax is the RMS (root mean squared) maximum level of a noise source or environment measured on a sound level meter, during a designated time interval, using fast meter response. Lmin is the minimum level.

Offensive/
Offending/Intrusive
Noise
The noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location.

The relative intrusiveness of sound depends on its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence, and tonal information content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

Root Mean Square
(RMS)
A measure of the magnitude of a varying noise source quantity. The name derives from the calculation of the square root of the mean of the squares of the values. It can be calculated from either a series of lone values or a continuous varying function. 4-94
233

APPENDIX C

NOISE MEASUREMENT FIELD WORKSHEETS
4-95
234
Noise Measurement
Field Data
Project Name: Representative Water Well, 17399 Magnolia Street Project, Fountain Valley Date:

Project #:

Noise Measurement #: Technician:

Weather: Settings: SLOW FAST
Temperature: 72 deg F Wind: 8 mph Humidity: 60% Terrain:

Start Time: 1:44 PM End Time: 1:59 PM Run Time:

Leq: 86.6 dB N active water pump 3 to 4' from microphone Lmax 88.5 dB
L2 87.8 dB Internal air extractor fan on W wall, about 12' from microphone. Noise from L8 87.5 dB machinery control room through door at S end of room.

L25 86.9 dB
L50 86.4 dB
NOISE METER: CALIBRATOR:

MAKE: MAKE:

MODEL: MODEL:

SERIAL NUMBER: SERIAL NUMBER:

FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

FIELD CALIBRATION DATE:
7/10/20247/31/2024
7/21/2025
FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

Larson Davis
LXT1
3099
Larson Davis
CAL 250
2723
Primary Noise Source:

Secondary Noise Sources:

Flat
Site Description (Type of Existing Land Use and any other notable features):

SoundTrack LXT Class 1
Marine layer burn off to full sun. Sunset: 8:01 PM
Larson Davis CAL 250
Project Site: Inside water well pump house, about 3' from main noise , N active water pump. Adjacent: Active internal air extractor fans on W wall of pump house. Machinery control room in middle of pumphouse. S water pump OOC ( inactive ).

July 21, 2025
Ian Edward Gallagher
Nearest Address or Cross Street: 17399 Magnolia Street, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 STNM Interior Run Time 15 minutes
19786
4-96
235
Noise Measurement
Field Data
PHOTOS:

STNM interior looking SW, active water pump on the right, active interior air extractor STNM interior looking S from northern water pump towards control room fan on the left ( on western wall ). ( through open door in southern wall ). Pump continually in operation.

Air extractor fan on western wall also on, making significant noise. 4-97
236
4-98
237
4-99
238
4-100
239
4-101
240
Noise Measurement
Field Data
Project Name: Representative Water Well, 17399 Magnolia Street Project, Fountain Valley Date:

Project #:

Noise Measurement #: Technician:

Weather: Settings: SLOW FAST
Temperature: 72 deg F Wind: 8 mph Humidity: 60% Terrain:

Start Time: 11:40 AM End Time: 11:55 AM Run Time:

Leq: 52.4 dB Noise from pump house, internal air extractor fans on W wall of punp house Lmax 64.8 dB active, N waterpunp active, S waterpump removed ( temporarily OOC ).

L2 59.0 dB Noise from children attending preschool, Some residential ambiance. Distant L8 54.1 dB traffic ambiance from Magnolia St, Slater Ave & traffic on other roads, Air traffic.

L25 52.1 dB
L50 51.1 dB
NOISE METER: CALIBRATOR:

MAKE: MAKE:

MODEL: MODEL:

SERIAL NUMBER: SERIAL NUMBER:

FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

FIELD CALIBRATION DATE:
7/10/20247/31/2024
7/21/2025
FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

Larson Davis
LXT1
3099
Larson Davis
CAL 250
2723
Primary Noise Source:

Secondary Noise Sources:

Flat
Site Description (Type of Existing Land Use and any other notable features):

SoundTrack LXT Class 1
Marine layer burn off to full sun. Sunset: 8:01 PM
Larson Davis CAL 250
Project Site: About 50' E from E wall of water well pump house, in asphalt covered parking lot. Adjacent Active preschool 260' ENE, church 200' ESE, elementary school 380' NW of RNM1 location. Magnolia St, N-S, 570' E & Slater Ave, E-W, 500' S.

July 21, 2025
Ian Edward Gallagher
Nearest Address or Cross Street: 17399 Magnolia Street, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 RNM1 Run Time 15 minutes
19786
4-102
241
Noise Measurement
Field Data
PHOTOS:

RNM1 looking W across parking lot towards main entrance to water well pump RNM1 looking E across asphalt parking lot towrds church building (right) house 17399 Magnolia Street, Fountain valley ( 50' W ). & preschoool (left), 17415 Magnolia Street, Fountain Valley ( about 220' E ). 4-103
242
4-104
243
4-105
244
4-106
245
4-107
246
Noise Measurement
Field Data
Project Name: Representative Water Well, 17399 Magnolia Street Project, Fountain Valley Date:

Project #:

Noise Measurement #: Technician:

Weather: Settings: SLOW FAST
Temperature: 72 deg F Wind: 8 mph Humidity: 60% Terrain:

Start Time: 2:42 PM End Time: 2:57 PM Run Time:

Leq: 55.6 dB Noise from pump house, internal air extractor fans on W wall of punp house Lmax 60.9 dB active, N waterpunp active, S waterpump removed ( temporarily OOC ).

L2 57.6 dB Some residential ambiance. Distant traffic ambiance from Magnolia St, Slater Ave L8 57.0 dB & ground traffic on other roads, Occasional air traffic.

L25 56.2 dB
L50 55.3 dB
NOISE METER: CALIBRATOR:

MAKE: MAKE:

MODEL: MODEL:

SERIAL NUMBER: SERIAL NUMBER:

FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

FIELD CALIBRATION DATE:

July 21, 2025
Ian Edward Gallagher
Nearest Address or Cross Street: 17399 Magnolia Street, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 RNM2 Run Time 15 minutes
19786
Primary Noise Source:

Secondary Noise Sources:

Flat
Site Description (Type of Existing Land Use and any other notable features):

SoundTrack LXT Class 1
Marine layer burn off to full sun. Sunset: 8:01 PM
Larson Davis CAL 250
Project Site: about 50' N of the N end of the water well pump house, located in grass, elementary school playing field. Adjacent: Preschool 330' E, church 290' SE, elementary school 300' NW of RNM2. Magnolia St, 640' E & Slater Ave, 600' S. 7/10/20247/31/2024
7/21/2025
FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

Larson Davis
LXT1
3099
Larson Davis
CAL 250
2723
4-108
247
Noise Measurement
Field Data
PHOTOS:

RNM2 looking S towrds northern wall of water well pump house ( 50' S ). RNM2 looking E towards church parking lot ( 30' E ). 4-109
248
4-110
249
4-111
250
4-112
251
4-113
252
Noise Measurement
Field Data
Project Name: Representative Water Well, 17399 Magnolia Street Project, Fountain Valley Date:

Project #:

Noise Measurement #: Technician:

Weather: Settings: SLOW FAST
Temperature: 72 deg F Wind: 8 mph Humidity: 60% Terrain:

Start Time: 2:18 PM End Time: 2:33 PM Run Time:

Leq: 59.4 dB Noise from pump house, internal air extractor fans on W wall of punp house Lmax 64.8 dB active, N waterpunp active, S waterpump removed ( temporarily OOC ).

L2 61.5 dB Some residential ambiance. Distant traffic ambiance from Magnolia St, Slater Ave L8 60.1 dB & ground traffic on other roads, Occasional air traffic.

L25 59.6 dB
L50 59.2 dB
NOISE METER: CALIBRATOR:

MAKE: MAKE:

MODEL: MODEL:

SERIAL NUMBER: SERIAL NUMBER:

FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

FIELD CALIBRATION DATE:

July 21, 2025
Ian Edward Gallagher
Nearest Address or Cross Street: 17399 Magnolia Street, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 RNM3 Run Time 15 minutes
19786
Primary Noise Source:

Secondary Noise Sources:

Flat
Site Description (Type of Existing Land Use and any other notable features):

SoundTrack LXT Class 1
Marine layer burn off to full sun. Sunset: 8:01 PM
Larson Davis CAL 250
Project Site: about 50' W of the W wall of the water well pump house, located in grass, elementary school playing field. Adjacent: Preschool 390' ENE, church 330' E, elementary school 300' NW of RNM3. Magnolia St, 690' E & Slater Ave, 500' S. 7/10/20247/31/2024
7/21/2025
FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

Larson Davis
LXT1
3099
Larson Davis
CAL 250
2723
4-114
253
Noise Measurement
Field Data
PHOTOS:

RNM3 looking E towards Western wall of water well pump hpose 17399 Magnolia RNM3 looking NW across school playing field towards school buildings 17360 Street, Fountain Valley ( 50' E ). Santa Suzanne Street, Fountain Valley. 4-115
254
4-116
255
4-117
256
4-118
257
4-119
258
Noise Measurement
Field Data
Project Name: Representative Water Well, 17399 Magnolia Street Project, Fountain Valley Date:

Project #:

Noise Measurement #: Technician:

Weather: Settings: SLOW FAST
Temperature: 72 deg F Wind: 8 mph Humidity: 60% Terrain:

Start Time: 12:26 PM End Time: 12:41 PM Run Time:

Leq: 47.1 dB Noise from pump house, internal air extractor fans on W wall of punp house Lmax 58.1 dB active, N waterpunp active, S waterpump removed ( temporarily OOC ).

L2 52.5 dB Some residential ambiance. Distant traffic ambiance from Magnolia St, Slater Ave L8 49.7 dB & ground traffic on other roads, Occasional air traffic.

L25 47.4 dB
L50 45.9 dB
NOISE METER: CALIBRATOR:

MAKE: MAKE:

MODEL: MODEL:

SERIAL NUMBER: SERIAL NUMBER:

FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

FIELD CALIBRATION DATE:
7/10/20247/31/2024
7/21/2025
FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

Larson Davis
LXT1
3099
Larson Davis
CAL 250
2723
Primary Noise Source:

Secondary Noise Sources:

Flat
Site Description (Type of Existing Land Use and any other notable features):

SoundTrack LXT Class 1
Marine layer burn off to full sun. Sunset: 8:01 PM
Larson Davis CAL 250
Project Site: About 50' S of S end of water well pump house located in grass elementary school playing field. Adjacent: Preschool 370' NE, church 240' E, elementary school 410' NW of RNM4. Magnolia St, 640' E & Slater Ave, 390' S.

July 21, 2025
Ian Edward Gallagher
Nearest Address or Cross Street: 17399 Magnolia Street, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 RNM4 Run Time 15 minutes
19786
4-120
259
Noise Measurement
Field Data
PHOTOS:

RNM4 looking N towards Southern wall of water well pump house ( 50' N ). RNM4 looking E towards church parking lot ( 30' E ). 6' high, dark green tarp covered chain link fence ( 20' N ). 4-121
260
4-122
261
4-123
262
4-124
263
4-125
264
Noise Measurement
Field Data
Project Name: Bushard Street Water Well Project, Fountain Valley Date:

Project #:

Noise Measurement #: Technician:

Weather: Settings: SLOW FAST
Temperature: 72 deg F Wind: 8 mph Humidity: 60% Terrain:

Start Time: 2:18 PM End Time: 2:33 PM Run Time:

Leq: 59.2 dB Noise from the 212 vehicles passing microphone travelling along Bushard Street.

Lmax 70.5 dB Traffic ambiance from vehicles travelling on Talbert Ave & other roads.

L2 65.6 dB Some residential ambiance. Occasional overhead airtraffic. Leaf rustle from L8 63.4 dB 8mph breeze. Bird song.

L25 60.5 dB
L50 56.9 dB
NOISE METER: CALIBRATOR:

MAKE: MAKE:

MODEL: MODEL:

SERIAL NUMBER: SERIAL NUMBER:

FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

FIELD CALIBRATION DATE:

July 15, 2025
Ian Edward Gallagher
Nearest Address or Cross Street: 9529 La Amapola Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 STNM1 Run Time 15 minutes
19786
Primary Noise Source:

Secondary Noise Sources:

Flat
Site Description (Type of Existing Land Use and any other notable features):

SoundTrack LXT Class 1
No cloud, full sun. Sunset: 8:06PM
Larson Davis CAL 250
Project Site: About middle of N edge of site area, about 20' S of residence 9529 La Amapola Ave. Adjacent: Bushard St running N-S, 70' W of STNM1. High school located 140' N of STNM1, apparently no children present at high school at this time. 7/10/20247/31/2024
7/15/2025
FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

Larson Davis
LXT1
3099
Larson Davis
CAL 250
2723
4-126
265
Noise Measurement
Field Data
PHOTOS:

STNM1 looking W across empty site area towards Bushard Street, Valley Fountain STNM1 looking ENE. Residence 9529 La Amapola Avenue, Fountain Valley to ( behind 6' tall, dark green tarp covered chainlink fence, about 70' W ) the left. W end of La Amapola Avenue beyond residence.

Senior community center buildings 17967 Bushard Street on other side of street. 4-127
266
4-128
267
4-129
268
4-130
269
4-131
270
Noise Measurement
Field Data
Project Name: Bushard Street Water Well Project, Fountain Valley Date:

Project #:

Noise Measurement #: Technician:

Weather: Settings: SLOW FAST
Temperature: 72 deg F Wind: 8 mph Humidity: 60% Terrain:

Start Time: 2:41 PM End Time: 2:56 PM Run Time:

Leq: 58.6 dB Traffic noise from the 229 vehicles passing microphone on Bushard Street Lmax 68.3 dB Traffic ambianc from vehicles on Talbert Ave & other roads.

L2 64.6 dB Residebtial ambiance. Bird song. Occasional overhead air traffic.

L8 62.7 dB Leaf rustle from 8 mph breeze.

L25 60.1 dB
L50 56.8 dB
NOISE METER: CALIBRATOR:

MAKE: MAKE:

MODEL: MODEL:

SERIAL NUMBER: SERIAL NUMBER:

FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

FIELD CALIBRATION DATE:

July 15, 2025
Ian Edward Gallagher
Nearest Address or Cross Street: 9525 Acklay Cir, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 STNM2 Run Time 15 minutes
19786
Primary Noise Source:

Secondary Noise Sources:

Flat
Site Description (Type of Existing Land Use and any other notable features):

SoundTrack LXT Class 1
No cloud, full sun. Sunset: 8:06PM
Larson Davis CAL 250
Project Site: About middle of S edge of site area just 20' N of 7' tall cinderblock wall to backyard of residence 9525 Acklay Cir. Adjacent: Bushard St running N-S, 60' W of STNM2, area mostly residential with single family homes. 7/10/20247/31/2024
7/15/2025
FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

Larson Davis
LXT1
3099
Larson Davis
CAL 250
2723
4-132
271
Noise Measurement
Field Data
PHOTOS:

STNM2 looking W towards Bushard Street ( behind 6' tall, dark green tarp over STNM2 looking S towards 5 to 7' high cinderblock wall to backyard of residence chain-link ). Residence 9525 Acklay Cir, Fountain Valley on the left behind cinderblock 9525 Acklay Cir, Fountain Valley. wall.
4-133
272
4-134
273
4-135
274
4-136
275
4-137
276
Noise Measurement
Field Data
Project Name: Bushard Street Water Well Project, Fountain Valley Date:

Project #:

Noise Measurement #: Technician:

Weather: Settings: SLOW FAST
Temperature: 72 deg F Wind: 8 mph Humidity: 60% Terrain:

Start Time: 3:06 PM End Time: 3:21 PM Run Time:

Leq: 55.1 dB Traffic noise from the 228 vehicles passing microphone travelling along Bushard St.

Lmax 63.4 dB Traffic ambiance from vehicles on other roads L2 60.9 dB Noise from occasional overhead air traffic. Residential ambiance.

L8 59.5 dB Leaf rustle from 8mph breeze. Bird song.

L25 56.4 dB
L50 52.8 dB
NOISE METER: CALIBRATOR:

MAKE: MAKE:

MODEL: MODEL:

SERIAL NUMBER: SERIAL NUMBER:

FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

FIELD CALIBRATION DATE:

July 15, 2025
Ian Edward Gallagher
Nearest Address or Cross Street: 9540 La Amapola Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 STNM3 Run Time 15 minutes
19786
Primary Noise Source:

Secondary Noise Sources:

Flat
Site Description (Type of Existing Land Use and any other notable features):

SoundTrack LXT Class 1
No cloud, full sun. Sunset: 8:06PM
Larson Davis CAL 250
Project Site: About the middle of E edge of site area, about 10' W of driveway to residence 9540 La Amapola Ave over chainlink fence. Adjacent: Bushard St running N-S, 130' W of STNM3 microphone. High school 200' N. Area mostly residential. 7/10/20247/31/2024
7/15/2025
FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

Larson Davis
LXT1
3099
Larson Davis
CAL 250
2723
4-138
277
Noise Measurement
Field Data
PHOTOS:

STNM1 looking E towards residence 9540 La Amapola Ave, Fountain Valley ( right ) STNM3 looking W across empty site ares towards Bushard Street ( 130' W ) & W end of La Amapola Ave behind 6' high vegetated chainlink fence (left ). Senior Community Center, 17967 Bushard Street on other side of street. 4-139
278
4-140
279
4-141
280
4-142
281
4-143
282
Noise Measurement
Field Data
Project Name: Bushard Street Water Well Project, Fountain Valley Date:

Project #:

Noise Measurement #: Technician:

Weather: Settings: SLOW FAST
Temperature: 72 deg F Wind: 8 mph Humidity: 60% Terrain:

Start Time: 3:39 PM End Time: 3:54 PM Run Time:

Leq: 69.5 dB Traffic noise from the 242 vehicles passing microphone travelling N-S just E of Lmax 84.7 dB STNM4. Traffic ambiance from vehicles travelling E-W on Talbert Ave & other roads.

L2 77.0 dB Pedestrians. Occasional overhead aircraft. Leaf rustle from 8 mph breeze.

L8 73.9 dB Bird song.

L25 70.8 dB
L50 65.5 dB
NOISE METER: CALIBRATOR:

MAKE: MAKE:

MODEL: MODEL:

SERIAL NUMBER: SERIAL NUMBER:

FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

FIELD CALIBRATION DATE:

July 15, 2025
Ian Edward Gallagher
Nearest Address or Cross Street: 17967 Bushard Street, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 STNM4 Run Time 15 minutes
19786
Primary Noise Source:

Secondary Noise Sources:

Flat
Site Description (Type of Existing Land Use and any other notable features):

SoundTrack LXT Class 1
No cloud, full sun. Sunset: 8:06PM
Larson Davis CAL 250
Project Site: W sidewalk on Bushard St outside senior
center 19767 Bushard St. Adjacent: Bushard St running N-S just E of STNM4. Talbert Ave running E-W, 360' S of STNM4. Mostly residential. 7/10/20247/31/2024
7/15/2025
FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

Larson Davis
LXT1
3099
Larson Davis
CAL 250
2723
4-144
283
Noise Measurement
Field Data
PHOTOS:

STNM4 looking E across Bushard Street, across site area, towards residence 9540 STNM4 looking S down Bushard Street towards Talbert Avenue intersection La Amapola Avenue, Fountain Valley ( 190' E ) (traffic lights 360' S ). 4-145
284
4-146
285
4-147
286
4-148
287
4-149
288
Noise Measurement
Field Data
Project Name: Bushard Street Water Well Project, Fountain Valley Date:

Project #:

Noise Measurement #: Technician:

Weather: Settings: SLOW FAST
Temperature: 63-72 deg F Wind: 2-8 mph Humidity: 60-80% Terrain:

Start Time: 6:00 PM End Time: 6:00 PM Run Time:

Leq: 56.4 dB Traffic noise from Bushard Street, traffic ambiance from Talbert Ave and other Lmax 91.5 dB roads.

L2 61.1 dB Residential ambiance, noise from occasional air traffic. Leaf rustle from breeze.

L8 58.0 dB Bird song by day. Crickets at night. Pedestrians on Bushard St sidewalk.

L25 54.2 dB
L50 49.9 dB
NOISE METER: CALIBRATOR:

MAKE: MAKE:

MODEL: MODEL:

SERIAL NUMBER: SERIAL NUMBER:

FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

FIELD CALIBRATION DATE:
7/10/20247/31/2024
7/15/2025
FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

Larson Davis
LXT1
3099
Larson Davis
CAL 250
2723
Primary Noise Source:

Secondary Noise Sources:

Flat
Site Description (Type of Existing Land Use and any other notable features):

SoundTrack LXT Class 1
Clear skies. Sunny by day. Sunset/rise: 8:06PM/ 5:51AM Larson Davis CAL 250
Project Site: Just west of driveway to residence 9540 La Amapola Ave, E edge of site area. Adjacent: Bushard St running N-S, 120' W of LTNM1. Talbert Ave running E-W, 400' S of LTNM1. High School 220' N of LTNM1. Elsewhere mostly residential.

July 15-16, 2025
Ian Edward Gallagher
Nearest Address or Cross Street: 9540 La Amapola Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 LTNM1 Run Time 24 hours ( 24 x 1 hours )
19786
4-150
289
Noise Measurement
Field Data
PHOTOS:

LTNM1 looking at microphone installed in bush about 5' above ground. LTNM1 looking ESE towards microphone in bush, residence 9540 La Amapola Avenue behind vegetated chainlink fence (left), cinderblock wall ( right). 4-151
290
4-152
291
4-153
292
4-154
293
4-155
294

APPENDIX D

SOUNDPLAN CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODELING
4-156
295
Frequency spectrum [dB(A)] Corrections
Source name Reference Level 63 125 250 500 1 2 4 8 Cwall CI CT dB(A) Hz Hz Hz Hz kHz kHz kHz kHz dB dB dB
Pump Lw/unit Day 92.8 67.8 78.9 81.4 87.8 87.0 86.2 81.0 71.9 - - - Noise emissions of industry sources
GANDDINI GROUP, INC. 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225 Santa Ana CA 92705 USA 4-157
296
Building Limit Level Conflict
No. Receiver name side Floor Day Day Day
dB(A) dB(A) dB
1 1 - EG - 56.4 -

1.OG - 55.7 -
2 2 - EG - 53.6 -

1.OG - 54.0 -
3 3 - EG - 44.8 -

1.OG - 51.5 -
4 4 - EG - 43.7 -

1.OG - 50.3 -
5 5 - EG - 50.5 -

1.OG - 51.0 -
Receiver list
GANDDINI GROUP, INC. 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225 Santa Ana CA 92705 USA 4-158
297
Building Limit Level Conflict
No. Receiver name side Floor Day Day Day
dB(A) dB(A) dB
1 1 - EG - 50.0 -

1.OG - 50.1 -
2 2 - EG - 51.5 -

1.OG - 52.0 -
3 3 - EG - 46.9 -

1.OG - 53.8 -
4 4 - EG - 50.3 -

1.OG - 56.6 -
5 5 - EG - 49.0 -

1.OG - 49.5 -
Receiver list
GANDDINI GROUP, INC. 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225 Santa Ana CA 92705 USA 4-159
298
Building Limit Level Conflict
No. Receiver name side Floor Day Day Day
dB(A) dB(A) dB
1 1 - EG - 41.3 -

1.OG - 50.4 -
2 2 - EG - 42.9 -

1.OG - 45.7 -
3 3 - EG - 44.4 -

1.OG - 48.5 -
4 4 - EG - 43.0 -

1.OG - 47.5 -
5 5 - EG - 46.7 -

1.OG - 48.1 -
Receiver list
GANDDINI GROUP, INC. 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225 Santa Ana CA 92705 USA 4-160
299
Building Limit Level Conflict
No. Receiver name side Floor Day Day Day
dB(A) dB(A) dB
1 1 - EG - 42.1 -

1.OG - 48.4 -
2 2 - EG - 42.0 -

1.OG - 44.8 -
3 3 - EG - 39.3 -

1.OG - 45.9 -
4 4 - EG - 41.9 -

1.OG - 48.9 -
5 5 - EG - 39.1 -

1.OG - 42.3 -
Receiver list
GANDDINI GROUP, INC. 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225 Santa Ana CA 92705 USA 4-161
300
Frequency spectrum [dB(A)] Corrections
Source name Reference Level 63 125 250 500 1 2 4 8 Cwall CI CT dB(A) Hz Hz Hz Hz kHz kHz kHz kHz dB dB dB
Pump1 Lw/ Day 104.1 82.9 86.0 87.5 95.9 100.1 99.3 92.1 83.0 - - - Pump2 Lw/unit Day 104.1 82.9 86.0 87.5 95.9 100.1 99.3 92.1 83.0 - - - Noise emissions of industry sources
GANDDINI GROUP, INC. 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225 Santa Ana CA 92705 USA 4-162
301
Building Limit Level Conflict
No. Receiver name side Floor Day Day Day
dB(A) dB(A) dB
1 1 - EG - 59.6 -

1.OG - 68.7 -
2 2 - EG - 67.2 -

1.OG - 67.3 -
3 3 - EG - 57.6 -

1.OG - 67.0 -
4 4 - EG - 59.8 -

1.OG - 69.2 -
5 5 - EG - 64.4 -

1.OG - 64.6 -
Receiver list
GANDDINI GROUP, INC. 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225 Santa Ana CA 92705 USA 4-163
302
GANDDINI GROUP INC.
714.795.3100 | ganddini.com
4-164
303

5-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

November 4, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5
ABSTRACT:

For the City Council’s consideration is the initiation of an amendment to revise the minimum percentage of inclusionary housing applicable to for-sale housing developments within the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan (PC -11). Should the City Council adopt the resolution, the changes will be considered by both the Planning Commission and the City Council at future public hearings.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) Determine this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; and b) Adopt Resolution No. 2025-77, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Initiating an Amendment to Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan (PC-11) Related to the Minimum Percentage of Inclusionary For - Sale Housing Within the Residential Overlay (PA2025-0196).

DISCUSSION:

The Newport Place Planned Community (PC -11) is located in the Airport Area and was originally designed in the early 1970s with clusters of office parks and industrial uses. The 145-acre area has evolved over time, with light industrial uses being replaced with commercial support retail and office uses. Additionally, the introduction of the Mixed-Use Horizontal 2 (MU-H2) land use classification as part of the 2006 General Plan Land Use Element created an opportunity for residential uses.

On July 24, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2012-14, amending PC-11 to create the Residential Overlay (Overlay). At the time, t he Overlay was necessary to secure certification of the 4th Cycle Housing Element since it had greater potential to TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Jaime Murillo, Acting Community Development Director - 949-644- 3209, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Rosalinh Ung, Principal Planner – 949-644-3208, [email protected]
TITLE: Resolution No. 2025-77: Initiating an Amendment to Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan Related to the Minimum Percentage of Inclusionary For-Sale Housing within the Residential Overlay (PA2025-0196)
304
Resolution No. 2025-77: Initiating an Amendment to Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan Related to the Minimum Percentage of Inclusionary For- Sale Housing within the Residential Overlay (PA2025-0196) November 4, 2025